From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 1 01:08:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA27574 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 01:08:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA27568 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 01:08:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11AakD-0001rT-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 15:08:18 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 14:08:33 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L16A1 References: <199907302233.SAA11202@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >In article <199907302233.SAA11202@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner > writes >>Here's the official ACBL position. I'm surprised. I'll refrain >>(with difficulty) from commenting on the merits. >> >>I wrote to 'rulings@acbl.org': >>> May clubs permit players to "reserve rights" under L16A1? The option >>> in the law is given to the Sponsoring Organization, but the election >>> by the ACBL Board of Directors refers to "At ACBL sanctioned >>> events...." >> >>and got back: >>> Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 11:01:32 -0500 >>> From: Gary Blaiss >>> To: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu >>> Subject: L16A1 -Reply >> >>> The election by the ACBL Board of directors includes all ACBL >>> sanctioned events; therefore, ACBL sanctioned club games are >>> included. >> >Is not the club the SO in the States, or is that privilege removed by >the granting of the licence to hold that game at that location at that >time? Just curious. According to Duplicate Decisions, the club is definitely the SO, but the regulation that Reserving rights is not permitted applies in all sanctioned ACBL events. >My view is that in the UK, the club is the SO and that they have applied >for the rights to issue master-points. Under these circumstances there >is a requirement to be governed by the Laws of Duplicate Contract >Bridge, but I'm not sure that there is a requirement to be governed by >the Orange Book - which applies to EBU organised events and is, of >course, adopted by any serious club. No, but if the EBU were to state there are certain other rules that must be followed by a club which issues master-points then they are required to despite the club being the SO. There probably are some such rules, though I am not sure about them. It is interesting to read the White Book [yes, we are currently trying to find a way of making it available to members of BLML: what I really need at this moment is a proofreader with his own copy of the White Book and Word97] which divides its comments into ones that are recommendations to other SOs, and ones that are requirements. In the latter case, they are intended to be interpretations of the Laws, but it might be interesting to trawl through and see if any Regulations are quoted as requirements. So I would say that the ACBL's stance on Reserving Rights is a regulation that is mandatory for any club that wishes to issue master- points. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 1 01:12:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA27351 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 23:52:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA27345 for ; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 23:52:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-149-2.uunet.be [194.7.149.2]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA05593 for ; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 15:52:32 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37A2F559.795A211F@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 15:08:41 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Irrational(?) action in line statd with claim References: <199907301652.MAA25179@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: > > You write: > > > What actually happened when West objected to the claim was that West > faced her hand, and *dummy* spoke up before the director arrived, saying > "He can get back to his hand in a side suit and draw the trumps anyway." > The director ruled that dummy's suggested line would not be allowed. > > This was in a KO match which would have been tied had the claim been > granted. The offenders did not appeal; even had an AC ruled the claim > allowed, it would have imposed a procedural penalty against dummy for > correcting declarer's claim, and the procedural penalty would have been > enough to cost the offenders the KO match. > I agree with David (S) when he says the penalty is incorrect. Dummy's statement is a valid part of the player pointing out to the director what may or may not be obvious to him, and as such is permitted. Dummy's statement does not make the line included in the "stated lines", and is therefore handled as in L70D. Which is one reason for dummy to remain silent. If declarer is quick enough, he can have the statement slip into "immediate" mode, and thus form part of the stated line. Dummy can never do this, of course. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 1 01:34:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA27682 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 01:34:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand.global.net.uk ([195.147.248.109]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA27676 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 01:34:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from pf6s07a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.135.247] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11Ab9G-0002fm-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 16:34:11 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Dropped card Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 14:10:18 +0100 Message-ID: <01bedb56$0953a660$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Grattan Endicott To: David Stevenson ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Saturday, July 31, 1999 6:27 AM Subject: Re: Dropped card > >Grattan - - - - - - - - - >"Set a watch, O Lord, before my mouth; >keep the door of my lips." Psalm 141 >=============================== > > > > >> >> You accidentally drop the HK during the auction. Eventually, you find >>yourself on lead to 6S. And the ruling is? >> > >???? Obviously I am overlooking something. I take >it the card was exposed? If so, the Director will offer >declarer the option that the card be treated as a >penalty card (and led). If the declarer does not >want it as a penalty card the Director "designates >otherwise" (Law 50 - a good example of the use >of this provision) - and the card will still probably >be led, freely chosen by its possessor. Would Law 16C prohibit the lead of this card if offender had a logical alternative? > During the auction the non-offending side >may manoeuvre the contract to have the player on >lead, if say holding singleton Ace of the suit, or >to have the partner on lead so that the lead of the >suit may be forbidden. Yes I think that's OK. > OK. What's wrong with this? Please say. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 1 02:09:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA27959 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 02:09:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA27954 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 02:09:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11Abgm-000Dvz-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 16:08:49 +0000 Message-ID: <34MJrBAVjxo3EwRC@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 16:40:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Antwort: Irrational(?) action in line statd with claim References: <3.0.6.32.19990730191414.007bb360@magi.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk michael amos wrote: >Where I was a TD recently a declarer claimed the remaining 5 tricks - >with these trumps > >AK9xx opposite Q10xx > >The player over the AK held Jxxx and both declarer and dummy tried to >assure me that it was never rational to cash the Q first - while of >course this is true it is not rational to claim in this situation >without mention of the safety play - and so I ruled 4 tricks not 5 > >This was not appealed > >In the same vein I guess I have awarded a trump against the claimer here I do not believe these cases are similar. When we adjudge claims we are trying to adjudge what would happen. With Q9xx opposite AK10xx casual play is to cash an honour first without thinking about a 4-0 break. So your ruling on your hand was certainly correct. With A10x opposite KQJxx [having ruffed with the x in the short hand first] casual play is to cash the ace first without thinking about a 5-0 break. BUT!!!!! There is still time to recover. If you had not miscounted trumps you would re-think when the opponent shows out. I really do not believe that the original hand is capable of an answer without being at the table. I cannot believe half of the answers on this thread, to be honest. With people disagreeing as to what the answer is to suggest calling the TD is unethical is a nonsense. The TD has to make a judgement here: that is a TD's job. Some of you *know* what the answer is - and you are not agreed!!!!! Tell me, have you ever miscounted trumps? Then, giving the defence a trick is not unreasonable! Tell me, have you ever adopted a line without thinking through all the ramifications, and re-considered when an opponent shows out? Then giving declarer all the tricks is not unreasonable! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 1 02:24:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA27368 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 23:53:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA27357 for ; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 23:52:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-149-2.uunet.be [194.7.149.2]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA05615 for ; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 15:52:39 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37A2F946.3A31FBA2@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 15:25:26 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Cat Diary and Heart K References: <005c01bedb36$085d4600$1aecf1c3@kooijman> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ton kooijman wrote: > > > About the drop of the K of hearts during the auction. It is not so difficult > to read the laws but it is not so easy to make the ruling at the table. What > does 'may treat every such card as a penaltycard' mean? I never have > understood it, law 50 tells us it is a penaltycard! Trying to interpret the > combination of 24 and 50 the Dutch B. federation has decided that it IS a > penaltycard. If this is considered to be wrong the consequence is that the > player may pick up his card if declarer does not want to treat it as a > penaltycard. I have asked Kaplan this a long time ago and his answer was > that in a friendly game using L24 declarer may wave the penalty, which I > considered to be a strange, law-alien, possibility. Proposal for 2007: > ...,every such card becomes a penalty card. > > ton I have once had a case where the director might have chosen to use his L50 option of not making the card a penalty card. I don't recall the exact circumstances, but the reason why it had become exposed (through no fault of the player, obviously) had something to do with it. I agree that we should not let the option open to defender. If the penalty card by chance is the only lead that defeats the contract, too bad. But I would not scrap the option completely. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 1 03:42:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA28225 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 03:42:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from iac12.navix.net (iac12.navix.net [207.91.5.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA28219 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 03:42:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from navix.net (cras36p28.navix.net [205.242.158.31]) by iac12.navix.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA13938; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 12:32:55 -0500 Message-ID: <37A5D549.807D15D@navix.net> Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 12:28:42 -0500 From: "Norman H. Hostetler" Reply-To: nh35422@navix.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ton kooijman CC: Grattan Endicott , David Stevenson , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Cat Diary and Heart K References: <005c01bedb36$085d4600$1aecf1c3@kooijman> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------4B2A903F814F307672C8536D" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk --------------4B2A903F814F307672C8536D Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ton kooijman wrote: > >Subject: Re: Cat Diary > >---------------- \x/ ----------- > >> I explain that some members are not present, and go to the bar to get > >>David Burn, thus losing two Dhondys > > >> > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >"No-one tests the depth of a river with > >both feet." - from the Ashanti. > >................................................................. > > To Grattan: you shouldn't believe all those one-liners: never heard about > that statistician? He crossed a river which average depth of one meter (3 > feet for the ACBL) and drowned. Drowning is undoubtedly too good for him. "There are liars, damned, liars, and statisticians." (Mark Twain, Pudd'nhead Wilson)My favorite metaphor is the situation of the man with one foot in the over and one foot in the freezer--on average, he is comfortable. I bring this up because that is the way I often feel when I arrive at a table where each side is convinced that their own biased interpretation is the only possible one I can adopt. > Re: dropped H K > Proposal for 2007:...every such card becomes a penalty card. > ton I'm all in favor of increased clarity in wording, but whether I'm directing at a club game for novices or a top flight event at a tournament, it has never occurred to me that a card faced during the auction period is anything other than a penalty card, nor have I run into any other director who thought otherwise. Norm --------------4B2A903F814F307672C8536D Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit  

ton kooijman wrote:

>Subject: Re: Cat Diary
>----------------  \x/  -----------
>>  I explain that some members are not present, and go to the bar to get
>>David Burn, thus losing two Dhondys >
>>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>"No-one tests the depth of a river with
>both feet."      - from the Ashanti.
>.................................................................
                    <snip>
To Grattan: you shouldn't believe all those one-liners: never heard about
that statistician? He crossed a river which average depth of one meter (3
feet for the ACBL) and drowned.
Drowning is undoubtedly too good for him.  "There are liars, damned, liars, and statisticians."  (Mark Twain, Pudd'nhead Wilson)My favorite metaphor is the situation of the man with one foot in the over and one foot in the freezer--on average, he is comfortable.  I bring this up because that is the way I often feel when I arrive at a table where each side is convinced that their own biased interpretation is the only possible one I can adopt.
                   <snip>
Re: dropped H K
 Proposal for 2007:...every such card becomes a penalty card.
ton
 I'm all in favor of increased clarity in wording, but whether I'm directing at a club game for novices or a top flight event at a tournament, it has never occurred to me that a card faced during the auction period is anything other than a penalty card, nor have I run into any other director who thought otherwise.

Norm
  --------------4B2A903F814F307672C8536D-- From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 1 03:58:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA28265 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 03:58:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA28260 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 03:58:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-95-73.uunet.be [194.7.95.73]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA04417 for ; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 19:58:41 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37A303D4.660E1B8F@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 16:10:28 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Antwort: Irrational(?) action in line statd with claim References: <3.0.6.32.19990730191414.007bb360@magi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk michael amos wrote: > > In message <3.0.6.32.19990730191414.007bb360@magi.com>, David Kent > writes > >At 16:31 30-07-99 +0200, James.Vickers@merck.de wrote: > > > >>My one problem with allowing declarer to change his intended line of play > >>when it becomes clear that this is irrational is that you might thereby be > >>rescuing him from a bad score when he has simply miscounted trumps. The > >>possibility that declarer thinks that he will have drawn all the > >>outstanding trumps if he plays the ace, overtakes the ten and then takes > >>two more rounds from the top cannot be ruled out. When faced with a > >>theoretical problem on paper all bridge players can count up to thirteen, > >>but we all know that at the table in the heat of the tournament every now > >>and then even the best go wrong. > >> > >>You have to ask yourself, if declarer was aware that there were five trumps > >>outstanding, why did he not make allowances for this in his statement? > >>According to Law 70C if it was "at all likely that claimer at the time of > >>his claim was unaware that a trump remained in an opponent's hand" a trump > >>trick will be awarded to the opponents. > >> > >>Thus, I would rule that his statement as originally given should be > >>followed. This would be in accordance with the principle of ruling in > >>favour of the non-offending side in cases of doubt. It might also have the > >>added benefit of teaching the declarer in question to ensure his claims are > >>watertight in future; he has only himself to blame. > >> > > > >As much as I hate to say "Me too.", I totally agree with this statement. > > > > > >David Kent > >david@magi.com > > > Where I was a TD recently a declarer claimed the remaining 5 tricks - > with these trumps > > AK9xx opposite Q10xx > > The player over the AK held Jxxx and both declarer and dummy tried to > assure me that it was never rational to cash the Q first - while of > course this is true it is not rational to claim in this situation > without mention of the safety play - and so I ruled 4 tricks not 5 > > This was not appealed > > In the same vein I guess I have awarded a trump against the claimer here > > mike > -- > michael amos Well, sorry Mike, but this is certainly not in the same vein. The discussion about whether or not it is normal to play the queen first is an interesting one, but you seem to be certain it is one normal line (careless but not irrational). However, in the case we heard, there was no question about which card would be played first : the Ace. There is then no question that the bad break will be discovered. And no problem as to the rationality of the next plays. So you see Mike, your cases are absolutely not similar. Suppose in your case Mike, that claimer played the Ace first, then claimed before the trick ws over. Would you not allow him to finesse if one defender showed out ? That is the similar case ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 1 04:34:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA27367 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 23:53:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA27353 for ; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 23:52:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-149-2.uunet.be [194.7.149.2]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA05604 for ; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 15:52:36 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37A2F78B.C58F1CA6@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 15:18:03 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Law v Regulation References: <199907302031.NAA20251@mailhub.irvine.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > > Steve Willner wrote: > > > First of all, it's obvious that all of North's extraneous comments are > > UI to South. Beyond that, there are two possible rulings: > > > > 1. As Adam and others have said, the spoken "no bid" was a call. If it > > was, I see no reason not to allow L25B unless one of its conditions > > isn't met (for example, if East has called, in which case 1H is a > > BooT). Of course _all_ of L25B applies: South may be barred, and there > > may be lead penalties, depending on what North does. I don't see any > > application for the Lille interpretation; surely forgetting one's > > system can be considered a stupid error. > > > > 2. If the CoC call for bidding boxes, the spoken "no bid" was an > > extraneous comment, not a call. In that case, it is UI to South but > > otherwise has no effect. > > > > Personally, I'd choose between 1 and 2 on the basis of the language in > > the CoC, not on the basis of North's presumed intent. If the CoC > > explicitly call for bidding boxes to be used, I'd rule 2. If the CoC > > don't cover the question, and thus bidding box usage is merely a matter > > of custom and convenience, I'd rule 1. I can well imagine that others > > will choose differently, but I don't see any rulings besides those > > above. > > I'd rule #1 regardless of the CoC. It's clear that North's original > "No Bid" was intentionally making a call, despite the fact that his > call was not of the proper form required by the CoC. The fact that it > wasn't the proper form cannot sensibly mean that North's call was > something other than a call. All it can mean is that North may be > subject to an additional PP for making a call in an improper form (in > practice, of course, there would be a penalty only if North stubbornly > and unreasonably continues to refuse to use the bidding box). > > -- Adam Indeed, compare it with the habit of not actually taking green cards for the last three passes, but rather nodding, tapping the last bid or sayig "yes". Although these calls were not made according to the regulations, they were surely made, and no-one is likely to suggest that the bidding period is not over. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 1 06:04:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA28469 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 06:04:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA28464 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 06:04:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from mamos.demon.co.uk ([158.152.129.79]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11Aern-000FOK-0C; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 19:32:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 18:01:21 +0100 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Subject: Re: Antwort: Irrational(?) action in line statd with claim References: <3.0.6.32.19990730191414.007bb360@magi.com> <34MJrBAVjxo3EwRC@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <34MJrBAVjxo3EwRC@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <34MJrBAVjxo3EwRC@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes >michael amos wrote: > >>Where I was a TD recently a declarer claimed the remaining 5 tricks - >>with these trumps >> >>AK9xx opposite Q10xx >> >>The player over the AK held Jxxx and both declarer and dummy tried to >>assure me that it was never rational to cash the Q first - while of >>course this is true it is not rational to claim in this situation >>without mention of the safety play - and so I ruled 4 tricks not 5 >> >>This was not appealed >> >>In the same vein I guess I have awarded a trump against the claimer here > > I do not believe these cases are similar. > > When we adjudge claims we are trying to adjudge what would happen. > > With Q9xx opposite AK10xx casual play is to cash an honour first >without thinking about a 4-0 break. So your ruling on your hand was >certainly correct. > > With A10x opposite KQJxx [having ruffed with the x in the short >hand first] casual play is to cash the ace first without thinking >about a 5-0 break. BUT!!!!! There is still time to recover. If you >had not miscounted trumps you would re-think when the opponent shows >out. > > I really do not believe that the original hand is capable of an answer >without being at the table. I cannot believe half of the answers on >this thread, to be honest. With people disagreeing as to what the >answer is to suggest calling the TD is unethical is a nonsense. The TD >has to make a judgement here: that is a TD's job. Some of you *know* >what the answer is - and you are not agreed!!!!! > > Tell me, have you ever miscounted trumps? Then, giving the defence a >trick is not unreasonable! > > Tell me, have you ever adopted a line without thinking through all the >ramifications, and re-considered when an opponent shows out? Then >giving declarer all the tricks is not unreasonable! > I certainly don't think calling the TD is unethical :) - And I do think that as a TD called to the table my ruling would depend on what the player himself says as you David have suggested - so for example if declarer early on in the case says something like "Well yes I know I said I'd overtake but if someone shows out I know there are 13 cards in the suit - blah blah ....." then he might persuade me that he, the claimer should be given all the tricks but in many situations I would award one trick against the claimer as many others have suggested. BUT as a player I would not call the TD here - that doesn't mean I think a player who does is worse than me or unethical or any such thing - it's just a matter of personal preference mike -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 1 06:07:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA28497 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 06:07:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA28483 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 06:07:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.7] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11AfPr-000E85-00; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 21:07:36 +0100 Message-ID: <005b01bedb90$5334dee0$075108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "ton kooijman" , "Grattan Endicott" , "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Cat Diary and Heart K Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 20:34:01 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Subject: Re: Cat Diary and Heart K Date: 31 July 1999 10:44 > ---------------- \x/ ---------------- >To Grattan: you shouldn't believe all those one-liners: never heard about >that statistician? He crossed a river which average depth of one meter (3 >feet for the ACBL) and drowned. +++ When you get to be a little more grey, ton, you will learn to walk on water ! :-))) +++ -------------- \x/ ----------------- > . Proposal for 2007: +++ there is nothing sacrosanct about 2007. +++ >...,every such card becomes a penalty card. > +++ There you go. Ton and I both advocate black-and-white laws in place of the present grey. We just don't always agree what is black and what is white. For example, in my version of the English language 'may' offers an option. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 1 06:14:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA27359 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 23:52:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA27349 for ; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 23:52:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-149-2.uunet.be [194.7.149.2]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA05600 for ; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 15:52:34 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37A2F674.D64EB923@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 15:13:24 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Law v Regulation References: <01beda67$c95f3860$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <7FmVFmAezZo3EwSn@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <37a61973.6668759@post12.tele.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > On Fri, 30 Jul 1999 13:38:54 +0100, David Stevenson > wrote: > > > Following discussion behind the scenes, I am now of the opinion that > >this particular minute was slightly flawed. What the Committee > >apparently meant to say was that while the intention of this Law is as > >quoted above, it was meant to be the *player's* judgement as to whether > >to apply it, not the Director's or Committee's. Given that, this minute > >should not be used by TDs or ACs when applying L25B: they just tell the > >players the ruling, and let them decide whether to play for A-. > > We have a L25B that is quite clear in its wording and no problem > to apply (except that some of us find it difficult to explain to > players why the law should be so). > > Then we have an official "interpretation" from the WBFLC which > says that L25B does not mean what it says: "a call may be > substituted" does not mean that a call may be substituted, except > in special circumstances. That interpretation also leaves us > with no instructions about what to do if a call actually _is_ > substituted when, according to the interpretation, it may not be > substituted. > > And finally David provides this interesting opinion that L25B > actually means what it says and that the WBFLC interpretation > should be ignored (if David is right, no effect other than > confusion can arise from the interpretation). > > I hope David is right: though L25B is a very bad law, it is at > least possible to rule according to it, while an interpretation > directly contrary to the law text is a really terrible thing to > administer. > > I am confused. I would appreciate a comment from Ton or Grattan > about what the WBFLC really means (but only if the WBFLC now has > a reasonably well-defined opinion, of course). > I choose to understand the interpretation in the following manner: While the letter of the Law says that a player may change his call, we (as directors) tell the players that this is only in case of stupid calls. When a player does intend to use L25B for a simple change from a non-stupid call, we allow him to do so. However, we think this will not happen, because a non-stupid first call is probably better than a capped 40% over a substitute. So probably there is only a theoretical problem, not a practical one. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 1 06:24:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA28499 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 06:07:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA28484 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 06:07:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.7] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11AfPv-000E85-00; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 21:07:39 +0100 Message-ID: <005d01bedb90$5544d320$075108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Antwort: Irrational(?) action in line statd with claim Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 20:59:18 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: Bridge Laws Date: 31 July 1999 19:40 Subject: Re: Antwort: Irrational(?) action in line statd with claim ----------------- \x/ ------------------ > >Suppose in your case Mike, that claimer played the Ace >first, then claimed before the trick ws over. Would you not >allow him to finesse if one defender showed out ? That is >the similar case ! > +++ Yes, Herman, the principle is right. The Director needs to be satisfied that declarer knows how many trumps are out against him, so you might not get as much leeway as Chemla in the matter, from what I hear at the Young Chelsea. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 1 06:41:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA28586 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 06:41:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA28581 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 06:40:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.41] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11Afw3-000EhT-00; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 21:40:51 +0100 Message-ID: <001001bedb94$f874cec0$295208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Anne Jones" , "BLML" Subject: Re: Dropped card Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 21:40:22 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: BLML Date: 31 July 1999 16:54 Subject: Re: Dropped card ------------------- \x/ -------------------- >> >>???? Obviously I am overlooking something. I take >>it the card was exposed? If so, the Director will offer >>declarer the option that the card be treated as a >>penalty card (and led). If the declarer does not >>want it as a penalty card the Director "designates >>otherwise" (Law 50 - a good example of the use >>of this provision) - and the card will still probably >>be led, freely chosen by its possessor. > >Would Law 16C prohibit the lead of this card if >offender had a logical alternative? > +++++ Hi Anne What UI do you suggest the player on lead has, and when did partner supply it? ~ Grattan ~ +++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 1 07:03:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA28646 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 07:03:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from electra.cc.umanitoba.ca (root@electra.cc.umanitoba.ca [130.179.16.23]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA28641 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 07:03:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from mira.cc.umanitoba.ca (wolkb@mira.cc.umanitoba.ca [130.179.16.8]) by electra.cc.umanitoba.ca (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id QAA23289 for ; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 16:03:36 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from wolkb@localhost) by mira.cc.umanitoba.ca (8.9.0/8.9.0) id QAA23634 ; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 16:03:35 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 16:03:35 -0500 (CDT) From: Barry Wolk To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Cat Diary Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: > David, > > This is a masterpiece! and similarly John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > snipped one of the funniest things I've read for ages I agree. Save it on your web page. However, you neglected to give the solution to the problem you encountered several times. Problem: > "Director, it is *far* too hot in here. [snip] > "Director, it is awfully cold in here. Solution: :-) "Well, why don't you two ladies just exchange seats." (Of course it's always the ladies who have these complaints.) -- Barry Wolk Winnipeg Manitoba Canada From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 1 07:10:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA28676 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 07:10:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from backrosh.inter.net.il (backrosh.inter.net.il [192.116.196.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA28671 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 07:10:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from internet-zahav.net ([213.8.4.38]) by backrosh.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA14972 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 00:10:31 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <37A3668E.B08743F5@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sun, 01 Aug 1999 00:11:42 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: D-BLML list - the clever friends - July 99 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear all H-BLML (human....) and D-BLML members Here is the 11th release of the new famous club !!!! The list will be updated and publish every 24th , and 24.8 will be announced as the List's day (Kushi's birth day). The list will include lovely dogs who go on their existence at Rainbow Bridge , thinking about their lovely human friends. D-BLML - DOGS' blml LIST (cats) Linda Trent - Panda , Gus (none) Dany Haimovich - Kushi (9) Jan Kamras - Koushi (none) Irv Kostal - Sammy (4) Craig Senior - Patches , Rusty , (10) Nutmeg , Lucky Adam Beneschan - Steffi (1) Eric Landau - Wendell (4) Bill Seagraves - Zoe {RB-5/1999} (none) Jack Kryst - Darci (2) Demeter Manning - Katrina (2) Jan Peter Pals - Turbo (none) Anne Jones - Penny {RB-3/1999} (none) Fearghal O'Boyle - Topsy (none) Louis Arnon - Mooky (4) Roger Pewick - Louie (none) His Excellency the sausage KUSHI - an 8 years old black duckel - is the administrator of the new D-BLML. SHOBO ( The Siamese Chief cat here) helps him too and will be responsible for the intergalactic relations with QUANGO - the Fabulous C-BLML chaircat ,and Nanky Poo.. Please be kind and send the data to update it. Dany From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 1 07:30:01 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA28500 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 06:07:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA28488 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 06:07:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.7] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11AfPt-000E85-00; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 21:07:37 +0100 Message-ID: <005c01bedb90$5439cbc0$075108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "ton kooijman" Cc: "Grattan Endicott" , "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Cat Diary and Heart K Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 20:47:08 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0033_01BEDB95.DAEB0D00" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0033_01BEDB95.DAEB0D00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Grattan To: ton kooijman Cc: Grattan Endicott ; David Stevenson = ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au = Date: 31 July 1999 19:28 Subject: Re: Cat Diary and Heart K I'm all in favor of increased clarity in wording, but whether I'm = directing at a club game for novices or a top flight event at a = tournament, it has never occurred to me that a card faced during the = auction period is anything other than a penalty card, nor have I run = into any other director who thought otherwise. +++ Well, no, Norm, of course it didn't - to you and thousands of other Directors. It comes as a bit of a shock when you=20 suddenly look at words and realise they do not quite say what you thought they said. My long-running debate with Edgar=20 was all about the laws not being the place for his subtleties. But he held to the view that flexibility is an advantage and who am I to say he was wrong [ - even if he was :-))).] ~G~ +++ =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0033_01BEDB95.DAEB0D00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

 
Grattan<Hermes@dodona.clara.co.uk            = ;     =20 - - - - - - - - -
There comes a time when you think you
know it = all -=20 round about your sixth=20 birthday.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
 
-----Original=20 Message-----
From: Norman H. Hostetler <nh35422@navix.net>
To: = ton=20 kooijman <t.kooyman@worldonline.nl>=
Cc:=20 Grattan Endicott <gester@globalnet.co.uk>; = David=20 Stevenson <bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk= >; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.ed= u.au=20 <bridge-laws@octavia.anu.ed= u.au>
Date:=20 31 July 1999 19:28
Subject: Re: Cat Diary and Heart=20 K

   I'm all in favor of increased clarity in = wording,=20 but whether I'm directing at a club game for novices or a top flight = event at a=20 tournament, it has never occurred to me that a card faced during the = auction=20 period is anything other than a penalty card, nor have I run into any = other=20 director who thought otherwise.
 
+++ Well, no, Norm, of course it didn't - to you and = thousands
of other Directors.  It comes as a bit of a shock when you =
suddenly look at words and realise they do not quite say what
you thought they said.  My long-running debate with = Edgar 
was all about the laws not being the place for his = subtleties.
But he held to the view that flexibility is an advantage and = who
am I to say he was wrong [ - even if he was=20 :-))).]      ~G~ +++ 
------=_NextPart_000_0033_01BEDB95.DAEB0D00-- From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 1 07:33:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA28715 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 07:33:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail110.worldonline.dk (mail110.worldonline.dk [212.54.64.152]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id HAA28710 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 07:33:20 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 29041 invoked by uid 0); 31 Jul 1999 21:33:36 -0000 Received: from 1.ppp1-30.image.dk (212.54.77.65) by mail010.worldonline.dk with SMTP; 31 Jul 1999 21:33:36 -0000 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: [Bidding boxes] Nodding/tapping for the final pass Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 21:33:12 GMT Message-ID: <37b66a02.2558815@mail.image.dk> References: <199907302031.NAA20251@mailhub.irvine.com> <37A2F78B.C58F1CA6@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <37A2F78B.C58F1CA6@village.uunet.be> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sat, 31 Jul 1999 15:18:03 +0200 skrev Herman De Wael: >Indeed, compare it with the habit of not actually taking >green cards for the last three passes, but rather nodding, This is something that annoys me, though I haven't said so very often. In the beginning only /the/ final pass was substituted, and this is of course no problem. But when the next last or indeed the third last pass is substituted, it puts a "pressure" on the other players, and if they do not pass, the nod/tap is UI. What do others think of this habit? Bertel -- Denmark http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 1 08:16:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA28854 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 08:16:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (mailout1-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.81]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA28846 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 08:15:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.37] by mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 18:16:13 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <005c01bedb36$085d4600$1aecf1c3@kooijman> Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 17:37:44 -0400 To: From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Cat Diary and Heart K Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 5:21 AM -0400 7/31/99, ton kooijman wrote: >About the drop of the K of hearts during the auction. It is not so difficult >to read the laws but it is not so easy to make the ruling at the table. What >does 'may treat every such card as a penaltycard' mean? I never have >understood it, law 50 tells us it is a penaltycard! Does it? Law 50 applies to the play period; the exposure of the card occurs during the auction. I suspect that's why that phrase is in there - though I do wonder why "may" instead of "must". Trying to interpret the >combination of 24 and 50 the Dutch B. federation has decided that it IS a >penaltycard. If this is considered to be wrong the consequence is that the >player may pick up his card if declarer does not want to treat it as a >penaltycard. I have asked Kaplan this a long time ago and his answer was >that in a friendly game using L24 declarer may wave the penalty, which I >considered to be a strange, law-alien, possibility. I don't know why "friendly game" should make any difference. If declarer wants to waive the penalty, the Law allows him to do so. It says nothing about what kind of game it is. >Proposal for 2007: >...,every such card becomes a penalty card. I could live with that. :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2 iQA/AwUBN6N1lL2UW3au93vOEQKSwQCgiomb+gATdtXOYlFdE8nQfctQUF8AoP54 3y7PW9ykKySWMZu0rFOTKzRe =5mN8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 1 08:16:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA28850 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 08:16:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.146]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA28842 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 08:15:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.37] by mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 18:16:10 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <37A04CAA.2E9DF2CD@village.uunet.be> References: <10f0a106.24d193dc@aol.com> Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 17:11:33 -0400 To: Herman De Wael From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: L16A1 Cc: Bridge Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >Which is, in effect, all duplicate bridge played in North >America ? Interesting question. There is, in addition to and separate from the ACBL, in the US, (not sure if they're in Canada or Mexico) the American Bridge Association (ABA). I don't know, but I suspect that they don't consider the ACBL the SO for their games. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2 iQA/AwUBN6N1j72UW3au93vOEQIgeACff6GoUmDPFKxrM5D/sMTMkywVygMAoMDN F7hTyg+3yUzMRuyBEX8R5Kbg =48Ul -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 1 08:16:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA28860 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 08:16:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (mailout1-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.81]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA28855 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 08:16:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.37] by mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 18:16:19 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <37A5D549.807D15D@navix.net> References: <005c01bedb36$085d4600$1aecf1c3@kooijman> Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 17:41:52 -0400 To: nh35422@navix.net From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Cat Diary and Heart K Cc: ton kooijman , Grattan Endicott , David Stevenson , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 1:28 PM -0400 8/2/99, Norman H. Hostetler wrote: > I'm all in favor of increased clarity in wording, but whether I'm >directing at a club game for novices or a top flight event at a >tournament, it has never occurred to me that a card faced during the >auction period is anything other than a penalty card, nor have I run into >any other director who thought otherwise. Um, but the Law (24) says the option is declarer's, not the director's. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2 iQA/AwUBN6N1mL2UW3au93vOEQLA+ACfeY/CUGFHB8e46SVC8aPwh4Mx7xgAniYN VweZ6ZHnGcCUcGqEbRQb9qlh =YO0B -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 1 08:35:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA28932 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 08:35:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA28922 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 08:35:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11Ahiq-000AQF-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 22:35:21 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 19:25:16 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Cat Diary and Heart K In-Reply-To: <005c01bedb36$085d4600$1aecf1c3@kooijman> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <005c01bedb36$085d4600$1aecf1c3@kooijman>, ton kooijman writes > >About the drop of the K of hearts during the auction. It is not so difficult >to read the laws but it is not so easy to make the ruling at the table. What >does 'may treat every such card as a penaltycard' mean? I never have >understood it, law 50 tells us it is a penaltycard! Trying to interpret the >combination of 24 and 50 the Dutch B. federation has decided that it IS a >penaltycard. If this is considered to be wrong the consequence is that the >player may pick up his card if declarer does not want to treat it as a >penaltycard. I have asked Kaplan this a long time ago and his answer was >that in a friendly game using L24 declarer may wave the penalty, which I >considered to be a strange, law-alien, possibility. Proposal for 2007: >...,every such card becomes a penalty card. > > >ton > Even so L81C8 and L50 allow the non offender to request that it is not a penalty card. It would be a pig-headed TD who did not accede. chs John -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 1 08:35:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA28933 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 08:35:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA28923 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 08:35:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11Ahiq-000AQG-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 22:35:21 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 19:22:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Antwort: Irrational(?) action in line statd with claim In-Reply-To: <34MJrBAVjxo3EwRC@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <34MJrBAVjxo3EwRC@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes >michael amos wrote: > >>Where I was a TD recently a declarer claimed the remaining 5 tricks - >>with these trumps >> >>AK9xx opposite Q10xx >> >>The player over the AK held Jxxx and both declarer and dummy tried to >>assure me that it was never rational to cash the Q first - while of >>course this is true it is not rational to claim in this situation >>without mention of the safety play - and so I ruled 4 tricks not 5 >> >>This was not appealed >> >>In the same vein I guess I have awarded a trump against the claimer here > > I do not believe these cases are similar. > > When we adjudge claims we are trying to adjudge what would happen. > > With Q9xx opposite AK10xx casual play is to cash an honour first >without thinking about a 4-0 break. So your ruling on your hand was >certainly correct. > > With A10x opposite KQJxx [having ruffed with the x in the short >hand first] casual play is to cash the ace first without thinking >about a 5-0 break. BUT!!!!! There is still time to recover. If you >had not miscounted trumps you would re-think when the opponent shows >out. > > I really do not believe that the original hand is capable of an answer >without being at the table. I cannot believe half of the answers on >this thread, to be honest. With people disagreeing as to what the >answer is to suggest calling the TD is unethical is a nonsense. The TD >has to make a judgement here: that is a TD's job. Some of you *know* >what the answer is - and you are not agreed!!!!! > > Tell me, have you ever miscounted trumps? Then, giving the defence a >trick is not unreasonable! > > Tell me, have you ever adopted a line without thinking through all the >ramifications, and re-considered when an opponent shows out? Then >giving declarer all the tricks is not unreasonable! > Laws 70C2 and 70C3 apply in my view. If I have the choice between declarer having miscounted trumps and him changing his line when he discovers the bad break (was it 4-0 or was it 5-0?) I'm going to assume he thought it was 4-0 because it is careless to do so, not irrational. The carelessness is indicated by the fact that the claim *was* made. It actually happened to me at a Congress last year (I failed to allow for a 4-0 trump break) and the TD was DWS. He had no problem ruling against me and I had no problem accepting that it was the correct ruling. The fact I was drunk at the time had little to do with the correctness of the ruling, it just made me more careless than usual. The problem I have with ruling for the offending side is:- Where does one start to draw the line? Being consistent and tough has the merit that the customers know how you're going to rule and you don't get branded with favoUritism. The number of times I've overheard "So-and-so ruled and the opponents were friends of his". This is not a suggestion that so-and-so was being influenced by who was at the table, but it's better to overhear "MadDog pitched up. Usual thing. Consigned us to the Florida Alligator swamps. At AC we'd likely keep our deposit and it might just get overturned, but he always rules that way so why bother" chs john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 1 09:26:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA29045 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 09:26:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand2.global.net.uk (sand2.global.net.uk [195.147.246.100]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA29040 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 09:26:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from pd9s11a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.139.218] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11AiWR-00010o-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 00:26:35 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [Bidding boxes] Nodding/tapping for the final pass Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 23:40:47 +0100 Message-ID: <01bedba5$bb9bf6c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Bertel Lund Hansen To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Saturday, July 31, 1999 10:50 PM Subject: [Bidding boxes] Nodding/tapping for the final pass >Sat, 31 Jul 1999 15:18:03 +0200 skrev Herman De Wael: > >>Indeed, compare it with the habit of not actually taking >>green cards for the last three passes, but rather nodding, > >This is something that annoys me, though I haven't said so very >often. > >In the beginning only /the/ final pass was substituted, and this >is of course no problem. But when the next last or indeed the >third last pass is substituted, it puts a "pressure" on the other >players, and if they do not pass, the nod/tap is UI. > >What do others think of this habit? I agree with you and think the habit should be jumped upon from a great height. It is one of the things that as a player I do comment upon. Usually the question "not going to bid again in this auction are you ?" or "lost interest in the auction have you?" has the required effect, at least at my table. Not the way to win friends however. I do save my worst sarcasm for those that I am aware _do_ know better. It's a duty to all of us to ensure that beginners to the game are taught such things properly, and kindly. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 1 09:26:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA28909 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 08:28:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand2.global.net.uk (sand2.global.net.uk [195.147.246.100]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA28904 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 08:28:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from pa5s02a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.162.166] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11AhcC-0007Rn-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 23:28:29 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Dropped card Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 23:01:15 +0100 Message-ID: <01bedba0$35ae0580$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Grattan Endicott To: Anne Jones ; BLML Date: Saturday, July 31, 1999 9:40 PM Subject: Re: Dropped card > >Grattan - - - - - - - - - >There comes a time when you think you >know it all - round about your sixth birthday. >================================= > >-----Original Message----- >From: Anne Jones >To: BLML >Date: 31 July 1999 16:54 >Subject: Re: Dropped card > >------------------- \x/ -------------------- >>> >>>???? Obviously I am overlooking something. I take >>>it the card was exposed? If so, the Director will offer >>>declarer the option that the card be treated as a >>>penalty card (and led). If the declarer does not >>>want it as a penalty card the Director "designates >>>otherwise" (Law 50 - a good example of the use >>>of this provision) - and the card will still probably >>>be led, freely chosen by its possessor. >> >>Would Law 16C prohibit the lead of this card if >>offender had a logical alternative? >> > +++++ Hi Anne >What UI do you suggest the player on lead has, >and when did partner supply it? I would suggest that the fact that declarer does not want the lead of the HK is UI, as it had been obtained as the result of his own infraction. It is Law16A that says the UI must be from his partner. I thought Law16C2 might apply, but I am not certain. The logic applied is that Law55C indicates that information gained as the result of opps choices in response to one's own infraction is UI. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 1 09:49:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA29103 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 09:49:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from fep9.mail.ozemail.net (fep9.mail.ozemail.net [203.2.192.103]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA29098 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 09:49:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from johnmcll (slsdn14p55.ozemail.com.au [210.84.12.119]) by fep9.mail.ozemail.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA12712 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 09:49:32 +1000 (EST) From: "John McIlrath" To: Subject: Established revoke Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 09:17:14 +1000 Message-ID: <01bedbaa$d335e340$LocalHost@johnmcll> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have been one of your "sleepers", just watching and listening and finding my feet. My question is:- Can a declarers claim establish a revoke by the defenders? The situation was:- Hearts are trumps, five tricks have been played, two of which were won by the defenders. For the sixth trick, Declarer leads HJ and both defenders discard. Declarer now says "As there a re no more trumps out, I claim the rest." "No" says RHO who produces the 10 and 8 of hearts. (the 9 has been played so both these are NOW high. Has the claim established the revoke? thereby not allowing any tricks to the defence as they would have won a trick with a card they could have played and they would win a second trick. OR Should you allow the defender to correct the current trick which means that the revoke was not established and they therefore become entitled to a trump trick as there is no penalty. I do realise that this may be "sloppy" declarer play ...... but that is not the point. Nice to be with you and i hope this is an interesting first contribution. Regards John McIlrath Website: Postal address: PO Box 255,Willoughby NSW 2068, Australia Tel: (02) 94113527 Fax:(02) 9412 2383 From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 1 10:11:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA29006 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 08:47:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA28995 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 08:47:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11Ahu1-000PqB-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 22:46:56 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 22:56:55 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law v Regulation References: <199907302031.NAA20251@mailhub.irvine.com> <37A2F78B.C58F1CA6@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <37A2F78B.C58F1CA6@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >Adam Beneschan wrote: >> >> Steve Willner wrote: >> >> > First of all, it's obvious that all of North's extraneous comments are >> > UI to South. Beyond that, there are two possible rulings: >> > >> > 1. As Adam and others have said, the spoken "no bid" was a call. If it >> > was, I see no reason not to allow L25B unless one of its conditions >> > isn't met (for example, if East has called, in which case 1H is a >> > BooT). Of course _all_ of L25B applies: South may be barred, and there >> > may be lead penalties, depending on what North does. I don't see any >> > application for the Lille interpretation; surely forgetting one's >> > system can be considered a stupid error. >> > >> > 2. If the CoC call for bidding boxes, the spoken "no bid" was an >> > extraneous comment, not a call. In that case, it is UI to South but >> > otherwise has no effect. >> > >> > Personally, I'd choose between 1 and 2 on the basis of the language in >> > the CoC, not on the basis of North's presumed intent. If the CoC >> > explicitly call for bidding boxes to be used, I'd rule 2. If the CoC >> > don't cover the question, and thus bidding box usage is merely a matter >> > of custom and convenience, I'd rule 1. I can well imagine that others >> > will choose differently, but I don't see any rulings besides those >> > above. >> >> I'd rule #1 regardless of the CoC. It's clear that North's original >> "No Bid" was intentionally making a call, despite the fact that his >> call was not of the proper form required by the CoC. The fact that it >> wasn't the proper form cannot sensibly mean that North's call was >> something other than a call. All it can mean is that North may be >> subject to an additional PP for making a call in an improper form (in >> practice, of course, there would be a penalty only if North stubbornly >> and unreasonably continues to refuse to use the bidding box). >> >> -- Adam > >Indeed, compare it with the habit of not actually taking >green cards for the last three passes, but rather nodding, >tapping the last bid or sayig "yes". Although these calls >were not made according to the regulations, they were surely >made, and no-one is likely to suggest that the bidding >period is not over. > ... except the director. This sort of thing is all right until there is a problem but if one occurs, *I* shall rule according to the Laws of the game and the regulations of the SO: you may do what you like. No green pass cards, no passes. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 1 10:11:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA29134 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 10:11:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA29129 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 10:11:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt092nb1.san.rr.com [204.210.48.177]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA01958 for ; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 17:11:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <007c01bedbb2$52670f20$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <3.0.1.32.19990720083937.006e8008@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19990718114612.01212088@pop.mindspring.com><199907162340.QAA09259@mailhub.irvine.com><199907162340.QAA09259@mailhub.irvine.com><3.0.1.32.19990718114612.01212088@pop.mindspring.com><3798809d.4798059@post12.tele.dk><3.0.1.32.19990720083937.006e8008@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990721090523.006eae90@pop.cais.com> Subject: Re: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 17:02:23 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > Now I consider myself rather hard-core when it comes to full disclosure. > Unlike Marv, I *do* believe that the laws require me to give my opponents > lessons in (what I consider to be) basic bridge in response to an inquiry, > and would consider it ethically inappropriate to let the words "it's just > bridge" pass my lips, even if that's what I'm thinking Okay, here's an example. San Antonio NABC, playing against two sharp-looking 30-ish men, one of whom (East) seems to be preoccupied with his hand.. I am South, wife Alice is North. Vulnerability: E/W vul Dealer South S- 2 H- J9762 D- J93 C- AKJ6 S- KJ76 S- AQ864 H- K43 H- AQ8 D- 76 D- AKQ C- 10984 C- Q3 S- 1093 H- 105 D- 108542 C- 752 The bidding: West North East South --- --- --- 1D P 1H P P ???? West (inappropriately) to Alice: "What's going on? Was one heart forcing?" Alice: "Yes." West: "Why is he passing?" Alice: "He thinks that is the best thing to do." (Great answer) West: "Pass" Now, I had never psyched an opening bid with Alice before, ever, but I couldn't resist this one. Alice knew from her "general knowledge and experience," not from any "special partnership agreement" that I had probably psyched. Was she obligated to disclose that knowlege to West? No, of course not. And if I do the same thing one or two years from now, must she tell a future West that I have no doubt psyched? No, because the inference remains drawn from her "general knowledge and experience," not from partnership experience, and therefore need not be disclosed (L75C). An inference that is *confirmed* by partnership experience does not become one that is *drawn* from partnership experience. The TD was called, East stating that the Recorder should be informed, etc., etc., but the TD just told him that psychs were part of the game. Good for him. Now, Eric would probably say that Alice should explain to West that my pass undoubtedly means that I opened the bidding with possibly zero points. And I would disagree. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 1 10:26:38 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA29013 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 08:47:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA29008 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 08:47:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11AhuI-000PqO-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 22:47:12 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 23:43:32 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Cat Diary References: <007501beda01$62194bc0$30b420cc@host> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: >Graig, >> Or to offer another view, may those talented enough continue it? It is one >> of the more enjoyable threads we have had recently. I don't think Henk can >> presume to speak for the majority...he certainly does not speak for me. >> Thanks to those on the list who are not terminally humour impaired. Surely >> you have a delete key Henk? >Yes, I do, but I also get between 150 and 200 emails a day, which I have >to open and at a very minimum glance through to see if I should read them, >so I really appreciate it if mailing lists are use for what they were set >up for, not for off-topic discussions. There will always be differences of opinion of this sort on mailing lists, and also on newsgroups. I have made many friends around the world since coming onto the Internet, and it is not always because of dry-as-dust articles on whether L36B is relevant, or what do with a sick cat who will not eat, or why privatisation of the railways has caused punctuality to get worse. I believe, and many others do as well, that a few off-topic articles show a camaraderie, and apply a little grease to the wheels of the groups and lists. However, some people have Henk's view, often for the reason that he gives, volume. I think we need compromise, and I have said this on all the groups and lists. First, off-topic posts should never become frequent: Henk and others should never find too many of them. Second, Subjects are important! Quango posts a list of cats here from time to time. If Henk does not want to see it he can always delete it unread, because it *always* has the same Subject to warn him. There are others who have expressed mild displeasure at occasional Cat references: it is important that we warn people. There have been quite a few odd postings which have turned out to be somewhat irrelevant with no real warning from the Subject, so please, please, take care with the Subject on a new topic. If you feel that everyone on the list should hear that you are moving to a new part of the USA or you have a new email address or something else similar, please make sure that it is clear in the Subject line so that people who want to look at only certain types of posts can delete it unread. I would say the most important reason for Subject lines is whether people choose to read the article - please remember that when choosing a Subject. Third, keep Subjects the same, by using Reply-To devices, thus the articles will thread, and people who have decided that a particular thread is uninteresting will be able to delete it unread. Admittedly, as Kojak pointed out, if it totally changes character the Subject line should be altered. Fourth, I would advise people to get threading software. FreeAgent does this for Newsgroups: does anyone know whether it does it for mailing lists [BM? *coff*]. We are not here to annoy each other but to produce the most acceptable compromise between those who want a community and those who have little time and only want totally relevant articles. It is *far* easier to pick and choose with threading software. Fifth, if you know that your subject is not really about the Laws of Bridge and similar matters, why not put OT: at the start of the subject line [Off-Topic:]. That would be a clear warning. Sixth, if you do not have the time to read all the articles, may I suggest you delete unread relying on the Subject? Ok, the odd one will be lost when someone has got the wrong subject line, but it is better on balance. I was surprised that Henk objected to the second article in the thread: I would have expected him to have deleted it unread once he realised the thread was not to his taste. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 1 10:51:52 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA29007 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 08:47:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA28996 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 08:47:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11Ahu1-000PqC-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 22:46:56 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 23:20:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Cat Diary and Heart K References: <005c01bedb36$085d4600$1aecf1c3@kooijman> <37A5D549.807D15D@navix.net> In-Reply-To: <37A5D549.807D15D@navix.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id IAA28998 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Norman H. Hostetler wrote: >  I'm all in favor of increased clarity in wording, but whether I'm > directing at a club game for novices or a top flight event at a > tournament, it has never occurred to me that a card faced during > the auction period is anything other than a penalty card, nor have > I run into any other director who thought otherwise. Some people think I am fairly good at the laws of Bridge. So why did I offer this to BLML? Because I gave an opinion on RGB [rec.games.bridge] that I was certain was right - and someone disagreed! Fortunately, before making a total prat of myself, I did what I should have done earlier - I checked. Let me ask you a question, when you or the other Directors to whom you refer rule on a card faced in the auction period, how often do you read from the Law book? Well, I suggest that not enough Directors are reading from the Law book. Interestingly enough, this is one that I would always have read from the Law book at the table, and I might still have got it wrong. We now have had opinions from some of the top people around, and while the effects of what they say may be ok, *everyone* has got the legal position wrong. Ok, let us see what Ed posted in reply to my article on RGB: Ed Reppert wrote >David Stevenson wrote: > > If the opponents play in 6Sx you are forced to lead the HK. No > > option, no alternative. L24. Note that partner has to pass at his next > > turn to call - probably irrelevant. >Um. Law 24 says "declarer _may_ treat the card as a penalty card (Law 50). >This seems to give declarer the option, however Law 50 says it's a penalty >card "unless the Director designates otherwise." So which governs? If 24 >really _does_ give declarer the option, I would assume (rash of me, I know >:) that if he elects _not_ to treat it as a penalty card, defender can put >it back in his hand and lead what he wants. OTOH, if it _must_ be treated >as a penalty card, then I agree opening leader has no choice but to lead >it. But then why does Law 24 say "may"? So let us read the Laws. L24 says, inter alia, When the Director determines, during the auction, that because of a player's action one or more cards of that player's hand were in position for the face to be seen by his partner, the Director shall require that every such card be left face up on the table until the auction closes; and (penalty) if the offender subsequently becomes a defender, declarer may treat every such card as a penalty card (Law 50). In addition: The 'In addition' bit refers to the bidding. So, declarer may treat every such card as a penalty card. Ok, how about L49 and L50? LAW 49 - Except in the normal course of play or application of law, when a defender's card is in a position in which his partner could possibly see its face, or when a defender names a card as being in his hand, (penalty) each such card becomes a penalty card (Law 50) .... LAW 50 - A card prematurely exposed (but not led, see Law 57) by a defender is a penalty card unless the Director designates otherwise. ... What do these say, in essence? They say that when a *DEFENDER* exposes a card it becomes a penalty card - but that is not what happened here. It was exposed by a player during the bidding, so only L24 applies, and that says declarer _may_ ... So, please be careful with this position in future: declarer has an option when a player exposes a card during the auction and later becomes a defender. L49 and L50 do not define it to be a penalty card. Mind you, I agree that I would prefer that option to be removed in 2007. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 1 11:09:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA29243 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 11:09:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand.global.net.uk ([195.147.248.109]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA29238 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 11:09:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from p06s01a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.129.7] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11Ak7p-0002kA-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 02:09:18 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Law v Regulation Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 02:10:13 +0100 Message-ID: <01bedbba$9b96bda0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sunday, August 01, 1999 1:24 AM Subject: Re: Law v Regulation >Herman De Wael wrote: >>Adam Beneschan wrote: >>> >>> Steve Willner wrote: >>> >>> > First of all, it's obvious that all of North's extraneous comments are >>> > UI to South. Beyond that, there are two possible rulings: >>> > >>> > 1. As Adam and others have said, the spoken "no bid" was a call. If it >>> > was, I see no reason not to allow L25B unless one of its conditions >>> > isn't met (for example, if East has called, in which case 1H is a >>> > BooT). Of course _all_ of L25B applies: South may be barred, and there >>> > may be lead penalties, depending on what North does. I don't see any >>> > application for the Lille interpretation; surely forgetting one's >>> > system can be considered a stupid error. >>> > >>> > 2. If the CoC call for bidding boxes, the spoken "no bid" was an >>> > extraneous comment, not a call. In that case, it is UI to South but >>> > otherwise has no effect. >>> > >>> > Personally, I'd choose between 1 and 2 on the basis of the language in >>> > the CoC, not on the basis of North's presumed intent. If the CoC >>> > explicitly call for bidding boxes to be used, I'd rule 2. If the CoC >>> > don't cover the question, and thus bidding box usage is merely a matter >>> > of custom and convenience, I'd rule 1. I can well imagine that others >>> > will choose differently, but I don't see any rulings besides those >>> > above. >>> >>> I'd rule #1 regardless of the CoC. It's clear that North's original >>> "No Bid" was intentionally making a call, despite the fact that his >>> call was not of the proper form required by the CoC. The fact that it >>> wasn't the proper form cannot sensibly mean that North's call was >>> something other than a call. All it can mean is that North may be >>> subject to an additional PP for making a call in an improper form (in >>> practice, of course, there would be a penalty only if North stubbornly >>> and unreasonably continues to refuse to use the bidding box). >>> >>> -- Adam >> >>Indeed, compare it with the habit of not actually taking >>green cards for the last three passes, but rather nodding, >>tapping the last bid or sayig "yes". Although these calls >>were not made according to the regulations, they were surely >>made, and no-one is likely to suggest that the bidding >>period is not over. >> > ... except the director. This sort of thing is all right until there >is a problem but if one occurs, *I* shall rule according to the Laws of >the game and the regulations of the SO: you may do what you like. > > No green pass cards, no passes. So. Going back to the original problem, are you going to rule that the original spoken "Pass" was extraneous? That there was no change of call. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 1 11:41:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA29313 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 11:41:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA29308 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 11:41:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.79.1.33]) by mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07.07 118-134) with ESMTP id <19990801014114.KCMH10212@worldnet.att.net> for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 01:41:14 +0000 Message-ID: <37A3A596.2E1E90AC@worldnet.att.net> Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 21:40:38 -0400 From: Michael Kopera X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en]C-WorldNet (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [Bidding boxes] Nodding/tapping for the final pass References: <199907302031.NAA20251@mailhub.irvine.com> <37A2F78B.C58F1CA6@village.uunet.be> <37b66a02.2558815@mail.image.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I can't even agree that substituting for the final pass is no problem. In a team game, someone picked up their bidding cards in last position thinking his partner had passed him in a cue-bid (looking for a grand on the way to a small slam). What had actually happened was that his cue-bid had been doubled. If 3 green cards were required, he would have avoided declaring a cue-bid, doubled to boot. I know my practice is to always display the final pass--I think I'm going to state this on my convention card in case of any future problems. Will that protect me? (ACBL btw) Bertel Lund Hansen wrote: > > Sat, 31 Jul 1999 15:18:03 +0200 skrev Herman De Wael: > > >Indeed, compare it with the habit of not actually taking > >green cards for the last three passes, but rather nodding, > > This is something that annoys me, though I haven't said so very > often. > > In the beginning only /the/ final pass was substituted, and this > is of course no problem. But when the next last or indeed the > third last pass is substituted, it puts a "pressure" on the other > players, and if they do not pass, the nod/tap is UI. > > What do others think of this habit? > > Bertel > -- > Denmark > http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) -- Mike Kopera Bridge is so great because it is intellectually challenging and yet totally meaningless. Geoffry Rees - NY Times 04/05/95 From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 1 12:19:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA29387 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 12:19:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA29374 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 12:19:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11AlDI-000P7X-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 02:19:01 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 02:21:29 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Established revoke References: <01bedbaa$d335e340$LocalHost@johnmcll> In-Reply-To: <01bedbaa$d335e340$LocalHost@johnmcll> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John McIlrath wrote: >I have been one of your "sleepers", just watching and listening and finding >my feet. Very nice to meet you. In fact, I think within the last couple of days we have seen three people we have not seen before, so hello and welcome to John McIlrath, James Vickers and Norm Hostetler. To be fully accepted on to the list, all you have to do is to fill in a simple form: 1 Do you have cats? YES/NO 2 What are their names? >My question is:- >Can a declarers claim establish a revoke by the defenders? >The situation was:- >Hearts are trumps, five tricks have been played, two of which were won by >the defenders. For the sixth trick, Declarer leads HJ and both defenders >discard. Declarer now says "As there a re no more trumps out, I claim the >rest." >"No" says RHO who produces the 10 and 8 of hearts. (the 9 has been played so >both these are NOW high. >Has the claim established the revoke? thereby not allowing any tricks to the >defence as they would have won a trick with a card they could have played >and they would win a second trick. >OR >Should you allow the defender to correct the current trick which means that >the revoke was not established and they therefore become entitled to a trump >trick as there is no penalty. >I do realise that this may be "sloppy" declarer play ...... but that is not >the point. The point is that a claim does not establish an opponent's revoke. Claiming establishes your own revoke, or partner's. Acquiescing in a claim establishes your own revoke, or partner's. You might like to read L63A3. In this case the defence contested the revoke, so they did not acquiesce to it, so the revoke is not established thereby. The defence thus gets a trick. Note that you can get some messy situations with contested claims in this type of situation. It has been suggested that a change in the Laws in 2007 would be a good idea to allow the balance of doubt go to the non-revoker after a contested claim that does not establish a revoke. >Nice to be with you and i hope this is an interesting first contribution. Very interesting: it would surprise some Directors, but so long as they read it from the Law book they should get it right. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 1 13:15:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA29476 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 13:15:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from minerva.pinehurst.net (root@minerva.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA29471 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 13:15:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from pinehurst.net (pm2-19.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.49]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA07718; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 23:15:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <37A3BC94.EA676077@pinehurst.net> Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 23:18:44 -0400 From: Nancy T Dressing X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Cat Diary and Heart K References: <005c01bedb36$085d4600$1aecf1c3@kooijman> <37A5D549.807D15D@navix.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk IMHO, I think that one must read the rest of Law 50. The next statement says " The director shall award an adjusted score, in lieu of the rectifications below, when he deems that the Law 72B1 applies " To me this says this is when the exposed card in the auction does not become a penalty card, by the director's designation. If he does not need this part of the law, he enforces the applicable part of Law 50 A - D2b. Therefore, I would direct the HK to be a major penalty and must be led! Nancy David Stevenson wrote: > Norman H. Hostetler wrote: > > > I'm all in favor of increased clarity in wording, but whether I'm > > directing at a club game for novices or a top flight event at a > > tournament, it has never occurred to me that a card faced during > > the auction period is anything other than a penalty card, nor have > > I run into any other director who thought otherwise. > > Some people think I am fairly good at the laws of Bridge. So why did > I offer this to BLML? Because I gave an opinion on RGB > [rec.games.bridge] that I was certain was right - and someone disagreed! > Fortunately, before making a total prat of myself, I did what I should > have done earlier - I checked. > > Let me ask you a question, when you or the other Directors to whom you > refer rule on a card faced in the auction period, how often do you read > from the Law book? Well, I suggest that not enough Directors are > reading from the Law book. > > Interestingly enough, this is one that I would always have read from > the Law book at the table, and I might still have got it wrong. We now > have had opinions from some of the top people around, and while the > effects of what they say may be ok, *everyone* has got the legal > position wrong. > > Ok, let us see what Ed posted in reply to my article on RGB: > > Ed Reppert wrote > >David Stevenson wrote: > > > > If the opponents play in 6Sx you are forced to lead the HK. No > > > option, no alternative. L24. Note that partner has to pass at his next > > > turn to call - probably irrelevant. > > >Um. Law 24 says "declarer _may_ treat the card as a penalty card (Law 50). > >This seems to give declarer the option, however Law 50 says it's a penalty > >card "unless the Director designates otherwise." So which governs? If 24 > >really _does_ give declarer the option, I would assume (rash of me, I know > >:) that if he elects _not_ to treat it as a penalty card, defender can put > >it back in his hand and lead what he wants. OTOH, if it _must_ be treated > >as a penalty card, then I agree opening leader has no choice but to lead > >it. But then why does Law 24 say "may"? > > So let us read the Laws. L24 says, inter alia, > > When the Director determines, during the auction, > that because of a player's action one or more cards > of that player's hand were in position for the face > to be seen by his partner, the Director shall > require that every such card be left face up on the > table until the auction closes; and (penalty) if > the offender subsequently becomes a defender, > declarer may treat every such card as a penalty > card (Law 50). In addition: > > The 'In addition' bit refers to the bidding. So, declarer may treat > every such card as a penalty card. Ok, how about L49 and L50? > > LAW 49 - Except in the normal course of play or > application of law, when a defender's card is in a > position in which his partner could possibly see its > face, or when a defender names a card as being in > his hand, (penalty) each such card becomes a penalty > card (Law 50) .... > > LAW 50 - A card prematurely exposed (but not led, > see Law 57) by a defender is a penalty card unless > the Director designates otherwise. ... > > What do these say, in essence? They say that when a *DEFENDER* > exposes a card it becomes a penalty card - but that is not what happened > here. It was exposed by a player during the bidding, so only L24 > applies, and that says declarer _may_ ... > > So, please be careful with this position in future: declarer has an > option when a player exposes a card during the auction and later becomes > a defender. L49 and L50 do not define it to be a penalty card. > > Mind you, I agree that I would prefer that option to be removed in > 2007. > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 1 13:25:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA29510 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 13:25:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA29499 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 13:25:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11AmFl-0008TS-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 03:25:38 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 04:24:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Established revoke In-Reply-To: <01bedbaa$d335e340$LocalHost@johnmcll> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <01bedbaa$d335e340$LocalHost@johnmcll>, John McIlrath writes >I have been one of your "sleepers", just watching and listening and finding >my feet. >My question is:- >Can a declarers claim establish a revoke by the defenders? Nope. To my eternal shame I got this wrong at an EBU training weekend in front of DWS. L63A states when a revoke becomes established. L63A3 specifically says "when a member of the offending side ..." >The situation was:- >Hearts are trumps, five tricks have been played, two of which were won by >the defenders. For the sixth trick, Declarer leads HJ and both defenders >discard. Declarer now says "As there a re no more trumps out, I claim the >rest." >"No" says RHO who produces the 10 and 8 of hearts. (the 9 has been played so >both these are NOW high. >Has the claim established the revoke? thereby not allowing any tricks to the >defence as they would have won a trick with a card they could have played >and they would win a second trick. >OR >Should you allow the defender to correct the current trick which means that >the revoke was not established and they therefore become entitled to a trump >trick as there is no penalty. I believe this to be the correct action I trick to the defence chs john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 1 13:25:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA29509 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 13:25:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA29498 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 13:25:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11AmFl-0008TQ-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 03:25:37 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 04:24:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) In-Reply-To: <007c01bedbb2$52670f20$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <007c01bedbb2$52670f20$b130d2cc@san.rr.com>, "Marvin L. French" writes > >Now, Eric would probably say that Alice should explain to West that my >pass undoubtedly means that I opened the bidding with possibly zero >points. > >And I would disagree. and so would I. Nice answer Alice. chs john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 1 13:42:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA29575 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 13:42:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA29569 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 13:42:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11AmVn-000Adj-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 03:42:12 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 04:40:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [Bidding boxes] Nodding/tapping for the final pass References: <199907302031.NAA20251@mailhub.irvine.com> <37A2F78B.C58F1CA6@village.uunet.be> <37b66a02.2558815@mail.image.dk> <37A3A596.2E1E90AC@worldnet.att.net> In-Reply-To: <37A3A596.2E1E90AC@worldnet.att.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Kopera wrote: >I can't even agree that substituting for the final pass is no problem. >In a team game, someone picked up their bidding cards in last position >thinking his partner had passed him in a cue-bid (looking for a grand on >the way to a small slam). What had actually happened was that his >cue-bid had been doubled. If 3 green cards were required, he would have >avoided declaring a cue-bid, doubled to boot. > >I know my practice is to always display the final pass--I think I'm >going to state this on my convention card in case of any future >problems. Will that protect me? (ACBL btw) When a TD is called because of a problem he finds all the available evidence then decides. If you put this on your card, it is part of the evidence, so it will help, though not be an absolute protection. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 1 14:26:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA29598 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 13:49:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA29593 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 13:49:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11AmcG-0003oF-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 03:48:53 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 04:47:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Cat Diary and Heart K References: <005c01bedb36$085d4600$1aecf1c3@kooijman> <37A5D549.807D15D@navix.net> <37A3BC94.EA676077@pinehurst.net> In-Reply-To: <37A3BC94.EA676077@pinehurst.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Nancy T Dressing wrote: >IMHO, I think that one must read the rest of Law 50. The next statement says " >The director shall award an adjusted score, in lieu of the rectifications below, >when he deems that the Law 72B1 applies " To me this says this is when the >exposed card in the auction does not become a penalty card, by the director's >designation. If he does not need this part of the law, he enforces the >applicable part of Law 50 A - D2b. Therefore, I would direct the HK to be a >major penalty and must be led! No, I do not think so, Nancy. If declarer decides he does not want a penalty card, why on earth should L72B1 apply? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 1 15:01:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA29718 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 15:01:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.146]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA29713 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 15:01:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.37] by mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 01:01:44 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <01bedba5$bb9bf6c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 20:05:05 -0400 To: "BLML" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [Bidding boxes] Nodding/tapping for the final pass Cc: "Anne Jones" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >It's a duty to all of us to ensure that beginners to the game are >taught such things properly, and kindly. My regular partner is relatively new to bridge. I've tried to teach her not to "tap" when putting out the pass card is appropriate, but I'm not having much success. She's picked up the habit from the so-called "experts" around here, most of whom do it constantly. :-( Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2 iQA/AwUBN6PUn72UW3au93vOEQKB7QCfWYWdxyN9VjjOKZRi1LUVCW4BYLYAnR58 K1AWmxR6v4ZoYzHmyi3BN3e6 =dv3T -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 1 15:20:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA29757 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 15:20:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from minerva.pinehurst.net (root@minerva.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA29752 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 15:20:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from pinehurst.net (pm2-33.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.63]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA15122; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 01:20:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <37A3D9CB.EFF191D1@pinehurst.net> Date: Sun, 01 Aug 1999 01:23:24 -0400 From: Nancy T Dressing X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Kopera CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [Bidding boxes] Nodding/tapping for the final pass References: <199907302031.NAA20251@mailhub.irvine.com> <37A2F78B.C58F1CA6@village.uunet.be> <37b66a02.2558815@mail.image.dk> <37A3A596.2E1E90AC@worldnet.att.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Since being burned with a bad director call regarding assumed passes by tapping cards or returning cards to the bid box which suggests a pass, I have made it very clear to all of my opponents, that each pass requires a green card on the table and I insist on it in my beginner games. it is surprising how quickly people agree with you about the green cards and always put that card out at your table and sometimes they carry the idea to other tables. You take some flak but its worth it!! Nancy Michael Kopera wrote: > I can't even agree that substituting for the final pass is no problem. > In a team game, someone picked up their bidding cards in last position > thinking his partner had passed him in a cue-bid (looking for a grand on > the way to a small slam). What had actually happened was that his > cue-bid had been doubled. If 3 green cards were required, he would have > avoided declaring a cue-bid, doubled to boot. > > I know my practice is to always display the final pass--I think I'm > going to state this on my convention card in case of any future > problems. Will that protect me? (ACBL btw) > > Bertel Lund Hansen wrote: > > > > Sat, 31 Jul 1999 15:18:03 +0200 skrev Herman De Wael: > > > > >Indeed, compare it with the habit of not actually taking > > >green cards for the last three passes, but rather nodding, > > > > This is something that annoys me, though I haven't said so very > > often. > > > > In the beginning only /the/ final pass was substituted, and this > > is of course no problem. But when the next last or indeed the > > third last pass is substituted, it puts a "pressure" on the other > > players, and if they do not pass, the nod/tap is UI. > > > > What do others think of this habit? > > > > Bertel > > -- > > Denmark > > http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) > > -- > > Mike Kopera > > Bridge is so great because it is intellectually challenging and yet > totally meaningless. Geoffry Rees - NY Times 04/05/95 From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 1 15:20:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA29765 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 15:20:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (mailout1-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.81]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA29759 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 15:20:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.37] by mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 01:21:00 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <37A3BC94.EA676077@pinehurst.net> References: <005c01bedb36$085d4600$1aecf1c3@kooijman> <37A5D549.807D15D@navix.net> Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 01:16:04 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Cat Diary and Heart K Cc: Nancy T Dressing Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 11:18 PM -0400 7/31/99, Nancy T Dressing wrote: >IMHO, I think that one must read the rest of Law 50. The next statement says " >The director shall award an adjusted score, in lieu of the rectifications >below, >when he deems that the Law 72B1 applies " To me this says this is when the >exposed card in the auction does not become a penalty card, by the director's >designation. When I saw this, my immediate thought was "what does 72B1 say"? So I looked it up. "When a Director deems that an offender could have known at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue, afterwards awarding an adjusted score if he considers that the offending side gained an advantage through the irregularity." Nowhere can I see in this authorization or requirement to call the HK a penalty card. > If he does not need this part of the law, he enforces the >applicable part of Law 50 A - D2b. By "if he does not need" I gather you mean if 72B1 does not apply. So we're back to Law 50 and Law 24. Law _24_, not Law 50, is the primary directive, and it gives the option to _declarer_ whether to call the HK a penalty card. Only if declarer elects to do so does Law 50 come into play. IMO, of course. >Therefore, I would direct the HK to be a >major penalty and must be led! I don't think the Laws give you that option. :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2 iQA/AwUBN6PZI72UW3au93vOEQJvgACfeBWYE3lhzkdPVzCHl2OYgevVRZcAoOds XFaB/VncwJap3ASFrgeR9zVn =1tQO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 1 18:24:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA00183 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 18:24:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA00158 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 18:24:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.87] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11AquX-000MRQ-00; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 09:24:02 +0100 Message-ID: <00a601bedbf7$34c0acc0$535108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Anne Jones" , "BLML" Subject: Re: Dropped card Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 08:38:43 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: BLML Date: 01 August 1999 00:51 Subject: Re: Dropped card > >-----Original Message----- >From: Grattan Endicott >Subject: Re: Dropped card >> >>------------------- \x/ -------------------- >>>> >>>>???? Obviously I am overlooking something. I take >>>>it the card was exposed? If so, the Director will offer >>>>declarer the option that the card be treated as a >>>>penalty card (and led). If the declarer does not >>>>want it as a penalty card the Director "designates >>>>otherwise" (Law 50 - a good example of the use >>>>of this provision) - and the card will still probably >>>>be led, freely chosen by its possessor. >>> >>>Would Law 16C prohibit the lead of this card if >>>offender had a logical alternative? >>> >> +++++ Hi Anne >>What UI do you suggest the player on lead has, >>and when did partner supply it? > >I would suggest that the fact that declarer does >not want the lead of the HK is UI, as it had been >obtained as the result of his own infraction. >It is Law16A that says the UI must be from his >partner. I thought Law16C2 might apply, but I am >not certain. >The logic applied is that Law55C indicates that >information gained as the result of opps choices >in response to one's own infraction is UI. >Anne > +++++ Interesting. (1) I do not consider the player obtains any information from his own withdrawn card. I do not believe 16C2 applies. (2) Law 55C interests me, however. It raises four questions in my mind. (a) Is it an 'infraction' to expose a card accidentally? The law does not say 'thou shalt not drive over a cliff', it makes arrangements about the emergency services should it happen. (b) How justified are we in saying that declarer's exercise of his option indicates a desire not to have the card led? This is the old mind-reading situation again. (c) Has not declarer restored total freedom of action to the player by his choice under Law 24? (d) Law 55C refers to 'declarer'. It makes no mention of a defender. So how can it apply? For the moment I find the hurdles too high to jump over. I think the player can lead the card if he chooses. As a matter of public policy I doubt that the law would be wise to give declarer a weapon for stopping the player who dropped the card from leading it. ~ Grattan ~ +++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 1 18:24:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA00181 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 18:24:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA00157 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 18:24:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.87] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11AquV-000MRQ-00; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 09:23:59 +0100 Message-ID: <00a401bedbf7$33603260$535108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Law v Regulation Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 07:55:32 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: Bridge Laws Date: 31 July 1999 21:49 Subject: Re: Law v Regulation ------------------- \x/ ---------------------- >> I am confused. I would appreciate a comment from Ton or Grattan >> about what the WBFLC really means (but only if the WBFLC now has >> a reasonably well-defined opinion, of course). ------------------ \x/ ----------------- ++ The minute records correctly what was *said*. I leave Ton to say what he thinks was *meant*. In any case I agree the next time we meet we will have to say more clearly what we mean. ~ Grattan~ ++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 1 18:24:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA00195 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 18:24:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA00177 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 18:24:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.87] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11Aquc-000MRQ-00; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 09:24:06 +0100 Message-ID: <00aa01bedbf7$378942a0$535108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Nancy T Dressing" Cc: "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: Cat Diary and Heart K Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 09:21:22 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 01 August 1999 04:38 Subject: Re: Cat Diary and Heart K >IMHO, I think that one must read the rest of Law 50. The next statement says " >The director shall award an adjusted score, in lieu of the rectifications below, >when he deems that the Law 72B1 applies " To me this says this is when the >exposed card in the auction does not become a penalty card, by the director's >designation. If he does not need this part of the law, he enforces the >applicable part of Law 50 A - D2b. Therefore, I would direct the HK to be a >major penalty and must be led! >Nancy +++ Hi Nancy (and the rest) I am just trying to absorb the logic of what you say. What damage to the non-offending side (a) could he have envisaged? (b) crucially, actually occurred? ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 1 18:24:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA00193 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 18:24:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA00170 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 18:24:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.87] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11AquZ-000MRQ-00; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 09:24:03 +0100 Message-ID: <00a701bedbf7$359ae020$535108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" , "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: Laws 74A2 & 74B2 [was Explaining with no ......] Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 08:48:12 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Date: 01 August 1999 01:34 Subject: Re: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) +++ Unrequested lessons at the table in how to play bridge are a common discourtesy +++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 1 18:24:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA00192 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 18:24:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA00164 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 18:24:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.87] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11Aqua-000MRQ-00; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 09:24:04 +0100 Message-ID: <00a801bedbf7$3642b8e0$535108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: If I ignore you (or your cat) no discourtesy intended Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 09:00:14 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 01 August 1999 01:53 Subject: Re: Cat Diary > > Sixth, if you do not have the time to read all the articles, may I >suggest you delete unread relying on the Subject? Ok, the odd one will >be lost when someone has got the wrong subject line, but it is better on >balance. I was surprised that Henk objected to the second article in >the thread: I would have expected him to have deleted it unread once he >realised the thread was not to his taste. > +++ Should I not respond to a direct question in some thread it usually means that I have deleted the message on reading the subject line. I tend mostly to stand back from what appear to be no more than TD mechanics. If you really care what I think - and why should you? - put it back too me please under a *Grattan?* subject line. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 1 18:54:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA00306 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 18:54:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from fep7.mail.ozemail.net (fep7.mail.ozemail.net [203.2.192.125]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA00301 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 18:54:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from johnmcll (slsdn9p02.ozemail.com.au [210.84.11.2]) by fep7.mail.ozemail.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA02301 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 18:54:22 +1000 (EST) From: "John McIlrath" To: Subject: Please accept Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 18:21:12 +1000 Message-ID: <01bedbf6$d0f7efa0$020b54d2@johnmcll> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: >Very nice to meet you. In fact, I think within the last couple of >days we have seen three people we have not seen before, so hello and >welcome to John McIlrath, James Vickers and Norm Hostetler. To be fully >accepted on to the list, all you have to do is to fill in a simple form: > >1 Do you have cats? YES/NO YES >2 What are their names? Garfield one of a Ginger Mog type and Mischief another Grey Tabby Mog Please may I now be fully accepted onto the list John McIlrath From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 1 19:13:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA00353 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 19:13:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.rdc1.pa.home.com (imail@ha1.rdc1.pa.home.com [24.2.5.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA00348 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 19:13:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from cc33764-a.glou1.nj.home.com ([24.1.53.108]) by mail.rdc1.pa.home.com (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with SMTP id <19990801091302.YXH24014.mail.rdc1.pa.home.com@cc33764-a.glou1.nj.home.com> for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 02:13:02 -0700 From: Brian@meadows.pair.com (Brian Meadows) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Cat Diary Date: Sun, 01 Aug 1999 09:13:01 GMT Message-ID: <37a60da7.1744633@mail.glou1.nj.home.com> References: <007501beda01$62194bc0$30b420cc@host> In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 31 Jul 1999 23:43:32 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > > Fourth, I would advise people to get threading software. FreeAgent >does this for Newsgroups: does anyone know whether it does it for >mailing lists [BM? *coff*]. I can't be certain about Free Agent, because it is the e-mail facilities in Free Agent that are partially disabled. The full version of Agent (registration is $US 29 if you download it) has all the sorting capabilities for e-mail that it has for newsgroups, including threading. It would also be very easy, given Agent's parsing capabilities, to set up a filter which _automatically_ deleted, or moved to a different folder, any post with (e.g.) the words 'cat' or 'dog' in the subject line. Agent's parsing capabilities for pre-processing of e-mail approach that of a simple programming language. Brian. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 1 19:28:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA00337 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 19:04:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from iac20.navix.net (iac20.navix.net [207.91.5.26]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA00332 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 19:04:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from navix.net (cras18p93.navix.net [207.91.7.95]) by iac20.navix.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id DAA15656; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 03:53:27 -0500 Message-ID: <37A6AD1E.332A84DC@navix.net> Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 03:49:34 -0500 From: "Norman H. Hostetler" Reply-To: nh35422@navix.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Cat Diary and Heart K References: <005c01bedb36$085d4600$1aecf1c3@kooijman> <37A5D549.807D15D@navix.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Norman H. Hostetler wrote: > > > I'm all in favor of increased clarity in wording, but whether I'm > > directing at a club game for novices or a top flight event at a > > tournament, it has never occurred to me that a card faced during > > the auction period is anything other than a penalty card, nor have > > I run into any other director who thought otherwise. > > Some people think I am fairly good at the laws of Bridge. So why did > I offer this to BLML? Because I gave an opinion on RGB > [rec.games.bridge] that I was certain was right - and someone disagreed! > Fortunately, before making a total prat of myself, I did what I should > have done earlier - I checked. > > Let me ask you a question, when you or the other Directors to whom you > refer rule on a card faced in the auction period, how often do you read > from the Law book? Well, I suggest that not enough Directors are > reading from the Law book. > > Interestingly enough, this is one that I would always have read from > the Law book at the table, and I might still have got it wrong. We now > have had opinions from some of the top people around, and while the > effects of what they say may be ok, *everyone* has got the legal > position wrong. To David and Grattan: Thank you for reminding me that I am one of the "thousands of other Directors," and am not one "of the top people around." I apologize for any offense caused by my post, and will in the future try to write more clearly and more deferentially. I did not intend to speak from authority but from experience. Within the five state region where I am familiar with many major clubs and tournaments, both as a player and as a director, I do not recall a director who based a ruling regarding the penalty card status during the playing period of a card faced during the auction on the permissive interpretation of L24 instead of the mandatory injunction of L49. I cannot of course represent the opinions of other directors; I refer only their practice. Even if I were to adopt L24 as the controlling law (but see my comment below) and to act on it, both as a director and as a player, I would be introducing inconsistency into the rulings on these situations within this region and would almost certainly be bolstering the opinions of many players that rulings are a matter of luck, depending on which director comes to the table. I am not certain of the pragmatic wisdom of doing that, particularly since it seems that the two laws are inconsistent in expression. Moreover, since I am not a special authority on the Laws, it would likely be ineffective if I proposed an interpretation different from the long-applied collective interpretation of other directors, some significant number of whom I rarely if ever see. With regard to your specific question, David, I cannot remember all the times I have ruled on this situation, but I know that I have consulted or read from the Laws on several such occasions, and have cited L24, L49, and L50, depending on the circumstances. I read from the Law when the ruling involves a rare infraction, when the circumstances are complex or the ruling likely to seem counterintuitive to the players, when I have even the slightest doubt in my own mind, when a player requests it, and when a player expresses doubt, even by expression or gesture, about a ruling. It is my practice in ruling to summarize the relevant principles or cite the law (the content, not the numbers) and to cite the relevant facts upon which the ruling is based, to the extent necessary (lead out of turn rulings do not require as thorough an argument as rulings about damage from UI). I engage in a thorough self-study of all the laws at least once a year, and more frequently with regard to laws where bridge judgment is required. When possible, TDs always discuss the laws and facts regarding any such rulings. BLML significantly increases these review opportunities. With regard to other Directors, I have occasionally seen them reading from the Lawbook (much more frequently in clubs), but my observations are spotty. > > > Ok, let us see what Ed posted in reply to my article on RGB: > > Ed Reppert wrote > >David Stevenson wrote: > > > > If the opponents play in 6Sx you are forced to lead the HK. No > > > option, no alternative. L24. Note that partner has to pass at his next > > > turn to call - probably irrelevant. > > >Um. Law 24 says "declarer _may_ treat the card as a penalty card (Law 50). > >This seems to give declarer the option, however Law 50 says it's a penalty > >card "unless the Director designates otherwise." So which governs? If 24 > >really _does_ give declarer the option, I would assume (rash of me, I know > >:) that if he elects _not_ to treat it as a penalty card, defender can put > >it back in his hand and lead what he wants. OTOH, if it _must_ be treated > >as a penalty card, then I agree opening leader has no choice but to lead > >it. But then why does Law 24 say "may"? > > So let us read the Laws. L24 says, inter alia, > > When the Director determines, during the auction, > that because of a player's action one or more cards > of that player's hand were in position for the face > to be seen by his partner, the Director shall > require that every such card be left face up on the > table until the auction closes; and (penalty) if > the offender subsequently becomes a defender, > declarer may treat every such card as a penalty > card (Law 50). In addition: > > The 'In addition' bit refers to the bidding. So, declarer may treat > every such card as a penalty card. Ok, how about L49 and L50? > > LAW 49 - Except in the normal course of play or > application of law, when a defender's card is in a > position in which his partner could possibly see its > face, or when a defender names a card as being in > his hand, (penalty) each such card becomes a penalty > card (Law 50) .... > > LAW 50 - A card prematurely exposed (but not led, > see Law 57) by a defender is a penalty card unless > the Director designates otherwise. ... > > What do these say, in essence? They say that when a *DEFENDER* > exposes a card it becomes a penalty card - but that is not what happened > here. It was exposed by a player during the bidding, so only L24 > applies, and that says declarer _may_ ... > > So, please be careful with this position in future: declarer has an > option when a player exposes a card during the auction and later becomes > a defender. L49 and L50 do not define it to be a penalty card. Here I must respectfully disagree. L50 may refer to an action by a person after he has become a defender, but, with regard to a faced card, L49 does not. It refers instead to the location of a card belonging to the hand of a defender and says nothing about when the exposure of the card occurred. The form of the verb is quite different from the parallel clause that refers to "when a defender names a card." The word "is" implies an indefinite continuing state, and eliminates any sense of agency or of temporal process. Also, when the verb form and syntax change from one clause to another, it is normal to assume that the authors had a different semantic intention as well. At the close of the auction period the individual in question 1) becomes a defender and 2) has a card belonging to his hand "in a position in which his partner could possibly see its face." Therefore, "each such card becomes a penalty card." The conclusion is an absolute, with the implicit sense of "shall," which I believe takes precedence over "may." Assuming that there is a contradiction between L24 and L49, IMHO it would be much more difficult to explain away the requirements of L49, which governs all the cases of a declarer's faced card that are likely to be familiar to most players, than it would be to explain away the "may" in L24. Perhaps it would be valuable to have some actions taken on this perceived conflict prior to 2007. > Mind you, I agree that I would prefer that option to be removed in > 2007. > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 1 22:27:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA00633 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 22:27:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from deimos.worldonline.nl (deimos.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.136]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA00628 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 22:26:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp204-212.worldonline.nl [195.241.204.212]) by deimos.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA18769; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 14:26:49 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <00b501bedc19$e01de020$d1e9f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Law v Regulation Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 14:32:01 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I do remember having written about this before in BLML. Autumn '98 it was, I think. It was on our agenda in Lille because applying the '97 Laws in the Netherlands we needed a clarifying interpretation of 25B. I don't remember what actually happened, but let us make it the following: South opens 2C GF and at the same time his partner passes OOT. This will end in south playing 2C most probably, making 9 tricks. In our examinations in the Netherlands the whole field appears to play 6S and is minus one because of the 5-0 split in spades, after which EW ask for an adjusted score. May be that is the case, but for the moment South doesn't like this pass OOT at all. East of course doesn't accept and now according to the wording of 25B south could try to change his call, asking the TD to permit him so. 'Until LHO calls, a call may be substituted .......' The question was: is 25B made for this? Do we allow south to change the 2C bid and bidding a game now. The main decision we made in Lille was to say 'NO' to this question. And after that we probably had to deal with the wrong movement in the open final and did not discuss the details well enough. As far as I remember what we wanted is that the use of 25B is restricted to cases in which a player made a mistake himself (did a stupid thing) and discovers this not using information from consecutive action. It is not easy to define this. South opens 1S, gets 3S from partner and thinks for a while about passing or bidding 4S, deciding for the latest. His LHO now says: ' I like that', smiles and starts touching a red card, then south is not allowed to go back to 3S. But when south decides to pass 3S and his LHO now finds a card on the floor and that appears to be the 13th and a useful card from the south hand I would allow south to change his call in 4S(average minus). The most appealing example is 1H - 4C (splinter) - pass (thinking to play 4H, not realising it wasn't bid yet). The pass may be changed by 4H (average minus), but not when partner after the pass starts shouting: 'this was a splinter, idiot'. And not when LHO says 'I like that' and starts touching a green card. But 'yes' if LHO does so within a split second and offenses 74C7. May be the conditions should be describred as 'he wouldn't have made that call if the whole of authorized information available at that moment would have crossed his mind'. And than the 'yes' in the last example has to explained as: LHO didn't give him the chance to discover his stupid mistake. And the card found by LHO was authorized information at the moment he passed. 25 is a minefield, we know that and I beg you not to start all these "I don't like it - discussions" all over again. I tried to describe how 25B in my very personal individual opinion should work. And I personally don't mind if TD's do follow this approach for a while. Next 25B edition in Bermuda, where I will try to get this opinion confirmed. ton (This is quite a performance, working with more than 30 degrees outside and Dutch houses not having air conditioning; even our car hasn't, no option so. But if necesarry it is an excuse also.) -----Original Message----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Date: Saturday, July 31, 1999 11:09 PM Subject: Re: Law v Regulation >Jesper Dybdal wrote: >> >> On Fri, 30 Jul 1999 13:38:54 +0100, David Stevenson >> wrote: >> >> Then we have an official "interpretation" from the WBFLC which >> says that L25B does not mean what it says: "a call may be >> substituted" does not mean that a call may be substituted, except >> in special circumstances. That interpretation also leaves us >> with no instructions about what to do if a call actually _is_ >> substituted when, according to the interpretation, it may not be >> substituted. >> >> And finally David provides this interesting opinion that L25B >> actually means what it says and that the WBFLC interpretation >> should be ignored (if David is right, no effect other than >> confusion can arise from the interpretation). >> >> I hope David is right: though L25B is a very bad law, it is at >> least possible to rule according to it, while an interpretation >> directly contrary to the law text is a really terrible thing to >> administer. >> >> I am confused. I would appreciate a comment from Ton or Grattan >> about what the WBFLC really means (but only if the WBFLC now has >> a reasonably well-defined opinion, of course). >> > >I choose to understand the interpretation in the following >manner: > >While the letter of the Law says that a player may change >his call, we (as directors) tell the players that this is >only in case of stupid calls. >When a player does intend to use L25B for a simple change >from a non-stupid call, we allow him to do so. >However, we think this will not happen, because a non-stupid >first call is probably better than a capped 40% over a >substitute. > >So probably there is only a theoretical problem, not a >practical one. > >-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 1 22:34:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA00661 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 22:34:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from deimos.worldonline.nl (deimos.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.136]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA00656 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 22:34:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp201-73.worldonline.nl [195.241.201.73]) by deimos.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA19871; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 14:34:02 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <00fc01bedc1a$e2316160$d1e9f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "John McIlrath" , Subject: Re: Please accept Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 14:39:16 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk you are lucky I don't have a say in this ton -----Original Message----- From: John McIlrath To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sunday, August 01, 1999 11:32 AM Subject: Please accept > > > > David Stevenson wrote: > >>Very nice to meet you. In fact, I think within the last couple of >>days we have seen three people we have not seen before, so hello and >>welcome to John McIlrath, James Vickers and Norm Hostetler. To be fully >>accepted on to the list, all you have to do is to fill in a simple form: >> >>1 Do you have cats? YES/NO > > YES > >>2 What are their names? > Garfield one of a Ginger Mog type and > Mischief another Grey Tabby Mog > >Please may I now be fully accepted onto the list >John McIlrath > > > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 1 23:25:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA00790 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 23:22:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA00775 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 23:21:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-84-91.uunet.be [194.7.84.91]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA21918 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 15:21:34 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37A443B1.1F1ACE27@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 01 Aug 1999 14:55:13 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Cat Diary and Heart K References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > > > Even so L81C8 and L50 allow the non offender to request that it is not a > penalty card. It would be a pig-headed TD who did not accede. > And it would be a silly defender who did not lead the HK when declarer states quite clearly that he does not want the card to be played. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 1 23:38:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA00868 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 23:38:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand2.global.net.uk (sand2.global.net.uk [195.147.246.100]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA00856 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 23:38:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from pe4s01a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.129.229] helo=pacific) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11AvoI-0002fd-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 14:37:54 +0100 Message-ID: <006001bedc22$717bf360$e58193c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Judgement (of hat size). Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 13:53:02 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott *everyone* has got the legal position wrong.< -- From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 1 23:38:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA00862 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 23:38:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand2.global.net.uk (sand2.global.net.uk [195.147.246.100]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA00855 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 23:38:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from pe4s01a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.129.229] helo=pacific) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11AvoJ-0002fd-00; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 14:37:55 +0100 Message-ID: <006101bedc22$72349500$e58193c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Cc: Subject: Re: Apology for Cat Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 14:29:19 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 01 August 1999 10:41 Subject: Re: Cat Diary and Heart K > > > >> Norman H. Hostetler wrote: >>> >To David and Grattan: Thank you for reminding me that I am one of the >"thousands of other Directors," and am not one "of the top people around." ++ Oh dear, Norm, I am sorry if that is the way I came across. Concepts of grandeur were far from my mind; I was just trying to say 'welcome to the throng'. I am well aware of the trap of self-aggrandisement which lies open before practising cognoscenti, even when not self-appointed, I.e. the misconception of envisaging oneself as a latter day Kaplan. There is no-one at all who is granted that status just now and my colleagues on the WBFLC are most united when issuing reminders of their intention to substitute group decision for Kaplanesque punditry. ~ Grattan ~ ++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 2 00:25:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA00780 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 23:21:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA00764 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 23:21:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-84-91.uunet.be [194.7.84.91]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA21904 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 15:21:30 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37A43F8B.F4A92896@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 01 Aug 1999 14:37:31 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Law v Regulation References: <199907302031.NAA20251@mailhub.irvine.com> <37A2F78B.C58F1CA6@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > Although these calls > >were not made according to the regulations, they were surely > >made, and no-one is likely to suggest that the bidding > >period is not over. > > > ... except the director. This sort of thing is all right until there > is a problem but if one occurs, *I* shall rule according to the Laws of > the game and the regulations of the SO: you may do what you like. > > No green pass cards, no passes. > Come on David, be serious. "Director !" "yes ?" "he doubles" you see a red card on the table, and an opening lead and a spread dummy. "what are you doing ?" "I am doubling this contract" "but the lead has already happened" "yes, but the bidding is not over, we have not passed three times" "let me hear the bidding" "it ended 4 hearts (by dummy), and then we three tapped our last bidding card" "but I did not put out a green card, and I want to double". And now you David, will rule that there have been no three passes and that the bidding is still open ? So that there have been 14 cards shown during the bidding ? Sorry, but you can't mean that seriously. That is what I say when I'm stating that although the regulations have been broken, the calls must be considered made ! And yes, I know what you mean too, and you are right as well. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 2 00:27:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA00791 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 23:22:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA00779 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 23:21:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-84-91.uunet.be [194.7.84.91]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA21931 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 15:21:36 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37A445B1.13A46A15@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 01 Aug 1999 15:03:45 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Established revoke References: <01bedbaa$d335e340$LocalHost@johnmcll> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John McIlrath wrote: > > I have been one of your "sleepers", just watching and listening and finding > my feet. Welcome John. Good first post ! > My question is:- > Can a declarers claim establish a revoke by the defenders? No, we've had this often, and it is one of the most difficult cases a TD has to deal with. And we are often at odds about how to proceed. But the principle is quite clear, the claim does not establish the revoke, only the acquiescence in the claim does (by either defender!) > The situation was:- > Hearts are trumps, five tricks have been played, two of which were won by > the defenders. For the sixth trick, Declarer leads HJ and both defenders > discard. Declarer now says "As there a re no more trumps out, I claim the > rest." > "No" says RHO who produces the 10 and 8 of hearts. (the 9 has been played so > both these are NOW high. > Has the claim established the revoke? thereby not allowing any tricks to the > defence as they would have won a trick with a card they could have played > and they would win a second trick. no. > OR > Should you allow the defender to correct the current trick which means that > the revoke was not established and they therefore become entitled to a trump > trick as there is no penalty. yes. > I do realise that this may be "sloppy" declarer play ...... but that is not > the point. > don't stop. The interesting thing is just around the corner. Because now we have : a corrected trick, a penalty card, and a claim (which can not be retracted ! (*)) And now the TD must decide how many tricks the claimer gets. Quite a mess, as many a thread until now has proven. (*) I think this is one way out of the mess : Proposed New Law : When a revoke is noticed after a claim, but before the revoke becomes established, the revoke must be corrected, and the claim is cancelled. Play continues normally, but any card shown by claimer becomes UI to opponents. We've seen to often that this situation leads to a bad claim, and we would have to rule against claimer, who did in fact nothing wrong. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 2 01:23:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA00789 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 23:22:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA00771 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 23:21:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-84-91.uunet.be [194.7.84.91]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA21912 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 15:21:32 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37A442A1.DC23291A@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 01 Aug 1999 14:50:41 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Cat Diary and Heart K References: <005c01bedb36$085d4600$1aecf1c3@kooijman> <37A5D549.807D15D@navix.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > So let us read the Laws. L24 says, inter alia, > > When the Director determines, during the auction, > that because of a player's action one or more cards > of that player's hand were in position for the face > to be seen by his partner, the Director shall > require that every such card be left face up on the > table until the auction closes; and (penalty) if > the offender subsequently becomes a defender, > declarer may treat every such card as a penalty > card (Law 50). In addition: > > The 'In addition' bit refers to the bidding. So, declarer may treat > every such card as a penalty card. Ok, how about L49 and L50? > > LAW 49 - Except in the normal course of play or > application of law, when a defender's card is in a > position in which his partner could possibly see its > face, or when a defender names a card as being in > his hand, (penalty) each such card becomes a penalty > card (Law 50) .... > > LAW 50 - A card prematurely exposed (but not led, > see Law 57) by a defender is a penalty card unless > the Director designates otherwise. ... > > What do these say, in essence? They say that when a *DEFENDER* > exposes a card it becomes a penalty card - but that is not what happened > here. It was exposed by a player during the bidding, so only L24 > applies, and that says declarer _may_ ... > > So, please be careful with this position in future: declarer has an > option when a player exposes a card during the auction and later becomes > a defender. L49 and L50 do not define it to be a penalty card. > Ah yes, again I have learnt something. I had never remarked the particular wording of L24 before. I bow to your superior knowledge of the English language, and I suppose you have incorporated in your logic the fact that the card ws preaturely exposed by the defender anyway, even if he did it before he became defender ? Also when it says that declarer may treat it as a penalty card, it means that it is not wrong not to do so. Now suppose I am defender, and this happens. I decide that I shall lead the HK, because I consider it a penalty card, but declarer says, no, please lead what you want ? Should I not suspect that he does not like the lead ? So me personally, I prefer to read "may treat it as" as meaning that it is. > Mind you, I agree that I would prefer that option to be removed in > 2007. > Well, I'd put this differently, I prefer the text to be improved. I think it is one of these "nice" phrases ("may treat it" in stead of "is") that can sound nice in English, but have no place in a Law text intended for people for whom the language should be "broken English". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 2 01:30:06 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA00772 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 23:21:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA00761 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 23:21:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-84-91.uunet.be [194.7.84.91]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA21900 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 15:21:27 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37A43D3D.F193F1FC@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 01 Aug 1999 14:27:41 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) References: <3.0.1.32.19990720083937.006e8008@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19990718114612.01212088@pop.mindspring.com><199907162340.QAA09259@mailhub.irvine.com><199907162340.QAA09259@mailhub.irvine.com><3.0.1.32.19990718114612.01212088@pop.mindspring.com><3798809d.4798059@post12.tele.dk><3.0.1.32.19990720083937.006e8008@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990721090523.006eae90@pop.cais.com> <007c01bedbb2$52670f20$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > Eric Landau wrote: > > > Now I consider myself rather hard-core when it comes to full disclosure. > > Unlike Marv, I *do* believe that the laws require me to give my > opponents > > lessons in (what I consider to be) basic bridge in response to an > inquiry, > > and would consider it ethically inappropriate to let the words "it's > just > > bridge" pass my lips, even if that's what I'm thinking > > Okay, here's an example. San Antonio NABC, playing against two > sharp-looking 30-ish men, one of whom (East) seems to be preoccupied with > his hand.. I am South, wife Alice is North. > > Vulnerability: E/W vul > Dealer South > > S- 2 > H- J9762 > D- J93 > C- AKJ6 > > S- KJ76 S- AQ864 > H- K43 H- AQ8 > D- 76 D- AKQ > C- 10984 C- Q3 > > S- 1093 > H- 105 > D- 108542 > C- 752 > > The bidding: > > West North East South > --- --- --- 1D > P 1H P P > ???? > > West (inappropriately) to Alice: "What's going on? Was one heart forcing?" > > Alice: "Yes." > > West: "Why is he passing?" > > Alice: "He thinks that is the best thing to do." (Great answer) > > West: "Pass" > > Now, I had never psyched an opening bid with Alice before, ever, but I > couldn't resist this one. Alice knew from her "general knowledge and > experience," not from any "special partnership agreement" that I had > probably psyched. Was she obligated to disclose that knowlege to West? No, > of course not. > > And if I do the same thing one or two years from now, must she tell a > future West that I have no doubt psyched? No, because the inference > remains drawn from her "general knowledge and experience," not from > partnership experience, and therefore need not be disclosed (L75C). An > inference that is *confirmed* by partnership experience does not become > one that is *drawn* from partnership experience. > > The TD was called, East stating that the Recorder should be informed, > etc., etc., but the TD just told him that psychs were part of the game. > Good for him. > > Now, Eric would probably say that Alice should explain to West that my > pass undoubtedly means that I opened the bidding with possibly zero > points. > > And I would disagree. > great psyche ! I never dare these ones. silly opponents ! Now of course, when next you pass the forcing answer, and west asks, Alice should respond, "well, the last time he did that, he had zero points, but I don't expect him to pull that stunt again." or something like that. But yes, I think Alice's answer on this one was very good. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 2 01:37:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA01161 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 01:37:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo16.mx.aol.com (imo16.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA01155 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 01:37:29 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo16.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v22.4.) id qCTAa00255 (8030); Sun, 1 Aug 1999 11:36:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 11:36:37 EDT Subject: Re: Cat Diary and Heart K To: bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 21 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A most lucid presentation. It also embodies a salient point. The Laws are arranged to apply at certain parts of the game, i.e. the Auction, the Play. etc. It is sophistry to take them out of this context and use a Law that applies to Play and apply it during the Auction. ....Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 2 03:47:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA01521 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 03:47:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA01516 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 03:47:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt092nb1.san.rr.com [204.210.48.177]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA13002 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 10:47:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <037601bedc45$e96f6b40$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: Dropped card Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 10:37:38 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Another easy one for Jens. Sadly, Jens does not seem to be posting > here much now - I am sure he would enjoy this. > > You accidentally drop the HK during the auction. Eventually, you find > yourself on lead to 6S. And the ruling is? > I'll bite. The ruling is according to L24, which deals with cards exposed during the auction. The card must be left face up on the table until the auction closes (and offender's partner must pass at his next turn to call, subject to L23). At the discretion of declarer, the HK may be designated as a major penalty card that must be played at the first opportunity. This differs from L50, covering a card prematurely exposed during the play, which requires that the card be treated as a penalty card unless the TD designates otherwise. Staying within this subject, David Grabiner had this experience at the San Antonio NABC last week: Before the opening lead against his 1NT (1NT, all pass) contract, RHO accidentally dropped the heart 7 (from AQ107) on the table. This became a minor penalty card, which does not have to be played at the first opportunity. The leader led the heart 2 from Kxx2, perhaps the lead most players would choose, his only other four-card suit being Axxx in spades. The TD ruled that the leader did not gain useful information from the exposed card. David's partner was filling out a Player Memo when I came over after the last round to ask her how they had done. She asked me for help in wording the PM, and I advised her to just state the facts without drawing any conclusions. The PM concept looks like a good one to me, calling attention to odd happenings without making any accusations. It gives players and TDs a way to document strange occurences that may be completely innocent. The ACBL Recorder (currently Rich Colker) collects the PMs and can take any indicated action, perhaps after seeing multiple PMs concerning a player, that he deems appropriate. However, you need a quality person like Rich in this position, which calls for someone who is knowledgeable, tactful, and discreet. I know of some regional Recorders hereabouts who had none of these characteristics. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 2 03:49:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA01535 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 03:49:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA01530 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 03:49:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11AzjU-000IbZ-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 17:49:14 +0000 Message-ID: <2Ly2GTALzHp3Ew7J@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 17:58:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Cat Diary and Heart K References: <005c01bedb36$085d4600$1aecf1c3@kooijman> <37A5D549.807D15D@navix.net> <37A6AD1E.332A84DC@navix.net> In-Reply-To: <37A6AD1E.332A84DC@navix.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Norman H. Hostetler wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> Interestingly enough, this is one that I would always have read from >> the Law book at the table, and I might still have got it wrong. We now >> have had opinions from some of the top people around, and while the >> effects of what they say may be ok, *everyone* has got the legal >> position wrong. >To David and Grattan: Thank you for reminding me that I am one of the >"thousands of other Directors," and am not one "of the top people around." I >apologize for any offense caused by my post, and will in the future try to write >more clearly and more deferentially. Speak as you wish, you seem to have seen something in my reply that I did not intend. In writing these articles the one thing I feel unable to do is to spend time refining them for total accuracy in detail. My remarks were meant to suggest without too much strength that I thought two of the world's top lawmakers had made a mistake: it is true that I do not consider you as one of those two. When I reply to articles I have a major problems in writing: the strength used to answer people. When I first posted on the Internet I found some people seemed very rude, while some of my opinions were being ignored more because of my diffident approach than anything else. After discussion, I decided not to give up posting, but to deliberately strengthen my posting. Unfortunately, I do now upset people occasionally, but that is the price I feel I have to pay to be listened to. If ever anyone asks me a question by email they will get a much friendlier answer. Even so, I still try to avoid being just rude. We have had a couple of people on this list being just rude, and several on RGB, the newsgroup. I try to avoid that while speaking my mind. Sometimes it is not easy. >> Interestingly enough, this is one that I would always have read from >> the Law book at the table, and I might still have got it wrong. We now >> have had opinions from some of the top people around, and while the >> effects of what they say may be ok, *everyone* has got the legal >> position wrong. Look at this paragraph. I deliberately pointed out that I might have got it wrong really as a sugar pill: it does not add anything to the argument. I then wrote something that might be considered offensive, I hope not, but apparently not to offend you I needed to write: We now have had opinions from Ton Kooijman and Grattan Endicott, and they have made a complete nonsense of the legal position. Well, I don't like it. It is too rude. After all, I may not be correct: I only write as definitely as I do because of the policy for hard writing discussed above, and I do not think I should write like this, nor do I see that I need to. > I did not intend to speak from authority >but from experience. Within the five state region where I am familiar with many >major clubs and tournaments, both as a player and as a director, I do not recall >a director who based a ruling regarding the penalty card status during the >playing period of a card faced during the auction on the permissive >interpretation of L24 instead of the mandatory injunction of L49. Fine. But so what? All I have argued is that people are mis-reading the Law, and in some cases doing so without reading it. > I cannot of >course represent the opinions of other directors; I refer only their practice. >Even if I were to adopt L24 as the controlling law (but see my comment below) >and to act on it, both as a director and as a player, I would be introducing >inconsistency into the rulings on these situations within this region and would >almost certainly be bolstering the opinions of many players that rulings are a >matter of luck, depending on which director comes to the table. I am not >certain of the pragmatic wisdom of doing that, particularly since it seems that >the two laws are inconsistent in expression. Moreover, since I am not a special >authority on the Laws, it would likely be ineffective if I proposed an >interpretation different from the long-applied collective interpretation of >other directors, some significant number of whom I rarely if ever see. I do not see that we should fail to discuss an item of Law solely because there are some Directors ruling incorrectly to whom we are not able to communicate. >With regard to your specific question, David, I cannot remember all the times I >have ruled on this situation, but I know that I have consulted or read from the >Laws on several such occasions, and have cited L24, L49, and L50, depending on >the circumstances. I read from the Law when the ruling involves a rare >infraction, when the circumstances are complex or the ruling likely to seem >counterintuitive to the players, when I have even the slightest doubt in my own >mind, when a player requests it, and when a player expresses doubt, even by >expression or gesture, about a ruling. It is my practice in ruling to summarize >the relevant principles or cite the law (the content, not the numbers) and to >cite the relevant facts upon which the ruling is based, to the extent necessary >(lead out of turn rulings do not require as thorough an argument as rulings >about damage from UI). I engage in a thorough self-study of all the laws at >least once a year, and more frequently with regard to laws where bridge judgment >is required. When possible, TDs always discuss the laws and facts regarding any >such rulings. BLML significantly increases these review opportunities. With >regard to other Directors, I have occasionally seen them reading from the >Lawbook (much more frequently in clubs), but my observations are spotty. Excellent. Your book rulings are likely to be better than a considerable number of directors. [s] >> So, please be careful with this position in future: declarer has an >> option when a player exposes a card during the auction and later becomes >> a defender. L49 and L50 do not define it to be a penalty card. > >Here I must respectfully disagree. L50 may refer to an action by a person after >he has become a defender, but, with regard to a faced card, L49 does not. It >refers instead to the location of a card belonging to the hand of a defender and >says nothing about when the exposure of the card occurred. The form of the verb >is quite different from the parallel clause that refers to "when a defender >names a card." The word "is" implies an indefinite continuing state, and >eliminates any sense of agency or of temporal process. Also, when the verb form >and syntax change from one clause to another, it is normal to assume that the >authors had a different semantic intention as well. At the close of the >auction period the individual in question 1) becomes a defender and 2) has a >card belonging to his hand "in a position in which his partner could possibly >see its face." Therefore, "each such card becomes a penalty card." The >conclusion is an absolute, with the implicit sense of "shall," which I believe >takes precedence over "may." Assuming that there is a contradiction between L24 >and L49, IMHO it would be much more difficult to explain away the requirements >of L49, which governs all the cases of a declarer's faced card that are likely >to be familiar to most players, than it would be to explain away the "may" in >L24. Perhaps it would be valuable to have some actions taken on this perceived >conflict prior to 2007. At the end of the auction, declarer indicates whether he wants a penalty card ["...may..."] and the player will put it back into his hand if declarer does not want one. When he becomes a defender, no card is visible and L49 does not apply. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 2 04:24:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA01669 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 04:24:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from pimout4-int.prodigy.net (pimout4-ext.prodigy.net [207.115.58.198]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA01663 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 04:24:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from uymfdlvk (SNFCB611-26.splitrock.net [209.252.7.74]) by pimout4-int.prodigy.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA5829262 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 14:24:37 -0400 Message-ID: <008801bedc4b$37df6dc0$4a07fcd1@uymfdlvk> From: "Chris Pisarra" To: References: <007501beda01$62194bc0$30b420cc@host> <37a60da7.1744633@mail.glou1.nj.home.com> Subject: Re: Cat Diary Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 11:25:20 -0700 Organization: a total loss MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Someone wrote (attributions long lost) > > Fourth, I would advise people to get threading software. FreeAgent > >does this for Newsgroups: does anyone know whether it does it for > >mailing lists [BM? *coff*]. Outlook Express threads my mail just fine. Free from our friend Bill Gates. Chris From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 2 04:28:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA01694 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 04:28:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA01688 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 04:28:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt092nb1.san.rr.com [204.210.48.177]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA17703 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 11:27:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <039f01bedc4b$8dadfb40$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199907302031.NAA20251@mailhub.irvine.com> <37A2F78B.C58F1CA6@village.uunet.be> <37b66a02.2558815@mail.image.dk> Subject: Re: [Bidding boxes] Nodding/tapping for the final pass Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 11:19:41 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bertel Hansen wrote: > >Indeed, compare it with the habit of not actually taking > >green cards for the last three passes, but rather nodding, > > This is something that annoys me, though I haven't said so very > often. > > In the beginning only /the/ final pass was substituted, and this > is of course no problem. But when the next last or indeed the > third last pass is substituted, it puts a "pressure" on the other > players, and if they do not pass, the nod/tap is UI. > > What do others think of this habit? > Should be prohibited, and the TD summoned when it happens, last call or not. All calls are to be made with the cards, without exception, if only to avoid suspicions that selective use of the cards might be indicative of something. The TD issues a warning and follows with a PP if the infraction is repeated. Of course players should be forewarned before the game starts that this requirement will be enforced. Unfortunately the ACBL Bidding Box Regulations do not address this matter, as they should. Using the cards for all calls can avoid some complication that might arise. Happened to me once. Instead of using the pass card, partner and my RHO just picked up their bid cards, thinking the auction was over. Absent-mindedly I did the same, but then woke up and realized I wanted to bid. The TD let me do so, rightly or wrongly, because I had not actually passed, but the experience led me to believe that the cards *must* be used for all calls. One might argue that a declarer who is last to call should be able to just pick up his bid cards and omit putting out the pass card, but a BL declarer could argue that an opening lead is then premature, made before the auction is over (L17E), and L24 gives him, not the TD, the right to designate the card led as a penalty card. The right habit is: Always use the pass card. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 2 04:33:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA01750 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 04:33:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA01742 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 04:33:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id OAA14588 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 14:33:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA13206 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 14:33:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 14:33:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199908011833.OAA13206@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Cat Diary and Heart K Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > Mind you, I agree that I would prefer that option to be removed in > > 2007. > From: Herman De Wael > Well, I'd put this differently, I prefer the text to be > improved. Yes, if declarer has options, it is best to spell out exactly what all the options are. In considering changes for 2007 (or sooner), perhaps it's worth debating whether declarer should have options. For example, a new law might let him: require the card (or any one of multiple cards) to be led (as he can now), forbid the lead of that suit (and all cards in that suit are picked up), or allow any lead but keep the penalty card(s) on the table if not led. This is somewhat analogous to declarer's options after a lead OOT. I am not at all sure this is a good idea, but at least it would be clear, and it would give declarer every chance of avoiding damage. On the other hand, if the penalty card remains UI (or partial UI) as now, it's probably better to lead it and be done with it as soon as possible. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 2 06:36:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA01993 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 06:36:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from minerva.pinehurst.net (root@minerva.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA01984 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 06:35:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from pinehurst.net (pm2-25.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.55]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA26931; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 16:35:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <37A4B05B.6FFB5E23@pinehurst.net> Date: Sun, 01 Aug 1999 16:38:51 -0400 From: Nancy T Dressing X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Chris Pisarra CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Cat Diary References: <007501beda01$62194bc0$30b420cc@host> <37a60da7.1744633@mail.glou1.nj.home.com> <008801bedc4b$37df6dc0$4a07fcd1@uymfdlvk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk So does netscape communicator. Free from Netscape.com Nancy Chris Pisarra wrote: > Someone wrote (attributions long lost) > > > > Fourth, I would advise people to get threading software. FreeAgent > > >does this for Newsgroups: does anyone know whether it does it for > > >mailing lists [BM? *coff*]. > > Outlook Express threads my mail just fine. Free from our friend > Bill Gates. > > Chris From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 2 08:31:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA02169 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 08:31:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from oznet15.ozemail.com.au (oznet15.ozemail.com.au [203.2.192.116]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA02164 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 08:31:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (slsdn41p14.ozemail.com.au [210.84.5.142]) by oznet15.ozemail.com.au (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA16812 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 08:29:56 +1000 (EST) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 08:29:56 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <199908012229.IAA16812@oznet15.ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: ardelm@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tony Musgrove Subject: Re: Cat Diary and Heart K Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:50 PM 1/08/99 +0200, you wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> >> So let us read the Laws. L24 says, inter alia, >> >> When the Director determines, during the auction, >> that because of a player's action one or more cards >> of that player's hand were in position for the face >> to be seen by his partner, the Director shall >> require that every such card be left face up on the >> table until the auction closes; and (penalty) if >> the offender subsequently becomes a defender, >> declarer may treat every such card as a penalty >> card (Law 50). In addition: >> snip and HDW: yes, again I have learnt something. >I had never remarked the particular wording of L24 before. > >I bow to your superior knowledge of the English language, >and I suppose you have incorporated in your logic the fact >that the card ws preaturely exposed by the defender anyway, >even if he did it before he became defender ? > >Also when it says that declarer may treat it as a penalty >card, it means that it is not wrong not to do so. > >Now suppose I am defender, and this happens. I decide that >I shall lead the HK, because I consider it a penalty card, >but declarer says, no, please lead what you want ? Should I >not suspect that he does not like the lead ? Suppose it was my partner who dropped the Heart K, and I am on lead. Declarer says 'I don't want the Heart K to be a penalty card..lead anything'. Partner picks up HK. Is the fact that partner has the HK AI for me or not? Cheers, Tony From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 2 08:51:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA02215 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 08:51:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA02210 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 08:51:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.126] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11B4Rs-000D61-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 23:51:20 +0100 Message-ID: <002601bedc70$5dfc0d40$7e5108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Excuse me if I demur Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 23:48:59 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 01 August 1999 17:05 Subject: Re: Cat Diary and Heart K >A most lucid presentation. It also embodies a salient point. The Laws are >arranged to apply at certain parts of the game, I.e. the Auction, the Play. >etc. It is sophistry to take them out of this context and use a Law that >applies to Play and apply it during the Auction. ....Kojak > > +++ There is just a detail to be added : declarer does not exercise his option until *after* the opponent has become a defender; the cross-reference to Law 50 in Law 24 incorporates reference to the power of the Director to 'designate otherwise', which he does if declarer opts not to treat the defender's card as a penalty card. At the time when declarer makes his decision the card is one that has been prematurely exposed by someone who is now a defender. Law 49 would apply were it not for the fact that the matter is subject to an exception relating to the application of law. I would not presume to judge whether Law 24 was written by a person of specious tendency, nor whether this careful reading of the law is sophistry. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 2 09:33:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA02312 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 09:33:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo24.mx.aol.com (imo24.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.68]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA02306 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 09:33:03 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo24.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v22.4.) id 9XHLa14808 (4203); Sun, 1 Aug 1999 19:31:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <60b55489.24d632e1@aol.com> Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 19:31:45 EDT Subject: Re: Excuse me if I demur To: Hermes@dodona.clara.co.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 21 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Kojak here.......obviously I did not do the lucid job on my posting that I congratulated DWS for. Let me see if I can clarify. Law 24 is the place to look for what to do under the circumstances. I was trying to avoid people going on fishing expeditions that they think they could logically apply to back up their arguments. When going to Law 24 you find a reference to Law 50, not 49. So you go to Law 50 to find out what the disposition of a penalty card is. This is merely a shortcut to not have to repeat the substance of the Law in two places..... That's all I meant........Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 2 09:49:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA02335 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 09:49:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand.global.net.uk ([195.147.248.109]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA02330 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 09:49:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from pb8s06a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.134.185] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11B5LO-0003R3-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 00:48:43 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Cat Diary and Heart K Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 00:45:33 +0100 Message-ID: <01bedc77$f22e6ba0$46a393c3@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Norman H. Hostetler To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sunday, August 01, 1999 10:41 AM Subject: Re: Cat Diary and Heart K < much snipping> >of L49, which governs all the cases of a declarer's faced card that are likely >to be familiar to most players, than it would be to explain away the "may" in >L24. Perhaps it would be valuable to have some actions taken on this perceived >conflict prior to 2007. We have seen from the 1997 Law25B missive in 1998- "This is an official interpretation of Law (WBFLC)". "That's not what we meant(Ton)" "It's what you said(Grattan)" "I have'nt heard anything about this (Adam)" that these interim changes are not a good idea. NCBOs are informed, and maybe those on their mailing lists, but not all TDs get to know. Maybe in such cases a page should be printed and circulated to all those who bought an original Law book for instertion as an ammendment. > >> Mind you, I agree that I would prefer that option to be removed in >> 2007. This list is of great use for the communication of TDs with one another, and for those who sit in ivory towers to be informed of the difficulies encountered in the interpretartion of Law, and of the conflicts which arise. Unless the circulation of all changes to the published tomb is improved, I would prefer to see such changes kept until the next publication date. e.g.2007 Anne From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 2 10:03:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA02354 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 10:03:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA02349 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 10:02:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11B5Yx-000Ktm-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 00:02:43 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 01:01:55 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Excuse me if I demur In-Reply-To: <002601bedc70$5dfc0d40$7e5108c3@swhki5i6> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <002601bedc70$5dfc0d40$7e5108c3@swhki5i6>, Grattan Endicott writes > >Grattan - - - - - - - - - >There comes a time when you think you >know it all - round about your sixth birthday. >================================= > >-----Original Message----- >From: Schoderb@aol.com >To: bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk ; >bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Date: 01 August 1999 17:05 >Subject: Re: Cat Diary and Heart K > > >>A most lucid presentation. It also embodies a salient point. The Laws are >>arranged to apply at certain parts of the game, I.e. the Auction, the Play. >>etc. It is sophistry to take them out of this context and use a Law that >>applies to Play and apply it during the Auction. ....Kojak >> >> >+++ There is just a detail to be added : declarer does not exercise >his option until *after* the opponent has become a defender; the >cross-reference to Law 50 in Law 24 incorporates reference to the >power of the Director to 'designate otherwise', which he does if >declarer opts not to treat the defender's card as a penalty card. >At the time when declarer makes his decision the card is one that >has been prematurely exposed by someone who is now a defender. >Law 49 would apply were it not for the fact that the matter is subject >to an exception relating to the application of law. > I would not presume to judge whether Law 24 was written by a >person of specious tendency, nor whether this careful reading of >the law is sophistry. ~ Grattan ~ +++ > Beg to differ. Law 41C is perfectly clear when the play period begins and self evidently a player cannot be designated a defender until such happens. We get the circumlocutions of Law 41A referring to defender and presumed declarer. If declarer is presumed, then so must be defender. "The opening lead is faced, the play period begins and dummy's hand is spread." Since no opening lead has been made, we are still in the auction and Law 24 still applies. The auction is closed agreed (but is re-openable) and declarer now decides whether to treat every such [exposed] card as a penalty card. If he decides it is not a penalty card it is restored to the offenders hand and the play period has still not begun. Thus we cannot apply Law 50 in any way. Posession of the card is AI, since the penalty (potentially that is) of having to pass at the next turn to call will have been paid. It seems perfectly clear. Declarer chooses whether the card is a penalty card. If it isn't end of story, otherwise we can use Law 50. chs john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 2 10:24:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA02379 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 10:24:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand.global.net.uk ([195.147.248.109]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA02374 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 10:24:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from p96s01a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.161.151] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11B5tO-000470-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 01:23:50 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Dropped card Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 01:25:27 +0100 Message-ID: <01bedc7d$8554c320$46a393c3@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Grattan Endicott To: Anne Jones ; BLML Date: Sunday, August 01, 1999 9:24 AM Subject: Re: Dropped card > >Grattan - - - - - - - - - >There comes a time when you think you >know it all - round about your sixth birthday. >================================= > >-----Original Message----- >From: Anne Jones >To: BLML >Date: 01 August 1999 00:51 >Subject: Re: Dropped card > > >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Grattan Endicott >>Subject: Re: Dropped card >>> >>>------------------- \x/ -------------------- >>>>> >>>>>???? Obviously I am overlooking something. I take >>>>>it the card was exposed? If so, the Director will offer >>>>>declarer the option that the card be treated as a >>>>>penalty card (and led). If the declarer does not >>>>>want it as a penalty card the Director "designates >>>>>otherwise" (Law 50 - a good example of the use >>>>>of this provision) - and the card will still probably >>>>>be led, freely chosen by its possessor. >>>> >>>>Would Law 16C prohibit the lead of this card if >>>>offender had a logical alternative? >>>> >>> +++++ Hi Anne >>>What UI do you suggest the player on lead has, >>>and when did partner supply it? >> >>I would suggest that the fact that declarer does >>not want the lead of the HK is UI, as it had been >>obtained as the result of his own infraction. >>It is Law16A that says the UI must be from his >>partner. I thought Law16C2 might apply, but I am >>not certain. >>The logic applied is that Law55C indicates that >>information gained as the result of opps choices >>in response to one's own infraction is UI. >>Anne >> >+++++ Interesting. > (1) I do not consider the player obtains > any information from his own withdrawn > card. I do not believe 16C2 applies. > (2) Law 55C interests me, however. It > raises four questions in my mind. > (a) Is it an 'infraction' to expose a card > accidentally? An infraction - a deviation from correct procedure? Yes I think it is an infraction. The law does not say > 'thou shalt not drive over a cliff', it makes > arrangements about the emergency > services should it happen. And you may get a bill :-) You certainly lose your No Claims Bonus, but it seems like a more efficient way to silence your partner. > (b) How justified are we in saying that > declarer's exercise of his option indicates > a desire not to have the card led? This is > the old mind-reading situation again. Yes. Declerer felt sorry of the poor arthritic who dropped his card. (1% of the time). Declarer is a nice guy who likes things to look tidy.(5% of the time) Declarer does not want the lead (94% of the time) Am I a cynic? > (c) Has not declarer restored total freedom > of action to the player by his choice under > Law 24? Mmm! Maybe. But I have been asked by a declarer if a penalty card which has to be lead, really has to be led, if he doesn't want it to be led. Seems reasonable if that card got there accidentally and would not be a standard lead. > (d) Law 55C refers to 'declarer'. It makes > no mention of a defender. So how can > it apply? It doesn't. I was trying to give an example of how the laws attemp to make it difficult for one to benefit from one's own side "infraction" >For the moment I find the hurdles too high to jump >over. I think the player can lead the card if he >chooses. As a matter of public policy I doubt >that the law would be wise to give declarer a >weapon for stopping the player who dropped the >card from leading it Anne From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 2 10:24:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA02393 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 10:24:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA02388 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 10:24:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.56] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11B5u2-000EWA-00; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 01:24:30 +0100 Message-ID: <001601bedc7d$61d00cc0$385108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Nothing about cats Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 01:23:31 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 01 August 1999 19:12 Subject: Re: Cat Diary and Heart K > ----------------- \x/ -------------- > Look at this paragraph. I deliberately pointed out that I might have >got it wrong really as a sugar pill: it does not add anything to the >argument. I then wrote something that might be considered offensive, I >hope not, but apparently not to offend you I needed to write: > > We now have had opinions from Ton Kooijman and > Grattan Endicott, and they have made a complete > nonsense of the legal position. ++++ Yes, indeed, that was what I *read* ++++ ------------------ \x/ ---------------------- > At the end of the auction, declarer indicates whether he wants a >penalty card ["...may..."] and the player will put it back into his hand >if declarer does not want one. When he becomes a defender, no card is >visible and L49 does not apply. > +++ "....to be left face up on the table until the auction closes; and if the player *subsequently becomes* a defender, declarer may ....." which is different from the sequence of events that David describes. Law 49 does apply, by way of the exclusion at its commencement. "Drink deep or taste not the Pierian spring: There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, And drinking largely sobers us again." +++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 2 10:35:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA02422 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 10:35:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from iac20.navix.net (iac20.navix.net [207.91.5.26]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA02417 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 10:35:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from navix.net (cras36p43.navix.net [205.242.158.46]) by iac20.navix.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA30291; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 19:30:34 -0500 Message-ID: <37A788F3.FFB0904E@navix.net> Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 19:27:32 -0500 From: "Norman H. Hostetler" Reply-To: nh35422@navix.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Herman De Wael CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Cat Diary and Heart K References: <37A443B1.1F1ACE27@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > > > > > > Even so L81C8 and L50 allow the non offender to request that it is not a > > penalty card. It would be a pig-headed TD who did not accede. > > > > And it would be a silly defender who did not lead the HK > when declarer states quite clearly that he does not want the > card to be played. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html You open up possibilities of poker-like bluff and counter-bluff here. Were I the declarer and you the defender on lead, and the lead of HK seemed advantageous to me, I would waive the penalty in the expectation that you would both lead the HK and also be more likely to misdiagnose later the best line of play for the defense. Norm From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 2 11:36:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA02541 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 11:36:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from iac12.navix.net (iac12.navix.net [207.91.5.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA02535 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 11:36:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from navix.net (cras18p26.navix.net [207.91.7.28]) by iac12.navix.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA13469; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 20:19:28 -0500 Message-ID: <37A7946B.8D8B23F1@navix.net> Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 20:16:27 -0500 From: "Norman H. Hostetler" Reply-To: nh35422@navix.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Grattan Endicott CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Apology for Cat References: <006101bedc22$72349500$e58193c3@pacific> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > >> Norman H. Hostetler wrote: > >>> > >To David and Grattan: Thank you for reminding me that I am one of the > >"thousands of other Directors," and am not one "of the top people around." > > ++ Oh dear, Norm, I am sorry if that is the way I came across. > Concepts of grandeur were far from my mind; I was just trying > to say 'welcome to the throng'. > I am well aware of the trap of self-aggrandisement which > lies open before practising cognoscenti, even when not > self-appointed, I.e. the misconception of envisaging oneself > as a latter day Kaplan. There is no-one at all who is granted > that status just now and my colleagues on the WBFLC are > most united when issuing reminders of their intention to > substitute group decision for Kaplanesque punditry. > ~ Grattan ~ ++ Thank you for your kind words. And though I did intend the touch of irony in the sentence you quote, I also meant the "thank you." Your first response was a valuable reminder that I had not paid sufficient attention to the effects my statements might create, and that I therefore overlooked my own principles of being courteous and respectful and of trying to read e-mail under the assumption that the writer intends to be serious and significant (or witty and significant, as in David's "Day in the Life of a Club Director"), and deserves a response in the same vein. I've been lurking since shortly after the beginning of the year, but rarely have time to read all the posts, let alone to compose something myself. I have been trying to run off what seems to be the consensus opinion about the interpretation or application of a given law, in order to add it to my notebook, though I know I missed a bunch. Since I have a full time job outside of bridge, I'm sure my posts will continue to be scarce, and I'll try to save them for those rare occasions where I might actually have something to contribute. Norm From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 2 11:40:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA02578 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 11:40:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from iac20.navix.net (iac20.navix.net [207.91.5.26]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA02570 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 11:39:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from navix.net (cras18p26.navix.net [207.91.7.28]) by iac20.navix.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA01067; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 20:19:10 -0500 Message-ID: <37A7943D.40694661@navix.net> Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 20:15:41 -0500 From: "Norman H. Hostetler" Reply-To: nh35422@navix.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tony Musgrove CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Cat Diary and Heart K References: <199908012229.IAA16812@oznet15.ozemail.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tony Musgrove wrote: > >David Stevenson wrote: > >> > >> > >> So let us read the Laws. L24 says, inter alia, > >> > >> When the Director determines, during the auction, > >> that because of a player's action one or more cards > >> of that player's hand were in position for the face > >> to be seen by his partner, the Director shall > >> require that every such card be left face up on the > >> table until the auction closes; and (penalty) if > >> the offender subsequently becomes a defender, > >> declarer may treat every such card as a penalty > >> card (Law 50). In addition: > >> > snip > > and HDW: > > yes, again I have learnt something. > >I had never remarked the particular wording of L24 before. > > > >I bow to your superior knowledge of the English language, > >and I suppose you have incorporated in your logic the fact > >that the card ws preaturely exposed by the defender anyway, > >even if he did it before he became defender ? > > > >Also when it says that declarer may treat it as a penalty > >card, it means that it is not wrong not to do so. > > > >Now suppose I am defender, and this happens. I decide that > >I shall lead the HK, because I consider it a penalty card, > >but declarer says, no, please lead what you want ? Should I > >not suspect that he does not like the lead ? > > Suppose it was my partner who dropped the Heart K, and I am on lead. > Declarer says 'I don't want the Heart K to be a penalty card..lead > anything'. Partner picks up HK. Is the fact that partner has the HK AI for > me or not? It would be my automatic practice to issue a UI warning to offender's partner, as in all cases where a defender's faced card is picked up, such as in a lead OOT when declarer elects to forbid the lead of the suit in question. Something along the line of "you may not select from among reasonable alternatives a lead or play that depends upon that specific card being in your partner's hand, unless you can infer its existence from other evidence in the bidding and play." Norm From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 2 11:40:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA02591 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 11:40:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from pegasus.com.au (peg.apc.org [192.131.13.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA02586 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 11:40:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from qb (dialup-hobax5120.mpx.com.au [198.142.190.120]) by pegasus.com.au (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA03158 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 11:46:33 +1000 (GMT+1000) Message-Id: <4.0.1.19990802105359.00f63900@pop.pegasus.com.au> X-Sender: soundconnex@pop.pegasus.com.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.1 Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 11:06:00 +1000 To: From: Roger Penny and Jane Stapleton Subject: A Played Card? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk An experienced player (and very fast) has developed the all too frequent habit of detaching a card from her hand and standing it upright on the table in front of her (although always with the face of the card hidden from the rest of the table) before turning/dropping/flipping it face upwards onto the table as her contribution to the trick in progress. (1) If an opponent calls you to the table and points out this behaviour pattern to you, claiming that they find it annoying/distracting/inappropriate, what action - if any - would you take? (2) If, as declarer, she decides that she would prefer to return this 'on end' card to her hand and play another card to the trick in progress, would you allow her to do so? (3) Would your ruling change in any way if she holds the card in the 'on end' position before RHO has played a card to the trick? (4) Would your ruling change in any way if she holds the card in the 'on end' position before RHO has played a card to the trick and then wants to change the card because RHO plays an 'unexpected' card? [For example, she holds S.AQ and, having called for Sx from dummy, places SQ 'on end' on the table, expecting to finesse while RHO is fumbling for a card and then wants to change her "not-exposed-in-any-way" SQ and play SA instead because RHO plays SK?] (5) If your attention is drawn to the case cited in (4) BEFORE RHO plays any card to this trick, would you rule that declarer has played a card out of rotation? (6) What would be your ruling in each case if the player is a defender, rather than declarer? Does it matter? (7) Would you consider assigning a procedural penalty in any of these cases? Roger Penny Roger Penny & Jane Stapleton, Directors, Em2C: Educational MultiMedia Corporation PO Box 344, KINGSTON TAS. 7051 'PHONE: +61 3 6267 9500 FAX: +61 3 6267 9506 EMAIL: soundconnex@peg.apc.org HOME PAGE: http://www.pegasus.com.au/~soundconnex From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 2 12:21:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA02630 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 12:21:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from aurora.alaska.edu (fxmgs@aurora.alaska.edu [137.229.18.100]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA02625 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 12:21:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (fxmgs@localhost) by aurora.alaska.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id SAA24420 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 18:21:12 -0800 (AKDT) Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 18:21:11 -0800 (AKDT) From: Michael Schmahl To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Law v Regulation In-Reply-To: <37A43F8B.F4A92896@village.uunet.be> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 1 Aug 1999, Herman De Wael wrote: : David Stevenson wrote: : > : > No green pass cards, no passes. : > : : Come on David, be serious. : [Knock, knock, knock, lead, double] : : And now you David, will rule that there have been no three : passes and that the bidding is still open ? : So that there have been 14 cards shown during the bidding ? : : Sorry, but you can't mean that seriously. : I'm surprised not to see a response to this post yet. If I were the opening leader/doubler here, I would expect the Director to roll his eyes at me, leave the contract at 4H undoubled, and issue a DP for manifestly wasting his/her time. Unless the Director were David Stevenson, in which case I might expect the auction to continue All Pass. Result: 4HX making, or 4HX down, adjusted to 4H undoubled (L72B1). I would still expect to receive a DP. In either case I would probably be looking for a new partner. signoff Michael Schmahl, aka "Mike", alias "Mike", dba "Mike" - Univ of AK, Fairbanks Unsolicited commercial email spellchecked for only $100! No warranties. rand:[ Jesus died for your sins! Sin all you want, they're paid for! ] From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 2 12:33:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA02656 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 12:33:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA02651 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 12:32:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt092nb1.san.rr.com [204.210.48.177]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA09945 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 19:32:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <03dd01bedc8f$4a7b9640$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3.0.1.32.19990720083937.006e8008@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19990718114612.01212088@pop.mindspring.com><199907162340.QAA09259@mailhub.irvine.com><199907162340.QAA09259@mailhub.irvine.com><3.0.1.32.19990718114612.01212088@pop.mindspring.com><3798809d.4798059@post12.tele.dk><3.0.1.32.19990720083937.006e8008@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990721090523.006eae90@pop.cais.com> <007c01bedbb2$52670f20$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> <37A43D3D.F193F1FC@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 19:29:02 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > > > Eric Landau wrote: > > > > > Now I consider myself rather hard-core when it comes to full disclosure. > > > Unlike Marv, I *do* believe that the laws require me to give my > > opponents > > > lessons in (what I consider to be) basic bridge in response to an > > inquiry, > > > and would consider it ethically inappropriate to let the words "it's > > just > > > bridge" pass my lips, even if that's what I'm thinking > > > > Okay, here's an example. San Antonio NABC, playing against two > > sharp-looking 30-ish men, one of whom (East) seems to be preoccupied with > > his hand.. I am South, wife Alice is North. > > > > Vulnerability: E/W vul > > Dealer South > > > > S- 2 > > H- J9762 > > D- J93 > > C- AKJ6 > > > > S- KJ76 S- AQ864 > > H- K43 H- AQ8 > > D- 76 D- AKQ > > C- 10984 C- Q3 > > > > S- 1093 > > H- 105 > > D- 108542 > > C- 752 > > > > The bidding: > > > > West North East South > > --- --- --- 1D > > P 1H P P > > ???? > > > > West (inappropriately) to Alice: "What's going on? Was one heart forcing?" > > > > Alice: "Yes." > > > > West: "Why is he passing?" > > > > Alice: "He thinks that is the best thing to do." (Great answer) > > > > West: "Pass" > > > > Now, I had never psyched an opening bid with Alice before, ever, but I > > couldn't resist this one. Alice knew from her "general knowledge and > > experience," not from any "special partnership agreement" that I had > > probably psyched. Was she obligated to disclose that knowlege to West? No, > > of course not. > > > > And if I do the same thing one or two years from now, must she tell a > > future West that I have no doubt psyched? No, because the inference > > remains drawn from her "general knowledge and experience," not from > > partnership experience, and therefore need not be disclosed (L75C). An > > inference that is *confirmed* by partnership experience does not become > > one that is *drawn* from partnership experience. > > > > The TD was called, East stating that the Recorder should be informed, > > etc., etc., but the TD just told him that psychs were part of the game. > > Good for him. > > > > Now, Eric would probably say that Alice should explain to West that my > > pass undoubtedly means that I opened the bidding with possibly zero > > points. > > > > And I would disagree. > > > > great psyche ! I never dare these ones. > > silly opponents ! > > Now of course, when next you pass the forcing answer, and > west asks, Alice should respond, "well, the last time he did > that, he had zero points, but I don't expect him to pull > that stunt again." or something like that. > > But yes, I think Alice's answer on this one was very good. And her answer will be the same next time, I hope, since "partnership experience" has not altered her previously gained knowledge, and there is no disclosable "special information" that was conveyed to her by this auction. L75 includes no requirement to provide the meaning of every call made by partner, nor does it require a historical summary of partnership experience, unless that experience constitutes a *special* partnership agreement. Now, suppose my LHO were to say to Alice (behind a screen, and I don't know how this can be accomplished without a screen), "Evidently your partner has psyched his opening bid. From your experience, what is the average number of points he has when he passes your forcing response?" Such a question inquires as to style, not as to meaning. Style arises out of partnership experience, even when meaning does not. Now she will answer, lacking sufficient data to give a better response, "We have no agreement as to style." If I were to have psyched a number of times, and only with zero points, then that would be special information, disclosable. "In my experience he seems to require a hand with zero points for this auction." If my pass of a forcing bid shows by partnership agreement that I have perpetrated a K-S/Roth-Stone "disciplined psych," lead-directing with a suit like KJxxx and nothing else, then my pass would be Alertable. In the old days, the questioner would send partner (client?) away from the table before any inquiiry, as otherwise it could constitute an illegal (L73B) communication of the information that I have psyched. Many pros, of course, don't like to send client out of earshot, which may be why the ACBL has discouraged the practice. With no screen, and partner present, then the questioner is on his honor to ask questions only for his own need, not for partner's sake. If he doesn't know what meaninig to ascribe to my pass, too bad, he will not obtain that information. It is one of the penalties paid by the ignorant. And that's how I see it If L75C is to be meaningless, get it expunged from the next version of the Laws. Or at least delete the word "special" from L75, if it serves no function. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 2 12:41:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA02679 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 12:41:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA02674 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 12:41:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.10] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11B82J-000FjY-00; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 03:41:11 +0100 Message-ID: <001201bedc90$79e1e000$0a5208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "John Probst" , Subject: Re: Excuse me if I demur Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 03:40:30 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 02 August 1999 01:43 Subject: Re: Excuse me if I demur > >Beg to differ. Law 41C is perfectly clear when the play period begins >and self evidently a player cannot be designated a defender until such >happens. We get the circumlocutions of Law 41A referring to defender and >presumed declarer. If declarer is presumed, then so must be defender. > >"The opening lead is faced, the play period begins and dummy's hand is >spread." > >Since no opening lead has been made, we are still in the auction and Law >24 still applies. > >The auction is closed agreed (but is re-openable) and declarer now >decides whether to treat every such [exposed] card as a penalty card. If >he decides it is not a penalty card it is restored to the offenders hand >and the play period has still not begun. Thus we cannot apply Law 50 in >any way. Posession of the card is AI, since the penalty (potentially >that is) of having to pass at the next turn to call will have been paid. > >It seems perfectly clear. Declarer chooses whether the card is a penalty >card. If it isn't end of story, otherwise we can use Law 50. > ++++ I have no difficulty in understanding Law 41C. But where did you get the idea that Law 50 only applies in the play period? It applies whenever there is a defender and Law 24 is explicit in the fact that the offender has become a defender - not is about to become - when declarer chooses his option. We are not limited to choosing between 24 and 50, each has its respective relevance to the circumstance and there are defenders as soon as there is a *presumed* declarer. G ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 2 12:53:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA02703 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 12:53:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA02698 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 12:53:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt092nb1.san.rr.com [204.210.48.177]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA12356 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 19:53:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <040001bedc92$1dc46a20$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <002601bedc70$5dfc0d40$7e5108c3@swhki5i6> Subject: Re: Excuse me if I demur Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 19:42:51 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > From: Schoderb@aol.com > > >A most lucid presentation. It also embodies a salient point. The Laws are > >arranged to apply at certain parts of the game, I.e. the Auction, the Play. > >etc. It is sophistry to take them out of this context and use a Law that > >applies to Play and apply it during the Auction. ....Kojak > > > > > +++ There is just a detail to be added : declarer does not exercise > his option until *after* the opponent has become a defender; the > cross-reference to Law 50 in Law 24 incorporates reference to the > power of the Director to 'designate otherwise', which he does if > declarer opts not to treat the defender's card as a penalty card. > At the time when declarer makes his decision the card is one that > has been prematurely exposed by someone who is now a defender. > Law 49 would apply were it not for the fact that the matter is subject > to an exception relating to the application of law. > I would not presume to judge whether Law 24 was written by a > person of specious tendency, nor whether this careful reading of > the law is sophistry. ~ Grattan ~ +++ My reading is that the reference to L50 in L24 is only for the purpose of communicating how a penalty card is to be handled, saving a duplication of language, and is not meant to imply that the TD can "designate otherwise" as is the case when a card is prematurely exposed by a defender. The card was exposed *before* the offender became a defender, after all. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 2 15:59:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA02851 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 15:59:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from oznet15.ozemail.com.au (oznet15.ozemail.com.au [203.2.192.116]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA02846 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 15:58:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (slsdn8p38.ozemail.com.au [210.84.10.230]) by oznet15.ozemail.com.au (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA17620 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 15:57:52 +1000 (EST) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 15:57:52 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <199908020557.PAA17620@oznet15.ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: ardelm@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tony Musgrove Subject: Just checking L25B, (was Law v Regulation) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Good luck to Norman Hostetler who just wants to collect the consensus opinions to put into his notebook. I think the last time there was a consesus on any subject, HDW was away for two weeks (and perhaps DWS) as well. I recently sought to test my understanding of L26A/B and received answers, YES, NO, & MAYBE. This a.m. I asked about whether the dropped King was AI or UI. The answers so far are UI and AI (no maybe yet). So here goes: The bidding goes North South 2H (weak 6cd) 2NT (Ogust) 3C (weak hearts)pass South called me quite distressed. Obviously while explaining partner's call, she forgot to sign off in 3H. I have no problem allowing the change under 25A. I have been very lenient in my rulings under the inadvertent bid provisions of L25A, unless partner has subsequently called, both before and after Lille. I think I follow most of Ton's posting below, but it seems to me that he might rule L25B (av minus at best) in the above case. I think I would allow a change even if partner gave an audible gasp of pain. Cheers, Tony >02:32 PM 1/08/99 +0200, ton wrote: >I do remember having written about this before in BLML. Autumn '98 it was, I >think. >It was on our agenda in Lille because applying the '97 Laws in the >Netherlands we needed a clarifying interpretation of 25B. >I don't remember what actually happened, but let us make it the following: >South opens 2C GF and at the same time his partner passes OOT. This will end >in south playing 2C most probably, making 9 tricks. In our examinations in >the Netherlands the whole field appears to play 6S and is minus one because >of the 5-0 split in spades, after which EW ask for an adjusted score. May be >that is the case, but for the moment South doesn't like this pass OOT at >all. East of course doesn't accept and now according to the wording of 25B >south could try to change his call, asking the TD to permit him so. 'Until >LHO calls, a call may be substituted .......' The question was: is 25B made >for this? Do we allow south to change the 2C bid and bidding a game now. > >The main decision we made in Lille was to say 'NO' to this question. And >after that we probably had to deal with the wrong movement in the open final >and did not discuss the details well enough. >As far as I remember what we wanted is that the use of 25B is restricted to >cases in which a player made a mistake himself (did a stupid thing) and >discovers this not using information from consecutive action. It is not easy >to define this. South opens 1S, gets 3S from partner and thinks for a while >about passing or bidding 4S, deciding for the latest. His LHO now says: ' I >like that', smiles and starts touching a red card, then south is not allowed >to go back to 3S. But when south decides to pass 3S and his LHO now finds a >card on the floor and that appears to be the 13th and a useful card from the >south hand I would allow south to change his call in 4S(average minus). >The most appealing example is 1H - 4C (splinter) - pass (thinking to play >4H, not realising it wasn't bid yet). The pass may be changed by 4H (average >minus), but not when partner after the pass starts shouting: 'this was a >splinter, idiot'. And not when LHO says 'I like that' and starts touching a >green card. But 'yes' if LHO does so within a split second and offenses >74C7. May be the conditions should be describred as 'he wouldn't have made >that call if the whole of authorized information available at that moment >would have crossed his mind'. And than the 'yes' in the last example has to >explained as: LHO didn't give him the chance to discover his stupid mistake. >And the card found by LHO was authorized information at the moment he >passed. > >25 is a minefield, we know that and I beg you not to start all these "I >don't like it - discussions" all over again. I tried to describe how 25B in >my very personal individual opinion should work. And I personally don't mind >if TD's do follow this approach for a while. Next 25B edition in Bermuda, >where I will try to get this opinion confirmed. > >ton > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 2 18:05:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA03020 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 18:05:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA03015 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 18:05:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id KAA00300; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 10:04:55 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JEADPEF200001TTX@AGRO.NL>; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 10:04:47 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id <31GS9SV9>; Mon, 02 Aug 1999 10:04:47 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 10:04:39 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Excuse me if I demur To: "'John Probst'" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C1EF@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > > >Grattan > - - - - - - - - - > >There comes a time when you think you > >know it all - round about your sixth birthday. > >================================= > Does that go away again? ton From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 2 18:22:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA03086 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 18:22:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA03081 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 18:22:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id KAA00294; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 10:21:55 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JEAEAHDMR0001U4N@AGRO.NL>; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 10:21:00 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id <31GS9TYS>; Mon, 02 Aug 1999 10:21:00 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 10:20:57 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Just checking L25B, (was Law v Regulation) To: "'Tony Musgrove'" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C1F0@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: Tony Musgrove [mailto:ardelm@ozemail.com.au] > Verzonden: maandag 2 augustus 1999 7:58 > Aan: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Onderwerp: Just checking L25B, (was Law v Regulation) > > > Good luck to Norman Hostetler who just wants to collect the consensus > opinions to put into his notebook. I think the last time there was a > consesus on any subject, HDW was away for two weeks (and > perhaps DWS) as well. > That might have been the European pairs in March, Warsaw. But that was for only one week. > So here goes: > > The bidding goes North South > 2H (weak 6cd) 2NT (Ogust) > 3C (weak hearts)pass > > South called me quite distressed. Obviously while explaining > partner's > call, she forgot to sign off in 3H. I have no problem > allowing the change > under 25A. > I have been very lenient in my rulings under the inadvertent > bid provisions > of L25A, unless partner has subsequently called, both before > and after Lille. > I think I follow most of Ton's posting below, but it seems to > me that he > might rule L25B (av minus at best) in the above case. I think so too. I > think I would allow > a change even if partner gave an audible gasp of pain. > > Cheers, > > Tony > Interesting statement. I think you are not allowed to do so. But I understand your feeling. ton From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 2 20:24:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA03343 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 20:24:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from fe010.worldonline.dk (fe010.worldonline.dk [212.54.64.195]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA03338 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 20:24:27 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 20392 invoked by uid 0); 2 Aug 1999 10:24:18 -0000 Received: from 30.ppp1-9.image.dk (212.54.73.158) by mail030.worldonline.dk with SMTP; 2 Aug 1999 10:24:18 -0000 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A Played Card? Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 10:24:18 GMT Message-ID: <37a66441.531874@mail.image.dk> References: <4.0.1.19990802105359.00f63900@pop.pegasus.com.au> In-Reply-To: <4.0.1.19990802105359.00f63900@pop.pegasus.com.au> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mon, 02 Aug 1999 11:06:00 +1000 skrev Roger Penny and Jane Stapleton: >An experienced player (and very fast) has developed the all too frequent >habit of detaching a card from her hand and standing it upright on the >table in front of her (although always with the face of the card hidden >from the rest of the table) before turning/dropping/flipping it face >upwards onto the table as her contribution to the trick in progress. L73 A2: Calls and plays should be made without special emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste ... >(1) If an opponent calls you to the table and points out this behaviour >pattern to you, claiming that they find it >annoying/distracting/inappropriate, what action - if any - would you take? I would point out L73 to her. >(2) If, as declarer, she decides that she would prefer to return this 'on >end' card to her hand and play another card to the trick in progress, would >you allow her to do so? Yes. L45 C2: Declarer must play a card from his hand held face up, touching or nearly touching the table, or maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played. I don't think the card's position indicates that it has been played. >(3) Would your ruling change in any way if she holds the card in the 'on >end' position before RHO has played a card to the trick? That is illegal. Law 74 B4: Etiquette As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from: [Cut] 3. detaching a card before it is his turn to play. >(4) Would your ruling change in any way if she holds the card in the 'on >end' position before RHO has played a card to the trick and then wants to >change the card because RHO plays an 'unexpected' card? L74 applies. I would allow the change since the card is not played. On top of that I'd instruct the defenders that they should call me again if they feel that they have been mislead by her manner. >(5) If your attention is drawn to the case cited in (4) BEFORE RHO plays >any card to this trick, would you rule that declarer has played a card out >of rotation? No. >(6) What would be your ruling in each case if the player is a defender, >rather than declarer? (1) (3) and (4) Same answer. (2) L45 C1: A defender's card held so that it is possible for his partner to see its face must be played to the current trick ... The card is not played. It can therefore be replaced. But the player now has conveyed UI to his partner. I'd instruct all players about law 16. >Does it matter? Yes. >(7) Would you consider assigning a procedural penalty in any of these cases? Certainly not the first time. Bertel -- Denmark http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 2 21:06:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA03453 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 21:06:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from nickel.cix.co.uk (nickel.compulink.co.uk [194.153.0.18]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA03443 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 21:05:58 +1000 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id MAA03222 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 12:05:20 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 23:10 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Established revoke To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: DWS wrote: > The point is that a claim does not establish an opponent's revoke. > Claiming establishes your own revoke, or partner's. Acquiescing in a > claim establishes your own revoke, or partner's. You might like to read > L63A3. > > In this case the defence contested the revoke, so they did not > acquiesce to it, so the revoke is not established thereby. The defence > thus gets a trick. L63A3 indicates that a single player may acquiesce in a claim situation whereas L69a implies that "Acquiescence" occurs only when a "contestant assents.." (apart from giving the potential for non-balancing scores in an individual this also apparently allows a watching team-mate to contest a claim). I would like to interpret this as "one player may acquiesce, two players acquiescing=acquiescence". This adds a slight layer of complexity to the original problem in that it is possible that LHO (holding no trumps) may indeed have acquiesced in the claim [the "(or in any other fashion)" in L63a3 sounds pretty broad to me] thus establishing the revoke. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 2 21:06:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA03454 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 21:06:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from nickel.cix.co.uk (nickel.compulink.co.uk [194.153.0.18]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA03444 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 21:06:01 +1000 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id MAA03211 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 12:05:17 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 23:10 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Antwort: Irrational(?) action in line statd with claim To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <37A303D4.660E1B8F@village.uunet.be> Herman wrote: > However, in the case we heard, there was no question about > which card would be played first : the Ace. There is then > no question that the bad break will be discovered. And no > problem as to the rationality of the next plays. IMO a small question remains. The advice to "discard black on black" on the first round of trumps is successful more often than it should be particularly against a certain sort of player. It may be that this is not sufficient to create "a doubt against declarer" but it should be given consideration. Indeed the number of declarers who might be fooled by this is, IMO, *far* higher than the number who would cash the Q first opposite AKTxx. My greatest annoyance with the claim laws is that they clearly cover two types of lines - the normal (including careless/inferior) and the irrational (ie clearly stupid). Often there is a third category which, for want of anything better I would term "the bizarre". These lines generally involve declarer cashing his supposed winners in a specific order which most players would consider unnatural. I would incline towards lumping bizarre in with irrational when adjudicating claims but I'd not quibble (except on literary grounds)with an official interpretation that "normal" includes the bizarre. How would people feel about a percentage guideline? Eg "The TD should consider how play would subsequently develop and, if he believes there is at least a 10% chance of declarer adopting a losing line rule against declarer." Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 2 21:11:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA03479 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 21:11:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA03474 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 21:11:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-85-211.uunet.be [194.7.85.211]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA23297 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 13:10:53 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37A57660.71B854C0@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 12:43:44 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) References: <3.0.1.32.19990720083937.006e8008@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19990718114612.01212088@pop.mindspring.com><199907162340.QAA09259@mailhub.irvine.com><199907162340.QAA09259@mailhub.irvine.com><3.0.1.32.19990718114612.01212088@pop.mindspring.com><3798809d.4798059@post12.tele.dk><3.0.1.32.19990720083937.006e8008@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990721090523.006eae90@pop.cais.com> <007c01bedbb2$52670f20$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> <37A43D3D.F193F1FC@village.uunet.be> <03dd01bedc8f$4a7b9640$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello Marv, list, I don't think we are in disagreement here, but I would like to comment on a few "touches". "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > > > > Now of course, when next you pass the forcing answer, and > > west asks, Alice should respond, "well, the last time he did > > that, he had zero points, but I don't expect him to pull > > that stunt again." or something like that. > > > > But yes, I think Alice's answer on this one was very good. > > And her answer will be the same next time, I hope, since "partnership > experience" has not altered her previously gained knowledge, and there is > no disclosable "special information" that was conveyed to her by this > auction. L75 includes no requirement to provide the meaning of every call > made by partner, nor does it require a historical summary of partnership > experience, unless that experience constitutes a *special* partnership > agreement. > I think you have that one wrong, Marv. L75C talks of "information through partnership experience". There is no need for you to tell Alice that you only psyche on less than 1 point. If she has figured that out for herself, she should tell them. So an answer like "the only previous time he did this he had 0 points" is the correct one. It tells the opponents to expect as few as zero, but as many as what they think would be normal. If you did it twice, she could say "He did this twice, once with 0, once with 3 points", which is also valuable information. My partners could truthfully answer, "I've never seen him do it with more than 3 points, but he's done it sufficiently often with 3 or less". > Now, suppose my LHO were to say to Alice (behind a screen, and I don't > know how this can be accomplished without a screen), "Evidently your > partner has psyched his opening bid. From your experience, what is the > average number of points he has when he passes your forcing response?" That would indeed be a possible question, but I believe the answer to it should be volunteered even if the question is less complete. A question like "what kind of hands could he be doing this on ?" should ilicit the same response as the question set above. > Such a question inquires as to style, not as to meaning. Style arises out > of partnership experience, even when meaning does not. Now she will > answer, lacking sufficient data to give a better response, "We have no > agreement as to style." Now that is a contradiction. L75C talks of agreement OR experience, thus clearly establishing that you do not need an agreement for there to be an obligation to disclose what you know. "Style" can be known from experience, not just from agreement. I have a particular psyching "style", so has everyone (for many psyching style = never, which is also a style). If my partner is aware of my "style", he should inform opponents. And if I psyche, within my style, when partner is someone I have met just half an hour earlier, then he need not disclose it (since he does not know it). > If I were to have psyched a number of times, and > only with zero points, then that would be special information, > disclosable. "In my experience he seems to require a hand with zero points > for this auction." If my pass of a forcing bid shows by partnership > agreement that I have perpetrated a K-S/Roth-Stone "disciplined psych," > lead-directing with a suit like KJxxx and nothing else, then my pass would > be Alertable. > Exactly. > In the old days, the questioner would send partner (client?) away from the > table before any inquiiry, as otherwise it could constitute an illegal > (L73B) communication of the information that I have psyched. Many pros, of > course, don't like to send client out of earshot, which may be why the > ACBL has discouraged the practice. > > With no screen, and partner present, then the questioner is on his honor > to ask questions only for his own need, not for partner's sake. If he > doesn't know what meaninig to ascribe to my pass, too bad, he will not > obtain that information. It is one of the penalties paid by the ignorant. > > And that's how I see it If L75C is to be meaningless, get it expunged > from the next version of the Laws. Or at least delete the word "special" > from L75, if it serves no function. > The word "special" is there to exclude things that everybody knows, such as common (to that country) forcing or non-forcing situations. > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 2 21:18:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA03507 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 21:18:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA03502 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 21:18:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id NAB24033; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 13:17:51 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JEAKFL3RX0001X3N@AGRO.NL>; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 13:16:56 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id <31GS0A9G>; Mon, 02 Aug 1999 13:16:54 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 13:16:44 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Cat Diary and Heart K To: "'Grattan Endicott'" , ton kooijman , Grattan Endicott , David Stevenson , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C1F1@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk One of the Dutch literature books they tell you about in highschool is written by two ladies, sending each other letters and combining those. Using e-mail Grattan and I are certainly capable of repeating this, using some-liners. I consider this to be a start. We probably have to delete those >> (you noticed I use them now?)not to get lost. > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: Grattan Endicott [mailto:Hermes@dodona.clara.co.uk] > Verzonden: zaterdag 31 juli 1999 21:34 > Aan: ton kooijman; Grattan Endicott; David Stevenson; > bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Onderwerp: Re: Cat Diary and Heart K > > > > Grattan - - - - - - - - - > There comes a time when you think you > know it all - round about your sixth birthday. > ================================= > does that get away again? (repeated) > > -----Original Message----- > From: ton kooijman > Subject: Re: Cat Diary and Heart K > Date: 31 July 1999 10:44 > > > > > > ---------------- \x/ ---------------- > >To Grattan: you shouldn't believe all those one-liners: > never heard about > >that statistician? He crossed a river which average depth of > one meter (3 > >feet for the ACBL) and drowned. > > +++ When you get to be a little more grey, ton, you will > learn to walk on water ! :-))) +++ > > -------------- \x/ ----------------- > > > . Proposal for 2007: > > +++ there is nothing sacrosanct about 2007. +++ > > >...,every such card becomes a penalty card. > > > +++ There you go. Ton and I both advocate black-and-white laws > in place of the present grey. We just don't always agree what is > black and what is white. For example, in my version of the > English language 'may' offers an option. ~ Grattan ~ +++ > We probably even agree on what is black and white, and though my English certainly lacks quality I know the optional character of 'may'. Isn't there some inconsistency in your statement? 'May'looks grey (good rhyme too), so let us make it black (or white). ton From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 2 21:24:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA03535 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 21:24:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.zeelandnet.nl (mail.zeelandnet.nl [62.12.12.194]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA03530 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 21:24:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from poivideo-6266 (e155.zeelandnet.nl [62.12.16.155]) by mail.zeelandnet.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA16299; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 13:26:56 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <199908021126.NAA16299@mail.zeelandnet.nl> From: "Marcel Schoof" To: "Anne Jones" , "BLML" Subject: Re: [Bidding boxes] Nodding/tapping for the final pass Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 13:24:28 +0200 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne, I agree that using the green pass-card should be learned as early as possible (bridge-school for example). The situation were the intended bid is unclear also happened in the following situation: N - E - S - W 1H - 2D - 3H - 4D 4H - 5D - P - P Now North picks up his bidding card and puts down a Double (holding SA, HA, DAK). Did he intend (by putting away his biddingcards) to Pass and is the double not-allowed. Or is the double a legitimate bid. In the actual case all others removed their card, so to them it was a surprise to see the double on the table. Deffenders claimed that it is normal to "say" you pass by putting your card away. Marcel Schoof ---------- > Van: Anne Jones > Aan: BLML > Onderwerp: Re: [Bidding boxes] Nodding/tapping for the final pass > Datum: zondag 1 augustus 1999 0:40 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bertel Lund Hansen > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Date: Saturday, July 31, 1999 10:50 PM > Subject: [Bidding boxes] Nodding/tapping for the final pass > > > >Sat, 31 Jul 1999 15:18:03 +0200 skrev Herman De Wael: > > > >>Indeed, compare it with the habit of not actually taking > >>green cards for the last three passes, but rather nodding, > > > >This is something that annoys me, though I haven't said so very > >often. > > > >In the beginning only /the/ final pass was substituted, and this > >is of course no problem. But when the next last or indeed the > >third last pass is substituted, it puts a "pressure" on the other > >players, and if they do not pass, the nod/tap is UI. > > > >What do others think of this habit? > > I agree with you and think the habit should be jumped upon > from a great height. It is one of the things that as a player I do > comment upon. Usually the question "not going to bid again > in this auction are you ?" or "lost interest in the auction have > you?" has the required effect, at least at my table. > Not the way to win friends however. I do save my worst sarcasm > for those that I am aware _do_ know better. > It's a duty to all of us to ensure that beginners to the game are > taught such things properly, and kindly. > Anne > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 2 22:15:56 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA03685 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 22:15:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from alushta.NL.net (alushta.NL.net [193.78.240.22]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA03676 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 22:15:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by alushta.NL.net with UUCP id <5801-27702>; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 14:15:19 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.8.2/8.8.2) with SMTP id NAA08502 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 13:57:52 +0200 From: Martin Sinot To: "Bridge Laws (E-mail)" Subject: RE: A Played Card? Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 14:04:41 +0200 Message-ID: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3A3@XION> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 In-Reply-To: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A024468837588E53@XION> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Roger Penny and Jane Stapleton wrote: >An experienced player (and very fast) has developed the all too frequent >habit of detaching a card from her hand and standing it upright on the >table in front of her (although always with the face of the card hidden >from the rest of the table) before turning/dropping/flipping it face >upwards onto the table as her contribution to the trick in progress. > >(1) If an opponent calls you to the table and points out this behaviour >pattern to you, claiming that they find it >annoying/distracting/inappropriate, what action - if any - would you take? I wouldn't take any action. IMO it is not forbidden to play a card that way. >(2) If, as declarer, she decides that she would prefer to return this 'on >end' card to her hand and play another card to the trick in progress, would >you allow her to do so? I would. For declarer, a card is played if it is held face up, touching or nearly touching the table or held such to indicate it has been played (L45C2). >(3) Would your ruling change in any way if she holds the card in the 'on >end' position before RHO has played a card to the trick? No. However, a player should refrain from detaching cards before it is his/her turn to play (L74B3). While I cannot forbid her to change her card, I can (and will) certainly tell her not to detach a card before it is her turn to play. If I get called again, I could assign a procedural penalty for violating etiquette. >(4) Would your ruling change in any way if she holds the card in the 'on >end' position before RHO has played a card to the trick and then wants to >change the card because RHO plays an 'unexpected' card? [For example, she >holds S.AQ and, having called for Sx from dummy, places SQ 'on end' on the >table, expecting to finesse while RHO is fumbling for a card and then wants >to change her "not-exposed-in-any-way" SQ and play SA instead because RHO >plays SK?] See above. The card is not played; still it is an etiquette violation. >(5) If your attention is drawn to the case cited in (4) BEFORE RHO plays >any card to this trick, would you rule that declarer has played a card out >of rotation? Makes no difference. In all these cases, the card is not played, but declarer must be told that she should not ready a card before it is her turn to play. >(6) What would be your ruling in each case if the player is a defender, >rather than declarer? Does it matter? It doesn't matter. For defenders, the rule is that a card is played if partner could have seen its face (45C1). This is not the case, but it is still an etiquette violation. >(7) Would you consider assigning a procedural penalty in any of these cases? Certainly. However, in such cases I probably first explain defender or declarer that playing this way is a violation of etiquette, and ask him/her to refrain from playing thus. If I am called again for the same offence, I assign a procedural penalty. >Roger Penny >Roger Penny & Jane Stapleton, >Directors, >Em2C: Educational MultiMedia Corporation >PO Box 344, >KINGSTON TAS. 7051 > >'PHONE: +61 3 6267 9500 >FAX: +61 3 6267 9506 >EMAIL: soundconnex@peg.apc.org >HOME PAGE: http://www.pegasus.com.au/~soundconnex Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 2 22:25:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA03656 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 22:04:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA03651 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 22:04:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11BGoq-0006gp-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 12:03:52 +0000 Message-ID: <2pfZfJAegQp3Ewog@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 03:53:18 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Trick 12 revoke MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk - - S trumps - W leads CQ - xx 6 E plays S6 ! - - S over-ruffs and takes both tricks - - W calls the TD because his partner Qx 8 x has revoked 8 - - The TD said the revoke must be corrected. South complains because the revoke "penalty" is to give revoker a trick!! Ok? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 2 22:33:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA03765 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 22:33:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand2.global.net.uk (sand2.global.net.uk [195.147.246.100]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA03760 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 22:33:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from pf8s10a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.138.249] helo=pacific) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11BHGu-0007sf-00; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 13:32:53 +0100 Message-ID: <001401bedce2$85659820$f98a93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." , "'John Probst'" , Subject: Re: Excuse me if I demur Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 13:21:10 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: 'John Probst' ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 02 August 1999 10:04 Subject: RE: Excuse me if I demur > >> > >> >Grattan> > - - - - - - - - - >> >There comes a time when you think you >> >know it all - round about your sixth birthday. >> >================================= >> > > >Does that go away again? > >ton > ++++ Not apparently when telling Ton and Grattan they are *both* wrong. ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 2 23:17:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA03889 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 23:17:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp1.a2000.nl (farida.a2000.nl [62.108.1.19]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA03884 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 23:17:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp1.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 11BHxX-0005F4-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 15:16:56 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19990802151440.008361c0@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 15:14:40 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: [Bidding boxes] Nodding/tapping for the final pass In-Reply-To: <199908021126.NAA16299@mail.zeelandnet.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 13:24 02-08-99 +0200, you wrote: >Anne, > >I agree that using the green pass-card should be learned as early as >possible (bridge-school for example). The situation were the intended bid >is unclear also happened in the following situation: > > N - E - S - W >1H - 2D - 3H - 4D >4H - 5D - P - P > >Now North picks up his bidding card and puts down a Double (holding SA, >HA, DAK). Did he intend (by putting away his biddingcards) to Pass and is >the double not-allowed. Or is the double a legitimate bid. > well, the D looks legitimate, the taking away of the bidding cards isnt. It suggests that partner is asked not to remove the D. So probably an adjusted score (the bidding goes on and 16A applies) will be issued (plus PP i think) Also 72B1 applies. regards, anton >In the actual case all others removed their card, so to them it was a >surprise to see the double on the table. Deffenders claimed that it is >normal to "say" you pass by putting your card away. > >Marcel Schoof > >---------- >> Van: Anne Jones >> Aan: BLML >> Onderwerp: Re: [Bidding boxes] Nodding/tapping for the final pass >> Datum: zondag 1 augustus 1999 0:40 >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Bertel Lund Hansen >> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >> Date: Saturday, July 31, 1999 10:50 PM >> Subject: [Bidding boxes] Nodding/tapping for the final pass >> >> >> >Sat, 31 Jul 1999 15:18:03 +0200 skrev Herman De Wael: >> > >> >>Indeed, compare it with the habit of not actually taking >> >>green cards for the last three passes, but rather nodding, >> > >> >This is something that annoys me, though I haven't said so very >> >often. >> > >> >In the beginning only /the/ final pass was substituted, and this >> >is of course no problem. But when the next last or indeed the >> >third last pass is substituted, it puts a "pressure" on the other >> >players, and if they do not pass, the nod/tap is UI. >> > >> >What do others think of this habit? >> >> I agree with you and think the habit should be jumped upon >> from a great height. It is one of the things that as a player I do >> comment upon. Usually the question "not going to bid again >> in this auction are you ?" or "lost interest in the auction have >> you?" has the required effect, at least at my table. >> Not the way to win friends however. I do save my worst sarcasm >> for those that I am aware _do_ know better. >> It's a duty to all of us to ensure that beginners to the game are >> taught such things properly, and kindly. >> Anne >> >> >> >> > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 2e Kostverlorenkade 114-1 1053 SB Amsterdam ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 3 00:16:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA04120 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 00:16:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from alushta.NL.net (alushta.NL.net [193.78.240.22]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA04115 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 00:16:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by alushta.NL.net with UUCP id <5581-3457>; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 16:15:33 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.8.2/8.8.2) with SMTP id PAA10440 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 15:45:52 +0200 From: Martin Sinot To: Subject: RE: Trick 12 revoke Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 15:52:40 +0200 Message-ID: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3A4@XION> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 In-Reply-To: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A024468837588E64@XION> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > - > - S trumps > - W leads CQ > - xx 6 E plays S6 ! > - - S over-ruffs and takes both tricks > - - W calls the TD because his partner > Qx 8 x has revoked > 8 > - > - > > The TD said the revoke must be corrected. > > South complains because the revoke "penalty" is to give revoker a >trick!! > > Ok? A revoke in trick 12 must be corrected. After the correction South still gets both tricks. So what is he complaining for? After all, NO penalty tricks are assigned if offender takes no tricks. Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 3 00:48:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA04199 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 00:48:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand.global.net.uk ([195.147.248.109]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA04194 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 00:48:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from p93s05a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.165.148] helo=pacific) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11BJNw-0002OE-00; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 15:48:17 +0100 Message-ID: <001501bedcf5$6ffcf6a0$94a593c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Tony Musgrove" Subject: Re: Just checking L25B, (was Law v Regulation) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 15:37:44 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 02 August 1999 08:17 Subject: Just checking L25B, (was Law v Regulation) >Good luck to Norman Hostetler who just wants to collect the consensus >opinions to put into his notebook > ---------------------------- \x/ -------------------- >> >>25 is a minefield, we know that and I beg you not to start all these "I >>don't like it - discussions" all over again. I tried to describe how 25B in >>my very personal individual opinion should work. And I personally don't mind >>if TD's do follow this approach for a while. Next 25B edition in Bermuda, >>where I will try to get this opinion confirmed. >> >>ton > ++++ I have no problem with anything in this last paragraph. I am not sure whether Ton and I can both be right but there it is. I might add that I have three levels of any law to address - (1) any statement by the current committee (especially if consolidated in a minute); (2) in the absence of (1) any record of an earlier decision; (3) in the absence of either of the foregoing my reading of the law. And, whether or no there is a (1) or (2) ruling, my opinion on it all. Concerning 25B I do not see myself entitled to overturn a minute, however little considered, which has been ratified by the WBF Executive (I agree with Ton that fate conspired to interfere with the Committee's opportunities of reviewing the minute, and we must try to avoid future interventions by the forces of chaos.). I can also say that I am wholly in favour of starting afresh with this one. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ >> > > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 3 01:26:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA04235 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 01:04:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA04221 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 01:02:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11BJbZ-0006yN-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 15:02:22 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 13:55:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [Bidding boxes] Nodding/tapping for the final pass References: <199908021126.NAA16299@mail.zeelandnet.nl> In-Reply-To: <199908021126.NAA16299@mail.zeelandnet.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marcel Schoof wrote: >Anne, > >I agree that using the green pass-card should be learned as early as >possible (bridge-school for example). The situation were the intended bid >is unclear also happened in the following situation: > > N - E - S - W >1H - 2D - 3H - 4D >4H - 5D - P - P > >Now North picks up his bidding card and puts down a Double (holding SA, >HA, DAK). Did he intend (by putting away his biddingcards) to Pass and is >the double not-allowed. Or is the double a legitimate bid. > >In the actual case all others removed their card, so to them it was a >surprise to see the double on the table. Deffenders claimed that it is >normal to "say" you pass by putting your card away. Under L25A he can correct an indavertent designation. It appears he intended to double, so we allow him to double. I make an attempt to find out why he picked up his bidding cards, though. If he meant to pass, so picked up his cards, then changed his mind, I shall stick him with the pass. If he is confused over how you use bidding boxes then I allow the double. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 3 01:56:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA04350 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 01:56:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA04342 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 01:56:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11BKS7-000GfY-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 15:56:40 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 16:35:44 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Excuse me if I demur References: <001401bedce2$85659820$f98a93c3@pacific> In-Reply-To: <001401bedce2$85659820$f98a93c3@pacific> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >From: Kooijman, A. >> >Grattan> >There comes a time when you think you >> >know it all - round about your sixth birthday. >>Does that go away again? >++++ Not apparently when telling Ton and Grattan >they are *both* wrong. ++++ That is extremely unfair, even if intended in jest. Do I need to say in **every** post that I may be wrong? I say it enough times. I am not the one on this list who thinks I am always right, and I say so frequently enough, I would think. You are quick enough to tell me I am wrong: do you think I should refrain from pointing out what I believe to be your mistakes? There are some people who write to this list who believe they are perfect. Well, they are not. I am certainly not one of them: I am always trying to learn. As far as the position that started this little spat, I still find your arguments unconvincing. Do you deny me the right to say so, without it being assumed that I believe I am perfect? We have a card exposed during the auction period that may disappear during the auction period. I find applying play period Laws to it unconvincing. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 3 01:56:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA04353 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 01:56:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA04344 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 01:56:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11BKSA-000J1n-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 15:56:42 +0000 Message-ID: <5ynqZzA$hbp3Ew5r@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 16:25:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Trick 12 revoke References: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A024468837588E64@XION> <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3A4@XION> In-Reply-To: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3A4@XION> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Martin Sinot wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: > >> - >> - S trumps >> - W leads CQ >> - xx 6 E plays S6 ! >> - - S over-ruffs and takes both tricks >> - - W calls the TD because his partner >> Qx 8 x has revoked >> 8 >> - >> - >> >> The TD said the revoke must be corrected. >> >> South complains because the revoke "penalty" is to give revoker a >>trick!! >> >> Ok? > >A revoke in trick 12 must be corrected. After the correction South >still gets both tricks. So what is he complaining for? After all, >NO penalty tricks are assigned if offender takes no tricks. He doesn't get both tricks: East makes his trump at trick 13. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 3 02:32:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA04236 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 01:04:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA04222 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 01:02:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11BJbg-0006yu-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 15:02:29 +0000 Message-ID: <7gGKNnA6mZp3Ew59@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 14:14:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Just checking L25B, (was Law v Regulation) References: <199908020557.PAA17620@oznet15.ozemail.com.au> In-Reply-To: <199908020557.PAA17620@oznet15.ozemail.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tony Musgrove wrote: >Good luck to Norman Hostetler who just wants to collect the consensus >opinions to put into his notebook. I think the last time there was a >consesus on any subject, HDW was away for two weeks (and perhaps DWS) as well. >I recently sought to test my understanding of L26A/B and received answers, >YES, NO, & MAYBE. >This a.m. I asked about whether the dropped King was AI or UI. The answers >so far are UI and AI (no maybe yet). > >So here goes: > >The bidding goes North South > 2H (weak 6cd) 2NT (Ogust) > 3C (weak hearts)pass > >South called me quite distressed. Obviously while explaining partner's >call, she forgot to sign off in 3H. I have no problem allowing the change >under 25A. >I have been very lenient in my rulings under the inadvertent bid provisions >of L25A, unless partner has subsequently called, both before and after Lille. >I think I follow most of Ton's posting below, but it seems to me that he >might rule L25B (av minus at best) in the above case. I think I would allow >a change even if partner gave an audible gasp of pain. Kaplan's argument in favour of the existence of L25B [as I understand it] was for sequences like the one given. If she "forgot to sign off in 3H" then this was a L25B case. That is not an inadvertent designation. Tell me, at the time the lady was about to bid, and her hand went towards the bidding box, what call was she reaching for? Pass? Then no change is allowed under L25A. To allow a change she must have been intending to reach for the 3H card and accidentally pulled the Pass card instead. In fact, her mind was elsewhere, on the explanation or whether to accept, and she forgot that 3H rather than pass was required to signoff - so L25B exists to correct this case. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 3 03:04:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA04687 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 03:04:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA04680 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 03:04:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11BLVQ-000DNt-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 17:04:10 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 17:57:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Trick 12 revoke In-Reply-To: <2pfZfJAegQp3Ewog@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <2pfZfJAegQp3Ewog@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes > > - > - S trumps > - W leads CQ > - xx 6 E plays S6 ! > - - S over-ruffs and takes both tricks > - - W calls the TD because his partner > Qx 8 x has revoked > 8 > - > - > > The TD said the revoke must be corrected. > > South complains because the revoke "penalty" is to give revoker a >trick!! > > Ok? > Yes. 12th trick revokes *must* be corrected. However 64C includes revokes not subject to penalty so I would adjust. 2 tricks to S. chs john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 3 03:04:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA04692 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 03:04:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA04681 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 03:04:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11BLVS-0000V8-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 17:04:10 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 18:02:16 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Just checking L25B, (was Law v Regulation) In-Reply-To: <199908020557.PAA17620@oznet15.ozemail.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199908020557.PAA17620@oznet15.ozemail.com.au>, Tony Musgrove writes >Good luck to Norman Hostetler who just wants to collect the consensus >opinions to put into his notebook. I think the last time there was a >consesus on any subject, HDW was away for two weeks (and perhaps DWS) as well. >I recently sought to test my understanding of L26A/B and received answers, >YES, NO, & MAYBE. >This a.m. I asked about whether the dropped King was AI or UI. The answers >so far are UI and AI (no maybe yet). > >So here goes: > >The bidding goes North South > 2H (weak 6cd) 2NT (Ogust) > 3C (weak hearts)pass > >South called me quite distressed. Obviously while explaining partner's >call, she forgot to sign off in 3H. I have no problem allowing the change >under 25A. >I have been very lenient in my rulings under the inadvertent bid provisions >of L25A, unless partner has subsequently called, both before and after Lille. >I think I follow most of Ton's posting below, but it seems to me that he >might rule L25B (av minus at best) in the above case. I think I would allow >a change even if partner gave an audible gasp of pain. > >Cheers, > >Tony I don't think the pass is inadvertent, it is careless. I'd rule 25B. You will have a problem now if your players have got used to being allowed to change their bids. I'd make an announcement to the effect that a "clarification of law" has indicated that these lapses can't be changed under 25A chs John -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 3 03:04:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA04697 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 03:04:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA04686 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 03:04:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11BLVP-0000V8-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 17:04:07 +0000 Message-ID: <4RGf4NAPrcp3EwKf@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 17:43:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Excuse me if I demur In-Reply-To: <001201bedc90$79e1e000$0a5208c3@swhki5i6> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <001201bedc90$79e1e000$0a5208c3@swhki5i6>, Grattan Endicott writes > >Grattan - - - - - - - - - >"Reading furnishes the mind only with materials >of knowledge; it is thinking makes what we read ours." > (John Locke) >========================================== >-----Original Message----- >From: John (MadDog) Probst >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Date: 02 August 1999 01:43 >Subject: Re: Excuse me if I demur > >> >>Beg to differ. Law 41C is perfectly clear when the play period begins >>and self evidently a player cannot be designated a defender until such >>happens. We get the circumlocutions of Law 41A referring to defender and >>presumed declarer. If declarer is presumed, then so must be defender. >> >>"The opening lead is faced, the play period begins and dummy's hand is >>spread." >> >>Since no opening lead has been made, we are still in the auction and Law >>24 still applies. >> >>The auction is closed agreed (but is re-openable) and declarer now >>decides whether to treat every such [exposed] card as a penalty card. If >>he decides it is not a penalty card it is restored to the offenders hand >>and the play period has still not begun. Thus we cannot apply Law 50 in >>any way. Posession of the card is AI, since the penalty (potentially >>that is) of having to pass at the next turn to call will have been paid. >> >>It seems perfectly clear. Declarer chooses whether the card is a penalty >>card. If it isn't end of story, otherwise we can use Law 50. >> >++++ I have no difficulty in understanding Law 41C. But where did you >get the idea that Law 50 only applies in the play period? Probably because it is in the section of Laws from 41 on, headed "Play". Law 24 makes it clear that Law 50 is to be applied, if and only if the card is deemed to be a penalty card by presumed declarer. If he deems it not to be a penalty card then there is no applicability of Law 50. no play period yet ... because there has been no opening lead. As I see it law 24 establishes a penalty for an exposed card in an auction, and at the end of that period the penalty has been paid. (offender's partner may have had to pass). At this point declarer has the option of taking the exposed card into the play period as a penalty card, or so-to-speak forgetting the whole matter. > It applies >whenever there is a defender and Law 24 is explicit in the fact that >the offender has become a defender - not is about to become - when >declarer chooses his option. We are not limited to choosing >between 24 and 50, each has its respective relevance to the >circumstance and there are defenders as soon as there is a >*presumed* declarer. G ++++ > I do now accept that there is a defender but only a presumed declarer in the interregnum between the auction being closed, and the play period starting however, and this "defender-soon-to-be" is the same being in both Laws 24 and 50. Maybe we're agreeing and arguing semantics. chs John -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 3 03:10:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA04734 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 03:10:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA04729 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 03:09:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id NAA18340 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 13:09:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA14106 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 13:09:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 13:09:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199908021709.NAA14106@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Excuse me if I demur X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > Beg to differ. Law 41C is perfectly clear when the play period begins > and self evidently a player cannot be designated a defender until such > happens. We get the circumlocutions of Law 41A referring to defender and > presumed declarer. If declarer is presumed, then so must be defender. L41A doesn't say "presumed" defender, but it seems reasonable to take that as the intended meaning. > Since no opening lead has been made, we are still in the auction and Law > 24 still applies. > The auction is closed agreed (but is re-openable) and declarer now > decides whether to treat every such [exposed] card as a penalty card. If > he decides it is not a penalty card it is restored to the offenders hand > and the play period has still not begun. Thus we cannot apply Law 50 in > any way. L24 says "becomes a defender," not "is about to become a defender." Even so, I agree with you. L49 makes an exception for "application of law," which seems to apply here, even if you think L49 itself applies at all. > Posession of the card is AI, since the penalty (potentially > that is) of having to pass at the next turn to call will have been paid. Could you cite a law reference for that, please? I don't see how the exposed card can be AI since 1997. A more interesting question, raised by Grattan I think, is whether declarer's waiver of the penalty is AI for either defender. On balance, I think it probably is AI (as did Grattan, IIRC), but there may be a case to the contrary. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 3 03:53:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA04820 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 03:53:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from fep1.post.tele.dk (fep1.post.tele.dk [195.41.46.133]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA04815 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 03:53:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from jd-private.internal ([195.249.193.98]) by fep1.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990802175236.DEFB4711.fep1@jd-private.internal> for ; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 19:52:36 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Trick 12 revoke Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 19:52:46 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <37a5da6d.2597825@post12.tele.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id DAA04816 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 2 Aug 1999 17:57:06 +0100, "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: >Yes. 12th trick revokes *must* be corrected. However 64C includes >revokes not subject to penalty so I would adjust. 2 tricks to S. 64C? I do not see how declarer was damaged by the revoke. Equity is one trick to each side. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 3 04:06:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA04847 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 04:06:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from aurora.alaska.edu (fxmgs@aurora.alaska.edu [137.229.18.100]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA04842 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 04:05:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (fxmgs@localhost) by aurora.alaska.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id KAA27770; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 10:05:43 -0800 (AKDT) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 10:05:40 -0800 (AKDT) From: Michael Schmahl To: Gordon Bower cc: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Incorrect score (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 2 Aug 1999, Gordon Bower wrote: : : : This was hilarious! : But it does raise an interesting question about what to do if both sides : agree on the wrong number, doesn't it.... : ------ : I once had a table that agreed upon a score of 75 (they couldn't be : bothered to work out if a stupid slam was down 1 or down 2). I couldn't : find a law that stopped them. : I am pretty sure Law 77 can be used to stop this kind of nonsense. If I were directing, and had no way to determine myself whether the contract was down 1 or down 2, I would probably like to assign +50 to the defenders, -100 to the declarers. But I can't find a law to allow this. signoff Michael Schmahl, aka "Mike", alias "Mike", dba "Mike" - Univ of AK, Fairbanks Unsolicited commercial email spellchecked for only $100! No warranties. rand:[ "He who dies with the most toys .. had too much money to spare." ] From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 3 04:13:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA04871 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 04:13:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA04866 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 04:13:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt092nb1.san.rr.com [204.210.48.177]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA10414 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 11:13:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <04c201bedd12$a7fd55a0$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199907292359.TAA10299@cfa183.harvard.edu> <37a8f6cf.4264471@post12.tele.dk> Subject: Re: L16A1 Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 11:08:13 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Just running through the messages on this subject after a week away in San Antonio, I like Jesper's approach best. As to ACBL's opt-out of L16A1, doesn't this "Election" imply that the TD is not to be called until *after* a call has been made that could be an infraction? It says that "players should summon the Director when they believe there may have been extraneous information available to the opponents resulting in calls or bids which could result in damage to their side." Not "might result in calls or bids," hence implying that a suspect call must be made before the TD is called. This reading is in the spirit of L16A2, which is *not* an option. It says that the TD should be summoned when a player "has substantial reason to believe" that UI has been misused. A footnote says that this is "when play ends, or, as to dummy, when dummy is exposed." The Election, as I read it, merely adds the possibility of summoning the TD during the auction, but not until a suspect call has been made. Note that the ACBL evidently doesn't know that a bid is a call. Who writes this stuff? If we were to call the TD every time someone hesitates, the number of TDs would have to be doubled. Is there a TD union lobbying for this approach? Election or not, I try to get the opponents to agree that there was a break in tempo at the time it occurs. If they don't agree, I usually forget it. Most of the time there is no infraction because of it, so why waste a TD's time? I have never known a TD to object when we four players tell him that an earlier break was agreed to by all. He usually heaves a sigh of relief. If the opponents are so inexperienced that they would not know their responsibilites after a break in tempo, perhaps needing TD instruction on the matter, then I would just pay no attention to the break in the first place. Such players are usually oblivious to partner's hesitations, or do the wrong thing anyway, and overall their hesitations in bidding and play help me much, much more than they injure me. Let them hesitate, and suggest (after the game) to the TD that they should be educated about UI. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 3 04:30:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA04756 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 03:21:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (mailhub.irvine.com [192.160.8.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA04751 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 03:20:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA31761; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 10:20:04 -0700 Message-Id: <199908021720.KAA31761@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Trick 12 revoke In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 02 Aug 1999 17:57:06 PDT." Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 10:20:05 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > In article <2pfZfJAegQp3Ewog@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson > writes > > > > - > > - S trumps It took me a little time to figure out this didn't mean "South trumps". > > - > > - S trumps > > - W leads CQ > > - xx 6 E plays S6 ! > > - - S over-ruffs and takes both tricks > > - - W calls the TD because his partner > > Qx 8 x has revoked > > 8 > > - > > - > > > > The TD said the revoke must be corrected. > > > > South complains because the revoke "penalty" is to give revoker a > >trick!! > > > > Ok? > > > Yes. 12th trick revokes *must* be corrected. However 64C includes > revokes not subject to penalty so I would adjust. 2 tricks to S. I don't see a basis for adjustment. Once West leads the the CQ, South is entitled to one trick, period---no legal play can produce a different result. L64C lets us adjust if South is insufficiently compensated by the revoke penalty (or lack thereof), but this is supposed to apply only if the revoke has cheated the non-offenders out of tricks they should have gotten, clearly not the case here. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 3 05:29:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA04766 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 03:22:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA04761 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 03:21:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id NAA18789 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 13:21:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA14119 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 13:21:34 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 13:21:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199908021721.NAA14119@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Dropped card X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > Before the opening lead against his 1NT (1NT, all pass) contract, RHO > accidentally dropped the heart 7 (from AQ107) on the table. This became a > minor penalty card, which does not have to be played at the first > opportunity. The leader led the heart 2 from Kxx2, perhaps the lead most > players would choose, his only other four-card suit being Axxx in spades. > The TD ruled that the leader did not gain useful information from the > exposed card. Wrong ruling, I think. The penalty card is UI, and it demonstrably suggests leading a heart. (If a random card of a hand is exposed, it is more likely to come from a long suit than a short suit.) I think a spade lead is a LA because some people might fear underleading a king and others would lead spades because the suit is stronger. Perhaps my opinion would be different if the spot cards in the two suits were of notably different rank. > David's partner was filling out a Player Memo Why? To complain about the TD? While I agree that it's better just to state the facts, there at least used to be a question something like "Why do you think this is worth reporting?" Obviously one wants to avoid unjustified accusations. > The PM concept looks like a good one to me, Isn't this the same thing as a "recorder form?" If so, it has been around quite a while. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 3 05:43:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA04916 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 04:15:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA04909 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 04:15:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from aryabhata.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@aryabhata.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.58]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA29044 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 14:15:12 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 14:15:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199908021815.OAA11391@aryabhata.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <37A2F559.795A211F@village.uunet.be> (message from Herman De Wael on Sat, 31 Jul 1999 15:08:41 +0200) Subject: Re: Irrational(?) action in line statd with claim Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael writes: > David Grabiner wrote: >> What actually happened when West objected to the claim was that West >> faced her hand, and *dummy* spoke up before the director arrived, saying >> "He can get back to his hand in a side suit and draw the trumps anyway." >> The director ruled that dummy's suggested line would not be allowed. >> This was in a KO match which would have been tied had the claim been >> granted. The offenders did not appeal; even had an AC ruled the claim >> allowed, it would have imposed a procedural penalty against dummy for >> correcting declarer's claim, and the procedural penalty would have been >> enough to cost the offenders the KO match. > I agree with David (S) when he says the penalty is > incorrect. > Dummy's statement is a valid part of the player pointing out > to the director what may or may not be obvious to him, and > as such is permitted. However, dummy made thie statement after attention had been drawn to the irregularity but before the TD was called. Declarer simply stated the alternative line, with a statement such as "West objected to my claim because she has five trumps, but I'll find that out on the first round, and can then get back to my hand in a side suit." The director was about to rule for declarer when West pointed out that the alternative line was the result of dummy's suggestion. The director then disallowed it. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner 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 Aug 3 06:08:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA05156 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 06:08:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from perseus.mminternet.com (IDENT:root@perseus.mminternet.com [207.175.72.16]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA05151 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 06:08:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from phillipm (covad2-143.mminternet.com [209.241.122.143] (may be forged)) by perseus.mminternet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA28156 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 13:06:12 -0700 Message-ID: <002b01bedd22$c44f23e0$8f7af1d1@mminternet.com> From: "Phillip Mendelsohn" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Dropped Card Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 13:08:18 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I haven't read this whole thread, but from what I can gander from the last posts, one of the players accidentally drops a card on the table face up during the auction period. The issue is, what does "declarer MAY choose to treat this a penalty card" mean? Can Declarer choose to NOT treat this as a penalty card? When this situation came up at the club, we phoned Memphis (ACBL) and spoke to Butch Campbell, second in command after Gary Blaiss where interpreting the Laws comes into play (so I have been told). His interpretation was that the faced card becomes the opening lead; Declarer has no option; the "may" language was left over from an older version of the Laws and overlooked, but should have been expunged. I also discussed this issue with several Nationally-rated Directors in San Antonio (NABC) and they had the same take: the faced card MUST become the opening lead. This all seems to be at odds with most of the discussion I have seen on this thread. Phillip Mendelsohn From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 3 06:15:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA05174 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 06:15:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from mid.minfod.com (mid.minfod.com [207.227.70.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA05169 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 06:15:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from [207.227.70.80] (helo=JNichols) by mid.minfod.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11BORb-0001GH-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 15:12:23 -0500 Message-Id: <4.1.19990802151204.00921870@popmid.minfod.com> X-Sender: jnichols@popmid.minfod.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 15:15:04 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John S. Nichols" Subject: Re: Trick 12 revoke In-Reply-To: References: <2pfZfJAegQp3Ewog@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:57 AM 8/2/99 , John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >> - >> - S trumps >> - W leads CQ >> - xx 6 E plays S6 ! >> - - S over-ruffs and takes both tricks >> - - W calls the TD because his partner >> Qx 8 x has revoked >> 8 >> - >> - >> >> The TD said the revoke must be corrected. >> >> South complains because the revoke "penalty" is to give revoker a >>trick!! >> >> Ok? >> >Yes. 12th trick revokes *must* be corrected. However 64C includes >revokes not subject to penalty so I would adjust. 2 tricks to S. > >chs john >-- Declarer gets 1 trick, Defenders 1. That is what would have happened without the revoke. That is equity. After east's revoke is corrected declarer may change his play, but this only determines which of the last two tricks he takes. John Nichols From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 3 06:55:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA05314 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 06:55:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA05309 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 06:55:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from eratosthenes.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@eratosthenes.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.61.150]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA02629; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 16:55:20 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 16:55:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199908022055.QAA02213@eratosthenes.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199908021721.NAA14119@cfa183.harvard.edu> (message from Steve Willner on Mon, 2 Aug 1999 13:21:34 -0400 (EDT)) Subject: Re: Dropped card Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >> David's partner was filling out a Player Memo > Why? To complain about the TD? > While I agree that it's better just to state the facts, there at least > used to be a question something like "Why do you think this is worth > reporting?" Obviously one wants to avoid unjustified accusations. Here's what actually happened; Marvin didn't give the whole story. I didn't see the incidents as dummy (North), so I'm relying on what she said. East fumbled with his cards after the final pass, exposing the H7 to South and apparently to West. South called the TD, and described that she had seen the H7 in the fumble. The H2 had already been led. The TD told West to put the H7 on the table as a minor penalty card. West instead put the SJ on the table, claiming that this had been the exposed card. The TD told West, "Sir, the H7 was the card I told you to put on the table; please put it there." After several requests, he finally put the H7 on the table. This is essentially what the Player Memo says (along with a subsequent section about the final results, which was further complicated because the TD made the wrong ruling after the SJ was exposed, and I was dummy and couldn't speak up.) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 3 07:27:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA05380 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 07:27:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA05375 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 07:27:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from eratosthenes.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@eratosthenes.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.61.150]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA03619 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 17:27:38 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 17:27:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199908022127.RAA02799@eratosthenes.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199908021721.NAA14119@cfa183.harvard.edu> (message from Steve Willner on Mon, 2 Aug 1999 13:21:34 -0400 (EDT)) Subject: Re: Dropped card Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner writes: >> David's partner was filling out a Player Memo > Why? To complain about the TD? While the TD did get something wrong, this was not the cause of the memo. In a previous incomplete message I explained what actually happened; the offender had put the H7 back in his hand (it was exposed in a fumble, not dropped), and when told by the TD to put the H7 on the table, he instead exposed the SJ. This could have been unethical behavior (attempting to hide the card he had shown to partner), or it could have been that he actually thought he had exposed the SJ. I think the second is more likely, because the director said, "Put the H7 on the table as a minor penalty card," and the player disobeyed. The TD gave the wrong book ruling; when the SJ was exposed, both penalty cards became major, and the H7 should thus have been played to the first trick, giving declarer an extra trick. He then gave the wrong adjustment ruling; when I called him back after the hand (as dummy, I couldn't ask for a book ruling during the play), he protected us to average-plus rather than correcting -100 to -50, the result that was likely or probable. This ties the problem in with the L12C thread. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner 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 Aug 3 07:39:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA05421 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 07:39:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA05410 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 07:39:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.10] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11BPnV-000Itt-00; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 22:39:06 +0100 Message-ID: <006201bedd2f$707a0980$0a5108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "John Probst" , Subject: Re: Excuse me if I demur Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 22:30:11 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 02 August 1999 18:34 Subject: Re: Excuse me if I demur > -------------------------- \x/ ------------------------ >> It applies >>whenever there is a defender and Law 24 is explicit in the fact that >>the offender has become a defender - not is about to become - when >>declarer chooses his option. We are not limited to choosing >>between 24 and 50, each has its respective relevance to the >>circumstance and there are defenders as soon as there is a >>*presumed* declarer. G ++++ >> >I do now accept that there is a defender but only a presumed declarer in >the interregnum between the auction being closed, and the play period >starting however, and this "defender-soon-to-be" is the same being in >both Laws 24 and 50. > >Maybe we're agreeing and arguing semantics. chs John ++ Oh yes, we have been for some time - everyone is clear enough, I think, about what happens. But I do think that to follow the plot it is often useful to start reading at Chapter One, where it does become clear that a defender comes into being at a point in time when declarer is still only presumed. Actually we should give the author some credit for observing the need in certain essentials to work a seamless join across the transition from auction to play, and creating a degree of overlap of Chapter V and Chapter VI laws to that end. Incidentally 'defender', not 'defender-to-be', as defined. I might add that, to apply the laws, the Director does not necessarily need to unpick their warp and weft, but on the hallowed ground of this list we are entitled to look for a secure understanding of how they are woven even when there are flaws in the cloth. ~ Grattan ~ ++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 3 07:39:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA05419 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 07:39:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA05409 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 07:39:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.10] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11BPnS-000Itt-00; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 22:39:03 +0100 Message-ID: <006001bedd2f$6ead38c0$0a5108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Excuse me if I demur Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 21:27:16 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 02 August 1999 17:24 Subject: Re: Excuse me if I demur >Grattan Endicott wrote: >>From: Kooijman, A. >>> >Grattan >>> >There comes a time when you think you >>> >know it all - round about your sixth birthday. > >>>Does that go away again? > >>++++ Not apparently when telling Ton and Grattan >>they are *both* wrong. ++++ > > That is extremely unfair, even if intended in jest> ++++ OK David. Pax. You came over presuming, whatever your intentions, and I responded in kind. Actually I do have a much thicker skin than some suspect, having operated as a Class I soccer referee for a long period of my life, but thick skin or not there are times when I blow the whistle. As for what convinces you, that is up to you; at least your eyes are now open to the fact that it is unwelcome if you dictate the law to a lot of old greybeards who have been marinating in it for years. A few more gentle questions could have proved a better tack, a technique I have adopted often enough in committees, as you will recall. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 3 08:17:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA05550 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 08:17:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA05545 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 08:17:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id SAA00247 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 18:17:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA14406 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 18:17:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 18:17:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199908022217.SAA14406@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Dropped Card X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Phillip Mendelsohn" Thanks for checking this with Memphis and for the report. > Butch Campbell, ... His interpretation was that > the faced card becomes the opening lead; Declarer has no option; the "may" > language was left over from an older version of the Laws and overlooked, but > should have been expunged. I have checked back to the 1975 Laws, and the relevant language has not changed since then. (The law was renumbered from 23A to 24 in 1987, but at a quick glance I see no other changes.) Anybody have a copy of the 1963 Laws at hand? There were major changes in 1975, and it's not surprising that an error could have been made then, but it is a little surprising that nobody has noticed until now. Was 1975 the first year Kaplan had major influence on the Laws? Is that why there were so many changes in that edition? Even if this is an error, shouldn't we follow the law as written absent an official instruction to the contrary? Is Butch Campbell authorized to give such an instruction within the ACBL? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 3 08:48:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA05623 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 08:48:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA05618 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 08:48:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from eratosthenes.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@eratosthenes.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.61.150]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA05254 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 18:48:36 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 18:48:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199908022248.SAA03946@eratosthenes.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Dummy's right to correct TD Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In an E-mail discussion with Steve Willner about the "dropped card" ruling, I encountered a question about dummy's L42A1 rights I was dummy, and the TD made a ruling (without looking it up in the book) which I believed to be incorrect. Did I have the right to speak up at that point as ask the TD to look up the ruling from the law book, since none of the other players were familiar with the law? L42A seems to allow dummy to "give information in the Director's presence"; would that apply to this case? -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner 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 Aug 3 09:33:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA05710 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 09:33:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA05700 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 09:32:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.147] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11BRYm-000LkG-00; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 00:32:00 +0100 Message-ID: <00d201bedd3f$362316e0$0a5108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Phillip Mendelsohn" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Dropped Card Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 00:13:25 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Date: 02 August 1999 21:38 Subject: Dropped Card -------------------------------------- \x/ ---------------------------- Mr. Mendelsohn reports that he was told: > >the "may" language was left over from an older version >of the Laws and overlooked, but should have been >expunged. > ------------------------- \x/ -------------------------- ++One must resort to the virtue of asses. Who is so knowledgeable as to say what I may have overlooked? The word 'may' was there in 1963, in 1975, and in 1987. In the run-up to the production of the 1987 laws my note tells me that I looked at the word 'may' and felt it was user- friendly for the little folk in the little bridge clubs. I took the view that it was a beneficial word for the game. So I made no move for change. Prior to publication of the 1997 laws I gave it scant attention because I had made my judgement ten years earlier and had encountered no reason to rethink it. The gentleman who said that something here was overlooked speaks from ignorance of the facts, and is in no condition at all to say what 'should' have happened. ~ Grattan ~ ++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 3 09:33:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA05709 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 09:33:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA05699 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 09:32:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.147] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11BRYn-000LkG-00; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 00:32:01 +0100 Message-ID: <00d301bedd3f$36f42280$0a5108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: Excuse me if I demur Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 00:31:03 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 02 August 1999 18:39 Subject: Re: Excuse me if I demur ------------------- \x/ ------------------------- > >A more interesting question, raised by Grattan I think, is whether >declarer's waiver of the penalty is AI for either defender. On >balance, I think it probably is AI (as did Grattan, IIRC), but there >may be a case to the contrary. > +++++ I don't think I raised the question, but I did make some comment on it by raising some doubts to see what response was made to them. (1) In the first place it appears to me to be speculative to infer that declarer's option has to signify that he does not want the card led. There is possibility, could be probability, that it is so, but there is no certainty. (2) More substantially, I am at a loss to see where the laws provide that such a choice can provide unauthorised information. Declarer has not withdrawn any action so 16C offers nothing. Partner has done nothing that could convey information. Law 55C has been cited but this refers to information obtained by declarer in consequence specifically of declarer's own lead out of turn - the infraction in it is that infraction and no other. I need to be convinced that there is any part of the laws that is a basis for possibly ruling UI. ~ Grattan ~ +++++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 3 09:40:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA05740 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 09:40:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA05729 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 09:39:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11BRfa-0002SB-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 23:39:03 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 00:31:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Trick 12 revoke In-Reply-To: <37a5da6d.2597825@post12.tele.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <37a5da6d.2597825@post12.tele.dk>, Jesper Dybdal writes >On Mon, 2 Aug 1999 17:57:06 +0100, "John (MadDog) Probst" > wrote: > >>Yes. 12th trick revokes *must* be corrected. However 64C includes >>revokes not subject to penalty so I would adjust. 2 tricks to S. > >64C? I do not see how declarer was damaged by the revoke. >Equity is one trick to each side. > He would have gotten two tricks if the revoke law hadn't stopped him, and so he has been damaged by the failure of the revoke law to compensate for the damage caused. john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 3 09:40:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA05741 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 09:40:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA05730 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 09:39:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11BRfa-000FIU-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 23:39:03 +0000 Message-ID: <9$R+DkASkip3EwIG@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 00:26:10 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Excuse me if I demur In-Reply-To: <199908021709.NAA14106@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199908021709.NAA14106@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes snip > >> Posession of the card is AI, since the penalty (potentially >> that is) of having to pass at the next turn to call will have been paid. > >Could you cite a law reference for that, please? I don't see how the >exposed card can be AI since 1997. > law 72A5 >A more interesting question, raised by Grattan I think, is whether >declarer's waiver of the penalty is AI for either defender. On >balance, I think it probably is AI (as did Grattan, IIRC), but there >may be a case to the contrary. I'm of the same view. chs john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 3 10:17:04 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA05807 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 10:17:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA05802 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 10:16:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt092nb1.san.rr.com [204.210.48.177]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA12132 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 17:16:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <04ca01bedd45$78325900$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3.0.1.32.19990720083937.006e8008@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19990718114612.01212088@pop.mindspring.com><199907162340.QAA09259@mailhub.irvine.com><199907162340.QAA09259@mailhub.irvine.com><3.0.1.32.19990718114612.01212088@pop.mindspring.com><3798809d.4798059@post12.tele.dk><3.0.1.32.19990720083937.006e8008@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990721090523.006eae90@pop.cais.com> <007c01bedbb2$52670f20$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> <37A43D3D.F193F1FC@village.uunet.be> <03dd01bedc8f$4a7b9640$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> <37A57660.71B854C0@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 17:16:18 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > Hello Marv, list, > > I don't think we are in disagreement here, but I would like > to comment on a few "touches". > > "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > > > > > > > Now of course, when next you pass the forcing answer, and > > > west asks, Alice should respond, "well, the last time he did > > > that, he had zero points, but I don't expect him to pull > > > that stunt again." or something like that. > > > > > > But yes, I think Alice's answer on this one was very good. > > > > And her answer will be the same next time, I hope, since "partnership > > experience" has not altered her previously gained knowledge, and there is > > no disclosable "special information" that was conveyed to her by this > > auction. L75 includes no requirement to provide the meaning of every call > > made by partner, nor does it require a historical summary of partnership > > experience, unless that experience constitutes a *special* partnership > > agreement. > > > > I think you have that one wrong, Marv. > > L75C talks of "information through partnership experience". It talks of *special* information, why does everyone tend to omit that adjective?. > There is no need for you to tell Alice that you only psyche > on less than 1 point. If she has figured that out for > herself, she should tell them. She will not keep a diary of my very infrequent psychs, and likely won't remember anything about them. Just now I asked her how many points I had when I passed her 1H bid, and she doesn't know. If she were to keep a diary over, say, a 10 year period, she would find that I had no consistent HCP count in the 10 or so psychs she might record. But she won't be keeping a diary, until Eric and others get that into the regulations. We have no special partnership agreement on this matter, no special information will be acquired through partnership experience, there is nothing to disclose. > > Now, suppose my LHO were to say to Alice (behind a screen, and I don't > > know how this can be accomplished without a screen), "Evidently your > > partner has psyched his opening bid. From your experience, what is the > > average number of points he has when he passes your forcing response?" > > That would indeed be a possible question, but I believe the > answer to it should be volunteered even if the question is > less complete. There is no such requirement in the Laws. As with disclosing the true nature of your hand when it does not accord with a partnership agreement, that might be great sportsmanship or a foolish giveaway, depending on one's attitude about such things. It is not required. > A question like "what kind of hands could he be doing this > on ?" should ilicit the same response as the question set > above. The response is: "We have no special partnership agreement, implicit or explicit, on that. He probably has the sort of hand one might expect, nothing unusual, based on what I can remember." > > > Such a question inquires as to style, not as to meaning. Style arises out > > of partnership experience, even when meaning does not. Now she will > > answer, lacking sufficient data to give a better response, "We have no > > agreement as to style." > > Now that is a contradiction. L75C talks of agreement OR > experience, thus clearly establishing that you do not need > an agreement for there to be an obligation to disclose what > you know. *Special* partnership agreement, please. You do not have to disclose inferences drawn from your general knowledge and experience. If the opponent is a novice or from a different bridge environment, then Kaplan hoped (in correspondence with me) that I would disclose anything they want to know about, just to be nice, even though it is not required. I agree with that. > "Style" can be known from experience, not just > from agreement. I have a particular psyching "style", so > has everyone (for many psyching style = never, which is also > a style). > If my partner is aware of my "style", he should inform > opponents. > And if I psyche, within my style, when partner is someone I > have met just half an hour earlier, then he need not > disclose it (since he does not know it). I don't disagree (much) with those statements. A *distinctive* style, one that could not be assumed, should be disclosed if known, especially if it is a matter of special partnership agreement. > > And that's how I see it If L75C is to be meaningless, get it expunged > > from the next version of the Laws. Or at least delete the word "special" > > from L75, if it serves no function. > > > > The word "special" is there to exclude things that everybody > knows, such as common (to that country) forcing or > non-forcing situations. Unwarranted assumption, no evidence of that meaning. The word *everybody* is not in L75C. L75C: A player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience, but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge and experience. The word *special* attached to *information* is explained by the subsequent clause, a common device in English composition.. It characterizes information that is not drawn from a player's general knowledge and experience. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 3 10:34:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA05854 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 10:34:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from barra.jcu.edu.au (barra.jcu.edu.au [137.219.16.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA05849 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 10:34:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (sci-lsk@localhost) by barra.jcu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA06740 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 10:34:21 +1000 (EST) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 10:34:21 +1000 (EST) From: Laurie Kelso To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Dropped card In-Reply-To: <199908021721.NAA14119@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 2 Aug 1999, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: "Marvin L. French" > > Before the opening lead against his 1NT (1NT, all pass) contract, RHO > > accidentally dropped the heart 7 (from AQ107) on the table. This became a > > minor penalty card, which does not have to be played at the first > > opportunity. The leader led the heart 2 from Kxx2, perhaps the lead most > > players would choose, his only other four-card suit being Axxx in spades. > > The TD ruled that the leader did not gain useful information from the > > exposed card. > > Wrong ruling, I think. The penalty card is UI, and it demonstrably > suggests leading a heart. (If a random card of a hand is exposed, it > is more likely to come from a long suit than a short suit.) I think a > spade lead is a LA because some people might fear underleading a king > and others would lead spades because the suit is stronger. Perhaps my > opinion would be different if the spot cards in the two suits were of > notably different rank. David Grabiner has since given an accurate description of what really happened at the table, however I would argue with Steve about the existence of UI in the scenario described above. If the card was accidently dropped, then there is no UI avaliable regarding RHO's intent. Also to draw an inference about the number of cards of a particular suit in hand from the size of card dropped seems a long way short of the "demonstrably suggested" criteria required by 16C2. The original action (dropping the card) isn't even a withdrawn play. Laurie (Australia) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 3 10:47:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA05875 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 10:47:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from barra.jcu.edu.au (barra.jcu.edu.au [137.219.16.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA05870 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 10:47:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (sci-lsk@localhost) by barra.jcu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA12054 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 10:47:33 +1000 (EST) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 10:47:33 +1000 (EST) From: Laurie Kelso To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Trick 12 revoke In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > In article <37a5da6d.2597825@post12.tele.dk>, Jesper Dybdal > writes > >On Mon, 2 Aug 1999 17:57:06 +0100, "John (MadDog) Probst" > > wrote: > > > >>Yes. 12th trick revokes *must* be corrected. However 64C includes > >>revokes not subject to penalty so I would adjust. 2 tricks to S. > > > >64C? I do not see how declarer was damaged by the revoke. > >Equity is one trick to each side. > > > He would have gotten two tricks if the revoke law hadn't stopped him, > and so he has been damaged by the failure of the revoke law to > compensate for the damage caused. john Surely the phrase "..the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by this Law for the damage caused.." refers to damage caused by the revoke? You appear to be arguing that there is some damage caused due to applying Law 62D1. What about Law 12B? Laurie (Australia) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 3 11:58:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA05984 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 11:58:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA05979 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 11:58:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt092nb1.san.rr.com [204.210.48.177]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA25983 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 18:58:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <053b01bedd53$9dc1cb20$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199908021721.NAA14119@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Dropped card Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 18:47:54 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > From: "Marvin L. French" > > Before the opening lead against his 1NT (1NT, all pass) contract, RHO > > accidentally dropped the heart 7 (from AQ107) on the table. This became a > > minor penalty card, which does not have to be played at the first > > opportunity. The leader led the heart 2 from Kxx2, perhaps the lead most > > players would choose, his only other four-card suit being Axxx in spades. > > The TD ruled that the leader did not gain useful information from the > > exposed card. > > Wrong ruling, I think. The penalty card is UI, and it demonstrably > suggests leading a heart. (If a random card of a hand is exposed, it > is more likely to come from a long suit than a short suit.) I think a > spade lead is a LA because some people might fear underleading a king > and others would lead spades because the suit is stronger. Perhaps my > opinion would be different if the spot cards in the two suits were of > notably different rank. Good points. Also, a player with many high cards in a suit is more likely to drop a high card than a low card. That is, a high card is more likely from 10987 than from 7432. I don't know if this UI passes the criterion of "demonstrably suggested," however. > > > David's partner was filling out a Player Memo > > Why? To complain about the TD? No. As she explained to me (there's a lot more to the story, David tells me privately), she thought it was a bit odd that the card dropped was from the best suit in the opponent's hand, and that the incident ought to be recorded in case the player involved makes a habit of doing this. When the player was instructed by the TD to put the H2 back on the table after he had replaced it in his hand, he instead put the spade jack on the table! I'll ask David to relate the whole story, I might screw it up. > > While I agree that it's better just to state the facts, there at least > used to be a question something like "Why do you think this is worth > reporting?" Obviously one wants to avoid unjustified accusations. The answer is "It just looked odd to me," I suppose. The actual question on the PM is "Please express your concern in this matter." Equivalent to what you remember. It invites unjustified accusations and ought to be omitted. The facts should speak for themselves. > > > The PM concept looks like a good one to me, > > Isn't this the same thing as a "recorder form?" If so, it has been > around quite a while. It's Player Memo, and has been around for several years now. Didn't mean to imply that it's something brand new. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 3 12:00:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA05999 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 12:00:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp5.mindspring.com (smtp5.mindspring.com [207.69.200.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA05994 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 12:00:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from mindspring.com (pool-207-205-159-135.lsan.grid.net [207.205.159.135]) by smtp5.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA18823 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 22:00:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <37A64DE2.FFF10CED@mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 19:03:14 -0700 From: "John R. Mayne" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) References: <3.0.1.32.19990720083937.006e8008@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19990718114612.01212088@pop.mindspring.com><199907162340.QAA09259@mailhub.irvine.com><199907162340.QAA09259@mailhub.irvine.com><3.0.1.32.19990718114612.01212088@pop.mindspring.com><3798809d.4798059@post12.tele.dk><3.0.1.32.19990720083937.006e8008@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990721090523.006eae90@pop.cais.com> <007c01bedbb2$52670f20$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> <37A43D3D.F193F1FC@village.uunet.be> <03dd01bedc8f$4a7b9640$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> <37A57660.71B854C0@village.uunet.be> <04ca01bedd45$78325900$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Marvin L. French" wrote: > >Herman wrote > > > There is no need for you to tell Alice that you only psyche > > on less than 1 point. If she has figured that out for > > herself, she should tell them. > > She will not keep a diary of my very infrequent psychs, and likely won't > remember anything about them. Just now I asked her how many points I had > when I passed her 1H bid, and she doesn't know. If she were to keep a > diary over, say, a 10 year period, she would find that I had no consistent > HCP count in the 10 or so psychs she might record. But she won't be > keeping a diary, until Eric and others get that into the regulations. We > have no special partnership agreement on this matter, no special > information will be acquired through partnership experience, there is > nothing to disclose. > > > > Now, suppose my LHO were to say to Alice (behind a screen, and I don't > > > know how this can be accomplished without a screen), "Evidently your > > > partner has psyched his opening bid. From your experience, what is the > > > average number of points he has when he passes your forcing response?" > > > > That would indeed be a possible question, but I believe the > > answer to it should be volunteered even if the question is > > less complete. > > There is no such requirement in the Laws. I disagree. There is a clear right of the opponents to know what your partner knows about his psyches. Suppose the auction goes 2N-P-3C-P-P, question: What's pass of 3C? Or, "Please explain." I would expect whichever of the below explanations applied: 1. He's never done this before. 2. He's done this 10 times in the last five years; we play hundreds of sessions a year. Of those, most of the time he has a weak hand with clubs. Twice, he's had a regular opening 2NT and psyched the pass. 3. I am uncertain, but I believe from partnership discussion and experience that he's forgotten the bloody system again and thought when he opened that we are playing 2NT for the minors. He could have psyched but he never does and I know that he plays 2NT for the minors with all of his other partners. As with disclosing the true > nature of your hand when it does not accord with a partnership agreement, > that might be great sportsmanship or a foolish > giveaway, depending on one's attitude about such things. It is not > required. It is required. If asked, the proper response is "He's only done this once before that I can recall, and on that occasion he had zero points. We have had no discussion or other experience which give me any clues." > > > A question like "what kind of hands could he be doing this > > on ?" should ilicit the same response as the question set > > above. > > The response is: "We have no special partnership agreement, implicit or > explicit, on that. He probably has the sort of hand one might expect, > nothing unusual, based on what I can remember." Feh. If you play against me and it goes 1D-hitch P-1H-P I might at favorable pass with a 4=2=4=3 19-count and try to catch you. Is that what you think they "might expect"? > *Special* partnership agreement, please. You do not have to disclose > inferences drawn from your general knowledge and experience. If the > opponent is a novice or from a different bridge environment, then Kaplan > hoped (in correspondence with me) that I would disclose anything they want > to know about, just to be nice, even though it is not required. I agree > with that. I still have seen no satisfactory answer to my statement that "special" applies to every partnership agreement in this age. KQJxxx xxx xxx x is a 3S opener, first seat, all red, IMPs. If it isn't for you, you're weird and I don't have to tell you what I think is bridge. Marv's argument is parallel to this. We all have radically different theories on many basic, simple auctions. I have a right to know these things. > > > "Style" can be known from experience, not just > > from agreement. I have a particular psyching "style", so > > has everyone (for many psyching style = never, which is also > > a style). > > If my partner is aware of my "style", he should inform > > opponents. > > And if I psyche, within my style, when partner is someone I > > have met just half an hour earlier, then he need not > > disclose it (since he does not know it). > > I don't disagree (much) with those statements. A *distinctive* style, one > that could not be assumed, should be disclosed if known, especially if it > is a matter of special partnership agreement. Huh? What psyching style can be assumed? 2H-P-3N is often a psyche, can that be assumed? 2H-P-2S; is that an "assumed" psyche? As I've said before, I despise the latter and will not make that psyche. If the opponents ask, they have an absolute right to know; if they ask my pard if I'm likely to be fooling around with 2S, the answer is "no." If they ask Marv, they get no answer? Bah! > > > > And that's how I see it If L75C is to be meaningless, get it expunged > > > from the next version of the Laws. Or at least delete the word > "special" > > > from L75, if it serves no function. I'd be for that last, but "special" does serve a function. Just not the one you think it does. --JRM, who promised earlier to try and remain silent, but couldn't. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 3 13:33:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA06119 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 13:33:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from primus.ac.net (primus.ac.net [205.138.54.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA06114 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 13:33:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (vn-0-10.ac.net [205.138.47.181]) by primus.ac.net (8.9.2/8.9.2) with SMTP id XAA16332 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 23:33:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199908030333.XAA16332@primus.ac.net> X-Sender: lobo@mail.ac.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Sun, 01 Aug 1999 22:29:44 -0700 To: Bridge Laws discussion group From: Linda Trent Subject: Re: L16A1 In-Reply-To: <8db3b968.24d39796@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have been working on trying to restore "reserving rights" for break in tempo situations only. Don't know how I've been doing, but this is the letter I sent to Val: The Board has elected (Law 16A1) to "not allow competitors to announce that they reserve the right to summon the Director later. They should summon the Director immediately when they believe there may have been extraneous information available to the opponents resulting in calls or bids which could result in damage to their side." This works well when there has been a "remark, question, reply to a question, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, or mannerism" because Director calls for these infractions are infrequent. There is, however, a problem with “unmistakable hesitation” and “unwonted speed” which happen more frequently. It is suggested that the following language be added to the Elections for Law 16A1: "Players are permitted to seek the agreement of their opponents that a significant break in tempo has occurred. Failing to reach such an agreement, the Director must be summoned at once." This will allow players to agree that there has been a break in tempo and then wait for evidence that the extraneous information (seeing the dummy, conclusion of play when declarer’s or defender’s hands are known) may have influenced the offender’s choice of calls before the Director is called. Linda P.S. large number (way too) of appeals in San Antonio. 21 in NABC+ events (seven on the last two nights in the NABC Master Mixed Teams - no Spingold appeals) and at least 25 (we think there may a few more the Directors have not reported to us yet) I think 13 of them made it into the Daily Bulletins - at least that's how many I gave Henry to publish :-) We handed out a pile of AWMPPs - around ten - but that is by memory, may be a few less. Spoke again with some folks to see about getting all appeals posted somewhere on the ACBL web site - may have made some progress - will let you know. I will be working on finishing up all the write-ups for a couple of weeks, I'm sure. Made it the rest of the way to CA! Car is now here in one piece. Will be out the rest of the week as I return to the East to fly Gus and Panda over, so may not check e-mail again until next Monday. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 3 14:10:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA06154 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 14:10:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp1.gte.net (smtp1.gte.net [207.115.153.30]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA06149 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 14:10:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from phillipm (covad2-143.mminternet.com [209.241.122.143] (may be forged)) by smtp1.gte.net with SMTP for ; id XAA19238 Mon, 2 Aug 1999 23:09:36 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <001901bedd65$f962f500$8f7af1d1@mminternet.com> From: "Phillip Mendelsohn" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Dropped Card Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 21:09:22 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I certainly am in no position to quarrel with Grattan about this matter, and I certainly do not disagree with him. However, the subscribers to this list should at least be aware that in ACBL-land, the interpretation I previously mentioned has come down from on high (i.e., Memphis), and as far as ACBL TDs are concerned, that interpretation is the "law of the land" until someone (i.e., Gary Blaiss or the Laws Commission) says otherwise. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 3 14:50:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA06190 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 14:50:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA06183 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 14:50:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11BUO8-0002si-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 02:33:14 +0000 Message-ID: <7rI6vgBB3ip3EwpO@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 00:46:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Incorrect score (fwd) References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Schmahl wrote: >On Mon, 2 Aug 1999, Gordon Bower wrote: > >: >: >: This was hilarious! >: But it does raise an interesting question about what to do if both sides >: agree on the wrong number, doesn't it.... >: ------ >: I once had a table that agreed upon a score of 75 (they couldn't be >: bothered to work out if a stupid slam was down 1 or down 2). I couldn't >: find a law that stopped them. >: > >I am pretty sure Law 77 can be used to stop this kind of nonsense. If I >were directing, and had no way to determine myself whether the contract >was down 1 or down 2, I would probably like to assign +50 to the >defenders, -100 to the declarers. But I can't find a law to allow this. Thank goodness for that! There are enough decisions at the moment not being made by TDs when they should be. It is far better to accept that there is *always* some evidence to decide whcih way, so you have to look for it. We do not want more "cop-out" Laws! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 3 14:51:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA06195 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 14:51:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA06189 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 14:50:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11BUO8-0002sh-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 02:33:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 00:38:42 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Irrational(?) action in line statd with claim References: <37A2F559.795A211F@village.uunet.be> <199908021815.OAA11391@aryabhata.math.lsa.umich.edu> In-Reply-To: <199908021815.OAA11391@aryabhata.math.lsa.umich.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: >Herman De Wael writes: > >> David Grabiner wrote: > >>> What actually happened when West objected to the claim was that West >>> faced her hand, and *dummy* spoke up before the director arrived, saying >>> "He can get back to his hand in a side suit and draw the trumps anyway." >>> The director ruled that dummy's suggested line would not be allowed. > >>> This was in a KO match which would have been tied had the claim been >>> granted. The offenders did not appeal; even had an AC ruled the claim >>> allowed, it would have imposed a procedural penalty against dummy for >>> correcting declarer's claim, and the procedural penalty would have been >>> enough to cost the offenders the KO match. > >> I agree with David (S) when he says the penalty is >> incorrect. > >> Dummy's statement is a valid part of the player pointing out >> to the director what may or may not be obvious to him, and >> as such is permitted. > >However, dummy made thie statement after attention had been drawn to the >irregularity but before the TD was called. Declarer simply stated the >alternative line, with a statement such as "West objected to my claim >because she has five trumps, but I'll find that out on the first round, >and can then get back to my hand in a side suit." The director was >about to rule for declarer when West pointed out that the alternative >line was the result of dummy's suggestion. The director then disallowed >it. Well, any AC that issued a PP against dummy is way out of line. A **really** vicious AC, of the Judge Jeffries type, might issue a PP against declarer, but before they do they better be damn sure that there was no error by the Director. When the Director was called, did he or did he not ask the player specifically to "Repeat the statement you made when you originally claimed". If he said that and then declarer didn't, then a PP might be in order. If he did not do so, then you are giving declarer a PP for being one of the 89% of players who do not understand the claiming Laws in detail, which is not fair. Personally, I would think a PP would be fairer against the TD in such a case! I think, David, that it would be helpful [if you know] if you told us what the Director said to the players. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 3 14:58:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA06225 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 14:58:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from iac12.navix.net (iac12.navix.net [207.91.5.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA06220 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 14:58:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from navix.net (cras36p60.navix.net [205.242.158.63]) by iac12.navix.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA30795; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 23:48:39 -0500 Message-ID: <37A91696.9EDEACD9@navix.net> Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 23:44:06 -0500 From: "Norman H. Hostetler" Reply-To: nh35422@navix.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Laurie Kelso CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Dropped card References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Laurie Kelso wrote: > On Mon, 2 Aug 1999, Steve Willner wrote: > > > > From: "Marvin L. French" > > > Before the opening lead against his 1NT (1NT, all pass) contract, RHO > > > accidentally dropped the heart 7 (from AQ107) on the table. This became a > > > minor penalty card, which does not have to be played at the first > > > opportunity. The leader led the heart 2 from Kxx2, perhaps the lead most > > > players would choose, his only other four-card suit being Axxx in spades. > > > The TD ruled that the leader did not gain useful information from the > > > exposed card. > > > > Wrong ruling, I think. The penalty card is UI, and it demonstrably > > suggests leading a heart. (If a random card of a hand is exposed, it > > is more likely to come from a long suit than a short suit.) I think a > > spade lead is a LA because some people might fear underleading a king > > and others would lead spades because the suit is stronger. Perhaps my > > opinion would be different if the spot cards in the two suits were of > > notably different rank. > > David Grabiner has since given an accurate description of what really > happened at the table, however I would argue with Steve about the > existence of UI in the scenario described above. If the card was > accidently dropped, then there is no UI avaliable regarding RHO's intent. > Also to draw an inference about the number of cards of a particular suit > in hand from the size of card dropped seems a long way short of the > "demonstrably suggested" criteria required by 16C2. The original action > (dropping the card) isn't even a withdrawn play. > It's not the size of the card that matters in drawing the inference about length. If a card is randomly dropped from the hand, the odds of it being a heart will relate directly to the number of hearts held in the hand. Yes, it could be the a priori 7.7% chance that it's the only heart partner holds, but it could also be the 46% chance that it is one of the six hearts that he holds. Given the normal distributions within those ranges, in all instances, the highest probability is that the dropped card comes from the longest suit in the hand. Therefore, it does communicate UI. Norm From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 3 15:26:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA06263 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 15:26:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA06258 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 15:26:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt092nb1.san.rr.com [204.210.48.177]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA24230 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 22:26:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <057101bedd70$adc38460$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <002b01bedd22$c44f23e0$8f7af1d1@mminternet.com> Subject: Re: Dropped Card Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 22:25:36 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thanks to Phillip Mendelsohn for relating this very sad story. > I haven't read this whole thread, but from what I can gander from the last > posts, one of the players accidentally drops a card on the table face up > during the auction period. The issue is, what does "declarer MAY choose > to treat this a penalty card" mean? Can Declarer choose to NOT treat this > as a penalty card? > > When this situation came up at the club, we phoned Memphis (ACBL) and > spoke to Butch Campbell, second in command after Gary Blaiss where > interpreting the Laws comes into play (so I have been told). His interpretation > was that the faced card becomes the opening lead; Declarer has no option; the > "may" language was left over from an older version of the Laws and overlooked, > but should have been expunged. > > I also discussed this issue with several Nationally-rated Directors in > San Antonio (NABC) and they had the same take: the faced card MUST > become the opening lead. This all seems to be at odds with most of the > discussion I have seen on this thread. > The option in L24 giving declarer the right to decide whether a card exposed during the auction is to be a penalty card goes way back (it was formerly L23, not L24). It is in every version of the Laws I own, back to 1963. Even if it "should have been expunged," which I doubt very much, it remains in the Laws and therefore remains in effect. Obviously L24 would not say that an opponent who becomes declarer *may* treat a card so exposed as a penalty card, if it *must* be so designated by the TD. The card must be left face up on the table until the auction closes, no option. At that time (when play has not started, so L50 is not in effect) the declarer may either treat it as a penalty card or say "Pick it up." The existence of the card in that hand does not seem to be UI to the other defender, as would a card that was exposed before the auction begins (L16B). I still maintain that the reference to L50 in L24 is merely a pointer to the place where the disposition of penalty cards is provided, thereby avoiding a duplication of language. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 3 15:46:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA06313 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 15:46:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (mailout1-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.81]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA06303 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 15:46:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.37] by mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 01:46:26 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199908022055.QAA02213@eratosthenes.math.lsa.umich.edu> References: <199908021721.NAA14119@cfa183.harvard.edu> (message from Steve Willner on Mon, 2 Aug 1999 13:21:34 -0400 (EDT)) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 01:41:28 -0400 To: David Grabiner From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Dropped card Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 4:55 PM -0400 8/2/99, David Grabiner wrote: >I was dummy and couldn't speak up.) Why not? Under Law 42A1, "dummy is entitled to give information, in the Director's presence, as to fact or law." Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2 iQA/AwUBN6aCG72UW3au93vOEQJzZQCg+rW8Nj0fakcWy7lbMsWnf1k9ZWsAoMxJ lDcfTarmtQoOSWweDV3AevOc =pTLP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 3 16:25:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA06314 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 15:46:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (mailout1-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.81]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA06304 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 15:46:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.37] by mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 01:46:31 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199908022217.SAA14406@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 01:43:33 -0400 To: Steve Willner From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Dropped Card Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 6:17 PM -0400 8/2/99, Steve Willner wrote: > Is Butch Campbell authorized >to give such an instruction within the ACBL? If he is, and he does so, he ought to make damn sure every TD and player in the ACBL knows about it. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2 iQA/AwUBN6aCI72UW3au93vOEQIeOACg8OL4h788Tla6IIFIzQMNH2GUs9sAnjY3 ps6qZYgpDJfewBeLjLQiVX7A =i9qi -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 3 16:27:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA06423 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 16:27:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA06418 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 16:26:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt092nb1.san.rr.com [204.210.48.177]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA08178 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 23:26:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <059601bedd79$278d3720$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: WBFLC Interpretation #3 & the ACBL Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 23:23:00 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk While in San Antonio I had a chance to talk with some high-placed people in the ACBL organization about the ACBL's attitude toward the WBFLC interpretations of the Laws that came out of the Lille meeting last year. I got nothing but evasive answers. The ACBL LC's minutes from Vancouver relating to this subject are still unpublished, despite Chip Martel's statement to me (in Vancouver) that they would be. In the meantime, we players (and maybe some TDs) would like to know where the interpretations stand within the ACBL. The only source of information seems to be the NABC Appeals casebooks, when a case touches on one of the Lille interpretations. So far we know this much, if the statements of the Appeals Administrator may be taken as official: Interpretation #3, relating to the procedure for awarding assigned adjusted scores is accepted, with the exception of the criteria for annulment of redress (an action that is evidently irrational, wild, or gambling, which would include the type of action commonly referred to as a "double shot"). The ACBL requirement remains that the NOs must "continue to play bridge" up to their general skill and experience level. The WBFLC interpretation is called "The English approach." What did Kaplan say? This, from *The Bridge World*, July 1993: "When we think of mistakes that could cancel the usual protection, we think in terms of revokes, or other *gross* errors. That seems in line with #3 (although Grattan doesn't think that a revoke is irrational). It would be interesting to know how the current ACBL criteria came into being, if Kaplan wasn't behind it. A rationale for the ACBL approach appears on page 150 of the Orlando NABC casebook, but it looks rather weak to me. It boils down to not wanting players, especially pros, to look for AC help when their partnership has misbid, misplayed, or misdefended a hand. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 3 16:28:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA06437 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 16:28:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from iac20.navix.net (iac20.navix.net [207.91.5.26]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA06432 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 16:28:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from navix.net (cras36p60.navix.net [205.242.158.63]) by iac20.navix.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA23805; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 01:16:25 -0500 Message-ID: <37A92B28.F7D1D438@navix.net> Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 01:11:52 -0500 From: "Norman H. Hostetler" Reply-To: nh35422@navix.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Probst CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Excuse me if I demur References: <9$R+DkASkip3EwIG@probst.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------0DA963418FC221E85E94C3EE" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk --------------0DA963418FC221E85E94C3EE Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > In article <199908021709.NAA14106@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner > willner@cfa183.harvard.edu> writes > > << snip>> > Posession of the card is AI, since the penalty (potentially that is) of > having to pass at the next turn to call will have been paid. > > > >Could you cite a law reference for that, please? I don't see how the > exposed card can be AI since 1997. > > > law 72A5 <> How would you rule on the following hand? Dlr: S North S T95 Vul:N H Q63 D A53 C AKJ8 East S J72 West S A3 H K5 H AT942 D JT94 D 876 C T432 C 765 South S KQ864 H J87 D KQ2 C Q9 In sorting his hand, E accidentally drops the HK on the table. The TD is called and Law 24 applied, but the auction penalty makes no difference as NS bid unimpeded to 4S, with neither H nor D being named. At this point S, apparently thinking of a potential H weakness, waives making the HK a penalty card. E, a very ethical player, makes the normal lead of the DJ. The play starts: 1. DJ, A, 6, 2 2. ST, A, 4, 2 3. H2, 7, K, 3 4. H5, 6, A, 8 5. H9, J, S7, H3 At this point, you are re-called to the table by a very upset South, who claims that W would never have found the fatal underlead without the exposed card. Your ruling is? Norm --------------0DA963418FC221E85E94C3EE Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit John (MadDog) Probst wrote:
In article <199908021709.NAA14106@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner willner@cfa183.harvard.edu> writes

                     << snip>>

Posession of the card is AI, since the penalty (potentially that is) of having to pass at the next turn to call will have been paid.
>
>Could you cite a law reference for that, please?  I don't see how the exposed card can be AI since 1997.
>
law 72A5
                    <<snip>>

How would you rule on the following hand?

    Dlr: S                                             North  S T95
    Vul:N                                                         H Q63
                                                                       D A53
                                                                       C AKJ8
                                    East S J72                                           West  S A3
                                            H K5                                                       H AT942
                                            D JT94                                                    D 876
                                            C T432                                                    C 765
                                                            South S KQ864
                                                                        H J87
                                                                        D KQ2
                                                                        C Q9

In sorting his hand, E accidentally drops the HK on the table.  The TD is called and Law 24 applied, but the auction penalty makes no difference as NS bid unimpeded to 4S, with neither H nor D being named.  At this point S, apparently thinking of a potential H weakness, waives making the HK a penalty card.  E, a very ethical player, makes the normal lead of the DJ.  The play starts:

1.  DJ, A, 6, 2
2.  ST, A, 4, 2
3.  H2, 7, K, 3
4.  H5, 6, A, 8
5.  H9, J, S7, H3

At this point, you are re-called to the table by a very upset South, who claims that W would never have found the fatal underlead without the exposed card.

 Your ruling is?

Norm
  --------------0DA963418FC221E85E94C3EE-- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 3 17:20:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA06505 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 17:20:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA06498 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 17:19:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.221] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11BYrN-0001tG-00; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 08:19:42 +0100 Message-ID: <009401bedd80$8cadb7e0$dd5108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: Dropped Card Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 08:18:58 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 02 August 1999 23:49 Subject: Re: Dropped Card >> From: "Phillip Mendelsohn" > > >Was 1975 the first year Kaplan had major influence on the Laws? Is >that why there were so many changes in that edition? > +++ At the time the big reforming influences were considered to be Geoffrey Butler, Chairman of the Committee, and Don Oakie of the US. Edgar was making his way to the front, but still had some of his milk teeth. The committee list is as distinguished as they come, no passengers. ~Grattan~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 3 17:25:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA06300 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 15:46:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.146]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA06295 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 15:45:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.37] by mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 01:46:09 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <002b01bedd22$c44f23e0$8f7af1d1@mminternet.com> Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 01:38:20 -0400 To: "Phillip Mendelsohn" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Dropped Card Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >I haven't read this whole thread, but from what I can gander from the last >posts, one of the players accidentally drops a card on the table face up >during the auction period. The issue is, what does "declarer MAY choose to >treat this a penalty card" mean? Can Declarer choose to NOT treat this as a >penalty card? > >When this situation came up at the club, we phoned Memphis (ACBL) and spoke >to Butch Campbell, second in command after Gary Blaiss where interpreting >the Laws comes into play (so I have been told). His interpretation was that >the faced card becomes the opening lead; Declarer has no option; the "may" >language was left over from an older version of the Laws and overlooked, but >should have been expunged. > >I also discussed this issue with several Nationally-rated Directors in San >Antonio (NABC) and they had the same take: the faced card MUST become the >opening lead. This all seems to be at odds with most of the discussion I >have seen on this thread. Whether, in someone's opinion, language in some law "should have been expunged" is irrelevant. It was not expunged, it is still there, and we are supposed to rule in accordance with the law as written, not as someone (whoever he may be) thinks it _should_ have been written. IMHO, of course. :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2 iQA/AwUBN6aCDb2UW3au93vOEQJEwgCgzL5+eeyEOxvNpC0Id99UasQfxGYAn14+ U+AI157LSKsF4xd1NX6jY2ZI =PIYj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 3 17:37:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA06565 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 17:37:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA06560 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 17:37:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id JAA16119; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 09:37:30 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JEBR0RX1ZE0023ZT@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 09:36:35 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id <31GS0NJX>; Tue, 03 Aug 1999 09:36:35 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 09:36:34 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Excuse me if I demur To: "'David Stevenson'" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C1F2@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: David Stevenson [mailto:bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk] > Verzonden: maandag 2 augustus 1999 17:36 > Aan: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Onderwerp: Re: Excuse me if I demur > > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > >From: Kooijman, A. > >> >Grattan > >> >There comes a time when you think you > >> >know it all - round about your sixth birthday. > > >>Does that go away again? > > >++++ Not apparently when telling Ton and Grattan > >they are *both* wrong. ++++ > > That is extremely unfair, even if intended in jest. Do I > need to say > in **every** post that I may be wrong? I say it enough > times. I am not > the one on this list who thinks I am always right, and I say so > frequently enough, I would think. May be both of you are overreacting a little bit now. I don't mind Grattan suggesting that just pointing to my answer as being wrong would have been better. And my interest in the development of self assessment had nothing to do with either of you. At your age, if it hasn't changed yet it will not anymore. Well, this to start the day. My interest in this case was drawn due to the use of the word 'may' in L24 and I told you how we handle this situation in my country. I noticed support from David for the idea to remove it and the feeling from Grattan to keep it. That is my harvest. And furthermore I have to admit that I have overlooked this case in 95/96, otherwise it would have been on the '97 agenda. May be with the present outcome. ton From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 3 18:00:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA06618 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 18:00:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA06613 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 18:00:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.105] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11BZS5-0002sK-00; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 08:57:37 +0100 Message-ID: <00e401bedd85$d8c17ae0$dd5108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Phillip Mendelsohn" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Dropped Card Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 08:52:19 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Date: 03 August 1999 07:16 Subject: Re: Dropped Card >I certainly am in no position to quarrel with Grattan about this matter, and >I certainly do not disagree with him. However, the subscribers to this list >should at least be aware that in ACBL-land, the interpretation I previously >mentioned has come down from on high (i.e., Memphis), and as far as ACBL TDs >are concerned, that interpretation is the "law of the land" until someone >(i.e., Gary Blaiss or the Laws Commission) says otherwise. > +++ I am no doubt of that. I regret it when false background information is disseminated along with a ruling. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 3 18:46:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA06739 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 18:46:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from alushta.NL.net (alushta.NL.net [193.78.240.22]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA06734 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 18:45:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by alushta.NL.net with UUCP id <5599-29169>; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 10:45:31 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.8.2/8.8.2) with SMTP id KAA11619 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 10:17:09 +0200 From: Martin Sinot To: "Bridge Laws (E-mail)" Subject: RE: Trick 12 revoke Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 10:24:11 +0200 Message-ID: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3A5@XION> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A024468837588E68@XION> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Martin Sinot wrote: >Subject: RE: Trick 12 revoke > > >David Stevenson wrote: > >> - >> - S trumps >> - W leads CQ >> - xx 6 E plays S6 ! >> - - S over-ruffs and takes both tricks >> - - W calls the TD because his partner >> Qx 8 x has revoked >> 8 >> - >> - >> >> The TD said the revoke must be corrected. >> >> South complains because the revoke "penalty" is to give revoker a >>trick!! >> >> Ok? > >A revoke in trick 12 must be corrected. After the correction South >still gets both tricks. So what is he complaining for? After all, >NO penalty tricks are assigned if offender takes no tricks. > >Martin Sinot >martin@spase.nl Oops, can't count tricks anymore... It must be the heat here (it's already some days above 30 degrees). Of course East gets a trick with the spade six. Nevertheless, the revoke must be corrected. The penalty South is referring to is for revokes which are not corrected. Sorry, South. Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 3 19:16:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA06801 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 19:16:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from alushta.NL.net (alushta.NL.net [193.78.240.22]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA06796 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 19:16:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by alushta.NL.net with UUCP id <5641-25630>; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 11:15:43 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.8.2/8.8.2) with SMTP id KAA12153 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 10:59:25 +0200 From: Martin Sinot To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Subject: RE: Dropped Card Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 11:06:27 +0200 Message-ID: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3A6@XION> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A024468837588E7C@XION> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Phillip Mendelsohn wrote: >I haven't read this whole thread, but from what I can gander from the last >posts, one of the players accidentally drops a card on the table face up >during the auction period. The issue is, what does "declarer MAY choose to >treat this a penalty card" mean? Can Declarer choose to NOT treat this as a >penalty card? If I remember well, in an earlier version of the Laws the following was written when partner of the offender must make the opening lead: Declarer may choose to require or forbid the suit of the exposed card, in which case that card is taken back, OR he may choose to let the card become a penalty card. I might be mistaken, of course, but could it be that the sentence in L24 is actually a reference to the old law mentioned above, which is no longer present? Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 3 19:50:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA06881 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 19:50:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from nickel.cix.co.uk (nickel.compulink.co.uk [194.153.0.18]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA06874 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 19:49:39 +1000 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id KAA09800 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 10:48:55 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 10:48 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Incorrect score (fwd) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: Michael Schmahl wrote: > > I am pretty sure Law 77 can be used to stop this kind of nonsense. If I > were directing, and had no way to determine myself whether the contract > was down 1 or down 2, I would probably like to assign +50 to the > defenders, -100 to the declarers. But I can't find a law to allow this. You could try 1. Both pairs are in violation of L79A 2. Use L12c2 treating both sides as offending However given the unliklihood that there is "no way" to determine the table result I doubt this should happen more than once in a blue moon (like DWS I have reservations about poor directors using it as a cop-out). Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 3 19:50:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA06886 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 19:50:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from nickel.cix.co.uk (nickel.compulink.co.uk [194.153.0.18]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA06875 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 19:49:46 +1000 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id KAA09751 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 10:48:32 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 10:47 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Trick 12 revoke To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > > > He would have gotten two tricks if the revoke law hadn't stopped him, > and so he has been damaged by the failure of the revoke law to > compensate for the damage caused. john > -- Surely the "damage caused," in L64c means the damage caused by the revoke. My paraphrase of L64c would be "If, even after any revoke penalties have been paid, NOS ends up with fewer tricks than it might have done absent the revoke the director shall assign an adjusted score." I believe (perhaps wrongly) that this paraphrase is the majority interpretation of the law. If there is a different official interpretation then "I think we should be told". Sometimes my opponents make the mistake of taking a 50% finesse instead of a 100% endplay - about half the time I get no benefit from this mistake. Sometimes they make the mistake of revoking and I end up with no more tricks than had they played correctly. I am not entitled to automatic benefit from opponents mistakes. I imagine that the trick twelve rules are there for two reasons. a) the ease with which the situation can be corrected b) the difficulty of determining whether OS "played" to trick 13. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 3 19:51:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA06905 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 19:51:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from nickel.cix.co.uk (nickel.compulink.co.uk [194.153.0.18]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA06876 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 19:49:54 +1000 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id KAA10017 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 10:49:04 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 10:48 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <37A64DE2.FFF10CED@mindspring.com> "John R. Mayne" wrote: > > The response is: "We have no special partnership agreement, implicit > > or > > explicit, on that. He probably has the sort of hand one might expect, > > nothing unusual, based on what I can remember." > > Feh. If you play against me and it goes 1D-hitch P-1H-P I might at > favorable pass with a 4=2=4=3 19-count and try to catch you. Is that > what you think they "might expect"? > And many of us might try the same ploy, probably including Marv. Better that his partner does not give the impression that he will have weak hand in this sequence. One instance is *not* sufficient evidence to draw any inferences about meaning - only when you become aware of a pattern are you in a position to share such knowledge with opponents. Were I playing with Marv (and desirous of giving oppos a lesson) I would explain the bid as "He might have psyched the 1D with a weak hand, or psyched the pass with a strong hand or had a mental block and passed by mistake - I really couldn't tell you which of these is more likely". (I still prefer Alice's answer). Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 3 20:09:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA06933 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 20:09:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from IGNGATE.merck.de (igngate.merck.de [194.196.248.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA06928 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 20:09:04 +1000 (EST) From: James.Vickers@merck.de Received: from dedamsgnt02.merck.de (smtpgw.merck.de [155.250.248.234]) by IGNGATE.merck.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA20976 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 12:08:45 +0200 (METDST) X-Internal-ID: 37A16CD000006DFF Received: from dedamsg4.merck.de (155.250.249.26) by dedamsgnt02.merck.de (NPlex 2.0.123) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 12:12:46 +0200 Received: by dedamsg4.merck.de(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.2 (693.3 8-11-1998)) id C12567C2.0037BA63 ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 12:08:41 +0200 X-Lotus-FromDomain: MERCK To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-ID: Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 12:01:08 +0200 Subject: irrational (?) action in line with stated claim Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It's probably about time to lay this old problem to rest, but I think another very important principle is being neglected here. After much discussion many of you seem to be leaving your entrenched positions of strictly for or against in favour of the cosy middle ground of "leave it to the TD, he's best placed to come to a decision". I'm not coming with you; I think you're treading very dangerous ground, as I will try to illustrate. Here's the problem again: This is declarer's trump suit (spades): AT2 97654 - KQJ83 Declarer has just ruffed his last loser with the S2 in dummy, and now claims, "I'll take SA, ST overtaking with the SK, and take all the rest.: If director had just claimed "I'll draw trumps and take the rest", it could be ruled irrational for declarer not to notice the 5-0 break; he would take AT and then return to his hand in a side suit. As long as West couldn't ruff any side suit, declarer would get all the rest. However, is declarer held to his faulty statement here? The scene: declarer has just made what he considers a cast-iron claim. A protest by LHO and a looming director, sharpened pencil and shorthand notebook at the ready, requesting him to repeat his statement, tip him off to the fact that something is amiss. He repeats his statement, hastily adding a clause about what to do if the trumps are 5-0. I put forward four possible situations (inter alia): (i) Declarer has miscounted, but is a brazen cheat and will try to get away with anything. (ii) Declarer would usually admit his mistake, but is still smarting from the way LHO tried to draw partner's attention to his suit-preference signal on the last hand, and if he's going to try it on...(etc.) (iii) Declarer is an honest fellow at heart, but timid, and cannot face the thought of having to explain to his team-mates how he butchered a lay-down contract, so he's going to try to sit this one out. (iv) Declarer was aware that the trumps could be 5-0, but didn't think it worth mentioning as it's obvious what any player would do in this situation. Now, I want to rule against declarer in all these cases, and would do so with a clear conscience. You want to give the poor TD the thankless task of sifting out the category (iv) players above from the others (and all the shades of grey inbetween) and give them a special ruling all to themselves. How do you expect him to proceed? He could start by asking declarer if he was really aware of the possible trump position, but all the above characters would say "yes", albeit for different reasons. What now? Should he apply a lie-detector test, consult a clinical psychologist, or a soothsayer? I remember being called to the table at my university club several years ago by a strong player, for a clear-cut case of UI. I assessed the situation and awarded an adjusted score. The two inexperienced defenders could not understand why I had taken away the top they had just scored against the university's best pair and given them a mediocre result, despite my best efforts to explain. "But I was going to double even without the hesitation!" I told him truthfully that I believed him. "So why are you cancelling my double then?" We all know what is to be done in this sort of situation, you don't busy yourself with looking into players' possible motives, try to assess what was going through their heads at the time, or otherwise psycho-analyse them. The law says "...if a reasonable alternative could have been suggested..." (not "was" or "may have been"). This neatly gets you out of having to bring a player's honesty into question and enables you to give a blanket ruling in all situations. You rule the same way whether the claimer is Mother Teresa or one of the Kray twins (in the latter case perhaps with your car just outside with the engine running). The wording of Law 70C "...if it was at all likely that claimer at the time of his claim was unaware that a trump remained in an opponent's hand..." is surely to be applied in a similar way. Otherwise there is a real danger that your ruling will be based at best on your assessment of their character, at worst on your personal disposition towards the player (is she attractive, a cat-lover, Daily Telegraph reader...? etc.) You may think I'm being too hard on the claimer, but I consider the onus to be on him to ensure his claim covers all eventualities. I can live with this attitude quite happily, and expect no less whenever I make a claim. It is not, by the way, the job of the TD to try to work out "what probably would have happened had the hand been played out". That way lies danger. James Vickers Darmstadt, Germany From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 3 20:09:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA06938 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 20:09:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA06926 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 20:08:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from mamos.demon.co.uk ([158.152.129.79]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11BbTR-000AcT-0A; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 10:07:12 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 11:05:36 +0100 To: David Grabiner Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Subject: Re: Dropped card References: <199908021721.NAA14119@cfa183.harvard.edu> <199908022127.RAA02799@eratosthenes.math.lsa.umich.edu> In-Reply-To: <199908022127.RAA02799@eratosthenes.math.lsa.umich.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199908022127.RAA02799@eratosthenes.math.lsa.umich.edu>, David Grabiner writes >Steve Willner writes: > >>> David's partner was filling out a Player Memo > >> Why? To complain about the TD? > >While the TD did get something wrong, this was not the cause of the >memo. In a previous incomplete message I explained what actually >happened; the offender had put the H7 back in his hand (it was exposed >in a fumble, not dropped), and when told by the TD to put the H7 on the >table, he instead exposed the SJ. > >This could have been unethical behavior (attempting to hide the card he >had shown to partner), or it could have been that he actually thought he >had exposed the SJ. I think the second is more likely, because the >director said, "Put the H7 on the table as a minor penalty card," and >the player disobeyed. > >The TD gave the wrong book ruling; when the SJ was exposed, both penalty >cards became major, and the H7 should thus have been played to the first >trick, giving declarer an extra trick. He then gave the wrong >adjustment ruling; when I called him back after the hand (as dummy, I >couldn't ask for a book ruling during the play), Why? >he protected us to >average-plus rather than correcting -100 to -50, the result that was >likely or probable. This ties the problem in with the L12C thread. > mike -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 3 20:15:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA06961 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 20:15:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA06956 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 20:14:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from mamos.demon.co.uk ([158.152.129.79]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11BbZt-0005VP-0B; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 10:13:50 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 11:12:10 +0100 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Subject: Re: Irrational(?) action in line statd with claim References: <37A2F559.795A211F@village.uunet.be> <199908021815.OAA11391@aryabhata.math.lsa.umich.edu> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes >David Grabiner wrote: >>Herman De Wael writes: >> >>> David Grabiner wrote: >> >>>> What actually happened when West objected to the claim was that West >>>> faced her hand, and *dummy* spoke up before the director arrived, saying >>>> "He can get back to his hand in a side suit and draw the trumps anyway." >>>> The director ruled that dummy's suggested line would not be allowed. >> >>>> This was in a KO match which would have been tied had the claim been >>>> granted. The offenders did not appeal; even had an AC ruled the claim >>>> allowed, it would have imposed a procedural penalty against dummy for >>>> correcting declarer's claim, and the procedural penalty would have been >>>> enough to cost the offenders the KO match. >> >>> I agree with David (S) when he says the penalty is >>> incorrect. >> >>> Dummy's statement is a valid part of the player pointing out >>> to the director what may or may not be obvious to him, and >>> as such is permitted. >> >>However, dummy made thie statement after attention had been drawn to the >>irregularity but before the TD was called. Declarer simply stated the >>alternative line, with a statement such as "West objected to my claim >>because she has five trumps, but I'll find that out on the first round, >>and can then get back to my hand in a side suit." The director was >>about to rule for declarer when West pointed out that the alternative >>line was the result of dummy's suggestion. The director then disallowed >>it. > > Well, any AC that issued a PP against dummy is way out of line. A >**really** vicious AC, of the Judge Jeffries type, might issue a PP >against declarer, but before they do they better be damn sure that there >was no error by the Director. When the Director was called, did he or >did he not ask the player specifically to "Repeat the statement you made >when you originally claimed". If he said that and then declarer didn't, >then a PP might be in order. If he did not do so, then you are giving >declarer a PP for being one of the 89% of players who do not understand >the claiming Laws in detail, which is not fair. Personally, I would >think a PP would be fairer against the TD in such a case! > > I think, David, that it would be helpful [if you know] if you told us >what the Director said to the players. > Once a claim has occurred play ceases - it seems to me to be likely that dummy isn't dummy any more :)))) mike -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 3 22:32:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA07390 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 22:32:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail110.worldonline.dk (mail110.worldonline.dk [212.54.64.152]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA07374 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 22:32:44 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 2209 invoked by uid 0); 3 Aug 1999 12:32:57 -0000 Received: from 53.ppp1-24.image.dk (212.54.68.53) by mail010.worldonline.dk with SMTP; 3 Aug 1999 12:32:57 -0000 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Dropped Card Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 12:27:17 GMT Message-ID: <37aed3e2.2085332@mail.image.dk> References: <002b01bedd22$c44f23e0$8f7af1d1@mminternet.com> In-Reply-To: <002b01bedd22$c44f23e0$8f7af1d1@mminternet.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mon, 2 Aug 1999 13:08:18 -0700 skrev Phillip Mendelsohn: >the Laws comes into play (so I have been told). His interpretation was that >the faced card becomes the opening lead; Declarer has no option; It is pretty clear to me that the purpose of "may" is to prevent defenders from gaining an advantage from a penalty card - or at least give declarer the chance to prevent it. It's a bit like all the choices declarer has with a lead penalty. Bertel -- Denmark http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 3 22:32:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA07389 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 22:32:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail110.worldonline.dk (mail110.worldonline.dk [212.54.64.152]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA07373 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 22:32:44 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 2203 invoked by uid 0); 3 Aug 1999 12:32:57 -0000 Received: from 53.ppp1-24.image.dk (212.54.68.53) by mail010.worldonline.dk with SMTP; 3 Aug 1999 12:32:57 -0000 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A Played Card? Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 12:27:17 GMT Message-ID: <37add3dd.2080054@mail.image.dk> References: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3A3@XION> In-Reply-To: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3A3@XION> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mon, 2 Aug 1999 14:04:41 +0200 skrev Martin Sinot: [About a card detached first but not faced] >I wouldn't take any action. IMO it is not forbidden to play a card that way. I think it clearly falls under L73A2. Whether one would call it "forbidden" may be open for debate, but the law does not "want" it. Bertel -- Denmark http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 3 22:32:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA07391 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 22:32:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail110.worldonline.dk (mail110.worldonline.dk [212.54.64.152]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA07375 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 22:32:45 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 2219 invoked by uid 0); 3 Aug 1999 12:32:57 -0000 Received: from 53.ppp1-24.image.dk (212.54.68.53) by mail010.worldonline.dk with SMTP; 3 Aug 1999 12:32:57 -0000 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Dummy's right to correct TD Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 12:27:18 GMT Message-ID: <37afd3e8.2090923@mail.image.dk> References: <199908022248.SAA03946@eratosthenes.math.lsa.umich.edu> In-Reply-To: <199908022248.SAA03946@eratosthenes.math.lsa.umich.edu> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mon, 2 Aug 1999 18:48:33 -0400 (EDT) skrev David Grabiner: >L42A seems to allow dummy to "give information in the Director's >presence"; would that apply to this case? Yes. The law doesn't say that you should be asked first. Bertel -- Denmark http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 3 23:10:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA07535 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 23:10:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail110.worldonline.dk (mail110.worldonline.dk [212.54.64.152]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA07528 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 23:10:35 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 25826 invoked by uid 0); 3 Aug 1999 13:10:49 -0000 Received: from 23.ppp1-16.image.dk (212.54.76.215) by mail010.worldonline.dk with SMTP; 3 Aug 1999 13:10:49 -0000 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: irrational (?) action in line with stated claim Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 13:05:09 GMT Message-ID: <37d1e834.7287913@mail.image.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tue, 3 Aug 1999 12:01:08 +0200 skrev James.Vickers@merck.de: >The scene: declarer has just made what he considers a cast-iron claim. A >protest by LHO and a looming director, sharpened pencil and shorthand >notebook at the ready, requesting him to repeat his statement, tip him off >to the fact that something is amiss. Of course not. That is what the TD does *every time* he is called to a contested claim. >He repeats his statement, hastily adding a clause He is not repeating his statement then. He is cheating. That is a problem. Maybe the TD finds out, maybe he doesn't. Tough luck. But it takes three other liars' cooperation for him to get away with it. Bertel -- Denmark http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 3 23:11:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA07542 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 23:11:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail110.worldonline.dk (mail110.worldonline.dk [212.54.64.152]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA07529 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 23:10:37 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 25821 invoked by uid 0); 3 Aug 1999 13:10:49 -0000 Received: from 23.ppp1-16.image.dk (212.54.76.215) by mail010.worldonline.dk with SMTP; 3 Aug 1999 13:10:49 -0000 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Irrational(?) action in line statd with claim Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 13:05:09 GMT Message-ID: <37d0e6be.6914199@mail.image.dk> References: <37A2F559.795A211F@village.uunet.be> <199908021815.OAA11391@aryabhata.math.lsa.umich.edu> In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tue, 3 Aug 1999 11:12:10 +0100 skrev michael amos: >Once a claim has occurred play ceases - it seems to me to be likely that >dummy isn't dummy any more :)))) Then the game cannot be finished, because there's no declarer and no defenders either. Nobody even has the right to call the TD. Bertel -- Denmark http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 4 00:35:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA07909 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 00:35:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand5.global.net.uk (sand5.global.net.uk [194.126.80.249]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA07903 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 00:35:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from pacs01a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.129.173] helo=pacific) by sand5.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11Bfec-0002nz-00; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 15:34:58 +0100 Message-ID: <000401beddbc$bc084000$ad8193c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" , Subject: Re: WBFLC Interpretation #3 & the ACBL Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 12:21:14 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 03 August 1999 08:33 Subject: WBFLC Interpretation #3 & the ACBL >Grattan doesn't think that a revoke is irrational ++ Grattan takes the view that to be irrational an action must be deliberate, meditated upon. An action to which a person has given no thought does not reflect an irrational thought process. ~ Grattan ~ ++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 4 00:57:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA07955 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 00:57:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo16.mx.aol.com (imo16.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA07950 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 00:57:32 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo16.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v22.4.) id fKJSa00255 (3934); Tue, 3 Aug 1999 10:56:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <38e5bac0.24d85d02@aol.com> Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 10:56:02 EDT Subject: Re: WBFLC Interpretation #3 & the ACBL To: gester@globalnet.co.uk, mfrench1@san.rr.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 21 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 8/3/99 10:38:34 AM Eastern Daylight Time, gester@globalnet.co.uk writes: > From: Marvin L. French > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Date: 03 August 1999 08:33 > Subject: WBFLC Interpretation #3 & the ACBL > > > >Grattan doesn't think that a revoke is irrational > > ++ Grattan takes the view that to be irrational an > action must be deliberate, meditated upon. An > action to which a person has given no thought > does not reflect an irrational thought process. > ~ Grattan ~ ++ > Hey Marv.......looks like Grattan gets a gotcha on this one.......Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 4 01:06:00 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA07996 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 01:06:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from news.hal-pc.org (news.hal-pc.org [204.52.135.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA07991 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 01:05:51 +1000 (EST) From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org Received: from bbs.hal-pc.org (uucp@localhost) by news.hal-pc.org (8.9.3/8.9.0) with UUCP id KAA10638 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 10:05:37 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0E5S9024 Tue, 03 Aug 99 10:04:48 Message-ID: <9908031004.0E5S902@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Tue, 03 Aug 99 10:04:48 Subject: EXCUSE ME IF I DEMUR To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have a difficult time describing a prematurely exposed card as anything other than a source of extraneous information whether or not the card is picked up as a non penalty card. L16A says that extraneous information is UI. I see no reference as to the disposition of UI from the exposed card in L24 and I see no need for such since L16A covers it. Have I got it wrong? Roger Pewick B>In article <002601bedc70$5dfc0d40$7e5108c3@swhki5i6>, Grattan Endicott B> writes B>> B>>Grattan> - - - - - - - - - B>>There comes a time when you think you B>>know it all - round about your sixth birthday. B>>================================= B>> B>>-----Original Message----- B>>From: Schoderb@aol.com B>>To: bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk ; B>>bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au B>>Date: 01 August 1999 17:05 B>>Subject: Re: Cat Diary and Heart K B>> B>> B>>>A most lucid presentation. It also embodies a salient point. The Laws B>are >>arranged to apply at certain parts of the game, I.e. the Auction, B>the Play. B>>>etc. It is sophistry to take them out of this context and use a Law B>that >>applies to Play and apply it during the Auction. ....Kojak B>>> B>>> B>>+++ There is just a detail to be added : declarer does not exercise B>>his option until *after* the opponent has become a defender; the B>>cross-reference to Law 50 in Law 24 incorporates reference to the B>>power of the Director to 'designate otherwise', which he does if B>>declarer opts not to treat the defender's card as a penalty card. B>>At the time when declarer makes his decision the card is one that B>>has been prematurely exposed by someone who is now a defender. B>>Law 49 would apply were it not for the fact that the matter is subject B>>to an exception relating to the application of law. B>> I would not presume to judge whether Law 24 was written by a B>>person of specious tendency, nor whether this careful reading of B>>the law is sophistry. ~ Grattan ~ +++ B>> B>Beg to differ. Law 41C is perfectly clear when the play period begins B>and self evidently a player cannot be designated a defender until such B>happens. We get the circumlocutions of Law 41A referring to defender and B>presumed declarer. If declarer is presumed, then so must be defender. B>"The opening lead is faced, the play period begins and dummy's hand is B>spread." B>Since no opening lead has been made, we are still in the auction and Law B>24 still applies. B>The auction is closed agreed (but is re-openable) and declarer now B>decides whether to treat every such [exposed] card as a penalty card. If B>he decides it is not a penalty card it is restored to the offenders hand B>and the play period has still not begun. Thus we cannot apply Law 50 in B>any way. Posession of the card is AI, since the penalty (potentially B>that is) of having to pass at the next turn to call will have been paid. B>It seems perfectly clear. Declarer chooses whether the card is a penalty B>card. If it isn't end of story, otherwise we can use Law 50. B>chs john B>-- B>John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 B>451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou B>London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk B>+44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk B> Roger Pewick Houston, Texas r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 4 01:28:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA08049 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 01:28:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA08044 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 01:28:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id LAA14192 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 11:28:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA15036 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 11:28:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 11:28:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199908031528.LAA15036@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: irrational (?) action in line with stated claim X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: James.Vickers@merck.de > (iv) Declarer was aware that the trumps could be 5-0, but didn't think it > worth mentioning as it's obvious what any player would do in this > situation. Could you, or John Probst who appears to have similar sentiments, please suggest appropriate language for this declarer to use when he claims? Please bear in mind that it will have to be short. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 4 01:33:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA07979 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 01:03:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA07974 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 01:02:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-95-158.uunet.be [194.7.95.158]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA11572 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 17:01:58 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37A6D1D1.216880C8@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 13:26:09 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: irrational (?) action in line with stated claim References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk James.Vickers@merck.de wrote: > > It's probably about time to lay this old problem to rest, but I think > another very important principle is being neglected here. After much > discussion many of you seem to be leaving your entrenched positions of > strictly for or against in favour of the cosy middle ground of "leave it to > the TD, he's best placed to come to a decision". I'm not coming with you; I > think you're treading very dangerous ground, as I will try to illustrate. > Here's the problem again: > [snip] > > You may think I'm being too hard on the claimer, but I consider the onus to > be on him to ensure his claim covers all eventualities. I can live with > this attitude quite happily, and expect no less whenever I make a claim. It > is not, by the way, the job of the TD to try to work out "what probably > would have happened had the hand been played out". That way lies danger. > > James Vickers > Darmstadt, Germany Hello James, You are right on one point : You are allowed, as director, to be very strict in your rulings. You are allowed to think, from the evidence presented, that the player before you might be lying. You are not correct on one other point though : You are not allowed, in cases like this, to rule against this claimer, if you are convinced that he is not lying. The Laws simply are not like that. They allow a claimer to get a "second shot" provided some conditions are met. These are two separate issues and you should not mix them. We were having a theoretical discussion here, and I believe most people on the list have come to the conclusion that if the Director believes that this declarer did not miscount, he should get the benefit of the doubt. What you are stating is that you would never believe this declarer did not miscount, and what I am saying is that in a case like this I always believe declarer just overlooked the bad break. We are at different ends of a spectrum here, but you do not seem to realise that that is all there is to it. You are entitled to your opinions, but you should not deduce from your opinions that our rulings would be wrong. Just to recap your last sentence : > It is not, by the way, the job of the TD to try to work out "what > probably would have happened had the hand been played out". That way > lies danger. It _is_ up to the director to work out what _could_ have happened, had the hand been played out, and then award the lesser of all possible scores. Some of us believe that the circumstance which would lead to the defense getting a trump trick, could not have happened. So the correct answer to this thread is in fact : you should have been there. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 4 01:46:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA08170 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 01:46:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA08163 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 01:46:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from mamos.demon.co.uk ([158.152.129.79]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11Bglj-000Oqv-0B; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 15:46:26 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 16:45:13 +0100 To: Bertel Lund Hansen Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Subject: Re: Irrational(?) action in line statd with claim References: <37A2F559.795A211F@village.uunet.be> <199908021815.OAA11391@aryabhata.math.lsa.umich.edu> <37d0e6be.6914199@mail.image.dk> In-Reply-To: <37d0e6be.6914199@mail.image.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <37d0e6be.6914199@mail.image.dk>, Bertel Lund Hansen writes >Tue, 3 Aug 1999 11:12:10 +0100 skrev michael amos: > >>Once a claim has occurred play ceases - it seems to me to be likely that >>dummy isn't dummy any more :)))) > >Then the game cannot be finished, because there's no declarer and >no defenders either. Nobody even has the right to call the TD. > >Bertel Sorry - it was meant to be a little jest based on the when does a defender become a defender rather than an "about-to-be-a-defender" Dummy may still be dummy after play ceases (although I am not quite sure when he ceases to be dummy) (wish I hadn't started this) What I guess I was trying to say in a flippant (and consequently inaccurate manner - Sorry everyone and especially Bertel :)) is that limitations upon dummy apply during play - not once play has concluded mike :) -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 4 01:53:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA08209 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 01:53:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.zeelandnet.nl (mail.zeelandnet.nl [62.12.12.194]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA08204 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 01:53:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from pzmms (k298.zeelandnet.nl [193.172.202.44]) by mail.zeelandnet.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA26740 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 17:53:07 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <199908031553.RAA26740@mail.zeelandnet.nl> From: "Marcel Schoof" To: Subject: change Subscribtion Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 17:50:22 +0200 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Please change e-mail adress pzmms@zeelandnet.nl to mmschoof@wishmail.nl or sent appropriate adress From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 4 02:18:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA08479 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 02:18:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (mailhub.irvine.com [192.160.8.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA08474 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 02:18:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA18937; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 09:17:40 -0700 Message-Id: <199908031617.JAA18937@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Dropped card In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 04 Aug 1999 23:44:06 PDT." <37A91696.9EDEACD9@navix.net> Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 09:17:40 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Norm wrote: > It's not the size of the card that matters in drawing the inference > about length. If a card is randomly dropped from the hand, the odds > of it being a heart will relate directly to the number of hearts > held in the hand. Yes, it could be the a priori 7.7% chance that > it's the only heart partner holds, but it could also be the 46% > chance that it is one of the six hearts that he holds. Given the > normal distributions within those ranges, in all instances, the > highest probability is that the dropped card comes from the longest > suit in the hand. Therefore, it does communicate UI. In case anyone's interested: I did some math when I read Steve's original statement. If you know nothing about a 13-card hand, the expected number of hearts the hand holds is 13/4=3.25. If a heart falls out of the hand, the expected number of hearts rises to 3.824. So it does make a heart lead more attractive if your goal is to set up long-suit tricks (as in Marvin's example, where the contract is 1NT) or start a forcing game. However, while a dropped card does give useful information to partner, I'm not sure that it constitutes UI under the definitions in the Laws. L16C doesn't seem to apply since there's no withdrawn play (a dropped card is not a play), and I don't think L16A is supposed to apply to exposed cards. I could be wrong about this. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 4 02:28:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA08535 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 02:28:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from news.hal-pc.org (news.hal-pc.org [204.52.135.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA08530 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 02:27:55 +1000 (EST) From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org Received: from bbs.hal-pc.org (uucp@localhost) by news.hal-pc.org (8.9.3/8.9.0) with UUCP id LAA14494 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 11:27:48 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0G3KR02A Tue, 03 Aug 99 11:27:36 Message-ID: <9908031127.0G3KR02@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Tue, 03 Aug 99 11:27:36 Subject: DROPPED C To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk from the 63 lawbook [ACBL]: Irregularities 23. CARD EXPOSED OR LED DURING THE AUCTION Whenever, during the auction, a player faces a card on the table or holds a card so that it is possible for his partner to see its face, the Director must require that every such card be left face up on the table until the auction closes; and: (a) If it is a single card below the rank of an honor and not prematurely led, there is no penalty, and when the auction closes the card may be picked up. (b) If it is a single card of honor rank, or any card prematurely led, or if more than one card is so exposed, (penalty) the offender's partner must pass when next it is his turn to call; and if the offender subsequently be-comes a defender declarer may treat every such card as a penalty card (Law 5o). Hope this helps Roger Pewick B>> From: "Phillip Mendelsohn" B>Thanks for checking this with Memphis and for the report. B>> Butch Campbell, ... His interpretation was that B>> the faced card becomes the opening lead; Declarer has no option; the B>"may" > language was left over from an older version of the Laws and B>overlooked, but > should have been expunged. B>I have checked back to the 1975 Laws, and the relevant language has not B>changed since then. (The law was renumbered from 23A to 24 in 1987, B>but at a quick glance I see no other changes.) Anybody have a copy of B>the 1963 Laws at hand? There were major changes in 1975, and it's not B>surprising that an error could have been made then, but it is a little B>surprising that nobody has noticed until now. B>Was 1975 the first year Kaplan had major influence on the Laws? Is B>that why there were so many changes in that edition? B>Even if this is an error, shouldn't we follow the law as written absent B>an official instruction to the contrary? Is Butch Campbell authorized B>to give such an instruction within the ACBL? B> Roger Pewick Houston, Texas r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 4 02:39:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA08567 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 02:39:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (mailhub.irvine.com [192.160.8.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA08561 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 02:39:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA19255; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 09:39:01 -0700 Message-Id: <199908031639.JAA19255@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Correction of Revoke after Claim Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 09:39:01 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This type of situation may have come up on BLML before, but I'm not able to read every post on the list. My apologies if this subject has been covered previously. 52 A652 KQJT5 A984 52 QJT73 3 K9 9762 3 K986 K6 QJT73 QJT874 A84 A4 Against South's 5H, West leads a diamond. South wins in hand and leads the HQ--3, 2, spade 3. As soon as the spade 3 comes down, South faces his hand and claims 12 tricks on the marked finesse (and giving up on a squeeze that would work only if East has 8 clubs). East now says "oops, I have a heart". The revoke is not established, so it must be corrected by Law 62, but then what? Also, is there a slight hole in the Laws that needs plugging? L62C1 says that a non-offender's play may be withdrawn after a revoke is corrected, but a claim isn't a play, so it appears that this Law and L47 technically don't apply. I believe they should be applied anyway, since nothing else makes sense, but is this a case where something should be added to the Laws to cover this case? -- thanks, Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 4 03:04:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA08622 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 03:04:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA08617 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 03:03:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt092nb1.san.rr.com [204.210.48.177]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA16173; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 10:03:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <05b801beddd2$21250ee0$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Cc: References: <001901bedd65$f962f500$8f7af1d1@mminternet.com> Subject: Re: Dropped Card Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 09:54:37 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: Phillip Mendelsohn > I certainly am in no position to quarrel with Grattan about this matter, and > I certainly do not disagree with him. However, the subscribers to this list > should at least be aware that in ACBL-land, the interpretation I previously > mentioned has come down from on high (i.e., Memphis), and as far as ACBL TDs > are concerned, that interpretation is the "law of the land" until someone > (i.e., Gary Blaiss or the Laws Commission) says otherwise. > Mistakes like this should be appealable to the Laws Commission, but appeals to the LC are screened by Gary, which doesn't seem appropriate. By "screened," I mean that if he feels he can decide the appeal from knowledge gained as secretary to the LC, then it won't be passed on to the LC. That makes him a one-man LC, in effect, and I would prefer that an LC member do the screening, with further appeal to the full LC (or even the WBFLC!) perhaps remaining available. The new CEO David Silber has very little experience with duplicate, just rubber bridge, and needs help from some disinterersted (i.e., not currently in ACBL employ) right-hand person when it comes to the technical side of running ACBL games. He gets lots of "help" from ACBL Directors, but many of them have political axes to grind, and aren't too knowlegeable about technical things anyway, so I don't know what the answer is. Willing to give him time, since he is supposed to be a very capable executive. If anyone has suggestions, why not forward them to Mr. Silber (madsilber@aol.com)? He is quite accessible, as a good exec should be. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 4 03:34:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA08739 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 03:34:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA08734 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 03:34:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt092nb1.san.rr.com [204.210.48.177]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA24303 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 10:34:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <05b901beddd6$73777120$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C1F2@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: Excuse me if I demur Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 10:34:29 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: Kooijman, A. > > My interest in this case was drawn due to the use of the word 'may' in L24 > and I told you how we handle this situation in my country. I noticed support > from David for the idea to remove it and the feeling from Grattan to keep > it. That is my harvest. And furthermore I have to admit that I have > overlooked this case in 95/96, otherwise it would have been on the '97 > agenda. May be with the present outcome. > Keep it, please, what harm does it do other than withhold one more unnecessary power from the TD? It gives players the all-too-rare (these days) opportunity to display good sportsmanship The declarer says "Pick it up, I don't want to win that way," and the offender's partner carefully avoids taking advantage of his knowledge about the card (although free to do so, evidently). The TD is called, and explains L24, so what's the problem? Oh, I get it. A picked-up card is AI, and all sorts of repercussions could occur if the AI is used to advantage, perhaps inadvertently. TD called, big brouhaha, ruling appealed, etc. Better to ignore L24 and say it wasn't supposed to be worded that way. This should not be a problem. The TD says to declarer, "I explained L24 to you, including that the exposed card if picked up is AI to the other opponent, and it was your decision not to make it a penalty card. No damage." Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 4 04:00:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA08815 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 04:00:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA08810 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 04:00:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt092nb1.san.rr.com [204.210.48.177]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA00723 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 11:00:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <05c901beddda$1521d3a0$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" References: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3A6@XION> Subject: Re: Dropped Card Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 11:00:26 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: Martin Sinot > Phillip Mendelsohn wrote: > > >I haven't read this whole thread, but from what I can gander from the last > >posts, one of the players accidentally drops a card on the table face up > >during the auction period. The issue is, what does "declarer MAY choose to > >treat this a penalty card" mean? Can Declarer choose to NOT treat this as > a penalty card? > > If I remember well, in an earlier version of the Laws the following was > written when partner of the offender must make the opening lead: > > Declarer may choose to require or forbid the suit of the exposed card, in > which case that card is taken back, OR he may choose to let the card become a > penalty card. > > I might be mistaken, of course, but could it be that the sentence in L24 is > actually a reference to the old law mentioned above, which is no longer > present? > Can't find where you got the wording you remember. Here's what I have: 1963 Laws, L23b: "If it is a single card of honor rank, or any card prematurely led...the offender's partner must pass when it is his turn to call; and if the offender subsequently becomes a defender declarer may treat every such card as a penalty card (Law 50)" As in the current L24, the reference to L50 was merely to provide a pointer to the place where the disposition of penalty cards was explained. Oh, here we go: The 1946 Revision to the Laws, L21 Cards Faced, Seen, or Disclosed. No doubt this is what you remember (Martin may be of my generation): "(2) an Ace, King, Queen, or Jack; or a lower card prematurely led; or more than one card, PENALTY: The owner's partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call; and if the owner becomes a defender, declarer may treat every such card as a penalty card (L22),** or--if it is the other defender's opening lead--may require or forbid the opening lead of a specified suit." The ** footnote reads: Any card subject to clause (2) should be left face up on the table until after the auction closes, and--if the owner becomes a defender--until after declarer has selected a penalty. If declarer selects the lead penalty, all such cards may be picked up. So, the current law evidently came into being in 1963, which makes it pretty old. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 4 04:11:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA08886 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 04:11:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA08880 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 04:11:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt092nb1.san.rr.com [204.210.48.177]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA03377; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 11:10:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <05d901bedddb$85e4e720$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: Subject: Re: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 11:09:28 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-Meads wrote (intelligently): > In-Reply-To: <37A64DE2.FFF10CED@mindspring.com> > "John R. Mayne" wrote: > > > The response is: "We have no special partnership agreement, implicit > > > or > > > explicit, on that. He probably has the sort of hand one might expect, > > > nothing unusual, based on what I can remember." > > > > Feh. If you play against me and it goes 1D-hitch P-1H-P I might at > > favorable pass with a 4=2=4=3 19-count and try to catch you. Is that > > what you think they "might expect"? > > > And many of us might try the same ploy, probably including Marv. Better > that his partner does not give the impression that he will have weak hand > in this sequence. One instance is *not* sufficient evidence to draw any > inferences about meaning - only when you become aware of a pattern are you > in a position to share such knowledge with opponents. > > Were I playing with Marv (and desirous of giving oppos a lesson) I would > explain the bid as "He might have psyched the 1D with a weak hand, or > psyched the pass with a strong hand or had a mental block and passed by > mistake - I really couldn't tell you which of these is more likely". > (I still prefer Alice's answer). > In fact I did make such a pass several months ago with a 10 HCP hand that I opened inadvertently with knee-jerk instinct at sight of an AK suit. The bidding went 1D-2C-2H by Alice, and I took a chance (at missing game, and/or at facing Alice's wrath) by passing. Unfortunately stupid LHO did not reopen to get a big penalty, we did miss a game, and I got a bit of a glare when I put down the dummy. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 4 04:11:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA08891 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 04:11:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA08879 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 04:11:04 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id NAA25445; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 13:09:48 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-07.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.39) by dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma025413; Tue Aug 3 13:09:16 1999 Message-ID: <00a301bedddb$d9f76cc0$27b420cc@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Jac Fuchs" , Subject: Re: Cat Diary Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 14:13:10 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I want to make it perfectly clear to the list that I did not make any pejoritive comment about the Dutch. I have considerable liking and respect for most Nederlanders with whom I have corresponded. I can see nothing in my post to provoke such a reaction, and see nothing about it that is in any way below the belt. If Mr. Fuchs is NOT "terminally humour impaired" which was itself a phrase intended in a rather light hearted rather than negatively critical, there should be no reason for him to be offended. How he generalises the comment to his landsmen I do not know. Is this some unjustified stereotype of which I am unaware? In the U.S, we tend to think of the Dutch as stalwart rather than stolid. The post of Henk's, to which I responded, did seem rather heavy handed in its criticism of an enjoyable humourous article known to have appeal to many on the list. I in effect urged him to lighten up, and encouraged the original poster who must have felt rather stepped on. In general, I have found Henk's other posts often quite interesting and from time to time have agreed with him publicly. He is (and was) fully capable of responding himself. I hope there is no ill will. I do insist however that we dispel once and forever any suggestion that I have any negative feelings toward the Dutch, a fine and far-from-humourless people who have shown their fondness for bridge by the frequency and number in which they play and by their voluble and intelligent commentary on line. I can only suggest to Jac that he have his cat proofread his next submission to make certain he is not taking offense where none was given nor intended. -- Craig Senior -----Original Message----- From: Jac Fuchs To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Friday, July 30, 1999 7:42 PM Subject: Re: Cat Diary > > >Craig Senior wrote: > > >>Or to offer another view, may those talented enough continue it? It is one >>of the more enjoyable threads we have had recently. I don't think Henk can >>presume to speak for the majority...he certainly does not speak for me. >>Thanks to those on the list who are not terminally humour impaired. Surely >>you have a delete key Henk? The thread has only contained about 4 messages, >>not a crushing burden! >> >>-- >>Craig Senior > > >Dear Craig, > >I did not react to your below the belt reaction yesterday, because if nobody >would react the thread might be discontinued. >I am glad Henk did speak up to prevent this thread from becoming a >crushing burden, and I fully agree with him. > >Thank you, Craig, for pointing out that although I like cats, it is my lack >of humour that makes me agree with Henk. Next time, you may also try to >bring up our being Dutch, about which you undoubtedly can write some funny >mails too. > >And David, this does not apply to your contribution, which does deal with >what BLML is about. > >Jac >(Jac Fuchs) > > > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 4 04:29:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA08669 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 03:12:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA08653 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 03:11:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11Bi6G-000AIX-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 17:11:40 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 17:45:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: irrational (?) action in line with stated claim In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , James.Vickers@merck.de writes > >You may think I'm being too hard on the claimer, but I consider the onus to >be on him to ensure his claim covers all eventualities. I can live with >this attitude quite happily, and expect no less whenever I make a claim. It >is not, by the way, the job of the TD to try to work out "what probably >would have happened had the hand been played out". That way lies danger. > 100% in agreement - where does one draw the line otherwise? >James Vickers >Darmstadt, Germany > > chs john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 4 04:50:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA09069 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 04:50:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from fe040.worldonline.dk (fe040.worldonline.dk [212.54.64.205]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id EAA09064 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 04:50:51 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 8833 invoked by uid 0); 3 Aug 1999 18:50:42 -0000 Received: from 18.ppp1-24.image.dk (212.54.68.18) by mail020.worldonline.dk with SMTP; 3 Aug 1999 18:50:42 -0000 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Irrational(?) action in line statd with claim Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 18:22:13 GMT Message-ID: <37b93329.7251451@mail.image.dk> References: <37A2F559.795A211F@village.uunet.be> <199908021815.OAA11391@aryabhata.math.lsa.umich.edu> <37d0e6be.6914199@mail.image.dk> In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tue, 3 Aug 1999 16:45:13 +0100 skrev michael amos: >Sorry - it was meant to be a little jest ... I didn't read it as such. We have had misunderstandings along the same line before. >What I guess I was trying to say in a flippant (and consequently >inaccurate manner - Sorry everyone and especially Bertel :)) is that >limitations upon dummy apply during play - not once play has concluded Maybe you have to operate with two kinds of "play", because it is obvious that the play of the hand is not finished till all questions of tricks has been settled. What finishes after a claim is the physical part of moving cards. It would be ridiculous to forbid dummy to interfere before a claim and permit it after. Suppose the claim happened before trick one. And if dummy stops being dummy after a claim (and declarer stops being declarer), then it's suddenly legal for them to plan a play strategy among the two of them. That is hardly the intention of the law. Bertel -- Denmark http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 4 05:25:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA08680 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 03:12:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA08671 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 03:12:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11Bi6J-000AIW-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 17:11:44 +0000 Message-ID: <08PMjDBr0xp3Ew5N@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 17:47:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: irrational (?) action in line with stated claim In-Reply-To: <199908031528.LAA15036@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199908031528.LAA15036@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: James.Vickers@merck.de >> (iv) Declarer was aware that the trumps could be 5-0, but didn't think it >> worth mentioning as it's obvious what any player would do in this >> situation. > >Could you, or John Probst who appears to have similar sentiments, >please suggest appropriate language for this declarer to use when >he claims? Please bear in mind that it will have to be short. > "Drawing trump, using a side entry if they're 5-0 - and MadDog will rule against me if there is a ruff available on any of the routes back to hand" chs john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 4 05:32:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA09162 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 05:32:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov [128.183.16.143]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id FAA09157 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 05:31:59 +1000 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (LHEA9504/950407.s1) id PAA05556 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 15:31:52 -0400 From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <199908031931.PAA05556@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Off-topic postings and possibly a splinter mailing list? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 15:31:52 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <00a301bedddb$d9f76cc0$27b420cc@host> from "Craig Senior" at Aug 3, 99 02:13:10 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Please note: I am not trying to fuel the flames going on here. I tend to think that I am far from "humor impaired" and yet, I too, would like to urge those involved to discontinue humor threads in this forum. As a computer professional, I received between 75-150 messages a day (yes, a day). that are not BLML related. Add on the huge volume from BLML (which seems to be averaging over 50/day) and my mailbox is getting pretty cumbersome. I do have other things to do rather than just reading mail and it gets harder and harder to keep up. I do have a delete key and it still takes me a while to sort out BLML mail and delete unwanted humor threads, etc. When something similar happened to one of my professional organizations, we split into two groups, effective BLML and BLML-lite or BLML-etc which became a forum for off-topic or slightly off-topic discusions. We've often had discussions move from the main list to the auxillary list to avoid cluttering up the main list. And those who want both can sign up to both, those who don't can keep on the main list only. I discontinued reading RGB about 8 years ago because the noise-to-signal ratio got too high. I was recently encouraged to sign up for BLML because it culled out the "noise" and kept up the signal. I'd hate to have to unsubscribe because the noise level got too high. So, I'm encouraging folks to help keep the list on-topic. I appreciate humor, but only when I'm looking for it and from this list, I'm not. -Ted. > From: "Craig Senior" > Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 14:13:10 -0400 > > If Mr. Fuchs is NOT "terminally humour impaired" which was itself a > phrase intended in a rather light hearted rather than negatively critical, > there should be no reason for him to be offended. How he generalises the > comment to his landsmen I do not know. Is this some unjustified stereotype > of which I am unaware? In the U.S, we tend to think of the Dutch as stalwart > rather than stolid. > > The post of Henk's, to which I responded, did seem rather heavy handed > in its criticism of an enjoyable humourous article known to have appeal to > many on the list. I in effect urged him to lighten up, and encouraged the > original poster who must have felt rather stepped on. > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 4 05:36:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA08670 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 03:12:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA08652 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 03:11:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11Bi6E-000AIT-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 17:11:39 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 17:40:21 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Incorrect score (fwd) In-Reply-To: <7rI6vgBB3ip3EwpO@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <7rI6vgBB3ip3EwpO@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes >Michael Schmahl wrote: >>On Mon, 2 Aug 1999, Gordon Bower wrote: >> >>: >>: >>: This was hilarious! >>: But it does raise an interesting question about what to do if both sides >>: agree on the wrong number, doesn't it.... >>: ------ >>: I once had a table that agreed upon a score of 75 (they couldn't be >>: bothered to work out if a stupid slam was down 1 or down 2). I couldn't >>: find a law that stopped them. >>: To be fair, it was a head-to-head and all four players at the table *knew* the score would be 11 imps(450+50 or 420+100). I'm sure they'd have sorted it out if they'd needed to. I wasn't called to the table, I just "saw" it happen. It was the GB Premier League btw :)) john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 4 06:05:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA09249 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 06:05:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA09244 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 06:05:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt092nb1.san.rr.com [204.210.48.177]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA02580 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 13:05:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <05fa01beddeb$7fac3d80$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <000401beddbc$bc084000$ad8193c3@pacific> Subject: Re: WBFLC Interpretation #3 & the ACBL Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 13:02:55 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: Grattan Endicott > From: Marvin L. French > > >Grattan doesn't think that a revoke is irrational > > ++ Grattan takes the view that to be irrational an > action must be deliberate, meditated upon. An > action to which a person has given no thought > does not reflect an irrational thought process. Didn't mean to criticize Grattan for holding this opinion, which is a reasonable one. My big dictionary has these as the principle meanings, in order of common usage, for "irrational." 1. Without the faculty of, or not endowed with, reason (irrational animals) 2. Temporarily without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason 3. Without or deprived of sound judgment While still respecting it, II guess I have to disagree with Grattan's opinion, which seems to accord with the primary meaning (#1). I prefer to take "irrational" as meaning #2 when applying the word to a revoke, and would therefore include revokes (LOOTs and BOOTs also) in the "irrrational, wild, or gambling actions" that are grounds for annulment of redress. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 4 06:29:30 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA08668 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 03:12:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA08654 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 03:11:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11Bi6G-00098U-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 17:11:41 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 18:10:40 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Excuse me if I demur In-Reply-To: <37A92B28.F7D1D438@navix.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <37A92B28.F7D1D438@navix.net>, "Norman H. Hostetler" writes >John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >> In article <199908021709.NAA14106@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner >> willner@cfa183.harvard.edu> writes >> >> << snip>> > >> Posession of the card is AI, since the penalty (potentially that is) of >> having to pass at the next turn to call will have been paid. >> > >> >Could you cite a law reference for that, please? I don't see how the >> exposed card can be AI since 1997. >> > >> law 72A5 > > <> > >How would you rule on the following hand? > > Dlr: S North S T95 > Vul:N H Q63 > D A53 > C AKJ8 > East S >J72 West S A3 > H >K5 H AT942 > D >JT94 D 876 > C >T432 C 765 > South S KQ864 > H J87 > D KQ2 > C Q9 > 10% PP for using tabs and a proportional font to start with NB have corrected West and East > Dlr: S North S T95 > Vul:N H Q63 D A53 C AKJ8 West S J72 East S A3 H K5 H AT942 D JT94 D 876 C T432 C 765 South S KQ864 H J87 D KQ2 C Q9 >In sorting his hand, E (now West) accidentally drops the HK on the table. The TD is >called and Law 24 applied, but the auction penalty makes no difference as NS >bid unimpeded to 4S, with neither H nor D being named. At this point S, >apparently thinking of a potential H weakness, waives making the HK a penalty >card. E, a very ethical player, makes the normal lead of the DJ. The play >starts: > >1. DJ, A, 6, 2 >2. ST, A, 4, 2 >3. H2, 7, K, 3 >4. H5, 6, A, 8 >5. H9, J, S7, H3 > >At this point, you are re-called to the table by a very upset South, who claims >that W would never have found the fatal underlead without the exposed card. > > Your ruling is? > I don't think this a Law 16 applicable problem. To my mind the penalty has been paid for the exposure of the card by East's enforced pass. Declarer has restored the card to West's hand. This is no different from any situation where a card has been restored to a defender's hand once the penalty has been paid (ie lead penalties when pard has an exposed card). The defender is not obliged to play it and the possession of the card itself is AI to partner. Result stands "Sorry South, rub of the green". Not that I'm 100% happy about it. john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 4 06:56:22 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA09357 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 06:56:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from deimos.worldonline.nl (deimos.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.136]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA09352 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 06:56:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (vp177-239.worldonline.nl [195.241.177.239]) by deimos.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA09566; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 22:56:01 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <00ca01beddf2$d6beb880$f2b1f1c3@default> From: "Jac Fuchs" To: "Craig Senior" Cc: Subject: Re: Cat Diary Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 22:57:44 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear Craig, Luckily my mail handler did not delete your mail automatically, even though the character sequence c-a-t appears in the subject line :-) I think it was clear to every reader of BLML that it was ME who brought in the Dutch, and not you, so there was no need for you to feel bad in that respect. I welcome your assurance that you had no ill will, and I accept it wholeheartedly. Apparently I did misread your mail or your intention, probably both, and I am sorry my failure to take your mail as it was intended made you feel forced to put a lot of energy into writing your latest mail. I am afraid I don't have an apt proofreader: I don't have any cats (although I like the species very much), because I feel I don't spend enough time at home to be able to care for a cat properly. Thanks again for your attempt to set a misunderstanding right that was at least partially caused by me. And next time, please feel free to call me Jac, best wishes, Jac (Jac Fuchs Utrecht, the Netherlands) ======================= -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: Craig Senior Aan: Jac Fuchs ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Datum: dinsdag 3 augustus 1999 20:10 Onderwerp: Re: Cat Diary > I want to make it perfectly clear to the list that I did not make any >pejoritive comment about the Dutch. I have considerable liking and respect >for most Nederlanders with whom I have corresponded. I can see nothing in my >post to provoke such a reaction, and see nothing about it that is in any way >below the belt. > > If Mr. Fuchs is NOT "terminally humour impaired" which was itself a >phrase intended in a rather light hearted rather than negatively critical, >there should be no reason for him to be offended. How he generalises the >comment to his landsmen I do not know. Is this some unjustified stereotype >of which I am unaware? In the U.S, we tend to think of the Dutch as stalwart >rather than stolid. > > The post of Henk's, to which I responded, did seem rather heavy handed >in its criticism of an enjoyable humourous article known to have appeal to >many on the list. I in effect urged him to lighten up, and encouraged the >original poster who must have felt rather stepped on. > > In general, I have found Henk's other posts often quite interesting >and from time to time have agreed with him publicly. He is (and was) fully >capable of responding himself. I hope there is no ill will. > > I do insist however that we dispel once and forever any suggestion >that I have any negative feelings toward the Dutch, a fine and >far-from-humourless people who have shown their fondness for bridge by the >frequency and number in which they play and by their voluble and intelligent >commentary on line. I can only suggest to Jac that he have his cat proofread >his next submission to make certain he is not taking offense where none was >given nor intended. > >-- >Craig Senior > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Jac Fuchs >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Date: Friday, July 30, 1999 7:42 PM >Subject: Re: Cat Diary > > >> >> >>Craig Senior wrote: >> >> >>>Or to offer another view, may those talented enough continue it? It is >one >>>of the more enjoyable threads we have had recently. I don't think Henk can >>>presume to speak for the majority...he certainly does not speak for me. >>>Thanks to those on the list who are not terminally humour impaired. Surely >>>you have a delete key Henk? The thread has only contained about 4 >messages, >>>not a crushing burden! >>> >>>-- >>>Craig Senior >> >> >>Dear Craig, >> >>I did not react to your below the belt reaction yesterday, because if >nobody >>would react the thread might be discontinued. >>I am glad Henk did speak up to prevent this thread from becoming a >>crushing burden, and I fully agree with him. >> >>Thank you, Craig, for pointing out that although I like cats, it is my lack >>of humour that makes me agree with Henk. Next time, you may also try to >>bring up our being Dutch, about which you undoubtedly can write some funny >>mails too. >> >>And David, this does not apply to your contribution, which does deal with >>what BLML is about. >> >>Jac >>(Jac Fuchs) >> >> >> > > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 4 07:02:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA09395 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 07:02:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA09389 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 07:02:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt092nb1.san.rr.com [204.210.48.177]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA14450 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 14:02:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <061701beddf3$7d16f300$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <9908031004.0E5S902@bbs.hal-pc.org> Subject: Re: EXCUSE ME IF I DEMUR Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 14:02:13 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Roger Pewick wrote: > > I have a difficult time describing a prematurely exposed card as anything > other than a source of extraneous information whether or not the card is > picked up as a non penalty card. L16A says that extraneous information is > UI. I see no reference as to the disposition of UI from the exposed card in > L24 and I see no need for such since L16A covers it. Have I got it wrong? > Well, it would be L16A, not L16B, as I thought at first. When L16B says "card belonging to another player at his own table before the auction begins," that does not include partner's card, logically, since information from partner is covered by L16A. Maybe L16B should read "card belonging to an opponent," just to make this clear. So what about L16A? Its examples of UI from partner are not meant to be all-inclusive, obviously, but "or the like* (a good phrase for L90B) seems to exclude seeing a card from partner's hand, which is not *like* any of the examples given. Moreover, all the examples are of the nature of deliberate actions, not accidental ones. Nor can L16C apply, since exposing the card did not consitute a "play." Nevertheless it does seem that a picked-up honor card ought to be UI, especially since I would expect an opponent not to make use of that information. If I would expect it, maybe the Laws should also. And maybe Roger is right. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 4 07:22:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA09466 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 07:22:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA09458 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 07:22:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from claytor.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@claytor.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.64.22]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA00494 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 17:22:20 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 17:22:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199908032122.RAA27692@claytor.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <9908031127.0G3KR02@bbs.hal-pc.org> (r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org) Subject: Re: DROPPED C Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk r.pewick writes: > from the 63 lawbook [ACBL]: > Irregularities > 23. CARD EXPOSED OR LED DURING THE AUCTION > Whenever, during the auction, a player faces a card on the table or holds a > card so that it is possible for his partner to see its face, the Director > must require that every such card be left face up on the table until the > auction closes; and: > (a) If it is a single card below the rank of an honor and not > prematurely led, there is no penalty, and when the auction closes the card > may be picked up. Note that this part of the law has changed with the introduction of minor penalty cards (relevant to the case I discussed, in which the H7 was exposed before the lead). The current Laws specify that the card in question may always be a penalty card. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner 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 Aug 4 07:25:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA09497 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 07:24:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA09492 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 07:24:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from claytor.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@claytor.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.64.22]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA00511 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 17:24:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 17:24:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199908032124.RAA27715@claytor.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199908031617.JAA18937@mailhub.irvine.com> (message from Adam Beneschan on Tue, 03 Aug 1999 09:17:40 PDT) Subject: Re: Dropped card Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan writes: > However, while a dropped card does give useful information to partner, > I'm not sure that it constitutes UI under the definitions in the Laws. > L16C doesn't seem to apply since there's no withdrawn play (a dropped > card is not a play), and I don't think L16A is supposed to apply to > exposed cards. I could be wrong about this. This is explicit in L50C; a dropped card is a minor penalty card, and information gained from seeing it is UI. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner 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 Aug 4 07:53:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA09655 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 07:53:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (mailhub.irvine.com [192.160.8.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA09650 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 07:52:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA25208; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 14:51:02 -0700 Message-Id: <199908032151.OAA25208@mailhub.irvine.com> To: David Grabiner cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Dropped card In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 03 Aug 1999 17:24:04 PDT." <199908032124.RAA27715@claytor.math.lsa.umich.edu> Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 14:50:59 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: > Adam Beneschan writes: > > > However, while a dropped card does give useful information to partner, > > I'm not sure that it constitutes UI under the definitions in the Laws. > > L16C doesn't seem to apply since there's no withdrawn play (a dropped > > card is not a play), and I don't think L16A is supposed to apply to > > exposed cards. I could be wrong about this. > > This is explicit in L50C; a dropped card is a minor penalty card, and > information gained from seeing it is UI. You're right. I missed that one. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 4 08:25:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA09484 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 07:23:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (mailhub.irvine.com [192.160.8.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA09478 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 07:23:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA24708; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 14:22:36 -0700 Message-Id: <199908032122.OAA24708@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: EXCUSE ME IF I DEMUR In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 03 Aug 1999 14:02:13 PDT." <061701beddf3$7d16f300$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 14:22:37 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marv wrote: > So what about L16A? Its examples of UI from partner are not meant to be > all-inclusive, obviously, but "or the like* (a good phrase for L90B) seems > to exclude seeing a card from partner's hand, which is not *like* any of the > examples given. Moreover, all the examples are of the nature of deliberate > actions, not accidental ones. Just to nitpick^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hclarify: there are things that are clearly covered by L16A that aren't deliberate. For example, once LHO opened 2C, partner doubled, I alerted (we were playing CRASH), and partner made a face as soon as he heard my alert (oops, I forgot we were playing CRASH). I can't consider this to be deliberate---it was more of an involuntary reaction---but it was certainly UI for me. I tried to be ethical and took a dive for -2000 (why do you think they call it CRASH?). But I tend to agree that the intent of L16A wasn't to handle dropped cards any more than it was to handle withdrawn cards (which L16C handles). If anything, I believe that we want dropped cards to become UI, then this should fall under L16C (which would need a bit of rewording), not L16A. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 4 08:35:29 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA09749 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 08:35:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp4.erols.com (smtp4.erols.com [207.172.3.237]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA09744 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 08:35:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (209-122-253-217.s217.tnt8.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [209.122.253.217]) by smtp4.erols.com (8.8.8/smtp-v1) with SMTP id SAA18006 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 18:35:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <009c01bede00$220260a0$d9fd7ad1@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <199908031639.JAA19255@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: Correction of Revoke after Claim Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 18:32:55 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Adam Beneschan To: Cc: Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 1999 12:39 PM Subject: Correction of Revoke after Claim > > This type of situation may have come up on BLML before, but I'm not > able to read every post on the list. My apologies if this subject has > been covered previously. > > 52 > A652 > KQJT5 > A984 52 QJT73 > 3 K9 > 9762 3 > K986 K6 QJT73 > QJT874 > A84 > A4 > > Against South's 5H, West leads a diamond. South wins in hand and > leads the HQ--3, 2, spade 3. As soon as the spade 3 comes down, South > faces his hand and claims 12 tricks on the marked finesse (and giving > up on a squeeze that would work only if East has 8 clubs). East now > says "oops, I have a heart". The revoke is not established, so it > must be corrected by Law 62, but then what? > The revoke is corrected. The spade 3 is a major penalty card that must be played at the first legal opportunity. However, the S hand is UI to W, since it was revealed as the result of a withdrawn play by E (L16C2). The S hand certainly suggests a spade return by W, so if there is a LA it is forbidden. Unfortunately for S, there does not appear to be a logical alternative to a spade return by W. If S plays a low spade, the 8 wins, and any play other than the spade A appears silly (particularly if the game were IMPs). If S plays the SK, the low spade led by E would normally suggest a high honor. L50D1 tells us that info from the facing of the major penalty card is UI to W, so he can't treat the S3 as a discard, but must assume it was an intended lead. Once again, no alternative but a spade return. Down 1. If someone can convince me that there is a scenario where a passive return by W is a LA, even with those diamonds in Dummy, I would disallow the spade return by W and let the contract make. There was a penalty for the unestablished revoke, which was paid, so we cannot invoke 84E or 12A1. The fact that the penalty card was a spade, and also an unequivocable signal to return the suit, is just plain unlucky for Declarer. > Also, is there a slight hole in the Laws that needs plugging? L62C1 > says that a non-offender's play may be withdrawn after a revoke is > corrected, but a claim isn't a play, so it appears that this Law and > L47 technically don't apply. True, but we don't want to withdraw the claim, as there's no way to play the hand out normally once the defense has seen all of Declarer's hand. We need to adjudicate the claim. The relevant withdrawn action is the spade 3, which is adequately covered under 62B1. >I believe they should be applied anyway, > since nothing else makes sense, but is this a case where something > should be added to the Laws to cover this case? > > -- thanks, Adam I agree completely that the Laws don't cover many of the situations that arise where there is a false claim based on an opponent's infraction. We have discussed some of these issues fairly recently under some of the revoke and claim threads. However, IMO this particular claim can be adjudicated sensibly under the Laws. The major area of contention would be whether or not a spade return by W is a LA, which is a bridge judgement rather than a Law question. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 4 08:50:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA09810 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 08:50:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.iol.ie (mail1.mail.iol.ie [194.125.2.192]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA09805 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 08:50:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from tsvecfob.iol.ie (dialup-004.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.196]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA41743 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 23:50:06 +0100 (IST) Message-ID: <004b01bede04$2fc92760$c4307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Subject: Re: Dropped card Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 00:01:52 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: > Adam Beneschan writes: > > > However, while a dropped card does give useful information to partner, > > I'm not sure that it constitutes UI under the definitions in the Laws. > > L16C doesn't seem to apply since there's no withdrawn play (a dropped > > card is not a play), and I don't think L16A is supposed to apply to > > exposed cards. I could be wrong about this. > > This is explicit in L50C; a dropped card is a minor penalty card, and > information gained from seeing it is UI. >You're right. I missed that one. Adam L50C relates to the play period but I agree that L16A applies to the dropped card and that partneris in possession of UI. Regards Fearghal From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 4 08:54:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA09825 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 08:54:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA09820 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 08:54:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt092nb1.san.rr.com [204.210.48.177]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA29298 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 15:54:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <065c01bede03$18068060$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199908032122.RAA27692@claytor.math.lsa.umich.edu> Subject: Re: DROPPED C Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 15:46:38 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner writes: > r.pewick writes: > > > from the 63 lawbook [ACBL]: > > > Irregularities > > > 23. CARD EXPOSED OR LED DURING THE AUCTION > > > Whenever, during the auction, a player faces a card on the table or holds a > > card so that it is possible for his partner to see its face, the Director > > must require that every such card be left face up on the table until the > > auction closes; and: > > (a) If it is a single card below the rank of an honor and not > > prematurely led, there is no penalty, and when the auction closes the card > > may be picked up. > > Note that this part of the law has changed with the introduction of > minor penalty cards (relevant to the case I discussed, in which the H7 > was exposed before the lead). The current Laws specify that the card in > question may always be a penalty card. > The change came in the 1987/1990 Laws. For rubber bridge the change came in 1993. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 4 08:59:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA09845 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 08:59:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.rdc1.pa.home.com (imail@ha1.rdc1.pa.home.com [24.2.5.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA09840 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 08:59:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from cc33764-a.glou1.nj.home.com ([24.1.53.108]) by mail.rdc1.pa.home.com (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with SMTP id <19990803225906.RRAM24014.mail.rdc1.pa.home.com@cc33764-a.glou1.nj.home.com> for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 15:59:06 -0700 From: Brian@meadows.pair.com (Brian Meadows) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Off-topic postings and possibly a splinter mailing list? Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 22:58:53 GMT Message-ID: <37a87040.56225821@mail.glou1.nj.home.com> References: <199908031931.PAA05556@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> In-Reply-To: <199908031931.PAA05556@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 3 Aug 1999 15:31:52 -0400 (EDT), Ted Ying wrote: > As a computer professional, I received between 75-150 >messages a day (yes, a day). that are not BLML related. Add on >the huge volume from BLML (which seems to be averaging over 50/day) >and my mailbox is getting pretty cumbersome. Ted, As another computer professional, I urge you, and anyone else who is bothered by the minute increase in volume due to the occasional humourous posting in this list, to invest in a decent e-mail reader with filtering capabilities. My wife gets a couple of high volume mailing lists. I get blml, discuss@okbridge, and a batch of other programmers' mailing lists. Probably in excess of 500 e-mails a day, all told. All of them are automatically sorted into appropriate folders, so I can deal with the business ones first, and then the others as my wife and I see fit. It took me about half an hour in total to set up the filtering rules. While we're on the subject, I think the *occasional* humourous posting benefits a mailing list. If there's to be a vote, you can count mine on Craig and David's side. If there's to be a ban on humour by majority wish then so be it, but I certainly don't accept "I have an overloaded mailbox" as a valid reason, particularly not coming from a computer professional. Brian. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 4 09:08:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA09871 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 09:08:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.iol.ie (mail1.mail.iol.ie [194.125.2.192]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA09866 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 09:08:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from tsvecfob.iol.ie (dialup-004.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.196]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA48166 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 00:07:59 +0100 (IST) Message-ID: <005901bede06$af5b0320$c4307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Subject: Re: Dropped card Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 00:19:48 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marv wrote: > So what about L16A? Its examples of UI from partner are not meant to be > all-inclusive, obviously, but "or the like* (a good phrase for L90B) seems > to exclude seeing a card from partner's hand, which is not *like* any of the > examples given. Moreover, all the examples are of the nature of deliberate > actions, not accidental ones. Adam wrote: Just to nitpick^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hclarify: there are things that are clearly covered by L16A that aren't deliberate. For example, once LHO opened 2C, partner doubled, I alerted (we were playing CRASH), and partner made a face as soon as he heard my alert (oops, I forgot we were playing CRASH). I can't consider this to be deliberate---it was more of an involuntary reaction---but it was certainly UI for me. I tried to be ethical and took a dive for -2000 (why do you think they call it CRASH?). But I tend to agree that the intent of L16A wasn't to handle dropped cards any more than it was to handle withdrawn cards (which L16C handles). If anything, I believe that we want dropped cards to become UI, then this should fall under L16C (which would need a bit of rewording), not L16A. -- Adam Until L16C is re-worded we have to use L16A. Regards, Fearghal From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 4 09:10:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA09886 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 09:10:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (mailhub.irvine.com [192.160.8.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA09881 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 09:10:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA26815; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 16:10:03 -0700 Message-Id: <199908032310.QAA26815@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Dropped card In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 03 Aug 1999 14:50:59 PDT." <199908032151.OAA25208@mailhub.irvine.com> Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 16:10:05 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I wrote: > David Grabiner wrote: > > > Adam Beneschan writes: > > > > > However, while a dropped card does give useful information to partner, > > > I'm not sure that it constitutes UI under the definitions in the Laws. > > > L16C doesn't seem to apply since there's no withdrawn play (a dropped > > > card is not a play), and I don't think L16A is supposed to apply to > > > exposed cards. I could be wrong about this. > > > > This is explicit in L50C; a dropped card is a minor penalty card, and > > information gained from seeing it is UI. > > You're right. I missed that one. Actually, after reading more of the Laws, there appears to be an interesting inconsistency in the 1997 Laws. L16C was updated so that a card played and withdrawn is now UI even if there was already a penalty such as a lead penalty. (Previously, the withdrawn card was AI after a penalty was paid.) The bit in L50C about the penalty card being UI is also new in the 1997 Laws. So it appears that: (1) If one defender leads out of turn, his partner is subject to a lead penalty. If declarer opts to require or prohibit a lead, offender may put his card back, BUT PARTNER MUST TREAT THE CARD AS UI. (L16C) (2) If one defender accidentally drops a low card, either during the auction or during play, there is no lead penalty, BUT PARTNER MUST TREAT THE DROPPED CARD AS UI (*). L16C doesn't apply here because the card wasn't played, but L50C says the card is UI. BUT: (3) If one defender accidentally drops an honor, and partner gains the lead, partner is subject to a lead penalty (*). If declarer opts to require or prohibit a lead, offender may put his card back, BUT PARTNER DOESN'T HAVE TO TREAT THE CARD AS UI THIS TIME!! L16C doesn't apply because the card was dropped and not played, and L50D doesn't refer to Law 16 the way L50C does. I'm betting this was an oversight. (Of course, since I already missed one Law, it's possible the oversight is mine.) -- Adam (*) If the card was dropped during the auction, we're assuming declarer requires is to be treated as a penalty card. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 4 09:41:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA09986 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 09:41:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA09981 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 09:41:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt092nb1.san.rr.com [204.210.48.177]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA05277 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 16:41:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <067b01bede09$aa1494a0$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <004b01bede04$2fc92760$c4307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> Subject: Re: Dropped card Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 16:38:53 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: Fearghal O'Boyle > > David Grabiner wrote: > > > Adam Beneschan writes: > > > > > However, while a dropped card does give useful information to partner, > > > I'm not sure that it constitutes UI under the definitions in the Laws. > > > L16C doesn't seem to apply since there's no withdrawn play (a dropped > > > card is not a play), and I don't think L16A is supposed to apply to > > > exposed cards. I could be wrong about this. > > > > This is explicit in L50C; a dropped card is a minor penalty card, and > > information gained from seeing it is UI. > > >You're right. I missed that one. Adam > > > L50C relates to the play period but I agree that L16A applies to the dropped > card and that partner is in possession of UI. > That makes sense, but why then did the lawmakers, who rightfully brag in the Preface about their extensive cross-referencing, not reference L16A in L24? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 4 09:44:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA09608 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 07:44:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA09602 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 07:44:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11BmLu-0009nE-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 21:44:06 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 18:25:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Correction of Revoke after Claim In-Reply-To: <199908031639.JAA19255@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199908031639.JAA19255@mailhub.irvine.com>, Adam Beneschan writes > >This type of situation may have come up on BLML before, but I'm not >able to read every post on the list. My apologies if this subject has >been covered previously. > > 52 > A652 > KQJT5 > A984 52 QJT73 > 3 K9 > 9762 3 > K986 K6 QJT73 > QJT874 > A84 > A4 > >Against South's 5H, West leads a diamond. South wins in hand and >leads the HQ--3, 2, spade 3. As soon as the spade 3 comes down, South >faces his hand and claims 12 tricks on the marked finesse (and giving >up on a squeeze that would work only if East has 8 clubs). East now >says "oops, I have a heart". The revoke is not established, so it >must be corrected by Law 62, but then what? > play ceases, and the director determines the hand. The HK is deemed to have won, and the S3 is returned, West takes the K with the Ace, and reading the 3 (not having seen the Q) as a suit preference (doubtful points resolved in favour of the non-offenders) returns a club. Advise them to take it to appeal, as a UK AC might well split the score or overrule me entirely. West might have QTxxx and lead small there. chs john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 4 10:18:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA10095 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 10:18:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov [128.183.16.143]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA10090 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 10:17:58 +1000 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (LHEA9504/950407.s1) id UAA10267 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 20:17:43 -0400 From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <199908040017.UAA10267@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [Bidding boxes] Nodding/tapping for the final pass To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 20:17:43 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <199908021126.NAA16299@mail.zeelandnet.nl> from "Marcel Schoof" at Aug 2, 99 01:24:28 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk As a general rule, unless the players are rank novices or very new to bidding boxes, I will usually rule that either tapping the table, nodding (if it indicates a pass) or picking up the bidding cards constitutes an actual pass. To me, it is similar to someone verbally saying "pass" when bidding boxes are in use. Any clear indication by a player that they are passing, in effect, constitutes a correct call. If the player is questioned and shows that they misunderstood that they had another call coming, I treat it as a "change of call" or if obvious, as an "inadvertent call" (as in L25). If they say they had "intended another bid" or misunderstood the auction, that's a mistake they have to live with. For example, if they player had mistaken the auction and actually played a pass card, would you allow them to change it? I think the same restrictions apply here. In the auction below, I think that picking the bids up indicates a pass and the X at the end constitutes a change of intent which I wouldn't allow. Believe me, it only takes one or two incidents like this to encourage people to use the final pass. I do have to admit that I do literally tap the bidding cards for a final pass only, but then I treat it as an actual pass for all purposes and if the director is called, then I will put the final pass down before the director arrives to indicate that I had in fact bid it. I do not believe that the "tap" should be treated in any way differently from a green card. -Ted. > From: "Marcel Schoof" > Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 13:24:28 +0200 > > I agree that using the green pass-card should be learned as early as > possible (bridge-school for example). The situation were the intended bid > is unclear also happened in the following situation: > > N - E - S - W > 1H - 2D - 3H - 4D > 4H - 5D - P - P > > Now North picks up his bidding card and puts down a Double (holding SA, > HA, DAK). Did he intend (by putting away his biddingcards) to Pass and is > the double not-allowed. Or is the double a legitimate bid. > > In the actual case all others removed their card, so to them it was a > surprise to see the double on the table. Deffenders claimed that it is > normal to "say" you pass by putting your card away. > > Marcel Schoof > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 4 10:36:48 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA10144 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 10:36:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (mailhub.irvine.com [192.160.8.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA10139 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 10:36:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA28440; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 17:35:57 -0700 Message-Id: <199908040035.RAA28440@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Correction of Revoke after Claim In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 03 Aug 1999 18:32:55 PDT." <009c01bede00$220260a0$d9fd7ad1@hdavis> Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 17:35:59 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: > > [Adam wrote:] > > Also, is there a slight hole in the Laws that needs plugging? L62C1 > > says that a non-offender's play may be withdrawn after a revoke is > > corrected, but a claim isn't a play, so it appears that this Law and > > L47 technically don't apply. > > True, but we don't want to withdraw the claim, as there's no way to play the > hand out normally once the defense has seen all of Declarer's hand. We need > to adjudicate the claim. . . . This is the problem I was getting at. Suppose a defender revokes; declarer, seeing that someone has shown out, claims; but then the defender notices the revoke before it has become established. What should happen? If a revoke is followed by a *play* and then the revoke is noticed, the NO's play may be withdrawn and becomes UI for the offenders (L62C1). This, of course, is the fair way to do things. But what if the revoke is followed by a claim? If the claim was based on the "fact" that someone showed out, and that fact turns out to be incorrect, it doesn't seem fair to hold declarer to his claim---but on the other hand, if play continues, the defense will have seen all of declarer's cards. My previous example was faulty; I forgot that the card withdrawn when the revoke is corrected becomes a penalty card. Here's an improved example (I hope): 652 T9653 64 A42 J943 QT87 Q7 82 J8752 AKQ3 65 873 AK AKJ4 T9 KQJT9 Matchpoints. South plays 4H with no opposition bidding (possible if N-S are using a strong club system). West leads the S3; 2, Q, A. South leads the HA and West plays the club 5. South now faces his hand and claims 12 tricks (get to the club ace to pick up hearts). West now notices the club in front of him, says "oh s*^&" to give him a better chance of winning an appeal, and calls the director. Of course, the revoke must be corrected. But what now? Clearly, the claim is no longer valid since South cannot be sure of picking up the suit without loss; in fact, he can't even tell how many diamond tricks he'll lose once the defense takes their HQ, if they do. There are two possibilities. If West has a stiff heart, declarer should enter dummy with a club to take the heart finesse. If West has any other holding, declarer should cash the heart king, and if necessary, throw in West with the heart queen to force him to lead the penalty card. Declarer may judge that the singleton heart with West is more likely since West would have been less likely to revoke if he had more than one heart in his hand. So how do we rule? I can see three possibilities: (1) Allow declarer to withdraw the claim and continue playing; and if at any point the defense has a decision to make, and the defense makes a decision that's suggested by the UI from seeing every card in declarer's hand, we adjust based on what likely would have happened if the defense had made the opposite decision. Thus, if declarer enters dummy (eating the penalty card) and finesses the heart, West commits an infraction if he leads a diamond after seeing declarer's hand. (Law 16C, if we assume it applies to withdrawn claims, and 12C1.) (2) Try to adjudicate the claim (which would result in 10 tricks if this bad claim had happened with no infraction), and then try to adjust later (what Law applies?). (3) Stop play, deem the hand can no longer be played normally because the defense has seen declarer's hand, and adjust the score based on the most favorable likely result for declarer, which would be 13 tricks (what Law applies?). What do you all think? -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 4 10:38:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA10160 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 10:38:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov [128.183.16.143]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA10155 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 10:38:07 +1000 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (LHEA9504/950407.s1) id UAA10473 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 20:38:00 -0400 From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <199908040038.UAA10473@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: A Played Card? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 20:38:00 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <4.0.1.19990802105359.00f63900@pop.pegasus.com.au> from "Roger Penny and Jane Stapleton" at Aug 2, 99 11:06:00 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk First, if I haven't already spoken to this player, then I would comment that it is inappropriate for her to detach cards before her turn to play. If she continues to do this, she is liable to get a procedural penalty as it is a violation of the proprieties (as pointed out by others). > Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 11:06:00 +1000 > From: Roger Penny and Jane Stapleton > > An experienced player (and very fast) has developed the all too frequent > habit of detaching a card from her hand and standing it upright on the > table in front of her (although always with the face of the card hidden > from the rest of the table) before turning/dropping/flipping it face > upwards onto the table as her contribution to the trick in progress. > > (1) If an opponent calls you to the table and points out this behaviour > pattern to you, claiming that they find it > annoying/distracting/inappropriate, what action - if any - would you take? > If I've been called on this before (and have issued a warning), I would assign the player a PP. > (2) If, as declarer, she decides that she would prefer to return this 'on > end' card to her hand and play another card to the trick in progress, would > you allow her to do so? > Yes, but I would caution her that should the opponents be damaged in any way due to her actions and changes of actions, then she is liable to get an adjusted or assigned score. Defenders are always warned that they should take inferences from such actions at their own risk. A typical ruling would be if her action affected what the opponents did and they took inference from her action to award both sides a weaker result (for example, declarer is playing 4H and they take inference from her action to take only 2 tricks instead of 3, then I award -450 to the defenders and +420 to the declarer). I think that actions like this need to be taken to drive home the importance of adhering to thye proprieties. And defenders should realize that they really are responsible for any inferences they choose to make. > (3) Would your ruling change in any way if she holds the card in the 'on > end' position before RHO has played a card to the trick? > If it influences what RHO does at this point, then it would at a minimum deserve a PP if not an adjusted score (only one-sided adjustment). > (4) Would your ruling change in any way if she holds the card in the 'on > end' position before RHO has played a card to the trick and then wants to > change the card because RHO plays an 'unexpected' card? [For example, she > holds S.AQ and, having called for Sx from dummy, places SQ 'on end' on the > table, expecting to finesse while RHO is fumbling for a card and then wants > to change her "not-exposed-in-any-way" SQ and play SA instead because RHO > plays SK?] > In this case, the play is allowed and the result not changed, but a PP is warranted if she has been warned earlier about such actions. > (5) If your attention is drawn to the case cited in (4) BEFORE RHO plays > any card to this trick, would you rule that declarer has played a card out > of rotation? > No, but she should be warned not to detach cards from her hand (or assigned a PP if she has already been warned). RHO should be advised than any inference he takes from her action is done at his own risk. But in any event, the card is not yet played. > (6) What would be your ruling in each case if the player is a defender, > rather than declarer? Does it matter? > It definitely matters since now the player has a chance to pass UI to her partner. She should still get the warning, but if at all possible, I monitor her partner's plays and treat it as UI. If I suspect that the partner has taken inference from the UI, I'll adjust or assign a score. > (7) Would you consider assigning a procedural penalty in any of these cases? > Yes, see above. -Ted. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 4 10:38:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA09902 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 09:17:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (mailhub.irvine.com [192.160.8.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA09896 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 09:17:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA26950; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 16:17:06 -0700 Message-Id: <199908032317.QAA26950@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Correction of Revoke after Claim In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 03 Aug 1999 09:39:01 PDT." <199908031639.JAA19255@mailhub.irvine.com> Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 16:17:08 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I wrote: > This type of situation may have come up on BLML before, but I'm not > able to read every post on the list. My apologies if this subject has > been covered previously. > > 52 > A652 > KQJT5 > A984 52 QJT73 > 3 K9 > 9762 3 > K986 K6 QJT73 > QJT874 > A84 > A4 > > Against South's 5H, West leads a diamond. South wins in hand and > leads the HQ--3, 2, spade 3. As soon as the spade 3 comes down, South > faces his hand and claims 12 tricks on the marked finesse (and giving > up on a squeeze that would work only if East has 8 clubs). East now > says "oops, I have a heart". The revoke is not established, so it > must be corrected by Law 62, but then what? > > Also, is there a slight hole in the Laws that needs plugging? L62C1 > says that a non-offender's play may be withdrawn after a revoke is > corrected, but a claim isn't a play, so it appears that this Law and > L47 technically don't apply. I believe they should be applied anyway, > since nothing else makes sense, but is this a case where something > should be added to the Laws to cover this case? Sorry, this isn't a good problem. I missed the fact that East is now forced to lead the spade 3 after winning the heart. There's a question I want to ask, but in order to ask it, I'll have to construct a different problem and try again. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 4 11:01:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA10229 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 11:01:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov [128.183.16.143]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA10224 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 11:01:22 +1000 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (LHEA9504/950407.s1) id VAA10803 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 21:01:14 -0400 From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <199908040101.VAA10803@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: Dummy's right to correct TD To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 21:01:14 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <199908022248.SAA03946@eratosthenes.math.lsa.umich.edu> from "David Grabiner" at Aug 2, 99 06:48:33 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I usually ask, "can you look that up in the book before we continue play?" This is my gentle way of saying that I think the ruling is wrong and shoudl be referenced before damage ensues. If the director is not amenable, then I'll go and look it up myself at my next break and quietly inform him/her if I am correct and they are not. If it is a club or local game, then I leave the decision to the director. If it is a tournament of any sort, then I will try to ensure that proper redress is awarded to the damaged side (even if it means taking adjusted or assigned scores for one or both sides). But, yes, I believe that dummy should be allowed to question the correctness of the ruling before play continues. -Ted. > Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 18:48:33 -0400 (EDT) > From: David Grabiner > > In an E-mail discussion with Steve Willner about the "dropped card" > ruling, I encountered a question about dummy's L42A1 rights > > I was dummy, and the TD made a ruling (without looking it up in the > book) which I believed to be incorrect. Did I have the right to speak > up at that point as ask the TD to look up the ruling from the law book, > since none of the other players were familiar with the law? > > L42A seems to allow dummy to "give information in the Director's > presence"; would that apply to this case? > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 4 11:19:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA10268 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 11:19:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from minerva.pinehurst.net (root@minerva.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA10263 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 11:19:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from pinehurst.net (pm3-44.pinehurst.net [12.20.137.250]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA12883; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 21:18:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <37A795C9.D632EB3A@pinehurst.net> Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 21:22:17 -0400 From: Nancy T Dressing X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian Meadows CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Off-topic postings and possibly a splinter mailing list? References: <199908031931.PAA05556@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <37a87040.56225821@mail.glou1.nj.home.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Brian Meadows wrote: > On Tue, 3 Aug 1999 15:31:52 -0400 (EDT), Ted Ying wrote: > > > As a computer professional, I received between 75-150 > >messages a day (yes, a day). that are not BLML related. Add on > >the huge volume from BLML (which seems to be averaging over 50/day) > >and my mailbox is getting pretty cumbersome. > > I am just a stay-at-home computer buff, club owner, director, & > bridge teacher. Last week I removed about 8000 messages from my mail > and I get nearly 100 a day!! I am never too busy or overloaded to > enjoy something on the bright side, bridge related or not. Sometimes > we all tend to get a bit too serious. I agree with the feeling > below! Nancy > > While we're on the subject, I think the *occasional* > humourous posting benefits a mailing list. If there's to be > a vote, you can count mine on Craig and David's side. If > there's to be a ban on humour by majority wish then so be > it, but I certainly don't accept "I have an overloaded > mailbox" as a valid reason, particularly not coming from a > computer professional. > > Brian. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 4 11:31:18 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA09593 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 07:43:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA09586 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 07:43:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt092nb1.san.rr.com [204.210.48.177]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA19697 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 14:43:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <064601beddf9$2678d1c0$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <199908031931.PAA05556@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: Off-topic postings and possibly a splinter mailing list? Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 14:34:55 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ted Ying wrote, > > Please note: I am not trying to fuel the flames going on here. > > I tend to think that I am far from "humor impaired" and yet, I too, > would like to urge those involved to discontinue humor threads in > this forum. As a computer professional, I received between 75-150 > messages a day (yes, a day). that are not BLML related. Add on > the huge volume from BLML (which seems to be averaging over 50/day) > and my mailbox is getting pretty cumbersome. I do have other things > to do rather than just reading mail and it gets harder and harder to > keep up. I do have a delete key and it still takes me a while to > sort out BLML mail and delete unwanted humor threads, etc. When > something similar happened to one of my professional organizations, > we split into two groups, effective BLML and BLML-lite or BLML-etc > which became a forum for off-topic or slightly off-topic discusions. > We've often had discussions move from the main list to the auxillary > list to avoid cluttering up the main list. And those who want both > can sign up to both, those who don't can keep on the main list only. > > I discontinued reading RGB about 8 years ago because the noise-to-signal > ratio got too high. I was recently encouraged to sign up for BLML > because it culled out the "noise" and kept up the signal. I'd hate to > have to uns******e because the noise level got too high. So, I'm > encouraging folks to help keep the list on-topic. I appreciate humor, > but only when I'm looking for it and from this list, I'm not. Ted, don't use the forbidden combination of letters in your third sentence from the end (s------e), and everyone please delete it when responding, as I did. Markus's software looks for it in all mail, causing a bit of a problem when an e-mail uses it casually. > I'm with Ted on this one, in the main. I hardly look at RGB anymore, which I once enjoyed, because it takes too much time to wade through all the noise. Many messges I see on BLML ought to be privately sent, not sent to everyone. Usually I don't mind, but returning from San Antonio I found hundreds of e-mails I had to go through, and many were just clogging up the queue, of no interest to me. (Not just from BLMLers, but relatives too, I hasten to add). However, I enjoy humor when included in a message of substance, or when it provides a point of BLML interest in itself. Back-and-forth short quibbles and retorts are not of interest to most of us, and could well be private. I'm neutral on pet subjects, having a great cat myself and therefore biased. As long as it isn't too intrusive, I see no harm in such fun. Some supposedly professional mailing lists are much worse, making BLML seem very serious in comparison. As a member of the International Society for Philosphical Enquiry, I thought it would be a good idea to join its mailing list. Really profound stuff, right? Not! The majority of their communications consists of light garbage. At least BLMLers don't forward jokes, or off-subject humorous anecdotes. So, I rate BLML pretty high in this regard, and see no need for a separate ML, but a little more restraint would be appreciated. A writer should ask, "Is everyone going to be interested in this, or just so-and-so?" If the answer is just so-and-so, send it to so-and-so only. I would also like to suggest that e-mails that are highly critical of a person (not a person's opinions) ought to be private, except when responding to a public attack of the same nature. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 4 11:43:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA10334 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 11:43:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA10309 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 11:37:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11Bpva-000Hok-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 01:33:10 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 02:32:04 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Dropped card In-Reply-To: <199908032151.OAA25208@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199908032151.OAA25208@mailhub.irvine.com>, Adam Beneschan writes > >David Grabiner wrote: > >> Adam Beneschan writes: >> >> > However, while a dropped card does give useful information to partner, >> > I'm not sure that it constitutes UI under the definitions in the Laws. >> > L16C doesn't seem to apply since there's no withdrawn play (a dropped >> > card is not a play), and I don't think L16A is supposed to apply to >> > exposed cards. I could be wrong about this. >> >> This is explicit in L50C; a dropped card is a minor penalty card, and >> information gained from seeing it is UI. > >You're right. I missed that one. > > -- Adam Only if you believe that Law 50 applies during the auction - and IMO it doesn't john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 4 12:59:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA10015 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 09:47:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp4.erols.com (smtp4.erols.com [207.172.3.237]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA10010 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 09:47:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (209-122-253-217.s217.tnt8.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [209.122.253.217]) by smtp4.erols.com (8.8.8/smtp-v1) with SMTP id TAA19101 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 19:47:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <015701bede0a$3e7be9e0$d9fd7ad1@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <37A6D1D1.216880C8@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: irrational (?) action in line with stated claim Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 19:45:12 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 1999 7:26 AM Subject: Re: irrational (?) action in line with stated claim > [snip] > Hello James, > > You are right on one point : > > You are allowed, as director, to be very strict in your > rulings. > You are allowed to think, from the evidence presented, that > the player before you might be lying. > > You are not correct on one other point though : > > You are not allowed, in cases like this, to rule against > this claimer, if you are convinced that he is not lying. > The Laws simply are not like that. They allow a claimer to > get a "second shot" provided some conditions are met. > Agreed, but IMO those conditions are more stringent than the ones you apply. > These are two separate issues and you should not mix them. > > We were having a theoretical discussion here, and I believe > most people on the list have come to the conclusion that if > the Director believes that this declarer did not miscount, > he should get the benefit of the doubt. > The law reads that I must award a trump trick to the defense if it is at all likely that Declarer was unaware of the trump trick. To my mind, that means I be very close to certain that Declarer was aware of the trump situation and would have responded to the 5-0 break appropriately. It also means that I think Declarer would have noticed a black on black discard, etc. and responded appropriately. If I believe that it was likely that Declarer would not miscount, but that there was still a possibility, the ruling goes against Declarer. > What you are stating is that you would never believe this > declarer did not miscount, and what I am saying is that in a > case like this I always believe declarer just overlooked the > bad break. > But you are not allowed to do so. You must rule as though Declarer miscounted unless there is near certainty that he did not. The phrase "at all likely" is not ambiguous, and seems to have been discounted in some of the opinions voiced in this thread. You must assume that Declarer miscounted, unless there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary, not the other way around. > We are at different ends of a spectrum here, but you do not > seem to realise that that is all there is to it. > > You are entitled to your opinions, but you should not deduce > from your opinions that our rulings would be wrong. > > Just to recap your last sentence : > > > It is not, by the way, the job of the TD to try to work out "what > > probably would have happened had the hand been played out". That way > > lies danger. > > It _is_ up to the director to work out what _could_ have > happened, had the hand been played out, and then award the > lesser of all possible scores. Some of us believe that the > circumstance which would lead to the defense getting a trump > trick, could not have happened. > That is in fact the requirement for allowing Declarer to get the trick: "could not have happened". The farther that this thread progresses, the more I become convinced that the requirements for meeting the "at all likely" criterion needed to allow Declarer to pick up the trump is going to be exceedingly difficult to meet at the table. Is failing to notice an opponent's discard careless or irrational? If failure to notice a "black on black" discard is merely careless, then we cannot adjust at all, and the stated line of play must stand. > So the correct answer to this thread is in fact : you should > have been there. > Agreed. > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 4 14:01:53 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA10624 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 14:01:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp4.erols.com (smtp4.erols.com [207.172.3.237]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA10619 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 14:01:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (209-122-254-83.s83.tnt1.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [209.122.254.83]) by smtp4.erols.com (8.8.8/smtp-v1) with SMTP id AAA29557 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 00:01:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <002801bede2d$b9f9c100$53fe7ad1@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <199908040035.RAA28440@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: Correction of Revoke after Claim Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 23:59:17 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Adam Beneschan To: Cc: Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 1999 8:35 PM Subject: Re: Correction of Revoke after Claim > My previous example was faulty; I forgot that the card withdrawn when > the revoke is corrected becomes a penalty card. Here's an improved > example (I hope): > > 652 > T9653 > 64 > A42 > J943 QT87 > Q7 82 > J8752 AKQ3 > 65 873 > AK > AKJ4 > T9 > KQJT9 > > Matchpoints. South plays 4H with no opposition bidding (possible if > N-S are using a strong club system). West leads the S3; 2, Q, A. > South leads the HA and West plays the club 5. South now faces his > hand and claims 12 tricks (get to the club ace to pick up hearts). > West now notices the club in front of him, says "oh s*^&" to give him > a better chance of winning an appeal, and calls the director. Of > course, the revoke must be corrected. But what now? > > Clearly, the claim is no longer valid since South cannot be sure of > picking up the suit without loss; in fact, he can't even tell how many > diamond tricks he'll lose once the defense takes their HQ, if they do. > There are two possibilities. If West has a stiff heart, declarer > should enter dummy with a club to take the heart finesse. If West has > any other holding, declarer should cash the heart king, and if > necessary, throw in West with the heart queen to force him to lead the > penalty card. Declarer may judge that the singleton heart with West > is more likely since West would have been less likely to revoke if he > had more than one heart in his hand. > Aha, you've now hit one of the problems talked about recently in the revoke and claim threads. There is no provision in the Laws for adjusting a claim based on an opponent's infraction (at least not one that I can find). > So how do we rule? I can see three possibilities: > > (1) Allow declarer to withdraw the claim and continue playing; and if > at any point the defense has a decision to make, and the defense > makes a decision that's suggested by the UI from seeing every card > in declarer's hand, we adjust based on what likely would have > happened if the defense had made the opposite decision. Thus, if > declarer enters dummy (eating the penalty card) and finesses the > heart, West commits an infraction if he leads a diamond after > seeing declarer's hand. (Law 16C, if we assume it applies to > withdrawn claims, and 12C1.) > Not possible. L68D is quite clear. > (2) Try to adjudicate the claim (which would result in 10 tricks if > this bad claim had happened with no infraction), and then try to > adjust later (what Law applies?). > I think we have to start with this. First decide the hand based on the claim laws, and see if it is possible to obtain a reasonable result. In this case, resolving doubtful point against the claimer, Declarer goes to the board with a club, erasing the penalty card, finesses into the W hand, and winds up with 10 tricks. In the absence of the revoke, Declarer would have scored 10 or 13 tricks. IMO it's not reasonable to stick Declarer with the poorer result when the claim is based on an infraction. If we can find a Law that lets us adjust then we go to step (3)... > (3) Stop play, deem the hand can no longer be played normally because > the defense has seen declarer's hand, and adjust the score based > on the most favorable likely result for declarer, which would be > 13 tricks (what Law applies?). > ..but I can't find a Law that allows us to assign an adjusted score before the revoke is established. The penalty card prevents use of the catchalls12A1 or 84E, since there was a penalty provided by Law. IMO we can't claim that the revoker could have known that the infraction would be likely to damage the non-offenders so that rules out 72B1. However 12A2 lets us award an artificial adjusted score if the hand is rendered unplayable. The revoke seems to have done this, by causing the bad claim, so that is the only option I can see. This would give A+/A-, rather than an assigned score. > What do you all think? > > -- Adam > Personally, I'd rather adjust in favor of the non-offenders. However, I can't see how to do that. A+/A- appears to me to be the only option. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth though, and I'm hoping someone comes up with a better way of dealing with this. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 4 14:28:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA10666 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 14:28:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (mailout1-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.81]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA10661 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 14:28:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.37] by mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 00:28:09 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199908040017.UAA10267@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> References: <199908021126.NAA16299@mail.zeelandnet.nl> from "Marcel Schoof" at Aug 2, 99 01:24:28 pm Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 00:17:53 -0400 To: Ted Ying From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [Bidding boxes] Nodding/tapping for the final pass Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 8:17 PM -0400 8/3/99, Ted Ying wrote: >but then I treat >it as an actual pass for all purposes and if the director is called, then >I will put the final pass down before the director arrives to indicate >that I had in fact bid it. I do not believe that the "tap" should be >treated in any way differently from a green card. Seems to me that if the director is called, one ought not to try to change the way things are laid out before he gets there. IMHO, of course. :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2 iQA/AwUBN6fBSb2UW3au93vOEQLzEwCeNE+LtF34w/txm3gq1BxvBj0YJykAnRgH BzQF5d2GsBu/HZsSrPp+V/eS =5XZi -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 4 14:50:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA10703 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 14:50:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov [128.183.16.143]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA10697 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 14:49:54 +1000 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (LHEA9504/950407.s1) id AAA13201 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 00:49:45 -0400 From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <199908040449.AAA13201@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [Bidding boxes] Nodding/tapping for the final pass To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 00:49:45 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "Ed Reppert" at Aug 4, 99 00:17:53 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Oh, I explain to the director at the time that I had tapped the table, but that I had clearly indicated an intent to pass in the auction. The director is free to interpret as (s)he feels, but in my own perceptions, I believe very strongly that tapping the table, clearing away the bidding cards, or other clear indication of an intent to pass is in fact a designation of a pass and should count as a pass. In my mind, it is no different from saying "Pass" when bidding cards are in use, just a different form of communicating the same information. -Ted. > Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 00:17:53 -0400 > From: Ed Reppert > > At 8:17 PM -0400 8/3/99, Ted Ying wrote: > > >but then I treat > >it as an actual pass for all purposes and if the director is called, then > >I will put the final pass down before the director arrives to indicate > >that I had in fact bid it. I do not believe that the "tap" should be > >treated in any way differently from a green card. > > Seems to me that if the director is called, one ought not to try to change > the way things are laid out before he gets there. IMHO, of course. :-) > > Regards, > > Ed > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 4 16:49:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA10948 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 16:49:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from fe040.worldonline.dk (fe040.worldonline.dk [212.54.64.205]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA10942 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 16:49:02 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 988 invoked by uid 0); 4 Aug 1999 06:48:48 -0000 Received: from 40.ppp1-33.image.dk (212.54.71.168) by mail020.worldonline.dk with SMTP; 4 Aug 1999 06:48:48 -0000 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [Bidding boxes] Nodding/tapping for the final pass Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 06:48:48 GMT Message-ID: <37b8db4a.2736106@mail.image.dk> References: <199908040017.UAA10267@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> In-Reply-To: <199908040017.UAA10267@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tue, 3 Aug 1999 20:17:43 -0400 (EDT) skrev Ted Ying: >that I had in fact bid it. I do not believe that the "tap" should be >treated in any way differently from a green card. Only it "tends to creep downwards", inspiring the (supposedly) next last person to tap also. After what I've read in these answers, I'll definitely stop tapping at all. Bertel -- Denmark http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 4 18:03:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA11088 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 18:03:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA11055 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 17:53:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.156] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11Bvrh-000Atd-00; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 08:53:33 +0100 Message-ID: <000201bede4e$717bb2a0$9c5208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" , Subject: Re: WBFLC Interpretation #3 & the ACBL Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 07:08:21 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 03 August 1999 21:34 Subject: Re: WBFLC Interpretation #3 & the ACBL ---------- \x/ ------- >Didn't mean to criticize Grattan for holding this opinion, which is a >reasonable one. > ++ Should I have read some possible criticism into what you said? I didn't.++ -------------- \x/ --------------- > >While still respecting it, II guess I have to disagree with Grattan's >opinion, which seems to accord with the primary meaning (#1). I prefer to >take "irrational" as meaning #2 when applying the word to a revoke, and >would therefore include revokes (LOOTs and BOOTs also) in the "irrrational, >wild, or gambling actions" that are grounds for annulment of redress. > +++ Well, Marv, it seems to me that the use of 'irrational' in the footnote to the laws is all about what we adjudge a player will do in a considered fashion. If after an opponent's infraction a player revokes it appears to me this is a subsequent irregularity rather than a consequent one, and that redress should be determined on that basis. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 4 20:18:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA11307 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 20:18:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA11301 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 20:18:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11By7N-0004L2-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 10:17:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 13:59:53 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Dropped Card References: <002b01bedd22$c44f23e0$8f7af1d1@mminternet.com> <37aed3e2.2085332@mail.image.dk> In-Reply-To: <37aed3e2.2085332@mail.image.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bertel Lund Hansen wrote: >It is pretty clear to me that the purpose of "may" is to prevent >defenders from gaining an advantage from a penalty card - or at >least give declarer the chance to prevent it. Not necessarily. There are other possibilities, like declarer not wishing to take advantage for personal reasons. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 4 20:23:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA11323 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 20:23:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA11302 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 20:18:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11By7N-0004L3-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 10:17:54 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 14:13:04 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: irrational (?) action in line with stated claim References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk James wrote: >It's probably about time to lay this old problem to rest, but I think >another very important principle is being neglected here. After much >discussion many of you seem to be leaving your entrenched positions of >strictly for or against in favour of the cosy middle ground of "leave it to >the TD, he's best placed to come to a decision". That is his job. > I'm not coming with you; I >think you're treading very dangerous ground, as I will try to illustrate. [s] >Now, I want to rule against declarer in all these cases, and would do so >with a clear conscience. You want to give the poor TD the thankless task of >sifting out the category (iv) players above from the others (and all the >shades of grey inbetween) and give them a special ruling all to themselves. One of the main skills of a good TD is the ability to give a judgement as to what has happened. The fact that in some situations it may be difficult is no reason to stop a TD from having to do this job. >How do you expect him to proceed? He could start by asking declarer if he >was really aware of the possible trump position, but all the above >characters would say "yes", albeit for different reasons. What now? Should >he apply a lie-detector test, consult a clinical psychologist, or a >soothsayer? I expect him to proceed in all cases where his judgement is required the same way: I expect him to ask questions, elicit facts, consider, consult with someone else, make a judgement and transmit that judgement to the players at the table. This applies in Claims, in Tempo Breaks, in "We were in 4H no you weren't" cases and in everything else similar. The Claims Law is written in such a way that the TD gets more chance to use his judgement than in any other part of the Law book, except perhaps deciding on Tempo Breaks. If you don't like it, fine: change the Law. But please do not ask TDs not to follow the Law. In ruling on a contested claim, the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful points shall be resolved against the claimer. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 4 20:43:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA11373 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 20:43:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA11368 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 20:43:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-80-25.uunet.be [194.7.80.25]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA29394 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 12:43:31 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37A81588.C098D226@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 12:27:20 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: irrational (?) action in line with stated claim References: <37A6D1D1.216880C8@village.uunet.be> <015701bede0a$3e7be9e0$d9fd7ad1@hdavis> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: > > > > > The law reads that I must award a trump trick to the defense if it is at all > likely that Declarer was unaware of the trump trick. of the outstanding trump IIRC. Now a declarer who has never played trump must be deemed aware that there are _some_ trumps outstanding. The situation is not the one where declarer has played trumps a few times and then stops. Trumps have not been played at all, so 70C2 cannot apply. Declarer must be aware that there is an outstanding trump. L70C2 does not speak of the number of outstanding trumps. > To my mind, that means > I be very close to certain that Declarer was aware of the trump situation > and would have responded to the 5-0 break appropriately. It also means that > I think Declarer would have noticed a black on black discard, etc. and > responded appropriately. If I believe that it was likely that Declarer would > not miscount, but that there was still a possibility, the ruling goes > against Declarer. > We come again at the discussion we have been having frequently. Is it normal for a player to miscount after a claim ? Yes, it sometimes happens, but I believe the Laws did not intend "normal" to include miscounting. So miscounting before the claim should be held against claimer, but miscounting after the claim should not. If you believe that declarer, at the moment of his claim, was thinking there were only 4 trumps out, and that he could handle the worst possible break, 4-0, then you must rule against claimer. But you should not rule against claimer because he might fail to notice a black-on-black discard. The claim laws (IMO) protect a claimer from that. > > What you are stating is that you would never believe this > > declarer did not miscount, and what I am saying is that in a > > case like this I always believe declarer just overlooked the > > bad break. > > > > But you are not allowed to do so. You must rule as though Declarer > miscounted unless there is near certainty that he did not. The phrase "at > all likely" is not ambiguous, and seems to have been discounted in some of > the opinions voiced in this thread. At all likely that he was unaware -at the time of his claim- that _A_ trump remained in an opponent's hand. I find it highly unlikely that this claimer was unaware that there were some trumps out. > You must assume that Declarer > miscounted, unless there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary, not the > other way around. > Not by Law, you don't have to. You can assume what you want from what you hear claimer state. I choose to assume that some players can count to 13. [snip] > > > > It _is_ up to the director to work out what _could_ have > > happened, had the hand been played out, and then award the > > lesser of all possible scores. Some of us believe that the > > circumstance which would lead to the defense getting a trump > > trick, could not have happened. > > > > That is in fact the requirement for allowing Declarer to get the trick: > "could not have happened". The farther that this thread progresses, the > more I become convinced that the requirements for meeting the "at all > likely" criterion needed to allow Declarer to pick up the trump is going to > be exceedingly difficult to meet at the table. > > Is failing to notice an opponent's discard careless or irrational? If > failure to notice a "black on black" discard is merely careless, then we > cannot adjust at all, and the stated line of play must stand. > The footnote speaks of careless in "line of play" not in noticing the happenings at the table. I believe a claimer is protected from careless mistakes. Claiming is a method of keeping the calm at the table. > > So the correct answer to this thread is in fact : you should > > have been there. > > > > Agreed. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 4 23:25:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA11674 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 22:41:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.zeelandnet.nl (mail.zeelandnet.nl [62.12.12.194]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA11669 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 22:41:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from poivideo-6266 (e245.zeelandnet.nl [62.12.16.245]) by mail.zeelandnet.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA24454; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 14:40:55 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <199908041240.OAA24454@mail.zeelandnet.nl> From: "Marcel Schoof" To: "Bertel Lund Hansen" , Subject: Re: [Bidding boxes] Nodding/tapping for the final pass Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 14:40:40 +0200 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thank you all for your contributions. In the actual case the East player was a home player not realy familiair with bidding-boxes so the double stayed. The problem was in the NS pair, who stayed that is normal to pass by clearing up the bidding-cards. In fact they said they were going to call a director from thier club/district (no name given) to confirm their opinion. He agreed but i wasn't given an answer to my question were I could find a approriate ruling. The danger in creeping down the habbit of nodding/tapping by the next last person(NLP) is in the time the last person thinks. After the NLP noddes the LHO starts to think about what action to take and after some more biddings their is a discussion start whether an action from his partner is based upon the thinking. 1) LHO agrees that he was thinking for a long time. No problem 2) LHO has waited till the actual green card is played, because he hadn't seen the noddig/tapping. Their is hardly a way to establish if this is so. He could have been thinking about his action and in the mean time just wait till some one would point out that is his turn to bid. (and than bid fast). I see no other alternitive than to except that their was no pause in bidding ans explain to the NLP that he should have used a green card to make sure his intention is claer. Marcel ---------- > Van: Bertel Lund Hansen > Aan: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Onderwerp: Re: [Bidding boxes] Nodding/tapping for the final pass > Datum: woensdag 4 augustus 1999 8:48 > > Tue, 3 Aug 1999 20:17:43 -0400 (EDT) skrev Ted Ying: > > >that I had in fact bid it. I do not believe that the "tap" should be > >treated in any way differently from a green card. > > Only it "tends to creep downwards", inspiring the (supposedly) > next last person to tap also. > > After what I've read in these answers, I'll definitely stop > tapping at all. > > Bertel > -- > Denmark > http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 5 01:53:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA12344 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 01:53:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (mailhub.irvine.com [192.160.8.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA12339 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 01:53:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA09049; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 08:52:44 -0700 Message-Id: <199908041552.IAA09049@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "John Probst" cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Dropped card In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 04 Aug 1999 02:32:04 PDT." Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 08:52:45 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John Probst wrote: > In article <199908032151.OAA25208@mailhub.irvine.com>, Adam Beneschan > writes > > > >David Grabiner wrote: > > > >> Adam Beneschan writes: > >> > >> > However, while a dropped card does give useful information to partner, > >> > I'm not sure that it constitutes UI under the definitions in the Laws. > >> > L16C doesn't seem to apply since there's no withdrawn play (a dropped > >> > card is not a play), and I don't think L16A is supposed to apply to > >> > exposed cards. I could be wrong about this. > >> > >> This is explicit in L50C; a dropped card is a minor penalty card, and > >> information gained from seeing it is UI. > > > >You're right. I missed that one. > > > > -- Adam > Only if you believe that Law 50 applies during the auction - and IMO it > doesn't john No, but as soon as the auction is over, the card becomes a minor penalty card if declarer so chooses, and then 50C applies. This is getting confusing because, if I recall correctly, we were talking about UI in relation to how it could influence the defense, and in particular, the opening lead. In that case, if a card has been dropped during the auction, it becomes a minor penalty card (at declarer's option) as soon as the auction closes, and then L50C applies, which means Law 16A applies, which means there may be UI restrictions on the opening lead. However, maybe some people are considering whether the dropped card is supposed to be UI to partner during the auction. That's a good question (and, I agree, one that L50 can't be used to answer), but it's not one I was trying to address at all. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 5 04:25:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA13010 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 03:56:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA13000 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 03:55:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11C5GS-0008fD-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 17:55:45 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 12:54:19 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: irrational (?) action in line with stated claim References: <199908031528.LAA15036@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199908031528.LAA15036@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: James.Vickers@merck.de >> (iv) Declarer was aware that the trumps could be 5-0, but didn't think it >> worth mentioning as it's obvious what any player would do in this >> situation. > >Could you, or John Probst who appears to have similar sentiments, >please suggest appropriate language for this declarer to use when >he claims? Please bear in mind that it will have to be short. When I claim I say "Playing it in a sensible fashion." I have only had one claim challenged in the last three years, and I challenged it! I realised halfway through the next hand that I had just got away with a wrong claim, so I now contested it. Puzzled opponents graciously permitted me to reduce my score by a trick. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 5 04:53:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA13290 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 04:53:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA13285 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 04:53:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt092nb1.san.rr.com [204.210.48.177]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA02146 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 11:53:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <06e401bedeaa$9c36db80$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: WBF Interpretation #6 and the ACBL Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 11:53:03 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This continues my efforts to determine which WBFLC interpretations are accepted by the ACBL, and which are not. There has been some discussion of L25B on BLML, which I haven't been following. Those who have might be interested in the following. Correction: *Everyone should be interested*. First, the WBFLC interpretation (#6 on David Stevenson's web site), extracted from its Lille meeting minutes: ############## The Committee considered the situation in regard to purposeful corrections of call under Law 25B. The Chairman drew attention to the effect of L25B. It was agreed that the intention of the Committee in drafting this Law was to permit the correction of a "*stupid mistake*" (e.g., passing a cue bid after thinking whether to bid game or slam). It is not the intention that the Law should be used to allow rectification of the player's judgement. As the intention of the Committee this statement constitutes an interpretation of the law. It was also decided that should a player's partner call out of turn following the player's bid, cancellation of the out-of-turn call does not reopen the door to a Law 25B purposeful correction. Law 29 now applies. ############### Now, from the Orlando NABC casebook editor (and Appeals Administrator) Rich Colker: "...the WBF Laws Committee's pronouncements are not binding on the ACBL for events under the ACBL's sponsorship. In fact, after discussing the WBF's interpretation of Law 25B in its Orlando meetings, the ACBL Laws Commission decided that 'the right to change one's call is not dependant on the reason for wishing to make a change.' Thus, under the ACBL's interpretation of this law the ACBL Director in this case acted correctly (as far as Law 25B was concerned) in giving South the chance to change her call." Evidently the ACBL LC does not realize that the WBF By-Laws state that the WBF LC is responsible for interpreting the Laws. The case referred to is Case 30 in the Orlando NABC casebook. After an auction that started 1NT-Dbl-2C, the 2C bidder called the TD, wishing to change the unAlerted call. The TD told her that under L25B2 she could do so, but would receive no better than avg- if she did. Hearing that, the player decided to let the 2C bid stand. (Discussion of the entire case can be another thread). There is no mention by the TD, AC, or editor of LHO's option to condone a new call, but maybe that's moot since the call was not changed. However the whole law should be explained to the 2C bidder, just in case it could affect her decision. She might know, for instance, that LHO is a good sport who would condone a change of call. After reading 25B carefully, I cannot understand how the ACBL or anyone else could agree with the WBFLC interpretation, but the WBF By-Laws say they must. If the drafters of L25B intended what the LC says they intended, the way to correct the error is to change the language in the next version of the Laws, or to issue a revision to L25B, not to create a new law under the guise of an "interpretation." I fail to understand why the ACBL LC Orlando meeting minutes pertaining to Laws interpretations remain unpublished, requiring that we must glean this information piecemeal from such sources as the casebooks. Doesn't some BLMLer have access to these minutes? Are they labeled top-secret? Question: Would it be appropriate for the 2C bidder to ask the TD in private about a change of call? Asking publicly caused problems later. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 5 05:13:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA13003 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 03:56:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA12988 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 03:55:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11C5GP-0000bA-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 17:55:42 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 12:48:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: irrational (?) action in line with stated claim References: <37A6D1D1.216880C8@village.uunet.be> <015701bede0a$3e7be9e0$d9fd7ad1@hdavis> In-Reply-To: <015701bede0a$3e7be9e0$d9fd7ad1@hdavis> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: >But you are not allowed to do so. You must rule as though Declarer >miscounted unless there is near certainty that he did not. The phrase "at >all likely" is not ambiguous, and seems to have been discounted in some of >the opinions voiced in this thread. You must assume that Declarer >miscounted, unless there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary, not the >other way around. The ACBL LC has ruled that a likely action is one that one person in three would find. While this proves nothing to the use of this phrase here, it may give a pointer to the thought processes. I agree with you that you assume he has miscounted as the default, but to require "overwhelming evidence" to do otherwise I consider goes too far. "Convincing evidence" is what I would say. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 5 05:25:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA13006 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 03:56:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA12989 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 03:55:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11C5GQ-0000bB-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 17:55:43 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 12:51:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: irrational (?) action in line with stated claim References: <37d1e834.7287913@mail.image.dk> In-Reply-To: <37d1e834.7287913@mail.image.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bertel Lund Hansen wrote: >Tue, 3 Aug 1999 12:01:08 +0200 skrev James.Vickers@merck.de: > >>The scene: declarer has just made what he considers a cast-iron claim. A >>protest by LHO and a looming director, sharpened pencil and shorthand >>notebook at the ready, requesting him to repeat his statement, tip him off >>to the fact that something is amiss. > >Of course not. That is what the TD does *every time* he is called >to a contested claim. > >>He repeats his statement, hastily adding a clause > >He is not repeating his statement then. He is cheating. That is a >problem. Maybe the TD finds out, maybe he doesn't. Tough luck. >But it takes three other liars' cooperation for him to get away >with it. This is not cheating. It is human nature to explain your actions, and it is the Director's job to find out what the original statement was, but it is not cheating. Cheating is *knowledgeably* *deliberately* being *seriously* unethical. This is unlikely to be knowledgeable or deliberate. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 5 05:40:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA13393 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 05:40:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (mailhub.irvine.com [192.160.8.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA13388 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 05:40:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA12961; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 12:39:36 -0700 Message-Id: <199908041939.MAA12961@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "Bridge Laws" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: irrational (?) action in line with stated claim In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 03 Aug 1999 19:45:12 PDT." <015701bede0a$3e7be9e0$d9fd7ad1@hdavis> Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 12:39:37 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ******* ******* ****** TODAY'S ENGLISH LESSON ******* ******* ****** Hirsch Davis wrote: > The law reads that I must award a trump trick to the defense if it is at all > likely that Declarer was unaware of the trump trick. To my mind, that means > I be very close to certain that Declarer was aware of the trump situation > and would have responded to the 5-0 break appropriately. It also means that > I think Declarer would have noticed a black on black discard, etc. and > responded appropriately. If I believe that it was likely that Declarer would > not miscount, but that there was still a possibility, the ruling goes > against Declarer. > > > What you are stating is that you would never believe this > > declarer did not miscount, and what I am saying is that in a > > case like this I always believe declarer just overlooked the > > bad break. > > > > But you are not allowed to do so. You must rule as though Declarer > miscounted unless there is near certainty that he did not. The phrase "at > all likely" is not ambiguous, and seems to have been discounted in some of > the opinions voiced in this thread. So what does the phrase "at all likely" mean? I looked up "likely" in my Merriam-Webster, and the first definition says "very probable". This seems to lead to the opposite of your conclusion, i.e. if it's not "very probable" that claimer was unaware of the trump, we can't apply 70C. I suppose that adding the two words "at all" modifies the meaning (my dictionary doesn't try to define this phrase), but IMHO there has to be some element of "probable" in there---and simply saying an event has some nonzero probability (or saying we don't have "near certainty" that the event isn't occurring) does *not* make it "at all likely". The probability has to be somewhat higher than that. I don't know how much. From David's post, apparently the ACBL definition is a probability of 1/3, which still seems to fly in the face of the dictionary definition of "likely" (which appears to apply only to events that have a probability significantly greater than 1/2), but is reasonable given the intent of the Laws and the way I believe the phrase is normally used by English speakers. So is it at all likely that 70C should be added to the (ever-lengthening) list of Laws whose wording needs to be tinkered with? And should someone who ends sentences with prepositions, such as the previous sentence, be attempting to give English lessons? -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 5 06:07:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA13026 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 03:56:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA13009 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 03:56:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11C5GT-0000bA-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 17:55:47 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 13:02:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A Played Card? References: <4.0.1.19990802105359.00f63900@pop.pegasus.com.au> <199908040038.UAA10473@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> In-Reply-To: <199908040038.UAA10473@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ted Ying wrote: >> (3) Would your ruling change in any way if she holds the card in the 'on >> end' position before RHO has played a card to the trick? >If it influences what RHO does at this point, then it would at a minimum >deserve a PP if not an adjusted score (only one-sided adjustment). Why one-sided? What basis in Law? Surely it is either an adjustment under L73F to both sides, or it isn't. [s] >> (6) What would be your ruling in each case if the player is a defender, >> rather than declarer? Does it matter? >It definitely matters since now the player has a chance to pass UI to >her partner. She should still get the warning, but if at all possible, >I monitor her partner's plays and treat it as UI. If I suspect that >the partner has taken inference from the UI, I'll adjust or assign a >score. I am not sure this is quite right. Of course it is fine in theory, but if I read the original question right, she is *usually* taking a card out, putting it on the edge of the table, then playing it [or sometimes changing it]. What UI does this give? That she is having a final think before playing the card? How can that affect things? It is possible that the various differences in this thread have been though different understandings of the position discussed, but if we are talking about a regular and frequent habit, it probably does very little harm indeed. I have played against many such players with unfortunate habits. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 5 06:24:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA13024 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 03:56:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA13008 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 03:56:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11C5GV-0000bB-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 17:55:48 +0000 Message-ID: <9bg7jeBs+Cq3EwTn@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 13:18:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: EXCUSE ME IF I DEMUR References: <9908031004.0E5S902@bbs.hal-pc.org> <061701beddf3$7d16f300$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <061701beddf3$7d16f300$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >Roger Pewick wrote: >> >> I have a difficult time describing a prematurely exposed card as anything >> other than a source of extraneous information whether or not the card is >> picked up as a non penalty card. L16A says that extraneous information is >> UI. I see no reference as to the disposition of UI from the exposed card >in >> L24 and I see no need for such since L16A covers it. Have I got it wrong? >> > >Well, it would be L16A, not L16B, as I thought at first. When L16B says >"card belonging to another player at his own table before the auction >begins," that does not include partner's card, logically, since information >from partner is covered by L16A. Maybe L16B should read "card belonging to >an opponent," just to make this clear. I am quite sure that looking at partner's hand before the start of play [presumably because the board has been put on the table wrong] is a L16B case, and we would not want it otherwise. Do you really think it is better that you see another hand and have to try to ignore the 13 cards you have already seen [the L16A ruling] rather than playing the board switched [the L16B ruling]? I do not consider that seeing a card of partner's before the start of the hand is anything but L16B. >So what about L16A? Its examples of UI from partner are not meant to be >all-inclusive, obviously, but "or the like* (a good phrase for L90B) seems >to exclude seeing a card from partner's hand, which is not *like* any of the >examples given. Moreover, all the examples are of the nature of deliberate >actions, not accidental ones. Hesitations, speed, emphasis, tone, gestures, movements or mannerisms are often not deliberate actions. >Nor can L16C apply, since exposing the card did not consitute a "play." > >Nevertheless it does seem that a picked-up honor card ought to be UI, >especially since I would expect an opponent not to make use of that >information. If I would expect it, maybe the Laws should also. > >And maybe Roger is right. > >Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com > > -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 5 06:25:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA13025 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 03:56:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA13011 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 03:56:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11C5GX-0008fC-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 17:55:50 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 13:25:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Correction of Revoke after Claim References: <199908031639.JAA19255@mailhub.irvine.com> <009c01bede00$220260a0$d9fd7ad1@hdavis> In-Reply-To: <009c01bede00$220260a0$d9fd7ad1@hdavis> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Adam Beneschan >To: >Cc: >Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 1999 12:39 PM >Subject: Correction of Revoke after Claim > > >> >> This type of situation may have come up on BLML before, but I'm not >> able to read every post on the list. My apologies if this subject has >> been covered previously. >> >> 52 >> A652 >> KQJT5 >> A984 52 QJT73 >> 3 K9 >> 9762 3 >> K986 K6 QJT73 >> QJT874 >> A84 >> A4 >> >> Against South's 5H, West leads a diamond. South wins in hand and >> leads the HQ--3, 2, spade 3. As soon as the spade 3 comes down, South >> faces his hand and claims 12 tricks on the marked finesse (and giving >> up on a squeeze that would work only if East has 8 clubs). East now >> says "oops, I have a heart". The revoke is not established, so it >> must be corrected by Law 62, but then what? >> > >The revoke is corrected. The spade 3 is a major penalty card that must be >played at the first legal opportunity. However, the S hand is UI to W, >since it was revealed as the result of a withdrawn play by E (L16C2). The S >hand certainly suggests a spade return by W, so if there is a LA it is >forbidden. Unfortunately for S, there does not appear to be a logical >alternative to a spade return by W. If S plays a low spade, the 8 wins, and >any play other than the spade A appears silly (particularly if the game were >IMPs). If S plays the SK, the low spade led by E would normally suggest a >high honor. L50D1 tells us that info from the facing of the major penalty >card is UI to W, so he can't treat the S3 as a discard, but must assume it >was an intended lead. Once again, no alternative but a spade return. Down >1. If someone can convince me that there is a scenario where a passive >return by W is a LA, even with those diamonds in Dummy, I would disallow the >spade return by W and let the contract make. 52 A652 KQJT5 A984 52 J763 3 K9 9762 3 K986 KQT AJT743 QJT874 A84 ? Q -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 5 06:31:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA13468 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 06:31:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA13461 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 06:31:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id QAA03955 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 16:31:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA17187 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 16:31:35 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 16:31:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199908042031.QAA17187@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: irrational (?) action in line with stated claim X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Adam Beneschan > From David's post, apparently the ACBL > definition is a probability of 1/3, which still seems to fly in the > face of the dictionary definition of "likely" For L12C2 purposes, the ACBL LC interpretation is that "likely" is 1/3 and "at all probable" is 1/6. The latter translates to a result that you would _expect_ to happen even in a small section. I know of no official interpretation of "at all likely" in L70C, but requiring "overwhelming evidence" seems much too strict. In my view, the TD is supposed to judge whether there is a careless _claim_ or a careless _claim statement_. If that puts me in agreement with David S., well, it isn't _quite_ the first time. :-) In practice, I'd probably claim saying "Drawing trumps, overtaking if needed" or something close to that. I would feel much aggrieved to have the claim disallowed or even questioned unless somebody is ruffing a reentry. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 5 06:45:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA13524 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 06:45:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA13518 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 06:44:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id QAA04523 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 16:44:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA17210 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 16:44:53 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 16:44:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199908042044.QAA17210@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Dropped card X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Adam Beneschan > However, maybe some people are considering whether the dropped card is > supposed to be UI to partner during the auction. That's a good > question (and, I agree, one that L50 can't be used to answer), but > it's not one I was trying to address at all. I agree with Adam about two different questions. I don't see anything that makes the dropped card UI during the auction. Maybe there should be a law to that effect, but I don't see one now. L72B1 might apply if the "clumsy" player "could have known." As soon as the play starts, L50C comes into effect. I don't see how the dropped card (if dropped by leader's partner) can be anything other than UI to opening leader. As always, there may be something I've overlooked. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 5 06:55:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA13565 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 06:55:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA13559 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 06:55:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11C846-000H4w-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 20:55:11 +0000 Message-ID: <4Q8KhFActJq3EwDy@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 20:58:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [Bidding boxes] Nodding/tapping for the final pass References: <199908041240.OAA24454@mail.zeelandnet.nl> In-Reply-To: <199908041240.OAA24454@mail.zeelandnet.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marcel Schoof wrote: >Thank you all for your contributions. In the actual case the East player >was a home player not realy familiair with bidding-boxes so the double >stayed. The problem was in the NS pair, who stayed that is normal to pass >by clearing up the bidding-cards. >In fact they said they were going to call a director from thier >club/district (no name given) to confirm their opinion. He agreed but i >wasn't given an answer to my question were I could find a approriate >ruling. > >The danger in creeping down the habbit of nodding/tapping by the next last >person(NLP) is in the time the last person thinks. After the NLP noddes the >LHO starts to think about what action to take and after some more biddings >their is a discussion start whether an action from his partner is based >upon the thinking. > >1) LHO agrees that he was thinking for a long time. No problem >2) LHO has waited till the actual green card is played, because he hadn't >seen the noddig/tapping. Their is hardly a way to establish if this is so. >He could have been thinking about his action and in the mean time just wait >till some one would point out that is his turn to bid. (and than bid fast). >I see no other alternitive than to except that their was no pause in >bidding ans explain to the NLP that he should have used a green card to >make sure his intention is claer. Some of these little habits don't matter too much - until something goes wrong. When something goes wrong, the Director must rule according to the rules [laws + regulations]. So, as far as I am concerned, if the NLP nods, and then claims the last person was slow, I rule against the NLP nearly automatically. To be honest, in the games I play, it is normal for a final pass to be substituted by a tap on a green card already down. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 5 06:55:42 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA13570 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 06:55:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA13561 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 06:55:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11C84D-000H4y-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 20:55:21 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 21:51:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: L93C MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Some time ago I posted an opinion on appeals to the National Authority. I thought Rich Colker might be interested, and he has taken the trouble to reply, and asks that I should post his reply. So here it is, with apologies for the fact that it was a long time ago. By the way, Rich prefers not to receive answers direct to him. If any further answers are received that might interest him I shall send him one email in about a week, so if you really want him to see a reply you could send it to me. --------------------------- David Stevenson wrote: > David Stevenson wrote: > >Herman De Wael wrote: > > > >>Well, the CoC at Malta (and all EBL tournaments) clearly > >>state that the AC is also the national authority referred in > >>L93C. > > I would like to probe this a little further. I expect European > >organisations to follow the Laws of bridge, and am worried by this > >statement. Now, before I make my pitch in this matter, would someone > >who has a copy of the CoC please post the actual wording of the > >authority of the Appeals Committee in Malta. > Thanks to the two people who sent me the CoC. I have read it > carefully, and I do think the wording is slightly worrying. The > relevant paragraph [as it seems to me]: > > 2.3 Judgement > > The Appeals Committee, also acting as the national > authority as meant in Law 93.c. shall have the power > to determine all facts and decide all questions of > law, whether under the Laws, the Proprieties or these > Rules, arising from any appeal or investigation and > its findings and decisions will be final. The Appeals > Committee may confirm, reverse, vary or modify the > findings or decisions of a Tournament Director > (except those foreseen by Law 93.B.3.) and remove, > increase or vary any penalty which may have been > imposed, or substitute a different class of penalty > or an adjusted score. > > Let me explain the workings of the Law as it seems to me. When there > is a possible infraction a TD is summoned, and gives a ruling, as > described in various Laws, such as L9, L10, L84 and L85. > > Within the period specified by L92B a contestant may appeal a ruling, > and a decision is given by an AC. Note that frivolous appeals are > subject to penalty: this is made clear by the footnote to L92A. > > L93C then says > > After the preceding remedies have been exhausted, > further appeal may be taken to the national authority. > > While this appears to be a right, there are a number of points. > First, there is no mention of how the NA should deal with it: in effect > that is left up to the NA. Second, there is no mention of what matters > the NA will deal with: it really is not suitable for the NA to merely > act as a second AC taking the same evidence and seeing whether they > copme to the same solution. Accordingly, therefore, the NA should > decide what matters it will deal with. Third, it only applies after an > appeal has been heard ["After the preceding remedies have been exhausted > ...."]. Our NA in the ACBL acts as you suggest here: they only hear appeals involving allegations of improper procedure or lack of due process. For example, the players were not properly informed of the time and place of the meeting and so did not attend (usually the 1st AC's decision is set aside and a new hearing scheduled -- upon petition by the absent players); the players were not told the basis for the TD's ruling and appealed on some irrelevant grounds and were penalized for it; allegations of bias on the part of some AC member(s); a decision which is in violation of the Laws, Regulations or CoC; other denial of due process; etc. The NA will not substitute their judgment for the AC's -- even when the AC's decision is clearly an aberrant one but based on bridge or other (e.g., law-related) judgment which they have been given the right to exercise. > Of course, there are obvious matters for an NA to deal with. If an AC > was drunk, malicious, or totally ignored the Laws of the game, we would > trust that L93C and the NA provide the backstop to see that justice is > done. It is also interesting where an interpretation of Law is > concerned: since the NA is usually the correct body to make or to > promulgate such an interpretation, it is suitable for them to look at > decisions which involve such an interpretation. > > It may interest you to see the relevant Regulations for the EBU [and > thus for the WBU] taken from the Orange book. > > 8.2 > Appeals to the National Authority > > 8.2.1 > These are settled by the Laws & Ethics Committee and > must be submitted in writing to the Secretary of the > Committee, enclosing a deposit - at the time of going > to print - of 50. You should inform the TD of your > intention to appeal, since the Committee may want > information from him, as well as the comments of the > Referee or the Appeals Committee which heard the > original appeal. > > 8.2.2 > No Appeal to the National Authority will be allowed > if there was not a request for an appeal against the > TD's ruling under Law 92A. (Law 93C) > > 8.2.3 > The deposit will normally be returned only if the > Laws & Ethics Committee considers the appeal to > involve either a question of principle, an error of > direction, or an error in the application of Law or > Regulation. The Committee does not revise value > judgements unless they are grossly inappropriate > > 8.2.4 > The outcome of an appeal to the National Authority, > or some other intervention by the Laws & Ethics > Committee, will affect the result of a match in a > knock-out competition only if the decision is made > before the publication of the draw for the next round. > > For the process to work there is therefore a three-part method: ruling > by a TD: decision by an AC: decision by the NA. > > Now, I was surprised to find that one European country had a National > Appeals Committee which decided all major appeals by post, so they > players did not get a chance to talk to the AC. OK, I am not arguing > about that now [though I expressed an opinion to them, and am pleased to > say that there has been some change in policy moving towards on-site > Committees] but what I also found worrying was that the NAC and the NA > were the same body, so after a L93B AC decision, there was no separate > body to consider an appeal under L93C. The above is quite troubling to me, too. > You could argue it may not matter since they will already have > considered matters as both an AC and a NA. I do not like it one bit. > They are second-guessing the Law-makers, suggesting that with *their* > set-up the distinction in the laws between L93B and L93C does not > matter, but what right have they to presume they are above the Laws? > > I suggested to them that even if the bodies were relatively the same, > that they used not all members on any appeal, and effectively left > sufficient people to form an NA if it was ever necessary. [As I > mentioned, they are now working to a different method, but I have heard > of at least one more European NCBO that acts similarly.] Even this is not good practice, for even the "appearance" of impropriety is undesirable (e.g., the second AC, consisting of the other members of the NA, might be unduly "protective" of their cohorts). > What about the EBL? The CoC says "The Appeals Committee, also acting > as the national authority as meant in Law 93.c. shall have the power to > determine ....". There are two ways to read this. One way, as Anton > and others have suggested, is that any appeal is dealt with under L93C. > I hope this is not the way the EBL acts, because that is clearly in > breach of the Laws. > > However, there is another possible reading, which is similar to what I > recommended in the country I have quoted: that the composition of the > whole Appeals Committee is defined by the CoC, and they will act either > under L93B or L93C as required. If we read it this way, then all the > appeals at Malta were heard under L93B, and could have been appealed > under L93C: however, the same overall group of people would have heard > them, presumably excluding those who sat one the first appeal [but it > would be legal even if they did not]. This is my interpretation, too, and I hope we are correct -- otherwise, imo your previous paragraph is right on target in suggesting that this is a breach of the Laws. I too would also hope that those who sat on the original AC would be excluded from sitting on the 93C appeal. > I wonder whether this has really been considered by those who drafted > the CoC for the EBL? I doubt it, because I think that the CoC would > have a rather more extensive statement on the subject, however if you > accept this interpretation then at least the Law would be followed. > > I believe that NAs should consider their procedures about L93C, > including the EBL [and the ACBL]. I believe that players have rights > under L93C, which should not extend to merely re-hearing the same > evidence in front of different people, but should cover certain matters > such as the EBU has designated after consideration. I should be very > happy to discuss this matter with the representatives of any NA that > needs advice on the subject, as would Grattan: as you will realise, the > EBU has looked into this matter extensively. As I stated earlier, the ACBL has already done this. The Appeals and Charges Subcommittee of our National Board of Directors is the NA in the ACBL. No mere on-site AC can EVER act as our NA; only one comprised of members of our BoD at NABC tournaments or convened in special executive session. > Let us presume that the EBL would be prepared to read their CoC in the > way I prefer, and convene a L93C appeals hearing if necessary: are there > any matters that properly should have been considered by them? I > believe the answer to be: Yes. > > There has been a long thread here on an appeal in Malta where a team > was fined a PP of 0.5 VP for making a bid that was not an agreed part of > their system. BLML readers will realise that the legalities of this are > still being argued, but I believe it to be illegal unless there is a CoC > to cover this [and there isn't: thanks to the correspondent who sent me > the whole CoC from Malta]. This is exactly the sort of item that is a > suitable L93C matter: it would have been entirely suitable for the team > who were fined 0.5 VP to have appealed it to the NA ion the basis that > it was not a legal PP. I agree with you 100% here. > I think the wording of the CoC ambiguous, and hope that future EBL > tournaments are run with a CoC that makes the method of appealing under > L93C clearer, and I trust that it will allow for such appeals. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 5 07:25:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA13604 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 07:01:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA13599 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 07:00:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.87] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11C89X-0008hK-00; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 22:00:48 +0100 Message-ID: <000a01bedebc$6b567a40$575208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: There are nice people (was Dropped Card). Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 21:00:03 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 04 August 1999 12:02 Subject: Re: Dropped Card >Bertel Lund Hansen wrote: > >>It is pretty clear to me that the purpose of "may" is to prevent >>defenders from gaining an advantage from a penalty card - or at >>least give declarer the chance to prevent it. > > Not necessarily. There are other possibilities, like declarer not >wishing to take advantage for personal reasons. > +++ Thank you, David. If you remember I recently noted that I had made no move to change the wording because I felt it was user friendly especially for little clubs. Does no-one ever come across the nice guy who does not want to insist that the little lady who lost her grip shall lead the K round to his A.Q. doubleton? Are we going to tell him he MUST? ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 5 07:36:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA13714 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 07:36:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA13709 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 07:36:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt092nb1.san.rr.com [204.210.48.177]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA23648 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 14:35:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <070801bedec1$539ff980$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199908042031.QAA17187@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: irrational (?) action in line with stated claim Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 14:26:34 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Adam Beneschan > > From David's post, apparently the ACBL > > definition is a probability of 1/3, which still seems to fly in the > > face of the dictionary definition of "likely" > > For L12C2 purposes, the ACBL LC interpretation is that "likely" is 1/3 > and "at all probable" is 1/6. The latter translates to a result that > you would _expect_ to happen even in a small section. No, no, out of context! The ACBL LC interpretation is that the *most favorable result that was likely* translates to a 1/3 chance or better. That result may not be likely at all, since something with a 1/3 chance is hardly "likely." " "_expect_ to happen even in a small section" has nothing to do with L12C2, as either assigned result might well be unique in even a large section. > I know of no official interpretation of "at all likely" in L70C, > but requiring "overwhelming evidence" seems much too strict. Agree with that. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 5 07:49:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA13774 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 07:49:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA13769 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 07:49:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt092nb1.san.rr.com [204.210.48.177]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA25857 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 14:49:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <070901bedec3$3301d660$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <9908031004.0E5S902@bbs.hal-pc.org><061701beddf3$7d16f300$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> <9bg7jeBs+Cq3EwTn@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: EXCUSE ME IF I DEMUR Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 14:49:11 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DAvid Stevenson wrote: > Marvin L. French wrote: > >Roger Pewick wrote: > >> > >> I have a difficult time describing a prematurely exposed card as anything > >> other than a source of extraneous information whether or not the card is > >> picked up as a non penalty card. L16A says that extraneous information is > >> UI. I see no reference as to the disposition of UI from the exposed card > >in > >> L24 and I see no need for such since L16A covers it. Have I got it wrong? > >> > > > >Well, it would be L16A, not L16B, as I thought at first. When L16B says > >"card belonging to another player at his own table before the auction > >begins," that does not include partner's card, logically, since information > >from partner is covered by L16A. Maybe L16B should read "card belonging to > >an opponent," just to make this clear. > > I am quite sure that looking at partner's hand before the start of > play [presumably because the board has been put on the table wrong] is a > L16B case, and we would not want it otherwise. Do you really think it > is better that you see another hand and have to try to ignore the 13 > cards you have already seen [the L16A ruling] rather than playing the > board switched [the L16B ruling]? > > I do not consider that seeing a card of partner's before the start of > the hand is anything but L16B. Looking at the titles of L16A (Extraneous Information from Partner) and L16B (Extraneous Information from Other Sources) I assumed that seeing partner's card(s) before the auction would not fall under L16B. However, David is surely right when one partner has seen the other's cards before he has seen them himself. In that case the information is not exactly "from partner," so L16B applies and is worded okay. L16A's title might be improved by making it Extraneous Information Made Available by Partner, in order to reinforce this distinction.. Nevertheless, if partner exposes a card after he has seen his hand, then that falls under L24 (Card Exposed or Led During the Auction). The auction begins for either side when either partner looks at his cards (L17A), and L24 strikes me as being complete in itself (other than the reference to L50 for the disposition of penalty cards). L24 doesn't reference L16, as it would if L16 were to be applied. > > >So what about L16A? Its examples of UI from partner are not meant to be > >all-inclusive, obviously, but "or the like* (a good phrase for L90B) seems > >to exclude seeing a card from partner's hand, which is not *like* any of the > >examples given. Moreover, all the examples are of the nature of deliberate > >actions, not accidental ones. > > Hesitations, speed, emphasis, tone, gestures, movements or mannerisms > are often not deliberate actions. > The last sentence does not convey what I had in mind, but that is moot if L24 is, as I believe, complete in itself. That means L16 doesn't come into the picture. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 5 08:28:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA13842 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 08:28:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA13837 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 08:28:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id SAA07157 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 18:28:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA17436 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 18:28:40 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 18:28:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199908042228.SAA17436@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: irrational (?) action in line with stated claim X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > No, no, out of context! The ACBL LC interpretation is that the *most > favorable result that was likely* translates to a 1/3 chance or > better. That result may not be likely at all, since something with a > 1/3 chance is hardly "likely." " Oh, Marvin. Is it really that bad? I did reference L12C2, and I expect most people on this list practically have it memorized. How much context do we need? I agree that _my own_ interpretation of "likely" would be 1/2, but that's not how the ACBL LC sees it. > "_expect_ to happen even in a small section" has nothing to do with > L12C2, as either assigned result might well be unique in even a large > section. The ACBL's version of "at all probable" in L12C2 is 1/6 chance. That means "expect to happen in a small section," but you are right; I did leave out the intended qualifier "given identical circumstances but for the infraction" or something along those lines. If circumstances are unusual, then of course the assigned result will be unusual. But it will be something that one could reasonably expect to happen, not often, or even most of the time, but not something that takes seeing through the backs of the cards. And if the circumstances at the infraction table are not unusual, you would expect the assigned score to show up as an actual score at some other tables. "Expect" doesn't mean it _must_ happen, of course, and it _certainly_ doesn't mean you look at the other scores to decide what to assign. I don't believe any of the above should be controversial as regards L12C2. The question is to what extent, if any, the words in L70C2 have a similar meaning. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 5 08:32:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA13859 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 08:32:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA13854 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 08:32:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id SAA07266 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 18:32:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA17446 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 18:32:36 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 18:32:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199908042232.SAA17446@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A Played Card? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Ted Ying > And defenders should realize that they really are > responsible for any inferences they choose to make. You might note the new (1997) wording of L73F2. The conditions for adjustment are spelled out there, and if they exist, an adjustment is mandatory for both sides. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 5 08:33:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA13873 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 08:33:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA13868 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 08:33:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt092nb1.san.rr.com [204.210.48.177]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA02487 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 15:32:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <073101bedec9$48f410e0$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199908041552.IAA09049@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: Dropped card Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 15:32:45 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: Adam Beneschan > > John Probst wrote: > > > In article <199908032151.OAA25208@mailhub.irvine.com>, Adam Beneschan > > writes > > > > > >David Grabiner wrote: > > > > > >> Adam Beneschan writes: > > >> > > >> > However, while a dropped card does give useful information to partner, > > >> > I'm not sure that it constitutes UI under the definitions in the Laws. > > >> > L16C doesn't seem to apply since there's no withdrawn play (a dropped > > >> > card is not a play), and I don't think L16A is supposed to apply to > > >> > exposed cards. I could be wrong about this. > > >> > > >> This is explicit in L50C; a dropped card is a minor penalty card, and > > >> information gained from seeing it is UI. > > > > > >You're right. I missed that one. > > > > > > -- Adam > > Only if you believe that Law 50 applies during the auction - and IMO it > > doesn't john > > No, but as soon as the auction is over, the card becomes a minor > penalty card if declarer so chooses, and then 50C applies. > > This is getting confusing because, if I recall correctly, we were > talking about UI in relation to how it could influence the defense, > and in particular, the opening lead. In that case, if a card has been > dropped during the auction, it becomes a minor penalty card (at > declarer's option) as soon as the auction closes, and then L50C > applies, which means Law 16A applies, which means there may be UI > restrictions on the opening lead. Yes, Adam, if declarer so chooses, it becomes a penalty card, subject to L50C and through L50C to L16A. However, I think we were discussing the times when the exposed card is not treated as a penalty card, but is picked up. Then L50 doesn't apply, nor L50C, nor L16A (IMO). > > However, maybe some people are considering whether the dropped card is > supposed to be UI to partner during the auction. That's a good > question (and, I agree, one that L50 can't be used to answer), but > it's not one I was trying to address at all. A good question indeed, not answered by L24 directly. However, the requirement that if it is an honor card partner must pass "when next it is his turn to call", augmented by L23, should be sufficient penalty for the irregularity. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 5 08:43:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA13900 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 08:43:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA13895 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 08:43:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id SAA07467 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 18:43:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA17468 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 18:43:32 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 18:43:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199908042243.SAA17468@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: L16A1-Reply X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Gary Blaiss has added the following to his previous message. ----- Begin Included Message ----- Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 11:42:29 -0500 From: Gary Blaiss Many players agree amongst themselves that there was an unmistakeable hesitation. As long as a player calls when the hand in question becomes known and there was possible UI, his rights are not diminished. The one thing that this Law accomplishes is that it permits players to agree on the fact that there was a noticeable break in tempo. ----- End Included Message ----- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 5 08:59:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA13928 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 08:59:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from deimos.worldonline.nl (deimos.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.136]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA13922 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 08:59:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp210-207.worldonline.nl [195.241.210.207]) by deimos.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA11357; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 00:59:04 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <006101bede19$ff8668e0$4aeaf1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "Marvin L. French" , Subject: Re: WBF Interpretation #6 and the ACBL Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 03:37:56 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >############## >The Committee considered the situation in regard to purposeful corrections >of call under Law 25B. > >Now, from the Orlando NABC casebook editor (and Appeals Administrator) Rich >Colker: > >"...the WBF Laws Committee's pronouncements are not binding on the ACBL for >events under the ACBL's sponsorship. In fact, after discussing the WBF's >interpretation of Law 25B in its Orlando meetings, the ACBL Laws Commission >decided that 'the right to change one's call is not dependant on the reason >for wishing to make a change.' Thus, under the ACBL's interpretation of this >law the ACBL Director in this case acted correctly (as far as Law 25B was >concerned) in giving South the chance to change her call." > >Evidently the ACBL LC does not realize that the WBF By-Laws state that the >WBF LC is responsible for interpreting the Laws. > > >After reading 25B carefully, I cannot understand how the ACBL or anyone else >could agree with the WBFLC interpretation, but the WBF By-Laws say they >must. If the drafters of L25B intended what the LC says they intended, the >way to correct the error is to change the language in the next version of >the Laws, or to issue a revision to L25B, not to create a new law under the >guise of an "interpretation." > >Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com Dear Marv, Is there any chance that you read some of my messages? I started at the end of November last year to express my feeling that the minutes of our meetings in Lille, produced under my responsibility, did not accurately record what we wanted to express about the use of law 25B. Since then I have repeated that at least twice, the last time less than two weeks ago, promising to you and the rest of our bridge world to clear this case in our next LC-meeting. I described my thoughts about the change to be made, which is not exactly the same as "the right to change one's call is not dependent on the reason for wishing to make a change' as, according to you, is the ACBL LC decision, but comes close. May I ask you to keep these now four messages in mind for a couple of months, when writing again about this subject? ton From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 5 09:29:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA13966 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 09:29:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from iac12.navix.net (iac12.navix.net [207.91.5.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA13961 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 09:29:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from navix.net (cras18p52.navix.net [207.91.7.54]) by iac12.navix.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA27417; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 18:15:42 -0500 Message-ID: <37A8C9EA.31441170@navix.net> Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 18:16:58 -0500 From: "Norman H. Hostetler" Reply-To: nh35422@navix.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Probst CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Dropped card References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > In article <199908032151.OAA25208@mailhub.irvine.com>, Adam Beneschan > writes > > > >David Grabiner wrote: > > > >> Adam Beneschan writes: > >> > >> > However, while a dropped card does give useful information to partner, > >> > I'm not sure that it constitutes UI under the definitions in the Laws. > >> > L16C doesn't seem to apply since there's no withdrawn play (a dropped > >> > card is not a play), and I don't think L16A is supposed to apply to > >> > exposed cards. I could be wrong about this. > >> > >> This is explicit in L50C; a dropped card is a minor penalty card, and > >> information gained from seeing it is UI. > > > >You're right. I missed that one. > > > > -- Adam > Only if you believe that Law 50 applies during the auction - and IMO it > doesn't john But Law 16 DOES apply--it's in the general group of laws that apply to the conditions throughout the auction and play period. Extraneous information is a relevant consideration from the time the cards are removed from the board until the end of play.Norm From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 5 09:34:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA13986 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 09:34:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from iac20.navix.net (iac20.navix.net [207.91.5.26]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA13981 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 09:34:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from navix.net (cras18p52.navix.net [207.91.7.54]) by iac20.navix.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA23301 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 18:16:08 -0500 Message-ID: <37A8CA02.37EFD634@navix.net> Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 18:17:23 -0500 From: "Norman H. Hostetler" Reply-To: nh35422@navix.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Gary Blaiss on Law 24 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------50E4275694DC380DDE9CE4E6" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk --------------50E4275694DC380DDE9CE4E6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I received the following e-mail to day from Gary Blaiss, Chief TD for the ACBL. At least I now know WHY I never considered making a card faced during the auction period anything other than a mandatory penalty card. Thanks to everybody for helping me to sound more like an expert than I really am! Norm > Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 10:49:11 -0500 > From: Gary Blaiss > To: Butch.Campbell@acbl.org, nh35422@navix.net > CC: martel@cs.ucdavis.edu, billyspa@memphisonline.com > >Grattan Endicott in his commentary on the 1987 Laws uses "is treated." >I have notified the ACBL Laws Commission Chairs of your quandry. >However, until the ACBL Laws Commission tells me that we are >interpreting and applying this Law incorrectly, ACBL staff will continue to >apply this Law by having the cards be penalty cards. > >One good reason is not to apply a Law in such a way that a player is >permitted to advantage a friend or other opponent at his whim - it gives a >bad appearance. For example, if this happened against a friend who had >just told you they were having a good game, the friend might expect you >to excuse this error. > >The permissive interpretation places declarer in an uncomfortable social >and competitive situation. In addition, it is almost 100% not the intent, I >believe. > >gary >>>> "Norman H. Hostetler" 08/03/99 05:26pm >>> >>Butch, >> >>However, Law 24, Card Exposed During the Auction Period, states that, >>should a player with an exposed card become a defender, "declarer MAY [my >>emphasis] treat every such card as a penalty card . . ." Throughout the laws, >>"may" is always permissive. As written, the Law makes the decision the >>declarer's, not the director's. This has been the wording since the 1963 revision of >>this law from the 1946 laws, which had a different penalty and wording. >>Dozens of people have posted on BLML on this topic, including a bunch >>of ACBL directors, and so far, no one has been able to turn up a reason why the >>ACBL interprets "may" here as "must," which is certainly not the standard >>interpretation of "may" elsewhere. Unless somebody comes up with a >>rationale that directly addresses this issue, and distributes it to directors, there >>are going to be a whole lot of directors out there, myself included, who >>are going to begin applying Law 24 as it is written, on the grounds that the >>current ACBL interpretation of "must" is clearly erroneous and without >>foundation. >> >>If Gary is a more appropriate person to address with this issue, I'll be >>glad to do so. >> >>Norm >> >>>Butch Campbell wrote: >>> >>>Norman, >>> >>> With regards to waiving of penalties, I refer to Law 72A3 >>> In duplicate tournaments a player may not, on his own initiative, waive a >>> penalty for an opponent's infraction, even if he feels that he has not >>> been damaged (but he may ask the Director to do so - see Law 81C8). >>> >>> 81C8 >>> to waive penalties for cause, at his discretion, upon the request of the >>> non-offending side. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Butch >>> >>>> "Norman H. Hostetler" 08/05/99 01:36am >>>> >>>> Butch-- >>>> >>>> The attached three comments appeared on Monday's Bridge Laws Mailing >>>> List. They all refer to you and comment on a quote attributed to you in >>>> the first of these posts about Law 24 and the issue of whether declarer >>>> may, at the end of the auction period, waive making a card exposed by >>>> LHO a penalty card, which a considerable majority of the commentators >>>> (apparently including Kojak) think is the appropriate interpretation. >>>> >>>> I'd appreciate your commentary on these comments. Is there a basis in >>>> law or regulation regarding the ACBL standard interpretation that such a >>>> card is a mandatory penalty card, in spite of the wording in Law 24? >>>> >>>> Thanks, Norm Hostetler --------------50E4275694DC380DDE9CE4E6 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I received the following e-mail to day from Gary Blaiss, Chief TD for the ACBL.  At least I now know WHY I never considered making a card faced during the auction period anything other than a mandatory penalty card.  Thanks to everybody for helping me to sound more like an expert than I really am!
Norm

>   Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 10:49:11 -0500
>   From: Gary Blaiss <Gary.Blaiss@acbl.org>
>     To: Butch.Campbell@acbl.org, nh35422@navix.net
>     CC: martel@cs.ucdavis.edu, billyspa@memphisonline.com
>
>Grattan Endicott in his commentary on the 1987 Laws uses "is treated."
>I have notified the ACBL Laws Commission Chairs of your quandry.
>However, until the ACBL Laws Commission tells me that we are
>interpreting and applying this Law incorrectly, ACBL staff will continue to
>apply this Law by having the cards be penalty cards.
>
>One good reason is not to apply a Law in such a way that a player is
>permitted to advantage a friend or other opponent at  his whim - it gives a
>bad appearance. For example, if this happened against a friend who had
>just told you they were having a good game, the friend might expect you
>to excuse this error.
>
>The permissive interpretation places declarer in an uncomfortable social
>and competitive situation. In addition, it is almost 100% not the intent, I
>believe.
>
>gary

>>>> "Norman H. Hostetler" <nh35422@navix.net> 08/03/99 05:26pm >>>
>>Butch,
>>
>>However, Law 24, Card Exposed During the Auction Period, states that,
>>should a player with an exposed card become a defender, "declarer MAY [my
>>emphasis] treat every such card as a penalty card . . ."  Throughout the laws,
>>"may" is always permissive.  As written, the Law makes the decision the
>>declarer's, not the director's.  This has been the wording since the 1963 revision of
>>this law from the 1946 laws, which had a different penalty and wording.
>>Dozens of people have posted on BLML on this topic, including a bunch
>>of ACBL directors, and so far, no one has been able to turn up a reason why the
>>ACBL interprets "may" here as "must," which is certainly not the standard
>>interpretation of "may" elsewhere.  Unless somebody comes up with a
>>rationale that directly addresses this issue, and distributes it to directors,  there
>>are going to be a whole lot of directors out there, myself included, who
>>are going to begin applying  Law 24 as it is written, on the grounds that the
>>current ACBL interpretation of "must" is clearly erroneous and without
>>foundation.
>>
>>If Gary is a more appropriate person to address with this issue, I'll be
>>glad to do so.
>>
>>Norm
>>
>>>Butch Campbell wrote:
>>>
>>>Norman,
>>>
>>> With regards to waiving of penalties, I refer to Law 72A3
>>> In duplicate tournaments a player may not, on his own initiative, waive a
>>> penalty for an opponent's infraction, even if he feels that he has not
>>> been damaged (but he may ask the Director to do so - see Law 81C8).
>>>
>>> 81C8
>>> to waive penalties for cause, at his discretion, upon the request of the
>>> non-offending side.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Butch
>>>
>>>> "Norman H. Hostetler" <nh35422@navix.net> 08/05/99 01:36am
>>>>
>>>> Butch--
>>>>
>>>> The attached three comments appeared on Monday's Bridge Laws Mailing
>>>> List.  They all refer to you and comment on a quote attributed to you in
>>>> the first of these posts about Law 24 and the issue of whether declarer
>>>> may, at the end of the auction period, waive making a card exposed by
>>>> LHO a penalty card, which a considerable majority of the commentators
>>>> (apparently including Kojak) think is the appropriate interpretation.
>>>>
>>>> I'd appreciate your commentary on these comments.  Is there a basis in
>>>> law or regulation regarding the ACBL standard interpretation that such a
>>>> card is a mandatory penalty card, in spite of the wording in Law 24?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, Norm Hostetler
 
 
 
 
  --------------50E4275694DC380DDE9CE4E6-- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 5 09:47:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA14017 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 09:47:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (mailhub.irvine.com [192.160.8.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA14012 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 09:47:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA17518; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 16:46:22 -0700 Message-Id: <199908042346.QAA17518@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Dropped card In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 04 Aug 1999 18:16:58 PDT." <37A8C9EA.31441170@navix.net> Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 16:46:24 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Norman Hostetler wrote: > John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > > In article <199908032151.OAA25208@mailhub.irvine.com>, Adam Beneschan > > writes > > > > > >David Grabiner wrote: > > > > > >> Adam Beneschan writes: > > >> > > >> > However, while a dropped card does give useful information to partner, > > >> > I'm not sure that it constitutes UI under the definitions in the Laws. > > >> > L16C doesn't seem to apply since there's no withdrawn play (a dropped > > >> > card is not a play), and I don't think L16A is supposed to apply to > > >> > exposed cards. I could be wrong about this. > > >> > > >> This is explicit in L50C; a dropped card is a minor penalty card, and > > >> information gained from seeing it is UI. > > > > > >You're right. I missed that one. > > > > > > -- Adam > > Only if you believe that Law 50 applies during the auction - and IMO it > > doesn't john > > But Law 16 DOES apply--it's in the general group of laws that apply > to the conditions throughout the auction and play period. > Extraneous information is a relevant consideration from the time the > cards are removed from the board until the end of play.Norm Law 16 applies only if we've already established that the information is UI, according to the definition of UI. And not everyone agrees that it is. In fact, that's what this part of the argument is all about (read all of the above-quoted material). -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 5 11:23:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA14197 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 11:23:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp1.a2000.nl (farida.a2000.nl [62.108.1.19]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA14192 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 11:23:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp1.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 11CCFk-0004MM-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 03:23:28 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19990805032106.00afcab0@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 03:21:06 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: [Bidding boxes] Nodding/tapping for the final pass In-Reply-To: <4Q8KhFActJq3EwDy@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <199908041240.OAA24454@mail.zeelandnet.nl> <199908041240.OAA24454@mail.zeelandnet.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 20:58 04-08-99 +0100, you wrote: >Marcel Schoof wrote: >>Thank you all for your contributions. In the actual case the East player >>was a home player not realy familiair with bidding-boxes so the double >>stayed. The problem was in the NS pair, who stayed that is normal to pass >>by clearing up the bidding-cards. >>In fact they said they were going to call a director from thier >>club/district (no name given) to confirm their opinion. He agreed but i >>wasn't given an answer to my question were I could find a approriate >>ruling. >> >>The danger in creeping down the habbit of nodding/tapping by the next last >>person(NLP) is in the time the last person thinks. After the NLP noddes the >>LHO starts to think about what action to take and after some more biddings >>their is a discussion start whether an action from his partner is based >>upon the thinking. >> >>1) LHO agrees that he was thinking for a long time. No problem >>2) LHO has waited till the actual green card is played, because he hadn't >>seen the noddig/tapping. Their is hardly a way to establish if this is so. >>He could have been thinking about his action and in the mean time just wait >>till some one would point out that is his turn to bid. (and than bid fast). >>I see no other alternitive than to except that their was no pause in >>bidding ans explain to the NLP that he should have used a green card to >>make sure his intention is claer. > > Some of these little habits don't matter too much - until something >goes wrong. When something goes wrong, the Director must rule according >to the rules [laws + regulations]. > > So, as far as I am concerned, if the NLP nods, and then claims the >last person was slow, I rule against the NLP nearly automatically. > > To be honest, in the games I play, it is normal for a final pass to be >substituted by a tap on a green card already down. > wel, then there is one slight problem. suppose you are playing a 'cafe drive', no bidding boxes supplied. You tap on the table (usually agreed as a pass), to alert partners bid. now LHO passes (too the thinks). what do you rule then??? regards, anton >-- >David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ >Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 2e Kostverlorenkade 114-1 1053 SB Amsterdam ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 5 12:05:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA14257 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 12:05:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp1.a2000.nl (farida.a2000.nl [62.108.1.19]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA14252 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 12:05:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp1.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 11CCtb-0007Bi-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 04:04:39 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19990805040218.00afc760@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 04:02:18 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: L93C In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 21:51 04-08-99 +0100, you wrote: > > Some time ago I posted an opinion on appeals to the National >Authority. I thought Rich Colker might be interested, and he has taken >the trouble to reply, and asks that I should post his reply. So here it >is, with apologies for the fact that it was a long time ago. > > By the way, Rich prefers not to receive answers direct to him. If any >further answers are received that might interest him I shall send him >one email in about a week, so if you really want him to see a reply you >could send it to me. > > --------------------------- > >David Stevenson wrote: >> David Stevenson wrote: >> >Herman De Wael wrote: >> > >> >>Well, the CoC at Malta (and all EBL tournaments) clearly >> >>state that the AC is also the national authority referred in >> >>L93C. > >> > I would like to probe this a little further. I expect European >> >organisations to follow the Laws of bridge, and am worried by this >> >statement. Now, before I make my pitch in this matter, would someone >> >who has a copy of the CoC please post the actual wording of the >> >authority of the Appeals Committee in Malta. > >> Thanks to the two people who sent me the CoC. I have read it >> carefully, and I do think the wording is slightly worrying. The >> relevant paragraph [as it seems to me]: >> >> 2.3 Judgement >> >> The Appeals Committee, also acting as the national >> authority as meant in Law 93.c. shall have the power >> to determine all facts and decide all questions of >> law, whether under the Laws, the Proprieties or these >> Rules, arising from any appeal or investigation and >> its findings and decisions will be final. The Appeals >> Committee may confirm, reverse, vary or modify the >> findings or decisions of a Tournament Director >> (except those foreseen by Law 93.B.3.) and remove, >> increase or vary any penalty which may have been >> imposed, or substitute a different class of penalty >> or an adjusted score. >> >> Let me explain the workings of the Law as it seems to me. When there >> is a possible infraction a TD is summoned, and gives a ruling, as >> described in various Laws, such as L9, L10, L84 and L85. >> >> Within the period specified by L92B a contestant may appeal a ruling, >> and a decision is given by an AC. Note that frivolous appeals are >> subject to penalty: this is made clear by the footnote to L92A. >> >> L93C then says >> >> After the preceding remedies have been exhausted, >> further appeal may be taken to the national authority. >> >> While this appears to be a right, there are a number of points. >> First, there is no mention of how the NA should deal with it: in effect >> that is left up to the NA. Second, there is no mention of what matters >> the NA will deal with: it really is not suitable for the NA to merely >> act as a second AC taking the same evidence and seeing whether they >> copme to the same solution. Accordingly, therefore, the NA should >> decide what matters it will deal with. Third, it only applies after an >> appeal has been heard ["After the preceding remedies have been exhausted >> ...."]. > well, the CoC simply says, that after calling the CTD all remedies are exhausted. Nothing wong with it i think (altough perhaps it is a bit harhs to know that you cant fight your arguments to a higher level. The problem is simply that in this type of contests it is silly to require that you can appeal further than the level you have already reached. It is a bit like going to the european court in one step an then wondering if there is something like a world court (the UN??). The rules are clear and if you dont want to accept them, then dont get involved please. We have discussed the powers of the NA long time ago (after a question of Henk uitwerwaal, very well answered by david) >Our NA in the ACBL acts as you suggest here: they only hear appeals >involving allegations of improper procedure or lack of due process. For >example, the players were not properly informed of the time and place of >the >meeting and so did not attend (usually the 1st AC's decision is set >aside >and a new hearing scheduled -- upon petition by the absent players); the >players were not told the basis for the TD's ruling and appealed on some >irrelevant grounds and were penalized for it; allegations of bias on the >part of some AC member(s); a decision which is in violation of the Laws, >Regulations or CoC; other denial of due process; etc. The NA will not >substitute their judgment for the AC's -- even when the AC's decision is >clearly an aberrant one but based on bridge or other (e.g., law-related) >judgment which they have been given the right to exercise. > well, to say the least, i dont think that is the way to work. The NA should as a matter of law look seriously at any request of a player who opposes the decision of any AC. Thats their duty. If they fail to do that then they arent reading the law or are very lazy (to say the least - but it is ACBL, so dont expect too much ) >> Of course, there are obvious matters for an NA to deal with. If an AC >> was drunk, malicious, or totally ignored the Laws of the game, we would >> trust that L93C and the NA provide the backstop to see that justice is >> done. It is also interesting where an interpretation of Law is >> concerned: since the NA is usually the correct body to make or to >> promulgate such an interpretation, it is suitable for them to look at >> decisions which involve such an interpretation. >> Perhaps they can be wong?????????? or is an AC really the top of the pops??? Then you have no argument against the CoC. This is a very silly remark. The NA is the higest authority in involving interpretation of the laws. If the voluntary abide this right then so be it. But dont complain please.11 >> It may interest you to see the relevant Regulations for the EBU [and >> thus for the WBU] taken from the Orange book. >> >> 8.2 >> Appeals to the National Authority >> Well, technically speaking, in an EBL or WBF tournament there is no NA we still dont have an european AC Perhaps we should have. >> 8.2.1 >> These are settled by the Laws & Ethics Committee and >> must be submitted in writing to the Secretary of the >> Committee, enclosing a deposit - at the time of going >> to print - of 50. You should inform the TD of your >> intention to appeal, since the Committee may want >> information from him, as well as the comments of the >> Referee or the Appeals Committee which heard the >> original appeal. >> >> 8.2.2 >> No Appeal to the National Authority will be allowed >> if there was not a request for an appeal against the >> TD's ruling under Law 92A. (Law 93C) >> >> 8.2.3 >> The deposit will normally be returned only if the >> Laws & Ethics Committee considers the appeal to >> involve either a question of principle, an error of >> direction, or an error in the application of Law or >> Regulation. The Committee does not revise value >> judgements unless they are grossly inappropriate >> >> 8.2.4 >> The outcome of an appeal to the National Authority, >> or some other intervention by the Laws & Ethics >> Committee, will affect the result of a match in a >> knock-out competition only if the decision is made >> before the publication of the draw for the next round. >> >> For the process to work there is therefore a three-part method: ruling >> by a TD: decision by an AC: decision by the NA. >> That looks very cumbersome in an european or world event and very useless too. >> Now, I was surprised to find that one European country had a National >> Appeals Committee which decided all major appeals by post, so they >> players did not get a chance to talk to the AC. OK, I am not arguing >> about that now [though I expressed an opinion to them, and am pleased to >> say that there has been some change in policy moving towards on-site >> Committees] but what I also found worrying was that the NAC and the NA >> were the same body, so after a L93B AC decision, there was no separate >> body to consider an appeal under L93C. > Well, at least they look ast the protest, unlike in ACBL. >The above is quite troubling to me, too. > >> You could argue it may not matter since they will already have >> considered matters as both an AC and a NA. I do not like it one bit. >> They are second-guessing the Law-makers, suggesting that with *their* >> set-up the distinction in the laws between L93B and L93C does not >> matter, but what right have they to presume they are above the Laws? >> Perhaps because they are the NA????????????? >> I suggested to them that even if the bodies were relatively the same, >> that they used not all members on any appeal, and effectively left >> sufficient people to form an NA if it was ever necessary. [As I >> mentioned, they are now working to a different method, but I have heard >> of at least one more European NCBO that acts similarly.] > Well, I guess you are right, but consider that when an appeal reaches the NA, they usually arent a fact finding committee. They interpret if the TD/AC did their work and look mostly if in the decision making process someting went wrong. Thats their duty. >Even this is not good practice, for even the "appearance" of impropriety >is undesirable (e.g., the second AC, consisting of the other members of >the NA, might be unduly "protective" of their cohorts). > ?????????? What do you mean with this???? >> What about the EBL? The CoC says "The Appeals Committee, also acting >> as the national authority as meant in Law 93.c. shall have the power to >> determine ....". There are two ways to read this. One way, as Anton >> and others have suggested, is that any appeal is dealt with under L93C. It is the way they work, as i suggested (I didnt know it but i suspected it all the way, and i wasnt wrong) >> I hope this is not the way the EBL acts, because that is clearly in >> breach of the Laws. Why??????????????? >> >> However, there is another possible reading, which is similar to what I >> recommended in the country I have quoted: that the composition of the >> whole Appeals Committee is defined by the CoC, and they will act either >> under L93B or L93C as required. If we read it this way, then all the >> appeals at Malta were heard under L93B, and could have been appealed >> under L93C: however, the same overall group of people would have heard >> them, presumably excluding those who sat one the first appeal [but it >> would be legal even if they did not]. and what does that solve then please????????????? Be fair. > >This is my interpretation, too, and I hope we are correct -- otherwise, >imo your previous paragraph is right on target in suggesting that this >is a breach of the Laws. what law. The CoC just stated there wasnt an AC, just the NA. Nothing wrong with it. Come on. Please read the laws. I too would also hope that those who sat on the >original AC would be excluded from sitting on the 93C appeal. > Technically speaking, there wasnt an AC. >> I wonder whether this has really been considered by those who drafted >> the CoC for the EBL? I doubt it, because I think that the CoC would >> have a rather more extensive statement on the subject, however if you >> accept this interpretation then at least the Law would be followed. >> >> I believe that NAs should consider their procedures about L93C, >> including the EBL [and the ACBL]. I believe that players have rights >> under L93C, which should not extend to merely re-hearing the same >> evidence in front of different people, but should cover certain matters >> such as the EBU has designated after consideration. I should be very >> happy to discuss this matter with the representatives of any NA that >> needs advice on the subject, as would Grattan: as you will realise, the >> EBU has looked into this matter extensively. > >As I stated earlier, the ACBL has already done this. The Appeals and >Charges Subcommittee of our National Board of Directors is the NA in the >ACBL. But do they acept all appeals? i dont think so. No mere on-site AC can EVER act as our NA; No but on ACBL yoy dont play intercontinental or world matches, so there is no need. only one comprised of >members of our BoD at NABC tournaments or convened in special executive >session. > >> Let us presume that the EBL would be prepared to read their CoC in the >> way I prefer, I am afraid they wont and convene a L93C appeals hearing if necessary: are there >> any matters that properly should have been considered by them? I >> believe the answer to be: Yes. >> >> There has been a long thread here on an appeal in Malta where a team >> was fined a PP of 0.5 VP for making a bid that was not an agreed part of >> their system. BLML readers will realise that the legalities of this are >> still being argued, but I believe it to be illegal unless there is a CoC >> to cover this [and there isn't: thanks to the correspondent who sent me >> the whole CoC from Malta]. This is exactly the sort of item that is a >> suitable L93C matter: it would have been entirely suitable for the team >> who were fined 0.5 VP to have appealed it to the NA ion the basis that >> it was not a legal PP. ????? the AC IS the NA if i am right. So the fine stands. > >I agree with you 100% here. > >> I think the wording of the CoC ambiguous, and hope that future EBL >> tournaments are run with a CoC that makes the method of appealing under >> L93C clearer, and I trust that it will allow for such appeals. > regards, anton sorry to have spoken up this much about a matter we seemed to have solved a long time ago. >-- >David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ >Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 2e Kostverlorenkade 114-1 1053 SB Amsterdam ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 5 12:15:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA14281 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 12:15:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp2.erols.com (smtp2.erols.com [207.172.3.235]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA14274 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 12:15:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (209-122-220-147.s401.tnt5.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [209.122.220.147]) by smtp2.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA10466 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 22:16:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <005501bedee8$1211fbe0$93dc7ad1@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <199908042031.QAA17187@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: irrational (?) action in line with stated claim Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 22:13:01 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Steve Willner To: Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 1999 4:31 PM Subject: Re: irrational (?) action in line with stated claim > In practice, I'd probably claim saying "Drawing trumps, overtaking if > needed" or something close to that. I would feel much aggrieved to > have the claim disallowed or even questioned unless somebody is ruffing > a reentry. Curious statement. What conditions would be needed to overtake? It looks like what you are saying is that you will not overtake unless there is no outside entry to get to the trumps. If there's a ruff of the entry, this particular claim will lose to it, even when trumps are breaking normally. How about "drawing trumps starting with the A, overtaking the ten if both opponents follow, cashing the ten and entering hand with X to pull the rest of the trumps if they don't split". While I'm all for claiming to speed up the game, the claim should include a complete clarification statement. Otherwise, the TD calls take far longer than the time saved by the claim. In practice, I would cash the A of trumps to verify the trump break before claiming at all. However, if I claimed before the break was revealed, and my statement of claim did not take the break into account, I would expect to lose a trick if at all possible. An incomplete or incorrect statement of claim is my own silly fault, and I certainly would not feel aggrieved if an opponent or a TD held me to it. I don't expect the Laws to protect me from my own mistakes. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 5 12:37:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA14353 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 12:37:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA14344 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 12:37:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11CDLL-000KW6-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 02:33:19 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 00:17:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply References: <199908042243.SAA17468@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199908042243.SAA17468@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >Gary Blaiss has added the following to his previous message. > >----- Begin Included Message ----- > >Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 11:42:29 -0500 >From: Gary Blaiss > >Many players agree amongst themselves that there was an >unmistakeable hesitation. As long as a player calls when the hand in >question becomes known and there was possible UI, his rights are not >diminished. The one thing that this Law accomplishes is that it permits >players to agree on the fact that there was a noticeable break in tempo. > >----- End Included Message ----- > How does this differ from "Reserving your Rights", please? Quango has got his picture into the local paper! The Wirral Globe four weeks ago had a headline "LAST QUANGO IN WIRRAL" [a Quango is a QUAsi Non-Governmental Organisation or some such]. Now they have printed an article under the heading "SORRY QUANGO" with his picture. If I can scan it I shall post it on the web site. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 5 13:05:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA14430 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 13:05:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from slot0-18.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net (moorebj@slot0-18.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net [205.212.4.18]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA14425 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 13:05:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (moorebj@localhost) by slot0-18.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net (8.9.1/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA28425 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 23:04:41 -0400 Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 23:04:38 -0400 (EDT) From: "Bruce J. Moore" Reply-To: Bruce Moore To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Dropped Card Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk 1963 Laws Law 23. Card exposed or led during the auction Whenever, during the auction, a player faces a card on the table or holds a card so that it is possible for his partner to see its face, every such card must be left face up on the table until the auction closes; and: A. If it is a single card below the rank of an honor and not prematurely led, there is no penalty, and when the auction closes the card may be picked up. B. If it is a single card of honor rank, or any card prematurely led, or if more than one card is so exposed, (penalty) the offender's partner must pass when next it is his turn to call; and if the offender subsequently becomes a defender, declarer may treat every such card as a penalty card (Law 50). Not too different from the current Laws. Bruce Steve Willner wrote: :> From: "Phillip Mendelsohn" : Thanks for checking this with Memphis and for the report. :> Butch Campbell, ... His interpretation was that :> the faced card becomes the opening lead; Declarer has no option; the "may" :> language was left over from an older version of the Laws and overlooked, but :> should have been expunged. : I have checked back to the 1975 Laws, and the relevant language has not : changed since then. (The law was renumbered from 23A to 24 in 1987, : but at a quick glance I see no other changes.) Anybody have a copy of : the 1963 Laws at hand? There were major changes in 1975, and it's not : surprising that an error could have been made then, but it is a little : surprising that nobody has noticed until now. : Was 1975 the first year Kaplan had major influence on the Laws? Is : that why there were so many changes in that edition? : Even if this is an error, shouldn't we follow the law as written absent : an official instruction to the contrary? Is Butch Campbell authorized : to give such an instruction within the ACBL? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 5 15:51:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA14665 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 15:51:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from purplenet.co.uk ([195.89.178.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA14659 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 15:50:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([195.89.178.102]) by purplenet.co.uk with SMTP (IPAD 2.5) id 3900800 ; Thu, 05 Aug 1999 05:47:39 -0000 Message-ID: <000c01bedf06$2b099a40$66b259c3@default> From: "magda.thain" To: "Bertel Lund Hansen" , Subject: Re: Dummy's right to correct TD Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 06:13:27 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I listen better if people speak to me nicely and do not sound like teacher. mt To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 03 August 1999 14:36 Subject: Re: Dummy's right to correct TD >Yes. The law doesn't say that you should be asked first. > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 5 15:53:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA14678 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 15:53:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from purplenet.co.uk ([195.89.178.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA14663 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 15:51:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([195.89.178.102]) by purplenet.co.uk with SMTP (IPAD 2.5) id 3900900 ; Thu, 05 Aug 1999 05:47:41 -0000 Message-ID: <000d01bedf06$2c1dc960$66b259c3@default> From: "magda.thain" To: Subject: Re: Excuse me if I demur Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 06:33:54 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It is obvious that many people on this list write as if the only important thing is to make laws for the big time. And the attitude to bridge looks different between one nation and another too. It would be sad if the laws became intolerant of the generosity that happens all the time in local games and perhaps Mr. Kooijman should not be too quick to change the kinder language from the past. The laws are not written for one kind of bridge or for one country alone and the more options there are for organisers the better. mt To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 03 August 1999 19:28 Subject: Re: Excuse me if I demur > >From: Kooijman, A. >> >> My interest in this case was drawn due to the use of the word 'may' in L24 >> and I told you how we handle this situation in my country. I noticed >support >> from David for the idea to remove it and the feeling from Grattan to keep >> it. That is my harvest. And furthermore I have to admit that I have >> overlooked this case in 95/96, otherwise it would have been on the '97 >> agenda. May be with the present outcome. >> >Keep it, please, what harm does it do other than withhold one more >unnecessary power from the TD? It gives players the all-too-rare (these >days) opportunity to display good sportsmanship From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 5 15:53:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA14690 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 15:53:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from purplenet.co.uk ([195.89.178.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA14674 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 15:53:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([195.89.178.102]) by purplenet.co.uk with SMTP (IPAD 2.5) id 3900700 ; Thu, 05 Aug 1999 05:47:37 -0000 Message-ID: <000b01bedf06$29d3d960$66b259c3@default> From: "magda.thain" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Ridiculous Off-topic post Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 06:07:07 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I should have stayed at home. I must have missed something funny. The world is divided between those who laugh and those who cry so perhaps the funny post could always have cry as the first word of the subject? I am laughing and crying. mt To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Date: 03 August 1999 21:36 Subject: Off-topic postings and possibly a splinter mailing list? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 5 16:21:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA14725 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 16:21:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA14720 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 16:20:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt092nb1.san.rr.com [204.210.48.177]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA10540 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 23:20:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <074201bedf0a$a1bf7a20$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199908042044.QAA17210@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Dropped card Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 23:20:29 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Adam Beneschan > > However, maybe some people are considering whether the dropped card is > > supposed to be UI to partner during the auction. That's a good > > question (and, I agree, one that L50 can't be used to answer), but > > it's not one I was trying to address at all. > > I agree with Adam about two different questions. I don't see anything > that makes the dropped card UI during the auction. Maybe there should > be a law to that effect, but I don't see one now. L72B1 might apply if > the "clumsy" player "could have known." > > As soon as the play starts, L50C comes into effect. I don't see how > the dropped card (if dropped by leader's partner) can be anything other > than UI to opening leader. > > As always, there may be something I've overlooked. Seems like you are overlooking the fact that the exposed card may have been picked up before play began, because declarer did not treat it as a penalty card. If so, L50C does not come into effect. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 5 17:21:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA14794 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 17:21:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA14789 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 17:21:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt092nb1.san.rr.com [204.210.48.177]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA16625 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 00:21:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <075901bedf13$1957a6e0$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <006101bede19$ff8668e0$4aeaf1c3@kooijman> Subject: Re: WBF Interpretation #6 and the ACBL Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 00:15:36 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ton kooijman wrote: Marvin L. French wrote: > >The Committee considered the situation in regard to purposeful corrections > >of call under Law 25B. > > > >Now, from the Orlando NABC casebook editor (and Appeals Administrator) Rich > >Colker: > > > >"...the WBF Laws Committee's pronouncements are not binding on the ACBL for > >events under the ACBL's sponsorship. In fact, after discussing the WBF's > >interpretation of Law 25B in its Orlando meetings, the ACBL Laws Commission > >decided that 'the right to change one's call is not dependant on the reason > >for wishing to make a change.' Thus, under the ACBL's interpretation of > this > >law the ACBL Director in this case acted correctly (as far as Law 25B was > >concerned) in giving South the chance to change her call." > > > >Evidently the ACBL LC does not realize that the WBF By-Laws state that the > >WBF LC is responsible for interpreting the Laws. > > > >After reading 25B carefully, I cannot understand how the ACBL or anyone > else > >could agree with the WBFLC interpretation, but the WBF By-Laws say they > >must. If the drafters of L25B intended what the LC says they intended, the > >way to correct the error is to change the language in the next version of > >the Laws, or to issue a revision to L25B, not to create a new law under the > >guise of an "interpretation." > > > Dear Marv, > > Is there any chance that you read some of my messages? I started at the end > of November last year to express my feeling that the minutes of our meetings > in Lille, produced under my responsibility, did not accurately record what > we wanted to express about the use of law 25B. Since then I have repeated > that at least twice, the last time less than two weeks ago, promising to you > and the rest of our bridge world to clear this case in our next LC-meeting. > I described my thoughts about the change to be made, which is not exactly > the same as "the right to change one's call is not dependent on the reason > for wishing to make a change' as, according to you, is the ACBL LC decision, > but comes close. Not according to me, according to Rich Colker, whose quote of the ACBL LC I in turn was quoting from the Orlando casebook. Note that the ACBL LC was not issuing an interpretation in conflict with that of the WBFLC, but merely a decision to follow the law as written. > > May I ask you to keep these now four messages in mind for a couple of > months, when writing again about this subject? > Well, sorry, I guess I missed those messages. Sometimes I use the delete key too often, as when a subject seems to be worked over too much. Normally I would never delete something from you or Grattan. Wish I hadn't given an opinion about L25B, as it detracts from the main purpose of my submittal, which was to publicize Colker's statement. ##### The WBF Laws Committee's pronouncements are not binding on the ACBL for events under the ACBL's sponsorship. ###### Assuming Rich is expressing an official attitude of the ACBL, I am suggesting to the WBF that ACBL-land not be considered as a host for WBF events until this attitude changes. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 5 18:50:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA14943 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 18:50:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA14937 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 18:49:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.68] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11CJDW-000JXZ-00; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 09:49:38 +0100 Message-ID: <000801bedf1f$710b51a0$445108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Adam Beneschan" Cc: Subject: Re: Dropped card Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 09:12:47 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: adam@irvine.com Date: 05 August 1999 01:31 Subject: Re: Dropped card > >Norman Hostetler wrote: > >> John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >> >> > Only if you believe that Law 50 applies during the auction - and IMO it >> > doesn't john >> +++++ I am not sure where this belief comes from. I would say that each law applies throughout the whole of the game, subject to limitations within the laws themselves. Headings are for convenience of reference only and "are not considered to be part of the laws". Law 50 clearly applies to anyone who may be termed a "defender" and, for purposes of application of law, defenders come into existence as soon as a declarer is presumed. This would appear to be at the close of the auction (before the termination of the auction period) and not when the opening lead is faced.. That is to say declarer is 'presumed' at a different time from that at which he becomes "declarer". ~ Grattan ~ +++++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 5 18:50:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA14949 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 18:50:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA14944 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 18:50:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.68] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11CJDT-000JXZ-00; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 09:49:35 +0100 Message-ID: <000601bedf1f$6f6012a0$445108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Marvin L. French" Cc: "Ton Kooijman" Subject: Re: WBF Interpretation #6 and the ACBL Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 07:40:53 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: Marvin L. French ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 05 August 1999 00:47 Subject: Re: WBF Interpretation #6 and the ACBL >Dear Marv, > >Is there any chance that you read some of my messages? I started at the end >of November last year to express my feeling that the minutes of our meetings >in Lille, produced under my responsibility, did not accurately record what >we wanted to express about the use of law 25B. Since then I have repeated >that at least twice, the last time less than two weeks ago, promising to you >and the rest of our bridge world to clear this case in our next LC-meeting. >I described my thoughts about the change to be made, which is not exactly >the same as "the right to change one's call is not dependent on the reason >for wishing to make a change' as, according to you, is the ACBL LC decision, >but comes close. > >May I ask you to keep these now four messages in mind for a couple of >months, when writing again about this subject? > >ton ++++ This message has my full support, except that ton cannot take full responsibility - partly because at the crucial time he was involved in the revival of a tournament hit by chaos, but also because several other members of the committee did read the words and failed to raise an objection and the words were written down from mouths other than ton's. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 5 19:10:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA15013 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 19:10:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA15008 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 19:10:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.127] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11CJWl-000K9K-00; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 10:09:31 +0100 Message-ID: <001c01bedf22$380cd600$445108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" , Subject: Re: WBF Interpretation #6 and the ACBL Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 10:07:28 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 05 August 1999 09:20 Subject: Re: WBF Interpretation #6 and the ACBL> >##### The WBF Laws Committee's pronouncements are not binding on the ACBL >for events under the ACBL's sponsorship. ###### > >Assuming Rich is expressing an official attitude of the ACBL, I am >suggesting to the WBF that ACBL-land not be considered as a host for WBF >events until this attitude changes. > +++ Send in the tanks. This may be thought an unlikely measure to bring the bridge world into closer harmony. Although it is not unknown to use 'English' or 'American' or even 'European' as a pejorative adjective I happen to believe in negotiation. At one time I did a lot of negotiating with EK over the laws and compromises were made in the cause of peace - the zonal options were a means of reducing friction at the edges of tectonic plates and I am still an advocate of negotiation, persuasion, and understanding. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 5 21:33:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA15328 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 21:33:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA15323 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 21:33:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id NAA12755; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 13:33:31 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JEERV1H9FW002NW2@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 13:33:22 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id <31GTAR6Z>; Thu, 05 Aug 1999 13:33:22 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 13:33:20 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: WBF Interpretation #6 and the ACBL To: "'Marvin L. French'" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C1F9@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > ##### The WBF Laws Committee's pronouncements are not > binding on the ACBL > for events under the ACBL's sponsorship. ###### > > Assuming Rich is expressing an official attitude of the ACBL, I am > suggesting to the WBF that ACBL-land not be considered as a > host for WBF > events until this attitude changes. > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com > You are not serious. As long as a WBF-event on USA-ground is governed by WBF regulations and laws (and it is now) we like to come over. I am confident that we will solve differences in opinion in such a way that the ACBL statement as you quoted it will have no concequences for the interpretation of our laws. That is one of my aims. Wait and see. ton From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 5 21:37:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA15346 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 21:37:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA15341 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 21:37:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-95-155.uunet.be [194.7.95.155]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA16994 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 13:37:04 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37A96B48.6457DEDE@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 12:45:28 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: L93C References: <3.0.2.32.19990805040218.00afc760@cable.mail.a2000.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anton Witzen wrote: > > > Well, technically speaking, in an EBL or WBF tournament there is no NA > we still dont have an european AC > Perhaps we should have. Well, actually, we do. The EBL has organised a number of Committees, and one of them is the Appeals Committee. It is a permanent Committee, although it only meets at championships, of course. The Appeals Committee consists of : J Auken (Chairman), S Moeller, H De Wael, JC Beineix, N Bruni, P Cronier, G Endicott, G Ferraro, A Maas, JP Meyer, B Pencharz, N Rand, PO Sundelin. (appointments made by the EBL Executive at a Meeting held in 2 June 1999) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 5 22:17:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA15491 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 22:17:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA15485 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 22:16:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11CMRf-000Daf-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 12:16:30 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 03:39:57 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [Bidding boxes] Nodding/tapping for the final pass References: <199908041240.OAA24454@mail.zeelandnet.nl> <199908041240.OAA24454@mail.zeelandnet.nl> <4Q8KhFActJq3EwDy@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.2.32.19990805032106.00afcab0@cable.mail.a2000.nl> In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19990805032106.00afcab0@cable.mail.a2000.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anton Witzen wrote: >wel, then there is one slight problem. >suppose you are playing a 'cafe drive', no bidding boxes supplied. You tap >on the table (usually agreed as a pass), to alert partners bid. now LHO >passes (too the thinks). what do you rule then??? I suppose it does depend somewhat on custom+practice. Passing by tapping the table has been common in rubber bridge here, but never in any form of duplicate. Rubber generally has no alerts. If a cafe drive is as I think I am going to try to keep all the customers happy, and if this has come about because rubber and duplicate players are mixing, I am going to try to solve this with no penalty. I expect that I shall find a way. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 5 22:16:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA15484 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 22:16:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA15477 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 22:16:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11CMRd-0009Lw-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 12:16:25 +0000 Message-ID: <4W2qAHA0tPq3Ewjb@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 03:48:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L93C References: <3.0.2.32.19990805040218.00afc760@cable.mail.a2000.nl> In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19990805040218.00afc760@cable.mail.a2000.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anton Witzen wrote: >>David Stevenson wrote: >>> David Stevenson wrote: >>> Of course, there are obvious matters for an NA to deal with. If an AC >>> was drunk, malicious, or totally ignored the Laws of the game, we would >>> trust that L93C and the NA provide the backstop to see that justice is >>> done. It is also interesting where an interpretation of Law is >>> concerned: since the NA is usually the correct body to make or to >>> promulgate such an interpretation, it is suitable for them to look at >>> decisions which involve such an interpretation. >Perhaps they can be wong?????????? or is an AC really the top of the >pops??? Then you have no argument against the CoC. This is a very silly >remark. >The NA is the higest authority in involving interpretation of the laws. If >the voluntary abide this right then so be it. But dont complain please.11 I prefer to follow the Laws. >>> For the process to work there is therefore a three-part method: ruling >>> by a TD: decision by an AC: decision by the NA. >>> > >That looks very cumbersome in an european or world event >and very useless too. It is neither useless nor cumbersome. I dislike intensely ignoring the law book in this matter. >>> I suggested to them that even if the bodies were relatively the same, >>> that they used not all members on any appeal, and effectively left >>> sufficient people to form an NA if it was ever necessary. [As I >>> mentioned, they are now working to a different method, but I have heard >>> of at least one more European NCBO that acts similarly.] >> > >Well, I guess you are right, but consider that when an appeal reaches the >NA, they usually arent a fact finding committee. They interpret if the >TD/AC did their work and look mostly if in the decision making process >someting went wrong. Thats their duty. This is completely opposite to what you have said earlier. The TD makes an initial determination of the facts. An AC then goes into it more thoroughly, except that you seem to think it is fair to skip that stage. Of course the NA should not be a fact-finding committee, so how can they possibly work when you will not allow the fact-finding AC to exist? First you say that following the Laws of Bridge is cumbersome and unnecessary, and now you explain why it is necessary. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 5 23:03:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA15658 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 23:03:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.zeelandnet.nl (mail.zeelandnet.nl [62.12.12.194]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA15653 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 23:02:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from poivideo-6266 (e236.zeelandnet.nl [62.12.16.236]) by mail.zeelandnet.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA29776; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 15:02:50 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <199908051302.PAA29776@mail.zeelandnet.nl> From: "Marcel Schoof" To: , "Anton Witzen" Subject: Re: [Bidding boxes] Nodding/tapping for the final pass Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 14:50:13 +0200 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anton wrote, > suppose you are playing a 'cafe drive', no bidding boxes supplied. You tap > on the table (usually agreed as a pass), to alert partners bid. now LHO > passes (too the thinks). what do you rule then??? I would say that the pass is out of order. In situations were bidding is done without boxes it is normal to alert by tapping on the table. But this situation is slightly different from my question. Here the LHO takes action while his partner hasn't bid at that time (though I must say I wouldn't be surprised if this situation actualy will occur). I would base the ruling on L74B1 since he clearly reacted on the tapping without paying attention to bidding at hand. Marcel ---------- > Van: Anton Witzen > Aan: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Onderwerp: Re: [Bidding boxes] Nodding/tapping for the final pass > Datum: donderdag 5 augustus 1999 3:21 > > At 20:58 04-08-99 +0100, you wrote: > >Marcel Schoof wrote: > >>Thank you all for your contributions. In the actual case the East player > >>was a home player not realy familiair with bidding-boxes so the double > >>stayed. The problem was in the NS pair, who stayed that is normal to pass > >>by clearing up the bidding-cards. > >>In fact they said they were going to call a director from thier > >>club/district (no name given) to confirm their opinion. He agreed but i > >>wasn't given an answer to my question were I could find a approriate > >>ruling. > >> > >>The danger in creeping down the habbit of nodding/tapping by the next last > >>person(NLP) is in the time the last person thinks. After the NLP noddes the > >>LHO starts to think about what action to take and after some more biddings > >>their is a discussion start whether an action from his partner is based > >>upon the thinking. > >> > >>1) LHO agrees that he was thinking for a long time. No problem > >>2) LHO has waited till the actual green card is played, because he hadn't > >>seen the noddig/tapping. Their is hardly a way to establish if this is so. > >>He could have been thinking about his action and in the mean time just wait > >>till some one would point out that is his turn to bid. (and than bid fast). > >>I see no other alternitive than to except that their was no pause in > >>bidding ans explain to the NLP that he should have used a green card to > >>make sure his intention is claer. > > > > Some of these little habits don't matter too much - until something > >goes wrong. When something goes wrong, the Director must rule according > >to the rules [laws + regulations]. > > > > So, as far as I am concerned, if the NLP nods, and then claims the > >last person was slow, I rule against the NLP nearly automatically. > > > > To be honest, in the games I play, it is normal for a final pass to be > >substituted by a tap on a green card already down. > > > > > wel, then there is one slight problem. > suppose you are playing a 'cafe drive', no bidding boxes supplied. You tap > on the table (usually agreed as a pass), to alert partners bid. now LHO > passes (too the thinks). what do you rule then??? > regards, > anton > > > >-- > >David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > >Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > > Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ > > > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) > Tel: 020 7763175 > 2e Kostverlorenkade 114-1 > 1053 SB Amsterdam > ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 6 01:23:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA16132 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 01:23:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA16126 for ; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 01:23:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id LAA02114 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 11:23:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA17885 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 11:23:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 11:23:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199908051523.LAA17885@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >From: Gary Blaiss > >Many players agree amongst themselves that there was an > >unmistakeable hesitation. As long as a player calls when the hand in > >question becomes known and there was possible UI, his rights are not > >diminished. The one thing that this Law accomplishes is that it permits > >players to agree on the fact that there was a noticeable break in tempo. > From: David Stevenson > > How does this differ from "Reserving your Rights", please? I'm still trying to sort out all the responses to this thread. If I succeed, I'll try to post a summary when I get back from vacation. Everyone seems to agree, at least in principle, that it's a good idea for the four players at the table to establish the fact of any UI, preferably as early as possible. The differences are in the timing and procedure for establishing the facts and whether, in a non-L16A1 jurisdiction, failing to do so prejudices one's rights. As far as I can tell, GB is saying that you don't have to reserve any rights (at least in the ACBL, a non-L16A1 jurisdiction) in order to retain them. In other words, his "Many players agree..." refers to an informal procedure, not one officially recognized (with L16A1 not in effect). But I may have a different view later. Thanks to all who have commented on this thread. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 6 01:51:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA16207 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 01:51:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA16202 for ; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 01:51:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id LAA03181 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 11:51:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA17918 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 11:51:49 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 11:51:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199908051551.LAA17918@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: WBF Interpretation #6 and the ACBL X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > ... I happen > to believe in negotiation. At one time I did a lot of > negotiating with EK over the laws and compromises > were made in the cause of peace - the zonal options > were a means of reducing friction at the edges of > tectonic plates and I am still an advocate of negotiation, > persuasion, and understanding. > From: "Kooijman, A." > I am confident > that we will solve differences in opinion in such a way that the ACBL > statement as you quoted it will have no concequences for the interpretation > of our laws. The above two quotes show why these gentlemen have been appointed to the positions they occupy. The rest of us can offer opinions, even strident ones, but it's negotiation and persuasion that get opinion translated into practical consequences. Thank you, gentlemen, your work is appreciated. We also appreciate your answering questions for us and reading about our problems and concerns. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 6 02:03:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA16399 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 02:03:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f314.hotmail.com [207.82.251.227]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA16394 for ; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 02:03:20 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 91567 invoked by uid 0); 5 Aug 1999 16:02:41 -0000 Message-ID: <19990805160241.91566.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 205.211.164.226 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 05 Aug 1999 09:02:40 PDT X-Originating-IP: [205.211.164.226] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Let's see if I've got this right (more "UI:when to call?") Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 09:02:40 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I'm not asking for a ruling (mostly because it doesn't matter, but partially because I can't remember enough of the hands); I just had a situation come up at the club, and I want to know If I understand the L16 positions explained to BLML in the different parts of the world. MPs, None vul. E deals and opens 1H. S asks W, "4 or 5 card majors?" (we've done some prealerts - playing EHAA(*) - but the complete, filled out card is at her elbow). W answers "4", and the auction continues: S W N E 1H (1) asked about 1H, see above P(1) 1S P 2NT(2) (2) good 16-19 P 4C(3) P 6C(4) (3) slam try (mild slam try also available) P P P (4) after a distinct pause (15, 20 secs?) North, strangely enough, finds a heart lead. Now at this club, there are the standard two chances of getting a L16 case ruled correctly(**), and I was dummy anyway, so there was no director call. (I wasn't paying enough attention to the play to decide whether there was a LA anyway :-). But in a real game, if I understand what we've been discussing correctly, the following should have happened: ACBL: The director should have been called before the answer to "4 or 5?" was given, so that she knows about the UI and can explain L16 to N. Rest of WBF: The director should have been called at the end of the hand, and asked to rule whether the heart lead took advantage of UI. EBL: The director should have been called at the time of the question to tell S that "this is information you are required to find out before the round starts." :-) And *then* go into a discussion about L16, after applying the appropriate PP. Is this all correct? Michael. Oh, you want to know how the play went? N leads H to the A, H return ruffed by declarer (N shows in). Declarer has two lines of play, one based on 6-2 hearts and one on 4-4. He takes the wrong line and goes down on N's ruff of the K of hearts (yes, tbe hearts were 4612 around the table, queryer having 6 to the AQT). I chided partner about being too ethical to recognize "query cuebids" when he hears them :-). (*) Thanks Eric - really enjoying the booklet, and having fun with the system, too. I do have a couple of questions, though - if you'd be willing to answer them, please respond privately? (**) "Slim" and "None". ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 6 02:05:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA16417 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 02:05:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from IGNGATE.merck.de (igngate.merck.de [194.196.248.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA16412 for ; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 02:05:18 +1000 (EST) From: James.Vickers@merck.de Received: from dedamsgnt02.merck.de (smtpgw.merck.de [155.250.248.234]) by IGNGATE.merck.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA13856 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 18:05:10 +0200 (METDST) X-Internal-ID: 37A16CD00000E22D Received: from dedamsg4.merck.de (155.250.249.26) by dedamsgnt02.merck.de (NPlex 2.0.123) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 18:09:09 +0200 Received: by dedamsg4.merck.de(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.2 (693.3 8-11-1998)) id C12567C4.00585A6F ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 18:05:03 +0200 X-Lotus-FromDomain: MERCK To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-ID: Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 17:57:23 +0200 Subject: Re: Correction of Revoke after Claim Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ***************** >This type of situation may have come up on BLML before, but I'm not >able to read every post on the list. My apologies if this subject has >been covered previously. > > 52 > A652 > KQJT5 > A984 52 QJT73 > 3 K9 > 9762 3 > K986 K6 QJT73 > QJT874 > A84 > A4 > >Against South's 5H, West leads a diamond. South wins in hand and >leads the HQ--3, 2, spade 3. As soon as the spade 3 comes down, South >faces his hand and claims 12 tricks on the marked finesse (and giving >up on a squeeze that would work only if East has 8 clubs). East now >says "oops, I have a heart". The revoke is not established, so it >must be corrected by Law 62, but then what? > play ceases, and the director determines the hand. The HK is deemed to have won, and the S3 is returned, West takes the K with the Ace, and reading the 3 (not having seen the Q) as a suit preference (doubtful points resolved in favour of the non-offenders) returns a club. Advise them to take it to appeal, as a UK AC might well split the score or overrule me entirely. West might have QTxxx and lead small there. chs john ***************** I wish to clear up a technical point here. Is West really obliged (or permitted) to take the withdrawn S3 as a suit-preference signal? According to Law50D1 West is permitted to know that East had no choice but to lead that card, but all other knowledge pertaining to the card is UI. Thus he is not permitted to know that East would have chosen it as his first free discard. James Vickers Darmstadt, Germany From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 6 02:18:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA16473 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 02:18:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (mailhub.irvine.com [192.160.8.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA16468 for ; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 02:18:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA01576; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 09:18:08 -0700 Message-Id: <199908051618.JAA01576@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Correction of Revoke after Claim In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 05 Aug 1999 17:57:23 PDT." Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 09:18:08 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk James Vickers wrote: > ***************** > >This type of situation may have come up on BLML before, but I'm not > >able to read every post on the list. My apologies if this subject has > >been covered previously. > > > > 52 > > A652 > > KQJT5 > > A984 52 QJT73 > > 3 K9 > > 9762 3 > > K986 K6 QJT73 > > QJT874 > > A84 > > A4 > > > >Against South's 5H, West leads a diamond. South wins in hand and > >leads the HQ--3, 2, spade 3. As soon as the spade 3 comes down, South > >faces his hand and claims 12 tricks on the marked finesse (and giving > >up on a squeeze that would work only if East has 8 clubs). East now > >says "oops, I have a heart". The revoke is not established, so it > >must be corrected by Law 62, but then what? > > > play ceases, and the director determines the hand. > > The HK is deemed to have won, and the S3 is returned, West takes the K > with the Ace, and reading the 3 (not having seen the Q) as a suit > preference (doubtful points resolved in favour of the non-offenders) > returns a club. Advise them to take it to appeal, as a UK AC might well > split the score or overrule me entirely. West might have QTxxx and lead > small there. chs john > ***************** > > I wish to clear up a technical point here. Is West really obliged (or > permitted) to take the withdrawn S3 as a suit-preference signal? According > to Law50D1 West is permitted to know that East had no choice but to lead > that card, but all other knowledge pertaining to the card is UI. Thus he is > not permitted to know that East would have chosen it as his first free > discard. I don't think he's *obliged* to take it that way, but he *could*. The main point here is that since the S3 *could* be a suit preference signal, returning a club *is* a logical alternative; and therefore, with at least two logical alternatives (a spade and a club), West must not choose the one that's suggested by seeing the UI (declarer's hand). It's not really relevant anyway. Even if there's no possibility that S3 is a suit preference signal, a club shift is still a logical alternative (see David's example hand). -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 6 03:05:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA16573 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 03:05:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from cadillac.meteo.fr (cadillac.meteo.fr [137.129.1.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA16567 for ; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 03:05:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from meteo.fr (rubis.meteo.fr [137.129.5.28]) by cadillac.meteo.fr (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA06474 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 17:04:25 GMT Message-ID: <37A9C41D.5C206B57@meteo.fr> Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 19:04:30 +0200 From: Jean Pierre Rocafort X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Correction of Revoke after Claim References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk James.Vickers@merck.de a écrit : > ***************** > >This type of situation may have come up on BLML before, but I'm not > >able to read every post on the list. My apologies if this subject has > >been covered previously. > > > > 52 > > A652 > > KQJT5 > > A984 52 QJT73 > > 3 K9 > > 9762 3 > > K986 K6 QJT73 > > QJT874 > > A84 > > A4 > > > >Against South's 5H, West leads a diamond. South wins in hand and > >leads the HQ--3, 2, spade 3. As soon as the spade 3 comes down, South > >faces his hand and claims 12 tricks on the marked finesse (and giving > >up on a squeeze that would work only if East has 8 clubs). East now > >says "oops, I have a heart". The revoke is not established, so it > >must be corrected by Law 62, but then what? > > > play ceases, and the director determines the hand. > OK, play ceases and TD plays all 4 hands: revoke not established, East is allowed to replace S3 and to follow suit on the trump trick. As he said "oops, I have a heart" (and not "a few hearts"), and doubtful points should be resolved in favor of the non-offenders, he is deemed to have only seen H9 and plays this card. 12 tricks to NS. Why could it be more rational to play one heart rather than another for this player who, at his first try, was not even able to play any heart? I admit this decision to be very extreme, but what will you say against it? JP Rocafort > The HK is deemed to have won, and the S3 is returned, West takes the K > with the Ace, and reading the 3 (not having seen the Q) as a suit > preference (doubtful points resolved in favour of the non-offenders) > returns a club. Advise them to take it to appeal, as a UK AC might well > split the score or overrule me entirely. West might have QTxxx and lead > small there. chs john > ***************** > > I wish to clear up a technical point here. Is West really obliged (or > permitted) to take the withdrawn S3 as a suit-preference signal? According > to Law50D1 West is permitted to know that East had no choice but to lead > that card, but all other knowledge pertaining to the card is UI. Thus he is > not permitted to know that East would have chosen it as his first free > discard. > > James Vickers > Darmstadt, Germany From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 6 04:27:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA16614 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 03:17:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA16608 for ; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 03:17:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11CR8d-000F25-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 17:17:08 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 18:16:19 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [Bidding boxes] Nodding/tapping for the final pass In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes >Anton Witzen wrote: > >>wel, then there is one slight problem. >>suppose you are playing a 'cafe drive', no bidding boxes supplied. You tap >>on the table (usually agreed as a pass), to alert partners bid. now LHO >>passes (too the thinks). what do you rule then??? > > I suppose it does depend somewhat on custom+practice. Passing by >tapping the table has been common in rubber bridge here, but never in >any form of duplicate. Rubber generally has no alerts. > > If a cafe drive is as I think I am going to try to keep all the >customers happy, and if this has come about because rubber and duplicate >players are mixing, I am going to try to solve this with no penalty. I >expect that I shall find a way. > L21B1 applies. the tap on the table was in itself misinformation. This allows the POOT to be withdrawn without penalty, and now we can get on with the hand. Seems a sensible way to rule this one anyway. chs john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 6 05:08:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA16951 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 05:08:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA16946 for ; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 05:08:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt092nb1.san.rr.com [204.210.48.177]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA15790 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 12:07:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <076001bedf75$c9a11f60$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199908042228.SAA17436@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: irrational (?) action in line with stated claim Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 12:05:12 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > From: "Marvin L. French" > > No, no, out of context! The ACBL LC interpretation is that the *most > > favorable result that was likely* translates to a 1/3 chance or > > better. That result may not be likely at all, since something with a > > 1/3 chance is hardly "likely." " > > Oh, Marvin. Is it really that bad? I did reference L12C2, and I > expect most people on this list practically have it memorized. How > much context do we need? > > I agree that _my own_ interpretation of "likely" would be 1/2, but > that's not how the ACBL LC sees it. Yes it is. The LC didn't say that the word "likely" means a 1/3 chance or better. They said that the most favorable result that was likely (i.e., within the subset of favorable results) must have at least a 1/3 chance among the set of *all* possible results in order to be assigned. Using "likely" or "probable" out of context has caused much error among TDs and ACs who aren't aware of the 1/3-1/6 business. They think that a result must be likely or probable compared to *all* possible results to be assigned, and they adjust artificially because they can't determine a single likely or probable result. We should not contribute to that erroneous approach by carelessly using "likely" and "probable" out of context. For instance, the flow chart given out to AC members at NABCs asks the question, "Is it possible to ascertain the likely or probable result if the infraction had not occurred?" Most people reading that would not dream that it doesn't mean what it says. The most beautiful young girl that is likely to make eyes at me tomorrow has a probability of zero. That is not saying that I think "likely" means zero probability. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 6 05:18:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA16982 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 05:18:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA16977 for ; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 05:18:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt092nb1.san.rr.com [204.210.48.177]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA17731 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 12:18:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <076701bedf77$346fd880$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <37A8CA02.37EFD634@navix.net> Subject: Re: Gary Blaiss on Law 24 Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 12:17:46 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: Norman H. Hostetler > I received the following e-mail to day from Gary Blaiss, Chief TD for > the ACBL. At least I now know WHY I never considered making a card > faced during the auction period anything other than a mandatory penalty > card. Thanks to everybody for helping me to sound more like an expert > than I really am! > Norm > > > Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 10:49:11 -0500 > > From: Gary Blaiss > > To: Butch.Campbell@acbl.org, nh35422@navix.net > > CC: martel@cs.ucdavis.edu, billyspa@memphisonline.com > > (snip of rationale for ignoring L24's wording) Many thanks to Norman for investigating this matter. Good work! Well, at least we have Chip Martel's e-mail address now. Since he is co-chairman of the ACBL LC, perhaps we should start copying to him some of the BLML messages. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 6 05:32:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA17013 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 05:32:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (mailhub.irvine.com [192.160.8.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA17008 for ; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 05:32:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA05175; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 12:31:50 -0700 Message-Id: <199908051931.MAA05175@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: irrational (?) action in line with stated claim In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 05 Aug 1999 12:05:12 PDT." <076001bedf75$c9a11f60$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 12:31:51 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I've been trying to understand all this stuff about "likely" and 1/3 and 1/6 probabilities and whatever. Suppose there was an infraction and we try to apply L12C2, so that we have to determine "the most favorable result that was likely ahd the irregularity had not occurred." Suppose that on a particular hand, if the play had continued without the infraction, there would be 9 obvious tricks, but declarer and LHO would both have guesses that could give declarer more tricks. If declarer guesses right, it nets him two more tricks. If LHO guesses wrong, it gives declarer an extra trick. Assuming that each guess is a straight 50-50, this means that the possible results and their probabilities are: 1/4 that declarer gets 9 tricks 1/4 that declarer gets 10 tricks 1/4 that declarer gets 11 tricks 1/4 that declarer gets 12 tricks Now, since 1/4 is less than 1/3, does this mean that in the ACBL, *no* result is considered likely enough to apply 12C2? What would the ruling be in other SO's? I would think that it's sensible to give declarer 12 tricks, but is this a case where an ArtAS is more appropriate? On the other hand, if on a different hand it would take a bad guess by declarer *and* a good guess by LHO to give declarer one more trick, so that the chance is 3/4 that declarer gets 9 tricks and 1/4 that he gets 10, I can understand giving him the score for nine tricks (probably assigning a split score). What would the ruling be outside the ACBL? -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 6 06:01:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA17071 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 06:01:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (mailhub.irvine.com [192.160.8.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA17066 for ; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 06:00:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA05679; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 13:00:17 -0700 Message-Id: <199908052000.NAA05679@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Gary Blaiss on Law 24 In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 05 Aug 1999 12:17:46 PDT." <076701bedf77$346fd880$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 13:00:18 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Well, at least we have Chip Martel's e-mail address now. Since he is > co-chairman of the ACBL LC, perhaps we should start copying to him some of > the BLML messages. I'd suggest asking his permission first. He may not want all that extraneous stuff in his mailbox. It may be the same e-mail address his students use. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 6 06:13:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA17107 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 06:13:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA17102 for ; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 06:13:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id QAA12697 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 16:12:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA18140 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 16:13:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 16:13:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199908052013.QAA18140@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: irrational (?) action in line with stated claim X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Adam Beneschan > 1/4 that declarer gets 9 tricks > 1/4 that declarer gets 10 tricks > 1/4 that declarer gets 11 tricks > 1/4 that declarer gets 12 tricks This has been answered before. If declarer is on the OS, "at all probable" = 1/6 ==> 9 tricks. "Likely" = 1/3 ==> 10 tricks. If declarer is on the NOS, it's 12 and 11. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 6 06:31:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA17029 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 05:35:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp1.a2000.nl (farida.a2000.nl [62.108.1.19]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA17024 for ; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 05:35:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp1.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 11CTIX-0006On-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 21:35:29 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19990805213306.00b0fe10@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 21:33:06 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: [Bidding boxes] Nodding/tapping for the final pass In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 18:16 05-08-99 +0100, you wrote: >In article , David Stevenson > writes >>Anton Witzen wrote: >> >>>wel, then there is one slight problem. >>>suppose you are playing a 'cafe drive', no bidding boxes supplied. You tap >>>on the table (usually agreed as a pass), to alert partners bid. now LHO >>>passes (too the thinks). what do you rule then??? >> >> I suppose it does depend somewhat on custom+practice. Passing by >>tapping the table has been common in rubber bridge here, but never in >>any form of duplicate. Rubber generally has no alerts. >> >> If a cafe drive is as I think I am going to try to keep all the >>customers happy, and if this has come about because rubber and duplicate >>players are mixing, I am going to try to solve this with no penalty. I >>expect that I shall find a way. I am sure you will. The cafe drives are very popular in Holland. You play 7/8 rounds in different pubs and are supposed to take a drink in each one, so rulings usually arent difficult. Anyway, usually there arent qualified TD's available in these drives in the different pubs.. >> >L21B1 applies. the tap on the table was in itself misinformation. No, this procedure is described in the 'wedstrijdreglement' of our NA, the NBB, as the right way to alert opponents when there is no biddingbox available. This >allows the POOT to be withdrawn without penalty, and now we can get on >with the hand. Seems a sensible way to rule this one anyway. > true indeed. regards, anton >chs john >-- >John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 >451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou >London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk >+44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 2e Kostverlorenkade 114-1 1053 SB Amsterdam ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 6 06:40:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA17171 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 06:40:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from fep4.post.tele.dk (fep4.post.tele.dk [195.41.46.139]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA17165 for ; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 06:40:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from jd-private.internal ([195.249.193.121]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990805204033.LDZN1485.fep4@jd-private.internal> for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 22:40:33 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: Law v Regulation Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 22:40:30 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <37abed9b.1502610@post12.tele.dk> References: <00b501bedc19$e01de020$d1e9f1c3@kooijman> In-Reply-To: <00b501bedc19$e01de020$d1e9f1c3@kooijman> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id GAA17167 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 1 Aug 1999 14:32:01 +0200, "ton kooijman" wrote: >As far as I remember what we wanted is that the use of 25B is restricted to >cases in which a player made a mistake himself (did a stupid thing) and >discovers this not using information from consecutive action. Thank you for the description of the WBFLC interpretation that I've quoted from above. You have explained that interpretation before, but this is the first time I've really understood what you mean: that the point is that you do not want people to make L25B changes of calls because of information they receive _after_ the original call has been made. I.e., the point is not the degree of stupidity (as the minute says), but the timing of the information that makes the player change his mind. Apart from the problem that it is contrary to the letter of L25B, it makes a lot more sense than the wording of the minute. I hope the WBFLC will sort it all out at the next meeting. (And I cannot resist saying once more that IMO the only really reasonable solution is to forbid any change of call except L25A changes. If an illegal change is made after all, it should be cancelled and be UI for partner. But this definitely requires a real law change.) -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 6 06:40:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA17178 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 06:40:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from fep4.post.tele.dk (fep4.post.tele.dk [195.41.46.139]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA17172 for ; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 06:40:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from jd-private.internal ([195.249.193.121]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990805204039.LEAI1485.fep4@jd-private.internal> for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 22:40:39 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: There are nice people (was Dropped Card). Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 22:40:36 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <37b2f605.3656097@post12.tele.dk> References: <000a01bedebc$6b567a40$575208c3@swhki5i6> In-Reply-To: <000a01bedebc$6b567a40$575208c3@swhki5i6> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id GAA17174 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 4 Aug 1999 21:00:03 +0100, "Grattan Endicott" wrote: >+++ Thank you, David. If you remember I recently noted >that I had made no move to change the wording because >I felt it was user friendly especially for little clubs. Does >no-one ever come across the nice guy who does not want >to insist that the little lady who lost her grip shall lead the K >round to his A.Q. doubleton? Are we going to tell him he >MUST? ~ Grattan ~ +++ What about the analogous case where the little lady loses her grip while on lead during the play period? In that case we do tell him that he MUST accept the lead of the king (unless he and the TD agrees to use L81C8). Why should L24 in particular need to be more "user friendly" than all the other penalty laws, such as L49? It seems to me that the question of a non-offender's desire to show leniency should be handled generally and not just specifically in L24. If there is a general feeling that L81C8 is not good enough for that purpose, then that problem should be remedied not by words like "may" in a few specific laws, but for instance by a general law that allows the non-offenders to waive penalties regardless of the TD's opinion. Personally, I am quite happy with the "user friendliness" provided by L81C8, and I would like to see the "may" in L24 disappear. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 6 09:28:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA17553 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 09:28:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA17548 for ; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 09:27:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id TAA18168 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 19:27:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA18420 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 19:27:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 19:27:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199908052327.TAA18420@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: irrational (?) action in line with stated claim X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Hirsch Davis" > In practice, I would cash the A of trumps to verify the trump break before > claiming at all. Advisable, perhaps, but frequently neglected. In the example, declarer almost certainly has all the tricks regardless of the trump break. I expect (and want!) declarers who can see that to claim. > However, if I claimed before the break was revealed, and > my statement of claim did not take the break into account, I would expect to > lose a trick if at all possible. We play in different types of games, then. I would not expect to lose a trick unless trumps are 5-0 _and_ defender is ruffing a side suit _and_ it isn't obvious to return to hand in a different side suit. > An incomplete or incorrect statement of > claim is my own silly fault, and I certainly would not feel aggrieved if an > opponent or a TD held me to it. I don't expect the Laws to protect me from > my own mistakes. I expect the laws to protect me from a mistaken _claim statement_ although of course not from a mistaken claim. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 6 09:38:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA17573 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 09:38:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA17568 for ; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 09:38:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id TAA18322 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 19:38:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA18439 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 19:38:19 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 19:38:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199908052338.TAA18439@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Excuse me if I demur X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I'm a bit behind here. We are talking about a small card accidentally dropped during the auction. L24 and 24A apply. The person who dropped the card becomes a defender, specifically partner of the opening leader. Declarer does not exercise his "may" option, if indeed he has one, so the dropped card remains on the table at the time of the opening lead as a minor penalty card. L50C applies. >From the definitions: Defender - an opponent of (presumed) declarer. Are we all together now? > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > >> Posession of the card is AI, since the penalty (potentially > >> that is) of having to pass at the next turn to call will have been paid. > > > >Could you cite a law reference for that, please? I don't see how the > >exposed card can be AI since 1997. > > > law 72A5 I don't get it. L50C specifically make the penalty card UI. Yes, L72A5 applies: subject to the legal restrictions in L16A, the defenders have every right to try for a good score. That doesn't make the penalty card AI. One of us is very confused. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 6 10:17:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA17656 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 10:17:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand2.global.net.uk (sand2.global.net.uk [195.147.246.100]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA17650 for ; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 10:17:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from p22s01a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.161.35] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11CXhN-00047t-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 01:17:26 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Excuse me if I demur Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 01:18:27 +0100 Message-ID: <01bedfa1$34789900$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Steve Willner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Friday, August 06, 1999 12:51 AM Subject: Re: Excuse me if I demur >I'm a bit behind here. We are talking about a small card accidentally >dropped during the auction. L24 and 24A apply. The person who dropped >the card becomes a defender, specifically partner of the opening >leader. Declarer does not exercise his "may" option, if indeed he has >one, so the dropped card remains on the table at the time of the >opening lead as a minor penalty card. L50C applies. >From the definitions: >Defender - an opponent of (presumed) declarer. > >Are we all together now? No Declarer does _not_ excersise his "may" option so the dropped card gets picked up. There is no penalty card so Law 50 does not apply. The question is - is the knowledge of this card in partner's hand AI to the leader? Anne > >> From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >> >> Posession of the card is AI, since the penalty (potentially >> >> that is) of having to pass at the next turn to call will have been paid. >> > >> >Could you cite a law reference for that, please? I don't see how the >> >exposed card can be AI since 1997. >> > >> law 72A5 > >I don't get it. L50C specifically make the penalty card UI. Yes, >L72A5 applies: subject to the legal restrictions in L16A, the defenders >have every right to try for a good score. That doesn't make the >penalty card AI. > >One of us is very confused. > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 6 10:24:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA17676 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 10:24:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA17670 for ; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 10:23:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11CXms-0000SH-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 00:23:08 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 01:12:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: irrational (?) action in line with stated claim References: <199908042228.SAA17436@cfa183.harvard.edu> <076001bedf75$c9a11f60$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <076001bedf75$c9a11f60$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >Yes it is. The LC didn't say that the word "likely" means a 1/3 chance or >better. They said that the most favorable result that was likely (i.e., >within the subset of favorable results) must have at least a 1/3 chance >among the set of *all* possible results in order to be assigned. Using >"likely" or "probable" out of context has caused much error among TDs and >ACs who aren't aware of the 1/3-1/6 business. They think that a result >must be likely or probable compared to *all* possible results to be >assigned, and they adjust artificially because they can't determine a >single likely or probable result. We should not contribute to that >erroneous approach by carelessly using "likely" and "probable" out of >context. Please explain further. I have not quite grasped the meaning. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 6 11:49:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA17821 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 11:49:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA17816 for ; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 11:49:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11CZ3W-000Npo-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 01:44:22 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 02:38:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Excuse me if I demur In-Reply-To: <199908052338.TAA18439@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199908052338.TAA18439@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >I'm a bit behind here. We are talking about a small card accidentally >dropped during the auction. L24 and 24A apply. The person who dropped >the card becomes a defender, specifically partner of the opening >leader. Declarer does not exercise his "may" option, if indeed he has >one, so the dropped card remains on the table at the time of the >opening lead as a minor penalty card. L50C applies. > >From the definitions: >Defender - an opponent of (presumed) declarer. > >Are we all together now? > >> From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >> >> Posession of the card is AI, since the penalty (potentially >> >> that is) of having to pass at the next turn to call will have been paid. >> > >> >Could you cite a law reference for that, please? I don't see how the >> >exposed card can be AI since 1997. >> > >> law 72A5 > >I don't get it. L50C specifically make the penalty card UI. Yes, >L72A5 applies: subject to the legal restrictions in L16A, the defenders >have every right to try for a good score. That doesn't make the >penalty card AI. > >One of us is very confused. We are all together now. I'd assumed the card had been picked up. By not exercising his "may" option it seemed we'd allowed that. To clarify. If the card's picked up it's AI as 50 doesn't apply. If it's still exposed it's a penalty card and 50 does apply. I'm not 100% about UI/AI of an exposed card in this position. Guidance sought from gurus please. chs john. -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 6 14:26:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA18100 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 14:26:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA18095 for ; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 14:26:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt092nb1.san.rr.com [204.210.48.177]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA09003 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 21:25:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <079301bedfc3$b9ed3560$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199908042243.SAA17468@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 21:25:21 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Steve Willner wrote: > >Gary Blaiss has added the following to his previous message. > > > >----- Begin Included Message ----- > > > >Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 11:42:29 -0500 > >From: Gary Blaiss > > > >Many players agree amongst themselves that there was an > >unmistakeable hesitation. As long as a player calls when the hand in > >question becomes known and there was possible UI, his rights are not > >diminished. The one thing that this Law accomplishes is that it permits > >players to agree on the fact that there was a noticeable break in tempo. > > > >----- End Included Message ----- > > > > > > How does this differ from "Reserving your Rights", please? > I see quite a bit of difference. L16A1 allows a player to haughtily state, "I am reserving my right to summon the Director later" when he thinks he has observed a break in tempo. If the opponents disagree about the break, they are required to summon the TD immediately. Gary's procedure calls for an amicable agreement between pairs that a break has occurred, a much more pleasant way to settle the matter. If there is no agreement, the TD does not have to be called unless an opponent feels strongly enough about the matter to pursue it (rare, because usually futile). The second way is less confrontational, and easier on TDs. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 6 14:36:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA18143 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 14:36:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA18138 for ; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 14:36:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt092nb1.san.rr.com [204.210.48.177]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA10589 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 21:36:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <07aa01bedfc5$244e1180$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.2.32.19990805040218.00afc760@cable.mail.a2000.nl> Subject: Re: L93C Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 21:32:02 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anton Witzen wrote: > The NA is the higest authority in involving interpretation of the laws. If > the voluntary abide this right then so be it. But dont complain please.11 The By-Laws of the World Bridge Federation clearly state that the WBF Laws Commission is responsible for interpreting the Laws. Any interim interpretation by other bodies is therefore subject to the approval of the WBFLC. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 6 14:46:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA18171 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 14:46:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA18165 for ; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 14:46:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt092nb1.san.rr.com [204.210.48.177]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA12063 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 21:46:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <07b901bedfc6$8deeaae0$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199908042031.QAA17187@cfa183.harvard.edu> <005501bedee8$1211fbe0$93dc7ad1@hdavis> Subject: Re: irrational (?) action in line with stated claim Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 21:43:09 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: > From: Steve Willner > > > In practice, I'd probably claim saying "Drawing trumps, overtaking if > > needed" or something close to that. I would feel much aggrieved to > > have the claim disallowed or even questioned unless somebody is ruffing > > a reentry. > > Curious statement. What conditions would be needed to overtake? It looks > like what you are saying is that you will not overtake unless there is no > outside entry to get to the trumps. If there's a ruff of the entry, this > particular claim will lose to it, even when trumps are breaking normally. > How about "drawing trumps starting with the A, overtaking the ten if both > opponents follow, cashing the ten and entering hand with X to pull the rest > of the trumps if they don't split". While I'm all for claiming to speed up > the game, the claim should include a complete clarification statement. > Otherwise, the TD calls take far longer than the time saved by the claim. > > In practice, I would cash the A of trumps to verify the trump break before > claiming at all. However, if I claimed before the break was revealed, and > my statement of claim did not take the break into account, I would expect to > lose a trick if at all possible. An incomplete or incorrect statement of > claim is my own silly fault, and I certainly would not feel aggrieved if an > opponent or a TD held me to it. I don't expect the Laws to protect me from > my own mistakes. > After wasting much time by claiming and then having the opponents call the TD, I have come to believe that the best way to claim is to arrange for one hand to be independently high. "My hand is high'" "Dummy is high" "My hand is high except for these two losers, which you get." I relax this requirement a bit when playing against strong players, or when feeling ornery. My good friend Danny Kleinman is an extremist: "Don't claim, don't concede." That's an easy rule to remember. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 6 17:13:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA18408 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 17:13:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA18403 for ; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 17:13:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt092nb1.san.rr.com [204.210.48.177]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA00156 for ; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 00:12:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <088b01bedfdb$06b7e720$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: Excuse me if I demur Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 00:10:35 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John Probst wrote: > > I'm not 100% about UI/AI of an exposed card in this > position. Guidance sought from gurus please. > This non-guru will offer his opinion You are referring to the information partner has about the exposed card, is it UI? Of course if it subsquently becomes a penalty card, then there are UI implications. However, during the auction it is not a penalty card, and may not become one if the presumed declarer doesn't treat it as such when the auction is over. The only way to say it is UI is to call on L16A, which is not unreasonable. Arguments against that are these: -- L16A's examples of UI do not seem to include information of this sort (although not all-inclusive, it does say "or the like") -- L16A was not referenced by L24. The cross-referencing in the Laws is pretty thorough, and it is doubtful that this is an oversight. -- The penalty when the card is an honor (or a card prematurely led, or there is more than one exposed card) is so stiff (partner must pass at his next turn), it seems aimed at taking care of the matter in place of using L16A. -- That penalty would not be needed if L16A were to be applied. If a player can't use the information, why should he be required to pass at his next turn? -- Applying L16A would be a nightmare for TDs and ACs, trying to figure out if the exposed card "demonstrably suggested" some action. -- The opponents have the protection of L72B1. I therefore conclude that knowledge of the card is AI to partner during the auction. Having paid any prescribed penalty, he is free to use the information during the auction (L72A5). Knowledge of a single non-honor card not prematurely led (no penalty) is unlikely to be significant. If the card is treated by declarer as a penalty card when the auction is over, then the provisions of L50, including those pertaining to UI, apply during the play period. If the card is not treated as a penalty card, knowledge of it is AI (L72A5 again) during the play period. Declarers must take this into account when deciding whether a card is to be treated as a penalty card. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 6 17:17:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA18433 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 17:17:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA18428 for ; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 17:17:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id JAA10730; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 09:16:55 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JEFX65QF0Y002TS8@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 09:15:54 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id <31GTA6NH>; Fri, 06 Aug 1999 09:15:53 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 06 Aug 1999 09:15:51 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: WBF Interpretation #6 and the ACBL To: "'Steve Willner'" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C1FD@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: Steve Willner [mailto:willner@cfa183.harvard.edu] > Verzonden: donderdag 5 augustus 1999 17:52 > Aan: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Onderwerp: Re: WBF Interpretation #6 and the ACBL > > > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > ... I happen > > to believe in negotiation. At one time I did a lot of > > negotiating with EK over the laws and compromises > > were made in the cause of peace - the zonal options > > were a means of reducing friction at the edges of > > tectonic plates and I am still an advocate of negotiation, > > persuasion, and understanding. > > > From: "Kooijman, A." > > I am confident > > that we will solve differences in opinion in such a way > that the ACBL > > statement as you quoted it will have no concequences for > the interpretation > > of our laws. > > The above two quotes show why these gentlemen have been appointed to > the positions they occupy. The rest of us can offer opinions, even > strident ones, but it's negotiation and persuasion that get opinion > translated into practical consequences. > > Thank you, gentlemen, your work is appreciated. We also appreciate > your answering questions for us and reading about our problems and > concerns. Do I hear some lack of appreciation between your lines, expressing the feeling that for example BLML becomes our parliament and we start to vote? You are not telling me that the 250 of us are able to get to clear and generally appreciated decisions, are you? And that consistency is better served making this group the deciding college? A forum it is and a forum it should be. Taken very seriously, the more so if it gets to clear commonly shared statements. Life is tough Steve. But don't suggest that we are neglecting you. ton From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 6 17:53:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA18506 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 17:53:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA18496 for ; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 17:53:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt092nb1.san.rr.com [204.210.48.177]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA03721 for ; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 00:53:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <08a301bedfe0$a472ae00$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199908042228.SAA17436@cfa183.harvard.edu><076001bedf75$c9a11f60$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: irrational (?) action in line with stated claim Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 00:43:01 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson (who claims the ACBL LC considers "likely" to mean one chance in three) wrote: > Marvin L. French wrote: > > >Yes it is. The LC didn't say that the word "likely" means a 1/3 chance or > >better. They said that the most favorable result that was likely (i.e., > >within the subset of favorable results) must have at least a 1/3 chance > >among the set of *all* possible results in order to be assigned. Using > >"likely" or "probable" out of context has caused much error among TDs and > >ACs who aren't aware of the 1/3-1/6 business. They think that a result > >must be likely or probable compared to *all* possible results to be > >assigned, and they adjust artificially because they can't determine a > >single likely or probable result. We should not contribute to that > >erroneous approach by carelessly using "likely" and "probable" out of > >context. > > Please explain further. I have not quite grasped the meaning. The most favorable result that was likely absent the infraction may not be a likely result, is all I'm saying. To label it as such is erroneous, since it may have only 1/3 probability. Not an error made by LC, as they didn't say that such a result is likely. They said it is the most favorable result that was likely, which is not the same thing. Example: the most favorable result that was likely has a probability of, say, .35. That is not a likely result, but it is the most favorable result that was likely. Moreover, the most unfavorable result that was at all probable may be highly improbable. To label it as probable is erroneous, since it may have only 1/6 probability. Not an error made by the LC, as they didn't say such a result is probable. They said it is the most unfavorable result that was at all probable, which is not the same thing. Example: the most unfavorable result that was at all probable has a probability of, say, 1/5. That makes it rather improbable, although it is the most unfavorable result that was at all probable. That's as far down as I can write. Maybe someone else can do better. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 6 17:53:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA18507 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 17:53:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA18497 for ; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 17:53:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt092nb1.san.rr.com [204.210.48.177]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA03724 for ; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 00:53:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <08a401bedfe0$a4cfc220$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws List" References: <000a01bedebc$6b567a40$575208c3@swhki5i6> <37b2f605.3656097@post12.tele.dk> Subject: Re: There are nice people (was Dropped Card). Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 00:50:34 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > Personally, I am quite happy with the "user friendliness" > provided by L81C8, and I would like to see the "may" in L24 > disappear. > -- Not so "user friendly," as the waiver of a penalty at a player's request must be "for cause," not for whim, and the TD must concur. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 6 18:46:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA18594 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 18:46:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA18589 for ; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 18:46:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from mamos.demon.co.uk ([158.152.129.79]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11Cfdq-00046e-0K; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 08:46:19 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 09:44:54 +0100 To: Steve Willner Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Subject: Re: WBF Interpretation #6 and the ACBL References: <199908051551.LAA17918@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199908051551.LAA17918@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199908051551.LAA17918@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: "Grattan Endicott" >> ... I happen >> to believe in negotiation. At one time I did a lot of >> negotiating with EK over the laws and compromises >> were made in the cause of peace - the zonal options >> were a means of reducing friction at the edges of >> tectonic plates and I am still an advocate of negotiation, >> persuasion, and understanding. > >> From: "Kooijman, A." >> I am confident >> that we will solve differences in opinion in such a way that the ACBL >> statement as you quoted it will have no concequences for the interpretation >> of our laws. > >The above two quotes show why these gentlemen have been appointed to >the positions they occupy. The rest of us can offer opinions, even >strident ones, but it's negotiation and persuasion that get opinion >translated into practical consequences. > >Thank you, gentlemen, your work is appreciated. We also appreciate >your answering questions for us and reading about our problems and >concerns. Can I add my agreement :) Thanks guys :) mike -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 6 19:09:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA18637 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 19:09:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA18632 for ; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 19:09:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from mamos.demon.co.uk ([158.152.129.79]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11Cg0R-000B2q-0B; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 09:09:39 +0000 Message-ID: <3BG7$MAlTqq3EwyY@mamos.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 10:03:33 +0100 To: Steve Willner Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Subject: Re: irrational (?) action in line with stated claim References: <199908052013.QAA18140@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199908052013.QAA18140@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199908052013.QAA18140@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: Adam Beneschan >> 1/4 that declarer gets 9 tricks >> 1/4 that declarer gets 10 tricks >> 1/4 that declarer gets 11 tricks >> 1/4 that declarer gets 12 tricks > >This has been answered before. If declarer is on the OS, "at all >probable" = 1/6 ==> 9 tricks. "Likely" = 1/3 ==> 10 tricks. > >If declarer is on the NOS, it's 12 and 11. mmmm without even thinking about it a great deal I'm sure that i EBU land a NO Declarer would be awarded 12 tricks Some appeals committees might reduce this "to achieve equity" but on these figures i don't think it very likely - no doubt DWS will have an opinion :) mike -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 6 20:34:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA18747 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 20:34:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA18740 for ; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 20:34:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-149-195.uunet.be [194.7.149.195]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA28194 for ; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 12:34:28 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37AA6E92.EDA44241@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 06 Aug 1999 07:11:46 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: irrational (?) action in line with stated claim References: <199908051931.MAA05175@mailhub.irvine.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > > I've been trying to understand all this stuff about "likely" and 1/3 > and 1/6 probabilities and whatever. Suppose there was an infraction > and we try to apply L12C2, so that we have to determine "the most > favorable result that was likely ahd the irregularity had not > occurred." Suppose that on a particular hand, if the play had > continued without the infraction, there would be 9 obvious tricks, but > declarer and LHO would both have guesses that could give declarer more > tricks. If declarer guesses right, it nets him two more tricks. If > LHO guesses wrong, it gives declarer an extra trick. Assuming that > each guess is a straight 50-50, this means that the possible results > and their probabilities are: > > 1/4 that declarer gets 9 tricks > 1/4 that declarer gets 10 tricks > 1/4 that declarer gets 11 tricks > 1/4 that declarer gets 12 tricks > > Now, since 1/4 is less than 1/3, does this mean that in the ACBL, *no* > result is considered likely enough to apply 12C2? What would the > ruling be in other SO's? I would think that it's sensible to give > declarer 12 tricks, but is this a case where an ArtAS is more > appropriate? > Actually, Adam, this one is still easy. It is not "likely" that declarer will get 12 tricks (as you point out, 1/4 < 1/3), but it is likely that he will get at least 11 (1/2 > 1/3). So you award 11 tricks. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 6 20:35:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA18753 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 20:35:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA18748 for ; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 20:35:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-149-195.uunet.be [194.7.149.195]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA28254 for ; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 12:34:49 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37AA7343.386904C8@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 06 Aug 1999 07:31:47 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: irrational (?) action in line with stated claim References: <199908052327.TAA18420@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: "Hirsch Davis" > > In practice, I would cash the A of trumps to verify the trump break before > > claiming at all. > > Advisable, perhaps, but frequently neglected. In the example, declarer > almost certainly has all the tricks regardless of the trump break. I > expect (and want!) declarers who can see that to claim. > > > However, if I claimed before the break was revealed, and > > my statement of claim did not take the break into account, I would expect to > > lose a trick if at all possible. > > We play in different types of games, then. I would not expect to lose > a trick unless trumps are 5-0 _and_ defender is ruffing a side suit > _and_ it isn't obvious to return to hand in a different side suit. > > > An incomplete or incorrect statement of > > claim is my own silly fault, and I certainly would not feel aggrieved if an > > opponent or a TD held me to it. I don't expect the Laws to protect me from > > my own mistakes. > > I expect the laws to protect me from a mistaken _claim statement_ > although of course not from a mistaken claim. I believe this is the crux of the problem. I don't think anyone on the list has a mistaken perception of what the claim laws mean. But there is a huge difference between some of us as to what expectations one has of claimers. There are some of you out there who seem to have developped a very high standard of claiming. In those areas, no player will ever claim before testing the 5-0 break. When faced with a claimer of such high standard, it is possible to assume that a false claim statement is a sort of proof of a false perception in claimer, and thus find the bad play merely careless. In an environment such as that, this claiming error will probably never happen, but if it does, the director is correct in assuming that the player got it wrong and rule against him. Other directors, such as I, see that their players have a lower standard of claiming, and of making complete claim statements. Where I direct, it is common to see a claim being made before the suits are thoroughly tested. That also means that a player who claims before testing a suit is not necessarily proving to me that he cannot count to 13. I guess that this is the reason for the argumentation flying around. When I see a claim where a suit has not even been played once, I do not assume that claimer is not aware of all possible breaks. So I will rule that he can play careless and fail to execute the correct safety line, but I will not rule that he would be careless enough not to notice the break when it becomes clear. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 6 23:35:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA19184 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 23:35:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA19179 for ; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 23:34:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id JAA27140 for ; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 09:34:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id JAA18802 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 09:34:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 09:34:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199908061334.JAA18802@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Excuse me if I demur X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > We are all together now. I'd assumed the card had been picked up. By > not exercising his "may" option it seemed we'd allowed that. Yes, I confused "exercising" and "not exercising." In David G.'s original case, the low heart was left on the table, and the opening lead was a heart. Since a spade seems to have been a LA (without seeing the full hand or auction), I claimed the heart lead was most likely illegal. > To clarify. > If the card's picked up it's AI as 50 doesn't apply. If it's still > exposed it's a penalty card and 50 does apply. > > I'm not 100% about UI/AI of an exposed card in this position. Guidance > sought from gurus please. Well, you and I agree, at least. Whew! From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 7 00:16:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA19310 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Aug 1999 00:16:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA19305 for ; Sat, 7 Aug 1999 00:16:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id QAA32330 for ; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 16:16:27 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JEGBTWIGZI002LP1@AGRO.NL> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 16:15:54 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id <31GTB1RW>; Fri, 06 Aug 1999 16:15:54 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 06 Aug 1999 16:15:48 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: honesty To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C207@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have to apologize. Steve Willner wrote something flattering this morning, about Grattan and me. So I assumed he didn't mean that (talking about 'me', something in my character). He just assured me that I am wrong. Well, good wekend then, ton From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 7 00:50:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA19421 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Aug 1999 00:50:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA19416 for ; Sat, 7 Aug 1999 00:50:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11ClKQ-00061M-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 14:50:40 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 11:37:16 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply References: <199908042243.SAA17468@cfa183.harvard.edu> <079301bedfc3$b9ed3560$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <079301bedfc3$b9ed3560$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: > > >> Steve Willner wrote: >> >Gary Blaiss has added the following to his previous message. >> > >> >----- Begin Included Message ----- >> > >> >Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 11:42:29 -0500 >> >From: Gary Blaiss >> > >> >Many players agree amongst themselves that there was an >> >unmistakeable hesitation. As long as a player calls when the hand in >> >question becomes known and there was possible UI, his rights are not >> >diminished. The one thing that this Law accomplishes is that it permits >> >players to agree on the fact that there was a noticeable break in >tempo. >> > >> >----- End Included Message ----- >> > >> >> >> >> How does this differ from "Reserving your Rights", please? >> > >I see quite a bit of difference. > >L16A1 allows a player to haughtily state, "I am reserving my right to >summon the Director later" when he thinks he has observed a break in >tempo. If the opponents disagree about the break, they are required to >summon the TD immediately. Now wonder you have problems in NAmerica if you believe this. L74A1 and L74A2 do not permit this sort of behaviour. When we allow Reserving Rights in Europe that is no suggestion that we condone bad behaviour in any way. >Gary's procedure calls for an amicable agreement between pairs that a >break has occurred, a much more pleasant way to settle the matter. If >there is no agreement, the TD does not have to be called unless an >opponent feels strongly enough about the matter to pursue it (rare, >because usually futile). Exactly as we interpret reserving rights in the rest of the world, except that it is not futile elsewhere to call the Director. >The second way is less confrontational, and easier on TDs. If the problem is as you say then it is time that the ACBL changed their regulation to something like the following: Players who believe there to have been a tempo break and that damage may result may Reserve their Rights to call the Director later: the principles of Zero Tolerance apply to the manner in which this is done. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 7 01:39:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA19542 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Aug 1999 01:39:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (mailhub.irvine.com [192.160.8.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA19537 for ; Sat, 7 Aug 1999 01:39:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA15836; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 08:38:36 -0700 Message-Id: <199908061538.IAA15836@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: irrational (?) action in line with stated claim In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 06 Aug 1999 07:11:46 PDT." <37AA6E92.EDA44241@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 06 Aug 1999 08:38:36 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman de Wael wrote: > Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > > I've been trying to understand all this stuff about "likely" and 1/3 > > and 1/6 probabilities and whatever. Suppose there was an infraction > > and we try to apply L12C2, so that we have to determine "the most > > favorable result that was likely ahd the irregularity had not > > occurred." Suppose that on a particular hand, if the play had > > continued without the infraction, there would be 9 obvious tricks, but > > declarer and LHO would both have guesses that could give declarer more > > tricks. If declarer guesses right, it nets him two more tricks. If > > LHO guesses wrong, it gives declarer an extra trick. Assuming that > > each guess is a straight 50-50, this means that the possible results > > and their probabilities are: > > > > 1/4 that declarer gets 9 tricks > > 1/4 that declarer gets 10 tricks > > 1/4 that declarer gets 11 tricks > > 1/4 that declarer gets 12 tricks > > > > Now, since 1/4 is less than 1/3, does this mean that in the ACBL, *no* > > result is considered likely enough to apply 12C2? What would the > > ruling be in other SO's? I would think that it's sensible to give > > declarer 12 tricks, but is this a case where an ArtAS is more > > appropriate? > > > > Actually, Adam, this one is still easy. > > It is not "likely" that declarer will get 12 tricks (as you > point out, 1/4 < 1/3), but it is likely that he will get at > least 11 (1/2 > 1/3). > So you award 11 tricks. [We're both assuming declarer is the non-offender here] But is this argument solid? It may be likely (by this definition) that declarer will get at least 11 tricks, but you cannot award a score for "at least 11 tricks". "At least 11 tricks" is not a "likely result", since it's not a result at all. You have to award a score for "exactly 11 tricks", a result that is no more likely than a more favorable result, 12 tricks. If I were declarer in this situation, I'd be thinking about complaining, since the opponents' infraction has taken away my chance at getting the maximum possible score that would arise from a misguess by an opponent in a straight coin-flip situation. (Although to be honest, a score for 11 tricks would be slightly better than the A+ that an ArtAS would give me, at matchpoints. If I were in the 25% slam at IMPs, though, that's a different story.) I don't think the Laws by themselves provide a solution; only an interpretation by an SO that one must start computing cumulative probabilities is sufficient. But it doesn't seem "easy" to me. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 7 03:49:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA19900 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Aug 1999 03:49:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from IGNGATE.merck.de (igngate.merck.de [194.196.248.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA19895 for ; Sat, 7 Aug 1999 03:49:36 +1000 (EST) From: James.Vickers@merck.de Received: from dedamsgnt02.merck.de (smtpgw.merck.de [155.250.248.234]) by IGNGATE.merck.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA09320 for ; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 19:49:28 +0200 (METDST) X-Internal-ID: 37A16CD000012748 Received: from dedamsg4.merck.de (155.250.249.26) by dedamsgnt02.merck.de (NPlex 2.0.123) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 19:53:27 +0200 Received: by dedamsg4.merck.de(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.2 (693.3 8-11-1998)) id C12567C5.0061E61D ; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 19:49:18 +0200 X-Lotus-FromDomain: MERCK To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-ID: Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 19:41:37 +0200 Subject: insufficient bid "conventional" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Several years ago I raised two issues with the EBU L+E Committee which arose from the following incident, which cannot be that uncommon. It is to do with correction of an insufficient bid: I held: 10 9 x x x x A x x A Q x x Partner opened 1S, and I responded 2C. Partner bid 2H, and wondering if this could turn into one of those 22-hcp slams you read about, and at a loss for anything better, I bid 4NT, Blackwood agreeing hearts as trumps, intending to convert the final contract to spades. Partner bid 4H, and the TD was summoned. The somewhat inexperienced but overbearing director allowed a correction to 5H but failed to bar me from further bidding. I did not challenge this, consoling myself with the fact that the TD was not the sort of character to brook any argument with his half-baked rulings anyway. According to the laws then in force, if the insufficient bid "could have been conventional" I would have to pass throughout. (This has now been made even more strict so that if either the insufficient bid or its correction "could have been conventional" offender's partner must pass.) My first problem is that conventions are decided by partnership agreement, and no partnership ever has cause to discuss the meaning of insufficient bids. Therefore to come to a decision you have to speculate as to what the offender intended to bid, and when you allow for all possibilities you can usually find at least one that would have been conventional, so offender's partner is nearly always silenced. In this case, for instance, my partner could have mistaken my 4NT call as 3NT and intended to make a natural correction to 4H, or he could have intended to respond 5H to 4NT (conventional) and pulled the wrong card, possibilities are virtually endless if you have a vivid imagination. (Am I alone in finding this sort of law horribly untidy?) My second problem is the blatant injustice of forcing me to pass in this instance. We would then have been condemned to struggle in a contract of 5 or 6H (partner thinks I have hearts, remember), rather than the sturdy 6S contract we eventually bid and made. Can anyone explain the justification for distinguishing between the rather meaningless concepts of "possibly conventional" and "incontrovertibly natural" insufficient bids? Can anyone suggest a possible improvement on this law? James Vickers Darmstadt, Germany From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 7 04:40:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA20043 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Aug 1999 04:40:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (mailhub.irvine.com [192.160.8.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA20038 for ; Sat, 7 Aug 1999 04:40:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA18115; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 11:39:48 -0700 Message-Id: <199908061839.LAA18115@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: insufficient bid "conventional" In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 06 Aug 1999 19:41:37 PDT." Date: Fri, 06 Aug 1999 11:39:49 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk James Vickers wrote: > Several years ago I raised two issues with the EBU L+E Committee which > arose from the following incident, which cannot be that uncommon. It is to > do with correction of an insufficient bid: I held: > > 10 9 x x x x > A x > x > A Q x x > > Partner opened 1S, and I responded 2C. My choice would be 4D, but maybe you weren't playing splinters? > Partner bid 2H, and wondering if > this could turn into one of those 22-hcp slams you read about, and at a > loss for anything better, I bid 4NT, Blackwood agreeing hearts as trumps, > intending to convert the final contract to spades. Partner bid 4H, and the > TD was summoned. > > The somewhat inexperienced but overbearing director allowed a correction to > 5H but failed to bar me from further bidding. I did not challenge this, > consoling myself with the fact that the TD was not the sort of character to > brook any argument with his half-baked rulings anyway. According to the > laws then in force, if the insufficient bid "could have been conventional" > I would have to pass throughout. (This has now been made even more strict > so that if either the insufficient bid or its correction "could have been > conventional" offender's partner must pass.) > > My first problem is that conventions are decided by partnership agreement, > and no partnership ever has cause to discuss the meaning of insufficient > bids. Therefore to come to a decision you have to speculate as to what the > offender intended to bid, and when you allow for all possibilities you can > usually find at least one that would have been conventional, so offender's > partner is nearly always silenced. In this case, for instance, my partner > could have mistaken my 4NT call as 3NT and intended to make a natural > correction to 4H, or he could have intended to respond 5H to 4NT > (conventional) and pulled the wrong card, possibilities are virtually > endless if you have a vivid imagination. (Am I alone in finding this sort > of law horribly untidy?) No. I've complained about this before, and so have others. I believe that a Law that requires the TD to determine the meaning of an insufficient bid is not a good Law. I did have a case once, a long time ago, where my partner mistook my 4NT bid for 3NT and bid 4H. But this was using spoken bidding, and he just misheard me. IMHO, you'd have to have a really vivid imagination to imagine this kind of misunderstanding using bidding boxes. > My second problem is the blatant injustice of forcing me to pass in this > instance. This is an unusual instance. In most cases, the insufficient bidder, after being fully informed by the director as to whether partner would be barred or not, would have to guess at a final contract, but would have a decent chance of guessing it correctly. Unfortunately, you're not going to get any sympathy from me. To me, insufficient bids are caused by insufficient attention, which in turn is often caused by insufficient coffee, at least in my case. I can cite many examples where my own insufficient attention has cost me bundles---most recently, where the correct mechanics of a simple squeeze eluded me, and I didn't realize I could still execute the squeeze and protect against a 3-0 trump break, so I went down in a makable slam. So if my own inattentive mistakes cost me huge numbers of points and I can't complain about "injustice", I can't be too sympathetic if someone else's inattentive failure to follow correct procedure ends up costing a lot. > We would then have been condemned to struggle in a contract of 5 > or 6H (partner thinks I have hearts, remember), rather than the sturdy 6S > contract we eventually bid and made. Can anyone explain the justification > for distinguishing between the rather meaningless concepts of "possibly > conventional" and "incontrovertibly natural" insufficient bids? I assume it was an attempt to prevent the offenders from possibly taking advantage of UI. If we're playing a big club system and RHO opens 1S and I miss the opening bid and bid 1C, partner would know, even after I correct it to 2C, that I have a big hand and don't necessarily have clubs. On the other side, if partner bids 4NT and I bid 4H, then correct it to 5H, partner will know that I don't necessarily have a legitimate 5H response. I'm sure the regular UI laws could have taken care of problems like this, but those can be subjective and difficult to apply sometimes, so I can understand why the Lawmakers might want to come up with a more clearcut way of dealing with the situation. > Can anyone > suggest a possible improvement on this law? Since an insufficient bid cannot really be conventional, I'd fix this part of 27B2 to provide some clear definitions for when an insufficient bid "may be conventional". E.g. if we replaced the last bid by a pass, and that would make the insufficient bid a sufficient, conventional bid, then we would deem the insufficient bid as "may be conventional". However, there should be no problem applying the part about "lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination" being conventional. So my improvements wouldn't help you any. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 7 09:18:01 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA20521 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Aug 1999 09:18:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA20511 for ; Sat, 7 Aug 1999 09:17:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11CtF6-0001zA-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 23:17:41 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 23:54:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: insufficient bid "conventional" References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk James wrote: >Several years ago I raised two issues with the EBU L+E Committee which >arose from the following incident, which cannot be that uncommon. It is to >do with correction of an insufficient bid: I held: > >10 9 x x x x >A x >x >A Q x x > >Partner opened 1S, and I responded 2C. Partner bid 2H, and wondering if >this could turn into one of those 22-hcp slams you read about, and at a >loss for anything better, I bid 4NT, Blackwood agreeing hearts as trumps, >intending to convert the final contract to spades. Partner bid 4H, and the >TD was summoned. > >The somewhat inexperienced but overbearing director allowed a correction to >5H but failed to bar me from further bidding. I did not challenge this, >consoling myself with the fact that the TD was not the sort of character to >brook any argument with his half-baked rulings anyway. According to the >laws then in force, if the insufficient bid "could have been conventional" >I would have to pass throughout. (This has now been made even more strict >so that if either the insufficient bid or its correction "could have been >conventional" offender's partner must pass.) > >My first problem is that conventions are decided by partnership agreement, >and no partnership ever has cause to discuss the meaning of insufficient >bids. Therefore to come to a decision you have to speculate as to what the >offender intended to bid, and when you allow for all possibilities you can >usually find at least one that would have been conventional, so offender's >partner is nearly always silenced. In this case, for instance, my partner >could have mistaken my 4NT call as 3NT and intended to make a natural >correction to 4H, or he could have intended to respond 5H to 4NT >(conventional) and pulled the wrong card, possibilities are virtually >endless if you have a vivid imagination. (Am I alone in finding this sort >of law horribly untidy?) The Director makes an effort to find out: he does not assume every possible sequence. Normal policy is to take the player away from the table, ask him what he was up to, return to the table and rule, saying either [1] that you have decided the bid is incontrovertibly not conventional or [2] that you consider the bid might have been conventional. >My second problem is the blatant injustice of forcing me to pass in this >instance. We would then have been condemned to struggle in a contract of 5 >or 6H (partner thinks I have hearts, remember), rather than the sturdy 6S >contract we eventually bid and made. Can anyone explain the justification >for distinguishing between the rather meaningless concepts of "possibly >conventional" and "incontrovertibly natural" insufficient bids? Can anyone >suggest a possible improvement on this law? My suggestions are twofold: [1] Allow a correction to the next sufficient bid up in the same denomination without penalty whether the insufficient bid is conventional or not or whether the sufficient bid is conventional or not. This will occasionally create UI problems but it seems the obvious solution to me. It saves any argument. It reduces Insufficient Bids to a book ruling without judgement plus UI. [2] Allow a correction to the next sufficient bid up in the same denomination without penalty whether the insufficient bid is conventional or not, but only if the sufficient bid is not conventional. This seems "fairer" so would probably get more support. I gets rid of the main problem: deciding whether a bid that the offenders have no agreement on is a conventional bid! I prefer [1], and think the average player would like it better once he got used to it. However, I don't think that it would get past the people who worry about why things are as they are, and do not accept long-term acceptability as a sufficient reason. Therefore I think we may have to fight for [2]. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 7 12:26:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA21073 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Aug 1999 12:26:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA21066 for ; Sat, 7 Aug 1999 12:26:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.213] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11CwBL-0000Ku-00; Sat, 7 Aug 1999 03:25:59 +0100 Message-ID: <001901bee07c$2d929420$d55208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." Cc: "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: honesty Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1999 02:40:24 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: 'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au' Date: 06 August 1999 15:43 Subject: honesty >I have to apologize. >Steve Willner wrote something flattering this morning, about Grattan and me. >So I assumed he didn't mean that (talking about 'me', something in my >character). He just assured me that I am wrong. Well, good wekend then, > +++ It is all very understandable in this cynical world, but as I have already said, "there are some nice guys around" ~ Grattan ~ +++ p.s. for the avoidance of doubt, I use 'guys' in the sense adopted by later generations than mine - people male and female. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 7 12:26:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA21078 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Aug 1999 12:26:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA21072 for ; Sat, 7 Aug 1999 12:26:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.213] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11CwBM-0000Ku-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 7 Aug 1999 03:26:00 +0100 Message-ID: <001a01bee07c$2e3a6ce0$d55208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: was L16A1-Reply but what are our objectives? Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1999 03:24:38 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 06 August 1999 16:25 Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply > L74A1 and L74A2 do not permit this sort of behaviour. When we allow >Reserving Rights in Europe that is no suggestion that we condone bad >behaviour in any way. > >>Gary's procedure calls for an amicable agreement between pairs that a >>break has occurred, a much more pleasant way to settle the matter. If >>there is no agreement, the TD does not have to be called unless an >>opponent feels strongly enough about the matter to pursue it (rare, >>because usually futile). > > Exactly as we interpret reserving rights in the rest of the world, >except that it is not futile elsewhere to call the Director. > >>The second way is less confrontational, and easier on TDs. > > If the problem is as you say then it is time that the ACBL changed >their regulation to something like the following: > >Players who believe there to have been a tempo break and that damage may >result may Reserve their Rights to call the Director later: the >principles of Zero Tolerance apply to the manner in which this is done. > ++++ You know, if I were sitting where Gary Blaiss is sitting I would be feeling that blml spends too much time carping about the way the ACBL does things. I know it mostly begins from ACBL members, but I am not convinced that it helps greatly if we Europeans are *perceived* as putting fuel on the fire. [I make no accusation of malicious intent here.] It would be interesting to chat with Gary and learn why the ACBL takes its particular line - I learnt some from Edgar, but I came to realise that he painted things differently to me than he did at home, and he probably painted me in a light of his own choosing when 'reporting' to his ACBL colleagues too. The extent to which we collaborated to create flexibility in the interests of transatlantic peace does not seem to have been one of Edgar's major themes, and yet it is one I want to pick up again and if I were to find Gary also responsive to the theme of flexibility I would be greatly encouraged. I am only too conscious that moves to bring bridge into full I.O.C. recognition have implications for world bridge beyond the question solely of drugs regulations for competitors; to embrace the ideal we must have our House in order. In my opinion one of our key targets should be to separate out matters of common universal application for the Law Book and pass variable matters to regulation, with explicit extended authority in the Laws enabling regulating authorities to regulate in whatever areas this implies. (Of course that will not please the angrier voices in bridge society but I do not see them as representative of the mass of players.) ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 7 14:07:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA21217 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Aug 1999 14:07:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA21212 for ; Sat, 7 Aug 1999 14:07:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt092nb1.san.rr.com [204.210.48.177]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA15628 for ; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 21:06:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <08cd01bee08a$271eef40$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <199908051931.MAA05175@mailhub.irvine.com> <37AA6E92.EDA44241@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: irrational (?) action in line with stated claim Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 20:58:04 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > Actually, Adam, this one is still easy. > > It is not "likely" that declarer will get 12 tricks (as you > point out, 1/4 < 1/3), but it is likely that he will get at > least 11 (1/2 > 1/3). > So you award 11 tricks. > It is not "likely" that he will get at least 11 tricks, it is a 50-50 chance or less. However, it is the most favorable result that was likely, so the assignment is correct.. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 7 14:57:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA21287 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Aug 1999 14:57:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA21282 for ; Sat, 7 Aug 1999 14:57:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt092nb1.san.rr.com [204.210.48.177]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA21559 for ; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 21:57:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <08e901bee091$365d0c60$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199908042243.SAA17468@cfa183.harvard.edu><079301bedfc3$b9ed3560$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 21:54:22 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Marvin L. French wrote: > >David Stevenson wrote > > > >> Steve Willner wrote: > >> >From: Gary Blaiss > >> >Many players agree amongst themselves that there was an > >> >unmistakeable hesitation. As long as a player calls when the hand in > >> >question becomes known and there was possible UI, his rights are not > >> >diminished. The one thing that this Law accomplishes is that it permits > >> >players to agree on the fact that there was a noticeable break in > >> >tempo. > >> > > >> >----- End Included Message ----- > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> How does this differ from "Reserving your Rights", please? > >> > > > >I see quite a bit of difference. > > > >L16A1 allows a player to haughtily state, "I am reserving my right to > >summon the Director later" when he thinks he has observed a break in > >tempo. If the opponents disagree about the break, they are required to > >summon the TD immediately. > > Now wonder you have problems in NAmerica if you believe this. Just reading from L16A1, David. We have no such problems here, as the ACBL has opted out of this procedure. Makes for a nicer game. > > L74A1 and L74A2 do not permit this sort of behaviour. When we allow > Reserving Rights in Europe that is no suggestion that we condone bad > behaviour in any way. L16A1 permits a player to "immediately announce that he is reserving the right to summon the Director later." Nothing bad about such behavior, it just sounds "haughty" no matter how one does it. We don't do it over here, of course, so don't lay that on us. We discuss the UI before making any such statement, and we certainly don't use the words "reserving my right." > > >Gary's procedure calls for an amicable agreement between pairs that a > >break has occurred, a much more pleasant way to settle the matter. If > >there is no agreement, the TD does not have to be called unless an > >opponent feels strongly enough about the matter to pursue it (rare, > >because usually futile). > > Exactly as we interpret reserving rights in the rest of the world, > except that it is not futile elsewhere to call the Director. L16A1 contains no language about mutual agreement to a UI problem, nothing about a discussion, but merely says the TD should be called if the opponents disagree with the UI implication associated with the "Reservation of Rights" statement. If the rest of the world is holding such discussions anyway, great, glad to hear it. When both opponents insist there was no UI, 90% of the time I do not call the TD (as I am supposed to do if L16A1 were in force), because it is usually a waste of everybody's time. Frequent TD calls in regard to UI are one of the main reasons people cite for quitting duplicate. I think a TD call should be avoided whenever the Laws don't require it. >> The second way is less confrontational, and easier on TDs. > If the problem is as you say Did I say there was a problem? We have no problem here. > then it is time that the ACBL changed > their regulation to something like the following: > > Players who believe there to have been a tempo break and that damage may > result may Reserve their Rights to call the Director later: the > principles of Zero Tolerance apply to the manner in which this is done. > That is the language included in L16A1, and that is what we don't want here. ZT applies to all situations, no need to cite it for this purpose. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 7 15:31:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA21335 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Aug 1999 15:31:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp2.erols.com (smtp2.erols.com [207.172.3.235]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA21330 for ; Sat, 7 Aug 1999 15:31:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (216-164-231-227.s481.tnt7.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [216.164.231.227]) by smtp2.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id BAA10006 for ; Sat, 7 Aug 1999 01:32:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <000c01bee095$cdcbff80$e3e7a4d8@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <199908051931.MAA05175@mailhub.irvine.com> <37AA6E92.EDA44241@village.uunet.be> <08cd01bee08a$271eef40$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: irrational (?) action in line with stated claim Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1999 01:29:20 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Marvin L. French To: Bridge Laws Sent: Friday, August 06, 1999 11:58 PM Subject: Re: irrational (?) action in line with stated claim > Herman De Wael wrote: > > > Actually, Adam, this one is still easy. > > > > It is not "likely" that declarer will get 12 tricks (as you > > point out, 1/4 < 1/3), but it is likely that he will get at > > least 11 (1/2 > 1/3). > > So you award 11 tricks. > > > It is not "likely" that he will get at least 11 tricks, it is a > 50-50 chance or less. However, it is the most favorable result that > was likely, so the assignment is correct.. > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com > Another way to treat this is that each possible result is an independent event. The probability that Declarer would take 11 tricks is exactly the same probability as Declarer taking 12 tricks. Although the combined probability of taking 11 tricks is greater, because it includes the cases where Declarer also takes 12 tricks, the probability of each line occurring is the same. If we are choosing between 2 events of equal probability, we would of course choose the line most favorable for the NOS: 12 tricks. This leads to two possible approaches for assigning an adjusted score: a) Lines are independent: Compute the probability of each line. Throw out those that are unlikely to occur at the table, using whatever definition is at hand for that particular game. Give the best remaining result to the NOS. If results are equally probable, the NOS get the most favorable one. b) Scores are inclusive: The probability of obtaining a score is computed by determining the probability of all lines that yield that particular score or better. The criterion of likely is applied to the final score only, not the individual lines of play. It appears that people tend to lean toward b. The ACBL definition of likely would not really work in a, where there is a strong likelihood that no single event will even meet the criterion. Nevertheless, this gives me an uneasy feeling. This leads to a situation where two lines or more lines of play are equally probable, as in Adam's example, and yet we are not giving the NOS the most favorable of the scores. This could also lead to a situation with the probabilities below: 8 tricks: .1 9 tricks: .2 10 tricks: .2 11 tricks: .2 12 tricks: .3 Here, using the criterion of 1/3 as likely under method b, we would still award 11 tricks (.3 < .33). However, the result with the single highest probability of occurence at the table, 12 tricks, would not be awarded to the NOS. Hmmm.... Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 7 17:11:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA21778 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Aug 1999 17:11:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from iac12.navix.net (iac12.navix.net [207.91.5.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA21772 for ; Sat, 7 Aug 1999 17:11:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from navix.net (cras36p12.navix.net [205.242.158.15]) by iac12.navix.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id CAA18633; Sat, 7 Aug 1999 02:09:22 -0500 Message-ID: <37ABDBDA.7F004F7A@navix.net> Date: Sat, 07 Aug 1999 02:10:18 -0500 From: "Norman H. Hostetler" Reply-To: nh35422@navix.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Probst , Hermes@dodona.clara.co.uk CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, Gary_Blaiss@acbl.org Subject: Re: Excuse me if I demur References: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------57E4CBA20D1313F3B502467A" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk --------------57E4CBA20D1313F3B502467A Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In the lengthy debate over the disposition of a card dropped during the auction period and the interpretation of "may" in Law 24, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > To clarify. If the card's picked up it's AI as 50 doesn't apply. If it's still exposed > it's a penalty card and 50 does apply. > > I'm not 100% about AI/UI of an exposed card in this position. Guidance sought from > gurus, please.By definition, I am a non-guru, but I cannot believe that the laws allow an offending side to turn its own exposed card into AI. I would attempt to persuade the learned by the following arguments, using information from Laws 10, 16, 17, 24, 41, 49, 50, and 72, as indicated. Throughout, I have summarized some arguments made by others in earlier posts, but I have not referenced them. My thanks to the many who contributed to my thoughts. 1. Laws 10 and 16 are included in the section entitled "General Laws Covering Irregularities." While chapter and section titles are not part of the law itself, Kojak has reminded us that the laws are grouped according to the order in which they occur. "General Laws" apply at all times, in the auction period, the play period, and otherwise. Law 10 states that "players are authorized to base their calls and plays from legal calls and plays and the mannerisms of opponents." A card dropped or exposed during the auction period by one's partner is neither a legal call nor a legal play, and therefore by exclusion is not authorized information for a call or play. 2. In general, the laws are very specific about referring to "calls" (auction period) or "plays" (play period). However, neither Law 24 nor Law 16C2 uses these words: Law 24: "When the Director determines, during the auction, that because of a player's ACTION [my emphasis] one or more cards of that player's hand were in position for the face to be seen by his partner...." Law 16C2: "For the offending side, information from its own withdrawn ACTION [my emphasis] . . . is unauthorized." Restoring to one's hand a card exposed on the table is always a "withdrawn action," whether or not the action occurred during the play period. I am assuming here that declarer has not elected to make the exposed card a penalty card under Law 24, but see my continuing problems with that position in #4.2 below. 3. An argument has been made that, because the prescribed penalty during the auction period has been paid, "it is appropriate for the offenders to make any call or play advantageous to their side..."(Law 72A5). However, this sentence begins "Subject to Law 16C2,..." I believe an argument could be raised that during the auction period, information from the dropped card is AI, following payment of the penalty. But I think the general Law 10 prohibiting such use takes precedence. In any case, at the end of the auction period either the card is a penalty card, and Law 50 applies, or it is not, and law 16C2 applies. Both make the exposed card UI. This position is buttressed by Law 72B1: "Whenever the Director deems that an offender could have known at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage the offending side. . . . afterwards awarding an adjusted score if he considers that the offending side gained an advantage through the irregularity." Knowledge that your partner holds the HK, in the absence of any bidding by partner, is an advantage, and therefore is likely to be damaging to the non-offending side. 4. Another argument has been made that Laws 49 and 50 cannot apply to a card exposed during the auction period because they only reference the play period. I disagree with this interpretation on two grounds: 1) Law 50: "A card prematurely exposed (but not led, see Law 57) is a penalty card unless the Director designates otherwise." There is no stated restriction about the exposure having to occur during the play period. A card exposed during the auction period must automatically be "prematurely exposed" with reference to the play period. Law 50 merely designates how all such cazds will be treated during the play period, whether or not the exposure occurred during that period. 2) There is no break between the auction period and the play period, as some have argued. The same action both ends the former and starts the latter. Law 17E: "The auction period ends when all four players pass or when after three passes in rotation have followed any call and the opening lead is faced." Law 41C: "...the opening lead is faced, the play period begins,..." Law 24 states that "the Director shall require that every such card [exposed during the auction period] be left face up on the table until the auction closes." Law 49 states that "when a defender's card is in a position in which his partner could possibly see its face . . .each such card becomes a penalty card." Since the exposed card must be left face up until the close of the auction period, which occurs as part of the same action that makes offender a defender, it is extremely difficult for me to see at what point it can cease to be a faced card. I grant that it seems somewhat absurd to deny declarer any period of opportunity to waive making the card a penalty card, but, with the exception of the wording in Law 24, the laws are written with the presumption that no player has the right to make such an election. In addition to Law 50, quoted above, about whose applicability there has been some doubt, there is the statment in general Law 10A: "Players do not have the right to assess (or waive) penalties on their own initiative." With the exception of Law 24, the writers seem to have assumed Law 10A throughout and therefore have not provided a time for the exercise of Law 24. I have no good solution to this problem except to recommend that the laws be brought into harmony at the first available opportunity. I'm sorry if I've bored anybody by belaboring the obvious. But as a non-expert I think it incumbent upon me to explain my reasoning in detail. Thanks for your patience. Norm PS--John, I've used a fixed-width font this time. I don't want any more procedural penalties. --------------57E4CBA20D1313F3B502467A Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In the lengthy debate over the disposition of a card dropped during the auction period and the interpretation of "may" in Law 24, John (MadDog) Probst wrote:

>      To clarify.  If the card's picked up it's AI as 50 doesn't apply.  If it's still exposed > it's a penalty card and 50 does apply.
>
>      I'm not 100% about AI/UI of an exposed card in this position.  Guidance sought from  > gurus, please.By definition, I am a non-guru, but I cannot believe that the laws allow an offending side to turn its own exposed card into AI.  I would attempt to persuade the learned by the following arguments, using information from Laws 10, 16, 17, 24, 41, 49, 50, and 72, as indicated.  Throughout, I have summarized some arguments made by others in earlier posts, but I have not referenced them.  My thanks to the many who contributed to my thoughts.

1.  Laws 10 and 16 are included in the section entitled "General Laws Covering Irregularities."  While chapter and section titles are not part of the law itself, Kojak has reminded us that the laws are grouped according to the order in which they occur.  "General Laws" apply at all times, in the auction period, the play period, and otherwise.

Law 10 states that "players are authorized to base their calls and plays from legal calls and plays and the mannerisms of opponents."  A card dropped or exposed during the auction period by one's partner is neither a legal call nor a legal play, and therefore by exclusion is not authorized information for a call or play.

2.  In general, the laws are very specific about referring to "calls" (auction period) or "plays" (play period).  However, neither Law 24 nor Law 16C2 uses these words:

    Law 24: "When the Director determines, during the auction, that because of a player's ACTION [my emphasis] one or more cards of that player's hand were in position for the face to be seen by his partner...."
 
    Law 16C2: "For the offending side, information from its own withdrawn ACTION [my emphasis] . . . is unauthorized."

Restoring to one's hand a card exposed on the table is always a "withdrawn action," whether or not the action occurred during the play period.  I am assuming here that declarer has not elected to make the exposed card a penalty card under Law 24, but see my continuing problems with that position in #4.2 below.

3.  An argument has been made that, because the prescribed penalty during the auction period has been paid, "it is appropriate for the offenders to make any call or play advantageous to their side..."(Law 72A5).  However, this sentence begins "Subject to Law 16C2,..."  I believe an argument could be raised that during the auction period, information from the dropped card is AI, following payment of the penalty.  But I think the general Law 10 prohibiting such use takes precedence.  In any case, at the end of the auction period either the card is a penalty card, and Law 50 applies, or it is not, and law 16C2 applies.  Both make the exposed card UI.

    This position is buttressed by Law 72B1: "Whenever the Director deems that an offender could have known at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage the offending side. . . . afterwards awarding an adjusted score if he considers that the offending side gained an advantage through the irregularity."  Knowledge that your partner holds the HK, in the absence of any bidding by partner, is an advantage, and therefore is likely to be damaging to the non-offending side.

4.  Another argument has been made that Laws 49 and 50 cannot apply to a card exposed during the auction period because they only reference the play period.  I disagree with this interpretation on two grounds:

    1) Law 50: "A card prematurely exposed (but not led, see Law 57) is a penalty card unless the Director designates otherwise."  There is no stated restriction about the exposure having to occur during the play period.  A card exposed during the auction period must automatically be "prematurely exposed" with reference to the play period.  Law 50 merely designates how all such cazds will be treated during the play period, whether or not the exposure occurred during that period.

    2) There is no break between the auction period and the play period, as some have argued.  The same action both ends the former and starts the latter.  Law 17E: "The auction period ends when all four players pass or when after three passes in rotation have followed any call and the opening lead is faced."  Law 41C: "...the opening lead is faced, the play period begins,..."  Law 24 states that "the Director shall require that every such card [exposed during the auction period] be left face up on the table until the auction closes."  Law 49 states that "when a defender's card is in a position in which his partner could possibly see its face . . .each such card becomes a penalty card."  Since the exposed card must be left face up until the close of the auction period, which occurs as part of the same action that makes offender a defender, it is extremely difficult for me to see at what point it can cease to be a faced card.  I grant that it seems somewhat absurd to deny declarer any period of opportunity to waive making the card a penalty card, but, with the exception of the wording in Law 24, the laws are written with the presumption that no player has the right to make such an election.  In addition to Law 50, quoted above, about whose applicability there has been some doubt, there is the statment in general Law 10A: "Players do not have the right to assess (or waive) penalties on their own initiative."  With the exception of Law 24, the writers seem to have assumed Law 10A throughout and therefore have not provided a time for the exercise of Law 24.  I have no good solution to this problem except to recommend that the laws be brought into harmony at the first available opportunity.

I'm sorry if I've bored anybody by belaboring the obvious.  But as a non-expert I think it incumbent upon me to explain my reasoning in detail.  Thanks for your patience.

Norm

PS--John, I've used a fixed-width font this time.  I don't want any more procedural penalties.
  --------------57E4CBA20D1313F3B502467A-- From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 8 02:40:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA22906 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Aug 1999 02:40:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from primus.ac.net (primus.ac.net [205.138.54.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA22901 for ; Sun, 8 Aug 1999 02:40:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (pm30-2-26.ac.net [205.138.47.85]) by primus.ac.net (8.9.2/8.9.2) with SMTP id MAA26442 for ; Sat, 7 Aug 1999 12:39:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199908071639.MAA26442@primus.ac.net> X-Sender: lobo@mail.ac.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Sat, 07 Aug 1999 08:06:27 -0700 To: Bridge Laws discussion group From: Linda Trent Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply In-Reply-To: <079301bedfc3$b9ed3560$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> References: <199908042243.SAA17468@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Maybe so, but how does what Gary said comply with the BOD election which states: .... They should summon the Director immediately when they believe there may have been extraneous information available to the opponents resulting in calls or bids which could result in damage to their side. .... ?? That to me says the call must come before a player takes any action after the BIT has occurred. Rather than have everyone just ignore what the Board has said, perhaps we should try to amend what they said? For example, I believe that when someone makes faces, asks improper questions, etc, the Director call should be immediate. I have proposed that the following language be added: Players are permitted to seek the agreement of their opponents that a significant break in tempo has occurred. This should be done at the player’s next turn to call and before the player chooses their call Failing to reach such an agreement, the Director must be summoned at once. Linda At 09:25 PM 8/5/99 -0700, you wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: > > >> Steve Willner wrote: >> >Gary Blaiss has added the following to his previous message. >> > >> >----- Begin Included Message ----- >> > >> >Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 11:42:29 -0500 >> >From: Gary Blaiss >> > >> >Many players agree amongst themselves that there was an >> >unmistakeable hesitation. As long as a player calls when the hand in >> >question becomes known and there was possible UI, his rights are not >> >diminished. The one thing that this Law accomplishes is that it permits >> >players to agree on the fact that there was a noticeable break in >tempo. >> > >> >----- End Included Message ----- >> > >> >> >> >> How does this differ from "Reserving your Rights", please? >> > >I see quite a bit of difference. > >L16A1 allows a player to haughtily state, "I am reserving my right to >summon the Director later" when he thinks he has observed a break in >tempo. If the opponents disagree about the break, they are required to >summon the TD immediately. > >Gary's procedure calls for an amicable agreement between pairs that a >break has occurred, a much more pleasant way to settle the matter. If >there is no agreement, the TD does not have to be called unless an >opponent feels strongly enough about the matter to pursue it (rare, >because usually futile). > >The second way is less confrontational, and easier on TDs. > >Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com > From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 8 06:15:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA23370 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Aug 1999 06:15:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA23364 for ; Sun, 8 Aug 1999 06:15:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt092nb1.san.rr.com [204.210.48.177]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA07392 for ; Sat, 7 Aug 1999 13:14:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <093e01bee111$56203ec0$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <000201bede4e$717bb2a0$9c5208c3@swhki5i6> Subject: Re: WBFLC Interpretation #3 & the ACBL Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1999 13:09:14 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > +++ Well, Marv, it seems to me that the use of > 'irrational' in the footnote to the laws is all about what > we adjudge a player will do in a considered fashion. > If after an opponent's infraction a player revokes it > appears to me this is a subsequent irregularity > rather than a consequent one, and that redress should > be determined on that basis. ~ Grattan ~ +++ Okay, let's establish what is what here, I'm confused. A pair bids to 6NT by illegally using UI. Otherwise they would have ended in 3NT, like most other pairs. Case 1. 6NT is cold for 12 tricks, nobody does anything wrong. Adjust for both sides, 3NT making 6. That is clear. Case 2. 6NT is not cold, the defenders miscount declarer's hand, not a difficult task for the players involved, and the contract is made. It should have been down one. The play had nothing to do with the level of the contract. So, everything else being equal, adjust as in Case 1, 3NT making 6 for both sides.The ACBL might not adjust for the NOS, however, since they did not "play bridge." Most BLMLers will surely not agree with that. Case 3. 6NT has no real chance, everyone else takes 11 tricks, but the NOS revokes, and the declarer takes 12 tricks. The NOS had an easy top, but shot themselves in the foot, so they weren't damaged by the infraction. Let them keep the table result, and adjust the score of the OS only, to 3NT making 6. Case 4. 6NT is cold, 12 tricks on top and no more, but the NOS does something really stupid, irrational, and the declarer takes 13 tricks. No matter how they defended, they would have been damaged by the infraction, so the damage was irreparable. Adjust for both sides, 3NT making 7. There are three important implied principles in these cases: 1. If damage could have been avoided by the NOS by merely avoiding a gross stupidity for the level of player involved, including a revoke, LOOT, etc., table result stands for them. 2. If the damage is irreparable, the NOS gets an adjusted score no matter what they do. 3. Unless the level of the contract might have adversely affected the NOS play of the cards, the number of tricks taken by each side is not changed (assuming no change in denomination, of course). Different opinions about the assigned scores, and about the three principles stated, would be appreciated. We have discussed some of this before, some a lot, but I don't remember if the discussions led anywhere. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 8 07:08:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA23609 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Aug 1999 07:08:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo23.mx.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.67]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA23603 for ; Sun, 8 Aug 1999 07:07:56 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo23.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v22.4.) id sUASa22962 (4216); Sat, 7 Aug 1999 17:07:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4533f615.24ddfa02@aol.com> Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1999 17:07:14 EDT Subject: Re: WBFLC Interpretation #3 & the ACBL To: mfrench1@san.rr.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 21 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 8/7/99 4:17:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time, mfrench1@san.rr.com writes: > but I don't remember if the discussions led > anywhere. Kojak here.....my main contribution to this is that I wanted to point out that the word irrational was juxtaposed against careless or inferior in order to clarify Laws 69, 70, and 71. I don't find it as a qualification to Law 16. sounds like a different thread, almost.....Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 8 11:03:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA23939 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Aug 1999 11:03:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand4.global.net.uk (sand4.global.net.uk [194.126.80.248]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA23934 for ; Sun, 8 Aug 1999 11:03:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from p38s05a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.133.57] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11DHMq-0008Bt-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 8 Aug 1999 02:03:16 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Inadmissible double. Date: Sun, 8 Aug 1999 02:04:08 +0100 Message-ID: <01bee139$eabd1bc0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This one cropped up today! Game all Dealer S. MPs N AKT97 872 AK83 6 W E J532 Q86 KJ653 94 JT54 6 Void AKJ9543 S 4 AQT Q972 QT872 Systems N/S St NT/ 5Card majors E/W Natural. Bidding N E S W P P 1S 3C Dbl P Dbl(TD) Law 36. Double cancelled. East silenced. Final contract 3C* Question...Can East prohibit the lead of a Spade? Anne From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 8 12:44:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA24055 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Aug 1999 12:44:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.146]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA24050 for ; Sun, 8 Aug 1999 12:44:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.37] by mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com; Sat, 7 Aug 1999 22:44:27 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <01bee139$eabd1bc0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1999 22:41:20 -0400 To: "Anne Jones" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Inadmissible double. Cc: "BLML" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 9:04 PM -0400 8/7/99, Anne Jones wrote: >Bidding > N E S W > P P > 1S 3C Dbl P > Dbl(TD) > >Law 36. Double cancelled. East silenced. >Final contract 3C* > >Question...Can East prohibit the lead of a Spade? > >Anne Confusion! Law 36. the double is cancelled. Presumably North then chose to substitute a pass, and East then passed (East would not be "silenced", by which I gather you mean required to pass, as he is not offender's partner; South is, and if North and East pass, he doesn't get another chance to call anyway.) On the question of prohibiting a spade lead, I dunno. But it appears to hinge on whether North's illegal double "relates" to a suit other than spades (in this case, presumably clubs). I dunno the answer to that, but I suspect it's yes. In which case I think East can prohibit a spade lead. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2 iQA/AwUBN6zvAr2UW3au93vOEQJS7QCfTzoGF0Lgf1rxn7KebHWe/9PvR28An2i6 uIymk4CnshQrzna2TIe9A8Ed =Kxy/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 8 16:44:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA24417 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Aug 1999 16:44:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA24412 for ; Sun, 8 Aug 1999 16:44:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from mamos.demon.co.uk ([158.152.129.79]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11DMga-000DHG-0B; Sun, 8 Aug 1999 06:44:00 +0000 Message-ID: <+ZU5ZIArbSr3Ew6c@mamos.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 8 Aug 1999 07:42:51 +0100 To: Anne Jones Cc: BLML From: michael amos Subject: Re: Inadmissible double. References: <01bee139$eabd1bc0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01bee139$eabd1bc0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <01bee139$eabd1bc0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid>, Anne Jones writes >This one cropped up today! > >Game all Dealer S. MPs > N > AKT97 > 872 > AK83 > 6 >W E >J532 Q86 >KJ653 94 >JT54 6 >Void AKJ9543 > S > 4 > AQT > Q972 > QT872 > >Systems N/S St NT/ 5Card majors > E/W Natural. > >Bidding > N E S W > P P > 1S 3C Dbl P > Dbl(TD) > >Law 36. Double cancelled. East silenced. >Final contract 3C* > >Question...Can East prohibit the lead of a Spade? > >Anne > Yes -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 8 18:44:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA24584 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Aug 1999 18:44:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand4.global.net.uk (sand4.global.net.uk [194.126.80.248]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA24579 for ; Sun, 8 Aug 1999 18:44:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from p93s06a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.134.148] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11DOZ4-0002Bk-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 8 Aug 1999 09:44:23 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Inadmissible double. Date: Sun, 8 Aug 1999 09:45:21 +0100 Message-ID: <01bee17a$59296f60$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Ed Reppert To: Anne Jones Cc: BLML Date: Sunday, August 08, 1999 3:44 AM Subject: Re: Inadmissible double. >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >At 9:04 PM -0400 8/7/99, Anne Jones wrote: > >>Bidding >> N E S W >> P P >> 1S 3C Dbl P >> Dbl(TD) >> >>Law 36. Double cancelled. East silenced. >>Final contract 3C* >> >>Question...Can East prohibit the lead of a Spade? >> >>Anne > >Confusion! Law 36. the double is cancelled. Presumably North then chose to >substitute a pass, and East then passed (East would not be "silenced", by >which I gather you mean required to pass, as he is not offender's partner; >South is, and if North and East pass, he doesn't get another chance to call >anyway.) Yes. I'm sorry. North substituted a Pass and the final contract was 3C* Anne > >On the question of prohibiting a spade lead, I dunno. But it appears to >hinge on whether North's illegal double "relates" to a suit other than >spades (in this case, presumably clubs). I dunno the answer to that, but I >suspect it's yes. In which case I think East can prohibit a spade lead. > >Regards, > >Ed > >mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com >pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or >http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 >pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2 > >iQA/AwUBN6zvAr2UW3au93vOEQJS7QCfTzoGF0Lgf1rxn7KebHWe/9PvR28An2i6 >uIymk4CnshQrzna2TIe9A8Ed >=Kxy/ >-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 9 02:39:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA25448 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 02:39:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA25443 for ; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 02:38:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt092nb1.san.rr.com [204.210.48.177]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA02347 for ; Sun, 8 Aug 1999 09:38:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <095a01bee1bc$3b524060$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws discussion group" References: <199908042243.SAA17468@cfa183.harvard.edu> <199908071639.MAA26442@primus.ac.net> Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply Date: Sun, 8 Aug 1999 09:30:17 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Linda Trent wrote: >Maybe so, but how does what Gary said comply with the BOD election which states: >.... They should summon the Director immediately when they > believe there may have been extraneous information available > to the opponents resulting in calls or bids which could result in > damage to their side. .... ?? > That to me says the call must come before a player takes any > action after the BID has occurred. The syntax is terrible, which makes the sentence difficult to comprehend. Who writes this stuff? They don't even know that a bid is a call. Or, more likely, someone's fingers slipped and they meant to type "calls or plays," since UI can affect both. "Resulting in calls or bids [plays] which could result" implies to me that a doubtful call or play occurs before the TD is summoned. Perhaps they meant "extraneous information available to the opponents that might result in calls or plays which could result in damage to their side..." The trouble with that is the TD would have to be on roller skates in order to respond to all the TD calls that would ensue. There is some logic to this approach, however. A TD could explain the provisions of L16A in order to forestall a possible infraction, and could monitor the remaining auction and/or play. Once UI is agreed, however, the vast majority of players would know that taking advantage of it could be penalized, making a TD explanation unnecessary. Perhaps the opponents, after UI is agreed, could suggest to the other player that the TD be called if that player isn't sure of his legal obligations. This procedure is more in line with 16A2, which is not optional for SOs: "When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that might have been suggested by such information, he should summon the Director forthwith." The footnote says the time to do that is "when play ends, or, as to dummy's hand, when dummy is exposed." Once play is complete (or the dummy is exposed, if that player took a doubtful action in the auction), the opponents will often (usually?) realize they were not damaged, and that there was no infraction. > Rather than have everyone just ignore what the Board has said, perhaps we >.should try to amend what they said? For example, I believe that when > someone makes faces, asks improper questions, etc, the Director call should > be immediate. Of course. > I have proposed that the following language be added: > Players are permitted to seek the agreement of their opponents that a > significant break in tempo has occurred. This should be done at the > player's next turn to call and before the player chooses their call. Do you mean "Before the player's partner chooses his next call"? Remember that the action could also be a play. > Failing to reach such an agreement, the Director must be summoned at once. But only, IMO, if the opponents intend to press the matter. When there is agreement, follow L16A2 and its footnote. Instead of adding language to the Election, why not write a new one, modifying the words of L16A1? -- When a player considers that an opponent has made such information available and that damage could well result, he should seek agreement with the opponents that the information has been made available before the next opponent calls (or plays, during the play period). The Director should be summoned immediately if agreement is not reached one way or the other. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 9 07:31:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA25897 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 07:31:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from iac20.navix.net (iac20.navix.net [207.91.5.26]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA25892 for ; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 07:30:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from navix.net (cras18p28.navix.net [207.91.7.30]) by iac20.navix.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA10290; Sun, 8 Aug 1999 16:04:18 -0500 Message-ID: <37ADF103.9ED5966@navix.net> Date: Sun, 08 Aug 1999 16:05:07 -0500 From: "Norman H. Hostetler" Reply-To: nh35422@navix.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Anne Jones CC: BLML Subject: Re: Inadmissible double. References: <01bee139$eabd1bc0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: > This one cropped up today! > > Game all Dealer S. MPs > N > AKT97 > 872 > AK83 > 6 > W E > J532 Q86 > KJ653 94 > JT54 6 > Void AKJ9543 > S > 4 > AQT > Q972 > QT872 > > Systems N/S St NT/ 5Card majors > E/W Natural. > > Bidding > N E S W > P P > 1S 3C Dbl P > Dbl(TD) > > Law 36. Double cancelled. East silenced. > Final contract 3C* > > Question...Can East prohibit the lead of a Spade? > > Anne 1. There are always three penalties for an inadmissible double (or redouble): the inadmissible call is cancelled (the next opponent does not have an option to accept) and a legal call substituted; offender's partner must pass throughout the remainder of the auction; and the lead penalties of Law 26 (Withdrawn Calls) applies. 2. Law 26 divides into penalties for withdrawn calls that relate to a specific suit and penalties for other withdrawn calls. Unless N's double is conventional, which I gather it is not since no such explanation is offered, I think it highly unlikely that it relates to a specific suit. Looking at N's hand and the state of the auction, the most logical explanation is that he was unaware of partner's call and was intending a balancing double. If, as director, I had any doubt about the meaning of the double, I'd take N away from the table and ask. Therefore, with S on opening lead, E (the declarer), has the right to bar the lead of any one suit of his choice, including spades if that is his preference. Norm From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 9 08:17:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA25943 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 08:17:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand.global.net.uk ([195.147.248.109]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA25938 for ; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 08:17:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from p73s06a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.134.116] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11DbFY-00025U-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 8 Aug 1999 23:17:04 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Inadmissible double. Date: Sun, 8 Aug 1999 23:18:09 +0100 Message-ID: <01bee1eb$e58f71e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Norman H. Hostetler To: Anne Jones Cc: BLML Date: Sunday, August 08, 1999 10:54 PM Subject: Re: Inadmissible double. >Anne Jones wrote: > >> This one cropped up today! >> >> Game all Dealer S. MPs >> N >> AKT97 >> 872 >> AK83 >> 6 >> W E >> J532 Q86 >> KJ653 94 >> JT54 6 >> Void AKJ9543 >> S >> 4 >> AQT >> Q972 >> QT872 >> >> Systems N/S St NT/ 5Card majors >> E/W Natural. >> >> Bidding >> N E S W >> P P >> 1S 3C Dbl P >> Dbl(TD) >> >> Law 36. Double cancelled. East silenced. >> Final contract 3C* >> >> Question...Can East prohibit the lead of a Spade? >> >> Anne > > 1. There are always three penalties for an inadmissible double (or >redouble): the inadmissible call is cancelled (the next opponent does >not have an option to accept) and a legal call substituted; offender's >partner must pass throughout the remainder of the auction; and the lead >penalties of Law 26 (Withdrawn Calls) applies. > >2. Law 26 divides into penalties for withdrawn calls that relate to a >specific suit and penalties for other withdrawn calls. Unless N's >double is conventional, which I gather it is not since no such >explanation is offered, I think it highly unlikely that it relates to a >specific suit. Looking at N's hand and the state of the auction, the >most logical explanation is that he was unaware of partner's call and >was intending a balancing double. If, as director, I had any doubt >about the meaning of the double, I'd take N away from the table and >ask. Therefore, with S on opening lead, E (the declarer), has the right >to bar the lead of any one suit of his choice, including spades if that >is his preference. >From the hands, and from what I know of the partnership, this pair play penalty doubles of weak jump overcalls in the 1st seat, and "balancing" doubles in the passout seat. As you said the hands and auction so far confirm this. Balancing doubles may be showing extra strength, and distribution, or, and the hand suggests it, tolerance for the unbid suits. I would suggest that it says little about the suit opened, except perhaps to suggest that it is good enough for delayed support. I would expect it to "refer" to the Red suits in particular, and I would expect that any reference in the bid to Clubs would be to deny the suit. It would appear that on this hand it makes little difference. Declarer was lucky, on any lead to avoid going for 1100. It did strike me however that to be able to prohibit the lead of a suit which has been bid as a 5carder in the legal auction, when the illegal reference to it is insignificant, is overly penal. Anne. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 9 08:20:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA25957 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 08:20:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand.global.net.uk ([195.147.248.109]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA25952 for ; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 08:20:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from p73s06a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.134.116] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11DbIr-00026r-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 8 Aug 1999 23:20:29 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Duplicates Date: Sun, 8 Aug 1999 23:22:02 +0100 Message-ID: <01bee1ec$701af960$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk To all those kind enough to reply to questions, and contribute to discussion. Would posters please when replying to this list, rather than typing BLML in the CC box, delete the name of the sender in the FROM box, and substitute BLML or similar. Those contributors who have masses of mail would surely appreciate it. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 9 08:32:00 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA25975 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 08:32:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand.global.net.uk ([195.147.248.109]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA25970 for ; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 08:31:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from p0cs03a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.163.13] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11DbTl-0002Hb-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 8 Aug 1999 23:31:45 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Fw: Inadmissible double. Date: Sun, 8 Aug 1999 23:32:51 +0100 Message-ID: <01bee1ed$f2cef220$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Anne Jones To: BLML Date: Sunday, August 08, 1999 11:18 PM Subject: Re: Inadmissible double. > >-----Original Message----- >From: Norman H. Hostetler >To: Anne Jones >Cc: BLML >Date: Sunday, August 08, 1999 10:54 PM >Subject: Re: Inadmissible double. > > >>Anne Jones wrote: >> >>> This one cropped up today! >>> >>> Game all Dealer S. MPs >>> N >>> AKT97 >>> 872 >>> AK83 >>> 6 >>> W E >>> J532 Q86 >>> KJ653 94 >>> JT54 6 >>> Void AKJ9543 >>> S >>> 4 >>> AQT >>> Q972 >>> QT872 >>> >>> Systems N/S St NT/ 5Card majors >>> E/W Natural. >>> >>> Bidding >>> N E S W >>> P P >>> 1S 3C Dbl P >>> Dbl(TD) >>> >>> Law 36. Double cancelled. East silenced. >>> Final contract 3C* >>> >>> Question...Can East prohibit the lead of a Spade? >>> >>> Anne >> >> 1. There are always three penalties for an inadmissible double (or >>redouble): the inadmissible call is cancelled (the next opponent does >>not have an option to accept) and a legal call substituted; offender's >>partner must pass throughout the remainder of the auction; and the lead >>penalties of Law 26 (Withdrawn Calls) applies. >> >>2. Law 26 divides into penalties for withdrawn calls that relate to a >>specific suit and penalties for other withdrawn calls. Unless N's >>double is conventional, which I gather it is not since no such >>explanation is offered, I think it highly unlikely that it relates to a >>specific suit. Looking at N's hand and the state of the auction, the >>most logical explanation is that he was unaware of partner's call and >>was intending a balancing double. If, as director, I had any doubt >>about the meaning of the double, I'd take N away from the table and >>ask. Therefore, with S on opening lead, E (the declarer), has the right >>to bar the lead of any one suit of his choice, including spades if that >>is his preference. > >From the hands, and from what I know of the partnership, this pair play >penalty doubles of weak jump overcalls in the 1st seat, and "balancing" >doubles in the passout seat. As you said the hands and auction so >far confirm this. > >Balancing doubles may be showing extra strength, and distribution, or, >and the hand suggests it, tolerance for the unbid suits. I would suggest >that >it says little about the suit opened, except perhaps to suggest that it is >good >enough for delayed support. I would expect it to "refer" to the Red suits >in particular, and I would expect that any reference in the bid to Clubs >would be to deny the suit. > >It would appear that on this hand it makes little difference. Declarer was >lucky, on any lead to avoid going for 1100. No correct that.800 is right. (anne) >It did strike me however that to be able to prohibit the lead of a suit >which >has been bid as a 5carder in the legal auction, when the illegal reference >to >it is insignificant, is overly penal. > >Anne. > > > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 9 11:27:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA26290 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 11:27:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA26284 for ; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 11:27:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11DeDF-000GBq-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 01:26:54 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 02:05:32 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Inadmissible double. References: <01bee1eb$e58f71e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01bee1eb$e58f71e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: >Balancing doubles may be showing extra strength, and distribution, or, >and the hand suggests it, tolerance for the unbid suits. I would suggest >that >it says little about the suit opened, except perhaps to suggest that it is >good >enough for delayed support. I would expect it to "refer" to the Red suits >in particular, and I would expect that any reference in the bid to Clubs >would be to deny the suit. > >It would appear that on this hand it makes little difference. Declarer was >lucky, on any lead to avoid going for 1100. >It did strike me however that to be able to prohibit the lead of a suit >which >has been bid as a 5carder in the legal auction, when the illegal reference >to >it is insignificant, is overly penal. But L26B always applies if the call does not refer to a particular suit. So why is it overly penal? It is nothing to do with spades: declarer can bar *any* one suit in such cases. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 9 11:27:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA26285 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 11:27:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA26278 for ; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 11:26:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11DeD8-000GBq-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 01:26:46 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 01:53:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Excuse me if I demur References: <37ABDBDA.7F004F7A@navix.net> In-Reply-To: <37ABDBDA.7F004F7A@navix.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id LAA26280 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Norman H. Hostetler wrote: >     Law 24: "When the Director determines, during the auction, that > because of a player's ACTION [my emphasis] one or more cards of > that player's hand were in position for the face to be seen by his > partner...." >   >     Law 16C2: "For the offending side, information from its own > withdrawn ACTION [my emphasis] . . . is unauthorized." > > Restoring to one's hand a card exposed on the table is always a > "withdrawn action," whether or not the action occurred during the > play period.  I am assuming here that declarer has not elected to > make the exposed card a penalty card under Law 24, but see my > continuing problems with that position in #4.2 below. Fine. So that solves the UI problem. It was never believable that a card exposed in the auction in this way could be AI to partner, but this makes it clear that it is not. > 4.  Another argument has been made that Laws 49 and 50 cannot apply > to a card exposed during the auction period because they only > reference the play period.  I disagree with this interpretation on > two grounds: > >     1) Law 50: "A card prematurely exposed (but not led, see Law > 57) is a penalty card unless the Director designates otherwise." You put it in quotes and then do not quote the actual Law? The above is *not* what the Law says. I am not actually too worried about the shenanigans over this penalty card business. We have an auction period Law which gives an option to declarer to have a penalty card at the end of the auction [L24]. We have two play period laws that make exposure of a card by a defender a penalty card [L49/50]. We have a presumption that these Laws make the card a penalty card in defiance of L24. I am not impressed. In my view the interpretation of L24 is that declarer has an option whether to have a penalty card during the play period. If he decides not to, then no sensible interpretation of L49 or L50 suddenly makes it a penalty card anyway. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 9 20:13:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA26943 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 20:13:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.zeelandnet.nl (mail.zeelandnet.nl [62.12.12.194]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA26938 for ; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 20:13:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from poivideo-6266 (e86.zeelandnet.nl [62.12.16.86]) by mail.zeelandnet.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA27608 for ; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 12:13:04 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <199908091013.MAA27608@mail.zeelandnet.nl> From: "Marcel Schoof" To: Subject: Re: Excuse me if I demur Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 12:12:59 +0200 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- > Norman H. Hostetler wrote: > > >     Law 24: "When the Director determines, during the auction, that > > because of a player's ACTION [my emphasis] one or more cards of > > that player's hand were in position for the face to be seen by his > > partner...." > >   > >     Law 16C2: "For the offending side, information from its own > > withdrawn ACTION [my emphasis] . . . is unauthorized." > > > > Restoring to one's hand a card exposed on the table is always a > > "withdrawn action," whether or not the action occurred during the > > play period.  I am assuming here that declarer has not elected to > > make the exposed card a penalty card under Law 24, but see my > > continuing problems with that position in #4.2 below. ++I don't think Law 16C2 can be used when the card is being exposed without the determination that is was played. When a player drops it accidently, the header of L16C makes this IMO unusable. It reffers specificly to a 'bidding or play' which is withdrawn. The accidently exposed card doesn't belong to either catarogies. Regards, Marcel From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 9 21:30:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA27097 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 21:30:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail9.svr.pol.co.uk (mail9.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.22]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA27091 for ; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 21:30:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.92.197.25] (helo=mail17.svr.pol.co.uk) by mail9.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11Dncv-0000TB-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 12:30:01 +0100 Received: from modem-93.name15.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.136.167.93] helo=laphroaig) by mail17.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11Dnca-00061Z-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 12:29:41 +0100 Received: (from jeremy@localhost) by laphroaig (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA18977; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 12:28:03 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Known psychers and UI From: Jeremy Rickard Date: 09 Aug 1999 12:26:07 +0100 Message-ID: X-Mailer: Gnus v5.6.45/Emacs 20.3 Lines: 30 X-BadReturnPath: jeremy@laphroaig rewritten as j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk using "From" header Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A senior local (within EBU-land) Director came up with the following (hypothetical) justification for penalizing "known psychers" using the UI laws. Suppose the known psycher has, say, psyched a 1S opening, and his partner, with a close decision between 2S and 3S, chooses 2S. 2S scores better than 3S would have done. "The 2S bidder has the UI that his partner is a known psycher; this UI suggests 2S over the LA of 3S; therefore the 3S bid is illegal under the UI laws." He seemed to think that this was fairly standard, which surprised me. What worries me a little is that the same argument would make the 2S bid illegal, and subject to penalty, even if the known psycher hadn't psyched on this particular occasion. However, the argument seems quite logical if one accepts that the knowledge of partner's psyching proclivities is UI. Is it? It's certainly information that one is not allowed to use, but is that the same as UI? Comments? Jeremy. -- Jeremy Rickard Email: j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk WWW: http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 9 23:17:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA27479 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 23:17:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from alushta.NL.net (alushta.NL.net [193.78.240.22]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA27472 for ; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 23:17:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by alushta.NL.net with UUCP id <5055-7510>; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 15:16:09 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.8.2/8.8.2) with SMTP id OAA06234 for ; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 14:31:08 +0200 From: Martin Sinot To: Subject: RE: Excuse me if I demur Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 14:39:04 +0200 Message-ID: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3A8@XION> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A024468837588F3E@XION> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marcel Schoof wrote: > >> Norman H. Hostetler wrote: >> >> >     Law 24: "When the Director determines, during the auction, that >> > because of a player's ACTION [my emphasis] one or more cards of >> > that player's hand were in position for the face to be seen by his >> > partner...." >> >   >> >     Law 16C2: "For the offending side, information from its own >> > withdrawn ACTION [my emphasis] . . . is unauthorized." >> > >> > Restoring to one's hand a card exposed on the table is always a >> > "withdrawn action," whether or not the action occurred during the >> > play period.  I am assuming here that declarer has not elected to >> > make the exposed card a penalty card under Law 24, but see my >> > continuing problems with that position in #4.2 below. > >++I don't think Law 16C2 can be used when the card is being exposed without >the determination that is was played. When a player drops it accidently, >the header of L16C makes this IMO unusable. It reffers specificly to a >'bidding or play' which is withdrawn. >The accidently exposed card doesn't belong to either catarogies. An accidentally exposed card is certainly "information from partner transferred by other means than call or play". This kind of information is therefore subject to L16A. This means that partner of offender must act as if he hadn't seen the accidentally exposed card(s). It is not a withdrawn call or play, and hence not subject to L16C, but still UI. Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 9 23:48:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA27569 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 23:48:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.zeelandnet.nl (mail.zeelandnet.nl [62.12.12.194]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA27564 for ; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 23:48:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from poivideo-6266 (e35.zeelandnet.nl [62.12.16.35]) by mail.zeelandnet.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA05316 for ; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 15:48:33 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <199908091348.PAA05316@mail.zeelandnet.nl> From: "Marcel Schoof" To: Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 15:48:07 +0200 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I would say you're right at the point where partnership understanding is based of "known psyches", but if I could make a decision on MY knowledge that he's "a known psycher" and that 2S is illegal(see remarks below), the 1S bidding should be alerted. But when it is alerted there is no UI, so the problem doesn't exist. Marcel ---------- > Van: Jeremy Rickard > Aan: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Onderwerp: Known psychers and UI > Datum: maandag 9 augustus 1999 13:26 > > A senior local (within EBU-land) Director came up with the > following (hypothetical) justification for penalizing "known psychers" > using the UI laws. > > Suppose the known psycher has, say, psyched a 1S opening, and his > partner, with a close decision between 2S and 3S, chooses 2S. 2S > scores better than 3S would have done. > > "The 2S bidder has the UI that his partner is a known psycher; this UI > suggests 2S over the LA of 3S; therefore the 3S bid is illegal under > the UI laws." > ++ If 3S is the LA, why is it illegal? > He seemed to think that this was fairly standard, which surprised me. > > What worries me a little is that the same argument would make the 2S > bid illegal, and subject to penalty, even if the known psycher hadn't > psyched on this particular occasion. > > However, the argument seems quite logical if one accepts that the > knowledge of partner's psyching proclivities is UI. Is it? It's > certainly information that one is not allowed to use, but is that the > same as UI? > > Comments? > > Jeremy. > -- > Jeremy Rickard > Email: j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk > WWW: http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 10 01:32:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA27844 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 01:32:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.zeelandnet.nl (mail.zeelandnet.nl [62.12.12.194]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA27839 for ; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 01:32:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from poivideo-6266 (e172.zeelandnet.nl [62.12.16.172]) by mail.zeelandnet.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA23179 for ; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 17:32:37 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <199908091532.RAA23179@mail.zeelandnet.nl> From: "Marcel Schoof" To: Subject: Re: Excuse me if I demur Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 17:32:34 +0200 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I agree but IMO Norman tried to give another possibility to make such a card an UI, since the question was if L16A applied after the penalty (pass on first occasion) and the right for declarer to make it a penalty card have expiered. Marcel ---------- > Van: Martin Sinot > Aan: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Onderwerp: RE: Excuse me if I demur > Datum: maandag 9 augustus 1999 14:39 > > Marcel Schoof wrote: > > > >> Norman H. Hostetler wrote: > >> > >> >     Law 24: "When the Director determines, during the auction, that > >> > because of a player's ACTION [my emphasis] one or more cards of > >> > that player's hand were in position for the face to be seen by his > >> > partner...." > >> >   > >> >     Law 16C2: "For the offending side, information from its own > >> > withdrawn ACTION [my emphasis] . . . is unauthorized." > >> > > >> > Restoring to one's hand a card exposed on the table is always a > >> > "withdrawn action," whether or not the action occurred during the > >> > play period.  I am assuming here that declarer has not elected to > >> > make the exposed card a penalty card under Law 24, but see my > >> > continuing problems with that position in #4.2 below. > > > >++I don't think Law 16C2 can be used when the card is being exposed without > >the determination that is was played. When a player drops it accidently, > >the header of L16C makes this IMO unusable. It reffers specificly to a > >'bidding or play' which is withdrawn. > >The accidently exposed card doesn't belong to either catarogies. > > An accidentally exposed card is certainly "information from partner > transferred by other means than call or play". This kind of information > is therefore subject to L16A. This means that partner of offender must act > as if he hadn't seen the accidentally exposed card(s). It is not a > withdrawn call or play, and hence not subject to L16C, but still UI. > > Martin Sinot > martin@spase.nl > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 10 02:49:48 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA28136 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 02:49:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA28131 for ; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 02:49:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt092nb1.san.rr.com [204.210.48.177]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA27685 for ; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 09:49:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <0a0201bee286$d7ad33a0$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: ACBL LC Clarifies L45 Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 09:43:45 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The ACBL LC issued this interpretation of L45 at the San Antonio NABC. The Vancouver case referenced is the (in)famous O___S___! case. There has been considerable discussion concerning a ruling and appeal from Vancouver. The controversial decision involved Law 45 C4 (b) which describes the "Correction of an Inadvertent Designation" -- in this instance of a card called from dummy's hand by declarer. It is important to remember that this portion of Law 45 applies only to the call of a card from dummy. The play of a card from declarer's hand is covered by 45 C2. In order to clarify future decisions, the ACBL Laws Commission has agreed upon the following interpretations pertaining to declarer's change of play from dummy's hand. There are two general cases: The card played by dummy was NOT the one declarer called. In this case Law 45D applies. There is no problem with this interpretation as there is a clearly defined time beyond which a correction is not permitted -- after each side has played to the next trick. The card played was the one declarer called but declarer claims that the play was not intended (i.e., an "inadvertent" play). The Law [L45C4(b) -- mlf] reads, "A player may, without penalty, change an inadvertent designation if he does so without pause for thought...." While it may be difficult to identify an inadvertent action, it is sometimes easier to define what it is not. It is not a slip of the mind. For example, 1H - Pass - 4D (Splinter) - Pass: The opening bidder now thinks for a while, considering whether to make a slam try. He finally places the green card on the table. This is clearly a slip of the mind -- NOT INADVERTENT -- declarer did not pull the wrong (unintended) bidding card. An example of a change of mind is: Declarer leads toward the Ace/Queen in dummy, intending to finesse. He calls Queen without looking to see the card that LHO has played. He wants to change to the Ace. No matter how fast (without pause for thought) the change is made -- NOT INADVERTENT. In determining "inadvertent" the burden of proof (of inadvertency) is on the declarer. The standard of proof is "overwhelming." In judging "without pause for thought," if declarer has made a play after making an inadvertent designation from dummy, a "pause for thought" has occurred --no change in designation is to be permitted. If declarer's RHO has played and there is any reasonable possibility that information gained from RHO's play could suggest that declarer's play from dummy was a mistake, a "pause for thought" has occurred -- no change in designation is to be permitted. In determining that there was no "pause for thought," the director may judge so even though there has been a pause between the inadvertency and the indication by the player committing the inadvertent action. There should be no pause, however, between the awareness of the inadvertent action and drawing attention to it. The bottom line is that there is to be a strong presumption that the card called is the card that was intended to be called. ############################# It seems to me that this interpretation should be forwarded to the WBF LC for confirmation. If confirmed, the WBF LC should adopt it, and promulgate it along with its own interpretations on the next go-round. If not confirmed, it should be corrected as necessary (after appropriate delicate negotiations, of course) before promulgation. I am not qualified to comment on the quality of this interpretation, but am sure that others will have opinions to offer. Will look forward to reading them. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 10 03:26:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA28200 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 03:19:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.16]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA28195 for ; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 03:19:20 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id MAA07343; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 12:18:27 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa5-183.ix.netcom.com(206.217.132.183) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma007240; Mon Aug 9 12:17:40 1999 Message-ID: <004c01bee28b$b0f17be0$b784d9ce@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Bridge Laws discussion group" , "Linda Trent" Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 13:21:58 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Please, a player (singular) cannot change "their" (plural) call. His call is good English; his or her is both politically and grammatically correct (if slightly redundant). If I could choose their call(s), none of my opponents auctions would be so smooth and deadly. :-)) -- Craig Senior From: Linda Trent I have proposed that the following language be added: > >Players are permitted to seek the agreement of their opponents that a >significant break in tempo has occurred. This should be done at the >player’s next turn to call and before the player chooses their call >Failing to reach such an agreement, the Director must be summoned at once. > >Linda > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 10 03:57:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA28274 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 03:57:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail15.svr.pol.co.uk (mail15.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.25]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA28268 for ; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 03:57:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.92.197.25] (helo=mail17.svr.pol.co.uk) by mail15.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11DtfR-0004EM-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 18:57:01 +0100 Received: from modem-9.name75.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.136.197.9] helo=laphroaig) by mail17.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11Dtf2-0000jI-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 18:56:36 +0100 Received: (from jeremy@localhost) by laphroaig (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA20383; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 17:42:58 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI References: <199908091348.PAA05316@mail.zeelandnet.nl> From: Jeremy Rickard Date: 09 Aug 1999 17:40:16 +0100 In-Reply-To: "Marcel Schoof"'s message of "Mon, 9 Aug 1999 15:48:07 +0200" Message-ID: X-Mailer: Gnus v5.6.45/Emacs 20.3 Lines: 17 X-BadReturnPath: jeremy@laphroaig rewritten as j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk using "From" header Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Marcel Schoof" writes: > > Van: Jeremy Rickard > > "The 2S bidder has the UI that his partner is a known psycher; this UI > > suggests 2S over the LA of 3S; therefore the 3S bid is illegal under > > the UI laws." > > > > ++ If 3S is the LA, why is it illegal? Sorry. That should read "... therefore the 2S bid is illegal ..." -- Jeremy Rickard Email: j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk WWW: http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 10 03:57:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA28281 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 03:57:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail11.svr.pol.co.uk (mail11.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.23]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA28275 for ; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 03:57:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.92.197.25] (helo=mail17.svr.pol.co.uk) by mail11.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11DtfZ-0001qY-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 18:57:09 +0100 Received: from modem-9.name75.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.136.197.9] helo=laphroaig) by mail17.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11Dtf3-0000jI-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 18:56:37 +0100 Received: (from jeremy@localhost) by laphroaig (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA19676; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 15:58:38 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI References: <199908091348.PAA05316@mail.zeelandnet.nl> From: Jeremy Rickard Date: 09 Aug 1999 15:58:38 +0100 In-Reply-To: "Marcel Schoof"'s message of "Mon, 9 Aug 1999 15:48:07 +0200" Message-ID: Lines: 17 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.6.45/Emacs 20.3 X-BadReturnPath: jeremy@laphroaig rewritten as j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk using "From" header Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Marcel Schoof" writes: > > Van: Jeremy Rickard > > > > "The 2S bidder has the UI that his partner is a known psycher; this UI > > suggests 2S over the LA of 3S; therefore the 3S bid is illegal under > > the UI laws." > > > > ++ If 3S is the LA, why is it illegal? Sorry. I meant the 2S bid. -- Jeremy Rickard Email: j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk WWW: http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 10 04:31:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA28467 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 04:31:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA28462 for ; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 04:31:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt092nb1.san.rr.com [204.210.48.177]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA21688 for ; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 11:30:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <0a2401bee294$ffd2e100$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <37ABDBDA.7F004F7A@navix.net> Subject: Re: Excuse me if I demur Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 11:22:44 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Norman H. Hostetler wrote: >> Law 24: "When the Director determines, during the auction, that >> because of a player's ACTION [my emphasis] one or more cards of >> that player's hand were in position for the face to be seen by his >> partner...." >> >> Law 16C2: "For the offending side, information from its own >> withdrawn ACTION [my emphasis] . . . is unauthorized." Nah, won't work. L16C2 covers withdrawn *calls or plays*, not withdrawn exposed cards. You have to fit your position into L16A, in which the examples given suggest it should not be applied to a card exposed during the auction. Besides, L24 was written to cover the situation entirely, with augmenting references where appropriate. L16 is not referenced. > >> Restoring to one's hand a card exposed on the table is always a >> "withdrawn action," whether or not the action occurred during the >> play period. I am assuming here that declarer has not elected to >> make the exposed card a penalty card under Law 24, but see my >> continuing problems with that position in #4.2 below. > Fine. So that solves the UI problem. It was never believable that a > card exposed in the auction in this way could be AI to partner, but this > makes it clear that it is not. It wasn't believable, until you look at the difficulties in determining what calls might be "demonstrably suggested" by the exposed card. I think that consideration is what led the lawmakers to prescribe a tough penalty (partner must pass at his next turn) instead of merely referencing L16. This penalty is so drastic that they also considered it okay if, having paid the prescribed penalty, the information about the card(s) is AI. During the play, of course, a play might easily be "demonstrably suggested," but all the declarer has to do to preclude that is to treat the exposed card as a penalty card, making it UI. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 10 05:22:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA28570 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 05:22:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from dmitri.ucdavis.edu (IDENT:root@dmitri.ucdavis.edu [169.237.66.29]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA28565 for ; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 05:22:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from dmitri (dave@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dmitri.ucdavis.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA08436 for ; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 12:36:16 -0700 From: David Cutler Reply-To: djcutler@ucdavis.edu To: Subject: Re: ACBL LC Clarifies L45 Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 12:03:08 -0700 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.17] Content-Type: text/plain MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <99080912361600.08413@dmitri> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-KMail-Mark: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk First: Thanks Marv for posting the ACBL LC clarification of L45. Second: Although I thought the clarification helpful, it seems to have only addressed one of the two major "legal" questions raised in the "(in)famous O___S___! case." As I recall the facts: 1) Declarer is in a small slam contract. 2) LHO leads and wins an Ace at trick one. 3) LHO leads a trump at trick two, RHO opponent discards a spade 3a) The next 11 tricks are cold. 4) Declarer says "a spade" 5) Dummy leads a spade. 6) RHO produces the King. 7) Declarer says "O___S___". 8) Declarer concedes this trick, and claims the next 10, for down one. 9) Dummy calls the director (or perhaps convinces Declarer to call), and (4) is argued to have been an inadvertent call. Please correct me if these facts are mistaken. As I recall, the AC write-up found that "a spade" had been an inadvertent designation, in that declarer had intended to call for a trump, but the word "spade" came out, a sort of "slip of the tongue". Also, as I recall, dummy argued either on r.g.b or this mailing list, that "a spade" had not been a call for a card at all. Declarer was merely noting to herself -- out loud -- that a spade had been discarded, and dummy had mistaken her "talking to herself" as a request for him to play a card. In any case, the clarification squarely places the burden of proof for either interpretation on declarer. Moreover, the clarification certainly helps with the definition of "pause for thought." Nevertheless, there was another issue raised by this case, that the clarification didn't help (at least in my mind). Namely, is saying "O___S___" equivalent to drawing attention to an inadvertent play, and immediately calling the director? In other words, is declarer entitled to redress even if the director is not called, and declarer did not state explicitly that an inadvertent designation occurred. Moreover, if declarer failed to call the director because she was unaware of her rights under L45, does this effect her ability to obtain redress? These are questions of law (as opposed to fact) and, in my mind, these still need clarification. Thanks, dave cutler From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 10 06:06:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA28633 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 06:06:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (mailhub.irvine.com [192.160.8.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA28628 for ; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 06:06:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA04104; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 13:05:58 -0700 Message-Id: <199908092005.NAA04104@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: ACBL LC Clarifies L45 In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 09 Aug 1999 12:03:08 PDT." <99080912361600.08413@dmitri> Date: Mon, 09 Aug 1999 13:05:58 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Cutler wrote: > Second: Although I thought the clarification helpful, it seems to have only > addressed one of the two major "legal" questions raised in the "(in)famous O___S___! > case." As I recall the facts: > > 1) Declarer is in a small slam contract. > 2) LHO leads and wins an Ace at trick one. > 3) LHO leads a trump at trick two, RHO opponent discards a spade The Appeal report doesn't say what the opponent discarded. In the most recent ACBL Bulletin, a letter from Robb Gordon (one of the committee members) said that RHO discarded a spade (and that declarer was noting to herself out loud that a spade had been discarded); however, the Bulletin commented at the end of this letter that Wolff and Morse (the opponents) said the discard was a diamond. > 3a) The next 11 tricks are cold. > 4) Declarer says "a spade" > 5) Dummy leads a spade. > 6) RHO produces the King. > 7) Declarer says "O___S___". > 8) Declarer concedes this trick, and claims the next 10, for down one. > 9) Dummy calls the director (or perhaps convinces Declarer to call), and (4) is > argued to have been an inadvertent call. > > Please correct me if these facts are mistaken. > > As I recall, the AC write-up found that "a spade" had been an inadvertent > designation, in that declarer had intended to call for a trump, but the word > "spade" came out, a sort of "slip of the tongue". Also, as I recall, dummy > argued either on r.g.b or this mailing list, that "a spade" had not been a call > for a card at all. Declarer was merely noting to herself -- out loud -- that > a spade had been discarded, and dummy had mistaken her "talking to > herself" as a request for him to play a card. In any case, the clarification > squarely places the burden of proof for either interpretation on declarer. > Moreover, the clarification certainly helps with the definition of "pause for > thought." > > Nevertheless, there was another issue raised by this case, that the > clarification didn't help (at least in my mind). Namely, is saying "O___S___" > equivalent to drawing attention to an inadvertent play, and immediately calling > the director? I think most directors would resent the idea that saying "Oh s---" is the equivalent of calling the director. For some directors, however, the designation may be appropriate. :) However, I think the real question behind your question is, how far should we go to give the protection of the Laws to those who don't know the Laws well enough to seek protection? If the player in question was demonstrably knowledgeable enough of the Laws that they should have known to call the director in this case (or even to try to correct the card immediately), I don't see any reason for redress. However, if declarer wasn't aware that she could correct the inadvertent play, is that just too damn bad, or do we try to be forgiving? Personally, I don't think it should be necessary for players to know every detail of the Law, but certainly we can require players to know some of the Laws (e.g. the Law that one must follow suit, and the Law that requires players to call the Director when an irregularity happens). Regarding this specific case, I can sympathize with both the "if she wasn't aware of that Law, it's her fault" and the "try to protect players who don't know the Laws" sides; but I suspect the Laws themselves actually favor the former. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 10 06:40:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA28725 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 06:40:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.16]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA28720 for ; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 06:39:56 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id PAA08585; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 15:38:41 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa5-183.ix.netcom.com(206.217.132.183) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma008481; Mon Aug 9 15:37:59 1999 Message-ID: <007001bee2a7$ade16c00$b784d9ce@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: , Subject: Re: ACBL LC Clarifies L45 Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 16:42:18 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I think it somewhat important that not only was it dummy who called the director but that this did not occur until after the hand was complete and some time for reflection had been available. There has been much written about Vancouver 5...perhaps Marv or someone with better computer skills can paste in the case if we are going to rehash it again for those of us whose memories are imperfect. I still wonder why there was never a mention of a ZT violation in this case as well considering the language...why couldn't a phrase such as "I didn't mean to call a spade" be appended to the expletive if not replace it? The mere use of the expletive seems to express an irritation along the line of "how stupid of me to shoot myself in the foot this way through my carelessness" rather than "that isn't what I meant to say" or "did I say a spade?" or even "why the (another expletive deleted) did you play a #%$@% spade partner when I was calling for a trump." Of course you had to have been there to read it right...it's a shame the TD was not, either at the time or immediately after before everyone had enough time to rationalise. -- Craig Senior -----Original Message----- From: David Cutler To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Monday, August 09, 1999 3:22 PM Subject: Re: ACBL LC Clarifies L45 >First: Thanks Marv for posting the ACBL LC clarification of L45. > >Second: Although I thought the clarification helpful, it seems to have only >addressed one of the two major "legal" questions raised in the "(in)famous O___S___! >case." As I recall the facts: > >1) Declarer is in a small slam contract. >2) LHO leads and wins an Ace at trick one. >3) LHO leads a trump at trick two, RHO opponent discards a spade > 3a) The next 11 tricks are cold. >4) Declarer says "a spade" >5) Dummy leads a spade. >6) RHO produces the King. >7) Declarer says "O___S___". >8) Declarer concedes this trick, and claims the next 10, for down one. >9) Dummy calls the director (or perhaps convinces Declarer to call), and (4) is >argued to have been an inadvertent call. > >Please correct me if these facts are mistaken. > >As I recall, the AC write-up found that "a spade" had been an inadvertent >designation, in that declarer had intended to call for a trump, but the word >"spade" came out, a sort of "slip of the tongue". Also, as I recall, dummy >argued either on r.g.b or this mailing list, that "a spade" had not been a call >for a card at all. Declarer was merely noting to herself -- out loud -- that >a spade had been discarded, and dummy had mistaken her "talking to >herself" as a request for him to play a card. In any case, the clarification >squarely places the burden of proof for either interpretation on declarer. >Moreover, the clarification certainly helps with the definition of "pause for >thought." > >Nevertheless, there was another issue raised by this case, that the >clarification didn't help (at least in my mind). Namely, is saying "O___S___" >equivalent to drawing attention to an inadvertent play, and immediately calling >the director? In other words, is declarer entitled to redress even if >the director is not called, and declarer did not state explicitly that an >inadvertent designation occurred. Moreover, if declarer failed to call the >director because she was unaware of her rights under L45, does this effect her >ability to obtain redress? > >These are questions of law (as opposed to fact) and, in my mind, these still >need clarification. > >Thanks, >dave cutler > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 10 07:23:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA28858 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 07:23:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net (gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.121.85]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA28852 for ; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 07:23:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from ivillage (ip108.kansas-city4.mo.pub-ip.psi.net [38.27.35.108]) by gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA22959 for ; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 14:22:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <4.1.19990809160803.00976900@mail.earthlink.net> Message-Id: <4.1.19990809160803.00976900@mail.earthlink.net> Message-Id: <4.1.19990809160803.00976900@mail.earthlink.net> X-Sender: baresch@mail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Mon, 09 Aug 1999 16:22:28 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Brian Baresch Subject: Re: ACBL LC Clarifies L45 In-Reply-To: <99080912361600.08413@dmitri> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Second: Although I thought the clarification helpful, it seems to have only >addressed one of the two major "legal" questions raised in the "(in)famous >O___S___! >case." As I recall the facts: > >1) Declarer is in a small slam contract. >2) LHO leads and wins an Ace at trick one. >3) LHO leads a trump at trick two, RHO opponent discards a spade > 3a) The next 11 tricks are cold. The online version of the Daily Bulletin states that declarer won the first two tricks in side suits then played a trump, RHO discarding. Judging from the Daily Bulletin interchange this month, it's not agreed what RHO discarded. At this point 12 tricks are cold if declarer draws trump, but the spade was played, and RHO won the King and gave partner a heart ruff for down one. Brian Baresch, baresch@earthlink.net Lawrence, Kansas, USA Editing, writing, proofreading bearcat on OKB From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 10 07:40:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA28903 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 07:40:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp2.mindspring.com (smtp2.mindspring.com [207.69.200.32]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA28898 for ; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 07:40:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivegq0.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.67.64]) by smtp2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA32683 for ; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 17:40:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990809173821.01245448@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 09 Aug 1999 17:38:21 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:26 PM 8/9/99 +0100, Jeremy wrote: >However, the argument seems quite logical if one accepts that the >knowledge of partner's psyching proclivities is UI. Is it? It's >certainly information that one is not allowed to use, but is that the >same as UI? > I don't accept that it is "information that one is not allowed to use." As long as the opponents have been notified about any unusual tendency, such as very frequent psyching of opening bids, there is no legal obstacle to incorporating this knowledge into bidding decisions. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 10 08:14:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA28985 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 08:14:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA28978 for ; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 08:14:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt092nb1.san.rr.com [204.210.48.177]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA01464 for ; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 15:13:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <0a4901bee2b4$1fdcb060$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws discussion group" References: <004c01bee28b$b0f17be0$b784d9ce@host> Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 15:10:58 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote, >Please, a player (singular) cannot change "their" (plural) call. His call is >good English; his or her is both politically and grammatically correct (if >slightly redundant). If I could choose their call(s), none of my opponents >auctions would be so smooth and deadly. :-)) >From: Linda Trent >> I have proposed that the following language be added: > >>Players are permitted to seek the agreement of their opponents that a >>significant break in tempo has occurred. This should be done at the >>player's next turn to call and before the player chooses their call >>Failing to reach such an agreement, the Director must be summoned at once. > The myth that a pronoun must always agree in number with its antecedent is beloved of schoolmarms and other such. While the singular use of "they," "their," and "them" is inappropriate in a formal document, and may be a blunder when it doesn't convey the writer's intent, it has been freely used by great writers, including Goldsmith, Fielding, Thackeray ("A person can't help their birth"), Bernard Shaw, and Ruskin ("I am never angry with anyone unless they deserve it"). Besides avoiding the awkward use of "his or her," "he or she," etc., or worse, using a masculine pronoun generically, the plural pronoun has many good uses in its own right: A young lady will say, "I had company last night, and they didn't leave until one in the morning." The hearer knows the "company" was a single male suitor, and that the lady has used "they" in order to avoid the connotations associated with using a masculine pronoun in this context. When sex is unimportant, almost everyone uses "they." "You had a call from the school about Johnny's behavior." "What did they say?" Is that bad English, even though standard English? The generic use of the male pronoun in place of "his or her" is an abomination. Imagine addressing a group of women in a lecture hall, and saying, "Everyone will please open her textbook now to page 72." Then noticing that there is a solitary male among them, correcting the instruction to "Everyone will please open his textbook..." Nobody in their right mind would object to Linda's usage :)) Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 10 09:05:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA29101 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 09:05:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (mailout1-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.81]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA29096 for ; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 09:05:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.37] by mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 19:05:22 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199908092005.NAA04104@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Your message of "Mon, 09 Aug 1999 12:03:08 PDT." <99080912361600.08413@dmitri> Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 18:54:35 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: ACBL LC Clarifies L45 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 4:05 PM -0400 8/9/99, Adam Beneschan wrote: >Personally, I don't think it should be necessary for >players to know every detail of the Law, but certainly we can require >players to know some of the Laws (e.g. the Law that one must follow >suit, and the Law that requires players to call the Director when an >irregularity happens). Regarding this specific case, I can sympathize >with both the "if she wasn't aware of that Law, it's her fault" and >the "try to protect players who don't know the Laws" sides; but I >suspect the Laws themselves actually favor the former. I don't buy it. I think the Laws, or perhaps more accurately the Lawmakers, assume that the Laws will be applied fairly and equally to all, and that ignorance of the Law is neither an excuse for commission of an irregularity nor a reason to deny a player the protection of the Laws. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2 iQA/AwUBN69erb2UW3au93vOEQKd9QCfWcCvb4q7tacayADj66ndBsuDJrkAoNab uZAEj80VLcSQAI0Yhm92/NKI =cZQ6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 10 09:26:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA29214 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 09:26:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA29204 for ; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 09:26:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.47] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11Dynz-000514-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 00:26:11 +0100 Message-ID: <005101bee2be$8e637960$995208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 00:13:18 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 09 August 1999 23:06 Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI >At 12:26 PM 8/9/99 +0100, Jeremy wrote: > >>However, the argument seems quite logical if one accepts that the >>knowledge of partner's psyching proclivities is UI. Is it? It's >>certainly information that one is not allowed to use, but is that the >>same as UI? >> >I don't accept that it is "information that one is not allowed to use." As >long as the opponents have been notified about any unusual tendency, such >as very frequent psyching of opening bids, there is no legal obstacle to >incorporating this knowledge into bidding decisions. > +++ ++ I quote from the EBL commentary on the 1987 laws: " Some convention cards provide for partnerships to indicate the frequency with which the players are in the habit of psyching. Where this is the case the information should distinguish between the two members of the partnership if it is the case that one of the partners psyches noticeably more often than the other (e.g. Mr Endicott rarely psyches but Mr. Hansen psyches very often; or Mr. ... psyches but Mrs. ... does not). Where such information is provided on the convention card it must be understood by the Director and the players that the information is "authorized" for the opponents but NOT for the partnership itself." It may be noted that before this text was published there was consultation with Edgar Kaplan who concurred in the statement, adding that the partner must act upon the announced meaning of the call until the lie is exposed in the course of the auction/play. ~ Grattan ~ ++ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 10 09:26:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA29213 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 09:26:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA29203 for ; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 09:26:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.47] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11Dyny-000514-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 00:26:10 +0100 Message-ID: <005001bee2be$8db3ff80$995208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: ACBL LC Clarifies L45 Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 23:47:47 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: djcutler@ucdavis.edu ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 09 August 1999 22:22 Subject: Re: ACBL LC Clarifies L45 --------------------------------------- \x/ ------------------------------ >The >mere use of the expletive seems to express an irritation along the line of >"how stupid of me to shoot myself in the foot this way through my >carelessness" rather than "that isn't what I meant to say" or "did I say a >spade?" or even "why the (another expletive deleted) did you play a #%$@% >spade partner when I was calling for a trump." Of course you had to have >been there to read it right...it's a shame the TD was not, either at the >time or immediately after before everyone had enough time to rationalise. -----------------------------------\x/--------------------------- ++ My first thought was that the lady was probably saying "Oh tut! what a stupid girl I am! I just did not pay attention to the risk." The same thought has remained with me constantly, and abides. ~Grattan~ ++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 10 09:37:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA29279 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 09:37:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from acsys.anu.edu.au (acsys [150.203.20.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA29273 for ; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 09:37:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from accordion (acsys-temp1.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.65]) by acsys.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA15230; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 09:37:15 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19990810093717.009f1c30@acsys.anu.edu.au> X-Sender: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 09:37:17 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Markus Buchhorn Subject: ADMINTrivia - Eric Landau Cc: elandau@cais.cais.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi All Sorry for the intrusion, but I was wondering if anybody had a reliable path to reach Eric Landau. His email has been bouncing chronically for the last two weeks now, and messages to every postmaster at CAIS has met with zero response or improvement. Not one of the great ISPs, clearly. Please reply directly to me, or ask Eric to subscribe via another address if possible (or at least to have a whinge at CAIS). Now back to the fray ! Cheers, Markus Markus Buchhorn, Advanced Computational Systems CRC | Ph: +61 2 62798810 email: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au, snail: ACSys, RSISE Bldg,|Fax: +61 2 62798602 Australian National University, Canberra 0200, Australia |Mobile: 0417 281429 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 10 10:04:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA29375 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 10:04:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA29370 for ; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 10:04:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11DzOS-000FbA-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 00:03:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 22:48:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Excuse me if I demur References: <37ABDBDA.7F004F7A@navix.net> <0a2401bee294$ffd2e100$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <0a2401bee294$ffd2e100$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> Norman H. Hostetler wrote: > >>> Law 24: "When the Director determines, during the auction, >that >>> because of a player's ACTION [my emphasis] one or more cards >of >>> that player's hand were in position for the face to be seen by >his >>> partner...." >>> >>> Law 16C2: "For the offending side, information from its own >>> withdrawn ACTION [my emphasis] . . . is unauthorized." > >Nah, won't work. L16C2 covers withdrawn *calls or plays*, not >withdrawn exposed cards. You have to fit your position into L16A, in >which the examples given suggest it should not be applied to a card >exposed during the auction. Besides, L24 was written to cover the >situation entirely, with augmenting references where appropriate. >L16 is not referenced. RTFLB. RTFLB. RTFLB. .... Write out one hundred times. OK, for my last answer I just agreed too casually with someone else's quote, and I forgot to look it up myself. Marvin is correct, wash out L16C. The quoted part of L16C was only part, and it clearly does not apply from reading the rest. >>> Restoring to one's hand a card exposed on the table is always >a >>> "withdrawn action," whether or not the action occurred during >the >>> play period. I am assuming here that declarer has not elected >to >>> make the exposed card a penalty card under Law 24, but see my >>> continuing problems with that position in #4.2 below. >> Fine. So that solves the UI problem. It was never believable >that a >> card exposed in the auction in this way could be AI to partner, >but this >> makes it clear that it is not. > >It wasn't believable, until you look at the difficulties in >determining what calls might be "demonstrably suggested" by the >exposed card. I think that consideration is what led the lawmakers >to prescribe a tough penalty (partner must pass at his next turn) >instead of merely referencing L16. This penalty is so drastic that >they also considered it okay if, having paid the prescribed penalty, >the information about the card(s) is AI. During the play, of course, >a play might easily be "demonstrably suggested," but all the >declarer has to do to preclude that is to treat the exposed card as >a penalty card, making it UI. I am never convinced that these obscure positions were seen by the lawmakers. It is very difficult to do so, however good they are, and if they really had seen the position I would expect to see a direct reference rather than a lack of a reference being given as evidence of something. In other words, L24 should make it clear whether it is UI or AI, and failure to reference L16A is not enough. My opinion? We apply L16A. But I agree that it is not clear and I would accept an interpretation that makes it AI. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 10 11:47:38 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA29580 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 11:47:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA29575 for ; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 11:47:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11E10Z-0009ss-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 01:47:21 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 02:17:19 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: ACBL LC Clarifies L45 References: <99080912361600.08413@dmitri> In-Reply-To: <99080912361600.08413@dmitri> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Cutler wrote: >Second: Although I thought the clarification helpful, it seems to have only >addressed one of the two major "legal" questions raised in the "(in)famous >O___S___! >case." As I recall the facts: > >1) Declarer is in a small slam contract. >2) LHO leads and wins an Ace at trick one. >3) LHO leads a trump at trick two, RHO opponent discards a spade > 3a) The next 11 tricks are cold. >4) Declarer says "a spade" >5) Dummy leads a spade. >6) RHO produces the King. >7) Declarer says "O___S___". >8) Declarer concedes this trick, and claims the next 10, for down one. >9) Dummy calls the director (or perhaps convinces Declarer to call), and (4) is >argued to have been an inadvertent call. > >Please correct me if these facts are mistaken. As other posters have noted, there seems some doubt as to the discard in 3). >As I recall, the AC write-up found that "a spade" had been an inadvertent >designation, in that declarer had intended to call for a trump, but the word >"spade" came out, a sort of "slip of the tongue". The AC decided by a majority that it was inadvertent. > Also, as I recall, dummy >argued either on r.g.b or this mailing list, that "a spade" had not been a call >for a card at all. Declarer was merely noting to herself -- out loud -- that >a spade had been discarded, and dummy had mistaken her "talking to >herself" as a request for him to play a card. This is the first that I have heard of this. However, it does not seem relevant: the TD and AC were best placed to make a judgement as to whether the call was inadvertent. > In any case, the clarification >squarely places the burden of proof for either interpretation on declarer. >Moreover, the clarification certainly helps with the definition of "pause for >thought." > >Nevertheless, there was another issue raised by this case, that the >clarification didn't help (at least in my mind). Namely, is saying "O___S___" >equivalent to drawing attention to an inadvertent play, and immediately calling >the director? It is not the accepted method of calling the Director. Unless the Director is Mr Shit, I would not advise this method. OK, let's be serious, either she was drawing attention to an infraction that required a Director call, or she wasn't. Let me ask you a question, was declarer a total beginner? No? Then she knows that if there was an infraction, you call the Director. > In other words, is declarer entitled to redress even if >the director is not called, and declarer did not state explicitly that an >inadvertent designation occurred. Moreover, if declarer failed to call the >director because she was unaware of her rights under L45, does this effect her >ability to obtain redress? Yes, it does affect her rights. You may change an inadvertent designation if you do so [or attempt to do so] without pause for thought. She paused - at least until the end of the hand [about a trick later I believe]. There is nothing in the Law that extends that period because of ignorance of the Law. Are you suggesting she attempted to change it? But, she didn't, you know. There are various interpretations of what she said, and a charitable one was that it meant "I have been silly and not played the card I meant!" But that is still not an attempt to change. >These are questions of law (as opposed to fact) and, in my mind, these still >need clarification. Unfortunately, it seems to have been lost in all the shenanigans, the fact that the Law requires a change or attempt to change without pause for thought for a card to be changed. There was a pause, ergo, no change is permitted. The Law does *not* say that the pause does not count if declarer does not know that you call the TD when you have a problem. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 10 13:26:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA29750 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 13:26:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.74]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA29745 for ; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 13:26:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from mindspring.com (pool-207-205-156-47.lsan.grid.net [207.205.156.47]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA25808 for ; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 23:26:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <37AF9C98.80079330@mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 09 Aug 1999 20:29:28 -0700 From: "John R. Mayne" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI References: <005101bee2be$8e637960$995208c3@swhki5i6> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > Grattan - - - - - - - - - > "A big man is always willing to be little > and a small man to belittle. " -with ack to R W Emerson > ======================================== ==== > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael S. Dennis > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Date: 09 August 1999 23:06 > Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI > > >At 12:26 PM 8/9/99 +0100, Jeremy wrote: > > > >>However, the argument seems quite logical if one accepts that the > >>knowledge of partner's psyching proclivities is UI. Is it? It's > >>certainly information that one is not allowed to use, but is that the > >>same as UI? > >> > >I don't accept that it is "information that one is not allowed to use." As > >long as the opponents have been notified about any unusual tendency, such > >as very frequent psyching of opening bids, there is no legal obstacle to > >incorporating this knowledge into bidding decisions. > > > +++ ++ I quote from the EBL commentary on the 1987 laws: > " Some convention cards provide for partnerships to > indicate the frequency with which the players are in the habit > of psyching. Where this is the case the information should > distinguish between the two members of the partnership > if it is the case that one of the partners psyches noticeably > more often than the other (e.g. Mr Endicott rarely psyches > but Mr. Hansen psyches very often; or Mr. ... psyches but > Mrs. ... does not). Where such information is provided on > the convention card it must be understood by the Director > and the players that the information is "authorized" for the > opponents but NOT for the partnership itself." Humph. Are you saying that the fact that one of my partners has *never* psyched in five years, but sometimes makes errors from forgetting is UI to me? Or, let's take the case of a pair I once played against. The auction proceeded 1H by A, overcall of 1S, to B: ATx KQxx AKQx xx. B rolled the hand all the way to 4H, figuring his partner had psyched. (They psyched a lot.) After going +510, they got to the next one. I agree that the burden of proof should be very strong when a field works. But I think fielding prior to absolute knowledge should be legal if you can demonstrate that you also misfield at an appropriate rate. --JRM > > It may be noted that before this text was published > there was consultation with Edgar Kaplan who concurred > in the statement, adding that the partner must act upon the > announced meaning of the call until the lie is exposed in the > course of the auction/play. ~ Grattan ~ ++ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 10 13:40:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA29774 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 13:40:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.rdc1.sfba.home.com (imail@ha1.rdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.0.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA29769 for ; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 13:39:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from home.com ([24.1.92.56]) by mail.rdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with ESMTP id <19990810033933.XOMO8807.mail.rdc1.sfba.home.com@home.com>; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 20:39:33 -0700 Message-ID: <37AF9EAE.3AAC3A33@home.com> Date: Mon, 09 Aug 1999 20:38:22 -0700 From: Michael Nistler Reply-To: nistler@home.com Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en]C-AtHome0404 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: djcutler@ucdavis.edu CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL LC Clarifies L45 References: <99080912361600.08413@dmitri> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A few points to clarify the NABC Vancouver Appeals Case 5 ruling: Reference - http://home.worldcom.ch/~fsb/99vanapp.html Also see: Bridge Bulletins 6/99 pg 63, 7/99 pg 102 Prior BLML correspondence (see bottom of EMAIL) Summary: Vancouver Committee members Bob Schwartz and Ed Lazarus (dissenting votes), NAC Chairman Jon Brissman, ACBL Appeals Admin, all agree that Appeals Case 5 had the wrong outcome. It is generally agreed that L45 was written to make a marked distinction between a card played from Declarers hand (L45C2) -- once it's faced, it's played, NO MATTER WHAT -- and a card called by the Declarer (L45C4b). If the Declarer meant to call one card but SAID another, that's inadvertent(L45C4b). If the Declarer's mind was thinking of another trick and calls a card in that scenario, it's not inadvertent. However, if the Declarer MEANT to call one card but SAID another, that's inadvertent. I'm sure we've all seen Declarer's make an illogical Dummy call (not following a suit, calling a non-existent card, etc.) This seems to address the spirit and intent of L45. However, Marvin French seemed to have said it much more eloquently than I. Michael Nistler nistler@home.com --------------- Board: 4 Dealer: West Vul: Both Joanna Stansby S Q 6 H A 8 5 2 D -- C A K 8 6 5 3 2 Dan Morse Bobby Wolff S K 7 2 N S J 9 5 3 H J 10 6 4 3 W + E H 7 D A 8 5 4 3 S D Q 10 7 6 2 C -- C J 9 7 Michael Shuster S A 10 8 4 H K Q 9 D K J 9 C Q 10 4 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass 1C Pass 3NT(1) Pass 4C Pass 4H Pass 6C All Pass (1) Alerted; 13-15 The Facts: The contract was 6C. The play went as follows: H7 to the king, D9 to the ace and ruffed, low club to dummy's queen. At this point North said "low spade" which dummy played. The SK was played in tempo, at which point North appeared stunned, and said "oh sh__." Play continued. East received his heart ruff; down one. At the end of the hand, dummy suggested that the Director be called, as North had meant to call low club, and there could be some restitution. The Director was called, and after consultation with the other Directors, ruled under law 45C4(b) that North misspoke (a slip of the tongue). Law 45C4(b) states in part: "A player may, without penalty, change an inadvertent designation if he does so without pause for thought." As the law allows an inadvertent card called from dummy to be withdrawn even if the next player has played to the trick, the Director ruled that the (apparently) inadvertent call could be withdrawn and replaced by the call she had intended. The contract was changed to 6C made six, plus 1370. The Committee Decision: The Committee first considered the evidence as to whether the call had been an error in play or an inadvertent (slip of tongue) call. Two significant points of evidence favored the slip of the tongue interpretation. 1. At this stage of play there were 12 top tricks. Declarer had no apparent reason to be playing a low spade at this time, but was virtually certain to be planning on drawing trumps. 2. When the SK was played, the declarer appeared stunned and said "oh sh__." The Committee believed that those words would not be said by someone who had just found the SK onside, but rather by someone who had just realized that the wrong suit had been played from dummy. The Committee therefore decided that the call of "low spade" was inadvertent. The Committee asked the Screening Director for the Laws Commission interpretation of Law 45C. He stated that "pause for thought" means "change of mind." No time frame for the change of call is specified, other than without significant time for thought. The key part of the interpretation is that the time for thought begins only AFTER the player realizes that an inadvertency has occurred. In this case the "oh sh__" was after a short pause after the SK was played. The Committee explored whether or not rights were forfeited by waiting until the hand was over before calling the Director. The Screening Director assured the Committee that failure to know the law in this case did not cause forfeiture of rights and therefore, although calling the Director earlier would have been better, it did not cause loss of rights. During the discussion, it was noted that the law is quite different with respect to a play from declarer's hand (Law 45C2). A declarer's card must be detached from his hand and ". . . held face up, touching or nearly touching the table, or maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played" to be judged played in spite of his intent to the contrary. Note that declarer cannot change a card played from hand even though it was played inadvertently. Dissenting Opinion (Ed Lazarus): Law 45C4(b), correction of an inadvertent designation, states in the relevant part: " . . . a player may, without penalty, change an inadvertent designation if he does so without pause for thought . . ." The law is made to protect people from an inadvertent card designation, but not a change of mind. It is not made to protect people when their brains disconnect or from losing their minds, but is only to protect them specifically from a mechanical error. Here, a low spade was played, the SK was played by East, then, after a short pause, declarer realized that she should have played a club instead of a spade. This seemed to represent a change of mind rather than a correction of an inadvertent error made without pause for thought. I would have decided that the play at the table stood and changed the contract to 6C down one, plus 100 for E/W. Dissenting Opinion (Bob Schwartz): The majority view in this case was that no competent player would play a low spade once 12 tricks were clearly established. They further determined that when declarer "mispoke" by calling for a low spade, RHO played the king, and declarer paused and then said, "oh sh_" that declarer had still not "paused for thought." Further, declarer then conceded down one. Mistakes do happen at all levels of bridge. If declarer had inadvertently played the low spade from her hand instead of dummy, end of story. Again, at this level, if declarer had immediately said, "No, I mean a low club" or, if immediately upon seeing RHO play the SK had said the same type of thing, I would not have dissented. This was not the case. The events as agreed by all the participants were that there was elapsed time between each step. Mistakes happen and they must be lived with. Table Director: Stan Tench Directors consulted: Henry Cukoff (DIC), Steve Bates, Olin Hubert Committee: Doug Heron (chair), Lowell Andrews, Nell Cahn, Bob Gookin, Robb Gordon, Ed Lazarus, Robert Schwartz ------ David Cutler wrote: > > First: Thanks Marv for posting the ACBL LC clarification of L45. > > Second: Although I thought the clarification helpful, it seems to have only > addressed one of the two major "legal" questions raised in the "(in)famous O___S___! > case." As I recall the facts: > > 1) Declarer is in a small slam contract. > 2) LHO leads and wins an Ace at trick one. > 3) LHO leads a trump at trick two, RHO opponent discards a spade > 3a) The next 11 tricks are cold. > 4) Declarer says "a spade" > 5) Dummy leads a spade. > 6) RHO produces the King. > 7) Declarer says "O___S___". > 8) Declarer concedes this trick, and claims the next 10, for down one. > 9) Dummy calls the director (or perhaps convinces Declarer to call), and (4) is > argued to have been an inadvertent call. > > Please correct me if these facts are mistaken. > > As I recall, the AC write-up found that "a spade" had been an inadvertent > designation, in that declarer had intended to call for a trump, but the word > "spade" came out, a sort of "slip of the tongue". Also, as I recall, dummy > argued either on r.g.b or this mailing list, that "a spade" had not been a call > for a card at all. Declarer was merely noting to herself -- out loud -- that > a spade had been discarded, and dummy had mistaken her "talking to > herself" as a request for him to play a card. In any case, the clarification > squarely places the burden of proof for either interpretation on declarer. > Moreover, the clarification certainly helps with the definition of "pause for > thought." > > Nevertheless, there was another issue raised by this case, that the > clarification didn't help (at least in my mind). Namely, is saying "O___S___" > equivalent to drawing attention to an inadvertent play, and immediately calling > the director? In other words, is declarer entitled to redress even if > the director is not called, and declarer did not state explicitly that an > inadvertent designation occurred. Moreover, if declarer failed to call the > director because she was unaware of her rights under L45, does this effect her > ability to obtain redress? > > These are questions of law (as opposed to fact) and, in my mind, these still > need clarification. > > Thanks, > dave cutler Regarding Vancouver Case 5, some observations and rebuttals: 1. The TDs who first ruled did so, IMO, in error. Had they ruled that the card could not be retracted, likely no one would have appealed (for fear of an Appeal Without Merit Point). 2. The TD screener told the AC that "pause for thought" meant "change of mind," which is a wrong instruction on the law. Part of the length of the deliberation on the case was due to frustration with the TD's instruction of the law. 3. An AC may not overrule a TD on a matter of law. It may argue with the TD to try to get him to change his interpretation (as did the panel in Vancouver Case 5), but in the end the TD makes the decision if the ruling is strictly application of the laws. 4. Some policy and procedure changes (internal and confidential) have been made or will soon be implemented at the NABC AC due to this case. 5. My view is that the wrong result obtained on this case due to breakdowns at three levels: the TDs responsible for the floor ruling, the TD screener, and the AC. Although I do not agree with the AC decision, I recognize that two other levels had to err for the case to be presented to the AC. I do not exonerate the AC, but I regret that it is the body that has received the bulk of the criticism. Sure, I'm protective of the NABC AC. That's part of my job. Jon C. Brissman NABC AC Chair ----- Kojak here. One of the many necessary steps to solve these problems is to do away with the attitude that the AC and the TD are in an adversarial relationship. An Appeals Committee's purpose, in my opinion, is to review the facts, hear the Laws applied thereto, and decide if the TD did the right thing according to those facts and the relevant Laws. Sometimes, while doing this, an AC will obtain more complete facts than the TD was able to get, and may well decide to come to a different conclusion. This is a very slippery and dangerous sort of thing. Remember the players usually had some number of hours to consult professionals, experts, each other, and the stories don't always resemble what was elicited at the table. One of the most common "new facts" that ACs hear is the definite "....I would have bid....after all it's 100% to be right....." when there was no indication whatsoever at the time of the occurence that they had any intention of making any different call! As to training. As long as the ACBL TD force is divided into Fields, as long as the bosses in these Fields have what amounts to autonomy in qualifying, assigning, and evaluating THEIR TDs, and as long as it is necessary to cater to local and regional attitudes about who we like we "ain't gonna get better" in a hurry. That goes for ACs in Spades! I welcome the changes being made at the National level, but am sorry that Mr. Brissman continues to try to excuse away the Vancouver Appeal by passing the buck. If the AC was wrongly instructed as to the Law --- where were the AC highly qualified members who knew the correct interpretation of the Law in getting it right?d out? Wasn't this an AC of a National Event? Didn't we have ACs for these Events because of their importance and the need for highly skilled and informed committee members? Come on, guys, when you drop the ball in right field, everyone sees the error -- (of course you can always say the lights or sun were in your eyes) ---when you make this kind of mistake, 'fess up and take your medicine. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 10 15:26:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA29935 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 15:26:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from iac12.navix.net (iac12.navix.net [207.91.5.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA29930 for ; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 15:26:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from navix.net (cras36p19.navix.net [205.242.158.22]) by iac12.navix.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id AAA11093; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 00:14:05 -0500 Message-ID: <37AFB55E.4F3A04EB@navix.net> Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 00:15:11 -0500 From: "Norman H. Hostetler" Reply-To: nh35422@navix.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Marvin L. French" CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Excuse me if I demur References: <37ABDBDA.7F004F7A@navix.net> <0a2401bee294$ffd2e100$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: > David Stevenson wrote: > > > Norman H. Hostetler wrote: > > >> Law 24: "When the Director determines, during the auction, > that > >> because of a player's ACTION [my emphasis] one or more cards > of > >> that player's hand were in position for the face to be seen by > his > >> partner...." > >> > >> Law 16C2: "For the offending side, information from its own > >> withdrawn ACTION [my emphasis] . . . is unauthorized." > > Nah, won't work. L16C2 covers withdrawn *calls or plays*, not > withdrawn exposed cards. You have to fit your position into L16A, in > which the examples given suggest it should not be applied to a card > exposed during the auction. Besides, L24 was written to cover the > situation entirely, with augmenting references where appropriate. > L16 is not referenced. Although the passive voice ("was written") disguises agency, when you assert that L24 "was written to cover the situaion entirely," you are stating that you know what the intentions were of the original writers of the law. If you have such information, I wish you'd cite it. If you merely infer this absolute intention ("entirely") from the language of L24, you are attributing a great deal more scientific precision in the use of language to the law writers than most of the people on BLML, yourself included, have been willing to do in other situations. Also people have been pointing out at least since Plato that it's very difficult to communicate exactly what a person intends. In this context, see also your sentence below "This penalty is so drastic that they ["the lawmakers," previous sentence] also considered it okay if, having paid the prescribed penalty, the information about the card(s) is AI." How do you _know_ that they "considered it OK"? In the absence of external evidence of intention, we are reduced to "preponderance of the evidence." While I have not read through the Laws with this specific question in mind, I do not recall any other instance where an offender's exposed card becomes AI to partner when the pair are or become defenders. If this is correct, it would be much safer to draw the inference that the law writers intended all exposed cards to be UI. Then the point at issue would be whether this is the isolated exception, or one of the many instances of a small failure of communication. I appreciate the fun you're having finding ways to try to dismiss all arguments to the contrary. But I'm having fun too with your tendency to try to have it both ways. For example, in Law16C2, "action" cannot refer to an exposed card because Law 16 "covers withdrawn 'calls or plays,'" and the word "action" must therefore be limited to a call or play. In Law 24, however, "a player's action" cannot be limited to a call or play because Law 24 covers an exposed card, which is neither a call nor a play. I have great doubt that the law makers "intended" the word "action" to be so empty of content that it can mean contradictory things in two different laws. I'm interested to know how you interpret the opening sentence in Law 16: "Players are authorized to base their calls and plays from legal calls and plays and the mannerisms of opponents." Let us agree that if an exposed card is neither a call nor a play, it is certainly not a legal call or play. If it has been exposed by one's partner, it would seem equally clear that it is not a mannerism of one's opponent (although with some partners, I've not been sure). Under what circumstance, therefore, could an exposed card be AI, when it is none of the three things that are AI? Or do you mean to suggest that here it was NOT the intention of the lawmakers "to cover the situation entirely"? > > > >> Restoring to one's hand a card exposed on the table is always > a > >> "withdrawn action," whether or not the action occurred during > the > >> play period. I am assuming here that declarer has not elected > to > >> make the exposed card a penalty card under Law 24, but see my > >> continuing problems with that position in #4.2 below. > > > Fine. So that solves the UI problem. It was never believable > that a > > card exposed in the auction in this way could be AI to partner, > but this > > makes it clear that it is not. > > It wasn't believable, until you look at the difficulties in > determining what calls might be "demonstrably suggested" by the > exposed card. I think that consideration is what led the lawmakers > to prescribe a tough penalty (partner must pass at his next turn) > instead of merely referencing L16. This penalty is so drastic that > they also considered it okay if, having paid the prescribed penalty, > the information about the card(s) is AI. During the play, of course, > a play might easily be "demonstrably suggested," but all the > declarer has to do to preclude that is to treat the exposed card as > a penalty card, making it UI. > With regard to "demonstrably suggested, " consider Law 50 on cards inadvertantly exposed by defenders during the play. Does the H2 suggest a lead or play? Here that is not at all clear. Assuming H are not trump, the H2 is very unlikely to have a significant effect on the possession of a trick. Statistically, a random inadvertant card will most likely come from the player's longest suit, but even that probability is nebulous. So the H2 is only a minor penalty card. Does the HK suggest a lead or play? Most certainly it does; people expect to win a trick with a king more often than not, and it will significantly affect partner's valuation of H honors in his hand. So the inadvertant HK is a major penalty card. Now, what difference does it make if a defender drops this HK right before the final pass in the auction or right after the opening lead? It still "demonstrably suggests" a lead or play. Indeed, the earlier the prematurely exposed card appears, the more likely it is to have an influence on a play or lead. Of course, "demonstrably suggests" always means within the specific context of the particular hand, so the presumption that a dropped K suggests a lead or play may not always prove to be true. But I'd have to look long and hard before I'd agree that it made no such suggestion. To David: You are right, I went back and looked at my notes, and I accidentally dropped the the phrase "by a defender" from the sentence I quoted from Law 50 when I was typing it into the computer. I apologize for having done that; it was certainly not my intention to try to manipulate the quote. As a penalty under the Quoting Laws, I'll pass when next it is my turn to cite. Norm From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 10 15:53:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA00144 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 15:53:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from iac20.navix.net (iac20.navix.net [207.91.5.26]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA00134 for ; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 15:53:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from navix.net (cras36p19.navix.net [205.242.158.22]) by iac20.navix.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id AAA09730; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 00:44:15 -0500 Message-ID: <37AFBC71.2E98E082@navix.net> Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 00:45:21 -0500 From: "Norman H. Hostetler" Reply-To: nh35422@navix.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Craig Senior CC: Bridge Laws discussion group , Linda Trent Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply References: <004c01bee28b$b0f17be0$b784d9ce@host> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: > Please, a player (singular) cannot change "their" (plural) call. His call is > good English; his or her is both politically and grammatically correct (if > slightly redundant). If I could choose their call(s), none of my opponents > auctions would be so smooth and deadly. :-)) > According to virtually all linguistic theorists in this century, there are not and never have been inviolable absolute rules regarding grammar and usage. "Correct" grammar and usage are essentially what the majority of people actually are doing the majority of the time. "A person . . . their" constructions are an example of a usage that is becoming rapidly more prevalent. It avoids the problem of specifying the gender of a generic individual taken to be a representative of a group much more efficiently that imposing "he or she" constructions, and because it is now widely used it is widely understood. When there is a need to be more specific, people shift to a more specific language. Speaking as a pedant, I can assure you that my students would find your position overly pedantic. Norm > -- > > > From: Linda Trent > I have proposed that the following language be added: > > > >Players are permitted to seek the agreement of their opponents that a > >significant break in tempo has occurred. This should be done at the > >player’s next turn to call and before the player chooses their call > >Failing to reach such an agreement, the Director must be summoned at once. > > > >Linda > > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 10 23:16:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA01065 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 23:16:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo20.mx.aol.com (imo20.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA01059 for ; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 23:16:29 +1000 (EST) From: KRAllison@aol.com Received: from KRAllison@aol.com by imo20.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v22.4.) id pEVTa28698 (3964) for ; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 09:15:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 09:15:44 EDT Subject: Fwd: ACBL LC Clarifies L45 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_ab37ecdd.24e18000_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 21 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk --part1_ab37ecdd.24e18000_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --part1_ab37ecdd.24e18000_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-path: KRAllison@aol.com From: KRAllison@aol.com Full-name: KRAllison Message-ID: <99737d5d.24e17fd6@aol.com> Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 09:15:02 EDT Subject: Re: ACBL LC Clarifies L45 To: djcutler@ucdavis.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 21 Regarding the facts of the case, you have it wrong .. here's a precis for you: 1. The opening lead is a fairly obvious singleton, won in dummy. 2. Declarer leads a plain suit, RHO plays the ace, declarer ruffs; now she has twelve top tricks. 3. Declarer plays a trump to dummy, RHO showing out. She can still draw trumps and take twelve tricks. 4. She plays the third plain suir from dummy (having intended, she later states , to continue drawing trumps); however this was a lead towards a Qx in hand (a possible "bridge" play if she counted only eleven tricks since entries would not permit this play later. 5. RHO wins the king. 6. Declarer says "Oh, ****" Karen --part1_ab37ecdd.24e18000_boundary-- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 11 00:26:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA01085 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 23:24:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.zeelandnet.nl (mail.zeelandnet.nl [62.12.12.194]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA01080 for ; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 23:24:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from poivideo-6266 (e126.zeelandnet.nl [62.12.16.126]) by mail.zeelandnet.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA07832; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 15:24:23 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <199908101324.PAA07832@mail.zeelandnet.nl> From: "Marcel Schoof" To: "Edouard Beauvillain" Cc: Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 15:24:12 +0200 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Welcom Edouard, First I suggest that you send replays to bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au rather than to the author. As to your question, If I read Grattans's quotation of the EBL commentry of the 1987 laws correctly, 2S in it's self is a violation, though their are hands with 10 HCP that indicate a weak bidding rather than a limit. In the given sequence they would have a hard time convincing me that this is not a normal part of their system (2S being limit, 3S being weak) and therefor alertable. I just don't believe in a lucky quess. I would give a warning to the pair concerned and make a note of their behavour. Marcel ---------- > Van: Edouard Beauvillain > Aan: Marcel Schoof > Onderwerp: Re: Known psychers and UI > Datum: dinsdag 10 augustus 1999 10:58 > > At 15:48 09/08/99 +0200, you wrote: > >I would say you're right at the point where partnership understanding is > >based of "known psyches", but if I could make a decision on MY knowledge > >that he's "a known psycher" and that 2S is illegal(see remarks below), the > >1S bidding should be alerted. > >But when it is alerted there is no UI, so the problem doesn't exist. > > > >Marcel > > > > > > Do you think that this pair shoul be penalized (or what else) if the > bidding continues that way : > > 1S - 2S* - *(when may have bid 3S, close decision) > 4S all pass > and discover that opening hand has a 14HCP with 5332 distribution and resp. > Has 10HCP with 3 spades (3244 distr) ? > May be opening hand "knows" that partner usually underbid in this sequence... > > Edouard BEAUVILLAIN > newcomer from France. > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 11 01:30:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA01292 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 00:31:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from news.hal-pc.org (news.hal-pc.org [204.52.135.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA01287 for ; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 00:31:13 +1000 (EST) From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org Received: from bbs.hal-pc.org (uucp@localhost) by news.hal-pc.org (8.9.3/8.9.0) with UUCP id JAA22460 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 09:31:05 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0DD78004 Tue, 10 Aug 99 09:30:53 Message-ID: <9908100930.0DD7800@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Tue, 10 Aug 99 09:30:53 Subject: EXCUSE ME IF I DEMU To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk B>Marvin L. French wrote: B>>David Stevenson wrote: B>>> Norman H. Hostetler wrote: B>> -s- B>I am never convinced that these obscure positions were seen by the B>lawmakers. It is very difficult to do so, however good they are, and if B>they really had seen the position I would expect to see a direct B>reference rather than a lack of a reference being given as evidence of B>something. In other words, L24 should make it clear whether it is UI or B>AI, and failure to reference L16A is not enough. B>My opinion? We apply L16A. B>But I agree that it is not clear and I would accept an interpretation that makes it AI. It appears to me that there is a distinction between what is a penalty and what is not. And UI carries the distinction of being a condition as opposed to a penalty. That condition may or may not disappear- such as by making an illegal non conventional call sufficient [not necessarily a good example]. No, it seems to me that restoring an inadvertently exposed card to hand without penalty does not, at that point, relieve the UI to the OS about where the card is except if the law provides that it is AI. I see nowhere in the laws that provide as such. Comments have been made about whether offenders are permitted to act on inferences about whether declarer elects to exercise his right to restore the card to hand without penalty. I would say that if the law provides that declarer must make the election [the case has been made that the law in fact does] that the defenders can not be deprived of the inference. But it seems unfair for the laws to require that the inference be created by declarer in the first place. Roger Pewick B>-- B>David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ B>Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ B> ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= B> Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ B> Roger Pewick Houston, Texas r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 11 01:38:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA01190 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 23:57:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.azure-tech.com (mail.azure-tech.com [12.15.134.146]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA01185 for ; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 23:57:43 +1000 (EST) Received: by mail.azure-tech.com; (5.65v4.0/1.3/10May95) id AA30290; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 09:57:32 -0400 Received: from somewhere by smtpxd Message-Id: <051AEB90DAFCD2118C0F00C00D0085530A214C@MAIL> From: Richard Willey To: Jeremy Rickard , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Known psychers and UI Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 09:57:10 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 From: Jeremy Rickard [SMTP:j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk] Sent: Monday, August 09, 1999 7:26 AM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Known psychers and UI >Suppose the known psycher has, say, psyched a 1S opening, and his >partner, with a close decision between 2S and 3S, chooses 2S. 2S >scores better than 3S would have done. >"The 2S bidder has the UI that his partner is a known psycher; this >UI suggests 2S over the LA of 3S; therefore the 3S bid is illegal >under the UI laws." >What worries me a little is that the same argument would make the 2S >bid illegal, and subject to penalty, even if the known psycher >hadn't psyched on this particular occasion. >However, the argument seems quite logical if one accepts that the >knowledge of partner's psyching proclivities is UI. Is it? It's >certainly information that one is not allowed to use, but is that >the same as UI? I, for one, find this ruling to be extremely troublesome. Consider the following extension Rather than considering a case where partner is known to psyche, let us instead consider a case where partner is a weak player. Once again, there is a close call between a 2S bid and a 3S bid. I decide to bid 2S since I suspect that partner is more likely than most to Drop a trick on the play. Logically, this seems to be completely analogous to the structure that you originally proposed. I would suggest that no director would ever consider penalizing a player because he took a dim view of his partner's skill as a declarer. If a director is not going penalize this type of behavior but will penalizing in the case of a psyche, then we have a director who is deliberately twisting the law to discourage behavior that he does not like. If director's are going to be enforcing this type of decision, then I'm going to have a LOT of fun next time I play against a pro and their client. Richard -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.1 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBN7Aum7+ru3nouAulEQLf9QCgtDWlE/uZwdItp9B1DB0SRGHsPmwAoNP1 GawOIWIaCQtTqUdNH9hlIrZ0 =w5R2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 11 02:27:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA01740 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 02:27:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from IGNGATE.merck.de (igngate.merck.de [194.196.248.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA01735 for ; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 02:27:12 +1000 (EST) From: James.Vickers@merck.de Received: from dedamsgnt02.merck.de (smtpgw.merck.de [155.250.248.234]) by IGNGATE.merck.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA28598 for ; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 18:26:59 +0200 (METDST) X-Internal-ID: 37B0459D0000025E Received: from dedamsg4.merck.de (155.250.249.26) by dedamsgnt02.merck.de (NPlex 2.0.123) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 18:31:15 +0200 Received: by dedamsg4.merck.de(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.2 (693.3 8-11-1998)) id C12567C9.005A577E ; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 18:26:46 +0200 X-Lotus-FromDomain: MERCK To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-ID: Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 18:18:56 +0200 Subject: Re: ACBL LC Clarifies L45[Virus checked] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk As already mentioned by Michael Nistler, full details of the "oh, shit!" case can be found (case 5) at: http://home.worldcom.ch/~fsb/99vanapp.html A commentary on it by David Stevenson can be found at: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/vancvr0.htm I agree 100% with the comments from Marv below. I'm strongly against using recourse to the laws to make up for careless errors in the auction or play. I think this also underlines the importance of declarer's RHO waiting until dummy has placed the card called for in the played position rather than following as soon as the words have left declarer's lips, as so often happens. It seems from law45B that dummy's card becomes played when declarer names it, but I would certainly consider any play by RHO before dummy has moved the card to be out of tempo. It may not alter the legal position as to whether the card may be retracted or not, but it allows declarer some breathing space to notice an inadvertant designation before the card is covered, and can avoid complications when declarer's call of a card was misheard. (It's also more considerate to the other players, if that counts for anything these days.) James Vickers Darmstadt, Germany ******************************************* There are two general cases: The card played by dummy was NOT the one declarer called. In this case Law 45D applies. There is no problem with this interpretation as there is a clearly defined time beyond which a correction is not permitted -- after each side has played to the next trick. The card played was the one declarer called but declarer claims that the play was not intended (i.e., an "inadvertent" play). The Law [L45C4(b) -- mlf] reads, "A player may, without penalty, change an inadvertent designation if he does so without pause for thought...." While it may be difficult to identify an inadvertent action, it is sometimes easier to define what it is not. It is not a slip of the mind. For example, 1H - Pass - 4D (Splinter) - Pass: The opening bidder now thinks for a while, considering whether to make a slam try. He finally places the green card on the table. This is clearly a slip of the mind -- NOT INADVERTENT -- declarer did not pull the wrong (unintended) bidding card. An example of a change of mind is: Declarer leads toward the Ace/Queen in dummy, intending to finesse. He calls Queen without looking to see the card that LHO has played. He wants to change to the Ace. No matter how fast (without pause for thought) the change is made -- NOT INADVERTENT. In determining "inadvertent" the burden of proof (of inadvertency) is on the declarer. The standard of proof is "overwhelming." In judging "without pause for thought," if declarer has made a play after making an inadvertent designation from dummy, a "pause for thought" has occurred --no change in designation is to be permitted. If declarer's RHO has played and there is any reasonable possibility that information gained from RHO's play could suggest that declarer's play from dummy was a mistake, a "pause for thought" has occurred -- no change in designation is to be permitted. In determining that there was no "pause for thought," the director may judge so even though there has been a pause between the inadvertency and the indication by the player committing the inadvertent action. There should be no pause, however, between the awareness of the inadvertent action and drawing attention to it. The bottom line is that there is to be a strong presumption that the card called is the card that was intended to be called. ******************************************************* From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 11 03:31:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA01888 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 03:31:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA01883 for ; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 03:30:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt092nb1.san.rr.com [204.210.48.177]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA25123 for ; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 10:30:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <0b0b01bee355$9ee6be40$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <37ABDBDA.7F004F7A@navix.net> <0a2401bee294$ffd2e100$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> <37AFB55E.4F3A04EB@navix.net> Subject: Re: Excuse me if I demur Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 10:23:05 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Norman H. Hostetler wrote: > > > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > > Norman H. Hostetler wrote: > > > > >> Law 24: "When the Director determines, during the auction, > > that > > >> because of a player's ACTION [my emphasis] one or more cards > > of > > >> that player's hand were in position for the face to be seen by > > his > > >> partner...." > > >> > > >> Law 16C2: "For the offending side, information from its own > > >> withdrawn ACTION [my emphasis] . . . is unauthorized." > > > > Nah, won't work. L16C2 covers withdrawn *calls or plays*, not > > withdrawn exposed cards. You have to fit your position into L16A, in > > which the examples given suggest it should not be applied to a card > > exposed during the auction. Besides, L24 was written to cover the > > situation entirely, with augmenting references where appropriate. > > L16 is not referenced. > > Although the passive voice ("was written") disguises agency, when you > assert that L24 "was written to cover the situaion entirely," you are > stating that you know what the intentions were of the original writers > of the law. If you have such information, I wish you'd cite it. If you > merely infer this absolute intention ("entirely") from the language of > L24, you are attributing a great deal more scientific precision in the > use of language to the law writers than most of the people on BLML, > yourself included, have been willing to do in other situations. Most of the Laws are well-written. I might pick on a few, but that doesn't mean I don't admire the work that went into the writing of them. The wording of this particular Law has remained essentially the same since the 1940s. With all the revisions since that time, it is hard to believe that no one considered making the exposed card UI. > people have been pointing out at least since Plato that it's very > difficult to communicate exactly what a person intends. In this > context, see also your sentence below "This penalty is so drastic that > they ["the lawmakers," previous sentence] also considered it okay if, > having paid the prescribed penalty, the information about the card(s) is > AI." How do you _know_ that they "considered it OK"? Because they didn't include any further penalty possibilities. If none is provided, one must assume there are none. It would have been easy to add a statement to the effect that a card exposed during the auction is UI, along with a reference to L16A. (snip of other interesting arguments that I am not equipped to deal with.) Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 11 03:41:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA01921 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 03:41:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA01916 for ; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 03:41:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt092nb1.san.rr.com [204.210.48.177]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA26703 for ; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 10:40:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <0b1501bee357$084bd540$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: ACBL LC Clarifies L45[Virus checked] Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 10:29:47 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > > As already mentioned by Michael Nistler, full details of the "oh, shit!" > case can be found (case 5) at: > > http://home.worldcom.ch/~fsb/99vanapp.html > > A commentary on it by David Stevenson can be found at: > > http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/vancvr0.htm > > I agree 100% with the comments from Marv below. Thanks, James, but the "comments below" are from the ACBL LC, not me. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 11 05:22:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA02488 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 05:22:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA02479 for ; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 05:22:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt092nb1.san.rr.com [204.210.48.177]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA12069 for ; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 12:22:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <0b3901bee365$3174e8e0$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <9908100930.0DD7800@bbs.hal-pc.org> Subject: Re: EXCUSE ME IF I DEMU Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 12:09:35 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk After reading a lot of learned arguments on on this subject, I'd like to quote some Laws. ######### 5. Offenders' Options Subject to Law 16C2, after the offending side has paid the prescribed penalty for an inadvertent infraction, it is appropriate for the offenders to make any call or play advantageous to their side, even though they thereby appear to profit through their own infraction. ######### An exposed card must remain on the table throughout the auction. If it is an honor card, or a premature lead, or multiple cards, (penalty) partner must pass at their (!) next turn to call. That makes the card(s) AI thoughout the rest of the auction, and throughout the play if declarer decides not to invoke the penalty card option. (L16C2 has to do with withdrawn calls or plays, and is not applicable to this subject) Now, if the card exposure was not obviously inadvertent (benefit of doubt to the other side), L72A5 does not apply. What does? Answer: ########## L72B Infraction of Law 1. Adjusted Score Whenever the Director deems that an offender could have known at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue, afterwards awarding an adjusted score if he considers that the offending side gained an advantage through the irregularity. 2. Intentional A player must not infringe a Law irregularity (?????), even if there is a prescribed penalty he is willing to pay. ########## Copied that from the ACBL web site, having misplaced my Laws for the moment. "Irregularity" should be "intentionally." Tsk, tsk. A player is considering a 7S save against 7H. His partner drops the ace of hearts on the table, hardly inadvertent. Don't call him a cheater, apply instead the polite euphemism "could have known" and adjust the score to 7S doubled. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 11 05:22:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA02484 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 05:22:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA02475 for ; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 05:22:21 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id OAA28422; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 14:21:25 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa5-128.ix.netcom.com(206.217.132.128) by dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma028335; Tue Aug 10 14:20:38 1999 Message-ID: <007001bee366$0c256820$8084d9ce@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Marvin L. French" , "Bridge Laws discussion group" Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 15:24:59 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Well Marv, I guess I am not in my right mind. The usage is an abomination, one of those distortions perpetrated upon the language by those politically correct souls who have made gay joyless and changed the spelling to womyn. While the language perhaps suffers from the absence of a widely usable third person singular indefinite that does not become impersonal, that does not justify perverting it. Their is plural; that some literary souls may have taken artistic license does not alter that. In this case we suffer from the additional problem of making antecedents unclear. When we are constructing laws it is important that we do everything in our power to word them in such a way that they conform with proper rules of grammar, not solely with colloquial usage. They must, after all, be translatable and be used by many for whom the source is a secondary tongue. As for the young lady in your example, I would assume that her company was more than one person...and if her reputation were that of a lady that they may in fact have been lady friends or a married couple or three members of her church group. By saying THEY didn't leave, she has stated that there was more than one of them. Were there only a male friend I would consider her abuse of the English language more of an affront than her absence of propriety. (After all they may have just been hanging wallpaper or waxing the floors. The attempt to hide that HE was there is what produces the suspicion that their conduct was not above reproach.) In your school example, the use of "they" refers to a collective indeterminate group that constitutes "the school" and it is the opinion of this organisation and its members rather than that of the specific individual who called that is sought. Sometimes one must rephrase, as in your lecture hall. "Let's all open our books" wold be one solution. The agreement of a pronoun with its antecedent in number is no myth...it is proper English, and lends clarity to the exporession of the language. I cannot think of where it is in this world that "sex is unimportant" though I suspect you meant gender. That many people misuse "they" to mean "he" does not legitimatise the usage. It jus aint no good. We must not surrender to popular usage where it degrades the language and reduces its meaningful content or clarity. This is especially important in draughting laws. Yo like, y'know, it matters, duh. Hello? Pedantry aside, I object to little that Linda has proposed. I only would wish it to be worded better. The basic idea she proposes has merit as do so many of hers. -- Craig Senior -----Original Message----- From: Marvin L. French To: Bridge Laws discussion group Date: Monday, August 09, 1999 6:14 PM Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply >Craig Senior wrote, > > >>Please, a player (singular) cannot change "their" (plural) call. >His call is >>good English; his or her is both politically and grammatically >correct (if >>slightly redundant). If I could choose their call(s), none of my >opponents >>auctions would be so smooth and deadly. :-)) > >>From: Linda Trent >>> I have proposed that the following language be added: >> >>>Players are permitted to seek the agreement of their opponents >that a >>>significant break in tempo has occurred. This should be done at >the >>>player's next turn to call and before the player chooses their >call >>>Failing to reach such an agreement, the Director must be summoned >at once. >> >The myth that a pronoun must always agree in number with its >antecedent is beloved of schoolmarms and other such. While the >singular use of "they," "their," and "them" is inappropriate in a >formal document, and may be a blunder when it doesn't convey the >writer's intent, it has been freely used by great writers, including >Goldsmith, Fielding, Thackeray ("A person can't help their birth"), >Bernard Shaw, and Ruskin ("I am never angry with anyone unless they >deserve it"). > >Besides avoiding the awkward use of "his or her," "he or she," etc., >or worse, using a masculine pronoun generically, the plural pronoun >has many good uses in its own right: > >A young lady will say, "I had company last night, and they didn't >leave until one in the morning." > >The hearer knows the "company" was a single male suitor, and that >the lady has used "they" in order to avoid the connotations >associated with using a masculine pronoun in this context. > >When sex is unimportant, almost everyone uses "they." > >"You had a call from the school about Johnny's behavior." > > "What did they say?" > >Is that bad English, even though standard English? > >The generic use of the male pronoun in place of "his or her" is an >abomination. Imagine addressing a group of women in a lecture hall, >and saying, "Everyone will please open her textbook now to page 72." >Then noticing that there is a solitary male among them, correcting >the instruction to "Everyone will please open his textbook..." > >Nobody in their right mind would object to Linda's usage :)) > >Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 11 08:04:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA02981 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 08:04:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA02976 for ; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 08:04:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.97] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11EK0K-000A6d-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 23:04:20 +0100 Message-ID: <004e01bee37c$495af460$615208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws discussion group" Subject: Their, there ...... Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 22:59:28 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: Marvin L. French ; Bridge Laws discussion group Date: 10 August 1999 20:45 Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply > ---------- \x/ ---------- > Their is plural; that some literary souls may have taken artistic license >does not alter that. In this case we suffer from the additional problem of >making antecedents unclear. When we are constructing laws it is important >that we do everything in our power to word them in such a way that they >conform with proper rules of grammar, not solely with colloquial usage. They >must, after all, be translatable and be used by many for whom the source is >a secondary tongue. ++++ There is a good reason here for writing well sculpted English. However, it remains without guarantee that the most precise English will be translated with sensitivity and a sure touch. From experience of the problem I know that the objective is not merely to translate accurately but also with a similarly deft linguistic brush. ++++ >As for the young lady in your example, I would assume that her company was >more than one person ++++ now I would think 'twere better to assume nothing. Put yourself in the place of the young lady: if the moral tone of her 'friends' is such as to deprecate the presence of one male in private company with one female, she might well be merely blowing dust into the ears of society. Of your debate I think enough has been said to draw attention to the potential for improvement in an early draft, and beyond this what? Is it not actually in the hands of someone else? ++++ ~ Grattan ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 11 08:35:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA03048 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 08:35:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.74]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA03043 for ; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 08:35:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivehel.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.69.213]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA11027 for ; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 18:35:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990810183314.01253e34@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 18:33:14 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI In-Reply-To: <005101bee2be$8e637960$995208c3@swhki5i6> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:13 AM 8/10/99 +0100, Grattan wrote: >+++ ++ I quote from the EBL commentary on the 1987 laws: > " Some convention cards provide for partnerships to >indicate the frequency with which the players are in the habit >of psyching. Where this is the case the information should >distinguish between the two members of the partnership >if it is the case that one of the partners psyches noticeably >more often than the other (e.g. Mr Endicott rarely psyches >but Mr. Hansen psyches very often; or Mr. ... psyches but >Mrs. ... does not). Where such information is provided on >the convention card it must be understood by the Director >and the players that the information is "authorized" for the >opponents but NOT for the partnership itself." > > It may be noted that before this text was published >there was consultation with Edgar Kaplan who concurred >in the statement, adding that the partner must act upon the >announced meaning of the call until the lie is exposed in the >course of the auction/play. ~ Grattan ~ ++ +++ If those who have authored the Laws see some value in distinguishing between psychic bids and other bids, it would be extremely helpful for them to include the relevant language within the Laws themselves, rather than in more or less obscure "commentaries" provided, in some cases, by largely independent zonal bodies. As it stands, the Laws are mostly mute on the subject of psychic bidding. The exception, of course, is L40A which authorizes, rather than forbids, psychic bidding. That authority is granted subject to a proviso ("provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding"), but two points should be noted: a) nothing in the language of 40A disallows any psychic bid, with or without partnership understanding. b)even if the language of 40A could be read as disallowing psychs that don't meet the proviso (in which case it should say so), it fails to provide the kind of clarifying enforcement tools which are embodied in L16. What standards should be applied? What penalties can be applied when violations are determined? Indeed, these are the perfectly legitimate questions raised by the original poster on this thread, which have not, so far as I have read to this point, been addressed. My own view is that trying to define such tendencies as UI, subject to L16 treatment, opens up a truly unmanageable can of worms. Some of the questions that derive from this approach have been raised by others, and I can think of many more. Talk about an extravaganza for the BL's! Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 11 12:04:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA03436 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 12:04:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA03426 for ; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 12:04:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11ENkZ-000DOm-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 02:04:20 +0000 Message-ID: <3pLZfQAbnAs3EwgG@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 12:15:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI References: <005101bee2be$8e637960$995208c3@swhki5i6> <37AF9C98.80079330@mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <37AF9C98.80079330@mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John R. Mayne wrote: >Or, let's take the case of a pair I once played against. The auction >proceeded 1H by A, overcall of 1S, to B: ATx KQxx AKQx xx. B rolled the >hand all the way to 4H, figuring his partner had psyched. (They psyched >a lot.) After going +510, they got to the next one. > >I agree that the burden of proof should be very strong when a field >works. But I think fielding prior to absolute knowledge should be legal >if you can demonstrate that you also misfield at an appropriate rate. L40A: A player may make any call or play (including an intentionally misleading call - such as a psychic bid - or a call or play that departs from commonly accepted, or previously announced, use of a convention), without prior announcement, provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding. Did the pair use an unannounced understanding? If they did it is not legal, whether it was successful or not. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 11 12:04:43 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA03437 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 12:04:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA03427 for ; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 12:04:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11ENkZ-000DOl-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 02:04:19 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 12:07:40 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Excuse me if I demur References: <37ABDBDA.7F004F7A@navix.net> <0a2401bee294$ffd2e100$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> <37AFB55E.4F3A04EB@navix.net> In-Reply-To: <37AFB55E.4F3A04EB@navix.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Norman H. Hostetler wrote: >I appreciate the fun you're having finding ways to try to dismiss all >arguments to the contrary. But I'm having fun too with your tendency to >try to have it both ways. For example, in Law16C2, "action" cannot >refer to an exposed card because Law 16 "covers withdrawn 'calls or >plays,'" and the word "action" must therefore be limited to a call or >play. In Law 24, however, "a player's action" cannot be limited to a >call or play because Law 24 covers an exposed card, which is neither a >call nor a play. I have great doubt that the law makers "intended" the >word "action" to be so empty of content that it can mean contradictory >things in two different laws. It is the context not the word. L24 states When the Director determines, during the auction, that because of a player's action one or more cards of that player's hand were in position for the face to be seen by his partner, the Director shall .... and it seems to me that the action is all-embracing, ie playing out of turn, dropping cards because you have spilt coffee on your self, putting hand down on table accidentally face-up, etc. These are all actions. However L16C states C. Information from Withdrawn Calls and Plays A call or play may be withdrawn, and another substituted, either by a non-offending side after an opponent's infraction, or by an offending side to rectify an infraction. 1. Non-offending Side For the non-offending side, all information arising from a withdrawn action is authorised, whether the action be its own or its opponents'. 2. Offending Side For the offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action, and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side, is unauthorised. A player of the offending ... This Law refers to withdrawn calls or plays. The heading says so [no more than a pointer, I agree]. But the first bit of text says so, and then notes #1 and #2 are subordinate to that. So when they refer to "withdrawn actions" I believe that they are referring to withdrawn calls or plays. >I'm interested to know how you interpret the opening sentence in Law 16: >"Players are authorized to base their calls and plays from legal calls >and plays and the mannerisms of opponents." Let us agree that if an >exposed card is neither a call nor a play, it is certainly not a legal >call or play. If it has been exposed by one's partner, it would seem >equally clear that it is not a mannerism of one's opponent (although >with some partners, I've not been sure). Under what circumstance, >therefore, could an exposed card be AI, when it is none of the three >things that are AI? Or do you mean to suggest that here it was NOT the >intention of the lawmakers "to cover the situation entirely"? My view is that a card that is not a a play may constitute UI under L16A [or L16B when it is not an exposed card of the deal in progress] but not L16C. [s] >To David: You are right, I went back and looked at my notes, and I >accidentally dropped the the phrase "by a defender" from the sentence I >quoted from Law 50 when I was typing it into the computer. I apologize >for having done that; it was certainly not my intention to try to >manipulate the quote. As a penalty under the Quoting Laws, I'll pass >when next it is my turn to cite. Do what I do: use Cut+Paste! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 11 12:48:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA03515 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 12:48:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.74]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA03510 for ; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 12:48:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from mindspring.com (pool-207-205-157-226.lsan.grid.net [207.205.157.226]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA03029 for ; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 22:48:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <37B0E53D.C51201B3@mindspring.com> Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 19:51:41 -0700 From: "John R. Mayne" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI References: <005101bee2be$8e637960$995208c3@swhki5i6> <37AF9C98.80079330@mindspring.com> <3pLZfQAbnAs3EwgG@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > John R. Mayne wrote: > > >Or, let's take the case of a pair I once played against. The auction > >proceeded 1H by A, overcall of 1S, to B: ATx KQxx AKQx xx. B rolled the > >hand all the way to 4H, figuring his partner had psyched. (They psyched > >a lot.) After going +510, they got to the next one. > > > >I agree that the burden of proof should be very strong when a field > >works. But I think fielding prior to absolute knowledge should be legal > >if you can demonstrate that you also misfield at an appropriate rate. > > L40A: > > A player may make any call or play > (including an intentionally misleading > call - such as a psychic bid - or a call > or play that departs from commonly > accepted, or previously announced, > use of a convention), without prior > announcement, provided that such call or > play is not based on a partnership > understanding. > > Did the pair use an unannounced understanding? If they did it is not > legal, whether it was successful or not. OK, let's read it that way. We can remove the parenthetical phrase "A player may make any call or play without prior announcement, provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding." Uh-oh! I don't announce or even have marked my full methods for opening 1H, yet I have very specific partnership agreements. This interpretation ends bidding as we know it. Suppose I open 4S in fourth seat. There is nothing to mark on the ACBL card. We have very specific rules on what this means in my partnerships; have I violated this law? Oh, you think 40A is modified by 40B, which talks about disclosure? Their propensity for psychs has always been announced according to ACBL rules. I think 40A is a red herring. --JRM > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 11 13:48:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA03598 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 13:48:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from iac12.navix.net (iac12.navix.net [207.91.5.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA03593 for ; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 13:47:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from navix.net (cras36p10.navix.net [205.242.158.13]) by iac12.navix.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA02531; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 22:31:23 -0500 Message-ID: <37B0EF07.B3C781C2@navix.net> Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 22:33:27 -0500 From: "Norman H. Hostetler" Reply-To: nh35422@navix.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Craig Senior CC: Bridge Laws discussion group Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply References: <007001bee366$0c256820$8084d9ce@host> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: > Well Marv, I guess I am not in my right mind. The usage is an abomination, Not exactly. The usage is an abomination to you. Please don't use it if you find it so. But I would also encourage you not to mistake your personal cultural values with "universal cultural values" (which are a myth and don't exist). I sometimes think I'm the last person alive who makes an automatic distinction in speech between the verbs "lie" and "lay." I'm not likely to change, but I think it would be perverse to impose my individual practice on my students. > one of those distortions perpetrated upon the language by those politically > correct souls who have made gay joyless and changed the spelling to womyn. > While the language perhaps suffers from the absence of a widely usable third > person singular indefinite that does not become impersonal, that does not > justify perverting it. > As one man gayly told the judge, "one person's perversion is another person's delight." > Their is plural; Because that is how a majority of people use it a majority of the time. Words are not fixed in meaning and can change, as can the social status of their use (see below). If the use of "their" to refer to the "collective individual," the fictional singular subject taken as an embodiment of a group, continues to increase in popularity, then the meaning of "their" will have broadened. If you prefer, you could probably perceive that it does so because this singular subject still retains some of the plural qualities of the group. > that some literary souls may have taken artistic license > does not alter that. In this case we suffer from the additional problem of > making antecedents unclear. When we are constructing laws it is important > that we do everything in our power to word them in such a way that they > conform with proper rules of grammar, not solely with colloquial usage. They > must, after all, be translatable and be used by many for whom the source is > a secondary tongue. > Your points in the last sentence are well-taken. I agree with you that language which is supposed to be fixed in meaning, such as in a law, should be expressed conservatively. When the situation requires precise attention to detail, people tend to be more exacting in their usage. "Proper" is still a matter of one's own perception, however. Everybody uses language in the manner they think "proper" to the circumstances. (Note last sentence. How would you phrase it?) > for the young lady in your example, I would assume that her company was > more than one person...and if her reputation were that of a lady that they > may in fact have been lady friends or a married couple or three members of > her church group. By saying THEY didn't leave, she has stated that there was > more than one of them. Were there only a male friend I would consider her > abuse of the English language more of an affront than her absence of > propriety. (After all they may have just been hanging wallpaper or waxing > the floors. The attempt to hide that HE was there is what produces the > suspicion that their conduct was not above reproach.) > > In your school example, the use of "they" refers to a collective > indeterminate group that constitutes "the school" and it is the opinion of > this organisation and its members rather than that of the specific > individual who called that is sought. > > Sometimes one must rephrase, as in your lecture hall. "Let's all open our > books" wold be one solution. > > The agreement of a pronoun with its antecedent in number is no myth...it is > proper English, and lends clarity to the exporession of the language. I > cannot think of where it is in this world that "sex is unimportant" though I > suspect you meant gender. That many people misuse "they" to mean "he" does > not legitimatise the usage. It jus aint no good. Great! There's hope for you yet. Note 1) You clearly mean that that you disapprove. The so-called "logic" of the "double negative" (it ain't "no good," so it must be good) is another myth. The second negative is an intensive, meant to increase the emphasis on the negative, like adding the word "very" before an adjective or adverb. Note 2) The word "ain't" was commonly used by people in almost all social classes until well into the 18th century. The word fell out of favor with the culturally powerful classes, so their running dogs, the school teachers, labelled the term "improper," with the consequence, I'm sure, that the less powerful classes felt more acutely the pain of their exclusion. In the 19th century, the rising power of the commercial presses led their managers to impose a common style on all writers, in the name of capitalist efficiency and maximum profits. The running dogs, ever obedient to the most powerful master, fell in line again. After 200 years, they have nearly succeeded in driving "ain't" out of the language, even among the relatively uneducated. So what are we left with? Instead of saying "Ain't I goin' too?" we could use the pedantic "Am I not also to go?" and risk being stared at, or we could adopt the most popular modern usage, "Aren't I going too?" despite its apparent basis in "I are." I particularly like this example, because the revenge of the populace has been to substitute one usage "error" for another. But my main point in this note is that the usage you consider correct and proper is actually only a little over 200 years old, quite short in linguistic time. Note 3) Given that the subject is a particular male individual, and not a fictional generic individual, the use of "they" will be misleading to almost all English speakers. Please note, however, that the traditional use of "he" to refer to the generic individual in a mixed group of males and females (thanks again to the school-teaching Puritans of illogical correctness) does not legitimate it in modern usage, since we are more conscious of its psycho-social cultural implications. By the way, since more women than men play bridge, I think the bridge lawmakers, if they are going to insist on using the singular for a generic individual, ought to use the feminine. > We must not surrender to > popular usage where it degrades the language and reduces its meaningful > content or clarity. This is especially important in draughting laws. Yo > like, y'know, it matters, duh. Hello? > > Pedantry aside, I object to little that Linda has proposed. I only would > wish it to be worded better. The basic idea she proposes has merit as do so > many of hers. > > -- > Craig Senior > > Original Message----- > From: Marvin L. French > To: Bridge Laws discussion group > Date: Monday, August 09, 1999 6:14 PM > Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply > > >Craig Senior wrote, > > > > > >>Please, a player (singular) cannot change "their" (plural) call. > >His call is > >>good English; his or her is both politically and grammatically > >correct (if > >>slightly redundant). If I could choose their call(s), none of my > >opponents > >>auctions would be so smooth and deadly. :-)) > > > >>From: Linda Trent > >>> I have proposed that the following language be added: > >> > >>>Players are permitted to seek the agreement of their opponents > >that a > >>>significant break in tempo has occurred. This should be done at > >the > >>>player's next turn to call and before the player chooses their > >call > >>>Failing to reach such an agreement, the Director must be summoned > >at once. > >> > >The myth that a pronoun must always agree in number with its > >antecedent is beloved of schoolmarms and other such. While the > >singular use of "they," "their," and "them" is inappropriate in a > >formal document, and may be a blunder when it doesn't convey the > >writer's intent, it has been freely used by great writers, including > >Goldsmith, Fielding, Thackeray ("A person can't help their birth"), > >Bernard Shaw, and Ruskin ("I am never angry with anyone unless they > >deserve it"). > > > >Besides avoiding the awkward use of "his or her," "he or she," etc., > >or worse, using a masculine pronoun generically, the plural pronoun > >has many good uses in its own right: > > > >A young lady will say, "I had company last night, and they didn't > >leave until one in the morning." > > > >The hearer knows the "company" was a single male suitor, and that > >the lady has used "they" in order to avoid the connotations > >associated with using a masculine pronoun in this context. > > > >When sex is unimportant, almost everyone uses "they." > > > >"You had a call from the school about Johnny's behavior." > > > > "What did they say?" > > > >Is that bad English, even though standard English? > > > >The generic use of the male pronoun in place of "his or her" is an > >abomination. Imagine addressing a group of women in a lecture hall, > >and saying, "Everyone will please open her textbook now to page 72." > >Then noticing that there is a solitary male among them, correcting > >the instruction to "Everyone will please open his textbook..." > > > >Nobody in their right mind would object to Linda's usage :)) > > > >Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com > > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 11 14:14:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA03638 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 14:14:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from iac20.navix.net (iac20.navix.net [207.91.5.26]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA03633 for ; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 14:14:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from navix.net (cras36p10.navix.net [205.242.158.13]) by iac20.navix.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA02672; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 22:43:05 -0500 Message-ID: <37B0F1C5.96D4952@navix.net> Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 22:45:10 -0500 From: "Norman H. Hostetler" Reply-To: nh35422@navix.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Marvin L. French" CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Excuse me if I demur References: <37ABDBDA.7F004F7A@navix.net> <0a2401bee294$ffd2e100$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> <37AFB55E.4F3A04EB@navix.net> <0b0b01bee355$9ee6be40$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: > Norman H. Hostetler wrote: > > > > > > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > > > > Norman H. Hostetler wrote: > > > > > > >> Law 24: "When the Director determines, during the auction, > > > that > > > >> because of a player's ACTION [my emphasis] one or more > cards > > > of > > > >> that player's hand were in position for the face to be > seen by > > > his > > > >> partner...." > > > >> > > > >> Law 16C2: "For the offending side, information from its > own > > > >> withdrawn ACTION [my emphasis] . . . is unauthorized." > > > > > > Nah, won't work. L16C2 covers withdrawn *calls or plays*, not > > > withdrawn exposed cards. You have to fit your position into > L16A, in > > > which the examples given suggest it should not be applied to a > card > > > exposed during the auction. Besides, L24 was written to cover > the > > > situation entirely, with augmenting references where > appropriate. > > > L16 is not referenced. > > > > Although the passive voice ("was written") disguises agency, when > you > > assert that L24 "was written to cover the situaion entirely," you > are > > stating that you know what the intentions were of the original > writers > > of the law. If you have such information, I wish you'd cite it. > If you > > merely infer this absolute intention ("entirely") from the > language of > > L24, you are attributing a great deal more scientific precision in > the > > use of language to the law writers than most of the people on > BLML, > > yourself included, have been willing to do in other situations. > > Most of the Laws are well-written. I might pick on a few, but that > doesn't mean I don't admire the work that went into the writing of > them. The wording of this particular Law has remained > essentially the same since the 1940s. With all the revisions since > that time, it is hard to believe that no one considered making the > exposed card UI. But the first sentence of Law 16 makes EVERYTHING UI unless it is designated as AI. AI consists of calls, plays, and the mannerisms of opponents. Nothing else is AI unless the particular law explicitly makes it so. So one doesn't specifically have to label something as UI. It IS UI until somebody proves that it is AI. The burden of proof therefore falls on the person who claiims that the action (here, the exposure of the card following the payment of the auction penalty) is AI. The question of a play period penalty is a separate issue. All penalty cards are UI (Law 50), but the Laws do not require that UI related to specific cards result in making all such cards penalty cards. Norm From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 11 15:29:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA03758 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 15:29:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.146]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA03753 for ; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 15:29:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.37] by mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 01:29:10 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <0b3901bee365$3174e8e0$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> References: <9908100930.0DD7800@bbs.hal-pc.org> Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 01:26:32 -0400 To: From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: EXCUSE ME IF I DEMU Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 3:09 PM -0400 8/10/99, Marvin L. French wrote: >An exposed card must remain on the table throughout the auction. If it is an >honor card, or a premature lead, or multiple cards, (penalty) partner must >pass at their (!) next turn to call. My copy of the Laws is grammatically correct here. I haven't seen any bowing to the politically correct, but grammatically incorrect, usage you cite, and frankly, I hope I never do. :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2 iQA/AwUBN7EKJr2UW3au93vOEQK64QCaA5cfSi38VC3MkZl0GQqmpKnTx+cAoJLK nT1yVaYPgoVaLjl4MrNkUPJ5 =eb5e -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 11 16:11:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA03874 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 16:11:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (mailout1-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.81]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA03868 for ; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 16:10:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.37] by mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 02:11:01 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <007001bee366$0c256820$8084d9ce@host> Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 01:46:14 -0400 To: From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >Well Marv, I guess I am not in my right mind. The usage is an abomination, >one of those distortions perpetrated upon the language by those politically >correct souls who have made gay joyless and changed the spelling to womyn. >While the language perhaps suffers from the absence of a widely usable third >person singular indefinite that does not become impersonal, that does not >justify perverting it. Hear, hear! [snip] >Pedantry aside, I object to little that Linda has proposed. I only would >wish it to be worded better. The basic idea she proposes has merit as do so >many of hers. And again! :-) Once, Archie Goodwin entered the office of his employer, the eccentric genius Nero Wolfe. Mr. Wolfe was seated in front of the fireplace, ripping pages out of his brand new copy of _Webster's Second Unabridged Dictionary_ and throwing them in the fire. When Archie asked why he was doing that, Wolfe replied "'Contact' is _not_ a verb!" :-) Regards, Ed "When *I* use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less." -- "Through the Looking Glass", by Lewis Carroll -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2 iQA/AwUBN7ET9b2UW3au93vOEQKaeQCfTojZHqMe3TEoDYcBs0IwDh7ozDMAoMMF s4u88d8OjYm7syAsqr6JyJl6 =Aw/e -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 11 16:17:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA03901 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 16:17:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA03896 for ; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 16:17:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt092nb1.san.rr.com [204.210.48.177]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA29531 for ; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 23:17:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <0bc801bee3c0$a38e71c0$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.1.32.19990810183314.01253e34@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 23:11:52 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: >Grattan wrote: > >+++ ++ I quote from the EBL commentary on the 1987 laws: > > " Some convention cards provide for partnerships to > >indicate the frequency with which the players are in the habit > >of psyching. Where this is the case the information should > >distinguish between the two members of the partnership > >if it is the case that one of the partners psyches noticeably > >more often than the other (e.g. Mr Endicott rarely psyches > >but Mr. Hansen psyches very often; or Mr. ... psyches but > >Mrs. ... does not). Where such information is provided on > >the convention card it must be understood by the Director > >and the players that the information is "authorized" for the > >opponents but NOT for the partnership itself." > > > > It may be noted that before this text was published > >there was consultation with Edgar Kaplan who concurred > >in the statement, adding that the partner must act upon the > >announced meaning of the call until the lie is exposed in the > >course of the auction/play. ~ Grattan ~ ++ +++ > > If those who have authored the Laws see some value in distinguishing > between psychic bids and other bids, it would be extremely helpful for them > to include the relevant language within the Laws themselves, rather than in > more or less obscure "commentaries" provided, in some cases, by largely > independent zonal bodies. > > As it stands, the Laws are mostly mute on the subject of psychic bidding. > The exception, of course, is L40A which authorizes, rather than forbids, > psychic bidding. That authority is granted subject to a proviso ("provided > that such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding"), but > two points should be noted: > > a) nothing in the language of 40A disallows any psychic bid, with or > without partnership understanding. > > b)even if the language of 40A could be read as disallowing psychs that > don't meet the proviso (in which case it should say so), it fails to > provide the kind of clarifying enforcement tools which are embodied in L16. > What standards should be applied? What penalties can be applied when > violations are determined? Indeed, these are the perfectly legitimate > questions raised by the original poster on this thread, which have not, so > far as I have read to this point, been addressed. My own view is that > trying to define such tendencies as UI, subject to L16 treatment, opens up > a truly unmanageable can of worms. Some of the questions that derive from > this approach have been raised by others, and I can think of many more. > Talk about an extravaganza for the BL's! > And then there is L73E, Deception:: "A player may appropriately attempt to deceive an opponent through a call or play (so long as the deception is not protected by concealed partnership understanding or experience." Note the word "protected." If a psych is not protected in some way, it is legal no matter how often it occurs. Bluff Blackwood comes to mind. Partner must respond, he has no choice, so the deception is not protected by partnership experience. Some would say the 4NT bid should be Alerted, based on partnership experience. Pretty soon they will want us to Alert every bid we make. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 11 16:24:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA03921 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 16:24:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA03916 for ; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 16:24:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt092nb1.san.rr.com [204.210.48.177]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA00399 for ; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 23:23:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <0bce01bee3c1$8e4173c0$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <9908100930.0DD7800@bbs.hal-pc.org> Subject: Re: EXCUSE ME IF I DEMU Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 23:19:09 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: > Marvin L. French wrote: > > >An exposed card must remain on the table throughout the auction. If it is an > >honor card, or a premature lead, or multiple cards, (penalty) partner must > >pass at their (!) next turn to call. > > My copy of the Laws is grammatically correct here. I haven't seen any > bowing to the politically correct, but grammatically incorrect, usage you > cite, and frankly, I hope I never do. :-) > Written tongue-in-cheek, Ed, as a joke to go with recent words on this subject. I would normally write: "partner must pass at her next turn to call." Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 11 19:12:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA04205 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 19:12:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from aurora.alaska.edu (fxmgs@aurora.alaska.edu [137.229.18.100]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA04200 for ; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 19:12:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (fxmgs@localhost) by aurora.alaska.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id BAA11726 for ; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 01:12:32 -0800 (AKDT) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 01:12:31 -0800 (AKDT) From: Michael Schmahl Reply-To: Michael Schmahl To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: ACBL LC Clarifies L45 In-Reply-To: <005001bee2be$8db3ff80$995208c3@swhki5i6> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: > ++ My first thought was that the lady was probably > saying "Oh tut! what a stupid girl I am! I just did not pay > attention to the risk." The same thought has remained > with me constantly, and abides. ~Grattan~ ++ I was one of the "young canadians" present in the room observing the committee. I don't know if this fact was reported in the appeal report or in the discussion that followed, but the "O__ S__" seemed to have been a reaction when declarer (apparently a bit tired, understandably, at the time the hand was played) realized that RHO was following suit with a spade and not with the other king of trumps in the deck. Declarer apparently intended to lead a trump to her hand, called for a spade, and RHO played the king. The impression that came out in the hearing was that at first declarer was confused when RHO played the king of clubs, since declarer also held this card. The possbility that declarer was "talking to herself", noting a discard, when she said "spade" was not brought up on the committee room at all. The CTD (incorrectly, IMHO) instructed the committee on the law, saying words to the effect of: "pause for thought" means that if the original designation was unintentional, then the change should be allowed, regardless of how much time actually passed. The opinion of the committee was that the player originally did not know that a change of play from dummy was legal, and that she would have changed her play if she had known that that was an option. My own opinion is that calling for a spade was a slip of the tongue. When the CK came out, declarer, with a split-second's reflection, realized that she actually _had_ said "spade", and continued to play under what _she_ thought the laws of bridge were. I hope some of this elaboration helps in the discussion. I personally did not like the committee's decision. My partner Gordon was the other "young canadian", and reads this list, so if my recollections are inaccurate, I hope he can correct me. We discussed this case for quite a while that evening. signoff Michael Schmahl, aka "Mike", alias "Mike", dba "Mike" - Univ of AK, Fairbanks Unsolicited commercial email spellchecked for only $100! No warranties. rand:[ Time is the most precious commodity. ] From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 11 19:49:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA04290 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 19:49:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from nickel.cix.co.uk (nickel.compulink.co.uk [194.153.0.18]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA04285 for ; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 19:48:56 +1000 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id KAA15248 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 10:48:13 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 10:48 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <3pLZfQAbnAs3EwgG@blakjak.demon.co.uk> David Stevenson wrote: > L40A: > > A player may make any call or play > (including an intentionally misleading > call - such as a psychic bid - or a call > or play that departs from commonly > accepted, or previously announced, > use of a convention), without prior > announcement, provided that such call or > play is not based on a partnership > understanding. > > Did the pair use an unannounced understanding? If they did it is not > legal, whether it was successful or not. This is surely only half the story. Taking L40 in a more holistic view the criteria become: Subject to SO regulations on conventions a player may; 1. Make any call or play not based on a partnership understanding 2. Make any call or play based on an understanding which opponents may be reasonably expected to understand 3. Make any call or play based on an understanding which, although the opponents may not be reasonably expected to understand it, involves an understanding disclosed in accordance with SO regulations. The regulations on disclosure seem to be a mixture of pre-informing (eg NT range, basic system), alerts (particularly on conventional calls), and a requirement for full and frank answers to questions (other understandings). My impression is that "style based" understandings are properly disclosed in response to questions (ie not at all if the questions aren't asked!). Thus if presented with an otherwise borderline choice between raising to 2S/3S I will choose 2S if partner is a known psycher, an overbidder, a weak dummy player or of aggressive tendency. If partner is aware of my tendency then I expect him to disclose this when asked. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 11 20:18:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA04328 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 20:18:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA04323 for ; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 20:18:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11EVSd-0003mu-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 10:18:19 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 03:21:40 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI References: <005101bee2be$8e637960$995208c3@swhki5i6> <3.0.1.32.19990810183314.01253e34@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990810183314.01253e34@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: >a) nothing in the language of 40A disallows any psychic bid, with or >without partnership understanding. I don't accept this. The wording is A player may make any call or play (including an intentionally misleading call - such as a psychic bid - or a call or play that departs from commonly accepted, or previously announced, use of a convention), without prior announcement, provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding. So, if it only seems to allow any bid, "provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding" then it seems to disallow psyches based on a partnership understanding. >b)even if the language of 40A could be read as disallowing psychs that >don't meet the proviso (in which case it should say so), I believe it does. > it fails to >provide the kind of clarifying enforcement tools which are embodied in L16. >What standards should be applied? What penalties can be applied when >violations are determined? Indeed, these are the perfectly legitimate >questions raised by the original poster on this thread, which have not, so >far as I have read to this point, been addressed. My own view is that >trying to define such tendencies as UI, subject to L16 treatment, opens up >a truly unmanageable can of worms. True. Why should they be UI? It is a different approach. L40A makes it clear that psyches are legal in the absence of partnership understanding, therefore, if there is a partnership understanding we do not allow the psyche. > Some of the questions that derive from >this approach have been raised by others, and I can think of many more. >Talk about an extravaganza for the BL's! Not at all. If situations like this are dealt with sensibly by interpretation and regulation [as the EBU has done] then there is no particular advantage to BLs. PWD -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 11 22:51:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA04704 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 22:51:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA04692 for ; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 22:51:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11EXqq-000Klh-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 12:51:30 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 12:36:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Excuse me if I demur References: <37ABDBDA.7F004F7A@navix.net> <0a2401bee294$ffd2e100$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> <37AFB55E.4F3A04EB@navix.net> <0b0b01bee355$9ee6be40$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> <37B0F1C5.96D4952@navix.net> In-Reply-To: <37B0F1C5.96D4952@navix.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Norman H. Hostetler wrote: >But the first sentence of Law 16 makes EVERYTHING UI unless it is >designated as AI. AI consists of calls, plays, and the mannerisms of >opponents. Nothing else is AI unless the particular law explicitly >makes it so. So one doesn't specifically have to label something as >UI. It IS UI until somebody proves that it is AI. The burden of proof >therefore falls on the person who claiims that the action (here, the >exposure of the card following the payment of the auction penalty) is >AI. The question of a play period penalty is a separate issue. All >penalty cards are UI (Law 50), but the Laws do not require that UI >related to specific cards result in making all such cards penalty cards. Unfortunately there are several known exceptions to this which complicates life. The vulnerability and dealer are AI: the state of the match is AI: the opponents' convention cards are AI. I believe that in some cases we have to decide whether something is AI or UI without it being defined in the Laws. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 11 22:51:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA04703 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 22:51:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA04693 for ; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 22:51:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11EXqq-000Lx9-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 12:51:28 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 12:50:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI References: <005101bee2be$8e637960$995208c3@swhki5i6> <37AF9C98.80079330@mindspring.com> <3pLZfQAbnAs3EwgG@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <37B0E53D.C51201B3@mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <37B0E53D.C51201B3@mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John R. Mayne wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> John R. Mayne wrote: >> >> >Or, let's take the case of a pair I once played against. The auction >> >proceeded 1H by A, overcall of 1S, to B: ATx KQxx AKQx xx. B rolled the >> >hand all the way to 4H, figuring his partner had psyched. (They psyched >> >a lot.) After going +510, they got to the next one. >> > >> >I agree that the burden of proof should be very strong when a field >> >works. But I think fielding prior to absolute knowledge should be legal >> >if you can demonstrate that you also misfield at an appropriate rate. >> >> L40A: >> >> A player may make any call or play >> (including an intentionally misleading >> call - such as a psychic bid - or a call >> or play that departs from commonly >> accepted, or previously announced, >> use of a convention), without prior >> announcement, provided that such call or >> play is not based on a partnership >> understanding. > > >> Did the pair use an unannounced understanding? If they did it is not >> legal, whether it was successful or not. > >OK, let's read it that way. We can remove the parenthetical phrase "A >player may make any call or play without prior announcement, provided >that such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding." >Uh-oh! I don't announce or even have marked my full methods for opening >1H, yet I have very specific partnership agreements. This interpretation >ends bidding as we know it. > >Suppose I open 4S in fourth seat. There is nothing to mark on the ACBL >card. We have very specific rules on what this means in my partnerships; >have I violated this law? > >Oh, you think 40A is modified by 40B, which talks about disclosure? >Their propensity for psychs has always been announced according to ACBL >rules. > >I think 40A is a red herring. L40B talks about disclosure, and other parts of L40 do as well. L40A gives you the right to make certain calls: basically you may not make calls based on an understanding that is not disclosed by the methods shown elsewhere in L40. If you psyche or misbid, then L40B does not apply: you have not made a call based on a partnership understanding. L40A gives you the right to do so. However, if you have a partnership understanding then L40A no longer gives you the right to make such a call, and disclosure depends on the methods outlined in the rest of L40. The SO outlines the method of informing the opponents of your methods through convention cards. The ACBL CC is excellently designed for people playing fairly standard methods, but does little for disclosure for people playing strange methods. There is nowhere on it for me to give a simple description of my leads, for example. However, that is their decision, and presumably they think that methods not shown are common enough to be covered by "commonly accepted". I do wonder somewhat whether the ACBL CC is in line with L75A when people are not playing Standard methods. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 11 23:37:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA04830 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 23:37:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA04824 for ; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 23:37:07 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id IAA26165; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 08:36:22 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa5-101.ix.netcom.com(206.217.132.101) by dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma026132; Wed Aug 11 08:35:57 1999 Message-ID: <000a01bee3ff$109ddf60$6584d9ce@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Marvin L. French" , Subject: Re: EXCUSE ME IF I DEMU Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 09:40:21 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bless you Ed. :-) As for you Marv, as you know you already blessed with such a lovely her for a partner. -- Craig >Ed Reppert wrote: >> > Marvin L. French wrote: >> >> >An exposed card must remain on the table throughout the auction. If it is >an >> >honor card, or a premature lead, or multiple cards, (penalty) partner must >> >pass at their (!) next turn to call. >> >> My copy of the Laws is grammatically correct here. I haven't seen any >> bowing to the politically correct, but grammatically incorrect, usage you >> cite, and frankly, I hope I never do. :-) >> >Written tongue-in-cheek, Ed, as a joke to go with recent words on this >subject. I would normally write: "partner must pass at her next turn to call." > >Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com > > > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 12 01:27:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA05157 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 01:27:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.146]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA05151 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 01:27:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.37] by mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 11:27:04 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <0bce01bee3c1$8e4173c0$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> References: <9908100930.0DD7800@bbs.hal-pc.org> Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 11:17:44 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: EXCUSE ME IF I DEMU Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >Written tongue-in-cheek, Ed, as a joke to go with recent words on this >subject. I would normally write: "partner must pass at her next turn to call." Sorry, Marv. Sometimes I'm a little dense. :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2 iQA/AwUBN7GWSL2UW3au93vOEQKsxgCg7JpZ3X0F6lv7txa9IKufQBMWOt4AnAwE MRLi6p7KpzQfTTAh8135Y2vK =X89F -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 12 01:36:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA05193 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 01:36:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA05187 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 01:36:34 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id KAA15341 for ; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 10:35:50 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa5-88.ix.netcom.com(206.217.132.88) by dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma015290; Wed Aug 11 10:35:25 1999 Message-ID: <001d01bee40f$c1c35940$6584d9ce@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 11:39:51 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Without demeaning any other NA or ZA, I think it is fair to note, as I think many will agree, that the EBU has one of the best procedures in force for dealing fairly with psychic bids. The unfortunate corollary is that some jurisdictions have not, as yet, been as successful in implementing a fair and even-handed approach to this often controversial area. While it is possible to deal with this solely through regulation, and while the politics of the situation may forbid incorporating evenhanded treatment into the Law, the situation is far from ideal in much of the world. Nothing in the Law as written bans frequent psychs; in fact if there is no "partnership understanding" they are specifically authorised by law. If my partner could know I am psyching while the opponents could not, that is unfair and illegal. But if my partner, the opponents, and everyone in the room including the fellow behind the bar could know I am psyching (or maybe I am not) there should be no reason to ban me from doing so, providing I have what I justifiably consider to be sound tactical reasons for doing so and am not just seeking to make a mockery of the game. Save that my partner may have special knowledge about my tendencies not available to the opponents, my psych should be no more restricted than a false card by declarer. A false card by defender would seem to be the analogous case. The general principal seems to me to be that we cannot encode the language of bidding unless we are willing to make the code known to all at the table. But just as conventions and relays can be legal, the departure from announced methods should be legal if partner has no special knowledge about when this is likely to occur beyond past experience (which is disclosable) and general bridge knowledge. I can live with marking frequent psychs on the convention card. I can accept telling the opponents on request that partner has psyched at times in the past in a similar situation if I also tell them, if true, that he most o ften has his bid. I cannot accept needlessly being unable to choose my call based on my judgement rather than regulatory limitations. I cannot accept being required to say that I think partner may be psyching his 3 club opener because I have 9 clubs in my own hand...or his 1M opener, overcalled by a NT because I have 22 hcp, or because it is late in the round of Swiss and we have given up two probable 11 IMP swings in the prior boards. Other players really do not need protection from frequent psychers; their reputations precede them and their partners have ethical obligations to adequately disclose partnership agreements, even implicit ones. Too frequent psyching is generally a losing approach, therefore it is self-regulating. The problem is much of the world is to ensure that the Law 40A rights to make "any call or play (including and intentionally misleading call - such as a psychic bid - or a call or play that departs from commonly accepted, or previously announced use of a convention), without prior announcement" is not unfairly abridged. To say that you can psych the XYZ convention, or that you can't psych in the same situation more than once in a lifetime with a given partner, is a distinct abridgement of these rights. You cannot allow regulation that flies in the face of the Laws or the Laws will be meaningless. Thus whilst I agree with you that "if situations like this are dealt with sensibly by interpretation and regulation [as the EBU has done] then there is no particular advantage to BLs", I submit that there is substantial advantage to BLs in jurisdictions that do not deal reasonably with psyching...sufficient in fact to wring the enjoyment and spirit out of the game. It is perhaps no accident that participation by the non-geriatric segment of the population (which I am rapidly leaving) appears greatest in those portions of the world that allow the greatest liberty to play, bid and innovate in as wide open a manner as fairness to other contestants permits. We perhaps need to give more teeth to Law 40A by not allowing as much of a usurpation of its license by either ignorance or the misappropriation of other segments of Law 40. -- Craig Senior >Michael S. Dennis wrote: > >>a) nothing in the language of 40A disallows any psychic bid, with or >>without partnership understanding. > David Stevenson replied:> I don't accept this. The wording is > > A player may make any call or play > (including an intentionally misleading > call - such as a psychic bid - or a call > or play that departs from commonly > accepted, or previously announced, use > of a convention), without prior > announcement, provided that such call or > play is not based on a partnership > understanding. > > So, if it only seems to allow any bid, "provided that such call or >play is not based on a partnership understanding" then it seems to >disallow psyches based on a partnership understanding. > >>b)even if the language of 40A could be read as disallowing psychs that >>don't meet the proviso (in which case it should say so), > > I believe it does. > >> it fails to >>provide the kind of clarifying enforcement tools which are embodied in L16. >>What standards should be applied? What penalties can be applied when >>violations are determined? Indeed, these are the perfectly legitimate >>questions raised by the original poster on this thread, which have not, so >>far as I have read to this point, been addressed. My own view is that >>trying to define such tendencies as UI, subject to L16 treatment, opens up >>a truly unmanageable can of worms. > > True. Why should they be UI? It is a different approach. L40A makes >it clear that psyches are legal in the absence of partnership >understanding, therefore, if there is a partnership understanding we do >not allow the psyche. > >> Some of the questions that derive from >>this approach have been raised by others, and I can think of many more. >>Talk about an extravaganza for the BL's! > > Not at all. If situations like this are dealt with sensibly by >interpretation and regulation [as the EBU has done] then there is no >particular advantage to BLs. > > >PWD > >-- >David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ >Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 12 04:06:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA05864 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 04:06:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail4.svr.pol.co.uk (mail4.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.211]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA05859 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 04:06:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.92.197.25] (helo=mail17.svr.pol.co.uk) by mail4.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11Ecl5-000580-00 for Bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 19:05:51 +0100 Received: from modem-133.name75.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.136.197.133] helo=laphroaig) by mail17.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11Ecjg-0002pT-00 for Bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 19:04:25 +0100 Received: (from jeremy@localhost) by laphroaig (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA09435; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 14:25:17 +0100 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI References: <005101bee2be$8e637960$995208c3@swhki5i6> <3.0.1.32.19990810183314.01253e34@pop.mindspring.com> From: Jeremy Rickard Date: 11 Aug 1999 14:24:10 +0100 In-Reply-To: David Stevenson's message of "Wed, 11 Aug 1999 03:21:40 +0100" Message-ID: X-Mailer: Gnus v5.6.45/Emacs 20.3 Lines: 53 X-BadReturnPath: jeremy@laphroaig rewritten as j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk using "From" header Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes: > Michael S. Dennis wrote: > >My own view is that trying to define such tendencies as UI, > >subject to L16 treatment, opens up a truly unmanageable can of > >worms. > > True. Why should they be UI? It is a different approach. So the hypothetical use of L16 that I described when starting this thread ["the fact that your partner psyches frequently is UI to you, and you may not choose between LAs one that is suggested by this UI"] is *not* mainstream EBU practice? For reasons that are hard to express without using the words "can of worms", I had hoped not. What about other national authorities? This was actually one of the things I was hoping to learn when I originally asked the question. > If situations like this are dealt with sensibly by > interpretation and regulation [as the EBU has done] then there is no > particular advantage to BLs. I feel rather uneasy about the regulations regarding psyches (independent of my personal views of what the regulations *should* be), because they seem very vague. The problem starts with the Laws: it's not at all clear what it means for a psyche by a "known psycher" (not necessarily a very frequent psycher) to be "based on a partnership understanding": I think "a" is the only word in that phrase that I'm entirely happy about. The EBU may well have clear guidelines for tournament directors about the practical issues of ruling on psyches, but I don't feel that the guidance routinely given to players (e.g., the Orange Book), makes things an awful lot clearer. At any rate, many players I know (myself included, probably) have very confused ideas about the ethics and legality of psyching. Although no policy is going to keep everybody happy (witness the wide range of opinions expressed in this thread), I do feel that the EBU could do more to clarify (for the benefit of players) their "interpretation and regulation[s]". I think this would help to reduce ill-feeling between frequent psychers and psyche-haters --- although it may divert that ill-feeling towards the EBU, of course :). Reading back what I've just written, it looks as though I'm particularly attacking the EBU. This is entirely because I play under their auspices, and I don't intend to suggest that they are worse in these respects than other authorities. Jeremy. -- Jeremy Rickard Email: j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk WWW: http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 12 07:42:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA06620 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 07:42:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA06615 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 07:42:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt092nb1.san.rr.com [204.210.48.177]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA25430 for ; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 14:41:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <010d01bee442$4e903280$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 14:37:49 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: Craig Senior wrote, about using "they" with a singular antecedent:: > > >Well Marv, I guess I am not in my right mind. The usage is an abomination, > >one of those distortions perpetrated upon the language by those politically > >correct souls who have made gay joyless and changed the spelling to womyn. > >While the language perhaps suffers from the absence of a widely usable third > >person singular indefinite that does not become impersonal, that does not > >justify perverting it. > > Hear, hear! > > [snip] > > >Pedantry aside, I object to little that Linda has proposed. I only would > >wish it to be worded better. The basic idea she proposes has merit as do so > >many of hers. > > And again! :-) > > Once, Archie Goodwin entered the office of his employer, the eccentric > genius Nero Wolfe. Mr. Wolfe was seated in front of the fireplace, ripping > pages out of his brand new copy of _Webster's Second Unabridged Dictionary_ > and throwing them in the fire. When Archie asked why he was doing that, > Wolfe replied "'Contact' is _not_ a verb!" > > :-) > > Regards, > > Ed > > "When *I* use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful > tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor > less." > -- "Through the Looking Glass", by Lewis Carroll Looking in my files of such stuff, I found a Peanuts cartoon: Charlie Brown: "Did anyone call while I was out?" Lucy: "So and so called, and said they'd get back to you, or get even with you, or something...They said they'd keep in touch." Charlie: "They?" Lucy: "He or she." Charlton Laird (English professor): "There has not been a reputable student of grammar for a long time who believed the grammar books that are in use." George Orwell: "Grammar is of no importance so long as we make the meaning plain." Of such things as It is she, it is I, it was he, etc., Samuel Butler wrote: A Babylonish dialect Which learned pedants much affect Apologies for going off-subject along with Craig, but I had to defend the admirable Linda Trent, who has to translate the scribblings of AC scribes into readable English for the NABC Daily Bulletins and casebooks. She does a great job. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 12 08:02:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA06666 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 08:02:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA06661 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 08:02:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt092nb1.san.rr.com [204.210.48.177]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA27539 for ; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 15:02:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <011801bee445$27e75160$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 15:00:46 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Tim West-meads To: Cc: Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 1999 2:48 AM Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI > In-Reply-To: <3pLZfQAbnAs3EwgG@blakjak.demon.co.uk> > David Stevenson wrote: > > L40A: > > > > A player may make any call or play > > (including an intentionally misleading > > call - such as a psychic bid - or a call > > or play that departs from commonly > > accepted, or previously announced, > > use of a convention), without prior > > announcement, provided that such call or > > play is not based on a partnership > > understanding. > > > > Did the pair use an unannounced understanding? If they did it is not > > legal, whether it was successful or not. > > This is surely only half the story. Taking L40 in a more holistic view the > criteria become: > > Subject to SO regulations on conventions a player may; > 1. Make any call or play not based on a partnership understanding > 2. Make any call or play based on an understanding which opponents may > be reasonably expected to understand > 3. Make any call or play based on an understanding which, although the > opponents may not be reasonably expected to understand it, involves an > understanding disclosed in accordance with SO regulations. I would add (from L73E) 4. Make any deceptive call or play not protected by a special partnership understanding > > The regulations on disclosure seem to be a mixture of pre-informing (eg > NT range, basic system), alerts (particularly on conventional calls), and > a requirement for full and frank answers to questions (other > understandings). My impression is that "style based" understandings are > properly disclosed in response to questions (ie not at all if the > questions aren't asked!). This accords with the ACBL's Principle of Full Disclosure, which says: "If you are interested in knowing these things about your oponnent's bid, merely say to the bidder's partner, '_Would you tell me more about your style?_*'" Which implies that you have to ask. However, the PFD goes on to suggest that the declaring side *volunteer* [emphasis mine] information regarding style after the auction is over, before the opening lead is made, if they want to be considered an "actively ethical" partnership. That sounds right. > > Thus if presented with an otherwise borderline choice between raising > to 2S/3S I will choose 2S if partner is a known psycher, an overbidder, a > weak dummy player or of aggressive tendency. If partner is aware of my > tendency then I expect him to disclose this when asked. Exactly. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 12 08:12:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA06715 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 08:12:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA06710 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 08:12:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt092nb1.san.rr.com [204.210.48.177]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA28624 for ; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 15:12:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <012a01bee446$945821c0$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <005101bee2be$8e637960$995208c3@swhki5i6><3.0.1.32.19990810183314.01253e34@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 15:10:02 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Michael S. Dennis wrote: > > >a) nothing in the language of 40A disallows any psychic bid, with or > >without partnership understanding. > > I don't accept this. The wording is > > A player may make any call or play > (including an intentionally misleading > call - such as a psychic bid - or a call > or play that departs from commonly > accepted, or previously announced, use > of a convention), without prior > announcement, provided that such call or > play is not based on a partnership > understanding. > > So, if it only seems to allow any bid, "provided that such call or > play is not based on a partnership understanding" then it seems to > disallow psyches based on a partnership understanding. > > >b)even if the language of 40A could be read as disallowing psychs that > >don't meet the proviso (in which case it should say so), > > I believe it does. > > > it fails to > >provide the kind of clarifying enforcement tools which are embodied in L16. > >What standards should be applied? What penalties can be applied when > >violations are determined? Indeed, these are the perfectly legitimate > >questions raised by the original poster on this thread, which have not, so > >far as I have read to this point, been addressed. My own view is that > >trying to define such tendencies as UI, subject to L16 treatment, opens up > >a truly unmanageable can of worms. > > True. Why should they be UI? It is a different approach. L40A makes > it clear that psyches are legal in the absence of partnership > understanding, therefore, if there is a partnership understanding we do > not allow the psyche. > But not if the understanding does not protect the psych, I hope: L73E: A player may appropriately attempt to deceive an opponent through a call or play (so long as the deception is not protected by concealed partnership understanding or experience). The word "protected" was deliberately used instead of the words "the subject of" and should not be dismissed as meaningless. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 12 08:34:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA06752 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 08:34:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (mailhub.irvine.com [192.160.8.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA06747 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 08:34:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA16113; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 15:34:00 -0700 Message-Id: <199908112234.PAA16113@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 11 Aug 1999 14:37:49 PDT." <010d01bee442$4e903280$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 15:34:02 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin French wrote: > George Orwell: "Grammar is of no importance so long as we make the > meaning plain." The problem is, the world is full of people who think they're being perfectly plain, but really don't have a good concept of how other people are going to read what they write. I see this all the time on USENET, where people post something that they believe conveys their message plainly, but because of their poor grammar, I have to read it several times, backward and forward, to figure out what they're trying to say. I don't really appreciate having to do this. Sometimes I just give up and go to the next post. Since we cannot read other peoples' minds, we can't know for sure whether our message will interpreted plainly by readers; the best way to ensure that our meanings are "plain" is to adopt, and adhere to, a standard framework that everyone uses. And the best standard framework we have is Correct Grammar. It's sort of similar to how network programmers have set up standards for communication between computers, rather than letting any one computer just dump out data any way it chooses because the programmer figured its interpretation would be "plain". That said, some small deviations probably don't detract much from the ease with which something can be understood. The use of "they" or "their" that we're discussing, probably isn't that harmful, although someone who had never read or heard this usage before may well get stuck on such a sentence trying to figure out what is meant. I'm not complaining so much about this usage as I am about the idea behind Orwell's quote (or what appears to me to be the idea, given that I don't know the context in which he said it). To me, this attitude is destructive to good communication. It's appropriate only for self-centered people who cannot conceive that something could be plain to *them* but might be less than obvious to others. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 12 09:48:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA06878 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 09:48:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA06873 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 09:48:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from mamos.demon.co.uk ([158.152.129.79]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11Ei65-0001sH-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 23:47:54 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 00:44:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Subject: Brighton beckons MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I'm off to the seaside for the EBU's Summer Congress off-line for 11 days drinking too much whisky with DWS and collecting new hands and rulings for you lot :) Have a nice break :) mike -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 12 09:59:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA06900 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 09:59:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from swan.prod.itd.earthlink.net (swan.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.123]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA06895 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 09:59:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from ivillage (1Cust177.tnt1.topeka.ks.da.uu.net [63.13.63.177]) by swan.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA23961 for ; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 16:59:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <4.1.19990811184228.009a7c00@mail.earthlink.net> X-Sender: baresch@mail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 18:57:44 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Brian Baresch Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply In-Reply-To: <199908112234.PAA16113@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >> George Orwell: "Grammar is of no importance so long as we make the >> meaning plain." > >The problem is, the world is full of people who think they're being >perfectly plain, but really don't have a good concept of how other >people are going to read what they write. True, but grammar is not exactly a cure-all for bad communication skills. I've seen grammatically correct passages that made no sense to anyone but the author (and on Copyediting-L we see a lot of them, posted by editors trying to figure out what the auther means). I agree that grammar can help, but often it wouldn't make a difference. Orwell's notion is good: If your meaning is plain, grammar doesn't matter. As for the sentence that started this all, I doubt anyone here had any problem figuring out what Linda was saying. BTW, the user of "their" as an indefinite singular dates to the 14th century, so it has a perfectly good pedigree, stiff-spined English teachers notwithstanding. Best regards, Brian Baresch, baresch@earthlink.net Lawrence, Kansas, USA Editing, writing, proofreading bearcat on OKB From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 12 12:25:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA07171 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 12:25:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA07161 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 12:25:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11EkXy-000D2e-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 02:24:52 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 03:23:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Brighton beckons In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , michael amos writes >I'm off to the seaside for the EBU's Summer Congress >off-line for 11 days >drinking too much whisky with DWS >and collecting new hands and rulings for you lot :) > >Have a nice break :) >mike drinking too much whisky with DWS and mamos for 11 days too. We're having midnight zips for the first time. kojak's "triple nickel" becomes "pound a round". last year I got declared a "no-go" zone when I played against the rottweiller. what new levels of creativity will we reach this year? hehe john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 12 12:25:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA07172 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 12:25:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA07162 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 12:25:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11EkXy-000AMB-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 02:24:53 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 03:05:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Excuse me if I demur In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes snip > > I am never convinced that these obscure positions were seen by the >lawmakers. It is very difficult to do so, however good they are, and if >they really had seen the position I would expect to see a direct >reference rather than a lack of a reference being given as evidence of >something. In other words, L24 should make it clear whether it is UI or >AI, and failure to reference L16A is not enough. > > My opinion? We apply L16A. But I agree that it is not clear and I >would accept an interpretation that makes it AI. > I'm still not happy with L16A. Are you and Max going to pass this down or can I continue to rule AI? chs john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 12 12:56:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA07242 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 12:56:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp2.mindspring.com (smtp2.mindspring.com [207.69.200.32]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA07236 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 12:56:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveh13.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.68.35]) by smtp2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA31846 for ; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 22:56:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990811225420.0125401c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 22:54:20 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19990810183314.01253e34@pop.mindspring.com> <005101bee2be$8e637960$995208c3@swhki5i6> <3.0.1.32.19990810183314.01253e34@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:21 AM 8/11/99 +0100, David wrote: >Michael S. Dennis wrote: > >>a) nothing in the language of 40A disallows any psychic bid, with or >>without partnership understanding. > > I don't accept this. The wording is > > A player may make any call or play > (including an intentionally misleading > call - such as a psychic bid - or a call > or play that departs from commonly > accepted, or previously announced, use > of a convention), without prior > announcement, provided that such call or > play is not based on a partnership > understanding. > > So, if it only seems to allow any bid, "provided that such call or >play is not based on a partnership understanding" then it seems to >disallow psyches based on a partnership understanding. Sorry, but the syllogism fails on simple logical principles. If the Laws allow an action subject to a certain condition, it does not follow that the same action is necessarily disallowed in the absence of that condition. It is certainly a common enough fallacy to suppose that "if a then b" is equivalent to "if not a then not b", but no less a fallacy despite its frequency. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 12 13:06:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA07261 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 13:06:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp2.mindspring.com (smtp2.mindspring.com [207.69.200.32]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA07256 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 13:05:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveh13.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.68.35]) by smtp2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA17699 for ; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 23:05:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990811230343.012540a8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 23:03:43 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI In-Reply-To: <011801bee445$27e75160$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:00 PM 8/11/99 -0700, Marvin wrote: >Which implies that you have to ask. However, the PFD goes on to suggest >that the declaring side *volunteer* [emphasis mine] information >regarding style after the auction is over, before the opening lead is >made, if they want to be considered an "actively ethical" partnership. >That sounds right. On a side note, I'd just like to say that I have no interest in being regarded as an "actively ethical" player. It's hard enough to know and follow the Laws, which is a completely satisfactory objective IMO. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 12 15:50:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA07489 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 15:50:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA07484 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 15:50:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt092nb1.san.rr.com [204.210.48.177]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA17525 for ; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 22:49:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <019f01bee486$76e19b40$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199908112234.PAA16113@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 22:41:46 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > > Marvin French wrote: > > > George Orwell: "Grammar is of no importance so long as we make the > > meaning plain." > > The problem is, the world is full of people who think they're being > perfectly plain, but really don't have a good concept of how other > people are going to read what they write. I see this all the time on > USENET, where people post something that they believe conveys their > message plainly, but because of their poor grammar, I have to read it > several times, backward and forward, to figure out what they're trying > to say. I don't really appreciate having to do this. Sometimes I > just give up and go to the next post. Since we cannot read other > peoples' minds, we can't know for sure whether our message will > interpreted plainly by readers; the best way to ensure that our > meanings are "plain" is to adopt, and adhere to, a standard framework > that everyone uses. And the best standard framework we have is > Correct Grammar. It's sort of similar to how network programmers have > set up standards for communication between computers, rather than > letting any one computer just dump out data any way it chooses because > the programmer figured its interpretation would be "plain". > > That said, some small deviations probably don't detract much from the > ease with which something can be understood. The use of "they" or > "their" that we're discussing, probably isn't that harmful, although > someone who had never read or heard this usage before may well get > stuck on such a sentence trying to figure out what is meant. I'm not > complaining so much about this usage as I am about the idea behind > Orwell's quote (or what appears to me to be the idea, given that I > don't know the context in which he said it). To me, this attitude is > destructive to good communication. It's appropriate only for > self-centered people who cannot conceive that something could be plain > to *them* but might be less than obvious to others. Perhaps Orwell's "we" referred to fellow writers, not to everyone in general. The trick is to "make the meaning plain," which is indeed not easy for most of us. Where is this "Correct Grammar" to be found? Do you have an authoritative book to recommend? Perhaps one that Bill Buckley learned from (uh, that is, one from which Bill Buckley learned). He was taught by some schoolmarm that "like" is a preposition and "as" is a conjunction, as evidenced by this sentence of his: "The Iraqis need nuclear energy as Eskimos need ice-makers." If that is an example of correct grammar, count me out. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 12 17:55:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA07684 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 17:55:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from wmgt2.math.uni-wuppertal.de (wmgt2.math.uni-wuppertal.de [132.195.7.139]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA07679 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 17:55:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from wmgt2 by wmgt2.math.uni-wuppertal.de (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4 Uni-Wuppertal FB7(HJB) 1.1) id JAA02742; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 09:55:21 +0200 Message-Id: <199908120755.JAA02742@wmgt2.math.uni-wuppertal.de> Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 09:55:21 +0200 (MET DST) From: Erich Ossa Reply-To: Erich Ossa Subject: dummy establishes revoke To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-MD5: Tf81xQ3nEDQ3Is21i+T20g== X-Mailer: dtmail 1.2.1 CDE Version 1.2.1 SunOS 5.6 sun4u sparc Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello, the following point was raised in the german discussion group DOUBL. I thought it might be interesting for this discussion group, too. Imagine the following situation: A defender does not follow suit and is inquired by dummy about a possible revoke. It turns out that the defender revoked. Now, by law 63 B, the revoke is essentially established. That means that dummy has effectively though illegally prevented the declarer from correcting his revoke in time. I suggest that law 63 B is intended to read: (*) When there has been a violation of the 3rd sentence of law 61 B, .... My questions: 1. Do you agree with my argument? 2. Can TD proceed on the basis of the 'intended' meaning (*) ? 3. Has this possibly already been discussed? If yes, with which result? 4. Is there a publication, where such 'interpretations' of the laws can be inforced? Regards, Erich Ossa ----------------------------------------------------- Erich Ossa Fachbereich 7 Mathematik Universitaet Wuppertal Gaussstr.20 D 42097 Wuppertal GERMANY ----------------------------------------------------- TEL: (+49) 202 - 439 2672 FAX: (+49) 202 - 439 3771 E-Mail: ossa@math.uni-wuppertal.de ----------------------------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 12 19:18:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA07894 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 19:18:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from cadillac.meteo.fr (cadillac.meteo.fr [137.129.1.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA07889 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 19:18:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from meteo.fr (rubis.meteo.fr [137.129.5.28]) by cadillac.meteo.fr (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA15692 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 09:17:59 GMT Message-ID: <37B29146.B1DE22D3@meteo.fr> Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 11:17:58 +0200 From: Jean Pierre Rocafort X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: dummy establishes revoke References: <199908120755.JAA02742@wmgt2.math.uni-wuppertal.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Erich Ossa a écrit : > Hello, > > the following point was raised in the german discussion group > DOUBL. I thought it might be interesting for this discussion > group, too. > > Imagine the following situation: A defender does not follow > suit and is inquired by dummy about a possible revoke. It > turns out that the defender revoked. > > Now, by law 63 B, the revoke is essentially established. > That means that dummy has effectively though illegally > prevented the declarer from correcting his revoke in time. > I think you intended "defender" instead of "declarer" in your last sentence? > > I suggest that law 63 B is intended to read: > (*) When there has been a violation of the 3rd sentence of > law 61 B, .... > > My questions: > 1. Do you agree with my argument? No, but it could be lengthily debated, it's again a replay of the "no parking" discussion. 61.B announces some actions as legal, some other as illegal and tells nothing about the remainder. When 63 B refers to violations of 61B, i read it as only actions which are explicitely declared illegal by 61B. > > 2. Can TD proceed on the basis of the 'intended' meaning > (*) ? Very dangerous to ask TD to interpret and to look for supposed intended meaning of laws; better for them to use them as they are written; but, in this case, it doesn't need bending the written law IMO. > > 3. Has this possibly already been discussed? If yes, with > which result? I don't know > > 4. Is there a publication, where such 'interpretations' of > the laws can be inforced? We should ask Grattan Endicott. Not so long ago, we have seen controversed interpretations (L25B) edited by WBFLC! JP Rocafort > > > Regards, > > Erich Ossa > ___________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE SCEM/TTI/DAC 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ___________________________________________________ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 12 21:07:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA08195 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 21:07:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from wmgt2.math.uni-wuppertal.de (wmgt2.math.uni-wuppertal.de [132.195.7.139]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA08187 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 21:07:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from wmgt2 by wmgt2.math.uni-wuppertal.de (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4 Uni-Wuppertal FB7(HJB) 1.1) id NAA02930; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 13:07:10 +0200 Message-Id: <199908121107.NAA02930@wmgt2.math.uni-wuppertal.de> Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 13:07:10 +0200 (MET DST) From: Erich Ossa Reply-To: Erich Ossa Subject: RE: dummy establishes revoke To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-MD5: clJ/9b5URIN/RIduQN6PeQ== X-Mailer: dtmail 1.2.1 CDE Version 1.2.1 SunOS 5.6 sun4u sparc Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sorry, to have bothered you with my previous letter lacking sufficient legal training. One member (M. Farwig) of DOUBL pointed to the obviously correct interpretation: law 61 B does not forbid dummy to inquire about revoke - this is ruled in law 42. Hence law 63 B does not apply to this case. Best regards Erich Ossa ----------------------------------------------------- Erich Ossa Fachbereich 7 Mathematik Universitaet Wuppertal Gaussstr.20 D 42097 Wuppertal GERMANY ----------------------------------------------------- TEL: (+49) 202 - 439 2672 FAX: (+49) 202 - 439 3771 E-Mail: ossa@math.uni-wuppertal.de ----------------------------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 12 23:00:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA08739 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 23:00:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from fe060.worldonline.dk (fe060.worldonline.dk [212.54.64.207]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA08734 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 23:00:42 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 901 invoked by uid 0); 12 Aug 1999 13:00:27 -0000 Received: from 58.ppp1-1.image.dk (212.54.78.58) by mail020.worldonline.dk with SMTP; 12 Aug 1999 13:00:27 -0000 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: dummy establishes revoke Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 13:00:27 GMT Message-ID: <37c4c557.17936528@mail.image.dk> References: <199908120755.JAA02742@wmgt2.math.uni-wuppertal.de> <37B29146.B1DE22D3@meteo.fr> In-Reply-To: <37B29146.B1DE22D3@meteo.fr> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thu, 12 Aug 1999 11:17:58 +0200 skrev Jean Pierre Rocafort: > I think you intended "defender" instead of "declarer" in your last >sentence? So do I. >No, but it could be lengthily debated, it's again a replay of the "no >parking" discussion. I think you're missing the point. Dummy is violating the rules (and this should be dealt with of course). But his error takes away a normal possibility for defender. He is no longer able to discover and correct his revoke, and the heavy penalty will be applied - through no fault of his (the revoke is his fault of course, but the establishing is not). It's quite fair that he (or his partner) can establish his own revoke, but is it fair that an opponent can? It seems to me that this is an error in the law. >Very dangerous to ask TD to interpret and to look for supposed intended >meaning of laws; I agree. We have to follow them as they are, when there's no build in slack. Bertel -- Denmark http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 12 23:40:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA08846 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 23:14:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA08830 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 23:13:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11Euft-0004gn-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 13:13:43 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 11:11:07 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI References: <011801bee445$27e75160$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19990811230343.012540a8@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990811230343.012540a8@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: >On a side note, I'd just like to say that I have no interest in being >regarded as an "actively ethical" player. It's hard enough to know and >follow the Laws, which is a completely satisfactory objective IMO. If you follow the Laws then you are an "actively ethical player". For example, if your partner hesitates, and you do not choose an action suggested by it then you have followed the Law [73C]: but many players will not realise this, and just refer to you as actively ethical. If your partner psyches once every two years, and you notice that he never has more than five points, then after the sequence 1D - 1S - - - you would expect partner as opener to have fewer than five points. So you tell the opponents so. Active ethics, say the crowd. L75A, say I. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 12 23:47:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA08995 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 23:47:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from batman.npl.co.uk (batman.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA08989 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 23:47:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from herschel.npl.co.uk (unknown.npl.co.uk [139.143.1.16] (may be forged)) by batman.npl.co.uk (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id OAA29983; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 14:46:58 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA20326; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 14:46:56 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 13:46:55 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA17955; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 14:46:53 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 14:46:53 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199908121346.OAA17955@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> To: Bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeremy writes: [snip] > I feel rather uneasy about the regulations regarding psyches > (independent of my personal views of what the regulations *should* > be), because they seem very vague. The problem starts with the Laws: > it's not at all clear what it means for a psyche by a "known psycher" > (not necessarily a very frequent psycher) to be "based on a > partnership understanding": I think "a" is the only word in that > phrase that I'm entirely happy about. The EBU may well have clear > guidelines for tournament directors about the practical issues of > ruling on psyches, but I don't feel that the guidance routinely given > to players (e.g., the Orange Book), makes things an awful lot clearer. > > At any rate, many players I know (myself included, probably) have very > confused ideas about the ethics and legality of psyching. Although no > policy is going to keep everybody happy (witness the wide range of > opinions expressed in this thread), I do feel that the EBU could do > more to clarify (for the benefit of players) their "interpretation and > regulation[s]". I think this would help to reduce ill-feeling between > frequent psychers and psyche-haters --- although it may divert that > ill-feeling towards the EBU, of course :). > > Reading back what I've just written, it looks as though I'm > particularly attacking the EBU. This is entirely because I play under > their auspices, and I don't intend to suggest that they are worse in > these respects than other authorities. > > Jeremy. The only real guidance is the definition of fielding (OB 6.2.1): The actions of you and your partner following a psyche may provide evidence of an unauthorised - and therefore illegal - understanding. If so, then your partnership is said to have "fielded" the psyche. The TD will find that you have such an unauthorised understanding if, for example, you take any abnormal action, before the psyche has been exposed, to protect your side from its effect. The TD will judge your actions objectively: that is to say your intent will not be taken into account. The rest of OB 6.2 is concerned with how possible fielding will be dealt with. The key points of 6.2.1 are: (a) fielding is evidence of an unauthorised [illegal] understanding, (b) abnormal action which protects the psyche's effects is fielding, (c) the actions will be judged objectively. The effect of (c) is that even if there is no unauthorised understanding, a partnership must avoid abnormal actions which protect the psyche's effects. [ From Jeremy's previous posts: I guess this point is one of the causes of his unease with the EBU regulations. ] Partnering a "known psycher", you must not make abnormal actions which protect partner's possible psyches. If you recognise that a situation in which partner is known to psyche has arisen, before the psyche has been exposed, you should avoid (even slightly) abnormal actions which protect partner's known psyche in this situation. The more frequently partner psyches, the more constrained your actions will be. I hope this unofficial interpretation is helpful. Robin -- Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 12 23:58:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA09041 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 23:58:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA09035 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 23:58:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id PAA08769; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 15:58:08 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JEOOXPINPA0010N6@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 15:57:09 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id ; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 15:57:09 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 15:57:06 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: dummy establishes revoke To: "'blh@nospam.dk'" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C212@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk May be I should wait till I have seen my english lawbook, but looking in my Dutch one there isn't such a big problem. We are proud with our translation so it is quite possible it is 'better' than the original version but 63B says: If a DEFENDER infringes law 61B ..etc ...... This most certainly means that this penalty not necessarily applies when dummy asks a defender about a possible revoke. And going one step further I tend to the opinion that defender has discovered his revoke in a for his side legal way when dummy asks about it. So penalty card but no penalty tricks. If the Dutch translation is 'wrong' it is somewhat more difficult but as a TD I would do the same and make a note for a change once more. ton > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: blh@nospam.dk [mailto:blh@nospam.dk] > Verzonden: donderdag 12 augustus 1999 15:00 > Aan: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Onderwerp: Re: dummy establishes revoke > > > Thu, 12 Aug 1999 11:17:58 +0200 skrev Jean Pierre Rocafort: > > > I think you intended "defender" instead of "declarer" in your last > >sentence? > > So do I. > > >No, but it could be lengthily debated, it's again a replay of the "no > >parking" discussion. > > I think you're missing the point. Dummy is violating the rules > (and this should be dealt with of course). But his error takes > away a normal possibility for defender. He is no longer able to > discover and correct his revoke, and the heavy penalty will be > applied - through no fault of his (the revoke is his fault of > course, but the establishing is not). > > It's quite fair that he (or his partner) can establish his own > revoke, but is it fair that an opponent can? > > It seems to me that this is an error in the law. > > >Very dangerous to ask TD to interpret and to look for > supposed intended > >meaning of laws; > > I agree. We have to follow them as they are, when there's no > build in slack. > > Bertel > -- > Denmark > http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 13 00:27:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA08835 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 23:14:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA08828 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 23:13:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11Euft-0004gm-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 13:13:42 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 11:05:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI References: <3.0.1.32.19990810183314.01253e34@pop.mindspring.com> <005101bee2be$8e637960$995208c3@swhki5i6> <3.0.1.32.19990810183314.01253e34@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990811225420.0125401c@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990811225420.0125401c@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: >At 03:21 AM 8/11/99 +0100, David wrote: >>Michael S. Dennis wrote: >> >>>a) nothing in the language of 40A disallows any psychic bid, with or >>>without partnership understanding. >> >> I don't accept this. The wording is >> >> A player may make any call or play >> (including an intentionally misleading >> call - such as a psychic bid - or a call >> or play that departs from commonly >> accepted, or previously announced, use >> of a convention), without prior >> announcement, provided that such call or >> play is not based on a partnership >> understanding. >> >> So, if it only seems to allow any bid, "provided that such call or >>play is not based on a partnership understanding" then it seems to >>disallow psyches based on a partnership understanding. > >Sorry, but the syllogism fails on simple logical principles. If the Laws >allow an action subject to a certain condition, it does not follow that the >same action is necessarily disallowed in the absence of that condition. It >is certainly a common enough fallacy to suppose that "if a then b" is >equivalent to "if not a then not b", but no less a fallacy despite its >frequency. True, but irrelevant. There is a presumption that certain things are only allowed if the Law book says so. The logic is actually "If a then b" plus "If not stated then not b" and that adds up to "If not a then not b". -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 13 00:57:02 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA08845 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 23:14:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA08833 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 23:13:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11Eufz-0004hB-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 13:13:48 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 11:27:04 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: dummy establishes revoke References: <199908120755.JAA02742@wmgt2.math.uni-wuppertal.de> <37B29146.B1DE22D3@meteo.fr> In-Reply-To: <37B29146.B1DE22D3@meteo.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id XAA08836 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jean Pierre Rocafort wrote: >Erich Ossa a écrit : >> the following point was raised in the german discussion group >> DOUBL. I thought it might be interesting for this discussion >> group, too. >> >> Imagine the following situation: A defender does not follow >> suit and is inquired by dummy about a possible revoke. It >> turns out that the defender revoked. >> >> Now, by law 63 B, the revoke is essentially established. >> That means that dummy has effectively though illegally >> prevented the declarer from correcting his revoke in time. > I think you intended "defender" instead of "declarer" in your last >sentence? >> I suggest that law 63 B is intended to read: >> (*) When there has been a violation of the 3rd sentence of >> law 61 B, .... >> >> My questions: >> 1. Do you agree with my argument? >No, but it could be lengthily debated, it's again a replay of the "no >parking" discussion. 61.B announces some actions as legal, some other as >illegal and tells nothing about the remainder. When 63 B refers to >violations of 61B, i read it as only actions which are explicitely >declared illegal by 61B. The trouble with that approach is that it is assumed that certain actions may only be allowed if the Law book says so, and that includes dummy asking a defender whether he has revoked. If you suggest that L61B tells us nothing about dummy asking a defender you are going down a very dangerous road. On the other hand, to read L63B as referrring to only actions specifically barred is a possible interpretation, and I suggest it is onw we should follow. >> 2. Can TD proceed on the basis of the 'intended' meaning >> (*) ? >Very dangerous to ask TD to interpret and to look for supposed intended >meaning of laws; better for them to use them as they are written; but, >in this case, it doesn't need bending the written law IMO. If a TD runs into an ambiguous part of the Law and has no interpretation to guide him then it is not unreasonable that he should work out his own interpretation based on all the factors, eg what he thinks the Laws mean. However, this does nto give him any rights to go off on a atangent where the Law is clear or an interpretation has been laid down for him. >> 3. Has this possibly already been discussed? If yes, with >> which result? > >I don't know No, I htink we have not met it before. >> 4. Is there a publication, where such 'interpretations' of >> the laws can be inforced? > >We should ask Grattan Endicott. Not so long ago, we have seen >controversed interpretations (L25B) edited by WBFLC! There are publications that have some force: Duplicate Decisions in NAmerica, the EBL Director's Guide in Europe. The latter refers to an earlier Law book so is only authoritative for matters unchanged since then. The method of promulgating interpretations is one I am trying to get involved in, not too successfully so far. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 13 01:27:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA09572 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 01:27:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from news.hal-pc.org (news.hal-pc.org [204.52.135.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA09566 for ; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 01:27:43 +1000 (EST) From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org Received: from bbs.hal-pc.org (uucp@localhost) by news.hal-pc.org (8.9.3/8.9.0) with UUCP id KAA48548 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 10:27:35 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0EOXZ00H Thu, 12 Aug 99 10:27:32 Message-ID: <9908121027.0EOXZ00@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Thu, 12 Aug 99 10:27:32 Subject: L16A1-REP To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Interesting that yesterday I stumbled [ did not break my neck but close enough to use the word stumbled ] across an intriguing text on this very subject. Titled 'The Grammatical Lawyer' by Morton S. Freemean 1979 and it is suggested to be used by members of the ABA [lawyers]. I have read a few pages and it is quite lucid on how various words and their combinations are best used and best not used. I think I will make a good study of it. Roger Pewick B>Adam Beneschan wrote: B>> B>> Marvin French wrote: B>> B>> > George Orwell: "Grammar is of no importance so long as we make the B>> > meaning plain." B>> -s- B>Where is this "Correct Grammar" to be found? Do you have an B>authoritative book to recommend? Perhaps one that Bill Buckley learned B>from (uh, that is, one from which Bill Buckley learned). He was taught B>by some schoolmarm that "like" is a preposition and "as" is a B>conjunction, as evidenced by this sentence of his: "The Iraqis need B>nuclear energy as Eskimos need ice-makers." B>If that is an example of correct grammar, count me out. B>Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com B> Roger Pewick Houston, Texas r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 13 01:30:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA09607 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 01:30:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from cadillac.meteo.fr (cadillac.meteo.fr [137.129.1.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA09602 for ; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 01:30:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from meteo.fr (rubis.meteo.fr [137.129.5.28]) by cadillac.meteo.fr (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA25509 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 15:29:31 GMT Message-ID: <37B2E85C.94783EBE@meteo.fr> Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 17:29:32 +0200 From: Jean Pierre Rocafort X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: dummy establishes revoke References: <199908120755.JAA02742@wmgt2.math.uni-wuppertal.de> <37B29146.B1DE22D3@meteo.fr> <37c4c557.17936528@mail.image.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bertel Lund Hansen a écrit : > Thu, 12 Aug 1999 11:17:58 +0200 skrev Jean Pierre Rocafort: > > > I think you intended "defender" instead of "declarer" in your last > >sentence? > > So do I. > > >No, but it could be lengthily debated, it's again a replay of the "no > >parking" discussion. > > I think you're missing the point. Dummy is violating the rules > (and this should be dealt with of course). But his error takes > away a normal possibility for defender. He is no longer able to > discover and correct his revoke, and the heavy penalty will be > applied - through no fault of his (the revoke is his fault of > course, but the establishing is not). > > It's quite fair that he (or his partner) can establish his own > revoke, but is it fair that an opponent can? > > It seems to me that this is an error in the law. > 63B: "When there has been a violation of L61.B...". I think 61.B is not infringed by dummy's illegal inquiry. The header tells "Attention is illegally drawn", which has happened when dummy asked; but headers are not part of the Laws. JP Rocafort > > > Bertel > -- > Denmark > http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) -- ___________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE SCEM/TTI/DAC 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ___________________________________________________ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 13 01:41:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA09630 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 01:41:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (mailhub.irvine.com [192.160.8.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA09625 for ; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 01:41:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA30860; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 08:41:10 -0700 Message-Id: <199908121541.IAA30860@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 11 Aug 1999 22:54:20 PDT." <3.0.1.32.19990811225420.0125401c@pop.mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 08:41:10 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk *** TODAY'S ENGLISH LESSON *** Michael S. Dennis wrote: > At 03:21 AM 8/11/99 +0100, David wrote: > >Michael S. Dennis wrote: > > > >>a) nothing in the language of 40A disallows any psychic bid, with or > >>without partnership understanding. > > > > I don't accept this. The wording is > > > > A player may make any call or play > > (including an intentionally misleading > > call - such as a psychic bid - or a call > > or play that departs from commonly > > accepted, or previously announced, use > > of a convention), without prior > > announcement, provided that such call or > > play is not based on a partnership > > understanding. > > > > So, if it only seems to allow any bid, "provided that such call or > >play is not based on a partnership understanding" then it seems to > >disallow psyches based on a partnership understanding. > > Sorry, but the syllogism fails on simple logical principles. If the Laws > allow an action subject to a certain condition, it does not follow that the > same action is necessarily disallowed in the absence of that condition. > It is certainly a common enough fallacy to suppose that "if a then b" is > equivalent to "if not a then not b", but no less a fallacy despite its > frequency. No, the "common enough fallacy" is to assume that English language follows the form and structure of logical propositions! If you have a logical proposition "if A then B", it of course does not follow that "if not A then not B"; but that's really relevant only if you're reading mathematical text of something of that nature, since the language in such texts is expected to conform to the principles of mathematical logic. But that's not generally true in English usage. It's often (not always) the case that when someone says "if A then B", then "if not A then not B" *is* contained in the meaning, because that's how the language is used. In other words, when we use words like "if" we don't expect the stuff that follows to be a proposition in mathematical logic. Instead, we look at the wording and the context, and see what the author or speaker intended. If a mother tells her son, "If you've finished your homework you can play baseball", this has the form of "if A then B", but can anyone reasonably doubt that "if not A then not B" is included in the meaning of the mother's statement? No. Q.E.D. I'm not taking a position on the topic of the thread. I'm just hoping to put to rest the notion that this "common logical fallacy" has any relevance when discussing the interpretation of English prose. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 13 01:59:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA09659 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 01:59:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca (Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA09654 for ; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 01:59:19 +1000 (EST) From: Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA Received: from Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.37.109.24/15.6) id AA165373545; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 11:59:05 -0400 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA178563543; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 11:59:04 -0400 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 11:58:48 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: TR: dummy establishes revoke Mime-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; name="BDY.RTF" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="BDY.RTF" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id BAA09655 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Message d'origine----- De: DuBreuil, Laval Date: 12 août, 1999 09:44 À: ossa Objet: RE: dummy establishes revoke Indeed, Law 43 A1b reads: Dummy may not call attention to an irregularity during play" Law 43B 1 says "Dummy is liable to penalty under Law 90 for any violation of the limitations listed in A1 (including calling attention to an irregularity during the play - 43 A1b). Law 43B 3 clearly cancels penalties to defender when dummy violate limitations listed in 43 A2 (not including calling attention to an irregularity during the play). So, "strictu sensus", dummy inquiring for a possible revoke by a defender is a violation of 43B1, liable to penalty under Law 90. It could be logic to apply Law 43B 3 here and allow revoker to correct his irregularity without penalty, but "calling attention to an irregularity during the play" is not listed in 43A2. Intuitively I should have ruled "revoke not established and may be corrected without penalty" but I am still searching for Laws to do this. Please help.....findind "le fil d'Arianne"... Laval Du Breuil Quebec City Sorry, to have bothered you with my previous letter lacking sufficient legal training. One member (M. Farwig) of DOUBL pointed to the obviously correct interpretation: law 61 B does not forbid dummy to inquire about revoke - this is ruled in law 42. Hence law 63 B does not apply to this case. Best regards Erich Ossa ----------------------------------------------------- Erich Ossa Fachbereich 7 Mathematik Universitaet Wuppertal Gaussstr.20 D 42097 Wuppertal GERMANY ----------------------------------------------------- TEL: (+49) 202 - 439 2672 FAX: (+49) 202 - 439 3771 E-Mail: ossa@math.uni-wuppertal.de ----------------------------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 13 03:56:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA10116 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 03:56:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from fe050.worldonline.dk (fe050.worldonline.dk [212.54.64.206]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id DAA10110 for ; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 03:56:41 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 20000 invoked by uid 0); 12 Aug 1999 17:56:22 -0000 Received: from 58.ppp1-7.image.dk (212.54.69.186) by mail030.worldonline.dk with SMTP; 12 Aug 1999 17:56:22 -0000 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: dummy establishes revoke Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 17:49:13 GMT Message-ID: <37c806ed.34729345@mail.image.dk> References: <199908120755.JAA02742@wmgt2.math.uni-wuppertal.de> <37B29146.B1DE22D3@meteo.fr> <37c4c557.17936528@mail.image.dk> <37B2E85C.94783EBE@meteo.fr> In-Reply-To: <37B2E85C.94783EBE@meteo.fr> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thu, 12 Aug 1999 17:29:32 +0200 skrev Jean Pierre Rocafort: >63B: "When there has been a violation of L61.B...". I think 61.B is not >infringed by dummy's illegal inquiry. Why don't you think so? That seems clear to me. 61B only permits dummy to ask declarer. Dummy then asks a defender. Law 61B is broken. >The header tells "Attention is illegally drawn", which has happened when >dummy asked; but headers are not part of the Laws. I don't see the relevance of the header. Bertel -- Denmark http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 13 04:19:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA10222 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 04:19:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (mailout1-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.81]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA10217 for ; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 04:19:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.37] by mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 14:19:13 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199908121346.OAA17955@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 14:16:47 -0400 To: Bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 9:46 AM -0400 8/12/99, Robin Barker wrote: >If you recognise that a situation >in which partner is known to psyche has arisen, before the psyche has >been exposed, you should avoid (even slightly) abnormal actions which >protect partner's known psyche in this situation. And if you don't recognize it? According to the OB (and, I think, pretty much to the way TDs here in ACBL-land handle it) if your action _looks_ like it was fielding, it was. And you're presumed guilty - that is, the burden of proof is on you to show that you didn't field it. How the heck can you prove a negative? Or am I misreading it? Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2 iQA/AwUBN7MQJb2UW3au93vOEQJt/QCfZmYbwZZ45pgixI2HSdqnU5Jwss0Anjim 0i6ie/hYuqIqz+qSuGj2nLGm =DKrd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 13 05:11:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA10338 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 05:11:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (mailhub.irvine.com [192.160.8.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA10331 for ; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 05:11:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA01668; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 12:10:33 -0700 Message-Id: <199908121910.MAA01668@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: dummy establishes revoke In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 12 Aug 1999 17:49:13 PST." <37c806ed.34729345@mail.image.dk> Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 12:10:05 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bertel Lund Hansen wrote: > Thu, 12 Aug 1999 17:29:32 +0200 skrev Jean Pierre Rocafort: > > >63B: "When there has been a violation of L61.B...". I think 61.B is not > >infringed by dummy's illegal inquiry. > > Why don't you think so? That seems clear to me. > > 61B only permits dummy to ask declarer. Dummy then asks a > defender. Law 61B is broken. I agree. 61B makes it specific who may ask whom. If the authors wanted to give dummy the ability to ask defenders, they would have included wording to this effect. They didn't. Reductio ad absurdum. To argue otherwise requires accepting the incorrect premise that normal English prose has the same form as mathematical propositions. However, if I were the director, I would rule that L63B doesn't apply, because it's illogical to make the non-offenders pay for an offender's infraction. (Dummy committed the infraction; the defenders pay by potentially paying a larger penalty, due to L64, than they would have if dummy hadn't committed the infraction.) If there's a plausible interpretation that makes L63B not apply (such as the one DWS provided), then I interpret it that way. But even if I couldn't find such a plausible interpretation---then, if there's any reasonable possibility, looking on the wording of the Laws, that the authors screwed up (e.g. the Laws make sense most of the time, but the authors may have overlooked a case where it didn't make sense), I'd be inclined to rule that the Laws are clearly in error and don't reflect the intent of the authors. Yes, this is arrogant and presumptuous, and I certainly don't advocate overruling the Laws with one's opinion in general; I'd only consider it here, because I believe it's so 100% clearcut that the Laws' authors could not have intended this result. To me, making the defenders pay for dummy's infraction would be a greater injustice than any injustice done by my overruling the Laws. Obviously, cases where this type of ruling is appropriate must be extremely rare. On the other hand, if this creates a danger that opinionated directors might take this too far and substitute their own definition of "injustice" for the Laws too often, in cases where reasonable people could differ, then maybe a ruling like this would backfire. I don't know. It seems to me that, in bridge as well as in other sports and in possibly in legal matters as well, if you're faced with a case where the rules appear to create an unjust result that the rule writers could not have possibly intended, you must do *something* beyond simply following the rules as if they were Divine Revelation, but I don't know what the best course of action is. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 13 06:36:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA10692 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 06:36:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA10687 for ; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 06:36:16 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id PAA11258; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 15:35:20 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa5-140.ix.netcom.com(206.217.132.140) by dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma011187; Thu Aug 12 15:34:37 1999 Message-ID: <000a01bee502$bdb67820$8c84d9ce@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: , "Ed Reppert" Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 16:39:07 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You hold KQxx Axx Qxx Jxx at red and elect to pass as dealer. LHO passes, partner opens a spade, RHO passes and you, sitting across from the most notorious psycher in 3 counties bid 2S If game is not on you have fielded and lose the good result? 3S Presumably you are allowed to say this? 4S You miss the slam everyone else bids when trumps are JT98 on one side and they cash their side ace. Opp claims you were cautious because partner may have psyched? 2C Aha...ALERT...Please explain...We are using Drury so I can see if partner has made a light open third seat...which of course works just dandy as a psychic control. Whyever is this licit if 2S, where you are taking some more serious risk of missing game is not? And yet I have found that the Drury advocates are the first to be angered if a psych is used successfully against them. Perhaps someone can explain to me why some animals are more equal than others. :-) -- Craig Senior -----Original Message----- From: Ed Reppert To: Bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, August 12, 1999 2:19 PM Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >At 9:46 AM -0400 8/12/99, Robin Barker wrote: > >>If you recognise that a situation >>in which partner is known to psyche has arisen, before the psyche has >>been exposed, you should avoid (even slightly) abnormal actions which >>protect partner's known psyche in this situation. > >And if you don't recognize it? According to the OB (and, I think, pretty >much to the way TDs here in ACBL-land handle it) if your action _looks_ >like it was fielding, it was. And you're presumed guilty - that is, the >burden of proof is on you to show that you didn't field it. How the heck >can you prove a negative? Or am I misreading it? > >Regards, > >Ed > >mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com >pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or >http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 >pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2 > >iQA/AwUBN7MQJb2UW3au93vOEQJt/QCfZmYbwZZ45pgixI2HSdqnU5Jwss0Anjim >0i6ie/hYuqIqz+qSuGj2nLGm >=DKrd >-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 13 07:32:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA10802 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 07:32:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp3.mindspring.com (smtp3.mindspring.com [207.69.200.33]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA10797 for ; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 07:32:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivei9e.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.73.46]) by smtp3.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA28786 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 17:31:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990812172935.0125a4d8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 17:29:35 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI In-Reply-To: <199908121541.IAA30860@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:41 AM 8/12/99 PDT, Adam wrote: > >*** TODAY'S ENGLISH LESSON *** > > >Michael S. Dennis wrote: > >> At 03:21 AM 8/11/99 +0100, David wrote: >> >Michael S. Dennis wrote: >> > >> >>a) nothing in the language of 40A disallows any psychic bid, with or >> >>without partnership understanding. >> > >> > I don't accept this. The wording is >> > >> > A player may make any call or play >> > (including an intentionally misleading >> > call - such as a psychic bid - or a call >> > or play that departs from commonly >> > accepted, or previously announced, use >> > of a convention), without prior >> > announcement, provided that such call or >> > play is not based on a partnership >> > understanding. >> > >> > So, if it only seems to allow any bid, "provided that such call or >> >play is not based on a partnership understanding" then it seems to >> >disallow psyches based on a partnership understanding. >> >> Sorry, but the syllogism fails on simple logical principles. If the Laws >> allow an action subject to a certain condition, it does not follow that the >> same action is necessarily disallowed in the absence of that condition. >> It is certainly a common enough fallacy to suppose that "if a then b" is >> equivalent to "if not a then not b", but no less a fallacy despite its >> frequency. > >No, the "common enough fallacy" is to assume that English language >follows the form and structure of logical propositions! If you have a >logical proposition "if A then B", it of course does not follow that >"if not A then not B"; but that's really relevant only if you're >reading mathematical text of something of that nature, since the >language in such texts is expected to conform to the principles of >mathematical logic. But that's not generally true in English usage. >It's often (not always) the case that when someone says "if A then B", >then "if not A then not B" *is* contained in the meaning, because >that's how the language is used. In other words, when we use words >like "if" we don't expect the stuff that follows to be a proposition >in mathematical logic. Instead, we look at the wording and the >context, and see what the author or speaker intended. > >If a mother tells her son, "If you've finished your homework you can >play baseball", this has the form of "if A then B", but can anyone >reasonably doubt that "if not A then not B" is included in the meaning >of the mother's statement? No. Q.E.D. > >I'm not taking a position on the topic of the thread. I'm just hoping >to put to rest the notion that this "common logical fallacy" has any >relevance when discussing the interpretation of English prose. > > -- Adam Q.E.D.??? Not so fast ... You have provided two somewhat extreme forms in which language is used: mathematical texts and a mother's admonition to her son. In the former case, precision and clarity of expression are an absolute requirement. In the latter case, as indeed in most human communication, much more subtle and varied forms are appropriate, including metaphor, reliance on extra-linguistic tools such as body language and tone of voice, and often violent abrogations of generally accepted standards of formal grammar. Granted that we may regard all communication as existing along a continuum of relative precision, would you consider a body of legal principles to be more like a mathematics text or an informal conversation between a mother and child? Perhaps it is my bias as a mathematician which informs my opinions in this respect, but I would hope that careful and precise use of language would constitute the very first principle in either the authoring or interpretation of any body of laws. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 13 08:04:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA10876 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 08:04:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (mailhub.irvine.com [192.160.8.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA10871 for ; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 08:04:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA05041; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 15:04:08 -0700 Message-Id: <199908122204.PAA05041@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 12 Aug 1999 17:29:35 PDT." <3.0.1.32.19990812172935.0125a4d8@pop.mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 15:04:10 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mike Dennis wrote: > Granted that we may regard all communication as existing along a continuum > of relative precision, would you consider a body of legal principles to be > more like a mathematics text or an informal conversation between a mother > and child? I'd consider it to be more like "normal everyday usage of the English language", to which a conversation between mother and son is a lot closer than the language in a mathematics text. I'm certain that when "if" is used in everyday language, it often can be interpreted as "if and only if". Not always, though; you have to take the context and exact wording into account. (David has pointed out that "There is a presumption that certain things are only allowed if the Law book says so"; that's part of the context that has to be considered.) In mathematics texts, "if" definitely is not the same as "if and only if", but that's more because of a convention adopted by mathematical types, because they need to express the "one-way implication" concept frequently. Call it a form of technical jargon. > Perhaps it is my bias as a mathematician which informs my > opinions in this respect, I can believe that. I've noticed a similar bias among other mathematician members of r.g.b. > but I would hope that careful and precise use of > language would constitute the very first principle in either the authoring > or interpretation of any body of laws. Careful and precise language is, of course, important. But "precise" does not imply "mathematical jargon." In fact, I believe the language involved is precise; the only ones who find a different meaning for it seem to be mathematician types who forget that their own jargon has slightly different meanings for some words. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 13 12:33:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA11228 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 12:33:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from iac12.navix.net (iac12.navix.net [207.91.5.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA11222 for ; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 12:33:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from navix.net (cras36p84.navix.net [205.242.158.87]) by iac12.navix.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA25098 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 21:12:12 -0500 Message-ID: <37B37F2C.DFC902E0@navix.net> Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 21:13:00 -0500 From: "Norman H. Hostetler" Reply-To: nh35422@navix.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply References: <4.1.19990811184228.009a7c00@mail.earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Brian Baresch wrote: > >> George Orwell: "Grammar is of no importance so long as we make the > >> meaning plain." > > > >The problem is, the world is full of people who think they're being > >perfectly plain, but really don't have a good concept of how other > >people are going to read what they write. > > True, but grammar is not exactly a cure-all for bad communication skills. > I've seen grammatically correct passages that made no sense to anyone but > the author (and on Copyediting-L we see a lot of them, posted by editors > trying to figure out what the auther means). I agree that grammar can help, > but often it wouldn't make a difference. > > Orwell's notion is good: If your meaning is plain, grammar doesn't matter. > > As for the sentence that started this all, I doubt anyone here had any > problem figuring out what Linda was saying. BTW, the user of "their" as an > indefinite singular dates to the 14th century, so it has a perfectly good > pedigree, stiff-spined English teachers notwithstanding. > Thanks for looking in the Oxford English Dictionary, Brian. I should have thought of that. I'll add that for the last 80 years research experiment after research experiment has been trying to determine what conection the study of grammar has to effective, efficient writing. The answer: nothing at all. No one can prove connections that look more likely than random chance accidents. In fact, the research suggests that first studying grammar puts the cart before the horse--when the writer is enthusiastic about the writing project, clarity of writing goes up considerably. So far, research has found three correlations that affect writing skills: 1) lots of reading, 2) lots of writing practice, 3) living longer and accumulating more experience. I particularly like the last one, since it's one of the few compensations I know for growing older. Norm "The United States and Great Britain are two countries divided by a common language." H. L. Mencken. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 13 13:01:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA11289 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 13:01:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.74]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA11283 for ; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 13:01:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveiff.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.73.239]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA02898 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 23:00:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990812222814.01246b60@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 22:28:14 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19990811225420.0125401c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990810183314.01253e34@pop.mindspring.com> <005101bee2be$8e637960$995208c3@swhki5i6> <3.0.1.32.19990810183314.01253e34@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990811225420.0125401c@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:05 AM 8/12/99 +0100, David wrote: > True, but irrelevant. There is a presumption that certain things are >only allowed if the Law book says so. The logic is actually "If a then >b" plus "If not stated then not b" and that adds up to "If not a then >not b". > You are not the first to cite this presumption-- I think Grattan said much the same thing in a different context some time ago. Yet despite the distinguished provenance, I am extremely uncomfortable with this notion. If you really mean that only certain limited concepts require explicit permission to be legitimate (i.e., "certain things", but not necessarily all things), then we are left to wonder what these are, and how we can determine which things do and which do not require explicit authorization. If you mean, as I understood Grattan to do, that _only_ those actions specifically authorized under the laws can be regarded as legitimate, then I would say that the Laws are woefully incomplete. To take one glaring example, L16, which purports to define the difference between AI and UI, neglects to include as authorized sources of information a number of items which obviously are AI, such as partnership agreements. Are we to infer that the omission of this type of information from the relevant Law defining AI makes it UI? This is a straw man, certainly. You have offered no such absurd proposition and can't be expected to defend it. But the notion that only those actions which enjoy specific legal authorization can be considered permissible is plainly false. Put it another way: if L40A and L73F didn't exist, psychic bidding would not be illegal. The effect of these Laws is to protect the rights of players to avail themselves of these tools against the depradations of misguided SO's. Or should be, IMO. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 13 13:01:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA11294 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 13:01:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.74]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA11284 for ; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 13:01:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveiff.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.73.239]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA12383 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 23:00:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990812225823.0125a970@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 22:58:23 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI In-Reply-To: <000a01bee502$bdb67820$8c84d9ce@host> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:39 PM 8/12/99 -0400, Craig wrote: >You hold KQxx Axx Qxx Jxx at red and elect to pass as dealer. LHO passes, >partner opens a spade, RHO passes and you, sitting across from the most >notorious psycher in 3 counties bid > >2S If game is not on you have fielded and lose the good result? >3S Presumably you are allowed to say this? >4S You miss the slam everyone else bids when trumps are JT98 on one side >and they cash their side ace. Opp claims you were cautious because partner >may have psyched? >2C Aha...ALERT...Please explain...We are using Drury so I can see if partner >has made a light open third seat...which of course works just dandy as a >psychic control. Whyever is this licit if 2S, where you are taking some more >serious risk of missing game is not? > >And yet I have found that the Drury advocates are the first to be angered if >a psych is used successfully against them. Perhaps someone can explain to me >why some animals are more equal than others. :-) > While I won't second your disparaging remarks about Drury bidders, being one myself, I think you have done a good job of getting this thread back on track. Jeremy's original question was whether partner's psyching tendendencies could be considered UI. Only Grattan, in his citation of an EBL interpretation, seems prepared to endorse that approach. As your example makes clear, the treatment of this information as UI leads to some fairly unmanageable implications. Moreover, as you have shown, once this principle is accepted, it can be applied without regard to whether a psych has actually occurred, owing to the nature of the L16 machinery. IMO, the Laws as written impose no restrictions in bidding by a player who has a general knowledge about his partner's psychic tendencies, or even specific knowledge. In the latter case, the psychic bid itself may well be deemed illegal, and/or the partnership may be guilty of a CPU, but subsequent bids which seem to indicate that a player has fielded his partner's psych are not in and of themselves illegal or subject to legal sanction of any sort. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 13 15:31:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA11549 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 15:31:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (mailout1-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.81]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA11544 for ; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 15:31:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.37] by mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 01:31:29 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199908121910.MAA01668@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Your message of "Thu, 12 Aug 1999 17:49:13 PST." <37c806ed.34729345@mail.image.dk> Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 01:23:41 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: dummy establishes revoke Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >To me, making the defenders pay for dummy's infraction would be a >greater injustice than any injustice done by my overruling the Laws. I sympathize, but if you overrule the Laws, you are yourself in violation of them. Law 81B2. >Obviously, cases where this type of ruling is appropriate must be >extremely rare. On the other hand, if this creates a danger that >opinionated directors might take this too far and substitute their own >definition of "injustice" for the Laws too often, in cases where >reasonable people could differ, then maybe a ruling like this would >backfire. I don't know. It seems to me that, in bridge as well as in >other sports and in possibly in legal matters as well, if you're faced >with a case where the rules appear to create an unjust result that the >rule writers could not have possibly intended, you must do *something* >beyond simply following the rules as if they were Divine Revelation, >but I don't know what the best course of action is. Dummy has violated 42B1. There appears to be no penalty for that. Could you not adjust the score under 84E? Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2 iQA/AwUBN7Ots72UW3au93vOEQI+6QCgw/lw55aetaZ5/NbFvm1xRr4g3jEAn1rn u9hwQZnrjkkI41bp/KeZoIpC =FVYF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 13 16:09:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA11597 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 16:09:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA11592 for ; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 16:09:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt092nb1.san.rr.com [204.210.48.177]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA04685 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 23:09:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <022f01bee552$5cf08c60$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.1.32.19990812172935.0125a4d8@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 23:05:32 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Dennis wrote: > > > >If a mother tells her son, "If you've finished your homework you can > >play baseball", this has the form of "if A then B", but can anyone > >reasonably doubt that "if not A then not B" is included in the meaning > >of the mother's statement? No. Q.E.D. > > > >I'm not taking a position on the topic of the thread. I'm just hoping > >to put to rest the notion that this "common logical fallacy" has any > >relevance when discussing the interpretation of English prose. > > > > -- Adam > > Q.E.D.??? Not so fast ... > > You have provided two somewhat extreme forms in which language is used: > mathematical texts and a mother's admonition to her son. In the former > case, precision and clarity of expression are an absolute requirement. In > the latter case, as indeed in most human communication, much more subtle > and varied forms are appropriate, including metaphor, reliance on > extra-linguistic tools such as body language and tone of voice, and often > violent abrogations of generally accepted standards of formal grammar. > > Granted that we may regard all communication as existing along a continuum > of relative precision, would you consider a body of legal principles to be > more like a mathematics text or an informal conversation between a mother > and child? Perhaps it is my bias as a mathematician which informs my > opinions in this respect, but I would hope that careful and precise use of > language would constitute the very first principle in either the authoring > or interpretation of any body of laws. > Here we have another problem with the English language, which we discussed on a thread quite a while ago. Like "either" and "or," the word "if" is ambiguous. It can mean if -- on the condition that (among other possible conditions) -- or the mathematical iff -- if and only if. There is nothing precise about it in standard English usage, and one has to consider the context. I believe we came to the conclusion that when the Laws use "if" the meaning is "if and only if" when there is any doubt. Perhaps a note to that effect could be included in the Preface, although it really shouldn't be necessary. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 13 16:59:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA11635 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 16:59:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from cadillac.meteo.fr (cadillac.meteo.fr [137.129.1.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA11630 for ; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 16:59:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from meteo.fr (rubis.meteo.fr [137.129.5.28]) by cadillac.meteo.fr (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA03634 for ; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 06:58:30 GMT Message-ID: <37B3C218.25C3A71E@meteo.fr> Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 08:58:33 +0200 From: Jean Pierre Rocafort X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: dummy establishes revoke References: <199908120755.JAA02742@wmgt2.math.uni-wuppertal.de> <37B29146.B1DE22D3@meteo.fr> <37c4c557.17936528@mail.image.dk> <37B2E85C.94783EBE@meteo.fr> <37c806ed.34729345@mail.image.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bertel Lund Hansen a écrit : > Thu, 12 Aug 1999 17:29:32 +0200 skrev Jean Pierre Rocafort: > > >63B: "When there has been a violation of L61.B...". I think 61.B is not > >infringed by dummy's illegal inquiry. > > Why don't you think so? That seems clear to me. > > 61B only permits dummy to ask declarer. Dummy then asks a > defender. Law 61B is broken. The problem I see is with the "only" you add to 61-B. 61-B allows some questions: declarer-defender, dummy-declarer, defender-declarer, forbids some: defender-defender, and omits some: anybody-dummy, dummy-defender. From the omitted ones, some are irrelevant and one (dummy-defender) is relevant. Why do you think this last one should be classified in one of the categories listed in this law, rather than in the other one? It's needed to search otherwhere (42B1) to know more about dummy to defender asking, but 63-B "only" refers to 61-B. I agree this reasonning to be specious but why not to be overlogical when everybody wishes this revoke not to be established? JP Rocafort > > > >The header tells "Attention is illegally drawn", which has happened when > >dummy asked; but headers are not part of the Laws. > > I don't see the relevance of the header. > > Bertel > -- > Denmark > http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) -- ___________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE SCEM/TTI/DAC 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ___________________________________________________ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 13 17:10:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA11671 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 17:10:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA11666 for ; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 17:10:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt092nb1.san.rr.com [204.210.48.177]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA15869 for ; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 00:09:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <023d01bee55a$c5ccc020$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <4.1.19990811184228.009a7c00@mail.earthlink.net> <37B37F2C.DFC902E0@navix.net> Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 00:04:14 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Norman H. Hostetler wrote: > Brian Baresch wrote: > > > >> George Orwell: "Grammar is of no importance so long as we make the > > >> meaning plain." > > > > > >The problem is, the world is full of people who think they're being > > >perfectly plain, but really don't have a good concept of how other > > >people are going to read what they write. > > > > True, but grammar is not exactly a cure-all for bad communication skills. > > I've seen grammatically correct passages that made no sense to anyone but > > the author (and on Copyediting-L we see a lot of them, posted by editors > > trying to figure out what the auther means). I agree that grammar can help, > > but often it wouldn't make a difference. > > > > Orwell's notion is good: If your meaning is plain, grammar doesn't matter. > > > > As for the sentence that started this all, I doubt anyone here had any > > problem figuring out what Linda was saying. BTW, the user of "their" as an > > indefinite singular dates to the 14th century, so it has a perfectly good > > pedigree, stiff-spined English teachers notwithstanding. > > I'd like to also add that using "they" with a singular antecedent is no more illogical than using "he" when the antecedent could be a man or a woman. The grammarians tell us that pronouns should agree in gender, number, and person with their antecedents. Why do they think it's better to violate one of these requirements than another? Actually no one has written a real English grammar. The one we have is full of rules that come from Latin, which the first grammarians considered the only proper language. There are lots of good books on English usage, but no books on English grammar that agree with them. Anyone with writing ambitions should read the former, not the latter. My eighth grade teacher was big on sentence diagramming. I worked hard learning to do them, and got to be pretty good. Complete waste of time. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 13 21:06:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA11937 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 21:06:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from nickel.cix.co.uk (nickel.compulink.co.uk [194.153.0.18]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA11932 for ; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 21:05:53 +1000 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id MAA15135 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 12:05:14 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 11:58 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <199908121541.IAA30860@mailhub.irvine.com> Adam Beneschan wrote: > > If a mother tells her son, "If you've finished your homework you can > play baseball", this has the form of "if A then B", but can anyone > reasonably doubt that "if not A then not B" is included in the meaning > of the mother's statement? No. Q.E.D. > I fail to see how the state of the boy's homework can affect his ability (rather than permission) to play baseball but that is a minor quibble. The mother might have said (after studying the scope). "You must finish your homework before you play baseball" or "You may not play baseball until you have finished your homework" were her actual (L40a) statement "If you've finished your homework you may play baseball" it would leave open the possibility of a further statement (L40b) "If you haven't finished your homework and want to play baseball before it gets dark you must promise to do your homework instead of watching television later" I'm not a mathematician but, like Mike, I believe that a legal text requires far more precision of language than a casual conversation. I too occasionally use "can" when I should use "may" in speech but I would not dream of so doing in a formal written document. As "the boy" I don't doubt that I would have realised that baseball had not explicitly been denied despite my unfinished homework and gone anyway (but then "reasonable" is hardly an epithet that my mother would have applied at the time!). Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 13 23:46:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA12227 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 23:46:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.zeelandnet.nl (mail.zeelandnet.nl [62.12.12.194]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA12222 for ; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 23:46:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from k564.zeelandnet.nl (k564.zeelandnet.nl [193.172.203.56]) by mail.zeelandnet.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id PAA19346 for ; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 15:46:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: by k564.zeelandnet.nl with Microsoft Mail id <01BEE5A2.ADECEA00@k564.zeelandnet.nl>; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 15:44:07 +-200 Message-ID: <01BEE5A2.ADECEA00@k564.zeelandnet.nl> From: "M.M. Schoof" To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: AW: dummy establishes revoke Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 15:42:12 +-200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id XAA12223 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- Van: Ed Reppert[SMTP:ereppert@rochester.rr.com] Verzonden: vrijdag 13 augustus 1999 7:23 Aan: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Onderwerp: Re: dummy establishes revoke -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >To me, making the defenders pay for dummy's infraction would be a >greater injustice than any injustice done by my overruling the Laws. I sympathize, but if you overrule the Laws, you are yourself in violation of them. Law 81B2. >Obviously, cases where this type of ruling is appropriate must be >extremely rare. On the other hand, if this creates a danger that >opinionated directors might take this too far and substitute their own >definition of "injustice" for the Laws too often, in cases where >reasonable people could differ, then maybe a ruling like this would >backfire. I don't know. It seems to me that, in bridge as well as in >other sports and in possibly in legal matters as well, if you're faced >with a case where the rules appear to create an unjust result that the >rule writers could not have possibly intended, you must do *something* >beyond simply following the rules as if they were Divine Revelation, >but I don't know what the best course of action is. Dummy has violated 42B1. There appears to be no penalty for that. Could you not adjust the score under 84E? ++ I don't think jou should adjust the score. Opponent has violated 44B and dummy has violated 42B1. Since 63B doesn't apply (oppents partner has said nothing). Oppenent has to change his card to follow suit (62A) and the played card becomes a penalty card (62B1). As to the dummy a correctional word will be sufficient. The penalty probable will come from his partner. I don't think you have to overule the laws. You can just apply them. Regards, Marcel From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 14 01:48:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA12520 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Aug 1999 01:48:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (mailhub.irvine.com [192.160.8.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA12515 for ; Sat, 14 Aug 1999 01:48:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA19774; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 08:47:22 -0700 Message-Id: <199908131547.IAA19774@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 13 Aug 1999 11:58:00 PDT." Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 08:47:23 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > In-Reply-To: <199908121541.IAA30860@mailhub.irvine.com> > Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > > If a mother tells her son, "If you've finished your homework you can > > play baseball", this has the form of "if A then B", but can anyone > > reasonably doubt that "if not A then not B" is included in the meaning > > of the mother's statement? No. Q.E.D. > > > > I fail to see how the state of the boy's homework can affect his ability > (rather than permission) to play baseball but that is a minor quibble. Maybe not so minor, since I just wrote a diatribe about the importance of correct grammar, so shame on me for getting this one wrong. Yes, I should have said "may" instead of "can". Grrr.... -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 14 09:13:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA13662 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Aug 1999 09:13:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA13652 for ; Sat, 14 Aug 1999 09:13:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.124] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11FQVP-0000ba-00; Sat, 14 Aug 1999 00:13:00 +0100 Message-ID: <000a01bee5e1$604835e0$7c5108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 23:17:49 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 12 August 1999 04:38 Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI ----------------------------\x/------------------------- >>Michael S. Dennis wrote: >>>Sorry, but the syllogism fails on simple logical principles. If the Laws >allow an action subject to a certain condition, it does not follow that the >same action is necessarily disallowed in the absence of that condition. It >is certainly a common enough fallacy to suppose that "if a then b" is >equivalent to "if not a then not b", but no less a fallacy despite its >frequency. > ++ I can vouch for the fact, however, that it is a fallacy to suppose the Laws as written intend anything other than that a call which is based upon a partnership understanding must be disclosed as such - whereupon as a matter of partnership agreement it is subject to any regulations governing the use of conventions (or the use of other calls) made under the authority of the laws. Incidentally, I also know that Edgar Kaplan took the view that what the law did not allow was disallowed simply because the laws failed to authorize it. (The laws define correct procedure and the game must be played strictly in accordance with the laws.) ~ Grattan ~ ++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 14 09:13:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA13663 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Aug 1999 09:13:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA13653 for ; Sat, 14 Aug 1999 09:13:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.124] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11FQVR-0000ba-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 14 Aug 1999 00:13:01 +0100 Message-ID: <000b01bee5e1$60f93660$7c5108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 01:59:18 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: Bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 12 August 1999 20:13 Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI > >At 9:46 AM -0400 8/12/99, Robin Barker wrote: > >>If you recognise that a situation >>in which partner is known to psyche has arisen, before the psyche has >>been exposed, you should avoid (even slightly) abnormal actions which >>protect partner's known psyche in this situation. ------------ \x/ ------------ +++ I have a difficulty with what Robin says here. It lies in the fact that if you recognise this situation it is not sufficient merely to avoid abnormality - you are required to disclose your special knowledge to opponents. See Law 75A and 75B. +++ ----------------- \x/ ------------ Ed Reppert : >And if you don't recognize it? According to the OB (and, I think, pretty >much to the way TDs here in ACBL-land handle it) if your action _looks_ >like it was fielding, it was. And you're presumed guilty - that is, the >burden of proof is on you to show that you didn't field it. How the heck >can you prove a negative? ---------- \x/ ----------- > +++ The co-incidence of psychic with subsequent abnormal action, by the partner of the psycher, that protects the side from being damaged by the psychic, is considered adequate evidence that the partner has read the psychic. The question then is whether s/he had adequate legitimate information on which to do so, and did not have undisclosed knowledge which would help the anticipation of the psychic. I am exploring some potential arrangements which would define in a more mechanical fashion the bases for finding that there is an implicit understanding. More anon. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 14 15:10:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA14174 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Aug 1999 15:10:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from primus.ac.net (primus.ac.net [205.138.54.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA14169 for ; Sat, 14 Aug 1999 15:10:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (vn-0-02.ac.net [205.138.47.173]) by primus.ac.net (8.9.2/8.9.2) with SMTP id BAA15957 for ; Sat, 14 Aug 1999 01:10:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: X-Sender: lobo@mail.ac.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 09:59:13 -0700 To: Bridge Laws discussion group From: Linda Trent Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply In-Reply-To: <095a01bee1bc$3b524060$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> References: <199908042243.SAA17468@cfa183.harvard.edu> <199908071639.MAA26442@primus.ac.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Yikes! Look what happens when one doesn't get their (couldn't resist) e-mail for a few days... Anyway - I have slightly modified my statement and it now reads: "Players are permitted to seek the agreement of their opponents that a significant break in tempo has occurred. This should be done at the player’s next turn to call or play and before the player chooses a call or play. Failing to reach such an agreement, the Director must be summoned at once." I usually don't worry as much about perfection as others in this group do, but am always open to suggestions for improvement. It takes me less time to review input and revise than to expend the effort to get it perfect in the first place - that is just my style. Besides, you forget, this is going to a bunch of Commmittees - do you really think their final product will have any resemblence to what we start with? We just have to hope they don't lose the idea... My pet peeve is spelling errors - they just make me cringe - especially when I have proofread a bunch of times. Typos don't count :-) as spelling errors. Linda From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 14 17:03:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA14365 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Aug 1999 17:03:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA14355 for ; Sat, 14 Aug 1999 17:03:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.15] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11FXq8-0005cp-00; Sat, 14 Aug 1999 08:02:52 +0100 Message-ID: <002801bee623$0436d9e0$0f5208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 07:39:41 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 13 August 1999 04:32 Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI ------------------------------- \x/ --------------------------- If you mean, as I understood Grattan to do, that _only_ >those actions specifically authorized under the laws can be regarded as >legitimate, then I would say that the Laws are woefully incomplete. To take >one glaring example, L16, which purports to define the difference between >AI and UI, ------------------------ \x/ ------------------- ++++ Not quite right. Law 16 makes a statement authorising the use of knowledge derived from prescribed sources; it does not preclude the use of information which other sections of the laws authorise to be used (and maybe other items authorised in regulations). Law 16 goes on to tell the Director how to deal with receipt of information from sources that are specifically not authorised. It also makes a fudgy statement about use of 'extraneous' information, a statement that hands the Director the rest of the problem with little guidance when to invoke Law 84E. But the book states that the laws define correct procedure so that anything external to the procedure expressed in the laws (and regulations authorised by the laws) is not to be deemed part of the game. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 14 17:03:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA14366 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Aug 1999 17:03:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA14356 for ; Sat, 14 Aug 1999 17:03:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.15] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11FXq9-0005cp-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 14 Aug 1999 08:02:54 +0100 Message-ID: <002901bee623$04e7da60$0f5208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 07:58:33 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 13 August 1999 04:32 Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI >At 11:05 AM 8/12/99 +0100, David wrote: >> True, but irrelevant. There is a presumption that certain things are >>only allowed if the Law book says so. The logic is actually "If a then >>b" plus "If not stated then not b" and that adds up to "If not a then >>not b". >> >You are not the first to cite this presumption-- I think Grattan said much >the same thing in a different context some time ago. > >Yet despite the distinguished provenance, I am extremely uncomfortable with >this notion. ------------------ \x/ --------------- +++++ I do not recall that *I* said I was "comfortable" with the Kaplan approach to draughtsmanship. I simply recorded that such was the Edgar way, bolstered by the assertion (which the WBFLC has agreed) that in any matter where the law is thought ambiguous the intention of the drafting committee ("me, Edgar Kaplan") prevails. It was my private argument with EK that he should not leave grey flexibilities in the text, but he said he needed a margin of tolerance to take home to the ACBL. I was never clear about his relationship with the ACBLLC and certain of its citizens say to me that his words to me on the subject dissembled to a degree. ~Grattan~ +++++ ~G~ +++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 14 17:56:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA14435 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Aug 1999 17:56:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA14429 for ; Sat, 14 Aug 1999 17:56:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.113] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11FYfq-0006JV-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 14 Aug 1999 08:56:18 +0100 Message-ID: <000401bee62a$7ad8dc40$715108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws discussion group" Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 08:13:42 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: Bridge Laws discussion group Date: 14 August 1999 06:28 Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply My pet peeve is spelling errors - they just make me cringe - especially when I have proofread a bunch of times. Typos don't count :-) as spelling errors. +++ The guru who taught me English held the opinion that the North Americans have ( or then had) a language much closer to mediaeval English than is the English English. And so I am greatly surprised at some of your spelling ! :-)) ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 14 21:06:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA14718 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Aug 1999 21:06:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from u2.farm.idt.net (lighton@u2.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA14713 for ; Sat, 14 Aug 1999 21:06:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost by u2.farm.idt.net (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id HAA22366 for ; Sat, 14 Aug 1999 07:06:24 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 07:06:24 -0400 (EDT) From: richard lighton X-Sender: lighton@u2.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply In-Reply-To: <023d01bee55a$c5ccc020$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, Marvin L. French wrote: > > I'd like to also add that using "they" with a singular antecedent is no > more illogical than using "he" when the antecedent could be a man or a > woman. The grammarians tell us that pronouns should agree in gender, > number, and person with their antecedents. Why do they think it's better > to violate one of these requirements than another? > "He," according to three dictionaries I have just consulted, is not necessarilly a masculine pronoun. All three give a meaning something like used in a generic sense or when the sex of the person is unspecified. (Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary). -- Richard Lighton | In my more cynical moments, I sometimes think (lighton@idt.net)| that newsgroups are a device for making lifelong Wood-Ridge NJ | enemies of people one has never met :) USA | -- John Hall (on uk.sport.cricket) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 15 03:27:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA15530 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Aug 1999 02:26:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA15523 for ; Sun, 15 Aug 1999 02:26:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt092nb1.san.rr.com [204.210.48.177]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA27172 for ; Sat, 14 Aug 1999 09:25:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <004d01bee671$6c0f7d80$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 09:23:57 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Lighton wrote: > > On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, Marvin L. French wrote: > > > > > I'd like to also add that using "they" with a singular antecedent is no > > more illogical than using "he" when the antecedent could be a man or a > > woman. The grammarians tell us that pronouns should agree in gender, > > number, and person with their antecedents. Why do they think it's better > > to violate one of these requirements than another? > > > "He," according to three dictionaries I have just consulted, is not > necessarilly a masculine pronoun. All three give a meaning something > like > > used in a generic sense or when the sex of the person is unspecified. > > (Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary). > I know that. I'm just pointing out that this rule is no more logical than using "they" with a singular antecedent. It was developed by men, of course. There are some rules in this world that ought not to be obeyed. These include those that are (1) unfair to half the population and (2) not obeyed by a large majority. It is the people who make the rules of language, not the grammarians, whose job is to report, not to dictate. We will now hear from the upper class, who feel that *their* language is superior to that of the people. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 15 10:28:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA16230 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Aug 1999 10:28:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA16225 for ; Sun, 15 Aug 1999 10:28:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.106] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11FoA2-0001hW-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 15 Aug 1999 01:28:31 +0100 Message-ID: <002c01bee6b5$17019000$6a5208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Communication - was L16A1-Reply Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1999 01:26:03 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Date: 14 August 1999 19:03 Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply ----------------- \x/ ------------------ > I'm just pointing out that this rule is no more logical >than using "they" with a singular antecedent. It was developed by men, >of course. There are some rules in this world that ought not to be >obeyed. These include those that are (1) unfair to half the population >and (2) not obeyed by a large majority. It is the people who make the >rules of language, not the grammarians, whose job is to report, not to >dictate. > >We will now hear from the upper class, who feel that *their* language is >superior to that of the people. > +++ One exhibits a fine irony in disputing the language when the meaning is indisputable. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 15 13:42:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA16592 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Aug 1999 13:42:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.146]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA16587 for ; Sun, 15 Aug 1999 13:42:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.37] by mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 14 Aug 1999 23:42:17 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <01BEE5A2.ADECEA00@k564.zeelandnet.nl> Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 23:14:40 -0400 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: AW: dummy establishes revoke Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 11:42 AM -0400 8/13/99, M.M. Schoof wrote: >I don't think jou should adjust the score. Opponent has violated 44B I hope I haven't lost track, but I think you mean 44C, don't you? ("Requirement to Follow Suit") > and dummy has violated 42B1. Yup. And there's no specific penalty for that. > Since 63B doesn't apply (oppents partner has said nothing). Oppenent has >to change his card to follow suit (62A) and the played card becomes a >penalty card (62B1). Would that it were so. :-) But 63B doesn't mention opponent's partner. It says "when there has been a violation of 61B" - which there has, by dummy - - "the penalty provisions of Law 64 apply as if the revoke had been established." So now the question is who won the trick? Whoa. The plot thickens. "As if" seems to recognize that the revoke is _not_ actually established - in which case the defender must correct his revoke [Law 62A]. So now he's done that, and he still gets hit with a revoke penalty. Doesn't seem fair, does it? Of course, if defenders don't win any more tricks, there is no penalty. If there is, though, shouldn't we try to restore equity by adjusting the score, under 84E? >As to the dummy a correctional word will be sufficient. The penalty >probable will come from his partner. >I don't think you have to overule the laws. You can just apply them. Well, yeah, that's what I was trying to do. :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2 iQA/AwUBN7Y3H72UW3au93vOEQKnvwCgn8goy+fqoTF/vcurRVZ3S+i6uasAoJt+ 2tWiyo7IPZIrxI9O+GB2scH3 =GtGn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 15 16:45:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA16853 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Aug 1999 16:45:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA16848 for ; Sun, 15 Aug 1999 16:45:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.11] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11Fu2i-0004fK-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 15 Aug 1999 07:45:21 +0100 Message-ID: <001901bee6e9$bc1f7820$0b5208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: Brighton beckons Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1999 07:44:51 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 12 August 1999 04:03 Subject: Re: Brighton beckons >In article , michael amos > writes >>I'm off to the seaside for the EBU's Summer Congress >>off-line for 11 days From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 15 16:47:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA16867 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Aug 1999 16:47:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA16862 for ; Sun, 15 Aug 1999 16:47:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.11] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11Fu4S-0004fw-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 15 Aug 1999 07:47:08 +0100 Message-ID: <001e01bee6e9$fc27fc80$0b5208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: Brighton beckons Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1999 07:47:03 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 12 August 1999 04:03 Subject: Re: Brighton beckons >In article , michael amos > writes >>I'm off to the seaside for the EBU's Summer Congress >>off-line for 11 days >>drinking too much whisky with DWS >>and collecting new hands and rulings for you lot :) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 16 16:37:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA21961 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 16:37:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from perseus.mminternet.com (IDENT:root@perseus.mminternet.com [207.175.72.16]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA21954 for ; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 16:37:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from phillipm (covad2-143.mminternet.com [209.241.122.143] (may be forged)) by perseus.mminternet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA25160; Sun, 15 Aug 1999 23:34:06 -0700 Message-ID: <001f01bee7b1$c956f720$8f7af1d1@mminternet.com> From: "Phillip Mendelsohn" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Cc: "Alan Le Bendig" Subject: Law 50 Double Whammy Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1999 23:37:16 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk An interesting situation arose over the weekend in a flighted Swiss Teams event at a local Sectional tournament in Southern California: You are called to a Flight A table where East, one of the defenders, has led a small spade to trick five or six when it was actually his partner's turn to lead. You give Declarer the option to accept the improper lead, but he declines and chooses to prohibit West from leading a spade pursuant to Law 50.D.2. East replaces the spade in his hand at your instruction, but before West can place a card on the table, East now puts a small club on the table. Declarer, who declines to accept this second erroneous lead, now claims he is entitled to prohibit the lead of *both* a spade *and* a club by West. Any comments, analysis, and input would be most welcome. Thanks, Phillip Mendelsohn From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 16 17:06:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA22245 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 17:06:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.zeelandnet.nl (mail.zeelandnet.nl [62.12.12.194]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA22239 for ; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 17:05:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from k355.zeelandnet.nl (k501.zeelandnet.nl [193.172.202.247]) by mail.zeelandnet.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA26710 for ; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 09:05:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: by k355.zeelandnet.nl with Microsoft Mail id <01BEE7C6.4048B440@k355.zeelandnet.nl>; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 09:03:48 +-200 Message-ID: <01BEE7C6.4048B440@k355.zeelandnet.nl> From: "M.M. Schoof" To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: AW: AW: dummy establishes revoke Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 09:02:49 +-200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id RAA22240 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- Van: Ed Reppert[SMTP:ereppert@rochester.rr.com] Verzonden: zondag 15 augustus 1999 5:14 Aan: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Onderwerp: Re: AW: dummy establishes revoke -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 11:42 AM -0400 8/13/99, M.M. Schoof wrote: >I don't think jou should adjust the score. Opponent has violated 44B I hope I haven't lost track, but I think you mean 44C, don't you? ("Requirement to Follow Suit") ++ Yes. Sorry > and dummy has violated 42B1. Yup. And there's no specific penalty for that. > Since 63B doesn't apply (oppents partner has said nothing). Oppenent has >to change his card to follow suit (62A) and the played card becomes a >penalty card (62B1). Would that it were so. :-) But 63B doesn't mention opponent's partner. It says "when there has been a violation of 61B" - which there has, by dummy ++ No (but I have to Quote from the dutch translation) 63B states "If an opponent (a player from the pair playing against the leader) doesn't comply with what is stated in L61B..." I would like to get the correct English qoute since they seem to non-synchronized. Marcel - - "the penalty provisions of Law 64 apply as if the revoke had been established." So now the question is who won the trick? Whoa. The plot thickens. "As if" seems to recognize that the revoke is _not_ actually established - in which case the defender must correct his revoke [Law 62A]. So now he's done that, and he still gets hit with a revoke penalty. Doesn't seem fair, does it? Of course, if defenders don't win any more tricks, there is no penalty. If there is, though, shouldn't we try to restore equity by adjusting the score, under 84E? >As to the dummy a correctional word will be sufficient. The penalty >probable will come from his partner. >I don't think you have to overule the laws. You can just apply them. Well, yeah, that's what I was trying to do. :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2 iQA/AwUBN7Y3H72UW3au93vOEQKnvwCgn8goy+fqoTF/vcurRVZ3S+i6uasAoJt+ 2tWiyo7IPZIrxI9O+GB2scH3 =GtGn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 16 18:42:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA22725 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 18:42:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from purplenet.co.uk ([195.89.178.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA22720 for ; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 18:42:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([195.89.178.105]) by purplenet.co.uk with SMTP (IPAD 2.5) id 7003400 ; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 08:39:24 -0000 Message-ID: <000601bee7c3$0e821e40$69b259c3@default> From: "magda.thain" To: "Grattan Endicott" , Subject: Re: Brighton beckons, or not Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1999 10:01:52 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You see my problem. All of England is not at Brighton, only a tiny elite. The vast majority of England will go on playing its local duplicates this weekend, next weekend, and all the week between. The contributors to this list have no thought for the flesh and bones of the body of bridge but only for the superficial skin. Do none of you Directors do anything for the masses? Can none of you spare a thought to link your fantasies to the needs of the humble? I do not think you have a clue what most of bridge is all about mt To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 15 August 1999 08:29 Subject: Re: Brighton beckons > > >Grattan............................................................. >"We exchanged many frank words in our >respective languages." - Peter Cook. >================================= > >++++ The English are all 'at play' in Brighton, >this week-end and next, and many of them >through the week between. > > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 16 20:13:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA23066 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 20:13:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA23061 for ; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 20:13:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id MAA03622; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 12:12:54 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JEU28RTCWC001JUJ@AGRO.NL>; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 12:11:52 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id ; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 12:11:55 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 12:11:42 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Brighton beckons, or not To: "'magda.thain'" , Grattan Endicott , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C217@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Well, I am still there. What do you want me to do? Don't make it too difficult. ton > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: magda.thain [mailto:cookbury@purplenet.co.uk] > Verzonden: zondag 15 augustus 1999 11:02 > Aan: Grattan Endicott; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Onderwerp: Re: Brighton beckons, or not > > > You see my problem. All of England is not at Brighton, only a > tiny elite. The > vast majority of England will go on playing its local > duplicates this weekend, > next weekend, and all the week between. The contributors to > this list have > no thought for the flesh and bones of the body of bridge but > only for the > superficial skin. Do none of you Directors do anything for the masses? > Can none of you spare a thought to link your fantasies to the > needs of the > humble? I do not think you have a clue what most of bridge > is all about > mt > > -----Original Message----- > From: Grattan Endicott > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Date: 15 August 1999 08:29 > Subject: Re: Brighton beckons > > > > > > > >Grattan >............................................................. > >"We exchanged many frank words in our > >respective languages." - Peter Cook. > >================================= > > > >++++ The English are all 'at play' in Brighton, > >this week-end and next, and many of them > >through the week between. > > > > > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 16 20:50:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA23141 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 20:50:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA23135 for ; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 20:49:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from x49.ripe.net (x49.ripe.net [193.0.1.49]) by birch.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA15172 for ; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 12:49:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA20054 for ; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 12:49:17 +0200 (CEST) X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 12:49:14 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Junior world championships. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I'm not sure where this posting belongs, but today's bulletin of the Junior World Championships reads: > Panos Gerontopoulos, chairman of the WBF Youth Committee, received > information that a member of the Chinese Taipei team was over the age > limit. This was confirmed by checking the player's passport and then > with the acting team captain. The Conditions of Contest were violated > and the Chinese Taipei team was disqualified. > Because eight rounds of the round-robin had already been played, it was > considered of great importance to preserve the integrity of the > competition and to keep the playing field level. Therefore the > disqualification of the team was delayed until the conclusion of the > round-robin. This meant the Chinese Taipei players would continue to > play their hardest. 1) Since there is an age limit, why aren't the ages of the players checked _BEFORE_ the event starts? All you have to do is to ask the players to show their passport to an official sometime before round 1 and have him check that the player is born after 1/1/74. If it turns out that a player is ineligible, give the team an option to continue with the 5 remaining players or withdraw from the event. You can even do some pre-checking, by asking the players to include a copy of their passport when they submit their convention cards. I can see that checking passports isn't full-proof, but it looks strange to me that the organizers of a world championship don't even do some simple checks to ensure that all players are eligible. 2) Why was the team allowed to continue to play in the event? IMHO, it would make much more sense to disqualify the team after round 8 and change the results of their matches into 0-18. Finally, today's Daily Bulletin reads: > It all seemed so cut and dried yesterday, but that all changed today > with the announcement that Chinese Taipei had been disqualified. This > opened up a major battle between Israel and Norway for the fourth > qualifying spot. 3) This suggests that the announcement was made before the last round. This sounds completely wrong to me. With Chinese Taipei still in the event, Argentina (their round 15 opponents) had no chance of qualifying for the semi finals. Without Ch.Taipei, Argentina could have qualified with a 25-x win and a bit of luck. Comments anyone? Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.535-4414, Fax -4445 1016 AB Amsterdam Home: +31.20.4195305 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Committee (...) was unable to reach a consensus that substantial merit was lacking. Thus, the appeal was deemed meritorious. (Orlando NABC #19). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 16 21:19:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA23226 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 21:19:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.zeelandnet.nl (mail.zeelandnet.nl [62.12.12.194]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA23221 for ; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 21:19:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from k530.zeelandnet.nl (k530.zeelandnet.nl [193.172.203.22]) by mail.zeelandnet.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA11726; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 13:19:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: by k530.zeelandnet.nl with Microsoft Mail id <01BEE7E9.B23708E0@k530.zeelandnet.nl>; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 13:17:31 +-200 Message-ID: <01BEE7E9.B23708E0@k530.zeelandnet.nl> From: "M.M. Schoof" To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Cc: Alan Le Bendig Subject: AW: Law 50 Double Whammy Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 13:16:06 +-200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id VAA23222 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I think both instances should be dealt with in order of occurence. Penalty of offence 1 (no spade lead) should be done first. The club lead is a penalty card after the lead of partner. However for his lead the partner is not allowed to use the UI form the second premature lead card, so if there's a LA for not leading a club he must do so. After partner has lead you act on the next penalty card. If leading club is the only LA he's allowed to do so. This case looks quit similar to the possibilty that partner premature leads Hk and to avoid the penalty of not playing hearts (after the attention is on the error) I put Ha on the table. If declarer forbids me to play hearts I have my own penalty card which I must play. Of course this doesn't work. i must first lead a non-heart after which the ace becames a penaltycard. regards, Marcel ---------- Van: Phillip Mendelsohn[SMTP:phillipm@mminternet.com] Verzonden: maandag 16 augustus 1999 8:37 Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List CC: Alan Le Bendig Onderwerp: Law 50 Double Whammy An interesting situation arose over the weekend in a flighted Swiss Teams event at a local Sectional tournament in Southern California: You are called to a Flight A table where East, one of the defenders, has led a small spade to trick five or six when it was actually his partner's turn to lead. You give Declarer the option to accept the improper lead, but he declines and chooses to prohibit West from leading a spade pursuant to Law 50.D.2. East replaces the spade in his hand at your instruction, but before West can place a card on the table, East now puts a small club on the table. Declarer, who declines to accept this second erroneous lead, now claims he is entitled to prohibit the lead of *both* a spade *and* a club by West. Any comments, analysis, and input would be most welcome. Thanks, Phillip Mendelsohn From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 16 21:25:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA23253 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 21:25:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from batman.npl.co.uk (batman.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA23247 for ; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 21:24:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from herschel.npl.co.uk (unknown.npl.co.uk [139.143.1.16] (may be forged)) by batman.npl.co.uk (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id MAA14993; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 12:24:52 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA16776; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 12:24:49 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 11:24:48 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA20352; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 12:24:44 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 12:24:44 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199908161124.MAA20352@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> To: cookbury@purplenet.co.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Brighton beckons, or not Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > You see my problem. All of England is not at Brighton, only a tiny elite. > > The vast > majority of England will go on playing its local duplicates this weekend, > next weekend, and all the week between. The contributors to this list have > no thought for the flesh and bones of the body of bridge but only for the > superficial skin. Do none of you Directors do anything for the masses? > > Can none of you spare a thought to link your fantasies to the needs of the > humble? I do not think you have a clue what most of bridge is all about > > mt; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 23:26:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from [131.217.55.82] (purcell.chem.utas.edu.au [131.217.55.82]) by corinna.its.utas.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA11835 for ; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 23:26:31 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 23:30:00 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Mark Abraham Subject: Re: Junior world championships. Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >I'm not sure where this posting belongs, but today's bulletin of the >Junior World Championships reads: > >> Panos Gerontopoulos, chairman of the WBF Youth Committee, received >> information that a member of the Chinese Taipei team was over the age >> limit. This was confirmed by checking the player's passport and then >> with the acting team captain. The Conditions of Contest were violated >> and the Chinese Taipei team was disqualified. > >> Because eight rounds of the round-robin had already been played, it was >> considered of great importance to preserve the integrity of the >> competition and to keep the playing field level. Therefore the >> disqualification of the team was delayed until the conclusion of the >> round-robin. This meant the Chinese Taipei players would continue to >> play their hardest. > >1) Since there is an age limit, why aren't the ages of the players checked >_BEFORE_ the event starts? When is the last time ages were checked for a Seniors' or Veterans' event? Sadly this scenario occured also in Australia earlier this year. Six pairs entered a State-based trial event that selected a 3-pair team to attend the Australian National Championships, and after the event two pairs were found to have one over-age player each. These pairs were disqualified, and some discontented muttering occured. Those pairs finished 1st and 4th, and the 5th pair did not wish to exercise their representative rights. Thus 2nd, 3rd and 6th were selected as the team. After some discussion the decisions of TD (I presume) and State Association were upheld and that team went to the ANC. A lesson was learned and I hope youth players' ages will be checked in future against records in the Masterpoint database, if not by other means. >All you have to do is to ask the players to show their passport to an >official sometime before round 1 and have him check that the player is >born after 1/1/74. If it turns out that a player is ineligible, give the >team an option to continue with the 5 remaining players or withdraw from >the event. You can even do some pre-checking, by asking the players to >include a copy of their passport when they submit their convention cards. > >I can see that checking passports isn't full-proof, but it looks strange >to me that the organizers of a world championship don't even do some >simple checks to ensure that all players are eligible. One likes to presume the goodwill of the contestants, I guess, and this could easily be overlooked. I suspect the oversight is common around the world. >2) Why was the team allowed to continue to play in the event? IMHO, it >would make much more sense to disqualify the team after round 8 and change >the results of their matches into 0-18. Certainly fairer in the strict mathematical sense. Also, the disqualified team presumably enjoyed an advantage from having an older (and probably more experienced) player being on the team. The disadvantage that this may cause individual opposing teams will vary - weaker opponents will probably be at a greater disadvantage against the offending team than stronger opponents will be. Perhaps the powers-that-were decided that so long as the team itself accrued no benefits, the spirit of the event was best served by allowing the qualifying round to be played out by all teams. After all, it was only a youth event... :-P >Finally, today's Daily Bulletin reads: > >> It all seemed so cut and dried yesterday, but that all changed today >> with the announcement that Chinese Taipei had been disqualified. This >> opened up a major battle between Israel and Norway for the fourth >> qualifying spot. > >3) This suggests that the announcement was made before the last round. >This sounds completely wrong to me. With Chinese Taipei still in the >event, Argentina (their round 15 opponents) had no chance of qualifying >for the semi finals. Without Ch.Taipei, Argentina could have qualified >with a 25-x win and a bit of luck. Checking passports presumably required the knowledge of at least the team captain, or the players (depending who held the passport). The players themselves were likely to have known. A "secret" like that requires more than one person to know. It is well known that the likelihood of a secret being discovered is proportional to the *square* of the number of people who know it... :-) Mark Abraham From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 17 00:03:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA23631 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 00:03:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (mailhub.irvine.com [192.160.8.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA23625 for ; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 00:03:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA03660; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 07:02:30 -0700 Message-Id: <199908161402.HAA03660@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Law 50 Double Whammy In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 15 Aug 1999 23:37:16 PDT." <001f01bee7b1$c956f720$8f7af1d1@mminternet.com> Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 07:02:30 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Phillip Mendelsohn wrote: > An interesting situation arose over the weekend in a flighted Swiss Teams > event at a local Sectional tournament in Southern California: > > You are called to a Flight A table where East, one of the defenders, has led > a small spade to trick five or six when it was actually his partner's turn > to lead. You give Declarer the option to accept the improper lead, but he > declines and chooses to prohibit West from leading a spade pursuant to Law > 50.D.2. East replaces the spade in his hand at your instruction, but before > West can place a card on the table, East now puts a small club on the table. > > Declarer, who declines to accept this second erroneous lead, now claims he > is entitled to prohibit the lead of *both* a spade *and* a club by West. > > Any comments, analysis, and input would be most welcome. I agree with declarer. Declarer has prohibited a spade lead, and this prohibition remains in effect for as long as West retains the lead---the fact that there's a new penalty card does not cancel this prohibition. Thus, the prohibition is still in effect, and the new application of Law 50D2(a), which allows declarer to prohibit a club lead, is in *addition* to the previous prohibition. In fact, 50D2(a) allows declarer to require a club lead---but in that case, if West leads a club and wins the trick, West still may not lead a spade at the next trick, since the first prohibition still hasn't been cancelled. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 17 00:32:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA23716 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 00:32:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from news.hal-pc.org (news.hal-pc.org [204.52.135.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA23710 for ; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 00:32:23 +1000 (EST) From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org Received: from bbs.hal-pc.org (uucp@localhost) by news.hal-pc.org (8.9.3/8.9.0) with UUCP id JAA83407 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 09:32:15 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0DO2C00N Mon, 16 Aug 99 09:43:46 Message-ID: <9908160943.0DO2C00@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Mon, 16 Aug 99 09:43:46 Subject: Law 50 Double Whammy To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I think the key here is whether the player subject to the spade penalty has lost the lead. See L50D2a 'so long as he retains the lead'. If the club was not accepted the answer is no so the spade prohibition is still in force. Therefore, declarer is entitled to exercise the club option immediately and as such both options are in force. In addition, UI restriction apply. As a side matter, if the TD did not give the option and declarer made an issue as was suggested in the post, the TD ruling may have damaged the NOS by causing declarer to reveal something about his hand when he made the complaint. I can foresee a potentially difficult problem of an adjusted score because of an erroneous TD ruling [L82C]. Roger Pewick B>An interesting situation arose over the weekend in a flighted Swiss B>Teams event at a local Sectional tournament in Southern California: B>You are called to a Flight A table where East, one of the defenders, has B>led a small spade to trick five or six when it was actually his B>partner's turn to lead. You give Declarer the option to accept the B>improper lead, but he declines and chooses to prohibit West from leading B>a spade pursuant to Law 50.D.2. East replaces the spade in his hand at B>your instruction, but before West can place a card on the table, East B>now puts a small club on the table. B>Declarer, who declines to accept this second erroneous lead, now claims B>he is entitled to prohibit the lead of *both* a spade *and* a club by B>West. B>Any comments, analysis, and input would be most welcome. B>Thanks, B>Phillip Mendelsohn B> Roger Pewick Houston, Texas r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 17 00:36:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA23746 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 00:36:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from batman.npl.co.uk (batman.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA23741 for ; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 00:36:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from herschel.npl.co.uk (unknown.npl.co.uk [139.143.1.16] (may be forged)) by batman.npl.co.uk (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id PAA22141 for ; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 15:36:05 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA12387 for ; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 15:36:01 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 14:36:01 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA21326 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 15:35:58 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 15:35:58 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199908161435.PAA21326@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: non-withdrawn action (L16C?) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Yesterday (in Br*ght*n), David and Mike (Amos) were stuck on the following question. Perhaps we can agree on answer despite/in their absence. :-) Scenario 1: South is declarer. West leads H2. Before dummy is faced, South says there was a mis-explanation during the auction. The TD is called, the explanation is corrected and (L47E2a) West is allowed to change his lead. West retracts H2 and leads S2. L16C: West's lead of H2 is authorised to East and unauthorised to South. Scenario 2: South is declarer. West leads H2. Before dummy is faced, South says there was a mis-explanation during the auction. The TD is called, the explanation is corrected and (L47E2a) West is allowed to change his lead. However, West does not retracts H2. In scenario 2: is the fact that West would lead H2 when given the wrong explanation of opponents auction authorised to East? to South? Robin -- Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, 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 Aug 17 00:47:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA23788 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 00:47:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA23783 for ; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 00:47:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from x49.ripe.net (x49.ripe.net [193.0.1.49]) by birch.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA23046; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 16:46:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA24479; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 16:46:51 +0200 (CEST) X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 16:46:50 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Mark Abraham cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Junior world championships. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 16 Aug 1999, Mark Abraham wrote: > Perhaps the powers-that-were decided that so long as the team itself > accrued no benefits, the spirit of the event was best served by allowing > the qualifying round to be played out by all teams. After all, it was only > a youth event... :-P It's also advertized as a world-championship and in every other sport that I'm aware of, the organizers do check the eligibility of the players. In some events (the Olympic games, for example), they even go as far as checking that the female contestants are indeed female, which is a few orders of magnitude more complex than checking about 100 passports. (There are 1000's of contestants in the Olympics _and_ they use blood tests). Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.535-4414, Fax -4445 1016 AB Amsterdam Home: +31.20.4195305 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Committee (...) was unable to reach a consensus that substantial merit was lacking. Thus, the appeal was deemed meritorious. (Orlando NABC #19). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 17 01:07:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA23851 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 01:07:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA23841 for ; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 01:06:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-180.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.180]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA08518 for ; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 17:06:45 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37B824D1.795455AB@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 16:48:49 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Law 50 Double Whammy References: <001f01bee7b1$c956f720$8f7af1d1@mminternet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Phillip Mendelsohn wrote: > > An interesting situation arose over the weekend in a flighted Swiss Teams > event at a local Sectional tournament in Southern California: > > You are called to a Flight A table where East, one of the defenders, has led > a small spade to trick five or six when it was actually his partner's turn > to lead. You give Declarer the option to accept the improper lead, but he > declines and chooses to prohibit West from leading a spade pursuant to Law > 50.D.2. East replaces the spade in his hand at your instruction, but before > West can place a card on the table, East now puts a small club on the table. > > Declarer, who declines to accept this second erroneous lead, now claims he > is entitled to prohibit the lead of *both* a spade *and* a club by West. > > Any comments, analysis, and input would be most welcome. > LOL ! Well, I think the previous ruling has just disappeared, and we are faced with a lead out of turn. OK, deal with that first - declarer may accept it. He doesn't, now he has two penalty cards, and we read L51B2, so declarer can ask any of both suits to be led (and that penalty card is taken back in hand) or prohibit any or both suits (and one or two cards are picked up). The remaining penalty card must be played of course, and so on ... -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 17 01:07:09 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA23852 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 01:07:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA23842 for ; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 01:06:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-180.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.180]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA08522 for ; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 17:06:48 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37B82721.EA930B6D@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 16:58:41 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Junior world championships. References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" wrote: > > I'm not sure where this posting belongs, but today's bulletin of the > Junior World Championships reads: > It concerns bridge, and some laws (or at least regulations) so it belongs on blml. > > Panos Gerontopoulos, chairman of the WBF Youth Committee, received > > information that a member of the Chinese Taipei team was over the age > > limit. This was confirmed by checking the player's passport and then > > with the acting team captain. The Conditions of Contest were violated > > and the Chinese Taipei team was disqualified. > > > Because eight rounds of the round-robin had already been played, it was > > considered of great importance to preserve the integrity of the > > competition and to keep the playing field level. Therefore the > > disqualification of the team was delayed until the conclusion of the > > round-robin. This meant the Chinese Taipei players would continue to > > play their hardest. > > 1) Since there is an age limit, why aren't the ages of the players checked > _BEFORE_ the event starts? > whatever for - they know the limit, why have a player play when you know he can't ? Silly of the chinese. > All you have to do is to ask the players to show their passport to an > official sometime before round 1 and have him check that the player is > born after 1/1/74. If it turns out that a player is ineligible, give the > team an option to continue with the 5 remaining players or withdraw from > the event. You can even do some pre-checking, by asking the players to > include a copy of their passport when they submit their convention cards. > Yes, you could, but that does not mean you should. > I can see that checking passports isn't full-proof, but it looks strange > to me that the organizers of a world championship don't even do some > simple checks to ensure that all players are eligible. > > 2) Why was the team allowed to continue to play in the event? IMHO, it > would make much more sense to disqualify the team after round 8 and change > the results of their matches into 0-18. > Well, that would have been unfair to those teams that won 25-5 to them, and too fair to the teams that lost to them. > Finally, today's Daily Bulletin reads: > > > It all seemed so cut and dried yesterday, but that all changed today > > with the announcement that Chinese Taipei had been disqualified. This > > opened up a major battle between Israel and Norway for the fourth > > qualifying spot. > > 3) This suggests that the announcement was made before the last round. > This sounds completely wrong to me. With Chinese Taipei still in the > event, Argentina (their round 15 opponents) had no chance of qualifying > for the semi finals. Without Ch.Taipei, Argentina could have qualified > with a 25-x win and a bit of luck. > Well, I don't read the comment as such. It might well have been kept a secret until after the end of the round robin. Or of course it might not. But even if they announced it just before the last round, what difference does it make? OK, just prior to the last two round would seem correct, so that teams know what they need to do to finish in the top-4. > Comments anyone? > > Henk > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net > RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk > Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.535-4414, Fax -4445 > 1016 AB Amsterdam Home: +31.20.4195305 > The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > The Committee (...) was unable to reach a consensus that substantial merit was > lacking. Thus, the appeal was deemed meritorious. (Orlando NABC #19). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 17 01:14:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA23908 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 01:14:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from news.hal-pc.org (news.hal-pc.org [204.52.135.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA23903 for ; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 01:13:57 +1000 (EST) From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org Received: from bbs.hal-pc.org (uucp@localhost) by news.hal-pc.org (8.9.3/8.9.0) with UUCP id KAA85104 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 10:13:51 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0EMWK00Q Mon, 16 Aug 99 10:25:06 Message-ID: <9908161025.0EMWK00@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Mon, 16 Aug 99 10:25:06 Subject: JUNIOR WO To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk My primary inclination is to disqualify the offender immediately primarily because of the security issue of keeping the disqualification confidential for such a long time. However there are significant gains to be had by the delay exercised by the TC. 1. The playing experience of all the teams would be maximized by playing the maximum number of boards from two perspectives- skill from experience and skill from the fatigue factor. In the long run, the experience is a plus to the bridge community. In the short run, it provides the fairest comparisons and rankings. 2. Also, immediate disqualification would introduce unfairly a bonus to some teams due to luck in the form of being better rested after bye immediately before a tough match as compared to the teams that got a bye in front of an easy match. This randomized factor is hardly conducive to obtaining a fair result and avoiding it is a good way of providing a level playing field. It seems that event security would likely be successful. Imo the TC made some difficult choices and did well. Roger Pewick B>>I'm not sure where this posting belongs, but today's bulletin of the B>>Junior World Championships reads: B>> B>>> Panos Gerontopoulos, chairman of the WBF Youth Committee, received B>>> information that a member of the Chinese Taipei team was over the age B>>> limit. This was confirmed by checking the player's passport and then B>>> with the acting team captain. The Conditions of Contest were violated B>>> and the Chinese Taipei team was disqualified. B>> B>>> Because eight rounds of the round-robin had already been played, it B>was >> considered of great importance to preserve the integrity of the B>>> competition and to keep the playing field level. Therefore the B>>> disqualification of the team was delayed until the conclusion of the B>>> round-robin. This meant the Chinese Taipei players would continue to B>>> play their hardest. B>Mark Abraham B> Roger Pewick Houston, Texas r. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 17 01:19:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA23925 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 01:19:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (mailhub.irvine.com [192.160.8.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA23920 for ; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 01:19:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA04585; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 08:18:49 -0700 Message-Id: <199908161518.IAA04585@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Law 50 Double Whammy In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 16 Aug 1999 16:48:49 PDT." <37B824D1.795455AB@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 08:18:50 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman de Wael wrote: > Phillip Mendelsohn wrote: > > > > An interesting situation arose over the weekend in a flighted Swiss Teams > > event at a local Sectional tournament in Southern California: > > > > You are called to a Flight A table where East, one of the defenders, has led > > a small spade to trick five or six when it was actually his partner's turn > > to lead. You give Declarer the option to accept the improper lead, but he > > declines and chooses to prohibit West from leading a spade pursuant to Law > > 50.D.2. East replaces the spade in his hand at your instruction, but before > > West can place a card on the table, East now puts a small club on the table. > > > > Declarer, who declines to accept this second erroneous lead, now claims he > > is entitled to prohibit the lead of *both* a spade *and* a club by West. > > > > Any comments, analysis, and input would be most welcome. > > > > LOL ! > > Well, I think the previous ruling has just disappeared, and > we are faced with a lead out of turn. > > OK, deal with that first - declarer may accept it. > > He doesn't, now he has two penalty cards, No, he doesn't. He put the spade back in his hand when declarer first requested to prohibit the spade lead. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 17 02:24:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA24287 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 02:24:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail10.svr.pol.co.uk (mail10.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.214]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA24282 for ; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 02:24:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.92.197.25] (helo=mail17.svr.pol.co.uk) by mail10.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11GPYK-0006GV-00 for Bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 17:24:04 +0100 Received: from modem-87.name7.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.136.163.87] helo=laphroaig) by mail17.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11GPWo-0008IW-00 for Bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 17:22:31 +0100 Received: (from jeremy@localhost) by laphroaig (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA17621; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 17:20:59 +0100 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: non-withdrawn action (L16C?) References: <199908161435.PAA21326@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Jeremy Rickard Date: 16 Aug 1999 17:09:44 +0100 In-Reply-To: Robin Barker's message of "Mon, 16 Aug 1999 15:35:58 +0100 (BST)" Message-ID: X-Mailer: Gnus v5.6.45/Emacs 20.3 Lines: 39 X-BadReturnPath: jeremy@laphroaig rewritten as j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk using "From" header Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robin Barker writes: > Yesterday (in Br*ght*n), David and Mike (Amos) were stuck on the following > question. Perhaps we can agree on answer despite/in their absence. :-) > > Scenario 1: > > South is declarer. West leads H2. > Before dummy is faced, South says there was a mis-explanation during the > auction. The TD is called, the explanation is corrected and (L47E2a) > West is allowed to change his lead. West retracts H2 and leads S2. > L16C: West's lead of H2 is authorised to East and unauthorised to South. > > > Scenario 2: > > South is declarer. West leads H2. > Before dummy is faced, South says there was a mis-explanation during the > auction. The TD is called, the explanation is corrected and (L47E2a) > West is allowed to change his lead. However, West does not retracts H2. > > > In scenario 2: is the fact that West would lead H2 when given the wrong > explanation of opponents auction authorised to East? to South? I can't think of any reason for making a distinction between the cases when West does and doesn't retract his lead, so I conjecture that the lawmakers, had they thought of this eventuality, would have deemed it AI to East but UI to South. Certainly anything else seems unjust. I thought problems like this only occurred in the fevered imaginations of subscribers to BLML: I didn't realize they happened in real life! Jeremy (just back from a weekend with the "elite" in Br*ght*n) -- Jeremy Rickard Email: j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk WWW: http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 17 02:39:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA24321 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 02:39:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from fe070.worldonline.dk (fe070.worldonline.dk [212.54.64.208]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA24316 for ; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 02:39:03 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 6732 invoked by uid 0); 16 Aug 1999 16:38:55 -0000 Received: from 46.ppp1-15.image.dk (212.54.76.174) by mail010.worldonline.dk with SMTP; 16 Aug 1999 16:38:55 -0000 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: non-withdrawn action (L16C?) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 16:35:27 GMT Message-ID: <37cc3d76.21997336@mail.image.dk> References: <199908161435.PAA21326@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <199908161435.PAA21326@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mon, 16 Aug 1999 15:35:58 +0100 (BST) skrev Robin Barker: >Scenario 1: >South is declarer. West leads H2. >Before dummy is faced, South says there was a mis-explanation during the >auction. The TD is called, the explanation is corrected and (L47E2a) >West is allowed to change his lead. West retracts H2 and leads S2. >L16C: West's lead of H2 is authorised to East and unauthorised to South. >Scenario 2: >South is declarer. West leads H2. >Before dummy is faced, South says there was a mis-explanation during the >auction. The TD is called, the explanation is corrected and (L47E2a) >West is allowed to change his lead. However, West does not retracts H2. >In scenario 2: is the fact that West would lead H2 when given the wrong >explanation of opponents auction authorised to East? to South? I don't think it is covered directly by the law. But it is clear that what West would have done based on the wrong explanation is UI to South - in scenario 1. There is no reason to adopt a different attitude in scenario 2. So I say UI for South, and AI for East. Bertel -- http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ Emner der har fået deres egen gruppe, hører ikke længere til i de generelle grupper. Det gælder f.eks. Windows (dk.edb.ms-windows) samt programmer til internettet (dk.edb.internet.software). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 17 02:42:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA24336 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 02:42:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail2.panix.com (mail2.panix.com [166.84.0.213]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA24331 for ; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 02:42:11 +1000 (EST) Received: by mail2.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id B936918C17; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 12:40:52 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 12:41:19 -0400 To: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: Junior world championships. Cc: Bridge Laws Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:49 PM +0200 8/16/99, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: >1) Since there is an age limit, why aren't the ages of the players checked >_BEFORE_ the event starts? > >All you have to do is to ask the players to show their passport to an >official sometime before round 1 and have him check that the player is >born after 1/1/74. Apparently that would not have been sufficient. According to the "Conditions of Entry" at http://www.bridge.gr/tourn/Florida.99/Entry.htm "In general, all players must have been born on or after 1 January 1974. However, players born in 1973 are also eligible to participate provided they qualified for this Championship through an official zonal competition which took place in 1998." Also, I have no reason to believe that the Tiawan team knew the precise age limit. Surely it's possible that the first time they became aware of the conditions of contest was when they saw the Web page, if they saw it. From my experience with the ACBL and the WBF I know that gaining access to technical information can be difficult or impossible, even when it is information that is crucial to a player or team. That's not to say that ignorance is an excuse, but without knowing more about their situation I hate to speculate as to their motives. AW From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 17 02:58:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA24370 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 02:58:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (mailhub.irvine.com [192.160.8.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA24365 for ; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 02:58:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA05940; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 09:57:34 -0700 Message-Id: <199908161657.JAA05940@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: non-withdrawn action (L16C?) In-reply-to: Your message of "16 Aug 1999 17:09:44 PDT." Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 09:57:34 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeremy Rickard wrote: > Robin Barker writes: > > > Yesterday (in Br*ght*n), David and Mike (Amos) were stuck on the following > > question. Perhaps we can agree on answer despite/in their absence. :-) > > > > Scenario 1: > > > > South is declarer. West leads H2. > > Before dummy is faced, South says there was a mis-explanation during the > > auction. The TD is called, the explanation is corrected and (L47E2a) > > West is allowed to change his lead. West retracts H2 and leads S2. > > L16C: West's lead of H2 is authorised to East and unauthorised to South. > > > > > > Scenario 2: > > > > South is declarer. West leads H2. > > Before dummy is faced, South says there was a mis-explanation during the > > auction. The TD is called, the explanation is corrected and (L47E2a) > > West is allowed to change his lead. However, West does not retracts H2. > > > > > > In scenario 2: is the fact that West would lead H2 when given the wrong > > explanation of opponents auction authorised to East? to South? > > I can't think of any reason for making a distinction between the cases > when West does and doesn't retract his lead, so I conjecture that the > lawmakers, had they thought of this eventuality, would have deemed it > AI to East but UI to South. Certainly anything else seems unjust. In a previous message, I felt that I would consider overruling the Laws in a case where the Lawmakers clearly goofed (dummy violates L61B by asking a defender, and the consequence is that the defender is penalized by L63B by having a revoke established too early). However, I tried to make it clear that I thought such cases would be extremely rare. For some reason, it doesn't seem like my argument should apply to this case; the L61 case seems like more of an "oops" while the case in question here is more of a "possibility we just didn't think of." Not much of a distinction, perhaps, but enough that I'd hesitate to simply assume an error in the Laws, as I might in the L61 case. Nevertheless, in this case, I'd rule the same way Jeremy does and rely on L84E for support. > I thought problems like this only occurred in the fevered imaginations > of subscribers to BLML: I didn't realize they happened in real life! Isn't there a famous quote about "life imitating BLML", or something like that? -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 17 03:35:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA24454 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 03:35:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from iac12.navix.net (iac12.navix.net [207.91.5.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA24449 for ; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 03:35:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from navix.net (cras36p19.navix.net [205.242.158.22]) by iac12.navix.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA16277; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 12:25:47 -0500 Message-ID: <37B849DE.B6E3C337@navix.net> Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 12:26:54 -0500 From: "Norman H. Hostetler" Reply-To: nh35422@navix.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Abraham CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Junior world championships. References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Henk Uijterwaal wrote: Mark Abraham wrote: > >I'm not sure where this posting belongs, but today's bulletin of the > >Junior World Championships reads: > > > >> Panos Gerontopoulos, chairman of the WBF Youth Committee, received > >> information that a member of the Chinese Taipei team was over the age > >> limit. This was confirmed by checking the player's passport and then > >> with the acting team captain. The Conditions of Contest were violated > >> and the Chinese Taipei team was disqualified. > > > >> Because eight rounds of the round-robin had already been played, it was > >> considered of great importance to preserve the integrity of the > >> competition and to keep the playing field level. Therefore the > >> disqualification of the team was delayed until the conclusion of the > >> round-robin. This meant the Chinese Taipei players would continue to > >> play their hardest. > > > >1) Since there is an age limit, why aren't the ages of the players checked > >_BEFORE_ the event starts? > > When is the last time ages were checked for a Seniors' or Veterans' event? > > Sadly this scenario occured also in Australia earlier this year. Six pairs > entered a State-based trial event that selected a 3-pair team to attend the > Australian National Championships, and after the event two pairs were found > to have one over-age player each. These pairs were disqualified, and some > discontented muttering occured. Those pairs finished 1st and 4th, and the > 5th pair did not wish to exercise their representative rights. Thus 2nd, > 3rd and 6th were selected as the team. After some discussion the decisions > of TD (I presume) and State Association were upheld and that team went to > the ANC. > > A lesson was learned and I hope youth players' ages will be checked in > future against records in the Masterpoint database, if not by other means. Did anybody inquire into why the over-age players were in these events? Did the captains know the conditions of contest in the team event? Whenever I am directing a restricted event of any sort, I always remind players of the restriction in the announcements at the beginning of play. Of course, not everyone listens, anymore than they read the announcement of the event limitation posted on a wall. But if an ineligible player is still playing, the burden of proof tends to shift to that person to prove ignorance of the rules. In an international contest, I would think such a claim implausible on the surface. If there is any indication that the violators knew they were ineligible, they should be up before an ethics committee, with the prospects of suspension from tournament play for at least a year. > >All you have to do is to ask the players to show their passport to an > >official sometime before round 1 and have him check that the player is > >born after 1/1/74. If it turns out that a player is ineligible, give the > >team an option to continue with the 5 remaining players or withdraw from > >the event. You can even do some pre-checking, by asking the players to > >include a copy of their passport when they submit their convention cards. > > > >I can see that checking passports isn't full-proof, but it looks strange > >to me that the organizers of a world championship don't even do some > >simple checks to ensure that all players are eligible. > > One likes to presume the goodwill of the contestants, I guess, and this > could easily be overlooked. I suspect the oversight is common around the > world. It is especially common for a player to enter the wrong flight/strata/bracket of an event based on masterpoint holdings. Sometimes a lower-rated partner bought the entry, or the player near the cutting point does not realize that the masterpoint total has gone above the limit. Sometimes a team may be placed in a bracket too high because players at the partnership desk have padded their total points in an effort to attract a better partner. > >2) Why was the team allowed to continue to play in the event? IMHO, it > >would make much more sense to disqualify the team after round 8 and change > >the results of their matches into 0-18. > > Certainly fairer in the strict mathematical sense. > > Also, the disqualified team presumably enjoyed an advantage from having an > older (and probably more experienced) player being on the team. The > disadvantage that this may cause individual opposing teams will vary - > weaker opponents will probably be at a greater disadvantage against the > offending team than stronger opponents will be. > > Perhaps the powers-that-were decided that so long as the team itself > accrued no benefits, the spirit of the event was best served by allowing > the qualifying round to be played out by all teams. After all, it was only > a youth event... :-P Allowing continuation would be a normal practice. If all the other teams have played Taipei, then no team will have had much of an advantage. If a forfeit win were recorded, the beneficiaries would be denied an opportunity for more than a 1-IMP victory. I have never know a pair to be dismissed from an event, nor a team when it would be disruptive to the order of movement. They are simply made ineligible for any points or awards, even for a match win. Their opponents receive whatever award they have won at the table. > >Finally, today's Daily Bulletin reads: > > > >> It all seemed so cut and dried yesterday, but that all changed today > >> with the announcement that Chinese Taipei had been disqualified. This > >> opened up a major battle between Israel and Norway for the fourth > >> qualifying spot. > > > >3) This suggests that the announcement was made before the last round. > >This sounds completely wrong to me. With Chinese Taipei still in the > >event, Argentina (their round 15 opponents) had no chance of qualifying > >for the semi finals. Without Ch.Taipei, Argentina could have qualified > >with a 25-x win and a bit of luck. > > Checking passports presumably required the knowledge of at least the team > captain, or the players (depending who held the passport). The players > themselves were likely to have known. A "secret" like that requires more > than one person to know. It is well known that the likelihood of a secret > being discovered is proportional to the *square* of the number of people > who know it... :-) Equity requires "full disclosure." No one should have to have "inside connections" to know the match status of an opponent. Imagine that the two teams now in contention for the fourth spot are playing each other in the last round, and one knows about the Taipei disqualification and the other does not. The uninformed team might assume that a small win would be of no consequence and so take desparate chances trying for a win big enough to overtake Taipei, whereas the informed team may assume that any size win will be sufficient. Norm Hostetler From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 17 03:59:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA24526 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 03:59:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from iac20.navix.net (iac20.navix.net [207.91.5.26]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA24521 for ; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 03:59:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from navix.net (cras36p19.navix.net [205.242.158.22]) by iac20.navix.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA16899; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 12:26:40 -0500 Message-ID: <37B84A14.880642BE@navix.net> Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 12:27:48 -0500 From: "Norman H. Hostetler" Reply-To: nh35422@navix.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "magda.thain" CC: Grattan Endicott , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Brighton beckons, or not References: <000601bee7c3$0e821e40$69b259c3@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk magda.thain wrote: > You see my problem. All of England is not at Brighton, only a tiny elite. Moreover, a great many directors, and contributors to this site, are not English, and some of us not even European. > The vast majority of England will go on playing its local duplicates this > weekend, > next weekend, and all the week between. The contributors to this list have > no thought for the flesh and bones of the body of bridge but only for the > superficial skin. A great many tournament directors are also club directors, with the same concerns as other club directors. > Do none of you Directors do anything for the masses? Here I dare not say "a great many," but at least a few of us are quite left-wing in our politics. As for the bridge "masses," a great many tournament directors enjoy working with novice and intermediate players, whose enthusiasm, sociability, and humor still speak of the sheer fun of playing bridge. > Can none of you spare a thought to link your fantasies to the needs of the > humble? A great many directors are also regular bridge players, which gives us lots of opportunity to identify with the needs of the humble. > I do not think you have a clue what most of bridge is all about. In the light of my comments above, I would expect that a great many directors, whether of tournament rank or not, would find this remark rather insulting, and belied by the fact that all successful directors must communicate with people, must care about people, and must derive most of our personal satisfaction from helping people derive the same enjoyment that attracted us to the game in the first place. Norm Hostetler From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 17 04:09:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA24568 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 04:09:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA24563 for ; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 04:09:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from office.ripe.net (office.ripe.net [193.0.1.97]) by birch.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA08781; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 20:09:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by office.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA25761; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 20:09:01 +0200 (CEST) X-Authentication-Warning: office.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 20:09:01 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Herman De Wael cc: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Junior world championships. In-Reply-To: <37B82721.EA930B6D@village.uunet.be> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 16 Aug 1999, Herman De Wael wrote: > "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" wrote: > > 1) Since there is an age limit, why aren't the ages of the players checked > > _BEFORE_ the event starts? > whatever for - they know the limit, why have a player play > when you know he can't ? For the same reason that people in other sports take drugs that have been blacklisted by the SO. They think that it will improve their chances of winning, so they use them and hope that they'll get away with it. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.535-4414, Fax -4445 1016 AB Amsterdam Home: +31.20.4195305 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Committee (...) was unable to reach a consensus that substantial merit was lacking. Thus, the appeal was deemed meritorious. (Orlando NABC #19). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 17 04:24:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA24637 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 04:24:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA24632 for ; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 04:24:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from office.ripe.net (office.ripe.net [193.0.1.97]) by birch.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA09617; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 20:23:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by office.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA26181; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 20:23:37 +0200 (CEST) X-Authentication-Warning: office.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 20:23:37 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Adam Wildavsky cc: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Junior world championships. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 16 Aug 1999, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > At 12:49 PM +0200 8/16/99, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > >1) Since there is an age limit, why aren't the ages of the players checked > >_BEFORE_ the event starts? > > > >All you have to do is to ask the players to show their passport to an > >official sometime before round 1 and have him check that the player is > >born after 1/1/74. > > Apparently that would not have been sufficient. According to the > "Conditions of Entry" at > > http://www.bridge.gr/tourn/Florida.99/Entry.htm > > "In general, all players must have been born on or after 1 January > 1974. However, players born in 1973 are also eligible to participate > provided they qualified for this Championship through an official > zonal competition which took place in 1998." As far as I know, the CoC are sent to the NCBO well before the event and the NCBO has to submit the line-up of the team in advance. The results of the '98 events referred to in the CoC have been known for (at least) 7 months, which is long enough to send them by carrier pigeon from anywhere in the world to the WBF headquarters, then to Florida and have them ready when the passports were checked. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.535-4414, Fax -4445 1016 AB Amsterdam Home: +31.20.4195305 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Committee (...) was unable to reach a consensus that substantial merit was lacking. Thus, the appeal was deemed meritorious. (Orlando NABC #19). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 17 04:25:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA24651 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 04:25:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com (proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com [204.210.64.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA24646 for ; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 04:25:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt054n1d.maine.rr.com [24.95.20.29]) by proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA13079 for ; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 14:22:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990816141914.00823a80@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: thg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 14:19:14 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Junior world championships. In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk What seems very strange to me is that Chinese Taipei's results counted. If a team is determined ot be ineligible, I wouldn't it make sense to have them forfeit all their matches? I checked to see if the qualifiers would have changed if Chinese Taipei had forfeited their matches. They would not have. Though some of the lower places would have. Tim At 12:49 PM 8/16/99 +0200, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > >I'm not sure where this posting belongs, but today's bulletin of the >Junior World Championships reads: > >> Panos Gerontopoulos, chairman of the WBF Youth Committee, received >> information that a member of the Chinese Taipei team was over the age >> limit. This was confirmed by checking the player's passport and then >> with the acting team captain. The Conditions of Contest were violated >> and the Chinese Taipei team was disqualified. > >> Because eight rounds of the round-robin had already been played, it was >> considered of great importance to preserve the integrity of the >> competition and to keep the playing field level. Therefore the >> disqualification of the team was delayed until the conclusion of the >> round-robin. This meant the Chinese Taipei players would continue to >> play their hardest. > >1) Since there is an age limit, why aren't the ages of the players checked >_BEFORE_ the event starts? > >All you have to do is to ask the players to show their passport to an >official sometime before round 1 and have him check that the player is >born after 1/1/74. If it turns out that a player is ineligible, give the >team an option to continue with the 5 remaining players or withdraw from >the event. You can even do some pre-checking, by asking the players to >include a copy of their passport when they submit their convention cards. > >I can see that checking passports isn't full-proof, but it looks strange >to me that the organizers of a world championship don't even do some >simple checks to ensure that all players are eligible. > >2) Why was the team allowed to continue to play in the event? IMHO, it >would make much more sense to disqualify the team after round 8 and change >the results of their matches into 0-18. > >Finally, today's Daily Bulletin reads: > >> It all seemed so cut and dried yesterday, but that all changed today >> with the announcement that Chinese Taipei had been disqualified. This >> opened up a major battle between Israel and Norway for the fourth >> qualifying spot. > >3) This suggests that the announcement was made before the last round. >This sounds completely wrong to me. With Chinese Taipei still in the >event, Argentina (their round 15 opponents) had no chance of qualifying >for the semi finals. Without Ch.Taipei, Argentina could have qualified >with a 25-x win and a bit of luck. > >Comments anyone? > >Henk > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- >Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net >RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk >Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.535-4414, Fax -4445 >1016 AB Amsterdam Home: +31.20.4195305 >The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- > >The Committee (...) was unable to reach a consensus that substantial merit was >lacking. Thus, the appeal was deemed meritorious. (Orlando NABC #19). > > > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 17 04:29:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA24671 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 04:29:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com (proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com [204.210.64.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA24666 for ; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 04:29:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt054n1d.maine.rr.com [24.95.20.29]) by proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA13338 for ; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 14:26:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990816142400.00827750@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: thg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 14:24:00 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Junior world championships. In-Reply-To: <37B82721.EA930B6D@village.uunet.be> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:58 PM 8/16/99 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >> 2) Why was the team allowed to continue to play in the event? IMHO, it >> would make much more sense to disqualify the team after round 8 and change >> the results of their matches into 0-18. >> > >Well, that would have been unfair to those teams that won >25-5 to them, and too fair to the teams that lost to them. Isn't this sort of like discovering at trick 12 that someone was dealt 12 cards and another player dealt 14 cards and then arguing that you should be able to keep your result? Beating or losing to an ineligible team should have no bearing on the standings. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 17 09:06:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA25363 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 09:06:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (mailout1-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.81]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA25358 for ; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 09:06:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.37] by mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 19:06:40 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <01BEE7C6.4048B440@k355.zeelandnet.nl> Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 19:02:37 -0400 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: AW: AW: dummy establishes revoke Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 5:02 AM -0400 8/16/99, M.M. Schoof wrote: >No (but I have to Quote from the dutch translation) 63B states "If an >opponent (a player from the pair playing against the leader) doesn't >comply with what is stated in L61B..." >I would like to get the correct English qoute since they seem to >non-synchronized. Law 63B. Attention is illegally drawn. When there has been a violation of Law 61B, the revoker must substitute a legal card and the penalty provisions of Law 64 apply as if the revoke had been established. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2 iQA/AwUBN7iZjb2UW3au93vOEQLteACfT+uccl83GKgQpPugSmOKgW4jFZQAnjoV LToY/58/D13B8HnT5TSzW/rP =y+I0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 17 10:14:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA25488 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 10:14:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA25483 for ; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 10:14:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id UAA04451 for ; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 20:14:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id UAA24810 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 20:14:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 20:14:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199908170014.UAA24810@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Excuse me if I demur X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > I'm still not happy with L16A. Are you and Max going to pass this down > or can I continue to rule AI? The advocates that the card is UI might want to consider the position during the auction. Consider an accidentally dropped card at the beginning of the auction, so there's no way L72B1 could apply. If the dropped card is an honor, L24B applies. Dropper's partner must pass once. If the dropped card is not an honor, there is no immediate penalty. In either case, the card is left face up on the table. Now some of us might have the feeling that the card "ought" to be UI, but the laws don't say so. Can a card that the laws require to be exposed really be considered UI? And the laws have omitted to say so? That seems awfully careless. David S. has refuted any case that L16 gives an exhaustive list of AI. L16C cannot apply because nothing is withdrawn. So is there any argument from the laws (as opposed to our feelings of what "must" be right) that the exposed card is UI during the auction? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 17 16:00:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA25939 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 16:00:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA25926 for ; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 16:00:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.160] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11GcHp-0008RR-00; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 06:59:53 +0100 Message-ID: <003d01bee875$b6be6020$a05108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: Excuse me if I demur - quiz-zical thoughts. Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 06:53:32 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 17 August 1999 04:31 Subject: Re: Excuse me if I demur >> From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >> I'm still not happy with L16A. Are you and Max going to pass this down >> or can I continue to rule AI? > >The advocates that the card is UI might want to consider the position >during the auction. Consider an accidentally dropped card at the >beginning of the auction, so there's no way L72B1 could apply. > --------------- \x/ ------------------- ++++ I think I have some questions. First question: Do we consider that dropping a card accidentally is an irregularity? If so, once the auction period has started, why is a card dropped accidentally not subject to 72B1? (Incidentally, I have been searching the laws for the place where it says that it is an infraction/irregularity to expose a card during the auction - to determine what the status of the action is. See later parenthesis). Second question: if the accident occurs before the auction period has begun, do we agree this is a Law 16B situation?++++ > >In either case, the card is left face up on the table. Now some of us >might have the feeling that the card "ought" to be UI, but the laws >don't say so. Can a card that the laws require to be exposed really be >considered UI? And the laws have omitted to say so? That seems >awfully careless. > ++++ Third question: can we agree that the exposure occurred through the accidental action of the player and all that the law has required is that the card remains exposed? Next, (Irregularity? Infraction? Well, all I have found so far - Law 24 - is that it is a player's 'action'. If it were not that, Law 24 would not apply.) Fourth question: if we are dealing with an action of the player, has that action of the player not (Law 16A) made "available to his partner extraneous information"? Supplementary: Do we see any suggestion that the player's action that makes information available has to be purposeful? > Fifth question: would Law 24 be more accurately expressed if it were to read "When the Director determines that because of a player's action during the auction one or more cards ...... etc" ? ++++ >David S. has refuted any case that L16 gives an exhaustive list of AI. >L16C cannot apply because nothing is withdrawn. So is there any >argument from the laws (as opposed to our feelings of what "must" be >right) that the exposed card is UI during the auction? > +++ Let me quote, from a private exchange with a colleague, words that do not yet exist in the public domain: "Any information concerning a deal that comes from a source not shown in the laws to be authorised is either illegal or 'extraneous'. Extraneous material is that which is external to the correct procedure. Calls and plays may not be based upon information that is not authorised". [note 'shown', not 'stated'] Sixth question: do you disagree or do you accept that authorisation is a positive act and nothing is 'authorised' unless something of authority somewhere has indicated it to be so? Supplementary: does someone not have to do something to authorise, and if they do not does the matter not remain without authorisation? ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 17 16:00:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA25940 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 16:00:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA25925 for ; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 16:00:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.160] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11GcHr-0008RR-00; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 06:59:55 +0100 Message-ID: <003e01bee875$b7a034a0$a05108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" , "Jeremy Rickard" Subject: Re: non-withdrawn action (L16C?) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 06:56:14 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: Bridge Laws Date: 16 August 1999 17:58 Subject: Re: non-withdrawn action (L16C?) > > Jeremy (just back from a weekend with the "elite" in Br*ght*n) > +++ Er, that should be 'el*te'. Or maybe ' *lit* '. ~G~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 17 16:00:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA25941 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 16:00:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA25924 for ; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 16:00:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.160] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11GcHo-0008RR-00; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 06:59:52 +0100 Message-ID: <003c01bee875$b60ee640$a05108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Robin Barker" , Subject: Re: non-withdrawn action (L16C?) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 04:48:51 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 16 August 1999 16:17 Subject: non-withdrawn action (L16C?) >Yesterday (in Br*ght*n), David and Mike (Amos) were stuck on the following >question. Perhaps we can agree on answer despite/in their absence. :-) > >Scenario 1: > >South is declarer. West leads H2. >Before dummy is faced, South says there was a mis-explanation during the >auction. > +++ At what point was the lead faced? Did declarer offer the correction before the lead was faced? Did the Director tell West to pick up his unfaced lead, put it back in his hand and start again, in both scenarios? If the lead was faced, was this contrary to law and regulation? ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 17 16:22:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA25982 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 16:22:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from goose.prod.itd.earthlink.net (goose.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.18]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA25977 for ; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 16:22:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from ivillage (1Cust174.tnt1.topeka.ks.da.uu.net [63.13.63.174]) by goose.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA24170 for ; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 23:22:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <4.1.19990817011016.009581c0@mail.earthlink.net> X-Sender: baresch@mail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 01:21:55 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Brian Baresch Subject: "Pickup" pass/non-pass Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I know we recently talked about this sort of thing, but I didn't save the thread, and I'm not sure this exact scenario was discussed. Auction: W N E S 1S P 3C* 3NT X P P (3C reverse Bergen, a 4-card limit raise in spades; 3NT for the minors. NS an experienced partnership, EW less so.) At this point S picked up his cards and awaited the opening lead. When W said "3NT doubled, my lead?" a discussion ensued as to whether the contract had been doubled; S said he hadn't seen the double; if he had, he certainly wouldn't have sat for it. He said his picking up his cards wasn't intended as a pass since he hadn't known he had another call coming and that thus the auction wasn't over. He later said that the double card had only been flashed briefly; N, however, said he'd seen the double clearly. With the facts as given, what do you rule? What questions do you ask the players before ruling? FWIW I ruled that the auction was over and had S play 3NTx; at the end of the hand I encouraged NS to appeal. They did not (it's a fairly friendly club, and they came in first anyway). Thanks and best regards, Brian Baresch, baresch@earthlink.net Lawrence, Kansas, USA Editing, writing, proofreading If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 17 18:56:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA26256 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 18:56:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from batman.npl.co.uk (batman.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA26251 for ; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 18:56:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from herschel.npl.co.uk (unknown.npl.co.uk [139.143.1.16] (may be forged)) by batman.npl.co.uk (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id JAA19883; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 09:56:11 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id JAA16889; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 09:56:08 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 08:56:07 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA21513; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 09:56:03 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 09:56:03 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199908170856.JAA21513@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, Hermes@dodona.clara.co.uk Subject: Re: non-withdrawn action (L16C?) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote in reply to my question > >Scenario 1: > > > >South is declarer. West leads H2. > >Before dummy is faced, South says there was a mis-explanation during the > >auction. > > > +++ At what point was the lead faced? > Did declarer offer the correction before > the lead was faced? > Did the Director tell West to pick up his > unfaced lead, put it back in his hand and > start again, in both scenarios? The sequence of events was: West leads face down, East: "No questions", lead faced, South says there was a mis-explanation, North has still not faced dummy. Apply Law 47 E.2.(a) A player may retract the card he has played because of a mistaken explanation of an opponent's call or play and before a corrected explanation, but only if no card was subsequently played to that trick. An opening lead may not be retracted after dummy has faced any card. > If the lead was faced, was this contrary > to law and regulation? ~ Grattan ~ +++ Where did I go wrong. Robin -- Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, 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 Aug 17 19:52:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA26349 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 19:52:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [195.147.248.109] (may be forged)) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA26339 for ; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 19:52:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from pd8s13a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.141.217] helo=pacific) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11Gfus-0005oG-00; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 10:52:27 +0100 Message-ID: <001101bee895$853ea940$d98d93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." , "'magda.thain'" , "Grattan Endicott" , Subject: Re: Brighton beckons, or not Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 14:11:23 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: 'magda.thain' ; Grattan Endicott ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 16 August 1999 11:36 Subject: RE: Brighton beckons, or not >Well, I am still there. What do you want me to do? Don't make it too >difficult. > >ton ++++ Yes, well, I am not sure what can be done. Robin Barker is right about our intentions, wrong to ridicule. I think we have to allow that there are one or two people about the list who are trying to glean knowledge and who perceive our ramblings as not helping them. We should try from time to time to include some simple riders in our messages, perhaps, or to point out what is not relevant for one of Edgar's 'Methodist church halls' (if anyone knows what goes on in them). ~Grattan~ ++++ p.s. some people would consider 4% 'tiny', 96% a huge majority, and there are lots of players beside whom the 4% are certainly an 'elite'. It is a pity rgb has become so irrelevant, otherwise 'mt' could be diverted to its pastures. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 17 19:52:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA26348 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 19:52:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [195.147.248.109] (may be forged)) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA26338 for ; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 19:52:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from pd8s13a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.141.217] helo=pacific) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11Gfuq-0005oG-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 10:52:25 +0100 Message-ID: <001001bee895$843b4300$d98d93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Junior world championships. Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 13:53:37 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Date: 16 August 1999 12:04 Subject: Junior world championships. > >I'm not sure where this posting belongs, but today's bulletin of the >Junior World Championships reads: > >> Panos Gerontopoulos, chairman of the WBF Youth Committee, received >> information that a member of the Chinese Taipei team was over the age >> limit. > > ------------- \x/ --------------- > >Comments anyone? > ++++ Not from this distance. ~G~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 17 21:02:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA26482 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 21:02:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA26476 for ; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 21:01:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-7.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.7]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA17016 for ; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 12:09:12 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37B92FBF.B6BA0F2C@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 11:47:43 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: "Pickup" pass/non-pass References: <4.1.19990817011016.009581c0@mail.earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Brian Baresch wrote: > > I know we recently talked about this sort of thing, but I didn't save the > thread, and I'm not sure this exact scenario was discussed. > > Auction: > > W N E S > 1S P 3C* 3NT > X P P > > (3C reverse Bergen, a 4-card limit raise in spades; 3NT for the minors. NS > an experienced partnership, EW less so.) > > At this point S picked up his cards and awaited the opening lead. When W > said "3NT doubled, my lead?" a discussion ensued as to whether the contract > had been doubled; S said he hadn't seen the double; if he had, he certainly > wouldn't have sat for it. He said his picking up his cards wasn't intended > as a pass since he hadn't known he had another call coming and that thus > the auction wasn't over. He later said that the double card had only been > flashed briefly; N, however, said he'd seen the double clearly. > > With the facts as given, what do you rule? What questions do you ask the > players before ruling? > > FWIW I ruled that the auction was over and had S play 3NTx; at the end of > the hand I encouraged NS to appeal. They did not (it's a fairly friendly > club, and they came in first anyway). > I would not have ruled like that, considering it a friendly club. I would have ruled that there had been no pass. After all, South had clearly not intended to pass, and the pickup is NOT a pass, even if it is considered as such _when_ the intent was that it was a pass. So all legalistic ... nothwithstanding, South has not passed and the bidding is not over. After all, what harm in continuing to play. If EW really want to defend 3NT, they are bridge-lawyers. Let them appeal. Besides, it will be far easier on an AC to determine some score for 3NTX, if they decide your ruling to reopen the bidding is incorrect, than it would be for them to find a score if you rule like you did and the AC wants to overturn that. I would have sent the others to appeal. Far more true bridge result in the first place. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 17 21:55:00 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA26616 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 21:55:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA26611 for ; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 21:54:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-9-49.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.9.49]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA00109 for ; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 13:54:45 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37B949F6.CE443E6A@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 13:39:34 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Hitchcock Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A few weeks ago, some of you were playing a game trying to put as many of Hitchcock's films into an article. I took up the idea and published the following in the Daily Bulletin in Weimar, last friday, the 13th of August, which was the 100th anniversary of Sir Alfred Hitchcock (and Duke Ellington !) -- The man who knew too much I confess that I have a crazy suspicion that some bridge players suffer from stage fright. As readers of the Bulletin, they are often spellbound when they get to read the next edition. You should see the frenzy with which they thrust themselves on the new issues. Murder! And yet, as editor one has to offer champagne or topaz, or attempt blackmail, in order to get a few articles. What I need is a foreign correspondent, preferably young and innocent, who can act as a secret agent, and tell me what happens out there. This week, I thought I had found such a person. Rebecca. We met like strangers on a train coming here and I offered her a stay at the Jamaica Inn (all expenses paid but separate rooms of course) if only she would come and watch the bridge game for me. So on Wednesday night she walked up the 39 steps to the playing area and sat down at table 1, putting herself north by northwest, just next to the torn curtain behind which I was listening to her comments. There she would be kibitzing Mr and Mrs Smith of Weimar. During the first round, they played against Marnie and her father Paul. Paul is Harold Smith's brother and this family plot would not have a happy ending. The trouble with Harry Smith is that he always bids too high as soon as he sees an eight card suit. "I get vertigo from it", says his wife. So when Harry picked up nine hearts in his first hand, he already had enough rope to hang himself with and he opened Five Hearts. Alfred is the wrong man to do this to, and he doubled and scored top number seventeen of his career against his brother. In the next round our heroes played against Bernard Juno and Theo Paycock. Bernard was from the Isle of Man and a Notorious Psycher. But when the Manxman opened One No-Trump, vulnerable, first in hand, on a 4-3-3-3 zero count, and Harry ended up in Three No-Trump in stead of Seven, they called the director. "Beyond a shadow of a doubt, this is an allowed Psyche", was his answer. "Psyche? Psycho!, you mean" was Mr Smith's response. The next opponents were the brothers Patrick and Julian Paradine. These had been involved in a cheating accusation a few months earlier, and the Paradine case was still on everybody's mind. Harry had been discussing the case earlier and he thought he knew the way to catch a thief. He was so busy looking at both players, trying to ascertain their actions, that he missed an easy opportunity to overruff with his queen of trumps. Surely one trick later, the lady vanishes. After that, it even went downhill. By now, my lovely assistant was staring out the rear window at the birds playing around the gazebo in the pleasure garden, and not looking at the game anymore. But still, Rebecca's actions had caught the attention of Alfred, the director, and he proved the saboteur of my schemes, by sending her out of the room. So that is why I have no further news from this tournament, and why I shall never be known as the man who knew too much. No doubt our readers realize that this piece is an hommage to Sir Alfred Hitchcock, who was born exactly one hundred years ago today. See how many film titles of his you can recognise, and then check the full list at the bottom of some page. -- Enjoy ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 17 22:41:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA26792 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 22:41:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [195.147.248.109] (may be forged)) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA26786 for ; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 22:40:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from p47s13a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.141.72] helo=pacific) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11GiXl-0000E6-00; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 13:40:45 +0100 Message-ID: <004a01bee8ad$08df7100$d98d93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Robin Barker" Cc: "Grattan Endicott" Subject: Re: non-withdrawn action (L16C?) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 13:34:27 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au ; Hermes@dodona.clara.co.uk Date: 17 August 1999 10:42 Subject: Re: non-withdrawn action (L16C?) >Grattan wrote in reply to my question >> >Scenario 1: >> > >> >South is declarer. West leads H2. >> >Before dummy is faced, South says there was a mis-explanation during the >> >auction. > >> >> +++ At what point was the lead faced? >> Did declarer offer the correction before >> the lead was faced? >> Did the Director tell West to pick up his >> unfaced lead, put it back in his hand and >> start again, in both scenarios? > >The sequence of events was: > >West leads face down, East: "No questions", lead faced, >South says there was a mis-explanation, >North has still not faced dummy. > >Apply Law 47 E.2.(a) > > A player may retract the card he has played because of a mistaken > explanation of an opponent's call or play and before a corrected > explanation, but only if no card was subsequently played to that > trick. An opening lead may not be retracted after dummy has faced > any card. > >> If the lead was faced, was this contrary >> to law and regulation? ~ Grattan ~ +++ > >Where did I go wrong. > >Robin > ++++ You went wrong? Well, I have not noticed it particularly and I have been more interested in who else might have gone wrong. It seems to me, from your description of the sequence of events, that the question uppermost is whether declarer corrected the explanation "at the earliest legal opportunity" (after the final pass - Law 78). If I am correct in my thinking, it would be my probable opinion (but I shall hear argument) that if the Heart2 is withdrawn the defenders as the non-offending side may use any information deriving from it, and declarer who delayed his explanation, contrary to law, may not. If the lead of the Heart2 is not withdrawn I do not consider prima facie that there is any sure information to be gained from the fact. If there is anything to learn from it the position is analogous to that in Law 55C and I would think Law 84E applicable if declarer is able to gain from information obtained through his delay in making the correction. In my view the situation is, as they say, "down to declarer". ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 18 00:25:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA27036 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 00:25:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand2.global.net.uk (sand2.global.net.uk [195.147.246.100]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA27029 for ; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 00:25:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from pd6s11a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.139.215] helo=pacific) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11Gk80-0004UY-00; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 15:22:17 +0100 Message-ID: <000c01bee8bb$37dcd3e0$d78b93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Cc: "Robin Barker" Subject: Fw: non-withdrawn action (L16C?) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 15:16:16 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott++++ You went wrong? Well, I have not noticed it >particularly and I have been more interested in >who else might have gone wrong. It seems to me, >from your description of the sequence of events, >that the question uppermost is whether declarer >corrected the explanation "at the earliest legal >opportunity" (after the final pass - Law 78) > +++++++ I am not sure how Law 78 got in here. Read it as Law 75D2 please ~ G ~ ++++++++++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 18 02:00:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA27421 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 02:00:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from news.hal-pc.org (news.hal-pc.org [204.52.135.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA27367 for ; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 02:00:23 +1000 (EST) From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org Received: from bbs.hal-pc.org (uucp@localhost) by news.hal-pc.org (8.9.3/8.9.0) with UUCP id LAA47690 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 11:00:13 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0FGSI001 Tue, 17 Aug 99 11:00:34 Message-ID: <9908171100.0FGSI00@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Tue, 17 Aug 99 11:00:34 Subject: "PICKUP" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I rule that returning the bidding cards to the box constitutes the auction ending pass and then read the L21A: A player has no recourse if he has made a call on the basis of his own misunderstanding. And if further clarification is needed, I rule that by south's own words it was his own misunderstanding that led him to do as he did. Roger Pewick B>Brian Baresch wrote: B>> B>> I know we recently talked about this sort of thing, but I didn't save B>the > thread, and I'm not sure this exact scenario was discussed. B>> B>> Auction: B>> B>> W N E S B>> 1S P 3C* 3NT B>> X P P B>> B>> (3C reverse Bergen, a 4-card limit raise in spades; 3NT for the B>minors. NS > an experienced partnership, EW less so.) B>> B>> At this point S picked up his cards and awaited the opening lead. When B>W > said "3NT doubled, my lead?" a discussion ensued as to whether the B>contract > had been doubled; S said he hadn't seen the double; if he B>had, he certainly > wouldn't have sat for it. He said his picking up his B>cards wasn't intended > as a pass since he hadn't known he had another B>call coming and that thus > the auction wasn't over. He later said that B>the double card had only been > flashed briefly; N, however, said he'd B>seen the double clearly. B>> B>> With the facts as given, what do you rule? What questions do you ask B>the > players before ruling? B>> B>> FWIW I ruled that the auction was over and had S play 3NTx; at the end B>of > the hand I encouraged NS to appeal. They did not (it's a fairly B>friendly > club, and they came in first anyway). B>> B>I would not have ruled like that, considering it a friendly B>club. B>I would have ruled that there had been no pass. After all, B>South had clearly not intended to pass, and the pickup is B>NOT a pass, even if it is considered as such _when_ the B>intent was that it was a pass. B>So all legalistic ... nothwithstanding, South has not passed B>and the bidding is not over. B>After all, what harm in continuing to play. If EW really B>want to defend 3NT, they are bridge-lawyers. Let them B>appeal. B>Besides, it will be far easier on an AC to determine some B>score for 3NTX, if they decide your ruling to reopen the B>bidding is incorrect, than it would be for them to find a B>score if you rule like you did and the AC wants to overturn B>that. B>I would have sent the others to appeal. Far more true bridge B>result in the first place. What kind of goo is Herman selling that it is true bridge for south to get a second go around but bridge lawyering that he not? B>Herman DE WAEL B>Antwerpen Belgium B>http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html B> Roger Pewick Houston, Texas r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 18 02:14:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA27472 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 02:14:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA27465 for ; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 02:14:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id MAA18732 for ; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 12:14:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA25193 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 12:13:51 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 12:13:51 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199908171613.MAA25193@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Excuse me if I demur - quiz-zical thoughts. X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: "Grattan Endicott" > First question: > Do we consider that dropping a card accidentally > is an irregularity? As a _semantic_ matter, an interesting question. I don't see anything in the laws that says it is not proper procedure to expose one's cards, but perhaps L73A1 will do or even 73B1 if you consider dropping a card a "gesture." Moreover, the laws prescribe proper procedures for revealing one's cards (usually one at a time during the play period but with some exceptions), and dropping one during the auction period isn't one of the procedures mentioned as far as I know. So I think dropping a card can be considered an irregularity. As a _practical_ matter, it seems clear that the laws treat a dropped card as an irregularity. There are specific laws dealing with the situation, and a TD is needed to explain and apply the laws. So whatever one believes about the semantics, I have no doubt that the _intent_ is to treat a dropped card as an irregularity. > If so, once the auction period > has started, why is a card dropped accidentally not > subject to 72B1? I wrote "no way L72B1 could apply." Perhaps it was bad phrasing on my part. Certainly the dropped card "is subject to" L72B1, but I was postulating circumstances in which the "could have known" premise in L72B1 does not exist. Thus while the TD would _consider_ the law, he would not _apply_ it to the case under consideration. > Second question: if the accident occurs before the > auction period has begun, do we agree this is a > Law 16B situation?++++ I agree, if anyone cares. Again still "subject to" L72B1, but now it is wildly unlikely that the conditions for _applying_ that law will exist. > >In either case, the card is left face up on the table. Now some of us > >might have the feeling that the card "ought" to be UI, but the laws > >don't say so. Can a card that the laws require to be exposed really be > >considered UI? And the laws have omitted to say so? That seems > >awfully careless. > > > ++++ Third question: can we agree that the exposure > occurred through the accidental action of the > player and all that the law has required is that > the card remains exposed? Yes, these are the circumstances I am postulating. Add the required pass if the card is an honor. > (Irregularity? Infraction? Well, all I have found > so far - Law 24 - is that it is a player's 'action'. > If it were not that, Law 24 would not apply.) > Fourth question: if we are dealing with an action > of the player, has that action of the player not > (Law 16A) made "available to his partner > extraneous information"? Well, this is the question. The player has made available information that would not have been available without the irregularity, but whether it is extraneous or not is precisely what is to be determined. If the laws call for a card to be face up on the table, is the information from seeing it extraneous? Some people seem to think so, but I don't see any authority for that in the Laws. > Do we see any suggestion that the player's > action that makes information available has to > be purposeful? No. That seems clear enough. Anyway, we are agreed that the case under discussion is an _accidentally_ dropped card. > Fifth question: would Law 24 be more accurately > expressed if it were to read > "When the Director determines that because of > a player's action during the auction one or more > cards ...... etc" ? ++++ This language would clarify that it is the _action_ that must occur during the auction and not the director's _determination_, so it seems better on its face. On the other hand, you might consider what happens if the card is exposed during the auction but the director is not summoned until the play period begins. The current law seems to allow the TD some discretion to deal with whatever circumstances led to failure to call him immediately. Perhaps the solution is a general law dealing with failure to call the TD immediately, but I am not at all sure whether this is a good idea or not. All this may be worth discussion, but it doesn't answer the question before us. > +++ Let me quote, from a private exchange with a > colleague, words that do not yet exist in the > public domain: > "Any information concerning a deal that > comes from a source not shown in the laws > to be authorised is either illegal or 'extraneous'. > Extraneous material is that which is external > to the correct procedure. Calls and plays may > not be based upon information that is not > authorised". Fine, but it hardly resolves our question. Correct procedure is to leave the card, once dropped, face up on the table. > [note 'shown', not 'stated'] I am not sure what distinction this is making. > Sixth question: do you disagree or do you > accept that authorisation is a positive act > and nothing is 'authorised' unless something > of authority somewhere has indicated it to > be so? On the surface, this sounds good, but I don't think it helps. What about "conditions of the current deal?" (Where is that phrase, by the way? On quick glance, I can't find it.) "Conditions" surely include form of scoring and vulnerability, but do they include "state of the match?" (In a pair game, partner is much more likely to know the state of our score than are our opponents.) What about "am I tired or awake?" Or "how good is my partner?" Or other intangibles? Traditionally these are considered AI, but they are hardly spelled out in the laws. This whole subject is interesting but not relevant to the original question as far as I can tell. There is a card face up on the table. Is it AI or UI? If some general argument makes it UI, why isn't it UI for the opponents too? No, I don't think general arguments will do in this case. There are specific laws addressing the situation. What do they say and imply? > Supplementary: does someone > not have to do something to authorise, and if > they do not does the matter not remain without > authorisation? ~ Grattan ~ +++ I don't see that this is a different question than the one above. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 18 03:28:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA27593 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 03:20:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (mailhub.irvine.com [192.160.8.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA27588 for ; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 03:20:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA29624; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 10:19:43 -0700 Message-Id: <199908171719.KAA29624@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: "PICKUP" In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 17 Aug 1999 11:00:34." <9908171100.0FGSI00@bbs.hal-pc.org> Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 10:19:44 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Recently, we had an auction that went like this: S W N E 1NT pass 2NT pass 3NT pass pass pass pass pass pass pass Well, it did if returning the cards to the bidding box is considered a "pass", as in: > I rule that returning the bidding cards to the box constitutes the auction > ending pass The point of my silliness is that returning the bidding cards to the box can be intended as a "pass", or it can be intended as returning the bidding cards to the box because the auction is over. (The recent thread has convinced me that one should not substitute returning the cards to the box for a green card, but until people are sufficiently convinced to change their habits, we have to deal with what actually does happen at the table.) If there's a decent chance that someone thought the auction is over, his [*] action should *not* automatically be considered a pass---we have to look at the evidence and determine whether the action was intended as a pass. In the case given: > B>> W N E S > B>> 1S P 3C* 3NT > B>> X P P (pass?) I can't really rule without being at the table. (I don't even know what questions I would ask.) My feeling is that if there's any doubt, I'd rule against South, on the principle of ruling against players who screw up the game by not paying attention, unless the double card was obscured in some way. But I believe you cannot apply L21A: > and then read the L21A: A player has no recourse if he has made > a call on the basis of his own misunderstanding. This would apply if South had clearly made a call, and the call was based on his [*] misunderstanding; but if South believed (due to his misunderstanding) that he wasn't making a call, I don't think L21A was intended to apply in such a case. Actually, applying it to this case seems weird. (How would you rule in a case like this? Someone visiting from Outer Mandibulia comes to play in your club, and due to a misunderstanding and an inability to read our alphabet thinks the green card is the Stop card. He tries to open the bidding 2S, so he pulls the green card first and lays it on the table. Do you apply L21A here, ruling that he has made a call on the basis of his own misunderstanding? I didn't think so.) -- Adam [*] Feel free to substitute "their" if you prefer. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 18 03:33:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA27620 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 03:33:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA27614 for ; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 03:33:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id NAA20767 for ; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 13:33:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA25301 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 13:33:16 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 13:33:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199908171733.NAA25301@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: richard lighton > "He," according to three dictionaries I have just consulted, is not > necessarilly a masculine pronoun. I would be astonished if any dictionary really says that. There is no doubt that 'he' is a masculine pronoun. The question is how, if at all, the gender of pronouns is related to the sex of the antecedent and/or the writer's knowledge thereof. Other languages, where nouns for even inanimate objects have gender, must have problems more interesting than those of English. > From: "Marvin L. French" > The grammarians tell us that pronouns should agree in gender, > number, and person with their antecedents. Why do they think it's better > to violate one of these requirements than another? Exactly. May I suggest that the goal is clarity of communication? In general, person, number, and gender are matched in order to remove doubt about which antecedent a pronoun stands for or to provide in concise form additional information about the antecedent. These goals may sometimes conflict, or strict adherence may lead to awkward or unduly long constructions. When there are conflicting goals, the writer has to consider which ideas are most important to communicate, the intended audience, and the overall style of the communication. Sometimes it's better to use 'they' with a singular antecedent in order to make clear that the person's sex is unknown or at least unspecified. (I would call this approach as "Modern English," but not everyone would agree with this terminology.) In other situations, the number of people is more important, and 'they' is reserved for the plural, leaving understood that the masculine pronouns may stand for female or unknown antecedents. (I would call this approach as "Standard English," but for sure not everyone would agree.) Edgar Kaplan once wrote a short comment in TBW preferring what I would call the "Standard English" approach. (I believe it may have been in the late 70's or early 80's.) It seems clear that the Laws are written in this style, masculine pronouns being used for the singular and plural pronouns being reserved for plural antecedents. This makes sense to me in context. The laws are not concerned with the sex of participants, but often it matters whether an action is performed by one person or more than one. Standard English is best for expressing this distinction. For readers, of course, the main thing is to figure out which approach the writer has used. Many historical documents raise interesting questions, but those are beyond the scope of BLML! From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 18 03:54:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA27657 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 03:54:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (mailhub.irvine.com [192.160.8.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA27652 for ; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 03:54:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA30334; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 10:54:15 -0700 Message-Id: <199908171754.KAA30334@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 17 Aug 1999 13:33:16 PDT." <199908171733.NAA25301@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 10:54:15 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > From: richard lighton > > "He," according to three dictionaries I have just consulted, is not > > necessarilly a masculine pronoun. > > I would be astonished if any dictionary really says that. There is no > doubt that 'he' is a masculine pronoun. The question is how, if at > all, the gender of pronouns is related to the sex of the antecedent > and/or the writer's knowledge thereof. > > Other languages, where nouns for even inanimate objects have gender, > must have problems more interesting than those of English. I don't see why they'd have to have problems. Certainly, those who grow up speaking those languages would be more used to the fact that pronoun gender doesn't necessarily have anything to do with sex, since they would have to use the equivalents of "he" and "she" to refer to inanimate objects all the time anyway. So they'd be more likely not to worry about "he" and "she" being the "correct" gender. In English, we usually use "he" and "she" exclusively to refer to people, animals, and boats, so I'd think English speakers, who think "he" and "she" does say something about the sex of the antecedent, would have more problems. However, I'm just guessing, and I'd appreciate hearing the view of non-native-English speakers. I did learn in high-school German that there are problems with their words for "girl" and "young woman" (Ma:dchen and Fra:ulein, please excuse the sideways umlauts), which have neuter gender, and therefore it's grammatically correct to use the pronoun "it"---but apparently it's acceptable to use "she" anyway. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 18 06:33:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA27968 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 06:33:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA27959 for ; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 06:33:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.219] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11Gpuc-0008Pg-00; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 21:32:50 +0100 Message-ID: <002b01bee8ef$a9f84340$db5208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 21:31:14 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 17 August 1999 19:02 Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply --------------- \x/ ----------------- >Many historical documents raise interesting >questions, but those are beyond the scope of BLML! > +++ Now that's a surprise! :-) ~G~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 18 06:33:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA27969 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 06:33:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA27958 for ; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 06:33:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.219] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11GpuZ-0008Pg-00; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 21:32:48 +0100 Message-ID: <002a01bee8ef$a8456320$db5208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" Cc: "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: Excuse me if - quiz-zical thoughts - reprise (long).. Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 21:29:56 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 17 August 1999 17:51 Subject: Re: Excuse me if I demur - quiz-zical thoughts. >From: "Grattan Endicott" >> First question: >> Do we consider that dropping a card accidentally >> is an irregularity? > >As a _semantic_ matter, an interesting question. ## Not semantics; I was tracking whether 72B1 could apply. There needs to be an irregularity for that.## >I don't see anything >in the laws that says it is not proper procedure to expose one's cards, >but perhaps L73A1 will do or even 73B1 if you consider dropping a card >a "gesture." Moreover, the laws prescribe proper procedures for >revealing one's cards (usually one at a time during the play period but >with some exceptions), and dropping one during the auction period isn't >one of the procedures mentioned as far as I know. So I think dropping >a card can be considered an irregularity. > >As a _practical_ matter, it seems clear that the laws treat a dropped >card as an irregularity. There are specific laws dealing with the >situation, and a TD is needed to explain and apply the laws. So >whatever one believes about the semantics, I have no doubt that the >_intent_ is to treat a dropped card as an irregularity. > ## Probably so. (Incidentally, I am still left groping whether there is an offence within the meaning of Law 90.) Moreover, if truly an accident it is difficult to see *any* recourse to 72B1, which made me ask whether the occurrence is an irregularity; I think it is outwith correct procedure but lack a law reference to back up this opinion. I am encouraged in my thought, however, by the additional penalties in 24B and 24C which are strange if there is no irregularity## >> If so, once the auction period >> has started, why is a card dropped accidentally not >> subject to 72B1? > >I wrote "no way L72B1 could apply." Perhaps it was bad phrasing on my >part. Certainly the dropped card "is subject to" L72B1, but I was >postulating circumstances in which the "could have known" premise in >L72B1 does not exist. Thus while the TD would _consider_ the law, he >would not _apply_ it to the case under consideration. > >> Second question: if the accident occurs before the >> auction period has begun, do we agree this is a >> Law 16B situation?++++ > >I agree, if anyone cares. Again still "subject to" L72B1, but now it >is wildly unlikely that the conditions for _applying_ that law will >exist. ## Three players have accidentally seen the fourth player's card. If the Director considers the information could interfere with normal play I cannot see a solution via either 16B1 or 16B2, so it seems to me that 16B3 is inevitable.## > >> >In either case, the card is left face up on the table. Now some of us >> >might have the feeling that the card "ought" to be UI, but the laws >> >don't say so. Can a card that the laws require to be exposed really be >> >considered UI? And the laws have omitted to say so? That seems >> >awfully careless. >> > >> ++++ Third question: can we agree that the exposure >> occurred through the accidental action of the >> player and all that the law has required is that >> the card remains exposed? > >Yes, these are the circumstances I am postulating. Add the required >pass if the card is an honor. > >> (Irregularity? Infraction? Well, all I have found >> so far - Law 24 - is that it is a player's 'action'. >> If it were not that, Law 24 would not apply.) >> Fourth question: if we are dealing with an action >> of the player, has that action of the player not >> (Law 16A) made "available to his partner >> extraneous information"? > >Well, this is the question. The player has made available information >that would not have been available without the irregularity, but >whether it is extraneous or not is precisely what is to be determined. >If the laws call for a card to be face up on the table, is the >information from seeing it extraneous? Some people seem to think so, >but I don't see any authority for that in the Laws. ## I think the information was transmitted before the law operated. It derives from the player's exposure of his card and the information is extraneous for this reason. Leaving the card face up adds nothing to what has already occurred.## > >> Do we see any suggestion that the player's >> action that makes information available has to >> be purposeful? > >No. That seems clear enough. Anyway, we are agreed that the case >under discussion is an _accidentally_ dropped card. > >> Fifth question: would Law 24 be more accurately >> expressed if it were to read >> "When the Director determines that because of >> a player's action during the auction one or more >> cards ...... etc" ? ++++ > >This language would clarify that it is the _action_ that must occur >during the auction and not the director's _determination_, so it seems >better on its face. On the other hand, you might consider what happens >if the card is exposed during the auction but the director is not >summoned until the play period begins. The current law seems to allow >the TD some discretion to deal with whatever circumstances led to >failure to call him immediately. > >Perhaps the solution is a general law dealing with failure to call >the TD immediately, but I am not at all sure whether this is a good >idea or not. > >All this may be worth discussion, but it doesn't answer the question >before us. > >> +++ Let me quote, from a private exchange with a >> colleague, words that do not yet exist in the >> public domain: >> "Any information concerning a deal that >> comes from a source not shown in the laws >> to be authorised is either illegal or 'extraneous'. >> Extraneous material is that which is external >> to the correct procedure. Calls and plays may >> not be based upon information that is not >> authorised". > >Fine, but it hardly resolves our question. Correct procedure is to >leave the card, once dropped, face up on the table. > >> [note 'shown', not 'stated'] > >I am not sure what distinction this is making. > ## authorisation may be inferred rather than explicitly stated.## >> Sixth question: do you disagree or do you >> accept that authorisation is a positive act >> and nothing is 'authorised' unless something >> of authority somewhere has indicated it to >> be so? > >On the surface, this sounds good, but I don't think it helps. What >about "conditions of the current deal?" (Where is that phrase, by the >way? On quick glance, I can't find it.) ##Law 75A## "Conditions" surely include >form of scoring and vulnerability, but do they include "state of the >match?" (In a pair game, partner is much more likely to know the state >of our score than are our opponents.) What about "am I tired or >awake?" Or "how good is my partner?" Or other intangibles? >Traditionally these are considered AI, but they are hardly spelled out >in the laws. ##conditions of the current deal = dealer, vulnerability, distribution and location of cards. Not state of the match, not state of partner; ( I think not form of scoring because the context is conveyance of information to partner through special partnership agreements). Not state of your score because your agreement is not then fully and freely available to opponents. The phrase is specific to the one Law. ## > >This whole subject is interesting but not relevant to the original >question as far as I can tell. There is a card face up on the table. >Is it AI or UI? If some general argument makes it UI, why isn't it UI >for the opponents too? ## in my view it is UI because 16A applies.## > >No, I don't think general arguments will do in this case. There are >specific laws addressing the situation. What do they say and imply? > >> Supplementary: does someone >> not have to do something to authorise, and if >> they do not does the matter not remain without >> authorisation? ~ Grattan ~ +++ > >I don't see that this is a different question than the one above. > ## pointing up the possibility that something without authorisation may exist and not affect the game, but that where there is no authorisation for the use of information the laws limit its use and instruct the Director as to his actions.## ~ Grattan ~ ## From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 18 06:38:11 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA27998 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 06:38:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from deimos.worldonline.nl (deimos.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.136]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA27993 for ; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 06:38:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp201-197.worldonline.nl [195.241.201.197]) by deimos.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA08352; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 22:37:36 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <009401bee707$ead57e80$0be9f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: , Subject: Re: "PICKUP" Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1999 12:21:12 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is an important issue and happening more often than you might believe. We should try to get a shared view on this one. It is the intention of the player picking up his cards that should be the decisive factor. In this example he probably thought the auction being over, so he probably didn't pass but just picked up his bidding cards. If this becomes the conviction of the TD in charge the conclusion has to be that the auction isn't over yet and has to be continued. More reluctant now: if the TD is convinced that the player passed and after that discovered his mistake he still should apply L25. (A) if inadvertent (probably not), (B) if not. (Yes, I know, a prelude on a LC decision concerning the word 'stupid'). ton -----Original Message----- From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tuesday, August 17, 1999 7:01 PM Subject: "PICKUP" > >I rule that returning the bidding cards to the box constitutes the auction >ending pass and then read the L21A: A player has no recourse if he has made >a call on the basis of his own misunderstanding. > >And if further clarification is needed, I rule that by south's own words it >was his own misunderstanding that led him to do as he did. > >Roger Pewick > >B>Brian Baresch wrote: >B>> >B>> I know we recently talked about this sort of thing, but I didn't save >B>the > thread, and I'm not sure this exact scenario was discussed. >B>> >B>> Auction: >B>> >B>> W N E S >B>> 1S P 3C* 3NT >B>> X P P >B>> >B>> (3C reverse Bergen, a 4-card limit raise in spades; 3NT for the >B>minors. NS > an experienced partnership, EW less so.) >B>> >B>> At this point S picked up his cards and awaited the opening lead. When >B>W > said "3NT doubled, my lead?" a discussion ensued as to whether the >B>contract > had been doubled; S said he hadn't seen the double; if he >B>had, he certainly > wouldn't have sat for it. He said his picking up his >B>cards wasn't intended > as a pass since he hadn't known he had another >B>call coming and that thus > the auction wasn't over. He later said that >B>the double card had only been > flashed briefly; N, however, said he'd >B>seen the double clearly. >B>> >B>> With the facts as given, what do you rule? What questions do you ask >B>the > players before ruling? >B>> >B>> FWIW I ruled that the auction was over and had S play 3NTx; at the end >B>of > the hand I encouraged NS to appeal. They did not (it's a fairly >B>friendly > club, and they came in first anyway). >B>> > >B>I would not have ruled like that, considering it a friendly >B>club. > >B>I would have ruled that there had been no pass. After all, >B>South had clearly not intended to pass, and the pickup is >B>NOT a pass, even if it is considered as such _when_ the >B>intent was that it was a pass. > >B>So all legalistic ... nothwithstanding, South has not passed >B>and the bidding is not over. > >B>After all, what harm in continuing to play. If EW really >B>want to defend 3NT, they are bridge-lawyers. Let them >B>appeal. > >B>Besides, it will be far easier on an AC to determine some >B>score for 3NTX, if they decide your ruling to reopen the >B>bidding is incorrect, than it would be for them to find a >B>score if you rule like you did and the AC wants to overturn >B>that. > >B>I would have sent the others to appeal. Far more true bridge >B>result in the first place. > >What kind of goo is Herman selling that it is true bridge for south to get a >second go around but bridge lawyering that he not? > > >B>Herman DE WAEL >B>Antwerpen Belgium >B>http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > >B> >Roger Pewick >Houston, Texas >r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org >___ >*SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 18 09:44:07 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA28396 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 09:44:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from news.hal-pc.org (news.hal-pc.org [204.52.135.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA28391 for ; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 09:43:58 +1000 (EST) From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org Received: from bbs.hal-pc.org (uucp@localhost) by news.hal-pc.org (8.9.3/8.9.0) with UUCP id SAA66946 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 18:43:52 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0QAL9010 Tue, 17 Aug 99 18:43:01 Message-ID: <9908171843.0QAL901@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Tue, 17 Aug 99 18:43:01 Subject: "PICKUP" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thanks Ton. Here are some things to mull over. The pass out position is the point where the auction concludes, or carries on for at least four more calls. If the action taken is pass the auction concludes. If it is a different legal action there are at least three more calls. When using bidding boxes there is no other auction meaning at the pass out turn that can be attached to putting the bidding cards away except that the player does not intend to take any other action [see below**]. Why? Because if he intended to take any other action he would have taken a call out of the box instead of putting away the bidding cards. Also, if such a player was not conscious of their right to select an action at their turn, then it suggests, and strongly so, that he believed that there were 3 preceding passes and the auction therefore in his mind did not permit any further action. And if he believed that he was not permitted an action, correctly or not, he did intend the putting away his bidding cards as no action. ** The laws give paragraphs to define a bid, a double, and a redouble. But the definition of pass is relegated solely to the Definitions. It states that a pass is a call specifying that a player does not, at that turn, elect to bid, double, or redouble. Is not putting one's bidding cards away at his turn a euphemism for 'I'm done'? But the laws address what is the proper procedure when bidding and this is important. The law requires that consistent designations be made for all calls. I can think of only two reasons to justify such a requirement. One is UI. The other is to avoid misunderstandings. I think that it is a good rule. And now I am going to notice that the laws violate such a principle. L46A states that declarer is required to state the suit and rank of dummy's card to be played. Then L46B says that declarer does not have to follow L46A and goes on to list all kinds of exceptions. When bidding boxes are in use, it seems that there is a similar type of exception at the pass out turn. To give declarer such a liberty, but deny the pass out bidder the liberty seems a bit lopsided when it comes to breaking rules. After all, L21A covers what kind of redress a violator can expect, and L17E and L25B give him options as a chance to recover if he wants to take it. But there seems to be potential for a lot of UI issues. My previous comments were essentially directed to the intention of south, namely that he believed that there was no action to take and that there had been no MI upon which to base a change of action. More specifically, that the action of putting one's bidding cards away at one's turn is a euphemism for pass just as "cover" is a euphemism for covering LHO's 'club Ten' with the 'club jack'. As far as the case presented, there are significant issues when ruling that L25B applies. In the ACBL the 3N overcall is alertable [as a non jump unusual NT] and here it was not alerted. Against two strong bidding opponents it would be not so likely that responder would fail to show his preference immediately after the double. It sounds to me that the hullabaloo over not noticing the double acts as a wake up call to responder's likely forget of his agreement. Personally, I do not like the reopening of the auction in this situation but the laws grant the option to south until the OL/ dummy is faced. Roger Pewick B>This is an important issue and happening more often than you might B>believe. We should try to get a shared view on this one. B>It is the intention of the player picking up his cards that should be B>the decisive factor. B>In this example he probably thought the auction being over, so he B>probably didn't pass but just picked up his bidding cards. If this B>becomes the conviction of the TD in charge the conclusion has to be that B>the auction isn't over yet and has to be continued. B>More reluctant now: if the TD is convinced that the player passed and B>after that discovered his mistake he still should apply L25. (A) if B>inadvertent (probably not), (B) if not. (Yes, I know, a prelude on a LC B>decision concerning the word 'stupid'). B>ton B>>I rule that returning the bidding cards to the box constitutes the B>auction >ending pass and then read the L21A: A player has no recourse if B>he has made a call on the basis of his own misunderstanding. B>> B>>And if further clarification is needed, I rule that by south's own B>words it was his own misunderstanding that led him to do as he did. B>> B>>Roger Pewick B>> B>>B>Brian Baresch wrote: B>>B>> B>>B>> I know we recently talked about this sort of thing, but I didn't B>save the thread, and I'm not sure this exact scenario was discussed. B>>B>> B>>B>> Auction: B>>B>> B>>B>> W N E S B>>B>> 1S P 3C* 3NT B>>B>> X P P B>>B>> B>>B>> (3C reverse Bergen, a 4-card limit raise in spades; 3NT for the B>>B>minors. NS > an experienced partnership, EW less so.) B>>B>> B>>B>> At this point S picked up his cards and awaited the opening lead. B>When >B>W > said "3NT doubled, my lead?" a discussion ensued as to B>whether the >B>contract > had been doubled; S said he hadn't seen the B>double; if he >B>had, he certainly > wouldn't have sat for it. He said B>his picking up his >B>cards wasn't intended > as a pass since he hadn't B>known he had another >B>call coming and that thus > the auction wasn't B>over. He later said that >B>the double card had only been > flashed B>briefly; N, however, said he'd >B>seen the double clearly. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 18 10:09:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA28462 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 10:09:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp.email.msn.com (cpimssmtpu10.smtp.email.msn.com [207.46.181.60]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA28457 for ; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 10:09:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from uymfdlvk - 208.255.72.122 by email.msn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 17:08:42 -0700 Message-ID: <005001bee90d$9aa67740$7a48ffd0@uymfdlvk> Reply-To: "Chris Pisarra" From: "Chris Pisarra" To: References: <199908171733.NAA25301@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 17:07:02 -0700 Organization: his wit's end MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: Steve Willner To: Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 1999 10:33 AM Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply > > From: richard lighton > > "He," according to three dictionaries I have just consulted, is not > > necessarilly a masculine pronoun. > > I would be astonished if any dictionary really says that. There is no > doubt that 'he' is a masculine pronoun. The question is how, if at > all, the gender of pronouns is related to the sex of the antecedent > and/or the writer's knowledge thereof. From the 1993 Edition of the New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary: he: 1. The male person or animal, or the ***person or animal of unknown or unspecified sex, **** previously mentioned or implied or easily identified. Astonish away. Chris From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 18 10:58:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA28590 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 10:58:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (mailout1-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.81]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA28585 for ; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 10:58:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.37] by mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 20:58:08 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <9908171843.0QAL901@bbs.hal-pc.org> Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 20:56:26 -0400 To: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: "PICKUP" Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 6:43 PM -0400 8/17/99, r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org wrote: >When bidding boxes are in use, it seems that there is a similar type of >exception at the pass out turn. To give declarer such a liberty, but deny >the pass out bidder the liberty seems a bit lopsided when it comes to >breaking rules. Except that the exceptions for declarer that you mention are specified in the Laws. Use of bidding boxes is specified by regulation, and all such regulations that I've seen specify that "pass" is indicated by removing the Pass card from the box and placing it on the table. Nowhere have I seen exceptions listed. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2 iQA/AwUBN7oFLr2UW3au93vOEQKOIgCfW1q0QE86txCQE4x1GS3lHrRukPgAn33v zzTdqSokv+EalRe4/CtQasSm =Ehws -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 18 11:02:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA28605 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 11:02:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from server03.gw.total-web.net (qmailr@server03.gw.total-web.net [209.186.12.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA28600 for ; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 11:02:27 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 12377 invoked from network); 18 Aug 1999 01:02:17 -0000 Received: from ip-014-202.gw.total-web.net (HELO Bill) (209.186.14.202) by server03.gw.total-web.net with SMTP; 18 Aug 1999 01:02:17 -0000 Message-ID: <06ad01bee914$e9918b40$ca0ebad1@Bill.gw.total-web.net> From: "Bill Bickford" To: "Bridge Laws Forum" Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 20:59:23 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From the 3rd Edition (CD Rom version) of the American Heritage Dictionary. Used to refer to a person whose gender is unspecified or unknown: “He who desires but acts not, breeds pestilence” (William Blake) Cheers......................./Bill Bickford From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 18 16:10:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA29218 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 16:10:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.zeelandnet.nl (mail.zeelandnet.nl [62.12.12.194]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA29203 for ; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 16:10:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from k511.zeelandnet.nl (k511.zeelandnet.nl [193.172.203.3]) by mail.zeelandnet.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA12110 for ; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 08:10:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: by k511.zeelandnet.nl with Microsoft Mail id <01BEE950.CFF136E0@k511.zeelandnet.nl>; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 08:08:10 +-200 Message-ID: <01BEE950.CFF136E0@k511.zeelandnet.nl> From: "M.M. Schoof" To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: AW: dummy establishes revoke Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 00:35:08 +-200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id QAA29206 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Well I think the dutch translation have taken 42B1,43A1b in account were it's clearly stated that the dummy isn't allowed to ask opponents about a revoke. Since he is not allowed to do so 63B (english version) can't be effective if the dummy establishes the revoke. Marcel ---------- Van: Ed Reppert[SMTP:ereppert@rochester.rr.com] Verzonden: dinsdag 17 augustus 1999 1:02 Aan: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Onderwerp: Re: AW: AW: dummy establishes revoke -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 5:02 AM -0400 8/16/99, M.M. Schoof wrote: >No (but I have to Quote from the dutch translation) 63B states "If an >opponent (a player from the pair playing against the leader) doesn't >comply with what is stated in L61B..." >I would like to get the correct English qoute since they seem to >non-synchronized. Law 63B. Attention is illegally drawn. When there has been a violation of Law 61B, the revoker must substitute a legal card and the penalty provisions of Law 64 apply as if the revoke had been established. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2 iQA/AwUBN7iZjb2UW3au93vOEQLteACfT+uccl83GKgQpPugSmOKgW4jFZQAnjoV LToY/58/D13B8HnT5TSzW/rP =y+I0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 18 16:10:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA29220 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 16:10:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.zeelandnet.nl (mail.zeelandnet.nl [62.12.12.194]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA29205 for ; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 16:10:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from k511.zeelandnet.nl (k511.zeelandnet.nl [193.172.203.3]) by mail.zeelandnet.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA12115 for ; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 08:10:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: by k511.zeelandnet.nl with Microsoft Mail id <01BEE950.D19C75E0@k511.zeelandnet.nl>; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 08:08:13 +-200 Message-ID: <01BEE950.D19C75E0@k511.zeelandnet.nl> From: "M.M. Schoof" To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: AW: "Pickup" pass/non-pass Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 00:42:38 +-200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id QAA29210 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- Van: Brian Baresch[SMTP:baresch@earthlink.net] Verzonden: dinsdag 17 augustus 1999 8:21 Aan: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Onderwerp: "Pickup" pass/non-pass I know we recently talked about this sort of thing, but I didn't save the thread, and I'm not sure this exact scenario was discussed. Auction: W N E S 1S P 3C* 3NT X P P (3C reverse Bergen, a 4-card limit raise in spades; 3NT for the minors. NS an experienced partnership, EW less so.) At this point S picked up his cards and awaited the opening lead. When W said "3NT doubled, my lead?" a discussion ensued as to whether the contract had been doubled; S said he hadn't seen the double; if he had, he certainly wouldn't have sat for it. He said his picking up his cards wasn't intended as a pass since he hadn't known he had another call coming and that thus the auction wasn't over. He later said that the double card had only been flashed briefly; N, however, said he'd seen the double clearly. With the facts as given, what do you rule? What questions do you ask the players before ruling? ++ I think you've asked the right questions. Both North and South (in a later stadium) have acknowledged seeing the double, but south only later realised he shouldn't have passed (might be partnership misunderstandment to this situation). FWIW I ruled that the auction was over and had S play 3NTx; at the end of the hand I encouraged NS to appeal. They did not (it's a fairly friendly club, and they came in first anyway). ++ I would have done the same. Marcel Thanks and best regards, Brian Baresch, baresch@earthlink.net Lawrence, Kansas, USA Editing, writing, proofreading If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 18 16:10:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA29219 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 16:10:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.zeelandnet.nl (mail.zeelandnet.nl [62.12.12.194]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA29204 for ; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 16:10:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from k511.zeelandnet.nl (k511.zeelandnet.nl [193.172.203.3]) by mail.zeelandnet.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA12124 for ; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 08:10:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: by k511.zeelandnet.nl with Microsoft Mail id <01BEE950.D2DB5E80@k511.zeelandnet.nl>; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 08:08:15 +-200 Message-ID: <01BEE950.D2DB5E80@k511.zeelandnet.nl> From: "M.M. Schoof" To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: AW: Law 50 Double Whammy Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 00:49:45 +-200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id QAA29209 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- Van: Adam Beneschan[SMTP:adam@irvine.com] Verzonden: maandag 16 augustus 1999 16:02 Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List CC: adam@irvine.com Onderwerp: Re: Law 50 Double Whammy Phillip Mendelsohn wrote: > An interesting situation arose over the weekend in a flighted Swiss Teams > event at a local Sectional tournament in Southern California: > > You are called to a Flight A table where East, one of the defenders, has led > a small spade to trick five or six when it was actually his partner's turn > to lead. You give Declarer the option to accept the improper lead, but he > declines and chooses to prohibit West from leading a spade pursuant to Law > 50.D.2. East replaces the spade in his hand at your instruction, but before > West can place a card on the table, East now puts a small club on the table. > > Declarer, who declines to accept this second erroneous lead, now claims he > is entitled to prohibit the lead of *both* a spade *and* a club by West. > > Any comments, analysis, and input would be most welcome. I agree with declarer. Declarer has prohibited a spade lead, and this prohibition remains in effect for as long as West retains the lead---the fact that there's a new penalty card does not cancel this prohibition. Thus, the prohibition is still in effect, and the new application of Law 50D2(a), which allows declarer to prohibit a club lead, is in *addition* to the previous prohibition. ++ a dangerous approach because it can lead to L59 if the partner of the defender only has spades and clubs. He can't comply to the penalty(s) so he might even be allowed to play a spade. L59 doesn't state that the first penalty stays in effect if you can't comply to the second penalty. MMS In fact, 50D2(a) allows declarer to require a club lead---but in that case, if West leads a club and wins the trick, West still may not lead a spade at the next trick, since the first prohibition still hasn't been cancelled. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 18 17:23:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA29515 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 17:23:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA29509 for ; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 17:23:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id JAA23234 for ; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 09:23:24 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JEWOWH4MSI00273A@AGRO.NL> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 09:22:30 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id ; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 09:22:28 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 09:22:27 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: auction period To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C21C@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Just to overcome the Brighton week the following. We know all about the K of hearts shown during the auction now. Also that the ACBL and the DBF join each other in handling the 'penalty card' as such. Let us assume N takes her cards out of the pocket and after counting starts looking in. Now she holds the K of hearts in such a way that S might see it. EW are still counting their cards. The TD is called. What has to be done. Not more than three relevant laws involved: 6D, 17A and 24. Just reading 6D solves the problem of becoming dummy again: be quick and show one of the deuces to your partner. Let us go! ton From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 18 18:21:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA29630 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 18:21:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA29625 for ; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 18:21:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.172] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11H0xz-000JHM-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 09:21:03 +0100 Message-ID: <001e01bee952$9bbd0a00$ac5108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: 'Nothing to excess' Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 09:20:23 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 18 August 1999 01:41 Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply > >From: Steve Willner >To: >Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 1999 10:33 AM >Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply > > >> > From: richard lighton >> > "He," according to three dictionaries I have just consulted, is not >> > necessarilly a masculine pronoun. >> >> I would be astonished if any dictionary really says that. There is no >> doubt that 'he' is a masculine pronoun. The question is how, if at >> all, the gender of pronouns is related to the sex of the antecedent >> and/or the writer's knowledge thereof. > > > From the 1993 Edition of the New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary: > > he: 1. The male person or animal, or the ***person or animal of unknown >or unspecified sex, **** previously mentioned or implied or easily >identified. > ++++ "And everybody praised the Duke Who this great fight did win". "But what good came of it at last?" Quoth little Peterkin. "Why, that I cannot tell," said he, "But 'twas a famous victory." ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 18 22:21:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA00200 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 22:21:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA00193 for ; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 22:21:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (dup-207-176-64-97.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA28191 for ; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 08:21:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990818081949.006c0f68@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 08:19:49 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: "PICKUP" In-Reply-To: <9908171843.0QAL901@bbs.hal-pc.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:43 PM 8/17/99, r.pewick wrote: >Is not putting one's bidding cards away at his >turn a euphemism for 'I'm done'? Yes (although "euphemism" isn't quite the right word; it connotes that "I'm done" would be impolite). But the issue is whether he thinks he's done because he doesn't have a turn left, or because he chooses not to use it (i.e. not to bid, double or redouble). Putting the cards away is a euphemism for "pass" only if the player intended it that way. We do occasionally go to the bathroom in order to take a bath. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 18 22:50:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA00438 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 22:50:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from IGNGATE.merck.de (igngate.merck.de [194.196.248.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA00433 for ; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 22:50:10 +1000 (EST) From: James.Vickers@merck.de Received: from dedamsgnt02.merck.de (smtpgw.merck.de [155.250.248.234]) by IGNGATE.merck.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA09861 for ; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 14:50:00 +0200 (METDST) X-Internal-ID: 37B0459D000125DD Received: from dedamsg4.merck.de (155.250.249.26) by dedamsgnt02.merck.de (NPlex 2.0.123) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 14:54:10 +0200 Received: by dedamsg4.merck.de(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.2 (693.3 8-11-1998)) id C12567D1.00467697 ; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 14:49:38 +0200 X-Lotus-FromDomain: MERCK To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-ID: Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 14:41:20 +0200 Subject: Re: dummy establishes revoke/Law53A Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Erich Ossa wrote ******************* Imagine the following situation: A defender does not follow suit and is inquired by dummy about a possible revoke. It turns out that the defender revoked. Now, by law 63 B, the revoke is essentially established. That means that dummy has effectively though illegally prevented the declarer from correcting his revoke in time. ******************** I think there is general agreement as to how we wriggle out of the unpleasant situation of players being able to effectively establish an opponent's revoke by illegally enquiring and thus gaining a possible transfer of tricks to their side, as apparently sanctioned by Law63B. It goes like this: (1) Any action not explicitly sanctioned by the laws is banned by the laws. (This is not universally accepted, but let's take it as read for the sake of argument.) (2) Dummy is explicitly banned from enquiring about a defender's possible revoke in Law42B1 (but only by implication under Law61B, and not anywhere else). (3) According to Law63B when attention is illegally drawn to a revoke the penalty provisions of Law64 apply only when there has been a violation of Law61B. Thus dummy's question was illegal, but only an infraction of Law42B1 and the general principle set out in (1) above. Thus a warning or in extreme cases a procedural penalty could be considered, but the penalties of Law64 do not apply. While looking for similar examples to this ruling, I came across another anomaly in the curiously-worded Law53A: "Any lead faced out of turn may be treated as a correct lead. It becomes a correct lead if declarer or either defender, as the case may be, accepts it (by making a statement to that effect), or if the player next in rotation plays to the irregular lead...." The phrase "as the case may be" is just hanging there and doesn't seem to relate to anything. Thus it seems from this law that a defender can accept partner's lead out of turn by making a statement to that effect. This is obviously not the intended meaning, but it is what the rule says. Or have I missed something? James Vickers Darmstadt, Germany From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 18 23:28:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA00272 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 22:32:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from llyr.cee.hw.ac.uk (exim@llyr.cee.hw.ac.uk [137.195.52.200]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA00265 for ; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 22:32:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from janus.cee.hw.ac.uk ([137.195.26.112] ident=root) by llyr.cee.hw.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #4) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 11H4sj-0004x4-00; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 13:31:53 +0100 Received: by janus.cee.hw.ac.uk (Smail3.1.28.1 #96) id m11H4si-0001QJC; Wed, 18 Aug 99 13:31 BST Message-Id: Date: Wed, 18 Aug 99 13:31 BST From: Ian D Crorie Subject: Re: "PICKUP" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org's message of Tue, 17 Aug 99 11:00:34 Organisation: Dept of Computing & Electrical Engineering, Heriot-Watt University, Scotland X-Mailer: Exim/Ream v4.15a (The Choice of the Old Generation too) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > I rule that returning the bidding cards to the box constitutes the auction > ending pass and then read the L21A: A player has no recourse if he has made > a call on the basis of his own misunderstanding. > > And if further clarification is needed, I rule that by south's own words it > was his own misunderstanding that led him to do as he did. > > Roger Pewick I know that the following story covers a different case from the one we started with but it seems relevant to the general discussion of "implied passes" and the problems they can engender. In a club matchpoint event of decent standard, the auction goes: LHO pard RHO me 1NT p 2NT p ... After passing I turned 90 degrees (to unwrap a packet of cigarettes but the reason seems irrelevant). When I turn back to the table 10 seconds or so later, everyone else's bidding cards have gone and partner has the opening lead face down waiting for me to ask any questions. Around trick 8 I have a decision: cash out for 2NT+1 or try to hold it to 8 tricks. Cashing out is right if declarer has a missing Queen, but that would give him a maximum 1NT and he'd have gone on to 3NT. So I try to hold it to 8 but surprisingly declarer *does* have the missing Queen and now makes 10 tricks. 2NT+2 I write in the traveller but LHO says: "No, 3NT+1". The auction (unbeknown to me) had continued (at speed): LHO pard RHO me 1NT p 2NT p 3NT p p ... at which point the three other players at the table picked up their cards on the assumption that I was going to pass. I tried to convince the (playing) TD that the result should be changed to 3NT= but (no doubt not entirely unconnected to the fact that *he was LHO* he insisted on his top). [expletive deleted] Of course my partner was equally to blame with the opponents so I gave up at this point. *mounts soapbox* These types of shortcuts that players often take, despite the Laws of the game being known to them, really annoy me. Whether it is the mechanics of bidding boxes, pauses after skip bids, questions about individual bids rather than the whole auction, the "shortcuts" so often lead to more time being wasted than if the players had done what they are suposed to do. *gets down from soapbox* --- "In Italy for thirty years under the Borgias they had warfare, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love; they had five hundred years of democracy and peace and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock. -- Orson Welles to Joseph Cotton in The Third Man From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 19 00:06:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA00650 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 00:06:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (mailhub.irvine.com [192.160.8.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA00645 for ; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 00:06:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA17104; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 07:06:08 -0700 Message-Id: <199908181406.HAA17104@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: AW: Law 50 Double Whammy In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 18 Aug 1999 00:49:45." <01BEE950.D2DB5E80@k511.zeelandnet.nl> Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 07:06:08 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk M. M. Schoof wrote: > > Phillip Mendelsohn wrote: > > > > > An interesting situation arose over the weekend in a flighted Swiss Teams > > > event at a local Sectional tournament in Southern California: > > > > > > You are called to a Flight A table where East, one of the defenders, has led > > > a small spade to trick five or six when it was actually his partner's turn > > > to lead. You give Declarer the option to accept the improper lead, but he > > > declines and chooses to prohibit West from leading a spade pursuant to Law > > > 50.D.2. East replaces the spade in his hand at your instruction, but before > > > West can place a card on the table, East now puts a small club on the table. > > > > > > Declarer, who declines to accept this second erroneous lead, now claims he > > > is entitled to prohibit the lead of *both* a spade *and* a club by West. > > > > > > Any comments, analysis, and input would be most welcome. > > > > I agree with declarer. Declarer has prohibited a spade lead, and this > > prohibition remains in effect for as long as West retains the > > lead---the fact that there's a new penalty card does not cancel this > > prohibition. Thus, the prohibition is still in effect, and the new > > application of Law 50D2(a), which allows declarer to prohibit a club > > lead, is in *addition* to the previous prohibition. > > > ++ a dangerous approach because it can lead to L59 if the partner > of the defender only has spades and clubs. He can't comply to the > penalty(s) so he might even be allowed to play a spade. L59 > doesn't state that the first penalty stays in effect if you can't > comply to the second penalty. Interesting point. However, in general, the Laws take the position that if declarer chooses to impose a lead restriction, but the defender cannot comply with the restriction, declarer is pretty much out of luck. (Except that he gains information about the hand.) I think the same applies here. It's clear from the original post that South *wanted* to prohibit both a spade and a club. If West has no red cards, South is out of luck. This is consistent with the position the Laws take. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 19 00:09:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA00668 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 00:09:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (mailhub.irvine.com [192.160.8.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA00662 for ; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 00:09:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA17144; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 07:08:48 -0700 Message-Id: <199908181408.HAA17144@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: UI from inability to comply with penalty? Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 07:08:49 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At some point in a hand, one defender is on lead and his partner has an exposed card. Declarer chooses to require the lead of that suit. Defender is void in the suit, and therefore may lead anything, by L59. This gives everyone the information that defender is void in the suit. Question: Is this information UI or AI to the other defender? -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 19 00:32:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA00751 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 00:32:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from news.hal-pc.org (news.hal-pc.org [204.52.135.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA00746 for ; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 00:31:57 +1000 (EST) From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org Received: from bbs.hal-pc.org (uucp@localhost) by news.hal-pc.org (8.9.3/8.9.0) with UUCP id JAA03339 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 09:31:50 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0DDRG00J Wed, 18 Aug 99 09:31:33 Message-ID: <9908180931.0DDRG00@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Wed, 18 Aug 99 09:31:33 Subject: "PICKUP" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk B>At 06:43 PM 8/17/99, r.pewick wrote: B>>Is not putting one's bidding cards away at his B>>turn a euphemism for 'I'm done'? B>Yes (although "euphemism" isn't quite the right word; it connotes that B>"I'm done" would be impolite). But the issue is whether he thinks he's B>done because he doesn't have a turn left, or because he chooses not to B>use it (i.e. not to bid, double or redouble). Putting the cards away is B>a euphemism for "pass" only if the player intended it that way. We do B>occasionally go to the bathroom in order to take a bath. Imo, L21A requires that the distinction not be made when caused by the player's own misunderstanding. The matter is different if there was MI from an opponent that the auction was over, such as by a statement or by putting away his bidding cards first. And if partner puts his cards away first, there are UI consequences. Roger Pewick B>Eric Landau elandau@cais.com B>APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org B>1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 B>Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 B> Roger Pewick Houston, Texas r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 19 00:35:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA00779 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 00:35:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from cadillac.meteo.fr (cadillac.meteo.fr [137.129.1.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA00774 for ; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 00:35:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from meteo.fr (rubis.meteo.fr [137.129.5.28]) by cadillac.meteo.fr (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA01658 for ; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 14:35:02 GMT Message-ID: <37BAC495.CAE8F37C@meteo.fr> Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 16:35:02 +0200 From: Jean Pierre Rocafort X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: "PICKUP" References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ian D Crorie a écrit : > > I rule that returning the bidding cards to the box constitutes the auction > > ending pass and then read the L21A: A player has no recourse if he has made > > a call on the basis of his own misunderstanding. > > > > And if further clarification is needed, I rule that by south's own words it > > was his own misunderstanding that led him to do as he did. > > > > Roger Pewick > > I know that the following story covers a different case from the one > we started with but it seems relevant to the general discussion of > "implied passes" and the problems they can engender. > > In a club matchpoint event of decent standard, the auction goes: > > LHO pard RHO me > 1NT p 2NT p > ... > > After passing I turned 90 degrees (to unwrap a packet of cigarettes > but the reason seems irrelevant). When I turn back to the table > 10 seconds or so later, everyone else's bidding cards have gone and > partner has the opening lead face down waiting for me to ask any > questions. Around trick 8 I have a decision: cash out for 2NT+1 or > try to hold it to 8 tricks. Cashing out is right if declarer has > a missing Queen, but that would give him a maximum 1NT and he'd > have gone on to 3NT. So I try to hold it to 8 but surprisingly > declarer *does* have the missing Queen and now makes 10 tricks. > 2NT+2 I write in the traveller but LHO says: "No, 3NT+1". > > The auction (unbeknown to me) had continued (at speed): > > LHO pard RHO me > 1NT p 2NT p > 3NT p p ... > > at which point the three other players at the table picked up their > cards on the assumption that I was going to pass. I tried to > convince the (playing) TD that the result should be changed to > 3NT= but (no doubt not entirely unconnected to the fact that *he > was LHO* he insisted on his top). [expletive deleted] Of course > my partner was equally to blame with the opponents so I gave up > at this point. > "pard" made an opening lead before the end of auction period and "me" didn't pay sufficient attention to the game. A further strong argument in favor of smoking ban! > > *mounts soapbox* > These types of shortcuts that players often take, despite the > Laws of the game being known to them, really annoy me. Whether > it is the mechanics of bidding boxes, pauses after skip bids, > questions about individual bids rather than the whole auction, > the "shortcuts" so often lead to more time being wasted than if > the players had done what they are suposed to do. > *gets down from soapbox* agreed, laziness is a sin. Who has a plan to educate these bad people? > > --- > "In Italy for thirty years under the Borgias they had warfare, murder, > and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and > the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love; they had > five hundred years of democracy and peace and what did that produce? > The cuckoo clock. -- Orson Welles to Joseph Cotton in The Third Man what a pity, but don't speak too loud: children might be listening. JP Rocafort -- ___________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE SCEM/TTI/DAC 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ___________________________________________________ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 19 01:11:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA00870 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 01:11:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from legend.idworld.net (root@legend.idworld.net [209.142.64.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA00865 for ; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 01:11:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from txdirect.net (iits-01-26.sat.idworld.net [209.142.71.26]) by legend.idworld.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA03395; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 10:11:10 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <37BACD09.210DAE1D@txdirect.net> Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 10:11:05 -0500 From: "\"Albert \\\"BiigAl\\\" Lochli\"" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adam Beneschan , "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Re: UI from inability to comply with penalty? References: <199908181408.HAA17144@mailhub.irvine.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It was probably already known to the other defender ;-)) And in any case it becomes AI - you cannot make this a UI action. To do so would be unreasonable. One can assume that the other defender knows the count - but the declarer did not, else why bar it7 - unless you needed it picked up for some obscure reason. ;-)) Adam Beneschan wrote: > > At some point in a hand, one defender is on lead and his partner has > an exposed card. Declarer chooses to require the lead of that suit. > Defender is void in the suit, and therefore may lead anything, by L59. > This gives everyone the information that defender is void in the suit. > Question: Is this information UI or AI to the other defender? > > -- Adam -- Albert "BiigAl" Lochli biigal@txdirect.net - Phone: (210) 829-4274 PO Box 15701, San Antonio TX 78212-8901 District 16 ACBL Internet Coordinator From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 19 01:32:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA00919 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 01:32:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from legend.idworld.net (root@legend.idworld.net [209.142.64.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA00914 for ; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 01:31:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from txdirect.net (iits-01-26.sat.idworld.net [209.142.71.26]) by legend.idworld.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA10313 for ; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 10:31:48 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <37BAD1DF.861F8E6E@txdirect.net> Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 10:31:43 -0500 From: "\"Albert \\\"BiigAl\\\" Lochli\"" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Re: "PICKUP" References: <37BAC495.CAE8F37C@meteo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Actually this is a question of WHEN is the auction over. Law 25 is the culprit here. The auction is over when there is a bid followed by 3 passes or when the score is agreed to. Whoops!! This seems unreasonable. It is. It is a minor defect but in a pass-pass-pass-pass situation, if the fourth pass says "No, I want to make a bid" He gets to. I have been struck by this in tournaments. (I was playing a system where I "protected" in 3rd and 4th, a knowledgable player in fourth seat "passed" a 21 pointer into me. A green card was on the table. Three hands were back in the board. 4th hand woke up and wanted to make a bid, disagreeing with the score being recorded.) Director!! The correct ruling under law was that he got to bid. The director did make it a change of call and barred his partner - he popped 3NT and made an average board. The lawbooks were brought out and - since it was a matter of LAW it was unappealable. The director was correct. On an all pass auction the auction is not complete until the score is agreed to. (A bid requires only 3 passes following it.) This when is the auction over question needs clarification in the laws. -- Albert "BiigAl" Lochli Jean Pierre Rocafort wrote: > > Ian D Crorie a écrit : > > > > I rule that returning the bidding cards to the box constitutes the auction > > > ending pass and then read the L21A: A player has no recourse if he has made > > > a call on the basis of his own misunderstanding. > > > > > > And if further clarification is needed, I rule that by south's own words it > > > was his own misunderstanding that led him to do as he did. <>> _____ biigal@txdirect.net - Phone: (210) 829-4274 PO Box 15701, San Antonio TX 78212-8901 District 16 ACBL Internet Coordinator From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 19 01:50:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA00958 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 01:50:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (mailhub.irvine.com [192.160.8.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA00953 for ; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 01:50:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA18511; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 08:50:02 -0700 Message-Id: <199908181550.IAA18511@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: "PICKUP" In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 18 Aug 1999 10:31:43 PDT." <37BAD1DF.861F8E6E@txdirect.net> Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 08:50:01 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Albert "BiigAl" Lochli wrote: > Actually this is a question of WHEN is the auction over. > Law 25 is the culprit here. The auction is over when there is a bid > followed by 3 passes or when the score is agreed to. Whoops!! This > seems > unreasonable. It is. It is a minor defect but in a pass-pass-pass-pass > situation, if the fourth pass says "No, I want to make a bid" He gets > to. . . . > On an all pass auction the auction is not complete until > the score is agreed to. (A bid requires only 3 passes following it.) What laws are you reading? My copy says 17E. End of Auction Period The auction period ends when all four players pass or when after three passes in rotation have followed any call the opening lead is faced (when a pass out of rotation has been accepted, see Law 34). -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 19 03:16:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA01351 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 03:16:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f81.hotmail.com [207.82.250.187]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id DAA01346 for ; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 03:15:54 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 32339 invoked by uid 0); 18 Aug 1999 17:15:16 -0000 Message-ID: <19990818171516.32337.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 192.160.109.204 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 10:15:15 PDT X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.204] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Hitchcock Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 10:15:15 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: Herman De Wael >To: Bridge Laws >Subject: Hitchcock >Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 13:39:34 +0200 > >A few weeks ago, some of you were playing a game trying to >put as many of Hitchcock's films into an article. > >I took up the idea and published the following in the Daily >Bulletin in Weimar, last friday, the 13th of August, which >was the 100th anniversary of Sir Alfred Hitchcock (and Duke >Ellington !) >Main body snipped. Lifeboat. You missed Lifeboat. That doesn't, of course, make your effort anything less than brilliant...Top marks. Next week is Kirk Douglas' 84th birthday. Get to work! ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 19 03:29:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA01387 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 03:19:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA01382 for ; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 03:19:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt092nb1.san.rr.com [204.210.48.177]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA15762 for ; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 10:19:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <001b01bee99d$ce9bb200$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: dummy establishes revoke/Law53A Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 10:18:46 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk James Vickers wrote: > > While looking for similar examples to this ruling, I came across another > anomaly in the curiously-worded Law53A: > > "Any lead faced out of turn may be treated as a correct lead. It becomes a > correct lead if declarer or either > defender, as the case may be, accepts it (by making a statement to that > effect), or if the player next in rotation > plays to the irregular lead, but see Law 47E1. > > The phrase "as the case may be" is just hanging there and doesn't seem to > relate to anything. Thus it seems from > this law that a defender can accept partner's lead out of turn by making a > statement to that effect. This > is obviously not the intended meaning, but it is what the rule says. Or > have I missed something? > Perfect grammar, excessive words, poor conveyance of meaning, a recurring combination in the Laws. I suggest: A lead out of turn becomes a correct lead if an opponent (but not dummy) accepts it by saying so or by legally playing to it, but see Law 47E1. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 19 03:45:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA01493 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 03:45:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA01488 for ; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 03:45:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt092nb1.san.rr.com [204.210.48.177]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA24718 for ; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 10:45:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <005f01bee9a1$725608c0$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: dummy establishes revoke/Law53A Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 10:41:23 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk James Vickers wrote: > > "Any lead faced out of turn may be treated as a correct lead. It > becomes a correct lead if declarer or either defender, as the > case may be, accepts it (by making a statement to that > effect), or if the player next in rotation plays to the irregular lead, > but see Law 47E1" > > The phrase "as the case may be" is just hanging there and > doesn't seem to relate to anything. Thus it seems from > this law that a defender can accept partner's lead out of turn by > making a statement to that effect. This is obviously not the > intended meaning, but it is what the rule says. Or > have I missed something? > Perfect grammar, excessive words, poor conveyance of meaning, a frequent combination. I suggest: A lead out of turn may be accepted by an opponent (but not dummy), either by saying so or by legally playing to it, but see Law 47E1. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 19 08:08:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA02028 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 08:08:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA02021 for ; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 08:08:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.28] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11HDsH-000OjT-00; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 23:08:01 +0100 Message-ID: <00af01bee9c6$222b1dc0$875208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" , Subject: Re: ACBL LC Clarifies L45 Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 22:37:58 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 09 August 1999 18:20 Subject: ACBL LC Clarifies L45 >The ACBL LC issued this interpretation of L45 at the San Antonio >NABC. The Vancouver case referenced is the (in)famous O___S___! >case. > >There has been considerable discussion concerning a ruling and >appeal from Vancouver. The controversial decision involved Law 45 C4 >(b) which describes the "Correction of an Inadvertent >Designation" -- in this instance of a card called from dummy's hand >by declarer. It is important to remember that this portion of Law 45 >applies only to the call of a card from dummy. The play of a card >from declarer's hand is covered by 45 C2. > >In order to clarify future decisions, the ACBL Laws Commission has >agreed upon the following interpretations pertaining to declarer's >change of play from dummy's hand. > --------------------- \x/ ------------------ > >While it may be difficult to identify an inadvertent action, it is >sometimes easier to define what it is not. It is not a slip of the >mind. For example, 1H - Pass - 4D (Splinter) - Pass: >The opening bidder now thinks for a while, considering whether to >make a slam try. He finally places the green card on the table. > ------------------ \x/ ---------------- > >############################# > Marvin wrote: >It seems to me that this interpretation should be forwarded to the >WBF LC for confirmation. ++++ I think it should. Concerning the pass of a splinter I do just wonder whether we could look at a law change to the effect that a Pass in the auction which is evidently not one of the choices the caller was considering may be changed subject to the consent of the Director. ~ Grattan Endicott ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 19 08:41:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA02121 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 08:41:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (mailout1-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.81]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA02114 for ; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 08:41:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.37] by mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 18:40:43 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <01BEE950.CFF136E0@k511.zeelandnet.nl> Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 18:37:40 -0400 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: AW: dummy establishes revoke Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >Well I think the dutch translation have taken 42B1,43A1b in account were >it's clearly stated that the dummy isn't allowed to ask opponents about a >revoke. Since he is not allowed to do so 63B (english version) can't be >effective if the dummy establishes the revoke. I'm sorry, but you're not making sense. Law 61B has clearly been violated (by dummy, through 42B1). Law 63B says "When there has been a violation of Law 61B, the revoker must substitute a legal card and the penalty provisions of Law 64 apply as if the revoke had been established." There has been a violation of 61B, therefore the rest of this statement applies. Unless you're saying that the Dutch version says something different to the English version, and thus Law 63B does not apply _in the Netherlands_. I dunno if I buy that interpretation, though - I'm in favor of the idea that the Laws should be the same world-wide. :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2 iQA/AwUBN7s2e72UW3au93vOEQJNkwCdHb1IOcch3Wkj2zFpoIvvmbfYmCMAn1LF WS7+pDDN/yqYUFkbdhowmaf0 =7PsZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 19 09:00:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA02177 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 09:00:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA02172 for ; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 08:59:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from vanceulen.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@vanceulen.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.21]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA15136 for ; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 18:59:40 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 18:59:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199908182259.SAA01665@vanceulen.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199908181408.HAA17144@mailhub.irvine.com> (message from Adam Beneschan on Wed, 18 Aug 1999 07:08:49 PDT) Subject: Re: UI from inability to comply with penalty? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan writes: > At some point in a hand, one defender is on lead and his partner has > an exposed card. Declarer chooses to require the lead of that suit. > Defender is void in the suit, and therefore may lead anything, by L59. > This gives everyone the information that defender is void in the suit. > Question: Is this information UI or AI to the other defender? It is AI. This information was obtained from defender's legal play, not from a withdrawn action which would be governed by L16C. In the older versions of the Laws, this was essentially the example of damage indirectly resulting from an infraction. East bids diamonds out of turn and is subjected to a lead penalty. South requires a diamond lead. West, who is void in diamonds, leads another suit. East later uses knowledge of West's diamond void to give West a diamond ruff. The score stands. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner 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 Aug 19 09:04:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA02199 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 09:04:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA02194 for ; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 09:03:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from vanceulen.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@vanceulen.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.21]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA15233 for ; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 19:03:47 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 19:03:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199908182303.TAA01728@vanceulen.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <9908171843.0QAL901@bbs.hal-pc.org> (r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org) Subject: Re: "PICKUP" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk r.pewick writes: > When using bidding boxes there is no other auction meaning at the pass out > turn that can be attached to putting the bidding cards away except that the > player does not intend to take any other action. But I don't think these are equivalent. Without bidding boxes, South would indicate that he had no other action by doig nothing until West led, or possibly asking, "Your lead?" This would clearly indicate that he thought the auction was over, and when West said that it was not over, South would have the right to bid. I don't think South forefeits his right to bid by taking an action which is not legally a bid. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner 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 Aug 19 09:10:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA02228 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 09:10:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.146]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA02223 for ; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 09:10:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.37] by mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 19:10:38 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 19:03:58 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: dummy establishes revoke/Law53A Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >The phrase "as the case may be" is just hanging there and doesn't seem to >relate to anything. It relates to the question whether the player conerned is a member of the offending or the non-offending side (IOW, he must be the latter.) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2 iQA/AwUBN7s9f72UW3au93vOEQI/eACg2eZcpDgZaJSj/UbRXE2wQ/AwpM8AoOL8 1rahni4uyEZQT5hoV+eEv58X =c+LP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 19 17:38:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA03203 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 17:38:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA03198 for ; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 17:38:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id JAA19382 for ; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 09:38:03 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JEY3OK5JE00000F9@AGRO.NL> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 09:37:07 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id ; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 09:36:46 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 09:36:44 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: auction period To: "'Kooijman, A.'" , "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C223@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: Kooijman, A. [mailto:A.Kooijman@DWK.AGRO.NL.NON_EXCHANGE] > Verzonden: woensdag 18 augustus 1999 9:22 > Aan: 'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au' > Onderwerp: auction period > > > Just to overcome the Brighton week the following. We know all > about the K of > hearts shown during the auction now. Also that the ACBL and > the DBF join > each other in handling the 'penalty card' as such. > Let us assume N takes her cards out of the pocket and after > counting starts > looking in. Now she holds the K of hearts in such a way that > S might see it. > EW are still counting their cards. The TD is called. What has > to be done. > Not more than three relevant laws involved: 6D, 17A and 24. > Just reading 6D solves the problem of becoming dummy again: > be quick and > show one of the deuces to your partner. > Let us go! > > ton Nobody seems interested in this case, so let me be the first to answer his own question. Though 'answer' might be too strong, I like to concentrate on a detail in the case as described. L 6D says: 'there must be a new shuffle and a redeal if it is ascertained before the auction begins for both sides that the cards ....etc. Question: what does this mean: trying to understand it as a Dutchman we get two possibilities: 'the auction shouldn't have started for any side' or 'no new shuffle anymore when both sides have started the(ir) auction'. We translated this phrase as good as possible, so we kept this dualism. But giving it a meaning we chose for the second, because that in Dutch is the normal explanation of this sentence. Question: what is the most likely interpretation for a Welshman? If we have a choice here (and if not we should insist on getting one)the meaning should be that as soon as any side has started the auction no new shuffle is possible any more. This takes away my suggestion to show a card to partner if you don't like your cards, or can't bid the hand in your system. Even more interesting in rubber bridge! But also solves the inconsistency with law 17 and 24. Before making up your mind I like to complicate the matter. There is another problem with L6. In a pairs event once the first round has been played it is not a very good idea to reshuffle the hand even if nobody made a call yet. That seems to be another flaw. The title of chapter 3 suggests that L6 just 'deals'with the first shuffle, but even then the problems described before are real. ton > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 19 17:39:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA03210 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 17:39:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA03205 for ; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 17:39:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.38] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11HMnA-00065s-00; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 08:39:20 +0100 Message-ID: <004801beea15$f21c3420$265208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Cc: "Ton Kooijman" , "Bill Schoder" , "Grattan Endicott" Subject: Substitution of a bid for a Pass Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 08:29:47 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Grattan Endicott Date: 18 August 1999 22:37 Subject: Re: ACBL LC Clarifies L45 >>############################# >> >Marvin wrote: >>It seems to me that this interpretation should be forwarded to the >>WBF LC for confirmation. > >++++ I think it should. Concerning the pass of a splinter >I do just wonder whether we could look at a law change >to the effect that a Pass in the auction which is evidently >not one of the choices the caller was considering may >be changed subject to the consent of the Director. > ~ Grattan Endicott ~ ++++ #### Follow-up to the above thought. First draft: "25B2(c) Substitution of a Bid for a Pass Notwithstanding the provisions of (b) if his side has made no subsequent call or play and the Director is of the opinion that Pass was not an option the player could reasonably select at his turn, a player may substitute a bid for a Pass and if the player becomes a defender the penalty in Law 26B applies. " Do we think some such would work? ~ Grattan ~ #### From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 19 18:56:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA03391 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 18:56:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from batman.npl.co.uk (batman.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA03386 for ; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 18:56:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from herschel.npl.co.uk (unknown.npl.co.uk [139.143.1.16] (may be forged)) by batman.npl.co.uk (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id JAA11577 for ; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 09:56:13 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id JAA04757 for ; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 09:56:09 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 08:56:08 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA05065 for ; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 09:56:06 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id JAA04084 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 09:56:05 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 09:56:05 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199908190856.JAA04084@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Substitution of a bid for a Pass X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >>############################# > >> > >Marvin wrote: > >>It seems to me that this interpretation should be forwarded to the > >>WBF LC for confirmation. > > > >++++ I think it should. Concerning the pass of a splinter > >I do just wonder whether we could look at a law change > >to the effect that a Pass in the auction which is evidently > >not one of the choices the caller was considering may > >be changed subject to the consent of the Director. > > ~ Grattan Endicott ~ ++++ > > #### Follow-up to the above thought. > First draft: > "25B2(c) Substitution of a Bid for a Pass > > Notwithstanding the provisions of (b) > if his side has made no subsequent call > or play and the Director is of the opinion > that Pass was not an option the player > could reasonably select at his turn, a > player may substitute a bid for a Pass > and if the player becomes a defender > the penalty in Law 26B applies. " > > Do we think some such would work? > ~ Grattan ~ #### I think it would work, I also think it should replace L25B2b. " ... otherwise the first call must stand" Robin From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 19 20:46:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA03618 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 20:46:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA03612 for ; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 20:45:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-13-24.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.13.24]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA05145; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 12:45:42 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37BBD90C.A339A74@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 12:14:36 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws , Grattan Endicott Subject: Re: AW: dummy establishes revoke References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > >Well I think the dutch translation have taken 42B1,43A1b in account were > >it's clearly stated that the dummy isn't allowed to ask opponents about a > >revoke. Since he is not allowed to do so 63B (english version) can't be > >effective if the dummy establishes the revoke. > > I'm sorry, but you're not making sense. Law 61B has clearly been violated > (by dummy, through 42B1). Law 63B says "When there has been a violation of > Law 61B, the revoker must substitute a legal card and the penalty > provisions of Law 64 apply as if the revoke had been established." There > has been a violation of 61B, therefore the rest of this statement applies. > Unless you're saying that the Dutch version says something different to the > English version, and thus Law 63B does not apply _in the Netherlands_. I > dunno if I buy that interpretation, though - I'm in favor of the idea that > the Laws should be the same world-wide. :-) > Of course they should be. Now sometimes, the intention of the lawmakers is so obvious that a translation takes this into account. Then some bridge-lawyer discovers that a sentence can be interpreted in a second way, and he may be right. But then the translation does not have that second interpretation. OK, what do we have. Declarers are not allowed to ask each other (L61B - stated clearly). Dummy is allowed to ask declarer (L61B - stated clearly) unless he has lost his limited rights (L61B - referral to L43B2(b)). Dummy is not allowed to ask defender, because such would be UI to declarer. This is however not stated specifically in Law 61B. My interpretation of this is that this is not allowed, so it is UI, but it is not specifically forbidden. And then we come to L63B, which speaks of "violation" of L61B. Now in order for there to be a violation, there must first be an obligation or a prohibition spelled out in L61B. Which in this case there is not. If we now read the dutch text, we see that L61B has a completely correct translation, whereas L63B has the words "als een tegenspeler het bepaalde in artikel 61B overtreedt", liberally translated back into English : "when an opponent transgresses Law 61B". As we can see, the intent was correctly translated, the real wording wasn't. It is my opinion that L63B was not intended to dummy asking defenders, but I agree that there may be clarification needed. Grattan, and specifically Ton, notebook please ! (message duplicated to Grattan as per his wishes) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 19 20:46:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA03623 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 20:46:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA03617 for ; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 20:46:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-13-24.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.13.24]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA05171 for ; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 12:45:56 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37BBD976.52A4301C@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 12:16:22 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Hitchcock References: <19990818171516.32337.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Norman Scorbie wrote: > > > Lifeboat. You missed Lifeboat. That doesn't, of course, make your effort > anything less than brilliant...Top marks. Next week is Kirk Douglas' 84th > birthday. Get to work! > Didn't I publish the list of all films ? Including those that I couldn't fit in ? Dial M for Murder was totally impossible, but I admit that I could have searched a bit longer for Lifeboat. Limited time, I'm afraid. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 19 22:34:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA03937 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 22:34:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand4.global.net.uk (sand4.global.net.uk [194.126.80.248]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA03932 for ; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 22:34:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from pf0s09a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.137.241] helo=pacific) by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11HROm-0004tg-00; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 13:34:28 +0100 Message-ID: <001201beea3e$7a658ca0$f18993c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" Cc: "ton kooijman" Subject: Re: AW: dummy establishes revoke Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 13:23:54 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws ; Grattan Endicott Date: 19 August 1999 12:06 Subject: Re: AW: dummy establishes revoke >Ed Reppert wrote: >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> >Well I think the dutch translation have taken 42B1,43A1b in account were >> >it's clearly stated that the dummy isn't allowed to ask opponents about a >> >revoke. Since he is not allowed to do so 63B (english version) can't be >> >effective if the dummy establishes the revoke. >interpretation. ----------------- \x/ -------------- Herman: >My interpretation of this is that this is not allowed, so it >is UI, but it is not specifically forbidden. > >And then we come to L63B, which speaks of "violation" of >L61B. >Now in order for there to be a violation, there must first >be an obligation or a prohibition spelled out in L61B. >Which in this case there is not. > ----------- \x/ --------- > >It is my opinion that L63B was not intended to dummy asking >defenders, but I agree that there may be clarification >needed. Grattan, and specifically Ton, notebook please ! > ++++ When the Zonal option was inserted it became necessary for Edgar to extend the statement. If the necessity (?!) had not been perceived of a Zonal option the statements would have read "....... Dummy may ask declarer [but see Law 43B2(b)]. Defenders may ask declarer. " Not being authorised Defenders would then be barred from asking each other. Dummy is not authorised to ask defender and is barred therefore from doing so - under the general principle of the Kaplan approach to drafting of bridge laws. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 19 23:55:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA04114 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 23:55:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand4.global.net.uk (sand4.global.net.uk [194.126.80.248]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA04109 for ; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 23:55:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from pd4s13a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.141.213] helo=pacific) by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11HSez-0006B2-00; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 14:55:18 +0100 Message-ID: <001901beea49$c50369c0$f18993c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." , Subject: Re: auction period - oh, dear. Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 14:49:04 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: 'Kooijman, A.' ; 'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au' Date: 19 August 1999 09:21 Subject: RE: auction period > >Nobody seems interested in this case > +++ I have kept silence because I did not think I understood what you were going on about. Now I think I have a glimmer of understanding. +++ >If we have a choice here (and if not we should insist on getting one)the >meaning should be that as soon as any side has started the auction no new >shuffle is possible any more. This takes away my suggestion to show a card >to partner if you don't like your cards, or can't bid the hand in your >system. ++++ I think the latter suggestion runs foul of 6D1 which intends to deny authority to reshuffle if a player exposes a card after the auction begins. The suggestion in the sentence before that is good, but achievable now by the Director who is not obliged to require a redeal, and perhaps should not do so once the auction has started (but see later).++++ >There is another problem with L6. In a pairs event once the first round has >been played it is not a very good idea to reshuffle the hand even if nobody >made a call yet. That seems to be another flaw. ++ If nobody made a call yet ? Since no-one has bid it seems there have only been passes, in which case Law 22A stops any redeal. No? Please clarify. ++ >The title of chapter 3 suggests that L6 just 'deals' with the first shuffle, >but even then the problems described before are real. > +++ Here we go again. Whatever may be in the headings has *NO* effect upon the meaning and the action of the law. Kojak confuses himself about Law 50 only applying in the Play Period when in fact it also applies in the 'interregnum'. Now you are confusing yourself about Law 6 having perhaps no effect beyond what you describe as 'the first deal'. Please, please, look again. The Director's power under Law 6D3 is not circumscribed in any way except by the requirement for compatibility with the laws. The Director is not stopped from requiring a redeal by anything else, although the laws do not say that he is *required* to order a redeal in any circumstance except that in Law 6D1. (The 'must' in 6D3 is a compulsion upon the players, not upon the Director. Compatibility is a permissive condition not one mandating a redeal.) So what we can then see is that, for example, the Director is limited by 22A as to time in those circumstances; but he is not limited as to time, except when 86C applies, if he decides to require a redeal in the circumstances foreseen in Law 6D2; in that case he can order the cards to be dealt half way through the session if he chooses (although I think he will have regard to the wishes of the SO). It is high time we struck out all of the headings to stop people believing they mean something in law. Merely saying (in the Scope and Interpretation) that they are not part of the laws does not stop people. In ascertaining the meaning and effects of the laws you must read them with all the headings obliterated. Perhaps I should be grateful for 86C since it shouts out loud that the Director has power to order a redeal in some circumstances with only two boards of a match to be played, maybe even only one. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 20 00:45:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA04237 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Aug 1999 00:45:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA04231 for ; Fri, 20 Aug 1999 00:45:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id QAA21095; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 16:45:22 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JEYIMR9MBM0005KE@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 16:44:26 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id ; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 16:44:26 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 16:44:26 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: auction period - oh, dear. To: "'Grattan Endicott'" , "Kooijman, A." , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C228@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > > > >Nobody seems interested in this case > > > +++ I have kept silence because I did not > think I understood what you were going on about. > Now I think I have a glimmer of understanding. +++ > > >If we have a choice here (and if not we should insist on > getting one)the > >meaning should be that as soon as any side has started the > auction no new > >shuffle is possible any more. This takes away my suggestion > to show a card > >to partner if you don't like your cards, or can't bid the > hand in your > >system. > ++++ I think the latter suggestion runs foul of 6D1 which > intends to deny authority to reshuffle if a player exposes > a card after the auction begins. Well, I tried to use the lawtext: it says before the auction begins FOR BOTH SIDES. So my question was: WHEN DOES THE AUCTION BEGIN FOR BOTH SIDES? > The suggestion in the sentence before that is good, > but achievable now by the Director who is not obliged to > require a redeal, and perhaps should not do so once the > auction has started (but see later).++++ > > >There is another problem with L6. In a pairs event once the > first round has > >been played it is not a very good idea to reshuffle the hand > even if nobody > >made a call yet. That seems to be another flaw. > > ++ If nobody made a call yet ? Since no-one has bid > it seems there have only been passes, in which > case Law 22A stops any redeal. No? Please > clarify. ++ 6D1:... before the auction begins for both sides ....This reads like every time again for each board being put on the table within each round or session, if a player could have seen .... there should be a reshuffle. You seem to say that this only applies for the first time the board is being played. Why? > > > >The title of chapter 3 suggests that L6 just 'deals' with > the first shuffle, > >but even then the problems described before are real. > > > +++ Here we go again. Whatever may be in the headings > has *NO* effect upon the meaning and the action of the law. To be honest, I know that. That is exactly the reason why I read 6D1 as being applicable during the whole session and not just at the beginning. And then my conclusion is that the wording is confusing. If in round 5 out of 7 in a pairs event a player could have seen a card from another hand before the auction starts, no TD will nor should order a redeal. ton From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 20 01:31:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA04344 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Aug 1999 01:31:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from batman.npl.co.uk (batman.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA04339 for ; Fri, 20 Aug 1999 01:31:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from herschel.npl.co.uk (unknown.npl.co.uk [139.143.1.16] (may be forged)) by batman.npl.co.uk (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id QAA25943 for ; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 16:31:06 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA28972 for ; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 16:31:02 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 15:31:02 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA09185 for ; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 16:30:58 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id QAA02471 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 16:30:57 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 16:30:57 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199908191530.QAA02471@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: auction period - oh, dear. X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > 6D1:... before the auction begins for both sides ....This reads like every > time again for each board being put on the table within each round or > session, if a player could have seen .... there should be a reshuffle. > > You seem to say that this only applies for the first time the board is being > played. Why? > > > > > > > >The title of chapter 3 suggests that L6 just 'deals' with > > the first shuffle, > > >but even then the problems described before are real. > > > > > +++ Here we go again. Whatever may be in the headings > > has *NO* effect upon the meaning and the action of the law. > > To be honest, I know that. That is exactly the reason why I read 6D1 as > being applicable during the whole session and not just at the beginning. And > then my conclusion is that the wording is confusing. If in round 5 out of 7 > in a pairs event a player could have seen a card from another hand before > the auction starts, no TD will nor should order a redeal. > Law 6 needs to say something like (to apply to all the sections of the law): "The following provision apply before a board is played for the first time in a session". Robin From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 20 01:49:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA04425 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Aug 1999 01:49:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from IGNGATE.merck.de (igngate.merck.de [194.196.248.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA04420 for ; Fri, 20 Aug 1999 01:49:51 +1000 (EST) From: James.Vickers@merck.de Received: from dedamsgnt02.merck.de (smtpgw.merck.de [155.250.248.234]) by IGNGATE.merck.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA01547 for ; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 17:49:43 +0200 (METDST) X-Internal-ID: 37B0459D00015B19 Received: from dedamsg4.merck.de (155.250.249.26) by dedamsgnt02.merck.de (NPlex 2.0.123) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 17:53:56 +0200 Received: by dedamsg4.merck.de(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.2 (693.3 8-11-1998)) id C12567D2.0056F14A ; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 17:49:38 +0200 X-Lotus-FromDomain: MERCK To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-ID: Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 17:41:34 +0200 Subject: Re: Law53A Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ****************** >The phrase "as the case may be" is just hanging there and doesn't seem to >relate to anything. It relates to the question whether the player conerned is a member of the offending or the non-offending side (IOW, he must be the latter.) Regards, Ed *********************** Where do you get this idea from? It doesn't say that, nor make any attempt to get that message across. James Vickers Darmstadt, Germany From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 20 02:53:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA04691 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Aug 1999 02:53:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA04686 for ; Fri, 20 Aug 1999 02:53:37 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id LAA28586; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 11:48:58 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa5-174.ix.netcom.com(206.217.132.174) by dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma028487; Thu Aug 19 11:48:13 1999 Message-ID: <003501beea63$55298980$ae84d9ce@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: , Subject: Re: Law53A Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 12:53:10 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You are wrong Mr. Vickers and Ed is right. While the constuction is clumsy and may not translate well, the meaning is quite clear in English and is exactly what Ed said. It is not purely parenthetical...this would lead to the absurdity of one defender being able to accept the others LOOT or of declarer being able to accept his own improper lead from dummy. -- Craig Senior -----Original Message----- From: James.Vickers@merck.de To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, August 19, 1999 11:49 AM Subject: Re: Law53A > > >****************** >>The phrase "as the case may be" is just hanging there and doesn't seem to >>relate to anything. > >It relates to the question whether the player conerned is a member of the >offending or the non-offending side (IOW, he must be the latter.) > >Regards, > >Ed >*********************** > >Where do you get this idea from? It doesn't say that, nor make any attempt >to get that message across. > >James Vickers >Darmstadt, Germany > > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 20 04:37:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA04968 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Aug 1999 04:37:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA04961 for ; Fri, 20 Aug 1999 04:37:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.223] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11HX3T-0000k2-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 19:36:52 +0100 Message-ID: <001e01beea71$cd1a27c0$df5108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: auction period - oh, dear. Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 19:33:00 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 19 August 1999 16:59 Subject: RE: auction period - oh, dear. >> > > >> > +++ Here we go again. Whatever may be in the headings >> > has *NO* effect upon the meaning and the action of the law. >> >> To be honest, I know that. That is exactly the reason why I read 6D1 as >> being applicable during the whole session and not just at the beginning. And >> then my conclusion is that the wording is confusing. If in round 5 out of 7 >> in a pairs event a player could have seen a card from another hand before >> the auction starts, no TD will nor should order a redeal. >> > >Law 6 needs to say something like (to apply to all the sections of the law): > >"The following provision apply before a board is played for the first time >in a session". > +++ I have gathered a bit more about Ton's concern. I want to take a little time to look at it further. ~G~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 20 06:03:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA05120 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Aug 1999 06:03:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from news.hal-pc.org (news.hal-pc.org [204.52.135.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA05115 for ; Fri, 20 Aug 1999 06:03:03 +1000 (EST) From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org Received: from bbs.hal-pc.org (uucp@localhost) by news.hal-pc.org (8.9.3/8.9.0) with UUCP id PAA76233 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 15:02:55 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0LFMC02V Thu, 19 Aug 99 15:15:26 Message-ID: <9908191515.0LFMC02@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Thu, 19 Aug 99 15:15:26 Subject: AUCTION P To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk B>> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- B>> Van: Kooijman, A. [mailto:A.Kooijman@DWK.AGRO.NL.NON_EXCHANGE] B>> Verzonden: woensdag 18 augustus 1999 9:22 B>> Aan: 'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au' B>> Onderwerp: auction period B>> B>> B>> Just to overcome the Brighton week the following. We know all B>> about the K of B>> hearts shown during the auction now. Also that the ACBL and B>> the DBF join B>> each other in handling the 'penalty card' as such. B>> Let us assume N takes her cards out of the pocket and after B>> counting starts B>> looking in. Now she holds the K of hearts in such a way that B>> S might see it. B>> EW are still counting their cards. The TD is called. What has B>> to be done. B>> Not more than three relevant laws involved: 6D, 17A and 24. B>> Just reading 6D solves the problem of becoming dummy again: B>> be quick and B>> show one of the deuces to your partner. B>> Let us go! B>> B>> ton B>Nobody seems interested in this case, so let me be the first to answer B>his own question. Though 'answer' might be too strong, I like to B>concentrate on a detail in the case as described. B>L 6D says: 'there must be a new shuffle and a redeal if it is B>ascertained before the auction begins for both sides that the cards B>....etc. B>Question: what does this mean: trying to understand it as a Dutchman we B>get two possibilities: 'the auction shouldn't have started for any side' B>or 'no new shuffle anymore when both sides have started the(ir) B>auction'. We translated this phrase as good as possible, so we kept this B>dualism. But giving it a meaning we chose for the second, because that B>in Dutch is the normal explanation of this sentence. B>Question: what is the most likely interpretation for a Welshman? Is not what 6D1 says is that if it becomes known before the auction, where a card was exposed before the last card was dealt thus making the deal improper that no result is permitted until the pack is properly dealt? However, it is quite possible that it could be known and not acted upon immediately. I can not get the meaning from 6D that 'once the auction has begun, then no reshuffle'. This is particularly so since 6D1 requires a redeal anytime an improper deal is discovered before it is complete, even if the auction has begun. But, consider that if the requirement to redeal is undertaken immediately, it will have the effect that there will be no auction until a proper deal has been done. I would not think that this is the same as what is said in 6D1, only a possible effect. Roger Pewick B>If we have a choice here (and if not we should insist on getting one)the B>meaning should be that as soon as any side has started the auction no B>new shuffle is possible any more. I would think that there ought to be a distinction between an exposed card situation and other irregular deals. I think it would be best [apparently the rule has not yet been included into the laws] when there has been an exposed card during the deal that a ruling [correction] be obtained immediately, and in the absence of a correction once the auction has begun, that the hand be completed and scored. In other words, restrict the time of correction to before the auction. But to extend that to other types of improper deals would not be good [it is recognized in 6D2 and as such would be in conflict]. What is curious about 6D2 is that I am having a difficult finding out if a correction is permitted once the error is discovered so as to permit the remaining pairs to have a result for the board- it is not clear but perhaps L15A2 is the way. Actually, I have experienced 6D2 twice in one session during a multisection tournament when a pair of boards from the afternoon were not duplicated for the evening. I raised a big stink about it when it came to my attention during round 7. This was the ruling- the two boards remain in play as is and shall be scored as is; no correction of the duplication and no fouled board scoring. What is interesting is that I did not consciously recognize the hands. The first time around I got something like a 4 and an 8. The second time around I got a 7 and 10.5. Just can't figure how that happened . This takes away my suggestion to show B>a card to partner if you don't like your cards, or can't bid the hand in B>your system. Even more interesting in rubber bridge! But also solves the B>inconsistency with law 17 and 24. Before making up your mind I like to B>complicate the matter. B>There is another problem with L6. In a pairs event once the first round B>has been played it is not a very good idea to reshuffle the hand even if B>nobody made a call yet. That seems to be another flaw. B>The title of chapter 3 suggests that L6 just 'deals'with the first B>shuffle, but even then the problems described before are real. B>ton B>> B> Roger Pewick Houston, Texas r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 20 08:22:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA05325 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Aug 1999 08:22:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (mailout1-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.81]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA05320 for ; Fri, 20 Aug 1999 08:22:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.37] by mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 18:22:31 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <003501beea63$55298980$ae84d9ce@host> Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 18:18:39 -0400 To: From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Law53A Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >You are wrong Mr. Vickers and Ed is right. While the constuction is clumsy >and may not translate well, the meaning is quite clear in English and is >exactly what Ed said. Thanks, Craig. I was trying to figure out how to say that. :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2 iQA/AwUBN7yDs72UW3au93vOEQIy1QCfWyGomf0dMzUEuNM09Q/ySTVDW1EAoMGg hg2TMfVl57LJUeMzwp5gjWnf =u5dZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 20 08:24:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA05341 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Aug 1999 08:24:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (mailout1-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.81]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA05335 for ; Fri, 20 Aug 1999 08:23:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.37] by mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 18:23:45 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <37BBD90C.A339A74@village.uunet.be> References: Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 18:23:16 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: AW: dummy establishes revoke Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Herman De Wael writes: >Dummy is not allowed to ask defender, because such would be >UI to declarer. >This is however not stated specifically in Law 61B. > >My interpretation of this is that this is not allowed, so it >is UI, but it is not specifically forbidden. It's not allowed because it's a violation of 42B1, and is specifically forbidden there. >And then we come to L63B, which speaks of "violation" of >L61B. >Now in order for there to be a violation, there must first >be an obligation or a prohibition spelled out in L61B. >Which in this case there is not. Um. L61B sets forth who may ask, and of whom. It does not mention dummy asking defenders. I agree that clarification in 61B would be helpful, but it seems to me that it's also redundant, since 42B1 specifically disallows that action. OTOH, somebody here said something to the effect that what the Laws don't specifically allow is forbidden. On that argument, even without 42B1, dummy asking a defender is forbidden, since 61B doesn't specifically allow it. IAC, it seems to me that 61B has been violated in spirit, if not in fact, when dummy asks a defender. [snip] Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2 iQA/AwUBN7yEA72UW3au93vOEQLC7QCfV4EdlgKigVmATBqVU+4hiYJ8RlYAnjV0 l95246f34sj3H7hCIn8rEJC7 =tFtX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 20 08:53:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA05395 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Aug 1999 08:53:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA05390 for ; Fri, 20 Aug 1999 08:53:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.46] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11Hb3i-0007hy-00; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 23:53:22 +0100 Message-ID: <001001beea95$a2a806a0$2e5108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." Cc: "'Grattan Endicott'" , "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: auction period - Fiat lux. Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 23:52:16 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Subject: RE: auction period - oh, dear. -------------------- \x/ ---------------------------- > #### indicates reprise#### #### I am feeling my forward through Ton's dilemma#### >Well, I tried to use the lawtext: it says before the auction begins FOR BOTH >SIDES. So my question was: WHEN DOES THE AUCTION BEGIN FOR BOTH SIDES? > >> The suggestion in the sentence before that is good, >> but achievable now by the Director who is not obliged to >> require a redeal, and perhaps should not do so once the >> auction has started (but see later).++++ >> >> >There is another problem with L6. In a pairs event once the >> first round has >> >been played it is not a very good idea to reshuffle the hand >> even if nobody >> >made a call yet. That seems to be another flaw. >> >> ++ If nobody made a call yet ? Since no-one has bid >> it seems there have only been passes, in which >> case Law 22A stops any redeal. No? Please >> clarify. ++ > >6D1:... before the auction begins for both sides ....This reads like every >time again for each board being put on the table within each round or >session, if a player could have seen .... there should be a reshuffle. > >You seem to say that this only applies for the first time the board is being >played. Why? > #### Yes, Ton's point here is now clear and I see no statement in the law which says explicitly that the board, if legally dealt (see Law 6D2), is set in stone for the whole of the session once it has been quitted at the end of the first round. What I do see is that the Director can only order a redeal where this is compatible with the laws - all the laws. [If Law 6D2 applies I believe the hand is not a 'deal' for the purpose of the tournament, and any 'redeal' ordered is in fact an original deal.] It seems to me that, after the first round, when a card is exposed before commencement of the auction at a later table Law 16B applies and a redeal is not compatible with this; I think the Director possibly has an option at the initial table of applying Law 16B or Law 6D1, although I would say the 6D1 option is probably intended to apply only in the case of a card exposed in the dealing. #### >> >> >> >The title of chapter 3 suggests that L6 just 'deals' with >> the first shuffle, >> >but even then the problems described before are real. >> > >> +++ Here we go again. Whatever may be in the headings >> has *NO* effect upon the meaning and the action of the law. > >To be honest, I know that. That is exactly the reason why I read 6D1 as >being applicable during the whole session and not just at the beginning. And >then my conclusion is that the wording is confusing. If in round 5 out of 7 >in a pairs event a player could have seen a card from another hand before >the auction starts, no TD will nor should order a redeal. #### Not for a minute did I think Ton did not know. I could not see the problem, therefore, but I hope I have now understood it. 6D1 is badly expressed, but [except when Law 6D2 applies, for the reason stipulated] I do not believe a redeal can be ordered if a redeal is not compatible with the procedure required by any other section of the laws. I am glad the word in 6D3 is 'compatible'; incompatibility does not necessarily need one to show conflict with a law but only to show that redealing under Law 6D3 is a process that cannot co-exist with a procedure required by another law, that you cannot do both. ~ Grattan ~ #### From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 20 10:27:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA05558 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Aug 1999 10:27:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA05553 for ; Fri, 20 Aug 1999 10:27:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id UAA19964 for ; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 20:27:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id UAA26986 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 20:27:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 20:27:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199908200027.UAA26986@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: dummy establishes revoke/Law53A Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: James.Vickers@merck.de > (1) Any action not explicitly sanctioned by the laws is banned by the laws. > (This is not universally accepted, but let's take it as read for the sake > of argument.) This is not what the LC interpretation from Lille (available on David's Laws page) seems to say. As I understand it, anything neither permitted nor forbidden is extraneous; there are three possible conditions, not two. Thus if I follow suit at my turn, that is legal. If I revoke, that is illegal. If I have a sip of coffee, that is not covered in the laws and hence is extraneous. As I understand it, extraneous matters are intended to be those that will seldom if ever have an effect on the game. If one such does have an effect, usually there will be a provision allowing score adjustment for damage to an opponent. If I accidentally spill hot coffee on an opponent, and that causes the opponent to expose some of his cards, I would not expect to benefit from the penalty cards that might result! (What law is used to stop me?) I would interpret dummy's asking a defender about a revoke as extraneous: not covered by L61B and therefore not a violation of L61B. Of course it's still a violation of L42. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 20 10:28:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA05509 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Aug 1999 09:48:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA05504 for ; Fri, 20 Aug 1999 09:48:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id TAA19510 for ; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 19:48:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA26812 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 19:48:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 19:48:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199908192348.TAA26812@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Excuse me if - quiz-zical thoughts - reprise (long).. Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > Moreover, if truly an accident it is difficult to > see *any* recourse to 72B1 I thought the beauty of L72B1 was precisely that there is no need to determine if something is truly an accident or not. > ## I think the information was transmitted before > the law operated. It derives from the player's > exposure of his card and the information is extraneous > for this reason. Leaving the card face up adds nothing > to what has already occurred.## And because the dropped card is a "mannerism" (or the legal equivalent), the card is AI to the other side? As for the rest, I have nothing to add except that I think I understand your argument but still don't think the position is clear. Perhaps you will consider adding L24 to your notebook. A specific statement about AI or UI shouldn't be difficult to craft, at least if you can get consensus in the LC about which it should be (for each side). Also, if UI, do we still want the enforced pass? (Probably so, but it's worth considering.) I do appreciate all the comments. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 20 11:12:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA05537 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Aug 1999 10:10:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA05532 for ; Fri, 20 Aug 1999 10:10:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id UAA19739 for ; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 20:10:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id UAA26924 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 20:10:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 20:10:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199908200010.UAA26924@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk SW> There is no doubt that 'he' is a masculine pronoun. > From: "Chris Pisarra" > From the 1993 Edition of the New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary: > > he: 1. The male person or animal, or the ***person or animal of unknown > or unspecified sex, **** previously mentioned or implied or easily > identified. > > Astonish away. Um, Chris, did you notice that what you quote doesn't contradict what I wrote? In fact, later in the same article I mentioned that what I call "Standard English" uses the masculine, singular pronoun when the antecedent is one person of unknown sex, so I am hardly astonished if a dictionary says the same. Masculine, feminine, and neuter are, in this context, grammatical attributes of words. In grammatical terms, there is no doubt that 'he' is masculine, 'she' feminine, and 'it' neuter, just as there is no doubt that 'he' is nominative (sometimes called subjective) case and 'him' objective case. Which gender or which case is used in a specific situation depends on the rules (formal or otherwise) of the language. This has gone far afield from bridge laws. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 20 17:00:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA06071 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Aug 1999 17:00:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA06066 for ; Fri, 20 Aug 1999 17:00:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.86] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11HieJ-000DBX-00; Fri, 20 Aug 1999 07:59:40 +0100 Message-ID: <000701beead9$91a70ec0$565208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: dummy establishes revoke/Law53A Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 07:58:57 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 20 August 1999 01:50 Subject: Re: dummy establishes revoke/Law53A >> From: James.Vickers@merck.de >> (1) Any action not explicitly sanctioned by the laws is banned by the laws. >> (This is not universally accepted, but let's take it as read for the sake >> of argument.) > >This is not what the LC interpretation from Lille (available on David's >Laws page) seems to say. As I understand it, anything neither permitted >nor forbidden is extraneous; there are three possible conditions, not >two. Thus if I follow suit at my turn, that is legal. If I revoke, >that is illegal. If I have a sip of coffee, that is not covered in the >laws and hence is extraneous. > >As I understand it, extraneous matters are intended to be those that >will seldom if ever have an effect on the game. > ++ One of the problems in Edgar's demise is that the laws as he framed them are no longer held together by the force of his interpretation, based on his manner of drafting. Re-interpretation by the living becomes dangerous if done piecemeal without matching redrafting of laws. Whatever is done currently, until we are on an even keel again, must be taken exactly as it is given - statements to be general must be stated to be general. Some colleagues are keen to re-interpret; I am keen to re-draft, for the sake of a secure interpretation; all is haste that must be made slowly. I do not believe we have moved so far yet as to deny Edgar's drafting intention generally that what is not shown to be authorised is not authorised and so external to the game as it is to be played. ~G~ ++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 20 17:00:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA06065 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Aug 1999 17:00:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA06059 for ; Fri, 20 Aug 1999 16:59:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.86] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11HieI-000DBX-00; Fri, 20 Aug 1999 07:59:38 +0100 Message-ID: <000601beead9$90ee6d20$565208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 07:20:41 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 20 August 1999 02:48 Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply >SW> There is no doubt that 'he' is a masculine pronoun. > >> From: "Chris Pisarra" >> From the 1993 Edition of the New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary: >> >> he: 1. The male person or animal, or the ***person or animal of unknown >> or unspecified sex, **** previously mentioned or implied or easily >> identified. ----------------------\x/----------------- > >Masculine, feminine, and neuter are, in this context, grammatical >attributes of words. In grammatical terms, there is no doubt that 'he' >is masculine, 'she' feminine, and 'it' neuter, +++ Amend entry forms? "Specify whether male, female, or animal of unknown sex.... " ~G~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 20 17:26:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA06121 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Aug 1999 17:26:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA06116 for ; Fri, 20 Aug 1999 17:26:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id JAA31081; Fri, 20 Aug 1999 09:26:20 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JEZHLTU45C000A2Q@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 20 Aug 1999 09:26:14 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id ; Fri, 20 Aug 1999 09:26:14 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 09:26:13 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: dummy establishes revoke/Law53A To: "'Steve Willner'" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C229@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk If I accidentally spill hot > coffee on an opponent, and that causes the opponent to expose some of > his cards, I would not expect to benefit from the penalty cards that > might result! (What law is used to stop me?) > There is a story in Dutch bridge, where may be the best player we had went down in a small slam(because of a not working finesse. He probably shouln't have bid it and it might not be reached at the other table (teams). The match was important and kitbitzers were all around. Now by accident he touched a glass of coke which emptied in the lap of a nicely dressed lady sitting next to him. Huge consternation, apologies etc. etc. When the board was played at the other table they played a game but the opponents hands appeared to be exchanged. Fouled board. Those were the days... ton From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 21 01:10:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA06958 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Aug 1999 01:10:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA06953 for ; Sat, 21 Aug 1999 01:10:12 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id KAA14223; Fri, 20 Aug 1999 10:08:26 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa5-235.ix.netcom.com(206.217.132.235) by dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma014198; Fri Aug 20 10:08:09 1999 Message-ID: <001201beeb1e$859f2be0$eb84d9ce@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 11:13:10 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Over here we tend to use the approach of "Don't ask, don't tell." :-) -----Original Message----- From: Grattan Endicott To: Steve Willner ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Friday, August 20, 1999 3:00 AM Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply > > >Grattan............................................................. >"We exchanged many frank words in our >respective languages." - Peter Cook. >================================= >-----Original Message----- >From: Steve Willner >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Date: 20 August 1999 02:48 >Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply > > >>SW> There is no doubt that 'he' is a masculine pronoun. >> >>> From: "Chris Pisarra" >>> From the 1993 Edition of the New Shorter Oxford English >Dictionary: >>> >>> he: 1. The male person or animal, or the ***person or animal of >unknown >>> or unspecified sex, **** previously mentioned or implied or easily >>> identified. >----------------------\x/----------------- >> >>Masculine, feminine, and neuter are, in this context, grammatical >>attributes of words. In grammatical terms, there is no doubt that 'he' >>is masculine, 'she' feminine, and 'it' neuter, > >+++ Amend entry forms? > "Specify whether male, female, or > animal of unknown sex.... " ~G~ +++ > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 21 03:29:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA07392 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Aug 1999 03:29:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA07387 for ; Sat, 21 Aug 1999 03:29:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id NAA09037 for ; Fri, 20 Aug 1999 13:29:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA27828 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 20 Aug 1999 13:29:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 13:29:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199908201729.NAA27828@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: dummy establishes revoke/Law53A X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > ++ Some colleagues are keen to > re-interpret; I am keen to re-draft, for the > sake of a secure interpretation; all is haste > that must be made slowly. Yes, I think we all sympathize with this. > I do not believe we have moved so far > yet as to deny Edgar's drafting intention > generally that what is not shown to be > authorised is not authorised and so external > to the game as it is to be played. ~G~ ++ This seems to be what I was saying, yet the way you put it suggests you think I misstated the LC intent. Do we all agree that there are three categories of actions: legal, illegal, and extraneous? And that anything not mentioned in the laws (or regulations, CoC, etc.) is in the third category? From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 21 17:56:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA08882 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Aug 1999 17:56:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.asn-linz.ac.at (mail.asn-linz.ac.at [193.170.68.251]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA08877 for ; Sat, 21 Aug 1999 17:56:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from asn-linz.ac.at ([10.90.16.33]) by mail.asn-linz.ac.at (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA25957 for ; Sat, 21 Aug 1999 09:55:24 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <37BE5B02.4106A552@asn-linz.ac.at> Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 09:53:41 +0200 From: Petrus Schuster X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [de] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Revoke and Inquiry Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a recent major tournament, the following happened (in the Mixed Pairs, West being a far stronger player than East and well acquainted with the Laws): N (declarer) lead a club, E played a diamond (revoke), dummy being out of clubs threw a diamond and W asked: "Which suit is lead?" North's card was plainly visible. At the table, I decided that W had tried to circumvent L61B by asking a different question which would alert partner to the revoke without bringing about the penalties of L63B. Therefore, I applied L63B and referred to case to the TC to decide whether disciplinary action should be taken because of an infraction of L73B (and possibly L72B - intentional infraction). Still, I am afraid W has the Laws on his side. His question is not covered by the wording of L61B (he did not ask partner, and he did not ask about cards in the suit lead); even if the TD applies L73B (communication through question) the penalty is not clear. Any suggestions? Petrus Schuster From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 21 19:54:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA09017 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Aug 1999 19:54:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA09012 for ; Sat, 21 Aug 1999 19:54:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-24.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.24]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA25975 for ; Sat, 21 Aug 1999 11:54:13 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37BE73A9.31793C98@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 11:38:49 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Revoke and Inquiry References: <37BE5B02.4106A552@asn-linz.ac.at> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello Petrus, and welcome to the list. Petrus Schuster wrote: > > In a recent major tournament, the following happened (in the Mixed > Pairs, West being a far stronger player than East and well acquainted > with the Laws): > N (declarer) lead a club, E played a diamond (revoke), dummy being out > of clubs threw a diamond and W asked: "Which suit is lead?" North's card > was plainly visible. > At the table, I decided that W had tried to circumvent L61B by asking a > different question which would alert partner to the revoke without > bringing about the penalties of L63B. Therefore, I applied L63B and > referred to case to the TC to decide whether disciplinary action should > be taken because of an infraction of L73B (and possibly L72B - > intentional infraction). > Still, I am afraid W has the Laws on his side. His question is not > covered by the wording of L61B (he did not ask partner, and he did not > ask about cards in the suit lead); even if the TD applies L73B > (communication through question) the penalty is not clear. > Any suggestions? > Petrus Schuster I think you acted correctly. Let them bridge-lawyer and try get this past committee. OK, maybe his intention was not the one you ascribed to him, in which case he may get away with it, but if the intent was there, he should not benefit from bridge-lawyering. It is BTW a well established "fact" that leaving your card open in order to wake up opponent is also not allowed. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 23 02:38:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA11918 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Aug 1999 02:38:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from news.hal-pc.org (news.hal-pc.org [204.52.135.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA11913 for ; Mon, 23 Aug 1999 02:38:02 +1000 (EST) From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org Received: from bbs.hal-pc.org (uucp@localhost) by news.hal-pc.org (8.9.3/8.9.0) with UUCP id LAA44497 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 22 Aug 1999 11:37:54 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0GC9M008 Sun, 22 Aug 99 11:37:54 Message-ID: <9908221137.0GC9M00@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Sun, 22 Aug 99 11:37:54 Subject: L61, L62, L63, and Time To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have noticed clauses in the revoke section of the laws that seem to be the cause of problems but I have been too obtuse to have noticed direct discussion of them. They have to do with time references, or more to the point, the lack of time references. 62 A. Revoke Must Be Corrected A player must correct his revoke if he becomes aware of the irregularity before it becomes established. The LC took pains to use 'before it becomes established.' instead of 'until the OS has played to a subsequent trick, claimed or acquiesed'. This overlap in time frame results in the ambiguity of L63C which forbids the correction of an established revoke and L63B that requires that an established revoke be corrected. Notice L61B. 61 B. Right to Inquire about a Possible Revoke Declarer may ask a defender who has failed to follow suit whether he has a card of the suit led (but a claim of revoke does not automatically warrant inspection of quitted tricks - see Law 66C). Dummy may ask declarer (but see Law 43B2(b)). Defenders may ask declarer but, unless the Zonal organisation so authorises, not one another. L61B does not place a time limit for the prohibition against asking about a failure to follow suit. So, if defender asks partner about T4 during T6, there has been an infraction of 61B. The reference in 63B says that an infraction of L61B establishes a revoke which must be corrected. To wit: 63 B. Attention Is Illegally Drawn When there has been a violation of Law 61B, the revoker must substitute a legal card and the penalty provisions of Law 64 apply as if the revoke had been established. Something has always bothered me about L63B. Partly it is the inferred presumption that a revoke has occurred every time the question was asked. But mainly, it seems more appropriate to word it as 'Until the OS plays to the next trick following a revoke , when there has been a violation of Law 61B causing discovery of that revoke by the OS, the revoker must substitute a legal card and the penalty provisions of Law 64 apply to the corrected revoke as if it had been an established revoke. ' I am wondering if it is worthwhile to clarify that correction of a revoke under L63B affects the ownership of the trick. For that matter, it seems even more appropriate to amend L63C to include a reference to L63B and L67. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 23 16:06:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA13014 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Aug 1999 16:06:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA13009 for ; Mon, 23 Aug 1999 16:06:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt095n3b.san.rr.com [24.94.8.59]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA07123 for ; Sun, 22 Aug 1999 23:06:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <002301beed2d$903a3e80$3b085e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: What happened? Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 23:04:25 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Is BLML off the air, or what? No e-mail for several days. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 23 16:14:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA13040 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Aug 1999 16:14:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from acsys.anu.edu.au (acsys [150.203.20.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA13035 for ; Mon, 23 Aug 1999 16:14:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from accordion (acsys-temp1.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.65]) by acsys.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA10979; Mon, 23 Aug 1999 16:14:29 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19990823161430.009fa5d0@acsys.anu.edu.au> X-Sender: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 16:14:30 +1000 To: "Marvin L. French" , From: Markus Buchhorn Subject: Re: What happened? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 23:04 22/08/99 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: >Is BLML off the air, or what? No e-mail for several days. It's up and running, but very quiet - I believe some of our major contributors are off somewhere again? Cheers, Markus Markus Buchhorn, Advanced Computational Systems CRC | Ph: +61 2 62798810 email: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au, snail: ACSys, RSISE Bldg,|Fax: +61 2 62798602 Australian National University, Canberra 0200, Australia |Mobile: 0417 281429 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 23 17:23:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA13093 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Aug 1999 17:23:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA13088 for ; Mon, 23 Aug 1999 17:23:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt095n3b.san.rr.com [24.94.8.59]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA06431 for ; Mon, 23 Aug 1999 00:23:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <003e01beed38$5285bb40$3b085e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: San Antonio NABC Appeals Case 9 Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 00:21:43 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk APPEALS CASE NINE Subject: Tempo Event: Strati-Flighted Open Pairs - Flight A/X, 24 July, First Session Board 2 N/S Vul Dealer East S- Q H- KJ1075 D- 1086 C- AJ62 S- J96 S- A10732 H- 983 H- A62 D- KJ32 D- Q54 C- 983 C- 54 S- K854 H- Q4 D- A97 C- KQ107 The bidding: West North East South -- -- 2S P(1) P 3H P 4H All pass (1) Break in tempo The Facts: 4H made four, plus 620 for N/S. The Stop Card was used before the 2S bid. The Director was called after the 3H bid and East alleged there had been a break in tempo in excess of the time allowed. N/S did not agree. The Director ruled that passing 2S was not a logical alternative and allowed the table result to stand. The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling. East estimated a 15-second total elapsed time before South passed 2S. E/W noted that some hesitation had occurred after the Stop Card was removed. West was less clear on the amount of time taken but believed there had been a break in tempo. North stated that although 3H was not without some risk, pass was not a logical alternative in a good matchpoint game. Neither North nor South believed that more than 10 seconds was taken. The Committee Decision: The three players consulted gave the following opinions: (1) pass was not a logical alternative, (2) passing might be an alternative to a minority, and (3) a significant number of players (a minority) would pass but the better the player, the less likely that they would. None of the players consulted would ever pass themselves. The Panel was not convinced that an "unmistakable" break in tempo had occurred. E/W seemed somewhat unclear on the proper use of the Stop Card and may have attached too much significance to any time spent after the Stop Card was withdrawn because of their mistaken belief that once the Stop Card is removed, the opponent must bid. Proper procedure is to withdraw the Stop Card well before 10 seconds has elapsed. The Panel did not believe that pass was a logical alternative for the level of the player involved even though the players consulted believed that pass would be a logical alternative for a minority of players. The Panel allowed the table result of 4H made four to stand. DIC of Event: Terry Lavender Panel: Ron Johnston (Reviewer), Matt Smith (scribe), Olin Hubert Players consulted: Larry Cohen, Ralph Cohen, John Mohan ########################################################## Did the TD rule that a break in tempo had occurred? HIs ruling that passing 2S was not an LA implies that he did. Otherwise he would say no UI had been made available, end of story. If the AC determined that no "unmistakable" break in tempo had occurred, why did they proceed further? The AC flowchart says to stop at that point, case is over. Evidently they had some doubts about that, and proceeded to see what they could do before making the UI decision. Let us do the same, while noting that the decision about UI *must* be made before continuing a case. Otherwise human nature is such that an AC may unconsciously strive to make UI a moot subject. Assuming for the moment that there was a break in tempo, it constituted UI that clearly suggested some sort of action by this particular North. But was pass an LA? If not, North was free to bid 3H. We have had a lot of trouble defining LA, but I know one thing: Passing 2S with unfavorable vulnerability is not illogical. It could well be the winning action, especially since West might have quite a good hand in this particular auction. To use Kaplan's words, in order to bid 3H a pass must be "unreasonable, eccentric, far out." Obviously, it wasn't. Even if 100% of the players typified by this North would bid 3H, that does not make a pass illogical. Forget percentages, forget peers, those words are not in the Laws. The Laws refer only to a "logical alternative." If a call is not illogical, then it is logical, and can therefore be labeled an LA. If this is not what the writers of L16 intended, let them change it in 2007. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- Meet the next superstars By Steven Bloom Ari Greenberg and Joe Grue are the two 18-year-olds who helped knock off the team of world champions in the Spingold Round of 64. They drew us next and played strong, solid bridge throughout the match. Still, with four boards to go the match was virtually over -- they were down 40 IMPs when this hand appeared. Board 61 Both vul. Dealer North WEST NORTH A K 6 5 2 2 10 7 3 9 8 5 3 EAST J 4 A 10 8 7 6 3 K J 2 10 4 SOUTH Q K Q J 9 A 9 5 4 A Q J 5 10 9 8 7 3 5 4 Q 8 5 K 7 2 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Greenberg Bloom Grue B Bloom - Pass 1 Pass 1 1 2 3 4 Pass 4NT Pass 5 Pass 6 All Pass I led the A, denying the king, and shifted to a club. The finesse certainly is the best play for the contract, but Greenberg felt the club was likely to be off. More importantly, he judged that our teammates would bid this slam -- they did -- and would take the club finesse -- they did. Needing a swing, he went up with ace, drew trumps, took a diamond finesse, ruffed a spade and ran the trumps. Our lead was down to 23. On Board 62, they had a good preemptive auction, and we chose to defend rather than push to a thin game (on a trump guess).Their teammates duly bid and made the game, and our lead was down to 15. On Board 63 they earned 3 IMPs for an extra undertrick -- only 12 IMPs between us now with one board to go. This was the final board: Board 64 E/W Dealer West WEST NORTH Q 8 6 4 2 J 10 9 6 2 A 8 3 - - EAST K J 5 3 Q Q 10 6 5 J 6 5 4 SOUTH 10 9 7 A K 5 4 3 K 7 2 A 7 A 8 7 J 9 4 K Q 10 9 8 3 2 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Greenberg Bloom Grue B Bloom Pass Pass 1NT 3 Dbl(1) Pass 3 Pass 3NT All Pass (1) Negative. Betty led the Q. Grue won and led the 9, won by Betty. She exited with a heart, and Grue played a diamond to his king and cashed a high heart, pitching a club from dummy. Decision time. I had pitched one spade, so he was certain of the spade position. If I was 5-5-3-0, he had to play a diamond to the king and hope for that to be a winner. If I was 5-4-4-0, he makes by playing off his hearts, throwing clubs from dummy, setting up his long heart and endplaying me. That's what he chose, and he fell a trick shy. Could he have pulled out the match here? No. Our teammates took their 300 against 3 doubled, so the youngsters couldn't have picked up more than 7 IMPs even if Grue had guessed right. Still, it was a great run. I promise you will hear these names a lot in the future. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- Remember Zero Tolerance A reminder to players: Zero Tolerance for unacceptable behavior is in force at this tournament. If you violate the policy, you are subject to matchpoint and IMP penalties. Make your bridge experiences -- and those of others -- enjoyable and memorable. Be pleasant, greet your opponents and spread good will. You'll be glad you did. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 23 19:11:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA13254 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Aug 1999 19:11:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from batman.npl.co.uk (batman.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA13249 for ; Mon, 23 Aug 1999 19:11:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from herschel.npl.co.uk (unknown.npl.co.uk [139.143.1.16] (may be forged)) by batman.npl.co.uk (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id KAA05049 for ; Mon, 23 Aug 1999 10:11:27 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA21147 for ; Mon, 23 Aug 1999 10:11:20 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Mon, 23 Aug 1999 09:11:18 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA07475 for ; Mon, 23 Aug 1999 10:11:15 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id KAA02153 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 23 Aug 1999 10:11:09 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 10:11:09 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199908230911.KAA02153@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: What happened? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > At 23:04 22/08/99 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: > >Is BLML off the air, or what? No e-mail for several days. > > It's up and running, but very quiet - I believe some of > our major contributors are off somewhere again? > > Cheers, > Markus Of course, Grattan, David, John, Mike and I were all in Br*ght*n. There was lots of fun: players questioning TDs' competence, appeals against procedure in redealing (or not), appeals against disciplinary penalties. Robin From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 23 19:32:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA13300 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Aug 1999 19:32:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from IGNGATE.merck.de (igngate.merck.de [194.196.248.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA13295 for ; Mon, 23 Aug 1999 19:32:41 +1000 (EST) From: James.Vickers@merck.de Received: from dedamsgnt02.merck.de (smtpgw.merck.de [155.250.248.234]) by IGNGATE.merck.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA11035 for ; Mon, 23 Aug 1999 11:32:33 +0200 (METDST) X-Internal-ID: 37B0459D0001B3B2 Received: from dedamsg4.merck.de (155.250.249.26) by dedamsgnt02.merck.de (NPlex 2.0.123) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 23 Aug 1999 11:36:37 +0200 Received: by dedamsg4.merck.de(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.2 (693.3 8-11-1998)) id C12567D6.002E1636 ; Mon, 23 Aug 1999 10:23:23 +0200 X-Lotus-FromDomain: MERCK To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-ID: Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 09:50:52 +0200 Subject: Law53A Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ************ You are wrong Mr. Vickers and Ed is right. While the constuction is clumsy and may not translate well, the meaning is quite clear in English and is exactly what Ed said. It is not purely parenthetical...this would lead to the absurdity of one defender being able to accept the others LOOT or of declarer being able to accept his own improper lead from dummy. -- Craig Senior *************** Of course I am WRONG, Mr Senior, we all know I am WRONG. The problem is, the law I quoted says I am RIGHT. I would not normally forsee any problems arising from this, of course I would not allow a defender to accept partner's erroneous lead, but would find myself in a difficult situation if a defender waved the rule book under my nose and demanded to see why he wasn't allowed to do so. (You and Ed don't seem to be able to counter this argument by recourse to other laws, so I assume it cannot be done.) The laws should be watertight in their wording, like a legal document. This is one law it would not be difficult to word correctly and unambiguously. The only solution in this instance is to use "director's discretion" to overrule the laws, a procedure which many TDs are very unhappy about. James Vickers Darmstadt, Germany From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 23 20:09:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA13340 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Aug 1999 20:09:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from nickel.cix.co.uk (nickel.compulink.co.uk [194.153.0.18]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA13333 for ; Mon, 23 Aug 1999 20:08:19 +1000 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id LAA21726 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 23 Aug 1999 11:07:41 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 11:07 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: San Antonio NABC Appeals Case 9 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <003e01beed38$5285bb40$3b085e18@san.rr.com> "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > We have had a lot of trouble defining LA, but I know one thing: Passing > 2S with unfavorable vulnerability is not illogical. It could well be the > winning action, especially since West might have quite a good hand in > this particular auction. To use Kaplan's words, in order to bid 3H a > pass must be "unreasonable, eccentric, far out." Obviously, it wasn't. > Even if 100% of the players typified by this North would bid 3H, that > does not make a pass illogical. > > Forget percentages, forget peers, those words are not in the Laws. The > Laws refer only to a "logical alternative." If a call is not illogical, > then it is logical, and can therefore be labeled an LA. If this is not > what the writers of L16 intended, let them change it in 2007. > Even if we accept that a call is "logical" in isolation (ie it may be the best bid) this does not make it a *logical alternative*. It is not logical to take an action which one believes will be best in 20% of cases if one has an alternative which one believes will be best in 80% of cases. If you wish to tie this back in to Kaplan's words "It is unreasonable to expect a decent player to take a punt on an obviously anti-percentage action." If L16 had been written "..may not choose from among logical actions an alternative...." then different interpretations could apply. Note that regardless of whether "peers etc" appear in the laws these words *are* used in the regulations of many SOs and, as such, are binding on the TDs/AC in that jurisdiction. AIUI this is because various SOs could not agree on exactly what constituted an LA and so it was left deliberately ambiguous in the laws. Tim West-Meads (comments not intended to relate to specific case). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 23 21:22:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA13527 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Aug 1999 21:22:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA13517 for ; Mon, 23 Aug 1999 21:22:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11IsB8-0003WS-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 23 Aug 1999 11:22:19 +0000 Message-ID: <6YCHELA25Sw3EwiX@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 12:20:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Law 50 Double Whammy In-Reply-To: <001f01bee7b1$c956f720$8f7af1d1@mminternet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <001f01bee7b1$c956f720$8f7af1d1@mminternet.com>, Phillip Mendelsohn writes >An interesting situation arose over the weekend in a flighted Swiss Teams >event at a local Sectional tournament in Southern California: > >You are called to a Flight A table where East, one of the defenders, has led >a small spade to trick five or six when it was actually his partner's turn >to lead. You give Declarer the option to accept the improper lead, but he >declines and chooses to prohibit West from leading a spade pursuant to Law >50.D.2. East replaces the spade in his hand at your instruction, but before >West can place a card on the table, East now puts a small club on the table. > >Declarer, who declines to accept this second erroneous lead, now claims he >is entitled to prohibit the lead of *both* a spade *and* a club by West. > >Any comments, analysis, and input would be most welcome. > Agreed. We've had 2 penalty cards, we have 2 possible suit penalties. Spades are still barred, clubs are subject to the 5 options. We could accept the lead for example but spades would still be barred at West's first turn to lead cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 23 21:22:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA13528 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Aug 1999 21:22:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA13518 for ; Mon, 23 Aug 1999 21:22:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11IsB8-0007tr-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 23 Aug 1999 11:22:19 +0000 Message-ID: <3ofEYEAB3Sw3Ewgr@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 12:17:21 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Substitution of a bid for a Pass In-Reply-To: <004801beea15$f21c3420$265208c3@swhki5i6> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <004801beea15$f21c3420$265208c3@swhki5i6>, Grattan Endicott writes > >#### Follow-up to the above thought. > First draft: > "25B2(c) Substitution of a Bid for a Pass > > Notwithstanding the provisions of (b) > if his side has made no subsequent call > or play and the Director is of the opinion > that Pass was not an option the player > could reasonably select at his turn, a > player may substitute a bid for a Pass > and if the player becomes a defender > the penalty in Law 26B applies. " > > Do we think some such would work? > ~ Grattan ~ #### > My concern with this draft is that it implies that the player will need to convince the Director that Pass was not a choice. How does he do this? Show the Director his hand? It also leads to questions of "anti-systemic actions" not just passes. just a thought John -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 24 00:40:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA13887 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Aug 1999 23:54:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA13881 for ; Mon, 23 Aug 1999 23:53:46 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id IAA12838; Mon, 23 Aug 1999 08:51:57 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa5-131.ix.netcom.com(206.217.132.131) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma012807; Mon Aug 23 08:51:33 1999 Message-ID: <001501beed6f$586f6240$8384d9ce@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Petrus Schuster" , Subject: Re: Revoke and Inquiry Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 09:56:46 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Yes. Where did this occur? I am guessing since you found it to be a 61B problem it was not in North America or any other opt out locale, but we must remember that this is a worldwide mailing list. It is not just we Yanks who must avoid the tendency to think the whole world does it our way. :-)) I have encountered the exact same question twice at the table in a similar situation, but here in the U.S. it is no problem...just a polite way of asking (though in one case the questioner was genuinely confused). -- Craig Senior -----Original Message----- From: Petrus Schuster To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Saturday, August 21, 1999 3:56 AM Subject: Revoke and Inquiry >In a recent major tournament, the following happened (in the Mixed >Pairs, West being a far stronger player than East and well acquainted >with the Laws): >N (declarer) lead a club, E played a diamond (revoke), dummy being out >of clubs threw a diamond and W asked: "Which suit is lead?" North's card >was plainly visible. >At the table, I decided that W had tried to circumvent L61B by asking a >different question which would alert partner to the revoke without >bringing about the penalties of L63B. Therefore, I applied L63B and >referred to case to the TC to decide whether disciplinary action should >be taken because of an infraction of L73B (and possibly L72B - >intentional infraction). >Still, I am afraid W has the Laws on his side. His question is not >covered by the wording of L61B (he did not ask partner, and he did not >ask about cards in the suit lead); even if the TD applies L73B >(communication through question) the penalty is not clear. >Any suggestions? >Petrus Schuster > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 24 01:07:51 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA14114 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 01:07:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.iol.ie (mail1.mail.iol.ie [194.125.2.192]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA14096 for ; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 01:02:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from tsvecfob.iol.ie (dialup-016.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.208]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA50045 for ; Mon, 23 Aug 1999 16:00:23 +0100 (IST) Message-ID: <004301beed79$f66fcb60$d0307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Subject: Re: San Antonio NABC Appeals Case 9 Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 16:12:45 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: APPEALS CASE NINE Subject: Tempo Event: Strati-Flighted Open Pairs - Flight A/X, 24 July, First Session Board 2 N/S Vul Dealer East S- Q H- KJ1075 D- 1086 C- AJ62 S- J96 S- A10732 H- 983 H- A62 D- KJ32 D- Q54 C- 983 C- 54 S- K854 H- Q4 D- A97 C- KQ107 The bidding: West North East South -- -- 2S P(1) P 3H P 4H All pass (1) Break in tempo The Facts: 4H made four, plus 620 for N/S. The Stop Card was used before the 2S bid. The Director was called after the 3H bid and East alleged there had been a break in tempo in excess of the time allowed. N/S did not agree. The Director ruled that passing 2S was not a logical alternative and allowed the table result to stand. The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling. East estimated a 15-second total elapsed time before South passed 2S. E/W noted that some hesitation had occurred after the Stop Card was removed. West was less clear on the amount of time taken but believed there had been a break in tempo. North stated that although 3H was not without some risk, pass was not a logical alternative in a good matchpoint game. Neither North nor South believed that more than 10 seconds was taken. The Committee Decision: The three players consulted gave the following opinions: (1) pass was not a logical alternative, (2) passing might be an alternative to a minority, and (3) a significant number of players (a minority) would pass but the better the player, the less likely that they would. None of the players consulted would ever pass themselves. The Panel was not convinced that an "unmistakable" break in tempo had occurred. E/W seemed somewhat unclear on the proper use of the Stop Card and may have attached too much significance to any time spent after the Stop Card was withdrawn because of their mistaken belief that once the Stop Card is removed, the opponent must bid. Proper procedure is to withdraw the Stop Card well before 10 seconds has elapsed. The Panel did not believe that pass was a logical alternative for the level of the player involved even though the players consulted believed that pass would be a logical alternative for a minority of players. The Panel allowed the table result of 4H made four to stand. DIC of Event: Terry Lavender Panel: Ron Johnston (Reviewer), Matt Smith (scribe), Olin Hubert Players consulted: Larry Cohen, Ralph Cohen, John Mohan ########################################################## Did the TD rule that a break in tempo had occurred? HIs ruling that passing 2S was not an LA implies that he did. Otherwise he would say no UI had been made available, end of story. If the AC determined that no "unmistakable" break in tempo had occurred, why did they proceed further? The AC flowchart says to stop at that point, case is over. Evidently they had some doubts about that, and proceeded to see what they could do before making the UI decision. Let us do the same, while noting that the decision about UI *must* be made before continuing a case. Otherwise human nature is such that an AC may unconsciously strive to make UI a moot subject. Assuming for the moment that there was a break in tempo, it constituted UI that clearly suggested some sort of action by this particular North. But was pass an LA? If not, North was free to bid 3H. We have had a lot of trouble defining LA, but I know one thing: Passing 2S with unfavorable vulnerability is not illogical. It could well be the winning action, especially since West might have quite a good hand in this particular auction. To use Kaplan's words, in order to bid 3H a pass must be "unreasonable, eccentric, far out." Obviously, it wasn't. Even if 100% of the players typified by this North would bid 3H, that does not make a pass illogical. Forget percentages, forget peers, those words are not in the Laws. The Laws refer only to a "logical alternative." If a call is not illogical, then it is logical, and can therefore be labeled an LA. If this is not what the writers of L16 intended, let them change it in 2007. Passing '2S' is not illogical but I think a more important question is whether or not the slow pass demonstably suggested '3H' over pass. Regards, Fearghal From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 24 01:34:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA14178 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 01:34:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand2.global.net.uk (sand2.global.net.uk [195.147.246.100]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA14173 for ; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 01:34:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from pefs11a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.139.240] helo=pacific) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11Iw79-0003rz-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 23 Aug 1999 16:34:27 +0100 Message-ID: <003101beed7c$458dc880$f08b93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 16:26:39 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 01:48:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from p2bs07a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.167.44] helo=pacific) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11IwKS-0004W2-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 23 Aug 1999 16:48:12 +0100 Message-ID: <000501beed7e$317a1860$2ca793c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: unappealing psychic Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 16:41:42 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 02:16:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from mime2.prodigy.com (mime2.prodigy.com [192.168.253.26]) by clmout1-int.prodigy.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA82866 for ; Mon, 23 Aug 1999 12:16:16 -0400 Received: (from root@localhost) by mime2.prodigy.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id MAA09892; Mon, 23 Aug 1999 12:12:42 -0400 Message-Id: <199908231612.MAA09892@mime2.prodigy.com> X-Mailer: Prodigy Internet GW(v0.9beta) - ae02dm02sc06 From: DMFV47B@prodigy.com ( CHYAH E BURGHARD) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 12:12:42, -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: WBF Junior world championships. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -- [ From: Chyah * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- Apparently that would not have been sufficient. According to the "Conditions of Entry" at http://www.bridge.gr/tourn/Florida.99/Entry.htm "In general, all players must have been born on or after 1 January 1974 . However, players born in 1973 are also eligible to participate provided they qualified for this Championship through an official zonal competition which took place in 1998." ======================================================= Hi all, Kent and I were at the World Junior tournament running the vugraph operations, I just was too busy to monitor my email. I want to make it clear that I was in no way part of the decision making process, I am relating the bits and pieces that people over hear as the story moves around from person to person. The above quote by Adam was the reason the Chinese Taipei team was not immediately disqualified. I am sorry that I don't remember how the age problem came to be known, but after it was, the next action was to find out if the player had played in an event that would have made him eligible for the Ft Lauderdale tournament (being born in 1973, but qualifying in a zonal competition). That took a few faxes and phone calls. The situation put the tournament officials into a difficult position. They could not disqualify the team until they knew the official status of the player. While they were waiting for information, they were hoping that Chinese Taipei would not be one of the final 4 because that would have solved the problem for them. The situation was discovered on Friday or Saturday. The final session of the round robin was on Sunday morning. Everyone got the rest of the day off. By dinner time on Sunday, the officials had obtained the necessary information and Israel was notified that they would be team number 4. There may be further sanctions on the Chinese Taipei bridge organization. -Chyah (Who just got home last night after 2 days with a 5 year old in Mickey Mouse land, ZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 24 03:21:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA14721 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 03:21:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (smtp7.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.128.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA14715 for ; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 03:21:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivegqt.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.67.93]) by smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA15068 for ; Mon, 23 Aug 1999 13:21:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990823131455.012a2d8c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 13:14:55 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: San Antonio NABC Appeals Case 9 In-Reply-To: <003e01beed38$5285bb40$3b085e18@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:21 AM 8/23/99 -0700, Marv wrote: >Assuming for the moment that there was a break in tempo, it constituted >UI that clearly suggested some sort of action by this particular North. >But was pass an LA? If not, North was free to bid 3H. > >We have had a lot of trouble defining LA, but I know one thing: Passing >2S with unfavorable vulnerability is not illogical. It could well be the >winning action, especially since West might have quite a good hand in >this particular auction. To use Kaplan's words, in order to bid 3H a >pass must be "unreasonable, eccentric, far out." Obviously, it wasn't. >Even if 100% of the players typified by this North would bid 3H, that >does not make a pass illogical. > >Forget percentages, forget peers, those words are not in the Laws. The >Laws refer only to a "logical alternative." If a call is not illogical, >then it is logical, and can therefore be labeled an LA. If this is not >what the writers of L16 intended, let them change it in 2007. > Sorry, Marv, but we are not at liberty to "forget" these concepts if duly authorized SO's have applied them in pursuance of their responsibility to implement the Laws. Since this case occurred in the ACBL, we are bound by that orgainization's definition of LA. It is not a definition I happen to like very much, but it is binding in this jurisdiction. I am not sure what standard you are seeking to apply in order to identify LA's, but I do know that it does not suffice to show that a bid "could be the winning action". Obviously many calls in a variety of situations _could_ win, such as passing partner's forcing bid and thereby staying out of an excellent game which happens to fail on a 4-0 break. But that doesn't make such a call into a LA. So how should we judge whether a potential call is logical or illogical? For now, we're stuck with the "some number of peers" formulation. But if you come up with a more playable method, the good news is that we don't have to wait until 2007 to implement it. The ACBL LC can implement it more or less immediately, if they can be persuaded of its merits. On the particular hand, I have no problem with the AC's analysis. I don't know how strong a player North is, but I agree that no "good" player would seriously consider passing this hand. I also agree with your remarks concerning their approach. It is necessary to first answer the question about the hesitation before addressing the other questions, and if we find no UI, then the case should be over. On the facts as presented here, it seems rather more likely than not that there was a significant break by South, but the AC is obviously in a better position to make that determination than we are here. For them to make such a muddy finding on this first question makes the entire judgement weaker, as if they were perhaps willing to apply a more generous standard to North on the LA question because they were unsure about the UI in the first place. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 24 03:51:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA14804 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 03:51:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (mailhub.irvine.com [192.160.8.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA14798 for ; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 03:51:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA29283; Mon, 23 Aug 1999 10:50:29 -0700 Message-Id: <199908231750.KAA29283@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: San Antonio NABC Appeals Case 9 In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 23 Aug 1999 16:12:45 PDT." <004301beed79$f66fcb60$d0307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 10:50:28 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: > > > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > > APPEALS CASE NINE > > Subject: Tempo > > Event: Strati-Flighted Open Pairs - Flight A/X, 24 July, First Session > > > > Board 2 > > N/S Vul > > Dealer East > > > > S- Q > > H- KJ1075 > > D- 1086 > > C- AJ62 > > > > S- J96 S- A10732 > > H- 983 H- A62 > > D- KJ32 D- Q54 > > C- 983 C- 54 > > > > S- K854 > > H- Q4 > > D- A97 > > C- KQ107 > > > > The bidding: > > > > West North East South > > -- -- 2S P(1) > > P 3H P 4H > > All pass > > (1) Break in tempo > > Passing '2S' is not illogical but I think a more important question is > whether or not the slow pass demonstably suggested '3H' over pass. I disagree. If we accept the premises that (1) passing 2S is a logical alternative for North and (2) there was UI, then what could the slow pass have shown, other than a hand with values that's unsure what to do? This UI clearly suggests that North take some action besides passing. Thus North is required to pass. Not that I accept those premises. If the committee believes passing is not an LA, I'll go along with it. I do agree that the wishy-washiness of the UI issue is cause for concern, since it could lead an observer to believe that the AC leaned toward ruling "not LA" just to avoid the other issue. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 24 04:46:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA15043 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 04:46:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA15038 for ; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 04:45:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11Iz6F-000D9D-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 23 Aug 1999 18:45:44 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 19:44:33 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Brighton beckons, or not References: <000601bee7c3$0e821e40$69b259c3@default> In-Reply-To: <000601bee7c3$0e821e40$69b259c3@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk magda.thain wrote: >You see my problem. All of England is not at Brighton, only a tiny elite. The >vast majority of England will go on playing its local duplicates this weekend, >next weekend, and all the week between. I do believe that Grattan's article was light-hearted rather than a serious comment. > The contributors to this list have >no thought for the flesh and bones of the body of bridge but only for the >superficial skin. Do none of you Directors do anything for the masses? I spend a major part of my life answering questions at all levels. I am happy to help [for example] trainee Club Directors in Hong Kong and senior Directors in South Africa. My phone number is given out freely by the EBU and WBU when a Club Director has a problem. I am involved in training Club Directors, being responsible for such training in Wales, and helping with it in England. Much of this work is unpaid. I have tried to write may articles on this list for the lesser lights. If a question is asked here in such a way that I believe that the asker does not have the strong basic understanding that some of the list have then I alter my answer to suit. I answer the easiest questions again and again and again, and expect to continue to do so. I attempted to get onto the EBL Laws Committee on the basis that I offered communication methods to *all* Europe's Directors. I am a member of the EBU and WBU Laws & Ethics Committees. My most important role was probably as Editor of the Orange Book 1998 [produced by the EBU but used by the WBU as well]. I spent a lot of time thinking of the problems of the club players and Directors when writing this publication. When Club Directors have a problem and write to the Secretary of the EBU Laws & Ethics Committee he rarely drafts the answers himself: I am one of the three people who drafts his responses, and I give quite a lot of time freely to do so. I would be happy to answer such questions from elsewhere in the world if it were possible to tell people so. I have written an extensive web site. It covers many facets, Trains, Cats, General, and Bridge. The bridge section is split into two, Bridge General and Bridge Laws. There are many articles on both, and of those articles, several are designed for the ordinary player and the ordinary Director. There are Forms to put Director problems, and I answer them happily and extensively. I give out my email address freely, and tell people throughout the world that I am happy to receive emails. I receive many emails from ordinary Club players and Directors from many countries. I spend time and trouble on my answers to them. I read RGB [rec.games.bridge]. On it there are often queries to do with the Laws that are clearly at a very simple level, and have clearly come from clubs. I always take the trouble to make sure that I answer such posts [unless someone else has given a full and correct answer]. The major part of my life now is based on helping bridge players and lawgivers. I do so at all levels, and am happy to do continue to do so. >Can none of you spare a thought to link your fantasies to the needs of the >humble? I do not think you have a clue what most of bridge is all about I find your remarks deeply insulting. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 24 05:19:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA15082 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 05:19:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA15077 for ; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 05:19:40 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id OAA10254; Mon, 23 Aug 1999 14:18:04 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa5-131.ix.netcom.com(206.217.132.131) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma010094; Mon Aug 23 14:17:27 1999 Message-ID: <002c01beed9c$e0d21ce0$8384d9ce@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 15:22:43 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I would think it amber at most. At pairs, the possibility of a running side diamond suit with single stops in the black may make the NT game 10 points better than the heart game, so there would appear to be no reason not to trust partner's judgement. One hardly seems to be fielding when one raises the psych, now does one? Looks like an interesting tactical bid carefully designed to fool partner into taking the desired action (pass at 3N) through NOT fielding, while deterring the killing spade lead. I would need more reason than the hands shown to suspect anything improper and would rule result stands. Of course in this land of shoot all psychs I will doubtless find many who would disagree...sobeit, I do not see evidence of fielding. I would not drive onward with my regular partner who has not psyched since 1955...three no trump ends this auction. Don't know what experts would feel, but I'd say we are apparent peers of the pair involved...reasonably decent players, as you put it: experienced and reasonably competent. If it were perpetrated against me, I doubt I would even call the director, but I would compliment east on a fine deceptive bid. (Of course if this pair has a history or is otherwise known to be ethically hazy that's a different kettle of fish entirely, which is why I wish we had so good a recording system over here as you do.) -- Craig Senior >Grattan EndicottOne senior Director discussed with me a >ruling which he had made a little while back >in a pairs event, both pairs at the table being >experienced and reasonably competent. >Have a look: > Q.J.6.5. > K T 8 3 > 9 3 > Q J 2 > 9 8 3 K 7 > Q 5 4 6 2 > A Q T 8 5 4 K J 7 2 > T A K 9 5 4 > > A T 4 2 > A J 9 7 > 6 > 8 7 6 3 >Board 24. Love All. Dealer West >Auction: > 2D - P - 2H - P > 3H - P - 3NT - all pass. >Spade lead; nine tricks. > >Director called at the end of the hand >to deal with report of a psychic. Under >EBU regulations he ruled it to be in the >"RED" category, cancelled the table >result, awarded artific score 60%-40% >together with a 10% penalty on E/W. > >Discussing the hand I thought that for a >weak two the West hand is good quality; >that, at his second turn, 4H would be >acceptable if West did not select rather >4 Clubs. Three Hearts followed by Pass >adjudged abnormal action that will >protect a possibility of a psychic. (See >Orange Book for precise regulation.) > >Comments? How would this be >treated elsewhere? In ACBL-land >especially? ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 24 05:47:53 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA15141 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 05:47:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA15136 for ; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 05:47:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt095n3b.san.rr.com [24.94.8.59]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA14684 for ; Mon, 23 Aug 1999 12:47:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00ce01beeda0$435d70a0$3b085e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: San Antonio NABC Appeals Case 9 Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 12:46:17 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote: > Even if we accept that a call is "logical" in isolation (ie it may be the > best bid) this does not make it a *logical alternative*. It is not > logical to take an action which one believes will be best in 20% of cases > if one has an alternative which one believes will be best in 80% of cases. > If you wish to tie this back in to Kaplan's words "It is unreasonable to > expect a decent player to take a punt on an obviously anti-percentage > action." I was unaware of that quote, but generally agree with it, if "obviously" means "extremely." For Appeals Case 9, I am not so sure that passing 2S is "obviously anti-percentage," even if today's macho bidders would tend to bid. South is sure to have four or more spades, considering West's pass and the vulnerability, and it is routine for West to pass with 16 HCP or so when short in spades. For my part, I would certainly pass 2S opposite a marked hesitation, and would certainly bid 3H opposite a fast pass, since neither action is illogical. In either case, I would avoid playing with that partner again. Don't people worry about reputation any more? This is not aimed at the North of this case, since we do not know whether there was a break in tempo from his point of view. > > If L16 had been written "..may not choose from among logical actions an > alternative...." then different interpretations could apply. > > Note that regardless of whether "peers etc" appear in the laws these words > *are* used in the regulations of many SOs and, as such, are binding on the > TDs/AC in that jurisdiction. AIUI this is because various SOs could not > agree on exactly what constituted an LA and so it was left deliberately > ambiguous in the laws. > > (comments not intended to relate to specific case). My feeling is that SO regulations concerning a law are usually meant as guidelines to be followed when there is difficulty in applying its intent. For instance, the 1/3-1/6 probabilities for L12C2 application were clearly labeled as guidelines by the ACBL LC, not to be taken literally. However, let's say that the LC's interpretation of LA is more than just a guideline. I have the feeling that the exact words of the LC on this matter are not well known. Not surprising, since its interpretations are hard to find. Here is what the ACBLScor Tech Files say: "The ACBL Laws Commission has been asked for an interpretation of the phrase "logical alternative" as used in L16A. (A logical alternative is a call that would be seriously considered by at least a substantial minority of equivalent players, acting on the basis of all the information legitimately available)." I presume that "call" should be "call or play," as L16A pertains to both calls and plays. The last part is often omitted by those referring to this interpretation. It is there for a reason. Are you saying that a "substantial minority" of players typified by this North would not give "serious consideration" to passing, even though they would probably bid? Are you sure that bidding 3H is acting only on the basis of information "legitimately available"? If your answer to both questions is yes, then I can only say that I disagree (mildly). Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 24 06:00:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA15162 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 06:00:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA15157 for ; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 06:00:50 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id OAA16816; Mon, 23 Aug 1999 14:56:10 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa5-131.ix.netcom.com(206.217.132.131) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma016713; Mon Aug 23 14:55:24 1999 Message-ID: <003e01beeda2$2e92a580$8384d9ce@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: , Subject: Re: Law53A Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 16:00:41 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I appear not to have made myself clear enough. While I agree with you that the present wording may not be perfect, especially in potential translations, the exact present wording in English correctly and fully conveys the intended meaning. It is not necessary to have recourse to other laws or to attempt to override this one with so-called director's (in)discretion. The law as written is quite adequate; it's deficiency is that some persons, particularly those who are not native English speakers may misinterpret it. This does not invalidate the Law, it only suggests that greater clarity of wording could be desirable...but as we know that is a slippery slope since one man's clarity is another's loophole. I agree that it would be quite preferable to have all laws "watertight in their meaning" though your simile "like a legal document" does have its oxymoronic qualities in relation to that intent. Perhaps you might oblige us with a suggested wording that might convey the intended meaning better. It is clear that you have given the matter considerable thought and I would be interested in your suggestion(s). -- Craig Senior -----Original Message----- From: James.Vickers@merck.de To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Monday, August 23, 1999 5:32 AM Subject: Law53A > > >************ >You are wrong Mr. Vickers and Ed is right. While the constuction is clumsy >and may not translate well, the meaning is quite clear in English and is >exactly what Ed said. It is not purely parenthetical...this would lead to >the absurdity of one defender being able to accept the others LOOT or of >declarer being able to accept his own improper lead from dummy. > >-- >Craig Senior >*************** >Of course I am WRONG, Mr Senior, we all know I am WRONG. The problem is, >the law I quoted says I am RIGHT. I would not normally forsee any problems >arising from this, of course I would not allow a defender to accept >partner's erroneous lead, but would find myself in a difficult situation if >a defender waved the rule book under my nose and demanded to see why he >wasn't allowed to do so. (You and Ed don't seem to be able to counter this >argument by recourse to other laws, so I assume it cannot be done.) The >laws should be watertight in their wording, like a legal document. This is >one law it would not be difficult to word correctly and unambiguously. The >only solution in this instance is to use "director's discretion" to >overrule the laws, a procedure which many TDs are very unhappy about. > >James Vickers >Darmstadt, Germany > > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 24 07:15:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA15533 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 07:15:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand4.global.net.uk (sand4.global.net.uk [194.126.80.248]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA15528 for ; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 07:15:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from peas01a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.129.235] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11J1RG-0006sB-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 23 Aug 1999 22:15:34 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: What happened? Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 22:17:43 +0100 Message-ID: <01beedac$f051c0c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Monday, August 23, 1999 10:54 AM Subject: Re: What happened? > >> At 23:04 22/08/99 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: >> >Is BLML off the air, or what? No e-mail for several days. >> >> It's up and running, but very quiet - I believe some of >> our major contributors are off somewhere again? >> >> Cheers, >> Markus > >Of course, Grattan, David, John, Mike and I were all in Br*ght*n. I was there as well, as a player, and causing more problems than most. If anyone wants to tell the story of my Appeal (which was denied) I shall not be upset. My reputation is scarred for ever. A RED field of a misbid. I did get my 10UKP deposit refunded and the AC did take 40mins to decide, but nevertheless RED it stays. Mortified Anne > >There was lots of fun: players questioning TDs' competence, appeals >against procedure in redealing (or not), appeals against disciplinary >penalties. > >Robin > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 24 07:49:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA15670 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 07:49:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA15665 for ; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 07:49:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id RAA07371 for ; Mon, 23 Aug 1999 17:48:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA29806 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 23 Aug 1999 17:48:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 17:48:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199908232148.RAA29806@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: San Antonio NABC Appeals Case 9 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > The Director was called after the 3H bid and East alleged > there had been a break in tempo in excess of the time allowed. N/S did > not agree. The Director ruled that passing 2S was not a logical > alternative and allowed the table result to stand. And how, exactly, did the TD make this ruling? Did he look at North's hand while the deal was in progress? Perhaps this is only a problem in the writeup, but it does not describe a good procedure. Did the TD rule on the existence of the tempo break? What should have happened "after the 3H bid," I think, is that the TD should have investigated whether or not there was a tempo break and ruled on this fact question. (Perhaps some of the more experienced directors can suggest exactly how a TD might proceed and what questions he might ask???) If he ruled that there was a break, he should then have told the players to call him back at the end of the hand if there was possible damage. If the TD had investigated competently and made a ruling on the fact question, I doubt an AC would overrule him. They could concentrate on the LA question, which surely is the AC's proper function. > We have had a lot of trouble defining LA, FWIW, my vote is that pass is not a LA, even with the ACBL's stringent definition, but this isn't the interesting part of the case. I wouldn't have complained if an AC had decided the other way. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 24 07:56:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA15688 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 07:56:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA15683 for ; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 07:56:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt095n3b.san.rr.com [24.94.8.59]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA19363 for ; Mon, 23 Aug 1999 14:56:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <014201beedb2$43c07300$3b085e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <003e01beeda2$2e92a580$8384d9ce@host> Subject: Re: Law53A Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 14:55:43 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: > I appear not to have made myself clear enough. While I agree with you that > the present wording may not be perfect, especially in potential > translations, the exact present wording in English correctly and fully > conveys the intended meaning. It is not necessary to have recourse to other > laws or to attempt to override this one with so-called director's > (in)discretion. The law as written is quite adequate; it's deficiency is > that some persons, particularly those who are not native English speakers > may misinterpret it. This does not invalidate the Law, it only suggests that > greater clarity of wording could be desirable...but as we know that is a > slippery slope since one man's clarity is another's loophole. I agree that > it would be quite preferable to have all laws "watertight in their meaning" > though your simile "like a legal document" does have its oxymoronic > qualities in relation to that intent. Perhaps you might oblige us with a > suggested wording that might convey the intended meaning better. It is clear > that you have given the matter considerable thought and I would be > interested in your suggestion(s). > > -- I'll butt in to repeat my suggested wording for the first sentence of L53A: A lead out of turn becomes a correct lead if an opponent (but not dummy) accepts it by saying so or by legally playing to it, but see Law 47E1. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 24 10:08:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA15892 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 10:08:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from news.hal-pc.org (news.hal-pc.org [204.52.135.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA15887 for ; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 10:08:29 +1000 (EST) From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org Received: from bbs.hal-pc.org (uucp@localhost) by news.hal-pc.org (8.9.3/8.9.0) with UUCP id TAA24503 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 23 Aug 1999 19:08:19 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0QUX4016 Mon, 23 Aug 99 19:07:08 Message-ID: <9908231907.0QUX401@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Mon, 23 Aug 99 19:07:08 Subject: LAW53A To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I suppose that words such as 'any opponent with a concealed hand ' could get the desired message across. However, even though it currently is in the law, I dislike the concept of condoning the transmission of potential UI through the process of electing the penalty option. In fact, I do not think it would be unfair to restrict the election solely to the LHO of the offender. Roger Pewick B>************ B>You are wrong Mr. Vickers and Ed is right. While the constuction is B>clumsy and may not translate well, the meaning is quite clear in English B>and is exactly what Ed said. It is not purely parenthetical...this would B>lead to the absurdity of one defender being able to accept the others B>LOOT or of declarer being able to accept his own improper lead from B>dummy. B>-- B>Craig Senior B>*************** B>Of course I am WRONG, Mr Senior, we all know I am WRONG. The problem is, B>the law I quoted says I am RIGHT. I would not normally forsee any B>problems arising from this, of course I would not allow a defender to B>accept partner's erroneous lead, but would find myself in a difficult B>situation if a defender waved the rule book under my nose and demanded B>to see why he wasn't allowed to do so. (You and Ed don't seem to be able B>to counter this argument by recourse to other laws, so I assume it B>cannot be done.) The laws should be watertight in their wording, like a B>legal document. This is one law it would not be difficult to word B>correctly and unambiguously. The only solution in this instance is to B>use "director's discretion" to overrule the laws, a procedure which many B>TDs are very unhappy about. B>James Vickers B>Darmstadt, Germany B> Roger Pewick Houston, Texas r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 24 11:44:22 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA16095 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 11:44:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp1.a2000.nl (farida.a2000.nl [62.108.1.19]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA16090 for ; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 11:44:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp1.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 11J5d8-0003Oj-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 03:44:06 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19990824034059.00ada100@mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 03:40:59 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Brighton beckons, or not In-Reply-To: References: <000601bee7c3$0e821e40$69b259c3@default> <000601bee7c3$0e821e40$69b259c3@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 19:44 23-08-99 +0100, you wrote: >magda.thain wrote: >>You see my problem. All of England is not at Brighton, only a tiny elite. The >>vast majority of England will go on playing its local duplicates this weekend, >>next weekend, and all the week between. > > I do believe that Grattan's article was light-hearted rather than a >serious comment. > >> The contributors to this list have >>no thought for the flesh and bones of the body of bridge but only for the >>superficial skin. Do none of you Directors do anything for the masses? > > I spend a major part of my life answering questions at all levels. I >am happy to help [for example] trainee Club Directors in Hong Kong and >senior Directors in South Africa. My phone number is given out freely >by the EBU and WBU when a Club Director has a problem. I am involved in >training Club Directors, being responsible for such training in Wales, >and helping with it in England. Much of this work is unpaid. > > I have tried to write may articles on this list for the lesser lights. >If a question is asked here in such a way that I believe that the asker >does not have the strong basic understanding that some of the list have >then I alter my answer to suit. I answer the easiest questions again >and again and again, and expect to continue to do so. I attempted to >get onto the EBL Laws Committee on the basis that I offered >communication methods to *all* Europe's Directors. > > I am a member of the EBU and WBU Laws & Ethics Committees. My most >important role was probably as Editor of the Orange Book 1998 [produced >by the EBU but used by the WBU as well]. I spent a lot of time thinking >of the problems of the club players and Directors when writing this >publication. When Club Directors have a problem and write to the >Secretary of the EBU Laws & Ethics Committee he rarely drafts the >answers himself: I am one of the three people who drafts his responses, >and I give quite a lot of time freely to do so. I would be happy to >answer such questions from elsewhere in the world if it were possible to >tell people so. > > I have written an extensive web site. It covers many facets, Trains, >Cats, General, and Bridge. The bridge section is split into two, Bridge >General and Bridge Laws. There are many articles on both, and of those >articles, several are designed for the ordinary player and the ordinary >Director. There are Forms to put Director problems, and I answer them >happily and extensively. > > I give out my email address freely, and tell people throughout the >world that I am happy to receive emails. I receive many emails from >ordinary Club players and Directors from many countries. I spend time >and trouble on my answers to them. > > I read RGB [rec.games.bridge]. On it there are often queries to do >with the Laws that are clearly at a very simple level, and have clearly >come from clubs. I always take the trouble to make sure that I answer >such posts [unless someone else has given a full and correct answer]. > > The major part of my life now is based on helping bridge players and >lawgivers. I do so at all levels, and am happy to do continue to do so. > >>Can none of you spare a thought to link your fantasies to the needs of the >>humble? I do not think you have a clue what most of bridge is all about > > I find your remarks deeply insulting. > dear david, i think you do the best you can for us all. thanks for the extensive letter you wrote. Just realize that not all can see trough what trouble someone has to go to serve the TD world. Please realize that we all appreciate your efforts, although we not always will be on your side, but will do our best to keep the discussions going to the ultimate end, that is making bridge (and the laws) a nice sport to be in. regards, anton >-- >David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ >Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 2e Kostverlorenkade 114-1 1053 SB Amsterdam ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 24 11:48:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA16137 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 11:48:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA16121 for ; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 11:47:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11J5gd-000Fyf-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 01:47:44 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 22:29:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply References: <004d01bee671$6c0f7d80$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <004d01bee671$6c0f7d80$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >I know that. I'm just pointing out that this rule is no more logical >than using "they" with a singular antecedent. It was developed by men, >of course. There are some rules in this world that ought not to be >obeyed. These include those that are (1) unfair to half the population >and (2) not obeyed by a large majority. It is the people who make the >rules of language, not the grammarians, whose job is to report, not to >dictate. People make mistakes: that's life. The people who translated two Latin words into one English word provided a big burden, which was not realised until recently. Unfortunately the Latin word vir, meaning a masculine human being is translated into the English word "man", and the Latin word homo, meaning a member of the human race, is also translated into the English word "man". The secondary effects of this are enormous. One of the effects is to use "his" as the personal pronoun of man=homo, so "his" sometimes has no gender attached. This is only unfair to half the population because it is assumed to be. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 24 11:48:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA16136 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 11:48:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA16123 for ; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 11:47:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11J5gd-000Fyg-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 01:47:45 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 22:41:45 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Excuse me if I demur - quiz-zical thoughts. References: <003d01bee875$b6be6020$a05108c3@swhki5i6> In-Reply-To: <003d01bee875$b6be6020$a05108c3@swhki5i6> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >++++ I think I have some questions. First question: > Do we consider that dropping a card accidentally > is an irregularity? If so, once the auction period > has started, why is a card dropped accidentally not > subject to 72B1? Definitions: Irregularity A deviation from the correct procedures set forth in the Laws. Dropping a card is an irregularity since it is not the correct procedure for exposing a card. However, L72B1 refers to an offender, and thus by inference requires an offence or infraction. I do not believe that every irregularity is an offence. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 24 11:48:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA16138 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 11:48:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA16122 for ; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 11:47:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11J5gd-000Fyd-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 01:47:44 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 19:49:29 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Junior world championships. References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: >In some events (the Olympic games, for example), they even go as far as >checking that the female contestants are indeed female, which is a few >orders of magnitude more complex than checking about 100 passports. Aha! Does a job that suits my talents beckon? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 24 16:12:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA16776 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 16:12:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA16771 for ; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 16:12:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt095n3b.san.rr.com [24.94.8.59]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA02428 for ; Mon, 23 Aug 1999 23:12:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <016101beedf7$93800be0$3b085e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <004d01bee671$6c0f7d80$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 23:11:29 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Marvin L. French wrote: > > >I know that. I'm just pointing out that this rule is no more logical > >than using "they" with a singular antecedent. It was developed by men, > >of course. There are some rules in this world that ought not to be > >obeyed. These include those that are (1) unfair to half the population > >and (2) not obeyed by a large majority. It is the people who make the > >rules of language, not the grammarians, whose job is to report, not to > >dictate. > > People make mistakes: that's life. The people who translated two > Latin words into one English word provided a big burden, which was not > realised until recently. > > Unfortunately the Latin word vir, meaning a masculine human being is > translated into the English word "man", and the Latin word homo, meaning > a member of the human race, is also translated into the English word > "man". The secondary effects of this are enormous. One of the effects > is to use "his" as the personal pronoun of man=homo, so "his" sometimes > has no gender attached. This is only unfair to half the population > because it is assumed to be. > The issue here is not the generic use of "he" and "him," which is often unavoidable without resorting to awkward constructions. You weren't in on the early go-round on this subject, which involved the use of "they" with a singular antecedent, a long-established custom that is useful when the sex of the antecedent is unimportant, perhaps unknown, or when one wants to deemphasize the sex of the antecedent for some reason. Purists objected, saying that you cannot use "they" with a singular antecedent, despite the many great writers who have done so, and despite the fact that the practice is quite standard. We refer to unknown telephone callers, anonymous e-mailers, and many others, as "they" when we do not know the sex of the originator, or when the sex is unimportant: "Someone called to make a comment about your tournament directing." "What did they say?" "They said you are pompous." Many of us extend this accepted usage of "they" or "them" to sentences in which many might prefer "he" or "him." We feel that this practice is no more illogical than using a male pronoun when the sex of the antecedent could well be female. As long as the meaning is clear, it's merely a matter of taste, no matter what the purists say: H. W. Fowler wrote (in *Fowler's Modern English): "Whether that convention [using the male pronoun generically], with *he or she* in the background for especial exactitudes, and paraphrase always available in dubious cases, is an arrogant demand on the part of male England, everyone must decide for himself (or for himself or herself, or for themselves)." He quotes a bold government writer of the purist type who went so far as to write: "There must be opportunity for the individual boy or girl to go as far as his keenness and ability will take him." A better writer would paraphrase that in some way. If one must paraphrase "correct English" in order to write good English, then maybe correct English is not all that correct. We also note that editors and many columnists use the "editorial we" for self-reference in order to avoid using the singular first person pronoun. No one seems to find that objectionable. While looking in Fowler's book, I came across this entry, not far off-subject: "Gender is a grammatical term only. To talk of persons or creatures of the masculine or feminine gender, meaning of the male or female sex, is either a jocularity (permissible or not according to context) or a blunder." News media, please take note. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 24 16:32:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA16868 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 16:32:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA16863 for ; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 16:32:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.202] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11JA8G-000CPr-00; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 07:32:32 +0100 Message-ID: <000a01beedfa$7144e520$ca5208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Craig Senior" , "Grattan Endicott" , "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: unappealing psychic Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 07:31:46 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: Grattan Endicott ; bridge-laws Date: 23 August 1999 20:53 Subject: Re: >I would think it amber at most. At pairs, the possibility of a running side >diamond suit with single stops in the black may make the NT game 10 points >better than the heart game, so there would appear to be no reason not to >trust partner's judgement. One hardly seems to be fielding when one raises >the psych>> > ++++ The system philosophy of bidding Hearts if not wanting to play there when partner has a good fit escapes me? Why not just bid 3NT if that is where we wish to play? Does not the single raise cater for a psychic? ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 24 17:34:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA16998 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 17:34:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA16993 for ; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 17:34:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from x49.ripe.net (x49.ripe.net [193.0.1.49]) by birch.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA27994; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 09:33:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA28309; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 09:33:54 +0200 (CEST) X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 09:33:54 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: David Stevenson cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Junior world championships. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 23 Aug 1999, David Stevenson wrote: > Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > > >In some events (the Olympic games, for example), they even go as far as > >checking that the female contestants are indeed female, which is a few > >orders of magnitude more complex than checking about 100 passports. > > Aha! Does a job that suits my talents beckon? No, sorry, they don't do this the obvious way, but by measuring hormone levels in the blood of the contestants. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.535-4414, Fax -4445 1016 AB Amsterdam Home: +31.20.4195305 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Committee (...) was unable to reach a consensus that substantial merit was lacking. Thus, the appeal was deemed meritorious. (Orlando NABC #19). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 24 18:02:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA17049 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 18:02:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA17044 for ; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 18:02:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt095n3b.san.rr.com [24.94.8.59]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id BAA27470 for ; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 01:02:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <017f01beee07$02898020$3b085e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "bridge-laws" References: <000a01beedfa$7144e520$ca5208c3@swhki5i6> Subject: Re: unappealing psychic Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 00:52:36 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > ++++ The system philosophy of bidding Hearts > if not wanting to play there when partner has a > good fit escapes me? Why not > just bid 3NT if that is where we wish to play? > Does not the single raise cater for a psychic? There is a perfectly logical system that bids hearts when not necessarily wanting to play there. In it a new suit response to a weak two bid is an asking bid, not a telling bid. It asks whether opener has something in that suit (Qx, xxx, or better). With such a holding opener bids notrump. Otherwise he just rebids his suit (or shows a lower-ranking fearture). Opposite a two-level response, opener has two ways to show something in responder's suit. He can either bid 2NT or raise the suit, the latter showing Qxx or better and a good hand. There are four possible uses for the asking bid, ranked according to relative frequency: (1) To find out if opener can support responder's suit (2) To investigate the safety of a notrump contract, when holding something like Jxx in the suit (3) To deter a lead in that suit (4) To bluff the opponents out of what is probably their suit Using the asking bid for a purpose other than (1), even for (4), is not a psych. Since an asking bid doesn't show anything, it cannot constitute a psych. Naturally the new-suit response is Alerted and explained with: "That is an asking bid, asking me if I have a little something in that suit. It says nothing about her hand or about her holding in that suit." Opener's rebid is likewise Alerted and explained. One might think that (3) or (4) would not work, since there is full disclosure of the method, but the opponents cannot be sure that responder lacks a good holding in the asking bid suit, which she will have more often than not. Since opener is a mere puppet, like a Blackwood responder, there is nothing more for him to disclose, except to say (when responder sets the contract), "I must pass." Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 24 18:21:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA17126 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 18:21:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA17121 for ; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 18:21:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.135] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11JBpm-000EVw-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 09:21:35 +0100 Message-ID: <000e01beee09$ac94c5a0$875108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: Excuse me if I demur - quiz-zical thoughts. Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 09:20:55 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 24 August 1999 03:24 Subject: Re: Excuse me if I demur - quiz-zical thoughts. >Definitions: > >Irregularity > A deviation from the correct procedures set forth in the Laws. > > > Dropping a card is an irregularity since it is not the correct >procedure for exposing a card. However, L72B1 refers to an offender, >and thus by inference requires an offence or infraction. I do not >believe that every irregularity is an offence. > ++ I have this exact dilemma. The matter is referred to as irregularity; if it means infraction it were better to say so. But 'offender' seems to be used in respect of both an infraction and an irregularity (in some texts I have prepared I have used 'infractor', a perfectly good if uncommon word, where I am relating to an infraction). I agree that not all irregularities are infractions. I am reluctant to tell someone who does something truly accidentally that it is an 'offence'. I conclude that we have to divorce 'offender' from 'offence' if we are to do what I think is just. There is certainly more work to be done in untangling the language of the laws. Someone who commits an irregularity? A 'stray'? Or 'aberrant' as a noun, as a term of the art? ('Deviant' can apply to other aspects of the game that are not irregular.) ~ Grattan ~ ++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 24 19:32:58 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA17293 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 19:32:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.rdc1.pa.home.com (imail@ha1.rdc1.pa.home.com [24.2.5.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA17288 for ; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 19:32:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from cc33764-a.glou1.nj.home.com ([24.1.53.108]) by mail.rdc1.pa.home.com (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with SMTP id <19990824093242.WLFF24014.mail.rdc1.pa.home.com@cc33764-a.glou1.nj.home.com> for ; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 02:32:42 -0700 From: Brian@meadows.pair.com (Brian Meadows) To: "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 09:32:43 GMT Message-ID: <37c6624f.4410235@mail.glou1.nj.home.com> References: <003101beed7c$458dc880$f08b93c3@pacific> In-Reply-To: <003101beed7c$458dc880$f08b93c3@pacific> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 23 Aug 1999 16:26:39 +0100, Grattan wrote: >One senior Director discussed with me a >ruling which he had made a little while back >in a pairs event, both pairs at the table being >experienced and reasonably competent. >Have a look: > Q.J.6.5. > K T 8 3 > 9 3 > Q J 2 > 9 8 3 K 7 > Q 5 4 6 2 > A Q T 8 5 4 K J 7 2 > T A K 9 5 4 > > A T 4 2 > A J 9 7 > 6 > 8 7 6 3 >Board 24. Love All. Dealer West >Auction: > 2D - P - 2H - P > 3H - P - 3NT - all pass. >Spade lead; nine tricks. > >Director called at the end of the hand >to deal with report of a psychic. Under >EBU regulations he ruled it to be in the >"RED" category, cancelled the table >result, awarded artific score 60%-40% >together with a 10% penalty on E/W. > >Discussing the hand I thought that for a >weak two the West hand is good quality; >that, at his second turn, 4H would be >acceptable if West did not select rather >4 Clubs. Three Hearts followed by Pass >adjudged abnormal action that will >protect a possibility of a psychic. (See >Orange Book for precise regulation.) > >Comments? How would this be >treated elsewhere? In ACBL-land >especially? ~ Grattan ~ ++++ > Well, since there don't seem to be many responses to this, I'll have a go at it, pointing out that I'm giving a view as a player, not a director, and I don't claim anything near expert status as a player, either! Looking at west's hand, I couldn't see my way clear to bidding it any differently playing SAYC (the only system I play with a weak 2D opener). Pard may have bid 2H on a four card suit, particularly if we do not have an agreement that a weak 2D opener denies a four card major. I would feel that a single raise on a three card suit was adequate, given the D suit isn't that great, unless we were playing a 5-9 HCP weak two that guaranteed no side major, in which case 4C and 4H certainly seem reasonable. Once I've decided to bid 3H, though, it would NEVER occur to me to pull 3NT. I've told partner pretty closely what I have, if he wants to play 3NT rather than 4H, I've got no reason to overrule him. I would be more than a little peeved to have it declared a "RED" under EBU regs, 3H might be conservative, but I'd totally disagree with any suggestion that I should be required to pull 3NT. At least at my level of bridge, once I open a weak 2 bid, partner, not me, is in charge of the hand. He knows I have nine cards (assuming 6 for the 2D) in the red suits, if he now wants to play 3NT, that's his privilege. He knows far more about my hand than I know about his. If this is categorised a red field, then so be it - because, IMHO, to pull 3NT to 4H says 'Partner, I don't trust you'. Penalise me for the 3H bid if you must (although I'd think a red for that would be excessive), but I'd definitely appeal a penalty that was given for not removing 3NT. Question: Would opps have queried West's bidding if East's red suits had been reversed? Brian. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 24 19:46:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA17337 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 19:46:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from alushta.NL.net (alushta.NL.net [193.67.79.182]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA17332 for ; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 19:45:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by alushta.NL.net with UUCP id <2819-16704>; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 11:45:37 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id LAA03889 for ; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 11:19:38 +0200 From: "Martin Sinot" To: Subject: RE: Junior world championships. Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 11:31:07 +0200 Message-ID: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3AC@xion.spase.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A024468837589029@xion.spase.nl> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: >In some events (the Olympic games, for example), they even go as far as >checking that the female contestants are indeed female, which is a few >orders of magnitude more complex than checking about 100 passports. Hmm, I remember an incident with a Dutch athlete when she had to be checked. Yup, she was definitely female....she was PREGNANT!!!! Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 24 20:11:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA17412 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 20:11:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA17407 for ; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 20:11:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-8-15.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.8.15]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA10046 for ; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 12:11:15 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37C1455A.AB5BEFD3@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 14:58:02 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: L63B translation - again Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Remember the faulty translation of L63B into dutch. It seems that the translation captures the intended meaning of the Law correctly, if not the literal translation. Yesterday I worked as TD together with the man who made the dutch translation (yes, that was a Belgian's work). In order to illustrate what I told him, I used the only Lawbook I was carrying at the time, the french one. In national events, I usually carry that one because I am less familiar with the french terminology than with the Law texts themselves. Let's see how the FFB has translated L63B : "quand il y a eu violation de la Loi 61B (*) ..." translated : "when ther has been a violation of Law 61B (*) ..." The footnote is interesting : "(*) une question du mort aux défenseurs est une infraction à la Loi 42B1 et non à la Loi 61B". translated : "(*) a question by dummy to defenders is an infraction of Law 42B1 and not of Law 61B". It seems like the french have reached the same conclusion. Perhaps it would be wise, when the WBFLC next meet, to add a similar footnote to the English text . -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 24 22:29:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA17758 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 22:02:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA17743 for ; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 22:01:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-236.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.236]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA25366 for ; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 14:01:47 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37C276E5.230A3385@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 12:41:41 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Brighton beckons, or not References: <000601bee7c3$0e821e40$69b259c3@default> <000601bee7c3$0e821e40$69b259c3@default> <3.0.2.32.19990824034059.00ada100@mail.a2000.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anton Witzen wrote: > > > > > dear david, > i think you do the best you can for us all. > thanks for the extensive letter you wrote. > Just realize that not all can see trough what trouble someone has to go to > serve the TD world. > Please realize that we all appreciate your efforts, although we not always > will be on your side, but will do our best to keep the discussions going to > the ultimate end, that is making bridge (and the laws) a nice sport to be in. > regards, > anton > I don't often post a "me too", but "Me Too". As one who more often than others disagrees with David I say. Well done David, and long may you continue. I only wish I had even more spare time to help you in your (own perceived) duties. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 24 22:42:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA17943 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 22:42:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [195.147.248.109] (may be forged)) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA17938 for ; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 22:42:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from p2as07a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.167.43] helo=pacific) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11JFtj-00054H-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 13:41:56 +0100 Message-ID: <000201beee2d$54a9b660$2ba793c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: unappealing psychic Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 13:33:41 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws Date: 24 August 1999 09:18 Subject: Re: unappealing psychic >Grattan Endicott wrote: > >> ++++ The system philosophy of bidding Hearts >> if not wanting to play there when partner has a >> good fit escapes me? >Marv: >There is a perfectly logical system that bids hearts when not necessarily >wanting to play there. In it a new suit response to a weak two bid is an >asking bid, not a telling bid. It asks whether opener has something in >that suit (Qx, xxx, or better). +++ OK. But that was not the meaning in the case I cited. In this case it was natural and forcing. My comment relates to the methods disclosed. ~ G ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 25 00:16:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA17757 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 22:02:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA17742 for ; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 22:01:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-236.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.236]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA25357 for ; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 14:01:45 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37C2761A.3252DE08@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 12:38:18 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply References: <004d01bee671$6c0f7d80$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> <016101beedf7$93800be0$3b085e18@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk People please, Linguistics has no place on this list. Political correctness could have. Let me put in one word : The use of a masculine pronoun for a person of indeterminate sex is just a silly, or just as normal, as the use ofthe feminine pronoun for a cat, or a ship. While English -and many other languages- has a neuter form, French for example hasn't. In French, many other things but ships are feminine, even the neutral "une personne". I shall continue to use "he" and "him", and you shall never know what the sex is of the person I am talking of. Seems much more PC to me. I often wonder how many times "chairperson" is used when the function happens to be filled by a person of the male persuasion. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 25 00:44:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA18461 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 00:44:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.zeelandnet.nl (mail.zeelandnet.nl [62.12.12.194]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA18455 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 00:44:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from poimms-6350 (k507.zeelandnet.nl [193.172.202.253]) by mail.zeelandnet.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA18061 for ; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 16:44:08 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <199908241444.QAA18061@mail.zeelandnet.nl> From: "Marcel Schoof" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: unappealing psychic Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 16:43:12 +0200 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > ++++ The system philosophy of bidding Hearts > > if not wanting to play there when partner has a > > good fit escapes me? Why not > > just bid 3NT if that is where we wish to play? > > Does not the single raise cater for a psychic? Marvin wrote > > There is a perfectly logical system that bids hearts when not necessarily > wanting to play there. In it a new suit response to a weak two bid is an > asking bid, not a telling bid. It asks whether opener has something in > that suit (Qx, xxx, or better). With such a holding opener bids notrump. > Otherwise he just rebids his suit (or shows a lower-ranking fearture). > Opposite a two-level response, opener has two ways to show something in > responder's suit. He can either bid 2NT or raise the suit, the latter > showing Qxx or better and a good hand. > > There are four possible uses for the asking bid, ranked according to > relative frequency: > > (1) To find out if opener can support responder's suit > > (2) To investigate the safety of a notrump contract, when holding > something like Jxx in the suit > > (3) To deter a lead in that suit > > (4) To bluff the opponents out of what is probably their suit > > Using the asking bid for a purpose other than (1), even for (4), is not a > psych. Since an asking bid doesn't show anything, it cannot constitute a > psych. > > Naturally the new-suit response is Alerted and explained with: "That is an > asking bid, asking me if I have a little something in that suit. It says > nothing about her hand or about her holding in that suit." > > Opener's rebid is likewise Alerted and explained. > > One might think that (3) or (4) would not work, since there is full > disclosure of the method, but the opponents cannot be sure that responder > lacks a good holding in the asking bid suit, which she will have more > often than not. > > Since opener is a mere puppet, like a Blackwood responder, there is > nothing more for him to disclose, except to say (when responder sets the > contract), "I must pass." > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com > ++ I agree that in the given bidding an asking bid is more likely, but as you pointed out that must be alerted. Since Grattan pointed out that 2H was natural and forcing I too feel that a direct 4H is a normal action with the West hand. West 3H bid might well indicate the knowledge of partner's psych. Brian Meadows suggested that the 2H could be a done one a four card. IMO the players system must have specific reference to this possibility and 3H should be alerted as being possibly a three card or W must bid 3D. Marcel From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 25 00:46:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA18475 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 00:46:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from mtiwmhc02.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc02.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.37]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA18470 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 00:46:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([12.75.45.160]) by mtiwmhc02.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07.07 118-134) with SMTP id <19990824144637.QWIA24199@default> for ; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 14:46:37 +0000 Message-ID: <00be01beee3f$3bdf68c0$fd2a4b0c@default> From: "Richard F Beye" To: "BLML" References: <003101beed7c$458dc880$f08b93c3@pacific> Subject: RE: Unappealing Psychic Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 09:36:54 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Educate me please, off list okay. What is WBF 'Red'? Is 'Orange Book' viewable on the 'net? I have not found a basis for adjusting this score in ACBLand. No infraction. I've spoken to a number of good players, all of whom pass at matchpoint scoring. Rick ----- Original Message ----- From: Grattan Endicott > Q.J.6.5. > K T 8 3 > 9 3 > Q J 2 > 9 8 3 K 7 > Q 5 4 6 2 > A Q T 8 5 4 K J 7 2 > T A K 9 5 4 > > A T 4 2 > A J 9 7 > 6 > 8 7 6 3 > Board 24. Love All. Dealer West > Auction: > 2D - P - 2H - P > 3H - P - 3NT - all pass. > Spade lead; nine tricks. > > Director called at the end of the hand > to deal with report of a psychic. Under > EBU regulations he ruled it to be in the > "RED" category, cancelled the table > result, awarded artific score 60%-40% > together with a 10% penalty on E/W. > > Discussing the hand I thought that for a > weak two the West hand is good quality; > that, at his second turn, 4H would be > acceptable if West did not select rather > 4 Clubs. Three Hearts followed by Pass > adjudged abnormal action that will > protect a possibility of a psychic. (See > Orange Book for precise regulation.) > > Comments? How would this be > treated elsewhere? In ACBL-land > especially? ~ Grattan ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 25 01:23:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA18648 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 01:23:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from news.hal-pc.org (news.hal-pc.org [204.52.135.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA18642 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 01:22:57 +1000 (EST) From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org Received: from bbs.hal-pc.org (uucp@localhost) by news.hal-pc.org (8.9.3/8.9.0) with UUCP id KAA62716 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 10:22:50 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0EAQ200O Tue, 24 Aug 99 10:10:39 Message-ID: <9908241010.0EAQ200@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Tue, 24 Aug 99 10:10:39 Subject: UNAPPEALI To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I had written a post on this thread that I decided to not send. It mirrored Craig's thoughts, with the exception of his eloquence, although I included qualifiers for the purpose of distinguishing what I consider to be proper versus improper deception as it relates to the case. Not withstanding, it turns out that I have some opinions on bridge in general that relate to this discussion: It is part of the game to use agreements for the highest profit- whether it is to find out what you want to know or, for a player in particular, for him to find out what you want him to know- or both. Whether a deception is ethical I would think lies in the manner it is performed. To this vain two areas of behavior seem to be relevant- [a] overt behavior such as tempo and 'tells' and [b] concealed agreements. The first suggests a tip off that a deviation may have occurred and that 'catering' for a deviation could prove profitable. I think that to intentionally deceive that the standard to be met needs to be set that the perpetrator must make no overt suggestion. The second is relevant to the degree to which disclosure is available. I believe it must be granted that it is a part of general knowledge at any point of the auction that a particular call can deviate from normal practice, whether intentionally or not. therefore, because of human memory, a class of actions exists where availing oneself of an improper understanding can be considered to exist. However, there are a substantial number of identifiable conditions where being intentionally deceptive are known to be more likely to bo successful and an even larger number of identifiable conditions where it would likely not. I think that this falls under general knowledge even though a large number of players may be oblivious to it. As such it would be more profitable to expect a deceptive action more frequently under these conditions. The issue seems to be that it is felt unfair for partner to know which of these conditions are MERELY more likely to spawn a deception. I believe that the more appropriate issue concerned the when of knowing to expect a deceptive action. I think that all such actions are proper deception except when the deception is protected by a concealed or encrypted agreement. Such a situation is unlikely, but not necessarily impossible to exist without an overt discussion. The point being that the latter would probably could not be proven without a propitiously placed listening device. The response therefore is to use partner's actions in suspicious circumstances to convict. I merely note that I feel that the boundary seems to have been unfairly drawn around an area encompassed by general knowledge that most players have chosen to ignore. One thing that I have always found to be ignored in the labeling of improper psyches is that the opponents behavior often lets the cat out of the bag and when that happens the psyching side is put in jeopardy if they 'field it'. The question seems to have come to rest that the distinctions of the different kinds of deviation must be blurred by fiat as is suggested by the ruling on the Brighton hand. One or more knowledgeable people declare it unseemly to pass 3N holding 3 card support for partner's suit after already showing a willingness to play that suit. In the same situation I would be more likely to pass than bid 4H even with the stiff club which of course makes me a bad player in most people's estimation. I do believe that there is a boundary between authorized deception and deceit where redress should not be expected nor given. And absent different facts for the Brighton hand there is a good chance that the boundary was not located in the best spot. I think that the appropriate issue is the when more so than the what. A difficult issue, perhaps so difficult that it is ignored. Roger Pewick Ps I pick up Kx-xx-KJxx-Akxxx and partner opens 2D. I have ten seconds to think. I realize that in a NT contract we have at least 2 clubs and 6 diamonds, and maybe one spade- if I don't lose a bunch of hearts on the go. If I bid hearts it is almost a certainty that partner will raise and with two opponents bidding hearts the defense will be unlikely to find a heart lead before it is too late. The prospect of 9 NT tricks is pretty good with a nudge and the worst that will likely happen will be 9 tricks in a diamond contract if partner does not let 3NT stand. This is exciting. Is the feeling of the bridge community that responder must never be permitted to play 3NT after 2H when opener has three hearts in support ? B>Grattan............................................................. B>"Mind is a most delicate evidence, B>not a soul has seen it yet." B> - Richard Eberhart B>================================= B>-----Original Message----- B>From: Craig Senior B>To: Grattan Endicott ; bridge-laws B> B>Date: 23 August 1999 20:53 B>Subject: Re: B>>I would think it amber at most. At pairs, the possibility of a running B>side >diamond suit with single stops in the black may make the NT game B>10 points >better than the heart game, so there would appear to be no B>reason not to >trust partner's judgement. One hardly seems to be B>fielding when one raises >the psych>> B>> B>++++ The system philosophy of bidding Hearts B>if not wanting to play there when partner has a B>good fit escapes me? Why not B>just bid 3NT if that is where we wish to play? B>Does not the single raise cater for a psychic? B>~ Grattan ~ ++++ B> Roger Pewick Houston, Texas r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 25 01:29:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA18408 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 00:35:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from purplenet.co.uk ([195.89.178.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA18401 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 00:35:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([195.89.178.84]) by purplenet.co.uk with SMTP (IPAD 2.5) id 9521200 ; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 14:31:31 -0000 Message-ID: <000a01beee3d$d2159c80$54b259c3@default> From: "magda.thain" To: "Marvin L. French" , Subject: Re: What happened? Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 15:03:56 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk There was an eclipse. mt To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 23 August 1999 07:48 Subject: What happened? >Is BLML off the air, or what? No e-mail for several days. > >Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 25 01:55:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA18799 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 01:55:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA18794 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 01:55:30 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id KAA15431; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 10:53:56 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa5-192.ix.netcom.com(206.217.132.192) by dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma010644; Tue Aug 24 10:17:19 1999 Message-ID: <002701beee44$807216e0$c084d9ce@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Grattan Endicott" , Subject: Re: Excuse me if I demur - quiz-zical thoughts. Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 11:22:36 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I can just imagine telling some big burly fellow that by dropping a card he has become a deviant. The health and well being of directors worldwide requires that we choose some other term. :-)) -- Craig >-----Original Message----- >From: David Stevenson > >>Definitions: >> >>Irregularity >> A deviation from the correct procedures set forth in the Laws. >> >> >> Dropping a card is an irregularity since it is not the correct >>procedure for exposing a card. However, L72B1 refers to an offender, >>and thus by inference requires an offence or infraction. I do not >>believe that every irregularity is an offence. >> >++ I have this exact dilemma. The matter is referred to as >irregularity; if it means infraction it were better to say so. But >'offender' seems to be used in respect of both an infraction >and an irregularity (in some texts I have prepared I have >used 'infractor', a perfectly good if uncommon word, where >I am relating to an infraction). I agree that not all >irregularities are infractions. I am reluctant to tell someone >who does something truly accidentally that it is an >'offence'. I conclude that we have to divorce 'offender' >from 'offence' if we are to do what I think is just. > There is certainly more work to be done in >untangling the language of the laws. Someone who >commits an irregularity? A 'stray'? Or 'aberrant' as a >noun, as a term of the art? ('Deviant' can apply to other >aspects of the game that are not irregular.) ~ Grattan ~ ++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 25 02:02:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA19004 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 02:02:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA18999 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 02:02:25 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id LAA17216; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 11:00:45 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa5-192.ix.netcom.com(206.217.132.192) by dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma011644; Tue Aug 24 10:32:14 1999 Message-ID: <004a01beee46$96700e00$c084d9ce@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 11:37:33 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I, for one, use it only when the person has been upholstered and rests statically upon all four legs. And I think we must remember that chairlady sounds all to much like the lass who cleans up the room after the meeting. :-) -- Craig -----Original Message----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Date: Tuesday, August 24, 1999 8:02 AM Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply >People please, > >Linguistics has no place on this list. > >Political correctness could have. > >Let me put in one word : > >The use of a masculine pronoun for a person of indeterminate >sex is just a silly, or just as normal, as the use ofthe >feminine pronoun for a cat, or a ship. > >While English -and many other languages- has a neuter form, >French for example hasn't. In French, many other things but >ships are feminine, even the neutral "une personne". > >I shall continue to use "he" and "him", and you shall never >know what the sex is of the person I am talking of. Seems >much more PC to me. >I often wonder how many times "chairperson" is used when the >function happens to be filled by a person of the male >persuasion. > >-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 25 02:07:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA19023 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 02:07:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from deimos.worldonline.nl (deimos.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.136]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA19018 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 02:07:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp236-36.worldonline.nl [195.241.236.36]) by deimos.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA05156; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 18:07:35 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <002a01beefab$73607560$f6d2f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: , Subject: Re: LAW53A Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 12:11:57 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >B>*************** >B>Of course I am WRONG, Mr Senior, we all know I am WRONG. The problem is, >B>the law I quoted says I am RIGHT. I would not normally forsee any >B>problems arising from this, of course I would not allow a defender to >B>accept partner's erroneous lead, but would find myself in a difficult >B>situation if a defender waved the rule book under my nose and demanded >B>to see why he wasn't allowed to do so. (You and Ed don't seem to be able >B>to counter this argument by recourse to other laws, so I assume it >B>cannot be done.) The laws should be watertight in their wording, like a >B>legal document. I like 'watertight like a legal document'. Ever saw one? I am quite convinced that making such a document shouldn't be asked from lesgislators. And I know that Bertrand Russell and Wittgenstein, both superb mathematicians were working on it and became quite worried, not to say mad, and disappointed. Words combined into sentences do not have the possibility to give watertight meanings. I am not trying to find an excuse for the present wording of the laws, but trying to say that our intentions are more fundamental than the words. The words are used to express our intentions. Still we should strive for the possibility to read the laws and to understand our intentions by doing so. But as long as we do not ask the man from Mars to act unprepared as TD in our tournaments, on the contrary, as long as we try to educate TD's before putting them in the battlefields, we are able to combine generally accepted interpretations with the wording. I am more worried when a discussion about 'logical alternative' comes up. We do not have a shared opinion, and probably even can't develop one, as long as we use those kind of multi-interpretable phrases. Just a suggestion, point to crooked worded laws, our LC will catch it, but don't start angry discussions about the meaning. You know the meaning and nobody is wrong. If you really want to contribute to better laws, think about 'logical alternative' and how to express it in such a way that bridge keeps manageable. ton, (they say that the Dutch people consist of salesmen and pastors, I never succeeded in being a good salesman) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 25 02:29:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA18428 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 00:36:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA18422 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 00:36:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id KAA22958 for ; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 10:36:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA00694 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 10:36:22 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 10:36:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199908241436.KAA00694@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" >... We feel that this practice is no > more illogical than using a male pronoun... In English, there is no such thing as a "male pronoun." Pronouns are masculine, feminine, and neuter. These are "genders," or "grammatical genders" if you are writing for someone who thinks 'sex' and 'gender' are synonyms. (These two words are becoming synonyms, but they don't have to be in careful usage. The sexes are male and female.) > While looking in Fowler's book, I came across this entry, not far > off-subject: > > "Gender is a grammatical term only. To talk of persons or creatures of the > masculine or feminine gender, meaning of the male or female sex, is either > a jocularity (permissible or not according to context) or a blunder." Exactly. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 25 02:30:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA19223 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 02:30:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand2.global.net.uk (sand2.global.net.uk [195.147.246.100]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA19218 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 02:30:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from p94s13a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.141.149] helo=pacific) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11JJSy-0001N4-00; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 17:30:32 +0100 Message-ID: <000c01beee4e$00de9700$958d93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Richard F Beye" , "BLML" Subject: Re:Orange Book extract (long). Classifying psyches. Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 17:28:59 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: BLML Date: 24 August 1999 16:07 Subject: RE: Unappealing Psychic >Educate me please, off list okay. >What is WBF 'Red'? >Is 'Orange Book' viewable on the 'net? >> Orange Book for precise regulation.) >> +++ For Orange Book go to David Stevenson's web site. The relevant extract is: 6.2.1 The actions of you and your partner following a psyche may provide evidence of an unauthorised - and therefore illegal - understanding. If so, then your partnership is said to have fielded the psyche. The TD will find that you have such an unauthorised understanding if, for example, you take any abnormal action, before the psyche has been exposed, to protect your side from its effect. The TD will judge your actions objectively: that is to say your intent will not be taken into account. 6.2.2. A partnership's actions on one board may be sufficient for the TD to find that it has an unauthorised understanding and the score will be adjusted (for example, 60% to the non-offending side and 30% to the offending side is normal in pairs). This is classified as a Red psyche. 6.2.3 A TD may find that whilst there is some evidence of an unauthorised understanding it is not sufficient, of itself, to deserve* an adjusted score. This is classified as an Amber psyche. In particular, if both partners psyche on the same hand, then this is very likely to be evidence of an unauthorised understanding. [*note: perhaps 'justify' is more precise. g.e.] 6.2.4 In the majority of cases the TD will find nothing untoward and classify it as a Green psyche. 6.2.5 A TD may use evidence from a partnership's action on two or more boards to determine whether it has an unauthorised understanding. If so, the score on all such boards will be adjusted, as long as it is practical to do so. In other words, two or more Amber psyches changes them to Red. 6.2.6 Whilst a deviation, like a psyche, is a deliberate mis-statement of some feature of the hand, it differs in that it is minor whereas a psyche is gross. A partnership's actions following a deviation may provide evidence of an unauthorised understanding, but they are less likely to do so. 6.2.7. Whilst a misbid, like a psyche, is a mis-statement of some feature of the hand, it differs in that it is inadvertent whereas a psyche is deliberate. A partnership's actions following a misbid may provide evidence of an unauthorised understanding, but they are less likely to do so because of the lack of intent to mislead. As with psyches, misbids may be classed as Red, Amber or Green. 6.3.1 Psychic bids do not have to be reported but you may request the TD to do so if you wish. To do so is not to accuse your opponents of malpractice. The TD may keep a record of any hand if he thinks fit.** [**Note: reports of psyches and hands recorded in EBU tournaments are passed to the Laws and Ethics Committee; this has a review panel which selects forms to be placed before the full committee. Forms may be retained on file. g.e.] Hope this helps. On list because you may not be the only one. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 25 02:57:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA18563 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 01:03:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from batman.npl.co.uk (batman.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA18557 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 01:02:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from herschel.npl.co.uk (unknown.npl.co.uk [139.143.1.16] (may be forged)) by batman.npl.co.uk (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id QAA28767; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 16:01:10 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA01551; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 16:01:04 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 15:01:03 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA25228; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 16:00:59 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id QAA24716; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 16:00:53 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 16:00:53 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199908241500.QAA24716@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, hermandw@village.uunet.be Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > I shall continue to use "he" and "him", and you shall never > know what the sex is of the person I am talking of. Seems > much more PC to me. I shall continue to use "they" and "their" for single people of unknown sex, unless it looks very awkward. > I often wonder how many times "chairperson" is used when the > function happens to be filled by a person of the male > persuasion. In the UK, "chair" is more common than "chairperson" and, in many organisations (e.g. public bodies), is used consistently whether the incumbant(sp?) is male or female. Robin From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 25 03:05:51 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA19333 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 03:05:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from u2.farm.idt.net (root@u2.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA19328 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 03:05:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from idt.net (ppp-43.ts-1.lax.idt.net [169.132.153.43]) by u2.farm.idt.net (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id NAA18094; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 13:05:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <37C2CEAF.86AFF81F@idt.net> Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 09:56:15 -0700 From: Irwin J Kostal Reply-To: bigfoot@idt.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian Meadows CC: bridge-laws Subject: Re: References: <003101beed7c$458dc880$f08b93c3@pacific> <37c6624f.4410235@mail.glou1.nj.home.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Brian: I also look at this from a player's perspective, but I come to different conclusions than you. This first point: in Standard American bridge as I understand it, partner's 2H bid virtually guarantees five or more hearts. Your contention that he could do it on a four card suit, if true in your partnerships, is definitely NOT standard. Also, partner has not learned anything about my stopper situation (except in hearts) by the auction. One might ask why he didn't just bid 3NT directly. Since he invited me into the auction by bidding 2H, There is an implication that I'm allowed some scope for my own judgment. Looking at this 2D opening, it seems to me it would rate to play much better in 4H (assuming the 5 card suit), than in 3NT. While I agree that partner knows more about my hand than I about his, this really does smack of fielding the psych. Years ago, before alerts, some folks used to play that the 2D bidding must bid 2NT to show the fit, so that responder could still get out at 3D after psyching. I don't know that this was a legal agreement even then, but surely would be illegal now, probably even if alerted. Passing 3NT, and taking the view that you have nothing more, ever, to contribute to the auction, strikes me as basically the same sort of agreement. Irv Kostal Brian Meadows wrote: > > On Mon, 23 Aug 1999 16:26:39 +0100, Grattan wrote: > > >One senior Director discussed with me a > >ruling which he had made a little while back > >in a pairs event, both pairs at the table being > >experienced and reasonably competent. > >Have a look: > > Q.J.6.5. > > K T 8 3 > > 9 3 > > Q J 2 > > 9 8 3 K 7 > > Q 5 4 6 2 > > A Q T 8 5 4 K J 7 2 > > T A K 9 5 4 > > > > A T 4 2 > > A J 9 7 > > 6 > > 8 7 6 3 > >Board 24. Love All. Dealer West > >Auction: > > 2D - P - 2H - P > > 3H - P - 3NT - all pass. > >Spade lead; nine tricks. > > > >Director called at the end of the hand > >to deal with report of a psychic. Under > >EBU regulations he ruled it to be in the > >"RED" category, cancelled the table > >result, awarded artific score 60%-40% > >together with a 10% penalty on E/W. > > > >Discussing the hand I thought that for a > >weak two the West hand is good quality; > >that, at his second turn, 4H would be > >acceptable if West did not select rather > >4 Clubs. Three Hearts followed by Pass > >adjudged abnormal action that will > >protect a possibility of a psychic. (See > >Orange Book for precise regulation.) > > > >Comments? How would this be > >treated elsewhere? In ACBL-land > >especially? ~ Grattan ~ ++++ > > > > Well, since there don't seem to be many responses to this, > I'll have a go at it, pointing out that I'm giving a view as > a player, not a director, and I don't claim anything near > expert status as a player, either! > > Looking at west's hand, I couldn't see my way clear to > bidding it any differently playing SAYC (the only system I > play with a weak 2D opener). Pard may have bid 2H on a four > card suit, particularly if we do not have an agreement that > a weak 2D opener denies a four card major. I would feel that > a single raise on a three card suit was adequate, given the > D suit isn't that great, unless we were playing a 5-9 HCP > weak two that guaranteed no side major, in which case 4C and > 4H certainly seem reasonable. Once I've decided to bid 3H, > though, it would NEVER occur to me to pull 3NT. I've told > partner pretty closely what I have, if he wants to play 3NT > rather than 4H, I've got no reason to overrule him. > > I would be more than a little peeved to have it declared a > "RED" under EBU regs, 3H might be conservative, but I'd > totally disagree with any suggestion that I should be > required to pull 3NT. At least at my level of bridge, once I > open a weak 2 bid, partner, not me, is in charge of the > hand. He knows I have nine cards (assuming 6 for the 2D) in > the red suits, if he now wants to play 3NT, that's his > privilege. He knows far more about my hand than I know about > his. If this is categorised a red field, then so be it - > because, IMHO, to pull 3NT to 4H says 'Partner, I don't > trust you'. Penalise me for the 3H bid if you must (although > I'd think a red for that would be excessive), but I'd > definitely appeal a penalty that was given for not removing > 3NT. > > Question: Would opps have queried West's bidding if East's > red suits had been reversed? > > Brian. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 25 03:32:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA18412 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 00:35:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from purplenet.co.uk ([195.89.178.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA18403 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 00:35:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([195.89.178.84]) by purplenet.co.uk with SMTP (IPAD 2.5) id 9521300 ; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 14:31:33 -0000 Message-ID: <000b01beee3d$d37616e0$54b259c3@default> From: "magda.thain" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Brighton beckons, or not Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 15:34:23 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear Mr. Stevenson, No you don't see my problem. Please add to your list of abbreviations hcd (humble club director) and please use small letters to help us to with our humility and reverence. I think you are a National Chief Director? so your opinions are as valuable as those of other national chief directors; they help us at times as do some of the other directors opinions. The list has several who write from stronger positions. I believed that one of your aims would be to work from the middle to make a link between the authorities and the rest of us, especially hcds. If someone uses courteous words to say that you are not remembering to do this as much as you should, you find that insulting? If I had the time I could go to learn how to direct better in the tolerant atmosphere of a little club, but the hcd in Afghanistan may like to have some help from you through the words you write on the internet. Me too. Anyway, no matter, I have an answer. mt To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 23 August 1999 20:43 Subject: Re: Brighton beckons, or not >magda.thain wrote: >>You see my problem. > (snip) >>Can none of you spare a thought to link your fantasies to the needs of the >>humble? I do not think you have a clue what most of bridge is all about > > I find your remarks deeply insulting. > >-- >David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ >Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 25 03:33:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA19480 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 03:33:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (mailout1-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.81]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA19473 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 03:33:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.104] by mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 13:32:44 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <37C2761A.3252DE08@village.uunet.be> References: <004d01bee671$6c 0f7d80$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> <016101beedf7$93800be0$3b085e18@san.rr.com> Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 13:29:12 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >While English -and many other languages- has a neuter form, >French for example hasn't. On ne crois pas que vous avais raison. :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2 iQA/AwUBN8LXQr2UW3au93vOEQL+kQCeJCedCfQu0neMEVwiSSTwgd0mSZ4AoIis HqShet6/6Kri/OSFVxvrwWw5 =IdbI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 25 04:11:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA17958 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 22:43:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from nickel.cix.co.uk (nickel.compulink.co.uk [194.153.0.18]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA17952 for ; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 22:43:14 +1000 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id NAA14041 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 13:42:34 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 13:42 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: San Antonio NABC Appeals Case 9 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <00ce01beeda0$435d70a0$3b085e18@san.rr.com> "Marvin L. French" > > Tim West-meads wrote: > > > Even if we accept that a call is "logical" in isolation (ie it may > be the > > best bid) this does not make it a *logical alternative*. It is > not > > logical to take an action which one believes will be best in 20% > of cases > > if one has an alternative which one believes will be best in 80% > of cases. > > If you wish to tie this back in to Kaplan's words "It is > unreasonable to > > expect a decent player to take a punt on an obviously > anti-percentage > > action." > > I was unaware of that quote, but generally agree with it, if > "obviously" means "extremely." Oops. This wasn't a quote from Kaplan, just me trying to use one of his words (unreasonable) in a context that made sense to me. Apologies for being misleading. I didn't intend "obviously" as quite as strong as "extremely". E.g. I would regard 65/35 as obvious without being extreme. > For Appeals Case 9, I am not so sure > that passing 2S is "obviously anti-percentage," even if today's > macho bidders would tend to bid. At pairs I believe a call is mandatory (personally I prefer double to 3H). IMPs/rubber then it is much closer. After the hesitation I would probably feel obliged to avoid the double. > South is sure to have four or more > spades, considering West's pass and the vulnerability, and it is > routine for West to pass with 16 HCP or so when short in spades. For > my part, I would certainly pass 2S opposite a marked hesitation, and > would certainly bid 3H opposite a fast pass, since neither action is > illogical. In either case, I would avoid playing with that partner > again. Don't people worry about reputation any more? I'd start out by having a quiet word with partner about tempo variation. My reputation is important to me and most of the players at the local club know that their hesitations are likely to cost them money when playing with me. > > This is not aimed at the North of this case, since we do not know > whether there was a break in tempo from his point of view. > > > > If L16 had been written "..may not choose from among logical > actions an > > alternative...." then different interpretations could apply. > > > > Note that regardless of whether "peers etc" appear in the laws > these words > > *are* used in the regulations of many SOs and, as such, are > binding on the > > TDs/AC in that jurisdiction. AIUI this is because various SOs > could not > > agree on exactly what constituted an LA and so it was left > deliberately > > ambiguous in the laws. > > > > (comments not intended to relate to specific case). > > My feeling is that SO regulations concerning a law are usually meant > as guidelines to be followed when there is difficulty in applying > its intent. For instance, the 1/3-1/6 probabilities for L12C2 > application were clearly labeled as guidelines by the ACBL LC, not > to be taken literally. However, let's say that the LC's > interpretation of LA is more than just a guideline. I have the > feeling that the exact words of the LC on this matter are not well > known. Not surprising, since its interpretations are hard to find. > Here is what the ACBLScor Tech Files say: > > "The ACBL Laws Commission has been asked for an interpretation of > the phrase "logical alternative" as used in L16A. (A logical > alternative is a call that would be seriously considered by at least > a substantial minority of equivalent players, acting on the basis of > all the information legitimately available)." I believe this is more than just a guideline. > I presume that "call" should be "call or play," as L16A pertains to > both calls and plays. The last part is often omitted by those > referring to this interpretation. It is there for a reason. I agree. > Are you saying that a "substantial minority" of players typified by > this North would not give "serious consideration" to passing, even > though they would probably bid? I believe that most players of North's (apparent) standard and style would consider passing but dismiss it as a long-term losing strategy. I think the decision is close enough that I wouldn't dispute the actual ACs judgement whichever way they decided. > Are you sure that bidding 3H is > acting only on the basis of information "legitimately available"? Unfortunately North is in possession of UI. Would you settle for "I'm sure North could be fully aware of his ethical obligations and still bid 3H without a qualm and I'm nearly certain that N would have bid 3H absent the UI". > > If your answer to both questions is yes, then I can only say that I > disagree (mildly). > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 25 04:30:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA19993 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 04:30:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from nickel.cix.co.uk (nickel.compulink.co.uk [194.153.0.18]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA19988 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 04:30:42 +1000 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id TAA19342 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 19:30:05 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 19:29 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: unappealing psychic To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <000501beed7e$317a1860$2ca793c3@pacific> > One senior Director discussed with me a > ruling which he had made a little while back > in a pairs event, both pairs at the table being > experienced and reasonably competent. > Have a look: > Q.J.6.5. > K T 8 3 > 9 3 > Q J 2 > 9 8 3 K 7 > Q 5 4 6 2 > A Q T 8 5 4 K J 7 2 > T A K 9 5 4 > > A T 4 2 > A J 9 7 > 6 > 8 7 6 3 > Board 24. Love All. Dealer West > Auction: > 2D - P - 2H - P > 3H - P - 3NT - all pass. > Spade lead; nine tricks. > 1. 2H = natural and forcing Presumably not game forcing (or 3H forcing seems obvious). Indeed even if 2H is not game forcing I would expect 3H to be forcing here (I wouldn't expect to have to produce evidence to prove it). Does 2H promise 5? (no reason why it should but again if it doesn't 3H seems obvious). If West is expected to show secondary values/a fragment in response again 3H seems perfectly normal (If 2H promises 5, 2D denies a 4CM and is limited to c9 points then a 4C splinter starts to look like a reasonable alternative - but not enough so to make 3H abnormal). Basically 3H seems like a perfectly normal bid unless EW are playing a particularly unusual system. Once East bids 3NT West places East with a holding like KQT,Txxxx,Kx,AKJ and passes - again a perfectly normal action. That said the situation lends itself to being a CPU and I would wish this hand to be recorded, but not adjusted in isolation. (I think that means an amber classification.) > 2. The ruling was not appealed. But were EW happy with it? Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 25 07:13:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA20834 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 07:13:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (smtp7.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.128.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA20829 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 07:13:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveg30.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.64.96]) by smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA28004 for ; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 17:13:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990824171012.013ad368@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 17:10:12 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: unappealing psychic In-Reply-To: <000501beed7e$317a1860$2ca793c3@pacific> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan has posted an excellent problem for exploring various issues about psychic bidding and legal vs. illegal fielding of same. Naturally, I expect to disagree vigorously with his conclusions on this matter. Several correspondents (Irv, obviously, and Grattan, one presumes) find the pass to 3nt, and maybe even the 3H bid itself, to be so remarkable as to constitute a prima facie case for illegal fielding of the psychic bid. Others (Craig, Richard, and an undisclosed number of Richard's friends or acquaintances) suggest that they would certainly pass 3nt, and I must say that I find myself in this camp. In any case, passing 3nt is far from bizarre-- many players would do so, if not necessarily most. But some of us who would choose to pass 3nt are being a bit disingenuous in denying the fundamental claim of the anti-psych crowd: that this pass caters in some measure to the possibility of a psychic 2H bid. I admit freely that it does so, and I claim unabashedly my right to bid this way! If I were completely sure that partner had the heart suit he has promised (and no, that could _not_ be xxxx, as some have suggested), then I think that this hand rates to play a trick better in hearts than in no-trump more often than not. But I really cannot be sure what partner is up to, and in fact this sequence does suggest the _possiblity_ of a psychic from partner. For me, this possiblity is enough to make the pass more attractive. Notice that this analysis need not be based in any significant measure on "tainted" partnership experience. I would make essentially the same analysis in any event, even opposite a first-time partner. I am well-prepared for the post-mortem (or the TD's inquiry, should it come to that): I have described my hand for partner perfectly, and have no reason to distrust his judgement about the final contract. And I would be quite suspicious about this auction if I were in the opponent's seat, particularly if I had a significant heart holding. It sounds fishy to me. But so what? Psychic bidding is not illegal. Neither is the analysis I have offered, nor any bridge action based upon it. The EBU has apparently implemented a framework for the punishment of players who bid this way. Given the generally laissez faire attitude toward the right of SO's to refashion the Laws as they may see fit, I suppose we must acknowledge their right to do so. But the eagerness of SO's to discourage psychic methods by supplementary regulation is clearly contrary to the spirit of L40A, IMO, and is not an approach I regard with much enthusiasm. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 25 07:35:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA20958 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 07:35:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from deimos.worldonline.nl (deimos.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.136]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA20953 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 07:35:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (vp213-9.worldonline.nl [195.241.213.9]) by deimos.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA14562 for ; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 23:35:35 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <00dd01beee78$f2ea9a60$09d5f1c3@default> From: "Jac Fuchs" To: Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 23:38:02 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robin Barker wrote: >> I shall continue to use "he" and "him", and you shall never >> know what the sex is of the person I am talking of. Seems >> much more PC to me. >I shall continue to use "they" and "their" for single people >of unknown sex, unless it looks very awkward. To me, it *always* looks very awkward .... Jac From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 25 08:15:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA21086 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 08:15:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from eris.iag.net (mailhub.iag.net [204.27.210.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA21081 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 08:15:04 +1000 (EST) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 08:15:04 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 7918 invoked by uid 31); 24 Aug 1999 22:14:55 -0000 Received: from pm02-091.kism.fl.iag.net (HELO Sotnos) (207.30.80.91) by mailhub.iag.net with SMTP; 24 Aug 1999 22:14:55 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.16.19990824181221.0fffcf5e@pop3.iag.net> X-Sender: clairele@pop3.iag.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (16) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Claire LeBlanc or Robert Nordgren Subject: Re: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:22 PM 8/23/99 -0400, you wrote: >Grattan EndicottOne senior Director discussed with me a >ruling which he had made a little while back >in a pairs event, both pairs at the table being >experienced and reasonably competent. >Have a look: North > Q.J.6.5. > K T 8 3 > 9 3 > Q J 2 West East > 9 8 3 K 7 > Q 5 4 6 2 > A Q T 8 5 4 K J 7 2 > T A K 9 5 4 > South > A T 4 2 > A J 9 7 > 6 > 8 7 6 3 >Board 24. Love All. Dealer West >Auction: > 2D - P - 2H - P > 3H - P - 3NT - all pass. >Spade lead; nine tricks. once you have commited yourself to a preemptive bid you have made PARD captain on where we are going. and are not supposed to bid unless asked to. pd have normally gotten a very clear picture of the hand you as the preempter holds. a potential hand that comes up for the 2he bidder is KJx Jxxxx KJ AKQ 3nt icecold and 4he in the never make zone. Is 2he bid on this hand such a crazy bridge action that u must be ruled u have feilded a red psyche when u cater this possible hand and beleives in that pd have a brain??... Just ask how knows most about the others hand??? East knows about Wests hand a very likely 6 cd diamond suit and a probable 3cd he support most likely not in the form of AKx since the partnership dont like weak 2's with heavy waste in a major. West knows about Easts hand. Not that much he knows pd bid 2he forcing for 1 round which very often shows 5+ suit. And didnt have values for a slam try on 3he The hand showed above is a very normal hand for the bidding that actually took place since East is tempted to reach 3NT if he can get some help in stopping the he suit. Somehow it tastes like if it psyches rule against it. a simple question? the ACBL guidelines we saw for a while ago talked about false new suit responses when a fit was already known to discourage lead as perfectly legal and normal bridge that wouldnt get you into anyform of trouble Robert From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 25 10:09:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA21516 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 10:09:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA21507 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 10:09:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.180] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11JQcw-000IJz-00; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 01:09:18 +0100 Message-ID: <003f01beee8e$113c8c20$b45208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "ton kooijman" , , Subject: Re: LAW53A Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 00:09:46 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 24 August 1999 17:27 Subject: Re: LAW53A ------------------------- \x/ --------------------- > >ton, (they say that the Dutch people consist of salesmen and pastors, I >never succeeded in being a good salesman) > +++ You spend your days looking after sheep? +++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 25 10:09:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA21517 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 10:09:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA21506 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 10:09:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.180] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11JQcy-000IJz-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 01:09:20 +0100 Message-ID: <004101beee8e$1273d3a0$b45208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: unappealing psychic Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 00:33:24 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 24 August 1999 22:35 Subject: Re: unappealing psychic >Grattan has posted an excellent problem for exploring various issues about >psychic bidding and legal vs. illegal fielding of same. Naturally, I expect >to disagree vigorously with his conclusions on this matter. > >Several correspondents (Irv, obviously, and Grattan, one presumes) find the >pass to 3nt, and maybe even the 3H bid itself, to be so remarkable as to >constitute a prima facie case for illegal fielding of the psychic bid. -------------------------- \x/ ------------------------ +++ In general terms I do not plan to come back in on this discussion whilst blml churns it. I do want to be clear about what I think: I see no honest purpose in a natural, forcing Heart bid, followed by any game bid, other than to offer Hearts as a contract if Opener likes his fit. I doubt it can be a four card suit - but if it can the logic is that he is prepared to play in a 4-3 fit on the hand he holds. If he is not interested in a Heart contract he has no sensible reason to introduce the suit naturally. So he is saying 'if you really like Hearts partner we should play there', rather like a transfer sequence after 1NT. To allow otherwise is to open the door to abuse. Second point: there is no witch-hunt in Britain against psychics so long as they are genuinely psychic. We do not believe, however, that it is right to allow partnerships to develop patterns of 'psyching', so we do retain records. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 25 10:29:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA21390 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 09:38:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA21347 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 09:37:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11JQ83-000OVb-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 23:37:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 12:27:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI References: <000b01bee5e1$60f93660$7c5108c3@swhki5i6> In-Reply-To: <000b01bee5e1$60f93660$7c5108c3@swhki5i6> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >+++ The co-incidence of psychic with subsequent >abnormal action, by the partner of the psycher, >that protects the side from being damaged by the >psychic, is considered adequate evidence that >the partner has read the psychic. Not in the EBU, it is not. We take the view that we adjust if the coincidence is there: we avoid saying that he has read the psychic. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 25 11:30:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA21387 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 09:38:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA21348 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 09:37:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11JQ82-000OyS-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 23:37:24 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 12:47:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: dummy establishes revoke References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C212@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C212@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Kooijman, A. wrote: >May be I should wait till I have seen my english lawbook, but looking in my >Dutch one there isn't such a big problem. We are proud with our translation >so it is quite possible it is 'better' than the original version but 63B >says: If a DEFENDER infringes law 61B ..etc ...... This most certainly means >that this penalty not necessarily applies when dummy asks a defender about a >possible revoke. And going one step further I tend to the opinion that >defender has discovered his revoke in a for his side legal way when dummy >asks about it. So penalty card but no penalty tricks. >If the Dutch translation is 'wrong' it is somewhat more difficult but as a >TD I would do the same and make a note for a change once more. The word defender does not appear in the English version. It does seem a good idea that it should. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 25 11:55:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA21386 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 09:38:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA21350 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 09:37:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11JQ87-000OVa-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 23:37:28 +0000 Message-ID: <0B$ZVVA7low3EwDq@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 13:00:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: dummy establishes revoke/Law53A References: <199908200027.UAA26986@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199908200027.UAA26986@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: James.Vickers@merck.de >> (1) Any action not explicitly sanctioned by the laws is banned by the laws. >> (This is not universally accepted, but let's take it as read for the sake >> of argument.) > >This is not what the LC interpretation from Lille (available on David's >Laws page) seems to say. As I understand it, anything neither permitted >nor forbidden is extraneous; there are three possible conditions, not >two. Thus if I follow suit at my turn, that is legal. If I revoke, >that is illegal. If I have a sip of coffee, that is not covered in the >laws and hence is extraneous. > >As I understand it, extraneous matters are intended to be those that >will seldom if ever have an effect on the game. If one such does >have an effect, usually there will be a provision allowing score >adjustment for damage to an opponent. If I accidentally spill hot >coffee on an opponent, and that causes the opponent to expose some of >his cards, I would not expect to benefit from the penalty cards that >might result! (What law is used to stop me?) L50. TD deems otherwise. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 25 12:15:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA21388 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 09:38:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA21345 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 09:37:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11JQ82-000OnB-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 23:37:24 +0000 Message-ID: <0xxZ5SAAkow3Ewgt@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 12:58:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: dummy establishes revoke/Law53A References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk JamesV wrote: >While looking for similar examples to this ruling, I came across another >anomaly in the curiously-worded Law53A: > >"Any lead faced out of turn may be treated as a correct lead. It becomes a >correct lead if declarer or either >defender, as the case may be, accepts it (by making a statement to that >effect), or if the player next in rotation >plays to the irregular lead...." > >The phrase "as the case may be" is just hanging there and doesn't seem to >relate to anything. Thus it seems from >this law that a defender can accept partner's lead out of turn by making a >statement to that effect. This >is obviously not the intended meaning, but it is what the rule says. Or >have I missed something? "as the case may be" is put in to avoid the scenario you said. In effect, the Law says: Case 1: A defender leads out of turn. Any lead faced out of turn may be treated as a correct lead. It becomes a correct lead if declarer accepts it (by making a statement to that effect), or if the player next in rotation plays to the irregular lead...." Case 2: Declarer or dummy leads out of turn. Any lead faced out of turn may be treated as a correct lead. It becomes a correct lead if either defender accepts it (by making a statement to that effect), or if the player next in rotation plays to the irregular lead...." Rather than quote two cases in full, it seems easier to combine them, and say "as the case may be". -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 25 12:29:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA21385 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 09:38:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA21346 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 09:37:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11JQ82-000OVa-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 23:37:23 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 12:23:38 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI References: <199908121346.OAA17955@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: >Hash: SHA1 > >At 9:46 AM -0400 8/12/99, Robin Barker wrote: > >>If you recognise that a situation >>in which partner is known to psyche has arisen, before the psyche has >>been exposed, you should avoid (even slightly) abnormal actions which >>protect partner's known psyche in this situation. > >And if you don't recognize it? According to the OB (and, I think, pretty >much to the way TDs here in ACBL-land handle it) if your action _looks_ >like it was fielding, it was. And you're presumed guilty - that is, the >burden of proof is on you to show that you didn't field it. How the heck >can you prove a negative? Or am I misreading it? We do not prove things when making rulings. We look at the evidence and make a decision. If you want TD to say that people are cheating, then I think you are going to cause an enormous amount more trouble. If your partner psyches, and your action looks as though it allows for it, then that is illegal. That is the best way of doing it. It avoids the accusation while controlling the abuse. You cannot even prove it to yourself, in many cases. You may be making subconscious adjustments. Best by far is to accept that a few rulings will go against you when partner psyches. After all, no-one is calling you unethical. You don't like being presumed guilty? No-one is presuming it, and you are the only one calling yourself guilty. If your partner opens a Spanish green spade [a third-in-hand non-vul v vul spade], next hand overcalls 1NT and you pass with 11 HCP, then I am adjusting when your partner has psyched. I am accusing you of nothing but I am adjusting. What better way is there to handle it? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 25 12:50:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA21389 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 09:38:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA21353 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 09:37:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11JQ82-000OVc-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 23:37:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 12:39:21 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI References: <002801bee623$0436d9e0$0f5208c3@swhki5i6> In-Reply-To: <002801bee623$0436d9e0$0f5208c3@swhki5i6> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >But the book states that >the laws define correct procedure so that >anything external to the procedure expressed >in the laws (and regulations authorised by the >laws) is not to be deemed part of the game. ... but not necessarily illegal. Examples quoted earlier have been permission to wear a green shirt or a hat while playing. No such permission is granted by the Laws, but that does not make it illegal. I still believe that you must allow a tolerance in reading the Laws in favour of common-sense, custom+practice and so on. Of course, in many situations, the letter of the Law is everything, but there are certain areas where we have to learn whether they are covered by the Laws. Dress is an interesting one. The EBU considers it has the right to make regulations covering dress. In the absence of such regulations, a TD would probably still feel he had rights to control it [whether to allow naked players to play, for example]. Recourse to L74A2 [number quoted from memory - have I got it right?] would probably suffice: naked players would interfere with other players' enjoyment. At Brighton, the matter of dress did surface in an unusual way. One girl in her twenties had an extremely low cut dress, and seemed to have no support thereunder. The male TDs checked on her, of course - four times or so! A lot of people were very aware of her. The Director in charge got a couple of mild complaints, and was wondering what to do when he got a serious one - fortunately for him, he didn't. To return to the original comment, the Laws define correct procedure, but whether they control matters which are on the edge of being procedure is not always obvious, and I think some common-sense is permitted. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 25 13:16:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA22085 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 13:16:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.74]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA22080 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 13:16:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivegk6.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.66.134]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA18718 for ; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 23:16:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990824231423.013b3ed8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 23:14:23 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI In-Reply-To: References: <199908121346.OAA17955@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:23 PM 8/24/99 +0100, DWS wrote: > If you want TD to say that people are cheating, then I think you are >going to cause an enormous amount more trouble. If your partner >psyches, and your action looks as though it allows for it, then that is >illegal. No, it isn't. No Law prevents you from bidding in a way which caters to the possibility of a psych. Your action may be evidence of an illegal partnership understanding, but the action itself is not contrary to any Laws. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 25 13:17:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA22100 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 13:17:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp2.a2000.nl (spartacus.a2000.nl [62.108.1.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA22095 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 13:17:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp2.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 11JTYp-00020P-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 05:17:15 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19990825051405.007a44d0@mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 05:14:05 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: dummy establishes revoke In-Reply-To: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C212@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C212@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:47 24-08-99 +0100, you wrote: >Kooijman, A. wrote: >>May be I should wait till I have seen my english lawbook, but looking in my >>Dutch one there isn't such a big problem. We are proud with our translation >>so it is quite possible it is 'better' than the original version but 63B >>says: If a DEFENDER infringes law 61B ..etc ...... This most certainly the exact wording is: (translated) If an opp. violates 61B the revoker must play a legal card and the penalties of 64 apply as if the revoke was established so i dont see what ton means. It looks as if the revoke sdtill is established. regards, anton means >>that this penalty not necessarily applies when dummy asks a defender about a >>possible revoke. And going one step further I tend to the opinion that >>defender has discovered his revoke in a for his side legal way when dummy >>asks about it. So penalty card but no penalty tricks. >>If the Dutch translation is 'wrong' it is somewhat more difficult but as a >>TD I would do the same and make a note for a change once more. > > The word defender does not appear in the English version. It does >seem a good idea that it should. > >-- >David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ >Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 2e Kostverlorenkade 114-1 1053 SB Amsterdam ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 25 13:21:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA21391 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 09:38:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA21374 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 09:37:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11JQ87-000OyS-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 23:37:29 +0000 Message-ID: <5hta9ZAxrow3EwAn@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 13:07:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law53A References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk JamesV wrote: >************ >You are wrong Mr. Vickers and Ed is right. While the constuction is clumsy >and may not translate well, the meaning is quite clear in English and is >exactly what Ed said. It is not purely parenthetical...this would lead to >the absurdity of one defender being able to accept the others LOOT or of >declarer being able to accept his own improper lead from dummy. > >-- >Craig Senior >*************** >Of course I am WRONG, Mr Senior, we all know I am WRONG. The problem is, >the law I quoted says I am RIGHT. I would not normally forsee any problems >arising from this, of course I would not allow a defender to accept >partner's erroneous lead, but would find myself in a difficult situation if >a defender waved the rule book under my nose and demanded to see why he >wasn't allowed to do so. (You and Ed don't seem to be able to counter this >argument by recourse to other laws, so I assume it cannot be done.) The >laws should be watertight in their wording, like a legal document. This is >one law it would not be difficult to word correctly and unambiguously. The >only solution in this instance is to use "director's discretion" to >overrule the laws, a procedure which many TDs are very unhappy about. I have already given a watertight but absurdly long alternative. It is not always helpful to make the Laws too long. Marvin has come up with a better wording which the Lawmakers might seriously consider for 2008. However, you started by referring to the phrase "as the case may be" as being meaningless. Of course it is not: it leads to the sensible interpretation that others have quoted. Defenders may not accept each others' leads: they could without the phrase "as the case may be" but in fact that makes it clear that there are two separate cases, and sensible interpretation splits the two cases. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 25 13:29:56 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA21392 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 09:38:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA21375 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 09:37:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11JQ88-000OVc-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 23:37:32 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 13:16:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: .. References: <003101beed7c$458dc880$f08b93c3@pacific> <37c6624f.4410235@mail.glou1.nj.home.com> In-Reply-To: <37c6624f.4410235@mail.glou1.nj.home.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Brian Meadows wrote: >On Mon, 23 Aug 1999 16:26:39 +0100, Grattan wrote: > >>One senior Director discussed with me a >>ruling which he had made a little while back >>in a pairs event, both pairs at the table being >>experienced and reasonably competent. >>Have a look: >> Q.J.6.5. >> K T 8 3 >> 9 3 >> Q J 2 >> 9 8 3 K 7 >> Q 5 4 6 2 >> A Q T 8 5 4 K J 7 2 >> T A K 9 5 4 >> >> A T 4 2 >> A J 9 7 >> 6 >> 8 7 6 3 >>Board 24. Love All. Dealer West >>Auction: >> 2D - P - 2H - P >> 3H - P - 3NT - all pass. >>Spade lead; nine tricks. >> >>Director called at the end of the hand >>to deal with report of a psychic. Under >>EBU regulations he ruled it to be in the >>"RED" category, cancelled the table >>result, awarded artific score 60%-40% >>together with a 10% penalty on E/W. >> >>Discussing the hand I thought that for a >>weak two the West hand is good quality; >>that, at his second turn, 4H would be >>acceptable if West did not select rather >>4 Clubs. Three Hearts followed by Pass >>adjudged abnormal action that will >>protect a possibility of a psychic. (See >>Orange Book for precise regulation.) >> >>Comments? How would this be >>treated elsewhere? In ACBL-land >>especially? ~ Grattan ~ ++++ >> > >Well, since there don't seem to be many responses to this, >I'll have a go at it, pointing out that I'm giving a view as >a player, not a director, and I don't claim anything near >expert status as a player, either! > >Looking at west's hand, I couldn't see my way clear to >bidding it any differently playing SAYC (the only system I >play with a weak 2D opener). Pard may have bid 2H on a four >card suit, particularly if we do not have an agreement that >a weak 2D opener denies a four card major. I would feel that >a single raise on a three card suit was adequate, given the >D suit isn't that great, unless we were playing a 5-9 HCP >weak two that guaranteed no side major, in which case 4C and >4H certainly seem reasonable. Once I've decided to bid 3H, >though, it would NEVER occur to me to pull 3NT. I've told >partner pretty closely what I have, if he wants to play 3NT >rather than 4H, I've got no reason to overrule him. How do you find good fits? Suppose I have a normal 3=5=2=3: I have found that partner has a fit, but that could presumably be 2=3=6=2, with three small hearts, no side singleton. Don't you like ruffing in the dummy? OK, let's try a different test. You bid as shown with a 3=5=2=3, and partner passes 3NT: what do you say to him? I would tell him that if he ever bids that way with me again, I am not playing with him any more. Whne I bid 3NT after establishing a fit, I am giving him a choice based ion his hand - and if he has better trumps than shown and an undisclosed shortage then the choice is obvious. >Question: Would opps have queried West's bidding if East's >red suits had been reversed? No, they probably like playing against opponents who cannot bid. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 25 13:37:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA22164 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 13:37:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.74]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA22157 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 13:37:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivegk6.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.66.134]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA15276 for ; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 23:37:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990824233509.013b5c14@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 23:35:09 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: unappealing psychic In-Reply-To: <004101beee8e$1273d3a0$b45208c3@swhki5i6> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:33 AM 8/25/99 +0100, Grattan wrote: >+++ In general terms I do not plan to come back in >on this discussion whilst blml churns it. I do want to >be clear about what I think: I see no honest purpose >in a natural, forcing Heart bid, followed by any >game bid, other than to offer Hearts as a contract >if Opener likes his fit. I doubt it can be a four card >suit - but if it can the logic is that he is prepared >to play in a 4-3 fit on the hand he holds. If he is not >interested in a Heart contract he has no sensible >reason to introduce the suit naturally. So he is >saying 'if you really like Hearts partner we should >play there', rather like a transfer sequence after 1NT. Sorry, but very little like a transfer sequence after 1nt. In the sequence 1nt-P-2H*-P-2S-P-3nt, opener has not been given a chance to express a clear preference for spades, until this point, since 2S is simply an automatice response (possibly denying 4 spades, depending on methods). Thus the 3nt bid here clearly offers opener a choice of contracts. In the original problem, opener has already been offered an honest chance to raise hearts or take some other action, and has chosen the former. For whatever reason, partner now decides to bid 3nt. Is opener entitled to overrule this decision? In general, I suppose so, although some would argue to the contrary. But he is by no means obliged to do so, if his hand doesn't contain any extra features than he has already shown. Perhaps the club stiff is such a feature, but a hand which has already promised 9 cards in the red suits is bound to provide some sort of ruffing value, so maybe not. I certainly wouldn't argue with anyone who thought 4H was a better bid. But by the same token, passing 3nt is far from abnormal, and it has the additional advantage of catering to the possibility of a psych. ;) Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 25 14:05:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA22256 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 14:05:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net (avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.121.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA22251 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 14:05:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from ivillage (1Cust185.tnt1.topeka.ks.da.uu.net [63.13.63.185]) by avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA13473 for ; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 21:05:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <4.1.19990824225811.009589d0@mail.earthlink.net> X-Sender: baresch@mail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 23:03:52 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Brian Baresch Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI In-Reply-To: References: <199908121346.OAA17955@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > If you want TD to say that people are cheating, then I think you are >going to cause an enormous amount more trouble. If your partner >psyches, and your action looks as though it allows for it, then that is >illegal. That is the best way of doing it. It avoids the accusation >while controlling the abuse. I'm curious what the ruling would be in the 2D-2H-3H-3NT case we've been discussing if the partners didn't know each other and had few or no agreements -- say they were put together at the partnership desk or the entry table seconds before play began. Given that the Laws allow any bid not the subject of a concealed partnership understanding, would an EBU director still rule Red if the case described took place on the first board of the session? Best regards, Brian Baresch, baresch@earthlink.net Lawrence, Kansas, USA Editing, writing, proofreading If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 25 17:37:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA22901 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 17:37:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA22893 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 17:37:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt095n3b.san.rr.com [24.94.8.59]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA27953 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 00:37:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <01e501beeecc$a00258c0$3b085e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199908241436.KAA00694@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Sex and Gender (was L16A1) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 00:34:14 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman and others not interested in language topics, hit the delete key! Steve Willner wrote: > > From: "Marvin L. French" > >... We feel that this practice is no > > more illogical than using a male pronoun... > > In English, there is no such thing as a "male pronoun." Pronouns are > masculine, feminine, and neuter. True only for third person singular pronouns, no others. In standard English "masculine" suggests qualities distinguishing men, just as "feminine" applies to features, qualities, etc., characteristic of women. A masculine pronoun would be muscular, a feminine pronoun shapely. Applying these adjectives to pronouns is just another example of the poor English used by grammarians. > These are "genders," or "grammatical > genders" if you are writing for someone who thinks 'sex' and 'gender' > are synonyms. These are sex designations. English is a genderless language. Just because Latin-loving grammarians shrink from using the word "sex," preferring "gender," something that Latin and other languages have and English lacks, does not mean we have to do the same. Grammatical gender is something entirely different from mere sexual classification, and English doesn't have it. Well, there is "she" for ship, but whether that is an example of gender or merely a pleasant custom adopted by lonely sailors is debatable. "He" and "she," like comedian and comedienne, designate sex, not gender. > (These two words are becoming synonyms, but they don't > have to be in careful usage. The sexes are male and female.) Unnecessarily attributing gender to he, she, and it contributes to this error. > > While looking in Fowler's book, I came across this entry, not far > > off-subject: > > > > "Gender is a grammatical term only. To talk of persons or creatures of the > > masculine or feminine gender, meaning of the male or female sex, is either > > a jocularity (permissible or not according to context) or a blunder." > > Exactly. Good, we agree on something! Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 25 17:47:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA22953 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 17:47:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA22947 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 17:47:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt095n3b.san.rr.com [24.94.8.59]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA00099 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 00:47:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <01ef01beeece$09709780$3b085e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <003101beed7c$458dc880$f08b93c3@pacific> <37c6624f.4410235@mail.glou1.nj.home.com> <37C2CEAF.86AFF81F@idt.net> Subject: Re: Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 00:40:00 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: Irwin J Kostal > > Years ago, before alerts, some folks used to play that the 2D bidding > must bid 2NT to show the fit, so that responder could still get out at > 3D after psyching. I don't know that this was a legal agreement even > then, but surely would be illegal now, probably even if alerted. Just call it an ASKING BID, and there's no problem. A psych is a deliberate and gross distortion of honor strength or suit length, while an asking bid says nothing about one's hand. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 25 17:48:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA22966 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 17:48:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (mailout1-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.81]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA22956 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 17:47:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.104] by mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 03:47:33 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990824231423.013b3ed8@pop.mindspring.com> References: <199908121346.OAA17955@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 03:44:45 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >No, it isn't. No Law prevents you from bidding in a way which caters to the >possibility of a psych. Your action may be evidence of an illegal >partnership understanding, but the action itself is not contrary to any Laws. This is the point I've been trying to make. What David (and others) are telling we neophytes to this game is that there are rules, and if we violate the rules, a TD may rule against us - and if we don't violate the rules, a TD may rule against us. Trying to put a pretty face on it by claiming nobody's being presumed guilty strikes me as very much like the FBI announcing via loudspeaker "this is not an assault" while knocking down the walls of the Branch Davidians' home with tanks. I'm not trying to offend anyone here - this is just the way I feel about it. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2 iQA/AwUBN8Ofmr2UW3au93vOEQI+TQCdHoKH5oY0dNgLOxgXrWyPCH4E5iYAn0qv ALyjgHwyV+KtLoeM7l0hWreH =rpBR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 25 17:55:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA23001 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 17:55:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA22996 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 17:55:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt095n3b.san.rr.com [24.94.8.59]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA01690 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 00:55:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <021301beeecf$2b7ff680$3b085e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <004d01bee671$6c0f7d80$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> <016101beedf7$93800be0$3b085e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 00:47:50 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: > > >While English -and many other languages- has a neuter form, > >French for example hasn't. > > On ne crois pas que vous avais raison. :-) > I believe "on" is masculine gender, and that French has no neuter gender. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 25 17:57:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA23017 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 17:57:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.146]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA23012 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 17:57:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.104] by mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 03:57:21 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19990825051405.007a44d0@mail.a2000.nl> References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C212@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C212@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 03:53:15 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: dummy establishes revoke Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >the exact wording is: (translated) >If an opp. violates 61B the revoker must play a legal card and the >penalties of 64 apply as if the revoke was established >so i dont see what ton means. It looks as if the revoke sdtill is established. >regards, >anton Perhaps it's splitting hairs, or otherwise irrelevant, but this law doesn't say the revoke is established, it says Law 64 applies _as if_ it had been established (this law, 63B, requires the revoker to correct his revoke - he can't do that if it's established (Law 63C). Perhaps Ton and David are right, and the wording should be changed. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2 iQA/AwUBN8Oh5r2UW3au93vOEQLMjACeK7zNygF8ZbwKzVAPz0XtqtAX/fMAn3TV cz2okWk0WqYEFcLgniV0G7bd =yBti -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 25 18:05:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA23044 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 18:05:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA23038 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 18:05:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt095n3b.san.rr.com [24.94.8.59]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id BAA03697 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 01:05:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <022001beeed0$94559ec0$3b085e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <00dd01beee78$f2ea9a60$09d5f1c3@default> Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 00:56:28 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: Jac Fuchs > Robin Barker wrote: > > >> I shall continue to use "he" and "him", and you shall never > >> know what the sex is of the person I am talking of. Seems > >> much more PC to me. > > >I shall continue to use "they" and "their" for single people > >of unknown sex, unless it looks very awkward. > > To me, it *always* looks very awkward .... > Each of us on BLML, man or woman, is entitled to his opinion. Not awkward? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 25 19:31:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA23290 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 19:31:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.146]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA23285 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 19:31:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.104] by mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 05:31:27 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <021301beeecf$2b7ff680$3b085e18@san.rr.com> References: <004d01bee671$6c 0f7d80$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> <016101beedf7$93800be0$3b085e18@san. rr.com> Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 05:28:45 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Marv French writes: >I believe "on" is masculine gender, and that French has no neuter gender. You're probably right - it _has_ been about 35 years since the last time I studied French grammar. :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2 iQA/AwUBN8O3872UW3au93vOEQIEGwCgq6Frh5BnGHVsPLnJ2thPMdSKSBkAoKw+ UEloFPvNmjNUtKcpvzrBYum7 =CfMb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 25 19:46:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA23340 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 19:46:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.zeelandnet.nl (mail.zeelandnet.nl [62.12.12.194]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA23329 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 19:46:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from poimms-6350 (k618.zeelandnet.nl [193.172.203.110]) by mail.zeelandnet.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA29506 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 11:46:32 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <199908250946.LAA29506@mail.zeelandnet.nl> From: "Marcel Schoof" To: Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 11:32:04 +0200 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk No I don't think it would be considered red, but playing in the descibed curcumstances I would bid 4H rather than pass. Marcel ---------- > Van: Brian Baresch > Aan: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Onderwerp: Re: Known psychers and UI > Datum: woensdag 25 augustus 1999 6:03 > > > If you want TD to say that people are cheating, then I think you are > >going to cause an enormous amount more trouble. If your partner > >psyches, and your action looks as though it allows for it, then that is > >illegal. That is the best way of doing it. It avoids the accusation > >while controlling the abuse. > > I'm curious what the ruling would be in the 2D-2H-3H-3NT case we've been > discussing if the partners didn't know each other and had few or no > agreements -- say they were put together at the partnership desk or the > entry table seconds before play began. Given that the Laws allow any bid > not the subject of a concealed partnership understanding, would an EBU > director still rule Red if the case described took place on the first board > of the session? > > Best regards, > > Brian Baresch, baresch@earthlink.net > Lawrence, Kansas, USA > Editing, writing, proofreading > If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve. > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 25 19:46:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA23341 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 19:46:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.zeelandnet.nl (mail.zeelandnet.nl [62.12.12.194]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA23330 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 19:46:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from poimms-6350 (k618.zeelandnet.nl [193.172.203.110]) by mail.zeelandnet.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA29518 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 11:46:33 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <199908250946.LAA29518@mail.zeelandnet.nl> From: "Marcel Schoof" To: Subject: Re: Unappealing psychic Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 11:45:35 +0200 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- > Van: Claire LeBlanc or Robert Nordgren > Aan: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Onderwerp: Re: > Datum: woensdag 25 augustus 1999 0:15 > > At 03:22 PM 8/23/99 -0400, you wrote: > > >Grattan Endicott > >One senior Director discussed with me a > >ruling which he had made a little while back > >in a pairs event, both pairs at the table being > >experienced and reasonably competent. > >Have a look: > North > > Q.J.6.5. > > K T 8 3 > > 9 3 > > Q J 2 > West East > > 9 8 3 K 7 > > Q 5 4 6 2 > > A Q T 8 5 4 K J 7 2 > > T A K 9 5 4 > > South > > A T 4 2 > > A J 9 7 > > 6 > > 8 7 6 3 > > >Board 24. Love All. Dealer West > >Auction: > > 2D - P - 2H - P > > 3H - P - 3NT - all pass. > >Spade lead; nine tricks. > > > once you have commited yourself to a preemptive bid you have made PARD > captain on where we are going. and are not supposed to bid unless asked to. > pd have normally gotten a very clear picture of the hand you as the > preempter holds. > > a potential hand that comes up for the 2he bidder is > > KJx > Jxxxx > KJ > AKQ > > > 3nt icecold and 4he in the never make zone. > > Is 2he bid on this hand such a crazy bridge action that u must be ruled u > have feilded a red psyche when u cater this possible hand and beleives in > that pd have a brain??... > > ++ yes 3NT is the best contract for above hand, so I would bid it directly. If 3 H answer shows (top) support for hearts what must he bid with Qx xxx AQT854 Tx Marcel From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 25 20:56:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA23528 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 20:56:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from u2.farm.idt.net (lighton@u2.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA23523 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 20:56:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost by u2.farm.idt.net (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id GAA13912 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 06:56:40 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 06:56:39 -0400 (EDT) From: richard lighton X-Sender: lighton@u2.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply In-Reply-To: <022001beeed0$94559ec0$3b085e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 25 Aug 1999, Marvin L. French wrote: > Each of us on BLML, man or woman, is entitled to his opinion. > > Not awkward? > Yes, but the _simple_ way to correct it is to eliminate the commas and what lies between. A number of years ago a committee at work attempted to update some of the company procedures. In writing the drafts, all but one of the committee members went to great lengths in eliminating pseudo- sexist words and the use of "he." The exception was the lone woman on the committee. She said she never even thought about that problem, and was glad she had not after seeing the results. -- Richard Lighton | In my more cynical moments, I sometimes think (lighton@idt.net)| that newsgroups are a device for making lifelong Wood-Ridge NJ | enemies of people one has never met :) USA | -- John Hall (on uk.sport.cricket) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 25 21:15:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA23647 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 21:15:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA23642 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 21:14:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-12-56.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.12.56]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA07933 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 13:14:51 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37C3C05F.24322C56@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 12:07:27 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI References: <199908121346.OAA17955@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > If your partner opens a Spanish green spade [a third-in-hand non-vul v > vul spade], next hand overcalls 1NT and you pass with 11 HCP, then I am > adjusting when your partner has psyched. I am accusing you of nothing > but I am adjusting. What better way is there to handle it? > On what basis, David ? I agree that this is an obvious "fielding", but on what basis is this disallowed ? OK, it should be alerted and/or explained, so if you want to rule MI, please do, but you are simply using the word "adjusting". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 25 21:35:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA23701 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 21:35:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand4.global.net.uk (sand4.global.net.uk [194.126.80.248]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA23691 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 21:35:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from p50s04a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.132.81] helo=pacific) by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11JbKW-0004UY-00; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 12:35:00 +0100 Message-ID: <004d01beeeed$e06dbaa0$518493c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marcel Schoof" , "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: unappealing psychic Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 12:33:35 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws Date: 24 August 1999 16:10 Subject: Re: unappealing psychic > I agree that in the given bidding an asking bid is more likely, but as >you pointed out that must be alerted. Since Grattan pointed out that 2H was >natural and forcing I too feel that a direct 4H is a normal action with the >West hand. West 3H bid might well indicate the knowledge of partner's >psych. ++++ I was hoping to see more about disclosure in the replies. Is it fair to describe the bid as natural and forcing if in fact its purpose is to ask about partner's holding? Should it not be listed on the CC as an ask and not as a showing of? If it says nothing about the asker's holding in the suit, but will be used either to find out if the suit is stopped, or to find out whether to play NT or Hearts, or to decide what level to play in Hearts (4,6,7), is it not more correctly described as conventional rather than natural when it does not clarify its own holding in the suit ? ~G~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 25 21:35:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA23696 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 21:35:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand4.global.net.uk (sand4.global.net.uk [194.126.80.248]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA23689 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 21:35:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from p50s04a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.132.81] helo=pacific) by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11JbKV-0004UY-00; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 12:34:59 +0100 Message-ID: <004c01beeeed$dfa45020$518493c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" Cc: Subject: Re: Junior world championships. Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 12:28:44 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 24 August 1999 09:03 Subject: Re: Junior world championships. >On Mon, 23 Aug 1999, David Stevenson wrote: > >> Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: >> >> >In some events (the Olympic games, for example), they even go as far as >> >checking that the female contestants are indeed female, which is a few >> >orders of magnitude more complex than checking about 100 passports. >> >> Aha! Does a job that suits my talents beckon? > >No, sorry, they don't do this the obvious way, but by measuring hormone >levels in the blood of the contestants. > ++ But Henk, he's a vampire....... ~ G ~ ++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 25 22:13:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA23898 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 22:13:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from cadillac.meteo.fr (cadillac.meteo.fr [137.129.1.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA23893 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 22:13:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from meteo.fr (rubis.meteo.fr [137.129.5.28]) by cadillac.meteo.fr (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA00894 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 12:13:03 GMT Message-ID: <37C3DDCF.66639D18@meteo.fr> Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 14:13:03 +0200 From: Jean Pierre Rocafort X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply References: <004d01bee671$6c0f7d80$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> <016101beedf7$93800be0$3b085e18@san.rr.com> <021301beeecf$2b7ff680$3b085e18@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Marvin L. French" a écrit : > Ed Reppert wrote: > > > > > >While English -and many other languages- has a neuter form, > > >French for example hasn't. > > > > On ne crois pas que vous avais raison. :-) > > > I believe "on" is masculine gender, and that French has no neuter gender. > French knows 2 genders: masculine and feminine (no neuter) and 2 numbers: singular and plural (no dual). The pronoun "on" has no gender (neither masculine neither feminine) and no number (used in place of one or several persons). It is called an "indefinite personal pronoun". Adjectives related to "on " may be accorded depending on the context. For instance, from somebody speaking to a group of young girls: "on est contentes?" (are you happy?). "On" is especially useful when you want to be vague and you don't wish people to understand whom you are talking about! JP Rocafort > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com -- ___________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE SCEM/TTI/DAC 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ___________________________________________________ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 25 23:30:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA24113 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 22:54:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA24070 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 22:53:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11JcXo-000C6b-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 12:52:49 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 03:45:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: What happened? References: <002301beed2d$903a3e80$3b085e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <002301beed2d$903a3e80$3b085e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >Is BLML off the air, or what? No e-mail for several days. I came back from Brighton to nearly 200 emails! Why do you not send text messages as Netiquette expects? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 26 00:22:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA24487 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 00:22:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA24481 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 00:22:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id KAA04406 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 10:22:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA01550 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 10:22:44 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 10:22:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199908251422.KAA01550@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Claire LeBlanc or Robert Nordgren > a potential hand that comes up for the 2he bidder is > > KJx > Jxxxx > KJ > AKQ In the same vein, Tim West-Meads gave KQT,Txxxx,Kx,AKJ. I was going to stay out of this thread, but now you have me. What is the purpose of the 2H bid on either hand? Why not an immediate 3NT? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 26 00:25:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA24516 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 00:25:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand4.global.net.uk (sand4.global.net.uk [194.126.80.248]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA24511 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 00:25:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from p3ds09a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.137.62] helo=pacific) by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11Jdzb-0007jf-00; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 15:25:35 +0100 Message-ID: <000a01beef05$b54f4a60$3e8993c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: Lighthearted moment in the office. Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 15:23:24 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 22:52:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11JcXX-000C6e-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 12:52:33 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 02:11:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply References: <199908241500.QAA24716@tempest.npl.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <199908241500.QAA24716@tempest.npl.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robin Barker wrote: >In the UK, "chair" is more common than "chairperson" and, in >many organisations (e.g. public bodies), is used consistently >whether the incumbant(sp?) is male or female. A chair is made of wood. A Chairman can be of either sex, and the use of any other term merely means someone does not understand the language. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 26 00:46:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA24585 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 00:46:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA24579 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 00:46:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id KAA06709 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 10:46:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA01595 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 10:46:35 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 10:46:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199908251446.KAA01595@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > To return to the original comment, the Laws define correct procedure, > but whether they control matters which are on the edge of being > procedure is not always obvious, and I think some common-sense is > permitted. Can't we be a little more specific about "common-sense?" If something extraneous is likely to affect the game, then it's reasonable to forbid it and penalize any perpetrator. If something is unlikely to affect the game, then it's unreasonable to forbid or penalize it outright. That doesn't prevent our adjusting the score or otherwise preventing any advantage to a perpetrator if the unlikely occurs and the game is affected (e.g. spilling hot coffee). Is there more to common sense than the above? Being of male sex (not gender!), I vote to allow the low cut dress at Brighton. Maintaining one's concentration is part of the game. But if the game were held in a location where such attire is unusual or improper (as nudity would be in most venues), then it would be reasonable to forbid it. (Disclaimer: I've never been to Brighton, so perhaps I'm misunderstanding local customs, but isn't it a seaside resort? If so, I can hardly imagine low cut dresses being unusual, but perhaps I'm wrong.) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 26 00:54:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA24605 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 00:54:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA24600 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 00:53:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id KAA07442 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 10:53:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA01606 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 10:53:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 10:53:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199908251453.KAA01606@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Sex and Gender (was L16A1) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > Herman and others not interested in language topics, hit the delete key! Yes, please do. > Grammatical gender is something > entirely different from mere sexual classification, Yes, although I don't understand 'mere'. > and English doesn't have it. Except for third person singular pronouns, unless I've overlooked something else. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 26 00:56:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA24107 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 22:54:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA24052 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 22:53:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11JcXl-000C6f-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 12:52:46 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 03:10:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Orange Book extract (long). Classifying psyches. References: <000c01beee4e$00de9700$958d93c3@pacific> In-Reply-To: <000c01beee4e$00de9700$958d93c3@pacific> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >6.2.3 A TD may find that whilst there is some evidence of an >unauthorised understanding it is not sufficient, of itself, to >deserve* an adjusted score. This is classified as an Amber >psyche. In particular, if both partners psyche on the same >hand, then this is very likely to be evidence of an >unauthorised understanding. > >[*note: perhaps 'justify' is more precise. g.e.] Noted for OB2003. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 26 01:32:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA24108 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 22:54:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA24054 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 22:53:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11JcXl-000C6c-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 12:52:46 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 03:25:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UI from inability to comply with penalty? References: <199908181408.HAA17144@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <199908181408.HAA17144@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > >At some point in a hand, one defender is on lead and his partner has >an exposed card. Declarer chooses to require the lead of that suit. >Defender is void in the suit, and therefore may lead anything, by L59. >This gives everyone the information that defender is void in the suit. >Question: Is this information UI or AI to the other defender? AI. From experience, answers like this get stroppy replies from Kojak! OK, why should it be UI? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 26 01:56:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA24769 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 01:56:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from batman.npl.co.uk (batman.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA24763 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 01:55:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from herschel.npl.co.uk (unknown.npl.co.uk [139.143.1.16] (may be forged)) by batman.npl.co.uk (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id QAA11878; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 16:55:46 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA02543; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 16:55:41 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 15:55:40 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA05030; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 16:55:37 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id QAA25558; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 16:55:30 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 16:55:30 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199908251555.QAA25558@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, willner@cfa183.harvard.edu Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Being of male sex (not gender!), I vote to allow the low cut dress at > Brighton. Maintaining one's concentration is part of the game. But if > the game were held in a location where such attire is unusual or > improper (as nudity would be in most venues), then it would be > reasonable to forbid it. (Disclaimer: I've never been to Brighton, so > perhaps I'm misunderstanding local customs, but isn't it a seaside > resort? If so, I can hardly imagine low cut dresses being unusual, but > perhaps I'm wrong.) Steve Most of what you says is true. I saw the offending (but not offensive!) attire at Brighton. It would have been less revealing if it had been a bikini or other swinwear. I can imagine that players of either sex would have felt uncomfortable/embarassed sitting at the table. I am sure that asking the offender to adjust her clothing was the correct thing to do, and the offender complied without any awkwardness. Robin From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 26 02:36:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA25251 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 02:36:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA25246 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 02:36:39 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id LAA21252; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 11:31:57 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa5-194.ix.netcom.com(206.217.132.194) by dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma021200; Wed Aug 25 11:31:37 1999 Message-ID: <003f01beef18$0ee513e0$c284d9ce@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "Marcel Schoof" , "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: unappealing psychic Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 12:36:57 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I would not apply your definition to natural and forcing. Natural to me means that it is a biddable suit...at this point a good four carder or a five+ carder that requires preemptor to take another bid and further describe his hand in the process. Seems little difference to the sequence 1c/1d/1h where you normally have a heart suit but may be looking for either no trump if spades are stopped, some number of hearts with fit, or possibly some minor contract. That you are still seeking information from partner does not mean the bid is not natural. If you were to psych the 1h, then bid 3N over 2h when responder is a middling 4-5 in the reds, would he be fielding to pass, or just bidding his hand? I cannot see this sequence as red by your standards, and would rule it lawful. Your ability to record psychs effectively permits the prevention of undisclosed partnership agreements on such hands and is a good one; that is why I could see the use of "amber" in such a case. But to say either the original problem or this analogue shows fielding prima facie is a dog that won't hunt. -----Original Message----- From: Grattan Endicott To: Marcel Schoof ; bridge-laws Date: Wednesday, August 25, 1999 7:35 AM Subject: Re: unappealing psychic > >Grattan Endicott~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >Dis aliter visum. - Virgil. >ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo >-----Original Message----- >From: Marcel Schoof >To: bridge-laws >Date: 24 August 1999 16:10 >Subject: Re: unappealing psychic > > > >> I agree that in the given bidding an asking bid is more likely, but as >>you pointed out that must be alerted. Since Grattan pointed out that 2H was >>natural and forcing I too feel that a direct 4H is a normal action with the >>West hand. West 3H bid might well indicate the knowledge of partner's >>psych. > > >++++ I was hoping to see more about disclosure >in the replies. Is it fair to describe the bid as >natural and forcing if in fact its purpose is to ask >about partner's holding? Should it not be listed >on the CC as an ask and not as a showing of? > If it says nothing about the asker's holding >in the suit, but will be used either to find out if the >suit is stopped, or to find out whether to play NT >or Hearts, or to decide what level to play in >Hearts (4,6,7), is it not more correctly described >as conventional rather than natural when it does >not clarify its own holding in the suit ? ~G~ ++++ > > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 26 02:42:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA24114 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 22:54:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA24075 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 22:53:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11JcXo-000C6f-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 12:52:49 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 03:47:10 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: What happened? References: <01beedac$f051c0c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01beedac$f051c0c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: >>Of course, Grattan, David, John, Mike and I were all in Br*ght*n. > >I was there as well, as a player, and causing more problems than most. >If anyone wants to tell the story of my Appeal (which was denied) I shall >not be upset. >My reputation is scarred for ever. A RED field of a misbid. I did get my >10UKP deposit refunded and the AC did take 40mins to decide, but >nevertheless RED it stays. > >Mortified Hehehehe! You have a 4=4=4=1 6-count. 1C from pd, pass, you bid 1D. 1S from LHO, double, penalties from pd, your call? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 26 02:44:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA24110 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 22:54:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA24071 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 22:53:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11JcXo-000C6e-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 12:52:48 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 03:42:18 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Revoke and Inquiry References: <37BE5B02.4106A552@asn-linz.ac.at> <37BE73A9.31793C98@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <37BE73A9.31793C98@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >Hello Petrus, and welcome to the list. Metoo! Cats? >I think you acted correctly. > >Let them bridge-lawyer and try get this past committee. > >OK, maybe his intention was not the one you ascribed to him, >in which case he may get away with it, but if the intent was >there, he should not benefit from bridge-lawyering. > >It is BTW a well established "fact" that leaving your card >open in order to wake up opponent is also not allowed. I agree with Herman completely. Well, it had to happen eventually! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 26 02:51:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA24115 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 22:54:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA24091 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 22:53:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11JcXp-000C6c-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 12:52:50 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 03:57:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: San Antonio NABC Appeals Case 9 References: <004301beed79$f66fcb60$d0307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> <199908231750.KAA29283@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <199908231750.KAA29283@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: >Not that I accept those premises. If the committee believes passing >is not an LA, I'll go along with it. I do agree that the >wishy-washiness of the UI issue is cause for concern, since it could >lead an observer to believe that the AC leaned toward ruling "not LA" >just to avoid the other issue. Whatever rude remarks have been made about the ACBL in this forum over the years, no-one has suggested that North American Appeals Committees shirk what they see as their responsibilities. If the Committee believed that passing was not an LA, then that is what they believed: they would not produce this argument to make life easier. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 26 03:06:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA25295 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 03:06:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA25290 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 03:06:12 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id MAA26422; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 12:04:44 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa5-194.ix.netcom.com(206.217.132.194) by dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma026314; Wed Aug 25 12:03:14 1999 Message-ID: <008001beef1c$7a0010e0$c284d9ce@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 13:08:37 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hear hear! -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wednesday, August 25, 1999 8:53 AM Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply >Robin Barker wrote: > >>In the UK, "chair" is more common than "chairperson" and, in >>many organisations (e.g. public bodies), is used consistently >>whether the incumbant(sp?) is male or female. > > A chair is made of wood. > > A Chairman can be of either sex, and the use of any other term merely >means someone does not understand the language. > >-- >David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ >Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 26 03:07:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA25333 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 03:07:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA25303 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 03:06:57 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id MAA26707; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 12:06:11 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa5-194.ix.netcom.com(206.217.132.194) by dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma026613; Wed Aug 25 12:05:25 1999 Message-ID: <008901beef1c$c7e2b9c0$c284d9ce@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Marvin L. French" , Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 13:10:47 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Not in the least. You have been admirably clear and precise as well as correct. -----Original Message----- From: Marvin L. French To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wednesday, August 25, 1999 4:05 AM Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply > >From: Jac Fuchs >> Robin Barker wrote: >> >> >> I shall continue to use "he" and "him", and you shall never >> >> know what the sex is of the person I am talking of. Seems >> >> much more PC to me. >> >> >I shall continue to use "they" and "their" for single people >> >of unknown sex, unless it looks very awkward. >> >> To me, it *always* looks very awkward .... >> >Each of us on BLML, man or woman, is entitled to his opinion. > >Not awkward? > >Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 26 03:28:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA25433 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 03:28:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from aurora.alaska.edu (fxmgs@aurora.alaska.edu [137.229.18.100]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA25428 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 03:28:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (fxmgs@localhost) by aurora.alaska.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id JAA13762 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 09:28:26 -0800 (AKDT) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 09:28:26 -0800 (AKDT) From: Michael Schmahl Reply-To: Michael Schmahl To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: unappealing psyche Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have been following this thread with great interest. So far, I feel that, from what I read in the Orange Book, that the pscyhe under discussion should be ruled Amber. At home here in the ACBL, I do not feel the hand worthy of adjustment, but would definitely encourage that it be recorded. As far as KJx.Txxxx.Kx.AKQ, I agree that this hand should bid 3NT directly without bothering to bid hearts first. But what about KJ9.AQxxx.xx.KQx? At matchpoints, I don't see any extra tricks from ruffs, but I want to play 3NT only if there is a heart fit. Otherwise, 3D should be quite safe and 5D may be worth a try. With the actual hand, passing 3NT seems to be quite a normal action, stiff club notwithstanding, but it's a close decision. I don't know what my partner's black suits are. One possible different approach to the question of psyches, at least in this particular case, is to try to determine if there was any UI available. Did the psychic bidder express any nervousness while bidding 2H or 3NT? If so, 4H is definitely an LA, so adjust. Or is the fact that 3NT worked enough evidence that there was UI? signoff Michael Schmahl, aka "Mike", alias "Mike", dba "Mike" - Univ of AK, Fairbanks Unsolicited commercial email spellchecked for only $100! No warranties. rand:[ "Be nice to your kids. They'll choose your nursing home." ] From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 26 04:01:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA25605 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 04:01:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA25600 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 04:01:26 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id LAA25547 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 11:59:58 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa5-194.ix.netcom.com(206.217.132.194) by dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma025505; Wed Aug 25 11:59:23 1999 Message-ID: <006d01beef1b$f07f90c0$c284d9ce@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 13:04:46 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson The EBU considers it has the right to >make regulations covering dress. In the absence of such regulations, a >TD would probably still feel he had rights to control it [whether to >allow naked players to play, for example]. Recourse to L74A2 [number >quoted from memory - have I got it right?] would probably suffice: naked >players would interfere with other players' enjoyment. > > At Brighton, the matter of dress did surface in an unusual way. One >girl in her twenties had an extremely low cut dress, and seemed to have >no support thereunder. The male TDs checked on her, of course - four >times or so! A lot of people were very aware of her. The Director in >charge got a couple of mild complaints, and was wondering what to do >when he got a serious one - fortunately for him, he didn't. > It it encouraging to note that EBU directors were so abreast of the problem. Yet there seems little reason to act based on L74A2 since her appearance appeared to be enhancing rater than interfering with the other players' enjoyment of the game. As to barring naked players, it would appear more appropriate, at least if the level of pulchritude descends to that of the typical club game, where many of us these days have added enough pounds and/or years that it is best to hide behind garments. :-)) -- Craig From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 26 04:21:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA25163 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 02:15:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA25155 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 02:15:30 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id LAA18508 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 11:14:32 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa5-194.ix.netcom.com(206.217.132.194) by dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma018454; Wed Aug 25 11:13:56 1999 Message-ID: <002401beef15$96867b20$c284d9ce@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: Subject: Re: Sex and Gender (was L16A1) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 12:19:17 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Pronominal adjectives certainly (his or her choice). -- Craig Senior %%%There are many who fancy themselves bridgeplayers. Is there anyone who fancies herself a bridgeplayess? The choice would be hers (cetainly not theirs). After all we have waitresses and huntresses...but are there golfesses? Excuse me...I have to call the directress (who of course is our hostess).%%% From: Steve Willner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wednesday, August 25, 1999 10:54 AM Subject: Re: Sex and Gender (was L16A1) >> From: "Marvin L. French" >> Herman and others not interested in language topics, hit the delete key! > >Yes, please do. > >> Grammatical gender is something >> entirely different from mere sexual classification, > >Yes, although I don't understand 'mere'. > >> and English doesn't have it. > >Except for third person singular pronouns, unless I've overlooked >something else. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 26 04:25:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA24106 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 22:54:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA24050 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 22:53:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11JcXk-000C6e-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 12:52:44 +0000 Message-ID: <19gZqmBF40w3EwgL@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 02:59:33 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: unappealing psychic References: <000501beed7e$317a1860$2ca793c3@pacific> <3.0.1.32.19990824171012.013ad368@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990824171012.013ad368@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: >But so what? Psychic bidding is not illegal. Neither is the analysis I have >offered, nor any bridge action based upon it. The EBU has apparently >implemented a framework for the punishment of players who bid this way. >Given the generally laissez faire attitude toward the right of SO's to >refashion the Laws as they may see fit, I suppose we must acknowledge their >right to do so. But the eagerness of SO's to discourage psychic methods by >supplementary regulation is clearly contrary to the spirit of L40A, IMO, >and is not an approach I regard with much enthusiasm. Perhaps you should. The advantage of our method is that players find it acceptable. I am surprised as a member of the EBU and WBU L&EC to find how few complaints there are against the methodology of controlling psyches: *none* in the last four years, apart from people on RGB or BLML who are not playing in England or Wales. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 26 05:26:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA25066 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 02:07:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA25057 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 02:07:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11JfZX-000LWU-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 16:06:48 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 14:48:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI References: <199908121346.OAA17955@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990824231423.013b3ed8@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990824231423.013b3ed8@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: >At 12:23 PM 8/24/99 +0100, DWS wrote: >> If you want TD to say that people are cheating, then I think you are >>going to cause an enormous amount more trouble. If your partner >>psyches, and your action looks as though it allows for it, then that is >>illegal. > >No, it isn't. No Law prevents you from bidding in a way which caters to the >possibility of a psych. Your action may be evidence of an illegal >partnership understanding, but the action itself is not contrary to any Laws. You make a judgement of how far it looks, and rule on the evidence. But you never prove anyone has done anything. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 26 05:30:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA25500 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 03:38:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from aurora.alaska.edu (fxmgs@aurora.alaska.edu [137.229.18.100]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA25495 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 03:38:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (fxmgs@localhost) by aurora.alaska.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id JAA25726 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 09:38:15 -0800 (AKDT) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 09:38:11 -0800 (AKDT) From: Michael Schmahl To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Introduction Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have been an occasional poster to BLML, but I have never properly introduced myself. I am a student at the university of Alaska Fairbanks. I am Gordon's regular partner, and a club-level TD in the ACBL. I used to be a decent chess-player and quite a good chess TD. That was before I discovered Bridge. Within the last year, I glanced over a copy of the most recent USCF Laws of Chess, and found them nearly unrecognizable, so I can no longer claim to be a good TD for Chess. One interesting new law I noticed was one on what to do if a kibitzer suggests a play, which stuck me as very reminiscent of our Law 16. I do not live with any cats, as my current lifestyle does not leave me enough time to be interesting to a feline. signoff Michael Schmahl, aka "Mike", alias "Mike", dba "Mike" - Univ of AK, Fairbanks Unsolicited commercial email spellchecked for only $100! No warranties. rand:[ "Love is the triumph of imagination over intelligence." ] From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 26 05:33:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA24092 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 22:53:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA24028 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 22:53:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11JcXe-000C6f-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 12:52:40 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 02:38:16 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: "PICKUP" References: <9908171843.0QAL901@bbs.hal-pc.org> In-Reply-To: <9908171843.0QAL901@bbs.hal-pc.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk RP wrote: >The pass out position is the point where the auction concludes, or carries >on for at least four more calls. If the action taken is pass the auction >concludes. If it is a different legal action there are at least three more >calls. > >When using bidding boxes there is no other auction meaning at the pass out >turn that can be attached to putting the bidding cards away except that the >player does not intend to take any other action [see below**]. People make a variety of mistakes, and sometimes are very casual. Much of the TDs job is to elicit facts. To presume a conclusion without investigation is dangerous. Perhaps a player puts his bidding cards away because [1] he is elderly, and just confused [2] he believes he had no call because he thought the auction finished [3] he saw others putting the cards away and followed them I would agree that players who put the cards away when it is their turn to call would _usually_ be intending to pass, but it is not the only possibility. PWD -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 26 06:30:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA24111 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 22:54:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA24069 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 22:53:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11JcXm-000C6a-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 12:52:47 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 03:35:01 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: auction period - oh, dear. References: <001901beea49$c50369c0$f18993c3@pacific> In-Reply-To: <001901beea49$c50369c0$f18993c3@pacific> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >+++ Here we go again. Whatever may be in the headings >has *NO* effect upon the meaning and the action of the law. >Kojak confuses himself about Law 50 only applying in the >Play Period when in fact it also applies in the 'interregnum'. Not just Kojak. I consider you are 100% wrong in that case. I think you have ignored commonsense to follow some unjustifiable nonsense based on what you consider the letter of the Law. It is my view that applying Laws that only apply during the Auction to the Play because of some dimly perceived 'interregnum' is unhelpful, unnecessary and not what the application of Law is all about. [s] > It is high time we struck out all of the headings to >stop people believing they mean something in law. Merely >saying (in the Scope and Interpretation) that they are not part >of the laws does not stop people. In ascertaining the >meaning and effects of the laws you must read them with all >the headings obliterated. The headings are often helpful. Perhaps out aim should be to correct them rather than obliterate them. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 26 06:37:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA25999 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 06:37:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from nickel.cix.co.uk (nickel.compulink.co.uk [194.153.0.18]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA25994 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 06:37:39 +1000 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id VAA11676 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 21:37:01 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 21:36 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <199908251422.KAA01550@cfa183.harvard.edu> > From: Steve Willner > > In the same vein, Tim West-Meads gave KQT,Txxxx,Kx,AKJ. > > I was going to stay out of this thread, but now you have me. What is > the purpose of the 2H bid on either hand? Why not an immediate 3NT? > 1. I can play in 4H opposite xx,QJxx,Axxxx,xx or 3D opposite xx,xx,QJxxxx,xxx or maybe 5D opposite xx,x,AQxxxx,Qxxx or 6D opposite Axx,x,AQxxxx,xxx. Obviously you need to play very undisciplined weak 2s for all of these to be possibilities but some of them must be within the normal bounds for the pair concerned. 2. Bidding hearts may discourage a heart lead (surely not a psyche or CPU if a 5 card suit is held). 3. By starting slowly I might induce oppos to come in with the black suits and get the chance to double a silly contract. 4. It is entirely possible that I possess the bidding judgement of a lump of putty and make poor bids on occasion (I hope partners are allowed to take this into consideration when making their decisions). IMO the merits, or otherwise, of 2H depend very much on the structure of the rest of the system (which so far remains purely speculative). Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 26 06:41:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA24109 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 22:54:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA24051 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 22:53:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11JcXk-000C6b-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 12:52:45 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 03:09:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UNAPPEALI References: <9908241010.0EAQ200@bbs.hal-pc.org> In-Reply-To: <9908241010.0EAQ200@bbs.hal-pc.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk RP wrote: [please, Roger, get some decent software] [s] >I pick up Kx-xx-KJxx-Akxxx and partner opens 2D. I have ten seconds to >think. I realize that in a NT contract we have at least 2 clubs and 6 >diamonds, and maybe one spade- if I don't lose a bunch of hearts on the go. > If I bid hearts it is almost a certainty that partner will raise and with >two opponents bidding hearts the defense will be unlikely to find a heart >lead before it is too late. The prospect of 9 NT tricks is pretty good with >a nudge and the worst that will likely happen will be 9 tricks in a diamond >contract if partner does not let 3NT stand. This is exciting. Is the >feeling of the bridge community that responder must never be permitted to >play 3NT after 2H when opener has three hearts in support ? No. It is the combination of support being three cards to an honour, and there being an outside shortage that is suspicious. If you normally play eight card fits and a ruffing value in 3NT I would prefer you as my opponents tO being my team-mates. If you only exert this preference in sequences where your partner might have psyched I would prefer you not to play at my table at all. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 26 06:42:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA26024 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 06:42:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from relay1.telekom.ru (relay1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA26018 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 06:42:31 +1000 (EST) Received: by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.59) id AAA14719; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 00:42:16 +0400 (MSD) Received: from h108.50.elnet.msk.ru(195.58.50.108) by gateway via smap (V2.0) id xma014632; Thu, 26 Aug 99 00:41:43 +0400 Message-ID: <37C455CF.CB486582@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 00:45:07 +0400 From: Vitold X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Herman De Wael CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: L63B translation - again References: <37C1455A.AB5BEFD3@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Herman De Wael wrote (some pieces of the text are snipped): > Remember the faulty translation of L63B into dutch. > It seems that the translation captures the intended meaning > of the Law correctly, if not the literal translation. > > Let's see how the FFB has translated L63B : > "when ther has been a violation of Law 61B (*) ..." > The footnote is interesting : > "(*) a question by dummy to defenders is an infraction of > Law 42B1 and not of Law 61B". > It seems like the french have reached the same conclusion. > Perhaps it would be wise, when the WBFLC next meet, to add a > similar footnote to the English text . As I wrote before - we had already finished Russian translation of the Laws. Noone (from us) dares to estimate and/or criticize the another NBO job in translation: we only want to underline our position on the matter. 1. The Laws is rather juridical (than literary) text 2. The only body that has rights to make any changes in the Laws is WBFLC 3. In accordance with the Laws (L81C5) it is the TD whos duties and power are to administer and interpret these Laws. For meeting these demands the translation should be as closely as possible to the original text. With its mistakes, ambiguities, awkwardnesses, contradictions etc. And let TDs make their decisions: it is their job, and they are (as Ton said) not from the Mars:)) We had tryed neither to improve the Laws nor to explain them: it is the aim rather of the Orange book. Best wishes Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 26 06:45:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA26042 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 06:45:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA26037 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 06:45:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt095n3b.san.rr.com [24.94.8.59]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA12449 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 13:45:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <02af01beef3a$ad80e5c0$3b085e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <004d01bee671$6c0f7d80$b130d2cc@san.rr.com> <016101beedf7$93800be0$3b085e18@san.rr.com> <021301beeecf$2b7ff680$3b085e18@san.rr.com> <37C3DDCF.66639D18@meteo.fr> Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 13:41:33 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jean Pierre Rocafort wrote: "Marvin L. French" a écrit : > Ed Reppert wrote: > > > > > >While English -and many other languages- has a neuter form, > > >French for example hasn't. > > > > On ne crois pas que vous avais raison. :-) > > > I believe "on" is masculine gender, and that French has no neuter gender. > > French knows 2 genders: masculine and feminine (no neuter) and 2 numbers: singular and plural (no dual). The pronoun "on" has no gender (neither masculine neither feminine) and no number (used in place of one or several persons). It is called an "indefinite personal pronoun". Adjectives related to "on " may be accorded depending on the context. For instance, from somebody speaking to a group of young girls: "on est contentes?" (are you > happy?). Thank you John Pierre, since there is no neuter I figured (incorrectly) that "on" was masculine gender. I presume it would be "on est contents?" when speaking to a group of boys and girls. Tsk, tsk. With the necessity for inflecting all (or most) adjectives to indicate gender, a French speaker cannot escape this sort of thing. However, gender in French is not synonymous with sex (a tree is of the masculine gender, but is not considered to be male), and that does make a difference. > "On" is especially useful when you want to be vague and you don't wish people to understand whom you are talking about! We do the same with "they" when we do not wish to identify the sex of its singular antecedent. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 26 06:47:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA24112 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 22:54:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA24086 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 22:53:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11JcXq-000C6a-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 12:52:51 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 04:00:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: San Antonio NABC Appeals Case 9 References: <199908232148.RAA29806@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199908232148.RAA29806@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: "Marvin L. French" >> The Director was called after the 3H bid and East alleged >> there had been a break in tempo in excess of the time allowed. N/S did >> not agree. The Director ruled that passing 2S was not a logical >> alternative and allowed the table result to stand. > >And how, exactly, did the TD make this ruling? Did he look at North's >hand while the deal was in progress? Perhaps this is only a problem in >the writeup, but it does not describe a good procedure. Did the TD >rule on the existence of the tempo break? As a commentator on NABC appeals, it seems that the ACs are always well written up but sometimes the TDs are not well written. >What should have happened "after the 3H bid," I think, is that the TD >should have investigated whether or not there was a tempo break and >ruled on this fact question. (Perhaps some of the more experienced >directors can suggest exactly how a TD might proceed and what questions >he might ask???) Basically, you just ask simple questions like "Was there a tempo break? Did you think for a time?" of everyone. You never use the word hesitations, and you ask all four players. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 26 06:52:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA25056 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 02:07:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA25049 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 02:06:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11JfZN-000LWT-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 16:06:38 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 14:47:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI References: <199908121346.OAA17955@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> <37C3C05F.24322C56@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <37C3C05F.24322C56@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> >> If your partner opens a Spanish green spade [a third-in-hand non-vul v >> vul spade], next hand overcalls 1NT and you pass with 11 HCP, then I am >> adjusting when your partner has psyched. I am accusing you of nothing >> but I am adjusting. What better way is there to handle it? >> > >On what basis, David ? > >I agree that this is an obvious "fielding", but on what >basis is this disallowed ? > >OK, it should be alerted and/or explained, so if you want to >rule MI, please do, but you are simply using the word >"adjusting". The basis is that they have made a call that appears to be based on a concealed partnership understanding, or could be allowing for one, in contravention of L40A. If you alert and explain it, now you are playing an illegal system. The method is set down by the EBU and has been discussed before at length. I did not say how I would adjust since this did not seem germane to the post. As ever, I am happy to explain, but I do not feel this thread is the place. The method is covered in http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/psych3.htm -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 26 06:56:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA26082 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 06:56:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA26077 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 06:56:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt095n3b.san.rr.com [24.94.8.59]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA15215 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 13:56:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <02b701beef3c$3045a760$3b085e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <004301beed79$f66fcb60$d0307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie><199908231750.KAA29283@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: San Antonio NABC Appeals Case 9 Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 13:55:33 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: David Stevenson > Adam Beneschan wrote: > > >Not that I accept those premises. If the committee believes passing > >is not an LA, I'll go along with it. I do agree that the > >wishy-washiness of the UI issue is cause for concern, since it could > >lead an observer to believe that the AC leaned toward ruling "not LA" > >just to avoid the other issue. > > Whatever rude remarks have been made about the ACBL in this forum over > the years, no-one has suggested that North American Appeals Committees > shirk what they see as their responsibilities. If the Committee > believed that passing was not an LA, then that is what they believed: > they would not produce this argument to make life easier. > The main reason I brought up this case was not the LA matter, but the fact that the AC violated its own flowchart for handling UI cases when it bypassed the UI decision to go on to the LA decision. According to the flowchart, the UI decision comes first, and must be resolved with a yes or no before proceeding. There are good reasons for this procedure, and it deserves to be followed. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 26 07:40:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA24024 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 22:53:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA24013 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 22:52:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11JcXc-000C6a-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 12:52:37 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 02:17:54 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Brighton beckons, or not References: <000b01beee3d$d37616e0$54b259c3@default> In-Reply-To: <000b01beee3d$d37616e0$54b259c3@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk magda.thain wrote: >No you don't see my problem. Please add to your list of abbreviations hcd >(humble club director) and please >use small letters to help us to with our humility and reverence. I spend much of my time trying to help hcds, and I do not forget them ever. > I think you >are a National Chief Director? > so your >opinions are as valuable as those of other national chief directors; they help >us at times as do some of the >other directors opinions. The list has several who write from stronger >positions. I believed that one of your >aims would be to work from the middle to make a link between the authorities >and the rest of us, especially >hcds. I am continually trying to do so. > If someone uses courteous words to say that you are not remembering to do >this as much as you should, >you find that insulting? No, but not remembering as much as I should is one thing: saying I have completely forgotten after all my hard work is quite another and deeply upsetting. > If I had the time I could go to learn how to direct >better in the tolerant atmosphere of a >little club, but the hcd in Afghanistan may like to have some help from you >through the words you write on the >internet. Me too. Anyway, no matter, I have an answer. If I can help hcds in Afghanistan I shall do so. I have helped hcds in various countries. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 26 07:57:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA24061 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 22:53:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA24025 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 22:53:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11JcXe-000C6b-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 12:52:41 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 02:43:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: "Pickup" pass/non-pass References: <4.1.19990817011016.009581c0@mail.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <4.1.19990817011016.009581c0@mail.earthlink.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Brian Baresch wrote: >I know we recently talked about this sort of thing, but I didn't save the >thread, and I'm not sure this exact scenario was discussed. > >Auction: > >W N E S >1S P 3C* 3NT >X P P > >(3C reverse Bergen, a 4-card limit raise in spades; 3NT for the minors. NS >an experienced partnership, EW less so.) > >At this point S picked up his cards and awaited the opening lead. When W >said "3NT doubled, my lead?" a discussion ensued as to whether the contract >had been doubled; S said he hadn't seen the double; if he had, he certainly >wouldn't have sat for it. He said his picking up his cards wasn't intended >as a pass since he hadn't known he had another call coming and that thus >the auction wasn't over. He later said that the double card had only been >flashed briefly; N, however, said he'd seen the double clearly. > >With the facts as given, what do you rule? What questions do you ask the >players before ruling? I ask West how long he left the double card down. I ask South whether he ever passes by picking up his cards. I ask East and North to simulate the West action with the double card. However, I do think that there was a double _probably_: North would not have seen it otherwise. Unless I was convinced South knew about it [and why would he say otherwise? Why not just pull it?] I would let South have another call. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 26 08:04:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA24105 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 22:54:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA24041 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 22:53:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11JcXi-000C6a-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 12:52:43 +0000 Message-ID: <$NMbmhB2z0w3EwDh@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 02:55:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: unappealing psychic References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote: >In-Reply-To: <000501beed7e$317a1860$2ca793c3@pacific> >> One senior Director discussed with me a >> ruling which he had made a little while back >> in a pairs event, both pairs at the table being >> experienced and reasonably competent. >> Have a look: >> Q.J.6.5. >> K T 8 3 >> 9 3 >> Q J 2 >> 9 8 3 K 7 >> Q 5 4 6 2 >> A Q T 8 5 4 K J 7 2 >> T A K 9 5 4 >> >> A T 4 2 >> A J 9 7 >> 6 >> 8 7 6 3 >> Board 24. Love All. Dealer West >> Auction: >> 2D - P - 2H - P >> 3H - P - 3NT - all pass. >> Spade lead; nine tricks. >> 1. 2H = natural and forcing >Basically 3H seems like a perfectly normal bid unless EW are playing a >particularly unusual system. Really? I would bid 4C, myself. >Once East bids 3NT West places East with a holding like KQT,Txxxx,Kx,AKJ >and passes - again a perfectly normal action. Rubbish. A bridge player bids 3NT over 2D with that hand. >That said the situation lends itself to being a CPU and I would wish this >hand to be recorded, but not adjusted in isolation. (I think that means >an amber classification.) Correct. >> 2. The ruling was not appealed. >But were EW happy with it? It was in an event where no-one was going to appeal anything. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 26 08:04:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA24098 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 22:54:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA24027 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 22:53:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11JcXe-000C6c-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 12:52:40 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 02:52:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: .. References: <3.0.16.19990824181221.0fffcf5e@pop3.iag.net> In-Reply-To: <3.0.16.19990824181221.0fffcf5e@pop3.iag.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Claire LeBlanc or Robert Nordgren wrote: >At 03:22 PM 8/23/99 -0400, you wrote: > >>Grattan Endicott >>One senior Director discussed with me a >>ruling which he had made a little while back >>in a pairs event, both pairs at the table being >>experienced and reasonably competent. >>Have a look: > North >> Q.J.6.5. >> K T 8 3 >> 9 3 >> Q J 2 > West East >> 9 8 3 K 7 >> Q 5 4 6 2 >> A Q T 8 5 4 K J 7 2 >> T A K 9 5 4 >> South >> A T 4 2 >> A J 9 7 >> 6 >> 8 7 6 3 > >>Board 24. Love All. Dealer West >>Auction: >> 2D - P - 2H - P >> 3H - P - 3NT - all pass. >>Spade lead; nine tricks. > > >once you have commited yourself to a preemptive bid you have made PARD >captain on where we are going. and are not supposed to bid unless asked to. >pd have normally gotten a very clear picture of the hand you as the >preempter holds. Surely this sequence gives opener a choice? >a potential hand that comes up for the 2he bidder is > >KJx >Jxxxx >KJ >AKQ That is a dreadful hand for the auction. Any bridge player would respond 3NT over 2D. Now try: AKx AKxxx Jx Qxx Now 4H makes on reasonable breaks while 3NT may not. [s] >a simple question? the ACBL guidelines we saw for a while ago talked about >false new suit responses when a fit was already known to discourage lead as >perfectly legal and normal bridge that wouldnt get you into anyform of trouble Terrible. So all the good players know what is going on and you are going to legalise highway robbery against the lesser players. Yuk! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 26 08:20:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA26331 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 08:20:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand2.global.net.uk (sand2.global.net.uk [195.147.246.100]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA26326 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 08:19:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from p67s11a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.139.104] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11JlOX-0003ya-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 23:19:50 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: What happened? Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 23:22:11 +0100 Message-ID: <01beef48$4688b240$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wednesday, August 25, 1999 6:09 PM Subject: Re: What happened? >Anne Jones wrote: > >>>Of course, Grattan, David, John, Mike and I were all in Br*ght*n. >> >>I was there as well, as a player, and causing more problems than most. >>If anyone wants to tell the story of my Appeal (which was denied) I shall >>not be upset. >>My reputation is scarred for ever. A RED field of a misbid. I did get my >>10UKP deposit refunded and the AC did take 40mins to decide, but >>nevertheless RED it stays. >> >>Mortified > > Hehehehe! > > You have a 4=4=4=1 6-count. What sort of a schmuk do you think I am? It was a 4=3=4=2 6 count (Board 3 sess 4 =top sect) Anne > > 1C from pd, pass, you bid 1D. > > 1S from LHO, double, penalties from pd, your call? > > >-- >David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ >Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 26 08:46:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA24103 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 22:54:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA24033 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 22:53:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11JcXe-000C6e-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 12:52:39 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 02:24:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: "PICKUP" References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ian D Crorie wrote: >I know that the following story covers a different case from the one >we started with but it seems relevant to the general discussion of >"implied passes" and the problems they can engender. > >In a club matchpoint event of decent standard, the auction goes: > > LHO pard RHO me > 1NT p 2NT p > ... > >After passing I turned 90 degrees (to unwrap a packet of cigarettes >but the reason seems irrelevant). When I turn back to the table >10 seconds or so later, everyone else's bidding cards have gone and >partner has the opening lead face down waiting for me to ask any >questions. Around trick 8 I have a decision: cash out for 2NT+1 or >try to hold it to 8 tricks. Cashing out is right if declarer has >a missing Queen, but that would give him a maximum 1NT and he'd >have gone on to 3NT. So I try to hold it to 8 but surprisingly >declarer *does* have the missing Queen and now makes 10 tricks. >2NT+2 I write in the traveller but LHO says: "No, 3NT+1". > >The auction (unbeknown to me) had continued (at speed): > > LHO pard RHO me > 1NT p 2NT p > 3NT p p ... > >at which point the three other players at the table picked up their >cards on the assumption that I was going to pass. I tried to >convince the (playing) TD that the result should be changed to >3NT= but (no doubt not entirely unconnected to the fact that *he >was LHO* he insisted on his top). [expletive deleted] Of course >my partner was equally to blame with the opponents so I gave up >at this point. Note that in England/Wales [I am not sure about Scotland] players should not pick up the bidding cards until the partner of the opening leader has had his chance to ask questions. So what happened here was more than just a shortcut. I would have appealed this one, whether in a club or not, whatever the level. Playing TDs *must* make every effort only to rule in their own favour only if it is obvious. At the very least LHO should have fined himself as I would have if I had been the playing TD. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 26 08:53:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA26166 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 07:27:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from arwen.otago.ac.nz (arwen.otago.ac.nz [139.80.64.160]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA26161 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 07:26:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from salsa (salsa.otago.ac.nz [139.80.48.112]) by arwen.otago.ac.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA25394 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 09:26:13 +1200 (NZST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990826092602.00961510@chance.otago.ac.nz> X-Sender: malbert@chance.otago.ac.nz X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 09:26:02 +1200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Michael Albert Subject: Defective trick? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Apologies in advance to those who dislike dealing with hypothetical situations, but in order to address the following pair of questions I felt I had to make some up. Feel free to snip any or all of them if you find them uninteresting. Is the presence of a surplus card in declarer's hand at the conclusion of trick 13 conclusive evidence that there is a defective trick? Or Can a trick to which all four hands have properly played cards, and which has been properly quitted ever become defective? These questions are raised by a recent incident of no particular consequence the details of which are as follows: Declarer in a NT contract revokes from his hand at trick four. The revoke becomes established (but will almost certainly be subject only to a one trick penalty) and is noticed by the defenders at trick six. The director is summoned and ascertains the facts. Declarer, who is in a rather delicate slam in any case, becomes a bit distracted and attempts to correct the established revoke. Director correctly advises him not to do so, but in the course of undoing the attempted correction the card played to the revoke trick remains in declarer's hand. It remains there until the end of play at which point general confusion ensues. This particular situation seems to be covered adequately by existing law (Law 67) regarding defective tricks. However, it does not take a great deal of imagination to change the circumstances slightly leading to situations where it seems to me that the law is murky: Scene A. As above, except the declarer subsequently replays his revoke card at some later trick (this is clearly an irregularity of some sort - is it subject to penalty?) As a result, the card that remains in his hand at trick 13 would constitute another revoke. Is declarer penalised for two revokes on the same trick? (or is this 64B3 - a subsequent revoke in the same suit?) [Aside: A player revokes twice in spades, penalty for the first revoke would be one trick. Penalty for the second would normally be two tricks. A one trick penalty restores equity. Is that the correct penalty?] Scene B No revoke occurs at trick four, but somehow the card played to that trick is later (not immediately) replaced in declarer's hand. Events then proceed as in the real case, or situation A above. The presence of the extra card in declarer's hand may or may not have a material influence on the course of play. Scene C Back to the original circumstances, but declarer is now the Rueful Rabbit and owing to the presence of an extra spade in his hand, believes that he needs only one trick in diamonds where he has two small opposite AQx (hand in front of AQx having preempted in this suit.) As a result he simply plays ace and drops the singleton king offside. It seems a waste not to cash the queen now and this is his 13th (12th owing to the revoke penalty) trick. Do the defenders have any recourse? Be careful here this is not a straightforward 64C situation (or so it seems to me.) Without any revoke at all, declarer has 12 tricks. With the revoke he needs to generate a 13th and does so in the manner outlined above. What consitutes "sufficient compensation" to the defenders? As to my questions above, it seems to me that in order to use the law regarding defective tricks at all effectively in these situations, the view must be taken that the answer to both questions is yes. This interpretation does not match my intuitive understanding about what the phrase "defective trick" should connote. Michael --------------------------------------------------------- Michael H. Albert Ph: (64)-03-479-7778 Senior Teaching Fellow Fax: (64)-03-479-8427 Department of Mathematics and Statistics University of Otago Dunedin, New Zealand From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 26 09:25:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA26470 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 09:25:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA26465 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 09:25:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt095n3b.san.rr.com [24.94.8.59]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA23551 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 16:25:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <034a01beef51$00810f00$3b085e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.16.19990824181221.0fffcf5e@pop3.iag.net> Subject: Re: .. Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 16:22:10 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > [s] > > >a simple question? the ACBL guidelines we saw for a while ago talked about > >false new suit responses when a fit was already known to discourage lead as > >perfectly legal and normal bridge that wouldnt get you into anyform of trouble > > Terrible. So all the good players know what is going on and you are > going to legalise highway robbery against the lesser players. Yuk! > Let's see what the ACBL guideline really says. It appears in *Duplicate Decisions*, as part of the discussion of L40, under the heading PSYCHS. This section has a subsection PSYCHS WHICH REQUIRE NO REGULATION OR DIRECTOR ATTENTION, which has three parts: Tactical Bids, Waiting Bids, and Deviations. These are considered "an integral part of the game, rather than the type of psych that warrants disciplinary action or, at the least, attention by the Director." The subject at hand is what they (she? he?) call a tactical bid, explained as follows: ######### A tactical bid is a psych that is made to paint a picture in an opponent's and partner's mind that will cause them to play you for a holding that you do not have, enabling you to succeed at a contract to which you were inevitably headed. Example: After partner opens 1S, responder bids 2D to try to ward off a diamond lead on the way to 4S, holding S-QJxxx H-Ax D-xxx C-KQx Or, you might cue bid an ace you don't have on the way to six of a suit. NOTE: Frequent use of tactics similar to this will develop an implicit partnership agreement which requires an Alert. ######### Not very well written, but making some important points: Partner must be fooled as well as the opponents, the eventual contract must be clearly in mind, and frequent use requires an Alert. Not so terrible after all. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 26 10:34:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA26596 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 10:34:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA26591 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 10:34:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11JnUh-000GpH-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 00:34:20 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 01:33:10 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply In-Reply-To: <008001beef1c$7a0010e0$c284d9ce@host> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <008001beef1c$7a0010e0$c284d9ce@host>, Craig Senior writes >Hear hear! >-----Original Message----- >From: David Stevenson >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Date: Wednesday, August 25, 1999 8:53 AM >Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply > > >>Robin Barker wrote: >> >>>In the UK, "chair" is more common than "chairperson" and, in >>>many organisations (e.g. public bodies), is used consistently >>>whether the incumbant(sp?) is male or female. >> >> A chair is made of wood. >> >> A Chairman can be of either sex, and the use of any other term merely >>means someone does not understand the language. >> Some years ago I received a memo headed "from the desk of ..." I replied "Dear desk, ..." About a week later we got reprinted stationery :)) PC gone bonkers. john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 26 10:40:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA26606 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 10:40:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov [128.183.16.143]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA26601 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 10:40:03 +1000 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (LHEA9504/950407.s1) id UAA14214 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 20:39:53 -0400 From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <199908260039.UAA14214@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: your mail To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 20:39:53 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <003101beed7c$458dc880$f08b93c3@pacific> from "Grattan Endicott" at Aug 23, 99 04:26:39 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Okay, I've been a little incommunicado lately on the BLML due to heavy loads at work (and outside). I was reading this thread and have a few comments. First, the nature of the beast with the 2H bid (only). It happens more than rare in ACBL-land that people make this type of bid. Since it isn't a completely destructive bid, that is a "gross misrepresentation of strength and distribution" (only the latter), it is usually considered a "tactical bid" rather than a psyche. As long as partner doesn't completely field the bid, you are pretty safe. However, you need to be cautious how frequently you do this because if you do it frequently enough it could become a CPU. However, I would consider it AMBER rather than RED (at most). 3H is a reasonably appropriate bid by the west hand. Another common treatment in the US is to use a new suit as an advanced cuebid. If 2H-3H is followed by 4D then it is possible that East is making a slam try in diamonds with a heart cue-bid (how else can you show a slammish hand with a heart-cuebid without jumping and potentially killing all of your bidding space?). So rather than jumping to 4H with the original 2D bid, you answer the forcing call with 3H temporizing and see what partner is up to. Regarding 3NT, some partnerships play that 3H suggests it as a place to play and that it is a question of partner's hand (the 2D opener) whether to play the 5-3 heart fit (3NT now guarantees a real heart suit instead of the potential slam cue-bid) or play 3NT. There are several hands where partner opens a weak 2 in D and you want to give partner a choice of games like AQx/KT9xx/Qx/AKx which could easily be best played in 3NT inead of 4H. All of these are only possibilities and are played by many players, but by no means all players here. The bid that most gets me is the Pass of 3NT. If any of the above suppositions are available to the partnership, then it would seem that the 2D bidder really should pull 3NT to 4H with a hand that is inappropriate to play in 3NT with the singleton club. Although I don't have a question about any of the individual bids...I think once you have the 2H followed by 3H followed by 3NT and a pass, now, I think there is question about the nature of this auction and whether the partnership has a CPU. Does any of this make sense to anyone else but me? -Ted. > From: "Grattan Endicott" > Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 16:26:39 +0100 > > One senior Director discussed with me a > ruling which he had made a little while back > in a pairs event, both pairs at the table being > experienced and reasonably competent. > Have a look: > Q.J.6.5. > K T 8 3 > 9 3 > Q J 2 > 9 8 3 K 7 > Q 5 4 6 2 > A Q T 8 5 4 K J 7 2 > T A K 9 5 4 > > A T 4 2 > A J 9 7 > 6 > 8 7 6 3 > Board 24. Love All. Dealer West > Auction: > 2D - P - 2H - P > 3H - P - 3NT - all pass. > Spade lead; nine tricks. > > Director called at the end of the hand > to deal with report of a psychic. Under > EBU regulations he ruled it to be in the > "RED" category, cancelled the table > result, awarded artific score 60%-40% > together with a 10% penalty on E/W. > > Discussing the hand I thought that for a > weak two the West hand is good quality; > that, at his second turn, 4H would be > acceptable if West did not select rather > 4 Clubs. Three Hearts followed by Pass > adjudged abnormal action that will > protect a possibility of a psychic. (See > Orange Book for precise regulation.) > > Comments? How would this be > treated elsewhere? In ACBL-land > especially? ~ Grattan ~ ++++ > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 26 10:43:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA26629 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 10:43:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA26624 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 10:43:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11JndB-000IIH-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 00:43:06 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 01:41:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: What happened? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes >Anne Jones wrote: > >>>Of course, Grattan, David, John, Mike and I were all in Br*ght*n. >> >>I was there as well, as a player, and causing more problems than most. >>If anyone wants to tell the story of my Appeal (which was denied) I shall >>not be upset. >>My reputation is scarred for ever. A RED field of a misbid. I did get my >>10UKP deposit refunded and the AC did take 40mins to decide, but >>nevertheless RED it stays. >> >>Mortified > > Hehehehe! > > You have a 4=4=4=1 6-count. > > 1C from pd, pass, you bid 1D. > > 1S from LHO, double, penalties from pd, your call? > > Pass. wtp chs john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 26 12:03:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA26807 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 12:03:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA26794 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 12:03:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11JosU-00029K-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 02:03:00 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 01:33:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Introduction References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Schmahl wrote: >I have been an occasional poster to BLML, but I have never properly >introduced myself. I am a student at the university of Alaska Fairbanks. >I am Gordon's regular partner, and a club-level TD in the ACBL. I used to >be a decent chess-player and quite a good chess TD. That was before I >discovered Bridge. > >Within the last year, I glanced over a copy of the most recent USCF Laws >of Chess, and found them nearly unrecognizable, so I can no longer claim >to be a good TD for Chess. One interesting new law I noticed was one on >what to do if a kibitzer suggests a play, which stuck me as very >reminiscent of our Law 16. > >I do not live with any cats, as my current lifestyle does not leave me >enough time to be interesting to a feline. Hi Mike! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 26 12:03:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA26810 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 12:03:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA26801 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 12:03:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11JosU-00029I-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 02:02:58 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 01:20:07 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: What happened? References: <01beef48$4688b240$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01beef48$4688b240$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: > >-----Original Message----- >From: David Stevenson >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Date: Wednesday, August 25, 1999 6:09 PM >Subject: Re: What happened? > > >>Anne Jones wrote: >> >>>>Of course, Grattan, David, John, Mike and I were all in Br*ght*n. >>> >>>I was there as well, as a player, and causing more problems than most. >>>If anyone wants to tell the story of my Appeal (which was denied) I shall >>>not be upset. >>>My reputation is scarred for ever. A RED field of a misbid. I did get my >>>10UKP deposit refunded and the AC did take 40mins to decide, but >>>nevertheless RED it stays. >>> >>>Mortified >> >> Hehehehe! >> >> You have a 4=4=4=1 6-count. >What sort of a schmuk do you think I am? >It was a 4=3=4=2 6 count (Board 3 sess 4 =top sect) Schmuk? Ok, I have no copy of the hand and no doubt my memory was at fault. >> 1C from pd, pass, you bid 1D. >> >> 1S from LHO, double, penalties from pd, your call? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 26 12:03:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA26809 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 12:03:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA26793 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 12:03:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11JosU-00029J-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 02:02:59 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 01:28:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: San Antonio NABC Appeals Case 9 References: <004301beed79$f66fcb60$d0307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> <199908231750.KAA29283@mailhub.irvine.com> <02b701beef3c$3045a760$3b085e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <02b701beef3c$3045a760$3b085e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: > >From: David Stevenson >> Adam Beneschan wrote: >> >> >Not that I accept those premises. If the committee believes passing >> >is not an LA, I'll go along with it. I do agree that the >> >wishy-washiness of the UI issue is cause for concern, since it could >> >lead an observer to believe that the AC leaned toward ruling "not LA" >> >just to avoid the other issue. >> >> Whatever rude remarks have been made about the ACBL in this forum over >> the years, no-one has suggested that North American Appeals Committees >> shirk what they see as their responsibilities. If the Committee >> believed that passing was not an LA, then that is what they believed: >> they would not produce this argument to make life easier. >> >The main reason I brought up this case was not the LA matter, but the fact >that the AC violated its own flowchart for handling UI cases when it >bypassed the UI decision to go on to the LA decision. According to the >flowchart, the UI decision comes first, and must be resolved with a yes or >no before proceeding. There are good reasons for this procedure, and it >deserves to be followed. The only good reason for the procedure is that it works, and is acceptable. Dealing with the LA decision first is a reasonable alternative, and is better in some cases. ACs should not be put into a strait-jacket for procedures that are unnecessarily strict. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 26 12:24:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA26863 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 12:24:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA26857 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 12:24:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.233] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11JpD5-0002lN-00; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 03:24:15 +0100 Message-ID: <001a01beef6a$164d7760$e95108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" Cc: "bridge-laws" Subject: One hundred per cent. Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 03:23:25 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 25 August 1999 22:00 Subject: auction period - oh, dear. >Grattan Endicott wrote: > >>+++ Here we go again. Whatever may be in the headings >>has *NO* effect upon the meaning and the action of the law. >>Kojak confuses himself about Law 50 only applying in the >>Play Period when in fact it also applies in the 'interregnum'. > > Not just Kojak. I consider you are 100% wrong in that case. I think >you have ignored commonsense to follow some unjustifiable nonsense based >on what you consider the letter of the Law. It is my view that applying >Laws that only apply during the Auction to the Play because of some >dimly perceived 'interregnum' is unhelpful, unnecessary and not what the >application of Law is all about. > +++ 'Interregnum' to indicate the period between the close of the auction and the end of the auction period is not my word, I just adopted it on this occasion from Kojak. During this period, whatever you call it, defenders exist since there is a presumed declarer. Law 50 applies to a defender whenever there is one. The word '(presumed)' was inserted in the definition of 'defender' in the 1987 laws with the nameless period in mind (inter alia). Those desiring to see the marks of the nails will find corroboration of this in Law 41A. I participated in the decision. ~ G ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 26 14:34:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA27227 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 14:34:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.146]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA27222 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 14:34:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.104] by mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 00:34:31 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 00:33:58 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: "PICKUP" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 9:24 PM -0400 8/24/99, David Stevenson wrote: > Note that in England/Wales [I am not sure about Scotland] players >should not pick up the bidding cards until the partner of the opening >leader has had his chance to ask questions. Seems a very sensible rule. Which may explain why it doesn't apply, at least in practice, in North America. :-( Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2 iQA/AwUBN8TD3b2UW3au93vOEQJj/wCdH0zkEy5Q9/GiDvUN34SwWUCepaUAn0hZ CMnolpwTFq6J3scjyJxEIAi2 =hMsJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 26 18:30:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA27783 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 18:30:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.zeelandnet.nl (mail.zeelandnet.nl [62.12.12.194]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA27772 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 18:30:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from poimms-6350 (k499.zeelandnet.nl [193.172.202.245]) by mail.zeelandnet.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA17001 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 10:30:41 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <199908260830.KAA17001@mail.zeelandnet.nl> From: "Marcel Schoof" To: Subject: Re: What happened? Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 10:30:28 +0200 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It might be my own problem, but on basis of the given (part) description, I can't follow the case. Would either of you be so kind to give to whole story of the problem? Marcel ---------- > Van: David Stevenson > Aan: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Onderwerp: Re: What happened? > Datum: donderdag 26 augustus 1999 2:20 > > Anne Jones wrote: > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: David Stevenson > >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > >Date: Wednesday, August 25, 1999 6:09 PM > >Subject: Re: What happened? > > > > > >>Anne Jones wrote: > >> > >>>>Of course, Grattan, David, John, Mike and I were all in Br*ght*n. > >>> > >>>I was there as well, as a player, and causing more problems than most. > >>>If anyone wants to tell the story of my Appeal (which was denied) I shall > >>>not be upset. > >>>My reputation is scarred for ever. A RED field of a misbid. I did get my > >>>10UKP deposit refunded and the AC did take 40mins to decide, but > >>>nevertheless RED it stays. > >>> > >>>Mortified > >> > >> Hehehehe! > >> > >> You have a 4=4=4=1 6-count. > >What sort of a schmuk do you think I am? > >It was a 4=3=4=2 6 count (Board 3 sess 4 =top sect) > > Schmuk? Ok, I have no copy of the hand and no doubt my memory was at > fault. > > >> 1C from pd, pass, you bid 1D. > >> > >> 1S from LHO, double, penalties from pd, your call? > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 26 18:30:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA27782 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 18:30:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.zeelandnet.nl (mail.zeelandnet.nl [62.12.12.194]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA27771 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 18:30:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from poimms-6350 (k499.zeelandnet.nl [193.172.202.245]) by mail.zeelandnet.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA16996 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 10:30:39 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <199908260830.KAA16996@mail.zeelandnet.nl> From: "Marcel Schoof" To: Subject: Re: "PICKUP" Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 10:17:11 +0200 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Van: David Stevenson > Datum: woensdag 25 augustus 1999 3:24 > > Ian D Crorie wrote: > > >I know that the following story covers a different case from the one > >we started with but it seems relevant to the general discussion of > >"implied passes" and the problems they can engender. > > > >In a club matchpoint event of decent standard, the auction goes: > > > > LHO pard RHO me > > 1NT p 2NT p > > ... > > > >After passing I turned 90 degrees (to unwrap a packet of cigarettes > >but the reason seems irrelevant). When I turn back to the table > >10 seconds or so later, everyone else's bidding cards have gone and > >partner has the opening lead face down waiting for me to ask any > >questions. Around trick 8 I have a decision: cash out for 2NT+1 or > >try to hold it to 8 tricks. Cashing out is right if declarer has > >a missing Queen, but that would give him a maximum 1NT and he'd > >have gone on to 3NT. So I try to hold it to 8 but surprisingly > >declarer *does* have the missing Queen and now makes 10 tricks. > >2NT+2 I write in the traveller but LHO says: "No, 3NT+1". > > > >The auction (unbeknown to me) had continued (at speed): > > > > LHO pard RHO me > > 1NT p 2NT p > > 3NT p p ... > > > >at which point the three other players at the table picked up their > >cards on the assumption that I was going to pass. I tried to > >convince the (playing) TD that the result should be changed to > >3NT= but (no doubt not entirely unconnected to the fact that *he > >was LHO* he insisted on his top). [expletive deleted] Of course > >my partner was equally to blame with the opponents so I gave up > >at this point. > > Note that in England/Wales [I am not sure about Scotland] players > should not pick up the bidding cards until the partner of the opening > leader has had his chance to ask questions. So what happened here was > more than just a shortcut. > > I would have appealed this one, whether in a club or not, whatever the > level. Playing TDs *must* make every effort only to rule in their own > favour only if it is obvious. At the very least LHO should have fined > himself as I would have if I had been the playing TD. > ++ I agree. TD should have ajusted the score to 3NT= and appealed himself if he thinks he's right. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 26 20:22:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA28001 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 20:22:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand4.global.net.uk (sand4.global.net.uk [194.126.80.248]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA27996 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 20:22:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from pbfs01a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.129.192] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11Jwfn-00032D-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 11:22:27 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: What happened? Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 11:24:45 +0100 Message-ID: <01beefad$3789a1e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Marcel Schoof To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, August 26, 1999 10:14 AM Subject: Re: What happened? >It might be my own problem, but on basis of the given (part) description, I >can't follow the case. Would either of you be so kind to give to whole >story of the problem? > >Marcel > >---------- >> Van: David Stevenson >> Aan: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >> Onderwerp: Re: What happened? >> Datum: donderdag 26 augustus 1999 2:20 >> >> Anne Jones wrote: >> > >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: David Stevenson >> >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >> >Date: Wednesday, August 25, 1999 6:09 PM >> >Subject: Re: What happened? >> > >> > >> >It was a 4=3=4=2 6 count (Board 3 sess 4 =top sect) >> >> 1C from pd, pass, you bid 1D. >> >> >> >> 1S from LHO, double, penalties from pd, your call? Dealer South E/W vulnerable MP Pairs. You are North looking at J932 973 AJ84 87 and the bidding goes: 1C from pard (South)(alerted may be 3 cards) P from RHO 1D from you 1S from LHO Dbl from pard.(shows 4/5 Clubs and 4 Spades 13+HCPs) P from RHO ?? what do you bid on the above hand. Once we get a few opinions on this, I will unfold the rest of the auction :-)) Anne From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 26 21:01:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA28114 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 21:01:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA28109 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 21:01:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id NAA23696; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 13:01:02 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JF82UJHC3C000LJV@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 13:00:30 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 13:00:30 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 13:00:29 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Defective trick? To: "'Michael Albert'" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C232@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: Michael Albert [mailto:malbert@maths.otago.ac.nz] > Verzonden: woensdag 25 augustus 1999 23:26 > Aan: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Onderwerp: Defective trick? > > > Apologies in advance to those who dislike dealing with hypothetical > situations, but in order to address the following pair of > questions I felt > I had to make some up. Feel free to snip any or all of them > if you find > them uninteresting. It is not that hypothetical. Probably you know that imagination is less freaky than reality. Being TD in a match with some better players, I was asked to give a ruling when Zia Mahmood as declarer had succeeded in playing the club 3 from his hand to the K in dummy in trick 10 or 11, after he had played that card already in trick 3 or 4 (I knew then, not anymore). This brilliant play resulted in 5C one off in stead of making it had he just played the 13 cards in a legal way. This apparently had not happened in Edgar's bridge life, so it is not covered by the laws. I started some negotiations and we made a deal letting him making his contract (I should say that I gave an AS based on etc. If I remember well I told this before in this group). > > Is the presence of a surplus card in declarer's hand at the > conclusion of > trick 13 conclusive evidence that there is a defective trick? > > no, all tricks could be right, though I don't consider that chance big. Or > > Can a trick to which all four hands have properly played > cards, and which > has been properly quitted ever become defective? It depends on what you want defective to mean. Looking at L67 I deem it possible to play a fifth card to a trick even after playing properly to that trick, after which 67 applies. On the other hand, if 4 cards were played,later picking up a card unnoticed doesn't make the trick defective in my opinion, so I wouldn't apply L67 then. > These questions are raised by a recent incident of no particular > consequence the details of which are as follows: > > Declarer in a NT contract revokes from his hand at trick > four. The revoke > becomes established (but will almost certainly be subject > only to a one > trick penalty) and is noticed by the defenders at trick six. > The director > is summoned and ascertains the facts. Declarer, who is in a > rather delicate > slam in any case, becomes a bit distracted and attempts to correct the > established revoke. Director correctly advises him not to do > so, but in the > course of undoing the attempted correction the card played to > the revoke > trick remains in declarer's hand. It remains there until the > end of play at > which point general confusion ensues. > > This particular situation seems to be covered adequately by > existing law > (Law 67) regarding defective tricks. As I just said, I am not so sure of that. I don't consider the trick from which he later picked up a card to be defective. However, it does not > take a great deal > of imagination to change the circumstances slightly leading > to situations > where it seems to me that the law is murky: > > Scene A. > > As above, except the declarer subsequently replays his revoke > card at some > later trick (this is clearly an irregularity of some sort - > is it subject > to penalty?) When a player plays a card twice he stops playing bridge, which is what Zia did. Probably the best solution is to cancel the board or to give an(artificial) adjusted score. But this shouldn't be the solution to overcome disasters. See L 72B1. As a result, the card that remains in his hand > at trick 13 > would constitute another revoke. Is declarer penalised for > two revokes on > the same trick? (or is this 64B3 - a subsequent revoke in the > same suit?) > > [Aside: A player revokes twice in spades, penalty for the first revoke > would be one trick. Penalty for the second would normally be > two tricks. A > one trick penalty restores equity. Is that the correct penalty?] The laws seem clear about that: no penalty for the second revoke. The reason not being that one trick restores equity. > > Scene B > > No revoke occurs at trick four, but somehow the card played > to that trick > is later (not immediately) replaced in declarer's hand. > Events then proceed > as in the real case, or situation A above. The presence of > the extra card > in declarer's hand may or may not have a material influence > on the course > of play. Exactly the Zia case. Answer given. L12A1 and A2. If the irregularity is noticed at the moment of play it can be restored. No 53th card in play then. > Scene C > > Back to the original circumstances, but declarer is now the > Rueful Rabbit > and owing to the presence of an extra spade in his hand, > believes that he > needs only one trick in diamonds where he has two small > opposite AQx (hand > in front of AQx having preempted in this suit.) As a result > he simply plays > ace and drops the singleton king offside. It seems a waste > not to cash the > queen now and this is his 13th (12th owing to the revoke > penalty) trick. Do > the defenders have any recourse? > > Be careful here this is not a straightforward 64C situation > (or so it seems > to me.) Without any revoke at all, declarer has 12 tricks. > With the revoke > he needs to generate a 13th and does so in the manner > outlined above. What > consitutes "sufficient compensation" to the defenders? Striving for consistency in my approach this extra small spade didn't take part in the play, even when declarer used it to decide his plans. Declarer gets 12 tricks. Let us assume that a player doesn't put his played cards on the table, but keeps them in his hand. Does this effect the result when he never plays a card twice? (I know he deserves a penalty,and I know that memory is involved, but that is not the issue.) > > > As to my questions above, it seems to me that in order to use the law > regarding defective tricks at all effectively in these > situations, the view > must be taken that the answer to both questions is yes. This > interpretation > does not match my intuitive understanding about what the > phrase "defective > trick" should connote. > > Michael > ton From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 26 21:05:29 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA28147 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 21:05:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA28137 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 21:05:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-197.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.197]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA23315 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 13:05:10 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37C51ACA.C73F29E1@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 12:45:30 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI References: <199908121346.OAA17955@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> <37C3C05F.24322C56@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Herman De Wael wrote: > >> but I am adjusting. What better way is there to handle it? > >> > > > >On what basis, David ? > > > >I agree that this is an obvious "fielding", but on what > >basis is this disallowed ? > > > >OK, it should be alerted and/or explained, so if you want to > >rule MI, please do, but you are simply using the word > >"adjusting". > > The basis is that they have made a call that appears to be based on a > concealed partnership understanding, or could be allowing for one, in > contravention of L40A. If you alert and explain it, now you are playing > an illegal system. > > The method is set down by the EBU and has been discussed before at > length. I did not say how I would adjust since this did not seem > germane to the post. As ever, I am happy to explain, but I do not feel > this thread is the place. The method is covered in > > http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/psych3.htm > Indeed the answer I expected. Leaves me with some more questions though. First of all, you state that "you are playing an illegal system". That is a discussion we already once had. I don't believe system regulations cover psyches - expected or other. Psyching tendencies are a part of partnership experience, and must be disclosed according to L75C, but they are not part of partnership agreements and understandings, which can be regulated according to L40D. I realise that the Laws are not sufficiently clear as to this distinction, but I feel they should be. But that is a different discussion altogether. The main problem in this thread is "adjusting". My question was, on which basis does one adjust. Now as before, I do not like to use L40B for this. There is no proof of an understanding, just by the fielding. To suggest this would be a suggestion of cheating, and don't go telling me otherwise! Rather, the fielding can be considered proof for an "experience". Don't quibble with me on this yet, the result is the same. Now we are in breach of L75C. Which can lead to an adjustment, provided all other conditions are met: -damage (and I'm certain that in the cases you adjust in, there was damage) AND -consequence. We should be asking the following question of opponents : "suppose partner would have told you, at the moment in which this could have become clear to him, that his partner has a tendency to psyche in such and such a way, would you have taken the same actions". Only if that question has a positive answer, is there need to adjust, in my opinion. Let me try and explain my point of view by an example. I'm going back to your original: If your partner opens a Spanish green spade [a third-in-hand non-vul v vul spade], next hand overcalls 1NT and you pass with 11 HCP, then I am adjusting when your partner has psyched. I am accusing you of nothing but I am adjusting. What better way is there to handle it? Let's assume partner is indeed a "frequent" psycher. You use the case here as "evidence" for that, and I agree with you, but I'd go even further - other evidence may lead to the same conclusion. If this is me, any blml reader can provide enough evidence for the "partnership experience". What I am trying to say is that under full disclosure, this auction + explanations should go : W N E S pass pass 1Sp ("East is a known psycher in this situation, he may not have his bid, in which case he is likely to be 2-4-3-4 with 0-3HCP, but of course in 99% of the cases he has a regular opening, always of 11HCP or equivalent length, never less than 10HCP without length") 1NT pass ("West may be catering to his partner's psyche, he could have 11HCP, but he will normally bid with 6-8 and support, or double with 8-10 without support") 3NT all pass If S has 17 points, and N 10, then the opponent's points will be 11-2 or 2-11, both of which are consistent with the "full" explanation. If this full explanation is lacking, and the contract fails because the points are 11-2 in stead of the expected 2-11, then there could be an adjustment, provided that south has a "safe" line that can detect 3 points in the west hand. If there is no such discovery line, then I rule that with the full explanation, it is still 99% likely to find the points 2-11, and that should be the line followed. OTOH if North, with 10 points, chooses to pass on his partner's overcall of 1NT, I rule that the damage was not caused by the MI, and there will be no adjustment. I don't think we are very far apart in our points of view, but I would like to hear your comments. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 26 21:05:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA28148 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 21:05:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA28138 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 21:05:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-197.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.197]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA23319 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 13:05:13 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37C51BCE.54063BC3@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 12:49:50 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Junior world championships. References: <004c01beeeed$dfa45020$518493c3@pacific> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > From: Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) > > >On Mon, 23 Aug 1999, David Stevenson wrote: > > > >> > >> Aha! Does a job that suits my talents beckon? > > > >No, sorry, they don't do this the obvious way, but by measuring hormone > >levels in the blood of the contestants. > > > ++ But Henk, he's a vampire....... ~ G ~ ++ That makes two of them... Read bulletin 5 of Weimar. Now we know who the WBF shall ask to perform the sex-tests ! (this may be too cryptic, I shall post an explanation in a few days) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 26 21:30:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA28196 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 21:30:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand2.global.net.uk (sand2.global.net.uk [195.147.246.100]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA28191 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 21:29:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from p59s03a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.131.90] helo=pacific) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11Jxj2-0002Ei-00; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 12:29:48 +0100 Message-ID: <008501beefb6$507e66a0$5a8393c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: new guy-edlines? (was Re: L16A1-Reply) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 12:28:20 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Date: 25 August 1999 12:20 Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply >the committee members went to great lengths >in eliminating pseudo-sexist words and the use >of "he." The exception was the lone woman >on the committee. She said she never even >thought about that problem, and was glad she >had not after seeing the results. +++ Different women have different solutions. I note that my numerous Canadian nieces and great nieces, when addressing the family - its members some male and some female - adopt the form of address which goes "Hey guys". Is anyone for using the term in bridge law? [?! :-)] ~ G ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 26 21:30:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA28204 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 21:30:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand2.global.net.uk (sand2.global.net.uk [195.147.246.100]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA28199 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 21:30:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from p59s03a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.131.90] helo=pacific) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11Jxj0-0002Ei-00; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 12:29:47 +0100 Message-ID: <008401beefb6$4f82a180$5a8393c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "David Stevenson" Cc: "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: One hundred per cent. Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 11:21:07 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott Subject: One hundred per cent. >'(presumed)' was inserted in the definition of 'defender' >in the 1987 laws with the nameless period in mind (inter >alia). > ++++ "inter alia" ? someone thought there might be an occasion outside of the nameless period when a declarer was 'presumed'. I have never actually traced what the circumstance might be. ~ G ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 26 22:30:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA28386 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 22:17:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA28380 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 22:16:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (dup-207-176-64-97.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA22815 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 08:17:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990826081634.0069d860@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 08:16:34 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Sex and Gender (was L16A1) In-Reply-To: <002401beef15$96867b20$c284d9ce@host> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:19 PM 8/25/99 -0400, Craig wrote: >%%%There are many who fancy themselves bridgeplayers. Is there anyone who >fancies herself a bridgeplayess? The choice would be hers (cetainly not >theirs). After all we have waitresses and huntresses...but are there >golfesses? Excuse me...I have to call the directress (who of course is our >hostess).%%% Directron? Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 26 23:04:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA28530 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 23:04:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.zeelandnet.nl (mail.zeelandnet.nl [62.12.12.194]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA28525 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 23:04:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from poimms-6350 (k507.zeelandnet.nl [193.172.202.253]) by mail.zeelandnet.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA16644 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 15:04:40 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <199908261304.PAA16644@mail.zeelandnet.nl> From: "Marcel Schoof" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: What happened? Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 15:00:36 +0200 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >> >It was a 4=3=4=2 6 count (Board 3 sess 4 =top sect) > >> >> 1C from pd, pass, you bid 1D. > >> >> > >> >> 1S from LHO, double, penalties from pd, your call? > > Dealer South E/W vulnerable MP Pairs. > > You are North looking at > J932 > 973 > AJ84 > 87 > > and the bidding goes: > 1C from pard (South)(alerted may be 3 cards) > P from RHO > 1D from you > 1S from LHO > Dbl from pard.(shows 4/5 Clubs and 4 Spades > 13+HCPs) > P from RHO > > ?? what do you bid on the above hand. > > Once we get a few opinions on this, I will unfold the rest of the auction > :-)) > > Anne > ++ Pass From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 26 23:49:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA28766 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 23:49:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from fep1.post.tele.dk (fep1.post.tele.dk [195.41.46.133]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA28761 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 23:49:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from jd-private.internal ([195.249.193.198]) by fep1.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990826134842.OLPD9488.fep1@jd-private.internal> for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 15:48:42 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: auction period - oh, dear. Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 15:48:58 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <37c83fd3.14928546@post12.tele.dk> References: <001901beea49$c50369c0$f18993c3@pacific> In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id XAA28762 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 25 Aug 1999 03:35:01 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > The headings are often helpful. Perhaps out aim should be to correct >them rather than obliterate them. Yes. Our problem is that (a) headlines are useful, and (b) headlines that are not part of the laws are sometimes misleading. So please correct them _and_ make them part of the laws. That may result in some inconsistencies in the first edition that does so, but in the long run it seems to me to be clearly the best way to solve that problem. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 26 23:49:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA28760 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 23:49:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from fep1.post.tele.dk (fep1.post.tele.dk [195.41.46.133]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA28755 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 23:49:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from jd-private.internal ([195.249.193.198]) by fep1.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990826134837.OLOD9488.fep1@jd-private.internal> for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 15:48:37 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: Substitution of a bid for a Pass Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 15:48:53 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <37c73bbf.13885235@post12.tele.dk> References: <004801beea15$f21c3420$265208c3@swhki5i6> In-Reply-To: <004801beea15$f21c3420$265208c3@swhki5i6> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id XAA28756 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 19 Aug 1999 08:29:47 +0100, "Grattan Endicott" wrote: >>++++ I think it should. Concerning the pass of a splinter >>I do just wonder whether we could look at a law change >>to the effect that a Pass in the auction which is evidently >>not one of the choices the caller was considering may >>be changed subject to the consent of the Director. >> ~ Grattan Endicott ~ ++++ > >#### Follow-up to the above thought. > First draft: > "25B2(c) Substitution of a Bid for a Pass > > Notwithstanding the provisions of (b) > if his side has made no subsequent call > or play and the Director is of the opinion > that Pass was not an option the player > could reasonably select at his turn, a > player may substitute a bid for a Pass > and if the player becomes a defender > the penalty in Law 26B applies. " > > Do we think some such would work? I would prefer it to be part of L25A. I.e., the L25 I would like would distinguish between precisely two categories of changes of calls: (a) Those that are legal: the current L25A changes and any additions that the WBFLC considers relevant (for instance the pass above, though IMO it is not particularly important to include that). Those changes should be legal and without penalty. (b) Those that are not legal. L25 should require those changes to be withdrawn, the original call to stand, and refer to L16C. The really important thing in any modification to L25 is to get rid of the absurd concept of a legal action (L25B change) that incurs a penalty (and the use of words such as "offender" for the person who chooses this legal action). A few years ago (before the 1997 laws) I wrote a draft of a suggested L25 following these principles, including the necessary wording to cater for changes of illegal calls. I have posted it here before, and if anybody really wants to see it again, I can probably find it. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 27 00:09:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA28823 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 00:09:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo11.mx.aol.com (imo11.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA28818 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 00:08:55 +1000 (EST) From: KRAllison@aol.com Received: from KRAllison@aol.com by imo11.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v22.4.) id pZCGa07546 (4334) for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 10:07:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 10:07:38 EDT Subject: Re: new guy-edlines? (was Re: L16A1-Reply) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 21 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 8/26/1999 7:32:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time, gester@globalnet.co.uk writes: << +++ Different women have different solutions. I note that my numerous Canadian nieces and great nieces, when addressing the family - its members some male and some female - adopt the form of address which goes "Hey guys". Is anyone for using the term in bridge law? [?! :-)] ~ G ~ +++ >> I have always preferred the language I learned fifty-some years ago. When I was, for many years, Appeals Chairman for the Toronto Regional Tournament I told the PTB (powers that be) that the first time they called me "chairperson" I would resign. Karen From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 27 00:12:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA28869 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 00:12:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from batman.npl.co.uk (batman.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA28862 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 00:12:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from herschel.npl.co.uk (unknown.npl.co.uk [139.143.1.16] (may be forged)) by batman.npl.co.uk (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id PAA19681; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 15:12:01 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA10897; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 15:11:55 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 14:11:55 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA13168; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 15:11:51 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id PAA02894; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 15:11:43 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 15:11:43 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199908261411.PAA02894@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, elandau@cais.com Subject: Re: Sex and Gender (was L16A1) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Craig wrote: > > >%%%There are many who fancy themselves bridgeplayers. Is there anyone who > >fancies herself a bridgeplayess? The choice would be hers (cetainly not > >theirs). After all we have waitresses and huntresses...but are there > >golfesses? Excuse me...I have to call the directress (who of course is our > >hostess).%%% > > Directron? > > > Eric Landau elandau@cais.com Directorix ?? From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 27 00:30:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA28704 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 23:34:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA28692 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 23:33:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11Jzer-0003dL-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 13:33:38 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 03:10:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: your mail References: <003101beed7c$458dc880$f08b93c3@pacific> <199908260039.UAA14214@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> In-Reply-To: <199908260039.UAA14214@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ted Ying wrote: >First, the nature of the beast with the 2H bid (only). >It happens more than rare in ACBL-land that people >make this type of bid. Since it isn't a completely >destructive bid, that is a "gross misrepresentation >of strength and distribution" (only the latter), it >is usually considered a "tactical bid" rather than a >psyche. The definition of a psyche is "A deliberate and gross misstatement of honour strength or suit length.". Note the "or" not "and". This is from the Law-book. There seems to be an idea in the ACBL that certain complete psyches are to be called tactical bids: I am not impressed: they are psyches. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 27 00:36:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA28978 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 00:36:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from fep1.post.tele.dk (fep1.post.tele.dk [195.41.46.133]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA28973 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 00:36:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from jd-private.internal ([195.249.193.36]) by fep1.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990826143555.OYAU9488.fep1@jd-private.internal> for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 16:35:55 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 16:36:12 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <37cf4e87.18692498@post12.tele.dk> References: <005101bee2be$8e637960$995208c3@swhki5i6> In-Reply-To: <005101bee2be$8e637960$995208c3@swhki5i6> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id AAA28974 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 10 Aug 1999 00:13:18 +0100, "Grattan Endicott" wrote: >+++ ++ I quote from the EBL commentary on the 1987 laws: > " Some convention cards provide for partnerships to >indicate the frequency with which the players are in the habit >of psyching. Where this is the case the information should >distinguish between the two members of the partnership >if it is the case that one of the partners psyches noticeably >more often than the other (e.g. Mr Endicott rarely psyches >but Mr. Hansen psyches very often; or Mr. ... psyches but >Mrs. ... does not). Where such information is provided on >the convention card it must be understood by the Director >and the players that the information is "authorized" for the >opponents but NOT for the partnership itself." Why is it UI for the partnership itself? It seems to me that when the SO requests psyche frequency information on the convention card, the SO has implicitly announced that it considers the psyche frequency a legal partnership agreement. If partner's psyche frequency is not AI, then I find it very unfair to require players to inform the opponents. We have no official attitude to this in Denmark, but it is my impression that the psyche frequency announced on the CC is generally considered AI for partner. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 27 01:04:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA29072 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 01:04:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from mtiwmhc04.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc04.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA29067 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 01:03:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([12.75.45.121]) by mtiwmhc04.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07.07 118-134) with SMTP id <19990826150018.GSQZ15925@default> for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 15:00:18 +0000 Message-ID: <004a01beefd4$04e0d020$792d4b0c@default> From: "Richard F Beye" To: References: Subject: Re: new guy-edlines? (was Re: L16A1-Reply) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 10:02:28 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: > I have always preferred the language I learned fifty-some years ago. When I > was, for many years, Appeals Chairman for the Toronto Regional Tournament I > told the PTB (powers that be) that the first time they called me > "chairperson" I would resign. > > Karen NO WAY YOU ARE THAT OLD!!!!! Rick From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 27 01:31:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA29115 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 01:14:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo11.mx.aol.com (imo11.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA29110 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 01:14:37 +1000 (EST) From: KRAllison@aol.com Received: from KRAllison@aol.com by imo11.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v22.4.) id pLIHa07545 (3978) for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 11:13:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <62be621f.24f6b380@aol.com> Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 11:13:04 EDT Subject: Re: new guy-edlines? (was Re: L16A1-Reply) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 21 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk << NO WAY YOU ARE THAT OLD!!!!! Rick >> Well, chronologically, yes .... thanks for the kind words, though :-) Karen From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 27 01:42:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA28703 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 23:34:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA28691 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 23:33:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11Jzew-0003dq-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 13:33:42 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 03:06:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: .. References: <3.0.16.19990824181221.0fffcf5e@pop3.iag.net> <034a01beef51$00810f00$3b085e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <034a01beef51$00810f00$3b085e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: > >> [s] >> >> >a simple question? the ACBL guidelines we saw for a while ago talked >about >> >false new suit responses when a fit was already known to discourage >lead as >> >perfectly legal and normal bridge that wouldnt get you into anyform of >trouble >> >> Terrible. So all the good players know what is going on and you are >> going to legalise highway robbery against the lesser players. Yuk! >> >Let's see what the ACBL guideline really says. It appears in *Duplicate >Decisions*, as part of the discussion of L40, under the heading PSYCHS. >This section has a subsection PSYCHS WHICH REQUIRE NO REGULATION OR >DIRECTOR ATTENTION, which has three parts: Tactical Bids, Waiting Bids, >and Deviations. These are considered "an integral part of the game, rather >than the type of psych that warrants disciplinary action or, at the least, >attention by the Director." > >The subject at hand is what they (she? he?) call a tactical bid, explained >as follows: > >######### >A tactical bid is a psych that is made to paint a picture in an opponent's >and partner's mind that will cause them to play you for a holding that you >do not have, enabling you to succeed at a contract to which you were >inevitably headed. > > Example: After partner opens 1S, responder bids 2D to try to ward >off a diamond lead on the way to 4S, holding S-QJxxx H-Ax D-xxx C-KQx > > Or, you might cue bid an ace you don't have on the >way to six of a suit. > >NOTE: Frequent use of tactics similar to this will develop an implicit >partnership agreement which requires an Alert. >######### > >Not very well written, but making some important points: Partner must be >fooled as well as the opponents, the eventual contract must be clearly in >mind, and frequent use requires an Alert. > >Not so terrible after all. Partner is going to be fooled? When it is printed in an ACBL publication? Does that keep it a secret? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 27 01:52:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA29236 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 01:52:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f187.hotmail.com [207.82.251.76]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA29231 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 01:52:27 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 62906 invoked by uid 0); 26 Aug 1999 15:51:50 -0000 Message-ID: <19990826155150.62905.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 205.211.164.226 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 08:51:49 PDT X-Originating-IP: [205.211.164.226] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Sex and Gender (was L16A1) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 08:51:49 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: Eric Landau >At 12:19 PM 8/25/99 -0400, Craig wrote: > >>Excuse me...I have to call the directress (who of course is our >>hostess).%%% > >Directron? > Directrix, I would think (cf. dominatrix, aviatrix (not in common use anymore, but frequently used for Amelia Earhart - may she eventually complete her flight)). Cue the ObThread about the collective noun for Directors (a ruling of...?) Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 27 01:53:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA29247 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 01:53:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp1.a2000.nl (farida.a2000.nl [62.108.1.19]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA29241 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 01:53:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp1.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 11K1qK-0001Rm-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 17:53:36 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19990826175023.00aeaa20@mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 17:50:23 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Sex and Gender (was L16A1) In-Reply-To: <199908261411.PAA02894@tempest.npl.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 15:11 26-08-99 +0100, you wrote: > >> Craig wrote: >> >> >%%%There are many who fancy themselves bridgeplayers. Is there anyone who >> >fancies herself a bridgeplayess? The dutch language makes a perfect distinction between a male and femaale bridgeplayer, the words are bridgespeler, bridgespeelser perhaps you use the wrong language, but of course there is long passed since the Dutch ruled the waves. The choice would be hers (cetainly not >> >theirs). After all we have waitresses and huntresses...but are there >> >golfesses? Excuse me...I have to call the directress (who of course is our >> >hostess).%%% >> >> Directron? >> >> >> Eric Landau elandau@cais.com > >Directorix ?? sounds a bit like naughty underwear used in clubs where probably there is little interest in bridge. regards, anton > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 2e Kostverlorenkade 114-1 1053 SB Amsterdam ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 27 02:04:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA29472 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 02:04:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from educ.queensu.ca (educ.QueensU.CA [130.15.118.75]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA29466 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 02:04:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from [130.15.118.69] (U69.N118.QueensU.CA [130.15.118.69]) by educ.queensu.ca (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA28347 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 12:04:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 12:04:16 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Don Kersey Subject: Re: Unappealing psychic Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [I may have inadvertently sent this message twice. Apologies if so.] David Stevenson wrote >RP wrote: [please, Roger, get some decent software] > > [s] > >>I pick up Kx-xx-KJxx-Akxxx and partner opens 2D. I have ten seconds to >>think. I realize that in a NT contract we have at least 2 clubs and 6 >>diamonds, and maybe one spade- if I don't lose a bunch of hearts on the go. >> If I bid hearts it is almost a certainty that partner will raise and with >>two opponents bidding hearts the defense will be unlikely to find a heart >>lead before it is too late. The prospect of 9 NT tricks is pretty good with >>a nudge and the worst that will likely happen will be 9 tricks in a diamond >>contract if partner does not let 3NT stand. This is exciting. Is the >>feeling of the bridge community that responder must never be permitted to >>play 3NT after 2H when opener has three hearts in support ? > > No. It is the combination of support being three cards to an honour, >and there being an outside shortage that is suspicious. > > If you normally play eight card fits and a ruffing value in 3NT I >would prefer you as my opponents tO being my team-mates. If you only >exert this preference in sequences where your partner might have psyched >I would prefer you not to play at my table at all. Some questions to follow these comments by David: 1. In my regular partnerships, responder's 2H after the 2D opening is natural and forcing; with the hand which opened 2D, I would rebid 3C over partner's 2H bid, showing (i) a reasonable diamond suit - at least 2 of the top 3 cards, (ii) Jxx or better in hearts, and (iii) a club control, almost certainly shortness. If my partner now bid 3N, I would surely pass, having given such a precise description of my holding. Would this sequence be rated Red, Amber, or Green under EBU guidelines? 2. At least some North American players (as illustrated on this list) play that 3N is not correctable after 2D-2H-3H-3N; partner having discovered your heart support has set the final contract. If the pair in question could document such an agreement, would this change the rating of the psych? Would such an agreement even be legal in EBUland? _________________________________________________________________________ Don Kersey kerseyd@educ.queensu.ca (613) - 533 - 6000 - 77878 Kingston, Ontario, Canada ------------------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 27 02:10:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA29512 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 02:10:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (mailhub.irvine.com [192.160.8.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA29507 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 02:10:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA28648; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 09:10:04 -0700 Message-Id: <199908261610.JAA28648@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Sex and Gender (was L16A1) In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 26 Aug 1999 08:51:49 PDT." <19990826155150.62905.qmail@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 09:10:04 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Farebrother wrote: > >From: Eric Landau > >At 12:19 PM 8/25/99 -0400, Craig wrote: > > > >>Excuse me...I have to call the directress (who of course is our > >>hostess).%%% > > > >Directron? > > > Directrix, I would think (cf. dominatrix, aviatrix (not in common use > anymore, but frequently used for Amelia Earhart - may she eventually > complete her flight)). Also "executrix", a word I've sometimes seen in legal language. HOWEVER: My first thought was that "directrix" was correct, until I looked it up. Here's the definition from Webster's Ninth New Collegiate ((c) 1996): 1 archaic : DIRECTRESS 2 : a fixed curve with which a generatrix maintains a given relationship in generating a geometric figure; specifically : a straight line the distance to which from any point of a conic section is in fixed ratio to the distance from the same point to a focus Maybe someday I'll figure out what that second definition means. It looks like "directress" is correct. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 27 02:58:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA29699 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 02:58:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.iol.ie (mail2.mail.iol.ie [194.125.2.193]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA29694 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 02:58:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from tsvecfob.iol.ie (dialup-018.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.210]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA59801 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 17:57:26 +0100 (IST) Message-ID: <003701beefe5$d3fee840$d2307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Subject: Re: What happened? Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 18:09:55 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: -----Original Message----- From: Marcel Schoof To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, August 26, 1999 10:14 AM Subject: Re: What happened? >It might be my own problem, but on basis of the given (part) description, I >can't follow the case. Would either of you be so kind to give to whole >story of the problem? > >Marcel > >---------- >> Van: David Stevenson >> Aan: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >> Onderwerp: Re: What happened? >> Datum: donderdag 26 augustus 1999 2:20 >> >> Anne Jones wrote: >> > >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: David Stevenson >> >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >> >Date: Wednesday, August 25, 1999 6:09 PM >> >Subject: Re: What happened? >> > >> > >> >It was a 4=3=4=2 6 count (Board 3 sess 4 =top sect) >> >> 1C from pd, pass, you bid 1D. >> >> >> >> 1S from LHO, double, penalties from pd, your call? Dealer South E/W vulnerable MP Pairs. You are North looking at J932 973 AJ84 87 and the bidding goes: 1C from pard (South)(alerted may be 3 cards) P from RHO 1D from you 1S from LHO Dbl from pard.(shows 4/5 Clubs and 4 Spades 13+HCPs) P from RHO ?? what do you bid on the above hand. Once we get a few opinions on this, I will unfold the rest of the auction :-)) Anne I vote for Pass as well. An alternative escapes me! Regards, Fearghal. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 27 03:52:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA29859 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 03:52:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.asn-linz.ac.at (mail.asn-linz.ac.at [193.170.68.251]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA29854 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 03:52:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from eduhi.at ([10.90.16.33]) by mail.asn-linz.ac.at (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA17801 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 19:51:23 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <37C57ED9.AD208C95@eduhi.at> Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 19:52:25 +0200 From: Petrus Schuster X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [de] (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: L63B translation - again References: <37C1455A.AB5BEFD3@village.uunet.be> <37C455CF.CB486582@elnet.msk.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Vitold schrieb: > Hi all:) > Herman De Wael wrote (some pieces of the text are snipped): > > > Remember the faulty translation of L63B into dutch. > > It seems that the translation captures the intended meaning > > of the Law correctly, if not the literal translation. > > > As I wrote before - we had already finished Russian translation of the > Laws. Noone (from us) dares to estimate and/or criticize the another NBO > job in translation: we only want to underline our position on the > matter. > 1. The Laws is rather juridical (than literary) text > 2. The only body that has rights to make any changes in the Laws is > WBFLC > 3. In accordance with the Laws (L81C5) it is the TD whos duties and > power are to administer and interpret these Laws. > For meeting these demands the translation should be as closely as > possible to the original text. With its mistakes, ambiguities, > awkwardnesses, contradictions etc. And let TDs make their decisions: it > is their job, and they are (as Ton said) not from the Mars:)) We had > tryed neither to improve the Laws nor to explain them: it is the aim > rather of the Orange book. > Best wishes Vitold IMHO, this approach has a serious draw-back: different TDs will interprete such Laws in different ways. Players, however, (rightly) demand consistent rulings, or some of them will tend to feel short-changed. So it is the *duty* of NBOs to issue (at least) guide-lines for the tournaments under their jurisdiction. I am very pleased by the French foot-note. Petrus From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 27 04:18:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA29983 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 04:18:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.74]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA29978 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 04:18:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveh2g.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.68.80]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA14606 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 14:18:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990826141607.012594b0@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 14:16:07 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Unappealing Non-psych Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan and David, inter alia, have opined that it is illegal to bid in a way which caters to a possible psych from partner (at least I understand this to be their position). Let's see how far this principle extends. Pairs, Both Vul West East xxx Axx Qxx AKxxx AQxxxx Kx x Kxx 2D 2H (natural and forcing) 3H 3nt P (!) With both red suits behaving, 12 tricks are cold. It earns a pretty fair matchpoint score, as well, since nobody else seems to have bid any of the three available slams, and most others are declaring suit contracts. You are summoned to the table by NS, who are upset with this miscarriage of justice. As West put down his dummy, he apologized to his partner for leaving in 3nt, "because I wasn't sure if you really held the hearts." So West free admits that he was catering to a possible psych by his partner in passing 3nt. Is this illegal, and if so, are NS entitled to an adjustment? Is your decision affected in any way by the degree of relevant partnership understanding about psychic tendencies? Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 27 04:44:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA00237 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 04:44:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from kallisti.iag.net (mailhub2.iag.net [204.27.210.15]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id EAA00232 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 04:44:12 +1000 (EST) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 04:44:12 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 13242 invoked from network); 26 Aug 1999 18:44:04 -0000 Received: from pm02-065.kism.fl.iag.net (HELO Sotnos) (207.30.80.65) by mailhub2.iag.net with SMTP; 26 Aug 1999 18:44:04 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.16.19990826143424.40379e46@pop3.iag.net> X-Sender: clairele@pop3.iag.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (16) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Claire LeBlanc or Robert Nordgren Subject: Re: your mail Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:10 AM 8/26/99 +0100, you wrote: >Ted Ying wrote: > >>First, the nature of the beast with the 2H bid (only). >>It happens more than rare in ACBL-land that people >>make this type of bid. Since it isn't a completely >>destructive bid, that is a "gross misrepresentation >>of strength and distribution" (only the latter), it >>is usually considered a "tactical bid" rather than a >>psyche. > > The definition of a psyche is "A deliberate and gross misstatement of >honour strength or suit length.". Note the "or" not "and". This is >from the Law-book. There seems to be an idea in the ACBL that certain >complete psyches are to be called tactical bids: I am not impressed: >they are psyches. > > Thnk this distinction is being made because some/several board members could/would do similiar calls themself and that puts it in the tactical division since psyches are something we still dont like. Robert From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 27 09:08:04 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA01042 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 09:08:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA01037 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 09:07:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11K8cT-000GvP-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 23:07:46 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 16:29:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI References: <199908121346.OAA17955@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> <37C3C05F.24322C56@village.uunet.be> <37C51ACA.C73F29E1@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <37C51ACA.C73F29E1@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> Herman De Wael wrote: >> >> but I am adjusting. What better way is there to handle it? >> >> >> > >> >On what basis, David ? >> > >> >I agree that this is an obvious "fielding", but on what >> >basis is this disallowed ? >> > >> >OK, it should be alerted and/or explained, so if you want to >> >rule MI, please do, but you are simply using the word >> >"adjusting". >> >> The basis is that they have made a call that appears to be based on a >> concealed partnership understanding, or could be allowing for one, in >> contravention of L40A. If you alert and explain it, now you are playing >> an illegal system. >> >> The method is set down by the EBU and has been discussed before at >> length. I did not say how I would adjust since this did not seem >> germane to the post. As ever, I am happy to explain, but I do not feel >> this thread is the place. The method is covered in >> >> http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/psych3.htm >> > >Indeed the answer I expected. > >Leaves me with some more questions though. > >First of all, you state that "you are playing an illegal >system". >That is a discussion we already once had. I don't believe >system regulations cover psyches - expected or other. >Psyching tendencies are a part of partnership experience, >and must be disclosed according to L75C, but they are not >part of partnership agreements and understandings, which can >be regulated according to L40D. >I realise that the Laws are not sufficiently clear as to >this distinction, but I feel they should be. I am sorry. I do not see how an implicit agreement is not an agreement. If they have an agreement over psyches based on their understandings then they have an agreement. Any agreement that includes a 1-level opening on less than 8 HCP is illegal in England [perhaps not at Level 5, but that's a red herring]. >But that is a different discussion altogether. > >The main problem in this thread is "adjusting". > >My question was, on which basis does one adjust. If they are in breach of L40A we adjust. >Now as before, I do not like to use L40B for this. There is >no proof of an understanding, just by the fielding. Why do you use the word proof? You know we do not require proof. Do you ever fine anyone for putting the cards back in the board wrong? You do so because a preponderance of evidence suggests it: in fact someone may have come past, picked up the board with no-one noticing, and deliberately fouled it. It is so unlikely that you do not consider it. Do you ever decide someone has hesitated? Of course you do, from the evidence. Is it proved? No. If you are going to direct by only making alterations when things are proved you are in the wrong game altogether. Such an approach would wreck bridge. People would cheat, use hesitations, deliberately foul boards, and do all sorts of things and get away with them. > To >suggest this would be a suggestion of cheating, and don't go >telling me otherwise! Fine, I won't tell you otherwise. But for anyone out there who is not Herman, when I say someone has fielded a psyche I mean he has made a call or play that appears to allow for partner's psyche. It is evidence of a CPU [concealed partnership understanding]. If blatant enough it means that I can judge there to have been a breach of L40A or L40B and I shall adjust. I shall call no- one a cheat and it does not mean anyone is cheating and it is not tantamount to cheating. >Rather, the fielding can be considered proof for an >"experience". Rubbish. It is not proof. >Don't quibble with me on this yet, the result is the same. >Now we are in breach of L75C. > >Which can lead to an adjustment, provided all other >conditions are met: >-damage (and I'm certain that in the cases you adjust in, >there was damage) AND >-consequence. I see no reason to go down this road. If people breach L40A I do not need damage to deal with them. >We should be asking the following question of opponents : >"suppose partner would have told you, at the moment in which >this could have become clear to him, that his partner has a >tendency to psyche in such and such a way, would you have >taken the same actions". > >Only if that question has a positive answer, is there need >to adjust, in my opinion. So you are allowing people to deliberately and with malice aforethought break the Laws of the game? >Let me try and explain my point of view by an example. > >I'm going back to your original: > > If your partner opens a Spanish green spade [a >third-in-hand non-vul v >vul spade], next hand overcalls 1NT and you pass with 11 >HCP, then I am >adjusting when your partner has psyched. I am accusing you >of nothing >but I am adjusting. What better way is there to handle it? > > >Let's assume partner is indeed a "frequent" psycher. You use >the case here as "evidence" for that, and I agree with you, >but I'd go even further - other evidence may lead to the >same conclusion. If this is me, any blml reader can provide >enough evidence for the "partnership experience". > >What I am trying to say is that under full disclosure, this >auction + explanations should go : > >W N E S >pass pass 1Sp > ("East is a known psycher in this situation, he may not >have his bid, in which case he is likely to be 2-4-3-4 with >0-3HCP, but of course in 99% of the cases he has a regular >opening, always of 11HCP or equivalent length, never less >than 10HCP without length") > 1NT >pass >("West may be catering to his partner's psyche, he could >have 11HCP, but he will normally bid with 6-8 and support, >or double with 8-10 without support") > 3NT all pass > >If S has 17 points, and N 10, then the opponent's points >will be 11-2 or 2-11, both of which are consistent with the >"full" explanation. >If this full explanation is lacking, and the contract fails >because the points are 11-2 in stead of the expected 2-11, >then there could be an adjustment, provided that south has a >"safe" line that can detect 3 points in the west hand. If >there is no such discovery line, then I rule that with the >full explanation, it is still 99% likely to find the points >2-11, and that should be the line followed. > >OTOH if North, with 10 points, chooses to pass on his >partner's overcall of 1NT, I rule that the damage was not >caused by the MI, and there will be no adjustment. > >I don't think we are very far apart in our points of view, >but I would like to hear your comments. I consider your methods unnecessary and not in line with the Laws of the game. I am not prepared to tolerate people who deliberately break the Laws because proof is absent and I consider that the EBU's methods are the best I have seen so far as a framework of regulation to protect the integrity of L40. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 27 09:07:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA01035 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 09:07:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA01030 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 09:07:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11K8cD-000GvM-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 23:07:30 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 15:05:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Defective trick? References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C232@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C232@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Kooijman, A. wrote: >When a player plays a card twice he stops playing bridge, which is what Zia >did. Probably the best solution is to cancel the board or to give >an(artificial) adjusted score. We have had a number of discussions here and elsewhere when one person thinks we should stop the play of a board and others think we should carry on and apply whatever Law is relevant. 13 penalty cards comes to mind. I see certain places in the Law book that say a board should be stopped. Generally I believe that we should not stop a board otherwise. However, if there are other times that a board should be stopped then I think we want a general Law saying so. So perhaps the WBFLC might consider for 2008 when a board should be stopped and incorporate it into the Laws. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 27 09:25:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA01107 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 09:25:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA01102 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 09:25:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id TAA02907 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 19:25:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA03417 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 19:25:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 19:25:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199908262325.TAA03417@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Defective trick? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Michael Albert While I hate to barge in after Ton's reply, there seem to me still a few unclear points. Let me toss out some straw man answers and see where I have gone wrong. > Is the presence of a surplus card in declarer's hand at the conclusion of > trick 13 conclusive evidence that there is a defective trick? Conclusive, no. Strong, yes. I expect it would be normal to rule "defective trick" unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. > Can a trick to which all four hands have properly played cards, and which > has been properly quitted ever become defective? This is, I think, the key point. Once a trick is properly quitted, removing one of the played cards does not render the trick retroactively defective. Or so it seems to me. The effect of _adding_ a card to the trick is different. Even if you start out under L14 (Missing Card), you are directed to L67. So you will end up treating the trick as defective regardless of how the extra card got into it. (My "intuitive" guess was otherwise, but I changed my mind when I looked at L14.) > ... the card played to the revoke > trick remains in declarer's hand. It remains there until the end of play at > which point general confusion ensues. > > This particular situation seems to be covered adequately by existing law > (Law 67) regarding defective tricks. No defective trick. The card was legally played (or illegally, since it was a revoke, but very definitely _played_), and the fact that it was returned to declarer's hand is a violation of procedure (L65C, D) but nothing more. No reason to invoke L67. > As above, except the declarer subsequently replays his revoke card at some > later trick Then the later trick is defective, having only three cards played. Use L67B1 (if you can determine that this is what has happened). > No revoke occurs at trick four, but somehow the card played to that trick > is later (not immediately) replaced in declarer's hand. Same as above. The original trick is fine, but if the extra card is later "played again," the later trick is defective. If declarer plays wrong (or right!) because he thinks the extra card is in his hand, too bad (or lucky!). If the reappearing card belongs to _dummy_ and the defenders go wrong because they see it on the table, they generally should be protected. Dummy's violation of procedure should not benefit his side. Similarly, if somehow a _defender_ caused the card to reappear, declarer should be protected against an ensuing misplay. OK, find the mistakes! From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 27 09:40:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA01175 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 09:40:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand4.global.net.uk (sand4.global.net.uk [194.126.80.248]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA01169 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 09:40:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from p00s12a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.140.1] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11K97v-0004sk-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 00:40:16 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: What happened? Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 00:42:45 +0100 Message-ID: <01bef01c$b2b7e7e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Fearghal O'Boyle To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, August 26, 1999 6:21 PM Subject: Re: What happened? >>> >It was a 4=3=4=2 6 count (Board 3 sess 4 =top sect) >>> >> 1C from pd, pass, you bid 1D. >>> >> >>> >> 1S from LHO, double, penalties from pd, your call? > >Dealer South E/W vulnerable MP Pairs. > >You are North looking at >J932 >973 >AJ84 >87 > >and the bidding goes: >1C from pard (South)(alerted may be 3 cards) >P from RHO >1D from you >1S from LHO >Dbl from pard.(shows 4/5 Clubs and 4 Spades > 13+HCPs) >P from RHO > John; Marcel; Feargal all say they think there is no LA to Pass. No-one has said that they think there is so perhaps (only maybe) I am wrong about this one. OK. It would appear that others do not think as I do. It has always been my experience that to defend a one level contract doubled, without several trump tricks is not a good idea. If I could envisage a big cross ruff before declarer got the lead, I would also Pass. However it seems to me that declarer is likely to win trick two and draw most of the trumps. I am sure he has 5 and I am equally sure that they break 4/4. Our system says they do. The points are pretty evenly split, and I think it is more likely that I can make 6 tricks in 1NT, that we can make 7 tricks in defence of Spades. I do not expect 1NT to be doubled, the balance of points is more likely to be with us.. I chose to bid 1NT. LHO asks about the double and is told "penalties. It promises 4 Spades." The complete auction:- 1C - P - 1D - 1S Dbl - P - 1NT - Dbl 2D - 2S - Dbl - P 3D - P - P - Dbl AP. LHO leads AS and dummy appears. Q KQJT KQ53 KT94 LHO calls the TD and says that he has been given misinformation. He would not have doubled 1NT if he knew the Spades were on his right rather than his left !! 3D Dbl rolls in for 9 tricks and the TD is called back. The ruling is that I have fielded a misbid. _RED_ 40%/60% Question - What happens if I pass and 1 Spade fails? I would rule that it is a hand on which 1NT is a logical alternative. There was no question of misexplanation. The CC says quite clearly [When we have bid two suits a double of their suit is for penalties] 1. My partner's double was not a misbid. It was a tactical bid to try and find out more about my hand. He did not expect, as he was looking at the QS that I would have enough to pass the double. If I did do so it would surely go well off. This particular partner has never played neg double in this position with anyone, and has never doubled without 4 cards before.(meaning this would have been my rebid) The bid was not a mistake. (not a mis-bid) 2. It was a gross mis-statement of suit length, but the hand was strong enough to think that the opponents would not bid again anyway. There was no intention to deceive. It was a tactical bridge bid, not a psyche. 3. It was not a minor deviation. The hand had one spade instead of four. How can the ruling be the fielding of a misbid? Cheers Anne From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 27 10:41:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA01280 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 10:41:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (mailhub.irvine.com [192.160.8.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA01275 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 10:41:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA04694; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 17:40:45 -0700 Message-Id: <199908270040.RAA04694@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Defective trick? In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 26 Aug 1999 19:25:29 PDT." <199908262325.TAA03417@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 17:40:44 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Michael Albert > > While I hate to barge in after Ton's reply, there seem to me still a > few unclear points. Let me toss out some straw man answers and see > where I have gone wrong. > > > Is the presence of a surplus card in declarer's hand at the conclusion of > > trick 13 conclusive evidence that there is a defective trick? > > Conclusive, no. Strong, yes. I expect it would be normal to rule > "defective trick" unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. > > > Can a trick to which all four hands have properly played cards, and which > > has been properly quitted ever become defective? > > This is, I think, the key point. Once a trick is properly quitted, > removing one of the played cards does not render the trick retroactively > defective. Or so it seems to me. > > The effect of _adding_ a card to the trick is different. Even if you > start out under L14 (Missing Card), you are directed to L67. So you > will end up treating the trick as defective regardless of how the > extra card got into it. (My "intuitive" guess was otherwise, but I > changed my mind when I looked at L14.) > > > ... the card played to the revoke > > trick remains in declarer's hand. It remains there until the end of play at > > which point general confusion ensues. > > > > This particular situation seems to be covered adequately by existing law > > (Law 67) regarding defective tricks. > > No defective trick. The card was legally played (or illegally, since > it was a revoke, but very definitely _played_), and the fact that it > was returned to declarer's hand is a violation of procedure (L65C, D) > but nothing more. No reason to invoke L67. > > > As above, except the declarer subsequently replays his revoke card at some > > later trick > > Then the later trick is defective, having only three cards played. Use > L67B1 (if you can determine that this is what has happened). I don't see that the Laws support this, any more than they support treating the earlier trick as defective. Michael's assumption was that if a card from a quitted trick was put back in declarer's hand, the trick would be considered defective. You responded that the trick was not defective, since four cards were played to it. So far, so good. But when declarer subsequently replays the same card, you're now saying the trick has only three cards played to it. This appears to be a contradiction of what you said just one paragraph earlier. Unless your reasoning is that if a card has been played, it becomes a figment of everyone's imagination and therefore is not really played when it's played again---but there's really nothing in the Laws that says anything like this. The Laws define a "play" as a "contribution of a card from one's hand to a trick", not a "contribution of a card from one's hand that wasn't played to a previous trick". The fact seems to be that the Laws just don't cover this situation, and we have to be inventive in order to turn this into a Law 67 situation. Whether we call the earlier trick defective, or the later trick defective---either way, one has to be "creative" to call it a defective trick. So given that the Laws don't really tell you how to rule, it seems reasonable to apply Law 67 to one trick or the other---either to the quitted trick that the card disappeared from, or the trick that a player played a previously played card to. Which one? The one that is easier to apply or gives fairer results. Don't ask me which one that is---I don't know!! > > No revoke occurs at trick four, but somehow the card played to that trick > > is later (not immediately) replaced in declarer's hand. > > Same as above. The original trick is fine, but if the extra card is > later "played again," the later trick is defective. If declarer plays > wrong (or right!) because he thinks the extra card is in his hand, too > bad (or lucky!). > > If the reappearing card belongs to _dummy_ and the defenders go wrong > because they see it on the table, they generally should be protected. > Dummy's violation of procedure should not benefit his side. Similarly, > if somehow a _defender_ caused the card to reappear, declarer should be > protected against an ensuing misplay. > > OK, find the mistakes! There are a number of them---but all of them seem to be in the Laws, not in your analysis, which is reasonable. The fact that the Laws don't cover this is one big mistake. Another mistake is in Law 67B1(b), which refers to the "one-trick penalty of Law 64." This must have been put in way back before the revoke Laws were changed, and the Lawmakers must have forgotten to update it. In the past, the revoke penalty was one trick if the revoker didn't win the trick, two if he did. So it made sense to refer to the "one-trick penalty"---after all, it's hard to win a trick if you don't play any card to it at all (the assumption behind L67B1(b)). But now things have changed, and you can get a two-trick penalty even if you don't win the trick (L64A2). So the wording of L67B1(b) needs to be changed. Perhaps "Law 64 applies as if the offender did not win the trick on which the revoke occurred." Another minor mistake is the unclear wording of the last clause in L67B1(b). When I first read it, it appeared to me that the maximum penalty the offender may suffer is one trick. It took a while to figure out whether L64C is supposed to apply also. I think it does: if the offender is "deemed to have revoked on the defective trick", then the other revoke rules apply, including L64B and L64C. Another complication is that this situation makes it possible for a player to win a trick when he's deemed not to have contributed a card to it. Both Michael's and Steve's analyses ask us to consider a trick defective when everyone has played a card to it---they only differ in which trick should be so considered. What happens if the offender's card was the one that won the trick, and offender then led to the next trick and several more tricks took place, before the whole mess was discovered? This isn't a situation envisioned by L67B1(b) at all. Should the two-trick penalty apply in this case, as if offender won the revoke trick? Or if we deem that the card was never really played to the trick, do we simply give the trick to the other side, unless offender's partner's card was good enough to win the trick---unless the reason offender's partner's card was enough to win the trick was because the non-offender played low because he couldn't beat the offender's card that didn't really get played? It seems to me that an occurrence like this discombobulates everything so badly that the existing Laws just aren't enough to straighten everything out, except maybe our old friend L84E. This seems to be a deficiency in the Laws that should be addressed. I guess no one ever expected that a card could be played twice in the same hand. When I was a kid, my cousin used to cheat at "War" by using sleight-of-hand to hold on to the aces that were supposed to have been played. Maybe, in the entire history of duplicate, no one has ever tried this? -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 27 10:46:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA01300 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 10:46:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA01295 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 10:45:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt095n3b.san.rr.com [24.94.8.59]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA10850 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 17:45:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <041401bef025$621ee280$3b085e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <37C1455A.AB5BEFD3@village.uunet.be> <37C455CF.CB486582@elnet.msk.ru> <37C57ED9.AD208C95@eduhi.at> Subject: Re: L63B translation - again Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 17:44:48 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Vitold wrote: > > 2. The only body that has rights to make any changes in the Laws > > is WBFLC Been meaning to ask about this. When it comes time to revise the Laws, what is the procedure? I am guessing that the WBF appoints a drafting committee, and then??? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 27 10:53:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA01355 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 10:53:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA01350 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 10:53:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11KAGn-000HZ2-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 00:53:30 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 01:43:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Unappealing psychic References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Don Kersey wrote: >[I may have inadvertently sent this message twice. Apologies if so.] > >David Stevenson wrote > >>RP wrote: [please, Roger, get some decent software] >> >> [s] >> >>>I pick up Kx-xx-KJxx-Akxxx and partner opens 2D. I have ten seconds to >>>think. I realize that in a NT contract we have at least 2 clubs and 6 >>>diamonds, and maybe one spade- if I don't lose a bunch of hearts on the go. >>> If I bid hearts it is almost a certainty that partner will raise and with >>>two opponents bidding hearts the defense will be unlikely to find a heart >>>lead before it is too late. The prospect of 9 NT tricks is pretty good with >>>a nudge and the worst that will likely happen will be 9 tricks in a diamond >>>contract if partner does not let 3NT stand. This is exciting. Is the >>>feeling of the bridge community that responder must never be permitted to >>>play 3NT after 2H when opener has three hearts in support ? >> >> No. It is the combination of support being three cards to an honour, >>and there being an outside shortage that is suspicious. >> >> If you normally play eight card fits and a ruffing value in 3NT I >>would prefer you as my opponents tO being my team-mates. If you only >>exert this preference in sequences where your partner might have psyched >>I would prefer you not to play at my table at all. > >Some questions to follow these comments by David: > >1. In my regular partnerships, responder's 2H after the 2D opening is >natural and forcing; with the hand which opened 2D, I would rebid 3C over >partner's 2H bid, showing (i) a reasonable diamond suit - at least 2 of the >top 3 cards, (ii) Jxx or better in hearts, and (iii) a club control, almost >certainly shortness. If my partner now bid 3N, I would surely pass, having >given such a precise description of my holding. Would this sequence be >rated Red, Amber, or Green under EBU guidelines? Probably Green, I would think. The actual sequence would be followed on so many hands that to play it as other than a choice seems incredible: once you have described the hand fully in your methods it changes. >2. At least some North American players (as illustrated on this list) play >that 3N is not correctable after 2D-2H-3H-3N; partner having discovered >your heart support has set the final contract. If the pair in question >could document such an agreement, would this change the rating of the >psych? Would such an agreement even be legal in EBUland? It would be legal if they could indicate it was something other than a psychic control. Of course, the 3NT bid would be alertable. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 27 11:19:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA01417 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 11:19:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA01402 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 11:19:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11KAfz-0007VR-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 01:19:32 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 02:17:53 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Defective trick? In-Reply-To: <199908262325.TAA03417@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199908262325.TAA03417@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes > >> No revoke occurs at trick four, but somehow the card played to that trick >> is later (not immediately) replaced in declarer's hand. > >Same as above. The original trick is fine, but if the extra card is >later "played again," the later trick is defective. If declarer plays >wrong (or right!) because he thinks the extra card is in his hand, too >bad (or lucky!). > >If the reappearing card belongs to _dummy_ and the defenders go wrong >because they see it on the table, they generally should be protected. >Dummy's violation of procedure should not benefit his side. Similarly, >if somehow a _defender_ caused the card to reappear, declarer should be >protected against an ensuing misplay. > >OK, find the mistakes! Seems ok to me. chs John -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 27 11:19:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA01418 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 11:19:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA01404 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 11:19:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11KAfz-000PgI-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 01:19:33 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 02:15:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes > > I consider your methods unnecessary and not in line with the Laws of >the game. I am not prepared to tolerate people who deliberately break >the Laws because proof is absent and I consider that the EBU's methods >are the best I have seen so far as a framework of regulation to protect >the integrity of L40. > Being an EBU TD, appointed on the basis of "we'd rather have him on the inside p***ing out than on the outside p***ing in", and with a psyche file at EBU HQ that needs its own filing cabinet, I totally agree with the EBU approach and with DWS's views on how to use Law 40. I still psyche "frequently". I get recorded often. I occasionally get adjusted, but no-one suggests I cheat. I get the best of all worlds under this regime and just shrug when one of my more outrageous efforts catches partner at it too. The game is much easier to rule this way too. chs john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 27 11:19:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA01419 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 11:19:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA01403 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 11:19:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11KAfz-0000tk-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 01:19:32 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 02:07:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: What happened? In-Reply-To: <01bef01c$b2b7e7e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <01bef01c$b2b7e7e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid>, Anne Jones writes > >How can the ruling be the fielding of a misbid? Try persuading DWS that there's no such thing as a penalty double of partner's ferdinand and a 1NT overcall by 4th. I've never held a hand good enough :)) chs john > >Cheers >Anne -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 27 13:43:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA01773 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 13:43:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from aurora.alaska.edu (fxmgs@aurora.alaska.edu [137.229.18.100]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA01768 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 13:43:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (fxmgs@localhost) by aurora.alaska.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id TAA31877 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 19:42:57 -0800 (AKDT) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 19:42:57 -0800 (AKDT) From: Michael Schmahl Reply-To: Bridge Laws Mailing List To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Defective trick? (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 26 Aug 1999, Adam Beneschan wrote: : Unless your reasoning is that if a card has been played, it becomes a : figment of everyone's imagination and therefore is not really played : when it's played again---but there's really nothing in the Laws that : says anything like this. The Laws define a "play" as a "contribution : of a card from one's hand to a trick", not a "contribution of a card : from one's hand that wasn't played to a previous trick". : It seems to me that a card, once played and not withdrawn, is no longer a part of the player's hand. Or am I mistaken here? Declarer could no more play the C3 that has already been played than play the C3 from another board. This is why the second trick is defective, not the first one. posted & emailed by accident. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 27 15:28:43 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA02083 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 15:28:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA02078 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 15:28:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt095n3b.san.rr.com [24.94.8.59]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA14098 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 22:28:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <048a01bef04c$d5a391c0$3b085e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" References: <01bef01c$b2b7e7e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: What happened? Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 22:27:06 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: > > OK. It would appear that others do not think as I do. It has always been my > experience that to defend a one level contract doubled, without several > trump tricks is not a good idea. > If I could envisage a big cross ruff before declarer got the lead, I would > also Pass. However it seems to me that declarer is likely to win trick two > and draw most of the trumps. I am sure he has 5 and I am equally sure that > they break 4/4. Our system says they do. > The points are pretty evenly split, and I think it is more likely that I can > make 6 tricks in 1NT, that we can make 7 tricks in defence of Spades. I do > not expect 1NT to be doubled, the balance of points is more likely to be > with us.. > I chose to bid 1NT. Poor reasoning, IMO. No law against that. > > The ruling is that I have fielded a misbid. _RED_ 40%/60% Don't like that word "fielded," but maybe the connotations of that word aren't so bad over there as over here. > > There was no question of misexplanation. The CC says quite clearly [When we > have bid two suits a double of their suit is for penalties] > > 1. My partner's double was not a misbid. It was a tactical bid to try and > find out more about my hand. He did not expect, as he was looking at the QS > that I would have enough to pass the double. If I did do so it would surely > go well off. This particular partner has never played neg double in this > position with anyone, and has never doubled without 4 cards before.(meaning > this would have been my rebid) The bid was not a mistake. (not a mis-bid) > 2. It was a gross mis-statement of suit length, but the hand was strong > enough to think that the opponents would not bid again anyway. There was no > intention to deceive. It was a tactical bridge bid, not a psyche. > 3. It was not a minor deviation. The hand had one spade instead of four. Also poor reasoning, IMO. No law against that either > > How can the ruling be the fielding of a misbid? No comment, as I am not familiar with this "fielding" method of handling such occurrences. The ACBL has a different policy. An ACBL TD would have invoked the so-called "Principle of Coincidence," (PofC) included in the *ACBL Code of Active Ethics* (http://www.acbl.org/notices/ActiveEthics.htm), the coincidence consisting of a penalty double with a singleton coinciding with a takeout of the double when holding four cards in the suit. The score would be adjusted if there is subsequent damage, because the principle defines such bidding sequences "to be an infraction of ACBL regulations (full disclosure)." It is *prima facie* evidence that "an awareness may exist." The bidders are assumed to be guilty, despite the "may," and a PP may be in order whether or not a score adjustment is made. Moreover, "If an opponent or the director feels it is appropriate, a player memo may be submitted to the appropriate body." The PofC is not to be applied to inexperienced players, who seldom know what they are doing. One reason SOs are so tough on this sort of thing is that the likelihood of some undetected (by the opponents) UI is pretty high. For instance, the unspoken suspicion is that your partner's double may not have been made in a normal manner. Given the evidence you provide, I see no infraction of the Laws, but SOs feel that they can adjust automatically even when no law is known to have been infringed. It saves them a lot of time and trouble. However, L12C1 applies only when there has been an irregularity, and calling this one doesn't make it one. Of course you now have knowledge that must be disclosed when this partner makes this double again. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 27 16:23:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA02183 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 16:23:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from nickel.cix.co.uk (nickel.compulink.co.uk [194.153.0.18]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA02178 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 16:23:36 +1000 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id HAA03466 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 07:22:58 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 07:22 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: unappealing psychic To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <$NMbmhB2z0w3EwDh@blakjak.demon.co.uk> DWS wrote: > >> Have a look: > >> Q.J.6.5. > >> K T 8 3 > >> 9 3 > >> Q J 2 > >> 9 8 3 K 7 > >> Q 5 4 6 2 > >> A Q T 8 5 4 K J 7 2 > >> T A K 9 5 4 > >> > >> A T 4 2 > >> A J 9 7 > >> 6 > >> 8 7 6 3 > >> Board 24. Love All. Dealer West > >> Auction: > >> 2D - P - 2H - P > >> 3H - P - 3NT - all pass. > >> Spade lead; nine tricks. > >> 1. 2H = natural and forcing > > >Basically 3H seems like a perfectly normal bid unless EW are playing a > >particularly unusual system. > > Really? I would bid 4C, myself. I prefer 3H (forcing) but with certain partners I would regard both 3H and 4C as normal actions (ie both would be clear LAs were this a UI case). > > >Once East bids 3NT West places East with a holding like > KQT,Txxxx,Kx,AKJ >and passes - again a perfectly normal action. > > Rubbish. A bridge player bids 3NT over 2D with that hand. > Not opposite one of my weak 2s! Tim From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 27 17:12:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA02270 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 17:12:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA02265 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 17:12:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id JAA29829; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 09:12:02 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JF994M4VTK000SKC@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 09:11:14 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 09:11:12 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 09:11:11 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: L63B translation - again To: "'Marvin L. French'" , Bridge Laws Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C233@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk And then: The drafting committee chooses a way to come to a new version. It should be possible to give this committee some instructions how to develop its activities. Their results in progress are communicated to others, members of the WBFLC for example, for reactions. Eventually the WBFLC decides the final draft which has to be approved by several bodies: ACBL, EBL, Portland Club and WBF executive committee (may be I forgot one or two). All those bodies are involved in the drafting activities already. And there it is. Or not, after which an interesting situation exists, which never happened; or did it Grattan? ton > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: Marvin L. French [mailto:mlfrench@writeme.com] > Verzonden: vrijdag 27 augustus 1999 2:45 > Aan: Bridge Laws > Onderwerp: Re: L63B translation - again > > > Vitold wrote: > > > > 2. The only body that has rights to make any changes > in the Laws > > > is WBFLC > > Been meaning to ask about this. When it comes time to revise the Laws, > what is the procedure? I am guessing that the WBF appoints a drafting > committee, and then??? > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 27 19:09:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA02449 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 19:09:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.zeelandnet.nl (mail.zeelandnet.nl [62.12.12.194]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA02444 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 19:09:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from poimms-6350 (k609.zeelandnet.nl [193.172.203.101]) by mail.zeelandnet.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA05297 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 11:08:59 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <199908270908.LAA05297@mail.zeelandnet.nl> From: "Marcel Schoof" To: Subject: Re: What happened? Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 11:07:38 +0200 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Van: Anne Jones > Datum: vrijdag 27 augustus 1999 1:42 > > > >>> >It was a 4=3=4=2 6 count (Board 3 sess 4 =top sect) > >>> >> 1C from pd, pass, you bid 1D. > >>> >> > >>> >> 1S from LHO, double, penalties from pd, your call? > > > >Dealer South E/W vulnerable MP Pairs. > > > >You are North looking at > >J932 > >973 > >AJ84 > >87 > > > >and the bidding goes: > >1C from pard (South)(alerted may be 3 cards) > >P from RHO > >1D from you > >1S from LHO > >Dbl from pard.(shows 4/5 Clubs and 4 Spades > > 13+HCPs) > >P from RHO > > > John; Marcel; Feargal all say they think there is no LA to Pass. No-one has > said that they think there is so perhaps (only maybe) I am wrong about this > one. > > > OK. It would appear that others do not think as I do. It has always been my > experience that to defend a one level contract doubled, without several > trump tricks is not a good idea. > If I could envisage a big cross ruff before declarer got the lead, I would > also Pass. However it seems to me that declarer is likely to win trick two > and draw most of the trumps. I am sure he has 5 and I am equally sure that > they break 4/4. Our system says they do. > The points are pretty evenly split, and I think it is more likely that I can > make 6 tricks in 1NT, that we can make 7 tricks in defence of Spades. I do > not expect 1NT to be doubled, the balance of points is more likely to be > with us.. > I chose to bid 1NT. ++ I don't follow your analisys, since +200 (partner's choice) is better than -50 (your choice) > LHO asks about the double and is told "penalties. It promises 4 Spades." > The complete auction:- > 1C - P - 1D - 1S > Dbl - P - 1NT - Dbl > 2D - 2S - Dbl - P > 3D - P - P - Dbl > AP. > LHO leads AS and dummy appears. > Q > KQJT > KQ53 > KT94 > LHO calls the TD and says that he has been given misinformation. He would > not have doubled 1NT if he knew the Spades were on his right rather than his > left !! > 3D Dbl rolls in for 9 tricks and the TD is called back. > > The ruling is that I have fielded a misbid. _RED_ 40%/60% > > There was no question of misexplanation. The CC says quite clearly [When we > have bid two suits a double of their suit is for penalties] ++ LHO has a right to know your agrements of the bid. Your CC says it's a penalty double but in the quote above it doesn't say he has four spades. If it does LOH is given every information he ought to know. He made the wrong decision, unlucky. > > 1. My partner's double was not a misbid. It was a tactical bid to try and > find out more about my hand. He did not expect, as he was looking at the QS > that I would have enough to pass the double. If I did do so it would surely > go well off. This particular partner has never played neg double in this > position with anyone, and has never doubled without 4 cards before.(meaning > this would have been my rebid) The bid was not a mistake. (not a mis-bid) > 2. It was a gross mis-statement of suit length, but the hand was strong > enough to think that the opponents would not bid again anyway. There was no > intention to deceive. It was a tactical bridge bid, not a psyche. > 3. It was not a minor deviation. The hand had one spade instead of four. > > How can the ruling be the fielding of a misbid? > ++ 1. I get confused. The Double is penalty and he believes you haven't got enough to pass. The only way to bid (IMO) is if you have a lot more (in points of destribution) to play game. In a part score you'll never score +200. So I believe that in this extra explanation the problem occurs. it's a partnerships understanding that you bid after partner has doubled for penalty. 2. It falls in the definition of a psyche and you make a psyche if you think it's tactical to do so at any point of the auction. Although I believe that the ABCL makes a difference between the two, it's the same to me. As to the decision. Opponents can see the psyche clearly after your partners bid of 3D (He already bid for 1SX -1 and doesn't want the score for 2SX -2). So the double on 3D is on their account. As to your score you get penalized separately for not giving full disclosure about your agrements on a penalty double and maybe (depending on your CC) extra if you can't prove that he promisis a four card spade. With my partners I play practicly the same system after to suits are bid by our side, but in the explanation of the double we differ. A: I never say anathing about the holding in opp. suit. I simply don't know B: I explane that partner makes a proposition (1/2 level doubles) to play 1S X, so that I may chooce to pass depending on the values of my hand. With the hand you descibe of your partner ( a bad 15 pointer) none of my partners would consider to double. Regards Marcel From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 27 21:16:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA02780 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 21:16:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA02767 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 21:16:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-17-82.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.17.82]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA20143 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 13:16:27 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37C64AC8.BAD5A88B@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 10:22:32 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI References: <199908121346.OAA17955@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> <37C3C05F.24322C56@village.uunet.be> <37C51ACA.C73F29E1@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > I am sorry. I do not see how an implicit agreement is not an > agreement. If they have an agreement over psyches based on their > understandings then they have an agreement. Any agreement that includes > a 1-level opening on less than 8 HCP is illegal in England [perhaps not > at Level 5, but that's a red herring]. > You have misread what I have stated. I am saying that they do NOT have an agreement ! I don't consider the fielding to be proof of any agreement. That would be cheating. I consider the fielding to be proof of "experience". Disclosable under L75C, but not subject to agreement rules and regulations. Why else would the Lawmakers have used two (even three) different words? Perhaps you are thinking of the word "implicit". I don't believe that word is used to cover these situations. Implicit simply means that negative agreements are also agreements. We have never agreed not to open a 15HCP 4-3-3-3 with 1Spade (but rather with 1NT), but if I open 1Sp, the agreement exists (implicitely) that this excludes a 15-17 normal distribution. A psyche, even fielded, is not an implicit agreement, it is not an agreement at all. It may be experience. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 27 21:16:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA02793 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 21:16:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA02784 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 21:16:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-17-82.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.17.82]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA20164 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 13:16:35 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37C65164.EF6B9B8@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 10:50:44 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: What happened? References: <01bef01c$b2b7e7e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: > > > 1. My partner's double was not a misbid. It was a tactical bid to try and > find out more about my hand. He did not expect, as he was looking at the QS > that I would have enough to pass the double. If I did do so it would surely > go well off. This particular partner has never played neg double in this > position with anyone, and has never doubled without 4 cards before.(meaning > this would have been my rebid) The bid was not a mistake. (not a mis-bid) > 2. It was a gross mis-statement of suit length, but the hand was strong > enough to think that the opponents would not bid again anyway. There was no > intention to deceive. It was a tactical bridge bid, not a psyche. > 3. It was not a minor deviation. The hand had one spade instead of four. > > How can the ruling be the fielding of a misbid? > > Cheers > Anne My feelings go with you Anne. If that is official EBU (and WBU - you cannot escape there, Anne) policy, then there is something very wrong with the EBU. 'nuff said. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 27 21:16:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA02791 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 21:16:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA02779 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 21:16:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-17-82.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.17.82]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA20160 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 13:16:33 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37C650A7.4B7CCA9A@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 10:47:35 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > > > Being an EBU TD, appointed on the basis of "we'd rather have him on the > inside p***ing out than on the outside p***ing in", and with a psyche > file at EBU HQ that needs its own filing cabinet, I totally agree with > the EBU approach and with DWS's views on how to use Law 40. > I am surprised at this. > I still psyche "frequently". I get recorded often. I occasionally get > adjusted, but no-one suggests I cheat. I get the best of all worlds > under this regime and just shrug when one of my more outrageous efforts > catches partner at it too. The game is much easier to rule this way > too. > I am surprised at this even more. OK John, you psyche, as is allowed under that Law 40A that everyone wants to use. Your partner, through a combination of his cards and opponents' bidding, suspects you have psyched. At this moment, he informs the opponents that they may be should not believe everything that they hear, and he bids something which caters for your psyche. His bid is also allowed under L40A, and you have told opponents all they are entitled to know. Out comes DWS, and he rules against you, not even looking to see if there was damage. And you accept this ? Now I know why they let you in. If you were out, you would probably cry to hell. I have a suggestion, John. Come to Antwerp on the 11th of September. (giant pub drive) Here you can psyche as much as you want, and you won't be called a CPU'er. I might rule against you, but it will be on the basis of L75C, not L40A. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 27 21:17:00 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA02798 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 21:17:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA02792 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 21:16:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-17-82.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.17.82]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA20174 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 13:16:37 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37C6738F.59EA1F79@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 13:16:31 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: understanding, agreement, experience Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Several threads on psyches have recently faced. Once again, David and I are at odds. I would like to come to an understanding about the scope of the laws on these issues. (I have not inserted ... on any part of the texts that I have omitted because they are unnecessary to my points - in particular, I have removed every reference to play - I know everything applies there too) L40A : a player may make any call provided that such a call is not based on a partnership understanding. I don't believe this law is in any way important because it is immediately checked by : L40B : a player may not make a call based on a special partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonbaly be expected to understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such call. The second part of this law just means full disclosure. Together, these laws say that a player may call whatever he wants, provided everything that is "partnership understanding" is disclosed. The word "special" is used in L40B, and nowhere else. We have never fully grasped why it is there. The next law says what shall happen if there is less than full disclosure. L40C: if a side has been damaged through failure to explain the full meaning, the TD may award an adjusted score. Here, the word "meaning" is used. This is a different word from "partnership understanding". I shall return to this later. L40C uses the word damage. Barring special circumstances, there seems to me to be no way L40A and L40B can be used on their own to warrant giving an artificially adjusted score. IMHO, EBU regulations that state this go against the Law. Next we come to the basis for system regulation: L40D: the SO may regulate the use of bidding conventions. ZO's may also regulate partnership understandings that permit (light openings). ZO's may delegate this responsability. A lot has already been said about this Law. What is a convention, and so on. But a fact is that this Law states that "partnership understanding" goes further than just conventions. This means that SO's can regulate conventional calls, and light openings, provided the ZO has delegated that responsability. There must be some partnership understandings that can not be regulated upon, although I don't really see what they are, given the ACBL's neat way of declaring anything a convention when it so choses. Let's just assume that "partnership understandings" can be regulated. We still have no good definition of what constitutes a "partnership understanding" though. There is another Law that seems to deal with exactly the same issue. L75A: special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must be fully and freely available to the opponents. This seems to be completely equal to L40B, except that here, the word is agreement, not understanding. I conclude that agreement and understanding are two words for the same thing, in Law. L75B(1): A player may violate an announced partnership agreement, so long as partner is unaware of the violation. This is completely analogous to L40A. Why is everything written in double? I know - historical reasons, L75 was originally part of the "proprieties". but his goes on: L75B(2): habitual violations within a partnership may create implicit agreements. This is a usage I did not expect for the word implicit, but I won't comment on that. What this means is that in order for there to be some usage of this particular sentence, there has to be some evidence for "habitual", and "within a partnership". Severe points which I do not believe easy to prove, and should serve as a guide to the players, not as some guide for drafting regulations. Next comes a very important point: L75C: when explaining the significance of partner's call, a players shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience. I have deliberately omitted the phrase "in response to". I believe that the alert requirements are such, that this is to be regarded as a question from opponents. I would certainly not allow the back door open that "I did not alert, but L75C only speaks of answering questions". I would certainly suggest that l75C be adapted to state that in all matters of disclosure, including alerts and CC ... What is important is the use of two methods of conveying information: agreement and experience. I believe the lawmakers intended to do two things here: a) not to limit the disclosable information to that which was agreed upon by the partnership b) indicate a specifice class of information: experience, not by agreement. It is my profound opinion that a player's habits can be known through experience, and are not a part of the agreements. Two players in one pair can play one set of agreements (as they must, by order of most SO's), but they can have a different set of "habits". Exchange two hands in a partnership and the bidding might go differently. One player will transfer and raise to game, the other might decide he plays better and bid game himself. These habits are a part of partnership experience, and must be disclosed, but they are not "agreements", and they cannot be regulated. Now we can also understand why L40C uses "meaning" in stead of "partnership understanding". "experience" is also a part of "meaning". Whatever you may think of my points of view, I think you should agree with me that the laws use 3 words : understanding, agreement, experience and that understanding = agreement but experience > agreement and experience + agreement = meaning And as a conclusion: Some types of bidding behaviour must be explained, but cannot be regulated upon. I hope you will not deny me this small "victory ?" :-) Which does not settle the question we are addressing in the different psyching threads: Is a particular psyching tendency experience or agreement. I believe it should be experience, but I doubt if the answer can be so simple. For instance, the type of psyche should be taken into account, as well as the frequency with which a particular situation occurs. I give the same example over and over again: I always open 1H, third in hand, on 4-2-3-4, 2HCP, but when I open 1H third in hand, only in 1% of the cases do I not have something like 3-5-2-3, 13HCP - or more. My partners may well have experience that tells them this is possible, but I have no agreements about it. To return to the EBU regulation. I accept that the EBU hands down guidelines as to which type of bidding shall constitute prima facie evidence of partnership experience. I accept that the EBU rules against these bidding sequences. But only if they do so under the cloak of damage, as in L40C, not by simply saying "concealed partnership understanding" - a term which is not in the Law, just in the heading. If they are right, then they should be giving the same artificial adjusted scores next time someone forgets to alert a transfer bid (alertable under EBU regulations IIRC). When I played in London at Easter, someone psyched against me. It may well have been classed AMBER or even RED (do tell me David, John, has there been any further action - you know what I'm talking of). I was not damaged, and if I had been, it would have been my fault, not opponent's, but I doubt if there has been any action about CPU - yet it came quite close to it in my eyes. To make another point, a CPU must be adjusted if there has been damage, but only very severe cases should warrant further action. I think I have bored you long enough. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 27 21:32:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA02786 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 21:16:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA02772 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 21:16:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-17-82.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.17.82]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA20150 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 13:16:30 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37C64ED6.F71177EE@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 10:39:50 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI References: <199908121346.OAA17955@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> <37C3C05F.24322C56@village.uunet.be> <37C51ACA.C73F29E1@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > > >My question was, on which basis does one adjust. > > If they are in breach of L40A we adjust. > Sorry David, I don't like your tone here. This was the statement at which I came in. I asked you to clarify, and I even put down a whole lot of text why I think your clarification would not hold up. And you reply in one sentence. Sorry. No can do. Explain or refrain from using one-liners. > >Now as before, I do not like to use L40B for this. There is > >no proof of an understanding, just by the fielding. > > Why do you use the word proof? You know we do not require proof. Do > you ever fine anyone for putting the cards back in the board wrong? You > do so because a preponderance of evidence suggests it: in fact someone > may have come past, picked up the board with no-one noticing, and > deliberately fouled it. It is so unlikely that you do not consider it. > Do you ever decide someone has hesitated? Of course you do, from the > evidence. Is it proved? No. If you are going to direct by only making > alterations when things are proved you are in the wrong game altogether. > Such an approach would wreck bridge. People would cheat, use > hesitations, deliberately foul boards, and do all sorts of things and > get away with them. > OK, replace "proof" in all my posts with "evidence, enough to be considered satisfactory". My argument holds. You consider the fielding as "evidence" for something. I'm just telling it is not evidence for CPU, but for existence of "experience". > > To > >suggest this would be a suggestion of cheating, and don't go > >telling me otherwise! > > Fine, I won't tell you otherwise. > A CPU is tantamount to cheating. I don't like to accuse anyone of that, unless there is severe evidence. As I said, the evidence at hand points to experience, not agreement. I'm also saying that experience should be enough to be able to rule. Why do you insist on calling people cheats? "I am not saying that you committed murder, but I sentence you to life imprisonment on the basis of article ... of the criminal code" Come on now, Amnesty International would create havoc over such a thing. > But for anyone out there who is not Herman, when I say someone has > fielded a psyche I mean he has made a call or play that appears to allow > for partner's psyche. You can say that for Herman too, he agrees. > It is evidence of a CPU [concealed partnership > understanding]. I don't buy that one. It is evidence of concealed partnership experience. > If blatant enough it means that I can judge there to > have been a breach of L40A or L40B and I shall adjust. I shall call no- > one a cheat and it does not mean anyone is cheating and it is not > tantamount to cheating. > OK, then CPU's are no longer cheating in your book. > >Rather, the fielding can be considered proof for an > >"experience". > > Rubbish. It is not proof. > change my words to "evidence". > >Don't quibble with me on this yet, the result is the same. > >Now we are in breach of L75C. > > > >Which can lead to an adjustment, provided all other > >conditions are met: > >-damage (and I'm certain that in the cases you adjust in, > >there was damage) AND > >-consequence. > > I see no reason to go down this road. If people breach L40A I do not > need damage to deal with them. > I don't think you have evidence to suggest that L40A is broken. And besides, why don't you need damage to deal with a breach of L40A? I thought that was the basis of all our rulings about MI ? Next you'll be handing out PP's for failure to alert ! > >We should be asking the following question of opponents : > >"suppose partner would have told you, at the moment in which > >this could have become clear to him, that his partner has a > >tendency to psyche in such and such a way, would you have > >taken the same actions". > > > >Only if that question has a positive answer, is there need > >to adjust, in my opinion. > > So you are allowing people to deliberately and with malice > aforethought break the Laws of the game? > Of course I don't, what gave you that idea ? > >Let me try and explain my point of view by an example. > > > >I'm going back to your original: > > > > If your partner opens a Spanish green spade [a > >third-in-hand non-vul v > >vul spade], next hand overcalls 1NT and you pass with 11 > >HCP, then I am > >adjusting when your partner has psyched. I am accusing you > >of nothing > >but I am adjusting. What better way is there to handle it? > > > > > >Let's assume partner is indeed a "frequent" psycher. You use > >the case here as "evidence" for that, and I agree with you, > >but I'd go even further - other evidence may lead to the > >same conclusion. If this is me, any blml reader can provide > >enough evidence for the "partnership experience". > > > >What I am trying to say is that under full disclosure, this > >auction + explanations should go : > > > >W N E S > >pass pass 1Sp > > ("East is a known psycher in this situation, he may not > >have his bid, in which case he is likely to be 2-4-3-4 with > >0-3HCP, but of course in 99% of the cases he has a regular > >opening, always of 11HCP or equivalent length, never less > >than 10HCP without length") > > 1NT > >pass > >("West may be catering to his partner's psyche, he could > >have 11HCP, but he will normally bid with 6-8 and support, > >or double with 8-10 without support") > > 3NT all pass > > > >If S has 17 points, and N 10, then the opponent's points > >will be 11-2 or 2-11, both of which are consistent with the > >"full" explanation. > >If this full explanation is lacking, and the contract fails > >because the points are 11-2 in stead of the expected 2-11, > >then there could be an adjustment, provided that south has a > >"safe" line that can detect 3 points in the west hand. If > >there is no such discovery line, then I rule that with the > >full explanation, it is still 99% likely to find the points > >2-11, and that should be the line followed. > > > >OTOH if North, with 10 points, chooses to pass on his > >partner's overcall of 1NT, I rule that the damage was not > >caused by the MI, and there will be no adjustment. > > > >I don't think we are very far apart in our points of view, > >but I would like to hear your comments. > > I consider your methods unnecessary and not in line with the Laws of > the game. I am not prepared to tolerate people who deliberately break > the Laws because proof is absent and I consider that the EBU's methods > are the best I have seen so far as a framework of regulation to protect > the integrity of L40. > I consider your methods unnecessary and not in line with the Laws of the game. I am not prepared to suggest that people who know their partner's habits are breaking any Law of the game. I consider the EBU's methods to be a variation of the theme "if it psyches, shoot it". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 27 22:49:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA03132 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 22:49:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA03127 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 22:49:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (dup-207-176-64-97.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA16599 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 08:49:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990827084857.0069ed90@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 08:48:57 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI In-Reply-To: <37C64AC8.BAD5A88B@village.uunet.be> References: <199908121346.OAA17955@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> <37C3C05F.24322C56@village.uunet.be> <37C51ACA.C73F29E1@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:22 AM 8/27/99 +0200, Herman wrote: >A psyche, even fielded, is not an implicit agreement, it is >not an agreement at all. >It may be experience. I hope someone can propose a precise definition of the distinction between "implicit agreement" and "experience". My intuition, like Herman's, tells me that there is one, but the ACBL has made it clear that they disagree. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 27 23:43:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA03287 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 23:43:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from batman.npl.co.uk (batman.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA03282 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 23:43:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from herschel.npl.co.uk (unknown.npl.co.uk [139.143.1.16] (may be forged)) by batman.npl.co.uk (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id OAA29644; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 14:43:05 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA17985; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 14:42:59 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 13:42:58 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA20293; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 14:42:56 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id OAA22809; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 14:42:46 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 14:42:46 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199908271342.OAA22809@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, elandau@cais.com Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > I hope someone can propose a precise definition of the distinction between > "implicit agreement" and "experience". My intuition, like Herman's, tells > me that there is one, but the ACBL has made it clear that they disagree. > In life, co-operating groups (e.g. couples, families) readily assume a tacit (=implicit) agreement from experience. We assume people who do something once, will do it again, and base our actions on it. Implicit agreements is a very widely encompassing term and is (almost) the same as experience. If partner does something novel at the bridge table: that is experience. Unless you say "don't do that again", partner may well do it again: that is an implicit agreement. Robin From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 28 00:30:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA03448 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 00:22:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand4.global.net.uk (sand4.global.net.uk [194.126.80.248]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA03437 for ; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 00:22:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from p12s08a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.168.19] helo=pacific) by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11KMtI-0005sU-00; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 15:22:04 +0100 Message-ID: <00b301bef097$8ad20460$13a893c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "John Probst" , Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 14:07:37 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 27 August 1999 02:46 Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI >In article , David Stevenson > writes >> >Being an EBU TD, appointed on the basis of "we'd rather have him on the >inside p***ing out than on the outside p***ing in", > ++ Don't understand the diffidence, we all know you peep. ~ G ~ ++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 28 01:18:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA03681 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 01:18:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [195.147.248.109] (may be forged)) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA03676 for ; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 01:18:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from p83s02a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.130.132] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11KNlu-0002Ky-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 16:18:31 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: What happened? Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 16:11:41 +0100 Message-ID: <01bef09e$77f386a0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Marcel Schoof To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Friday, August 27, 1999 10:40 AM Subject: Re: What happened? >> Van: Anne Jones >> Datum: vrijdag 27 augustus 1999 1:42 >> >> >> >>> >It was a 4=3=4=2 6 count (Board 3 sess 4 =top sect) >> >>> >> 1C from pd, pass, you bid 1D. >> >>> >> >> >>> >> 1S from LHO, double, penalties from pd, your call? >> > >> >Dealer South E/W vulnerable MP Pairs. >> > >> >You are North looking at >> >J932 >> >973 >> >AJ84 >> >87 >> > >> >and the bidding goes: >> >1C from pard (South)(alerted may be 3 cards) >> >P from RHO >> >1D from you >> >1S from LHO >> >Dbl from pard.(shows 4/5 Clubs and 4 Spades >> > 13+HCPs) >> >P from RHO >> > >> John; Marcel; Feargal all say they think there is no LA to Pass. No-one >has >> said that they think there is so perhaps (only maybe) I am wrong about >this >> one. >> >> >> OK. It would appear that others do not think as I do. It has always been >my >> experience that to defend a one level contract doubled, without several >> trump tricks is not a good idea. >> If I could envisage a big cross ruff before declarer got the lead, I >would >> also Pass. However it seems to me that declarer is likely to win trick >two >> and draw most of the trumps. I am sure he has 5 and I am equally sure >that >> they break 4/4. Our system says they do. >> The points are pretty evenly split, and I think it is more likely that I >can >> make 6 tricks in 1NT, that we can make 7 tricks in defence of Spades. I >do >> not expect 1NT to be doubled, the balance of points is more likely to be >> with us.. >> I chose to bid 1NT. > >++ I don't follow your analisys, since +200 (partner's choice) is better >than -50 (your choice) As it happens the result might have been +200, partner's choice. You should remember that I am bidding on what partner is _supposed_ to have. If I was not I would be guilty as charged! If partner's double was intended to be negative, I might well have passed! If partner is 4/3/2/4 missing Aces but with 14 HCPs then I think a pass will give us - 160 instead of the 100 I advocate by bidding 1NT. However this is not the place for discussion of bidding expertise, or of the beauty of our system, but for the consideration of whether the bidding sequence was legal. There was complete disclosure of style. The fact that pard had specifically 4 spades was mentioned when the meaning of the double was requested. Our opps did not examine our card but the TD did and he was satisfied that the explanation was accurate. TDs concern was that we had both made bids which seemed, as he said, "very strange". But were they illegal? Anne From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 28 01:21:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA03700 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 01:21:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA03695 for ; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 01:20:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (dup-207-176-64-97.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA13247 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 11:21:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990827112050.006cc90c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 11:20:50 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI In-Reply-To: <199908271342.OAA22809@tempest.npl.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:42 PM 8/27/99 +0100, Robin wrote: >In life, co-operating groups (e.g. couples, families) readily >assume a tacit (=implicit) agreement from experience. We assume >people who do something once, will do it again, and base our actions >on it. Implicit agreements is a very widely encompassing term and >is (almost) the same as experience. > >If partner does something novel at the bridge table: that is >experience. Unless you say "don't do that again", partner >may well do it again: that is an implicit agreement. This is the essence of the ACBL's infamous "one psych per partnership per lifetime" rule. Both Robin and the ACBL assert that a single deviation from a partnership's explicit agreements creates a new "implicit agreement", which means that it may only be repeated if it satisfies all the restrictions to which an explicit agreement would be subject. But if we believe that, then... Pard: "1H." You: "Alert." RHO: "Please explain." You: "That shows 13+ HCP with 4+ hearts, except that about six and a half years ago he opened 1H with 3 HCP and 2 small hearts." Is this really what we believe the law requires? Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 28 01:30:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA03447 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 00:22:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand4.global.net.uk (sand4.global.net.uk [194.126.80.248]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA03435 for ; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 00:22:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from p12s08a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.168.19] helo=pacific) by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11KMtG-0005sU-00; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 15:22:02 +0100 Message-ID: <00b201bef097$89c57660$13a893c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Subject: Re: new guy-edlines? (was Re: L16A1-Reply) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 13:53:15 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 26 August 1999 15:43 Subject: Re: new guy-edlines? (was Re: L16A1-Reply) > >I have always preferred the language I learned fifty-some years ago. When I >was, for many years, Appeals Chairman for the Toronto Regional Tournament I >told the PTB (powers that be) that the first time they called me >"chairperson" I would resign. > ++ I do not, and WILL not, use Chair, Chairperson, or Ms ~G~ ++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 28 01:44:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA03455 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 00:22:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand4.global.net.uk (sand4.global.net.uk [194.126.80.248]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA03449 for ; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 00:22:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from p12s08a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.168.19] helo=pacific) by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11KMtQ-0005sU-00; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 15:22:12 +0100 Message-ID: <00b701bef097$8faa8e80$13a893c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Jesper Dybdal" , Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 15:20:22 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 26 August 1999 16:11 Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI >On Tue, 10 Aug 1999 00:13:18 +0100, "Grattan Endicott" > wrote: > >>+++ ++ I quote from the EBL commentary on the 1987 laws: >Why is it UI for the partnership itself? ++ I suppose the true answer to that is "Because Edgar said so" - and then because the EBL accepted it into the commentary.++ > >It seems to me that when the SO requests psyche frequency >information on the convention card, the SO has implicitly >announced that it considers the psyche frequency a legal >partnership agreement. > ++++ My personal opinion is that it is a denial of the meaning of 'psychic' that players should be allowed to discuss and disclose frequency of psyching, or indeed, anything about psyching. Once it is discussed it becomes, in my view, part of the partnership's understandings. So here is a case of something written in obedience to the ruling but contrary to my personal opinion. ~ G ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 28 02:04:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA04136 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 02:04:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA04130 for ; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 02:04:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id MAA21748 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 12:04:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA03964 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 12:04:12 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 12:04:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199908271604.MAA03964@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Defective trick? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Adam Beneschan > The Laws define a "play" as a "contribution > of a card from one's hand to a trick", You have hit it; the key words are "from one's hand." Once a card is played, it is no longer part of one's hand, even if it is mistakenly placed there. Thus it cannot subsequently be "played." Or so it seems to me. Of course I dodged the question of how to apply L67, once the facts are determined. Adam makes a good case for simplification and clarification. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 28 02:30:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA03921 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 01:55:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA03902 for ; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 01:55:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11KOLI-000JO6-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 15:55:06 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 14:39:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: What happened? References: <199908270908.LAA05297@mail.zeelandnet.nl> In-Reply-To: <199908270908.LAA05297@mail.zeelandnet.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marcel Schoof wrote: >With my partners I play practicly the same system after to suits are bid by >our side, but in the explanation of the double we differ. >A: I never say anathing about the holding in opp. suit. I simply don't know >B: I explane that partner makes a proposition (1/2 level doubles) to play >1S X, so that I may chooce to pass depending on the values of my hand. That is defined here as a Co-operative double [if partner usually passes] or an Optional double [if partner will pass or bid with similar frequency] but not a Penalty double [where partner is expected to pass]. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 28 02:43:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA04288 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 02:43:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from batman.npl.co.uk (batman.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA04283 for ; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 02:43:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from herschel.npl.co.uk (unknown.npl.co.uk [139.143.1.16] (may be forged)) by batman.npl.co.uk (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id RAA06093; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 17:42:58 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA04977; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 17:42:52 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 16:42:51 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA21094; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 17:42:48 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id RAA23097; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 17:42:39 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 17:42:39 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199908271642.RAA23097@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, elandau@cais.com Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >If partner does something novel at the bridge table: that is > >experience. Unless you say "don't do that again", partner > >may well do it again: that is an implicit agreement. > > This is the essence of the ACBL's infamous "one psych per partnership per > lifetime" rule. Both Robin and the ACBL assert that a single deviation > from a partnership's explicit agreements creates a new "implicit > agreement", which means that it may only be repeated if it satisfies all > the restrictions to which an explicit agreement would be subject. > I didn't intend to imply "one psych per partnership per lifetime" or even "one psych per similar sequence per partnership per lifetime". I certainly didn't want (necessarily) to agree with the ACBL :-) I just wanted to show how close "experience" and "implict agreement" can get. My position is the same as the laws': "habitual violations within a partnership may create implicit agreements, which must be disclosed" (L75B). Disclosure of parterships methods should be helpful to opponents: saying partner psyched a 1H opener six-years ago isn't helpful; explaining a double as "penalties, shows four; but partner may be stuck for a call with a singleton, so I may well take-out" (sorry Anne) may be helfpul to an opponent who is thinking whether to raise. Robin From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 28 02:48:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA03076 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 22:31:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA03070 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 22:31:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (dup-207-176-64-97.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA13796 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 08:31:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990827083052.006d3a3c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 08:30:52 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: What happened? In-Reply-To: <048a01bef04c$d5a391c0$3b085e18@san.rr.com> References: <01bef01c$b2b7e7e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:27 PM 8/26/99 -0700, Marvin wrote: >An ACBL TD would have invoked the so-called "Principle of Coincidence," >(PofC) included in the *ACBL Code of Active Ethics* >(http://www.acbl.org/notices/ActiveEthics.htm), the coincidence consisting >of a penalty double with a singleton coinciding with a takeout of the >double when holding four cards in the suit. The score would be adjusted if >there is subsequent damage, because the principle defines such bidding >sequences "to be an infraction of ACBL regulations (full disclosure)." It >is *prima facie* evidence that "an awareness may exist." The bidders are >assumed to be guilty, despite the "may," and a PP may be in order whether >or not a score adjustment is made. Moreover, "If an opponent or the >director feels it is appropriate, a player memo may be submitted to the >appropriate body." The PofC is not to be applied to inexperienced players, >who seldom know what they are doing. I hope Marv is wrong here, although I fear he is not. Neither the "principle of coincidence" nor the Code of Active Ethics have any sanction either under the laws or by "official" ACBL policy. Unfortunately, when it comes to ACBL policy, what's official and what's generally understood are often not the same, and, regrettably, there are any number of TDs (and AC members) who believe that they are rules to be enforced. The Code of Active Ethics purports to tell players how to *go beyond the requirements of the laws* to play a particularly sportsmanlike, "super-ethical" game. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 28 03:14:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA03460 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 00:22:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand4.global.net.uk (sand4.global.net.uk [194.126.80.248]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA03454 for ; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 00:22:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from p12s08a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.168.19] helo=pacific) by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11KMtO-0005sU-00; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 15:22:10 +0100 Message-ID: <00b601bef097$8e8d37a0$13a893c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 15:17:54 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Date: 27 August 1999 12:46 Subject: understanding, agreement, experience >Several threads on psyches have recently faced. > >Once again, David and I are at odds. > >I would like to come to an understanding about the scope of >the laws on these issues. > --- \x/ --- > >L40A : a player may make any call provided that such a call >is not based on a partnership understanding. > --- \x/ --- >L40B : a player may not make a call based on a special >partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may >reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, or unless >his side discloses the use of such call. > ---- \x/ ---- > >The word "special" is used in L40B, and nowhere else. We >have never fully grasped why it is there. > +++++ 'Special' is also in Law 75, of course. I think that the idea of 'special' is that it is an understanding that is peculiar to the partnership and not necessarily to partnerships in general. We should not confuse 40A with 40B. They deal with different aspects of players calls: 40A is dealing with calls that have no agreed systemic basis. 40B is concerned with what players may use when they have agreements. The EBU regulation is in keeping with 40C. I am not entering into the full debate on this subject because I think it may be a subject that will have an outing in the forthcoming WBF get-together on appeals procedures. I would not want to anticipate that. ~ G ~ +++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 28 03:30:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA03919 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 01:55:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA03904 for ; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 01:55:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11KOLI-000JO5-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 15:55:06 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 14:35:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI References: <37C650A7.4B7CCA9A@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <37C650A7.4B7CCA9A@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >OK John, you psyche, as is allowed under that Law 40A that >everyone wants to use. Your partner, through a combination >of his cards and opponents' bidding, suspects you have >psyched. At this moment, he informs the opponents that they >may be should not believe everything that they hear, and he >bids something which caters for your psyche. His bid is also >allowed under L40A, and you have told opponents all they are >entitled to know. > >Out comes DWS, and he rules against you, not even looking to >see if there was damage. And you accept this ? Now I know >why they let you in. If you were out, you would probably >cry to hell. May I suggest you actually read L40A? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 28 03:43:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA03545 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 00:42:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (mailhub.irvine.com [192.160.8.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA03540 for ; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 00:42:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA17207; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 07:41:48 -0700 Message-Id: <199908271441.HAA17207@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Defective trick? (fwd) In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 26 Aug 1999 19:42:57 PDT." Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 07:41:48 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Schmahl wrote: > On Thu, 26 Aug 1999, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > : Unless your reasoning is that if a card has been played, it becomes a > : figment of everyone's imagination and therefore is not really played > : when it's played again---but there's really nothing in the Laws that > : says anything like this. The Laws define a "play" as a "contribution > : of a card from one's hand to a trick", not a "contribution of a card > : from one's hand that wasn't played to a previous trick". > : > > It seems to me that a card, once played and not withdrawn, is no longer a > part of the player's hand. Or am I mistaken here? > > Declarer could no more play the C3 that has already been played than play > the C3 from another board. This is why the second trick is defective, not > the first one. I think you're mistaken. If the player picks up the card and puts it in his hand, it is now part of the player's hand. And if he later puts the card down as if he's playing it, then the card is played again. This is just using normal English definitions. Of course, none of this is *supposed* to happen. But you're also not supposed to bid out of turn, or make insufficient bids, or double your partner's bid, etc. The Laws contain lots of stuff to deal with cases where things happen that aren't *supposed* to happen. But they missed this one. You can pretend that the card that's in the player's hand is not in his hand, and that when he plays the card later, he's not really playing it. This is one possible way to come up with a ruling, as I pointed out. My point is that there's no logical reason why one *must* take this approach; there's nothing in the Laws that says to rule as if the card wasn't really in the player's hand, and wasn't really played. Also, taking this approach doesn't appear to simplify anything, especially if, for example, it leads to someone not playing a card that wasn't really in his hand, and winning the trick without really playing a card to the trick, and the non-offender following low because he couldn't beat the card he saw on the table that wasn't really played . . . do you see how absurd this can get? -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 28 03:46:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA03147 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 22:51:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com (proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com [204.210.64.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA03142 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 22:50:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt054n1d.maine.rr.com [24.95.20.29]) by proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA14642 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 08:47:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990827084425.007f5340@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 08:44:25 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience In-Reply-To: <37C6738F.59EA1F79@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id WAA03143 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:16 PM 8/27/99 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Several threads on psyches have recently faced. >L40A : a player may make any call provided that such a call >is not based on a partnership understanding. > >I don't believe this law is in any way important because it >is immediately checked by : > >L40B : a player may not make a call based on a special >partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may >reasonbaly be expected to understand its meaning, or unless >his side discloses the use of such call. > >The second part of this law just means full disclosure. > >Together, these laws say that a player may call whatever he >wants, provided everything that is "partnership >understanding" is disclosed. >A lot has already been said about this Law. What is a >convention, and so on. But a fact is that this Law states >that "partnership understanding" goes further than just >conventions. This means that SO's can regulate conventional >calls, and light openings, provided the ZO has delegated >that responsability. There must be some partnership >understandings that can not be regulated upon, although I >don't really see what they are, given the ACBL's neat way of >declaring anything a convention when it so choses. > >Let's just assume that "partnership understandings" can be >regulated. I recently read the following Bridge World Editorial which would appear relevant to this discussion: The Bridge World, December, 1978 To the Editor: I was shocked by the following ruling, made by the National Appeals Committee during the Summer Nationals in Chicago. Steve Robinson and I occasionally psych notrump overcalls (perhaps once in 10 sessions). We don't do this conventionally, and we have no checks; i.e., if the bidding goes one spade - one notrump - pass, and the overcaller's partner has a balanced 10-count, he will bid three notrump. However, since we are aware of the possibility, we have felt it ethical to Alert all our notrump overcalls as occasionally psychic. In the semi-finals of the Life Master Pairs, Steve overcalled one notrump at favorable vulnerability, and, as always, I Alerted - occasionally psychic. RHO doubled, and I had a balanced 13-count, so somebody was lying. I passed to see who would run from the double, and Steve ran, so the psyche was clearly revealed to me from the bidding and my cards. The opponents got to a bad contract, went down three, and called for the director. The director consulted with other directors, then shocked us by adjusting our score to average-minus and our opponents' to average-plus. Why? Not because of how I fielded the psyche, but because we were playing the comic notrump overcall (which we weren't) - an illegal convention. Naturally, we appealed. The committee upheld the ruling, saying that the fact that I Alerted automatically made the one-notrump bid a conventional bid, therefore illegal. Furthermore, the committee barred us from ever psyching notrump overcalls at all, even though they admitted it was not illegal to psych a notrump overcall. I am sure that every regular partnership has dozens of understandings and inferences that could not fit into any standard convention but are still information they know about each other's bids. In the past, highly ethical players have Alerted all this information to the opponents, since opponents are entitled to the same knowledge. However, any call that is Alerted now becomes a convention, and probably an illegal one since the ACBL continues to restrict conventions. Consequently, the ruling discourages players from being ethical and forces them to Alert as little as possible, in order to protect themselves from an unfavorable committee ruling. This seems to me to be one giant step backward in the progress of the Alert procedure. Kit Woolsey Let us examine three different aspects of the National Appeals Committee's decision: (1) the adjusted score; (2) the banning of future Woolsey-Robinson psychic notrump overcalls; (3) the statement that Woolsey's Alert transformed a psyche into a conventional bid. (1) The committee sustained the director's award of average-plus, average-minus. This would be correct if Woolsey-Robinson had violated some law and thereby damaged the opponents. That violation of law could be using improper information, for example if Woolsey's actions after partner's overcall seemed to be based on a hunch (presumed to be improper) that Robinson had psyched. But that clearly was not the case here. The violation could be using an illegal convention, for example if Woolsey-Robinson played the "Comic Notrump"….But apparently the overcall was a simple psyche, not a complex two-way notrump with artificial continuations. The violation could be failure to Alert to an unusual agreement (the agreemnt that one notrump was occasionally psychic) - but here the Alert was in fact given. The violation could also be failure to mark the convention card properly, for example if the "Psychic" section of the card (where it says "Describe:") had no notation giving opponents advance warning of the Woolsey-Robinson tendency toward psychic one-notrump overcalls. And this violation was indeed committed, we have been told. The point is that the opponents have the right to be informed in advance. After all, they may want to discuss how to defend against the overcall; and, since they cannot do this after the auction starts, the Alert alone does not protect them fully. So, if there was a substantial possibility, in the committee's judgment, that the actual opponents would have fared better had the Woolsey-Robinson card been properly marked, then the decision to adjust the score was soundly based. (2) The committee barred Woolsey-Robinson from psyching one-notrump overcalls in future sessions. If this was a formal ruling, rather than informal advice, it was flagrantly illegal. The point is not merely that a committee has no such authority; it is that no one has that authority, since the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge specifically grant the right to psych, and no one may overrule the Laws….A committee may no more instruct Woolsey-Robinson never to psych one notrump than instruct them never to bid spades. Either instruction would do violence to the game itself; the game being played would no longer be bridge. (3) The committee's apparent confusion over what area of bidding are subject to regulation is clear in he statement quoted by Woolsey: " . . . the fact that I Alerted automatically made the one notrump a conventional bid. . ." Nonsense! The sole conclusion to be drawn from the Alert is that there existed a special partnership agreement about the overcall; but only a tiny fraction of bidding agreements are bidding conventions. A bid is a "convention" if it is artificial, if it names a strain as a cypher, if it carries a code meanng unrelated to its strain. It is irrelevant whether the partnership meaning assigned to the bid is out of the ordinary, unexpected (although this is relevant to whether the bid is Alertable); what matters is whether the partnership meaning is artificial or natural. If your two-club opening bid is a weak-two in clubs, your partnership agreement is a very rare one, which implies that you should Alert; but you need no one's permission to use the bid, since it is natural, a club bid promising clubs. In contrast, if your two-club opening is your only force, the partnership agreement is standard, which means you need not Alert; but you require ACBL permission to use the bid (you have it - it is a Class A convention) since it is artificial, a club bid not necessarily related to clubs, a convention. Suppose your partnership agrees that a notrump overcall will promise length in both minors. This is a convention, so if a Chicago committee bars you from using such a notrump overcall it would do no violence to the Laws (although the committee's judgment and its knowledge of ACBL regulations might be questioned). In contrast, suppose your partnership agrees that you will overcall one notrump with a balanced 10 to 12 points, or that you will overcall one notrump without regard to stoppers in the enemy suit, or that your notrump overcall will never contain a four-card major, or that you may occasionally psych the overcall. These are matters not of convention, of code meaning, but of style, tactics, bridge theory. A committee member in Chicago, if he is your friend, might try to give you the benefit of his superior experience. . . .[S]o thank him warmly - as long as it is just advice. But if he is speaking officially for the committee, ordering you to change your bidding style, he is sticking his nose into what the lawbook says is your business, not his. Tell him to go jump in Lake Michigan. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 28 03:58:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA04520 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 03:58:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.74]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA04513 for ; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 03:57:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivehnr.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.70.251]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA12176 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 13:57:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990827135537.0125d2fc@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 13:55:37 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI In-Reply-To: References: <37C650A7.4B7CCA9A@village.uunet.be> <37C650A7.4B7CCA9A@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:35 PM 8/27/99 +0100, David wrote: >Herman De Wael wrote: > >>OK John, you psyche, as is allowed under that Law 40A that >>everyone wants to use. Your partner, through a combination >>of his cards and opponents' bidding, suspects you have >>psyched. At this moment, he informs the opponents that they >>may be should not believe everything that they hear, and he >>bids something which caters for your psyche. His bid is also >>allowed under L40A, and you have told opponents all they are >>entitled to know. >> >>Out comes DWS, and he rules against you, not even looking to >>see if there was damage. And you accept this ? Now I know >>why they let you in. If you were out, you would probably >>cry to hell. > > May I suggest you actually read L40A? Sorry, but I can't think what purpose is served by snide comments such as this. Whether you agree with Herman or not, I think it's fair to assume that he _has_ read the relevant Law, and has tried to think seriously about what it means. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 28 05:00:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA04743 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 05:00:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from mtiwmhc02.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc02.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.37]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA04738 for ; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 05:00:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([12.75.78.250]) by mtiwmhc02.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07.07 118-134) with SMTP id <19990827190059.LCNJ24199@default> for ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 19:00:59 +0000 Message-ID: <002401bef0be$29acde40$fa4e4b0c@default> From: "Richard F Beye" To: "BLML" References: <01bef01c$b2b7e7e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <3.0.1.32.19990827083052.006d3a3c@pop.cais.com> Subject: Re: What happened? Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 13:56:56 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Eric Landau > At 10:27 PM 8/26/99 -0700, Marvin wrote: > > >An ACBL TD would have invoked the so-called "Principle of Coincidence," > >(PofC) included in the *ACBL Code of Active Ethics* > I hope Marv is wrong here, although I fear he is not. Neither the > "principle of coincidence" nor the Code of Active Ethics have any sanction > either under the laws or by "official" ACBL policy. Unfortunately, when it > comes to ACBL policy, what's official and what's generally understood are > often not the same, and, regrettably, there are any number of TDs (and AC > members) who believe that they are rules to be enforced. Eric, you are safe! Marvin is indeed wrong here. There was a time, several years ago, that the 'Rule of Coincidence' was, I believe, included in much of the 'Active Ethics' materials. Having no basis in Law it quickly went by the wayside. I know of no TD or AC member who lends any credence to this position. Why, we don't even have 'Red' Psychics! :-)) Remember me, I passed 3NT also!!!! Rick Rick From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 28 05:09:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA04781 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 05:09:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.74]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA04776 for ; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 05:08:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivegqs.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.67.92]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA11034 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 15:09:00 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990827150638.01264170@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 15:06:38 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990827084425.007f5340@maine.rr.com> References: <37C6738F.59EA1F79@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:44 AM 8/27/99 -0400, Tim Goodwin wrote: >I recently read the following Bridge World Editorial which would appear >relevant to this discussion: > >The Bridge World, December, 1978 > You really must speak to your postal carrier! Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 28 05:58:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA04931 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 05:58:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA04926 for ; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 05:57:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt095n3b.san.rr.com [24.94.8.59]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA02643 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 12:57:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <054401bef0c6$47180560$3b085e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199908270908.LAA05297@mail.zeelandnet.nl> Subject: Re: What happened? Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 12:53:29 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Marcel Schoof wrote: > > >With my partners I play practicly the same system after to suits are bid by > >our side, but in the explanation of the double we differ. > >A: I never say anathing about the holding in opp. suit. I simply don't know > >B: I explane that partner makes a proposition (1/2 level doubles) to play > >1S X, so that I may chooce to pass depending on the values of my hand. > > That is defined here as a Co-operative double [if partner usually > passes] or an Optional double [if partner will pass or bid with similar > frequency] but not a Penalty double [where partner is expected to pass]. > Someone please look up the definition of Penalty Double in the Orange Book, I don't have it. "Partner is expected to pass" sounds more extreme than what I remember from someone's quote of the OB. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 28 06:27:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA05010 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 06:27:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA05005 for ; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 06:27:40 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id PAA14574; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 15:26:58 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa5-186.ix.netcom.com(206.217.132.186) by dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma014547; Fri Aug 27 15:26:27 1999 Message-ID: <002001bef0cb$32565aa0$ba84d9ce@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: , "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 16:31:49 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Please recall that Edgar always asked us not to enquire after a missing issue until one had been skipped as the production schedule was often irregular due to tournaments and other obligations. Doubtless Tim was just heeding this reasonable request, and can expect the January '79 issue to arrive shortly, followed quickly by... -- Craig -----Original Message----- From: Michael S. Dennis To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Friday, August 27, 1999 3:09 PM Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience >At 08:44 AM 8/27/99 -0400, Tim Goodwin wrote: >>I recently read the following Bridge World Editorial which would appear >>relevant to this discussion: >> >>The Bridge World, December, 1978 >> > >You really must speak to your postal carrier! > >Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 28 06:35:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA05040 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 06:35:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA05035 for ; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 06:35:07 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id PAA15726; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 15:34:14 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa5-186.ix.netcom.com(206.217.132.186) by dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma015673; Fri Aug 27 15:33:56 1999 Message-ID: <002501bef0cc$3df036a0$ba84d9ce@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Marvin L. French" , Subject: Re: What happened? Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 16:39:19 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk 4.7.1 (a) Penalty. Partner is expected to leave it in, though he can take out on a hand very unsuitable for defence. (Page 16) OB available and dowbloadable via Adobe (.pdf file) at DWS's excellent web site. -- Craig -----Original Message----- From: Marvin L. French To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Friday, August 27, 1999 3:58 PM Subject: Re: What happened? >David Stevenson wrote: > >> Marcel Schoof wrote: >> >> >With my partners I play practicly the same system after to suits are bid by >> >our side, but in the explanation of the double we differ. >> >A: I never say anathing about the holding in opp. suit. I simply don't know >> >B: I explane that partner makes a proposition (1/2 level doubles) to play >> >1S X, so that I may chooce to pass depending on the values of my hand. >> >> That is defined here as a Co-operative double [if partner usually >> passes] or an Optional double [if partner will pass or bid with similar >> frequency] but not a Penalty double [where partner is expected to pass]. >> > >Someone please look up the definition of Penalty Double in the Orange Book, I >don't have it. "Partner is expected to pass" sounds more extreme than what I >remember from someone's quote of the OB. > >Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com > > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 28 06:51:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA05111 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 06:51:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA05106 for ; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 06:50:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11KSxW-00051X-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 20:50:50 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 18:25:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Quango Reply-To: Nanki Poo Subject: List of important beings MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mark Abraham Kittini Michael Albert Bob, Icky Picky RB Karen Allison Stella, Blanche, Stanley Louis Arnon Dorus, Edna, Frits, Gussy Brian Baresch Lao, Gaea Adam Beneschan Mango MIA David Blizzard Herbie, Mittens Mike Bolster Jess Vitold Brushtunov Chia Everett Boyer Amber Pur Byantara Begung Mary Buckland Neko, Four foot two Wayne Burrows Fritzi, Nico, Ely MIA Mary Crenshaw Dickens Claude Dadoun Moustique Hirsch Davis Shadow, Smokey RB Mike Dennis Casino Laval Du Breuil Picatou Simon Edler Incy Michael Farebrother Shadow, Tipsy Wally Farley Andrew, Templeton, Scratcher, Joy, Panda RB Eric Favager Poppy, Daisy, Smiffie, Ollie, Monty, Fluffy Marv French Mozart Dany Haimovici Shobo, Rosario, Shemaya, Hershey, Spotty, Shuri, Dossie, Kippy, Pushsh Paul & Pat Harrington Dopi, Bridget, Depo RB Robert Harris Bobbsie RB, Caruso Damian Hassan Bast, Katie, Tepsi, Baroo, Scrap Craig Hemphill Spook, Snuffy, Snuggles, Squeak, Cub Scout Richard Hull Endora, Putty Tat, Bill Bailey Sergey Kapustin Liza Laurie Kelso Bugs, Sheba MIA Jack Kryst Bentley, Ava John Kuchenbrod Rah-Rey, Leo Irv Kostal Bill, Albert, Cleo, Sabrina Eric Landau Glorianna, Wesley, Shadow, Query Paul Lippens Rakker, Tijger and Sloeber Albert Lochli Killer Demeter Manning Nikolai, Zonker Rui Marques Gabriel John McIlrath Garfield, Mischief Brian Meadows Katy Tony Musgrove Mitzi, Muffin Sue O'Donnell Casey, Yazzer-Cat Rand Pinsky Vino, Axel Rose, Talia, Keiko John Probst Gnipper, Figaro Ed Reppert Ayesha, Gracie, The Sarge, Buzz Norman Scorbie Starsky, Hutch Craig Senior Streak, Shaney, Rascal, Stubby, Precious, Smoke, Scamp, Bandit, Shadow, Smokey Flemming B-Soerensen Rose Grant Sterling Big Mac David Stevenson Quango, Nanki Poo Les West T.C., Trudy Anton Witzen Ritske, Beer, Miepje plus, of course Selassie RB is a cat waiting at Rainbow Bridge, and MIA is a cat missing in action. Anyone who wishes to see the story of Rainbow Bridge can ask David for a copy, or look at the article on his Catpage at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/rbridge.htm Miiiiiiiaaaaaoouuuuwwwwww !!!!!!!!! Mrow *QU* -- Quango /\_/\ /\ /\ quango@blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= @ @ Nanki Poo ( | | ) =( + )= nankipoo@blakjak.demon.co.uk (_~^ ^~ ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 28 07:01:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA05159 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 07:01:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from u1.farm.idt.net (root@u1.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA05154 for ; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 07:01:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from idt.net (ppp-1.ts-4.lax.idt.net [169.132.153.145]) by u1.farm.idt.net (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id RAA02094; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 17:00:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <37C6FA52.C3288282@idt.net> Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 13:51:30 -0700 From: Irwin J Kostal Reply-To: bigfoot@idt.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nanki Poo CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: List of important beings References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It is with sadness that I report that we are now a three cat family, since Bill, who was really named Mr. Bill, because he made funny little noises like the character in the Mr. Bill/Mr. Hand routine on Saturday Night Live, lo the many years ago. We found his body under the stairs to the garage. We don't know why he died, but since the other cats seem to be just fine we didn't order an autopsy ($150 or so, we were told). We miss him. He was a nice cat. Irv & Shawnee Quango wrote: > > Mark Abraham Kittini > Michael Albert Bob, Icky Picky RB > Karen Allison Stella, Blanche, Stanley > Louis Arnon Dorus, Edna, Frits, Gussy > Brian Baresch Lao, Gaea > Adam Beneschan Mango MIA > David Blizzard Herbie, Mittens > Mike Bolster Jess > Vitold Brushtunov Chia > Everett Boyer Amber > Pur Byantara Begung > Mary Buckland Neko, Four foot two > Wayne Burrows Fritzi, Nico, Ely MIA > Mary Crenshaw Dickens > Claude Dadoun Moustique > Hirsch Davis Shadow, Smokey RB > Mike Dennis Casino > Laval Du Breuil Picatou > Simon Edler Incy > Michael Farebrother Shadow, Tipsy > Wally Farley Andrew, Templeton, Scratcher, Joy, Panda RB > Eric Favager Poppy, Daisy, Smiffie, Ollie, Monty, Fluffy > Marv French Mozart > Dany Haimovici Shobo, Rosario, Shemaya, Hershey, Spotty, Shuri, > Dossie, Kippy, Pushsh > Paul & Pat Harrington Dopi, Bridget, Depo RB > Robert Harris Bobbsie RB, Caruso > Damian Hassan Bast, Katie, Tepsi, Baroo, Scrap > Craig Hemphill Spook, Snuffy, Snuggles, Squeak, Cub Scout > Richard Hull Endora, Putty Tat, Bill Bailey > Sergey Kapustin Liza > Laurie Kelso Bugs, Sheba MIA > Jack Kryst Bentley, Ava > John Kuchenbrod Rah-Rey, Leo > Irv Kostal Bill, Albert, Cleo, Sabrina > Eric Landau Glorianna, Wesley, Shadow, Query > Paul Lippens Rakker, Tijger and Sloeber > Albert Lochli Killer > Demeter Manning Nikolai, Zonker > Rui Marques Gabriel > John McIlrath Garfield, Mischief > Brian Meadows Katy > Tony Musgrove Mitzi, Muffin > Sue O'Donnell Casey, Yazzer-Cat > Rand Pinsky Vino, Axel Rose, Talia, Keiko > John Probst Gnipper, Figaro > Ed Reppert Ayesha, Gracie, The Sarge, Buzz > Norman Scorbie Starsky, Hutch > Craig Senior Streak, Shaney, Rascal, Stubby, Precious, Smoke, > Scamp, Bandit, Shadow, Smokey > Flemming B-Soerensen Rose > Grant Sterling Big Mac > David Stevenson Quango, Nanki Poo > Les West T.C., Trudy > Anton Witzen Ritske, Beer, Miepje > > plus, of course Selassie > > RB is a cat waiting at Rainbow Bridge, and MIA is a cat missing in > action. Anyone who wishes to see the story of Rainbow Bridge can ask > David for a copy, or look at the article on his Catpage at > > http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/rbridge.htm > > Miiiiiiiaaaaaoouuuuwwwwww !!!!!!!!! > > Mrow > *QU* > > -- > Quango /\_/\ /\ /\ > quango@blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= @ @ > Nanki Poo ( | | ) =( + )= > nankipoo@blakjak.demon.co.uk (_~^ ^~ ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 28 07:05:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA05188 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 07:05:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA05183 for ; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 07:05:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from Panther1204.eiu.edu (Panther1204.eiu.edu [139.67.12.189]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.9.1b+Sun/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA07777 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 16:02:49 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990828014347.007b2120@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 01:43:47 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: understanding, agreement, experience Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Well, when Herman gives a long post the only remedy is to retailiate by boring him.... [much snipped] >L75B(2): habitual violations within a partnership may create >implicit agreements. > >This is a usage I did not expect for the word implicit, but >I won't comment on that. >What this means is that in order for there to be some usage >of this particular sentence, there has to be some evidence >for "habitual", and "within a partnership". Severe points >which I do not believe easy to prove, and should serve as a >guide to the players, not as some guide for drafting >regulations. [another snip] >What is important is the use of two methods of conveying >information: agreement and experience. > >I believe the lawmakers intended to do two things here: >a) not to limit the disclosable information to that which >was agreed upon by the partnership >b) indicate a specifice class of information: experience, >not by agreement. > >It is my profound opinion that a player's habits can be >known through experience, and are not a part of the >agreements. > >Two players in one pair can play one set of agreements (as >they must, by order of most SO's), but they can have a >different set of "habits". Exchange two hands in a >partnership and the bidding might go differently. One >player will transfer and raise to game, the other might >decide he plays better and bid game himself. These habits >are a part of partnership experience, and must be disclosed, >but they are not "agreements", and they cannot be regulated. > >Now we can also understand why L40C uses "meaning" in stead >of "partnership understanding". "experience" is also a part >of "meaning". > >Whatever you may think of my points of view, I think you >should agree with me that the laws use 3 words : > >understanding, agreement, experience > >and that > >understanding = agreement > >but > >experience > agreement > Well, not necessarily greater than, but different from. In a new partnership, agreement may exceed experience. >and > >experience + agreement = meaning > >And as a conclusion: > >Some types of bidding behaviour must be explained, but >cannot be regulated upon. > >I hope you will not deny me this small "victory ?" :-) > >Which does not settle the question we are addressing in the >different psyching threads: > >Is a particular psyching tendency experience or agreement. > There is an ambiguity regarding "particular psyching tendency". Do you mean "the tendency of a particular person to psyche", or "the tendency to psyche in a particular way"? Those are quite different animals, and in some way the difference parallels the one you made between agreement and experience. Suppose you play with a partner who very frequently psyches, but not in any specific way. Then there will be cases where you may 'smell a rat' and have reason to suspect that partner has dragged it in. In such cases I quite agree with you, Herman, that you must disclose this tendency [in response to a question, or by means of an alert, or in whatever way is appropriate to the situation]. Even if you're correct in catching it, the bid is still a psyche, not an agreement [even implicit], and is not illegal, nor I think is it illegal for you to cater to it as long as the possibility has been revealed to opponents by CC, alert, or whatever is appropriate. On the other hand, see the example below: >I believe it should be experience, but I doubt if the answer >can be so simple. > >For instance, the type of psyche should be taken into >account, as well as the frequency with which a particular >situation occurs. >I give the same example over and over again: I always open >1H, third in hand, on 4-2-3-4, 2HCP, but when I open 1H >third in hand, only in 1% of the cases do I not have >something like 3-5-2-3, 13HCP - or more. >My partners may well have experience that tells them this is >possible, but I have no agreements about it. > Yes, you do. If you always open that hand with that bid, then you have an implicit agreement that [for you] 1H in third seat means "either a normal 1H opener or a 4-2-3-4 2-count". It is a consistent specified bid for a specified [if rare] hand type. If such a bid is illegal under local reg's, I would rule against you for using it. Otherwise, among other things, anyone could 'legalize' any otherwise illegal multi bid by calling one or more components "psyches". The hardest cases are the ones where partner has an identifiable tendency to psyche in a certain situation [say, psyching a 1NT overcall 1 session in 10], but not does not do so always or even usually. >To return to the EBU regulation. > >I accept that the EBU hands down guidelines as to which type >of bidding shall constitute prima facie evidence of >partnership experience. > >I accept that the EBU rules against these bidding sequences. > >But only if they do so under the cloak of damage, as in >L40C, not by simply saying "concealed partnership >understanding" - a term which is not in the Law, just in the >heading. I think one can give a PP regardless of damage, and I think you are in violation of L40 A, B, probably D [depending on local regs] and possibly E [depending on local regs], L73E, and L75. I agree, however, that I am not sure an adjusted score is legal when there has been no damage. Of course, as has been pointed out [in the article on DWS' page, et al] it is often difficult to determine if damage has occurred, and one should give the benefit of the doubt to the NoS, and so in practice it will be rare for no adjusted score to be given [and it will usually be artificial]. >If they are right, then they should be giving the same >artificial adjusted scores next time someone forgets to >alert a transfer bid (alertable under EBU regulations IIRC). > I think they _can_ give such an adjusted score for a failure to alert. I am not sure they "should". >When I played in London at Easter, someone psyched against >me. It may well have been classed AMBER or even RED (do >tell me David, John, has there been any further action - you >know what I'm talking of). I was not damaged, and if I had >been, it would have been my fault, not opponent's, but I >doubt if there has been any action about CPU - yet it came >quite close to it in my eyes. > >To make another point, a CPU must be adjusted if there has >been damage, but only very severe cases should warrant >further action. > I quite disagree. I think one should be very harsh on CPU's, since they are usually so hard to detect, and since the possibility of damage cannot be determined accurately much of the time. >I think I have bored you long enough. Never bored, Herman.... >-- >Herman DE WAEL -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 28 07:30:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA05261 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 07:23:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA05244 for ; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 07:23:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.45] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11KTSV-000Jmx-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 22:22:51 +0100 Message-ID: <015201bef0d2$50af0b80$a75208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 22:13:08 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 27 August 1999 20:33 Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience >At 08:44 AM 8/27/99 -0400, Tim Goodwin wrote: >>I recently read the following Bridge World Editorial which would appear >>relevant to this discussion: >> >>The Bridge World, December, 1978 >> > >You really must speak to your postal carrier! > ++++ You misunderstand: he is catching up with opening his mail. ~ G ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 28 07:58:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA05415 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 07:58:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from deimos.worldonline.nl (deimos.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.136]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA05409 for ; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 07:58:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (vp213-50.worldonline.nl [195.241.213.50]) by deimos.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA25414 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 23:58:12 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <009401bef0d7$9ecfb580$34e3f1c3@default> From: "Jac Fuchs" To: Subject: Re: Defective trick? (fwd) Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 00:00:45 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > >Michael Schmahl wrote: > >> On Thu, 26 Aug 1999, Adam Beneschan wrote: >> >> : Unless your reasoning is that if a card has been played, it becomes a >> : figment of everyone's imagination and therefore is not really played >> : when it's played again---but there's really nothing in the Laws that >> : says anything like this. The Laws define a "play" as a "contribution >> : of a card from one's hand to a trick", not a "contribution of a card >> : from one's hand that wasn't played to a previous trick". >> : >> >> It seems to me that a card, once played and not withdrawn, is no longer a >> part of the player's hand. Or am I mistaken here? >> >> Declarer could no more play the C3 that has already been played than play >> the C3 from another board. This is why the second trick is defective, not >> the first one. > >I think you're mistaken. If the player picks up the card and puts it >in his hand, it is now part of the player's hand. And if he later >puts the card down as if he's playing it, then the card is played >again. This is just using normal English definitions. Of course, >none of this is *supposed* to happen. But you're also not supposed to >bid out of turn, or make insufficient bids, or double your partner's >bid, etc. The Laws contain lots of stuff to deal with cases where >things happen that aren't *supposed* to happen. But they missed this >one. > >You can pretend that the card that's in the player's hand is not in >his hand, and that when he plays the card later, he's not really >playing it. This is one possible way to come up with a ruling, as I >pointed out. My point is that there's no logical reason why one >*must* take this approach; there's nothing in the Laws that says to >rule as if the card wasn't really in the player's hand, and wasn't >really played. Also, taking this approach doesn't appear to simplify >anything, especially if, for example, it leads to someone not playing >a card that wasn't really in his hand, and winning the trick without >really playing a card to the trick, and the non-offender following low >because he couldn't beat the card he saw on the table that wasn't >really played . . . do you see how absurd this can get? > > -- Adam > I.m.h.o. L47 (especially L47F) and the definition of "hand" ("the cards originally dealt to a player, or the remaining portion thereof.") strongly imply that it is not the intention of the Laws that a card can be retracted at will and played again. I invite anybody who thinks otherwise to play some rubbers against me. During that encounter I will, on every hand, as soon as I have gained the lead, lead the ace of trumps to *every* subsequent trick whenever I have been dealt it .... Jac From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 28 08:10:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA05458 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 08:10:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp2.erols.com (smtp2.erols.com [207.172.3.235]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA05453 for ; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 08:09:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (209-122-252-166.s420.tnt1.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [209.122.252.166]) by smtp2.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA03638 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 18:12:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <013a01bef0d8$71f90560$a6fc7ad1@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: Subject: Re: Delay of card Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 18:06:30 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Monday, March 22, 1999 10:13 PM Subject: Delay of card > > I have been asked the following: > > Please would you inform me whether it is (a) ethical and (b) legal, > within The Laws of Duplicate Bridge 1997, for declarer to delay playing > a card when the only reasonable purpose for the delay is to obtain a > reaction from a defender that suggests how the cards lie. If > applicable, please could you indicate which Laws are relevant. > Interesting question. My knee jerk response was to cite L73D. However L73D1 applies only to inadvertent variations in tempo. L73D2 prohibits intentional variations in tempo if made to mislead an opponent, but that is not the case here. Declarer is not trying to mislead anyone about anything. IMO L73(D and E) are not relevant to this situation, as there is no attempt to deceive. L74B4 may apply, but it would be difficult to show that a prolongation of play was "unnecessary" if the location of key cards was still undisclosed. I believe that L74C7 covers this situation: It is a violation of procedure if a player is "Varying the normal tempo of bidding or play for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent". A deliberate attempt to obtain an anxiety reaction from an opponent to locate a card is certainly an attempt to disconcert that player, and would therefore be illegal and, IMO, unethical. However, there would have to be no other purpose for the tempo variation than attempting to produce a reaction. If a player delays a play while trying to count the hand, and an opponent shows anxiety, there has been no violation, as the purpose of the delay would not have been to disconcert the opponent, and there is not yet a law against thinking. However, this falls outside of the range of your original question. If the only reasonable purpose for the delay were to obtain a reaction from a defender, then it is a violation. This is likely to be difficult to prove in practice, as a player who is missing a key card is quite likely to be able to argue that he needed the time to count. [snip] Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 28 08:27:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA05260 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 07:23:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA05246 for ; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 07:23:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.45] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11KTSW-000Jmx-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 22:22:52 +0100 Message-ID: <015301bef0d2$514dbc80$a75208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: auction period - oh, dear. Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 22:21:44 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 26 August 1999 15:38 Subject: Re: auction period - oh, dear. >On Wed, 25 Aug 1999 03:35:01 +0100, David Stevenson > wrote: >> The headings are often helpful. Perhaps out aim should be to correct >>them rather than obliterate them. > >Yes. > ++++ My objective would be to remove the 'headings' to the margin as signposts*, and to do away with Chapters. [* suitably restyled] ~ G ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 28 08:36:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA05262 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 07:23:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA05245 for ; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 07:23:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.45] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11KTSU-000Jmx-00; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 22:22:50 +0100 Message-ID: <015101bef0d2$4ffe0b00$a75208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." Cc: "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: L63B translation - again Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 22:10:18 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: 'Marvin L. French' ; Bridge Laws Date: 27 August 1999 08:40 Subject: RE: L63B translation - again >And then: >The drafting committee chooses a way to come to a new version. >It should be possible to give this committee some instructions how to >develop its activities. >Their results in progress are communicated to others, members of the WBFLC >for example, for reactions. >Eventually the WBFLC decides the final draft which has to be approved by >several bodies: ACBL, EBL, Portland Club and WBF executive committee (may be >I forgot one or two). All those bodies are involved in the drafting >activities already. > >And there it is. Or not, after which an interesting situation exists, which >never happened; or did it Grattan? > +++ I wish I could be sure what the question is. The ACBL, EBL and Portland Club received the final draft (each time). No problems were raised. After the WBF Executive approved the ultimate final draft those bodies again received copies and no questions have been raised. In practice they have gone ahead and published them in book form. So? ~ Grattan ~ +++ So I do not know of a problem. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 28 08:39:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA05531 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 08:39:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp2.erols.com (smtp2.erols.com [207.172.3.235]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA05526 for ; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 08:38:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (209-122-252-166.s420.tnt1.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [209.122.252.166]) by smtp2.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA14744 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 18:41:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <01b301bef0dc$8147f2c0$a6fc7ad1@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: Subject: Re: unappealing psychic Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 18:35:39 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Tim West-meads To: Cc: Sent: Friday, August 27, 1999 2:22 AM Subject: Re: unappealing psychic > In-Reply-To: <$NMbmhB2z0w3EwDh@blakjak.demon.co.uk> > DWS wrote: > > >> Have a look: > > >> Q.J.6.5. > > >> K T 8 3 > > >> 9 3 > > >> Q J 2 > > >> 9 8 3 K 7 > > >> Q 5 4 6 2 > > >> A Q T 8 5 4 K J 7 2 > > >> T A K 9 5 4 > > >> > > >> A T 4 2 > > >> A J 9 7 > > >> 6 > > >> 8 7 6 3 > > >> Board 24. Love All. Dealer West > > >> Auction: > > >> 2D - P - 2H - P > > >> 3H - P - 3NT - all pass. > > >> Spade lead; nine tricks. > > >> 1. 2H = natural and forcing > > > > >Basically 3H seems like a perfectly normal bid unless EW are playing a > > >particularly unusual system. > > > > Really? I would bid 4C, myself. > I prefer 3H (forcing) but with certain partners I would regard both 3H and > 4C as normal actions (ie both would be clear LAs were this a UI case). > > > > > >Once East bids 3NT West places East with a holding like > > KQT,Txxxx,Kx,AKJ >and passes - again a perfectly normal action. > > > > Rubbish. A bridge player bids 3NT over 2D with that hand. > > > Not opposite one of my weak 2s! > > Tim > > I think Tim is getting near to this one. We really don't know enough about E/W methods to say what is going on. 2H is forcing for one round, but if a pair plays that a single raise is forcing, then it is the clear favorite over 4C or 4H. We don't know if the E/W pair would play 4C as a splinter. We don't know if the E/W pair plays solid or light weak twos. All of this system information could alter our perception of the E/W actions. Incidentally, while I agree with the principle stated that 3N should be giving W a choice of contracts (3N or 4H), I see absolutely no reason why people are shocked at the pass. W has a good diamond suit which will provide tricks if E has the DK. W has a heart honor if E intends to run that suit. W has exactly the hand he has described in the bidding, with the honors in the right places. Why pull? If E is competent, he won't be disappointed with this dummy in NT. I'd be a lot less happy if the W hand were something like Axx, xxx, QT9xxx, x. Give W the DJ if you think the Diamond suit is too thin for a weak 2. Here, the Diamonds will need a lot more help than partner anticipates to produce tricks in NT. The three small hearts are not going to be a big help with the heart suit. This hand will not be a pleasant dummy for partner in NT, and club ruffs might be essential. So, this is the type of hand I pull to 4H: my cards are not where partner expects them to be. If I have the hand partner expects from my bidding, I leave the contract alone. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 28 09:49:43 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA05745 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 09:49:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA05740 for ; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 09:49:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from Panther1204.eiu.edu (Panther1204.eiu.edu [139.67.12.189]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.9.1b+Sun/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA07602 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 18:51:16 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990828064347.007bb100@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 06:43:47 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: understanding, agreement, experience Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Well, when Herman gives a long post the only remedy is to retailiate by boring him.... [much snipped] >L75B(2): habitual violations within a partnership may create >implicit agreements. > >This is a usage I did not expect for the word implicit, but >I won't comment on that. >What this means is that in order for there to be some usage >of this particular sentence, there has to be some evidence >for "habitual", and "within a partnership". Severe points >which I do not believe easy to prove, and should serve as a >guide to the players, not as some guide for drafting >regulations. [another snip] >What is important is the use of two methods of conveying >information: agreement and experience. > >I believe the lawmakers intended to do two things here: >a) not to limit the disclosable information to that which >was agreed upon by the partnership >b) indicate a specifice class of information: experience, >not by agreement. > >It is my profound opinion that a player's habits can be >known through experience, and are not a part of the >agreements. > >Two players in one pair can play one set of agreements (as >they must, by order of most SO's), but they can have a >different set of "habits". Exchange two hands in a >partnership and the bidding might go differently. One >player will transfer and raise to game, the other might >decide he plays better and bid game himself. These habits >are a part of partnership experience, and must be disclosed, >but they are not "agreements", and they cannot be regulated. > >Now we can also understand why L40C uses "meaning" in stead >of "partnership understanding". "experience" is also a part >of "meaning". > >Whatever you may think of my points of view, I think you >should agree with me that the laws use 3 words : > >understanding, agreement, experience > >and that > >understanding = agreement > >but > >experience > agreement > Well, not necessarily greater than, but different from. In a new partnership, agreement may exceed experience. >and > >experience + agreement = meaning > >And as a conclusion: > >Some types of bidding behaviour must be explained, but >cannot be regulated upon. > >I hope you will not deny me this small "victory ?" :-) > >Which does not settle the question we are addressing in the >different psyching threads: > >Is a particular psyching tendency experience or agreement. > There is an ambiguity regarding "particular psyching tendency". Do you mean "the tendency of a particular person to psyche", or "the tendency to psyche in a particular way"? Those are quite different animals, and in some way the difference parallels the one you made between agreement and experience. Suppose you play with a partner who very frequently psyches, but not in any specific way. Then there will be cases where you may 'smell a rat' and have reason to suspect that partner has dragged it in. In such cases I quite agree with you, Herman, that you must disclose this tendency [in response to a question, or by means of an alert, or in whatever way is appropriate to the situation]. Even if you're correct in catching it, the bid is still a psyche, not an agreement [even implicit], and is not illegal, nor I think is it illegal for you to cater to it as long as the possibility has been revealed to opponents by CC, alert, or whatever is appropriate. On the other hand, see the example below: >I believe it should be experience, but I doubt if the answer >can be so simple. > >For instance, the type of psyche should be taken into >account, as well as the frequency with which a particular >situation occurs. >I give the same example over and over again: I always open >1H, third in hand, on 4-2-3-4, 2HCP, but when I open 1H >third in hand, only in 1% of the cases do I not have >something like 3-5-2-3, 13HCP - or more. >My partners may well have experience that tells them this is >possible, but I have no agreements about it. > Yes, you do. If you always open that hand with that bid, then you have an implicit agreement that [for you] 1H in third seat means "either a normal 1H opener or a 4-2-3-4 2-count". It is a consistent specified bid for a specified [if rare] hand type. If such a bid is illegal under local reg's, I would rule against you for using it. Otherwise, among other things, anyone could 'legalize' any otherwise illegal multi bid by calling one or more components "psyches". The hardest cases are the ones where partner has an identifiable tendency to psyche in a certain situation [say, psyching a 1NT overcall 1 session in 10], but not does not do so always or even usually. >To return to the EBU regulation. > >I accept that the EBU hands down guidelines as to which type >of bidding shall constitute prima facie evidence of >partnership experience. > >I accept that the EBU rules against these bidding sequences. > >But only if they do so under the cloak of damage, as in >L40C, not by simply saying "concealed partnership >understanding" - a term which is not in the Law, just in the >heading. I think one can give a PP regardless of damage, and I think you are in violation of L40 A, B, probably D [depending on local regs] and possibly E [depending on local regs], L73E, and L75. I agree, however, that I am not sure an adjusted score is legal when there has been no damage. Of course, as has been pointed out [in the article on DWS' page, et al] it is often difficult to determine if damage has occurred, and one should give the benefit of the doubt to the NoS, and so in practice it will be rare for no adjusted score to be given [and it will usually be artificial]. >If they are right, then they should be giving the same >artificial adjusted scores next time someone forgets to >alert a transfer bid (alertable under EBU regulations IIRC). > I think they _can_ give such an adjusted score for a failure to alert. I am not sure they "should". >When I played in London at Easter, someone psyched against >me. It may well have been classed AMBER or even RED (do >tell me David, John, has there been any further action - you >know what I'm talking of). I was not damaged, and if I had >been, it would have been my fault, not opponent's, but I >doubt if there has been any action about CPU - yet it came >quite close to it in my eyes. > >To make another point, a CPU must be adjusted if there has >been damage, but only very severe cases should warrant >further action. > I quite disagree. I think one should be very harsh on CPU's, since they are usually so hard to detect, and since the possibility of damage cannot be determined accurately much of the time. >I think I have bored you long enough. Never bored, Herman.... >-- >Herman DE WAEL -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 28 11:01:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA05900 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 11:01:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA05895 for ; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 11:01:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11KWrY-000Aua-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 01:00:58 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 01:35:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: What happened? References: <199908270908.LAA05297@mail.zeelandnet.nl> <054401bef0c6$47180560$3b085e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <054401bef0c6$47180560$3b085e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: > >> Marcel Schoof wrote: >> >> >With my partners I play practicly the same system after to suits are bid by >> >our side, but in the explanation of the double we differ. >> >A: I never say anathing about the holding in opp. suit. I simply don't know >> >B: I explane that partner makes a proposition (1/2 level doubles) to play >> >1S X, so that I may chooce to pass depending on the values of my hand. >> >> That is defined here as a Co-operative double [if partner usually >> passes] or an Optional double [if partner will pass or bid with similar >> frequency] but not a Penalty double [where partner is expected to pass]. >> > >Someone please look up the definition of Penalty Double in the Orange Book, I >don't have it. "Partner is expected to pass" sounds more extreme than what I >remember from someone's quote of the OB. Penalty. Partner is expected to leave it in, though he can take out on a hand very unsuitable for defence. About what I said. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 28 11:27:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA05958 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 11:27:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from dynamite.com.au (m1.dynamite.com.au [203.17.154.18]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA05952 for ; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 11:27:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from bridge.dynamite.com.au (isp277.unl.can.dynamite.com.au [203.37.27.37]) by dynamite.com.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA31532 for ; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 11:27:44 +1000 Message-ID: <007101bef0f4$e545dcc0$251b25cb@dynamite.com.au> From: "Canberra Bridge Club" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <01b301bef0dc$8147f2c0$a6fc7ad1@hdavis> Subject: Re: unappealing psychic Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 11:25:53 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have been following this discussion for some time and have a question for those contributors who feel that not bidding 4Hearts at some stage in the auction ( I don't really care whether its directly, after 3Hearts or after descriptive 4Clubs) with Qxx trump and a singleton is something other than catering for partner having bid a short suit. Is it so difficult to conform to your responibility and alert the 2-Heart bid? You know that partners bid may be a short suit. After all, the remainder of the auction confirms that the 2-Diamond opener is not permitted to make any judgement decisions. Shouldn't your 3-Heart bid also be alerted as you,in this partnership, are not permitted to bid either 4-clubs or 4Hearts? Sean Mullamphy. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 28 11:40:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA06001 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 11:40:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA05991 for ; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 11:40:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11KXTk-0006di-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 01:40:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 02:39:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI In-Reply-To: <00b301bef097$8ad20460$13a893c3@pacific> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <00b301bef097$8ad20460$13a893c3@pacific>, Grattan Endicott writes > >Grattan Endicott~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >"Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat > and swallow a camel." St. Matthew >ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo >-----Original Message----- >From: John (MadDog) Probst >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Date: 27 August 1999 02:46 >Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI > > >>In article , David Stevenson >> writes >>> >>Being an EBU TD, appointed on the basis of "we'd rather have him on the >>inside p***ing out than on the outside p***ing in", > > >++ Don't understand the diffidence, we >all know you peep. ~ G ~ ++ > Objection yer 'onour. "Sustained". but I grinned a bit when I read it rgds john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 28 11:40:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA06000 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 11:40:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA05990 for ; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 11:40:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11KXTk-0006dh-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 01:40:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 02:25:57 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990827084857.0069ed90@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.1.32.19990827084857.0069ed90@pop.cais.com>, Eric Landau writes >At 10:22 AM 8/27/99 +0200, Herman wrote: > >>A psyche, even fielded, is not an implicit agreement, it is >>not an agreement at all. >>It may be experience. > >I hope someone can propose a precise definition of the distinction between >"implicit agreement" and "experience". My intuition, like Herman's, tells >me that there is one, but the ACBL has made it clear that they disagree. > I am of the view that they are pretty much the same thing. chs john > >Eric Landau elandau@cais.com >APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org >1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 >Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 28 12:43:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA06163 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 12:43:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.74]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA06158 for ; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 12:43:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivehmb.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.70.203]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA21501 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 22:43:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990827224105.012679e4@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 22:41:05 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: unappealing psychic In-Reply-To: <007101bef0f4$e545dcc0$251b25cb@dynamite.com.au> References: <01b301bef0dc$8147f2c0$a6fc7ad1@hdavis> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:25 AM 8/28/99 +1000, Sean wrote: >I have been following this discussion for some time and have a question >for those contributors who feel that not bidding 4Hearts at some >stage in the auction ( I don't really care whether its directly, after >3Hearts or after descriptive 4Clubs) with Qxx trump and a singleton is >something other than catering for partner having bid a short suit. I for one have acknowledged that 3nt might well cater to a psychic 3nt bid, and still have not read any legal citation which makes such a practice illegal per se. >Is it so difficult to conform to your responibility and alert the 2-Heart >bid? You know that partners bid may be a short suit. I have no such responsibilty, since no such agreement is present. I have made the judgement that partner's 2H call _might_ have been a psychic bid, based solely on the auction and my own bridge experience and style. I would make the same decision with a brand new partner with whom psychic tendencies have never been discussed. It would in fact be illegal to alert the 2H bid, since our only relevant agreement is that it is natural and forcing. I have to tell you that I've played bridge for over 20 years, and have never heard this auction at the table to the best of my knowledge. It strikes me as highly unusual, and would do so at the table. Whether partner or opponent of the 3nt bidder, I would be thinking psych in this situation. >After all, the remainder of the auction confirms that the 2-Diamond opener is not permitted >to make any judgement decisions. Apparently you find the explanations offered by those who would bid only 3H and then pass 3nt so incredible that they can only be explained by a complete lack of judgement or discretion on the part of opener. Very well, you're entitled to your opinion. But a number of decent players have defended each of these actions, and they are not ridiculous. It is _not_ silly to give a simple raise to 3H; particularly if your style of weak twos is fairly disciplined in the first place, you could hardly have much less for this action. Nor is it a complete abdication of bidding judgement to respect partner's choice of the final contract, holding a potential source of tricks at no-trumps. Especially at pairs, 3nt could well be the right spot, even leaving aside the issue of a possible psych. There is, obviously, a difference of styles in rebidding by a pre-emptive hand. I was taught that the pre-emptive bidder cedes captaincy to partner, and in general is not free to exercise much independent judgement. This had nothing to do with catering to psychic bids, but was simply disciplined bidding, sort of like flossing before bed. Perhaps this style is less in vogue these days, but that doesn't make it either illegal or wrong-headed, as you seem to think. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 28 13:33:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA06263 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 13:33:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp3.erols.com (smtp3.erols.com [207.172.3.236]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA06258 for ; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 13:33:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (216-164-230-248.s248.tnt7.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [216.164.230.248]) by smtp3.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA01938 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 23:33:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <006401bef105$a76e3260$f8e6a4d8@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <01bef01c$b2b7e7e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <3.0.1.32.19990827083052.006d3a3c@pop.cais.com> Subject: Re: What happened? Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 23:30:07 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sent: Friday, August 27, 1999 8:30 AM Subject: Re: What happened? > [snip] > I hope Marv is wrong here, although I fear he is not. Why wonder when you can check for yourself? I have reprinted the relevant section off of the ACBL page below. It's under the section on "Bridge Laws, Alert Charts, Convention Charts, Conditions of Contest, Proprieties, Regulations" >Neither the > "principle of coincidence" nor the Code of Active Ethics have any sanction > either under the laws or by "official" ACBL policy. Unfortunately, when it > comes to ACBL policy, what's official and what's generally understood are > often not the same, and, regrettably, there are any number of TDs (and AC > members) who believe that they are rules to be enforced. > It may not be official, but as represented on the ACBL page it certainly appears official. That appearance may be more important than the reality. > The Code of Active Ethics purports to tell players how to *go beyond the > requirements of the laws* to play a particularly sportsmanlike, > "super-ethical" game. > > > Eric Landau elandau@cais.com > APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > > I find it particularly interesting that the Principle of Coincidence as described below matches the handling of psychic bids DWS has been describing almost perfectly. I had thought this little gem was an ACBL aberration, but it appears to have spread across the pond as well. Hirsch _________________________________ >From the ACBL web site on Active Ethics: PRINCIPLE OF COINCIDENCE The "principle of coincidence" is not a rule or law but rather a tool for gauging whether or not a partnership has done its best to comply with the principle of full-disclosure. The convention card is expected to reflect partnership agreements and should also note partnership style wherever possible. For example, a partnership that lists a 15 to 17 point notrump range and tends to open most 14 point hands in third seat with lNT has mismarked the convention card. You might indicate the range as (14)15-17 on the card. There is no infraction just because an opponent makes a call which does not match the stated conventional agreements provided his partner has no awareness of the possibility of deviation and does not allow for a possible deviation. However, whenever his partner's response is also unexpected (and successful), there is evidence that such an awareness may exist. The following combination of overbid and underbid is an example of the principle of coincidence. East, whose card is marked 15-17, opens one notrump with a balanced 13. West with 10 points decides to bid only 2NT and eight tricks are the maximum available. This "lucky coincidence" is the result of two improbable actions which, in combination, "work". The principle of coincidence defines this sequence to be an infraction of ACBL regulations (full-disclosure). The score on the board should be adjusted whenever the misinformation directly damages the nonoffenders (as by placing an extra card or wrong card in declarer's hand allowing an extra trick(s) to be made).. Whether or not a score adjustment is made, a procedural penalty for the offenders should be considered. This principle also applies to passing partner's forcing bid when he clearly didn't have the values for a forcing bid, underbidding one's values when partner has psyched, and so on. The principle of coincidence "allows" automatic score adjustments when these infractions occur. The acting side must convince the tournament director and/or committee that their actions were normal or that they lack the bridge experience to know that they were making unusual bids. If an opponent or the director feels it is appropriate, a player memo may be submitted to the appropriate body. Please do not be unreasonable in applying this principle. Everyone has different skill levels and card judgment. Most important is that inexperienced players be treated with consideration. They are exercising their best judgment, have no intention of doing anything wrong and DO NOT fall under the jurisdiction of the principle of coincidence. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 28 13:41:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA06308 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 13:41:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA06303 for ; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 13:41:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt095n3b.san.rr.com [24.94.8.59]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA07989 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 20:41:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <057d01bef106$fa0b60a0$3b085e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <01bef01c$b2b7e7e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <3.0.1.32.19990827083052.006d3a3c@pop.cais.com> Subject: Re: What happened? Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 20:39:42 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > >An ACBL TD would have invoked the so-called "Principle of Coincidence," > >(PofC) included in the *ACBL Code of Active Ethics* > >(http://www.acbl.org/notices/ActiveEthics.htm), the coincidence consisting > >of a penalty double with a singleton coinciding with a takeout of the > >double when holding four cards in the suit. The score would be adjusted if > >there is subsequent damage, because the principle defines such bidding > >sequences "to be an infraction of ACBL regulations (full disclosure)." It > >is *prima facie* evidence that "an awareness may exist." The bidders are > >assumed to be guilty, despite the "may," and a PP may be in order whether > >or not a score adjustment is made. Moreover, "If an opponent or the > >director feels it is appropriate, a player memo may be submitted to the > >appropriate body." The PofC is not to be applied to inexperienced players, > >who seldom know what they are doing. > > I hope Marv is wrong here, although I fear he is not. Neither the > "principle of coincidence" nor the Code of Active Ethics have any sanction > either under the laws or by "official" ACBL policy. Unfortunately, when it > comes to ACBL policy, what's official and what's generally understood are > often not the same, and, regrettably, there are any number of TDs (and AC > members) who believe that they are rules to be enforced. > > The Code of Active Ethics purports to tell players how to *go beyond the > requirements of the laws* to play a particularly sportsmanlike, > "super-ethical" game. I can't find that quote in the current Code. Maybe you're referring to "an actively partnership will often go beyond what is technically required in volunteering information to the opponents," words that are in THE RULE OF FULL DISCLOSURE. No mention of "super-ethics," just the normal ethics that ought to be in place. The implication is that all partnerships will want to be actively ethical. The original Active Ethics pamphlet was prepared by John Wiser, Peter Mollemet, and the late Brian Moran, of the ACBL NABC Appeals Department: Its sections consisted of the PRINCIPLE OF FULL DISCLOSURE, SLOW PLAY, RULE OF COINCIDENCE, STATEMENT ON CONVENTIONS, and SOCIAL BEHAVIOR. Considering the authorship, it did not constitute official ACBL policy, which can come only from the BoD or ACBL Laws Commission. All else is opinion. When the RULE OF COINCIDENCE first came out, many club directors eagerly seized on it as a way to mollify regular patrons when inexperienced players made bad bids that worked out okay. If one partner underbid, and the other overbid, or vice versa, out came the rule and a score adjustment. Such misapplication of the "rule" was officially discouraged, but the basic policy still seems to be in force. The AE pamphlet was superseded in August 1998 by the ACBL CODE OF ACTIVE ETHICS, whose title suggests official policy, with no authors are mentioned. There was very little change, but the RULE OF COINCIDENCE became the PRINCIPLE OF COINCIDENCE, perhaps because Kaplan had criticized the original "rule," including a statement to the effect that there is no such rule. The STATEMENT ON CONVENTIONS includes the familiar-sounding statement that "The opponents may be entitled to redress if you did not originally have a clear understanding with your partner of when and how to use a convention you are playing." While the Code refers to things that the actively ethical partnership will do, which suggests that it is voluntary, some of it reads like official policy for everyone. Certainly the PRINCIPLE OF COINCIDENCE has nothing to do with active ethics, since it's just a tool for TDs. Whether the current Code is official or not, I have no idea. It reads like it is official, and it appears on the ACBL website, but no source is cited, so who knows? The Code is included in the Tech Files of ACBLScor, implying that TDs should enforce it. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 28 14:01:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA06352 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 14:01:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA06347 for ; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 14:01:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt095n3b.san.rr.com [24.94.8.59]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA11815 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 21:01:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <059d01bef109$db9187a0$3b085e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <002501bef0cc$3df036a0$ba84d9ce@host> Subject: Re: What happened? Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 21:00:21 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote, quoting the OB's definition of Penalty double: > 4.7.1 (a) Penalty. Partner is expected to leave it in, though he can take > out on a hand very unsuitable for defence. (Page 16) Ergo, it is cooperative in nature. Penalty doubles of suit overcalls have been considered cooperative since about 1932. > > OB available and dowbloadable via Adobe (.pdf file) at DWS's excellent web > site. > Thanks, Craig, download will proceed immediately. And thanks to DWS. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 28 14:22:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA06424 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 14:22:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA06419 for ; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 14:21:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt095n3b.san.rr.com [24.94.8.59]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA15385; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 21:21:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <05c801bef10c$aa774f80$3b085e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" Cc: References: <01bef01c$b2b7e7e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <3.0.1.32.19990827083052.006d3a3c@pop.cais.com> <002401bef0be$29acde40$fa4e4b0c@default> Subject: Re: What happened? Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 21:10:44 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard F. Beye wrote: > From: Eric Landau > > > At 10:27 PM 8/26/99 -0700, Marvin wrote: > > > > >An ACBL TD would have invoked the so-called "Principle of Coincidence," > > >(PofC) included in the *ACBL Code of Active Ethics* > > > I hope Marv is wrong here, although I fear he is not. Neither the > > "principle of coincidence" nor the Code of Active Ethics have any sanction > > either under the laws or by "official" ACBL policy. Unfortunately, when > it > > comes to ACBL policy, what's official and what's generally understood are > > often not the same, and, regrettably, there are any number of TDs (and AC > > members) who believe that they are rules to be enforced. > > Eric, you are safe! Marvin is indeed wrong here. There was a time, several > years ago, that the 'Rule of Coincidence' was, I believe, included in much > of the 'Active Ethics' materials. Having no basis in Law it quickly went by > the wayside. I know of no TD or AC member who lends any credence to this > position. Rick, please go to (http://www.acbl.org/notices/ActiveEthics.htm), Then run ACBLScor, go to the Tech Files (under Help) and look at ETHICS.972 file, where the information is repeated. It is quite possible that ACBL TDs have been told to ignore the *ACBL Code Of Active Ethics*. If so, it should be deleted from both the ACBL website and the ACBLScor Tech Files. I am forwarding this to Gary Blaiss, and invite his comments. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 28 16:23:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA06699 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 16:23:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand5.global.net.uk (sand5.global.net.uk [194.126.80.249]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA06694 for ; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 16:23:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from pdes01a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.129.223] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand5.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11KbtF-0008VD-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 07:23:02 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 00:10:57 +0100 Message-ID: <01bef0e1$6bc78be0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au ; elandau@cais.com Date: Friday, August 27, 1999 6:09 PM Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI > >> >If partner does something novel at the bridge table: that is >> >experience. Unless you say "don't do that again", partner >> >may well do it again: that is an implicit agreement. >> >> This is the essence of the ACBL's infamous "one psych per partnership per >> lifetime" rule. Both Robin and the ACBL assert that a single deviation >> from a partnership's explicit agreements creates a new "implicit >> agreement", which means that it may only be repeated if it satisfies all >> the restrictions to which an explicit agreement would be subject. >> > >I didn't intend to imply "one psych per partnership per lifetime" or >even "one psych per similar sequence per partnership per lifetime". >I certainly didn't want (necessarily) to agree with the ACBL :-) > >I just wanted to show how close "experience" and "implict agreement" >can get. > >My position is the same as the laws': "habitual violations within a >partnership may create implicit agreements, which must be disclosed" >(L75B). > >Disclosure of parterships methods should be helpful to opponents: >saying partner psyched a 1H opener six-years ago isn't helpful; >explaining a double as "penalties, shows four; but partner may be >stuck for a call with a singleton, so I may well take-out" (sorry Anne) >may be helfpul to an opponent who is thinking whether to raise. It is true that next time, and the time after, this sequence occurs I will remember this occurrence , and explain it in this way. However, believe me, this had never, not ever, happened before. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 28 21:55:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA07180 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 21:55:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from backrosh.inter.net.il (backrosh.inter.net.il [192.116.196.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA07175 for ; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 21:54:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from internet-zahav.net (Ramat-Gan-0-130.access.net.il [213.8.0.130] (may be forged)) by backrosh.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA25187; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 14:54:43 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <37C7CE4D.8CD96EE4@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 14:55:57 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Probst CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all I was very busy for a long while and had very few time even to read all the messages. But now I think it's time to jump on this floating boat again. John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > In article , David Stevenson > writes > > > > I consider your methods unnecessary and not in line with the Laws of > >the game. I am not prepared to tolerate people who deliberately break > >the Laws because proof is absent and I consider that the EBU's methods > >are the best I have seen so far as a framework of regulation to protect > >the integrity of L40. > > > Being an EBU TD, appointed on the basis of "we'd rather have him on the > inside p***ing out than on the outside p***ing in", and with a psyche > file at EBU HQ that needs its own filing cabinet, I totally agree with > the EBU approach and with DWS's views on how to use Law 40. I am very happy to be informed that the English Clubs have a strong preference for internal WC and players don't need to get out in the garden , to lower some natural pressures !!!!!!!!!! > I still psyche "frequently". I get recorded often. I occasionally get > adjusted, but no-one suggests I cheat. I get the best of all worlds > under this regime and just shrug when one of my more outrageous efforts > catches partner at it too. The game is much easier to rule this way > too. > > chs john To the point :- I am very sure that David's & John's approach is right .......The TD must be educated NOT to try to discover someone's dreams or hidden thoughts - he must apply HIS JUDGMENT upon the facts he was able to gather and RULE........because the majority of these kind of rulings include BRIDGE judgment , the TD's must inform the players about their rights to appeal......the TD isn't always the best bridge player..... > -- > John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 > 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou > London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk > +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 28 22:02:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA07198 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 22:02:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from backrosh.inter.net.il (backrosh.inter.net.il [192.116.196.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA07193 for ; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 22:02:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from internet-zahav.net (Ramat-Gan-0-130.access.net.il [213.8.0.130] (may be forged)) by backrosh.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA25550; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 15:01:53 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <37C7CFFD.D0DAD104@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 15:03:09 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Herman De Wael CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI References: <199908121346.OAA17955@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> <37C3C05F.24322C56@village.uunet.be> <37C51ACA.C73F29E1@village.uunet.be> <37C64ED6.F71177EE@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Well Gentlemen - I try to present some refinement of the real problem , as I understand it : My basic assumptions are :- 1) No one is cheating -> if you have enough evidence kick him out and don't mind about WC problems (see my answer to John). 2) The TD is not a Criminal Law Judge - therefore he doesn't need legal proof . First - the TD has to inquire and get the most available and possible information = then he must rule in order to let the game continue. There is no need for evidence , more than the TD found during the short period available for him to ask , think and pronounce the verdict !!! As I wrote before , his Judgment may include a major issue of the bridge game - here comes up the players right to appeal and the TD duty's to inform them about their rights to appeal his bridge judgment !! Second - I think that the "evidence versus experience" issue , as YOU try to discuss about , is not different : If my partner opens , RHO overcalls 1NT and I see 19 hcp under my nose - ??? - I have not to be very experienced to know that something "stinks" here.....one or both players had psyche..!!!! The question is WHO did it ????? I will go on bidding if I play with my regular partner and pass if I play with an occasional one..... I don't think it is a question of experience.....it is just my ability to count up to 52 cards and 40 hcp.... Should I call the TD - or to discuss with TD far away from the table , which ,IMHO , is worse - or to go on ???? As a TD I met this situation a lot of times .....didn't like to rule because I know almost 95% of the players here , and can't avoid for sure some a priori opinions about their levels and ethics....but had to do it using my JUDGMENT......what I can promise you is that at least 10% of the cases I had bad decisions , in spite of the fact that the AC never changed my ruling.. Sincerely Dany Herman De Wael wrote: > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > > > > >My question was, on which basis does one adjust. > > > > If they are in breach of L40A we adjust. > > > > Sorry David, I don't like your tone here. > This was the statement at which I came in. I asked you to > clarify, and I even put down a whole lot of text why I think > your clarification would not hold up. > And you reply in one sentence. Sorry. No can do. Explain > or refrain from using one-liners. > > > >Now as before, I do not like to use L40B for this. There is > > >no proof of an understanding, just by the fielding. > > > > Why do you use the word proof? You know we do not require proof. Do > > you ever fine anyone for putting the cards back in the board wrong? You > > do so because a preponderance of evidence suggests it: in fact someone > > may have come past, picked up the board with no-one noticing, and > > deliberately fouled it. It is so unlikely that you do not consider it. > > Do you ever decide someone has hesitated? Of course you do, from the > > evidence. Is it proved? No. If you are going to direct by only making > > alterations when things are proved you are in the wrong game altogether. > > Such an approach would wreck bridge. People would cheat, use > > hesitations, deliberately foul boards, and do all sorts of things and > > get away with them. > > > > OK, replace "proof" in all my posts with "evidence, enough > to be considered satisfactory". My argument holds. > You consider the fielding as "evidence" for something. I'm > just telling it is not evidence for CPU, but for existence > of "experience". > > > > To > > >suggest this would be a suggestion of cheating, and don't go > > >telling me otherwise! > > > > Fine, I won't tell you otherwise. > > > > A CPU is tantamount to cheating. I don't like to accuse > anyone of that, unless there is severe evidence. As I said, > the evidence at hand points to experience, not agreement. > I'm also saying that experience should be enough to be able > to rule. Why do you insist on calling people cheats? > > "I am not saying that you committed murder, but I sentence > you to life imprisonment on the basis of article ... of the > criminal code" > Come on now, Amnesty International would create havoc over > such a thing. > > > But for anyone out there who is not Herman, when I say someone has > > fielded a psyche I mean he has made a call or play that appears to allow > > for partner's psyche. > > You can say that for Herman too, he agrees. > > > It is evidence of a CPU [concealed partnership > > understanding]. > > I don't buy that one. It is evidence of concealed > partnership experience. > > > If blatant enough it means that I can judge there to > > have been a breach of L40A or L40B and I shall adjust. I shall call no- > > one a cheat and it does not mean anyone is cheating and it is not > > tantamount to cheating. > > > > OK, then CPU's are no longer cheating in your book. > > > >Rather, the fielding can be considered proof for an > > >"experience". > > > > Rubbish. It is not proof. > > > > change my words to "evidence". > > > >Don't quibble with me on this yet, the result is the same. > > >Now we are in breach of L75C. > > > > > >Which can lead to an adjustment, provided all other > > >conditions are met: > > >-damage (and I'm certain that in the cases you adjust in, > > >there was damage) AND > > >-consequence. > > > > I see no reason to go down this road. If people breach L40A I do not > > need damage to deal with them. > > > > I don't think you have evidence to suggest that L40A is > broken. > And besides, why don't you need damage to deal with a breach > of L40A? > I thought that was the basis of all our rulings about MI ? > Next you'll be handing out PP's for failure to alert ! > > > >We should be asking the following question of opponents : > > >"suppose partner would have told you, at the moment in which > > >this could have become clear to him, that his partner has a > > >tendency to psyche in such and such a way, would you have > > >taken the same actions". > > > > > >Only if that question has a positive answer, is there need > > >to adjust, in my opinion. > > > > So you are allowing people to deliberately and with malice > > aforethought break the Laws of the game? > > > > Of course I don't, what gave you that idea ? > > > >Let me try and explain my point of view by an example. > > > > > >I'm going back to your original: > > > > > > If your partner opens a Spanish green spade [a > > >third-in-hand non-vul v > > >vul spade], next hand overcalls 1NT and you pass with 11 > > >HCP, then I am > > >adjusting when your partner has psyched. I am accusing you > > >of nothing > > >but I am adjusting. What better way is there to handle it? > > > > > > > > >Let's assume partner is indeed a "frequent" psycher. You use > > >the case here as "evidence" for that, and I agree with you, > > >but I'd go even further - other evidence may lead to the > > >same conclusion. If this is me, any blml reader can provide > > >enough evidence for the "partnership experience". > > > > > >What I am trying to say is that under full disclosure, this > > >auction + explanations should go : > > > > > >W N E S > > >pass pass 1Sp > > > ("East is a known psycher in this situation, he may not > > >have his bid, in which case he is likely to be 2-4-3-4 with > > >0-3HCP, but of course in 99% of the cases he has a regular > > >opening, always of 11HCP or equivalent length, never less > > >than 10HCP without length") > > > 1NT > > >pass > > >("West may be catering to his partner's psyche, he could > > >have 11HCP, but he will normally bid with 6-8 and support, > > >or double with 8-10 without support") > > > 3NT all pass > > > > > >If S has 17 points, and N 10, then the opponent's points > > >will be 11-2 or 2-11, both of which are consistent with the > > >"full" explanation. > > >If this full explanation is lacking, and the contract fails > > >because the points are 11-2 in stead of the expected 2-11, > > >then there could be an adjustment, provided that south has a > > >"safe" line that can detect 3 points in the west hand. If > > >there is no such discovery line, then I rule that with the > > >full explanation, it is still 99% likely to find the points > > >2-11, and that should be the line followed. > > > > > >OTOH if North, with 10 points, chooses to pass on his > > >partner's overcall of 1NT, I rule that the damage was not > > >caused by the MI, and there will be no adjustment. > > > > > >I don't think we are very far apart in our points of view, > > >but I would like to hear your comments. > > > > I consider your methods unnecessary and not in line with the Laws of > > the game. I am not prepared to tolerate people who deliberately break > > the Laws because proof is absent and I consider that the EBU's methods > > are the best I have seen so far as a framework of regulation to protect > > the integrity of L40. > > > > I consider your methods unnecessary and not in line with the > Laws of the game. I am not prepared to suggest that people > who know their partner's habits are breaking any Law of the > game. I consider the EBU's methods to be a variation of the > theme "if it psyches, shoot it". > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 28 22:02:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA07212 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 22:02:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from backrosh.inter.net.il (backrosh.inter.net.il [192.116.196.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA07207 for ; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 22:02:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from internet-zahav.net (Ramat-Gan-0-130.access.net.il [213.8.0.130] (may be forged)) by backrosh.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA25586; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 15:02:28 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <37C7D021.A593923C@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 15:03:45 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply References: <199908241500.QAA24716@tempest.npl.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi David I saw many "chairpersons" or chairman whose Head works worse than wood made ........ Please let come back to the Laws : this time I think that the ACBL procedure is the simplest and the best : summon the TD if there was any tiny doubt that tempo changed , manner wasn't right or any phenomenon happened (is eclipse included ??? hahaha). It saves a lot of troubles and avoids impossible situations at the end of the play.... Dany David Stevenson wrote: > > Robin Barker wrote: > > >In the UK, "chair" is more common than "chairperson" and, in > >many organisations (e.g. public bodies), is used consistently > >whether the incumbant(sp?) is male or female. > > A chair is made of wood. > > A Chairman can be of either sex, and the use of any other term merely > means someone does not understand the language. > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 28 22:14:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA07246 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 22:14:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from smithers.inter.net.il (smithers.inter.net.il [192.116.192.60]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA07241 for ; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 22:14:31 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 13863 invoked from network); 28 Aug 1999 12:14:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO internet-zahav.net) (213.8.0.130) by smithers.inter.net.il with SMTP; 28 Aug 1999 12:14:19 -0000 Message-ID: <37C7D2E5.FFC91728@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 15:15:33 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eric Landau , Steve Willner CC: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Sex and Gender (was L16A1) References: <3.0.1.32.19990826081634.0069d860@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bravo - a new quark !!!!!!! I suggest that Eric will be our candidatron for the Nobel Prize for Physicridge ...........!!!!!!! Prof. Shobo Eric Landau wrote: > > At 12:19 PM 8/25/99 -0400, Craig wrote: > > >%%%There are many who fancy themselves bridgeplayers. Is there anyone who > >fancies herself a bridgeplayess? The choice would be hers (cetainly not > >theirs). After all we have waitresses and huntresses...but are there > >golfesses? Excuse me...I have to call the directress (who of course is our > >hostess).%%% > > Directron? > > Eric Landau elandau@cais.com > APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 28 23:52:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA07436 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 23:52:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA07431 for ; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 23:52:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11KiuN-0005Eg-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 13:52:41 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 12:01:33 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: What happened? References: <01bef01c$b2b7e7e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <3.0.1.32.19990827083052.006d3a3c@pop.cais.com> <006401bef105$a76e3260$f8e6a4d8@hdavis> In-Reply-To: <006401bef105$a76e3260$f8e6a4d8@hdavis> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: >I find it particularly interesting that the Principle of Coincidence as >described below matches the handling of psychic bids DWS has been describing >almost perfectly. I had thought this little gem was an ACBL aberration, but >it appears to have spread across the pond as well. Ok, please tell me what is wrong with the principle [as distinct from its application in any particular case[. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 28 23:52:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA07430 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 23:52:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA07419 for ; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 23:52:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11KiuH-0005EK-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 13:52:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 12:20:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: unappealing psychic References: <01b301bef0dc$8147f2c0$a6fc7ad1@hdavis> <007101bef0f4$e545dcc0$251b25cb@dynamite.com.au> <3.0.1.32.19990827224105.012679e4@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990827224105.012679e4@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: >At 11:25 AM 8/28/99 +1000, Sean wrote: >>I have been following this discussion for some time and have a question >>for those contributors who feel that not bidding 4Hearts at some >>stage in the auction ( I don't really care whether its directly, after >>3Hearts or after descriptive 4Clubs) with Qxx trump and a singleton is >>something other than catering for partner having bid a short suit. > >I for one have acknowledged that 3nt might well cater to a psychic 3nt bid, >and still have not read any legal citation which makes such a practice >illegal per se. LAW 40 - PARTNERSHIP UNDERSTANDINGS A. Right to Choose Call or Play A player may make any call or play (including an intentionally misleading call - such as a psychic bid - or a call or play that departs from commonly accepted, or previously announced, use of a convention), without prior announcement, provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding. If you take an action that is designed to allow for partner's psyche then there appears to be an understanding about psyches - and that makes the original psyche illegal. I really think people have to stop ignoring L40A: it is the basis of what you are allowed to bid. [s] >There is, obviously, a difference of styles in rebidding by a pre-emptive >hand. I was taught that the pre-emptive bidder cedes captaincy to partner, >and in general is not free to exercise much independent judgement. This had >nothing to do with catering to psychic bids, but was simply disciplined >bidding, sort of like flossing before bed. Perhaps this style is less in >vogue these days, but that doesn't make it either illegal or wrong-headed, >as you seem to think. The captain + crew approach is a good one, but does not usually mean that the captain is not allowed to ask the crew a question. After 2D- 2H-3H how do you ask if partner is suitable for no-trumps? I bid 3NT, which gives partner a choice depending on his hand. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 28 23:52:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA07429 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 23:52:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA07420 for ; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 23:52:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11KiuH-0005EJ-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 13:52:33 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 12:13:45 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: What happened? References: <002501bef0cc$3df036a0$ba84d9ce@host> <059d01bef109$db9187a0$3b085e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <059d01bef109$db9187a0$3b085e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >Craig Senior wrote, quoting the OB's definition of Penalty double: > >> 4.7.1 (a) Penalty. Partner is expected to leave it in, though he can take >> out on a hand very unsuitable for defence. (Page 16) > >Ergo, it is cooperative in nature. Penalty doubles of suit overcalls have been >considered cooperative since about 1932. Doubles of suit overcalls are more commonly played as Co-operative than penalty: 4.7.1 (b) Co-operative. In some situations they may be called `penalty- oriented'. Partner is expected to leave it in with any suitable hand. If I hold 2 Q65 KJ32 AKT43 and open 1C, 1S from LHO, double from partner Co-operative [as I used to play with Grattan] then I pull to 1NT. However, if I play with one of the ladies at Blundellsands BC, same sequence, I pass double because it is a Penalty double. Partner expects me to pass. In either case I expect to pull with --- Q KJ3 AQT876543 In England/Wales, a co-operative double is alertable. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 29 00:38:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA07557 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 00:38:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (mailhub.irvine.com [192.160.8.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA07551 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 00:38:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA07924; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 07:37:45 -0700 Message-Id: <199908281437.HAA07924@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: What happened? In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 28 Aug 1999 12:13:45 PDT." Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 07:37:44 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > If I hold 2 > Q65 > KJ32 > AKT43 > > and open 1C, 1S from LHO, double from partner Co-operative [as I used to > play with Grattan] then I pull to 1NT. > > However, if I play with one of the ladies at Blundellsands BC, same > sequence, I pass double because it is a Penalty double. Partner expects > me to pass. > > In either case I expect to pull with --- > Q > KJ3 > AQT876543 You mean you expect to open 1C with that hand? I suppose you'll be kind and only pull to 2C, thus allowing us to find *both* our major-suit fits? :) :) -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 29 01:35:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA07783 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 01:35:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net (snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.62]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA07778 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 01:35:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from ivillage (sdn-ar-002kslawrP221.dialsprint.net [158.252.181.237]) by snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA12836 for ; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 08:35:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <4.1.19990828103226.009801a0@mail.earthlink.net> X-Sender: baresch@mail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 10:33:55 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Brian Baresch Subject: Re: unappealing psychic Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I mistakenly sent this privately to DWS (without this notice, of course) when it was intended for the list. Apologies to David, who's seeing it twice. >>I for one have acknowledged that 3nt might well cater to a psychic 3nt bid, >>and still have not read any legal citation which makes such a practice >>illegal per se. > >LAW 40 - PARTNERSHIP UNDERSTANDINGS > >A. Right to Choose Call or Play > A player may make any call or play > (including an intentionally misleading > call - such as a psychic bid - or a call > or play that departs from commonly > accepted, or previously announced, use of > a convention), without prior announcement, > provided that such call or play is not > based on a partnership understanding. > > If you take an action that is designed to allow for partner's psyche >then there appears to be an understanding about psyches - and that makes >the original psyche illegal. > > I really think people have to stop ignoring L40A: it is the basis of >what you are allowed to bid. I still want to know how you'd handle the situation where the partnership is a new one, hastily arranged at the partnership desk, between two people who don't know each other and who have had almost no time to discuss system before this board comes up. If they barely have an understanding about 4/5cM and their pre-empt discussion consisted of "Weak 2's?" "OK", then how can they have an understanding about psyches? Best regards, Brian Baresch, baresch@earthlink.net Lawrence, Kansas, USA Editing, writing, proofreading If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 29 02:51:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA08323 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 02:51:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo16.mx.aol.com (imo16.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA08318 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 02:51:07 +1000 (EST) From: StefanieRohan@aol.com Received: from StefanieRohan@aol.com by imo16.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v22.4.) id pMZZa00255 (4365) for ; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 12:50:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <6e2d182c.24f96d2a@aol.com> Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 12:49:46 EDT Subject: Pass or Pull? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0.i for Windows 95 sub 135 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello all. Here is something which came up in the Mind Sports Olympiad. None vulnerable, dealer on your right opens 2H. You hold: K1086542 --- Q3 J1097 Let's say you decide to overcall 2S. The auction continues: N E(you) S W 2H# 2S 2NT* P 3H! P 4H x P ? # natural, weak * enquiry ! no feature outside of hearts Assume that partner's double is a penalty double. Do you pull, as you have zero defense for your two-level overcall? One additional fact...partner's double was preceded by her asking what the alerted bids meant, and then extensive questioning of North as to what kind of hand South might have had for making the 2NT bid, and then a lot of thought. East chose to pass. Both 2H and 2S are down one. I was North, and there was no problem as far as I was concerned because EW let the contract through. However... *IS* passing a LA? How would a committee have ruled if East had pulled the double? Cheers, Stefanie Rohan From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 29 02:59:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA08349 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 02:59:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from smithers.inter.net.il (smithers.inter.net.il [192.116.192.60]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA08344 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 02:59:16 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 23999 invoked from network); 28 Aug 1999 16:58:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO internet-zahav.net) (213.8.2.185) by smithers.inter.net.il with SMTP; 28 Aug 1999 16:58:57 -0000 Message-ID: <37C81599.51FE6E26@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 20:00:09 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: D-BLML list - the clever friends - August 99 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear all H-BLML (human....) and D-BLML members The Anual List's Day............(and Kushi's birthday..) Happy Day to all doggies , puppies and.......their human friends. Here is the 12th release of the new famous club !!!! The list will be updated and publish every 24th , and 24.8 will be announced as the List's day (Kushi's birth day). The list will include lovely dogs who go on their existence at Rainbow Bridge , thinking about their lovely human friends. D-BLML - DOGS' blml LIST (cats) Linda Trent - Panda , Gus (none) Dany Haimovich - Kushi (9) Jan Kamras - Koushi (none) Irv Kostal - Sammy (4) Craig Senior - Patches , Rusty , (10) Nutmeg , Lucky Adam Beneschan - Steffi (1) Eric Landau - Wendell (4) Bill Seagraves - Zoe {RB-5/1999} (none) Jack Kryst - Darci (2) Demeter Manning - Katrina (2) Jan Peter Pals - Turbo (none) Anne Jones - Penny {RB-3/1999} (none) Fearghal O'Boyle - Topsy (none) Louis Arnon - Mooky (4) Roger Pewick - Louie (none) Phillip Mendelshon- Visa , Mr. Peabody (none) His Excellency the sausage KUSHI - an 9 years old black duckel - is the administrator of the new D-BLML. SHOBO ( The Siamese Chief cat here) helps him too and will be responsible for the intergalactic relations with QUANGO - the Fabulous C-BLML chaircat ,and Nanky Poo.. Please be kind and send the data to update it. Dany From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 29 03:55:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA08472 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 03:55:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from chromium.mcis.singnet.com.sg (chromium.singnet.com.sg [165.21.74.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA08467 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 03:55:50 +1000 (EST) From: StefanieRohan@aol.com Received: from mail pickup service by chromium.mcis.singnet.com.sg with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 01:51:43 +0800 Received: from argon.singnet.com.sg ([165.21.74.27]) by chromium.mcis.singnet.com.sg with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.237.23); Sun, 29 Aug 1999 01:24:59 +0800 Received: from octavia.anu.edu.au (octavia.anu.edu.au [150.203.5.35]) by argon.singnet.com.sg (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id BAA15840 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 01:29:06 +0800 (SST) Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA08323 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 02:51:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo16.mx.aol.com (imo16.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA08318 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 02:51:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from StefanieRohan@aol.com by imo16.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v22.4.) id pMZZa00255 (4365) for ; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 12:50:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <6e2d182c.24f96d2a@aol.com> Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 12:49:46 EDT Subject: Pass or Pull? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0.i for Windows 95 sub 135 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello all. Here is something which came up in the Mind Sports Olympiad. None vulnerable, dealer on your right opens 2H. You hold: K1086542 --- Q3 J1097 Let's say you decide to overcall 2S. The auction continues: N E(you) S W 2H# 2S 2NT* P 3H! P 4H x P ? # natural, weak * enquiry ! no feature outside of hearts Assume that partner's double is a penalty double. Do you pull, as you have zero defense for your two-level overcall? One additional fact...partner's double was preceded by her asking what the alerted bids meant, and then extensive questioning of North as to what kind of hand South might have had for making the 2NT bid, and then a lot of thought. East chose to pass. Both 2H and 2S are down one. I was North, and there was no problem as far as I was concerned because EW let the contract through. However... *IS* passing a LA? How would a committee have ruled if East had pulled the double? Cheers, Stefanie Rohan From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 29 03:56:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA08488 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 03:56:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from chromium.mcis.singnet.com.sg (chromium.singnet.com.sg [165.21.74.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA08475 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 03:56:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by chromium.mcis.singnet.com.sg with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 01:52:18 +0800 Received: from argon.singnet.com.sg ([165.21.74.27]) by chromium.mcis.singnet.com.sg with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.237.23); Sun, 29 Aug 1999 01:27:02 +0800 Received: from octavia.anu.edu.au (octavia.anu.edu.au [150.203.5.35]) by argon.singnet.com.sg (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id BAA18616 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 01:31:07 +0800 (SST) Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA08349 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 02:59:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from smithers.inter.net.il (smithers.inter.net.il [192.116.192.60]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA08344 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 02:59:16 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 23999 invoked from network); 28 Aug 1999 16:58:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO internet-zahav.net) (213.8.2.185) by smithers.inter.net.il with SMTP; 28 Aug 1999 16:58:57 -0000 Message-ID: <37C81599.51FE6E26@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 20:00:09 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: D-BLML list - the clever friends - August 99 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear all H-BLML (human....) and D-BLML members The Anual List's Day............(and Kushi's birthday..) Happy Day to all doggies , puppies and.......their human friends. Here is the 12th release of the new famous club !!!! The list will be updated and publish every 24th , and 24.8 will be announced as the List's day (Kushi's birth day). The list will include lovely dogs who go on their existence at Rainbow Bridge , thinking about their lovely human friends. D-BLML - DOGS' blml LIST (cats) Linda Trent - Panda , Gus (none) Dany Haimovich - Kushi (9) Jan Kamras - Koushi (none) Irv Kostal - Sammy (4) Craig Senior - Patches , Rusty , (10) Nutmeg , Lucky Adam Beneschan - Steffi (1) Eric Landau - Wendell (4) Bill Seagraves - Zoe {RB-5/1999} (none) Jack Kryst - Darci (2) Demeter Manning - Katrina (2) Jan Peter Pals - Turbo (none) Anne Jones - Penny {RB-3/1999} (none) Fearghal O'Boyle - Topsy (none) Louis Arnon - Mooky (4) Roger Pewick - Louie (none) Phillip Mendelshon- Visa , Mr. Peabody (none) His Excellency the sausage KUSHI - an 9 years old black duckel - is the administrator of the new D-BLML. SHOBO ( The Siamese Chief cat here) helps him too and will be responsible for the intergalactic relations with QUANGO - the Fabulous C-BLML chaircat ,and Nanky Poo.. Please be kind and send the data to update it. Dany From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 29 04:13:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA08571 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 04:13:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from carbon.mcis.singnet.com.sg (carbon.singnet.com.sg [165.21.74.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA08566 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 04:13:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by carbon.mcis.singnet.com.sg with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 02:13:58 +0800 Received: from argon.singnet.com.sg ([165.21.74.27]) by carbon.mcis.singnet.com.sg with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1875.185.18); Sat, 28 Aug 1999 01:52:24 +0800 Received: from octavia.anu.edu.au (octavia.anu.edu.au [150.203.5.35]) by argon.singnet.com.sg (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id BAA23482 for ; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 01:51:45 +0800 (SST) Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA03460 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 00:22:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand4.global.net.uk (sand4.global.net.uk [194.126.80.248]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA03454 for ; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 00:22:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from p12s08a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.168.19] helo=pacific) by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11KMtO-0005sU-00; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 15:22:10 +0100 Message-ID: <00b601bef097$8e8d37a0$13a893c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 15:17:54 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Date: 27 August 1999 12:46 Subject: understanding, agreement, experience >Several threads on psyches have recently faced. > >Once again, David and I are at odds. > >I would like to come to an understanding about the scope of >the laws on these issues. > --- \x/ --- > >L40A : a player may make any call provided that such a call >is not based on a partnership understanding. > --- \x/ --- >L40B : a player may not make a call based on a special >partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may >reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, or unless >his side discloses the use of such call. > ---- \x/ ---- > >The word "special" is used in L40B, and nowhere else. We >have never fully grasped why it is there. > +++++ 'Special' is also in Law 75, of course. I think that the idea of 'special' is that it is an understanding that is peculiar to the partnership and not necessarily to partnerships in general. We should not confuse 40A with 40B. They deal with different aspects of players calls: 40A is dealing with calls that have no agreed systemic basis. 40B is concerned with what players may use when they have agreements. The EBU regulation is in keeping with 40C. I am not entering into the full debate on this subject because I think it may be a subject that will have an outing in the forthcoming WBF get-together on appeals procedures. I would not want to anticipate that. ~ G ~ +++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 29 05:11:07 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA08726 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 05:11:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp4.mindspring.com (smtp4.mindspring.com [207.69.200.64]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA08721 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 05:11:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivehff.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.69.239]) by smtp4.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA27542 for ; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 15:10:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990828150819.012651e0@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 15:08:19 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: unappealing psychic In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19990827224105.012679e4@pop.mindspring.com> <01b301bef0dc$8147f2c0$a6fc7ad1@hdavis> <007101bef0f4$e545dcc0$251b25cb@dynamite.com.au> <3.0.1.32.19990827224105.012679e4@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:20 PM 8/28/99 +0100, David S wrote: >Michael S. Dennis wrote: >>At 11:25 AM 8/28/99 +1000, Sean wrote: >>>I have been following this discussion for some time and have a question >>>for those contributors who feel that not bidding 4Hearts at some >>>stage in the auction ( I don't really care whether its directly, after >>>3Hearts or after descriptive 4Clubs) with Qxx trump and a singleton is >>>something other than catering for partner having bid a short suit. >> >>I for one have acknowledged that 3nt might well cater to a psychic 3nt bid, >>and still have not read any legal citation which makes such a practice >>illegal per se. > >LAW 40 - PARTNERSHIP UNDERSTANDINGS > >A. Right to Choose Call or Play > A player may make any call or play > (including an intentionally misleading > call - such as a psychic bid - or a call > or play that departs from commonly > accepted, or previously announced, use of > a convention), without prior announcement, > provided that such call or play is not > based on a partnership understanding. > > If you take an action that is designed to allow for partner's psyche >then there appears to be an understanding about psyches - and that makes >the ___original psyche illegal___ (emphasis added, msd). > Two points: a) I have been arguing, until now without success, that it is not illegal to bid in a way which caters to partner's possible psych, and your comments here seem consistent with that view. Yes, it is certainly the case that such a bid could be evidence of an illegal agreement about psyching in a particular situation, and could be the basis for an adverse ruling under L40A _against the psych itself_. But nothing in L40A restricts the bidding options of a player who suspects a possible psych. At most, L40A places restrictions on the right to make a psychic bid in the first place. Whether the illegality might be deemed to exist in the psychic bid or in responder's subsequent actions may seem like a quibble, but I assure you it is not. I have stated repeatedly that were I the 2D bidder, I would consider this sequence to be suggestive of the possibilty of a psych, despite the fact that none of my regular partners have ever psyched. The question is whether my judgement in this matter is a legal basis upon which I could decide to leave the 3nt call in, or whether such action would in and of itself be a violation, rather than potential evidence of a prior violation by partner. Your previous comments, and Grattan's as well, have suggested the latter. (Perhaps our differing views reflect different perspectives. As a TD/AC member, it may well be sufficient to you to determine that damage resulted from an illegality, without respect to these details. As a player, I want to be clear about my own rights and obligations in a particular situation.) b)As it pertains to this case, I think your characterization of this particular action (i.e., passing 3nt) as "designed to allow for partner's psyche" is too strong. I agree that it _caters_ to a possible psychic 2H bid, but that is only one factor. For me, the decision between passing and removing is relatively close, without regard to the issue of a possible psych. Obviously we disagree here about the bridge issues involved, but others have expressed opinions on either side of this question, so I think my view here is at least a reasonable one. If the 2D bidder had avoided raising hearts at his second turn, then that would have been an action "designed to allow for partner's psyche", IMO. The distinction goes to the strength of the evidentiary determination when it comes time to assess the likelihood of illegality. To me, a bid which is a reasonable choice in its own right (if not your personal favorite), but which also caters to a possbile psychic action, is much weaker evidence of an illegal understanding than a bid which can only be explained by its successful protection against a psych. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 29 05:19:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA08753 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 05:19:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp4.mindspring.com (smtp4.mindspring.com [207.69.200.64]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA08748 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 05:19:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivehff.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.69.239]) by smtp4.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA10149 for ; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 15:19:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990828151733.012694dc@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 15:17:33 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Pass or Pull? In-Reply-To: <6e2d182c.24f96d2a@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:49 PM 8/28/99 EDT, Stephanie wrote: >Hello all. Here is something which came up in the Mind Sports Olympiad. > >None vulnerable, dealer on your right opens 2H. You hold: > >K1086542 >--- >Q3 >J1097 > >Let's say you decide to overcall 2S. The auction continues: > >N E(you) S W >2H# 2S 2NT* P >3H! P 4H x >P ? > ># natural, weak * enquiry ! no feature outside of hearts > >Assume that partner's double is a penalty double. Do you pull, as you have >zero defense for your two-level overcall? > >One additional fact...partner's double was preceded by her asking what the >alerted bids meant, and then extensive questioning of North as to what kind >of hand South might have had for making the 2NT bid, and then a lot of >thought. > >East chose to pass. Both 2H and 2S are down one. I was North, and there was >no problem as far as I was concerned because EW let the contract through. >However... > >*IS* passing a LA? How would a committee have ruled if East had pulled the >double? Can't say how a committee would have ruled, but I can say absolutely that I would never consider passing this double. Having overcalled with a 6-count and a 7-bagger, I think that partner is entitled to expect a defensive trick or 3. But I probably don't have any to offer, and 4 hearts is apt to be made, even with the bad trump break. If I'm not willing to remove this double, then I had absolutely no business bidding 2S in the first place, as this particular dilemma was eminently forseeable. Even under the ACBL guidelines, I think that passing is not an LA. Not even close elsewhere. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 29 05:37:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA08807 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 05:37:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand2.global.net.uk (sand2.global.net.uk [195.147.246.100]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA08801 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 05:37:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from p98s02a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.130.153] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11KoHq-0004ic-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 20:37:15 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: overdisclosure? Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 20:33:21 +0100 Message-ID: <01bef18c$301a54a0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk What do you think of this one.(sorry the hand is not available but the cards are not important) All players experienced. Teams. Game All. W opens 1D, N doubles and E redoubles. W alerts and is asked by S. W said "9+points, no support for my suit," and then as an afterthought he muttered quite audibly "not at this stage anyway" S then looked at the CC. which said "9+ looking for penalties" S played the contract in 2H doubled (by E) and played E for 4/4/2/3 when the hand was was actually 4/4/3/2. He went one off, and called the TD. S claimed that he had been misled by the comment about support, and had played E for Diamond shortage. If he plays North for 4/4 (by trick 8 this count exposed) 3/2 he makes his contract. How do you rule? Anne From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 29 09:34:56 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA09434 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 09:34:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA09424 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 09:34:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11KrzZ-000Pg5-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 23:34:38 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 00:28:03 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: unappealing psychic References: <4.1.19990828103226.009801a0@mail.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <4.1.19990828103226.009801a0@mail.earthlink.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Brian Baresch wrote: >I mistakenly sent this privately to DWS (without this notice, of course) >when it was intended for the list. Apologies to David, who's seeing it twice. > >>>I for one have acknowledged that 3nt might well cater to a psychic 3nt bid, >>>and still have not read any legal citation which makes such a practice >>>illegal per se. >> >>LAW 40 - PARTNERSHIP UNDERSTANDINGS >> >>A. Right to Choose Call or Play >> A player may make any call or play >> (including an intentionally misleading >> call - such as a psychic bid - or a call >> or play that departs from commonly >> accepted, or previously announced, use of >> a convention), without prior announcement, >> provided that such call or play is not >> based on a partnership understanding. >> >> If you take an action that is designed to allow for partner's psyche >>then there appears to be an understanding about psyches - and that makes >>the original psyche illegal. >> >> I really think people have to stop ignoring L40A: it is the basis of >>what you are allowed to bid. > >I still want to know how you'd handle the situation where the partnership >is a new one, hastily arranged at the partnership desk, between two people >who don't know each other and who have had almost no time to discuss system >before this board comes up. If they barely have an understanding about >4/5cM and their pre-empt discussion consisted of "Weak 2's?" "OK", then how >can they have an understanding about psyches? It is time I wrote that series on directing! When I make a ruling at bridge, first I investigate all the relevant facts. Then I assimilate them, assess, consult with a colleague [or another player if no colleague is available], reflect, decide, and tell the players my decision. I do not just glance at a hand and make presumptions without the facts. If the 2D - 2H - 3H - 3NT hand had been between two beginners it would not be a Red Psyche because their lack of experience and understanding would be relevant. If I know a pair have not played together before then that is a fact that I take into account. Our psyche system, which does work well, involves filling in a form. The form asks such things as whether the sequence has turned up in the partnership before. Furthermore, the partner of the psycher is given the chance to put in writing his reasons for the action he took. Of course, there will always be problems over the bridge ability of Directors: some people here feel there is a case for passing 3NT on the actual hand. Now, I believe they are wrong [unless they have specific agreements, which, of course, the actual pair concerned would have written on the form if they had had them] but the one thing I believe an AC *is* perfectly suited for is to look at the bridge judgement. Thus, while I think anyone who passes 3NT comes from Mars, that's a personal view, and I would be in no way upset by a player testing it before an AC, and if the AC disagree with my judgement, so be it. However, the overall method may not be perfect, but it does seem to be avoiding the abuse which other jurisdictions have problems with. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 29 12:09:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA09743 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 12:09:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.74]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA09738 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 12:09:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivei1a.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.72.42]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA10164 for ; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 22:09:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990828220713.012645e8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 22:07:13 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: overdisclosure? In-Reply-To: <01bef18c$301a54a0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:33 PM 8/28/99 +0100, Anne wrote: >What do you think of this one.(sorry the hand is not available >but the cards are not important) > >All players experienced. Teams. Game All. > > W opens 1D, N doubles and E redoubles. >W alerts and is asked by S. > W said "9+points, no support for my suit," and >then as an afterthought he muttered quite audibly "not at this >stage anyway" >S then looked at the CC. which said "9+ looking for penalties" > >S played the contract in 2H doubled (by E) and played E for 4/4/2/3 >when the hand was was actually 4/4/3/2. He went one off, and >called the TD. > >S claimed that he had been misled by the comment about >support, and had played E for Diamond shortage. If he plays >North for 4/4 (by trick 8 this count exposed) 3/2 he makes his >contract. >How do you rule? > Score stands. West did not say "diamond shortness". He said that the redouble denied support, and then qualified even that limited piece of information. In general, I don't support partner's minor suit openings with only three cards, so I wouldn't consider a three-card holding by East to be inconsistent with West's remarks, certainly not after he had qualified them with his extra comment. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 29 12:33:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA09838 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 12:33:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA09833 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 12:33:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11Kum3-000BSH-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 02:32:53 +0000 Message-ID: <5uoqu4AvjHy3EwgK@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 01:03:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: overdisclosure? References: <01bef18c$301a54a0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01bef18c$301a54a0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: >What do you think of this one.(sorry the hand is not available >but the cards are not important) > >All players experienced. Teams. Game All. > > W opens 1D, N doubles and E redoubles. >W alerts and is asked by S. > W said "9+points, no support for my suit," and >then as an afterthought he muttered quite audibly "not at this >stage anyway" >S then looked at the CC. which said "9+ looking for penalties" > >S played the contract in 2H doubled (by E) and played E for 4/4/2/3 >when the hand was was actually 4/4/3/2. He went one off, and >called the TD. > >S claimed that he had been misled by the comment about >support, and had played E for Diamond shortage. If he plays >North for 4/4 (by trick 8 this count exposed) 3/2 he makes his >contract. >How do you rule? Assuming all the facts are here, there is no misinformation, so no adjustment. Am I missing something? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 29 13:30:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA09815 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 12:27:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA09804 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 12:27:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11Kugh-000Awo-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 02:27:20 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 03:14:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: What happened? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes > > In either case I expect to pull with --- > Q > KJ3 > AQT876543 > > In England/Wales, a co-operative double is alertable. > curious, a not dissimilar hand to the one that I let 2S through playing in the pairs, when 6C was cold, and the C were never mentioned. Passing with 8 cards is ok, DWS needs 9 to bid clubs obviously. chs john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 29 14:33:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA09814 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 12:27:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA09805 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 12:27:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11Kugh-000GIn-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 02:27:21 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 03:24:07 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Pass or Pull? In-Reply-To: <6e2d182c.24f96d2a@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <6e2d182c.24f96d2a@aol.com>, StefanieRohan@aol.com writes >Hello all. Here is something which came up in the Mind Sports Olympiad. > >None vulnerable, dealer on your right opens 2H. You hold: > >K1086542 >--- >Q3 >J1097 > >Let's say you decide to overcall 2S. The auction continues: > >N E(you) S W >2H# 2S 2NT* P >3H! P 4H x >P ? > ># natural, weak * enquiry ! no feature outside of hearts > >Assume that partner's double is a penalty double. Do you pull, as you have >zero defense for your two-level overcall? I tend to rule slow doubles are "hands off". I still tend to do so when pass is the action which works. Slow double tends to suggest that bidding on is preferable to passing. I'd rule 4S back if it made btw. I'd have needed to be at the table though. chs john > >One additional fact...partner's double was preceded by her asking what the >alerted bids meant, and then extensive questioning of North as to what kind >of hand South might have had for making the 2NT bid, and then a lot of >thought. > >East chose to pass. Both 2H and 2S are down one. I was North, and there was >no problem as far as I was concerned because EW let the contract through. >However... > >*IS* passing a LA? How would a committee have ruled if East had pulled the >double? > >Cheers, > >Stefanie Rohan > -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 29 15:20:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA10158 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 15:20:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (mailout1-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.81]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA10153 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 15:20:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.104] by mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 01:20:18 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19990827224105.012679e4@pop.mindspring.com> <01b301bef0dc$8147f2c0$a6fc7ad1@hdavis> <007101bef0f4$e545dcc0$251b25cb@dynamite.com.au> <3.0.1.32.19990827224105.012679e4@pop.mindspring.com> Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 01:09:52 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: unappealing psychic Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 7:20 AM -0400 8/28/99, David Stevenson wrote: >LAW 40 - PARTNERSHIP UNDERSTANDINGS > >A. Right to Choose Call or Play > A player may make any call or play > (including an intentionally misleading > call - such as a psychic bid - or a call > or play that departs from commonly > accepted, or previously announced, use of > a convention), without prior announcement, > provided that such call or play is not > based on a partnership understanding. > > If you take an action that is designed to allow for partner's psyche >then there appears to be an understanding about psyches - and that makes >the original psyche illegal. Waait a minute, there! The Law says "provided that such call or play *is not* based on a partnership understanding. It doesn't say *doesn't appear to be* based on a partnership understanding. We want to stay within the laws - we don't want to stretch them out of shape. And that's just what this so-called "rule of coincidence" does. > I really think people have to stop ignoring L40A: it is the basis of >what you are allowed to bid. I'm not ignoring it; it _says_ what I just wrote, which isn't the same as the way you're interpreting it. I grant you a TD has to use his judgement. I don't have a problem with that. But I don't thing one should twist what the Laws _say_ when doing so. And it seems to me that's what you do when you invoke the "rule of coincidence". Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2 iQA/AwUBN8jDIr2UW3au93vOEQKDSACfY3dm/dYSw7aCqJSgte3pqkEgxd0AnjVX uWyndNVsaOxwPnLI1y2mPAxs =pV8t -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 29 15:54:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA10250 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 15:54:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA10240 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 15:53:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt095n3b.san.rr.com [24.94.8.59]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA19074 for ; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 22:53:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <064001bef1e2$968a46e0$3b085e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <01bef01c$b2b7e7e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid><3.0.1.32.19990827083052.006d3a3c@pop.cais.com><006401bef105$a76e3260$f8e6a4d8@hdavis> Subject: Re: What happened? Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 22:48:19 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Hirsch Davis wrote: > > >I find it particularly interesting that the Principle of Coincidence as > >described below matches the handling of psychic bids DWS has been describing > >almost perfectly. I had thought this little gem was an ACBL aberration, but > >it appears to have spread across the pond as well. > > Ok, please tell me what is wrong with the principle [as distinct from > its application in any particular case[. > Absence of due process. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 29 15:54:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA10249 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 15:54:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA10239 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 15:53:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt095n3b.san.rr.com [24.94.8.59]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA19069 for ; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 22:53:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <063f01bef1e2$963f8240$3b085e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <01b301bef0dc$8147f2c0$a6fc7ad1@hdavis><007101bef0f4$e545dcc0$251b25cb@dynamite.com.au><3.0.1.32.19990827224105.012679e4@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: unappealing psychic Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 22:46:29 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Michael S. Dennis wrote: > >At 11:25 AM 8/28/99 +1000, Sean wrote: > >>I have been following this discussion for some time and have a question > >>for those contributors who feel that not bidding 4Hearts at some > >>stage in the auction ( I don't really care whether its directly, after > >>3Hearts or after descriptive 4Clubs) with Qxx trump and a singleton is > >>something other than catering for partner having bid a short suit. > > > >I for one have acknowledged that 3nt might well cater to a psychic 3nt bid, > >and still have not read any legal citation which makes such a practice > >illegal per se. > > LAW 40 - PARTNERSHIP UNDERSTANDINGS > > A. Right to Choose Call or Play > A player may make any call or play > (including an intentionally misleading > call - such as a psychic bid - or a call > or play that departs from commonly > accepted, or previously announced, use of > a convention), without prior announcement, > provided that such call or play is not > based on a partnership understanding. > > If you take an action that is designed to allow for partner's psyche > then there appears to be an understanding about psyches - and that makes > the original psyche illegal. "Appears to be" does not make it so. I have 13 HCP, 2=3=4=4, favorable vulnerability, partner opens 1S, RHO doubles, I redouble, LHO bids 3H-P-4H. The opponents are sturdy types. Either partner has psyched or the opponents are crazy. I take the action of passing to allow for partner's psych, but you tell me I have to double? And if I don't, that makes his psych illegal? > I really think people have to stop ignoring L40A: it is the basis of what you are allowed to bid. I really think you are misinterpreting L40A. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 29 16:30:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA10333 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 16:30:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp4.mindspring.com (smtp4.mindspring.com [207.69.200.64]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA10327 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 16:30:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from mindspring.com (user-38ldikj.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.202.147]) by smtp4.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id CAA29066 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 02:30:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <37C8D478.95025E67@mindspring.com> Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 23:34:32 -0700 From: "John R. Mayne" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: unappealing psychic References: <4.1.19990828103226.009801a0@mail.earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk And, back: David Stevenson wrote: > > Brian Baresch wrote: [snip] > >> > >>LAW 40 - PARTNERSHIP UNDERSTANDINGS > >> > >>A. Right to Choose Call or Play > >> A player may make any call or play > >> (including an intentionally misleading > >> call - such as a psychic bid - or a call > >> or play that departs from commonly > >> accepted, or previously announced, use of > >> a convention), without prior announcement, > >> provided that such call or play is not > >> based on a partnership understanding. > >> > >> If you take an action that is designed to allow for partner's psyche > >>then there appears to be an understanding about psyches - and that makes > >>the original psyche illegal. Of course not. This, as has been noted, is the one-psyche-per-lifetime rule. > >> > >> I really think people have to stop ignoring L40A: it is the basis of > >>what you are allowed to bid. And that argument means I am not allowed to make any bid that is not on my card. After 2N-P-3N (relay)-P-4C, we're not allowed to bid any more; it isn't on our card. And the argument is wrong, anyway. > > > >I still want to know how you'd handle the situation where the partnership > >is a new one, hastily arranged at the partnership desk, between two people > >who don't know each other and who have had almost no time to discuss system > >before this board comes up. If they barely have an understanding about > >4/5cM and their pre-empt discussion consisted of "Weak 2's?" "OK", then how > >can they have an understanding about psyches? > [long snip in which I cannot find the answer to this question] > > However, the overall method may not be perfect, but it does seem to be > avoiding the abuse which other jurisdictions have problems with. The question is still on the table, and I think it is an excellent one. What of the first-time partnership? The rule says it's rolled back; why? I like the EBU method of registering psyches; I think it provides an excellent database allowing better rulings. And one of the things it sees is pick-offs and hedges against psyches. I think these are legal, but if you're hedging only when partner is psyching, there's a problem. I certainly agree that hedging against a psyche should place a heavy evidentiary burden on the hedgers. But I do not agree that the rule should be absolute, nor do I think the law allows it to be. As I understand it, the DWS theory is that there is no continuum. The auction either makes it obvious that it's a psyche, in which case you can field, or it doesn't, in which case you can't. Isn't there a time when you have a strong suspicion? And oughtn't you cater to that when you can do so safely? The reporting system is great. Having strict evidentiary rules biased against psychers is fine. But automatic poor scores for good guesses is wrong. --JRM From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 29 17:43:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA10450 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 17:43:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA10445 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 17:43:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-104.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.104]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA01774 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 09:43:39 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37C6A961.9E407CF1@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 17:06:09 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI References: <199908271342.OAA22809@tempest.npl.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robin Barker wrote: > > > > > I hope someone can propose a precise definition of the distinction between > > "implicit agreement" and "experience". My intuition, like Herman's, tells > > me that there is one, but the ACBL has made it clear that they disagree. > > > > In life, co-operating groups (e.g. couples, families) readily > assume a tacit (=implicit) agreement from experience. We assume > people who do something once, will do it again, and base our actions > on it. Implicit agreements is a very widely encompassing term and > is (almost) the same as experience. > > If partner does something novel at the bridge table: that is > experience. Unless you say "don't do that again", partner > may well do it again: that is an implicit agreement. > > Robin This is not life, this is something far more serious : bridge. I have always understood the word implicit to mean - not spoken but inferred. Thus we never agreed that 1Di denies a regular 15 count, but since we have agreed that a regular 15 count is opened 1NT, we have implicetly agreed the first. Experience is something else altogether. I know my partner sometimes psyches, and I may even be able to recognize the circumstances, but we have never agreed to this. Now I do realize that sometimes this distinction is vague, and while reRTFLBing for my long article, I discovered a phrase I had not read explicitely before : habitual violations may create implicit agreements. OK, I will give an example where this is true : when I open 1NT on 14 (we usually play 15-17 in our part of the world) with a 5-card minor, I may create an implicit agreement. I don't call that a psyche (no gross misstatement) When I talk of psyches, that become part of experience, but not of agreement, I hope you understand what I mean. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 29 19:12:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA10564 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 19:12:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA10543 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 19:12:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.222] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11L10K-000Ps5-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 10:12:00 +0100 Message-ID: <002701bef1fe$8bddaae0$de5108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 01:48:45 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: BLML Date: 28 August 1999 07:40 Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI > >-----Original Message----- >From: Robin Barker >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au ; >elandau@cais.com >Date: Friday, August 27, 1999 6:09 PM >Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI > > >> >>> >If partner does something novel at the bridge table: that is >>> >experience. Unless you say "don't do that again", partner >>> >may well do it again: that is an implicit agreement. >>> >>> This is the essence of the ACBL's infamous "one psych per partnership per >>> lifetime" rule. Both Robin and the ACBL assert that a single deviation >>> from a partnership's explicit agreements creates a new "implicit >>> agreement", which means that it may only be repeated if it satisfies all >>> the restrictions to which an explicit agreement would be subject. >> ++++ I think what we have to look into is the mind of the partner [B] of the player who has psyched [A]. The implicit agreement exists if, when A makes the call, B readily recalls partnership experience that generates the thought of a real possibility that A has psyched. This may happen as the outcome of a recent single occasion or as the longer memory of several occasions that have impressed themselves upon his mind. The Director and AC have the responsibility for assessing the likelihood of this. Because bridge is a 'mind sport' we cannot avoid the necessity of judging the probable mind of the player and the Laws require that it be done. In my opinion the Director should be clear in his mind whether he is ruling under Law 75B (where there is a history of violations) or 40C (which is concerned with the Director's judgment of the evidence provided by the action on the current board). ~ G ~ ++++ ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 29 19:12:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA10565 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 19:12:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA10542 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 19:12:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.222] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11L10I-000Ps5-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 10:11:59 +0100 Message-ID: <002601bef1fe$8b2caa60$de5108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 00:47:54 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 28 August 1999 01:11 Subject: understanding, agreement, experience > Well, when Herman gives a long post the only remedy is to retailiate by >boring him.... > > [much snipped] > >>It is my profound opinion that a player's habits can be >>known through experience, and are not a part of the >>agreements. >> +++ The laws are clear enough that players' styles are not subject to regulation. However, gross breaches of disclosed systemic agreements which are considered by the Director to be evidence of a partnership understanding not fully disclosed are not matters of 'style' or 'judgement', they are 'method'. Implicit agreements arise from *partnership* experience. These are by law part of the partnership's agreements and subject to regulation if they are conventional or may be made as natural bids below the limits of strength the laws specify. Under most forms of regulation these constitute illegal methods. The profundity of the comment about players' habits is questionable. Since use of an illegal method will result in an artificial adjusted score when the result is cancelled, it would seem arguable that damage occurs if the non-offending side obtains less than 60% on the board. [ ? A higher percentage if the NO's session score is greater than 60%] ~ G ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 29 19:12:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA10563 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 19:12:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA10545 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 19:12:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.222] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11L10N-000Ps5-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 10:12:03 +0100 Message-ID: <002901bef1fe$8ddcd640$de5108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: unappealing psychic Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 10:07:47 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 28 August 1999 04:03 Subject: Re: unappealing psychic >At 11:25 AM 8/28/99 +1000, Sean wrote: >>I have been following this discussion for some time and have a question >>for those contributors who feel that not bidding 4Hearts at some >>stage in the auction ( I don't really care whether its directly, after >>3Hearts or after descriptive 4Clubs) with Qxx trump and a singleton is >>something other than catering for partner having bid a short suit. > From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 29 19:12:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA10562 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 19:12:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA10544 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 19:12:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.222] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11L10L-000Ps5-00; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 10:12:01 +0100 Message-ID: <002801bef1fe$8cc72080$de5108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Cc: "'Grattan Endicott'" Subject: Re: psychers , Unauthorised Information, and experience Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 09:58:13 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 28 August 1999 02:55 Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI >In article <3.0.1.32.19990827084857.0069ed90@pop.cais.com>, Eric Landau > writes >>At 10:22 AM 8/27/99 +0200, Herman wrote: >> >>>A psyche, even fielded, is not an implicit agreement, it is >>>not an agreement at all. >>>It may be experience. >> >>I hope someone can propose a precise definition > > >I am of the view that they are pretty much the same thing. chs john >> +++ My first response is that the laws should actually be referring, in my view, to the 'mutual' experience of the partners. [If A and partner B both play regularly with C there is a possibility that an implicit understanding develops through the medium of C. Something occurs out of the blue, they both know of C's habit and base their respective actions upon it.] However, Law 40C does not restrict the Director as to the basis on which he may adjudge that there is an understanding that has not been fully disclosed. Other laws provide specific circumstances in which the Director is to act, one of these being the establishment of an implicit understanding as the consequence of repeated past violations (plural) of the partnership's disclosed meanings. But those laws do not restrict freedom to act under 40C, even in the case where there is only one previous experience; what is questionable is any failure to allow for the erosion of a player's awareness with passage of time. (The depth of the impact of the experience on the mind affects the speed at which the impression fades.) Equally the Director is empowered to reach his Law 40C decision on the facts of the current board alone if he considers the evidence is there; you will have noted my thought that 'damage' in 40C can be held to relate to the 60% the non-offending side would receive if for the table concerned the board were cancelled because of the illegality (i.e. no 40C score adjustment if the non-offending side gets 60% or more on it. I may perhaps hear argument on this!). Another point to note is that neither Law 40 nor Laws 75B & 75C make any reference to UI. The breach of law with which they are concerned is the failure to disclose an understanding. Subject to the regulations for the tournament, to have an understanding is legal. Under most forms of regulation so-called 'psychic' action that is actually a matter of partnership understanding is illegal. What the laws themselves make unlawful is the failure to disclose fully. ~ G ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 29 21:51:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA10812 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 21:51:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA10800 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 21:51:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-81.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.81]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA08946 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 13:51:00 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37C8F130.57716A3E@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 10:37:04 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience References: <3.0.5.32.19990827084425.007f5340@maine.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote: > [snip] Very well, Tim. This is the real crux of the problem. Psyching tendencies MUST be freely available to opponents. Active ethics instructs us to inform opponents far more fully than is usually done. But -real- psyches are NOT a part of some form of systemic approach that can be legislated upon. Writers of system regulations all accross the world should be made fully aware of this fact: system regulations can not and may not be used to bar psyching in any way or form. Of course, a good definition of non-systemic versus systemic psyching must be found. IMO, that definition needs to include frequency of the occurence of the psyched meaning versus the true one, and systemic means of controlling the psyche. If the psychic meaning occurs, say, less than once in ten, and there are no systemic controls, then a psyche is a psyche, and can not be subject to systemic regulations. Hands up who agrees with this statement ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 29 21:51:28 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA10823 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 21:51:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA10816 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 21:51:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-81.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.81]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA08954 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 13:51:07 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37C8F947.40D0E2B8@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 11:11:35 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience References: <3.0.6.32.19990828064347.007bb100@eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It seems Grant has replied twice to the same message, and the first part of his answer was repeated, but then he said: Grant Sterling wrote: > > > > >I accept that the EBU rules against these bidding sequences. > > > >But only if they do so under the cloak of damage, as in > >L40C, not by simply saying "concealed partnership > >understanding" - a term which is not in the Law, just in the > >heading. > > I think one can give a PP regardless of damage, and I think you are in > violation of L40 A, B, probably D [depending on local regs] and possibly E > [depending on local regs], L73E, and L75. Indeed, although I don't believe the "infraction" (not revealling that partner has a 1 in 100 chance of psyching) is so terrible as to warrant a PP, when more severe infractions of the same articles (like forgetting to alert) are usually passed by without giving PP's. > I agree, however, that I am not sure an adjusted score is legal when there > has been no damage. Of course, as has been pointed out [in the article on > DWS' page, et al] it is often difficult to determine if damage has > occurred, and one should give the benefit of the doubt to the NoS, and so > in practice it will be rare for no adjusted score to be given [and it will > usually be artificial]. > There is usually damage, but if it is consequent or not should be the question. "if partner had told you that that particular call is a psyche once every 100 times, would you have bid differently ?" is usually a good question to ask. > >If they are right, then they should be giving the same > >artificial adjusted scores next time someone forgets to > >alert a transfer bid (alertable under EBU regulations IIRC). > > > > I think they _can_ give such an adjusted score for a failure to alert. I > am not sure they "should". > I don't think so either, I was just saying that that "infraction" seems to me far worse than the one we're discussing here. > >When I played in London at Easter, someone psyched against > >me. It may well have been classed AMBER or even RED (do > >tell me David, John, has there been any further action - you > >know what I'm talking of). I was not damaged, and if I had > >been, it would have been my fault, not opponent's, but I > >doubt if there has been any action about CPU - yet it came > >quite close to it in my eyes. > > > >To make another point, a CPU must be adjusted if there has > >been damage, but only very severe cases should warrant > >further action. > > > > I quite disagree. I think one should be very harsh on CPU's, since they > are usually so hard to detect, and since the possibility of damage cannot > be determined accurately much of the time. > You are using CPU in it's meaning of cheating. Of course one should be harsh on those. But David uses CPU for far less severe things. My point is that under that definition a forgotten alert is also a CPU (isn't it ? : concealed partnership understanding), and we are not taking out tar and feathers on those, are we ? > >I think I have bored you long enough. > > Never bored, Herman.... > > >-- > >Herman DE WAEL > > -Grant Sterling > cfgcs@eiu.edu -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 29 21:51:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA10804 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 21:51:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA10792 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 21:51:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-81.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.81]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA08933 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 13:50:54 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37C8E82C.8B4042FF@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 09:58:36 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience References: <37C6738F.59EA1F79@village.uunet.be> <053101bef0ba$f546e540$3b085e18@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a private e-mail, which I only quote to give Marv the credit for the discovery, "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > Herman, > > I am surprised that you (and most others) do not cite L73E, which says that a > psych is okay if it is *not protected* by CPU/E. Indeed I forgot L73E: L73E: A player may attempt to deceive, so long as the deception is not protected by concealed partnership understanding or experience. Two important conclusions : -CPU does in fact get a mention in the Laws, not just in the headings. -again the lawmakers make a difference between understanding and experience. I reiterate : understandings and experiences must both be disclosed, but only understandings can be regulated upon. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 29 21:51:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA10810 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 21:51:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA10797 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 21:51:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-81.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.81]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA08942 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 13:50:58 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37C8EDD0.FE9E4C0E@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 10:22:40 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI References: <3.0.1.32.19990827112050.006cc90c@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > > This is the essence of the ACBL's infamous "one psych per partnership per > lifetime" rule. Both Robin and the ACBL assert that a single deviation > from a partnership's explicit agreements creates a new "implicit > agreement", which means that it may only be repeated if it satisfies all > the restrictions to which an explicit agreement would be subject. > > But if we believe that, then... > > Pard: "1H." > You: "Alert." > RHO: "Please explain." > You: "That shows 13+ HCP with 4+ hearts, except that about six and a half > years ago he opened 1H with 3 HCP and 2 small hearts." > > Is this really what we believe the law requires? > Actually, yes, I believe it does. However - big however with lots of emphasis - that information is totally useless. No-one in his right mind is assuming that an opponent is psyching at every possible opportunity. And, everyone should be aware that every call can be a psyche. So, if the above explanation is _not_ given, the opponents can claim misinformation (of a very small nature), but certainly no damage. A player's psyching tendencies should be disclosed to the opponents, so that they can be aware of the frequency and nature of them. Which is why I am strongly in favour of the "psyche" place on the CC. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 29 21:51:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA10819 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 21:51:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA10811 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 21:51:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-81.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.81]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA08950 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 13:51:02 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37C8F79A.7A441AAB@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 11:04:26 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience References: <3.0.6.32.19990828014347.007b2120@eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grant Sterling wrote: > > Well, when Herman gives a long post the only remedy is to retailiate by > boring him.... > I'm not easily bored on a subject that fascinates me. Any others that are bored, please hit "delete". But I must say this is one of the most fundamental issues that face the bridge world at the turn of the century. > [much snipped] > > > [another snip] > > > > >experience > agreement > > > > Well, not necessarily greater than, but different from. In a new > partnership, agreement may exceed experience. > yes, indeed. > > > > There is an ambiguity regarding "particular psyching tendency". Do you > mean "the tendency of a particular person to psyche", or "the tendency to > psyche in a particular way"? Those are quite different animals, and in > some way the difference parallels the one you made between agreement and > experience. I don't grasp the difference, and I think I mean both of them. > Suppose you play with a partner who very frequently psyches, but not in > any specific way. Then there will be cases where you may 'smell a rat' and > have reason to suspect that partner has dragged it in. In such cases I > quite agree with you, Herman, that you must disclose this tendency [in > response to a question, or by means of an alert, or in whatever way is > appropriate to the situation]. Even if you're correct in catching it, the > bid is still a psyche, not an agreement [even implicit], and is not > illegal, nor I think is it illegal for you to cater to it as long as the > possibility has been revealed to opponents by CC, alert, or whatever is > appropriate. > On the other hand, see the example below: > > >I believe it should be experience, but I doubt if the answer > >can be so simple. > > > >For instance, the type of psyche should be taken into > >account, as well as the frequency with which a particular > >situation occurs. > >I give the same example over and over again: I always open > >1H, third in hand, on 4-2-3-4, 2HCP, but when I open 1H > >third in hand, only in 1% of the cases do I not have > >something like 3-5-2-3, 13HCP - or more. > >My partners may well have experience that tells them this is > >possible, but I have no agreements about it. > > > > Yes, you do. If you always open that hand with that bid, then you have an > implicit agreement that [for you] 1H in third seat means "either a normal > 1H opener or a 4-2-3-4 2-count". It is a consistent specified bid for a > specified [if rare] hand type. If such a bid is illegal under local reg's, > I would rule against you for using it. Otherwise, among other things, > anyone could 'legalize' any otherwise illegal multi bid by calling one or > more components "psyches". This seems to be a valid argument, but IMVHO it isn't. There are some similarities between a multi and my 1Heart. But there are also two huge differences : When a multi is opened, in 90% of the cases the bidder has a weak hand, and partner is obliged to cater for this. When I open a 1Heart, in 99% of cases, I have a normal hand, and my partner is not expected to cater for the 1% other. (in fact I even refuse to play Drury for that reason !) I realise that this difference is quantitative rather than qualitative, something which usually leads to awkward questions about where to draw the line (*), but any systems regulation which is written or interpreted without regards for this difference is contrary to Law 40A and therefore, IMO, illegal. > The hardest cases are the ones where partner has an identifiable tendency > to psyche in a certain situation [say, psyching a 1NT overcall 1 session in > 10], but not does not do so always or even usually. > Indeed quite hard to deal with. As I said, the line is difficult to draw. (*) but also: any serious partnership (or player) will not allow the "experiences" to become so blurred that it straddles a possible line of "allowability". that sentence is not clear, let me explain. I will not psyche my 1He with 6 points. This is far too dangerous. Part of the success of the psyche is in the gross misstatement. Partner can deduce from his holding (typically close to ten points) that I may have psyched. But opponents cannot be certain if points are 10-2 or 2-10. If I would psyche with 6 points, this is suicide. Or Woolsey will psyche a 1NT once in ten sessions. Any more, and the advantage dissapears. So I would think that a quantitative rule need not lead to hard discussions on borderline cases. "Gross misstatement", "low frequency" and "no catering" should be enough to define a particular type of call as non-systemic, but yet "experience bound disclosable". I'm inventing new words every sentence here, sorry, but I hope you understand what I mean. > >To return to the EBU regulation. > > > >I accept that the EBU hands down guidelines as to which type > >of bidding shall constitute prima facie evidence of > >partnership experience. > > > >I accept that the EBU rules against these bidding sequences. > > > >But only if they do so under the cloak of damage, as in > >L40C, not by simply saying "concealed partnership > >understanding" - a term which is not in the Law, just in the > >heading. > > I think one can give a PP regardless of damage, and I think you are in > violation of L40 A, B, probably D [depending on local regs] and possibly E > [depending on local regs], L73E, and L75. > I agree, however, that I am not sure an adjusted score is legal when there > has been no damage. Of course, as has been pointed out [in the article on > DWS' page, et al] it is often difficult to determine if damage has > occurred, and one should give the benefit of the doubt to the NoS, and so > in practice it will be rare for no adjusted score to be given [and it will > usually be artificial]. > > >If they are right, then they should be giving the same > >artificial adjusted scores next time someone forgets to > >alert a transfer bid (alertable under EBU regulations IIRC). > > > > I think they _can_ give such an adjusted score for a failure to alert. I > am not sure they "should". > > >When I played in London at Easter, someone psyched against > >me. It may well have been classed AMBER or even RED (do > >tell me David, John, has there been any further action - you > >know what I'm talking of). I was not damaged, and if I had > >been, it would have been my fault, not opponent's, but I > >doubt if there has been any action about CPU - yet it came > >quite close to it in my eyes. > > > >To make another point, a CPU must be adjusted if there has > >been damage, but only very severe cases should warrant > >further action. > > > > I quite disagree. I think one should be very harsh on CPU's, since they > are usually so hard to detect, and since the possibility of damage cannot > be determined accurately much of the time. > > >I think I have bored you long enough. > > Never bored, Herman.... > > >-- > >Herman DE WAEL > > -Grant Sterling > cfgcs@eiu.edu -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 29 22:22:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA10936 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 22:22:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand5.global.net.uk (sand5.global.net.uk [194.126.80.249]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA10931 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 22:22:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from p74s07a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.167.117] helo=pacific) by sand5.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11L3yM-00012k-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 13:22:11 +0100 Message-ID: <000601bef219$1eafe260$75a793c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 13:16:01 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Date: 29 August 1999 08:56 Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI > >This is not life, this is something far more serious : >bridge. > +++ life is bridge. what else is there? ~ G ~ p.s. oh, I've just thought of something. +++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 29 22:41:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA10978 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 22:41:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from legend.idworld.net (root@legend.idworld.net [209.142.64.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA10973 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 22:41:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from txdirect.net (dnas-01-17.sat.idworld.net [209.142.68.225]) by legend.idworld.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA13506; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 07:41:06 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <37C92A4C.53E58CCC@txdirect.net> Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 07:40:44 -0500 From: "\"Albert \\\"BiigAl\\\" Lochli\"" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Herman De Wael , "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience References: <3.0.5.32.19990827084425.007f5340@maine.rr.com> <37C8F130.57716A3E@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I surrender. My hands are up. (Of course I have always believed this, no conversion of opinion. I really enjoy a good psyche, even against me, as long as it is done at full risk and not protected in some obscure manner. Pity to them with no sense of humor.) -- Albert "BiigAl" Lochli biigal@txdirect.net - Phone: (210) 829-4274 PO Box 15701, San Antonio TX 78212-8901 District 16 ACBL Internet Coordinator Herman De Wael wrote: > > Tim Goodwin wrote: > > > [snip] > > Very well, Tim. > > This is the real crux of the problem. > > Psyching tendencies MUST be freely available to opponents. > > Active ethics instructs us to inform opponents far more > fully than is usually done. > > But -real- psyches are NOT a part of some form of systemic > approach that can be legislated upon. > > Writers of system regulations all accross the world should > be made fully aware of this fact: system regulations can not > and may not be used to bar psyching in any way or form. > > Of course, a good definition of non-systemic versus systemic > psyching must be found. > > IMO, that definition needs to include frequency of the > occurence of the psyched meaning versus the true one, and > systemic means of controlling the psyche. > > If the psychic meaning occurs, say, less than once in ten, > and there are no systemic controls, then a psyche is a > psyche, and can not be subject to systemic regulations. > > Hands up who agrees with this statement ! > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 29 23:39:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA11094 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 23:39:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from carbon.mcis.singnet.com.sg (carbon.singnet.com.sg [165.21.74.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA11089 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 23:39:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by carbon.mcis.singnet.com.sg with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 20:54:14 +0800 Received: from argon.singnet.com.sg ([165.21.74.27]) by carbon.mcis.singnet.com.sg with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.237.23); Sun, 29 Aug 1999 20:20:35 +0800 Received: from octavia.anu.edu.au (octavia.anu.edu.au [150.203.5.35]) by argon.singnet.com.sg (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id UAA05771 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 20:19:59 +0800 (SST) Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA10804 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 21:51:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA10792 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 21:51:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-81.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.81]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA08933 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 13:50:54 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37C8E82C.8B4042FF@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 09:58:36 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience References: <37C6738F.59EA1F79@village.uunet.be> <053101bef0ba$f546e540$3b085e18@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a private e-mail, which I only quote to give Marv the credit for the discovery, "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > Herman, > > I am surprised that you (and most others) do not cite L73E, which says that a > psych is okay if it is *not protected* by CPU/E. Indeed I forgot L73E: L73E: A player may attempt to deceive, so long as the deception is not protected by concealed partnership understanding or experience. Two important conclusions : -CPU does in fact get a mention in the Laws, not just in the headings. -again the lawmakers make a difference between understanding and experience. I reiterate : understandings and experiences must both be disclosed, but only understandings can be regulated upon. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 30 01:15:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA11326 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 01:15:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA11309 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 01:15:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-252.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.252]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA20841 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 17:15:01 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37C9269F.47F41202@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 14:25:03 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience References: <002601bef1fe$8b2caa60$de5108c3@swhki5i6> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > >> > +++ The laws are clear enough that players' styles > are not subject to regulation. However, gross > breaches of disclosed systemic agreements > which are considered by the Director to be > evidence of a partnership understanding not > fully disclosed are not matters of 'style' or > 'judgement', they are 'method'. Implicit > agreements arise from *partnership* experience. > These are by law part of the partnership's > agreements and subject to regulation if they are > conventional or may be made as natural bids > below the limits of strength the laws specify. > Under most forms of regulation these constitute > illegal methods. > The profundity of the comment about players' > habits is questionable. > Since use of an illegal method will result in > an artificial adjusted score when the result is > cancelled, it would seem arguable that damage > occurs if the non-offending side obtains less than > 60% on the board. [ ? A higher percentage if > the NO's session score is greater than 60%] > ~ G ~ +++ I believe we are on the same wave-length here. Some (crude) system policies prohibit openings on less than a certain number of points. (either HCP or rule-of-18 style) Then, when a player opens with a lighter hand, he will often call his opening a psyche, allowed under L40A. I fully agree that this is not allowed. However, I do not call these things "psyches". I call them "gray bids". Like opening a 15-17NT with 14 and a five-card minor. Sure the prima-facie evidence should lead to them being called systemic. And thus disallowed, if they are outside system regulations. But even under rule-of-18, a real psyche, say an opening with 0HCP, should not be deemed systemic and thus disallowed. Remember where I came in. David said that prima-facie evidence is enough to have a board cancelled. My question was "under what Law". It seems that is still unanswered. Prima-Facie evidence is all-right, I like it and apply it myself as well. I even go as far as calling it proof, when I should be saying "compelling evidence". But it still is only proof of something, you should still check if the "something" it proves is subject to adjustment. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 30 01:15:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA11327 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 01:15:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA11308 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 01:15:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-252.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.252]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA20832 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 17:14:59 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37C924BE.31FDABE1@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 14:17:02 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI References: <002701bef1fe$8bddaae0$de5108c3@swhki5i6> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > >> > ++++ I think what we have to look into is the mind of the > partner [B] of the player who has psyched [A]. The > implicit agreement exists if, when A makes the call, B > readily recalls partnership experience that generates > the thought of a real possibility that A has psyched. That is impossible. There must be some further set of circumstances which prompt B to suspect the psyche by A, usually by strong opponent bidding and a strong hand oneself. A psyche which can be deduced from the bid itself can never be a psyche. (well, I refuse to call it a psyche) > This may happen as the outcome of a recent single > occasion or as the longer memory of several occasions > that have impressed themselves upon his mind. The > Director and AC have the responsibility for assessing > the likelihood of this. Because bridge is a 'mind sport' > we cannot avoid the necessity of judging the > probable mind of the player and the Laws require > that it be done. exactly. > In my opinion the Director should be clear in his > mind whether he is ruling under Law 75B (where there > is a history of violations) or 40C (which is concerned > with the Director's judgment of the evidence provided > by the action on the current board). ~ G ~ ++++ > > ~ Grattan ~ ++++ Indeed Grattan, but I feel that there is some different use of the word psyche going around here. In my opinion, a psyche is such a gross misstatement, that only a L75B ruling is possible. I refuse to call a psyche an understanding, which is why I don't want to use L40C. It seems to me that others are calling certain other things psyches as well, and those things (I won't call them psyches) can be ruled under L40C. Maybe that is the whole point to this problem. Let us try and find some examples. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 30 01:15:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA11325 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 01:15:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA11311 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 01:15:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-252.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.252]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA20845 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 17:15:03 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37C927A5.432A44C1@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 14:29:25 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: psychers , Unauthorised Information, and experience References: <002801bef1fe$8cc72080$de5108c3@swhki5i6> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > Another point to note is that neither Law 40 nor > Laws 75B & 75C make any reference to UI. The > breach of law with which they are concerned is the > failure to disclose an understanding. Subject to > the regulations for the tournament, to have an > understanding is legal. Under most forms of > regulation so-called 'psychic' action that is > actually a matter of partnership understanding > is illegal. What the laws themselves make > unlawful is the failure to disclose fully. ~ G ~ +++ Aha, now we are getting somewhere. Is the EBU regulation only intended to do this ? To make "systemic" psyching illegal ? How do they explain this, barring saying that psyching (more than once in your lifetime) is illegal ? I believe such regulations to be against the Laws. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 30 01:50:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA11454 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 01:50:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from fep2.post.tele.dk (fep2.post.tele.dk [195.41.46.135]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA11448 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 01:50:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from jd-private.internal ([195.249.193.146]) by fep2.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990829155223.BCMR20457.fep2@jd-private.internal>; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 17:52:23 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Markus Buchhorn Cc: Bridge Laws List , yanhoon@singnet.com.sg Subject: Repeated messages on BLML Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 17:50:22 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <37d05698.5519216@post12.tele.dk> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id BAA11450 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Markus, Several recent BLML messages have appeared in duplicate. It seems that messages sent to the subscriber yanhoon@singnet.com.sg are somehow forwarded to BLML once more. The following is an example of the headers of such a message that has been through BLML twice: >Return-Path: >Received: (from smtpd@localhost) > by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA24715; > Sat, 28 Aug 1999 20:33:16 +0200 >Received: from octavia.anu.edu.au(150.203.5.35) > via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda24713; Sat Aug 28 20:33:12 1999 >Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA08571 > for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 04:13:31 +1000 (EST) >Received: from carbon.mcis.singnet.com.sg (carbon.singnet.com.sg [165.21.74.2]) > by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA08566 > for ; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 04:13:23 +1000 (EST) >Received: from mail pickup service by carbon.mcis.singnet.com.sg with Microsoft SMTPSVC; > Sun, 29 Aug 1999 02:13:58 +0800 >Received: from argon.singnet.com.sg ([165.21.74.27]) by carbon.mcis.singnet.com.sg with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1875.185.18); > Sat, 28 Aug 1999 01:52:24 +0800 >Received: from octavia.anu.edu.au (octavia.anu.edu.au [150.203.5.35]) > by argon.singnet.com.sg (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id BAA23482 > for ; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 01:51:45 +0800 (SST) >Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA03460 > for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 00:22:47 +1000 (EST) >Received: from sand4.global.net.uk (sand4.global.net.uk [194.126.80.248]) > by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA03454 > for ; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 00:22:37 +1000 (EST) >Received: from p12s08a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.168.19] helo=pacific) > by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) > id 11KMtO-0005sU-00; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 15:22:10 +0100 >Message-ID: <00b601bef097$8e8d37a0$13a893c3@pacific> >From: "Grattan Endicott" >To: "Herman De Wael" , > "Bridge Laws" >Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience >Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 15:17:54 +0100 >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >X-Priority: 3 >X-MSMail-Priority: Normal >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 >Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Precedence: bulk -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 30 02:35:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA11731 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 02:35:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA11714 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 02:34:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11L7un-0007wj-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 16:34:47 +0000 Message-ID: <6owFuXAs+Uy3EwwP@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 16:20:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: unappealing psychic References: <01b301bef0dc$8147f2c0$a6fc7ad1@hdavis> <007101bef0f4$e545dcc0$251b25cb@dynamite.com.au> <3.0.1.32.19990827224105.012679e4@pop.mindspring.com> <063f01bef1e2$963f8240$3b085e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <063f01bef1e2$963f8240$3b085e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: > >> Michael S. Dennis wrote: >> >At 11:25 AM 8/28/99 +1000, Sean wrote: >> >>I have been following this discussion for some time and have a question >> >>for those contributors who feel that not bidding 4Hearts at some >> >>stage in the auction ( I don't really care whether its directly, after >> >>3Hearts or after descriptive 4Clubs) with Qxx trump and a singleton is >> >>something other than catering for partner having bid a short suit. >> > >> >I for one have acknowledged that 3nt might well cater to a psychic 3nt bid, >> >and still have not read any legal citation which makes such a practice >> >illegal per se. >> >> LAW 40 - PARTNERSHIP UNDERSTANDINGS >> >> A. Right to Choose Call or Play >> A player may make any call or play >> (including an intentionally misleading >> call - such as a psychic bid - or a call >> or play that departs from commonly >> accepted, or previously announced, use of >> a convention), without prior announcement, >> provided that such call or play is not >> based on a partnership understanding. >> >> If you take an action that is designed to allow for partner's psyche >> then there appears to be an understanding about psyches - and that makes >> the original psyche illegal. > >"Appears to be" does not make it so. I have 13 HCP, 2=3=4=4, favorable >vulnerability, partner opens 1S, RHO doubles, I redouble, LHO bids 3H-P-4H. >The opponents are sturdy types. Either partner has psyched or the opponents >are crazy. I take the action of passing to allow for partner's psych, but you >tell me I have to double? And if I don't, that makes his psych illegal? No, I am not telling you that you should double. The psyche is exposed by the bidding, so passing it is not illegal nor fielding. >> I really think people have to stop ignoring L40A: it is the basis of what >you are allowed to bid. >I really think you are misinterpreting L40A. OK, tell me why. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 30 02:35:07 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA11729 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 02:35:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA11713 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 02:34:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11L7um-0007wk-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 16:34:45 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 16:37:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: unappealing psychic References: <4.1.19990828103226.009801a0@mail.earthlink.net> <37C8D478.95025E67@mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <37C8D478.95025E67@mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John R. Mayne wrote: >And, back: > >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> Brian Baresch wrote: >[snip] >> >> >> >>LAW 40 - PARTNERSHIP UNDERSTANDINGS >> >> >> >>A. Right to Choose Call or Play >> >> A player may make any call or play >> >> (including an intentionally misleading >> >> call - such as a psychic bid - or a call >> >> or play that departs from commonly >> >> accepted, or previously announced, use of >> >> a convention), without prior announcement, >> >> provided that such call or play is not >> >> based on a partnership understanding. >> >> >> >> If you take an action that is designed to allow for partner's psyche >> >>then there appears to be an understanding about psyches - and that makes >> >>the original psyche illegal. > >Of course not. This, as has been noted, is the one-psyche-per-lifetime >rule. Why? If I bid 1S with you on a balanced three count, and then I do it again, if you do not field it the second time there is no illegality and no adjustment. If, on the other hand, you raise to two with a clear raise to three, are you sure that saying I have only psyched once before ought to be a defence? >> >> >> >> I really think people have to stop ignoring L40A: it is the basis of >> >>what you are allowed to bid. > >And that argument means I am not allowed to make any bid that is not on >my card. After 2N-P-3N (relay)-P-4C, we're not allowed to bid any more; >it isn't on our card. And the argument is wrong, anyway. We have to come up with sensible interpretation of Laws. Perhaps the Law book is not perfect, and that might be a case for slight revisions in 2007, but for now, let's treat it as we know it means. The method for informing your opponents is covered by various Laws, eg L20F, L40B, L40C, L40E, L41B, L75C and L75D, for example, and also there may be supplementary regulations. If you inform your opponents correctly by these rules then there is no question of a concealed agreement. In that case then either the so-called psyche is legal, or it an agreement not permitted under the SO's rules. What L40A does is to give you the right to psyche or make any other call so long as there is no agreement. In effect there are three types of "psyche": those unprotected by a partnership agreement, and thus legal under l40A: those protected by an announced partnership agreement, and legal or not dependent on the SO's rules, and really not psyches at all: those protected by an unannounced and concealed partnership agreement, and illegal. >> >I still want to know how you'd handle the situation where the partnership >> >is a new one, hastily arranged at the partnership desk, between two people >> >who don't know each other and who have had almost no time to discuss system >> >before this board comes up. If they barely have an understanding about >> >4/5cM and their pre-empt discussion consisted of "Weak 2's?" "OK", then how >> >can they have an understanding about psyches? >> >[long snip in which I cannot find the answer to this question] >> >> However, the overall method may not be perfect, but it does seem to be >> avoiding the abuse which other jurisdictions have problems with. > >The question is still on the table, and I think it is an excellent one. >What of the first-time partnership? The rule says it's rolled back; why? What rule says it is rolled back? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 30 02:35:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA11730 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 02:35:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA11715 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 02:34:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11L7un-0007wi-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 16:34:47 +0000 Message-ID: <4IYFmRAO9Uy3EwT0@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 16:18:38 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: What happened? References: <01bef01c$b2b7e7e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <3.0.1.32.19990827083052.006d3a3c@pop.cais.com> <006401bef105$a76e3260$f8e6a4d8@hdavis> <064001bef1e2$968a46e0$3b085e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <064001bef1e2$968a46e0$3b085e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: > >> Hirsch Davis wrote: >> >> >I find it particularly interesting that the Principle of Coincidence as >> >described below matches the handling of psychic bids DWS has been >describing >> >almost perfectly. I had thought this little gem was an ACBL aberration, >but >> >it appears to have spread across the pond as well. >> >> Ok, please tell me what is wrong with the principle [as distinct from >> its application in any particular case[. >> >Absence of due process. No, the process is fine. Directors garner facts and make conclusions therefrom: that is the way they do it. The RoC or PoC is an aide to doing this. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 30 03:46:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA11911 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 03:46:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA11906 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 03:46:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.68] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11L91y-0009RM-00; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 18:46:14 +0100 Message-ID: <000401bef246$629de4e0$445108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" Cc: "bridge-laws" Subject: Essential reading Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 14:20:43 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: Bridge Laws Date: 29 August 1999 09:01 Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI > >Now I do realize that sometimes this distinction is vague, >and while reRTFLBing for my long article, I discovered a >phrase I had not read explicitely before : habitual >violations may create implicit agreements. +++ How does one comment? It is incredible that a Director is not familiar with Laws 72 through 75. They contain core knowledge. I wonder what you thought people were talking about? ~ G ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 30 05:01:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA12146 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 05:01:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA12141 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 05:01:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.29] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11LACL-000Azb-00; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 20:01:02 +0100 Message-ID: <005101bef250$d5291f20$445108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" Cc: "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 19:55:09 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: Bridge Laws Date: 29 August 1999 16:43 Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 30 07:01:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA12466 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 07:01:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp5.mindspring.com (smtp5.mindspring.com [207.69.200.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA12461 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 07:01:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveg1b.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.64.43]) by smtp5.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA21630 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 17:01:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990829165853.01260df0@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 16:58:53 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: unappealing psychic In-Reply-To: References: <37C8D478.95025E67@mindspring.com> <4.1.19990828103226.009801a0@mail.earthlink.net> <37C8D478.95025E67@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:37 PM 8/29/99 +0100, David wrote: > Why? If I bid 1S with you on a balanced three count, and then I do it >again, if you do not field it the second time there is no illegality and >no adjustment. If, on the other hand, you raise to two with a clear >raise to three, are you sure that saying I have only psyched once before >ought to be a defence? Sorry, David, but it your treatment in this case is not manageable from a player's perspective. When you bid 1S on a balanced 3-count, you are entitled to know at that time whether your action is legal or otherwise. It doesn't change from a legal psych to an illegal one during the subsequent course of the auction. Of course it is true that subsequent events may determine the likelihood of an adverse ruling. But your psychic bid is either consonant with the requirements of L40A or it is not _at the time you make it_. In particular, if you have reason to believe that relevant partnership experience will give partner an edge over the opponents in reading the psych, then it is illegal. Otherwise, it is probably not, even if a later ruling goes against you. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 30 08:01:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA12633 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 08:01:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA12626 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 08:00:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id SAA25612 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 18:00:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA06012 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 18:00:45 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 18:00:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199908292200.SAA06012@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Perhaps it will help to clarify our language a bit. I still don't expect we all will agree, but at least we will know where we disagree. Herman has made a good start. > From: Herman De Wael > experience + agreement = meaning Can we all agree to this? Of course both experience and agreement depend on 'conditions' (vulnerability, form of scoring, maybe intangibles like state of score), but that's a detail. Further, 'meaning' is exactly what must be disclosed. Yes? > L75B(2): habitual violations within a partnership may create > implicit agreements. It seems to me that 'tacit' would have been a better word than 'implicit' for the reasons Herman gives. 'Implicit' would seem to me, as to Herman, something more like our range for 1m-1M-1NT, given an explicit agreement for the range of an opening 1NT. Both tacit and implicit agreements are certainly part of meaning and have to be disclosed. Any objections so far? Now, what about 'understanding'? Absent context, I would have used that to mean a player's own mental picture: minus plus . But clearly the Laws use the word in a different way, so this cannot be right. Laws 40A and 40B use 'partnership understanding'; L40C uses 'meaning'. L75A-C use 'agreement', but the qualifiers make it clear that 'meaning' as defined above is what must be disclosed. OK, we have settled (?) disclosure; now what about regulation? > Let's just assume that "partnership understandings" can be > regulated. In particular, those partnership understandings that are conventional or involve weak initial actions at the one level, but this is a mere detail in the present context. > We still have no good definition of what constitutes a > "partnership understanding" though. In particular, is it 'agreement' or 'meaning' in the terminology above or something in between? I think it has to be broad enough to include tacit agreements, but I don't think the boundary is clear. "Style and judgment" cannot be regulated (hidden in L40E1 for some reason), but clearly those are part of 'meaning' (if known to partner) and must be disclosed. It seems there is another zone, larger than agreement but smaller than meaning, where regulation is allowed. (This is for 'partnership understandings that qualify at all for regulation, of course.) I think the dispute over Herman's "psychic 1M in third seat" is because the laws really aren't clear. If it is an agreement, it is regulatable (and illegal in most jurisdictions). If it is merely experience, it isn't regulatable, even though it is disclosable. Until, that is, the 'experience' becomes a 'tacit agreement'. When is that? Of course if Herman and his partner have a discussion and agree to play "psychic 1M," then there's no dispute, but what if there is no explicit discussion? I think both the terminology and the substance of the rules could do with a bit of clarification here. > L40A : a player may make any call provided that such a call > is not based on a partnership understanding. > > I don't believe this law is in any way important because it > is immediately checked by : On the contrary, L40A makes legal certain actions that would otherwise be illegal. If Herman and his partner _agree_ on "psychic 1M," that's illegal. If Herman pulls it out with a partner he has just met at the partnership desk, that's legal, even if an _agreement_ to do so would be against the rules of the SO. L40A says so. Contrary to what David S. and a few others have said, I don't believe it is possible to "violate L40A." All that can happen is that an action _does not qualify for L40A protection_, in which case it is subject to other rules. If it violates those other rules (L40B, L75C, and the regulations of the SO being perhaps the most likely), then it's illegal _under those rules_, not a violation of L40A. This is probably a matter of semantics more than anything else, but as we have seen, the semantics are a problem. We should try to be careful. > L40C uses the word damage. Barring special circumstances, > there seems to me to be no way L40A and L40B can be used on > their own to warrant giving an artificially adjusted score. No, I don't think this is the whole story. L40C deals with MI, and it would be normal to adjust under L12C2 if MI causes damage. L40B "may not make" deals with the call or play itself, not with the opponents' actions nor with information to them. Damage from violations of L40B is adjusted under L12A1 or possibly L12A2. I agree with Herman that there has to _be_ damage before you adjust at all. (And the damage has to be _consequent_ before you adjust for the NOS.) > IMHO, EBU regulations that state this go against the Law. It isn't obvious to me why the EBU wants to use L12A2 and hence 12C1 for L40B violations, but it doesn't seem illegal. > There must be some partnership > understandings that can not be regulated upon, although I > don't really see what they are, given the ACBL's neat way of > declaring anything a convention when it so choses. Yes, as a _practical_ matter, an SO can make just about whatever regulations it wants. > What is important is the use of two methods of conveying > information: agreement and experience. > > I believe the lawmakers intended to do two things here: > a) not to limit the disclosable information to that which > was agreed upon by the partnership > b) indicate a specifice class of information: experience, > not by agreement. > > It is my profound opinion that a player's habits can be > known through experience, and are not a part of the > agreements. > > Two players in one pair can play one set of agreements (as > they must, by order of most SO's), but they can have a > different set of "habits". Exchange two hands in a > partnership and the bidding might go differently. ... > Some types of bidding behaviour must be explained, but > cannot be regulated upon. I agree that there is information (part of 'meaning') disclosable but not regulatable, but defining just where that zone lies seems to me very hard. We don't even have a good word for it, although perhaps 'partnership understanding' is a candidate. > understanding = agreement Only if you include tacit agreement as part of understanding, but we are left with the problem of defining what part of 'meaning' is not 'agreement'. [in another message] > A CPU is tantamount to cheating. I don't think most of us use 'CPU' that way. It is closely related to MI. But this really just shows us how poor our terminology is for discussing the issues at hand. > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > a) I have been arguing, until now without success, that it is not illegal > to bid in a way which caters to partner's possible psych, and your comments > here seem consistent with that view. Yes, it is certainly the case that > such a bid could be evidence of an illegal agreement about psyching in a > particular situation, and could be the basis for an adverse ruling under > L40A _against the psych itself_. But nothing in L40A restricts the bidding > options of a player who suspects a possible psych. At most, L40A places > restrictions on the right to make a psychic bid in the first place. First, it's L40B, not L40A, that may be violated. Second, which call is "based on a special partnership understanding:" the psych or the fielding of it? I can see arguments for either one. > Whether the illegality might be deemed to exist in the psychic bid or in > responder's subsequent actions may seem like a quibble, but I assure you it > is not.... As a TD/AC member, it may well be sufficient to you to > determine that damage resulted from an illegality, without respect to these > details. In the EBU, the result is the same either way, since they give an artificial score. If they were to assign an adjusted score, they would have to decide which action was the illegal one. > The distinction goes to the strength of the evidentiary determination when > it comes time to assess the likelihood of illegality. To me, a bid which is > a reasonable choice in its own right (if not your personal favorite), but > which also caters to a possbile psychic action, is much weaker evidence of > an illegal understanding than a bid which can only be explained by its > successful protection against a psych. I don't think anybody disputes this. In the original (2D-2H) case, posters have differed in their bridge judgment about the 3H bid and the final pass of 3NT. Some think both are normal; David says "from Mars." Similarly, in Anne's case, if you think her 1NT bid was normal (as she does but with little visible support), you would have no reason to adjust the score. Different bridge judgment is why we have committees. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 30 08:05:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA12680 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 08:05:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA12672 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 08:04:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id SAA25629 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 18:04:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA06020 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 18:04:49 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 18:04:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199908292204.SAA06020@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: unappealing psychic X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sorry, I should have appended this to my previous message. > From: David Stevenson > In effect there are three types > of "psyche": those unprotected by a partnership agreement, and thus > legal under l40A: those protected by an announced partnership agreement, > and legal or not dependent on the SO's rules, and really not psyches at > all: those protected by an unannounced and concealed partnership > agreement, and illegal. What David seems to be saying is that anything disclosable is also regulatable. Do others agree? How does that square with "style and judgment" in L40E1? From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 30 10:18:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA13064 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 10:18:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from acsys.anu.edu.au (acsys [150.203.20.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA13059 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 10:18:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from accordion (acsys-temp1.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.65]) by acsys.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA18057 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 10:18:27 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19990830101828.009fde30@acsys.anu.edu.au> X-Sender: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 10:18:28 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Markus Buchhorn Subject: DWS - needs assistance urgently... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Apologies to David and all - majordomo saw the Subject start with 'help' and thought it was somebody seeking assistance from it.... >From: David Stevenson >Reply-To: David Stevenson >Subject: Help: rulings! > > > About 24 hours ago I sent an urgent message to BLML. Other messages >have come through, but not my urgent one, of course! > > I need some example rulings. Preferably with hands, even if the hands >are constructed, not MI or UI [I can get millions of those!], reasonably >tricky, but not the sort of abstruse thing we discuss on BLML. If >anyone can help, please send me them now! > > Any reply not in the next twenty hours is very kind, but will not help >for this particular problem: quick replies are appreciated. > >-- >David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ >Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 30 10:25:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA13093 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 10:25:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA13088 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 10:25:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11LFGO-000586-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 00:25:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 22:25:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: unappealing psychic References: <37C8D478.95025E67@mindspring.com> <4.1.19990828103226.009801a0@mail.earthlink.net> <37C8D478.95025E67@mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990829165853.01260df0@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990829165853.01260df0@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: >At 04:37 PM 8/29/99 +0100, David wrote: >> Why? If I bid 1S with you on a balanced three count, and then I do it >>again, if you do not field it the second time there is no illegality and >>no adjustment. If, on the other hand, you raise to two with a clear >>raise to three, are you sure that saying I have only psyched once before >>ought to be a defence? > >Sorry, David, but it your treatment in this case is not manageable from a >player's perspective. When you bid 1S on a balanced 3-count, you are >entitled to know at that time whether your action is legal or otherwise. It >doesn't change from a legal psych to an illegal one during the subsequent >course of the auction. Of course it is true that subsequent events may >determine the likelihood of an adverse ruling. But your psychic bid is >either consonant with the requirements of L40A or it is not _at the time >you make it_. In particular, if you have reason to believe that relevant >partnership experience will give partner an edge over the opponents in >reading the psych, then it is illegal. Otherwise, it is probably not, even >if a later ruling goes against you. That is certainly true - if you think about whether you have an agreement, and understand the effects. But many people make illegal bids without realising they are illegal. However, fielding provides evidence of an illegal bid. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 30 11:12:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA13237 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 11:12:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA13231 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 11:12:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt095n3b.san.rr.com [24.94.8.59]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA28330 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 18:12:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <067801bef284$6867f1c0$3b085e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3.0.5.32.19990827084425.007f5340@maine.rr.com> <37C8F130.57716A3E@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 18:09:32 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > Tim Goodwin wrote: > > > [snip] > > Very well, Tim. > > This is the real crux of the problem. > > Psyching tendencies MUST be freely available to opponents. > > Active ethics instructs us to inform opponents far more > fully than is usually done. > > But -real- psyches are NOT a part of some form of systemic > approach that can be legislated upon. > > Writers of system regulations all accross the world should > be made fully aware of this fact: system regulations can not > and may not be used to bar psyching in any way or form. > > Of course, a good definition of non-systemic versus systemic > psyching must be found. > > IMO, that definition needs to include frequency of the > occurence of the psyched meaning versus the true one, and > systemic means of controlling the psyche. > > If the psychic meaning occurs, say, less than once in ten, > and there are no systemic controls, then a psyche is a > psyche, and can not be subject to systemic regulations. > > Hands up who agrees with this statement ! > -- Both hands up! Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 30 11:21:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA13269 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 11:21:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA13264 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 11:21:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt095n3b.san.rr.com [24.94.8.59]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA00158 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 18:21:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <067c01bef285$a93d6da0$3b085e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <37C6738F.59EA1F79@village.uunet.be> <053101bef0ba$f546e540$3b085e18@san.rr.com> <37C8E82C.8B4042FF@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 18:19:04 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > In a private e-mail, which I only quote to give Marv the > credit for the discovery, > > "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > > > Herman, > > > > I am surprised that you (and most others) do not cite L73E, which says that a > > psych is okay if it is *not protected* by CPU/E. > > Indeed I forgot L73E: > > L73E: A player may attempt to deceive, so long as the > deception is not protected by concealed partnership > understanding or experience. > > Two important conclusions : > > -CPU does in fact get a mention in the Laws, not just in the > headings. > > -again the lawmakers make a difference between understanding > and experience. > > I reiterate : understandings and experiences must both be > disclosed, but only understandings can be regulated upon. > While on L73E, let us note two important words: "protected" and "concealed." If a psych is not protected in any way, other than by a disclosed partnership understanding or experience, L73E permits it. I have a (common) agreement with partners who preempt that they are not to bid again unless forced to do so. After 2D-P-2H-P; 3H-P-3NT, the 3NT bid (non-forcing) must be Alerted and explained as: "I must pass." The possible psych is protected, but the protection is not concealed. The 3H bid should also be Alerted: "She is not permitted to go to the four level." Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 30 11:27:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA13300 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 11:27:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA13286 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 11:27:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11LGEF-0007oo-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 01:27:24 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 02:16:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: unappealing psychic References: <199908292204.SAA06020@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199908292204.SAA06020@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >Sorry, I should have appended this to my previous message. > >> From: David Stevenson >> In effect there are three types >> of "psyche": those unprotected by a partnership agreement, and thus >> legal under l40A: those protected by an announced partnership agreement, >> and legal or not dependent on the SO's rules, and really not psyches at >> all: those protected by an unannounced and concealed partnership >> agreement, and illegal. > >What David seems to be saying is that anything disclosable is also >regulatable. Do others agree? How does that square with "style >and judgment" in L40E1? Am I saying that? I thought it was only in particular areas. Anyway, if it is not regulatable, then I am not suggesting it should be banned, so perhaps you should re-write >those protected by an announced partnership agreement, >> and legal or not dependent on the SO's rules to say >those protected by an announced partnership agreement, >> and legal or not dependent on the SO's rules and whether the Laws >permit regulation. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 30 11:27:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA13302 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 11:27:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA13290 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 11:27:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11LGEF-000Gag-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 01:27:23 +0000 Message-ID: <+h2UMmA02dy3EwgV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 02:26:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: DWS - needs assistance urgently... References: <3.0.32.19990830101828.009fde30@acsys.anu.edu.au> In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19990830101828.009fde30@acsys.anu.edu.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Markus Buchhorn wrote: > >Apologies to David and all - majordomo saw the Subject start with 'help' >and thought it was somebody seeking assistance from it.... I begin to think I am. How long should it take for a message sent to BLML to return? The original message was sent to BLML about 48 hours ago and has not surfaced. Written at 0226 30/8/99. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 30 11:30:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA13301 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 11:27:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA13285 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 11:27:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11LGEF-0007op-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 01:27:25 +0000 Message-ID: <9BCUEjAm0dy3EwjS@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 02:23:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience References: <199908292200.SAA06012@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199908292200.SAA06012@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >I think the dispute over Herman's "psychic 1M in third seat" is because >the laws really aren't clear. If it is an agreement, it is regulatable >(and illegal in most jurisdictions). If it is merely experience, it >isn't regulatable, even though it is disclosable. Until, that is, the >'experience' becomes a 'tacit agreement'. When is that? > >Of course if Herman and his partner have a discussion and agree to play >"psychic 1M," then there's no dispute, but what if there is no explicit >discussion? > >I think both the terminology and the substance of the rules could do >with a bit of clarification here. I really do not understand the difficulty with Herman's Spanish major. If you play with Herman tomorrow, Steve, you will _know_ that if he holds 2-3 HCP in third position he will open 1H or 1S [1]. You thus have an implicit agreement. It does not matter whether it comes from playing with him, reading BLML, talking to his friends, or whatever, you have such an agreement. If he plays it in England he will be penalised, and he should be penalised in Belgium unless it is [a] disclosed and [b] legal in Belgium. [1] Ok, I cannot remember the details, but that does not affect the principle. PWD -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 30 11:31:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA13335 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 11:31:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA13330 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 11:31:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt095n3b.san.rr.com [24.94.8.59]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA01997 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 18:31:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <069301bef287$139e49c0$3b085e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <01bef01c$b2b7e7e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid><3.0.1.32.19990827083052.006d3a3c@pop.cais.com><006401bef105$a76e3260$f8e6a4d8@hdavis><064001bef1e2$968a46e0$3b085e18@san.rr.com> <4IYFmRAO9Uy3EwT0@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: What happened? Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 18:24:38 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Sunday, August 29, 1999 8:18 AM Subject: Re: What happened? > Marvin L. French wrote: > >David Stevenson wrote: > > > >> Hirsch Davis wrote: > >> > >> >I find it particularly interesting that the Principle of Coincidence as > >> >described below matches the handling of psychic bids DWS has been > >describing > >> >almost perfectly. I had thought this little gem was an ACBL aberration, > >but > >> >it appears to have spread across the pond as well. > >> > >> Ok, please tell me what is wrong with the principle [as distinct from > >> its application in any particular case[. > >> > >Absence of due process. > > No, the process is fine. Directors garner facts and make conclusions > therefrom: that is the way they do it. The RoC or PoC is an aide to > doing this. > Yes, the process is in place, but it is not the process that is due to players, whose contribution to the "facts" is not deemed pertinent. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 30 12:03:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA13456 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 12:03:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA13451 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 12:03:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11LGmu-0009yL-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 02:03:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 03:02:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: What happened? References: <01bef01c$b2b7e7e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <3.0.1.32.19990827083052.006d3a3c@pop.cais.com> <006401bef105$a76e3260$f8e6a4d8@hdavis> <064001bef1e2$968a46e0$3b085e18@san.rr.com> <4IYFmRAO9Uy3EwT0@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <069301bef287$139e49c0$3b085e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <069301bef287$139e49c0$3b085e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: > >----- Original Message ----- >From: David Stevenson >To: >Sent: Sunday, August 29, 1999 8:18 AM >Subject: Re: What happened? > > >> Marvin L. French wrote: >> >David Stevenson wrote: >> > >> >> Hirsch Davis wrote: >> >> >> >> >I find it particularly interesting that the Principle of Coincidence as >> >> >described below matches the handling of psychic bids DWS has been >> >describing >> >> >almost perfectly. I had thought this little gem was an ACBL aberration, >> >but >> >> >it appears to have spread across the pond as well. >> >> >> >> Ok, please tell me what is wrong with the principle [as distinct from >> >> its application in any particular case[. >> >> >> >Absence of due process. >> >> No, the process is fine. Directors garner facts and make conclusions >> therefrom: that is the way they do it. The RoC or PoC is an aide to >> doing this. >> >Yes, the process is in place, but it is not the process that is due to >players, whose contribution to the "facts" is not deemed pertinent. Let me take this a little further. I am basically answering a criticism that we use something similar to the RoC or PoC over here. What I am asking is if there is anything wrong with the Rule or Principle *if* used correctly. When we decide on the classification of a psyche we certainly use input from the players: there is a particular box on the form for the players. So, assuming we are using input from the players as part of our decision-making process, is there anything wrong with us using the RoC or PoC? PWD -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 30 12:30:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA13472 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 12:05:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA13467 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 12:05:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11LGot-000KGR-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 02:05:16 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 03:03:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: DWS - needs assistance urgently... References: <3.0.32.19990830101828.009fde30@acsys.anu.edu.au> <+h2UMmA02dy3EwgV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <+h2UMmA02dy3EwgV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: >Markus Buchhorn wrote: >> >>Apologies to David and all - majordomo saw the Subject start with 'help' >>and thought it was somebody seeking assistance from it.... > > I begin to think I am. How long should it take for a message sent to >BLML to return? The original message was sent to BLML about 48 hours >ago and has not surfaced. > > Written at 0226 30/8/99. > Great. This returned to me in under forty minutes, and has no urgency whatever. So what has happened to my urgent posting of 48 hours ago? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 30 13:05:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA13639 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 13:05:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from carbon.mcis.singnet.com.sg (carbon.singnet.com.sg [165.21.74.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA13634 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 13:05:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by carbon.mcis.singnet.com.sg with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 11:00:26 +0800 Received: from pisces.singnet.com.sg ([165.21.101.214]) by carbon.mcis.singnet.com.sg with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.237.23); Mon, 30 Aug 1999 09:17:34 +0800 Received: from octavia.anu.edu.au (octavia.anu.edu.au [150.203.5.35]) by pisces.singnet.com.sg (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id JAA28039 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 09:21:54 +0800 (SGT) Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA13093 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 10:25:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA13088 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 10:25:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11LFGO-000586-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 00:25:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 22:25:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: unappealing psychic References: <37C8D478.95025E67@mindspring.com> <4.1.19990828103226.009801a0@mail.earthlink.net> <37C8D478.95025E67@mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990829165853.01260df0@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990829165853.01260df0@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: >At 04:37 PM 8/29/99 +0100, David wrote: >> Why? If I bid 1S with you on a balanced three count, and then I do it >>again, if you do not field it the second time there is no illegality and >>no adjustment. If, on the other hand, you raise to two with a clear >>raise to three, are you sure that saying I have only psyched once before >>ought to be a defence? > >Sorry, David, but it your treatment in this case is not manageable from a >player's perspective. When you bid 1S on a balanced 3-count, you are >entitled to know at that time whether your action is legal or otherwise. It >doesn't change from a legal psych to an illegal one during the subsequent >course of the auction. Of course it is true that subsequent events may >determine the likelihood of an adverse ruling. But your psychic bid is >either consonant with the requirements of L40A or it is not _at the time >you make it_. In particular, if you have reason to believe that relevant >partnership experience will give partner an edge over the opponents in >reading the psych, then it is illegal. Otherwise, it is probably not, even >if a later ruling goes against you. That is certainly true - if you think about whether you have an agreement, and understand the effects. But many people make illegal bids without realising they are illegal. However, fielding provides evidence of an illegal bid. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 30 13:28:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA13706 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 13:28:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from acsys.anu.edu.au (acsys [150.203.20.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA13701 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 13:28:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from accordion (acsys-temp1.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.65]) by acsys.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA20796 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 13:28:14 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19990830132816.01e1bb10@acsys.anu.edu.au> X-Sender: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 13:28:17 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Markus Buchhorn Subject: help me get this ADMINTRIVIA fixed :-) (please ignore) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a test message to see who can get which message in the end with or without majordomo sinking its dirty great claws into it and bouncing it to me. Hopefully I have now hacked the worst offenders out of the code, but left in the (un)s*b*cribe catches. Majordomo hackers may recognise most of the above sentence as majordomo commands (including the subject) :-) Cheers, Markus Markus Buchhorn, Advanced Computational Systems CRC | Ph: +61 2 62798810 email: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au, snail: ACSys, RSISE Bldg,|Fax: +61 2 62798602 Australian National University, Canberra 0200, Australia |Mobile: 0417 281429 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 30 15:14:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA13999 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 15:14:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA13994 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 15:14:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt095n3b.san.rr.com [24.94.8.59]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA15329 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 22:13:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <06b301bef2a6$1ab64b80$3b085e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <01b301bef0dc$8147f2c0$a6fc7ad1@hdavis><007101bef0f4$e545dcc0$251b25cb@dynamite.com.au><3.0.1.32.19990827224105.012679e4@pop.mindspring.com><063f01bef1e2$963f8240$3b085e18@san.rr.com> <6owFuXAs+Uy3EwwP@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: unappealing psychic Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 22:01:42 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Sunday, August 29, 1999 8:20 AM Subject: Re: unappealing psychic > Marvin L. French wrote: > >David Stevenson wrote: > > > >> Michael S. Dennis wrote: > >> >At 11:25 AM 8/28/99 +1000, Sean wrote: > >> >>I have been following this discussion for some time and have a question > >> >>for those contributors who feel that not bidding 4Hearts at some > >> >>stage in the auction ( I don't really care whether its directly, after > >> >>3Hearts or after descriptive 4Clubs) with Qxx trump and a singleton is > >> >>something other than catering for partner having bid a short suit. > >> > > >> >I for one have acknowledged that 3nt might well cater to a psychic 3nt bid, > >> >and still have not read any legal citation which makes such a practice > >> >illegal per se. > >> > >> LAW 40 - PARTNERSHIP UNDERSTANDINGS > >> > >> A. Right to Choose Call or Play > >> A player may make any call or play > >> (including an intentionally misleading > >> call - such as a psychic bid - or a call > >> or play that departs from commonly > >> accepted, or previously announced, use of > >> a convention), without prior announcement, > >> provided that such call or play is not > >> based on a partnership understanding. > >> > >> If you take an action that is designed to allow for partner's psyche > >> then there appears to be an understanding about psyches - and that makes > >> the original psyche illegal. > > > >"Appears to be" does not make it so. I have 13 HCP, 2=3=4=4, favorable > >vulnerability, partner opens 1S, RHO doubles, I redouble, LHO bids 3H-P-4H. > >The opponents are sturdy types. Either partner has psyched or the opponents > >are crazy. I take the action of passing to allow for partner's psych, but you > >tell me I have to double? And if I don't, that makes his psych illegal? > > No, I am not telling you that you should double. The psyche is > exposed by the bidding, so passing it is not illegal nor fielding. A welcome modification to the "If you take" paragraph above, which now becomes: If you take an action that is designed to allow for partner's psych, in the absence of evidence from the auction that she has psyched, then...." Now your interpretation seems quite reasonable. With favorable vulnerability, I open 1C, next hand doubles, partner bids 1S, I raise to 3S, he bids 3NT. With a known 8-card fit in spades he should not bid 3NT because (in this auction, with this vulnerability), that will sound as if the 1S bid was not serious. Ergo, I have evidence from the auction (as do the opponents) that partner may have psyched, and I allow for that by passing. If I had a 4S bid, I would have bid 4S. Doing something else out of fear that partner doesn't have spades might indeed violate L40A (I'm not sure). Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 30 15:24:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA14071 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 15:24:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA14066 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 15:24:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt095n3b.san.rr.com [24.94.8.59]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA17519 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 22:23:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <06b401bef2a7$834a56e0$3b085e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <01bef01c$b2b7e7e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid><3.0.1.32.19990827083052.006d3a3c@pop.cais.com><006401bef105$a76e3260$f8e6a4d8@hdavis><064001bef1e2$968a46e0$3b085e18@san.rr.com><4IYFmRAO9Uy3EwT0@blakjak.demon.co.uk><069301bef287$139e49c0$3b085e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: What happened? Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 22:20:39 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Let me take this a little further. I am basically answering a > criticism that we use something similar to the RoC or PoC over here. > What I am asking is if there is anything wrong with the Rule or > Principle *if* used correctly. No, of course not, if "correctly" means in accordance with due process. > When we decide on the classification of a psyche we certainly use > input from the players: there is a particular box on the form for the > players. So, assuming we are using input from the players as part of > our decision-making process, is there anything wrong with us using the > RoC or PoC? > No, if due attention is given to what the players have to say, then that is due process. Also, supporting testimony from other players, or from a partnership's system notes, should be admissible if the matter goes before an AC. The ACBL's PoC calls for an automatic score adjustment, if I read it right, so it is not the same as what you say you are doing over there, and it does not give the players due process. On the other hand, I haven't noticed any such rulings/decisions lately, so maybe the PoC is not being enforced, as Rick says. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 30 16:22:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA14188 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 16:22:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (smtp7.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.128.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA14183 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 16:22:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from mindspring.com (user-38ldids.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.201.188]) by smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id CAA24099 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 02:22:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <37CA241D.5D6CFE57@mindspring.com> Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 23:26:37 -0700 From: "John R. Mayne" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: What happened? References: <01bef01c$b2b7e7e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <3.0.1.32.19990827083052.006d3a3c@pop.cais.com> <006401bef105$a76e3260$f8e6a4d8@hdavis> <064001bef1e2$968a46e0$3b085e18@san.rr.com> <4IYFmRAO9Uy3EwT0@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <069301bef287$139e49c0$3b085e18@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Let me take this a little further. I am basically answering a > criticism that we use something similar to the RoC or PoC over here. > What I am asking is if there is anything wrong with the Rule or > Principle *if* used correctly. I can't find it, but somewhere you talked about using the rule as evidence, rather than as dispositive. If so, we agree. > > When we decide on the classification of a psyche we certainly use > input from the players: there is a particular box on the form for the > players. So, assuming we are using input from the players as part of > our decision-making process, is there anything wrong with us using the > RoC or PoC? If it's dispositive, yes. The rule of coincidence should be *evidence* but not conclusive evidence. That interpretation is something that, as I understand it, the ACBL intended from the start on the RoC. If I open 1S-P, and partner passes with J AJ9xx KQxx Jxx, and we end up in 1S-6 because I've psyched on a 4-4-3-2 0-count, I suspect partner's pass would be vigorously questioned. But the RoC should not conclusively rule this illegal; maybe we're all red at MPs and pard know's LHO always balances (except this time, when he's got six spades) and pard hoped to whack them in whatever contract they landed in. If this occurred, I'd expect a director or committee to take a very hard look at us, and at this bizarre confluence of actions to a successful conclusion. But, as a committee member, I might be persuaded that this was all above-board. I'd have to ask a *lot* of questions, and I'd have to weigh the credibility of the people. And, I'd report it to whatever the reporting agency is. But it is not conclusive proof of fielding or anything else. And it is not automatically adjustable. --JRM > > PWD > -- > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 30 17:36:07 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA14328 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 17:36:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from IGNGATE.merck.de (igngate.merck.de [194.196.248.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA14323 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 17:35:59 +1000 (EST) From: James.Vickers@merck.de Received: from dedamsgnt02.merck.de (smtpgw.merck.de [155.250.248.234]) by IGNGATE.merck.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA16023 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 09:35:50 +0200 (METDST) X-Internal-ID: 37B0459D0002C27F Received: from dedamsg4.merck.de (155.250.249.26) by dedamsgnt02.merck.de (NPlex 2.0.123) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 09:40:00 +0200 Received: by dedamsg4.merck.de(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.2 (693.3 8-11-1998)) id C12567DD.0029B869 ; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 09:35:41 +0200 X-Lotus-FromDomain: MERCK To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-ID: Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 09:35:29 +0200 Subject: Re: what happened? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ******************** >Dealer South E/W vulnerable MP Pairs. > >You are North looking at >J932 >973 >AJ84 >87 > >and the bidding goes: >1C from pard (South)(alerted may be 3 cards) >P from RHO >1D from you >1S from LHO >Dbl from pard.(shows 4/5 Clubs and 4 Spades > 13+HCPs) >P from RHO > John; Marcel; Feargal all say they think there is no LA to Pass. No-one has said that they think there is so perhaps (only maybe) I am wrong about this one. I chose to bid 1NT. LHO asks about the double and is told "penalties. It promises 4 Spades." The complete auction:- 1C - P - 1D - 1S Dbl - P - 1NT - Dbl 2D - 2S - Dbl - P 3D - P - P - Dbl AP. (South's hand) Q KQJT KQ53 KT94 The ruling is that I have fielded a misbid. _RED_ 40%/60% Question - What happens if I pass and 1 Spade fails? I would rule that it is a hand on which 1NT is a logical alternative. There was no question of misexplanation. The CC says quite clearly [When we have bid two suits a double of their suit is for penalties] 1. My partner's double was not a misbid. It was a tactical bid to try and find out more about my hand. He did not expect, as he was looking at the QS that I would have enough to pass the double. If I did do so it would surely go well off. This particular partner has never played neg double in this position with anyone, and has never doubled without 4 cards before.(meaning this would have been my rebid) The bid was not a mistake. (not a mis-bid) 2. It was a gross mis-statement of suit length, but the hand was strong enough to think that the opponents would not bid again anyway. There was no intention to deceive. It was a tactical bridge bid, not a psyche. 3. It was not a minor deviation. The hand had one spade instead of four. How can the ruling be the fielding of a misbid? Cheers Anne ********************** In answer to the original question, knowing partner has four spades and wants to take a penalty from 1S*, I too would pass. If you are expected to rescue partner with this hand, you are stretching the description of the double as "penalties" too far. (1NT only crossed my mind when I forced myself to think of alternatives.) Here's how I would rule were I directing: I think you got off lightly with 40%, Anne. You are right to challenge the description of a misbid, which is obviously wrong, but then you have to ask, what is it? I class South's double as a psyche. Even though the primary intent may have been to elicit a particular response from partner rather than to lead the opponents astray, it was a deliberate, gross (promising four spades, having one) misrepresentation of the hand, made in the full knowledge that it would deceive the opponents. That's good enough for me. Partner has taken unexplained action in failing to pass the double, and so has fielded. Score adjusted to 30% - 60%, albeit with heavy heart. I would waive the 10% procedural penalty if it were discretionary, but is it not automatic in the case of red psyches? Apologies, Anne, you have done nothing wrong, but it's one of those cases where the non-offenders must be protected from the possibility of sharp practice.The actions of both sides are perfectly justifiable in isolation, but when they coincide the perpetrators fall foul of the law. Awaiting plenty of disagreement, James Vickers, Darmstadt, Germany Postscript: This judgement is distilled from the modest knowledge I have aquired from EBU Club-TD training and years of studying laws articles, TD-guides etc, but not from any international committees and high-level ethics seminars on the "principle of coincidence" and what-have-you. I think I can safely say this is what you (any of you involved in EBU L+E anyway) are teaching the directors on the ground. If my ruling is completely wrong, would someone be kind enough to explain why? From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 30 20:30:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA14537 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 20:30:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA14527 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 20:29:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.31] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11LOh8-000OaV-00; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 11:29:47 +0100 Message-ID: <004a01bef2d2$93624ee0$1f5108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: unappealing psychic Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 11:28:56 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 30 August 1999 04:37 Subject: Re: unappealing psychic >Michael S. Dennis wrote: >>At 04:37 PM 8/29/99 +0100, David wrote: >>> Why ------ \x/ ------- >>Sorry, David, but ------ \x/ -------- > That is certainly true ------ \x/ ------- > However, fielding provides evidence of an illegal bid. > +=+ That is a simple and fair statement. The unstated intermediate step is that the fielding is evidence directly of a partnership understanding which, undisclosed, is what makes the bid illegal. And having stated it only four times let me say again that Law 40C empowers the Director unrestrictedly to make a decision on the basis of this, or any, evidence if it persuades him. You will notice, therefore, that whilst I do not consider a single previous occasion of a psychic can be construed as 'habitual violations' within the meaning of Law 75B, I do think the ACBL has in 40C ground on which to stand its policy (as I have understood it from the comments I read). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 30 20:30:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA14536 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 20:30:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA14526 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 20:29:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.31] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11LOh5-000OaV-00; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 11:29:43 +0100 Message-ID: <004701bef2d2$917b8d80$1f5108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 10:32:13 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: Bridge Laws Date: 30 August 1999 03:05 Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience Herman(?): >> I reiterate : understandings and experiences must both be >> disclosed, but only understandings can be regulated upon. +=+ Where experience gives rise to understandings these partnership methods are subject to regulation within the terms of Law 40D. +=+ >If a psych is not protected in any way, other than by a disclosed partnership >understanding or experience, L73E permits it. I have a (common) agreement with >partners who preempt that they are not to bid again unless forced to do so. >After 2D-P-2H-P; 3H-P-3NT, the 3NT bid (non-forcing) must be Alerted and >explained as: "I must pass." The possible psych is protected, but the >protection is not concealed. The 3H bid should also be Alerted: "She is not >permitted to go to the four level." > +=+ Do you recognize that partner may not have a suit he has named? If yes, do you disclose this to opponents? ~G~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 30 22:48:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA15101 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 22:48:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA15096 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 22:48:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (dup-207-176-64-97.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA21311 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 08:49:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990830084830.006a858c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 08:48:30 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: L16A1-Reply In-Reply-To: <37C7D021.A593923C@internet-zahav.net> References: <199908241500.QAA24716@tempest.npl.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:03 PM 8/28/99 +0300, Dany wrote: >Please let come back to the Laws : this time I think that the ACBL >procedure is the simplest and the best : summon the TD if there was any >tiny doubt that tempo changed , manner wasn't right or any phenomenon >happened (is eclipse included ??? hahaha). >It saves a lot of troubles and avoids impossible situations at the end >of the play.... I think this goes well beyond even what the ACBL expects, and would be a disaster for the game. Hundreds of "possible" but unnecessary "situations" would be created for each "impossible" one avoided, and the end of the session would recede into the misty distant future. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 30 23:31:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA15187 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 23:06:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA15174 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 23:06:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-18-113.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.18.113]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA05702 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 15:06:11 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37CA79DA.F00CDC1E@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 14:32:26 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience References: <199908292200.SAA06012@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Even before reading David's reply, I want to let it be known that I fully agree with what Steve Willner wrote: (even including those bits where he corrected me) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 31 00:12:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA15412 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 00:12:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA15407 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 00:12:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (dup-207-176-64-97.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA00371 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 10:13:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990830101227.006ee1a4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 10:12:27 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: What happened? In-Reply-To: References: <069301bef287$139e49c0$3b085e18@san.rr.com> <01bef01c$b2b7e7e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <3.0.1.32.19990827083052.006d3a3c@pop.cais.com> <006401bef105$a76e3260$f8e6a4d8@hdavis> <064001bef1e2$968a46e0$3b085e18@san.rr.com> <4IYFmRAO9Uy3EwT0@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <069301bef287$139e49c0$3b085e18@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:02 AM 8/30/99 +0100, David wrote: > When we decide on the classification of a psyche we certainly use >input from the players: there is a particular box on the form for the >players. So, assuming we are using input from the players as part of >our decision-making process, is there anything wrong with us using the >RoC or PoC? Let's use the ACBL's example. Partner opens 1NT, announced as 15-17, and you choose to bid 2NT with a balanced 10-count. If your action was based entirely on your exercising your judgment, it is legal. If your action was based (wholly or in part) on a CPU (the knowledge that partner may well have less than 15 HCP for his opening 1NT bid), it is illegal. Your action is either legal or illegal, depending on what you based it on. Therefore, a TD or AC who must decide whether it is legal or illegal must make a judgment as to the the basis for your action. The RoC says that the TD/AC need not make such a judgment. Instead, they make their determination as to the legality of your action based on what partner happens to hold for his 1NT bid. I find nothing in the laws which permits them to do this. It seems to me that if your action is legal (or illegal) when partner happens to hold a 17-count, it must be equally legal (or illegal) when partner happens to hold a 14-1/2-count, and vice versa. In any case, it is either legal or illegal, regardless of what partner holds. The RoC says otherwise. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 31 00:34:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA15180 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 23:06:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA15166 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 23:06:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-18-113.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.18.113]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA05696 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 15:06:09 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37CA785C.910B9EB2@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 14:26:04 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: unappealing psychic References: <199908292204.SAA06020@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > > From: David Stevenson > > In effect there are three types > > of "psyche": those unprotected by a partnership agreement, and thus > > legal under l40A: those protected by an announced partnership agreement, > > and legal or not dependent on the SO's rules, and really not psyches at > > all: those protected by an unannounced and concealed partnership > > agreement, and illegal. > > What David seems to be saying is that anything disclosable is also > regulatable. Do others agree? How does that square with "style > and judgment" in L40E1? As I have stated quite often, I strongly disagree with that statement. Experience must be disclosed, but does not (by definition) create agreement, which can be regulated. Any other point of view leads to an effective banning of psyches. System regulations should be written, or at least interpreted, to reflect this. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 31 00:53:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA15194 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 23:06:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA15184 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 23:06:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-18-113.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.18.113]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA05732 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 15:06:15 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37CA7BA6.8BD8F53E@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 14:40:06 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Essential reading References: <000401bef246$629de4e0$445108c3@swhki5i6> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > Grattan ............................................................. > "Sir, I have found you an argument; but > I am not obliged to find you an understanding." > - Boswell's Life of Johnson. > --++ooOoo++- > -----Original Message----- > From: Herman De Wael > To: Bridge Laws > Date: 29 August 1999 09:01 > Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI > > > > >Now I do realize that sometimes this distinction is vague, > >and while reRTFLBing for my long article, I discovered a > >phrase I had not read explicitely before : habitual > >violations may create implicit agreements. > > +++ How does one comment? It is incredible that > a Director is not familiar with Laws 72 through 75. > They contain core knowledge. I wonder what > you thought people were talking about? ~ G ~ +++ I agree, and I am certainly not stating I did not know this, but I am saying that I read the word "implicit" in there and it struck me as being somewhat odd. As Steve put it "tacit" would be a better word, implicit seems to me to indicate something else. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 31 00:54:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA15602 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 00:54:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (mailhub.irvine.com [192.160.8.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA15597 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 00:54:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA16465; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 07:53:32 -0700 Message-Id: <199908301453.HAA16465@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: What happened? In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 29 Aug 1999 22:20:39 PDT." <06b401bef2a7$834a56e0$3b085e18@san.rr.com> Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 07:53:32 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marv French wrote: > The ACBL's PoC calls for an automatic score adjustment, if I read it > right, so it is not the same as what you say you are doing over > there, and it does not give the players due process. On the other > hand, I haven't noticed any such rulings/decisions lately, so maybe > the PoC is not being enforced, as Rick says. I've tried to read the PoC and I'm pretty confused by it. First, it says, The "PRINCIPLE OF COINCIDENCE" is a tool for gauging whether or not a partnership has done its best to comply with the principle of full-disclosure. When Hirsch posted it, the wording was a bit different: The "principle of coincidence" is not a rule or law but rather a tool for gauging whether or not a partnership has done its best to comply with the principle of full-disclosure. In either case, it's presented as a tool to help TD's/AC's use their judgment, the way David says. Later, we have The PRINCIPLE OF COINCIDENCE defines this sequence to be an infraction of ACBL regulations (full-disclosure). The effect of the term "defines" is to make this into a rule and leave no room for judgment. If it said something like "According to the PRINCIPLE OF COINCIDENCE, the director should consider this as strong evidence that there is an infraction of ACBL regulations (full-disclosure)", this would be in keeping with the first statement of the text. Instead, we have the actual wording, which seems to contradict it. A bit later: The PRINCIPLE OF COINCIDENCE "allows" automatic score adjustments when these infractions occur. Again, it talks of an automatic score adjustment. Which, to me, means no judgment---if the TD were to use judgment to decide whether a score adjustment is warranted, then it wouldn't be "automatic", would it? But then they went and put the word "allows" in quotes, leaving the reader to guess just what the heck anyone was trying to say. As far as I can tell, the text of this principle is a mishmash and I don't know just what is meant by it. This kind of text makes it look like the ACBL is using weasel words to implement a Rule Of Coincidence while denying that it's really a rule, something like: The "principle of coincidence" is not a rule or law (wink, wink) but rather a tool . . . On the other hand, it's also plausible that they originally wrote it as a Rule, someone pointed out that you couldn't make it into a rule, so they tacked on the first sentence without bothering to check the rest of the text. Sort of like I think happend with L67B1(b), which refers to "the one-trick [revoke] penalty", which I think they forgot to change after the revoke penalties were modified some years ago. Anyway, the PoC as worded seems to be self-contradictory and unintelligible. Since I'm often saying that certain Laws (specifically, Laws 1 through 93) are unclear and ought to be reworded, I might as well be consistent and say the same thing about the PoC. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 31 01:31:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA15173 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 23:06:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA15157 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 23:06:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-18-113.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.18.113]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA05684 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 15:06:07 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37CA776F.C1C3FBBE@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 14:22:07 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: unappealing psychic References: <4.1.19990828103226.009801a0@mail.earthlink.net> <37C8D478.95025E67@mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > What L40A does is to give you the right to psyche or make any other > call so long as there is no agreement. In effect there are three types > of "psyche": those unprotected by a partnership agreement, and thus > legal under l40A: those protected by an announced partnership agreement, > and legal or not dependent on the SO's rules, and really not psyches at > all: those protected by an unannounced and concealed partnership > agreement, and illegal. > OK David, we are almost in agreement, now. There remain two points of difference between us. 1) I maintain that a "psyche" (gross misstatement) can be a part of partnership experience, must be disclossed, but need not necessarily be a part of "system", which can be regulated. That would create a fourth type of psyche, in your classification. But that is not the matter under major discussion here. 2) Your third type of psyche - as you call it "protected by CPU" - should (IMO) only result in score adjustment if it a) has caused damage (->L12C2, rarely C1), OR b) was done with some degree of malicious intent (-> heavy PP or worse). I still interpret your stance as not agreeing with this second point. I still think you are overly harsh. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 31 01:47:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA15796 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 01:47:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA15790 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 01:47:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11LTe1-0006du-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 15:46:54 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 13:47:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: unappealing psychic References: <01b301bef0dc$8147f2c0$a6fc7ad1@hdavis> <007101bef0f4$e545dcc0$251b25cb@dynamite.com.au> <3.0.1.32.19990827224105.012679e4@pop.mindspring.com> <063f01bef1e2$963f8240$3b085e18@san.rr.com> <6owFuXAs+Uy3EwwP@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <06b301bef2a6$1ab64b80$3b085e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <06b301bef2a6$1ab64b80$3b085e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >With favorable vulnerability, I open 1C, next hand doubles, partner bids 1S, I >raise to 3S, he bids 3NT. With a known 8-card fit in spades he should not bid >3NT because (in this auction, with this vulnerability), that will sound as if >the 1S bid was not serious. Ergo, I have evidence from the auction (as do the >opponents) that partner may have psyched, and I allow for that by passing. If >I had a 4S bid, I would have bid 4S. Doing something else out of fear that >partner doesn't have spades might indeed violate L40A (I'm not sure). The trouble with this case is that 3NT does not mean this at all. People play it to show 4=3=3=3 hands, or alternatively weak spades, or both, and not to show a psyche. If it does show a psyche then it is an illegal convention over here, and treated thus. Basically, I cannot think of many legal ways that a player may deduce from his partner's bidding that he has psyched. The only one that comes to mind is a pass of a forcing bid. Of course, the opponents may tell you. P P 1S 1NT X XX 2S 3NT ? Having doubled 1NT with your ten count [you need fourteen if you are JohnP] there is no problem in passing 3NT. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 31 01:47:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA15167 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 23:06:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA15154 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 23:06:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-18-113.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.18.113]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA05673 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 15:06:04 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37CA75AF.DEFD593B@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 14:14:39 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: unappealing psychic References: <01b301bef0dc$8147f2c0$a6fc7ad1@hdavis><007101bef0f4$e545dcc0$251b25cb@dynamite.com.au><3.0.1.32.19990827224105.012679e4@pop.mindspring.com><063f01bef1e2$963f8240$3b085e18@san.rr.com> <6owFuXAs+Uy3EwwP@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <06b301bef2a6$1ab64b80$3b085e18@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Marvin L. French" gave the following example: > > > With favorable vulnerability, I open 1C, next hand doubles, partner bids 1S, I > raise to 3S, he bids 3NT. With a known 8-card fit in spades he should not bid > 3NT because (in this auction, with this vulnerability), that will sound as if > the 1S bid was not serious. Ergo, I have evidence from the auction (as do the > opponents) that partner may have psyched, and I allow for that by passing. If > I had a 4S bid, I would have bid 4S. Doing something else out of fear that > partner doesn't have spades might indeed violate L40A (I'm not sure). > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com I would like to hear David's comments on this case. I shall give mine. >From the bidding, and possibly his hand, the 1C opener expects that his partner has psyched. From the bidding, opponents should also expect something. Depending on their level of expertise, it would seem appropriate to say something (alert ?) before RHO can bid over 3NT. Let's say that indeed opponents are not expert enough for their to be a need of clarification. Let's further say that this player says nothing. And then he passes. By passing, he triggers the EBU knee-jerk of Concealed Partnership Understanding. Does the EBU rule against these people ? My ruilng would be : misexplanation, and I will look very hard to find damage. I doubt if I will find any, but if I do, I will give a L12C2 AS. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 31 02:08:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA15191 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 23:06:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA15179 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 23:06:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-18-113.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.18.113]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA05716 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 15:06:13 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37CA7B15.701F3E91@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 14:37:41 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience References: <199908292200.SAA06012@cfa183.harvard.edu> <9BCUEjAm0dy3EwjS@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Steve Willner wrote: > > >I think the dispute over Herman's "psychic 1M in third seat" is because > >the laws really aren't clear. If it is an agreement, it is regulatable > >(and illegal in most jurisdictions). If it is merely experience, it > >isn't regulatable, even though it is disclosable. Until, that is, the > >'experience' becomes a 'tacit agreement'. When is that? > > > >Of course if Herman and his partner have a discussion and agree to play > >"psychic 1M," then there's no dispute, but what if there is no explicit > >discussion? > > > >I think both the terminology and the substance of the rules could do > >with a bit of clarification here. > > I really do not understand the difficulty with Herman's Spanish major. > > If you play with Herman tomorrow, Steve, you will _know_ that if he > holds 2-3 HCP in third position he will open 1H or 1S [1]. You thus > have an implicit agreement. It does not matter whether it comes from > playing with him, reading BLML, talking to his friends, or whatever, you > have such an agreement. Exactly. My point precisely. Which is why I want to put it on my CC so that opponents are even better informed than my non-regular partners who do not read blml. > If he plays it in England he will be penalised, And that is where we disagree. > and he should be penalised in Belgium unless it is [a] disclosed and [b] > legal in Belgium. > He will be penalised in Belgium, and I'm still waiting for a director to do so, so that I can appeal to the national authority and have this thing sorted. I have tried [a] (but they won't let me), but this only matters if there is damage - not usually the case. I do not agree that any systems policy which tries to include this can ever be a legal one, since it actively bans me from applying my L40A right. BTW, where does the word "spanish major" come from ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 31 02:30:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA16137 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 02:30:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (mailhub.irvine.com [192.160.8.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA16132 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 02:30:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA17804; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 09:29:16 -0700 Message-Id: <199908301629.JAA17804@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: unappealing psychic In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 30 Aug 1999 13:47:49 PDT." Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 09:29:15 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Marvin L. French wrote: > > >With favorable vulnerability, I open 1C, next hand doubles, partner > >bids 1S, I raise to 3S, he bids 3NT. With a known 8-card fit in > >spades he should not bid 3NT because (in this auction, with this > >vulnerability), that will sound as if the 1S bid was not serious. > >Ergo, I have evidence from the auction (as do the opponents) that > >partner may have psyched, and I allow for that by passing. If I had > >a 4S bid, I would have bid 4S. Doing something else out of fear > >that partner doesn't have spades might indeed violate L40A (I'm not > >sure). > > The trouble with this case is that 3NT does not mean this at all. > People play it to show 4=3=3=3 hands, or alternatively weak spades, or > both . . . On the other hand, there are those that wouldn't respond 1S at all on those types of hands. My feeling is that since the takeout doubler is a lot more likely to have spades than if he had passed, it's less worthwhile to show the spades in this situation. I'd tend to bid 1NT instead if I have half a heart stopper. This could be a poor style---I don't know. So if Marvin and his partner have this style, whether it's a good style or not, perhaps it doesn't make sense for 3NT to be a choice of games. P.S. If I had *both* a 4=3=3=3 hand and weak spades, I probably wouldn't bid 1S even without the takeout double . . . -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 31 03:16:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA16315 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 03:16:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA16309 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 03:16:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.85] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11LV2f-0006Fd-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 18:16:25 +0100 Message-ID: <000d01bef30b$62630940$555208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Third party effects. Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 18:15:15 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 30 August 1999 03:02 Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience ------------------------- \x/ -------------------------- >>I think both the terminology and the substance of the rules could do >>with a bit of clarification here [Steve Willner] ---------------------------- \x/ ----------------------- > If you play with Herman tomorrow, Steve, you will _know_ that if he >holds 2-3 HCP in third position he will open 1H or 1S [1]. You thus >have an implicit agreement. It does not matter whether it comes from >playing with him, reading BLML, talking to his friends, or whatever, you >have such an agreement. If he plays it in England he will be penalised, >and he should be penalised in Belgium unless it is [a] disclosed and [b] >legal in Belgium. [David] > +=+ There is no doubt David is right as to the power to penalize. I would just like to explore the angle of "talking to his friends", and similar sources of information not mutually shared by the partners. (H was not there when you talked; H has no certainty of knowing that you know.) There is certainly an understanding as to method, it may not be mutual - H may think he has psyched in a way that you will not expect. I am not confident that it can be termed an implicit agreement, on a first occasion that is. It is not general bridge experience and the player is about to act on the basis of his knowledge; but that knowledge is not information "from legal calls and or plays" nor from mannerisms of opponents. Nowhere else in the laws is there authorisation to make use of it. So there are two consequences of using it: (i) breach of Law 16; and (ii) there is a meaning to be disclosed. In most tournaments the Director will prohibit the method. Undisclosed? then 40C: the player has attached a meaning to the bid and his knowledge is not of a kind that an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand. He had a duty to disclose the meaning. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 31 04:51:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA16648 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 04:51:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA16643 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 04:51:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11LWWi-000EJh-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 18:51:37 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 19:45:18 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience In-Reply-To: <067801bef284$6867f1c0$3b085e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <067801bef284$6867f1c0$3b085e18@san.rr.com>, "Marvin L. French" writes snip >> >> If the psychic meaning occurs, say, less than once in ten, >> and there are no systemic controls, then a psyche is a >> psyche, and can not be subject to systemic regulations. >> >> Hands up who agrees with this statement ! >> -- >Both hands up! Me too. However, if partner has psyched too then I'm inclined to adjust. There likely is no CPU, but it *looks like* there is. Good players will accept such adjustment with little demurrage. chs john > >Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com > -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 31 04:51:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA16641 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 04:51:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA16630 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 04:51:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11LWWC-000GfR-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 18:51:02 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 19:35:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: What happened? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes snip >>> >>Yes, the process is in place, but it is not the process that is due to >>players, whose contribution to the "facts" is not deemed pertinent. > > Let me take this a little further. I am basically answering a >criticism that we use something similar to the RoC or PoC over here. >What I am asking is if there is anything wrong with the Rule or >Principle *if* used correctly. > > When we decide on the classification of a psyche we certainly use >input from the players: there is a particular box on the form for the >players. So, assuming we are using input from the players as part of >our decision-making process, is there anything wrong with us using the >RoC or PoC? > For many years I objected to the Rule of Co-incidence but I've concluded that it is probably the best way to handle the whole area of psyching. In the sort of game played at the YC there is very high activity between the usual suspects (ie we do it to each other, but tend to leave the visitors and the weaker players alone). There is no question that the expectation of a psyche has equal likelihood in the minds of all the players at the table. ... and we are all pretty careful not to regulate our bidding to cater for a psyche. This leads to the situation where one of us responds 1S in a 2-card suit (holding 4H) to partner's opening 1H and partner rebids 1NT on a 4243 hand having opened the doubleton. Here both sides are just "at it" having both decided to psyche on the same board. I adjust if there's damage and the players just shrug. It's best to do this because the game is "seen to be" clean if I do and there is no suggestion to anybody that anything is wrong. I've no doubt that there will be those who scream "Cheat" and "Line 'em up against the wall" but the players who will be involved in these shenanegins all have impeccable ethics. Specifically they *need* to have impeccable ethics otherwise I have a really serious problem with the legality of the YC game. It's a tough game to rule. chs John -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 31 04:56:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA16681 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 04:56:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA16676 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 04:56:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11LWbI-000F5T-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 18:56:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 19:40:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: unappealing psychic In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes snip > > Basically, I cannot think of many legal ways that a player may deduce >from his partner's bidding that he has psyched. The only one that comes >to mind is a pass of a forcing bid. Of course, the opponents may tell >you. > > P P 1S 1NT > X XX 2S 3NT > ? > > Having doubled 1NT with your ten count [you need fourteen if you are >JohnP] there is no problem in passing 3NT. > > Holding 15+ and having sandbagged the auction, I'd try a 2nd double of 3NT I think. -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 31 05:31:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA16640 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 04:51:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA16631 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 04:51:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11LWWC-000EG3-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 18:51:06 +0000 Message-ID: <8xIeQOAavsy3EwQb@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 19:22:18 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: what happened? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , James.Vickers@merck.de writes > > >******************** >>Dealer South E/W vulnerable MP Pairs. >> >>You are North looking at >>J932 >>973 >>AJ84 >>87 >> >>and the bidding goes: >>1C from pard (South)(alerted may be 3 cards) >>P from RHO >>1D from you >>1S from LHO >>Dbl from pard.(shows 4/5 Clubs and 4 Spades >> 13+HCPs) >>P from RHO >> >John; Marcel; Feargal all say they think there is no LA to Pass. No-one has >said that they think there is so perhaps (only maybe) I am wrong about this >one. > >I chose to bid 1NT. >LHO asks about the double and is told "penalties. It promises 4 Spades." >The complete auction:- >1C - P - 1D - 1S >Dbl - P - 1NT - Dbl >2D - 2S - Dbl - P >3D - P - P - Dbl >AP. > >(South's hand) >Q >KQJT >KQ53 >KT94 >The ruling is that I have fielded a misbid. _RED_ 40%/60% > >Question - What happens if I pass and 1 Spade fails? I would rule that it >is >a hand on which 1NT is a logical alternative. So? Partner psyched! result stands. wtp? chs john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 31 06:55:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA16966 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 06:55:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (smtp7.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.128.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA16961 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 06:54:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveg1f.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.64.47]) by smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA00925 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 16:54:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990830165232.012710b4@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 16:52:32 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Third party effects. In-Reply-To: <000d01bef30b$62630940$555208c3@swhki5i6> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:15 PM 8/30/99 +0100, Grattan wrote: > There is certainly an understanding as >to method, it may not be mutual - H may >think he has psyched in a way that you will >not expect. I am not confident that it can >be termed an implicit agreement, on a first >occasion that is. It is not general bridge >experience and the player is about to act >on the basis of his knowledge; but that >knowledge is not information "from legal >calls and or plays" nor from mannerisms >of opponents. Nowhere else in the laws >is there authorisation to make use of it. So >there are two consequences of using it: >(i) breach of Law 16; and You have employed this broad interpretation of L16 restrictions in the past. If I understand you correctly, your position is that _only_ "mannerisms of opponents" and "legal calls and plays" may be used as a basis for deciding on various calls or plays of your own. This is so obviously mistaken a viewpoint that I must have misunderstood. Do you really mean to suggest that is is illegal to base your bidding (or play) decisions upon: 1) The vulerability or the form of scoring. 2) Legal partnership agreements. 3) Your evaluation of the state of a particular match. 4) Your estimation of the opponents' strengths and weaknesses. 5) Your expectation of partner's ability to work out a difficult and previously undiscussed bidding sequence. 6) The actual cards in your own hand or in dummy. Note that none of these factors are listed as sources of AI in L16. Nor, to the best of my (limited) knowledge, are they explicitly identified as AI elsewhere in the Laws. Obviously, we do use all of these sources of information in playing the game, along with many others that would not fall within your canon. What is it about psychic bidding which differentiates it from these other categories of information, especially, for example, #5 above? Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 31 07:05:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA16992 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 07:05:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxye4-atm.maine.rr.com (proxye4-atm.maine.rr.com [204.210.64.23]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA16987 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 07:05:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt054n1d.maine.rr.com [24.95.20.29]) by proxye4-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA25163 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 17:04:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990830165843.0083c410@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 16:58:43 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience In-Reply-To: References: <067801bef284$6867f1c0$3b085e18@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:45 PM 8/30/99 +0100, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >In article <067801bef284$6867f1c0$3b085e18@san.rr.com>, "Marvin L. >French" writes > >snip >>> >>> If the psychic meaning occurs, say, less than once in ten, >>> and there are no systemic controls, then a psyche is a >>> psyche, and can not be subject to systemic regulations. >>> >>> Hands up who agrees with this statement ! One hand up. The other is is protesting any quantification. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 31 08:35:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA17192 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 08:35:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from acsys.anu.edu.au (acsys [150.203.20.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA17187 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 08:35:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from accordion (acsys-temp1.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.65]) by acsys.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA05173 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 08:35:02 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19990831083502.01067500@acsys.anu.edu.au> X-Sender: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 08:35:03 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Markus Buchhorn Subject: David's original urgent request for assistance... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk My apologies again to David for majordomo's screw-up ... >From: David Stevenson >Reply-To: David Stevenson >Subject: Help! TD problems required > > I need some TD problems within the next 36 hours. They should be >slightly tricky, preferably accompanied by a hand [even if constructed], >but not the really difficult stuff we discuss in detail. Can anyone >help, please? > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 31 09:10:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA17299 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 09:10:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA17294 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 09:10:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.163] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11LaYi-000EjV-00; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 00:09:52 +0100 Message-ID: <000f01bef33c$c2a604c0$a35208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Adam Beneschan" Cc: "bridge-laws" , Subject: Re: unappealing psychic Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 19:46:41 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: adam@irvine.com Date: 30 August 1999 18:06 Subject: Re: unappealing psychic > >David Stevenson wrote: > >> Marvin L. French wrote: >> >> >With favorable vulnerability, I open 1C, next hand doubles, partner >> >bids 1S, I raise to 3S, he bids 3NT. With a known 8-card fit in >> >spades he should not bid 3NT because (in this auction, with this >> >vulnerability), that will sound as if the 1S bid was not serious. >> >Ergo, I have evidence from the auction (as do the opponents) that >> >partner may have psyched, and I allow for that by passing. +=+ Will partner not be expected to have a flat hand with biddable length but poor quality Spades? Are you saying you are barred from going to 4 Spades if that looks right opposite such a hand? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 31 09:53:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA17500 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 09:53:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand5.global.net.uk (sand5.global.net.uk [194.126.80.249]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA17495 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 09:53:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from pe5s06a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.134.230] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand5.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11LbEK-0003qO-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 00:52:53 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: what happened? Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 00:55:48 +0100 Message-ID: <01bef343$2ec25a40$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: James.Vickers@merck.de To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Monday, August 30, 1999 9:24 AM Subject: Re: what happened? > > >******************** >>Dealer South E/W vulnerable MP Pairs. >> >>You are North looking at >>J932 >>973 >>AJ84 >>87 >> >>and the bidding goes: >>1C from pard (South)(alerted may be 3 cards) >>P from RHO >>1D from you >>1S from LHO >>Dbl from pard.(shows 4/5 Clubs and 4 Spades >> 13+HCPs) >>P from RHO >> >John; Marcel; Feargal all say they think there is no LA to Pass. No-one has >said that they think there is so perhaps (only maybe) I am wrong about this >one. > >I chose to bid 1NT. >LHO asks about the double and is told "penalties. It promises 4 Spades." >The complete auction:- >1C - P - 1D - 1S >Dbl - P - 1NT - Dbl >2D - 2S - Dbl - P >3D - P - P - Dbl >AP. > >(South's hand) >Q >KQJT >KQ53 >KT94 >The ruling is that I have fielded a misbid. _RED_ 40%/60% > >Question - What happens if I pass and 1 Spade fails? I would rule that it >is >a hand on which 1NT is a logical alternative. > >There was no question of misexplanation. The CC says quite clearly [When we >have bid two suits a double of their suit is for penalties] > >1. My partner's double was not a misbid. It was a tactical bid to try and >find out more about my hand. He did not expect, as he was looking at the QS >that I would have enough to pass the double. If I did do so it would >surely >go well off. This particular partner has never played neg double in this >position with anyone, and has never doubled without 4 cards before.(meaning >this would have been my rebid) The bid was not a mistake. (not a mis-bid) >2. It was a gross mis-statement of suit length, but the hand was strong >enough to think that the opponents would not bid again anyway. There was no >intention to deceive. It was a tactical bridge bid, not a psyche. >3. It was not a minor deviation. The hand had one spade instead of four. > >How can the ruling be the fielding of a misbid? > >Cheers >Anne >********************** > >In answer to the original question, knowing partner has four spades and >wants to take a penalty from 1S*, I too would pass. If you are expected to >rescue partner with this hand, you are stretching the description of the >double as "penalties" too far. (1NT only crossed my mind when I forced >myself to think of alternatives.) My systemic choices with this shape hand, dependant on strength and vulnerability are 1NT;Pass;2S;3S;4S;2NT;3NT (all natural and to play) 1NT is about the weakest bid I can make and having responded in the first place, I decided that this was about the weakest hand I could hold. > >Here's how I would rule were I directing: > >I think you got off lightly with 40%, Anne. You are right to challenge the >description of a misbid, which is obviously wrong, but then you have to >ask, what is it? > >I class South's double as a psyche. Even though the primary intent may have >been to elicit a particular response from partner rather than to lead the >opponents astray, it was a deliberate, gross (promising four spades, having >one) misrepresentation of the hand, made in the full knowledge that it >would deceive the opponents. That's good enough for me. OK. I tend to agree with this. However the deceipt of the opponents was unlikely to be uppermost in partner's mind. He has opened incorrectly and is trying to recover. He did not expect the opps to bid again! If the ruling is that it is a psyche, in UK I have an opportunity to submit a written defence. > >Partner has taken unexplained action in failing to pass the double, and so >has fielded. I have made a system bid in failing to pass the double. I see now that "penalties" may not be accurate.(MI) It should just say "promises 4 cards in your suit. My partner's failure to pass the double of 1NT is one of two things. He is either bidding the hand he holds or he is using UI from my answer to Easts question. This was not mentioned by anyone, but I had not missed it! Score adjusted to 30% - 60%, albeit with heavy heart. I would >waive the 10% procedural penalty if it were discretionary, but is it not >automatic in the case of red psyches? Apologies, Anne, you have done >nothing wrong, but it's one of those cases where the non-offenders must be >protected from the possibility of sharp practice. You just cannot say I have done nothing wrong, and fine me 10%. If the ruling is correct, then I most certainly have done something wrong. As far as I know, under EBU guidelines, intent is not taken into account. I think this is wrong, but admit I would not like to have to rule, taking intent into consideration, unless sytem notes were convincing. JP says that his habitual psychers accept adjustments with grace. I suspect this is because "familiarity breeds contempt" I suspect that Easts doubles were using "double shot" I think he knew exactly what was goin on. However East isnot here to speak for himself so I will not accuse him of sharp praactice. >The actions of both sides >are perfectly justifiable in isolation, but when they coincide the >perpetrators fall foul of the law. Mmm. So it would seem. But what Law? 40C may be suitable but not 40A I think 75B applies. No adjustment.:-) Herman's jurisdiction? JP has summed up my level of ability as a bridgeplayer. He says that good players would not winge. However I know that I am not a good player by the standards of the p****ers of Young Chelsea, but this was on table 19 of 312 after 10 Swiss matches, so I can't be that bad! Anne From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 31 10:34:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA17658 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 10:34:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from oznet11.ozemail.com.au (oznet11.ozemail.com.au [203.2.192.114]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA17653 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 10:34:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (slsdn7p04.ozemail.com.au [210.84.10.132]) by oznet11.ozemail.com.au (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA17059 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 10:34:12 +1000 (EST) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 10:34:12 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <199908310034.KAA17059@oznet11.ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: ardelm@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tony Musgrove Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >players will accept such adjustment with little demurrage. chs john Back to the main purpose of this list..the discussion of the English language. I think this should read demurral pedantically, Tony From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 31 11:17:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA17807 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 11:17:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA17802 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 11:17:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.27] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11LcYK-000GTN-00; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 02:17:36 +0100 Message-ID: <003101bef34e$9ae5c260$d65208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Michael S. Dennis" Cc: "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: Third party effects. Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 02:14:42 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 30 August 1999 22:23 Subject: Re: Third party effects. >At 06:15 PM 8/30/99 +0100, Grattan wrote: >> There is certainly an understanding as >>to method, it may not be mutual - H may >>think he has psyched in a way that you will >>not expect. I am not confident that it can >>be termed an implicit agreement, on a first >>occasion that is. It is not general bridge >>experience and the player is about to act >>on the basis of his knowledge; but that >>knowledge is not information "from legal >>calls and or plays" nor from mannerisms >>of opponents. Nowhere else in the laws >>is there authorisation to make use of it. So >>there are two consequences of using it: >>(i) breach of Law 16; and > >You have employed this broad interpretation >of L16 restrictions in the >past. If I understand you correctly, your >position is that _only_ >"mannerisms of opponents" and "legal calls >and plays" may be used as a >basis for deciding on various calls or plays of your own.> >Mike Dennis > ++ your understanding of my position is faulty. To the above I add anything which is written or inferred in the laws as being authorised. I note that the laws "define correct procedure" so, for example, when the laws tell a player to inspect the face of his cards I infer that he is entitled to know what they are. The laws make it clear enough that a player's style and judgement are lawfully applied; the only wary reaction I have concerns introduction of changes in partnership understandings of which opponents must be informed (and which are subject to regulation) so there can be no sudden undisclosed understanding about psyching. What I resist totally is the false suggestion that is sometimes bandied around here, that absence of a prohibition is authorisation. 'Authorising' is a positive action. ~ Grattan ~ ++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 31 11:29:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA17867 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 11:29:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA17862 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 11:29:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11LcjO-000KUf-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 01:29:03 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 02:24:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: what happened? In-Reply-To: <01bef343$2ec25a40$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <01bef343$2ec25a40$LocalHost@vnmvhhid>, Anne Jones writes snip > >JP has summed up my level of ability as a bridgeplayer. He says that >good players would not winge. However I know that I am not a good >player by the standards of the p****ers of Young Chelsea, but this was >on table 19 of 312 after 10 Swiss matches, so I can't be that bad! > >Anne > all the more reason to adjust and all the more reason not to complain :)) You'd enjoy a game at the YC. chs john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 31 11:53:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA17935 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 11:53:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA17930 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 11:53:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11Ld78-000MKp-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 01:53:37 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 19:07:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: unappealing psychic References: <199908301629.JAA17804@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <199908301629.JAA17804@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: >P.S. If I had *both* a 4=3=3=3 hand and weak spades, I probably >wouldn't bid 1S even without the takeout double . . . xxxx AKQx Jxx xx Kxx Qx Kxx AQJTx -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 31 13:42:22 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA18363 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 13:42:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.74]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA18357 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 13:42:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivei60.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.72.192]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA18709 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 23:42:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990830233925.0127650c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 23:39:25 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Third party effects. In-Reply-To: <003101bef34e$9ae5c260$d65208c3@swhki5i6> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:14 AM 8/31/99 +0100, Grattan wrote: >>You have employed this broad interpretation >>of L16 restrictions in the >>past. If I understand you correctly, your >>position is that _only_ >>"mannerisms of opponents" and "legal calls >>and plays" may be used as a >>basis for deciding on various calls or plays >of your own.> >>Mike Dennis >> >++ your understanding of my position is faulty. >To the above I add anything which is written or >inferred in the laws as being authorised. I note >that the laws "define correct procedure" so, >for example, when the laws tell a player to >inspect the face of his cards I infer that he is >entitled to know what they are. The laws make >it clear enough that a player's style and >judgement are lawfully applied; I find no language which supports that position, although I concur fully with it. In fact, the laws do not confer any authorization for a player to "apply his judgement", nor do they need to do so explicitly (or inferentially). But if a player's judgement can lawfully be applied to the types of information I listed earlier (state of the match, skill of opponents or partner, etc.), then it remains unclear upon which legal principle we can exclude "knowledge of partner's tendency to psych" as information to which we may legally apply judgement. In fact, it seems very difficult to separate partner's psyching tendencies from partner's reliability or strength, or to find the language that makes knowledge of the opponent's tendencies in this regard AI while knowledge of partner's tendencies is unauthorized. the only wary >reaction I have concerns introduction of >changes in partnership understandings of >which opponents must be informed (and which >are subject to regulation) so there can be no >sudden undisclosed understanding about >psyching. >What I resist totally is the false >suggestion that is sometimes bandied around >here, that absence of a prohibition is >authorisation. 'Authorising' is a positive >action. It is unrealistic to expect the Laws to cover every exigency, so "meta-rules" like this can be useful. But while I am prepared to concede the semantic point that "Authorizing is a positive action", I am not willing to concede that only those factors which are specifically authorized can be the basis for legal decision-making. Mostly, the "authorization" for the use of the types of information I have listed derives neither from explicit legal language nor even from any legitimate inferential exercise. It derives rather from our shared understanding and experience at the bridge table. We don't need Laws to "allow" us to base our bids on our judgements concerning the opponents, for example; such judgements are intrinsic to our experience of the game. Thus there are many types of information which we legitimately rely upon in bidding and playing and about which the Laws are mute. Shall we call these things "Authorized"? I couldn't care less. But it is obvious that their omission from any list or even indirect reference in the Laws does not make them UI, for purposes of L16. IMO, that law provides a pretty good list of the types of information which are unauthorized. While I would not want to regard that list as exclusive, I would want a piece of information to be quite similar to something in that list before I tagged it as UI. And "partner's psyching tendencies" doesn't match up. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 31 16:20:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA18972 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 16:20:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA18966 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 16:20:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt095n3b.san.rr.com [24.94.8.59]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA19214 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 23:19:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <070001bef378$720e08a0$3b085e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199908301453.HAA16465@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: What happened? Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 23:12:26 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote, regarding the RoC/PoC:: > On the other hand, it's also plausible that they originally wrote it > as a Rule, someone pointed out that you couldn't make it into a rule, > so they tacked on the first sentence without bothering to check the > rest of the text. Sort of like I think happend with L67B1(b), which > refers to "the one-trick [revoke] penalty", which I think they forgot > to change after the revoke penalties were modified some years ago. > The "rule" was blasted by Edgar Kaplan in *The Bridge World*, November 1993. With none vulnerable, a player had doubled (for takeout) a 2D opening in passout seat with S-AQJ7 H- A964 D-AJ75 C-6, and his partner (holder of 800 masterpoints) left the double in with S- 864 H-K72 D-8 C-AK10753. Down 500. Ignoring the reasoning provided by the passer, the TD, upheld by the AC applied the Rule of Coincidence and adjusted the score to avg- for the "offenders," and avg+ for the other side. Kaplan's remarks are too extended for this typist, but he started out with saying of the "Rule of Coincidence" that "there ain't no such animal." He followed a long tirade against the RoC by noting that there was no disciplinary action taken against the OS, "so they could not have been suspected of collusion, cheating. Well, if there was no collusion there was no infraction of Law (only an infraction of the imaginary Rule of Coincidence), so how could there be a score adjustment?" He ends with: "It certainly seems unrighteous that a penalty pass with a singleton trump should achieve a triumph (maybe Mr Young has better judgment than the rest of us).Surely though, we do not trust a Director of Committee to make a moral judgment like, 'That was a terrible bridge decision you made, so I'm going to see that you get a terrible result.'" I am guessing that this editorial prompted the ACBL (who?) to change the "Rule" to "Principle" and add the new wording up front that says the PofC is not a rule or law. Then, as Adam says, it goes on to explain the PofC as if it were a rule or law. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 31 16:34:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA19051 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 16:34:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.146]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA19045 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 16:34:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.104] by mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 02:34:07 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19990829165853.01260df0@pop.mindspring.com> <37C8D478.95025E67@mindspring.com> <4.1.19990828103226.009801a0@mail.earthlink.net> <37C8D478.95025E67@mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990829165853.01260df0@pop.mindspring.com> Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 02:28:34 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: unappealing psychic Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 David Stevenson writes: >However, fielding provides evidence of an illegal bid. Um. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that making a call which _appears_ to field a psyche provides evidence the call _may_ be illegal (because it is made on the basis of a concealed, albeit implicit, understanding)? Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2 iQA/AwUBN8t3c72UW3au93vOEQJM+wCfZz+v3+1ymWa0kBOYl6EN2qe+kg4AoNpS 2bX63WaGJ5xA/iNjEZ3X7eQw =5cmb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 31 16:59:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA19200 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 16:59:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA19195 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 16:59:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt095n3b.san.rr.com [24.94.8.59]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA26996 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 23:59:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <073b01bef37d$f6260160$3b085e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199908301629.JAA17804@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: unappealing psychic Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 23:53:53 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Adam Beneschan wrote: > > >P.S. If I had *both* a 4=3=3=3 hand and weak spades, I probably > >wouldn't bid 1S even without the takeout double . . . > > xxxx AKQx > Jxx xx > Kxx Qx > Kxx AQJTx > My partnerships would have this auction: 1C=1NT=2S=3S=4S, with 2S not forcing. Adam, we must play sometime! Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 31 18:12:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA19383 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 18:12:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA19378 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 18:12:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.83] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11Lj1t-000KyQ-00; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 09:12:33 +0100 Message-ID: <001401bef388$921e1760$535108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Michael S. Dennis" Cc: "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: Third party effects. Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 09:07:00 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 31 August 1999 05:32 Subject: Re: Third party effects. >At 02:14 AM 8/31/99 +0100, Grattan wrote: --------------------- \x/ ---------------------- >The laws make >>it clear enough that a player's style and >>judgement are lawfully applied; > MSD: >I find no language which supports that position, although I concur fully >with it. In fact, the laws do not confer any authorization for a player to >"apply his judgement", > +=+ I infer it from 40E1. As to the remainder of what you say, you will find it frustrating that national and international authorities ignore your views. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 31 21:35:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA20193 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 21:35:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA20183 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 21:35:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-18-139.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.18.139]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA17733 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 13:35:17 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37CA8A33.6CF2A963@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 15:42:11 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: unappealing psychic References: <004a01bef2d2$93624ee0$1f5108c3@swhki5i6> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > However, fielding provides evidence of an illegal bid. > > > +=+ That is a simple and fair statement. The unstated > intermediate step is that the fielding is evidence directly > of a partnership understanding which, undisclosed, is > what makes the bid illegal. And having stated it only four > times let me say again that Law 40C empowers the > Director unrestrictedly to make a decision on the basis > of this, or any, evidence if it persuades him. > You will notice, therefore, that whilst I do not > consider a single previous occasion of a psychic can > be construed as 'habitual violations' within the > meaning of Law 75B, I do think the ACBL has in 40C > ground on which to stand its policy (as I have > understood it from the comments I read). > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I have nothing whatsoever against using a single occurence as "compelling evidence" (I've been told not to use the word proof) for something. But that something MUST be illegal to start with. Concealed Partnership Understanding is a term that encompasses more than "supposedly illegal psyches". The same law is used for failure to alert. Banning a psyche simply because of evidence that there is more experience than what has been disclosed is almost as bad as banning a psyche just because people don't like it. When there has been consequent damage, by all means, adjust. But don't adjust simply on the basis of the fielding of a psyche ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 31 21:36:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA20208 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 21:36:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA20203 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 21:36:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11LmCf-000I7o-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 11:35:54 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 03:52:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: what happened? References: <01bef343$2ec25a40$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01bef343$2ec25a40$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: >I have made a system bid in failing to pass the double. I see now that >"penalties" >may not be accurate.(MI) It should just say "promises 4 cards in your suit. Which is alertable, of course. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 31 21:36:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA20202 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 21:36:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA20196 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 21:35:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11LmCZ-000I7S-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 11:35:47 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 04:02:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: David's original urgent request for assistance... References: <3.0.32.19990831083502.01067500@acsys.anu.edu.au> In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19990831083502.01067500@acsys.anu.edu.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Markus Buchhorn wrote: > >My apologies again to David for majordomo's screw-up ... > >>From: David Stevenson >>Reply-To: David Stevenson >>Subject: Help! TD problems required >> >> I need some TD problems within the next 36 hours. They should be >>slightly tricky, preferably accompanied by a hand [even if constructed], >>but not the really difficult stuff we discuss in detail. Can anyone >>help, please? It is all over now, so forget it for this year. I have written a County Course with 24 simulations, 14 questions for the Overnight quiz and 17 questions in a Hesitation Quiz. I have also produced a County Refresher Course with 6 simulations and 18 tricky hands. Anyone out there want me to write a TD exam? My Hong Kong friend passed her TD exam. I hope that the help I gave her was part of the reason. She had to pass a fairly tricky paper, but at least it only had six questions! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 31 21:35:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA20188 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 21:35:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA20182 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 21:35:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-18-139.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.18.139]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA17739 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 13:35:19 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37CA8AF3.5C6E581C@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 15:45:23 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience References: <004701bef2d2$917b8d80$1f5108c3@swhki5i6> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > Herman(?): (yes indeed - it was me) > >> I reiterate : understandings and experiences must both be > >> disclosed, but only understandings can be regulated upon. > > +=+ Where experience gives rise to understandings these > partnership methods are subject to regulation within the > terms of Law 40D. +=+ > I agree (don't look so surprised!) I don't agree that every bit of experience automatically gives rise to understandings. The Laws make a difference, why do some people continue to forget this? "habitual violations MAY create iplicit agreements". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 31 23:17:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA20758 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 23:17:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA20746 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 23:17:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-19-32.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.19.32]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA03322 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 15:16:52 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37CBC8AB.9220CDC6@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 14:20:59 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: YC psyches (was: What happened?) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > For many years I objected to the Rule of Co-incidence but I've concluded > that it is probably the best way to handle the whole area of psyching. > > In the sort of game played at the YC there is very high activity between > the usual suspects (ie we do it to each other, but tend to leave the > visitors and the weaker players alone). There is no question that the > expectation of a psyche has equal likelihood in the minds of all the > players at the table. ... and we are all pretty careful not to regulate > our bidding to cater for a psyche. This leads to the situation where > one of us responds 1S in a 2-card suit (holding 4H) to partner's opening > 1H and partner rebids 1NT on a 4243 hand having opened the doubleton. > Here both sides are just "at it" having both decided to psyche on the > same board. I adjust if there's damage and the players just shrug. > It's best to do this because the game is "seen to be" clean if I do and > there is no suggestion to anybody that anything is wrong. > > I've no doubt that there will be those who scream "Cheat" and "Line 'em > up against the wall" but the players who will be involved in these > shenanegins all have impeccable ethics. Specifically they *need* to have > impeccable ethics otherwise I have a really serious problem with the > legality of the YC game. It's a tough game to rule. > Now really John, under which Laws do you explain this ruling ? No regulations please, Laws. Misinformation? seems to me there is ample information all round. Unauthorised Information? you don't mention any, and I can see the poker faces already. What then? Oh, I think I see : Concealed Partnership Understanding. But as we just said - there's nothing concealed about it ! System Regulations anybody? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 31 23:17:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA20757 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 23:17:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA20745 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 23:16:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-19-32.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.19.32]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA03297 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 15:16:50 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37CBC6CF.3809AB94@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 14:13:03 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: What happened? References: <069301bef287$139e49c0$3b085e18@san.rr.com> <01bef01c$b2b7e7e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <3.0.1.32.19990827083052.006d3a3c@pop.cais.com> <006401bef105$a76e3260$f8e6a4d8@hdavis> <064001bef1e2$968a46e0$3b085e18@san.rr.com> <4IYFmRAO9Uy3EwT0@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <069301bef287$139e49c0$3b085e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19990830101227.006ee1a4@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > > Let's use the ACBL's example. Partner opens 1NT, announced as 15-17, and > you choose to bid 2NT with a balanced 10-count. > > If your action was based entirely on your exercising your judgment, it is > legal. > > If your action was based (wholly or in part) on a CPU (the knowledge that > partner may well have less than 15 HCP for his opening 1NT bid), it is > illegal. > > Your action is either legal or illegal, depending on what you based it on. > Therefore, a TD or AC who must decide whether it is legal or illegal must > make a judgment as to the the basis for your action. > > The RoC says that the TD/AC need not make such a judgment. Instead, they > make their determination as to the legality of your action based on what > partner happens to hold for his 1NT bid. I find nothing in the laws which > permits them to do this. > > It seems to me that if your action is legal (or illegal) when partner > happens to hold a 17-count, it must be equally legal (or illegal) when > partner happens to hold a 14-1/2-count, and vice versa. In any case, it is > either legal or illegal, regardless of what partner holds. The RoC says > otherwise. > This problem only arises from the fact that you choose to call the bid of 2NT illegal. Again I ask, why ? I'm not saying that I don't rule if opener indeed has only a 14 count, I will do so just like you, but I won't be calling the 2NT bid illegal. The 2NT combined with a 17 count is evidence that this player is a beginner. The 2NT combined with a 14 count is evidence of CPE, which can be ruled against if there is damage. Also in this case, I will investigate further. This stinks. I agree that there may be CPU. I will even go so far as to fill in a report on such a case and hope that this pair will not do this again, or there will be procedural action on CPU. You see, I'm no softee ! But I don't like a regulation that penalises possibly innocent players for something that can only be called cheating, and does so with the apparent intent of not having to call them cheats. It shows a very low impression the regulators have of the players. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 31 23:42:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA20871 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 23:42:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from u1.farm.idt.net (lighton@u1.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA20865 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 23:42:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost by u1.farm.idt.net (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id JAA16057 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 09:41:53 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 09:41:53 -0400 (EDT) From: richard lighton X-Sender: lighton@u1.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: unappealing psychic In-Reply-To: <37CA8A33.6CF2A963@village.uunet.be> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 30 Aug 1999, Herman De Wael wrote: > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > > > > However, fielding provides evidence of an illegal bid. > > > > > +=+ That is a simple and fair statement. The unstated > > intermediate step is that the fielding is evidence directly > > of a partnership understanding which, undisclosed, is > > what makes the bid illegal. And having stated it only four > > times let me say again that Law 40C empowers the > > Director unrestrictedly to make a decision on the basis > > of this, or any, evidence if it persuades him. =================== The underlined is the important bit. Having half-followed the thread for a while, I was eventually compelled to read the EBU Orange Book on the subject. The description of the EBU procedures there is quite clear and eminently reasonable. > > Concealed Partnership Understanding is a term that > encompasses more than "supposedly illegal psyches". The > same law is used for failure to alert. > > Banning a psyche simply because of evidence that there is > more experience than what has been disclosed is almost as > bad as banning a psyche just because people don't like it. > > When there has been consequent damage, by all means, > adjust. But don't adjust simply on the basis of the > fielding of a psyche ! > I had a psych against me at a Swiss event on Sunday. It was "fielded," but the player who "fielded" it would have to have been blind and drunk not to have done so. The auction went 2D(weak) double 2S double pass pass 3D 3S pass 4S pass pass pass I sincerely hope that there is no organization, player, director, or committee that would have expected the opening bidder to double with a good weak 2-bid and QTx of spades! (It would have been a good move. We went down one because spades were 3-0) -- Richard Lighton | In my more cynical moments, I sometimes think (lighton@idt.net)| that newsgroups are a device for making lifelong Wood-Ridge NJ | enemies of people one has never met :) USA | -- John Hall (on uk.sport.cricket) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 31 23:53:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA20937 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 23:53:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA20931 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 23:52:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id JAA26135 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 09:52:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id JAA07749 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 09:52:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 09:52:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199908311352.JAA07749@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [from Herman?] > >>> If the psychic meaning occurs, say, less than once in ten, > >>> and there are no systemic controls, then a psyche is a > >>> psyche, and can not be subject to systemic regulations. > From: Tim Goodwin > One hand up. The other is is protesting any quantification. I don't think I agree. A strong meaning for a multi-2D probably occurs less than one time in ten for most pairs, but is there any doubt it is subject to systemic regulations? (Most authorities choose not to regulate the strong meanings, but is there any doubt that they could if they wanted to?) If there's a quantitative test at all, surely it has to be related to the fraction of times a player holding the given hand will take the action in question. If it is "always," and that is known to both partners, then it's part of their system. The K-S "controlled psych" comes to mind; it wasn't a psych at all, in spite of the common name. When holding the appropriate hand (and non-vul IIRC), the player would always open 1M. That is system, not psyching. If, on the other hand, a player were to open 1M with only, say, 10% of suitable hands, one could reasonably argue that those are psychs. (One would have a very strong case indeed the _first_ time it happened, but after that, reasonable people would undoubtedly disagree.)