From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 1 01:04:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBVE3u205021 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Jan 2002 01:03:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-4.cais.net (stmpy-4.cais.net [205.252.14.74]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBVE3nH05017 for ; Tue, 1 Jan 2002 01:03:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-4.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id fBVDtuH12339 for ; Mon, 31 Dec 2001 08:55:57 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011231084328.00bb2a60@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 08:55:29 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. In-Reply-To: <000901c19007$0d5aa660$ba50e150@dodona> References: <20011228111801-r01010800-4533bccb-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:05 PM 12/28/01, Grattan wrote: >Whilst expressing at this time no opinion on >the policy I am inclined to think at the moment that a >regulation could say: "Not only do EBU regulations forbid >use of a convention to control a psyche (see 6.1.2), but >in respect of other methods of controlling psyches the >EBU does not allow of prior disclosure of such methods >and, since the laws require prior disclosure before any >such partnership understanding may be employed, >these methods may not therefore be used in >tournaments where EBU regulations apply." Given the way the ACBL has, with the approval of the WBF, effectively banned the 9 HCP 1NT opening from their competitions, I expect the EBU could get away with (in the sense of not being overruled by the WBF) such a policy, which could be implemented in such a way as to effectively eliminate psychs entirely (assuming they were willing to destroy much of their credibility in the process). Imagine a country in which the constitution guaranteed the right to vote to any citizen 21 years old or older, provided only that they register at least 30 days prior to the election, whose legislature passed a law forbidding unfavored minority groups to register, while insisting that this did not contradict the constitutional principle of universal suffrage. Apparently our bridge regulating authorities would find no contradiction or problem with this. 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 1 01:22:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBVEM5Z05041 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Jan 2002 01:22:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtpd.ha-net.ptd.net (smtpd.ha-net.ptd.net [207.44.96.84]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id fBVELvH05037 for ; Tue, 1 Jan 2002 01:21:58 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 21223 invoked by uid 50005); 31 Dec 2001 14:14:06 -0000 Received: from brian@wellsborocomputing.com by smtpd with qmail-scanner-1.00 (uvscan: v4.1.60/v4177. . Clean. Processed in 1.600428 secs); 31 Dec 2001 14:14:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wellscs) ([24.229.91.170]) (envelope-sender ) by smtpd.ha-net.ptd.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 31 Dec 2001 14:14:04 -0000 From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 09:13:52 -0500 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: <66r03u0soq9ek69t3mbak7nrj1sldjin2e@4ax.com> References: <20011228111801-r01010800-4533bccb-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <3C2DA3CE.2090207@village.uunet.be> <3C302CB7.8070901@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3C302CB7.8070901@village.uunet.be> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Mon, 31 Dec 2001 10:15:35 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > >Your concerns are valid Brian, and let me try and explain. >I don't think there is a problem with any system per se. >Nor with any psyche per se. >But when a player realizes, either when preparing his system >notes, or just at the table when faced with the particular >hand, that he might perform a "psyche", knowing that the >system will protect it from doing harm, then I believe the >opponents are at a disadvantage. They do not know the full >implications of the systemic responses, all they are told >are the "agreed" meanings of the psychic call. I deem this >to be misinformation. > >I have given the example of my 2cl opener. With my previous >partner, that was always strong, and partner had only one >response with any hand above 3HCP : 2di. With my current >partner, 2cl includes a weak-two in diamonds. If I were to >play with my previous partner again, and I would "psyche" >the 2Cl opener with weak diamonds, then I'd be guilty of >misexplanation. The true meaning of the 2Cl opener is >"partner should reply 2di unless very weak, and my next call > will further explain my hand". By saying that 2Cl is >always strong, I have failed to say what pass would mean as >my next bid. > >So you see Brian, there is no problem, unless you start >psyching. > Yes, that's exactly how it appears to me, too. I have to confess to having made the odd psych or three in 25+ years of playing bridge, and I believe the psychic bid to be an integral part of the game. That's the problem - to me, your statement "There is no problem, unless you start psyching" is about on a par with saying "There is no problem, unless you start playing bridge". Let me say that I no longer play face-to-face bridge, let alone direct - apart from emergency fill-ins, I haven't directed for more than a decade. However, it would seem to me that if you choose to play a system such that you can psych certain bids with less inherent risk than with others, that should be seen as a side benefit of your system. No, I am not arguing for total legalisation of psychic controls, nor am I arguing for less than full disclosure - but there has to be a degree of practicality in all of this. There are many on this list who have played bridge for a lot longer, and a lot higher level, than I have, but even at my modest level of ability, I reckon I have psyched every bid between pass and 4NT at one time or another. My partner would need to have a full-blown filing system to be able to give full disclosure of all the different hands with which I have psyched a specific bid. I also wonder about your "true meaning" of the 2C opener as above. Are you really suggesting that responses have to be included in the explanation of a bid? Must I teach my Acol-playing opps how to play Precision in order to practice full disclosure? If not, where must the line be drawn? Isn't detailing the responses as part of the explanation wanton creation of UI? I think full disclosure of your two-way 2C bid would be 'a very strong hand, but partner has been known to psych the bid with a weak hand with diamonds'. I can't see that you have an obligation to go into your responses unless opps ask you to do so. All the above just based on my experiences as a player. I would be willing to bet a large sum of money that I have never, not once, had an opponent call the director and complain that my partner and I practiced less than full disclosure by not including responses in the explanation of any bid, let alone have the complaint upheld. Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 1 03:03:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBVG3DW05096 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Jan 2002 03:03:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBVG36H05092 for ; Tue, 1 Jan 2002 03:03:06 +1100 (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 KAA01055 for ; Mon, 31 Dec 2001 10:55:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA28327 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 31 Dec 2001 10:55:15 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 10:55:15 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200112311555.KAA28327@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > Well Steve, it might be a consequence of yoour wishing to > cancel the 2Di bid by L40A. "a bid is illegal if not priorly > disclosed" seems what you (or at least some) are trying to > say. L40A does not speak of damage. > My point is that you cannot use L40A to simply get away with > unwanted type of bidding, simply because the meanings have > not been disclosed. Only L40C can be used, and there you > need damage. I confess you have lost me. I agree that 40A is irrelevant to the cases we are discussing, but what about 40B? It forbids certain calls and plays ("may not make ... unless"). If there is a violation, we go to 12A1 and then 12C2 (and maybe 12C3 in some jurisdictions). It occurs to me that I should have asked about case 3: we use Flannery and bid unopposed to a wonderful contract. Opponents were never going to intervene, no matter what bidding system we were using. Unfortunately, we have neglected to mention Flannery on our convention card. This is a 40B violation, but do we adjust the score? And for completeness, case 4: we use a special asking bid late in the auction and again reach a wonderful contract. No infraction here, because the convention card doesn't require such agreements to be listed. I trust we all agree on this one. (And I think it refutes Grattan's suggestion of forbidding disclosure.) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 1 05:57:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBVIv4Y05216 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Jan 2002 05:57:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (mailout6-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.177]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBVIuuH05212 for ; Tue, 1 Jan 2002 05:56:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id fBVIn4807844 for ; Mon, 31 Dec 2001 13:49:04 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 13:40:30 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <200112311555.KAA28327@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <20011231134903-r01010800-2ef8d50c-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.1.8 (Bluto) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 12/31/01 at 10:55 AM, willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) wrote: > And for completeness, case 4: we use a special asking bid late in the > auction and again reach a wonderful contract. No infraction here, > because the convention card doesn't require such agreements to be > listed. I trust we all agree on this one. I'm not so sure. There is no specific checkbox on the ACBL CC for such a bid, but there is a space for "other conventional calls". Aside from that there is no regulation that says "if there's no place for it on the CC, it's not alertable", and the Alert Regs do, I think, require an alert (possibly a post-alert) for such a bid. Which would seem to indicate it's not only disclosable, but that opponents should be notified of that fact at some point. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 1 06:08:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id fBVJ8dW05233 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Jan 2002 06:08:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBVJ8WH05229 for ; Tue, 1 Jan 2002 06:08:32 +1100 (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 OAA05301 for ; Mon, 31 Dec 2001 14:00:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA28539 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 31 Dec 2001 14:00:40 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 14:00:40 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200112311900.OAA28539@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > And for completeness, case 4: we use a special asking bid late in the > > auction and again reach a wonderful contract. No infraction here, > > because the convention card doesn't require such agreements to be > > listed. I trust we all agree on this one. > From: Ed Reppert > There is no specific checkbox on the ACBL CC for such a bid, but there is a > space for "other conventional calls". Aside from that there is no regulation > that says "if there's no place for it on the CC, it's not alertable", and the > Alert Regs do, I think, require an alert (possibly a post-alert) Sorry for being incomplete. Of course the bid is alerted and explained at the proper time during or after the auction. In the present context, the issue is _advance_ disclosure via the convention card. I don't think it would occur to anyone to say it's illegal for us to use a rare slam-auction device just because we failed to write it on our convention card, "Other Conventional Calls" notwithstanding. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 1 20:13:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g019Cda29507 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Jan 2002 20:12:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g019CUH29489 for ; Tue, 1 Jan 2002 20:12:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.15.21] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16LKnB-000F2h-00; Tue, 01 Jan 2002 09:01:05 +0000 Message-ID: <001d01c192a3$91e038c0$150fe150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "cathie ritchie" , "Cathrina Endicott" , , "lynn hunt" , "Patricia Davidson" Cc: "bridge-laws" , "Christina MacEachen" , "Christine Francin" Subject: [BLML] 2002 Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 09:03:27 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott; Tue, 1 Jan 2002 20:30:40 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 5991 invoked by uid 504); 1 Jan 2002 09:21:44 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail.morenet.net.nz with qmail-scanner-1.03 (sweep: 2.7/3.52. . Clean. Processed in 0.877065 secs); 01 Jan 2002 09:21:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.170) by 0 with SMTP; 1 Jan 2002 09:21:43 -0000 Message-ID: <024601c192a4$a78cd100$e916b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "David Burn" , "Ed Reppert" Cc: "Bridge Laws" References: <20011221001140-R01010800-bc29888c-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <00cf01c189e7$f49460a0$218b7ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 22:14:00 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > It does not "wipe out the infraction". It has nothing to do with the > infraction. It is an error that, had they made it against any heart > contract on defense (as you Americans put it because you correctly > cannot bring yourselves to speak English) would have led to a poor score > for their side whether the contract was 6H or 7H. Perhaps and maybe in justice they deserve a poor score. But 6H+1 is clearly not as poor as 7H=. And the difference between these to scores is nothing other than a consequence of the infraction. And that difference is surely damage. Now in law when there is damage we apply Law12C2 ... ... We may not like it but that is what is written. > I said something a long time ago about preaching to the unconvertible. Are you admitting to being one of the unconvertible? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 1 22:08:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g01B8Gr18653 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Jan 2002 22:08:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g01B85H18620 for ; Tue, 1 Jan 2002 22:08:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.28.218] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16LMb9-0001ib-00; Tue, 01 Jan 2002 10:56:47 +0000 Message-ID: <004701c192b3$bbc90800$150fe150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Eric Landau" Cc: "bridge-laws" References: <20011228111801-r01010800-4533bccb-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <4.3.2.7.1.20011231084328.00bb2a60@127.0.0.1> Subject: [BLML] The English answer [was A question of the English.] Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 10:58:01 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, December 31, 2001 1:55 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. > > Given the way the ACBL has, with the approval of the WBF, > effectively banned the 9 HCP 1NT opening from their > competitions, I expect the EBU could get away with (in the > sense of not being overruled by the WBF) such a policy, > which could be implemented in such a way as to effectively > eliminate psyches entirely (assuming they were willing to > destroy much of their credibility in the process). > +=+ The WBF has long adopted the stance that it seeks to persuade but will not impose in such matters. There is a view that the NBOs know their own environments better than the WBF does. My view in the matter of psyches is that the law intends to authorize them when they are true psyches - violations of partnership agreements that the partners cannot anticipate more easily than the opponents. With that I am entirely comfortable, and I have psyched at times over the years (and have wanted to be known as liable to psyche to create a little additional doubt in opponents' minds). But as soon as the balance is disturbed I believe that regulating authorities should have powers to regulate what become pseudo psyches. I should not hide the fact that I devised the method of banning the use of conventions to control other aspects of systems. It happened in this way: During the 1970's I was in regular correspondence with EK - we had inherited a set of regulations from our EBU Elders that, over a period of years, we were reviewing. In regard to certain of those former regs EK wrote an angry 'you have no power to do that' letter. The regulations he attacked placed controls on the minimum standards for natural opening bids. So for the, then, yellow book I produced words that did it by a regulation denying use of conventions after opening bids that failed to meet certain minimum requirements. We inserted the words amongst the general conditions allowing the use of conventions and I copied EK, saying effectively "sucks Edgar of course we can do it". His reply was one of outrage, but he also agreed, in writing, that the method was legal. Mysteriously, not so long afterwards, an ACBL regulation appeared that adopted the same method. They may not have seen the correspondence, of course, and at a later time may have thought of the device independently. But could be you should say 'thank you' :-) I do believe that it is stupid for lawmakers to pretend that they can stop regulators from taking control of matters of system. I think they are not right to try. Those sponsoring tournaments should be able if they wish to put limits on systems and not only in respect of conventions. If there is a demand for it there will always be tournaments in which freedom lovers can indulge their talents for invention. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 2 03:00:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g01Fwl614590 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 02:58:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g01FwQH14532 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 02:58:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16LRBN-0003ti-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 1 Jan 2002 15:50:33 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 13:19:39 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. References: <000c01c18e31$af4a2c20$9c98403e@dodona> <003501c18e69$4de2bd20$93243c04@earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <003501c18e69$4de2bd20$93243c04@earthlink.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Jon Brissman writes >Please give an example or two of psyches that are made less risky due to >underlying partnership agreements. Suppose you play Benjamin, a Scottish invention widely played in England, and discarded by its Scottish inventor within a few months. The strongest bid in the system is 2D, nearly game-forcing. There is also a 2C opening which shows an eight playing trick hand, suit unspecified, often played with a forced 2D response. Quite a common psyche until it was disallowed by the EBU under L40D was to open 2C with a weak hand and a diamond suit. Even strong hands opposite had to respond 2D, and now the psycher passed. This is less risky than many other psyches. It is my view that *all* pairs have psyches that are less risky because of their agreements than other psyches, and I see no reason why players should not take advantage of this fact. After all, you do not expect players to deliberately psyche for the purpose of getting bad boards. Players are permitted to consider how the bidding will go before embarking on a course of action. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 2 03:00:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g01FwoR14596 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 02:58:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g01FwQH14533 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 02:58:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16LRBN-0003tk-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 1 Jan 2002 15:50:33 +0000 Message-ID: <9Ym1kUDpybM8EwfS@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 13:42:01 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes >Grattan quoted: >>Another example is playing Drury, which makes a >>psychic 1M in third seat and holding long clubs >>much less risky. >Does that make Drury an illegal convention in >England? Does that make Stayman also illegal?? > >Or are the partners of English psychers forbidden >to use conventions? :-)) My view is that this is a non-problem. Every system has some calls that make safer psyches than others. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 2 03:00:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g01Fwq014598 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 02:58:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g01FwVH14558 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 02:58:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16LRBT-0003tp-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 1 Jan 2002 15:50:38 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 13:57:44 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Brian Meadows writes >I open 1H in 3rd hand, and pass partner's Drury 2C. Now everyone >at the table knows that my 1H was psychic, partner has no more >knowledge of the fact than opps do. The EBU outlaws the use of >Drury in this fashion (after a psychic opener), and that's the >question I was addressing, not the question of whether your >psyche comes as less of a surprise to partner than it does to >opps. The EBU outlaws this? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 2 03:00:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g01FwoT14594 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 02:58:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g01FwUH14552 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 02:58:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16LRBT-0003th-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 1 Jan 2002 15:50:37 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 13:56:27 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven.Pran@alcatel.no writes Sven, is it possible to show quoted differently from your text? >Somebody wrote, and indeed hit the bulls eye: > >One thing involved in a psyche is the expection that partner is >as much in the dark as opponents. If that's the case, then a >player who psyches in a position where his partner might use >Drury, *if* he does so expecting that such use will keep him out >of trouble, is acting unethically. Some players, especially at >low levels of experience, might well never consider that aspect. > >and then Brian Medows commented: > >I wonder how far this principle can be extended, in that case. >Consider the case of Precision, or even 2/1, where a significant >number of hands will go via the forcing 1NT after a third hand 1M >opener. Does this count as a form of protection? If not, then >what of the case (specifically Precision, now) where you pass >most of the raises through the forcing 1NT in order to play some >other gadgets, a style I used to play some years ago. Where must >the dividing line be drawn? >. . . . (snip) >It seems to me to be an area in dire need of clarification, if a >significant percentage of players are to be expected to >understand the implications. > >My comment is simply this: > >The moment your partner has better reason (from agreements and/or >from partnership experience) than your opponents to understand or >to be aware of what might be going on, you have crossed the line. > >Law40 just puts into words the rule that opponents shall have the >same possibility as your partner has to fully understand your calls. This cannot be right. If you play Stayman then you have a certain advantage in psyching a 1NT opening with long clubs. Law 40 does not make it illegal to use Stayman. Not does it make it illegal to psyche a 1NT opener with long clubs. Of course, you need sometime, somewhere to have psyched 1NT with long clubs - or read about it - to have an advantage of the opponents. But are you saying that it is now illegal for any member of BLML [who has now read about it] to psyche a 1NT opener with long clubs if they are playing Stayman? Presumably not. In practice, so long as your system is fully disclosed, everyone has the same ability to realise which bits support which psyches. In practice some people realise more than others do. That is known as skill, just as some people realise the advantage of pre-emption, while others do not. [Example of both from rubber bridge days in London: xxx x xxxx xxxxx Partner is a solid player, and opens 3C not vulnerable v vulnerable. Next hand passes [!!!!!] and you .... The player passed. When it was suggested to him afterwards that bid would be a good idea, he said "But I did not have any points .....". 7S was bid and made in comfort: I would have responded 4S or 4NT as the mood took me!] -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 2 03:00:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g01FwsC14602 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 02:58:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g01FwXH14564 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 02:58:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16LRBV-0003ti-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 1 Jan 2002 15:50:40 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 14:01:43 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] sharp ? References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011227134652.00a9f870@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20011227134652.00a9f870@pop.ulb.ac.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner writes >At 15:54 21/12/2001 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > >> Let me tell you a story of timing. I was playing in a knockout rubber >>bridge game with a time limit. No-one at the table would dream of >>sitting there and doing nothing deliberately to waste time. >> >> I reached 4S and discovered that there were 11 easy tricks, enough to >>win the match. Unfortunately, there seemed to me to be just time to >>start another hand - and the match was reasonably close. >> >> So, I drew trumps, and led a loser from dummy, discarding a winner on >>it, reducing myself to ten tricks. LHO was surprised to put it mildly. >>He was so surprised that he stopped and thought for about three minutes, >>trying to work out what I was doing. As a result of his thinking, we >>were just out of time to start another hand so we won. >> >> Any problems with this? > >AG : L74B4, perhaps. 'prolonging play unnecessarily for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent' ? Ignoring for a moment that is was rubber, surely his thinking prolonged play? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 2 03:22:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g01GMVw17982 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 03:22:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtpf.ha-net.ptd.net (smtpf.ha-net.ptd.net [207.44.96.86]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g01GMKH17958 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 03:22:21 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 13202 invoked by uid 50005); 1 Jan 2002 16:14:24 -0000 Received: from brian@wellsborocomputing.com by smtpf with qmail-scanner-1.00 (uvscan: v4.1.60/v4178. . Clean. Processed in 0.306929 secs); 01 Jan 2002 16:14:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wellscs) ([24.229.91.170]) (envelope-sender ) by smtpf.ha-net.ptd.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 1 Jan 2002 16:14:24 -0000 From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] The English answer [was A question of the English.] Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 11:13:52 -0500 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: References: <20011228111801-r01010800-4533bccb-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <4.3.2.7.1.20011231084328.00bb2a60@127.0.0.1> <004701c192b3$bbc90800$150fe150@dodona> In-Reply-To: <004701c192b3$bbc90800$150fe150@dodona> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Tue, 1 Jan 2002 10:58:01 -0000, Grattan Endicott wrote: >If there is a >demand for it there will always be tournaments in >which freedom lovers can indulge their talents for >invention. I cannot let this statement pass unchallenged. It is now almost five years since I lived in England, so things may have changed, but based on the situation in late 1996, you had only to examine the situation in the individual counties to see that Grattan's statement is patently wrong. In particular, I'd draw attention to the counties of Lancashire (1989-93) and Warwickshire (1993-97). Neither of them played *ANY* county events at other than General Licence during those periods when I was a member. A good friend of mine, a regular on the Gloucestershire county sides at that time, also assures me that the same was true of Gloucestershire - ZERO restricted licence events. I have to claim a rather good knowledge of whether there was any demand amongst Warwickshire players for restricted licence tournaments during that period. I played a lot of intra-county tournaments during my four years there, and I heard a lot of complaints. My partner and I were straining at the limits of the system restrictions, with an extremely detailed convention card, and we had a lot of opponents ask us "Is that all General Licence", followed by their commenting on the stupidity of restricting county events to General Licence when we assured them that it was. Yes, I know that one answer was to stand for the county committee, and try to depose the Luddites. Unlike most of the committee, I had a living to earn, and was not my own boss. I well remember my club organising an inter-club tournament to be played at restricted licence level, only for a member of the (then?) Warwickshire committee turning up to play as a member of one of the teams and threatening to "withdraw county recognition" of the event if it was not switched back to General Licence - at less than 30 minutes notice! My recollection of this is extremely clear, the club committee capitulated, but the switch was not adequately communicated to all the players, and there were a number of TD calls for pairs playing illegal systems or conventions, culminating in an announcement by the TD *during the event* that the status had been changed. Grattan, not for a moment do I question that you believe what you said above, but at grass roots level in the UK, it simply is not correct, or at least was not correct in some of the counties during the periods I have mentioned. Maybe things have changed for the better in almost five years. My experience of the EBU was that whether you got opportunities to play a restricted licence system or not was a total lottery, depending on the county in which you lived. Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 2 03:29:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g01GTKg19202 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 03:29:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (mailout6-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.177]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g01GTBH19179 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 03:29:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g01GL1801148; Tue, 1 Jan 2002 11:21:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 11:12:25 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] The English answer [was A question of the English.] To: Grattan Endicott , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <004701c192b3$bbc90800$150fe150@dodona> Message-ID: <20020101112101-r01010800-24c7ab0a-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.1.8 (Bluto) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 1/1/02 at 10:58 AM, cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) wrote: > If there is a > demand for it there will always be tournaments in > which freedom lovers can indulge their talents for > invention. Depends who's demanding, how loudly, and what influence they have. :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 2 03:35:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g01GZFh20256 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 03:35:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtpa.ha-net.ptd.net (smtpa.ha-net.ptd.net [207.44.96.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g01GZ6H20228 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 03:35:06 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 22912 invoked by uid 50005); 1 Jan 2002 16:27:13 -0000 Received: from brian@wellsborocomputing.com by smtpa with qmail-scanner-1.00 (uvscan: v4.1.60/v4178. . Clean. Processed in 0.379009 secs); 01 Jan 2002 16:27:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wellscs) ([24.229.91.170]) (envelope-sender ) by smtpa.ha-net.ptd.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 1 Jan 2002 16:27:13 -0000 From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 11:27:07 -0500 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Tue, 1 Jan 2002 13:57:44 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: >Brian Meadows writes > >>I open 1H in 3rd hand, and pass partner's Drury 2C. Now everyone >>at the table knows that my 1H was psychic, partner has no more >>knowledge of the fact than opps do. The EBU outlaws the use of >>Drury in this fashion (after a psychic opener), and that's the >>question I was addressing, not the question of whether your >>psyche comes as less of a surprise to partner than it does to >>opps. > > The EBU outlaws this? > It used to, David, at least to the best of my recollection. As you know, I left the UK almost five years ago now. As far as I remember, Drury used to be banned at one point, and then the EBU permitted pairs to play it, but on the understanding that it could not be used as some form of psychic control. I cannot give you dates for these changes, as my collection of EBU material did not make it across the pond with me. Perhaps someone who has kept all the Orange & Yellow books may be prepared to look it up? My apologies for using the incorrect tense in the text you quoted. For the record, I have not played under EBU regulations since I emigrated to the USA, almost five years ago. I may well be out of date as regards the EBU's system restrictions. I should have added a disclaimer to that effect to my posting. Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 2 04:07:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g01H7Hj25546 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 04:07:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat40.alcanet.no [193.213.239.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g01H77H25515 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 04:07:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from netos70.alcatel.no (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with ESMTP id g01GwgL22397; Tue, 1 Jan 2002 17:58:42 +0100 Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 17:58:39 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NOMAIL01/NO/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 01/01/2002 17:58:41 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk First of all David, a happy new year to you! >Sven.Pran@alcatel.no writes > Sven, is it possible to show quoted differently from your text? Now, I would be glad to, but I have a problem here: I haven't found out how to include BLML on my news client so I am using my regular mail client for adding posts. And in this client the only workable procedure I have figured out is to create a new mail and copy over those parts that I wish to comment, but in this process I have to add all the indicators on quoted parts manually myself - that is why I ended up like I have done in the past. I should be very grateful for any advice on how to process these posts in my news client, which in fact is Outlook Express, or otherwise end up with more readable postings. . . . . .(snip) >> >>The moment your partner has better reason (from agreements and/or >>from partnership experience) than your opponents to understand or >>to be aware of what might be going on, you have crossed the line. >> >>Law40 just puts into words the rule that opponents shall have the >>same possibility as your partner has to fully understand your calls. > This cannot be right. If you play Stayman then you have a certain >advantage in psyching a 1NT opening with long clubs. Law 40 does not >make it illegal to use Stayman. Not does it make it illegal to psyche a >1NT opener with long clubs. No, but the moment the advantage of "using" Stayman this way leads to a partnership adapting 1NT opening "psyches" on such hands with some predictable probability, this understanding of the 1NT opening IMHO becomes part of that "partnership understanding" which requires declaration. A "correct" declaration of the 1NT opening bid would then become something like: 15-17HP, but also sometimes used on weak hands with long clubs intending to pass the anticipated 2C Stayman bid. > Of course, you need sometime, somewhere to have psyched 1NT with long >clubs - or read about it - to have an advantage of the opponents. But >are you saying that it is now illegal for any member of BLML [who has >now read about it] to psyche a 1NT opener with long clubs if they are >playing Stayman? > Presumably not. In practice, so long as your system is fully >disclosed, everyone has the same ability to realise which bits support >which psyches. In practice some people realise more than others do. >That is known as skill, just as some people realise the advantage of >pre-emption, while others do not. I agree, but is the 1NT opening bid in your system fully disclosed when you from experience with your partner (and he from you) knows that you might every now and then open in 1NT on a "psyche" like the described? If I were ever called to rule on such a case I would say it is not. > [Example of both from rubber bridge days in London: > xxx > x > xxxx > xxxxx > Partner is a solid player, and opens 3C not vulnerable v vulnerable. >Next hand passes [!!!!!] and you .... > The player passed. When it was suggested to him afterwards that bid >would be a good idea, he said "But I did not have any points .....". 7S >was bid and made in comfort: I would have responded 4S or 4NT as the >mood took me!] And I would in those zones probably have raised to 5 or 6C trusting partner for the weak long club hand he has described and preempting against opponents slam in majors. If partner now had come back with 6S I would have fallen off my chair trying to figure out what he had in mind, and finally passed as the safest call when I do not understand anything. The alternative would have been to interpret the spade bid as cue, and just return to next available level in clubs! But if my experience is that partner sometimes does a stunt like that? If that experience affects my call already over 3C it certainly requires a declaration. If the experience only enters the picture after partners next call it is (I think) a different matter. As an additional comment on the original post in this thread: Opening 1H or 1S in third hand with a valueless hand except for a certain length in Clubs. My position is that the moment you can to a certain degree of probability depend on partners response in 2C (Drury) which you intend to pass, so that this becomes part of the "partnership understanding" then the system declaration of the 1S and 1H opening bids in third hand should include this "understanding". And as the resulting declaration neccessarily must be that the bids can occationally be made on hands with less strength than a King belov average, and even being void in the named suit, it is that use of the opening bid that should be banned (L40D), not the use of Drury as such. regards Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 2 04:32:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g01HWcZ29588 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 04:32:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lycee.ns.uk.easynet.net (lycee.ns.uk.easynet.net [195.40.1.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g01HWSH29562 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 04:32:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-15-19.easynet.co.uk [212.134.26.19]) by lycee.ns.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 48BE49F09 for ; Tue, 1 Jan 2002 17:24:32 +0000 (GMT) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] Christmas spirit & L17D Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 17:21:52 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Over the festive season at our club, boards 17 & 18 were due to be played at a table on the last round. Board 17 was played and scored without incident, but somehow when the players moved on to board 18, South managed to retain her cards from the previous board. With, apparently, 17 hearts and 49 HCPs in the pack a lively auction ensued ending with West as declarer. Only after North had led and dummy had been exposed did South's error become apparent. Now this situation does not appear to be covered in the "Play" section of the Laws although I would have thought that "sight of dummy" was the most likely time for this sort of mix-up to come to light. We can go back to L17D in the "Auction" section but the procedure here cannot now be applied as a hand has been exposed. The TD, sensibly I believe, awarded A4060. L17D, however, raises some questions: (1) What is supposed to happen if there has been more than one call after the offending call. Should the first sentence not read "......that call *and all subsequent calls* are cancelled." (2) In the second sentence an (out of the blue) reference is made to "offender's substituted call". This implies that the offender has had the correct hand restored to them and been given the opportunity to substitute a different call - presumably having been told that if the substituted bid (on the correct cards) differs from the original bid (based on the incorrect cards) the board will be cancelled and scored A-/A+. None of this, however, is immediately apparent from the wording of this Law. (3) What does "...differs in any significant way ..." mean? In this context ISTM that either the offender repeats his previous call or he doesn't. There is no scope to repeat it with a different meaning unless we are talking about hesitation, mannerisms or the like. There are parallels with L15C which has been the subject of previous BLML discussion. Here the formula is: "A second auction begins. Players must repeat calls they made previously. If any call differs in any way from the corresponding call in the first auction, the Director shall cancel the board. Otherwise, play continues normally." In L15C, of course, "in any way" is appropriate because we are talking about a different player, possibly playing a very different system. A happy New Year to you all. Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 2 05:16:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g01IFv708232 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 05:15:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g01IFlH08198 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 05:15:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-116-252.btinternet.com ([213.122.116.252] helo=pbncomputer) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16LTKK-0000rP-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 01 Jan 2002 18:07:53 +0000 Message-ID: <003901c192ef$00b3b1a0$fc747ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <20011221001140-R01010800-bc29888c-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <00cf01c189e7$f49460a0$218b7ad5@pbncomputer> <024601c192a4$a78cd100$e916b9d2@laptop> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 18:06:09 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Wayne wrote: > > It does not "wipe out the infraction". It has nothing to do with the > > infraction. It is an error that, had they made it against any heart > > contract on defense (as you Americans put it because you correctly > > cannot bring yourselves to speak English) would have led to a poor score > > for their side whether the contract was 6H or 7H. > > Perhaps and maybe in justice they deserve a poor score. It is reported that Mae West, on being greeted by a friend with the words: "Goodness, where did you get those diamonds?", replied: "Goodness had nothing to do with it." Neither has justice. As Ambrose Bierce, who would have made an excellent tournament director, put it: Once Law was sitting on the bench, And Mercy knelt a-weeping. "Clear out!" he cried, "disordered wench! Nor come before me creeping. Upon your knees if you appear, 'Tis plain you have no standing here." Then Justice came. His Honor cried: "Your status? - devil seize you!" "Amica curiae," she replied - "Friend of the court, so please you." "Begone!" he shouted - "there's the door - I never saw your face before!" > But 6H+1 is clearly not as poor as 7H=. And the difference between these to > scores is nothing other than a consequence of the infraction. And that > difference is surely damage. Not "clearly". At matchpoints, or board-a-match (which was, as I seem dimly to recall, the context in which the original problem was posed) there will be no practical difference whatever between 6H+1 and 7H=. > Now in law when there is damage we apply Law12C2 ... > > ... We may not like it but that is what is written. > > > I said something a long time ago about preaching to the unconvertible. > > Are you admitting to being one of the unconvertible? Not so's you'd notice. It was refreshing, however, to walk out of the venue of our latest "major" tournament and to see a newspaper headline indicating that others besides ourselves have the gravest difficulty in distinguishing between consequent and subsequent damage. The billboard read: "Passengers to blame for rail crisis". A happy new year to one and all. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 2 06:07:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g01J6n115520 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 06:06:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat40.alcanet.no [193.213.239.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g01J6dH15488; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 06:06:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from netos70.alcatel.no (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with ESMTP id g01IwAV26606; Tue, 1 Jan 2002 19:58:10 +0100 Subject: Re: [BLML] Christmas spirit & L17D To: "Brambledown" Cc: "BLML" , owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 19:58:11 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NOMAIL01/NO/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 01/01/2002 19:58:10 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Brambledown wrote: >Over the festive season at our club, boards 17 & 18 were due to be played at >a table on the last round. Board 17 was played and scored without >incident, but somehow when the players moved on to board 18, South managed >to retain her cards from the previous board. With, apparently, 17 hearts >and 49 HCPs in the pack a lively auction ensued ending with West as >declarer. Only after North had led and dummy had been exposed did South's >error become apparent. >Now this situation does not appear to be covered in the "Play" section of >the Laws although I would have thought that "sight of dummy" was the most >likely time for this sort of mix-up to come to light. We can go back to >L17D in the "Auction" section but the procedure here cannot now be applied >as a hand has been exposed. The TD, sensibly I believe, awarded A4060. The applicable law is Law 1 !!! I quote from the "Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge 1987" by Endicott and Hansen: No result is ever to be considered valid if the pack does not conform to the specifications of this Law. This holds true even when the discrepancy appears to be irrelevant such as there being two deuces of clubs but no three. (Although it was written for the 1987 laws most of the comments, and indeed this one still holds true) As the error was not detected early enough to avoid damaging effects on the auction, TD had no alternative other than to rule 60% for EW and 40% (or less if he in addition includes penalty points) for NS. If the error had been detected during the auction and South had found her correct cards then TD might apply Law 13B and/or Law 15C as guidelines to his ruling in an attempt to obtain a "normal" score on the board. I believe we then can safely snip off the remainder of the post? regards Sven . . . . . (snip) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 2 07:25:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g01KOvs00368 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 07:24:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (mailout5-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g01KOnH00331 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 07:24:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g01KGpq15134; Tue, 1 Jan 2002 15:16:51 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 15:14:55 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. To: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no, Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020101151654-r01010800-236c1ecc-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.1.8 (Bluto) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 1/1/02 at 5:58 PM, Sven.Pran@alcatel.no wrote: > My position is that the moment you can to a certain degree of probability > depend on partners response in 2C (Drury) which you intend to pass, so that > this becomes part of the "partnership understanding" then the system > declaration of the 1S and 1H opening bids in third hand should include this > "understanding". And as the resulting declaration neccessarily must be that > the bids can occationally be made on hands with less strength than a King > belov average, and even being void in the named suit, it is that use of the > opening bid that should be banned (L40D), not the use of Drury as such. This does not make sense to me. Say I agree to play Drury with my regular partner. We play it that way for some time, and I never psyche the third seat opening. One day, it occurs to me, sitting in 3rd seat with long clubs and short majors, that if I open 1S, I can pass partner's 2C. There is in no sense I can perceive any "partnership understanding" that I might do this. The argument has been made, I believe, that it would be unethical to open 1S in this case,because *I* know that it is (probably) safe to do so. It may not be - use of Drury requires at least invitational values, as I understand it, and partner may not have those. If he bids something *other* than 2C, then what do I do? I suppose I might pass that, as well, but then I don't see how that's using a convention to "field" (or set up a situation where will be fielded) a psyche (assuming the other possible responses are natural). There seems to be a notion that when one psyches, two things are needed: equal knowledge of opponents to partner of the possibility, *and* lack of tools to reduce the possibility of self damage from psyching. As far as I can see, the law only supports the former. Note that I'm not concerned here with the advisability of psyching on such a hand, but only with the legal ramifications. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 2 07:32:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g01KW1b01715 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 07:32:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from protactinium.btinternet.com (protactinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.176]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g01KVpH01694 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 07:31:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-130-23.btinternet.com ([213.122.130.23] helo=pbncomputer) by protactinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16LVRz-000076-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 01 Jan 2002 20:23:56 +0000 Message-ID: <000e01c19302$007a0960$17827ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: [BLML] Here's a state of things Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 20:22:10 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk A friend at a New Year's Eve party recounted the following tale of woe. Sitting South, she picked up and sorted her cards and, on seeing a green Pass card in front of East (the dealer), she contributed a pass of her own. All Hell thereupon broke loose, for East had not passed her actual hand as dealer, merely left a Pass card on the table when collecting her cards from the auction on the preceding board. The director took counsel, and ruled that South had (albeit unwittingly) passed out of turn, incurring exorbitant penalties and the loss of her immortal soul. As it happened, East-West could make 7NT and neither North nor South would have intended to enter the auction at any point, for to do so would have courted the penalty for at least six down doubled, vulnerable against not, in any one-level contract. But I wondered - do the Laws cover this eventuality, and if so, how? Was the director right to rule as he did, and if not, what should he have done instead? David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 2 09:27:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g01MR6Z18304 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 09:27:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cmailg4.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailg4.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.195.174]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g01MQwH18300 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 09:26:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from barton-bramhall.fsnet.co.uk ([62.137.132.131] helo=David) by cmailg4.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.13 #0) id 16LXFN-0005us-00; Tue, 01 Jan 2002 22:19:01 +0000 Message-ID: <000801c19312$7d242620$0200a8c0@David> From: "David Barton" To: "David Burn" , "Bridge Laws" References: <000e01c19302$007a0960$17827ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Here's a state of things Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 22:20:11 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk South's pass was based on misinformation that East had passed. I would interpret change of call in 21B1 as including the right to withdraw the call altogether. So call withdrawn without penalty and bidding reverts to South. David@Barton-Bramhall.fsnet.co.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2002 8:22 PM Subject: [BLML] Here's a state of things > A friend at a New Year's Eve party recounted the following tale of woe. > Sitting South, she picked up and sorted her cards and, on seeing a green > Pass card in front of East (the dealer), she contributed a pass of her > own. All Hell thereupon broke loose, for East had not passed her actual > hand as dealer, merely left a Pass card on the table when collecting her > cards from the auction on the preceding board. The director took > counsel, and ruled that South had (albeit unwittingly) passed out of > turn, incurring exorbitant penalties and the loss of her immortal soul. > > As it happened, East-West could make 7NT and neither North nor South > would have intended to enter the auction at any point, for to do so > would have courted the penalty for at least six down doubled, vulnerable > against not, in any one-level contract. But I wondered - do the Laws > cover this eventuality, and if so, how? Was the director right to rule > as he did, and if not, what should he have done instead? > > David Burn > London, England > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 2 13:10:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g022A2S18384 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 13:10:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0229rH18380 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 13:09:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) with ESMTP id CAA07128 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 02:02:02 GMT Message-ID: <2iOWmSBelmM8Ewsd@asimere.com> Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 01:58:54 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] sharp ? References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011227134652.00a9f870@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes >Alain Gottcheiner writes >>At 15:54 21/12/2001 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: >> >>> Let me tell you a story of timing. I was playing in a knockout rubber >>>bridge game with a time limit. No-one at the table would dream of >>>sitting there and doing nothing deliberately to waste time. >>> >>> I reached 4S and discovered that there were 11 easy tricks, enough to >>>win the match. Unfortunately, there seemed to me to be just time to >>>start another hand - and the match was reasonably close. >>> >>> So, I drew trumps, and led a loser from dummy, discarding a winner on >>>it, reducing myself to ten tricks. LHO was surprised to put it mildly. >>>He was so surprised that he stopped and thought for about three minutes, >>>trying to work out what I was doing. As a result of his thinking, we >>>were just out of time to start another hand so we won. >>> >>> Any problems with this? >> >>AG : L74B4, perhaps. > >'prolonging play unnecessarily for the purpose of disconcerting an >opponent' ? > > Ignoring for a moment that is was rubber, surely his thinking >prolonged play? > I'm reminded of a hand I played 20 years ago in a League match against a member of the then Hertfordshire team. I'd ended up in a stupid 3NT contract with zero play, so I made a totally illogical play from dummy at trick 2. This caused my RHO to consider for 5 minutes before playing and cost me - 150 instead of - 100. My kibitzer commented after the hand I couldn't play bridge. Snide remarks aside was this good play? cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 2 13:12:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g022C1M18400 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 13:12:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g022BrH18396 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 13:11:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) with ESMTP id CAA07132 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 02:04:03 GMT Message-ID: <3ybWyfBLnmM8Ewt9@asimere.com> Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 02:00:43 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Here's a state of things References: <000e01c19302$007a0960$17827ad5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <000e01c19302$007a0960$17827ad5@pbncomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <000e01c19302$007a0960$17827ad5@pbncomputer>, David Burn writes >A friend at a New Year's Eve party recounted the following tale of woe. >Sitting South, she picked up and sorted her cards and, on seeing a green >Pass card in front of East (the dealer), she contributed a pass of her >own. All Hell thereupon broke loose, for East had not passed her actual >hand as dealer, merely left a Pass card on the table when collecting her >cards from the auction on the preceding board. The director took >counsel, and ruled that South had (albeit unwittingly) passed out of >turn, incurring exorbitant penalties and the loss of her immortal soul. > >As it happened, East-West could make 7NT and neither North nor South >would have intended to enter the auction at any point, for to do so >would have courted the penalty for at least six down doubled, vulnerable >against not, in any one-level contract. But I wondered - do the Laws >cover this eventuality, and if so, how? Was the director right to rule >as he did, and if not, what should he have done instead? > >David Burn >London, England > > 60/40 obviously :) cheers john > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 2 13:31:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g022VXr18431 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 13:31:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g022VFH18416 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 13:31:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.64.130.92] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16Lb3p-000313-00; Wed, 02 Jan 2002 02:23:21 +0000 Message-ID: <000601c19334$b3203760$5c82403e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 02:12:17 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2002 1:57 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. > Brian Meadows writes > > >I open 1H in 3rd hand, and pass partner's Drury 2C. Now everyone > >at the table knows that my 1H was psychic, partner has no more > >knowledge of the fact than opps do. The EBU outlaws the use of > >Drury in this fashion (after a psychic opener), and that's the > >question I was addressing, not the question of whether your > >psyche comes as less of a surprise to partner than it does to > >opps. > > The EBU outlaws this? > +=+ Perhaps, David, you would expand a little. It could be thought that if a pair were detected as having done this a few times the question would arise whether they were using a convention to control a psyche. And could we look also at a parallel situation where a passed player uses a delayed raise, as a matter of partnership agreement, to distinguish a raise based on HCP. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 2 13:31:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g022VYn18432 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 13:31:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g022VIH18423 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 13:31:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.64.130.92] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16Lb3r-000313-00; Wed, 02 Jan 2002 02:23:23 +0000 Message-ID: <000701c19334$b466c120$5c82403e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "bridge-laws" References: <20011228111801-r01010800-4533bccb-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <4.3.2.7.1.20011231084328.00bb2a60@127.0.0.1> <004701c192b3$bbc90800$150fe150@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] The English answer [was A question of the English.] Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 02:14:40 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2002 4:13 PM Subject: [BLML] The English answer [was A question of the English.] > > Grattan, not for a moment do I question that you believe what you > said above, but at grass roots level in the UK, it simply is not > correct, or at least was not correct in some of the counties > during the periods I have mentioned. Maybe things have changed > for the better in almost five years. My experience of the EBU was > that whether you got opportunities to play a restricted licence > system or not was a total lottery, depending on the county in > which you lived. > > > Brian. > +=+ Much has changed and all is yet the same. Fivel levels of competition are authorised. Levels 1 and 5 are extremes and not relevant to the question. Level 4 largely provides the opportunity you would seek, but in the counties competitions are Level 2 or 3; 4 only here and there - the EBU provides some Level 4 opportunities, but not all that many. One of the Davids could be more precise, but I regard level 3 as approximately 'General' and Level 4 approximately 'Restricted' as they were. My belief is that where there is a demand there are clubs that will provide the facility; I think where this does not happen (and they are few) the demand is less than you suggest. The bridge population when analysed exhibits meagre proportions of those who demand opportunities to play more complex conventions; if there were enough of them they would get together and organize, or some entrepreneur would set up a club with that in view. At the grass roots that is bridge. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 2 13:31:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g022VV718430 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 13:31:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g022VDH18412 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 13:31:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.64.130.92] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16Lb3n-000313-00; Wed, 02 Jan 2002 02:23:19 +0000 Message-ID: <000501c19334$b2247240$5c82403e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , "bridge-laws" References: <9Ym1kUDpybM8EwfS@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 02:07:03 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2002 1:42 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. > richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > >Grattan quoted: > +=+ Who quoted ???+=+ > > >>Another example is playing Drury, which makes a > >>psychic 1M in third seat and holding long clubs > >>much less risky. > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 2 13:31:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g022VTk18429 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 13:31:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g022VCH18411 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 13:31:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.64.130.92] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16Lb3l-000313-00; Wed, 02 Jan 2002 02:23:18 +0000 Message-ID: <000401c19334$b1071b60$5c82403e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Burn" , "Bridge Laws" References: <000e01c19302$007a0960$17827ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Here's a state of things Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 02:02:20 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2002 8:22 PM Subject: [BLML] Here's a state of things > A friend at a New Year's Eve party recounted the following > tale of woe. Sitting South, she picked up and sorted her > cards and, on seeing a green Pass card in front of East > (the dealer), she contributed a pass of her own. All Hell > thereupon broke loose, for East had not passed her actual > hand as dealer, merely left a Pass card on the table when > collecting her cards from the auction on the preceding > board. The director took counsel, and ruled that South > had (albeit unwittingly) passed out of turn, incurring > exorbitant penalties and the loss of her immortal soul. > > As it happened, East-West could make 7NT and neither > North nor South would have intended to enter the auction > at any point, for to do so would have courted the penalty > for at least six down doubled, vulnerable against not, in > any one-level contract. But I wondered - do the Laws > cover this eventuality, and if so, how? Was the director > right to rule as he did, and if not, what should he have > done instead? > +=+ He might have begun by ruling that East was in violation of OB 7.3.6 The question would then arise whether any rectification could be made that would permit normal play of the board. [12A2] Another question would be whether both East and South are offenders; South has not been given any information by E or W, so her Pass was not based upon MI; it is probably a Law 21A situation for her. If there is no non-offending side 84E is not available. Perhaps each side should lose 50% of its immortal psyche. Later call in an OB-stetrician to add to the bidding box regulations: 'the director may require a player to withdraw a bidding card to correct an irregularity and other players shall then withdraw any bidding card(s) placed in rotation clockwise from the withdrawn bidding card. Information from the withdrawn cards is AI to a non-offending side but otherwise UI.' ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 2 16:27:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g025R4G09033 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 16:27:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g025QuH09015 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 16:26:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id QAA20892 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 16:29:41 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 02 Jan 2002 16:18:33 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 16:15:07 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 02/01/2002 04:09:20 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >> Brian Meadows writes >> >> >I open 1H in 3rd hand, and pass partner's Drury 2C. Now everyone >> >at the table knows that my 1H was psychic, partner has no more >> >knowledge of the fact than opps do. The EBU outlaws the use of >> >Drury in this fashion (after a psychic opener), and that's the >> >question I was addressing, not the question of whether your >> >psyche comes as less of a surprise to partner than it does to >> >opps. >> >> The EBU outlaws this? >> >+=+ Perhaps, David, you would expand a little. It could be >thought that if a pair were detected as having done this a >few times the question would arise whether they were using >a convention to control a psyche. > And could we look also at a parallel situation where a >passed player uses a delayed raise, as a matter of >partnership agreement, to distinguish a raise based on >HCP. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ In EBU-land, can a partnership agreement be legal where partner never psyches, but illegal where partner has previously psyched? Or do the EBU-land authorities define some partnership agreements as inherently sinful (because the ageements might tempt you to psyche)? If so, where do the EBU-land authorities draw the line between sinful and virtuous partnership agreements? Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 2 21:16:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g02AFWD12490 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 21:15:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (st.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g02AFOH12486 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 21:15:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id LAA19693; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 11:04:29 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id LAA28869; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 11:07:20 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020102105958.02696300@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 11:09:40 +0100 To: "David Burn" , "Bridge Laws" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Here's a state of things In-Reply-To: <000e01c19302$007a0960$17827ad5@pbncomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 20:22 1/01/2002 +0000, David Burn wrote: >A friend at a New Year's Eve party recounted the following tale of woe. >Sitting South, she picked up and sorted her cards and, on seeing a green >Pass card in front of East (the dealer), she contributed a pass of her >own. All Hell thereupon broke loose, for East had not passed her actual >hand as dealer, merely left a Pass card on the table when collecting her >cards from the auction on the preceding board. The director took >counsel, and ruled that South had (albeit unwittingly) passed out of >turn, incurring exorbitant penalties and the loss of her immortal soul. AG : L21 covers this, as is obvious from its title. We only have to decide whether the declaration was based on a wrong indication given by East. Is it is the case, South encurs no penalty at all. If not, penalize accordingly. I see two non-barking dogs in the formulation of L21 : - it is not said that the player's declaration must have been regular ; - it is not said that the wrong information should be voluntary. Two examples : 1) before or without BBS, if South asked to East 'did you bid 2H' and East answered 'I did', and now South bids 2S and is told it is insufficient because East's bis was 3H, L21B should apply (1st case above) ; 2) most delayed alerts are involuntary, that is, the non-alerter only momentarily gazed at a flying cow, without intention to harm. L21B applies explicitly (2nd case above). That being said, I see no resaon why the phrasing of L21B1 should not be applicable to the present case. Allow South to bid normally whatever East does. Best regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 2 22:45:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g02Bidb18422 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 22:44:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.90]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g02BiWH18418 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 22:44:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16LjhC-00054G-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 11:36:37 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 21:07:48 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] Re: 2002 References: <001d01c192a3$91e038c0$150fe150@dodona> In-Reply-To: <001d01c192a3$91e038c0$150fe150@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott writes > +=+ For all who read, > I wish you a quiet year. > Peace be with you. I am sure that the wish is good, but personally I do not want a quiet year! For those who, like me, want change, and a move forward, I wish you all "the right sort of turbulence". Long live the euro! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 2 22:54:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g02BsNt18657 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 22:54:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cadillac.meteo.fr (cadillac.meteo.fr [137.129.1.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g02BsDH18624 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 22:54:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from jazz.meteo.fr (localhost.meteo.fr [127.0.0.1]) by cadillac.meteo.fr (8.9.3 (PHNE_22672)/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA05418 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 11:46:13 GMT To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A_[BLML]_Here's_a_state_of_things?= MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.07a May 14, 2001 Message-ID: From: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 12:46:26 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on Jazz/Meteo-France/FR(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 02.01.2002 11:46:12, Serialize complete at 02.01.2002 11:46:12 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 0040AD51C1256B35_=" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Message en plusieurs parties au format MIME --=_alternative 0040AD51C1256B35_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Alain Gottcheiner Envoy=E9 par : owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au 02/01/02 11:09 =20 Pour : "David Burn" , "Bridge Laws"=20 cc :=20 Objet : Re: [BLML] Here's a state of things At 20:22 1/01/2002 +0000, David Burn wrote: >A friend at a New Year's Eve party recounted the following tale of woe. >Sitting South, she picked up and sorted her cards and, on seeing a green >Pass card in front of East (the dealer), she contributed a pass of her >own. All Hell thereupon broke loose, for East had not passed her actual >hand as dealer, merely left a Pass card on the table when collecting her >cards from the auction on the preceding board. The director took >counsel, and ruled that South had (albeit unwittingly) passed out of >turn, incurring exorbitant penalties and the loss of her immortal soul. AG : L21 covers this, as is obvious from its title. We only have to decide = whether the declaration was based on a wrong indication given by East. *** am i alone to think the relevant law to be 18F? east made an=20 inadvertant call according to the way calls are made in his area, his call = was followed by a legal call from south and if east wishes to retract his=20 call, he will be the OS and will have to live with constraints of L25A and = maybe suffer for his unselfconsciousness. wtp? jp rocafort=20 *** Is=20 it is the case, South encurs no penalty at all. If not, penalize=20 accordingly. I see two non-barking dogs in the formulation of L21 : - it is not said that the player's declaration must have been regular ; - it is not said that the wrong information should be voluntary. Two examples : 1) before or without BBS, if South asked to East 'did you bid 2H' and East = answered 'I did', and now South bids 2S and is told it is insufficient=20 because East's bis was 3H, L21B should apply (1st case above) ; 2) most delayed alerts are involuntary, that is, the non-alerter only=20 momentarily gazed at a flying cow, without intention to harm. L21B applies = explicitly (2nd case above). That being said, I see no resaon why the phrasing of L21B1 should not be=20 applicable to the present case. Allow South to bid normally whatever East=20 does. Best regards, Alain. =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/SC/D 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F --=_alternative 0040AD51C1256B35_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Alain Gottcheiner <agot@ulb.ac= .be>
Envoy=E9 par : owner-bridge-laws@rgb= .anu.edu.au

02/01/02 11:09

       
        Pour : &= nbsp;      "David Burn" <dburn@btinternet.com&g= t;, "Bridge Laws" <bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au>
        cc : &nb= sp;      
        Objet : =        Re: [BLML] Here's a state of things


At 20:22 1/01/2002 +0000, David Bur= n wrote:
>A friend at a New Year's Eve party recounted the following tale of woe.=
>Sitting South, she picked up and sorted her cards and, on seeing a gree= n
>Pass card in front of East (the dealer), she contributed a pass of her<= br> >own. All Hell thereupon broke loose, for East had not passed her actual=
>hand as dealer, merely left a Pass card on the table when collecting he= r
>cards from the auction on the preceding board. The director took
>counsel, and ruled that South had (albeit unwittingly) passed out of
>turn, incurring exorbitant penalties and the loss of her immortal soul.=

AG : L21 covers this, as is obvious from its title. We only have to decide =
whether the declaration was based on a wrong indication given by East.

 *** am i alone to think the r= elevant law to be 18F? east made an inadvertant call according to the way c= alls are made in his area, his call was followed by a legal call from south= and if east wishes to retract his call, he will be the OS and will have to= live with constraints of L25A and maybe suffer for his unselfconsciousness= . wtp?

jp rocafort  
 ***

 Is
it is the case, South encurs no penalty at all. If not, penalize accordingl= y.
I see two non-barking dogs in the formulation of L21 :
- it is not said that the player's declaration must have been regular ;
- it is not said that the wrong information should be voluntary.
Two examples :
1) before or without BBS, if South asked to East 'did you bid 2H' and East =
answered 'I did', and now South bids 2S and is told it is insufficient
because East's bis was 3H, L21B should apply (1st case above) ;
2) most delayed alerts are involuntary, that is, the non-alerter only
momentarily gazed at a flying cow, without intention to harm. L21B applies =
explicitly (2nd case above).

That being said, I see no resaon why the phrasing of L21B1 should not be applicable to the present case. Allow South to bid normally whatever East <= br> does.

Best regards,

        Alain.


=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=
Jean-Pierre Rocafort
METEO-FRANCE
DSI/SC/D
42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis
31057 Toulouse CEDEX
Tph: 05 61 07 81 02     (33 5 61 07 81 02)
Fax: 05 61 07 81 09     (33 5 61 07 81 09)
e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr

Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr
=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F

--=_alternative 0040AD51C1256B35_=-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 2 22:55:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g02BtWa18866 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 22:55:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tvrelay.mail.uk.easynet.net (tvrelay.mail.uk.easynet.net [194.6.96.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g02BtOH18848 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 22:55:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-13-155.easynet.co.uk [212.134.22.155]) by tvrelay.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 5D34766C7E for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 11:47:15 +0000 (GMT) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Christmas spirit & L17D Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 11:44:34 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Sven.Pran@alcatel writes: > The applicable law is Law 1 !!! > I quote from the "Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge 1987" > by Endicott and Hansen: > No result is ever to be considered valid if the pack does not conform to > the specifications of this Law. This is completely irrelevant - the pack *did* conform. It is just that part of it remained in the board rather than being removed into South's hand. Fortunately, L17D tells us how to deal with this. > If the error had been detected during the auction and South had found her > correct cards then TD might apply Law 13B and/or Law 15C as guidelines to > his ruling in an attempt to obtain a "normal" score on the board. Why on earth should the TD attempt to apply L13B or L15C which are designed for different situations when he has L17D specifically written for the situation that has arisen? Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 2 23:54:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g02Cpp028630 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 23:51:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net [194.7.1.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g02CpWH28579 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 23:51:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-160-231.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.160.231]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g02ChYs20377 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 13:43:35 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3C32E8B3.60109@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 12:02:11 +0100 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. References: <20011228111801-r01010800-4533bccb-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <4.3.2.7.1.20011231084328.00bb2a60@127.0.0.1> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello Eric, A very happy 2002 to you and to all other readers of blml. I wish everyone a better understanding of the Laws of bridge by the end of this year. Eric Landau wrote: > At 08:05 PM 12/28/01, Grattan wrote: > >> Whilst expressing at this time no opinion on >> the policy I am inclined to think at the moment that a >> regulation could say: "Not only do EBU regulations forbid >> use of a convention to control a psyche (see 6.1.2), but >> in respect of other methods of controlling psyches the >> EBU does not allow of prior disclosure of such methods >> and, since the laws require prior disclosure before any >> such partnership understanding may be employed, >> these methods may not therefore be used in >> tournaments where EBU regulations apply." > > > Given the way the ACBL has, with the approval of the WBF, effectively > banned the 9 HCP 1NT opening from their competitions, I expect the EBU > could get away with (in the sense of not being overruled by the WBF) > such a policy, which could be implemented in such a way as to > effectively eliminate psychs entirely (assuming they were willing to > destroy much of their credibility in the process). > > Imagine a country in which the constitution guaranteed the right to vote > to any citizen 21 years old or older, provided only that they register > at least 30 days prior to the election, whose legislature passed a law > forbidding unfavored minority groups to register, while insisting that > this did not contradict the constitutional principle of universal > suffrage. Apparently our bridge regulating authorities would find no > contradiction or problem with this. > I understand your reticence with the power of authority. I agree with you that it is rather silly of the WBF to first restrict the power of the ACBL to regulating only conventional bids, and then to allow them to regulate against 9HCP 1NT by the back door. Perhaps we need a supreme court, but what would that solve ? So in that sense I agree with you. However, please don't drag the word "psyche" in there. Opening a 9HCP hand 1NT is not a psyche when playing 10-12. Opening a 9HCP hand 1NT is a psyche when playing 15-17. Opening a 1HCP hand 1NT is a psyche regardless. OK ? > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 2 23:54:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g02Cq0f28646 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 23:52:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net [194.7.1.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g02CpdH28609 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 23:51:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-160-231.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.160.231]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g02Chhs20410 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 13:43:43 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3C32F104.4000906@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 12:37:40 +0100 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. References: <000c01c18e31$af4a2c20$9c98403e@dodona> <003501c18e69$4de2bd20$93243c04@earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Jon Brissman writes > > >>Please give an example or two of psyches that are made less risky due to >>underlying partnership agreements. >> > > Suppose you play Benjamin, a Scottish invention widely played in > England, and discarded by its Scottish inventor within a few months. > The strongest bid in the system is 2D, nearly game-forcing. There is > also a 2C opening which shows an eight playing trick hand, suit > unspecified, often played with a forced 2D response. > > Quite a common psyche until it was disallowed by the EBU under L40D > was to open 2C with a weak hand and a diamond suit. Even strong hands > opposite had to respond 2D, and now the psycher passed. This is less > risky than many other psyches. > > It is my view that *all* pairs have psyches that are less risky > because of their agreements than other psyches, and I see no reason why > players should not take advantage of this fact. After all, you do not > expect players to deliberately psyche for the purpose of getting bad > boards. Players are permitted to consider how the bidding will go > before embarking on a course of action. > Of course when I give an example - David has to say some Englishman thought of it first. But indeed a fine example it is. However David, I do not believe this can be called a "psyche". First of all, the possibility should be disclosed. When everyone knows Benjamin, that is already the case, but when the opponents do not know Benjamin, then they are entitled to know that after a 2Cl opening, the response is always 2Di. Now they should be allowed to ask if this response could be passed, and they should get a truthful answer. And I am saying that I do not believe anyone even if they swear hand on heart, bible and qoran that partner has never ever done it, when he is just going to. In my book, the (almost) obligatory 2Di response is a part of the system, and so is the possibility of the 2Cl being done with weak diamonds. That makes this a non-psyche in my opinion. However, I am only talking "disclosure" here, and would rule only with L40C and in case of damage. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 2 23:54:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g02CpsT28636 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 23:51:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net [194.7.1.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g02CpYH28588 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 23:51:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-160-231.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.160.231]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g02Chcs20386 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 13:43:38 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3C32ED73.1030506@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 12:22:27 +0100 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. References: <20011228111801-r01010800-4533bccb-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <3C2DA3CE.2090207@village.uunet.be> <3C302CB7.8070901@village.uunet.be> <66r03u0soq9ek69t3mbak7nrj1sldjin2e@4ax.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Brian Meadows wrote: > On Mon, 31 Dec 2001 10:15:35 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > > >> >>So you see Brian, there is no problem, unless you start >>psyching. >> >> > > Yes, that's exactly how it appears to me, too. I have to confess > to having made the odd psych or three in 25+ years of playing > bridge, and I believe the psychic bid to be an integral part of > the game. That's the problem - to me, your statement "There is no > problem, unless you start psyching" is about on a par with saying > "There is no problem, unless you start playing bridge". > What I meant, Brian, was that the problems that we are talking of only crop up when there is in fact a psyche. I am not saying that all psyches give problems. Nor am I saying that all systems that could be used to control psyches create a problem. Not the Drury is the problem, nor the H1H. But when you put them together, you have a problem. What I'm basically saying is that Drury is allowed, and so is the H1H. But not both together. > Let me say that I no longer play face-to-face bridge, let alone > direct - apart from emergency fill-ins, I haven't directed for > more than a decade. However, it would seem to me that if you > choose to play a system such that you can psych certain bids with > less inherent risk than with others, that should be seen as a > side benefit of your system. No, I am not arguing for total > legalisation of psychic controls, nor am I arguing for less than > full disclosure - but there has to be a degree of practicality in > all of this. There are many on this list who have played bridge > for a lot longer, and a lot higher level, than I have, but even > at my modest level of ability, I reckon I have psyched every bid > between pass and 4NT at one time or another. My partner would > need to have a full-blown filing system to be able to give full > disclosure of all the different hands with which I have psyched a > specific bid. > Of course. No-one would dream of asking your partner to recall each and every psyche you made. But they would be correct is expecting my opponents to be aware of the H1H. There is perhaps no good way of providing that information, and that is why every time I do it, I am under one piece of extra risk: the one of creating damage by the non-disclosure of the tendency. I believe that risk is small. There is no way it can affect the bidding beyond the "reasonably could have known" stage. There is a risk in the play. Once my psyche is discovered, the opponents have the right to know that I am likely to hold 0-3, not more. If I cannot get that info to them (preferably by whispering or sending partner away), then they might be damaged. But I shall defend to the death the point of view that this does not make the H1H systemic. > I also wonder about your "true meaning" of the 2C opener as > above. Are you really suggesting that responses have to be > included in the explanation of a bid? I am saying that these responses are a part of the meaning of the bid. If there exists a sequence (2Di-pass) that would indicate a weak two in diamonds, then a weak two in diamonds must be a possible included meaning of 2Cl. > Must I teach my > Acol-playing opps how to play Precision in order to practice full > disclosure? If not, where must the line be drawn? Isn't detailing > the responses as part of the explanation wanton creation of UI? > Yes, you must, and yes, it does. I am not saying that this must be done in practice, but the opponents have the right to know. There will always be a delicate balance between what you should tell them unasked, because they may not realize that it is a possibility, and what you shall answer only when asked. Alerting is just one way of telling them there may be something they should ask. > I think full disclosure of your two-way 2C bid would be 'a very > strong hand, but partner has been known to psych the bid with a > weak hand with diamonds'. I can't see that you have an obligation > to go into your responses unless opps ask you to do so. > Well, my previous partner would not be able to give that reply, because he does not know that I changed that part, and I have never performed the psyche with him. What I am saying though is that all the information is already there (almost certain 2Di response) and that makes the psyche inherent in the system, whether done before or not. My LHO has a right to this information, and since there is no way he can get this, it would be highly unethical for me to do this and call it a psyche. Put it this way. I could realize this possibility in advance, and omit to tell my partner just so he can genuinely say this is not our system. Which is why I say it is. > All the above just based on my experiences as a player. I would > be willing to bet a large sum of money that I have never, not > once, had an opponent call the director and complain that my > partner and I practiced less than full disclosure by not > including responses in the explanation of any bid, let alone have > the complaint upheld. > Of course you haven't. Because you are an ethical player. What we are concerned with are less than ethical players. > Brian. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 2 23:54:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g02Cq2b28649 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 23:52:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net [194.7.1.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g02CpfH28616 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 23:51:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-160-231.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.160.231]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g02Chks20422 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 13:43:46 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3C32F293.309@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 12:44:19 +0100 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > This cannot be right. If you play Stayman then you have a certain > advantage in psyching a 1NT opening with long clubs. Law 40 does not > make it illegal to use Stayman. Not does it make it illegal to psyche a > 1NT opener with long clubs. > > Of course, you need sometime, somewhere to have psyched 1NT with long > clubs - or read about it - to have an advantage of the opponents. But > are you saying that it is now illegal for any member of BLML [who has > now read about it] to psyche a 1NT opener with long clubs if they are > playing Stayman? > > Presumably not. In practice, so long as your system is fully > disclosed, everyone has the same ability to realise which bits support > which psyches. In practice some people realise more than others do. > That is known as skill, just as some people realise the advantage of > pre-emption, while others do not. > Very good example David, but there is one big difference with the Benjamin example. Everyone knows Stayman, so not explicitely disclosing that you play Stayman is not an offence. While not everyone plays Benjamin, so not disclosing that partner will answer 2Di almost all the time could be considered an offence. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 2 23:54:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g02CpuA28639 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 23:51:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net [194.7.1.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g02CpaH28599 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 23:51:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-160-231.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.160.231]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g02Chfs20395 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 13:43:41 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3C32EF27.2060306@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 12:29:43 +0100 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. References: <200112311555.KAA28327@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >>From: Herman De Wael >>Well Steve, it might be a consequence of yoour wishing to >>cancel the 2Di bid by L40A. "a bid is illegal if not priorly >>disclosed" seems what you (or at least some) are trying to >>say. L40A does not speak of damage. >>My point is that you cannot use L40A to simply get away with >>unwanted type of bidding, simply because the meanings have >>not been disclosed. Only L40C can be used, and there you >>need damage. >> > > I confess you have lost me. I agree that 40A is irrelevant to the > cases we are discussing, but what about 40B? It forbids certain calls > and plays ("may not make ... unless"). If there is a violation, we go > to 12A1 and then 12C2 (and maybe 12C3 in some jurisdictions). > Well Steve, forget my writing of 40A and read L40B in stead. All case are the same. Whether we are talking of psyches, incomplete CCs, forgotten alerts or plain misunderstandings, or even misbids that we as TD are required to count as misexplanations, all of these fall under L40A,B and C. There is no reason whatsoever to start using L40B on its own in some cases, while using L40C for others. > It occurs to me that I should have asked about case 3: we use Flannery > and bid unopposed to a wonderful contract. Opponents were never going > to intervene, no matter what bidding system we were using. > Unfortunately, we have neglected to mention Flannery on our convention > card. This is a 40B violation, but do we adjust the score? > Of course not - why should there be a difference for a forgotten alert or a forgotten CC ? Mind you, a forgotten CC, even with a timely alert, is an infraction of L40B, on the score that it is not "prior". But we only apply L40C, not scrap the board. > And for completeness, case 4: we use a special asking bid late in the > auction and again reach a wonderful contract. No infraction here, > because the convention card doesn't require such agreements to be > listed. I trust we all agree on this one. (And I think it refutes > Grattan's suggestion of forbidding disclosure.) Indeed - the point you were making - "prior" must be "according to regulations". > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 2 23:55:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g02CrfX28925 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 23:53:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (www.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g02CrTH28921 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 23:53:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id NAA12004; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 13:45:10 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id NAA20600; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 13:45:21 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020102133840.02695a10@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 13:47:31 +0100 To: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_R=E9f._:_Re:_[BLML]_Here's_a_state_of_?= things In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_10891503==_.ALT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --=====================_10891503==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 12:46 2/01/2002 +0100, jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr wrote: >At 20:22 1/01/2002 +0000, David Burn wrote: > >A friend at a New Year's Eve party recounted the following tale of woe. > >Sitting South, she picked up and sorted her cards and, on seeing a green > >Pass card in front of East (the dealer), she contributed a pass of her > >own. All Hell thereupon broke loose, for East had not passed her actual > >hand as dealer, merely left a Pass card on the table when collecting her > >cards from the auction on the preceding board. The director took > >counsel, and ruled that South had (albeit unwittingly) passed out of > >turn, incurring exorbitant penalties and the loss of her immortal soul. > >AG : L21 covers this, as is obvious from its title. We only have to decide >whether the declaration was based on a wrong indication given by East. > > *** am i alone to think the relevant law to be 18F? east made an > inadvertant call according to the way calls are made in his area, his > call was followed by a legal call from south and if east wishes to > retract his call, he will be the OS and will have to live with > constraints of L25A and maybe suffer for his unselfconsciousness. wtp? AG : twould be nice, and even fair, to rule along L18. However, I doubt it may be appliable _stricto sensu_ : an inadvertent call is one you made while you wished to make another one ; here East did *not* make an inadvertent call ; he didn't call at all, but did something that made South think (legitimately, IMHO) he had called. A similar situation is described by Mollo, when the Chimp spoke of the two spades contract from the previous deal, and LHO thought he had bid 2S. The Chimp did chatter, but he didn't call in the bridge sense (there is a similar case in _The Frenzied Four_, IIRC). However, all TDs who are more attached to fairness than to the letter may feel at ease with L18, since the *effects* of East's distraction are the same as those of a slip of the tongue / finger. Only an AC should feel necessary to prove that the laws it applied were the right ones :) Best regards, Alain. >jp rocafort > *** > > Is >it is the case, South encurs no penalty at all. If not, penalize accordingly. >I see two non-barking dogs in the formulation of L21 : >- it is not said that the player's declaration must have been regular ; >- it is not said that the wrong information should be voluntary. >Two examples : >1) before or without BBS, if South asked to East 'did you bid 2H' and East >answered 'I did', and now South bids 2S and is told it is insufficient >because East's bis was 3H, L21B should apply (1st case above) ; >2) most delayed alerts are involuntary, that is, the non-alerter only >momentarily gazed at a flying cow, without intention to harm. L21B applies >explicitly (2nd case above). > >That being said, I see no resaon why the phrasing of L21B1 should not be >applicable to the present case. Allow South to bid normally whatever East >does. > >Best regards, > > Alain. > > >__________________________________________________ >Jean-Pierre Rocafort >METEO-FRANCE >DSI/SC/D >42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis >31057 Toulouse CEDEX >Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) >Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) >e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr > >Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr >___________________________________________________ --=====================_10891503==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" At 12:46 2/01/2002 +0100, jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr wrote:


At 20:22 1/01/2002 +0000, David Burn wrote:
>A friend at a New Year's Eve party recounted the following tale of woe.
>Sitting South, she picked up and sorted her cards and, on seeing a green
>Pass card in front of East (the dealer), she contributed a pass of her
>own. All Hell thereupon broke loose, for East had not passed her actual
>hand as dealer, merely left a Pass card on the table when collecting her
>cards from the auction on the preceding board. The director took
>counsel, and ruled that South had (albeit unwittingly) passed out of
>turn, incurring exorbitant penalties and the loss of her immortal soul.

AG : L21 covers this, as is obvious from its title. We only have to decide
whether the declaration was based on a wrong indication given by East.

 *** am i alone to think the relevant law to be 18F? east made an inadvertant call according to the way calls are made in his area, his call was followed by a legal call from south and if east wishes to retract his call, he will be the OS and will have to live with constraints of L25A and maybe suffer for his unselfconsciousness. wtp?

AG : twould be nice, and even fair, to rule along L18. However, I doubt it may be appliable _stricto sensu_ : an inadvertent call is one you made while you wished to make another one ; here East did *not* make an inadvertent call ; he didn't call at all, but did something that made South think (legitimately, IMHO) he had called. A similar situation is described by Mollo, when the Chimp spoke of the two spades contract from the previous deal, and LHO thought he had bid 2S. The Chimp did chatter, but he didn't call in the bridge sense (there is a similar case in _The Frenzied Four_, IIRC).
However, all TDs who are more attached to fairness than to the letter may feel at ease with L18, since the *effects* of East's distraction are the same as those of a slip of the tongue / finger. Only an AC should feel necessary to prove that the laws it applied were the right ones :)

Best regards,

        Alain.

jp rocafort 
 ***

 Is
it is the case, South encurs no penalty at all. If not, penalize accordingly.
I see two non-barking dogs in the formulation of L21 :
- it is not said that the player's declaration must have been regular ;
- it is not said that the wrong information should be voluntary.
Two examples :
1) before or without BBS, if South asked to East 'did you bid 2H' and East
answered 'I did', and now South bids 2S and is told it is insufficient
because East's bis was 3H, L21B should apply (1st case above) ;
2) most delayed alerts are involuntary, that is, the non-alerter only
momentarily gazed at a flying cow, without intention to harm. L21B applies
explicitly (2nd case above).

That being said, I see no resaon why the phrasing of L21B1 should not be
applicable to the present case. Allow South to bid normally whatever East
does.

Best regards,

        Alain.


__________________________________________________
Jean-Pierre Rocafort
METEO-FRANCE
DSI/SC/D
42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis
31057 Toulouse CEDEX
Tph: 05 61 07 81 02     (33 5 61 07 81 02)
Fax: 05 61 07 81 09     (33 5 61 07 81 09)
e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr

Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr
___________________________________________________
--=====================_10891503==_.ALT-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 3 01:05:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g02E5IU03904 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 01:05:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-1.cais.net (stmpy-1.cais.net [205.252.14.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g02E59H03875 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 01:05:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-1.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g02DvDE51015 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 08:57:14 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20020102085218.00b7b9e0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 08:56:50 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. In-Reply-To: <3C32E8B3.60109@village.uunet.be> References: <20011228111801-r01010800-4533bccb-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <4.3.2.7.1.20011231084328.00bb2a60@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:02 AM 1/2/02, Herman wrote: >I understand your reticence with the power of authority. >I agree with you that it is rather silly of the WBF to first restrict >the power of the ACBL to regulating only conventional bids, and then >to allow them to regulate against 9HCP 1NT by the back door. Perhaps >we need a supreme court, but what would that solve ? > >So in that sense I agree with you. > >However, please don't drag the word "psyche" in there. > >Opening a 9HCP hand 1NT is not a psyche when playing 10-12. >Opening a 9HCP hand 1NT is a psyche when playing 15-17. >Opening a 1HCP hand 1NT is a psyche regardless. > >OK ? The distinctions Herman makes are correct, but irrelevant to the point at issue. IMO, all of them are equally subject to L40A, which covers "any call or play (including... a psychic bid...)... not based on a partnership understanding". 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 3 01:17:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g02EHHZ06350 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 01:17:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g02EH5H06299 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 01:17:06 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g02E9Aq17100 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 14:09:10 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 14:09 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.52.2000, Windows 98 4.10.2222 ( A ) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <000901c19007$0d5aa660$ba50e150@dodona> Grattan wrote: > "Not only do EBU regulations forbid > use of a convention to control a psyche (see 6.1.2), but > in respect of other methods of controlling psyches the > EBU does not allow of prior disclosure of such methods > and, since the laws require prior disclosure before any > such partnership understanding may be employed, However, the laws do not require prior disclosure but disclosure "in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organisation". > these methods may not therefore be used in > tournaments where EBU regulations apply." If the EBU really does forbid disclosure of psyching tendencies and protective mechanisms then such methods can be used as often as desired with no disclosure at all. Perhaps the EBU should concentrate on *how* psychic proclivities can be best disclosed rather than trying to ban psyching by twisting the language beyond all recognition. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 3 01:17:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g02EHLY06355 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 01:17:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g02EH5H06300 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 01:17:06 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g02E9Aj17109 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 14:09:10 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 14:09 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.52.2000, Windows 98 4.10.2222 ( A ) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <001401c1903c$b81c8980$ec56e150@dodona> Grattan wrote: > +=+ This is, of course, exactly the question > in my mind. Does Law 40 actually say that with > prior announcement you shall be allowed to > psyche with a partnership understanding? > For the moment I am not convinced it does; > 40A is clear enough in permitting psyches not > associated with a partnership understanding. Actually L40 uses "based on" rather than "associated with", but although the latter interpretation is wider it seems not unreasonable. In addition L40b uses the word *special* where L40a doesn't (I think it would be better to delete the "special") or we end up with a gap in the laws. But all that is an aside. To address the main point here is L40b reworded to clarify just that: A player *may* make a call or play based on a partnership understanding if; a) an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, or, b) if his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organisation. I cannot see any other construction for the intent of this law that permits partnership agreements of any sort (let alone psyches). Note, yet again, that L40b requires disclosure "in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organisation" and not "prior disclosure". Thus "Calls which, by partnership experience, are psyches more than 5% of the time at that seat and vulnerability should be alerted." would be a perfectly reasonable requirement. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 3 01:46:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g02Ejkl12054 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 01:45:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g02EjaH12021 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 01:45:37 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g02Eber01302 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 14:37:40 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 14:37 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.52.2000, Windows 98 4.10.2222 ( A ) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <66r03u0soq9ek69t3mbak7nrj1sldjin2e@4ax.com> Brain Meadows wrote: > I think full disclosure of your two-way 2C bid would be 'a very > strong hand, but partner has been known to psych the bid with a > weak hand with diamonds'. I can't see that you have an obligation > to go into your responses unless opps ask you to do so. Were I TD I don't think I would find the above "explanation" acceptable. I would insist on 'a very strong hand, or a weak hand with diamonds'. Which might be an illegal convention under your SO. It is the response structure that makes me feel this explanation is more accurate. Just as I can happily accept that the HdW 1H is a pure psyche *because* he doesn't play Drury. I am not trying to find an exact legal defence for my position but it summarises as: If a) there is a particular hand type you like to psyche, and b) your systemic agreements substantially reduce the risk of this psyche and c) the call would not be legal under SO regulations as part of a system then: I don't think the psyche should be permitted. I write this as someone whose "right to psyche" credentials are, I hope, well established in this group. Tim West-Meads -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 3 02:22:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g02FLrZ18471 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 02:21:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g02FLjH18444 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 02:21:45 +1100 (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 KAA08867 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 10:13:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA21413 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 10:13:40 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 10:13:40 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200201021513.KAA21413@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > Well Steve, forget my writing of 40A and read L40B in stead. > All case are the same. Whether we are talking of psyches, > incomplete CCs, forgotten alerts or plain misunderstandings, > or even misbids that we as TD are required to count as > misexplanations, all of these fall under L40A,B and C. I agree with this. > There is no reason whatsoever to start using L40B on its own > in some cases, while using L40C for others. ... > Mind you, a forgotten CC, even with a timely alert, is an > infraction of L40B, on the score that it is not "prior". But > we only apply L40C, not scrap the board. Oh? Why can't we go from 40B to 12A1 to 12C2? Of course we can only do that when 40B is violated; many MI cases will be violations of 40C but not 40B. In that case we go 40C to 12C2. Also, why "scrap the board?" (I know, the EBU do it, but why should the rest of us?) We go to 12C2 (or 12C3 in some cases). I agree that purported psychs are nothing special in this regard. > Of course not - why should there be a difference for a > forgotten alert or a forgotten CC ? The second (forgotten CC) violates 40B; the first does not. Keep in mind, though, that the only reason this matters is to decide on what the adjustment shall be. We are going to adjust the score when either law is violated. The only question is what is the "irregularity." > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Or do the EBU-land authorities define some partnership > agreements as inherently sinful (because the ageements might > tempt you to psyche)? My interpretation -- not necessarily the EBU's -- is that the first thing one must determine in any MI/CPU/psych case is whether the call (or play!) in question was or was not based on a partnership understanding. In order to determine this, one considers all the evidence. (David S. will approve!) Typically the evidence will include 1) extent of partnership experience, especially in the situation in question, 2) partner's further actions ("fielding"), and 3) relevant aspects of system. Take the case of Benjamin 2C, for example. If the partnership agreement is that a 2D response is nearly automatic, a TD is likely to rule that the true partnership agreement is "strong or weak with diamonds." If there is a different response system (perhaps control showing or ace showing, making a 2D response unlikely), a TD is much more likely to rule that the true agreement is "strong." However, in either case, other evidence may change the ruling. In the case of H1H, I think Herman could safely play Drury with a new partner (though not a BLML reader) until the first time the H1H comes up. After that, though, a second H1H plus Drury might be enough to make a ruling go against him. (In this case, "go against him" would mean ruling that there is a partnership understanding; further findings would be needed to adjust the score.) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 3 02:49:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g02FmiN23332 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 02:48:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtpb.ha-net.ptd.net (smtpb.ha-net.ptd.net [207.44.96.82]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g02FmYH23295 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 02:48:35 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 23030 invoked by uid 50005); 2 Jan 2002 15:40:39 -0000 Received: from brian@wellsborocomputing.com by smtpb with qmail-scanner-1.00 (uvscan: v4.1.60/v4178. . Clean. Processed in 0.598299 secs); 02 Jan 2002 15:40:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wellscs) ([24.229.91.170]) (envelope-sender ) by smtpb.ha-net.ptd.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 2 Jan 2002 15:40:39 -0000 From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 10:40:35 -0500 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Wed, 2 Jan 2002 14:37 +0000 (GMT), Tim West-Meads wrote: >In-Reply-To: <66r03u0soq9ek69t3mbak7nrj1sldjin2e@4ax.com> >Brain Meadows wrote: >> I think full disclosure of your two-way 2C bid would be 'a very >> strong hand, but partner has been known to psych the bid with a >> weak hand with diamonds'. I can't see that you have an obligation >> to go into your responses unless opps ask you to do so. > >Were I TD I don't think I would find the above "explanation" acceptable. >I would insist on 'a very strong hand, or a weak hand with diamonds'. >Which might be an illegal convention under your SO. It is the response >structure that makes me feel this explanation is more accurate. > I would question that, Tim. If all weak hands with diamonds are opened 2C, or even a substantial percentage of them, then I would agree with you. If, however, it's an infrequent ploy, such that I am far more likely to pass holding a weak hand with diamonds, then I would suggest that your explanation is more misleading than mine. I think opps are reasonably entitled to draw some negative inferences from the fact that partner did NOT open 2C, namely that partner *probably* does not have the weak diamond hand. >Just as I can happily accept that the HdW 1H is a pure psyche *because* he >doesn't play Drury. I am not trying to find an exact legal defence for my >position but it summarises as: > >If >a) there is a particular hand type you like to psyche, >and >b) your systemic agreements substantially reduce the risk of this psyche >and >c) the call would not be legal under SO regulations as part of a system >then: >I don't think the psyche should be permitted. I write this as someone >whose "right to psyche" credentials are, I hope, well established in this >group. > I think there are a lot of ramifications to that idea. The first example that comes to mind is psyching a 1D opener when playing Precision. If you play that your 1D can be on a singleton diamond (quite common if you use 2D for something other than the classic 3 suiter short diamonds) then your system protects you from your partner raising diamonds without he holds them himself. Given what you say above, do you believe that any psych of a Precision 1D is illegal? Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 3 02:53:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g02Fr2824089 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 02:53:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g02FqqH24058 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 02:52:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) with ESMTP id PAA08552 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 15:45:00 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 15:40:40 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , Tim West-meads writes >In-Reply-To: <66r03u0soq9ek69t3mbak7nrj1sldjin2e@4ax.com> >Brain Meadows wrote: >> I think full disclosure of your two-way 2C bid would be 'a very >> strong hand, but partner has been known to psych the bid with a >> weak hand with diamonds'. I can't see that you have an obligation >> to go into your responses unless opps ask you to do so. > >Were I TD I don't think I would find the above "explanation" acceptable. >I would insist on 'a very strong hand, or a weak hand with diamonds'. >Which might be an illegal convention under your SO. It is the response >structure that makes me feel this explanation is more accurate. > >Just as I can happily accept that the HdW 1H is a pure psyche *because* he >doesn't play Drury. I am not trying to find an exact legal defence for my >position but it summarises as: > >If >a) there is a particular hand type you like to psyche, >and >b) your systemic agreements substantially reduce the risk of this psyche >and >c) the call would not be legal under SO regulations as part of a system >then: >I don't think the psyche should be permitted. I write this as someone >whose "right to psyche" credentials are, I hope, well established in this >group. Psyche? You always bid like that! cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 3 03:06:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g02G5Cx25722 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 03:05:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hafnium.mcis.singnet.com.sg (hafnium.singnet.com.sg [165.21.74.90]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g02G51H25698 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 03:05:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hafnium.mcis.singnet.com.sg with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 23:56:30 +0800 Received: from mx16.singnet.com.sg ([165.21.74.116]) by thorium.mcis.singnet.com.sg with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.687.68); Wed, 2 Jan 2002 22:41:47 +0800 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by mx16.singnet.com.sg (8.11.5/8.11.5) with ESMTP id g02EUsC25916 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 22:30:54 +0800 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g02Ejkl12054 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 01:45:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g02EjaH12021 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 01:45:37 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g02Eber01302 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 14:37:40 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 14:37 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.52.2000, Windows 98 4.10.2222 ( A ) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <66r03u0soq9ek69t3mbak7nrj1sldjin2e@4ax.com> Brain Meadows wrote: > I think full disclosure of your two-way 2C bid would be 'a very > strong hand, but partner has been known to psych the bid with a > weak hand with diamonds'. I can't see that you have an obligation > to go into your responses unless opps ask you to do so. Were I TD I don't think I would find the above "explanation" acceptable. I would insist on 'a very strong hand, or a weak hand with diamonds'. Which might be an illegal convention under your SO. It is the response structure that makes me feel this explanation is more accurate. Just as I can happily accept that the HdW 1H is a pure psyche *because* he doesn't play Drury. I am not trying to find an exact legal defence for my position but it summarises as: If a) there is a particular hand type you like to psyche, and b) your systemic agreements substantially reduce the risk of this psyche and c) the call would not be legal under SO regulations as part of a system then: I don't think the psyche should be permitted. I write this as someone whose "right to psyche" credentials are, I hope, well established in this group. Tim West-Meads -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 3 03:12:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g02GC7S26682 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 03:12:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g02GBkH26648 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 03:11:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16Lnrp-0006Jl-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 16:03:51 +0000 Message-ID: <8+eeeACXjwM8EwMc@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 13:19:19 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Here's a state of things References: <000e01c19302$007a0960$17827ad5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <000e01c19302$007a0960$17827ad5@pbncomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn writes >A friend at a New Year's Eve party recounted the following tale of woe. >Sitting South, she picked up and sorted her cards and, on seeing a green >Pass card in front of East (the dealer), she contributed a pass of her >own. All Hell thereupon broke loose, for East had not passed her actual >hand as dealer, merely left a Pass card on the table when collecting her >cards from the auction on the preceding board. The director took >counsel, and ruled that South had (albeit unwittingly) passed out of >turn, incurring exorbitant penalties and the loss of her immortal soul. > >As it happened, East-West could make 7NT and neither North nor South >would have intended to enter the auction at any point, for to do so >would have courted the penalty for at least six down doubled, vulnerable >against not, in any one-level contract. But I wondered - do the Laws >cover this eventuality, and if so, how? Was the director right to rule >as he did, and if not, what should he have done instead? First of all, did East pass? No, because a call is made when it is removed from the bidding box, and on this occasion East did not take the call from the box. Thus South's pass is out of turn, and subject to penalty. As I understand it, on the actual occasion this fortunately made no difference. Of course, L72A3 and L81C8 mean that if East or West request, the Director may waive the penalty for South, and presumably would do so. Suppose the penalties were not waived, and made a difference. What then? Has East done anything wrong? Yes, he has not replaced his bidding cards in the box as the regs suggest. There is no penalty for this, so L12A1 applies, and we can adjust the score to make sure that East doe snot gain from his infraction. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 3 03:12:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g02GCCX26690 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 03:12:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g02GBoH26658 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 03:11:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16Lnrq-000Gtn-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 16:03:55 +0000 Message-ID: <1eIc21BNXwM8EwPu@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 13:06:21 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] The English answer [was A question of the English.] References: <20011228111801-r01010800-4533bccb-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <4.3.2.7.1.20011231084328.00bb2a60@127.0.0.1> <004701c192b3$bbc90800$150fe150@dodona> <000701c19334$b466c120$5c82403e@dodona> In-Reply-To: <000701c19334$b466c120$5c82403e@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott writes >From: "Brian Meadows" >> Grattan, not for a moment do I question that you believe what you >> said above, but at grass roots level in the UK, it simply is not >> correct, or at least was not correct in some of the counties >> during the periods I have mentioned. Maybe things have changed >> for the better in almost five years. My experience of the EBU was >> that whether you got opportunities to play a restricted licence >> system or not was a total lottery, depending on the county in >> which you lived. >+=+ Much has changed and all is yet the same. Fivel levels of >competition are authorised. Levels 1 and 5 are extremes and >not relevant to the question. Level 4 largely provides the >opportunity you would seek, but in the counties competitions >are Level 2 or 3; 4 only here and there - the EBU provides >some Level 4 opportunities, but not all that many. One of the >Davids could be more precise, but I regard level 3 as >approximately 'General' and Level 4 approximately 'Restricted' >as they were. > My belief is that where there is a demand there are clubs >that will provide the facility; I think where this does not happen >(and they are few) the demand is less than you suggest. The >bridge population when analysed exhibits meagre proportions >of those who demand opportunities to play more complex >conventions; if there were enough of them they would get >together and organize, or some entrepreneur would set up a >club with that in view. At the grass roots that is bridge. At County level I believe Brian to be 100% right, and I have fought behind the scenes for some time for a more equitable arrangement. Sensible counties like Manchester and Merseyside, and many others, provide Level 4 and Level 3 events, but Gloucestershire, Yorkshire, Lancashire and Warwickshire do not, despite a groundswell of opinion that they should. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 3 03:12:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g02GC4w26677 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 03:12:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g02GBgH26633 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 03:11:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16Lnrh-0006Jm-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 16:03:48 +0000 Message-ID: <0OScSrBkRwM8EwOc@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 13:00:20 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. References: <000601c19334$b3203760$5c82403e@dodona> In-Reply-To: <000601c19334$b3203760$5c82403e@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott writes >From: "David Stevenson" >> Brian Meadows writes >> >I open 1H in 3rd hand, and pass partner's Drury 2C. Now everyone >> >at the table knows that my 1H was psychic, partner has no more >> >knowledge of the fact than opps do. The EBU outlaws the use of >> >Drury in this fashion (after a psychic opener), and that's the >> >question I was addressing, not the question of whether your >> >psyche comes as less of a surprise to partner than it does to >> >opps. >> >> The EBU outlaws this? >> >+=+ Perhaps, David, you would expand a little. It could be >thought that if a pair were detected as having done this a >few times the question would arise whether they were using >a convention to control a psyche. > And could we look also at a parallel situation where a >passed player uses a delayed raise, as a matter of >partnership agreement, to distinguish a raise based on >HCP. The trouble with this, Grattan, is that you are talking about a completely different thing from Brian. He is referring to a rule that I do not remember ever applying specifically for not psyching with Drury. You are talking about a general condition which applies under Law generally and has nothing to do with Drury. There is certainly no rule that says you may use Drury if you do not psyche it, and I do not remember such a rule. My memory for long distant regs is poor, certainly, but I cannot believe such a rule has existed in the last twelve years, and my arguments are not based on what happened before that. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 3 03:12:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g02GC2A26672 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 03:12:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g02GBfH26628 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 03:11:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16Lnrh-0006Jl-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 16:03:45 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 12:52:34 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven.Pran@alcatel.no writes > >First of all David, a happy new year to you! ... and to you. > >>Sven.Pran@alcatel.no writes > >> Sven, is it possible to show quoted differently from your text? > >Now, I would be glad to, but I have a problem here: >I haven't found out how to include BLML on my news client so I >am using my regular mail client for adding posts. And in this >client the only workable procedure I have figured out is to >create a new mail and copy over those parts that I wish to >comment, but in this process I have to add all the indicators >on quoted parts manually myself - that is why I ended up like >I have done in the past. > >I should be very grateful for any advice on how to process these >posts in my news client, which in fact is Outlook Express, or >otherwise end up with more readable postings. While I do not like Outlook Express because in many ways it ignores the industry standards despite saying the reverse, it is perfectly adequate for BLML, and some others here definitely use it. Why not just use the Reply-To button? That should work. If it gets the wrong eddress you could always change the eddress to If *nothing* else works, then you could at the very least enclose quoted text in lines such as +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ but I would have expected OE to work. [s] >> This cannot be right. If you play Stayman then you have a certain >>advantage in psyching a 1NT opening with long clubs. Law 40 does not >>make it illegal to use Stayman. Not does it make it illegal to psyche a >>1NT opener with long clubs. >No, but the moment the advantage of "using" Stayman this way leads to >a partnership adapting 1NT opening "psyches" on such hands with some >predictable probability, this understanding of the 1NT opening IMHO >becomes part of that "partnership understanding" which requires >declaration. A "correct" declaration of the 1NT opening bid would then >become something like: 15-17HP, but also sometimes used on weak hands >with long clubs intending to pass the anticipated 2C Stayman bid. Now, I agree with this, and this is where I think the confusion comes from. If when a player psyches he tends to do a particular type of psyche then after a certain number of occasions it becomes part of his system, which must be disclosed or is illegal [and may be illegal anyway under the SO's regs]. Fine. Where is the problem? The problem is that the worries expressed in the last few posts have not been about this, the normal worry about psyching. They have been concerned with bits of system which make it safer to use one psyche rather than another. Now, if I play with you for the first time, and I open a Spanish green 1NT, there is no reason to assume that I have opened it with a club suit rather than a spade suit because the former is somewhat safer. I do not care about this alleged slight increase in safety. However, if we play a few times, and you notice that all my psyches are in what you might call "safe" positions then you have knowledge that needs to be disclosed. But there is nothing special about this knowledge: it is just the same as if you had noticed that I only ever psyche in spades, or my only psyches are pre-empts. The fact that a bit of system might make it safer to psyche does not make playing that bit of system illegal. In the case of Stayman over 1NT, 95+% of people play it: probably less than 20% ever psyche it, and probably as few as 1% psyche it especially with clubs because of the safety. Those 1% need to disclose it, sure, if it is frequent enough to be part of the partnership's methods. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 3 03:12:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g02GC5f26678 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 03:12:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g02GBhH26634 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 03:11:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16Lnrh-000Gsu-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 16:03:47 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 12:54:53 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > >>> Brian Meadows writes >>> >>> >I open 1H in 3rd hand, and pass partner's Drury 2C. Now everyone >>> >at the table knows that my 1H was psychic, partner has no more >>> >knowledge of the fact than opps do. The EBU outlaws the use of >>> >Drury in this fashion (after a psychic opener), and that's the >>> >question I was addressing, not the question of whether your >>> >psyche comes as less of a surprise to partner than it does to >>> >opps. >>> >>> The EBU outlaws this? >>> >>+=+ Perhaps, David, you would expand a little. It could be >>thought that if a pair were detected as having done this a >>few times the question would arise whether they were using >>a convention to control a psyche. >> And could we look also at a parallel situation where a >>passed player uses a delayed raise, as a matter of >>partnership agreement, to distinguish a raise based on >>HCP. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >In EBU-land, can a partnership agreement be legal where >partner never psyches, but illegal where partner has >previously psyched? > >Or do the EBU-land authorities define some partnership >agreements as inherently sinful (because the ageements might >tempt you to psyche)? If so, where do the EBU-land >authorities draw the line between sinful and virtuous >partnership agreements? Can I ask where all these EBU rules are coming from that I have never heard of and do not apply? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 3 04:20:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g02HJwT08914 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 04:19:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g02HJoH08898 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 04:19:50 +1100 (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 MAA16529 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 12:11:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA21537 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 12:11:46 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 12:11:46 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200201021711.MAA21537@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Here's a state of things X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > Has East done anything wrong? Yes, he has not replaced his > bidding cards in the box as the regs suggest. There is no penalty for > this, so L12A1 applies, and we can adjust the score to make sure that > East doe snot gain from his infraction. Presumably the TD would explain this to East before asking whether he would like to waive the penalty. :-) (Personally, I'm happy to use 21B1, but the result should be the same. What would we have done if East had said to South, incorrectly, "It's your turn to call?") -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 3 04:44:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g02HiB111724 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 04:44:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g02Hi1H11706 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 04:44:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) with ESMTP id RAA08747 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 17:36:11 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 17:31:47 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] The English answer [was A question of the English.] References: <20011228111801-r01010800-4533bccb-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <4.3.2.7.1.20011231084328.00bb2a60@127.0.0.1> <004701c192b3$bbc90800$150fe150@dodona> <000701c19334$b466c120$5c82403e@dodona> <1eIc21BNXwM8EwPu@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <1eIc21BNXwM8EwPu@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <1eIc21BNXwM8EwPu@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes >Grattan Endicott writes >>From: "Brian Meadows" > >>> Grattan, not for a moment do I question that you believe what you >>> said above, but at grass roots level in the UK, it simply is not >>> correct, or at least was not correct in some of the counties >>> during the periods I have mentioned. Maybe things have changed >>> for the better in almost five years. My experience of the EBU was >>> that whether you got opportunities to play a restricted licence >>> system or not was a total lottery, depending on the county in >>> which you lived. > >>+=+ Much has changed and all is yet the same. Fivel levels of >>competition are authorised. Levels 1 and 5 are extremes and >>not relevant to the question. Level 4 largely provides the >>opportunity you would seek, but in the counties competitions >>are Level 2 or 3; 4 only here and there - the EBU provides >>some Level 4 opportunities, but not all that many. One of the >>Davids could be more precise, but I regard level 3 as >>approximately 'General' and Level 4 approximately 'Restricted' >>as they were. >> My belief is that where there is a demand there are clubs >>that will provide the facility; I think where this does not happen >>(and they are few) the demand is less than you suggest. The >>bridge population when analysed exhibits meagre proportions >>of those who demand opportunities to play more complex >>conventions; if there were enough of them they would get >>together and organize, or some entrepreneur would set up a >>club with that in view. At the grass roots that is bridge. > > At County level I believe Brian to be 100% right, and I have fought >behind the scenes for some time for a more equitable arrangement. >Sensible counties like Manchester and Merseyside, and many others, >provide Level 4 and Level 3 events, but Gloucestershire, Yorkshire, >Lancashire and Warwickshire do not, despite a groundswell of opinion >that they should. > We had a ridiculous one-day event in London recently which was Level 3, (only 7-board matches). 80% of the players who were there play in clubs where level 4 is the norm. (YC, Acol, Woodberry, Finchley, Ace) cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 3 05:17:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g02IGjM16642 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 05:16:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g02IGXH16616 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 05:16:33 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g02I8cj02082 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 18:08:38 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 18:08 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.52.2000, Windows 98 4.10.2222 ( A ) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: > >Were I TD I don't think I would find the above "explanation" > acceptable. > >I would insist on 'a very strong hand, or a weak hand with diamonds'. > >Which might be an illegal convention under your SO. It is the > response >structure that makes me feel this explanation is more > accurate. > > > > I would question that, Tim. If all weak hands with diamonds are > opened 2C, or even a substantial percentage of them, then I would > agree with you. If, however, it's an infrequent ploy, such that I > am far more likely to pass holding a weak hand with diamonds, > then I would suggest that your explanation is more misleading > than mine. I think opps are reasonably entitled to draw some > negative inferences from the fact that partner did NOT open 2C, > namely that partner *probably* does not have the weak diamond > hand. Fair enough, I'm sure we can agree better wording. My intention was that if criteria a and b were met it should not be described as a psyche. > > > >If > >a) there is a particular hand type you like to psyche, > >and > >b) your systemic agreements substantially reduce the risk of this > psyche > >and > >c) the call would not be legal under SO regulations as part of a system > >then: > >I don't think the psyche should be permitted. I write this as someone > >whose "right to psyche" credentials are, I hope, well established in > this >group. > > > > I think there are a lot of ramifications to that idea. The first > example that comes to mind is psyching a 1D opener when playing > Precision. If you play that your 1D can be on a singleton diamond > (quite common if you use 2D for something other than the classic > 3 suiter short diamonds) then your system protects you from your > partner raising diamonds without he holds them himself. Given > what you say above, do you believe that any psych of a Precision > 1D is illegal? Obviously any of this can only apply if you have reason to believe that partner has also considered the ramifications of playing precision (so my comments apply only to 40b cases not those where one has 40a "freedom"). I'm not overly familiar with precision but if; you like to psyche weak hands with both majors 1D (condition a met) partner will almost always respond 1H/1S to a 1D opener (condition b met) your SO does not permit a 1D opener on hands weak in both majors in addition to other precision options (condition c met) then the 1D psyche should, IMO, be illegal (nb IMO the SO shouldn't generally restrict the 1D opener so it wouldn't be an issue). The obvious exception would be if you were playing a pair that also played precision, because in that case they could reasonably be expected to anticipate the meaning. It's the same as if your opposition play (or are known to be familiar with) transfers when, IMO, you can open 1NT on a weak hand with long hearts and short spades which I wouldn't consider acceptable against people who don't understand transfers. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 3 05:17:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g02IGkH16647 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 05:16:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g02IGYH16619 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 05:16:34 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g02I8ck02090 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 18:08:38 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 18:08 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.52.2000, Windows 98 4.10.2222 ( A ) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: Probst wrote: > Psyche? You always bid like that! It's a fair cop, guvnor. But we do warn the oppos:-) At the Year End I played with my wife (standard Acol cc) except that for weak 3s it said "5+ cards/usu. 4-10 points, Emily's pre-empts tend to be better." This caused two opponents to spontaneously burst into laughter and several smiles, as did Emily's reply when asked about the "approx" next to our 12-14 NT which once went something like "Sometimes it really is balanced 12-14, but I don't think he really likes those ones...". One problem that is starting to surface is that both Emily and John are becoming more familiar with my general bidding style/approach and there is no standard place on the CC to disclose this. Indeed I was asked "are you allowed to put things like that on your CC?" - my reply was that I thought I was obliged to say something or how else would my opponents know. We played against one pair (who finished in the top 10) allegedly playing 12-14 NT who twice opened 11 counts in eight hands (I would have opened them too). The partner then bid to marginal games which made so no question of fielding or damage from lack of disclosure but I think these stylistic things would generally benefit from clearer guidelines on disclosure. Tim West-Meads -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 3 05:45:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g02Ij9a22126 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 05:45:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com [212.74.112.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g02Ij0H22093 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 05:45:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.20.81] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 16LqG8-0003tj-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 02 Jan 2002 18:37:04 +0000 Message-ID: <004701c193bc$bb1477a0$5114e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 18:31:41 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott> > >+=+ Perhaps, David, you would expand a little. It could be > >thought that if a pair were detected as having done this a > >few times the question would arise whether they were using > >a convention to control a psyche. > > And could we look also at a parallel situation where a > >passed player uses a delayed raise, as a matter of > >partnership agreement, to distinguish a raise based on > >HCP. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Richard Hills: > In EBU-land, can a partnership agreement be legal where > partner never psyches, but illegal where partner has > previously psyched? > +=+ I think the question is whether the psyche is legal and the evidence for a partnership understanding is the history, if there is one. +=+ > > Or do the EBU-land authorities define some partnership > agreements as inherently sinful (because the agreements > might tempt you to psyche)? If so, where do the EBU-land > authorities draw the line between sinful and virtuous > partnership agreements? > +=+ The L&E minutes reveal an intention to monitor agreements that may be suspected of shielding psychers from damage arising from their psyches. It sounds as though DWS suggests they are looking for burglars under beds. I recall that the late and very experienced Harold Franklin believed players with four card support for opener's major were suspect if their methods did not require an immediate raise by a passed hand, the delayed raise being such a case. (Are there partnerships, for example, that regularly, invariably, or frequently respond to an opener with a change of suit when holding four card major support in a passed hand? Are the openers at times psychic? What is the incidence?) It would seem an enquiry has been launched to learn whether there is evidence, not that certain agreements are inherently sinful but that some inherently sinful players find a virtue in certain agreements. I think the committee is right to address the possibility, although one hopes little evidence will be found. We do not have a serious problem over psyches if the reports we see are fairly representative, but a tiny minority of abusers could perhaps require attention. It interests me that the EBU L&E has generated the question. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 3 05:50:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g02IoEq23148 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 05:50:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tvrelay.mail.uk.easynet.net (tvrelay.mail.uk.easynet.net [194.6.96.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g02Io5H23119 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 05:50:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-14-96.easynet.co.uk [212.134.24.96]) by tvrelay.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id F3EDF66CDF for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 18:41:57 +0000 (GMT) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Christmas spirit & L17D Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 18:39:16 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Roger Pewick writes: >One thing that puzzles me is why should the board be cancelled merely >because LHO subsequently called? I think this is a misreading of L17D. The board is only cancelled if both (a) the LHO has called *and* (b) offender's substituted call differs from his original call. If LHO has not yet called, then it clearly does not matter whether offender's substituted call differs from his original call. If LHO has called but offender's substituted call repeats his original call then LHO repeats his previous call and the auction continues. Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 3 06:29:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g02JRmb00526 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 06:27:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g02JRdH00490 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 06:27:39 +1100 (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 OAA22123 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 14:19:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA21633 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 14:19:33 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 14:19:33 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200201021919.OAA21633@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) > The obvious exception would be if you were playing a pair that also played > precision, because in that case they could reasonably be expected to > anticipate the meaning. While I agree with most of what Tim has written, I think he has gotten confused here. If the opponents play Precision, there would normally be no _disclosure_ (L40B) problem for an alleged psychic but really systemic 1D bid. There might still be a problem if the particular 1D bid is not a convention the SO allows. Illegal conventions are still illegal, even if disclosed. > It's the same as if your opposition play (or are known to be familiar > with) transfers when, IMO, you can open 1NT on a weak hand with long > hearts and short spades which I wouldn't consider acceptable against > people who don't understand transfers. Again if the 1NT is an illegal convention, opponents' familiarity doesn't matter. I think the issues raised above are at the very heart of the problems of bidding regulation: what must be disclosed, and what may be regulated? In particular, are there any understandings that must be disclosed but may not be regulated? (Consider, for example, that one partner may like to upgrade hands with aces while the other may not. Or one is an overbidder, and the other isn't. Can these possibly be a matter for regulation? Yet disclosure seems entirely proper.) I do not think I have ever seen fully satisfactory answers. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 3 06:38:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g02Jc7J02114 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 06:38:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g02JbxH02085 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 06:37:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g02JU4Q09265 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 11:30:04 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <009e01c193c3$b6470ce0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200112181851.NAA19138@cfa183.harvard.edu> <001901c1882c$a5ed1080$6c16e150@dodona> <00a101c18861$b1d33a20$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <000d01c18928$7f7bc700$2f32e150@dodona> <004c01c18cab$4374aa20$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <005301c18d2b$4837a140$4906e150@dodona> <001301c18da6$fc3f9f00$4e4ae150@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 11:28:45 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Grattan Endicott" . I have had the same > problem on occasion; just now I am reading Marvin and > wondering whether it is even worth pointing out to him that > the WBFLC is subservient to the WBF Executive Council > and its directions. But of course, the reason not to let a > Marvin misconception go unchallenged has nothing to do > with helping Marvin to understand and everything to do > with the area of readership that is seeking to absorb what > we say here, for whom it is important to distinguish our > opinions from the wisdom (?) of our corporate masters by > which our actions are governed. What misconception was that, please? I understand more than you think I do, but perhaps I have not communicated well. If I have said something that isn't true, please quote it so I can know what you are talking about. Marv Marvin L. French, San Diego, California (At Reno Regional 12/25 -1/1) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 3 07:29:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g02KSg211339 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 07:28:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g02KSYH11314 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 07:28:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g02KKdQ24235 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 12:20:39 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <00d001c193ca$b98284a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200111302001.MAA21315@mailhub.irvine.com> <00ab01c17a0c$0deb3880$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <5IB$jbD7wGI8EwvC@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <004e01c18bef$be049320$066f7ad5@pbncomputer> <004b01c18c66$da081480$2c0c7ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Considered to have been based on the tempo Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 12:11:56 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Adam Wildavsky" > > In the '60s Edgar Kaplan led a revolution in the philosophy of the > Laws. Before then adjusting a score in a UI case was tantamount to > accusing a player of acting unethically. As a result scores were > seldom adjusted, and by all accounts the standard of ethics in the > game was much lower. > Not here in the Western Division of the ACBL. Danny Kleinman said (in a letter to *The Bridge World*, as I remember) that when he moved to Los Angeles from New York in those days, "it was like a breath of fresh air." The "Old Black Magic" (OBM), as Kaplan called it (making use of hesitations and intonations) seemed to be absent. Why this was so I'm not sure, but I give a lot of credit to Lew Mathe, who was the ethics policeman in California. While he was over-zealous at times, making some unwarranted accusations, the result was that everyone was afraid of getting on his list of "wired" pairs, or having their bidding characterized as the "Intonation System." Bill Chapman and I once reached a difficult cold-top 7D contract (with 4-4 diamonds) at Bridge Week, and Lew later sought me out to ask how we got there. At the time I felt complimented to have the great Lew Mathe seeking bidding instruction from me, but later realized he just wanted to find out whether our auction was based solely on the hands we held. Evidently satisfied that it was, he merely said, "Good bidding." Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 3 08:19:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g02LJKM18443 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 08:19:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g02LJDH18439 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 08:19:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g02LBIQ12606 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 13:11:18 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <010001c193d1$be13c860$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "bridge-laws" References: <200112281849.NAA22708@cfa183.harvard.edu> <000801c19007$0baf6760$ba50e150@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 13:04:59 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Grattan Endicott" > From: "Steve Willner" > > > > > I wish we could find a way to persuade Grattan > > > > that "beforehand" should really be "in accordance > > > > with the SO regulations." > > > > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > > +=+ That is not how I understand the words > > > "without prior announcement" in Law 40A. > > > > This is another example of how our readings of L40 are > > so different. It looks to me as though L40A deals with > > calls that are not based on partnership understanding > > in any way whatsoever. I trust we agree that such calls > > are legal provided the qualification is met (and > > provided no convention regulations are violated). > > > > Where we differ is that I don't understand how L40A > > has any application where the call (or play!) in question > > has some element of partnership understanding > > involved. > > > +=+ OK, Steve. You would neither ask nor expect me, > having set my position, to enter into a long debate on it. > Our problem is not the laws, it is the language. I speak > what I believe to be English; you also speak what you > believe to be English; but we do not share a common > understanding of the meaning of the words we speak > and read. The resolution of the problem will lie in an > escape from Kaplanesque linguistic sophistication in > the future. And a reversion to Endicottish linquistic sophistication? :)) In the matter of L40A and L40B's relationship, Steve seems to have a very clear understanding. There is nothing obfuscatory in the text of the two paragraphs. L40A says you can do some specific things without prior announcement if no partnership agreement is involved. L40B says you can't do anything based on a (non-usual) special partnership agreement unless it is disclosed in accordance with the SO's regulations. To say that the SO's regulations must therefore include a requirement for prior announcment of all special partnership agreements is a doubtful sylogism. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 3 09:21:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g02MKZ824251 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 09:20:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g02MKRH24225 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 09:20:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g02MCWQ06388 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 14:12:32 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <016001c193da$2c7986c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200201021919.OAA21633@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 14:04:40 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Steve Willner" > > I think the issues raised above are at the very heart of the problems > of bidding regulation: what must be disclosed, and what may be > regulated? In particular, are there any understandings that must be > disclosed but may not be regulated? (Consider, for example, that one > partner may like to upgrade hands with aces while the other may not. > Or one is an overbidder, and the other isn't. Can these possibly be a > matter for regulation? Yet disclosure seems entirely proper.) These are good examples of "style" and "judgment," which may not be restricted (L40E1). I infer from L40E that disclosure of such things is not required, but that may be biased thinking on my part. In 55 years of bridge: social, money, and duplicate, I have never come across anyone who disclosed, or expected disclosure, of judgmental or stylistic tendencies. Except Danny Kleinman, perhaps. One of the skills in bridge is the ability to judge whether an opponent is the type to be flexible about hand evaluation, or is likely to be an aggressive or conservative bidder, or is likely/unlikely to falsecard in a given situation, etc., etc. I don't expect to be furnished with that information. > > I do not think I have ever seen fully satisfactory answers. The degree of disclosure that is required by Laws and regulations is indeed ill-defined. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 3 09:54:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g02MqDV00742 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 09:52:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g02Mq4H00713 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 09:52:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from laval (PPP3.UQuebec.CA [192.77.50.3]) by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA29098; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 17:39:23 -0500 (EST) From: "Laval Dubreuil" To: , Subject: RE: [BLML] A question of the English. Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 17:42:05 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Jon Brissman writes >Please give an example or two of psyches that are made less risky due to >underlying partnership agreements. ________________________________________________________________________ A classic one "suggested" by some authors: 2S (weak) - P - 3H (forcing) having no Hs but a S fit. Next bid will be in S and they will loose their H fit. Not very risky..... Laval Du Breuil Quebec City Happy New Year to all >From Laval, Claire and Picatou (my cat). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 3 10:01:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g02N0Hd02407 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 10:00:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat40.alcanet.no [193.213.239.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g02N07H02376 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 10:00:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from netos70.alcatel.no (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with ESMTP id g02Mq4V29017; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 23:52:05 +0100 Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. To: Ed Reppert Cc: Bridge Laws , Sven.Pran@alcatel.no X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 23:52:02 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NOMAIL01/NO/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 01/02/2002 23:52:04 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: >On 1/1/02 at 5:58 PM, Sven.Pran@alcatel.no wrote: >> My position is that the moment you can to a certain degree of probability >> depend on partners response in 2C (Drury) which you intend to pass, so that >> this becomes part of the "partnership understanding" then the system >> "understanding". And as the resulting declaration neccessarily must be that >> the bids can occationally be made on hands with less strength than a King >> belov average, and even being void in the named suit, it is that use of the >> opening bid that should be banned (L40D), not the use of Drury as such. >This does not make sense to me. >Say I agree to play Drury with my regular partner. We play it that way for some >time, and I never psyche the third seat opening. One day, it occurs to me, >sitting in 3rd seat with long clubs and short majors, that if I open 1S, I can >pass partner's 2C. There is in no sense I can perceive any "partnership >understanding" that I might do this. IMHO this is perfectly valid and permissible - I have no problem with that. (Partner will be "caught by surprise" as much as anybody else around the table) But once this opportunity of a "safe" psyche has occurred to you both, and you feel prepared to use it without being so much surprised, then it becomes part of your experience - i.e. "partnership understanding" with all the consequences from that. I once read on Poker that a good bluff could be tried once, but then that player should not attempt another one for at least half a year. I think the same rule could be used on how to avoid "partnership experience and understanding". >The argument has been made, I believe, that it would be unethical to open 1S in >this case,because *I* know that it is (probably) safe to do so. It may not be - >use of Drury requires at least invitational values, as I understand it, and >partner may not have those. If he bids something *other* than 2C, then what do I >do? I suppose I might pass that, as well, but then I don't see how that's using >a convention to "field" (or set up a situation where will be fielded) a psyche >(assuming the other possible responses are natural). I cannot follow this argument. The fact that you expect the psyche to be fairly safe doen't make it unethical unless your expectation is based on your experience etc. with your partner. Again: partner must become as surprised as opponents. >There seems to be a notion that when one psyches, two things are needed: equal >knowledge of opponents to partner of the possibility, *and* lack of tools to >reduce the possibility of self damage from psyching. As far as I can see, the >law only supports the former. And I agree 100% to that. >Note that I'm not concerned here with the advisability of psyching on such a >hand, but only with the legal ramifications. So am I. Regards, Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 3 10:11:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g02NBJT04556 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 10:11:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat40.alcanet.no [193.213.239.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g02NB9H04523 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 10:11:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from netos70.alcatel.no (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with ESMTP id g02N33E29568; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 00:03:03 +0100 Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. To: Ed Reppert Cc: Bridge Laws X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 00:03:01 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NOMAIL01/NO/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 01/03/2002 00:03:02 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: >On 1/1/02 at 5:58 PM, Sven.Pran@alcatel.no wrote: >> My position is that the moment you can to a certain degree of probability >> depend on partners response in 2C (Drury) which you intend to pass, so that >> this becomes part of the "partnership understanding" then the system >> declaration of the 1S and 1H opening bids in third hand should include this >> "understanding". And as the resulting declaration neccessarily must be that >> the bids can occationally be made on hands with less strength than a King >> belov average, and even being void in the named suit, it is that use of the >> opening bid that should be banned (L40D), not the use of Drury as such. >This does not make sense to me. >Say I agree to play Drury with my regular partner. We play it that way for some >time, and I never psyche the third seat opening. One day, it occurs to me, >sitting in 3rd seat with long clubs and short majors, that if I open 1S, I can >pass partner's 2C. There is in no sense I can perceive any "partnership >understanding" that I might do this. In my opinion this is correct and perfectly valid under Law40A. But you shouldn't try that many times before experience with your partner leads to a partnership understanding, to the effect that this is a most useful opening. Then it is no longer a psyche, but an (implied) agreement that needs prior declaration. And in fact because it is a one-level opening bid it will most likely be in conflict with Law40D and regulations based thereupon. >The argument has been made, I believe, that it would be unethical to open 1S in >this case,because *I* know that it is (probably) safe to do so. It may not be - >use of Drury requires at least invitational values, as I understand it, and >partner may not have those. If he bids something *other* than 2C, then what do I >do? I suppose I might pass that, as well, but then I don't see how that's using >a convention to "field" (or set up a situation where will be fielded) a psyche >(assuming the other possible responses are natural). I cannot follow this argument. The fact that you expect a psyche to be fairly safe in the particular situation cannot in any way make it illegal or unethical. What will make it illegal is when the "safety" comes from some kind of partnership understanding. Let me repeat: Partner must become as surprised as anybody else around the table. >There seems to be a notion that when one psyches, two things are needed: equal >knowledge of opponents to partner of the possibility, *and* lack of tools to >reduce the possibility of self damage from psyching. As far as I can see, the >law only supports the former. To which I agree 100% >Note that I'm not concerned here with the advisability of psyching on such a >hand, but only with the legal ramifications. And so am I. regards Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 3 10:23:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g02NNWf06930 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 10:23:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat40.alcanet.no [193.213.239.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g02NNMH06894 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 10:23:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from netos70.alcatel.no (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with ESMTP id g02NFM330118; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 00:15:22 +0100 Subject: Re: [BLML] Here's a state of things To: "David Burn" Cc: "Bridge Laws" X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 00:15:21 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NOMAIL01/NO/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 01/03/2002 00:15:21 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >A friend at a New Year's Eve party recounted the following tale of woe. >Sitting South, she picked up and sorted her cards and, on seeing a green >Pass card in front of East (the dealer), she contributed a pass of her >own. All Hell thereupon broke loose, for East had not passed her actual >hand as dealer, merely left a Pass card on the table when collecting her >cards from the auction on the preceding board. The director took >counsel, and ruled that South had (albeit unwittingly) passed out of >turn, incurring exorbitant penalties and the loss of her immortal soul. >As it happened, East-West could make 7NT and neither North nor South >would have intended to enter the auction at any point, for to do so >would have courted the penalty for at least six down doubled, vulnerable >against not, in any one-level contract. But I wondered - do the Laws >cover this eventuality, and if so, how? Was the director right to rule >as he did, and if not, what should he have done instead? There has been a ruling, I believe by WBF, that East (in this case) is responsible for the pass card in front of him. The correct ruling should have been: East and South have both passed (in turn), the auction continues with West in turn to call (and he must not take into account the UI he has received from East by the Hell breaking loose). regards Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 3 10:34:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g02NYex08945 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 10:34:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat40.alcanet.no [193.213.239.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g02NYVH08923 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 10:34:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from netos70.alcatel.no (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with ESMTP id g02NPxu30499; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 00:25:59 +0100 Subject: RE: [BLML] Christmas spirit & L17D To: "Brambledown" Cc: "BLML" X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 00:25:58 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NOMAIL01/NO/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 01/03/2002 00:25:58 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Chas Fellows wrote: >Sven.Pran@alcatel writes: >> The applicable law is Law 1 !!! >> I quote from the "Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge 1987" >> by Endicott and Hansen: >> No result is ever to be considered valid if the pack does not conform to >> the specifications of this Law. >This is completely irrelevant - the pack *did* conform. It is just that >part of it remained in the board rather than being removed into South's >hand. Fortunately, L17D tells us how to deal with this. >> If the error had been detected during the auction and South had found her >> correct cards then TD might apply Law 13B and/or Law 15C as guidelines to >> his ruling in an attempt to obtain a "normal" score on the board. >Why on earth should the TD attempt to apply L13B or L15C which are designed >for different situations when he has L17D specifically written for the >situation that has arisen? >Chas Fellows (Brambledown) Well, it is a matter of discussion whether the pack did conform at the time the trouble arose, but I agree with you, and sorry I overlooked L17D in the first place. regards Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 3 12:42:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g031g5c02004 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 12:42:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-d05.mx.aol.com (imo-d05.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g031fvH01974 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 12:41:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-d05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.9.) id t.68.1933adf8 (4529); Wed, 2 Jan 2002 20:33:50 -0500 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: <68.1933adf8.29650efe@aol.com> Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 20:33:50 EST Subject: Re: [BLML] Here's a state of things To: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no, dburn@btinternet.com CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_68.1933adf8.29650efe_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_68.1933adf8.29650efe_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/2/02 6:17:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, Sven.Pran@alcatel.no writes: > There has been a ruling, I believe by WBF, that East (in this case) is > responsible for the pass card in front of him. The correct ruling should > have been: East and South have both passed (in turn), the auction > continues with West in turn to call (and he must not take into account > the UI he has received from East by the Hell breaking loose). > > regards Sven > > Wrong. Kojak --part1_68.1933adf8.29650efe_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/2/02 6:17:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, Sven.Pran@alcatel.no writes:


There has been a ruling, I believe by WBF, that East (in this case) is
responsible for the pass card in front of him. The correct ruling should
have been: East and South have both passed (in turn), the auction
continues with West in turn to call (and he must not take into account
the UI he has received from East by the Hell breaking loose).

regards Sven



Wrong.  Kojak --part1_68.1933adf8.29650efe_boundary-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 3 12:47:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g031l6b02991 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 12:47:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (mailout5-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g031kuH02967 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 12:46:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g031ctq10474; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 20:38:55 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 20:38:05 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9f=2E?= : Re: [BLML] Here's a state of things To: Alain Gottcheiner , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020102133840.02695a10@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <20020102203900-r01010800-02c4395d-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.1.8 (Bluto) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 1/2/02 at 1:47 PM, agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) wrote: > Only an AC should feel necessary to prove that the laws it applied > were the right ones Huh? A TD should not feel constrained to rule in accordance with the laws? Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 3 12:47:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g031lBS03001 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 12:47:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (mailout5-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.169]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g031l0H02981 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 12:47:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g031d0q10575; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 20:39:00 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 20:35:04 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <3C32F293.309@village.uunet.be> Message-ID: <20020102203906-r01010800-1a569321-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.1.8 (Bluto) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 1/2/02 at 12:44 PM, hermandw@village.uunet.be (Herman De Wael) wrote: > Everyone knows Stayman, so not explicitely disclosing that > you play Stayman is not an offence. Not a good example, as I understand EBU alerting regs - under which failure to disclose the use of Stayman (by alerting) *is* an infraction. Or has that changed recently? Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 3 13:23:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g032N7R08145 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 13:23:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (mailout5-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g032MxH08126 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 13:22:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g032Etq17650; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 21:14:55 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 21:10:21 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Here's a state of things To: David Stevenson cc: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <8+eeeACXjwM8EwMc@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <20020102211501-r01010800-32e99794-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.1.8 (Bluto) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 1/2/02 at 1:19 PM, bridge@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) wrote: > Has East done anything wrong? Yes, he has not replaced his > bidding cards in the box as the regs suggest. I tried to look at the EBU orange book, using the link on your lawspage, the other day, and was unable to reach it. It seems still to be down. The OB link gives a "file not found" error, and the report of that error suggests checking the EBU home page. That link gives a "system cannot find file specified" error. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 3 13:36:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g032a2K10201 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 13:36:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g032ZrH10170 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 13:35:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from host217-35-12-56.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([217.35.12.56]) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16Lxbl-0003Aa-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 03 Jan 2002 02:27:53 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: gordonrainsford@mail.btinternet.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20020102203906-r01010800-1a569321-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> References: <20020102203906-r01010800-1a569321-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 02:27:49 +0000 To: Bridge Laws From: Gordon Rainsford Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 8:35 pm -0500 2/1/02, Ed Reppert wrote: >On 1/2/02 at 12:44 PM, hermandw@village.uunet.be (Herman De Wael) wrote: > >> Everyone knows Stayman, so not explicitely disclosing that >> you play Stayman is not an offence. > >Not a good example, as I understand EBU alerting regs - under which failure to >disclose the use of Stayman (by alerting) *is* an infraction. Or has that >changed recently? > >Regards, > >Ed No it hasn't changed. To fail to alert Stayman 2C is to suggest to your opponents that you have chosen to play the bid as natural and non-forcing. -- -- Gordon Rainsford London UK -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 3 13:41:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g032f5K11031 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 13:41:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (mailout5-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.169]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g032evH11006 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 13:40:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g032Wsq06200; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 21:32:55 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 21:32:08 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. To: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no, Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020102213301-r01010800-d8a27c98-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.1.8 (Bluto) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 1/2/02 at 11:52 PM, Sven.Pran@alcatel.no wrote: > I once read on Poker that a good bluff could be tried once, but then > that player should not attempt another one for at least half a year. I > think the same rule could be used on how to avoid "partnership > experience and understanding". Okay with me. But I'll bet I can find ACBL TDs who think that's too often. ;-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 3 15:44:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g034i2x27398 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 15:44:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com [212.74.112.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g034hpH27367 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 15:43:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.64.115] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 16Lzbd-000Pi9-00; Thu, 03 Jan 2002 04:35:54 +0000 Message-ID: <002101c19410$63215140$7340e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" Cc: "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 04:30:49 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 12:54 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. > > > > Can I ask where all these EBU rules are coming > from that I have never heard of and do not apply? > +=+ I do not think anyone has quoted a 'rule' that you are unaware of. There are two statements in OB 6.1.2: "Systemic psyching of any kind is not permitted." "You may not use any convention to control a psyche." These are preceded in 6.1.1 by a general statement that: "A psychic bid is a legitimate ploy as long as it contains the same element of surprise for the psycher's partner as it does for the opponents." These seem to constitute regulations. The enquiries aim to know whether these are a basis for the L&E's minuted interest in partnership agreements that protect the psycher from ensuing ill-effects, and if so, how do the provisions operate - or will an additional regulation be required? The examples included in various messages indicate what difficulties blml subscribers envisage in fitting the presumed aims of the L&E to the current laws and regulations. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 3 15:44:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g034hxO27383 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 15:43:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com [212.74.112.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g034hlH27359 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 15:43:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.64.115] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 16Lzba-000Pi9-00; Thu, 03 Jan 2002 04:35:50 +0000 Message-ID: <001f01c19410$61009420$7340e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Burn" , "Bridge Laws" , "Alain Gottcheiner" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020102105958.02696300@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Here's a state of things Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 22:13:37 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "David Burn" ; "Bridge Laws" Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 10:09 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Here's a state of things > > I see two non-barking dogs in the formulation of L21 : > - it is not said that the player's declaration must have > been regular ; > - it is not said that the wrong information should be > voluntary. > +=+ I see a problem in this. The verb 'to give' is transitive, meaning here 'communicate' or 'impart' the misinformation. In 21B the phrase is 'misinformation given', requiring as it seems to me something done purposefully by East which relays the misinformation to South, albeit it not necessarily with intention. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 3 16:04:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0354bq00735 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 16:04:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0354SH00722 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 16:04:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g034uXQ08110 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 20:56:33 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <017001c19412$4403b3a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <01C18CCB.AAEB94A0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <00cd01c18cfe$91685440$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] calculation of damage Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 20:50:00 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > Marvin L. French > writes > > > >From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" > > > >> Are we nearly all in agreement on one of the original problems posed > >> (where OS bid 7H using UI missing the Ace of trumps, but NOS revoke) > >> that we adjust : NOS to 7H= and OS to 7H-1? > >> > >No! 7H wasn't defeated, and you can't change the play of the cards to punish the > >OS unless the play was affected by the infraction. Change the contract instead. > > > >7H=for the NOS, yes. The WBFLC has made that clear. > > > It's odd. I have no problem with what to do with the offending side. > They infracted, had it been a good grand that makes we would adjust to > 6H+1, so we do the same here. 6H+1 for the OS is easy to rule. I'm glad you agree with that, John. No score adjustment that assumes a different line of play unless the play was possibly affected by the infraction. > > The problem for me always has been interpreting the score adjustment for > the NOs. I want to give them 6H+1 but I'm being told I'm not allowed > to and must give them 7H=, despite the fact that we assume (for the > purpose of ruling for the OS) we *should* have been defending 6H, and we > *would* still have revoked. You're not giving sufficient weight to the fact that the infraction led to a great result for the NOS if only they had taken it. That can hardly be characterized as "damage." I would welcome such "damage" anytime. In actuality the OS score is not being adjusted because of damage, but because they gained an advantage in the table score that was related to the infraction. I get all this from the WBFLC's Lille interpretation No. 3. Am I reading it wrong? Marv Marvin L. French, San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 3 16:43:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g035gip07637 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 16:42:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g035gZH07615 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 16:42:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g035YeQ24337 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 21:34:40 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <018701c19417$8477ffe0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 21:26:41 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Laval Dubreuil" > Jon Brissman writes > > > Please give an example or two of psyches that are made > > less risky due to > > underlying partnership agreements. > ______________________________________________________________________ __ > A classic one "suggested" by some authors: > > 2S (weak) - P - 3H (forcing) having no Hs but a S fit. > Next bid will be in S and they will loose their H fit. > Not very risky..... > Just don't call this a psych. I call new suit responses to a weak opening ASKING BIDS, which are permitted on the ACBL's General Convention Chart. A new suit response asks, "Do you have a little something in this suit? If so, bid notrump. After I hear your answer I shall decide the final contract." "A little something" is Qx, xxx, or better. The response serves four purposes: (1) If I have a good suit there, I find out about support (2) If I have a good hand with the only weakness there (Jxx?), I determine whether notrump is reasonable (and get the lead up to the right hand). (3) Lead deterrence (4) A possible total bluff, like bluff Blackwood. Of course all this must be disclosed: "Alert!" "Not forcing?" "Yes, forcing, but it's an asking bid that says nothing about her hand." With the response comes another Alert explanation: "That shows some support for the suit," or "That denies any support for the suit." And when I set the contract, yet another Alert explanation: "I must pass, regardless of my hand." The ACBL has approved the use of the 2NT asking bid in response to a weak two as a total bluff, not considering it a psych. Correct. It's an asking bid, not a telling bid. Marv Marvin L. French, San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 3 17:36:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g036a5x16943 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 17:36:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g036ZvH16917 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 17:35:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g036S2Q11643 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 22:28:02 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <01b101c1941e$d8b11c20$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <20020102203906-r01010800-1a569321-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> Subject: [BLML] No agreement? Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 22:20:13 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk With the help of the able DIC at the recent Reno Regional, John Ashton, I can describe the ACBL attitude toward the claim of "no agreement" in regard to items on the CC. It happened that a player made a jump raise to 3S of a 1S overcall at my table. This was not Alerted, and the CC's red box for weak raises was unchecked CC. Assuming a fairly good raise and holding a doubtful hand, I passed 3S, which became the final contract. Dummy hit the table with just one king, and I called the TD. The opponents explained that they were a new partnership and had not completed the CC for lack of time. With no agreement on jump raises, the raiser just took a chance. His partner's hand was not worth a bid opposite a good raise, so there was no hint of wrongdoing. Of course I could not get (nor did I expect) redress, but I did argue with the TD that this pair players was damaging others by not complying with the regulation that CCs must be complete, legible, and on the table. He ought to make them complete the CC between rounds or at the next smoking break. The TD disagreed, saying that players had a right to have "no agreement" on jump raises. I let this pass, not being sure of my ground. Discussing this with Mr. Ashton later, he saw my point right away. There are certain things on the CC that preclude "no agreement," because completing the card creates an agreement *ipso facto*. For instance, the HCP range for an opening 1NT or 2NT bid has to be filled in, which constitutes an agreement. For responses to overcalls, there are three boxes for characterizing a jump raise: Forcing, invitational, or weak (a red box, indicating Alertability). Completing the CC requires the checking of one of those boxes (or a write-in of some other treatment), so an agreement is enforced, and "no agreement" becomes impossible. The same is true of many other items. You have to put down a HCP range for all opening two bids, indicate a minimum length for all opening one-level suit bids, show what every two-level overcall (and a double) of a notrump opening shows, and so forth. By the time the CC is completed, "no agreement" is possible only for stuff that rarely comes up. Thank you, Mr. Ashton. Marv Marvin L. French, San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 3 17:51:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g036pLX19921 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 17:51:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com [212.74.112.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g036p6H19897 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 17:51:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.36.37] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 16M1an-000Oix-00; Thu, 03 Jan 2002 06:43:09 +0000 Message-ID: <000501c19422$2a42bbe0$2524e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" , "bridge-laws" References: <200112281849.NAA22708@cfa183.harvard.edu> <000801c19007$0baf6760$ba50e150@dodona> <010001c193d1$be13c860$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 06:02:50 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "bridge-laws" Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 9:04 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. > > And a reversion to Endicottish linquistic sophistication? :)) > +=+ The language and style that I am proposing for the next revision of the laws is simple and comprehensive. Do not allow the pleasure with which from day to day I exercise vocabulary, and allow the artistry of wry allusions to invade my personal style, to obscure a capacity for writing basic English when required. +=+ > > In the matter of L40A and L40B's relationship, Steve seems > to have a very clear understanding. There is nothing > obfuscatory in the text of the two paragraphs. > > L40A says you can do some specific things without prior > announcement if no partnership agreement is involved. > > L40B says you can't do anything based on a (non-usual) > special partnership agreement unless it is disclosed in > accordance with the SO's regulations. > > To say that the SO's regulations must therefore include > a requirement for prior announcment of all special > partnership agreements is a doubtful sylogism. > +=+ I can understand why you should be of this mind. You do not put yourself in the mind and the inductive style of a Kaplan who would deny a need to say again in B what was already the requirement in A. I was never of this view and we argued much over such matters, but he was too proud of his command of language and law to yield to a 'young whippersnapper', even if slightly his elder in years. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 3 17:51:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g036pKf19919 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 17:51:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com [212.74.112.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g036p4H19889 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 17:51:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.36.37] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 16M1al-000Oix-00; Thu, 03 Jan 2002 06:43:07 +0000 Message-ID: <000401c19422$28e9e2a0$2524e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Ed Reppert" , , "Bridge Laws" References: <20020102213301-r01010800-d8a27c98-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 05:51:06 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: ; "Bridge Laws" Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 2:32 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. > > that player should not attempt another one for at least half a year. > > I think the same rule could be used on how to avoid "partnership > > experience and understanding". > > Okay with me. But I'll bet I can find ACBL TDs who think that's > too often. ;-) > > Regards, > > Ed > +=+ WBFLC minute, 30 Aug 2000: "The Committee then commented upon the question of development of partnership understandings about psychic action. The view is taken that a partnership understanding exists when the frequency of occurrence is sufficient for the partner of a psycher to take his awareness of psychic possibilities into account, whether he does so or not. When a partnership understanding as to psychic action exists it is subject to regulation under the laws as being part of the methods of the partnership." I think the WBFLC is close enough to reality here. In the abstract the answer lies in the level of awareness in the partner (that the player opposite him may have psyched) when a call is made. We have to infer what that level may be from what we know; this falls under the general heading of 'bridge judgement'. Oh, and it would be 'too often' of course if the circumstances were such that the partner immediately thought, "Oh, I remember he did that once before and it turned out he had psyched". But would we ever know? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 3 17:51:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g036pGP19912 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 17:51:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com [212.74.112.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g036p2H19882 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 17:51:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.36.37] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 16M1aj-000Oix-00; Thu, 03 Jan 2002 06:43:05 +0000 Message-ID: <000301c19422$27b421c0$2524e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Ed Reppert" Cc: "Bridge Laws" References: <20020102211501-r01010800-32e99794-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> Subject: Re: [BLML] Here's a state of things Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 05:47:05 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "David Stevenson" Cc: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 2:10 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Here's a state of things > On 1/2/02 at 1:19 PM, bridge@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) > wrote: > > > Has East done anything wrong? Yes, he has not replaced his > > bidding cards in the box as the regs suggest. > > I tried to look at the EBU orange book, using the link on your > lawspage, the other day, and was unable to reach it. It seems > still to be down. > +=+ OB 7.3.6 : "At the end of the auction the calls should remain in place until the opening lead has been made and all explanations have been obtained, after which they should be returned to their boxes." To say that the regs "suggest" returning the bidding cards to their boxes is an understatement. Failure to do it is an infraction of law which may jeopardise the player's rights but will seldom incur a penalty. The player in breach of the requirement is an offender. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 3 18:53:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g037qve29955 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 18:52:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g037qmH29933 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 18:52:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from x49.ripe.net (x49.ripe.net [193.0.1.49]) by birch.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g037ill22000; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 08:44:47 +0100 Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g037ilE00804; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 08:44:47 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 08:44:47 +0100 (CET) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: cc: Subject: Re: [BLML] Here's a state of things In-Reply-To: <68.1933adf8.29650efe@aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Wed, 2 Jan 2002 Schoderb@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 1/2/02 6:17:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, > Sven.Pran@alcatel.no writes: > > > > There has been a ruling, I believe by WBF, that East (in this case) is > > responsible for the pass card in front of him. The correct ruling should > > have been: East and South have both passed (in turn), the auction > > continues with West in turn to call (and he must not take into account > > the UI he has received from East by the Hell breaking loose). > > > > regards Sven > > > > > > Wrong. Kojak Please explain? Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 3 18:58:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g037wl901106 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 18:58:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g037wcH01080 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 18:58:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from x49.ripe.net (x49.ripe.net [193.0.1.49]) by birch.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g037oYl22903; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 08:50:34 +0100 Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g037oY200811; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 08:50:34 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 08:50:34 +0100 (CET) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: David Burn cc: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Here's a state of things In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Thu, 3 Jan 2002 Sven.Pran@alcatel.no wrote: > > David Burn wrote: > > >A friend at a New Year's Eve party recounted the following tale of woe. > >Sitting South, she picked up and sorted her cards and, on seeing a green > >Pass card in front of East (the dealer), she contributed a pass of her > >own. All Hell thereupon broke loose, for East had not passed her actual > >hand as dealer, merely left a Pass card on the table when collecting her > >cards from the auction on the preceding board. The director took > >counsel, and ruled that South had (albeit unwittingly) passed out of > >turn, incurring exorbitant penalties and the loss of her immortal soul. I'd use 25 here. East never intended to pass (and in fact, never passed, it just looked like she passed), so east's pass can be replaced under 25A with any legal call. South can then replace her pass as well. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 3 20:01:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0390Zd10517 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 20:00:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0390LH10475 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 20:00:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g038qOR04700 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 09:52:24 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Jan 03 09:49:29 2002 +0100 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl (agro500s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KCMP5LM9AS003GZF@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 03 Jan 2002 09:51:31 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 03 Jan 2002 09:51:23 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 09:50:50 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Here's a state of things To: "'Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)'" , David Burn Cc: Bridge Laws Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > David Burn wrote: > > > > >A friend at a New Year's Eve party recounted the following > tale of woe. > > >Sitting South, she picked up and sorted her cards and, on > seeing a green > > >Pass card in front of East (the dealer), she contributed a > pass of her > > >own. All Hell thereupon broke loose, for East had not > passed her actual > > >hand as dealer, merely left a Pass card on the table when > collecting her > > >cards from the auction on the preceding board. The director took > > >counsel, and ruled that South had (albeit unwittingly) > passed out of > > >turn, incurring exorbitant penalties and the loss of her > immortal soul. > > I'd use 25 here. East never intended to pass (and in fact, > never passed, > it just looked like she passed), so east's pass can be > replaced under 25A > with any legal call. South can then replace her pass as well > > Henk > I am proud of you, well educated apparently. This was not in our exercises, was it? ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 3 20:01:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0390ZR10518 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 20:00:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0390LH10474 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 20:00:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g038qNR04691 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 09:52:23 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Jan 03 09:49:29 2002 +0100 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl (agro500s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KCMP5LCOLQ003JCJ@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 03 Jan 2002 09:51:31 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 03 Jan 2002 09:51:23 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 09:48:07 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Here's a state of things To: "'Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)'" , Schoderb@aol.com Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk A TD to do his/her job well needs to develop a feeling/attitude which is based on the general ideas expressed in the laws. Not just the scope, but the whole framework with approaches as we read those in the laws. May be the big difference between Kojak and many others is that his experience and his contribution to discussions in the WBFLC and other things he is doing related to the laws gives him a better foundation to find the right answer to specific, not common irregularities. The answer based on such knowledge and intuition has to be 'no' to the solution as given in this case: continue after two passes. How can a TD decide that a pass card which has nothing to do with the board to be played should be considered as a pass in the auction of that board? The next step being that a LHO seeing a pass card in front of the opening bidder should not be obliged to ask the question whether such card has been left on the table from the previous board. That should be the immediate feeling of a well educated TD, being confronted which such a problem for the first time in his life. And his secundary reaction then needs to be to find a law to support this feeling. If he can't find such law his intuition still will be OK probably, which means that he should write us a letter asking to change the laws. That is why I expect some requests regarding the revoke laws, giving declarer 7spades missing the spade ace. Good intuition but no support. I said 'no' as well, having half the experience Kojak has. And I found L7B1 and L17abc to support my intuition and then L 25A to solve the problem. We need to find a solution, since our terrible laws (your statements, not mine) do not cover this specific irregularity. My solution would be based on the approach we have in L25A. Both passes taken back and the pass by LHO unauthorized information for the other side, being responsible for the irregularity. I realize the next problem: the partner of the opening pass making a call as well before discovering the 'non-pass'. Now 25A doesn't help, or does it, saying that the auction has to be continued? That is not a bad solution, though my intuition doesn't support it: continuing the bidding with a call that isn't made. But in effect we do the same applying L25A in cases it is meant for. See the reason for my 'no' when reading the solution below. ton > > On Wed, 2 Jan 2002 Schoderb@aol.com wrote: > > > In a message dated 1/2/02 6:17:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, > > Sven.Pran@alcatel.no writes: > > > > > > > There has been a ruling, I believe by WBF, that East (in > this case) is > > > responsible for the pass card in front of him. The > correct ruling should > > > have been: East and South have both passed (in turn), the auction > > > continues with West in turn to call (and he must not take > into account > > > the UI he has received from East by the Hell breaking loose). > > > > > > regards Sven > > > > > > > > > > Wrong. Kojak > > > Please explain? > > Henk > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------------- > Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net > RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: > http://www.ripe.net/home/henk > Singel 258 > Phone: +31.20.5354414 > 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 > The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------------- > > That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? > (Big ISP NOC) > > -- > ============================================================== > ========== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at > http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-> LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 3 20:11:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g039BbP12600 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 20:11:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat40.alcanet.no [193.213.239.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g039BRH12573 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 20:11:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from netos70.alcatel.no (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with ESMTP id g0393NZ32601; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 10:03:23 +0100 Subject: Re: [BLML] Here's a state of things To: Schoderb@aol.com Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 09:55:16 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NOMAIL01/NO/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 01/03/2002 10:03:22 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I received from Kojak: >In a message dated 1/2/02 6:17:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, Sven.Pran@alcatel.no writes: There has been a ruling, I believe by WBF, that East (in this case) is responsible for the pass card in front of him. The correct ruling should have been: East and South have both passed (in turn), the auction continues with West in turn to call (and he must not take into account the UI he has received from East by the Hell breaking loose). regards Sven >Wrong. Kojak Well, as I remember it, there was a world(?) championship somewhere (many years ago) where a player came to a table, overlooking that a card from the bid box still lay on the table in front of him, left there after the previous round. Incidently he was the dealer of the first board, and eventually the second hand produced his call assuming that the first call was "genuine". AC ruled that the dealer had called. Obviously I shall have to investigate a bit to locate the exact case. Somebody with better memory than me might already know? Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 3 20:48:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g039mb419393 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 20:48:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat40.alcanet.no [193.213.239.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g039mSH19366 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 20:48:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from netos70.alcatel.no (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with ESMTP id g039eRx08288 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 10:40:27 +0100 Subject: Re: [BLML] Here's a state of things To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 10:40:25 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NOMAIL01/NO/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 01/03/2002 10:40:26 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I wrote: .....(snip) >Well, as I remember it, there was a world(?) championship somewhere >(many years ago) where a player came to a table, overlooking that a >card from the bid box still lay on the table in front of him, left there >after the previous round. >Incidently he was the dealer of the first board, and eventually the >second hand produced his call assuming that the first call was "genuine". >AC ruled that the dealer had called. >Obviously I shall have to investigate a bit to locate the exact case. >Somebody with better memory than me might already know? On second thoughts I don't think I'll bother. Henk Uijterwaal produced an excellent comment: Law25A is perfect for this and similar cases. (And my reference which at the time generated much ado here in Norway is just so many years back) Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 3 22:21:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g03BKq607012 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 22:20:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (ph.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g03BKhH06983 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 22:20:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id MAA09467; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 12:12:22 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id MAA22583; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 12:12:34 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020103121001.0257e980@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 12:14:59 +0100 To: Ed Reppert , Bridge Laws From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_R=E9f._:_Re:_[BLML]_Here's_a_state_of___?= things In-Reply-To: <20020102203900-r01010800-02c4395d-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020102133840.02695a10@pop.ulb.ac.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 20:38 2/01/2002 -0500, Ed Reppert wrote: >On 1/2/02 at 1:47 PM, agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) wrote: > > > Only an AC should feel necessary to prove that the laws it applied > > were the right ones > >Huh? A TD should not feel constrained to rule in accordance with the laws? AG : seems like you overlooked the final smilie. Please understand it as such : a) TDs are required to rule in accordance with the law, and have some discretionary powers. They are seldom asked where they took their ruling from, although they (including YT) commonly mention it, especially when they are proud to know the relevant numbers by heart. b) ACs are required to rule in accordance with the law, have some discretionary powers *and* are asked to mention the relevant laws, to allow for a last check. _scripta manent_. Does it seem more PC now ? Best regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 3 22:59:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g03BwtY14656 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 22:58:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g03BwfH14624 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 22:58:42 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g03Boiu03999 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:50:44 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:50 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.52.2000, Windows 98 4.10.2222 ( A ) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <200201021919.OAA21633@cfa183.harvard.edu> Steve Willner wrote: > > The obvious exception would be if you were playing a pair that also > > played precision, because in that case they could reasonably be > > expected to anticipate the meaning. > > While I agree with most of what Tim has written, I think he has gotten > confused here. If the opponents play Precision, there would normally > be no _disclosure_ (L40B) problem for an alleged psychic but really > systemic 1D bid. There might still be a problem if the particular 1D > bid is not a convention the SO allows. Illegal conventions are still > illegal, even if disclosed. Not confused exactly, but I fall back on my statement earlier in the thread that I wasn't trying for a legally justified position. Working from an internal premise that "conventions are made illegal to protect others from their unfamiliarity" I just feel that people playing the same conventions don't require this level of protection. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 3 22:59:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g03BwqO14644 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 22:58:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g03BwbH14610 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 22:58:38 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g03Boe103946 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:50:40 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:50 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.52.2000, Windows 98 4.10.2222 ( A ) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: Sven wrote: > Let me repeat: Partner must become as surprised as anybody > else around the table. Please stop repeating this - it is just plain wrong. If partner is as surprised as would be a complete stranger of similar standard in the same seat then it is not a PU. The familiarity/competence or any other aspect of the opponents is totally irrelevant. Note: The EBU regulation in 6.1.1 is clearly in contradiction of the legal position on psyches (how on earth can one be expected to know whether opponents have any experience with psyches?). I hope I never see a ruling that "This psyche was OK by X because his unknown opponents happened to be from the YC but not by Y because his unknown opponents came from Blundellsands". Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 3 22:59:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g03Bwrl14650 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 22:58:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g03BwdH14616 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 22:58:40 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g03Bof903956 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:50:41 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:50 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.52.2000, Windows 98 4.10.2222 ( A ) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: Gordon wrote: > To fail to alert Stayman 2C is to suggest to your opponents that you > have chosen to play the bid as natural and non-forcing. Also alertable in EBU (as are all meanings of 2C). Failure to alert suggests that someone has forgotten to alert:-). In reality while it is true that failure to alert a Stayman 2C is an infraction I think it would be highly unlikely for a TD to find that this particular infraction had caused damage. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 3 23:29:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g03CSxF20284 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 23:28:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat40.alcanet.no [193.213.239.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g03CSnH20259 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 23:28:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from netos70.alcatel.no (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with ESMTP id g03CKkP01407; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 13:20:46 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Re: =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A_[BLML]_Here's_a_state_of_____things?= To: Alain Gottcheiner Cc: Bridge Laws X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 13:20:44 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NOMAIL01/NO/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 01/03/2002 13:20:45 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >At 20:38 2/01/2002 -0500, Ed Reppert wrote: >>On 1/2/02 at 1:47 PM, agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) wrote: >> >> > Only an AC should feel necessary to prove that the laws it applied >> > were the right ones >> >>Huh? A TD should not feel constrained to rule in accordance with the laws? >AG : seems like you overlooked the final smilie. Please understand it as such : >a) TDs are required to rule in accordance with the law, and have some >discretionary powers. They are seldom asked where they took their ruling >from, although they (including YT) commonly mention it, especially when >they are proud to know the relevant numbers by heart. Indeed! Smiley or not: In Norway when we graduate new TD candidates their qualification test answers are not considered correct unless they include precise Law references all the way through. And we do encourage them to always find the precise law whenever they have to make a decision in their daily routines as TD. >b) ACs are required to rule in accordance with the law, have some >discretionary powers *and* are asked to mention the relevant laws, to allow >for a last check. _scripta manent_. And ACs in Norway do require TDs to include law references with their decision report on the appeal form. regards Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 4 00:40:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g03DdQ703119 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 00:39:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net [194.7.1.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g03Dd9H03080 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 00:39:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-166-47.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.166.47]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g03DVBJ18224 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 14:31:12 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3C345938.7010606@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 14:14:32 +0100 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote: > Note: The EBU regulation in 6.1.1 is clearly in contradiction of the legal > position on psyches (how on earth can one be expected to know whether > opponents have any experience with psyches?). I hope I never see a ruling > that "This psyche was OK by X because his unknown opponents happened to be > from the YC but not by Y because his unknown opponents came from > Blundellsands". > Why not ? OK, not the psyche, but the disclosure of what is disclosable about it. We would readily accept a ruling such as "that explanation is OK when given to someone from the YC, but not to someone from B..". "basic YC style" is perfectly allright answer in one club but a misexplanation in another. And so if we feel that psyching tendencies need to be disclosed it can equally be allright to say nothing at the YC while having to explains a bit more somewhere else. Of course that does not make the psyche being treated differently, only the ruling concerning the disclosure. > Tim > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 4 00:40:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g03DdPl03117 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 00:39:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net [194.7.1.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g03Dd7H03072 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 00:39:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-166-47.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.166.47]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g03DV9J18211 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 14:31:09 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3C345765.3060008@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 14:06:45 +0100 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. References: <200201021513.KAA21413@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >>From: Herman De Wael >>Well Steve, forget my writing of 40A and read L40B in stead. >>All case are the same. Whether we are talking of psyches, >>incomplete CCs, forgotten alerts or plain misunderstandings, >>or even misbids that we as TD are required to count as >>misexplanations, all of these fall under L40A,B and C. >> > > I agree with this. > > >>There is no reason whatsoever to start using L40B on its own >>in some cases, while using L40C for others. >> > ... > >>Mind you, a forgotten CC, even with a timely alert, is an >>infraction of L40B, on the score that it is not "prior". But >>we only apply L40C, not scrap the board. >> > > Oh? Why can't we go from 40B to 12A1 to 12C2? Of course we can only > do that when 40B is violated; many MI cases will be violations of 40C > but not 40B. In that case we go 40C to 12C2. > > Also, why "scrap the board?" (I know, the EBU do it, but why should > the rest of us?) We go to 12C2 (or 12C3 in some cases). > > I agree that purported psychs are nothing special in this regard. > > >>Of course not - why should there be a difference for a >>forgotten alert or a forgotten CC ? >> > > The second (forgotten CC) violates 40B; the first does not. Keep in > mind, though, that the only reason this matters is to decide on what > the adjustment shall be. We are going to adjust the score when either > law is violated. The only question is what is the "irregularity." > > >>From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au >>Or do the EBU-land authorities define some partnership >>agreements as inherently sinful (because the ageements might >>tempt you to psyche)? >> > > My interpretation -- not necessarily the EBU's -- is that the first > thing one must determine in any MI/CPU/psych case is whether the call > (or play!) in question was or was not based on a partnership > understanding. In order to determine this, one considers all the > evidence. (David S. will approve!) Typically the evidence will > include 1) extent of partnership experience, especially in the > situation in question, 2) partner's further actions ("fielding"), and > 3) relevant aspects of system. > > Take the case of Benjamin 2C, for example. If the partnership > agreement is that a 2D response is nearly automatic, a TD is likely to > rule that the true partnership agreement is "strong or weak with > diamonds." If there is a different response system (perhaps control > showing or ace showing, making a 2D response unlikely), a TD is much > more likely to rule that the true agreement is "strong." However, in > either case, other evidence may change the ruling. > exactly! > In the case of H1H, I think Herman could safely play Drury with a new > partner (though not a BLML reader) until the first time the H1H comes > up. After that, though, a second H1H plus Drury might be enough to > make a ruling go against him. (In this case, "go against him" would > mean ruling that there is a partnership understanding; further findings > would be needed to adjust the score.) well, i don't agree; I believe I should not be allowed to do it even once, even with a new partner. > -- -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 4 00:40:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g03DdMf03110 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 00:39:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net [194.7.1.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g03Dd5H03068 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 00:39:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-166-47.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.166.47]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g03DV6J18200 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 14:31:07 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3C3455E5.9040507@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 14:00:21 +0100 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > >>No, but the moment the advantage of "using" Stayman this way leads to >>a partnership adapting 1NT opening "psyches" on such hands with some >>predictable probability, this understanding of the 1NT opening IMHO >>becomes part of that "partnership understanding" which requires >>declaration. A "correct" declaration of the 1NT opening bid would then >>become something like: 15-17HP, but also sometimes used on weak hands >>with long clubs intending to pass the anticipated 2C Stayman bid. >> > > Now, I agree with this, and this is where I think the confusion comes > from. If when a player psyches he tends to do a particular type of > psyche then after a certain number of occasions it becomes part of his > system, which must be disclosed or is illegal [and may be illegal anyway > under the SO's regs]. > > Fine. Where is the problem? The problem is that the worries > expressed in the last few posts have not been about this, the normal > worry about psyching. They have been concerned with bits of system > which make it safer to use one psyche rather than another. > > Now, if I play with you for the first time, and I open a Spanish green > 1NT, there is no reason to assume that I have opened it with a club suit > rather than a spade suit because the former is somewhat safer. I do not > care about this alleged slight increase in safety. > > However, if we play a few times, and you notice that all my psyches > are in what you might call "safe" positions then you have knowledge that > needs to be disclosed. But there is nothing special about this > knowledge: it is just the same as if you had noticed that I only ever > psyche in spades, or my only psyches are pre-empts. > This in one part of the disclosure question. Psyching frequencies and tendencies should of course be disclosed if partner is aware of those. Perfectly obvious. A related question is the one of the psyching frequency of a particular player (say, HdW) and its disclosure even when playing with a totally new partner. I believe that if partner "could have known" (as by being a member of the same club) then it is still disclosable. But that's a minor issue. > The fact that a bit of system might make it safer to psyche does not > make playing that bit of system illegal. In the case of Stayman over > 1NT, 95+% of people play it: probably less than 20% ever psyche it, and > probably as few as 1% psyche it especially with clubs because of the > safety. Those 1% need to disclose it, sure, if it is frequent enough to > be part of the partnership's methods. > This is the second piec of the disclosure problem. I believe that when a particular piece of system renders a particular type of psyche less dangerous than at some other table, this piece of system needs to be disclosed. And this disclosure should also include the psyching possibility, if such a possibility becomes more obvious through careful analysis of the system. After all, we can't ask opponents to make the analysis, especially not with less than complete information. Compare it with the precision-1Di, an example that has been written about before. A simple explanation (garbage can) is NOT sufficient. The total explanation should include all the types of hands that are opened some other way (especially at the 2-level) and are therefor impossible at this time. Full disclosure, that's all I want. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 4 00:40:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g03DdSq03123 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 00:39:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net [194.7.1.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g03DdBH03093 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 00:39:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-166-47.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.166.47]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g03DVEJ18238 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 14:31:14 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3C345A8F.2000703@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 14:20:15 +0100 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: [BLML] I was quick Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Weekly tournament, I was bye. Director! Here's what happened (I'll use names rather than wind directions for obvious reasons). Jack sits down in the west seat. A board is put in front of him and he takes the cards from the pocket nearest to him, which happens to be the east hand. Jill sits in the east seat and notices that the board has been put wrongly on the table. She turns it around. Leo and Bill take the cards in front of them. And then Jill notices that there are no cards in her "east" pocket. Meanwhile, Jack and Bill have already seen their cards. How did I solve that one ? Easy : I told Jack and Jill to switch seats ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 4 00:57:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g03Dv8Z06242 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 00:57:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.wrs.com (unknown-1-11.windriver.com [147.11.1.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g03DuxH06218 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 00:57:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from rwilleypc ([128.224.4.125]) by mail.wrs.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) with SMTP id FAA23143 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 05:47:52 -0800 (PST) From: "Richard Willey" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] A question of the English. Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 08:53:55 -0800 Message-ID: <000201c19477$3ae093a0$7d04e080@isi.com> 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 V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20020102213301-r01010800-d8a27c98-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 6:32 PM > To: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no; Bridge Laws > Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. > I once read on Poker that a good bluff could be tried once, but then > that player should not attempt another one for at least > half a year. I think the same rule could be used on how to avoid >"partnership experience and understanding". I don't know who originally suggested this rule, but they certainly don't know much about Poker. The game of Poker is starting to be studying pretty extensively by mathematical economist who specialize in game theory. The first study I saw of the game of poker was called "Game Theoretic Approaches to Poker". I won't bore people with the fine details, however, it is very clear and established fact that any optimal poker strategy includes bluffing. Do to the complexity of the problem space, I haven't seen very many systematic attempts to "solve" bridge bidding. From my perspective, the most serious attempt was when Ginsburg attempted to use GIB's par analysis of a large number of hands to recursively derive optimal meanings for different opening bids. My understanding is that Ginsburg has moved away from this problem in recent years. This reason that this becomes significant for the Bridge Laws Mailing list is a simple observation on my part. I can't formally prove this statement, however, I intuitively I am quite sure that any Nash equilibirum during bidding is going to involved mixed strategies. In laymans terms, suppose that partner has just opened the bidding. Lets assume that partner is dealer, the vulnerability is green, and partner has made a weak 2H opening showing 6 hearts, 2 of the top 4 honors, and ~ 6-10 HCP RHO passes, and I hold the following hand Kx AQx xxxx xxxx There are any number of potential bids that I could make as responder including 5H, 4H, 3N, 3H, 2N, and 2S. [It is possible to argue that some of these bids such as 2N should never be considered and some other bid such as 4C keycard for Hearts should be included. Whatever] If I were to try to calculate an "optimal" strategy for my hand, I very much doubt that it would be optimal to always bid 4H with the hand [or indeed, to always make any one specific bid with the hand in question] Rather, the optimal strategy is to systematically randomize my choice of bids across the set of bids being considered and to develop an optimal probability density function. My "optimal" strategy will be to bid 2S A% of the time 2N B% of the time 3H C% of the time 3N D% of the time 4H E% of the time 5H 1 - A% - B% - C% - D% - E% of the time If we consider the way in which bidding progresses, I think that most good players intuitively recognize this logical behind type of phenomena even if they can not make a formal presentation regarding why this type of behaviour is considered to be optimal. Top players certainly apply this type of behaviour all the time at the table, they simply describe it as a psyche rather than defining these bids as a formal part of their system. The problem for bridge regulators is that they are faced with two conflicting goals. First, the regulators want to be able to allow players to excercise judgement and to use psyches. Second, many regulators also seem to be on some kind of crusade to "simplify" bidding by banning "destructive" systems. Unfortunately, these two cases are simply two faces of the same coin. Case in point. Consider the Herman 1H opening. The Herman 1H is sanctioned if it is described as a standard 1H opening. However on occassion Herman might psyche this opening holding 3 hearts and [0-3] HCP in third seat. Within the ACBL. the Herman 1H opening is banned if it is described as a 1H opening that promises a "normal" 1H opening, however, systemically I will also open 1H A% of the time that I hold [0-3 HCP and exactly 3 hearts] The regulators have created an unsolvable problem for themselves. Mixed strategies are optimal. Players will constantly strive to find ways to add these bids into their arsenal. By legalizing psyches while banning "complex" opening bids, the regulators are simply glossing over the enitre issue. Players are not changing their bidding behaviour, they are simply changing the way in which they define / describe their bidding methods, with obvious consequences for a game that supposedly values "full disclosure" of methods. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 4 01:02:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g03E1sV07109 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 01:01:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g03E1jH07087 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 01:01:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from laval (PPP3.UQuebec.CA [192.77.50.3]) by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA11795; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 08:53:45 -0500 (EST) From: "Laval Dubreuil" To: , Subject: RE: [BLML] A question of the English. Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 08:56:30 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <018701c19417$8477ffe0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -> A classic one "suggested" by some authors: > > 2S (weak) - P - 3H (forcing) having no Hs but a S fit. > Next bid will be in S and they will loose their H fit. > Not very risky..... > Just don't call this a psych. I call new suit responses to a weak opening ASKING BIDS, which are permitted on the ACBL's General Convention Chart. A new suit response asks, "Do you have a little something in this suit? If so, bid notrump. After I hear your answer I shall decide the final contract." ______________________________________________________________ I called this a psych (and continue to do) because most player in Canada (ACBL land) play a new suit as NATURAL and forcing. IMHO 3H then is just to make them loose their H fit. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 4 01:07:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g03E7ib08104 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 01:07:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g03E7YH08081 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 01:07:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g03DxbR18309 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 14:59:37 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Jan 03 14:56:41 2002 +0100 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl (agro500s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KCMZW06JFA003IND@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 03 Jan 2002 14:59:08 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 03 Jan 2002 14:59:01 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 14:59:07 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] I was quick To: "'Herman De Wael'" , Bridge Laws Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hopefully you put Jack to the east seat asking Leo and Bill to close their hands. Or if Jack was physically handicapped as well you could ask Leo and Bill to change seats. ton > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: Herman De Wael [mailto:hermandw@village.uunet.be] > Verzonden: donderdag 3 januari 2002 14:20 > Aan: Bridge Laws > Onderwerp: [BLML] I was quick > > > Weekly tournament, I was bye. > Director! > Here's what happened (I'll use names rather than wind > directions for obvious reasons). > > Jack sits down in the west seat. > A board is put in front of him and he takes the cards from > the pocket nearest to him, which happens to be the east hand. > Jill sits in the east seat and notices that the board has > been put wrongly on the table. She turns it around. > Leo and Bill take the cards in front of them. > And then Jill notices that there are no cards in her "east" > pocket. > > Meanwhile, Jack and Bill have already seen their cards. > > How did I solve that one ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Easy : I told Jack and Jill to switch seats ! > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > -- > ============================================================== > ========== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at > http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-> LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 4 01:38:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g03EcHV09509 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 01:38:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from poczta.interia.pl (nyx.poczta.fm [217.74.65.51]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g03Ec4H09505 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 01:38:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (nyx.poczta.fm [127.0.0.1]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailserver) with SMTP id 5C2201512B4 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 15:30:01 +0100 (CET) Received: by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver, from userid 555) id D3DC4151D36; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 15:29:57 +0100 (CET) Received: from kavanagh (unknown [217.153.105.20]) by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver) with SMTP id 3435E151D20 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 15:29:57 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <01c301c19462$06f240d0$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3C345A8F.2000703@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] I was quick Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 15:16:12 +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 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 2:20 PM Subject: [BLML] I was quick > Weekly tournament, I was bye. > Director! > Here's what happened (I'll use names rather than wind > directions for obvious reasons). > > Jack sits down in the west seat. > A board is put in front of him and he takes the cards from > the pocket nearest to him, which happens to be the east hand. > Jill sits in the east seat and notices that the board has > been put wrongly on the table. She turns it around. > Leo and Bill take the cards in front of them. > And then Jill notices that there are no cards in her "east" > pocket. > > Meanwhile, Jack and Bill have already seen their cards. > > How did I solve that one ? > > Easy : I told Jack and Jill to switch seats ! > This is exactly the advice given by a certain Polish TD who didn't feel like walking to the other corner of the big room when someone called him because if the lead OOT! Another one (also authentic): - Director! - What? - 12 and 14 cards! - For now, please play on. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 4 02:16:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g03FG4f09546 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 02:16:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (mailout5-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g03FFuH09541 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 02:15:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g03F7uq06737; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 10:07:56 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 10:07:32 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] No agreement? To: "Marvin L. French" , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <01b101c1941e$d8b11c20$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <20020103100802-r01010800-54b37a93-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.1.8 (Bluto) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 1/2/02 at 10:20 PM, mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) wrote: > Of course I could not get (nor did I expect) redress, but I did argue > with the TD that this pair players was damaging others by not > complying with the regulation that CCs must be complete, legible, and > on the table. He ought to make them complete the CC between rounds or > at the next smoking break. The TD disagreed, saying that players had a > right to have "no agreement" on jump raises. I let this pass, not > being sure of my ground. ACBL regulations require a pair to have two "substantially completed" CCs on the table and available to opponents. Duplicate Decisions says that when they don't, the TD should give them until the beginning of the next round (I think) to produce same, or they get two penalties: they have to use the "classic" card, and they get a PP in matchpoints or imps. That's from memory. My DD is upstairs, and the current state of the ACBL web site franklys sucks. It loads way too slowly, and finding things is *not* easy. I daresay it's even worse than it used to be, with two different organizations running simultaneously, depending where you are. :-( > Discussing this with Mr. Ashton later, he saw my point right away. > There are certain things on the CC that preclude "no agreement," > because completing the card creates an agreement *ipso facto*. For > instance, the HCP range for an opening 1NT or 2NT bid has to be filled > in, which constitutes an agreement. Does it? What regulation says so? What regulation lists the things on the CC that *must* be filled out, and the ones that are optional? > For responses to overcalls, there are three boxes for characterizing a > jump raise: Forcing, invitational, or weak (a red box, indicating > Alertability). Completing the CC requires the checking of one of those > boxes (or a write-in of some other treatment), so an agreement is > enforced, and "no agreement" becomes impossible. > > The same is true of many other items. You have to put down a HCP range > for all opening two bids, indicate a minimum length for all opening > one-level suit bids, show what every two-level overcall (and a double) > of a notrump opening shows, and so forth. > > By the time the CC is completed, "no agreement" is possible only for > stuff that rarely comes up. > > Thank you, Mr. Ashton. So what did he do about his incorrect ruling at the table? :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 4 02:25:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g03FP7H10689 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 02:25:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (mailout5-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g03FOuH10664 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 02:24:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g03FGvq14157; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 10:16:58 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 10:08:24 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Here's a state of things To: Grattan Endicott , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <000301c19422$27b421c0$2524e150@dodona> Message-ID: <20020103101703-r01010800-5d8e7608-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.1.8 (Bluto) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 1/3/02 at 5:47 AM, cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) wrote: > To say that the regs "suggest" returning the > bidding cards to their boxes is an understatement. Failure > to do it is an infraction of law which may jeopardise the > player's rights but will seldom incur a penalty. The player > in breach of the requirement is an offender. Bingo! Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 4 02:25:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g03FP4R10685 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 02:25:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (mailout5-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.169]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g03FOrH10651 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 02:24:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g03FGsq14117; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 10:16:55 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 10:12:50 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. To: Grattan Endicott , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <000401c19422$28e9e2a0$2524e150@dodona> Message-ID: <20020103101700-r01010800-9d57edfc-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.1.8 (Bluto) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 1/3/02 at 5:51 AM, cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) wrote: > Oh, and it would be 'too often' of course if the circumstances > were such that the partner immediately thought, "Oh, I > remember he did that once before and it turned out he had > psyched". But would we ever know? Probably not. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 4 02:34:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g03FY3912287 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 02:34:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (mailout5-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g03FXsH12260 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 02:33:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g03FPsq22838; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 10:25:55 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 10:24:39 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9f=2E?= : Re: [BLML] Here's a state of things To: Alain Gottcheiner , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020103121001.0257e980@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <20020103102600-r01010800-1a1fe9f1-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.1.8 (Bluto) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 1/3/02 at 12:14 PM, agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) wrote: > AG : seems like you overlooked the final smilie. Please understand it as such: I didn't overlook it. Apparently I didn't understand what you meant by it. Sorry. :-) > a) TDs are required to rule in accordance with the law, and have some > discretionary powers. They are seldom asked where they took their ruling > from, although they (including YT) commonly mention it, especially when > they are proud to know the relevant numbers by heart. > b) ACs are required to rule in accordance with the law, have some > discretionary powers *and* are asked to mention the relevant laws, to allow > for a last check. _scripta manent_. > > Does it seem more PC now ? Um. I don't do PC. In fact, generally speaking, I despise the "politically correct". That said, I withdraw the objection. But see below. :-) I seem to remember being told, several times, by David Stevenson as well as others, that the TD should read his ruling from the law book, not recite it from memory. As for "seldom asked", I've made a New Year's resolution to *always* ask when he doesn't say (99% of the time, around here). No doubt local TDs will consider me a pain in the butt. :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 4 02:36:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g03Fa8n12702 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 02:36:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail8.nc.rr.com (fe8.southeast.rr.com [24.93.67.55]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g03FZxH12674 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 02:36:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from mom ([66.57.45.110]) by mail8.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.687.68); Thu, 3 Jan 2002 10:28:00 -0500 Message-ID: <005d01c1946a$6fc043c0$6e2d3942@nc.rr.com> Reply-To: "Nancy" From: "Nancy" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: [BLML] Australia Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 10:22:20 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_005A_01C19440.86C108E0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_005A_01C19440.86C108E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Have we heard anything about our friends in the parts of Australia = (Sydney) that are being ravaged by wildfires??? I hope they are all = OK! Happy New Year. =20 Nancy ------=_NextPart_000_005A_01C19440.86C108E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Have we heard anything about = our friends in=20 the parts of Australia (Sydney) that are being ravaged by=20 wildfires???   I hope they are all OK!  Happy New = Year. =20  
Nancy
------=_NextPart_000_005A_01C19440.86C108E0-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 4 02:38:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g03FcW313134 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 02:38:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-m04.mx.aol.com (imo-m04.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.7]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g03FcNH13112 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 02:38:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-m04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.9.) id t.65.20658f65 (18711); Thu, 3 Jan 2002 10:30:10 -0500 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: <65.20658f65.2965d301@aol.com> Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 10:30:09 EST Subject: Re: [BLML] Here's a state of things To: henk@ripe.net CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_65.20658f65.2965d301_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_65.20658f65.2965d301_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/3/02 2:45:09 AM Eastern Standard Time, henk@ripe.net writes: > Please explain? > > Henk > Please see Ton's comments of this date. ".......He's got it, by George he's got it!......." I have a reservation, -- that he implies we should have Laws covering all eventualities. There will always be times when the TD is faced with situations where he needs to apply the "spirit" "essence" "meaning" "context" yea "INTENT" of the Laws using them, Regulations, Rules, (and other local procedures perhaps) as guidance to sound and reasoned good judgement in managing the game. To call the Laws "bad" because they require understanding and reasoning to apply them and are not always clear recipes is, in my opinion and experience, "bad" for two reasons. 1. It wrongly indentifies the Laws as something other than what the Scope of the Laws says they are, and 2. It sometimes produces ridiculous and to me laughable but tragic so-called "rulings." I could provide a myriad of instances and a ton of "what if's" where a reference to the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, 1997 (or any other 19?? you want to use) is not and cannot be case specific. Yet, we have a very enjoyable game, mostly administered by the WBF and other entities producing Rules and Regulations and Conditions of Contest, (and their own, highly touted "interpretations") with world wide successful and respect. To reduce this to intentional misuse of common sense is self-defeating, though it may well give ego satisfaction to those who operate in that realm. I also require WBF TDs to quote chapter and verse when making a ruling under the Laws, I do not however, expect them to restrict their thinking under Law 81 C 4 to only those things we can find on the printed page and through spurious and convoluted reasoning apply what is not applicable. That is why 4C and other similarly worded clauses in other Laws are there in the first place - to exhort appreciation of the bigger picture. To force actions totally unrelated with the board in play to affect the scoring of a board is to me anathema. To possibly apply penalties for sloppiness, lack of proper attention to procedures, APART FROM TRYING TO OBTAIN A SCORE AT THIS TABLE, seems to me the pith. Hit 'em where it hurts when appropriate, but don't hurt the rest of the nice people in doing so. To David Burn: This happened as you related it? Seems to me there might have been some holiday cheer involved, no? I can't find the Law reference for misuse of holiday cheer - nor could I find the order to the waitress for "One Club soda," as a legal bid in a similar situation -- so I'll have to go with my gut feeling that when someone does something that could be construed as being covered by Law, BUT IS NOT, then no Law can provide the recipe. It looks like proper overall use of brain material without trying to force a fit is what should be up for discussion. I would have little problem is explaining my reasoning/judgement in this kind of situation to an AC. My usual disclaimer of pre-apologizing to anyone for perceived (on their part) insult or nastiness applies to this posting, as opposed to those rare instances where I have been intentionally garrulous in the past. Happy New Year to all, Kojak --part1_65.20658f65.2965d301_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/3/02 2:45:09 AM Eastern Standard Time, henk@ripe.net writes:


Please explain?

Henk


Please see Ton's comments of this date. ".......He's got it, by George he's got it!......." 

I have a reservation, -- that he implies we should have Laws covering all eventualities. There will always be times when the TD is faced with situations where he needs to apply the "spirit" "essence" "meaning"  "context" yea "INTENT" of the Laws using them, Regulations, Rules, (and other local procedures perhaps) as guidance to sound and reasoned good judgement in managing the game.  To call the Laws "bad" because they require understanding and reasoning to apply them and are not always clear  recipes is, in my opinion and experience, "bad" for two reasons.  1. It wrongly indentifies the Laws as something other than what the Scope of the Laws says they are, and 2. It sometimes produces ridiculous and to me laughable but tragic so-called "rulings." 

I could provide a myriad of instances and a ton of "what if's" where a reference to the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, 1997 (or any other 19?? you want to use) is not and cannot be case specific.  Yet, we have a very enjoyable game, mostly administered by the WBF and other entities producing Rules and Regulations and Conditions of Contest, (and their own, highly touted "interpretations") with world wide successful and respect.  To reduce this to intentional misuse of common sense is self-defeating, though it may well give ego satisfaction to those who operate in that realm. I also require WBF TDs to quote chapter and verse when making a ruling under the Laws, I do not however, expect them to restrict their thinking under Law 81 C 4 to only those things we can find on the printed page and through spurious and convoluted reasoning apply what is not applicable. That is why  4C and other similarly worded clauses in other Laws are there in the first place - to exhort appreciation of the bigger picture. To force actions totally unrelated with the board in play to affect the scoring of a board is to me anathema. To possibly apply penalties for sloppiness, lack of proper attention to procedures, APART FROM TRYING TO OBTAIN A SCORE AT THIS TABLE, seems to me the pith. Hit 'em where it hurts when appropriate, but don't hurt the rest of the nice people in doing so.

To David Burn:  This happened as you related it? Seems to me there might have been some holiday cheer involved, no? 

I can't find the Law reference for misuse of holiday cheer - nor could I find the order to the waitress for "One Club soda," as a legal bid in a similar situation --  so I'll have to go with my gut feeling that when someone does something that could be construed as being covered by Law, BUT IS NOT, then no Law can provide the recipe. It looks like proper overall use of brain material without trying to force a fit is what should be up for discussion. I would have little problem is explaining my reasoning/judgement in this kind of situation to an AC. 

My usual disclaimer of pre-apologizing to anyone for perceived (on their part) insult or nastiness applies to this posting, as opposed to those rare instances where I have been intentionally garrulous in the past.

Happy New Year to all,

Kojak --part1_65.20658f65.2965d301_boundary-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 4 03:02:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g03G22X17481 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 03:02:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g03G1lH17448 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 03:01:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.26.243] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16MA8L-000MRj-00; Thu, 03 Jan 2002 15:50:22 +0000 Message-ID: <001f01c1946e$ddf1a880$f31ae150@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." , "'Henk Uijterwaal \(RIPE-NCC\)'" , "David Burn" Cc: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Here's a state of things Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:34:39 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "'Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)'" ; "David Burn" Cc: "Bridge Laws" Sent: 03 January 2002 08:50 Subject: RE: [BLML] Here's a state of things > > > > > I'd use 25 here. East never intended to pass > > (and in fact, never passed, it just looked like > > she passed), so east's pass can be replaced > > under 25A with any legal call. South can then > > replace her pass as well > > > > Henk > > > > > I am proud of you, well educated apparently. > This was not in our exercises, was it? > > ton > -- +=+ One has to be sceptical of a suggestion that a player can substitute a call for a call no-one has made. The procedure with bidding cards is governed by the regulations for the tournament in question, and it is to these that we should look initially for answers. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 4 03:02:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g03G23D17484 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 03:02:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g03G1nH17455 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 03:01:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.26.243] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16MA8N-000MRj-00; Thu, 03 Jan 2002 15:50:23 +0000 Message-ID: <002001c1946e$dedca4c0$f31ae150@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Cc: , References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Here's a state of things Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 15:51:32 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Cc: Sent: 03 January 2002 08:55 Subject: Re: [BLML] Here's a state of things > > Sven.Pran@alcatel.no writes: > > > There has been a ruling, I believe by WBF, that > East (in this case) is responsible for the pass > card in front of him. The correct ruling should > have been: East and South have both passed > (in turn), the auction continues with West in turn > to call > +=+ I have no recollection of a ruling, nor even a precedent arising from an appeal. However, it is patently obvious that East is responsible for the Pass card not removed previously from the table; that does not make a call of it. In my view East is guilty of a procedural misdemeanour (breach of the regulation that requires players to 'replace their bidding cards in their respective bidding boxes') and should be dealt with as an offender. However, I do not see that removal of the bidding card constitutes withdrawal of a call - East has made no call, the requisite intent was lacking and the bidding card has not been 'placed and released'. South has been inattentive and any sympathy for her is modified by this. I think she has passed out of rotation - West should have the opportunity to accept the call and if the call is not accepted 30A will apply. The green card that was in front of East will have been returned belatedly to the bidding box. A PP for East is not unthinkable in some circumstances, but I doubt this case gives cause - only EW stand to lose anything that may be lost. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 4 03:36:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g03GZ2P22780 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 03:35:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat40.alcanet.no [193.213.239.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g03GYrH22758 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 03:34:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from netos70.alcatel.no (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with ESMTP id g03GQm006900; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 17:26:48 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Re: =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A_[BLML]_Here's_a_state_of_____things?= To: Ed Reppert Cc: Bridge Laws X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 17:26:46 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NOMAIL01/NO/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 01/03/2002 17:26:47 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: . . . . (snip) >I seem to remember being told, several times, by David Stevenson as well as >others, that the TD should read his ruling from the law book, not recite it from >memory. As for "seldom asked", I've made a New Year's resolution to *always* ask >when he doesn't say (99% of the time, around here). No doubt local TDs will >consider me a pain in the butt. :-) I trust the majority of Norwegian TD's would not! But it happens when we know the addressee to be a competent TD that we say with a smile: "You sure know this as well as I do, don't you?" 8-) And a happy new year to you! regards Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 4 03:41:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g03Geo723848 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 03:40:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g03GefH23833 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 03:40:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from x49.ripe.net (x49.ripe.net [193.0.1.49]) by birch.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g03GWel07014; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 17:32:40 +0100 Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g03GWeP01189; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 17:32:40 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 17:32:40 +0100 (CET) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Grattan Endicott cc: Subject: Re: [BLML] Here's a state of things In-Reply-To: <002001c1946e$dedca4c0$f31ae150@pacific> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > There has been a ruling, I believe by WBF, that > > East (in this case) is responsible for the pass > > card in front of him. The correct ruling should > > have been: East and South have both passed > > (in turn), the auction continues with West in turn > > to call > > > +=+ I have no recollection of a ruling, nor even a > precedent arising from an appeal. However, it is > patently obvious that East is responsible for the > Pass card not removed previously from the table; > that does not make a call of it. In my view East is > guilty of a procedural misdemeanour (breach of > the regulation that requires players to 'replace their > bidding cards in their respective bidding boxes') > and should be dealt with as an offender. However, > I do not see that removal of the bidding card > constitutes withdrawal of a call - East has made > no call, the requisite intent was lacking and the > bidding card has not been 'placed and released'. > South has been inattentive I disagree. I think she has paid the normal amount of attention that is required: she picked up her cards, looked at them, then saw a pass in front of opener. That usually means that opener passed in the few seconds while she was looking at her cards. (At least, it did in the 50,000 or so hands that I've played with bidding boxes.) I don't think we should penalize her for not asking east if this was his call as dealer. Henk ps. Your signature file ends up at the start of your postings, not at the bottom where it belongs. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 4 03:48:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g03Gmck25098 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 03:48:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g03GmTH25076 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 03:48:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id RAA29499; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 17:37:28 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id RAA14898; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 17:40:19 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020103173216.0257d3f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 17:42:41 +0100 To: "Grattan Endicott" , From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Here's a state of things Cc: , In-Reply-To: <002001c1946e$dedca4c0$f31ae150@pacific> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g03GmVH25083 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 15:51 3/01/2002 +0000, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > +=+ I have no recollection of a ruling, nor even a >precedent arising from an appeal. However, it is >patently obvious that East is responsible for the >Pass card not removed previously from the table; >that does not make a call of it. In my view East is >guilty of a procedural misdemeanour (breach of >the regulation that requires players to 'replace their >bidding cards in their respective bidding boxes') >and should be dealt with as an offender. However, >I do not see that removal of the bidding card >constitutes withdrawal of a call - East has made >no call, the requisite intent was lacking and the >bidding card has not been 'placed and released'. AG : indeed. And L25A would be hard to apply, because East would need to think at least a teeny little bit before making its genuine call. > South has been inattentive and any sympathy >for her is modified by this. I think she has passed >out of rotation - West should have the opportunity >to accept the call and if the call is not accepted >30A will apply. AG : I can't stomach this. If even East doesn't know whether there remains a Pass from the former deal, if you admit this is a minor offense, why should South know better, and offend more by not knowing ? Any ruling that gives South more blame than East would mean South is responsible for East's misdemeanors. Hardly bearable, if you put it that way ?? Suppose North is responsible for the boards, as he is in most countries. Suppose North puts the board rotated 180°. Now East, a polite person, takes what was presented. Would you say East is responsible for it, more than North is, and be more severe to East ? If not, what's the difference between the two cases ? Regards, Alain. > The green card that was in front of >East will have been returned belatedly to the >bidding box. A PP for East is not unthinkable in >some circumstances, but I doubt this case gives >cause - only EW stand to lose anything that may >be lost. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 4 03:52:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g03Gqhx25601 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 03:52:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from chalfont.mail.uk.easynet.net (chalfont.mail.uk.easynet.net [212.135.1.67]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g03GqXH25580 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 03:52:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-12-18.easynet.co.uk [212.134.20.18]) by chalfont.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 547921D5B8D for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 16:44:34 +0000 (GMT) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Christmas spirit & L17D Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 16:41:52 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Roger Pewick writes: > It seems you have misread my note. Now what Roger said was: >|> One thing that puzzles me is why should the board be cancelled >|> merely because LHO subsequently called? This statement is incorrect. The board is *not* cancelled *merely* because LHO has subsequently called. What have I misread? > 17D gives the player the right to change his call. Why should any > call be cancelled? period. The only call L17D talks of cancelling is the offender's based on the wrong cards. You surely do not quarrel with that? > The auction continues from the point of correcting the cards and there > be no option to kill the board. No rigamaroll. This is presumably your view of what ought to happen ( in which case an "IMO" or the like would help!) - it is certainly not what L17D says. The board is only "killed" if LHO has called after the offender's original call *and* the offender substitutes a different call. >The play of the board of the muffed hand is a different matter. I >think the LC is wrong to not mandatorily cancel the board for >subsequent play by these contestants [due to foreknowledge of >offender's calls]. This is, of course, a separate issue covered by the last sentence of L17D. This sentence specifies that the board may be played normally "if the offender subsequently repeats the cancelled call ...". It doesn't specify that the original auction prior to the offender's call must be repeated identically *with no call differing significantly in meaning* which is an obvious pre-requisite to this course of action. We had a similar discussion in connection with L15C. I understand the lawmakers' wish to play the board normally if at all possible, but believe that here it is misguided. I agree with you that it would be better if any subsequent playings of the board by any of the players involved were automatically cancelled. Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 4 04:03:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g03H2rV27504 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 04:02:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g03H2jH27485 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 04:02:45 +1100 (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 LAA12597 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:54:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA00650 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:54:47 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:54:47 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200201031654.LAA00650@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Here's a state of things X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Kooijman, A." > A TD to do his/her job well needs to develop a feeling/attitude which is > based on the general ideas expressed in the laws. I hope we all agree with this. As Kojak amplifies, not to do so can produce ludicrous results (as in the example case). Nevertheless, a good TD should be able to find and cite appropriate laws when required. > then L 25A to solve the problem. ... > I realize the next problem: the partner of the opening pass making a call as > well before discovering the 'non-pass'. As you say, 25A won't work. Let's try to sort out the facts. 1. East has violated the bid box regulations by failing to remove the old pass card. This is an infraction. 2. East has not made any call on the present deal. (Items 1 and 2 depend on the SO's bid box regulations, but I think they will be true in most jurisdictions.) 3. South, misled by East's infraction 1, has passed out of turn. There are several reasonable ways to give a ruling, but I hope all our instincts say that East has caused the problem and so NS should be protected. Some of the ways that work are: A. Start with South's POOT, but suggest that EW waive the penalty, warning them of the possibility of an adjusted score if they don't. B. Take a broad view of L21B1, allowing South's pass to be withdrawn without penalty if East selects a call other than pass. C. Apply L30A but stand ready to give an adjusted score if NS are damaged by East's infraction. (This is really a version of A but without mentioning the "waive penalty" possibility.) Personally, I like B best. It is simple, and it is exactly what we would have done if we had ruled that East's pass was "made" but changeable under L25A. In practice, A will probably lead to the same result as B. Ruling C protects the NOS, but I don't like having to use an adjusted score when we can play the board. To answer Ton's question, if West has also called, I think we need to start with L29A: South's POOT has been accepted. However, if letting West bid before East helps EW reach a better final contract, I think we will need to adjust the score. I don't like this, but backing up and starting the bidding over with East seems far too complicated (too much UI around for one thing). I'm not sure what to do about Sven's problem: the pass card was left on the table from the previous round. (We can give a PP to the player who left the card, but that doesn't solve our present problem.) Now there are no offenders, fact 2 is as above, and 3 is because of the previous player's infraction. I'm tempted by L16B, but I'd rather find a way to have the board be played. Ruling A is fine if EW waive the penalty, but there's no incentive for them to do so. We could use 21A, but that seems awfully harsh on South. Does anyone have a better idea? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 4 04:10:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g03H9xU28742 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 04:09:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g03H9lH28703 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 04:09:48 +1100 (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 MAA12947 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 12:01:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA00670 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 12:01:51 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 12:01:51 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200201031701.MAA00670@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Here's a state of things X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > In 21B the phrase is 'misinformation given', requiring as it > seems to me something done purposefully by East which > relays the misinformation to South, albeit it not necessarily > with intention. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Sorry, I meant to comment on this in my previous message. We use 21B after a player changes a call under 25A, but I agree that it is a further stretch to apply 21B here. East has committed an infraction, but it is one of omission, not commission. Nevertheless, East's infraction has undeniably had the effect of misleading South, and we often apply 21B after other omissions, e.g., failures to alert, so it seems reasonable to apply it to this case of omission. But if you don't like stretching 21B this far, you will have to use one of the other rulings. The important thing is to make sure NS are not disadvantaged by East's infraction. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 4 04:10:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g03HA1h28745 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 04:10:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g03H9oH28715 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 04:09:50 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g03H1r517254 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 17:01:53 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 17:01 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.52.2000, Windows 98 4.10.2222 ( A ) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <3C345938.7010606@village.uunet.be> Herman wrote: > I hope I never see a ruling > > that "This psyche was OK by X because his unknown opponents happened > > to be from the YC but not by Y because his unknown opponents came > > from Blundellsands". > > Why not ? > OK, not the psyche, but the disclosure of what is > disclosable about it. > We would readily accept a ruling such as "that explanation > is OK when given to someone from the YC, but not to someone > from B..". Yes we would accept this - because the sentiment is right. Technically I believe the ruling should be "The disclosure was inadequate according to regulations but we don't think the YC player was damaged (he knew enough to protect himself) we do think the other player was damaged." In other words there was an infraction in both cases but adjustment only in one - a very different scenario. > "basic YC style" is perfectly allright answer in one club > but a misexplanation in another. I beg to differ. It is perfectly alright for one YC player to say it to another known YC regular wherever they are playing. It would be inadequate if a YC regular used it to a stranger even if playing at the YC. > And so if we feel that psyching tendencies need to be > disclosed Please, yes please!!! > it can equally be allright to say nothing at the > YC while having to explains a bit more somewhere else. Perhaps. I could certainly see the YC setting a different frequency threshold for disclosing "often psyches" on the CC than other clubs. > Of course that does not make the psyche being treated > differently, only the ruling concerning the disclosure. Thus you answer your own first question. Personally I'd be delighted if the EBU handled such psyches on a disclosure/damage basis rather than 60/30. Obviously the disclosure regulations they have at the moment are woefully inadequate to such a task. Tim West-Meads -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 4 07:28:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g03KRl404518 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 07:27:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g03KRbH04493 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 07:27:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id HAA04307 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 07:30:21 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 04 Jan 2002 07:19:10 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Australia To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 07:15:40 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 04/01/2002 07:09:55 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g03KRdH04495 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Thank you for your concern. The good news about the Australian bushfires is that there has been mercifully little loss of life (I believe only one fire-fighter and no civilians have died). Best wishes Richard "Nancy" @rgb.anu.edu.au on 04/01/2002 01:22:20 Please respond to "Nancy" Sent by: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au To: "Bridge Laws" cc: Subject: [BLML] Australia Have we heard anything about our friends in the parts of Australia (Sydney) that are being ravaged by wildfires???   I hope they are all OK! Happy New Year. Nancy -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 4 07:41:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g03KfAB06345 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 07:41:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g03Kf2H06332 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 07:41:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id HAA04522 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 07:43:46 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 04 Jan 2002 07:32:35 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] No agreement? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 07:29:06 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 04/01/2002 07:23:21 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marv wrote: [big snip] >You have to put down a HCP range >for all opening two bids, [big snip] I respectfully disagree. In his book "The Secrets of Winning Bridge", Jeff Rubens described how he avoided confusion with a first-time partner by explicitly agreeing never to open two-bids. Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 4 09:46:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g03Mjdo29298 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 09:45:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu ([131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g03MjVH29277 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 09:45:31 +1100 (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 RAA29079 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 17:37:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA01060 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 17:37:32 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 17:37:32 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200201032237.RAA01060@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > Oh, and it would be 'too often' of course if the circumstances > were such that the partner immediately thought, "Oh, I > remember he did that once before and it turned out he had > psyched". But would we ever know? If the rules are unenforceable, it suggests to me that reconsidering the rules might be a good idea. What we need is someone who can offer rules for psychs (or purported ones) equivalent to the rules EK gave us for UI: an objective procedure to decide what is legal and what isn't. Psychs will be much harder, I'm afraid. Everyone (well, everyone except the villains) agrees that UI is a *bad thing*, but there is no corresponding agreement about psychs. > From: "Richard Willey" > Mixed strategies are optimal. Players will constantly strive to find > ways to add these bids into their arsenal. This doesn't make things easier! On the other hand, "using UI" is "optimal" in some sense, and yet we now have principles by which UI can be regulated. (Regulation may not be entirely successful everywhere, but the principles are widely agreed and seem successful when applied.) Can we do the same thing for psychs? I don't think the job will be an easy one, and I am fairly sure that some existing notions will have to be overturned. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 4 11:34:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g040Xxe21124 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 11:33:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com [212.74.112.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g040XhH21086 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 11:33:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.64.254] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 16MIB5-0007Ec-00; Fri, 04 Jan 2002 00:25:43 +0000 Message-ID: <000201c194b6$9b30a620$fe40e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Alain Gottcheiner" Cc: , "bridge-laws" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020103173216.0257d3f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Here's a state of things Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 21:21:06 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "Grattan Endicott" ; Cc: ; Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 4:42 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Here's a state of things > > South has been inattentive and any sympathy > >for her is modified by this. I think she has passed > >out of rotation - West should have the opportunity > >to accept the call and if the call is not accepted > >30A will apply. > > AG : I can't stomach this. > +=+ It is not recommended for TDs to rule with their stomachs. Let us consider the simple facts: 1. East has left a Pass card on the table. All now seem satisified this is an infraction - not minimal but not normally attracting a penalty. 2. East has made no call. East has not enacted the prescribed procedure for making a call using bidding boxes. 3. South has deliberately placed a Pass card in the prescribed manner for making a call. Since it is East's turn this call is out of rotation. South is responsible for her own misunderstanding. 4. The East Pass card has been on the table all through the preliminaries on the board. All the players at the table should have noticed it. So what have we? East: should be instructed to remedy the omission by replacing the card in the bidding box. The Director has power to apply a PP but is likely to do so only when there are marked effects upon opponents. South: has called out of rotation, no doubt about that. The stomach wants to protect South because it thinks she has been seduced by the wicked East. But the law is plain: if South misunderstands the position the law offers her no recourse. She was at the table all along and the facts were bare in front of her; she is her own keeper. The Director: is bound by the law. He should get on with doing his job, not spend his time waffling about imagined inequities. (And whatever West does about South's pass in this case the EW pair will probably have a free ride to glory or oblivion, unless of course 'all Hell' let loose carries with it UI from E to W or from W to E.) ~ G ~ +=+ . -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 4 11:34:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g040Y0i21127 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 11:34:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com [212.74.112.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g040XiH21089 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 11:33:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.64.254] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 16MIB7-0007Ec-00; Fri, 04 Jan 2002 00:25:45 +0000 Message-ID: <000301c194b6$9c8057a0$fe40e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" Cc: "William Schoder" , "bridge-laws" References: <200201031654.LAA00650@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Here's a state of things Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 21:26:03 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 4:54 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] Here's a state of things > There are several reasonable ways to give a ruling, > but I hope all our instincts say that East has > caused the problem and so NS should be protected. > +=+ No. East has 'caused' nothing. East has dug the pit; South has walked into the hole because she did not look where she was putting her feet. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 4 11:34:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g040Y2w21130 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 11:34:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com [212.74.112.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g040XkH21098 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 11:33:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.64.254] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 16MIB9-0007Ec-00; Fri, 04 Jan 2002 00:25:48 +0000 Message-ID: <000401c194b6$9df19ae0$fe40e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Henk Uijterwaal \(RIPE-NCC\)" , "Grattan Endicott" Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Here's a state of things Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 21:41:46 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "Grattan Endicott" > > > ps. Your signature file ends up at the start of your postings, not at the bottom where it belongs. > +=+ Actually it starts there because that is where I put it. Look upon each page as music. :-) +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 4 11:53:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g040quK24550 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 11:52:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g040qiH24525 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 11:52:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-59-188.btinternet.com ([213.122.59.188] helo=pbncomputer) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16MITR-0000Mw-00; Fri, 04 Jan 2002 00:44:42 +0000 Message-ID: <002901c194b8$d16f2520$bc3b7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: , Cc: References: <65.20658f65.2965d301@aol.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Here's a state of things Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 00:43:19 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Kojak wrote: >To David Burn: This happened as you related it? Seems to me there might have been some holiday cheer involved, no? There was no mention of this in the account of events I was given, though the thing happened recently enough. As you all know, however, Ebenezer Scrooge is a model of bonhomie and goodwill compared to the average bridge player who thinks he has been victimised. > so I'll have to go with my gut feeling that when someone does something that could be construed as being covered by Law, BUT IS NOT, then no Law can provide the recipe. I think this is right. Attempts to fit Law 21 to the situation seem to me like trying to put a slipper on an Ugly Sister's foot. I cannot equate the accidental leaving of a pass card on the table with the providing of misinformation to an opponent. Trying to apply L25 also appears the stuff of pantomime. Whatever East has done by leaving a pass card on the table, it isn't to pass at her turn to call, and I do not think that one can change a call that one has not made. I can see why one would want to do eveything possible to avoid disadvantaging South - though I am a little surprised at the unanimity with the view that South is blameless in this case. A short while ago, there was described an incident where a player had "followed suit" with a club on the assumption that declarer had asked for one. When it turned out that declarer had instead, by means of semaphore, asked for a spade and that dummy had played one, voices were raised in condemnation of the defender's inattention. Well, if a player knows that she has been attending rather to the business of sorting her hand than to the actions of her right-hand opponent, and if that player then assumes something to have happened which has not in fact happened, might it not be said that she should accept the consequences? For myself, I think that a proper course would be for the director to address the table in these terms: "South has passed out of turn, for which I would normally impose a penalty. In the circumstances, however, I would like to ask East-West to consider requesting me to waive the penalty under L81C8. Then, the auction will revert to East, and will proceed without further penalty on either side". Now, this is not ideal. For a start, it will not deal with cases where North-South have rather more than a combined six count, nor with cases where both East and South have the values to make calls in the restarted auction that will lead to UI. Moreover, the director will be up a gum tree if East and West do not display the true spirit of Christmas. But I think that the approach above is the best practical effort in the circumstances. Meanwhile, let us create some bidding box regulations to prevent recurrence - and perhaps, while we are about it, let us consider extending the powers of the director under 81C8 so that weird eventualities can be handled with the discretion and judgement that we expect from our supremely dedicated, yet woefully unrewarded, band of directors. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 4 13:44:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g042i8G17215 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 13:44:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g042hxH17185 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 13:43:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from laval (PPP3.UQuebec.CA [192.77.50.3]) by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA29600 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 21:35:59 -0500 (EST) From: "Laval Dubreuil" To: Subject: TR: [BLML] A question of the English. Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 21:38:47 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----Message d'origine----- De : Laval Dubreuil [mailto:Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca] Envoye : 3 janvier, 2002 08:57 A : mlfrench@writeme.com; bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Objet : RE: [BLML] A question of the English. -> A classic one "suggested" by some authors: > > 2S (weak) - P - 3H (forcing) having no Hs but a S fit. > Next bid will be in S and they will loose their H fit. > Not very risky..... > Just don't call this a psych. I call new suit responses to a weak opening ASKING BIDS, which are permitted on the ACBL's General Convention Chart. A new suit response asks, "Do you have a little something in this suit? If so, bid notrump. After I hear your answer I shall decide the final contract." ______________________________________________________________ I called this a psych (and continue to do) because most player in Canada (ACBL land) play a new suit as NATURAL and forcing. IMHO 3H then is just to make them loose their H fit. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 4 14:47:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g043kcR26545 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 14:46:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g043kSH26523 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 14:46:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) with ESMTP id DAA12774 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 03:38:38 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 02:53:50 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] I was quick References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , Kooijman, A. writes >Hopefully you put Jack to the east seat asking Leo and Bill to close their >hands. >Or if Jack was physically handicapped as well you could ask Leo and Bill to >change seats. Nope. Leave them where they are and play counterclockwise :) > >ton > >> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- >> Van: Herman De Wael [mailto:hermandw@village.uunet.be] >> Verzonden: donderdag 3 januari 2002 14:20 >> Aan: Bridge Laws >> Onderwerp: [BLML] I was quick >> >> >> Weekly tournament, I was bye. >> Director! >> Here's what happened (I'll use names rather than wind >> directions for obvious reasons). >> >> Jack sits down in the west seat. >> A board is put in front of him and he takes the cards from >> the pocket nearest to him, which happens to be the east hand. >> Jill sits in the east seat and notices that the board has >> been put wrongly on the table. She turns it around. >> Leo and Bill take the cards in front of them. >> And then Jill notices that there are no cards in her "east" >> pocket. >> >> Meanwhile, Jack and Bill have already seen their cards. >> >> How did I solve that one ? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Easy : I told Jack and Jill to switch seats ! >> >> -- >> Herman DE WAEL >> Antwerpen Belgium >> http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html >> >> >> -- >> ============================================================== >> ========== >> (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email >> majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >> "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >> A Web archive is at >> http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-> LAWS/ >> >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 4 15:18:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g044IJC01860 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 15:18:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g044IBH01836 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 15:18:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g044ADJ10532 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 20:10:14 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <021701c194d2$0c9f6420$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <20020103100802-r01010800-54b37a93-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> Subject: Re: [BLML] No agreement? Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 19:43:55 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Ed Reppert" > Marvin L. French wrote: > > Thank you, Mr. Ashton. > > So what did he do about his incorrect ruling at the table? :-) > Not his ruling, but that of a subordinate. While the ruling was incorrect, we weren't damaged, so I didn't tell Ashton who the culprit was. Most lower-level ACBL TDs are in need of better training in regard to applying the Laws and regulations, so why pick on one? Maybe I *should* start naming names, however. When a declarer claimed against me last week in Reno, saying the dummy was high, I called the TD because there was an AKJ of diamonds in dummy and I had Qx over it. The TD ruled that a finesse cannot be taken after a claim, so the queen would drop. That was wrong, but I realized I was being silly to challenge the claim. Declarer had a trump for dummy's loser, so I dropped the matter. I was surprised, however, that the old wives' tale (never in the Laws, to my knowledge) that an unproven finesse cannot be taken is still being repeated by an ACBL TD. Of course what the Laws says, in effect, is that a *successful* unproven finesse cannot be taken, and sometimes an unsuccessful finesse *must* be taken. Except, of course (since '97), by the class of player for whom the wrong line would be irrational. I should add that that ACBL TDs are almost without exception extremely skilled at organizing sections for large games, seeding them, running the games, and scoring. Watching them handle large Swiss team and knockout events simultaneously, with concurrent pair games, is a pleasure. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 4 16:36:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g045Zlo16855 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 16:35:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bigbyte.mosquitonet.com (bigbyte.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g045ZcH16825 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 16:35:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from mosquitonet.com (ppp4209.mosquitonet.com [209.161.164.209]) by bigbyte.mosquitonet.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g045QSr12215 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 20:26:28 -0900 Message-ID: <3C353D41.198ADA4@mosquitonet.com> Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 20:27:29 -0900 From: Gordon Bower X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] What are the LAs? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Here is an interesting hand I had tonight: |Dealer: W ===North======== | |Declarer: E > Scoring: MP | |Vulnerable: NS S: 52 | |Contract: 4NT H: 7653 | |Result: Made 5 D: Q84 | |Score: -460 C: KT92 | |===West========= ===East========= | |> .----------. > | |S: A7 | | S: KT93 | |H: 82 | | H: AK9 | |D: AT9653 | | D: KJ72 | |C: J85 .----------. C: Q4 | | | | ===South======== | | > | | S: QJ864 | | H: QJT4 | | D: | | C: A763 | .----------------------------------------------------. BIDDING: West North East South 2D Pass 3NT 4S Pass* Pass 4NT Pass Pass Pass * - hesitation, claimed by NS to have been 20 seconds. EW didn't argue. Opening lead HQ. Thanks to bad discards by South, the ten of spades set up and the contract wasn't held to four. South called the cops at the end of the deal when he saw East's hand, claiming East couldn't be allowed to bid 4NT. Would you adjust? --- My opinion was that the overwhelming choice by East would be Double. If 4NT hadn't been bid at the table I might have overlooked it as a possibility, but it'd really be quite a sensible bid, essentially gambling partner has one useful card in addition to his diamonds, at any other vulnerability. I think 5D - after having already chosen to try NT once, and having reason to think a club might NOT be led - isn't popular enough to be an LA but it's close. Pass would be just plain silly. I let the table result stand. If you believe 5D is good enough to be an LA, of course, you'd probably adjust to EW400. GRB -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 4 16:56:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g045tah20042 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 16:55:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g045tSH20022 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 16:55:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g045lVJ11529 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 21:47:31 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <027901c194de$afb4d940$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <20020103100802-r01010800-54b37a93-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> Subject: Re: [BLML] No agreement? Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 21:04:59 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Ed Reppert" > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > Discussing this with Mr. Ashton later, he saw my point right away. > > There are certain things on the CC that preclude "no agreement," > > because completing the card creates an agreement *ipso facto*. For > > instance, the HCP range for an opening 1NT or 2NT bid has to be filled > > in, which constitutes an agreement. > > Does it? What regulation says so? What regulation lists the things on the CC > that *must* be filled out, and the ones that are optional? > C'mon Ed, you know what "filling out" a form means. For the ACBL CC, the instructions for doing so are at: http://www.acbl.org/convcard/how2fill.htm or you can find it on a list of items contained in the "Convention Cards" section, accessible from the ACBL home page. This excellent 15-page document is practically unknown to members and TDs, strangely enough. A copy is supposed to be included with every order for convention cards. But isn't, I'm told. It is advertised in the ACBL's *Bridge Source Catalog* with the title "Convention Card Pamphlet*, with description "For use with the convention card." One copy free, additional copies $1 each. The least they could do is change the description to "How to fill out the conmvention card." Is it any wonder that the majority of inexperienced players don't know how to fill out the CC, and don't even understand what some of the terms on it mean? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 4 19:23:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g048N9Z14657 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 19:23:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g048N1H14642 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 19:23:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g048F4J28174 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 00:15:04 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <028e01c194f2$b8912140$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: [BLML] L12C2 Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 23:37:32 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Conversations with a couple of top ACBL TDs reveals that they read L12C2 as Adam Wildavsky does: "...the most unfavorable result that was at all probable" has "had the irregularity not occurred" understood as following it, and they adjust accordingly. Since there is considerable disagreement about this, maybe the WBF LC can produce a clarifying interpretation in Montreal. Grattan? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 4 19:29:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g048TYW15594 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 19:29:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g048TNH15561 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 19:29:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g048LNR17662 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 09:21:24 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Jan 04 09:18:28 2002 +0100 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl (agro500s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KCO2DYFEEG003KX8@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 04 Jan 2002 09:20:53 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 04 Jan 2002 09:20:46 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 09:20:52 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Here's a state of things To: "'Grattan Endicott'" , Steve Willner Cc: William Schoder , bridge-laws Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Steve Willner" > To: > Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 4:54 PM > Subject: RE: [BLML] Here's a state of things > > > > There are several reasonable ways to give a ruling, > > but I hope all our instincts say that East has > > caused the problem and so NS should be protected. > > > +=+ No. East has 'caused' nothing. East has dug the > pit; South has walked into the hole because she did not > look where she was putting her feet. ~ G ~ +=+ > Sorry Grattan, I don't agree. Continuing our discussion about consequent and subsequent this in my opinion is a clear example of a consequent action from south, caused by east. On the highway you should look in front of you and not under your car. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 4 19:39:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g048dal17438 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 19:39:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g048dQH17410 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 19:39:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g048VPR19642 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 09:31:26 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Jan 04 09:27:35 2002 +0100 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl (agro500s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KCO2ONHL04003KXO@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 04 Jan 2002 09:29:31 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 04 Jan 2002 09:29:23 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 09:29:00 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Here's a state of things To: "'David Burn'" , Schoderb@aol.com, henk@ripe.net Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Goodness, only the third day of the year and already a crash with some of the highly respected contributors to this group. Well, reconsidering my position I keep my opinion: east is the guilty one. ton > Kojak wrote: > > >To David Burn: This happened as you related it? Seems to me there > might have been some holiday cheer involved, no? > > There was no mention of this in the account of events I was given, > though the thing happened recently enough. As you all know, however, > Ebenezer Scrooge is a model of bonhomie and goodwill compared to the > average bridge player who thinks he has been victimised. > > > so I'll have to go with my gut feeling that when someone does > something that could be construed as being covered by Law, BUT IS NOT, > then no Law can provide the recipe. > > I think this is right. Attempts to fit Law 21 to the situation seem to > me like trying to put a slipper on an Ugly Sister's foot. I cannot > equate the accidental leaving of a pass card on the table with the > providing of misinformation to an opponent. > > Trying to apply L25 also appears the stuff of pantomime. Whatever East > has done by leaving a pass card on the table, it isn't to pass at her > turn to call, and I do not think that one can change a call > that one has > not made. > > I can see why one would want to do eveything possible to avoid > disadvantaging South - though I am a little surprised at the unanimity > with the view that South is blameless in this case. A short while ago, > there was described an incident where a player had "followed > suit" with > a club on the assumption that declarer had asked for one. > When it turned > out that declarer had instead, by means of semaphore, asked > for a spade > and that dummy had played one, voices were raised in > condemnation of the > defender's inattention. Well, if a player knows that she has been > attending rather to the business of sorting her hand than to > the actions > of her right-hand opponent, and if that player then assumes > something to > have happened which has not in fact happened, might it not be > said that > she should accept the consequences? > > For myself, I think that a proper course would be for the director to > address the table in these terms: "South has passed out of turn, for > which I would normally impose a penalty. In the > circumstances, however, > I would like to ask East-West to consider requesting me to waive the > penalty under L81C8. Then, the auction will revert to East, and will > proceed without further penalty on either side". > > Now, this is not ideal. For a start, it will not deal with cases where > North-South have rather more than a combined six count, nor with cases > where both East and South have the values to make calls in > the restarted > auction that will lead to UI. Moreover, the director will be up a gum > tree if East and West do not display the true spirit of > Christmas. But I > think that the approach above is the best practical effort in the > circumstances. > > Meanwhile, let us create some bidding box regulations to prevent > recurrence - and perhaps, while we are about it, let us consider > extending the powers of the director under 81C8 so that weird > eventualities can be handled with the discretion and judgement that we > expect from our supremely dedicated, yet woefully unrewarded, band of > directors. > > David Burn > London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 4 19:41:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g048etx17678 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 19:40:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g048elH17665 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 19:40:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from x49.ripe.net (x49.ripe.net [193.0.1.49]) by birch.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g048Wil10948 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 09:32:44 +0100 Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g048WiT04385 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 09:32:44 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 09:32:44 +0100 (CET) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: bridge-laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Here's a state of things In-Reply-To: <000201c194b6$9b30a620$fe40e150@dodona> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > South has been inattentive and any sympathy > > >for her is modified by this. I think she has passed > > >out of rotation - West should have the opportunity > > >to accept the call and if the call is not accepted > > >30A will apply. > > > > AG : I can't stomach this. > Let us consider the simple facts: > 1. East has left a Pass card on the table. All now > seem satisified this is an infraction - not minimal > but not normally attracting a penalty. > 2. East has made no call. East has not enacted the prescribed > procedure for making a call using bidding boxes. No, east has made a bid: he removed a pass card from the bidding box and put it in front of him. The bidding box procedure does not say when one can (or cannot) make a bid. Of course, east's opening pass is in violation of 7B1. > 3. South has deliberately placed a Pass card in the prescribed manner > for making a call. Since it is East's turn this call is out of > rotation. South is responsible for her own misunderstanding. While this is true, south misunderstanding is mainly caused by east's failure to remove the pass card. Consider the oral equivalent: Board 1 has been played. EW are discussing the hand. Board 2 is put on the table, all players take their cards. West asks east: "what would you have bid over 3S?" East thinks about this for a few seconds, and say "PASS". South bids something. Even though east is answering west's question, it can easily be interpreted by south as if east has started bidding the next board. This hand is the same: east made it look as as if he had passed as dealer on board 2. Any ruling should take this into account, in other words, we should either penalize both E and S, or none of them. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 4 19:48:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g048lqi18822 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 19:47:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g048lhH18796 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 19:47:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g048dhR22058 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 09:39:44 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Jan 04 09:36:45 2002 +0100 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl (agro500s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KCO30JQ2WG003JRA@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 04 Jan 2002 09:39:06 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 04 Jan 2002 09:38:58 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 09:38:05 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] L12C2 To: "'Marvin L. French'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > Conversations with a couple of top ACBL TDs reveals that they read > L12C2 as Adam Wildavsky does: > > "...the most unfavorable result that was at all probable" has "had the > irregularity not occurred" understood as following it, and they adjust > accordingly. > > Since there is considerable disagreement about this, maybe the WBF LC > can produce a clarifying interpretation in Montreal. > > Grattan? > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California Yes, we should do that. To give my position: I will plead for the interpretation followed by your ACBL directors. The reason being that I never have done nor told otherwise and that the scope tells us the laws to use as equity oriented and not as a guillotine, even for the offenders. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 4 20:18:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g049IV624883 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 20:18:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from protactinium.btinternet.com (protactinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.176]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g049INH24852 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 20:18:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-66-198.btinternet.com ([213.122.66.198] helo=pbncomputer) by protactinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16MQMp-0004eU-00; Fri, 04 Jan 2002 09:10:23 +0000 Message-ID: <005301c194ff$79cf88e0$c6427ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Henk Uijterwaal \(RIPE-NCC\)" , "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Here's a state of things Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 09:09:00 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Henk wrote: > > 2. East has made no call. East has not enacted the prescribed > > procedure for making a call using bidding boxes. > > No, east has made a bid: he removed a pass card from the bidding box and > put it in front of him. The bidding box procedure does not say when one > can (or cannot) make a bid. Of course, east's opening pass is in > violation of 7B1. Unfortunately, I think it is fairly clear from L17 that this bid (actually a call) is not part of the auction on the current board. East has not made it during the auction period for this board - it is not part of this board's auction. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 4 20:34:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g049YIk27904 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 20:34:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g049Y9H27886 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 20:34:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id KAA12980; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 10:23:11 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id KAA12402; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 10:26:00 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020104101656.0256d400@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 10:28:24 +0100 To: Steve Willner , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: RE: [BLML] Here's a state of things In-Reply-To: <200201031654.LAA00650@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:54 3/01/2002 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: >I'm not sure what to do about Sven's problem: the pass card was left on >the table from the previous round. (We can give a PP to the player who >left the card, but that doesn't solve our present problem.) Now there >are no offenders, fact 2 is as above, and 3 is because of the previous >player's infraction. I'm tempted by L16B, but I'd rather find a way >to have the board be played. Ruling A is fine if EW waive the penalty, >but there's no incentive for them to do so. We could use 21A, but that >seems awfully harsh on South. Does anyone have a better idea? AG : Herman's favorite, L74B1. Both South and East should have seen there was an odd pass card lurking on the table, but perhaps they were too busy explaining to their resepective partners how they (ie, the partners) butchered the former deal. Don't we all do ? :-( Solution one : lecture them about L74B1, and use your (A) solution, with the following argument : "if you want them to get a penalty for not noticing, surely it is fair for you to get one for the same reason". New version of Demosthenes' dilemma. Solution 2 : let East choose between 'no penalty' and 'unplayable board for external reasons', which would result in 50%-50%, because both sides are slighly responsible. If he objects, tell him that your job is to restore equity when possible, not to penalize. Here, it is surely possible. Well, in a sense the TD was lucky. If South had *opened*, the amount of UI could prove unbearable. Best regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 4 20:47:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g049kkH00336 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 20:46:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g049kbH00306 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 20:46:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id KAA15258; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 10:35:39 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id KAA22639; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 10:38:30 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020104103926.0257bca0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 10:40:54 +0100 To: "John (MadDog) Probst" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] I was quick In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 02:53 4/01/2002 +0000, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >In article >, Kooijman, A. writes > >Hopefully you put Jack to the east seat asking Leo and Bill to close their > >hands. > >Or if Jack was physically handicapped as well you could ask Leo and Bill to > >change seats. >Nope. Leave them where they are and play counterclockwise :) AG : and if somebody, through normal reflex, plays in normal order, apply L57. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 4 20:54:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g049s6201639 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 20:54:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (brussels2000.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g049rvH01615 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 20:53:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id KAA14623; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 10:45:34 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id KAA27763; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 10:45:48 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020104104412.02579ca0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 10:48:12 +0100 To: Gordon Bower , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] What are the LAs? In-Reply-To: <3C353D41.198ADA4@mosquitonet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 20:27 3/01/2002 -0900, Gordon Bower wrote: >Here is an interesting hand I had tonight: > > |Dealer: W ===North======== | > |Declarer: E > Scoring: MP | > |Vulnerable: NS S: 52 | > |Contract: 4NT H: 7653 | > |Result: Made 5 D: Q84 | > |Score: -460 C: KT92 | > |===West========= ===East========= | > |> .----------. > | > |S: A7 | | S: KT93 | > |H: 82 | | H: AK9 | > |D: AT9653 | | D: KJ72 | > |C: J85 .----------. C: Q4 | > | | > | ===South======== | > | > | > | S: QJ864 | > | H: QJT4 | > | D: | > | C: A763 | > .----------------------------------------------------. > >BIDDING: > >West North East South > >2D Pass 3NT 4S >Pass* Pass 4NT Pass >Pass Pass > >* - hesitation, claimed by NS to have been 20 seconds. EW didn't argue. > >Opening lead HQ. Thanks to bad discards by South, the ten of spades set >up and the contract wasn't held to four. > >South called the cops at the end of the deal when he saw East's hand, >claiming East couldn't be allowed to bid 4NT. Would you adjust? > > >--- > >My opinion was that the overwhelming choice by East would be Double. If >4NT hadn't been bid at the table I might have overlooked it as a >possibility, but it'd really be quite a sensible bid, essentially >gambling partner has one useful card in addition to his diamonds, at any >other vulnerability. I think 5D - after having already chosen to try NT >once, and having reason to think a club might NOT be led - isn't popular >enough to be an LA but it's close. Pass would be just plain silly. > >I let the table result stand. If you believe 5D is good enough to be an >LA, of course, you'd probably adjust to EW400. > >GRB AG : while agreeing with most of Gordon's text, let me add that, if West has the habit of opening trash weak 2-bids (did you notice the vulnerability ?), his pass has conveyed a substantial amount of UI. As a regular trashist, I would have doubled 4S because of the unexpectedly sound defensive values. Passing here, without tempo, would mean I had opened my usual Q10xxxx and out, so pass is a LA by East. Best regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 4 21:52:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g04Ap2l11780 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 21:51:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g04AosH11748 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 21:50:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from host217-35-0-213.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([217.35.0.213]) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16MRoN-0003T1-00; Fri, 04 Jan 2002 10:42:55 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: gordonrainsford@mail.btinternet.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 10:42:51 +0000 To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Gordon Rainsford Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:50 am +0000 3/1/02, Tim West-meads wrote: >In-Reply-To: >Gordon wrote: > >> To fail to alert Stayman 2C is to suggest to your opponents that you >> have chosen to play the bid as natural and non-forcing. > >Also alertable in EBU (as are all meanings of 2C). I can find nothing in the Orange book to suggest that this is true. > Failure to alert >suggests that someone has forgotten to alert:-). In reality while it is >true that failure to alert a Stayman 2C is an infraction I think it would >be highly unlikely for a TD to find that this particular infraction had >caused damage. > >Tim -- -- Gordon Rainsford London UK -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 4 22:50:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g04Bo7C22904 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 22:50:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g04BnsH22861 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 22:49:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) with ESMTP id LAA13599 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 11:42:01 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 10:55:36 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Here's a state of things References: <005301c194ff$79cf88e0$c6427ad5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <005301c194ff$79cf88e0$c6427ad5@pbncomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <005301c194ff$79cf88e0$c6427ad5@pbncomputer>, David Burn writes >Henk wrote: > >> > 2. East has made no call. East has not enacted the prescribed >> > procedure for making a call using bidding boxes. >> >> No, east has made a bid: he removed a pass card from the bidding box >and >> put it in front of him. The bidding box procedure does not say when >one >> can (or cannot) make a bid. Of course, east's opening pass is in >> violation of 7B1. > >Unfortunately, I think it is fairly clear from L17 that this bid >(actually a call) is not part of the auction on the current board. East >has not made it during the auction period for this board - it is not >part of this board's auction. I'm going to use 72B1 - but then i use it too often, I'm told > >David Burn >London, England > > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 4 23:29:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g04CSeF23547 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 23:28:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g04CSVH23543 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 23:28:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id NAA18399; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 13:17:34 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id NAA16919; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 13:20:23 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020104130839.02571090@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 13:22:48 +0100 To: "David Burn" , "Henk Uijterwaal \(RIPE-NCC\)" , "bridge-laws" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Here's a state of things In-Reply-To: <005301c194ff$79cf88e0$c6427ad5@pbncomputer> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:09 4/01/2002 +0000, David Burn wrote: >Unfortunately, I think it is fairly clear from L17 that this bid >(actually a call) is not part of the auction on the current board. East >has not made it during the auction period for this board - it is not >part of this board's auction. AG : reminds me of another case, which happened several times when BBs were not so much widespread. Some players, before BBs, had the (correct) habit of tapping the table to alert. Some others (or the same) had the (incorrect) habit of tapping the table to mean a pass. When East taps to mean 'pass' and South enquires, no harm is done ; East just says 'no, nothing, I passed'. When East taps to mean 'alert' (which, after the introduction of BBs, is no more correct) and South passes, South might be deemed to have passed OOT. However, East's slight incorrection has caused it. East's tap is not, strictly speaking, part of the auction, which makes this case similar to the case of the case of the Pass from the previous table. A friend TD (no oxymoron here) ruled that it was at least partly East's fault and that the auction reverted to East, without penalty. I asked him what he would have done if South had passed OOT and led immediately afterwards. He answered that he would have ruled unplayable board with two offenders, 40/40. Perhaps 50/50 would have been more equitable, but I agree with both his live decision and his hypothetic one. Best regards, alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 4 23:34:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g04CXqD23560 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 23:33:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (mailhost.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g04CXgH23556 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 23:33:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id NAA10930; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 13:25:19 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id NAA20381; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 13:25:33 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020104132331.02573570@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 13:27:58 +0100 To: Gordon Rainsford , twm@cix.compulink.co.uk, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:42 4/01/2002 +0000, Gordon Rainsford wrote: >> Failure to alert >>suggests that someone has forgotten to alert:-). In reality while it is >>true that failure to alert a Stayman 2C is an infraction I think it would >>be highly unlikely for a TD to find that this particular infraction had >>caused damage. AG : Herman, please correct me if I'm wrong. In Belgium, the standard (and non-alertable) sens of 1NT-pass-2C is 'I have at least one major, and am interested in learning whether you have one too, if possible the same'. That's what you teach to your beginners, isn't it ? Other senses (including relays not necessarily linked with majors, and natural) are alertable. Also alertable are special Staymans (like Puppet, although I'd prefer the responses to be alertable, for system-reminiscence reasons) and Stayman in competitive situations. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 5 00:23:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g04DIYl25560 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 00:18:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-2.cais.net (stmpy-2.cais.net [205.252.14.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g04DIKH25514 for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 00:18:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-2.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g04DAF149870 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 08:10:15 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20020104080707.00b0e290@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 08:09:55 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] I was quick In-Reply-To: <3C345A8F.2000703@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:20 AM 1/3/02, Herman wrote: >Jack sits down in the west seat. >A board is put in front of him and he takes the cards from the pocket >nearest to him, which happens to be the east hand. >Jill sits in the east seat and notices that the board has been put >wrongly on the table. She turns it around. >Leo and Bill take the cards in front of them. >And then Jill notices that there are no cards in her "east" pocket. > >Meanwhile, Jack and Bill have already seen their cards. > >How did I solve that one ? I'd simply tell Jack to take the east hand and move to the east seat, Jill to move to the west seat and pick up her cards, and all to play. WTP? 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 5 00:56:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g04DtoP02840 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 00:55:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-4.cais.net (stmpy-4.cais.net [205.252.14.74]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g04DtfH02810 for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 00:55:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-4.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g04Dlge12346 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 08:47:42 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20020104083949.00ac7400@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 08:47:21 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] What are the LAs? In-Reply-To: <3C353D41.198ADA4@mosquitonet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:27 AM 1/4/02, Gordon wrote: >Here is an interesting hand I had tonight: > > |Dealer: W ===North======== | > |Declarer: E > Scoring: MP | > |Vulnerable: NS S: 52 | > |Contract: 4NT H: 7653 | > |Result: Made 5 D: Q84 | > |Score: -460 C: KT92 | > |===West========= ===East========= | > |> .----------. > | > |S: A7 | | S: KT93 | > |H: 82 | | H: AK9 | > |D: AT9653 | | D: KJ72 | > |C: J85 .----------. C: Q4 | > | | > | ===South======== | > | > | > | S: QJ864 | > | H: QJT4 | > | D: | > | C: A763 | > .----------------------------------------------------. > >BIDDING: > >West North East South > >2D Pass 3NT 4S >Pass* Pass 4NT Pass >Pass Pass > >* - hesitation, claimed by NS to have been 20 seconds. EW didn't argue. > >Opening lead HQ. Thanks to bad discards by South, the ten of spades set >up and the contract wasn't held to four. > >South called the cops at the end of the deal when he saw East's hand, >claiming East couldn't be allowed to bid 4NT. Would you adjust? No. The UI from W's huddle suggests that it would be better for E to take some action other than passing out 4S, but I don't see where it suggests one such action over another. Therefore if I thought that pass was an LA I would adjust to a result based on 4S by S. But I don't. >My opinion was that the overwhelming choice by East would be Double. If >4NT hadn't been bid at the table I might have overlooked it as a >possibility, but it'd really be quite a sensible bid, essentially >gambling partner has one useful card in addition to his diamonds, at any >other vulnerability. I think 5D - after having already chosen to try NT >once, and having reason to think a club might NOT be led - isn't popular >enough to be an LA but it's close. Pass would be just plain silly. > >I let the table result stand. If you believe 5D is good enough to be an >LA, of course, you'd probably adjust to EW400. I wouldn't anyhow. W's huddle might suggest bidding something (or else doubling) over passing, but I don't see that it suggests 4NT over 5D. 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 5 01:03:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g04E35Y04263 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 01:03:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net [194.7.1.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g04E2rH04231 for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 01:02:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-168-20.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.168.20]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g04DsrJ26958 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 14:54:54 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3C349346.6020102@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 18:22:14 +0100 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Australia References: <005d01c1946a$6fc043c0$6e2d3942@nc.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I hope every one has already heard the awful joke - Christmas barely over and they're already burning the trees. Good luck and best wishes to all our Sydney friends. Nancy wrote: > Have we heard anything about our friends in the parts of Australia > (Sydney) that are being ravaged by wildfires??? I hope they are all > OK! Happy New Year. > > Nancy > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 5 01:03:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g04E33c04260 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 01:03:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net [194.7.1.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g04E2pH04223 for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 01:02:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-168-20.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.168.20]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g04DsoJ26943 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 14:54:51 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3C3492B1.8030806@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 18:19:45 +0100 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] I was quick References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Kooijman, A. wrote: > Hopefully you put Jack to the east seat asking Leo and Bill to close their > hands. > Or if Jack was physically handicapped as well you could ask Leo and Bill to > change seats. > I did in fact first thought of asking NS to switch places, but then I realized that EW had caused the problems, so the Lady had to move anyway. One other joke from last night. My very first deal of the new year, and I'm sitting with three ladies at the table and four dames in hand. One of the seven was bare as well !!! Holding 17 HCP in a 1534, I open 1 He, expecting to rebid clubs next. OI was not able to, as the bidding continued 3Cl-4He-5Cl. Of course the 3Cl was a forgotten Ghestem, and I did not want to press home the advantage, so I bid and made 5He. That was the first and last top I scored during the evening, and we came last ;-( > ton > > >>-----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- >>Van: Herman De Wael [mailto:hermandw@village.uunet.be] >>Verzonden: donderdag 3 januari 2002 14:20 >>Aan: Bridge Laws >>Onderwerp: [BLML] I was quick >> >> >>Weekly tournament, I was bye. >>Director! >>Here's what happened (I'll use names rather than wind >>directions for obvious reasons). >> >>Jack sits down in the west seat. >>A board is put in front of him and he takes the cards from >>the pocket nearest to him, which happens to be the east hand. >>Jill sits in the east seat and notices that the board has >>been put wrongly on the table. She turns it around. >>Leo and Bill take the cards in front of them. >>And then Jill notices that there are no cards in her "east" >>pocket. >> >>Meanwhile, Jack and Bill have already seen their cards. >> >>How did I solve that one ? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Easy : I told Jack and Jill to switch seats ! >> >>-- >>Herman DE WAEL >>Antwerpen Belgium >>http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html >> >> >>-- >>============================================================== >>========== >>(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email >>majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >>"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >>A Web archive is at >>http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-> LAWS/ >> >> > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 5 01:11:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g04EAtE05808 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 01:10:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g04EAjH05778 for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 01:10:46 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g04E2j125947 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 14:02:45 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 14:02 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.52.2000, Windows 98 4.10.2222 ( A ) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: > >Also alertable in EBU (as are all meanings of 2C). > > I can find nothing in the Orange book to suggest that this is true. I believe it comes under 5.2.1 (b) since a natural non-forcing 2C to 1NT is about as expected as the Spanish Inquisition. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 5 01:14:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g04EEmm06568 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 01:14:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g04EEcH06535 for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 01:14:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g04E6cR12823 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 15:06:38 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Jan 04 15:03:41 2002 +0100 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl (agro500s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KCOEFWTTTS003LEI@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 04 Jan 2002 15:06:04 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 04 Jan 2002 15:05:56 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 15:05:17 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] I was quick To: "'Herman De Wael'" , Bridge Laws Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > Kooijman, A. wrote: > > > Hopefully you put Jack to the east seat asking Leo and Bill > to close their > > hands. > > Or if Jack was physically handicapped as well you could ask > Leo and Bill to > > change seats. > > Herman: > > I did in fact first thought of asking NS to switch places, > but then I realized that EW had caused the problems, so the > Lady had to move anyway. > > One other joke from last night. My very first deal of the > new year, and I'm sitting with three ladies at the table and > four dames in hand. One of the seven was bare as well !!! > Holding 17 HCP in a 1534, I open 1 He, expecting to rebid > clubs next. OI was not able to, as the bidding continued > 3Cl-4He-5Cl. Of course the 3Cl was a forgotten Ghestem, and > I did not want to press home the advantage, so I bid and > made 5He. That was the first and last top I scored during > the evening, and we came last ;-( > > > > ton I would have preferred you to delete my name under this description of your performance. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 5 01:33:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g04EXGS09460 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 01:33:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g04EX7H09437 for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 01:33:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-52-45.btinternet.com ([213.122.52.45] helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16MVHO-0006Mk-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 04 Jan 2002 14:25:07 +0000 Message-ID: <001701c1952b$710e9d00$2d347ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <005301c194ff$79cf88e0$c6427ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Here's a state of things Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 14:23:16 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John wrote: > I'm going to use 72B1 - but then i use it too often, I'm told Indeed. 72B1 is one of the more unfortunate consequences of what we have now come to know as the Endicott-Higson Learned Friends Avoidance Play. Since there is no theoretical reason why anyone could not at any time know anything, the scope of this Law is in effect boundless. It has no more practical application to this case than any of the other Laws that I can see, but this need be no bar to using it. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 5 02:07:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g04F7BB15643 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 02:07:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g04F6xH15623 for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 02:07:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.51.136] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16MVko-000LlU-00; Fri, 04 Jan 2002 14:55:30 +0000 Message-ID: <000701c19530$5f81de80$8833e150@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" Cc: "bridge-laws" References: <3C3455E5.9040507@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 14:25:23 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: 03 January 2002 13:00 Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. > > Fine. Where is the problem? The problem > > is that the worries expressed in the last few > > posts have not been about this, the normal > > worry about psyching. They have been > > concerned with bits of system which make it > > safer to use one psyche rather than another. > > +=+ ""Psychic controls are not permitted. If a pair is using methods that enable them to make risk-free psyches, they are in essence playing psychic controls. ................omissis................... For example, 1NT-Pass-2 Hearts - 3C : if the opener is prohibited from bidding 3 Hearts with a maximum and a fit, then a risk-free environment is created."" [ACBL Regulation] I would suppose that the ACBL statement is based on the fact that the partnership is seen to have an understanding. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 5 02:07:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g04F76f15637 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 02:07:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g04F6uH15609 for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 02:06:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.51.136] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16MVkk-000LlU-00; Fri, 04 Jan 2002 14:55:26 +0000 Message-ID: <000401c19530$5d1dfde0$8833e150@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." , "'Marvin L. French'" , References: Subject: Re: [BLML] L12C2 Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 12:26:30 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "'Marvin L. French'" ; Sent: 04 January 2002 08:38 Subject: RE: [BLML] L12C2 > > Yes, we should do that. To give my > position: I will plead for the interpretation > followed by your ACBL directors. The > reason being that I never have done nor > told otherwise and that the scope tells > us the laws to use as equity oriented > and not as a guillotine, even for the > offenders. > > ton > -- +=+ I have opened a file labelled 'Montreal: WBFLC agenda' . I do not recollect what the 1992 Commentary says upon the question, but I do not know of any change in the EBL policy since then. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 5 02:22:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g04FMcc18626 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 02:22:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g04FMTH18607 for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 02:22:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g04FESR28063 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 16:14:28 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Jan 04 16:10:57 2002 +0100 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl (agro500s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KCOGSJANC6003JI7@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 04 Jan 2002 16:13:30 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 04 Jan 2002 16:13:23 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 16:13:27 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] L12C2 To: "'Grattan Endicott'" , "Kooijman, A." , "'Marvin L. French'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > > > Yes, we should do that. To give my > > position: I will plead for the interpretation > > followed by your ACBL directors. The > > reason being that I never have done nor > > told otherwise and that the scope tells > > us the laws to use as equity oriented > > and not as a guillotine, even for the > > offenders. > > > > ton > > -- > +=+ I have opened a file labelled > 'Montreal: WBFLC agenda' . > I do not recollect what the 1992 Commentary > says upon the question, but I do not know > of any change in the EBL policy since then. > ~ G ~ +=+ I am even not aware of an EBL-policy existing on this subject. Please tell me what probably didn't change. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 5 02:51:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g04Fou023888 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 02:50:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g04FolH23854 for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 02:50:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from host217-35-0-213.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([217.35.0.213]) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16MWUZ-0004XW-00; Fri, 04 Jan 2002 15:42:47 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: gordonrainsford@mail.btinternet.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 15:42:41 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Gordon Rainsford Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 2:02 pm +0000 4/1/02, Tim West-meads wrote: >In-Reply-To: >> >Also alertable in EBU (as are all meanings of 2C). >> >> I can find nothing in the Orange book to suggest that this is true. > >I believe it comes under 5.2.1 (b) since a natural non-forcing 2C to 1NT >is about as expected as the Spanish Inquisition. > >Tim 5.2.1 You must alert a call if (b) it is natural, but you have an agreement by which it is forcing or non-forcing in a way that your opponents are unlikely to expect. It is not the unexpectedness of the bid that makes it alertable, but the unexpectedness of it's forcing or non-forcing nature. One would expect a natural 2C response to a 1NT opener to be non-forcing, in exactly the same way as 2D/2H/2S would be. -- -- Gordon Rainsford London UK -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 5 03:14:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g04GDs327901 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 03:13:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g04GDgH27867 for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 03:13:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.14.63] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16MWnN-000Oi3-00; Fri, 04 Jan 2002 16:02:13 +0000 Message-ID: <002801c19539$b19fd100$8833e150@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Burn" , References: <005301c194ff$79cf88e0$c6427ad5@pbncomputer> <001701c1952b$710e9d00$2d347ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Here's a state of things Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 15:59:06 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: 04 January 2002 14:23 Subject: Re: [BLML] Here's a state of things > John wrote: > > > I'm going to use 72B1 - but then i use > > it too often, I'm told > > Indeed. 72B1 is one of the more unfortunate > consequences of what we have now come to > know as the Endicott-Higson Learned Friends > Avoidance Play. Since there is no theoretical > reason why anyone could not at any time know > anything, the scope of this Law is in effect > boundless. It has no more practical application > to this case than any of the other Laws that > I can see, but this need be no bar to using it. > > David Burn > London, England > +=+ > "And of all the axioms this shall be the prize, - 'Tis better to be fortunate than wise." +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 5 03:14:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g04GDvo27905 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 03:13:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g04GDiH27876 for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 03:13:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.14.63] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16MWnP-000Oi3-00; Fri, 04 Jan 2002 16:02:15 +0000 Message-ID: <002901c19539$b2c4c900$8833e150@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." , "'Grattan Endicott'" , "Steve Willner" Cc: "William Schoder" , "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Here's a state of things Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 16:04:39 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "'Grattan Endicott'" ; "Steve Willner" Cc: "William Schoder" ; "bridge-laws" Sent: 04 January 2002 08:20 Subject: RE: [BLML] Here's a state of things > > > > From: "Steve Willner" > > To: > > Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 4:54 PM > > Subject: RE: [BLML] Here's a state of things > > > > > > > There are several reasonable ways to give a ruling, > > > but I hope all our instincts say that East has > > > caused the problem and so NS should be protected. > > > > > +=+ No. East has 'caused' nothing. East has dug the > > pit; South has walked into the hole because she did not > > look where she was putting her feet. ~ G ~ +=+ > > > > > Sorry Grattan, I don't agree. Continuing our discussion > about consequent and subsequent this in my opinion > is a clear example of a consequent action from south, > caused by east. On the highway you should look in > front of you and not under your car. > > ton > -- +=+ No need to be sorry. It would be a sorry state of affairs if we always agreed. We have a different understanding of 'consequent' but we do agree about the necessity of banishing the word. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 5 03:54:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g04Grha04411 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 03:53:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g04GrZH04386 for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 03:53:35 +1100 (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 LAA26667 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 11:45:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA08228 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 11:45:35 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 11:45:35 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200201041645.LAA08228@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: TR: [BLML] A question of the English. X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Laval Dubreuil" > I called this a psych (and continue to do) because most player > in Canada (ACBL land) play a new suit as NATURAL and forcing. > IMHO 3H then is just to make them loose their H fit. This comment reminds me of the days when transfers were just starting to become popular. (Showing my age, I guess. But I was _very_ young at the time.) If an agreement is properly announced and explained, it can hardly be a psych. Yes, unfamiliar agreements may well create problems for opponents,* but imagining that unfamiliar agreements are psychs is not a helpful approach. I often play a weak NT; do you call that a psych too? Of course anyone who plays an unfamiliar agreement has a extra burden to explain properly. Or more precisely, if an agreement is uncommon, an inadequate explanation is more likely to lead to damage and an adjusted score than would be the case for a familiar agreement. ---- *See LC's diatribe against Polish Club, the essential elements of which are GCC legal in the ACBL. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 5 04:00:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g04H0df05663 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 04:00:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-d02.mx.aol.com (imo-d02.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.34]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g04H0UH05632 for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 04:00:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from YNOTSEMA@aol.com by imo-d02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.9.) id 7.54.20b0c4e6 (4413) for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 11:52:21 -0500 (EST) From: YNOTSEMA@aol.com Message-ID: <54.20b0c4e6.296737c5@aol.com> Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 11:52:21 EST Subject: Re: [BLML] Here's a state of things To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_54.20b0c4e6.296737c5_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10556 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_54.20b0c4e6.296737c5_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/4/02 10:07:51 AM Central Standard Time, gester@lineone.net writes: > owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > In a tournament a few years back, North (a deliberative type) had left a Pass card on the table from the previous auction. He was the dealer and while sorting his cards, East noticed his Pass and placed the Pass card on the table. Whereupon, South opened the bidding and West passed. North, holding a 14 point hand, drove his side to an unmakeable slam on a finesse that lost. Only after the result was totaled up, did North call the Director and seek redress for the "bid out-of-turn". What is the correct ruling and which laws are involved? Tony Ames --part1_54.20b0c4e6.296737c5_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/4/02 10:07:51 AM Central Standard Time, gester@lineone.net writes:


owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au

In a tournament a few years back, North (a deliberative type) had left a Pass card on the table from the previous auction.  He was the dealer and while sorting his cards, East noticed his Pass and placed the Pass card on the table.  Whereupon, South opened the bidding and West passed.  North, holding a 14 point hand, drove his side to an unmakeable slam on a finesse that lost.  Only after the result was totaled up, did North call the Director and seek redress for the "bid out-of-turn".  What is the correct ruling and which laws are involved?

Tony Ames
--part1_54.20b0c4e6.296737c5_boundary-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 5 04:06:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g04H6Fk06433 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 04:06:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.125]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g04H66H06407 for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 04:06:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g04Gw2815821; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 11:58:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 11:50:43 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] No agreement? To: "Marvin L. French" , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <027901c194de$afb4d940$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <20020104115801-r01010800-fac632a9-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.1.8 (Bluto) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 1/3/02 at 9:04 PM, mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) wrote: > C'mon Ed, you know what "filling out" a form means. For the ACBL CC, > the instructions for doing so are at: > > http://www.acbl.org/convcard/how2fill.htm I'm familiar with that page. It is not regulatory. And it doesn't answer the questions I asked. [...] > Is it any wonder that the majority of inexperienced players don't know > how to fill out the CC, and don't even understand what some of the > terms on it mean? Nope. :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 5 04:35:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g04HYqc11743 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 04:34:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lycee.ns.uk.easynet.net (lycee.ns.uk.easynet.net [195.40.1.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g04HYfH11701 for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 04:34:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-14-81.easynet.co.uk [212.134.24.81]) by lycee.ns.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id BABD6A1D3 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 17:26:38 +0000 (GMT) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] A question of the English Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 17:23:55 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Gordon Rainsford writes: > One would expect a natural 2C response to a 1NT opener to be > non-forcing, in exactly the same way as 2D/2H/2S would be. Exactly. Almost all of the time my opponents will be playing Stayman and transfers and, assuming we are playing in EBUland, they will alert a response of 2C/D/H/S to 1NT as required by OB 5.2.1(a). If my opponents are *not* playing Stayman/transfers, I may well have foreknowledge of their methods, but in any case I should at the start of the round have found out my opponents' Basic System as required by OB 3.1.2. My opponents should assume that I have done this and that I will therefore expect 2C/D/H/S to be natural and non-forcing. It is not true, therefore to say that these bids are "not forcing in a way I am unlikely to expect". To alert under the guise of OB 5.2.1 is IMO both unnecessary and likely to be misleading. Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 5 04:40:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g04Hd6t12500 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 04:39:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from inet-mail4.oracle.com ([148.87.2.204]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g04HcvH12475 for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 04:38:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from rgmgw4.us.oracle.com (rgmgw4.us.oracle.com [138.1.191.13]) by inet-mail4.oracle.com (Switch-2.1.3/Switch-2.1.0) with ESMTP id g04HUrY04815 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 09:30:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from oracle.com (dhcp-4op11-4op12-east-130-35-179-73.us.oracle.com [130.35.179.73]) by rgmgw4.us.oracle.com (Switch-2.1.3/Switch-2.1.0) with ESMTP id g04HUtP10889; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 10:30:55 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <3C35E576.21BCB185@oracle.com> Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 09:25:10 -0800 From: Jim Boyce Organization: Oracle Corporation X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: Bridge Laws , "Boyce,James" Subject: Re: [BLML] Here's a state of things References: <000e01c19302$007a0960$17827ad5@pbncomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I am not familiar with the regulations governing bidding boxes in the jurisdiction of the incident. Others have quoted regulations to conclude that East did not make a call, and that South had bid out of turn. What do the regulations say about reviews of the auction so far (Law 20)? Is a players supposed to ask (verbally) for a review, even when using bidding boxes? or is he supposed to look at the bidding cards on the table? (Do the bidding box regulations for the appropriate jurisdiction even mention reviews of the auction?) The incident was described this way: Sitting South, she picked up and sorted her cards and, on seeing a green Pass card in front of East (the dealer), she contributed a pass of her own. All Hell thereupon broke loose, for East had not passed her actual hand as dealer, merely left a Pass card on the table when collecting her cards from the auction on the preceding board. South does not claim that East bid; South claims that her review of the auction showed that East bid. This may (depending on exactly what the relevant regulations actually say) be similar to this sequence (spoken): S: Is it my call? How has the bidding gone? W: My partner passed. S: Pass E: No, I didn't! That is, South has received an incorrect review from the opponents and then bid out of turn. That seems to be how many people want to rule, though they have not explicitly mentioned the word "review". -jim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 5 06:03:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g04J2m328330 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 06:02:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g04J2cH28297 for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 06:02:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g04Isdq09163 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 10:54:39 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <003701c19551$408174c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <20020104115801-r01010800-fac632a9-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> Subject: Re: [BLML] No agreement? Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 10:54:27 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk (This is ACBL stuff, maybe we should be on rgb with it) From: "Ed Reppert" (Marvin L. French) wrote: > > > C'mon Ed, you know what "filling out" a form means. For the ACBL CC, > > the instructions for doing so are at: > > > > http://www.acbl.org/convcard/how2fill.htm > > I'm familiar with that page. It is not regulatory. And it doesn't answer the > questions I asked. > By "not regulatory" I guess you mean it contents did not come from the ACBL BoD, as all regulations must. However, it constitutes an interpretation of the BoD-approved CC by the Chief Tournament Director of the ACBL, who is the one responsible for interpreting and applying regulations. That makes the document regulatory enough for me. Re-reading it just now, I learned something. You must fill in a HCP range for a jump response of 2NT only if it is non-forcing. That would make a good trivia question. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 5 07:21:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g04KKWg13961 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 07:20:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat40.alcanet.no [193.213.239.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g04KKMH13935 for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 07:20:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from netos70.alcatel.no (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with ESMTP id g04KCEN19283; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 21:12:14 +0100 Subject: Re: [BLML] Here's a state of things To: YNOTSEMA@aol.com Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 21:12:11 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NOMAIL01/NO/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 01/04/2002 21:12:14 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Law 29 A Result stands with no modification whatsoever. regards Sven YNOTSEMA@aol.com Sent by: To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws) owner-bridge-laws@rgb. cc: anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Here's a state of things 2002-01-04 17:52 In a message dated 1/4/02 10:07:51 AM Central Standard Time, gester@lineone.net writes: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au In a tournament a few years back, North (a deliberative type) had left a Pass card on the table from the previous auction. He was the dealer and while sorting his cards, East noticed his Pass and placed the Pass card on the table. Whereupon, South opened the bidding and West passed. North, holding a 14 point hand, drove his side to an unmakeable slam on a finesse that lost. Only after the result was totaled up, did North call the Director and seek redress for the "bid out-of-turn". What is the correct ruling and which laws are involved? Tony Ames -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 5 07:44:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g04Ki7J15051 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 07:44:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g04Ki0H15047 for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 07:44:00 +1100 (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 PAA10823 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 15:36:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA08449 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 15:36:00 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 15:36:00 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200201042036.PAA08449@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Gordon Rainsford > It is not the unexpectedness of the bid that makes it alertable, but > the unexpectedness of it's forcing or non-forcing nature. David S. and I had a bit of discussion of this not long ago. The above principle is certainly correct (in the EBU), but it isn't obvious how to apply it. > One would expect a natural 2C response to a 1NT opener to be > non-forcing, in exactly the same way as 2D/2H/2S would be. Many people have said the same, but on consideration, if a pair told me they play 2C as natural, I would expect it to be forcing. How else can they look for fits at the two-level? I am fairly sure that one of the "natural" pairs in the "naturalist-scientist" match played it that way. (Indeed, wasn't 2C natural and forcing the usual agreement before Stayman was popular? My personal memory does not extend quite that far back.) The upshot is that some opponents would find "forcing" unexpected, while other opponents would find "non-forcing" unexpected. According to David S., this makes both meanings alertable. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 5 09:51:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g04Mnbk15157 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 09:49:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g04Mn3H15129 for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 09:49:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16Md1H-000ElU-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 22:41:03 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 21:19:36 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Here's a state of things References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven.Pran@alcatel.no writes >David Burn wrote: > >>A friend at a New Year's Eve party recounted the following tale of woe. >>Sitting South, she picked up and sorted her cards and, on seeing a green >>Pass card in front of East (the dealer), she contributed a pass of her >>own. All Hell thereupon broke loose, for East had not passed her actual >>hand as dealer, merely left a Pass card on the table when collecting her >>cards from the auction on the preceding board. The director took >>counsel, and ruled that South had (albeit unwittingly) passed out of >>turn, incurring exorbitant penalties and the loss of her immortal soul. > >>As it happened, East-West could make 7NT and neither North nor South >>would have intended to enter the auction at any point, for to do so >>would have courted the penalty for at least six down doubled, vulnerable >>against not, in any one-level contract. But I wondered - do the Laws >>cover this eventuality, and if so, how? Was the director right to rule >>as he did, and if not, what should he have done instead? > >There has been a ruling, I believe by WBF, that East (in this case) is >responsible for the pass card in front of him. The correct ruling should >have been: East and South have both passed (in turn), the auction >continues with West in turn to call (and he must not take into account >the UI he has received from East by the Hell breaking loose). In most of the world [the ACBL have recently changed] a call is made when the card is removed from the bidding box. During this deal East has not removed a card from the bidding box, so he has not called. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 5 09:51:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g04Mnkl15162 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 09:49:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g04Mn6H15136 for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 09:49:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16Md1J-000ElW-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 22:41:07 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 21:42:28 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] L12C2 References: <000401c19530$5d1dfde0$8833e150@pacific> In-Reply-To: <000401c19530$5d1dfde0$8833e150@pacific> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott writes >+=+ I have opened a file labelled >'Montreal: WBFLC agenda' . >I do not recollect what the 1992 Commentary >says upon the question, but I do not know >of any change in the EBL policy since then. EBL TDG 12.14 In the case of an offending side the requirement is to assess the score which is "the most unfavourable result that was at all probable". There are two key changes: firstly this result may be obtained either through action in which the irregularity has not occurred, or alternatively through action in which the irregularity does occur. The offending side's path to its poor score may be by either of these routes. Secondly there is a difference between what is "likely" and what (as here) is "at all probable": discard the improbable and consider the scores that remain. Select the one most unfavourable for the offending side. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 5 09:51:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g04MnSk15153 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 09:49:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g04MmtH15107 for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 09:48:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16Md16-000ElV-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 22:40:56 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 21:07:59 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. References: <002101c19410$63215140$7340e150@dodona> In-Reply-To: <002101c19410$63215140$7340e150@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott writes >From: "David Stevenson" >> Can I ask where all these EBU rules are coming >> from that I have never heard of and do not apply? >+=+ I do not think anyone has quoted a 'rule' that you >are unaware of. There are two statements in OB 6.1.2: > "Systemic psyching of any kind is not permitted." > "You may not use any convention to control a > psyche." >These are preceded in 6.1.1 by a general statement >that: > "A psychic bid is a legitimate ploy as long as it > contains the same element of surprise for the > psycher's partner as it does for the opponents." >These seem to constitute regulations. Sure - but they are not the regs being quoted in this thread. I have now been told that the regs referred to preceded my time on the L&EC, and seem to have died about twelve years ago. The reg which I was surprised by was the one that Drury may be played so long as it is not psyched, and I am assured it did exist at one time. Of course, there are other current rules forbidding psyches with certain conventions. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 5 09:51:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g04MndY15159 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 09:49:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g04MmwH15114 for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 09:48:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16Md19-000Eli-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 22:40:59 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 21:17:32 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Here's a state of things References: <8+eeeACXjwM8EwMc@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <20020102211501-r01010800-32e99794-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> In-Reply-To: <20020102211501-r01010800-32e99794-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert writes >On 1/2/02 at 1:19 PM, bridge@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) wrote: > >> Has East done anything wrong? Yes, he has not replaced his >> bidding cards in the box as the regs suggest. > >I tried to look at the EBU orange book, using the link on your lawspage, the >other day, and was unable to reach it. It seems still to be down. The OB link >gives a "file not found" error, and the report of that error suggests checking >the EBU home page. That link gives a "system cannot find file specified" error. The EBU have re-done their website. It was quite a pleasant one, usable with any size of monitor. It is now usually unavailable, designed only for bigger monitors, looks fairly dreadful, and apparently the writers have failed to notice that the use of numbered URLs disappeared some years ago. Everything is still on it but is no longer findable or readable. It will probably get an award. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 5 09:51:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g04Mnhf15161 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 09:49:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g04Mn8H15142 for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 09:49:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16Md1K-000Eli-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 22:41:08 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 22:26:36 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Nanki Poo Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Cats! References: <7AEOXgA13B34EwXz@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk List of cats Mark Abraham Kittini Michael Albert Bob, Icky Picky RB Karen Allison Stella, Blanche, Stanley Dave Armstrong Cookie Louis Arnon Dorus, Edna, Frits, Gussy Brian Baresch Lao, Gaea Olivier Beauvillain Dode Adam Beneschan Mango MIA Matthias Berghaus Lester David Blizzard Herbie, Mittens Mike Bolster Jess Vitold Brushtunov Chia Everett Boyer Amber Art Brodsky Ralph Pur Byantara Begung Wayne Burrows Fritzi, Nico Konrad Ciborowski Kocurzak Miauczurny Mary Crenshaw Dickens, Cecil Ray Crowe * Mo, Vegas, Aspen Claude Dadoun Moustique Hirsch Davis Shadow, Smokey RB, Loki, Snaggs, Rufus Mike Dennis Casino Laval Du Breuil Picatou Simon Edler Incy Michael Farebrother Shadow EL, Tipsy EL Wally Farley Andrew RB, Templeton, Scratcher, Joy, Panda RB, Shaure, Edmund Eric Favager Poppy, Daisy, Smiffie, Ollie, Monty, Fluffy Walt Flory Punkin, Sami Marv French Mozart Anna Gudge EMale, Bear, Taggie Dany Haimovici Shobo, Rosario, Shemaya, Hershey, Spotty, Shuri, Dossie, Kippy, Pushpush, Hershon RB Paul & Pat Harrington Dopi, Bridget, Depo RB Robert Harris Bobbsie RB, Caruso Damian Hassan Bast, Katie, Tepsi, Baroo, Scrap, +1 Craig Hemphill Spook, Snuffy, Snuggles, Squeak, Cub Scout Richard Hull Endora, Putty Tat, Bill Bailey Sergey Kapustin Liza Laurie Kelso Bugs, Sheba MIA Irv Kostal * Abby, Sabrina RB, Albert, Truman Jack Kryst Bentley, Ava John Kuchenbrod RaRe, Leo Irv Kostal Albert, Cleo EL, Sabrina, Bill RB Patrick Laborde Romeo Eric Landau Glorianna, Wesley, Shadow, Query Paul Lippens Rakker, Tijger, Sloeber Albert Lochli Killer Demeter Manning Nikolai, Zonker Rui Marques Bibi, Kenji, Satann John McIlrath Garfield, Mischief Brian Meadows Katy Bruce Moore Sabrena Tony Musgrove Mitzi, Muffin Sue O'Donnell Yazzer-Cat, Casey RB Henk Pieters * Jip, Janneke, Ketie Rand Pinsky Vino, Axel Rose, Talia, Keiko John Probst Gnipper, Figaro Ed Reppert Ayesha, Gracie, The Sarge, Buzz Jack Rhind TC (the cat) Michael Schmahl Sophie Norman Scorbie Starsky RB, Hutch Bob Scruton Squeeky Craig Senior Streak, Shaney, Rascal, Stubby, Precious, Smoke, Scamp, Bandit, Shadow, Smokey Flemming B-Soerensen * Flora, Rose RB Ian Spoors * Zeus WV Grant Sterling Big Mac, Flash David Stevenson * Quango RB, Nanki Poo, Ting RB, Pish RB, Tush RB, Tao MIA, Suk RB Helen Thompson Tom, Tabby, Bubba Les West T.C., Trudy Anton Witzen Beer, Miepje Tom Wood Nikolai, Zonker plus, of course Selassie RB is a cat waiting at Rainbow Bridge, MIA is a cat missing in action, EL is a cat on extended leave [ie staying with someone else known] and WV is a welcome visitor [ie lives elsewhere but visits on a regular basis]. Anyone who wishes to see the story of Rainbow Bridge can ask David for a copy, or look at the article on his Catpage at http://blakjak.com/rbridge.htm The story and a picture of Selassie is at http://blakjak.com/slssie.htm Additions and amendments to this list should be sent to Nanki Poo at . Amended entries are marked *. Schrodinger's cat does not appear, but it has been suggested that if Schrodinger's cat is not on the list then that means that Schrodinger's cat is on the list ... Of course, from now on I shall be keeping the list without Uncle Quango's help. I miss him [even though he took the best bits of bed]. Miiiiiiiaaaaaoouuuuwwwwww !!!!!!!!! Mrow *NP* -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/qu_npoo.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 5 09:51:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g04MndP15160 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 09:49:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g04Mn4H15133 for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 09:49:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16Md1J-000ElV-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 22:41:05 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 21:35:47 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] I was quick References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Kooijman, A. writes >> Kooijman, A. wrote: >Herman: >> One other joke from last night. My very first deal of the >> new year, and I'm sitting with three ladies at the table and >> four dames in hand. One of the seven was bare as well !!! >> Holding 17 HCP in a 1534, I open 1 He, expecting to rebid >> clubs next. OI was not able to, as the bidding continued >> 3Cl-4He-5Cl. Of course the 3Cl was a forgotten Ghestem, and >> I did not want to press home the advantage, so I bid and >> made 5He. That was the first and last top I scored during >> the evening, and we came last ;-( >> > ton >I would have preferred you to delete my name under this description of your >performance. > >ton Be fair, Ton, he did better than usual! :)) -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 5 09:51:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g04MnWL15155 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 09:49:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g04MmuH15109 for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 09:48:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16Md19-000ElW-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 22:40:57 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 21:09:26 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. References: <018701c19417$8477ffe0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <018701c19417$8477ffe0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes >The ACBL has approved the use of the 2NT asking bid in >response to a weak two as a total bluff, not considering it > a psych. Correct. It's an asking bid, not a telling bid. A psyche is defined relative to the system being played. [a] If you play it as an asking bid, nothing more, then that is what it is, and bidding it on a weak hand is normal. [b] If you play it as showing something then that is what it does, and it is a psyche if done deliberately on a weak hand. In practice, the thing that worries me is that better players do it on [a], and fool their poorer opponents into thinking it is [b]. In many ways, the best test is to consider the bidding: 2S P 2NT 4H ? May opener rebid 4S [or double]? They may in my partnership because I play 2NT as a telling bid as well as an asking bid. If my partner or I ever bid it on a very weak hand it will be a psyche. However, if you do not allow opener to rebid above 3S then it is likely to be allowed on a weak hand. It is interesting to know whether the ACBL reg quoted elsewhere in this thread about risk-free actions being disallowed should not really disallow this use of 2NT! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 5 09:51:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g04MnXY15156 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 09:49:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g04MmvH15111 for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 09:48:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16Md19-000Elf-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 22:40:58 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 21:09:43 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads writes >In-Reply-To: >Sven wrote: > >> Let me repeat: Partner must become as surprised as anybody >> else around the table. > >Please stop repeating this - it is just plain wrong. If partner is as >surprised as would be a complete stranger of similar standard in the same >seat then it is not a PU. The familiarity/competence or any other aspect >of the opponents is totally irrelevant. > >Note: The EBU regulation in 6.1.1 is clearly in contradiction of the legal >position on psyches (how on earth can one be expected to know whether >opponents have any experience with psyches?). I hope I never see a ruling >that "This psyche was OK by X because his unknown opponents happened to be >from the YC but not by Y because his unknown opponents came from >Blundellsands". I think that the reg is not wrong so much as badly worded, and I ask people to consider a wording that meets what I believe we mean. We do not want partner to have a better expectation because he is partner: now put that into English please. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 5 09:51:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g04MnSI15154 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 09:49:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g04MmtH15105 for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 09:48:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16Md16-000ElU-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 22:40:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 21:05:43 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. References: <3C3455E5.9040507@village.uunet.be> <000701c19530$5f81de80$8833e150@pacific> In-Reply-To: <000701c19530$5f81de80$8833e150@pacific> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott writes >From: "Herman De Wael" Please be careful with the attributions! The following is my wording, not Herman's. >> > Fine. Where is the problem? The problem >> > is that the worries expressed in the last few >> > posts have not been about this, the normal >> > worry about psyching. They have been >> > concerned with bits of system which make it >> > safer to use one psyche rather than another. >+=+ ""Psychic controls are not permitted. If a pair >is using methods that enable them to make >risk-free psyches, they are in essence playing >psychic controls. ................omissis................... >For example, 1NT-Pass-2 Hearts - 3C : >if the opener is prohibited from bidding 3 Hearts >with a maximum and a fit, then a risk-free >environment is created."" [ACBL Regulation] > I would suppose that the ACBL statement > is based on the fact that the partnership is > seen to have an understanding. I am not entirely convinced that being part of an ACBL regulation makes it a method we should follow in other parts of the world. Suppose that two players decide to play the above methods, not in the ACBL. Thirty years later, having played together three times a week and *never* once psyched any call whatever in all that time, we are to tell them that their methods are illegal because they are playing a psychic control? No way! I do not agree that a particular agreement that makes psyches risk-free makes the method illegal. Added to which, of course, it does not make the psyche risk-free: it reduces the risk. *Everyone* plays methods that reduce the risk for certain psyches: that neither makes them psychic controls nor illegal. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 5 09:51:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g04Mnb315158 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 09:49:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g04Mn4H15132 for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 09:49:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16Md1J-000Elf-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 22:41:05 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 21:31:08 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_R=E9f._:_Re:_[BLML]_Here's_a_state_of_____things?= References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020102133840.02695a10@pop.ulb.ac.be> <20020102203900-r01010800-02c4395d-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <5.1.0.14.0.20020103121001.0257e980@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020103121001.0257e980@pop.ulb.ac.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner writes >At 20:38 2/01/2002 -0500, Ed Reppert wrote: >>On 1/2/02 at 1:47 PM, agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) wrote: >> >> > Only an AC should feel necessary to prove that the laws it applied >> > were the right ones >> >>Huh? A TD should not feel constrained to rule in accordance with the laws? > >AG : seems like you overlooked the final smilie. Please understand it as such : > >a) TDs are required to rule in accordance with the law, and have some >discretionary powers. They are seldom asked where they took their ruling >from, although they (including YT) commonly mention it, especially when >they are proud to know the relevant numbers by heart. Don't your TDs write the Law numbers on the appeal forms? >b) ACs are required to rule in accordance with the law, have some >discretionary powers *and* are asked to mention the relevant laws, to allow >for a last check. _scripta manent_. Surely they just follow the Law numbers provided by the TDs? >Does it seem more PC now ? PC? P****y c**p? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 5 11:29:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g050SnZ29733 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 11:28:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cmailg7.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailg7.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.195.177]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g050ScH29700 for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 11:28:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.92.67.23] (helo=mail18.svr.pol.co.uk) by cmailg7.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.13 #0) id 16MeZi-00063B-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 05 Jan 2002 00:20:38 +0000 Received: from modem-210.blue-spotted-wrasse.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.136.239.210] helo=laphraoig.localdomain) by mail18.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.13 #0) id 16MeZg-0001RL-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 05 Jan 2002 00:20:38 +0000 Received: (from jeremy@localhost) by laphraoig.localdomain (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA26748; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 00:21:00 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: laphraoig.localdomain: jeremy set sender to j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk using -f To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Here's a state of things References: <8+eeeACXjwM8EwMc@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <20020102211501-r01010800-32e99794-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> From: Jeremy Rickard Date: 04 Jan 2002 23:51:06 +0000 In-Reply-To: David Stevenson's message of "Fri, 4 Jan 2002 21:17:32 +0000" Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0802 (Gnus v5.8.2) Emacs/20.3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii MIME-Version: 1.0 Lines: 29 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes: > Ed Reppert writes > > >I tried to look at the EBU orange book, using the link on your lawspage, the > >other day, and was unable to reach it. It seems still to be down. The OB link > >gives a "file not found" error, and the report of that error suggests checking > >the EBU home page. That link gives a "system cannot find file specified" error. > > The EBU have re-done their website. It was quite a pleasant one, > usable with any size of monitor. It is now usually unavailable, > designed only for bigger monitors, looks fairly dreadful, and apparently > the writers have failed to notice that the use of numbered URLs > disappeared some years ago. Everything is still on it but is no longer > findable or readable. Also, for some unfathomable reason the main navigation menu is a Java applet, which means that the site is virtually unusable by anybody who doesn't use a Java-enabled browser (as I don't). It didn't even work properly with the first two Java-enabled browsers I tried. The menu did work fine with Internet Explorer and Windows, so I guess that's OK, because that's what everybody uses, isn't it? Jeremy. -- Jeremy Rickard Email: j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk WWW: http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 5 11:56:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g050u3D03283 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 11:56:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g050ttH03266 for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 11:55:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from host217-35-21-199.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([217.35.21.199]) by rhenium with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16Mf06-0001nC-00; Sat, 05 Jan 2002 00:47:54 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: gordonrainsford@mail.btinternet.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <8+eeeACXjwM8EwMc@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <20020102211501-r01010800-32e99794-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 00:47:51 +0000 To: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Gordon Rainsford Subject: Re: [BLML] Here's a state of things Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 9:17 pm +0000 4/1/02, David Stevenson wrote: >Ed Reppert writes >>On 1/2/02 at 1:19 PM, bridge@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) wrote: >> >>> Has East done anything wrong? Yes, he has not replaced his >>> bidding cards in the box as the regs suggest. >> >>I tried to look at the EBU orange book, using the link on your lawspage, the >>other day, and was unable to reach it. It seems still to be down. The OB link >>gives a "file not found" error, and the report of that error >>suggests checking >>the EBU home page. That link gives a "system cannot find file >>specified" error. You can find a copy of the OB at http://www.math.auc.dk/~nwp/bridge/orangebook/ > > The EBU have re-done their website. It was quite a pleasant one, >usable with any size of monitor. It is now usually unavailable, >designed only for bigger monitors, looks fairly dreadful, and apparently >the writers have failed to notice that the use of numbered URLs >disappeared some years ago. Everything is still on it but is no longer >findable or readable. Yes - I found it sufficiently irritating that I was going to drop the webmaster a line, but I couldn't find an eddress on the site for feedback. Probably a wise design feature. -- -- Gordon Rainsford London UK -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 5 13:18:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g052HZo18269 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 13:17:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g052HQH18246 for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 13:17:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16MgGr-000A9b-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 02:09:25 +0000 Message-ID: <3nFHbIBhfkN8EwEP@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 00:25:05 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Here's a state of things References: <54.20b0c4e6.296737c5@aol.com> In-Reply-To: <54.20b0c4e6.296737c5@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g052HSH18254 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk YNOTSEMA@aol.com writes Hi Tony: nice to hear from you, but please turn the HTML off! > In a tournament a few years back, North (a deliberative type) had > left a Pass card on the table from the previous auction.  He was > the dealer and while sorting his cards, East noticed his Pass and > placed the Pass card on the table.  Whereupon, South opened the > bidding and West passed.  North, holding a 14 point hand, drove his > side to an unmakeable slam on a finesse that lost.  Only after the > result was totaled up, did North call the Director and seek redress > for the "bid out-of-turn".  What is the correct ruling and which > laws are involved? I believe that North has not called, and the pass by East was thus out of turn. However, the next player in turn condoned it by bidding [a right under L29A] and this regularised the position, and the auction became legal. No adjustment. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 5 18:53:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g057p1x17546 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 18:51:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g057orH17533 for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 18:50:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g057grq17594 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 23:42:53 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <007901c195bc$6169d2c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200201042036.PAA08449@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 23:39:12 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Steve Willner" > Many people have said the same, but on consideration, if a pair told me > they play 2C as natural, I would expect it to be forcing. How else can > they look for fits at the two-level? I am fairly sure that one of the > "natural" pairs in the "naturalist-scientist" match played it that > way. (Indeed, wasn't 2C natural and forcing the usual agreement before > Stayman was popular? My personal memory does not extend quite that far > back.) Mine does. Here's what Goren said in 1949, before Stayman came to be: 2m responses to 1NT were signoffs, but opener could rebid witb a maximum and a fit. 2M responses were strongly invitational, but opener could pass with a rock-bottom opening. Culbertson said that any two-level response "shows grave doubts of game." In any event, responder's rebid of a suit at the three level was a dead signoff. Both approaches were unplayable, of course, but then so is standard bidding after a 1NT rebid by opener. A two-level new-suit rebid by responder is weak (except for a reverse) and a three-level new-suit rebid is forcing to game. How to invite? What we did hereabouts in duplicate games was to play both 2m and 2M as signoffs that opener usually passed. Jump takeouts at the three level were forcing for most (not for all), so we bid 2NT with invitational hands, even with a five-card major and an unbalanced hand. If he didn't pass 2NT, opener would bid a minor to give responder a chance to show a five-card major. Reasonably balanced hands with a five-card major were passed if not good enough for 2NT. With a game-going hand, responder would jump to three of his better minor with four cards in one or both majors, giving opener a chance to show a major. Opening 1NT with both majors was frowned upon, and in fact 1NT openings were avoided with 4-4-3-2 hands (Culbertson required 4-3-3-3 at one time). Goren credited a big win to the fact that he and partner "bid carefully," never opening with 1NT. My strongest partner in those days was Benton "Bus" Dayton, who refused to play any convention except Herbert over strong twos, even after Stayman came along. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 5 19:05:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0585TR20119 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 19:05:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0585LH20099 for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 19:05:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g057vLq22514 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 23:57:21 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <008201c195be$61788de0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "bridge-laws" References: <3C3455E5.9040507@village.uunet.be> <000701c19530$5f81de80$8833e150@pacific> Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 23:55:38 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Grattan Endicott" > +=+ ""Psychic controls are not permitted. If a pair > is using methods that enable them to make > risk-free psyches, they are in essence playing > psychic controls. ................omissis................... For example, 1NT-Pass-2 Hearts - 3C : if the opener is prohibited from bidding 3 Hearts with a maximum and a fit, then a risk-free environment is created."" [ACBL Regulation] > I would suppose that the ACBL statement > is based on the fact that the partnership is > seen to have an understanding. ~ G ~ +=+ Oh dear, does that mean I may no longer make a bluff 4NT Blackwood bid, because it is risk-free? The second half of your quote is not an ACBL regulation but an "Office Policy" (August, 1995) issued by the CTD. The ACBL speaks with many tongues. TDs are told in the Tech Files that controlled psychs are defined on the Limited Convention Chart, which reads: 4. Psychic controls (bids designed to determine whether partner has psyched or to clarify the nature of the psych) are not allowed. That does not make a risk-free psych a controlled psych *ipso facto*. The BoD directive (first quote) seemed aimed at responses, presumably natural, which opener was expected to pass. For instance 2D-P-2H, with opener barred from the bidding. The "barring" is a different sort of control than that described in item 4 of the LCC. Those of us who use disciplined weak openings have the luxury of an agreement that opener (having shown his hand) is not to bid again on his own initiative. That gives partner a lot of leeway to do what s/he wishes. I don't consider that a "psychic control," even if the ACBL may think it is. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 5 19:47:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g058laB27129 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 19:47:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g058lRH27098 for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 19:47:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g058dSq04467 for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 00:39:28 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <008d01c195c4$39d566e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <018701c19417$8477ffe0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 00:37:30 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Marvin L. French writes > > >The ACBL has approved the use of the 2NT asking bid in > >response to a weak two as a total bluff, not considering it > > a psych. Correct. It's an asking bid, not a telling bid. > > A psyche is defined relative to the system being played. > > [a] If you play it as an asking bid, nothing more, then that is what it > is, and bidding it on a weak hand is normal. > > [b] If you play it as showing something then that is what it does, and > it is a psyche if done deliberately on a weak hand. > > In practice, the thing that worries me is that better players do it on > [a], and fool their poorer opponents into thinking it is [b]. > > In many ways, the best test is to consider the bidding: > > 2S P 2NT 4H > ? > > May opener rebid 4S [or double]? They may in my partnership because I > play 2NT as a telling bid as well as an asking bid. If my partner or I > ever bid it on a very weak hand it will be a psyche. > > However, if you do not allow opener to rebid above 3S then it is > likely to be allowed on a weak hand. > > It is interesting to know whether the ACBL reg quoted elsewhere in > this thread about risk-free actions being disallowed should not really > disallow this use of 2NT! > Or, conversely, if anyone in ACBL-land may reasonably claim that a risk-free asking bid is a form of psychic control, when this one is allowed. Here's what the GCC DISALLOWS: 2. Psyching of artificial or conventional opening bids and/or conventional responses thereto. Psyching conventional suit responses, which are less than 2NT, to natural openings. Note that this bars the psyching of a Drury 2C/2D response. By implication, it's okay to psych a conventional response of 2NT (or higher) to natural openings, even if 2NT is played as both asking and telling. The bluff 2NT response is so common that it tends to be ignored. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 5 19:55:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g058tKC28494 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 19:55:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g058tBH28463 for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 19:55:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g058lBq06262 for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 00:47:12 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <009701c195c5$4d073b20$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 00:44:06 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "David Stevenson" > > I think that the reg is not wrong so much as badly worded, and I ask > people to consider a wording that meets what I believe we mean. We do > not want partner to have a better expectation because he is partner: now > put that into English please. > I like the "competent stranger" analogy. A psych is okay if partner would be no more likely than a comnpetent stranger to field it. I don't know how to put that into legalese, however. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 5 20:34:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g059YI505981 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 20:34:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net [194.7.1.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g059YAH05957 for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 20:34:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-162-164.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.162.164]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g059Q5s25634 for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 10:26:06 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3C35B921.40603@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 15:16:01 +0100 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020104132331.02573570@pop.ulb.ac.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Bonjour Alain et bonne année, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 10:42 4/01/2002 +0000, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > >>> Failure to alert >>> suggests that someone has forgotten to alert:-). In reality while it is >>> true that failure to alert a Stayman 2C is an infraction I think it >>> would >>> be highly unlikely for a TD to find that this particular infraction had >>> caused damage. >> > > AG : Herman, please correct me if I'm wrong. In Belgium, the standard > (and non-alertable) sens of 1NT-pass-2C is 'I have at least one major, > and am interested in learning whether you have one too, if possible the > same'. That's what you teach to your beginners, isn't it ? Other senses > (including relays not necessarily linked with majors, and natural) are > alertable. Also alertable are special Staymans (like Puppet, although > I'd prefer the responses to be alertable, for system-reminiscence > reasons) and Stayman in competitive situations. > When asked a direct question I will answer but I don't know what this has to do with anything. Yes, Belgian regulations state that Stayman is not alertable, unless it can be done on weak hands or without any major suit. But the original problem arose not out of alerting, but out of pre-disclosing. The 2Di response to Benjamin requires more in the area of previous disclosure than the possibility of a 2Cl bid over 1NT which in some way or other asks about the major suits. > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 5 22:35:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g05BYut29530 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 22:34:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g05BYhH29497 for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 22:34:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) with ESMTP id LAA16197 for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 11:26:54 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 10:31:37 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. References: <018701c19417$8477ffe0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes >Marvin L. French writes > >>The ACBL has approved the use of the 2NT asking bid in >>response to a weak two as a total bluff, not considering it >> a psych. Correct. It's an asking bid, not a telling bid. > > A psyche is defined relative to the system being played. > >[a] If you play it as an asking bid, nothing more, then that is what it >is, and bidding it on a weak hand is normal. > >[b] If you play it as showing something then that is what it does, and >it is a psyche if done deliberately on a weak hand. > > In practice, the thing that worries me is that better players do it on >[a], and fool their poorer opponents into thinking it is [b]. > > In many ways, the best test is to consider the bidding: > > 2S P 2NT 4H > ? > > May opener rebid 4S [or double]? They may in my partnership because I >play 2NT as a telling bid as well as an asking bid. If my partner or I >ever bid it on a very weak hand it will be a psyche. > > However, if you do not allow opener to rebid above 3S then it is >likely to be allowed on a weak hand. > I agree with David here. I play 2N as constructive, and I psyche it occasionally. I'd expect partner to bid 4S with a 6124 maximum in this auction. If 2N is a frequent "joke" I think the opponents are entitled to know this. cheers John > > > It is interesting to know whether the ACBL reg quoted elsewhere in >this thread about risk-free actions being disallowed should not really >disallow this use of 2NT! > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 5 23:59:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g05Cwop15941 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 23:58:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g05CweH15919 for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 23:58:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) with ESMTP id MAA16341 for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 12:50:50 GMT Message-ID: <+LGEs8F4muN8EwH4@asimere.com> Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 11:55:36 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. References: <009701c195c5$4d073b20$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <009701c195c5$4d073b20$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <009701c195c5$4d073b20$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com>, Marvin L. French writes > >From: "David Stevenson" >> >> I think that the reg is not wrong so much as badly worded, and I >ask >> people to consider a wording that meets what I believe we mean. We >do >> not want partner to have a better expectation because he is partner: >now >> put that into English please. >> >I like the "competent stranger" analogy. A psych is okay if partner >would be no more likely than a comnpetent stranger to field it. I >don't know how to put that into legalese, however. let's take a case in point. My daughter's fiancee and I played a 2-session event over Christmas. We play together about 2 or 3 times a year, and both play in the same "school" with similar views on bidding. When bidding we're pretty much down the middle for the system we play. The bidding goes one heart on my left, 1N from pard, "Range?" from RHO. We haven't discussed it but all our school plays it as 15-17. fwiw I hold a 3154 6 count. How should I reply to this question? > >Marv >Marvin L. French >San Diego, California > > > > > > > > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 6 00:45:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g05Dj7b25148 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Jan 2002 00:45:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g05DiwH25119 for ; Sun, 6 Jan 2002 00:44:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from host217-34-94-7.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([217.34.94.7]) by tungsten.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16Mr0K-0006Zi-00; Sat, 05 Jan 2002 13:36:56 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: gordonrainsford@mail.btinternet.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <+LGEs8F4muN8EwH4@asimere.com> References: <009701c195c5$4d073b20$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <+LGEs8F4muN8EwH4@asimere.com> Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 13:36:51 +0000 To: "John (MadDog) Probst" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Gordon Rainsford Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:55 am +0000 5/1/02, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > When bidding we're pretty much down the middle... Has someone else been at your computer keyboard, John? -- -- Gordon Rainsford London UK -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 6 03:53:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g05GqQ100414 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Jan 2002 03:52:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g05GqGH00393 for ; Sun, 6 Jan 2002 03:52:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16MtvX-000C5D-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 16:44:14 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 12:49:41 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. References: <009701c195c5$4d073b20$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <009701c195c5$4d073b20$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes >From: "David Stevenson" >> >> I think that the reg is not wrong so much as badly worded, and I >ask >> people to consider a wording that meets what I believe we mean. We >do >> not want partner to have a better expectation because he is partner: >now >> put that into English please. >> >I like the "competent stranger" analogy. A psych is okay if partner >would be no more likely than a comnpetent stranger to field it. I >don't know how to put that into legalese, however. I asked for English, not legalese! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 6 03:53:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g05GqUx00428 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Jan 2002 03:52:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g05GqIH00400 for ; Sun, 6 Jan 2002 03:52:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16MtvY-000IFf-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 16:44:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 12:54:29 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Here's a state of things References: <8+eeeACXjwM8EwMc@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <20020102211501-r01010800-32e99794-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Gordon Rainsford writes >At 9:17 pm +0000 4/1/02, David Stevenson wrote: >>Ed Reppert writes >>>On 1/2/02 at 1:19 PM, bridge@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) wrote: >>> >>>> Has East done anything wrong? Yes, he has not replaced his >>>> bidding cards in the box as the regs suggest. >>> >>>I tried to look at the EBU orange book, using the link on your lawspage, the >>>other day, and was unable to reach it. It seems still to be down. The OB link >>>gives a "file not found" error, and the report of that error >>>suggests checking >>>the EBU home page. That link gives a "system cannot find file >>>specified" error. > > >You can find a copy of the OB at http://www.math.auc.dk/~nwp/bridge/orangebook/ > >> >> The EBU have re-done their website. It was quite a pleasant one, >>usable with any size of monitor. It is now usually unavailable, >>designed only for bigger monitors, looks fairly dreadful, and apparently >>the writers have failed to notice that the use of numbered URLs >>disappeared some years ago. Everything is still on it but is no longer >>findable or readable. > >Yes - I found it sufficiently irritating that I was going to drop the >webmaster a line, but I couldn't find an eddress on the site for >feedback. Probably a wise design feature. I believe we need feedback otherwise there is no chance of getting this idiocy corrected. Please write to them. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 6 12:43:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g061g5g18028 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Jan 2002 12:42:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from radius.thenet.co.nz ([202.50.167.31]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g061ftH18006 for ; Sun, 6 Jan 2002 12:41:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from ip210-55-104-161.thenet.win.co.nz ([210.55.104.161] helo=oemcomputer) by radius.thenet.co.nz with smtp (Exim 3.22 #1) id 16N2CS-0001pY-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 06 Jan 2002 14:34:13 +1300 Message-ID: <000f01c19652$51d6c980$a16837d2@oemcomputer> From: "Ray Crowe" To: References: <003401c185db$ae995160$f66837d2@oemcomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27B1 Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 14:34:41 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000C_01C196BF.471D3160" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C196BF.471D3160 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Roger Pewick=20 To: Ray Crowe=20 Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 4:38 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 27B1 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Ray Crowe=20 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au=20 Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2001 20:44 PM Subject: [BLML] Law 27B1 At a recent club night,when I was a playing Director, the following = occurred--- (they were an elderly couple - just a little tired, I guess) West North East South 1NT pass 1D (not accepted by South) Away from the table, I asked East why he bid 1D. He replied that he = had not seen the 1NT bid and thought he was opening. Their system was a strong NT with weak take-outs at the 2 level (no = transfers), hence a 2D response would be natural and weak. I read and fully explained Law 27B1 and Law 27B2 and left them to it = as I had my own hand to play. A minute later I was called back to find = the bidding had gone as follows: West North East South 1NT pass 2D pass 3NT p p p So I let them play it out. I then re-read Law 27B1(a), which says that Law 16C2 does not apply = to this situation. My questions are: (1) What is the correct ruling if the rest of the field is in 6NT = =3D 6 ? It is irrelevant what happened at the other tables. L27B1b may = apply. [see below] (2) What is the correct ruling if the rest of the field is in 6NT = =3D -1 ? =20 It is irrelevant what happened at the other tables.. L27B1b may = apply.. [see below] (3) How does the Director rule if called immediately after West's = bid of 3NT, and before North's acceptance of it? Have the play proceed and ask they call you back when concluded. Ask what the result was and if they feel they were damaged, Tell = them you will look at it later and notify them of your findings = [especially if you are yet to play the board]. I suspect L27B1b will = apply from what you say as the leap from 2D to 3N was not indicated from = the 'drop dead' agreement to 2D. If there was damage [and it sounds = like it] the adjusted score should be for 2D both directions. So, please clarify for me: "DAMAGE exists if the OS gained an advantage in the table score = because of an irregularity" In the above situation, if the NOS claims damage, then if the other = table scores are---- (a) 6NT making, there is no damage, hence table result (3NT=3D6) = stands? (b) 3NT making. Is there still damage here (NS get an average = score), or do we adjust final contract to 2D =3D ? (c) 6NT =3D -1, do we adjust final contract to same?=20 Thanks once again, Regards, Ray. I have the impression that you did what was possible to 'protect' = the OS by going through 27. Note that L23 could be important. Perhaps a good idea is a bridge lesson on how it is not always = right to 'avoid barring partner' which was likely to be the motivation = for changing to 2D. In the future that might point E to decide the = final contract [silence partner] by spurning 2D in favor of picking from = between 3N and 6N (for instance). What happened was just such a case = when 2D was 'drop dead'. =20 Personally, I do not like the construction of 27B1a. far better to = combine all law dealing with change of call/ cancellation under the same = roof so as to treat 1D to 2D with the same effect as a change of call = and cover the distinction between when the meanings are similar or not = [in this case they almost certainly were not similar]. A good practical, and frequently occuring problem. regards roger pewick ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C196BF.471D3160 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Roger=20 Pewick
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 = 4:38=20 AM
Subject: Re: [BLML] Law = 27B1

 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Ray=20 Crowe
Sent: Saturday, December 15, = 2001 20:44=20 PM
Subject: [BLML] Law = 27B1

At a recent club night,when I was a = playing=20 Director, the following occurred--- (they were an elderly = couple - just=20 a little tired, I guess)
 
    = West   =20     North       =20 East        South
     = 1NT   =20      =20 pass         = 1D   =20 (not accepted by South)
 
Away from the table, I asked = East why he=20 bid 1D. He replied that he had not seen the 1NT bid and thought he = was=20 opening.
Their system was a strong NT with = weak=20 take-outs at the 2 level (no transfers), hence a 2D response would = be=20 natural and weak.
 
I read and fully explained Law 27B1 = and Law=20 27B2 and left them to it as I had my own hand to play. A minute = later=20 I was called back to find the bidding had gone as = follows:
 
    = West   =20     North       =20 East        South
     = 1NT   =20       pass    =    =20 2D          =20 pass
     = 3NT  =20         p    =    =20      p       =20         p
 
 So I let them play it = out.
 
I then re-read Law 27B1(a), which = says that Law=20 16C2 does not apply to this situation.
 
My questions are:
 
(1) What is the correct ruling if = the rest of=20 the field is in 6NT =3D  6 ?
 
It is irrelevant what happened at the other tables.  = L27B1b may=20 apply.  [see below]
 
 
(2) What is the correct ruling if = the rest of=20 the field is in 6NT =3D -1 ?
 =20
It is irrelevant what happened at the other tables..  = L27B1b may=20 apply..  [see below]
 
 
(3) How does the Director rule if = called=20 immediately after West's bid of 3NT, and before North's acceptance = of=20 it?
 
 Have the play proceed and ask they call you back when=20 concluded.
 
Ask what the result was and if they feel they were = damaged,  Tell=20 them you will look at it later and notify them of your findings = [especially=20 if you are yet to play the board].  I suspect  =20 L27B1b will apply from what you say as the leap from 2D to 3N = was not=20 indicated from the 'drop dead' agreement to 2D.  If there was = damage=20 [and it sounds like it] the adjusted score should be for 2D both=20 directions.
 
So, please clarify for = me:
 
"DAMAGE exists if the OS gained an = advantage in=20 the table score because of an irregularity"
 
In the above situation, if the NOS = claims=20 damage, then if the other table scores are----
 
(a) 6NT making, there is no damage, = hence table=20 result (3NT=3D6) stands?
 
(b) 3NT making. Is there still = damage here=20 (NS get an average score), or do we adjust final contract to 2D =3D=20 ?
 
(c) 6NT =3D -1, do we = adjust final=20 contract to same? 
 
Thanks once again,
 
Regards,
 
Ray.
 
I have the impression that you did what was = possible to=20 'protect' the OS by going through 27.  Note that L23 could be=20 important.
 
Perhaps a good idea is a  bridge lesson on = how it is=20 not always right to 'avoid barring partner' which was likely to be = the=20 motivation for changing to 2D.    In the future that = might=20 point E to decide the final contract [silence partner] by spurning=20 2D in favor of picking from between 3N and 6N (for = instance). =20 What happened was just such a case when 2D was 'drop dead'. =20
 
Personally, I do not like the construction of = 27B1a. =20 far better to combine all law dealing with change of call/ = cancellation=20 under the same roof so as to treat 1D to 2D with the same = effect as a=20 change of call and cover the distinction between when the meanings = are=20 similar or not [in this case they almost certainly were not=20 similar].
 
 
 A good practical, and = frequently=20 occuring problem.
 
regards
roger pewick
------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C196BF.471D3160-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 6 13:42:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g062gHL29347 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Jan 2002 13:42:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.125]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g062g8H29325 for ; Sun, 6 Jan 2002 13:42:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g062Y3u06016; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 21:34:03 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 21:27:22 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Here's a state of things To: David Stevenson , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020105213405-r01010800-6a7800da-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.1.8 (Bluto) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 1/4/02 at 9:17 PM, bridge@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) wrote: > The EBU have re-done their website. [...] > Everything is still on it but is no longer findable or readable. > > It will probably get an award. LOL. No doubt. :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 6 15:33:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g064Wva15095 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Jan 2002 15:32:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g064WnH15091 for ; Sun, 6 Jan 2002 15:32:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) with ESMTP id EAA18298 for ; Sun, 6 Jan 2002 04:25:00 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 04:16:28 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. References: <009701c195c5$4d073b20$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <+LGEs8F4muN8EwH4@asimere.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , Gordon Rainsford writes >At 11:55 am +0000 5/1/02, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > >> When bidding we're pretty much down the middle... > >Has someone else been at your computer keyboard, John? > Insofar as is possible, I play down the middle with JC, Gordon :) -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 6 18:50:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g067oFo16388 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Jan 2002 18:50:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from orngca-mls03.socal.rr.com (orngca-mls03.socal.rr.com [66.75.160.18]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g067o7H16384 for ; Sun, 6 Jan 2002 18:50:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from irv ([66.75.169.227]) by orngca-mls03.socal.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g067g5i18342 for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 23:42:05 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <002e01c19685$f607af00$6401a8c0@irv> From: "Irv Kostal" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] Re: A question of the English Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 23:44:23 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002B_01C19642.E7769200" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_002B_01C19642.E7769200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Many years ago I perpetrated a particularly successful psych, in which = my partner also took unusual action. I can assure you there was no = collusion involved. I was in third chair, with spade shortness, a = terrible hand, and white vs red, so I opened one (psychic) spade. My = partner, holding 3 spades and 7 diamonds, tried the Drury convention and = I responded 2D, showing a subnormal opening bid! My partner then decided = that maybe 2D was the best spot on the hand and passed!. It turned out = LHO had about 16 HCP with AKQJx of spades and thought he "knew" he'd get = another chance to bid when he heard me bid 2D. So, I psyched 1S Partner bid Drury (she had the values for it) I "responded" to Drury, arguably correctly, inasmuch as I had a below = average 1S opening, but I suppose this is really another psych. (Did I = exceed my ACBL limit on one hand? ) Partner now had an inspired moment. This was back before the days of alerts, I might add, but everyone at = the table knew what the bids were supposed to mean. Am I a criminal? Is my Partner? Would this be in some way illegal = nowadays? Irv ------=_NextPart_000_002B_01C19642.E7769200 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Many years ago I = perpetrated=20 a particularly successful psych, in which my partner also took = unusual=20 action.  I can assure you there was no collusion = involved.  I was=20 in third chair, with spade shortness, a terrible hand, and white vs = red, so=20 I opened one (psychic) spade.  My partner, holding 3 spades = and 7=20 diamonds, tried the Drury convention and I responded 2D, showing a = subnormal=20 opening bid! My partner then decided that maybe 2D was the best spot on = the hand=20 and passed!.  It turned out LHO had about 16 HCP with AKQJx of = spades=20 and thought he "knew" he'd get another chance to bid when he = heard me=20 bid 2D.

So, I psyched 1S
Partner bid Drury (she had the values = for=20 it)
I "responded" to Drury, arguably correctly, inasmuch as I had a = below=20 average 1S opening, but I suppose this is really another psych.  = (Did I=20 exceed my ACBL limit on one hand? )
Partner now had an inspired=20 moment.

This was back before the days of alerts, I might add, but = everyone at the
table knew what the bids were supposed to=20 mean.
Am I a = criminal?  Is my=20 Partner? Would this be in some way illegal = nowadays?
Irv
 ------=_NextPart_000_002B_01C19642.E7769200-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 7 00:41:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g06Degr02533 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 00:40:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g06DeXH02513 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 00:40:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) with ESMTP id NAA19270 for ; Sun, 6 Jan 2002 13:32:42 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 13:19:14 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: A question of the English References: <002e01c19685$f607af00$6401a8c0@irv> In-Reply-To: <002e01c19685$f607af00$6401a8c0@irv> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <002e01c19685$f607af00$6401a8c0@irv>, Irv Kostal writes > Many years ago I perpetrated a particularly successful psych, in > which my partner also took unusual action.  I can assure you there > was no collusion involved.  I was in third chair, with spade > shortness, a terrible hand, and white vs red, so I opened one > (psychic) spade.  My partner, holding 3 spades and 7 diamonds, > tried the Drury convention and I responded 2D, showing a subnormal > opening bid! My partner then decided that maybe 2D was the best > spot on the hand and passed!.  It turned out LHO had about 16 HCP > with AKQJx of spades and thought he "knew" he'd get another chance > to bid when he heard me bid 2D. > > So, I psyched 1S > Partner bid Drury (she had the values for it) > I "responded" to Drury, arguably correctly, inasmuch as I had a > below average 1S opening, but I suppose this is really another > psych.  (Did I exceed my ACBL limit on one hand? ) > Partner now had an inspired moment. > > This was back before the days of alerts, I might add, but everyone > at the > table knew what the bids were supposed to mean. > Am I a criminal?  Is my Partner? Would this be in some way illegal > nowadays? > Irv Seems a normal sort of auction to me :) cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 7 01:45:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g06Ej1212280 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 01:45:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lycee.ns.uk.easynet.net (lycee.ns.uk.easynet.net [195.40.1.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g06EisH12276 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 01:44:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-14-233.easynet.co.uk [212.134.24.233]) by lycee.ns.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id A2D60CBFD for ; Sun, 6 Jan 2002 14:36:49 +0000 (GMT) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] A question of the English. Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 14:34:07 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: <200201042036.PAA08449@cfa183.harvard.edu> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Steve Willner writes: > The upshot is that some opponents would find "forcing" unexpected, > while other opponents would find "non-forcing" unexpected. According > to David S., this makes both meanings alertable. If all meanings for 2C after 1N - 2C are alertable the alert gives no information and is therefore meaningless. It follows that a failure to alert is also meaningless and cannot cause damage. It doesn't seem to matter much, therefore, whether we bother to alert or not (except that I suppose we might incur a DP for failure to observe L74A3). Am I alone in thinking this is pretty silly? ISTM that: (1) In any given bidding situation there should be a 'normal' non-alertable meaning for any call. (2) The appropriate authority should determine what that 'normal' meaning should be for all common situations. (3) They should then determine what deviations from this 'normal' meaning should warrant an alert. I'm not suggesting that these determinations are easy but aren't the principles obvious? Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 7 04:05:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g06H5GL27627 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 04:05:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g06H58H27603 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 04:05:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from host217-35-12-117.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([217.35.12.117]) by rhenium with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16NGbY-0003GJ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 06 Jan 2002 16:57:04 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: gordonrainsford@mail.btinternet.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 16:56:58 +0000 To: "BLML" From: Gordon Rainsford Subject: RE: [BLML] A question of the English. Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 2:34 pm +0000 6/1/02, Brambledown wrote: > > Steve Willner writes: > >> The upshot is that some opponents would find "forcing" unexpected, >> while other opponents would find "non-forcing" unexpected. According >> to David S., this makes both meanings alertable. > >If all meanings for 2C after 1N - 2C are alertable the alert gives no >information and is therefore meaningless. It follows that a failure to >alert is also meaningless and cannot cause damage. It doesn't seem to >matter much, therefore, whether we bother to alert or not (except that I >suppose we might incur a DP for failure to observe L74A3). Am I alone in >thinking this is pretty silly? I agree that there should be an unalerted meaning for any bid, even if it's rare or unlikely. I think I've been told that there are other instances in which the EBU view is that both "Natural and forcing" and "Natural and non-forcing" might be unexpected meanings and therefore that both should be alerted. I wonder if 1NT - (2H) - 3C might fall into that category? > >ISTM that: > >(1) In any given bidding situation there should be a 'normal' non-alertable >meaning for any call. > >(2) The appropriate authority should determine what that 'normal' meaning >should be for all common situations. > >(3) They should then determine what deviations from this 'normal' meaning >should warrant an alert. > >I'm not suggesting that these determinations are easy but aren't the >principles obvious? > >Chas Fellows (Brambledown) This is not the principle on which the EBU regulations have been based. The general idea in the EBU is to alert bids which are not natural, whether or not they are normal. There are some qualifications to this (especially with regard to the Forcing/Non-forcing nature of the bid), but it is nevertheless the foundation of the regulations. By contrast, it seems to me, the ACBL regulations are based on the idea of alerting bids which are not normal, whether or not they are natural. Neither idea is stupid, but a comparison of the respective alert regulations (and the alerting practice) of the two organisations shows where each idea has led. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 7 05:41:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g06IeWX12568 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 05:40:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat40.alcanet.no [193.213.239.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g06IeNH12542 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 05:40:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from netos70.alcatel.no (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with ESMTP id g06IWDJ29633 for ; Sun, 6 Jan 2002 19:32:13 +0100 Subject: RE: [BLML] A question of the English. To: "BLML" X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 19:32:10 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NOMAIL01/NO/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 01/06/2002 19:32:12 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Gordon rainsford wrote: . . . . (snip) >This is not the principle on which the EBU regulations have been >based. The general idea in the EBU is to alert bids which are not >natural, whether or not they are normal. There are some >qualifications to this (especially with regard to the >Forcing/Non-forcing nature of the bid), but it is nevertheless the >foundation of the regulations. >By contrast, it seems to me, the ACBL regulations are based on the >idea of alerting bids which are not normal, whether or not they are >natural. We discussed this question at an assembly of Norwegian TDs a couple of years ago. One case which almost led to the conclusion that the call should always be alerted is the double of one- or two-level bids. The crucial question was whether an unalerted double should be assumed for penalty or for takeout. No final recommendation was reached at the time! (We do today require alerting negative or hi-lo doubles and pass calls in positions where a double would be negative or hi-lo, but we are at present more reluctant on requiring alert with other doubles of any kind. It is probable that we in the future shall completely exempt all pass, double and redouble calls from being alertable regardless of agreements, such calls will then be part of the basic system with which we require opponents to familiarize themselves using the the system declaration front page information or by asking if/when in doubt). regards Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 7 07:08:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g06K7pq22942 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 07:07:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g06K7hH22938 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 07:07:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 16NJSA-000Orw-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 6 Jan 2002 19:59:38 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 17:54:42 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. References: <200201042036.PAA08449@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Brambledown writes >> Steve Willner writes: > >> The upshot is that some opponents would find "forcing" unexpected, >> while other opponents would find "non-forcing" unexpected. According >> to David S., this makes both meanings alertable. > >If all meanings for 2C after 1N - 2C are alertable the alert gives no >information and is therefore meaningless. It follows that a failure to >alert is also meaningless and cannot cause damage. It doesn't seem to >matter much, therefore, whether we bother to alert or not (except that I >suppose we might incur a DP for failure to observe L74A3). Am I alone in >thinking this is pretty silly? > >ISTM that: > >(1) In any given bidding situation there should be a 'normal' non-alertable >meaning for any call. > >(2) The appropriate authority should determine what that 'normal' meaning >should be for all common situations. > >(3) They should then determine what deviations from this 'normal' meaning >should warrant an alert. > >I'm not suggesting that these determinations are easy but aren't the >principles obvious? No. We have seen many many complaints here and on RGB about ACBL alerting. Whether it is good or bad it tries to follow your principles, and that makes it complicated and difficult to learn and follow. The EBU has a different principle in mind: they think that it is desirable to make alerting rules simple and memorable. This leads to some anomalies, such as the one you mention. I do not think it 'obvious' that conplex, accurate and forgettable is necessarily better than simple and memorable. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 7 07:13:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g06KDBo22958 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 07:13:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g06KD3H22954 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 07:13:04 +1100 (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 PAA29922 for ; Sun, 6 Jan 2002 15:04:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA03574 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 6 Jan 2002 15:04:59 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 15:04:59 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200201062004.PAA03574@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] A question of the English. Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Brambledown" > ISTM that: > (1) In any given bidding situation there should be a 'normal' non-alertable > meaning for any call. This is the underlying philosophy of the ACBL alert system, but the implementation quickly becomes unwieldy. The alert pamphlet is what, 15 or 16 pages? And it's still ambiguous in certain cases. (Marv has condensed it to a single page but only in a "notes" style. That is, if you already know the basic rules and just need to check a specific thing, Marv's page is fine, but I am not at all sure one could learn the rules from it.) In the EBU context, I think it would probably be an improvement to say "alert natural calls if the forcing/non-forcing nature is highly unusual." This is fine for the "not Stayman 2C," where any natural meaning is unalerted. Opponents can ask whether it's forcing if they care. However, I'm not sure how this change would work in other situations. In general -- perhaps useful in the Norwegian discussion of which doubles to alert -- it seems to me that where there are a few common meanings, none should be alertable, but highly unusual meanings should be. So for example, if a competitive double is any of penalty, takeout, "cards," etc., it ought not be alertable, but if it shows trump support or void in diamonds, or something else weird, it probably should be. I don't know how to put such a regulation into words, though. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 7 07:29:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g06KSZq22977 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 07:28:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g06KSRH22973 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 07:28:27 +1100 (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 PAA00151 for ; Sun, 6 Jan 2002 15:20:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA03793 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 6 Jan 2002 15:20:24 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 15:20:24 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200201062020.PAA03793@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] The final pass? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk We had a discussion some while ago about whether picking up the bidding cards constitutes a final pass. Well, I now have practical experience to report. My RHO bid 1C, I bid 1D, LHO bid 2C, which I did not see. Two passes and everyone picked up the bidding cards. I was quite surprised it wasn't LHO's lead. The TD, with no real effort to find out facts, ruled that my final pass was made. (He did, after some consideration, offer me L25B.) His statement was to the effect that picking up the bidding cards "made it look to everyone else" as though I was passing, this despite the fact that I _never_ fail to put out the final green card. At my request, he confirmed this ruling with the CTD. (This was at a regional tournament here in Massachusetts.) So in ACBL District 25 (New England region), this is the practical ruling one can expect. I'm wondering what would have happened if partner, knowing that I never make my final pass by picking up the bidding cards, had immediately asked whether the auction was over. -------------------------------------------------------------------- The rest of this message is for amusement only; a comment on the ACBL masterpoint awards. We entered a bracketed KO and ended up with 11 teams in our bracket. We won the first round in a head-to-head match. This was worth a modest fraction of a masterpoint. Then we were in a three-way match, where we lost one half-match by a large margin and won the other by a small margin. Fortunately, the team we beat lost their other half-match, so we advanced. For our magnificent victory :-), we were awarded 8 (!) masterpoints. We then won the semi-final and 4 more masterpoints and then the final for another 4. Does anyone still think that flighting and seeding events by masterpoint holdings makes any sense? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 7 07:52:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g06KqSi24926 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 07:52:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout1.netvision.net.il (mxout1.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g06KqIH24899 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 07:52:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.75.151]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GPJ003AZAXK14@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 06 Jan 2002 22:44:09 +0200 (IST) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 22:43:11 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: [BLML] To: Bridge Laws Message-id: <001701c196f2$c4281de0$974b003e@erdnbaum> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_rhorkUgOjfVYes53MpWo9Q)" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_rhorkUgOjfVYes53MpWo9Q) Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT --Boundary_(ID_rhorkUgOjfVYes53MpWo9Q) Content-type: text/html; charset=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
 
--Boundary_(ID_rhorkUgOjfVYes53MpWo9Q)-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 7 08:59:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g06LxJR07425 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 08:59:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout2.netvision.net.il (mxout2.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.21]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g06LxAH07404 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 08:59:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.95.185]) by mxout2.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GPJ00CHVE0ZA6@mxout2.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 06 Jan 2002 23:51:01 +0200 (IST) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 23:49:21 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: [BLML] Here's a state of things To: "\"bridgelaws\"" Cc: talith , Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <002901c196fc$1b2f6360$974b003e@erdnbaum> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_37WoDkU3yKS+LilAwviWLA)" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_37WoDkU3yKS+LilAwviWLA) Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT "All Hell thereupon broke loose" Why? .Quite a few things I find hard to imagine. First how does it happen that a green card is left on the table - It's therere for about 5 -to 10 minutes , and nobody says or does anything . Then why the hell? Was it "holiday cheer " or an inexperienced T.D. He is called to the table he is supposed to take control his first duty being to let the game flow and if at all possible achieve a valid score at the table . First establish the facts -no trouble in this case - E has not called (yes -there was a pass on the table this can and should be dealt with, after the round was finished] so S passed out of turn - very lucky - no problem to apply Law 30- there should be no problem to reach the contract East-West were able to bid - up to 7 NT. From where the exorbitant penalties and the loss of her immortal soul ?[ It reminded me of another story by Ton where apparently a damsel lost something - but not her soul] Then at the first free moment he should [according to the prevalent customs of the club] apply a warning, a P.P. or even take some "immortal soul0 Israel Erdenbaum Tel Aviv, Israel --Boundary_(ID_37WoDkU3yKS+LilAwviWLA) Content-type: text/html; charset=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
"All Hell thereupon broke loose" Why? .Quite a few things I find hard to imagine. First how does it happen that a green card is left on the table - It's therere for about 5 -to 10 minutes , and nobody says or does anything . Then  why the hell?  Was it "holiday cheer " or an inexperienced T.D.
   He is called to the table he is supposed to take control his first duty being to let the game flow and if at all possible achieve a valid score at the table . First establish the facts -no trouble in this case - E has not called (yes -there was a pass on the table this can and should be dealt with, after the round was finished] so S passed  out of turn - very lucky - no problem to apply Law 30- there should be no problem to reach the contract East-West were able to bid - up to 7 NT. From where the exorbitant penalties and the loss of her immortal soul ?[ It reminded me of another story by Ton where apparently a damsel lost  something - but not her soul]
  Then at the first free moment he should [according to the prevalent customs of the club] apply a warning, a P.P. or even take some "immortal soul0
Israel Erdenbaum
Tel Aviv, Israel
--Boundary_(ID_37WoDkU3yKS+LilAwviWLA)-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 7 10:09:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g06N8ix20443 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 10:08:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cmailg7.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailg7.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.195.177]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g06N8YH20421 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 10:08:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.92.67.23] (helo=mail18.svr.pol.co.uk) by cmailg7.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.13 #0) id 16NMHG-0002TA-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 06 Jan 2002 23:00:30 +0000 Received: from modem-19.false-clownfish.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.137.9.19] helo=laphraoig.localdomain) by mail18.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.13 #0) id 16NMHD-0001pX-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 06 Jan 2002 23:00:29 +0000 Received: (from jeremy@localhost) by laphraoig.localdomain (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA21301; Sun, 6 Jan 2002 23:01:08 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: laphraoig.localdomain: jeremy set sender to j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk using -f To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. References: <200201042036.PAA08449@cfa183.harvard.edu> From: Jeremy Rickard Date: 06 Jan 2002 22:59:23 +0000 In-Reply-To: David Stevenson's message of "Sun, 6 Jan 2002 17:54:42 +0000" Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0802 (Gnus v5.8.2) Emacs/20.3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii MIME-Version: 1.0 Lines: 101 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes: > Brambledown writes > >> Steve Willner writes: > > > >> The upshot is that some opponents would find "forcing" unexpected, > >> while other opponents would find "non-forcing" unexpected. According > >> to David S., this makes both meanings alertable. > > > >If all meanings for 2C after 1N - 2C are alertable the alert gives no > >information and is therefore meaningless. It follows that a failure to > >alert is also meaningless and cannot cause damage. It doesn't seem to > >matter much, therefore, whether we bother to alert or not (except that I > >suppose we might incur a DP for failure to observe L74A3). Am I alone in > >thinking this is pretty silly? > > > >ISTM that: > > > >(1) In any given bidding situation there should be a 'normal' non-alertable > >meaning for any call. > > > >(2) The appropriate authority should determine what that 'normal' meaning > >should be for all common situations. > > > >(3) They should then determine what deviations from this 'normal' meaning > >should warrant an alert. > > > >I'm not suggesting that these determinations are easy but aren't the > >principles obvious? > > No. We have seen many many complaints here and on RGB about ACBL > alerting. Whether it is good or bad it tries to follow your principles, > and that makes it complicated and difficult to learn and follow. > > The EBU has a different principle in mind: they think that it is > desirable to make alerting rules simple and memorable. This leads to > some anomalies, such as the one you mention. > > I do not think it 'obvious' that conplex, accurate and forgettable is > necessarily better than simple and memorable. I agree that simple and memorable alerting rules are much better, even at the expense of occasionally seeming "pretty silly". However, the EBU rules do have bits that sometimes make it unclear whether certain bids are alertable; namely 5.2.1(b) and (c): "You must alert a call if: ... (b) it is natural, but you have an agreement by which it is forcing or non-forcing in a way that your opponents are unlikely to expect. (c) it is natural, but its meaning is affected by other agreements which your opponents are unlikely to expect." It's not always clear what opponents are "unlikely to expect." [Not my main point, but I think (c) should say "... its meaning is affected in a way that your opponents are unlikely to expect by other agreements."] I believe the wording was changed in the 1998 OB from "may not expect" (or something like that) to "are unlikely to expect," deliberately to increase the level of "unexpectedness" needed for an alert. It *does* seem silly to me to apply this to a 2C response to 1NT in order to require an alert of a non-forcing natural 2C on the grounds that opponents are "unlikely to expect" this to be non-forcing because "everybody" plays some kind of Stayman, which is forcing. After all, they shouldn't expect it to be Stayman if I don't alert it. What I would assume the written rule (b) meant, if I were not aware from reading BLML that significant people disagreed, is that a call should be alerted if it is natural, but you have an agreement by which it is forcing or non-forcing in a way that your opponents are unlikely to expect *given that they know it is natural*. I don't think this interpretation makes the rules any less simple. I.e., I don't think it's silly to require an alert for Stayman (even though that's what the opponents would initially expect 2C to be). But the intent of 5.2.1(b) is clearly to "alert" (in the non-technical sense) the opponents to something "unexpected", so I do think it's silly to require an alert of another meaning of 2C just in order to "alert" them to the fact that it's not Stayman ... which is also alertable. If you accepted my interpretation of 5.2.1(b), this would still leave open the question of whether opponents are "unlikely to expect" a natural 2C response to be forcing or non-forcing. I don't think the answer to this is clear ... none of the four possible answers seem unreasonable. Personally, I (without guidance other than the written rule 5.2.1(b)) would probably deem neither alertable. [Yes, I know that interpretation 5.4.2(a) does say that a natural forcing 2-level response to 1NT should be alerted because the opponents are unlikely to expect it to be forcing.] Jeremy. -- Jeremy Rickard Email: j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk WWW: http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 7 11:15:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g070F8P03203 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 11:15:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lycee.ns.uk.easynet.net (lycee.ns.uk.easynet.net [195.40.1.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g070ExH03175 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 11:14:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-14-210.easynet.co.uk [212.134.24.210]) by lycee.ns.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 1CBF4D798 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 00:06:54 +0000 (GMT) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] The final pass? Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 00:04:12 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: <200201062020.PAA03793@cfa183.harvard.edu> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Steve Willner writes: > > We had a discussion some while ago about whether picking up the > bidding cards constitutes a final pass. Well, I now have practical > experience to report. > > My RHO bid 1C, I bid 1D, LHO bid 2C, which I did not see. Two passes > and everyone picked up the bidding cards. I was quite surprised it > wasn't LHO's lead. The auction period does not end until the opening lead is faced (L17E). I do not know what ACBL bidding box regulations say, but in EBUland the position is: OB 7.3.6 "At the end of the auction the calls should remain in place until the opening lead has been faced ..." It seems unlikely that the other players started to put away bidding cards while you still had a call, so I suspect that you initiated this process thinking the auction had ended. If your bidding cards (and everyone else's) were still in place while you were still (incorrectly)awaiting LHO's lead, you would have had no problem, would you? Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 7 13:36:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g072ZXj17172 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 13:35:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g072ZOH17168 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 13:35:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16NPVN-0006cW-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 02:27:20 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 02:14:26 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. References: <200201042036.PAA08449@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Jeremy Rickard writes >However, the EBU rules do have bits that sometimes make it unclear >whether certain bids are alertable; namely 5.2.1(b) and (c): > >"You must alert a call if: ... > >(b) it is natural, but you have an agreement by which it is forcing or >non-forcing in a way that your opponents are unlikely to expect. > >(c) it is natural, but its meaning is affected by other agreements >which your opponents are unlikely to expect." > >It's not always clear what opponents are "unlikely to expect." There are a few difficulties, of course, but how many make a real difference? For example, here we have people arguing about when a 2C response to 1NT is not alertable: surely the answer is that it does not matter. >[Not my main point, but I think (c) should say "... its meaning is >affected in a way that your opponents are unlikely to expect by other >agreements."] I shall make a note. It appears that I may be editing the next Orange book. --------------------- Steve Willner writes >In the EBU context, I think it would probably be an improvement to say >"alert natural calls if the forcing/non-forcing nature is highly >unusual." This is fine for the "not Stayman 2C," where any natural >meaning is unalerted. Opponents can ask whether it's forcing if they >care. However, I'm not sure how this change would work in other >situations. I shall make a note. It appears that I may be .... -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 7 14:00:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0730IU17199 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 14:00:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (mailout5-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0730AH17195 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 14:00:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g072ptq13907; Sun, 6 Jan 2002 21:51:56 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 21:42:24 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: RE: [BLML] The final pass? To: Brambledown , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020106215158-r01010800-8ce4a881-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.1.8 (Bluto) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 1/7/02 at 12:04 AM, bramble@ukonline.co.uk (Brambledown) wrote: > > Steve Willner writes: > > > > We had a discussion some while ago about whether picking up the > > bidding cards constitutes a final pass. Well, I now have practical > > experience to report. > > > > My RHO bid 1C, I bid 1D, LHO bid 2C, which I did not see. Two passes > > and everyone picked up the bidding cards. I was quite surprised it > > wasn't LHO's lead. > > The auction period does not end until the opening lead is faced (L17E). I > do not know what ACBL bidding box regulations say, but in EBUland the > position is: > > OB 7.3.6 "At the end of the auction the calls should remain in place until > the opening lead has been faced ..." The only thing ACBL regs say about this is: A call, once made, may be changed without penalty under the provisions of Law 25 only if a player has inadvertently taken out the wrong bidding card, and the player corrects, or attempts to correct without pause for thought, and LHO has not taken action (picking up the bidding cards after the auction is over constitutes taking action). There is absolutely nothing in the ACBL bidding box regs about when, after the auction is over, cards are to be picked up. In fact, the above regulation seems likely to result in rulings that picking up the cards constitutes a final pass. IMO, this sucks. It's one of several places in which, IMO, EBU regs are *far* better than the ACBL ones. > It seems unlikely that the other players started to put away bidding cards > while you still had a call, so I suspect that you initiated this process > thinking the auction had ended. If your bidding cards (and everyone > else's) were still in place while you were still (incorrectly)awaiting LHO's > lead, you would have had no problem, would you? You've obviously not played in the ACBL. :-) It is "standard practice" around here for people to start picking up their bidding cards as soon as they assume the auction is over - whether there have been 3, 2, 1 or 0 final passes. For example, this auction occurred twice at the regional 299er pairs in which I played yesterday: (1NT)-P-(3NT). At this point, both opponents, followed by my partner, picked up their cards. In one case, I was in second seat; in the other, fourth. In the latter case, I was going to pass. In neither case did I bother saying anything. Perhaps I should have. I've also seen competitive auctions where only one of my pair is bidding, and once he passes, opponents assume the partner is also passing. :-( Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 7 15:00:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g073xdh19534 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 14:59:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g073xVH19507 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 14:59:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id PAA27645 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 15:02:12 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Mon, 07 Jan 2002 14:50:52 +0000 (EST) Subject: RE: [BLML] Alerting doubles To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 14:41:40 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 07/01/2002 02:41:37 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In the thread *A question of the English.* Steve Willner wrote: [big snip] >In general -- perhaps useful in the Norwegian discussion of >which doubles to alert -- it seems to me that where there are a >few common meanings, none should be alertable, but highly >unusual meanings should be. So for example, if a competitive >double is any of penalty, takeout, "cards," etc., it ought not >be alertable, but if it shows trump support or void in diamonds, >or something else weird, it probably should be. I don't know >how to put such a regulation into words, though. Perhaps chauvinistically I like the Australian way of alerting doubles. In Oz all doubles are self-alerting. This means that the partner of the doubler is *forbidden* to alert regardless of the meaning of the doubler, but the opponents are permitted to ask questions *as if* the double had been alerted. Also, the Oz regulations require that *weird* partnership agreements which require advance warning or preparation of counter-measures must be pre-alerted. (Therefore, my regular partner and I pre-alert that we do not play negative doubles.) Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 7 18:07:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0776Se15707 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 18:06:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout2.netvision.net.il (mxout2.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.21]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0776JH15703 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 18:06:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.76.48]) by mxout2.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GPK00DL43CVL4@mxout2.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 07 Jan 2002 08:58:10 +0200 (IST) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 08:57:13 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] The final pass? To: Steve Willner , Israel Erdnbaum Cc: talith , Bridge Laws Message-id: <000b01c19748$8a6b1e80$304c003e@erdnbaum> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <200201062020.PAA03793@cfa183.harvard.edu> <000201c19745$ef374940$304c003e@erdnbaum> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Israel Erdnbaum" To: "Steve Willner" Cc: "Israel Erdenbaum" Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 12:13 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] The final pass? > A player is supposed to be aware of what is happening at the table and is > responsible for his actions. A player should be ready to accept with good > grace an occasional [ I hope] lapse , and of course pay the appropiate > penalty . > Israel----- Original Message ----- > From: "Steve Willner" > To: > Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2002 10:20 PM > Subject: [BLML] The final pass? > > > > We had a discussion some while ago about whether picking up the > > bidding cards constitutes a final pass. Well, I now have practical > > experience to report. > > > > My RHO bid 1C, I bid 1D, LHO bid 2C, which I did not see. Two passes > > and everyone picked up the bidding cards. I was quite surprised it > > wasn't LHO's lead. > > > > The TD, with no real effort to find out facts, ruled that my final pass > > was made. (He did, after some consideration, offer me L25B.) His > > statement was to the effect that picking up the bidding cards "made it > > look to everyone else" as though I was passing, this despite the fact > > that I _never_ fail to put out the final green card. At my request, he > > confirmed this ruling with the CTD. (This was at a regional tournament > > here in Massachusetts.) So in ACBL District 25 (New England region), > > this is the practical ruling one can expect. > > > > I'm wondering what would have happened if partner, knowing that I never > > make my final pass by picking up the bidding cards, had immediately > > asked whether the auction was over. > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > The rest of this message is for amusement only; a comment on the ACBL > > masterpoint awards. > > > > We entered a bracketed KO and ended up with 11 teams in our bracket. > > We won the first round in a head-to-head match. This was worth a > > modest fraction of a masterpoint. Then we were in a three-way match, > > where we lost one half-match by a large margin and won the other by a > > small margin. Fortunately, the team we beat lost their other > > half-match, so we advanced. For our magnificent victory :-), we were > > awarded 8 (!) masterpoints. We then won the semi-final and 4 more > > masterpoints and then the final for another 4. > > > > Does anyone still think that flighting and seeding events by masterpoint > > holdings makes any sense? > > -- > > ======================================================================== > > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 7 18:22:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g077MgW15727 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 18:22:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g077MYH15723 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 18:22:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.9.150] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16NTvq-000AkX-00; Mon, 07 Jan 2002 07:10:55 +0000 Message-ID: <000701c1974b$3772db20$9609e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" , "bridge-laws" References: <3C3455E5.9040507@village.uunet.be> <000701c19530$5f81de80$8833e150@pacific> <008201c195be$61788de0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 23:57:43 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "bridge-laws" Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2002 7:55 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. > > The second half of your quote is not an ACBL regulation but an "Office > Policy" (August, 1995) issued by the CTD. > > The ACBL speaks with many tongues. TDs are told in the Tech Files that > controlled psyches are defined on the Limited Convention Chart, which > reads: > +=+ What has confused me, then, is the statement preceding the piece I quoted, which statement reads: Effective November 1, 1992 the following applies to the SuperChart also. (Board of Directors - Summer 1992):" The sentiments I quoted were all in a single paragraph. It appeared that the Office Policy 08/1995 reference was to the paragraph separate from the above which reads "Therefore, a legal agreement that creates a risk-free psychic environment (that is an environment where the psycher knows his partner is under control - this does not include hands where we know because of our particular hand that we have an answer to most things that partner can do to us) becomes illegal if the pair psyches." ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 7 18:32:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g077WIV15740 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 18:32:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g077WAH15736 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 18:32:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g077O7111311 for ; Sun, 6 Jan 2002 23:24:07 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <00bb01c19748$b3734500$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <000401c19530$5d1dfde0$8833e150@pacific> Subject: Re: [BLML] L12C2 Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 22:56:34 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "David Stevenson" > Grattan Endicott writes > > >+=+ I have opened a file labelled > >'Montreal: WBFLC agenda' . > >I do not recollect what the 1992 Commentary > >says upon the question, but I do not know > >of any change in the EBL policy since then. > > EBL TDG 12.14 In the case of an offending side the requirement is to > assess the score which is "the most unfavourable result that was at all > probable". There are two key changes: firstly this result may be > obtained either through action in which the irregularity has not > occurred, or alternatively through action in which the irregularity does > occur. The offending side's path to its poor score may be by either of > these routes. Ergo, L12C2 has been interpreted as having something like "just prior to or after the infraction" appended to "the most unfavorable result that was at all probable." Pretty tough on the OS at times, as Ton says, but that's okay with me. No doubt this will be cleared up in Montreal. > Secondly there is a difference between what is "likely" > and what (as here) is "at all probable": discard the improbable and > consider the scores that remain. Select the one most unfavourable for > the offending side. > Interesting. The WBFLC had better look into more of L12C2's language, as it has not been made clear that an unlikely result may be assigned to the NOS, and that an improbable result may be assigned to the OS. We need different, standalone, adjectives rather than those that change meaning when combined with other words. Those who suggest changes should propose new language incorporating them. So (going along with Adam W., Ton, and the ACBL): 2. Assigned Score When, owing to an irregularity, the Director assigns an adjusted score in place of an actual result, he restores the situation to that which existed just before the irregularity, and determines the legal result(s) that might reasonably have followed. For a non-offending side, he assigns the most favorable of such results, rejecting any that seem too improbable. For an offending side, he assigns the most unfavorable. The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 7 20:10:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0799GP15799 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 20:09:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net [194.7.1.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g07994H15790 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 20:09:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-158-153.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.158.153]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g0790wJ13214 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 10:00:59 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3C36D01D.9050201@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 11:06:21 +0100 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. References: <3C3455E5.9040507@village.uunet.be> <000701c19530$5f81de80$8833e150@pacific> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >>> > +=+ ""Psychic controls are not permitted. If a pair > is using methods that enable them to make > risk-free psyches, they are in essence playing > psychic controls. ................omissis................... Sorry Grattan, but what is the context now ? The only place where psychic controls are mentioned, IIRC, is in system regulations, where they are defined as brown. However, I believe there is a great need of good definition here. -Is a psyche with a control still a psyche ? -Can there then be something like a psychic control ? -Psyches that are controlled are deemed "brown", that is not the same as saying they are forbidden; in fact it is saying they are permitted, in certain tournaments. We really need to get to the bottom of this one! > For example, 1NT-Pass-2 Hearts - 3C : > if the opener is prohibited from bidding 3 Hearts > with a maximum and a fit, then a risk-free > environment is created."" [ACBL Regulation] > I would suppose that the ACBL statement > is based on the fact that the partnership is > seen to have an understanding. ~ G ~ +=+ > > > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 7 20:10:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0799HW15800 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 20:09:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net [194.7.1.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g07996H15793 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 20:09:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-158-153.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.158.153]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g07911J13243 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 10:01:01 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3C36D17D.3010400@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 11:12:13 +0100 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] I was quick References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: >>>the evening, and we came last ;-( >>> > >>>>ton >>>> > >>I would have preferred you to delete my name under this description of your >>performance. >> >>ton >> Sorry. > > Be fair, Ton, he did better than usual! :)) > > Indeed, I was 11th on wednesday, on 45%, but 14th yesterday, on 38%. But we saw the absolute strangest bid of two centuries: pass pass 1Sp Dbl pass 3He Pass 6He 7Di Dble all pass I've never seen anyone pass twice and then name his suit for the first time at the seven level ! Result : -1400 and a top ! Actor : my regular partner Thierry ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 7 21:01:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g07A0in24029 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 21:00:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat40.alcanet.no [193.213.239.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g07A0YH24006 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 21:00:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from netos70.alcatel.no (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with ESMTP id g079qMO22457 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 10:52:22 +0100 Received: from netos70.alcatel.no (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with ESMTP id g079Ke216009; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 10:20:40 +0100 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: [BLML] Alerting doubles To: richard.hills@immi.gov.au, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-ID: From: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 10:52:21 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NOMAIL01/NO/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 01/07/2002 10:52:22 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Richard Hills wrote: >In the thread *A question of the English.* Steve Willner wrote: >[big snip] >>In general -- perhaps useful in the Norwegian discussion of >>which doubles to alert -- it seems to me that where there are a >>few common meanings, none should be alertable, but highly >>unusual meanings should be. So for example, if a competitive >>double is any of penalty, takeout, "cards," etc., it ought not >>be alertable, but if it shows trump support or void in diamonds, >>or something else weird, it probably should be. I don't know >>how to put such a regulation into words, though. >Perhaps chauvinistically I like the Australian way of alerting >doubles. >In Oz all doubles are self-alerting. This means that the partner >of the doubler is *forbidden* to alert regardless of the meaning >of the doubler, but the opponents are permitted to ask questions >*as if* the double had been alerted. Is there any restriction anywhere against asking questions on unalerted calls? Law20F1 does not mention alerting as a prerequisite to asking questions. So as far as I can see it makes no difference whether regulations state that all doubles "are self alerting" (as in Australia) or "shall not be alerted" (as probably about to come in Norway)? Have I misseed something? regards Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 7 22:19:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g07BJ4w07942 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 22:19:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (st.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g07BItH07924 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 22:18:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id MAA18991; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 12:07:50 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id MAA15121; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 12:10:40 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020107121036.00a4a080@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 12:13:11 +0100 To: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no, richard.hills@immi.gov.au, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: RE: [BLML] Alerting doubles In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:52 7/01/2002 +0100, Sven.Pran@alcatel.no wrote: >Richard Hills wrote: > >In the thread *A question of the English.* Steve Willner wrote: > > >[big snip] > > >>In general -- perhaps useful in the Norwegian discussion of > >>which doubles to alert -- it seems to me that where there are a > >>few common meanings, none should be alertable, but highly > >>unusual meanings should be. So for example, if a competitive > >>double is any of penalty, takeout, "cards," etc., it ought not > >>be alertable, but if it shows trump support or void in diamonds, > >>or something else weird, it probably should be. I don't know > >>how to put such a regulation into words, though. > > >Perhaps chauvinistically I like the Australian way of alerting > >doubles. > > >In Oz all doubles are self-alerting. This means that the partner > >of the doubler is *forbidden* to alert regardless of the meaning > >of the doubler, but the opponents are permitted to ask questions > >*as if* the double had been alerted. > >Is there any restriction anywhere against asking questions on >unalerted calls? Law20F1 does not mention alerting as a >prerequisite to asking questions. AG : thee was, until a recent time. There is no more, although UI can result. I suppose that the specific right granted to ask about a double means the player won't be considered to give out UI by the mere fact of asking. Do the Aussies agree ? Best regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 7 23:18:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g07CI7o19631 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 23:18:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net [194.7.1.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g07CHwH19611 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 23:17:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-215.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.215]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g07C9qJ10866 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 13:09:53 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3C396979.4030906@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 10:25:13 +0100 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. References: <3C3455E5.9040507@village.uunet.be> <000701c19530$5f81de80$8833e150@pacific> <008201c195be$61788de0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <000701c1974b$3772db20$9609e150@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > "Therefore, a legal agreement that creates a risk-free > psychic environment (that is an environment where the > psycher knows his partner is under control - this does > not include hands where we know because of our > particular hand that we have an answer to most things > that partner can do to us) becomes illegal if the pair > psyches." ~ G ~ +=+ > Far from trying to disagree with the ACBL, this phrasing is still inaccurate. The correct way of saying this should be : > "Therefore, a legal agreement that creates a risk-free > psychic environment turns the psyche into a systemic bid, which may or may not be illegal under the system regulations. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 7 23:35:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g07CYwj23038 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 23:34:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g07CYiH23006 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 23:34:44 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g07CQdd06893 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 12:26:39 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 12:26 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.52.2000, Windows 98 4.10.2222 ( A ) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: Probst wrote: > I agree with David here. I play 2N as constructive, and I psyche it > occasionally. I'd expect partner to bid 4S with a 6124 maximum in this > auction. If 2N is a frequent "joke" I think the opponents are entitled > to know this. When I play with JP we have agreed 2NT as "shortage ask" - it wouldn't have occurred to me to describe it as "constructive". Notwithstanding that I'd expect us both to bid 4S on 6124 (and 6133) maxima. I'd also make a penalty double on a maximum with the spade Ace and a singleton non trump. I guess the description should be "Shortage ask but he doesn't promise anything and isn't necessarily interested in my answer". Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 7 23:35:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g07CYvt23030 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 23:34:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g07CYhH23003 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 23:34:44 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g07CQdT06878 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 12:26:39 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 12:26 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.52.2000, Windows 98 4.10.2222 ( A ) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: > Tim West-meads writes > > I think that the reg is not wrong so much as badly worded, and I ask > people to consider a wording that meets what I believe we mean. We do > not want partner to have a better expectation because he is partner: now > put that into English please. Fair enough. On reflection I suggest "In general terms partner should be as surprised as would a player of similar experience who knows you no better than the opponents." However, I would put this in the context of: *Psyche - Definition* A psyche is a call that, although chosen deliberately, quite obviously gives a less accurate description of the hand than would an alternative call in the system being played. *Psyches and Disclosure* It is important to recognise that psyching is an inherent, and important aspect of the game. However we also recognise that as partnership experience develops the chance of recognising when partner has psyched will also increase. Experienced partnerships must therefore ensure that they take due care with the disclosure of any such understandings. The typical psyching frequency of both players should be clearly shown on the CC (it need not be the same for each player) and should be generally be calculated on a per session basis for the scoring system in operation eg. MPs: Me, 2/Session Partner, 1/5 Sessions Imps: Me, 1/Session Partner, Hardly Ever In addition if you become aware of certain sequences where partner habitually psyches then the call should be alerted and, on request, described as "Ostensibly ...., but around x% of the time it may be a psyche based on..." *Psychic Controls* These are systemic agreements designed to protect partnerships from the risk of psyching and are not permitted. It is possible that a systemic agreement that, while not primarily designed to minimise the risk of psyching, will lead to habitual psyches in certain positions (or tend to minimise the risk of habitual psyches). This could lead a TD to rule, post facto, that psychic controls were being played illegally. *Exposure of Psyches* A psyche may be considered "exposed" in the following circumstances 1) The psycher subsequently makes a call that is incompatible with the original psyche (eg passes in a forcing sequence) 2) The bidding round the table, in combination with the hand held, makes it clear that "somebody doesn't have their call". *Bidding after an unexposed psyche* If you suspect a psyche by partner which has not yet been exposed it is permitted to select, amongst logical alternatives, an action that minimises the risk of partner having psyched. It is not permitted to select an action that would cater only to partner having psyched. *Bidding after an exposed psyche* Once a psyche has been exposed the partner of the psycher make select any call. I hope this gives a flavour on psyching that others find useful. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 7 23:35:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g07CZBF23069 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 23:35:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mx.poczta.interia.pl (smtp.poczta.interia.pl [217.74.65.36]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g07CYvH23036 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 23:34:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (nanon.interia.pl [127.0.0.1]) by nanon.interia.pl (MX) with SMTP id 7693837248F for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 13:26:48 +0100 (CET) Received: from poczta.interia.pl (nyx.poczta.fm [217.74.65.51]) by mx.poczta.interia.pl (MX) with ESMTP id 26EA437243A for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 13:26:48 +0100 (CET) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (nyx.poczta.fm [127.0.0.1]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailserver) with SMTP id 08922DB030 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 13:26:48 +0100 (CET) Received: by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver, from userid 555) id BA22FDB025; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 13:26:46 +0100 (CET) Received: from kavanagh (unknown [217.153.105.20]) by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver) with SMTP id 35ED7DB01C for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 13:26:46 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <00b001c19775$7a8e79d0$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <200201062020.PAA03793@cfa183.harvard.edu> <000201c19745$ef374940$304c003e@erdnbaum> <000b01c19748$8a6b1e80$304c003e@erdnbaum> Subject: Re: [BLML] The final pass? Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 13:18:34 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1255" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 X-EMID: 8b2be2c0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Israel Erdnbaum" To: "Steve Willner" ; "Israel Erdnbaum" Cc: "talith" ; "Bridge Laws" Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 7:57 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] The final pass? > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Israel Erdnbaum" > To: "Steve Willner" > Cc: "Israel Erdenbaum" > Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 12:13 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] The final pass? > > > > A player is supposed to be aware of what is happening at the table and is > > responsible for his actions. A player should be ready to accept with good > > grace an occasional [ I hope] lapse , and of course pay the appropiate > > penalty . I really would love to live in a world where it were that simple. Recently we discussed an incident where a player failed to see that a green pass card in front of his RHO was merely left on the table after the previous board and was therefore convinced that his RHO has already passed as dealer. On this assumption he passed OOT. The vast majority of BLMLers decided that he should be allowed to take his pass back without penalty. I am wondering if Steve will be offered the same sympathy by BLMLers this time. My position is that without the clear bidding box regulations the problem is unsolvable - a case can be made one way or the other. I'd say that taking away your bidding cards while the auction is not over yet is illegal and doesn't (or at least shouldn't) consitute a final pass so strictly speaking the auction is not over and it is still Steve's partner turn to call (yes, if he decides to bid something else than pass then we'll have to deal with an awkward UI problem). Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Tanszy platny seks dzieki wprowadzeniu Euro? http://fakty.interia.pl/ciekawostki/news?inf=213476 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 8 00:34:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g07DXX203154 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 00:33:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-5.cais.net (stmpy-5.cais.net [205.252.14.75]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g07DXPH03140 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 00:33:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-5.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g07DPJk78466 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 08:25:20 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20020107081736.00ac62a0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 08:25:03 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. In-Reply-To: <+LGEs8F4muN8EwH4@asimere.com> References: <009701c195c5$4d073b20$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <009701c195c5$4d073b20$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:55 AM 1/5/02, John wrote: >let's take a case in point. My daughter's fiancee and I played a >2-session event over Christmas. We play together about 2 or 3 times a >year, and both play in the same "school" with similar views on bidding. >When bidding we're pretty much down the middle for the system we play. >The bidding goes one heart on my left, 1N from pard, "Range?" from RHO. >We haven't discussed it but all our school plays it as 15-17. fwiw I >hold a 3154 6 count. > >How should I reply to this question? Just as you did (implicitly) for our benefit above: "We haven't discussed it but all our school plays it as 15-17." 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 8 01:15:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g07EBG110650 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 01:11:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g07EB1H10606 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 01:11:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g07E2jR12702 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 15:02:45 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Mon Jan 07 14:59:48 2002 +0100 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl (agro500s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KCSL5V3CYM003NLR@AGRO.NL>; Mon, 07 Jan 2002 15:01:57 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 07 Jan 2002 15:01:49 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 15:01:47 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] The final pass? To: "'Steve Willner'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Van: Steve Willner > > We had a discussion some while ago about whether picking up the > bidding cards constitutes a final pass. Well, I now have practical > experience to report. It must have been 25 years ago, yes we played with bidding boxes already, in the national competition pairs first division. NS having found the trump suit being hearts cued with 5clubs (north), east doubled and south and west passed. North (Rebattu, the same as the one thinking to be world champion open pairs with Maas for a couple of minutes in Biarritz '82) now said something as: 'I get ill' and picked up his bid cards. His clever LHO led to the first trick within a split second and the contract went 9 off. I was the TD and I honestly don't remember when they called for me. But I do remember my decision: since everybody picks up his bidding cards all the time in stead of making the 'final passes' I considered his picking up the cards as the closing pass: so the result stood. NS appealed and the same evening our natonal appeal committee met and what they mainly did was reading the law book (which I should have done as well) where they found that after a bid followed by three consecutive passes the bidding was closed. Furthermore they had the statement from north that he thought the bidding being closed already before picking up his bid cards (which was supported by his statement 'I get ill'). The comittee therefore decided to adjust the score in something reasonable, but they gave NS a penalty for not paying enough attention etc. Up till this day I consider this decision as the right one, and feel my cheeks getting red, and suggest to you the following: If something like this happens to you (TD), what you need to find out is the intention of the player. Did he take away his bid cards in stead of a pass or did he wrongly assume the auction already being closed. In the latter his picking up the bid cards does not close the auction. In my opinion this should not be something to be decided by NBO's or even worse: appeal committees, for their jurisdiction. We should have a commom world approach for this. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 8 01:42:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g07Efwe16674 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 01:41:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g07EfmH16637 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 01:41:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g07EXhR23261 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 15:33:43 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Mon Jan 07 15:30:45 2002 +0100 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl (agro500s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KCSM94MGB2003OEZ@AGRO.NL>; Mon, 07 Jan 2002 15:32:49 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 07 Jan 2002 15:32:41 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 15:32:43 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] I was quick To: "'Herman De Wael'" , Bridge Laws Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Indeed, I was 11th on wednesday, on 45%, but 14th yesterday, on 38%. I get the impression that you are starting to be proud of your performance. > > But we saw the absolute strangest bid of two centuries: > > pass > pass > 1Sp > Dbl > pass > 3He > Pass > 6He > 7Di > Dble > all pass > > I've never seen anyone pass twice and then name his suit for > the first time at the seven level ! > Result : -1400 and a top ! > Actor : my regular partner Thierry ! Not exactly the same but I offer you a nice story in the Bridge World, January 2002. Also a good illustration of a claim and/or concession. Happened some 50 years ago. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 8 01:58:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g07Ev2919278 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 01:57:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail4.nc.rr.com (fe4.southeast.rr.com [24.93.67.51]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g07EurH19247 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 01:56:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from mom ([66.57.45.110]) by mail4.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.687.68); Mon, 7 Jan 2002 09:48:35 -0500 Message-ID: <002301c19789$933f56c0$6e2d3942@nc.rr.com> Reply-To: "Nancy" From: "Nancy" To: "Konrad Ciborowski" , "Bridge Laws" References: <200201062020.PAA03793@cfa183.harvard.edu> <000201c19745$ef374940$304c003e@erdnbaum> <000b01c19748$8a6b1e80$304c003e@erdnbaum> <00b001c19775$7a8e79d0$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> Subject: Re: [BLML] The final pass? Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 09:42:47 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1255" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Isn't the auction over when the opening lead is faced? Isn't a pass signified by a pass card on the table? Isn't a bid made when a person touches and lifts the card signifying the number and suit the person intends to bid? Aren't the bid cards returned to the bid box when the unfaced lead card is placed on the table? Are these bid box rules or must I learn, and teach my beginners, some different ones? Thanks, Nancy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 7:18 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] The final pass? > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Israel Erdnbaum" > To: "Steve Willner" ; "Israel Erdnbaum" > > Cc: "talith" ; "Bridge Laws" > > Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 7:57 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] The final pass? > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Israel Erdnbaum" > > To: "Steve Willner" > > Cc: "Israel Erdenbaum" > > Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 12:13 AM > > Subject: Re: [BLML] The final pass? > > > > > > > A player is supposed to be aware of what is happening at the table and > is > > > responsible for his actions. A player should be ready to accept with > good > > > grace an occasional [ I hope] lapse , and of course pay the appropiate > > > penalty . > > I really would love to live in a world where it were that simple. > Recently we discussed an incident where a player failed to see that > a green pass card in front of his RHO was merely left on the table > after the previous board and was therefore convinced that his > RHO has already passed as dealer. On this assumption he > passed OOT. The vast majority of BLMLers decided that he > should be allowed to take his pass back without penalty. > > I am wondering if Steve will be offered the same sympathy > by BLMLers this time. My position is that without the clear > bidding box regulations the problem is unsolvable - a case > can be made one way or the other. I'd say that taking > away your bidding cards while the auction is not over yet > is illegal and doesn't (or at least shouldn't) consitute a final > pass so strictly speaking the auction is not over and it is > still Steve's partner turn to call (yes, if he decides to bid > something else than pass then we'll have to deal with > an awkward UI problem). > > > Konrad Ciborowski > Krakow, Poland > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Tanszy platny seks dzieki wprowadzeniu Euro? > http://fakty.interia.pl/ciekawostki/news?inf=213476 > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 8 03:27:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g07GPNM06282 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 03:25:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g07GPFH06247 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 03:25:15 +1100 (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 LAA21471 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 11:17:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA11752 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 11:17:10 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 11:17:10 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200201071617.LAA11752@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] The final pass? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Konrad Ciborowski" > I am wondering if Steve will be offered the same sympathy > by BLMLers this time. Thanks, Konrad, and others who have commented. I'm not looking for sympathy, just reporting what ACBL'ers in District 25 (and based on Ed's quoting of the regulations, probably elsewhere as well) should expect. (We won 2 IMPs on the board and won the match easily. I doubt that the result would have been different even if the TD had allowed me to bid again: 3C= instead of 2C+1.) >From the various comments, it looks as though the ruling outside the ACBL, at least in many jurisdictions, would have been different. Knowing that may be helpful to people in those jurisdictions. I would like comments on whether partner is allowed to say something about the auction not being over. Saying something would be normal for oral bidding; is it allowed with bid boxes? > My position is that without the clear > bidding box regulations the problem is unsolvable Indeed. If the regulations were to say "Picking up the bid cards is deemed a pass," I would have no quarrel with that. In fact, it's probably a better regulation than one based on the player's intent. This appears to be the practical regulation in the ACBL, even though it is not what is written. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 8 03:48:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g07Gl3910201 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 03:47:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g07GksH10184 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 03:46:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) with ESMTP id QAA22392 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 16:38:50 GMT Message-ID: <4In18UAz6cO8Ew+r@asimere.com> Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 16:37:07 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. References: <009701c195c5$4d073b20$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <009701c195c5$4d073b20$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <+LGEs8F4muN8EwH4@asimere.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20020107081736.00ac62a0@127.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20020107081736.00ac62a0@127.0.0.1> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <4.3.2.7.1.20020107081736.00ac62a0@127.0.0.1>, Eric Landau writes >At 06:55 AM 1/5/02, John wrote: > >>let's take a case in point. My daughter's fiancee and I played a >>2-session event over Christmas. We play together about 2 or 3 times a >>year, and both play in the same "school" with similar views on bidding. >>When bidding we're pretty much down the middle for the system we play. >>The bidding goes one heart on my left, 1N from pard, "Range?" from RHO. >>We haven't discussed it but all our school plays it as 15-17. fwiw I >>hold a 3154 6 count. >> >>How should I reply to this question? > >Just as you did (implicitly) for our benefit above: "We haven't >discussed it but all our school plays it as 15-17." what I actually said was "normal agreements apply, but it could easily be a joke" (and we've neither of us ever psyched the 1N overcall with each other, but both of us know the other could). The auction continued: 1H 1N 4H P P 4S x(a) (a) agonised so I said "seems quite likely now", and after the UI enforced pass put dummy down for -100 against their 980. I think I'm bound to point out partner could psyche here - even though we jointly never had. cheers 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 > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 8 03:49:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g07GmON10427 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 03:48:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (mailout5-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.169]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g07GmFH10411 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 03:48:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g07Ge7q21313; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 11:40:07 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 11:34:44 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] The final pass? To: Nancy cc: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <002301c19789$933f56c0$6e2d3942@nc.rr.com> Message-ID: <20020107114008-r01010800-001011e9-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.1.8 (Bluto) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 1/7/02 at 9:42 AM, nancy@dressing.org (Nancy) wrote: > Isn't the auction over when the opening lead is faced? Not necessarily. ;-) Law 17E says "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)." So, assuming the hand isn't passed out, the auction ends *after three passes...*. If the bidding box regulations require a pass card on the table in order to signify a pass, then if no pass card is placed on the table, no pass has been made, so the auction ain't over, even if an "opening lead" is faced. > Isn't a pass signified by a pass card on the table? Isn't a bid made > when a person touches and lifts the card signifying the number and > suit the person intends to bid? Aren't the bid cards returned to the > bid box when the unfaced lead card is placed on the table? Are these > bid box rules or must I learn, and teach my beginners, some different > ones? The ACBL Bidding Box regulations say: "1. A player is obligated to choose a call before touching any card in the box. Deliberation while touching the bidding box cards, removing bidding cards prior to the call being considered "made," etc., may subject the offending side to the adjustment provisions of Law 16. A call is considered made when a bidding card is removed from the bidding box and held touching or nearly touching the table or maintained in such a position to indicate that the call has been made. Until a call is considered made, the director will treat the situation as unauthorized information and apply Law 16. After a call is considered made, the director will apply Law 25. 2. A call, once made, may be changed without penalty under the provisions of Law 25 only if a player has inadvertently taken out the wrong bidding card, and the player corrects, or attempts to correct without pause for thought, and LHO has not taken action (picking up the bidding cards after the auction is over constitutes taking action). 3. The skip-bid warning is given using bidding boxes by displaying the stop card, making a call and then replacing the stop card in the bidding box. LHO is obligated to wait 10 seconds (while giving the appearance of studying his hand) before making a call." So a call is made when "a bidding card is removed from the bidding box and held touching or nearly touching the table or maintained in such a position to indicate that the call has been made," not when the player "touches and lifts the card." And the regulations say nothing about when the cards should be returned to the bid box (IMO, this is a serious oversight. I think the EBU got it right - their regulation says the cards stay on the table until the opening lead is made. Unfortunately, we're not *in* the EBU. :-) I note also that the requirement to pause for ten seconds after a skip bid applies *whether or not* the stop card is used. And use of it is optional to the player. That's in the stop card regulation, which is separate from the bidding box regulation, and which I cannot, at the moment, find on the ACBL web site. :-( If I were teaching it, I would teach that one should always use the stop card, always remember to make the requisite ten second pause, never tap the table to indicate a pass, never pick up the bidding cards until the opening lead is made and any questions asked, never ask "any questions" *before* choosing the opening lead, and always remember that the putative declarer has as much right to ask questions at that point as does partner of the opening leader. Oh, and always put the Alert card out or tap the strip when making an alert or announcement. But I suspect that even if *every* teacher taught it that way, it wouldn't help. :-) I note that players often make their call, after a skip bid, without regard to the mandatory ten second pause, whether I use the stop card or not, and regardless how long I leave it out. One time, I made a skip bid on the first board of a three board round. Put out the stop card, made my bid, picked up the card. LHO immediately passed. On the second board, I made another skip bid, but this time I left the stop card on the table. After about eight seconds, during which LHO stared intently at me, she said "you gonna pick that up?". :-( Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 8 03:50:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g07GniV10622 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 03:49:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g07GnZH10609 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 03:49:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) with ESMTP id QAA22397 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 16:41:31 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 16:40:14 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , Tim West-meads writes >In-Reply-To: >Probst wrote: >> I agree with David here. I play 2N as constructive, and I psyche it >> occasionally. I'd expect partner to bid 4S with a 6124 maximum in this >> auction. If 2N is a frequent "joke" I think the opponents are entitled >> to know this. > >When I play with JP we have agreed 2NT as "shortage ask" - it wouldn't >have occurred to me to describe it as "constructive". Notwithstanding >that I'd expect us both to bid 4S on 6124 (and 6133) maxima. I'd also >make a penalty double on a maximum with the spade Ace and a singleton non >trump. > >I guess the description should be "Shortage ask but he doesn't promise >anything and isn't necessarily interested in my answer". > >Tim > > 2 things Tim, first, playing with you I suspend all concept of system, and secondly we play it as feature ask (natural rebid), but I agree we'd both worry if the other didn't blast game on a maximum. >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 8 03:52:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g07GpGa10843 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 03:51:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (mailout5-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g07Gp8H10821 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 03:51:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g07Gh1q24037; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 11:43:01 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 11:42:22 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] The final pass? To: Steve Willner cc: bre , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <200201071617.LAA11752@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <20020107114302-r01010800-f931e3f7-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.1.8 (Bluto) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 1/7/02 at 11:17 AM, willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) wrote: > I would like comments on whether partner is allowed to say something > about the auction not being over. Saying something would be normal for > oral bidding; is it allowed with bid boxes? I don't see why not - a player has a right to draw attention to an irregularity (dummy, during play, is an exception, but if the auction ain't over, he ain't dummy yet. :) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 8 04:19:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g07HJCC15647 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 04:19:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (mailout5-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g07HJ3H15623 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 04:19:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g07HAuq17473 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 12:10:57 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 12:01:46 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] The final pass? To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <20020107114008-r01010800-001011e9-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> Message-ID: <20020107121056-r01010800-e72b90c3-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.1.8 (Bluto) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 1/7/02 at 11:34 AM, ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) wrote: > 2. A call, once made, may be changed without penalty under the > provisions of Law 25 only if a player has inadvertently taken out the > wrong bidding card, and the player corrects, or attempts to correct > without pause for thought, and LHO has not taken action (picking up > the bidding cards after the auction is over constitutes taking action). On reflection, this appears to be an illegal regulation. Law 25B1 says "Until LHO calls, a call may be substituted when Section A does not apply: 1. Substitute Call Condoned The substituted call may be accepted (treated as legal) at the option of offender's LHO; then, the second call stands and the auction proceeds without penalty." The regulation seems to preclude the application of this law. :-( Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 8 04:34:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g07HXgX18502 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 04:33:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g07HXXH18473 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 04:33:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from host217-34-94-84.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([217.34.94.84]) by rhenium with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16NdWZ-000427-00; Mon, 07 Jan 2002 17:25:28 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: gordonrainsford@mail.btinternet.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20020107114008-r01010800-001011e9-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> References: <20020107114008-r01010800-001011e9-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 17:25:23 +0000 To: Bridge Laws From: Gordon Rainsford Subject: Re: [BLML] The final pass? Cc: Bridge Laws Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:34 am -0500 7/1/02, Ed Reppert wrote: >On 1/7/02 at 9:42 AM, nancy@dressing.org (Nancy) wrote: > >> Isn't the auction over when the opening lead is faced? > >Not necessarily. ;-) Law 17E says "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)." > >So, assuming the hand isn't passed out, the auction ends *after three >passes...*. I realise that you've edited it for brevity, Ed, but this now looks as though you are saying that the three passes signify the end of the auction, rather than the faced lead following the three passes. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 8 05:14:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g07IERA26227 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 05:14:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g07IE6H26173 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 05:14:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16Ne9m-000BGh-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 18:06:00 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 12:50:24 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] Worm prevention MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk A correspondent has suggested I put this to the list: As you probably know, when/if a worm virus gets into your computer it heads straight for your email address book and sends itself to everyone in there, thus infecting all your friends and associates. This trick won't keep the virus from getting into your computer, but it will stop it from using your address book to spread, and it will alert you to the fact that the worm has gotten into your system. Here's what you do: Add an entry to your address book. (Just to be safe, I made it the first name on my list.) Give it the nickname !000 (that's an exclamation mark followed by three zeros). Also type !000 in as the first name of the entry. Type in WormAlert where you enter the email address. Now, here's what you've done and why it works: the "name" !000 will be placed at the top of your address book as entry #1. This will be where the worm will start in an effort to send itself to all your friends. But when it tries to send itself to !000, the message will be undeliverable, because of the phony email address you entered (WormAlert). If the first attempt fails (which it will because of the phony address), the worm goes no further, nothing will be sent and your friends will not be infected. In addition, since the message could not be sent, you'll know right away that you have the worm in your system and you can then take steps to get rid of it. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 8 05:14:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g07IEKx26214 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 05:14:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g07IE5H26166 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 05:14:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16Ne9l-000BGe-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 18:06:00 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 12:41:59 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Alerting doubles References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > >In the thread *A question of the English.* Steve Willner wrote: > >[big snip] > >>In general -- perhaps useful in the Norwegian discussion of >>which doubles to alert -- it seems to me that where there are a >>few common meanings, none should be alertable, but highly >>unusual meanings should be. So for example, if a competitive >>double is any of penalty, takeout, "cards," etc., it ought not >>be alertable, but if it shows trump support or void in diamonds, >>or something else weird, it probably should be. I don't know >>how to put such a regulation into words, though. > >Perhaps chauvinistically I like the Australian way of alerting >doubles. > >In Oz all doubles are self-alerting. This means that the partner >of the doubler is *forbidden* to alert regardless of the meaning >of the doubler, but the opponents are permitted to ask questions >*as if* the double had been alerted. > >Also, the Oz regulations require that *weird* partnership >agreements which require advance warning or preparation of >counter-measures must be pre-alerted. (Therefore, my regular >partner and I pre-alert that we do not play negative doubles.) The problem with pre-alerts is that there is enough to have to remember of one's own system without remembering the opponents. After the first round of bidding doubles tend to get vague and alerting of them is fairly useless, but I hate the idea of not alerting the first round. Suppose partner opens 2S and RHO doubles: it really is helpful to have an alert here for a double that shows clubs. Having been told forty minutes earlier that doubles of two-level pre-empts show a suit of the same colour [around the time that the opponents told you that a 1D opening showed spades] is no substitute for alerting. Please, please, those jurisdictions thinking of following Australia, Russia and WBF-without-screens, please consider keeping alerts of doubles through opener's rebid. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 8 05:14:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g07IEK826211 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 05:14:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g07IE5H26165 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 05:14:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16Ne9l-000BGf-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 18:05:59 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 12:45:07 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Alerting doubles References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven.Pran@alcatel.no writes >Richard hill wrote: >>In Oz all doubles are self-alerting. This means that the partner >>of the doubler is *forbidden* to alert regardless of the meaning >>of the doubler, but the opponents are permitted to ask questions >>*as if* the double had been alerted. > >Is there any restriction anywhere against asking questions on >unalerted calls? Law20F1 does not mention alerting as a >prerequisite to asking questions. > >So as far as I can see it makes no difference whether regulations >state that all doubles "are self alerting" (as in Australia) or >"shall not be alerted" (as probably about to come in Norway)? > >Have I misseed something? In Australia it is [usually] considered UI-free to ask about an alerted call at your first chance. This also applies to self-alerting calls. So 2S Dbl no questions pass shows no fit and 2S Dbl questions pass shows a little fit -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 8 05:28:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g07IS3s28862 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 05:28:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (mailout5-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g07IRsH28833 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 05:27:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g07IJhq16634; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 13:19:44 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 13:12:50 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] The final pass? To: Gordon Rainsford cc: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020107131943-r01010800-dc6c7339-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.1.8 (Bluto) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 1/7/02 at 5:25 PM, gordonrainsford@btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) wrote: > I realise that you've edited it for brevity, Ed, but this now looks > as though you are saying that the three passes signify the end of the > auction, rather than the faced lead following the three passes. That's why I put the ellipsis at the end of the quote. Since I had quoted the entire law previously, I figured that was enough. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 8 05:41:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g07Iear01166 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 05:40:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (mailout5-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.169]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g07IeRH01136 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 05:40:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g07IWFq29079 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 13:32:20 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 13:25:49 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] The final pass? To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 Message-ID: <20020107133155-r01010800-f8b0d592-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.1.8 (Bluto) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 1/7/02 at 11:34 AM, ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) wrote: > I note also that the requirement to pause for ten seconds after a skip > bid applies *whether or not* the stop card is used. And use of it is > optional to the player. That's in the stop card regulation, which is > separate from the bidding box regulation, and which I cannot, at the > moment, find on the ACBL web site. :-( I found it. It's not a "stop card" regulation, it's a "skip bid warning" regulation. It appears I was wrong about it being optional. "The warning should be used all the time." Clubs can elect to forbid it, though. It's at http://www.acbl.org/regulations/skipbid.htm. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 8 07:50:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g07KnkH25996 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 07:49:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g07KnaH25972 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 07:49:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.10.217] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16NgaH-000CKG-00; Mon, 07 Jan 2002 20:41:29 +0000 Message-ID: <003a01c197bb$b5d1f940$d90ae150@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <3C3455E5.9040507@village.uunet.be> <000701c19530$5f81de80$8833e150@pacific> <3C36D01D.9050201@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 20:38:58 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: 05 January 2002 10:06 Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > >>> > > +=+ ""Psychic controls are not permitted. If a pair > > is using methods that enable them to make > > risk-free psyches, they are in essence playing > > psychic controls. ................omissis................... > > > Sorry Grattan, but what is the context now ? > > The only place where psychic controls are > mentioned, IIRC, is in system regulations, > where they are defined as brown. However, > I believe there is a great need of good definition > here. > +=+ I think we need to clarify the differences between regulations in various tournaments. The ones quoted above apply in ACBL tournaments. It is generally agreed that when a partnership understanding exists in relation to 'psychic' action it becomes part of the agreed methods of the partnership, and is subject to regulation as the laws provide. ACBL defines such agreements as conventional; that may be a moot point (but the WBF is not arguing with them about it); what is the case is that there are powers to regulate agreements in respect of initial actions at the one level that may be made with a hand a King or more below average strength. [The wording of the laws here is interesting - 'initial action' has to include defensive calls, and in the light of the use in the laws of the word 'action', in 16A2 for example, it has to include 'pass'. - Shrill screams of protest are heard! :-)) ]. There are also powers in 40B, and 40E that are relevant; in the latter case the law is worded to require that if a CC is prescribed the partnership must list on it their conventions and other agreements (following which the SO may regulate the use to be made of it). The Brown sticker regulations apply where the WBF Systems Policy is in force; the WBF also has an appendix to its GcoCs on the subject of psychics - it contains a paragraph that I have challenged as being misleading in relation to the legality. The EBL has the same system policy, but modifies it in Pairs events where psyches of artificial opening bids are precluded. Others regulate otherwise.+=+ > > -Is a psyche with a control still a psyche ? > -Can there then be something like a > psychic control ? > -Psyches that are controlled are deemed > "brown", that is not the same as saying > they are forbidden; in fact it is saying > they are permitted, in certain tournaments. > > We really need to get to the bottom of this one! > +=+ The whole point is that different regulators exercise their discretion to regulate differently. Pace DWS, my point in quoting a section of the ACBL regs was not to recommend them to others, simply to say this is what the ACBL considers it has the power to do under the laws, and deems appropriate in ACBL land. They are not asking others to follow them either. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 8 09:11:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g07MAiM10983 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 09:10:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat40.alcanet.no [193.213.239.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g07MAYH10958 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 09:10:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from netos70.alcatel.no (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with ESMTP id g07M2BE21259; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 23:02:11 +0100 Subject: Re: [BLML] The final pass? To: Ed Reppert Cc: Bridge Laws X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 23:02:04 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NOMAIL01/NO/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 01/07/2002 23:02:10 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: >> 2. A call, once made, may be changed without penalty under the >> provisions of Law 25 only if a player has inadvertently taken out the >> wrong bidding card, and the player corrects, or attempts to correct >> without pause for thought, and LHO has not taken action (picking up >> the bidding cards after the auction is over constitutes taking action). >On reflection, this appears to be an illegal regulation. It is indeed an illegal regulation (ACBL or not ACBL doesn't matter): If Law25A applies the time limit is until partner calls, what LHO does is immaterial. We have had this discussion here already and the result was that "pause for thought" begins at the moment the player discovers the unintended bid card in front of him, not when he actually made the call. However when you continued: > Law 25B1 says >"Until LHO calls, a call may be substituted when Section A does not apply: >1. Substitute Call Condoned >The substituted call may be accepted (treated as legal) at the option of >offender's LHO; then, the second call stands and the auction proceeds without >penalty." >The regulation seems to preclude the application of this law. :-( No, the regulation stipulates that you cannot change the call *without penalty* (when Law25A does not apply), but the regulation does not exclude the right LHO has under Law 25B1 to accept the substituted call (Waiving the penalty). Regards Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 8 10:04:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g07N3mu20750 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 10:03:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from protactinium.btinternet.com (protactinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.176]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g07N3dH20724 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 10:03:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-110-163.btinternet.com ([213.122.110.163] helo=e8m4u6) by protactinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16Nifj-00031w-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 07 Jan 2002 22:55:15 +0000 Message-ID: <005e01c197ce$63003660$a36e7ad5@e8m4u6> From: "Ken Johnston" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Worm prevention Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 22:55:18 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is not really effective. Most viruses will bypass your e-mail client and look at your Windows cache. For an ex[lanation have a look at http://antivirus.about.com/library/weekly/aa082801b.htm Ken ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 12:50 PM Subject: [BLML] Worm prevention > > A correspondent has suggested I put this to the list: > > > As you probably know, when/if a worm virus gets into your computer it > heads straight for your email address book and sends itself to everyone > in there, thus infecting all your friends and associates. > > This trick won't keep the virus from getting into your computer, but > it will stop it from using your address book to spread, and it will > alert you to the fact that the worm has gotten into your system. > > Here's what you do: Add an entry to your address book. (Just to be > safe, I made it the first name on my list.) Give it the nickname !000 > (that's an exclamation mark followed by three zeros). Also type !000 in > as the first name of the entry. Type in WormAlert where you enter the > email address. > > Now, here's what you've done and why it works: the "name" !000 will be > placed at the top of your address book as entry #1. This will be where > the worm will start in an effort to send itself to all your friends. > > But when it tries to send itself to !000, the message will be > undeliverable, because of the phony email address you entered > (WormAlert). If the first attempt fails (which it will because of the > phony address), the worm goes no further, nothing will be sent and your > friends will not be infected. In addition, since the message could not > be sent, you'll know right away that you have the worm in your system > and you can then take steps to get rid of it. > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 8 11:00:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0800UM00300 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 11:00:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0800MH00274 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 11:00:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.25.195] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16NjYu-000Egj-00; Mon, 07 Jan 2002 23:52:16 +0000 Message-ID: <000b01c197d6$9b1c4040$c319e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 08:44:50 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Cc: Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 2:09 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. > > Note, yet again, that L40b requires disclosure "in > accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring > organisation" and not "prior disclosure". Thus "Calls > which, by partnership experience, are psyches > more than 5% of the time at that seat and > vulnerability should be alerted." would be a > perfectly reasonable requirement. > +=+ Your view requires an acceptance of a conflict, in the concept at least, between 40A and 40B. We must iron this out when we redraft the laws. In the meantime it is worthy of note that Law 40E1 makes it mandatory, where sponsoring organisations prescribe a convention card, that on it "partners are to list their conventions and other agreements", and this being done sponsoring organisations may then "establish regulations for its use". (There is an added aside that belongs properly in 40D.) ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 8 11:20:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g080KJF03765 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 11:20:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g080K9H03739 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 11:20:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.85.206] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16NjoZ-000ETR-00; Tue, 08 Jan 2002 00:08:27 +0000 Message-ID: <000201c197d9$5efb27e0$ce55e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Ed Reppert" , "Bridge Laws" References: <20020107121056-r01010800-e72b90c3-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> Subject: Re: [BLML] The final pass? Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 00:12:00 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 5:01 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] The final pass? ). > > On reflection, this appears to be an illegal regulation. Law 25B1 says > > "Until LHO calls, a call may be substituted when Section A does not apply: > > The regulation seems to preclude the application of this law. :-( > +=+ The regulation is made under Law 80E, not under Law 80F. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 8 13:19:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g082Iho27767 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 13:18:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g082IYH27738 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 13:18:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id NAA07970 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 13:21:14 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 08 Jan 2002 13:09:53 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Alerting doubles To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 13:06:01 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 08/01/2002 01:00:37 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: [snip] >Suppose partner opens 2S and RHO doubles: it really is helpful >to have an alert here for a double that shows clubs. Having >been told forty minutes earlier that doubles of two-level pre- >empts show a suit of the same colour [around the time that the >opponents told you that a 1D opening showed spades] is no >substitute for alerting. > >Please, please, those jurisdictions thinking of following >Australia, Russia and WBF-without-screens, please consider >keeping alerts of doubles through opener's rebid. One reason that the ABF makes doubles self-alerting is to reduce the incidence of UI passed from doubler's partner. There are many Oz partnerships who do not have a firm agreement as to whether some doubles (through opener's rebid) are takeout, card- showing, penalties, optional, action or whatever. Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 8 14:12:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g083BrA08306 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 14:11:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g083BjH08277 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 14:11:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id OAA15213 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 14:14:26 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 08 Jan 2002 14:03:06 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] General Review of the Laws To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 13:59:21 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 08/01/2002 01:53:50 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The WBF has called for submissions on the new Laws book. Perhaps this list can reach some consensus on what the important content changes should be (in addition to the consensus already reached on the abolition of L25B). To get this thread started, below are my suggested Laws content changes: 1. Removal of the word "tournaments" from current Law 72A1. 2. Reversal of current Law 72B3 to require a player to draw attention to their own inadvertant infraction, plus "could have known" authority for a TD to award an adjusted score. 3. Insertion of the word "deliberately" at the beginning of current Law 74B1. Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 8 14:24:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g083O4E10658 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 14:24:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (mta03-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.43]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g083NtH10640 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 14:23:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from anne ([62.255.4.136]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.23 201-229-121-123-20010418) with SMTP id <20020108031548.PKGE19499.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@anne> for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 03:15:48 +0000 Message-ID: <001e01c197f2$a2a9c780$8804ff3e@jones1> Reply-To: "Anne Jones" From: "Anne Jones" To: "blml" References: <005e01c197ce$63003660$a36e7ad5@e8m4u6> Subject: Re: [BLML] Worm prevention Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 03:14:49 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk AWWEE!!!! and I had heard this rumour and put !000 as the first name in my addy book, Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken Johnston" To: Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 10:55 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Worm prevention > > > This is not really effective. Most viruses will bypass your e-mail client > and look at your Windows cache. For an ex[lanation have a look at > > http://antivirus.about.com/library/weekly/aa082801b.htm > > Ken > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Stevenson" > To: > Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 12:50 PM > Subject: [BLML] Worm prevention > > > > > > A correspondent has suggested I put this to the list: > > > > > > As you probably know, when/if a worm virus gets into your computer it > > heads straight for your email address book and sends itself to everyone > > in there, thus infecting all your friends and associates. > > > > This trick won't keep the virus from getting into your computer, but > > it will stop it from using your address book to spread, and it will > > alert you to the fact that the worm has gotten into your system. > > > > Here's what you do: Add an entry to your address book. (Just to be > > safe, I made it the first name on my list.) Give it the nickname !000 > > (that's an exclamation mark followed by three zeros). Also type !000 in > > as the first name of the entry. Type in WormAlert where you enter the > > email address. > > > > Now, here's what you've done and why it works: the "name" !000 will be > > placed at the top of your address book as entry #1. This will be where > > the worm will start in an effort to send itself to all your friends. > > > > But when it tries to send itself to !000, the message will be > > undeliverable, because of the phony email address you entered > > (WormAlert). If the first attempt fails (which it will because of the > > phony address), the worm goes no further, nothing will be sent and your > > friends will not be infected. In addition, since the message could not > > be sent, you'll know right away that you have the worm in your system > > and you can then take steps to get rid of it. > > > > -- > > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 8 14:30:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g083UNq11853 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 14:30:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net (harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.12]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g083UEH11831 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 14:30:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from pool0064.cvx31-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.146.64] helo=c1r5i8) by harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16Nmq0-0003dC-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 07 Jan 2002 19:22:08 -0800 Message-ID: <005a01c197f3$40d78dc0$4092b3d1@c1r5i8> Reply-To: "Thomas Wood" From: "Thomas Wood" To: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 19:19:15 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim wrote and I substantially agree -- > >[...] > > *Psyche - Definition* > > A psyche is a call that, although chosen deliberately, quite obviously > gives a *less accurate description of the hand than would an alternative > call in the system being played*. > Given this definition, Partner, who doesn't *allow* me to psych, would insist that I psyched at least 8 or 10 times in any recent ~27-board session, for she is regularly heard to protest: "Well, why didn't you just bid XYZ? Why not just follow our system?" :-) > *Psyches and Disclosure* > > It is important to recognise that psyching is an inherent, and important > aspect of the game. > I agree completely. > > However we also recognise that as partnership > experience develops the chance of recognising when partner has psyched > will also increase. Experienced partnerships must therefore ensure that > they take due care with the disclosure of any such understandings. > For sure. Many LA-area ACBLers are guilty on this count. > > The typical psyching frequency of both players should be clearly shown on > the CC (it need not be the same for each player) and should be generally > be calculated on a per session basis for the scoring system in operation > eg. > > MPs: Me, 2/Session Partner, 1/5 Sessions > Imps: Me, 1/Session Partner, Hardly Ever > I like this approach and advocated it to several ACBL directors many years ago. > > In addition if you become aware of certain sequences where partner > habitually psyches then the call should be alerted and, on request, > described as "Ostensibly ...., but around x% of the time it may be a > psyche based on..." > An ex-partner of mine used to do this quite regularly, especially in certain environments, such as when I overcalled opponent's 1C/2C strong/artif/ forcing with either a Passed-hand partner or NON-VUL vs VUL. > > *Psychic Controls* > These are systemic agreements designed to protect partnerships from the > risk of psyching and are not permitted. It is possible that a systemic > agreement that, while not primarily designed to minimise the risk of > psyching, will lead to habitual psyches in certain positions (or tend to > minimise the risk of habitual psyches). This could lead a TD to rule, > post facto, that psychic controls were being played illegally. > I like it. > > *Exposure of Psyches* > > A psyche may be considered "exposed" in the following circumstances > 1) The psycher subsequently makes a call that is incompatible with the > original psyche (eg passes in a forcing sequence) > 2) The bidding round the table, in combination with the hand held, makes > it clear that "somebody doesn't have their call". > 15 years ago, my ex-partner saw, as Dealer, NON-VUL vs VUL, P - 1H - *1NT*(me) - ???? big-hesi 3NT Oddly enough, looking at 10HCP BALanced, she did *NOT* double. A So-CA-area director decided, after my psych-1NT was reported, that Partner had mysteriously (!) 'fielded' my psych, because she judged that Partner would have been duty-bound to bid 3NT if her RHO had not done so in front of her. [10 + 15-18] We gently pointed out to this Director that: 1) the 4th-seat opponent's hesitation with copious body language, followed by a crisp 3NT, had fairly screamed "He psyched!" and 2) even a poorly programmed microprocessor would have noticed that this was a 50+point deck Humorlessly and w/o pause for thought, this Director repeated: "1/2-board penalty!" On another occasion, when this director was a player, she heard our bid sequence: 1C ("artif/forcing/10-37") and Partner's 1H ("4+S, says *nothing* about HCP"; 0-30) response. 1NT ("10-12BAL with 4H all but guaranteed") [All 3 of these bids were asked about in detail and fully described.] Over my 1NT rebid (10-12BAL), this director/player chose not to re-open. When Partner's hand hit as Dummy with Qxxx xx xxxx xxx, this director/player bellowed for a director to save her from her own unfortunate Pass (failure to balance). I conceded that she exhibited a certain consistency in her approach to these two incidents. :) > > *Bidding after an unexposed psyche* > > If you suspect a psyche by partner which has not yet been exposed it is > permitted to select, amongst logical alternatives, an action that > minimises the risk of partner having psyched. It is not permitted to > select an action that would cater only to partner having psyched. > > *Bidding after an exposed psyche* > > Once a psyche has been exposed the partner of the psycher make select any > call. > Absolutely. > > I hope this gives a flavour on psyching that others find useful. > Indeed. > > Tim Tom Wood, So-CA, ACBL -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 8 15:56:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g084tHD28095 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 15:55:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g084t8H28080 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 15:55:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g084l3v03515 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 20:47:03 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <002201c197ff$8201df60$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "bridge-laws" References: <3C3455E5.9040507@village.uunet.be> <000701c19530$5f81de80$8833e150@pacific> <008201c195be$61788de0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <000701c1974b$3772db20$9609e150@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 20:46:30 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Grattan Endicott" > From: "Marvin L. French" > > > > The second half of your quote is not an ACBL regulation but an > "Office > > Policy" (August, 1995) issued by the CTD. > > > > The ACBL speaks with many tongues. TDs are told in the Tech Files > that > > controlled psyches are defined on the Limited Convention Chart, > which > > reads: > > > +=+ What has confused me, then, is the statement > preceding the piece I quoted, which statement reads: > Effective November 1, 1992 the following applies to the > SuperChart also. (Board of Directors - Summer 1992):" > The sentiments I quoted were all in a single paragraph. > It appeared that the Office Policy 08/1995 reference was > to the paragraph separate from the above which reads > "Therefore, a legal agreement that creates a risk-free > psychic environment (that is an environment where the > psycher knows his partner is under control - this does > not include hands where we know because of our > particular hand that we have an answer to most things > that partner can do to us) becomes illegal if the pair > psyches." > The Tech files of ACBLScore show this as three paragraphs, and it is hard to tell where the BoD directive ends and the Office Policy begins. No matter, it's all garbage. As mentioned before, my takeout responses to weak preempts *show* absolutely nothing, fully disclosed, so they can't be called psychs. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 8 20:06:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0895LG14153 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 20:05:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat40.alcanet.no [193.213.239.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g08959H14121 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 20:05:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from netos70.alcatel.no (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with ESMTP id g088uus31608; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 09:56:56 +0100 Subject: Re: [BLML] The final pass? To: "Grattan Endicott" Cc: "Bridge Laws" , "Ed Reppert" X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 09:56:54 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NOMAIL01/NO/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 01/08/2002 09:56:55 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >From: "Ed Reppert" >> On reflection, this appears to be an illegal regulation. Law 25B1 says >> "Until LHO calls, a call may be substituted when Section A does not apply: >> The regulation seems to preclude the application of this law. :-( > +=+ The regulation is made under Law 80E, not under Law 80F. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Do you say that a regulation under Law 80E may be in conflict with prescriptions in the law, also where the law text does not open for such alternative prescriptions? Like shortening the time limit in Law 25A from "until his partner makes a call" to "until LHO makes .." which apparently ACBL has done in their regulations? That would be most surprising. regards Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 9 00:00:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g08D05w29345 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 00:00:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g08CxrH29312 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 23:59:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16NvjA-000JCN-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 12:51:42 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 00:33:20 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Nanki Poo Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Cats! References: <7AEOXgA13B34EwXz@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Mrrp: I am in disgrace! My deep apologies to Irv and Tommy, and hope I have got it right *this* time. List of cats Mark Abraham Kittini Michael Albert Bob, Icky Picky RB Karen Allison Stella, Blanche, Stanley Dave Armstrong Cookie Louis Arnon Dorus, Edna, Frits, Gussy Brian Baresch Lao, Gaea Olivier Beauvillain Dode Adam Beneschan Mango MIA Matthias Berghaus Lester David Blizzard Herbie, Mittens Mike Bolster Jess Vitold Brushtunov Chia Everett Boyer Amber Art Brodsky Ralph Pur Byantara Begung Wayne Burrows Fritzi, Nico Konrad Ciborowski Kocurzak Miauczurny Mary Crenshaw Dickens, Cecil Ray Crowe * Mo, Vegas, Aspen Claude Dadoun Moustique Hirsch Davis Shadow, Smokey RB, Loki, Snaggs, Rufus Mike Dennis Casino Laval Du Breuil Picatou Simon Edler Incy Michael Farebrother Shadow EL, Tipsy EL Wally Farley Andrew RB, Templeton, Scratcher, Joy, Panda RB, Shaure, Edmund Eric Favager Poppy, Daisy, Smiffie, Ollie, Monty, Fluffy Walt Flory Punkin, Sami Marv French Mozart Anna Gudge EMale, Bear, Taggie Dany Haimovici Shobo, Rosario, Shemaya, Hershey, Spotty, Shuri, Dossie, Kippy, Pushpush, Hershon RB Paul & Pat Harrington Dopi, Bridget, Depo RB Robert Harris Bobbsie RB, Caruso Damian Hassan Bast, Katie, Tepsi, Baroo, Scrap, +1 Craig Hemphill Spook, Snuffy, Snuggles, Squeak, Cub Scout Richard Hull Endora, Putty Tat, Bill Bailey Sergey Kapustin Liza Laurie Kelso Bugs, Sheba MIA Irv Kostal * Albert, Abby, Truman, Tuppence, Bill RB, Cleo EL, Sabrina RB Jack Kryst Bentley, Ava John Kuchenbrod RaRe, Leo Patrick Laborde Romeo Eric Landau Glorianna, Wesley, Shadow, Query Paul Lippens Rakker, Tijger, Sloeber Albert Lochli Killer Demeter Manning Nikolai, Zonker Rui Marques Bibi, Kenji, Satann John McIlrath Garfield, Mischief Brian Meadows Katy Bruce Moore Sabrena Tony Musgrove Mitzi, Muffin Sue O'Donnell Yazzer-Cat, Casey RB Henk Pieters * Jip, Janneke, Ketie Rand Pinsky Vino, Axel Rose, Talia, Keiko John Probst Gnipper, Figaro Ed Reppert Ayesha, Gracie, The Sarge, Buzz Jack Rhind TC (the cat) Tommy Sandsmark * Lillepus, Bittepus, Snoppen Michael Schmahl Sophie Norman Scorbie Starsky RB, Hutch Bob Scruton Squeeky Craig Senior Streak, Shaney, Rascal, Stubby, Precious, Smoke, Scamp, Bandit, Shadow, Smokey Flemming B-Soerensen * Flora, Rose RB Ian Spoors * Zeus WV Grant Sterling Big Mac, Flash David Stevenson * Quango RB, Nanki Poo, Ting RB, Pish RB, Tush RB, Tao MIA, Suk RB Helen Thompson Tom, Tabby, Bubba Les West T.C., Trudy Anton Witzen Beer, Miepje Tom Wood Nikolai, Zonker plus, of course Selassie RB is a cat waiting at Rainbow Bridge, MIA is a cat missing in action, EL is a cat on extended leave [ie staying with someone else known] and WV is a welcome visitor [ie lives elsewhere but visits on a regular basis]. Anyone who wishes to see the story of Rainbow Bridge can ask David for a copy, or look at the article on his Catpage at http://blakjak.com/rbridge.htm The story and a picture of Selassie is at http://blakjak.com/slssie.htm Additions and amendments to this list should be sent to Nanki Poo at . Amended entries are marked *. Schrodinger's cat does not appear, but it has been suggested that if Schrodinger's cat is not on the list then that means that Schrodinger's cat is on the list ... Of course, from now on I shall be keeping the list without Uncle Quango's help. I miss him [even though he took the best bits of bed]. Miiiiiiiaaaaaoouuuuwwwwww !!!!!!!!! Mrow *NP* -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/qu_npoo.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 9 00:00:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g08D02t29332 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 00:00:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g08CxmH29297 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 23:59:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16NvjA-000HDr-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 12:51:41 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 00:22:14 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] The final pass? References: <002301c19789$933f56c0$6e2d3942@nc.rr.com> <20020107114008-r01010800-001011e9-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> In-Reply-To: <20020107114008-r01010800-001011e9-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert writes >I note that players often make their call, after a skip bid, without regard to >the mandatory ten second pause, whether I use the stop card or not, and >regardless how long I leave it out. One time, I made a skip bid on the first >board of a three board round. Put out the stop card, made my bid, picked up the >card. LHO immediately passed. On the second board, I made another skip bid, but >this time I left the stop card on the table. After about eight seconds, during >which LHO stared intently at me, she said "you gonna pick that up?". :-( I think that one of the clearest impressions I got from my time in Las Vegas of North American bridge was the total disdain amongst a majority of players for the Stop card regulations. Incidentally, you say use of the Stop card is optional. Last time I saw the reg [which may have changed since] that was not how it read to me. So perhaps it would be useful to find it. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 9 01:55:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g08Et3x22666 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 01:55:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from chalfont.mail.uk.easynet.net (chalfont.mail.uk.easynet.net [212.135.1.67]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g08EssH22636 for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 01:54:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-12-219.easynet.co.uk [212.134.20.219]) by chalfont.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 731151D5A30 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 14:44:50 +0000 (GMT) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] Alerting principles (was: A question of the English) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 14:42:01 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > David Stevenson writes >> Brambledown writes >> ISTM that: >> >> (1) In any given bidding situation there should be a 'normal' >> non-alertable meaning for any call. >> >> (2) The appropriate authority should determine what that 'normal' meaning >> should be for all common situations. >> >> (3) They should then determine what deviations from this 'normal' meaning >> should warrant an alert. >> >> I'm not suggesting that these determinations are easy but aren't the >> principles obvious? > No. We have seen many many complaints here and on RGB about ACBL >alerting. Whether it is good or bad it tries to follow your principles, >and that makes it complicated and difficult to learn and follow. You ( and others) seem to have equated my use of 'normal' to 'most likely' or some such. I am sorry if this usage was confusing. I did not intend any restraint on the appropriate authority in determining what was 'normal' - merely that (on any basis they wished) they pick a meaning which a call will be taken to mean if unalerted. In the EBU 'no alert' generally means natural and not 'unexpectedly' F/NF. For example, if I open 2C and it is not alerted, my opponents are entitled to assume (a) it is natural , so I hold clubs and (b) as I have opened at the 2 level that it is forcing. In the ACBL my understanding is that 2C is not alerted provided that it is both strong and forcing. These are different approaches but both accord with the principles that I have suggested are obvious. > The EBU has a different principle in mind: they think that it is > desirable to make alerting rules simple and memorable. I have no quarrel with 'simple and memorable', in fact I think it is essential. As an aside, however, if the EBU is going for 'simple and memorable' (S&M :-))?) why do they require a weak 2H/S opening to be alerted but not a weak 2H/S jump overcall? Many find this confusing - and get it wrong! > This leads to some anomalies, such as the one you mention. I see no reason why there should be what you term anomalies. The EBU decides (say) that an unalerted 1N - 2C/D/H/S should be natural and NF (this is consistent with their approach) - any other meaning is alertable - WTP? Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 9 02:33:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g08FWTG29893 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 02:32:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g08FWFH29849 for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 02:32:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from laval (PPP6.UQuebec.CA [192.77.50.6]) by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA08670; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 10:24:05 -0500 (EST) From: "Laval Dubreuil" To: , Subject: RE: [BLML] The final pass? Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 10:26:52 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David wrote: Incidentally, you say use of the Stop card is optional. Last time I saw the reg [which may have changed since] that was not how it read to me. So perhaps it would be useful to find it. _____________________________________________________________________ I also understand that ACBL regulation does not require the use of the Stop. So, many players tend to use it only with weak hands, creating UI de facto. Some years ago, I was called because a player opened "STOP - 2C" as a pre-empt..... More seriously, I often heard partners saying something like: "You knew I had a weak hand in this sequence. I put the stop." The skip bid warning is there to avoid UI but it creates a lot. That is why I should prefer that the Stop card be eliminated. Then, players should always hesitate after and skip bid as already required by ACBL regulation. But the Stop will remain.... Laval Du Breuil Quebec City -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 9 02:54:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g08FsKR04453 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 02:54:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.wrs.com (unknown-1-11.wrs.com [147.11.1.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g08FsBH04424 for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 02:54:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from rwilleypc ([128.224.4.125]) by mail.wrs.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) with SMTP id HAA19621; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 07:44:47 -0800 (PST) From: "Richard Willey" To: , Subject: RE: [BLML] A question of the English. Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 10:51:04 -0800 Message-ID: <006201c19875$6c923000$7d04e080@isi.com> 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: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi Tim For the most part, I don't see many problems with your proposed set of definitions. However, there is one area that I think many be problematic: > *Psychic Controls* > These are systemic agreements designed to protect > partnerships from the > risk of psyching and are not permitted. It is possible that > a systemic > agreement that, while not primarily designed to minimise the risk of > psyching, will lead to habitual psyches in certain positions > (or tend to > minimise the risk of habitual psyches). This could lead a TD > to rule, > post facto, that psychic controls were being played illegally. I think that this needs to be ammended to recognize that any bid that is considered to be a psychic control needs to occur AFTER the psyche. As an example, a first or second seat pass can not reasonably be considered to be a pyschic control, however, this bid clearly has the possibility of leading to habitual pysches and can even be considered to minimize their risk. Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 9 03:08:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g08G7ar06793 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 03:07:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (mailhost.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g08G7QH06751 for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 03:07:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id QAA28459; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 16:58:53 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id QAA12088; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 16:59:07 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020108164343.02465070@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 17:01:41 +0100 To: "Brambledown" , "BLML" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Alerting principles (was: A question of the English) In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > >In the EBU 'no alert' generally means natural and not 'unexpectedly' F/NF. >For example, if I open 2C and it is not alerted, my opponents are entitled >to assume (a) it is natural , so I hold clubs and (b) as I have opened at >the 2 level that it is forcing. In the ACBL my understanding is that 2C is >not alerted provided that it is both strong and forcing. AG : the BBF rules make more use of the 'unexpectedness principle' : since most Belgian non-experts use 2C as artificial and forcing, this is the non-alertable sense. Call that a default value. For other 2-bids, the default value is : strong and good suit, NF, but weak twos in the majors are so common, that you need not alert either strong or weak twos (just ask). I don't like it, because of UI. For the same reason, you do have to alert 1S-(2C)-2H if not forcing, and 1S-(X)-2H if forcing, because those are the 'unexpected values'. Of course, it could be quite obscure to visitors. But the biggest problem is and remains that nearly everything is alertable. Thus, when there is an alert, not everybody understands that one has to ask (1S-1NT forcing, US style, is so common, that when 1NT is *really* unexpected, people don't realize) [that, according to the rules, they should realize is not an issue. It only means that the rules aren't useful]. I've begun thinking that one should use two degrees of alerts. Else, you have the unenviable choice between remaining uninformed and creating potential UI problems, either for your pair or for the other. Yes, the answer *is* the use of screens. >I see no reason why there should be what you term anomalies. The EBU >decides (say) that an unalerted 1N - 2C/D/H/S should be natural and NF (this >is consistent with their approach) - any other meaning is alertable - WTP? AG : there is none. Excepted when regulations become too intricated ; that is, in Belgium, you don't have to alert major-suit transfers in response to 1NT, but you have to alert minor-suit transfers and natural 2-level responses (which means that 2S is *always* alertable, not a good thing) and transfers in competition or over your 1NT _overcall_. How does the average player remember that ? Best regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 9 03:34:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g08GXnJ10221 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 03:33:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (mailhost.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g08GXdH10206 for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 03:33:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id RAA03471; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 17:25:06 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id RAA05452; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 17:25:20 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020108172303.0245a780@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 17:27:54 +0100 To: "Richard Willey" , , From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: RE: [BLML] A question of the English. In-Reply-To: <006201c19875$6c923000$7d04e080@isi.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:51 8/01/2002 -0800, Richard Willey wrote: >Hi Tim > >For the most part, I don't see many problems with your proposed set of >definitions. >However, there is one area that I think many be problematic: > > > *Psychic Controls* > > These are systemic agreements designed to protect > > partnerships from the > > risk of psyching and are not permitted. It is possible that > > a systemic > > agreement that, while not primarily designed to minimise the risk of > > psyching, will lead to habitual psyches in certain positions > > (or tend to > > minimise the risk of habitual psyches). This could lead a TD > > to rule, > > post facto, that psychic controls were being played illegally. > >I think that this needs to be ammended to recognize that any bid that is >considered to be a psychic control needs to occur AFTER the psyche. As >an example, a first or second seat pass can not reasonably be considered >to be a pyschic control, however, this bid clearly has the possibility >of leading to habitual pysches and can even be considered to minimize >their risk. AG : I'd like to have your opinion about devices that are used to protect against the possibility of a very weak, albeit natural, opening. I know of some pairs using "two-stage inverted Drury"; that is : p p 1M p 2C = bid 2M if you opened light (eg you wouldn't have opened 1st in hand) p p 1M p 2D = bid 2M if you opened *really light* When the R18 is not enabled 3rd-in-hand, it can be quite useful ... but is it legal ? And where ? Thank you for your help. Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 9 03:57:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g08Gumd13575 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 03:56:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g08GucH13557 for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 03:56:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.27.134] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16NzQM-000C1L-00; Tue, 08 Jan 2002 16:48:30 +0000 Message-ID: <000901c19864$52c55460$861be150@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Cc: "Grattan Endicott" , "Ed Reppert" , "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] The final pass? Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 16:47:35 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "Grattan Endicott" Cc: "Bridge Laws" ; "Ed Reppert" Sent: 08 January 2002 08:56 Subject: Re: [BLML] The final pass? > > Do you say that a regulation under Law 80E > may be in conflict with prescriptions in the law, > also where the law text does not open for such > alternative prescriptions? Like shortening the > time limit in Law 25A from "until his partner > makes a call" to "until LHO makes .." which > apparently ACBL has done in their regulations? > +=+ Oh, dear me, not again!? I do not say; I merely report. 'Who said it' was a combined meeting of the WBF Executive Council and the WBF Rules & Regulations Cttee in Geneva 1990. Since then the laws have been revised with no changes to this area considered, and the WBFLC has acknowledged this ruling of a superior court of judgement in para 10, minutes of 1st September 1998, and see also para 7 of 1st November 2001. The fact is that the WBF, the EBL, and the ACBL, to mention but some, have all instituted regulations empowered by the Geneva decision. You are perhaps a latecomer to this matter; the occasion of it was an appeal by Edgar Kaplan against the regulations in Geneva (about which he had been consulted in their framing). He requested that a particular regulation referring to procedure with screens be declared invalid by reason of its conflict with the laws, citing Law 80F. In the 'absence' of Edgar it fell to me as Vice Chairman of the WBFLC to expound the law to the hearing conducted by a joint meeting of the WBF Executive and its Rules & Regulations Committee. I spoke factually as to the text of the lawbook in a number of potentially relevant areas and, although I presented the wording in a way that supported the regulation, I avoided any direct recommendation on the interpretation of the text, working instead by inferences to be drawn. I do admit I felt I had nonetheless driven a coach and horses through Edgar's arguments on the law. It was the President, chairing the hearing, who enunciated the opinion that the wording of laws such as 80E created separate powers of regulation that were not made subject or subordinate to Law 80F (which latter Law dealt with regulations not made under powers given elsewhere in the laws). His opinion was adopted by the hearing as fundamental to its decision to reject Edgar's appeal. The decision has since become crucial to key regulations of some aspects of bridge. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 9 04:04:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g08H3qm14376 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 04:03:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g08H3iH14360 for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 04:03:44 +1100 (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 LAA13543 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 11:55:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA21232 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 11:55:37 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 11:55:37 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200201081655.LAA21232@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Alerting principles (was: A question of the English) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Brambledown" > merely that (on any basis they wished) they pick a meaning which > a call will be taken to mean if unalerted. I think one concern may be that 'a meaning' is singular. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 9 05:55:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g08ItLG04321 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 05:55:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.wrs.com (unknown-1-11.windriver.com [147.11.1.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g08ItBH04288 for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 05:55:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from rwilleypc ([128.224.4.125]) by mail.wrs.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) with SMTP id KAA00557 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 10:45:51 -0800 (PST) From: "Richard Willey" To: Subject: RE: [BLML] A question of the English. Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 13:52:08 -0800 Message-ID: <007c01c1988e$b83f03c0$7d04e080@isi.com> 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: <5.1.0.14.0.20020108172303.0245a780@pop.ulb.ac.be> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > AG : I'd like to have your opinion about devices that are > used to protect > against the possibility of a very weak, albeit natural, > opening. I know of > some pairs using "two-stage inverted Drury"; that is : > p p 1M p 2C = bid 2M if you opened light (eg you wouldn't > have opened > 1st in hand) > p p 1M p 2D = bid 2M if you opened *really light* > When the R18 is not enabled 3rd-in-hand, it can be quite > useful ... but is > it legal ? And where ? > > Thank you for your help. > > Alain. North America is a weird place in a lot of ways. In some way, we are much more heavily regulated than other jurisdictions. In other ways, we are regulated much less. As an example, we do not have any regulations based on the rule of 18. Some authors suggest using the rule of 20 as a guide whether or not to open distributional hands, however, this type of evaluation methodology has not made its way into the bidding regulations. In any case, within the US players have the option of using completely different bidding systems in first and second seat as opposed to third and fourth. For example, I regularly play an ultra light opening structure with transfer openings in first and second seat. I play a sound opening structure in 3rd and 4th. Furthemore, players are specically allowed to play "TWO CLUBS OR TWO DIAMONDS response to third or fourth-seat major-suit openings asking the quality of the opening bid". So, here in the ACBL land, there isn't any problem with this approach. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 9 09:00:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g08M0Ow10099 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 09:00:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat40.alcanet.no [193.213.239.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g08M0DH10071 for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 09:00:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from netos70.alcatel.no (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with ESMTP id g08LpoM04035 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 22:51:57 +0100 Subject: RE: [BLML] The final pass? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 22:51:48 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NOMAIL01/NO/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 01/08/2002 22:51:56 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Quote: (on using Stop cards) So, many players tend to use it only with weak hands, creating UI de facto. Some years ago, I was called because a player opened "STOP - 2C" as a pre-empt..... More seriously, I often heard partners saying something like: "You knew I had a weak hand in this sequence. I put the stop." The skip bid warning is there to avoid UI but it creates a lot. End quote. You will I believe enjoy the following story (which is true) from the early stage of using Stop (and Alert) in Norway. Regulations included that Stop should also be used with weak (less than 15HCP) 1NT opening bids due to the problems such opening bids might present to LHO. The secretary general of the Norwegian bridgefederation told me they had to amend this rule because "In a certain region in Norway it had led to a new convention: Stop - 1NT was 12-14 HCP and 1NT without the stop card was 15-17 HCP" The convention cards simply declared 1NT openings to be 12-18 HCP. And as he said: It was completely impossible to get them understand this was not exactly legal according to the laws of Duplicate Contract bridge! regards Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 9 10:16:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g08NDqp15154 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 10:13:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g08NDiH15150 for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 10:13:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.40.9] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16O5JI-0008Kd-00; Tue, 08 Jan 2002 23:05:37 +0000 Message-ID: <003401c19899$416c0120$0928e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Brambledown" , "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Alerting principles (was: A question of the English) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 23:03:24 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 2:42 PM Subject: [BLML] Alerting principles (was: A question of the English) > > I have no quarrel with 'simple and memorable', in > fact I think it is essential. As an aside, however, > if the EBU is going for 'simple and memorable' > (S&M :-))?) why do they require a weak 2H/S opening > to be alerted but not a weak 2H/S jump overcall? > Many find this confusing - and get it wrong! > +=+ Ah, the sheer folly of asking the Council of the EBU (the representatives of the County Associations) to decide whether a weak two opener should or should not be alerted. I was there so I know! Sheer folly it may have been, but of course it is to that Council that the EBU L&E Committee presents its minutes for approval. Democracy. The Council meets again tomorrow (Wednesday); what inspiration this time, I wonder? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 9 10:22:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g08NMAI15167 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 10:22:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g08NM2H15163 for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 10:22:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.11.228] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16O5RL-000Dfm-00; Tue, 08 Jan 2002 23:13:55 +0000 Message-ID: <003f01c1989a$6a6257e0$0928e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , References: Subject: Re: [BLML] The final pass? Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 23:15:12 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 9:51 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] The final pass? > > > > And as he said: It was completely impossible > to get them to understand this was not exactly > legal according to the laws of Duplicate Contract > bridge! > +=+ A neat solution might have been to prescribe this method of disclosure in the SO's regulations, perhaps? :-) +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 9 10:42:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g08Nftf15205 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 10:41:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g08NfmH15201 for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 10:41:48 +1100 (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 SAA04745 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 18:33:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA21747 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 18:33:40 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 18:33:40 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200201082333.SAA21747@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Tim West-meads" > > Note, yet again, that L40b requires disclosure "in > > accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring > > organisation" and not "prior disclosure". > From: "Grattan Endicott" > +=+ Your view requires an acceptance of a conflict, > in the concept at least, between 40A and 40B. Pardon me, but what conflict do you see? To me (and apparently to Tim), L40A reads as legalizing anything not based on a partnership understanding. If 40A applies, there is no need to go further. If 40A does not apply -- there is an element of partnership understanding -- then we go to the rest of the lawbook. (The next thing to look at will no doubt be L40B.) Only if you read L40A as creating some requirement for prior disclosure is there a conflict. When there is a choice of ways to read the laws, do we really wish to pick the way that creates a conflict? In any case, saying that Tim's view "requires acceptance of a conflict" seems a little exaggerated. "Two hour parking, except Saturday or Sunday" anyone? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 9 10:47:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g08Nkrv15223 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 10:46:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g08NkhH15219 for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 10:46:43 +1100 (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 SAA04866 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 18:38:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA21765 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 18:38:36 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 18:38:36 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200201082338.SAA21765@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Alerting principles X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Alain Gottcheiner > I've begun thinking that one should use two degrees of alerts. The ACBL had an unhappy experience with "special alerts." On the other hand, announcements (which are in some ways logically equivalent) seem to work well here. I think the key is to make the "expected but alertable" meaning announceable. Any other meaning either is alerted or not, and opponents can ask. The key things to make an announcement scheme work seem to be: 1) define very carefully the exact situations that require announcements, and 2) define exactly the words to be used. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 9 10:55:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g08NtLD15241 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 10:55:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.125]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g08NtDH15237 for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 10:55:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g08Nkwu02789; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 18:46:59 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 18:44:07 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] The final pass? To: David Stevenson , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020108184700-r01010800-4d74ae91-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.1.8 (Bluto) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 1/8/02 at 12:22 AM, bridge@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) wrote: > Incidentally, you say use of the Stop card is optional. Last time I > saw the reg [which may have changed since] that was not how it read to > me. So perhaps it would be useful to find it. Some hours after I said that, I did find it, and found I was mistaken. I said so: On 1/7/02 at 11:34 AM, ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) wrote: > I note also that the requirement to pause for ten seconds after a skip > bid applies *whether or not* the stop card is used. And use of it is > optional to the player. That's in the stop card regulation, which is > separate from the bidding box regulation, and which I cannot, at the > moment, find on the ACBL web site. :-( I found it. It's not a "stop card" regulation, it's a "skip bid warning" regulation. It appears I was wrong about it being optional. "The warning should be used all the time." Clubs can elect to forbid it, though. It's at http://www.acbl.org/regulations/skipbid.htm. ==== That was at about 1:45 PM yesterday. :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 9 11:14:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g090EKl15275 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 11:14:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.125]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g090E9H15266 for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 11:14:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g0905xu29015; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 19:06:00 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 19:00:47 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Alerting principles (was: A question of the English) To: Alain Gottcheiner , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020108164343.02465070@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <20020108190600-r01010800-16860737-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.1.8 (Bluto) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 1/8/02 at 5:01 PM, agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) wrote: > For other 2-bids, the default value is : strong and good suit, NF, but > weak twos in the majors are so common, that you need not alert either > strong or weak twos (just ask). I don't like it, because of UI. I don't know BBF regulations, so I may be wrong here, but... the alerting regulations I do know all say that one is permitted to ask questions about, specifically, alerted calls. This does not, and should not, it seems to me, extend to permission to ask questions about *any* individual call. Law 20F clearly limits initial questions to those about the *auction*, not individual calls. While this is not entirely a matter for the various laws commissions, it *is* a matter of regulation, and regulatory bodies ought, in my opinion, to find some way to make it clear to players just what questions they may and may not ask. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 9 11:14:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g090ENX15276 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 11:14:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout6-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.177]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g090ECH15271 for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 11:14:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g09063u29095; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 19:06:03 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 18:51:54 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: RE: [BLML] The final pass? To: Laval Dubreuil , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020108190604-r01010800-0aced71e-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.1.8 (Bluto) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 1/8/02 at 10:26 AM, Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA (Laval Dubreuil) wrote: > I also understand that ACBL regulation does not require the use of the > Stop. Good. I'm not alone in my error. :-) > So, many players tend to use it only with weak hands, creating > UI de facto. Some years ago, I was called because a player opened > "STOP - 2C" as a pre-empt..... More seriously, I often heard partners > saying something like: "You knew I had a weak hand in this sequence. > I put the stop." The skip bid warning is there to avoid UI but it > creates a lot. It isn't the warning that creates it, it's the *misuse* of the warning that does so. Directors should, IMO deal with flagrant violations, such as the one you mention above, harshly. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 9 11:23:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g090NFe15296 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 11:23:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.125]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g090N7H15292 for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 11:23:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g090Ewu09518; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 19:14:59 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 19:07:20 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: RE: [BLML] A question of the English. To: Alain Gottcheiner , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020108172303.0245a780@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <20020108191500-r01010800-915a8529-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.1.8 (Bluto) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 1/8/02 at 5:27 PM, agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) wrote: > I know of some pairs using "two-stage inverted Drury"; that is: > p p 1M p 2C = bid 2M if you opened light [...] > p p 1M p 2D = bid 2M if you opened *really light* > When the R18 is not enabled 3rd-in-hand, it can be quite useful ... > but is it legal ? And where ? I play "two way reverse Drury" when I can get my partner to play it: 2C shows invitational values and 3 card support 2D shows invitational values and 4 card support The systemic rebid with *any* sub-minimum opener is 2M. Not quite the same as your description above, but close. And it's perfectly legal in the ACBL. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 9 13:07:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0923YU02857 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 13:03:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0923PH02838 for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 13:03:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from laval (PPP6.UQuebec.CA [192.77.50.6]) by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA03271; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 20:55:05 -0500 (EST) From: "Laval Dubreuil" To: , , Subject: RE: [BLML] The final pass? Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 20:57:55 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <20020108184700-r01010800-4d74ae91-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I found it. It's not a "stop card" regulation, it's a "skip bid warning" regulation. It appears I was wrong about it being optional. "The warning should be used all the time." Clubs can elect to forbid it, though. ____________________________________________________________________________ __ That is not the text I read. On ACBL Web, Skip bid warning, revised 1995 I found: 1. How and When Made Players should protect their rights and the opponent's by announcing, prior to making any subsequent bid that skips one or more levels of bidding. 6. Where Used The warning is effective for all ACBL sanctioned events. For sanctioned games at clubs, the club may elect to discourage its use and require no mandated pause. English is not my mother's language, but IMHO "should" is not "must". So I think it is optional in ACBL events and will continue not to "protect my rights" with the Stop card. Please teel me if I am wrong. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 9 17:04:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g09649A21170 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 17:04:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g09641H21150 for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 17:04:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id RAA10507 for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 17:06:41 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 09 Jan 2002 16:55:18 +0000 (EST) Subject: RE: [BLML] The final pass? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 16:51:39 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 09/01/2002 04:55:49 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Laval Dubreil wrote: >>So, many players tend to use it only with weak hands, creating >>UI de facto. Some years ago, I was called because a player opened >>"STOP - 2C" as a pre-empt..... More seriously, I often heard partners >>saying something like: "You knew I had a weak hand in this sequence. >>I put the stop." The skip bid warning is there to avoid UI but it >>creates a lot. Ed Reppert replied: >It isn't the warning that creates it, it's the *misuse* of the warning >that does so. Directors should, IMO deal with flagrant violations, such >as the one you mention above, harshly. IMHO, the inherent nature of skip-bid regulations encourages their misuse or non-use, and therefore more creation of UI than they were designed to avoid. The ABF has never had a skip-bid regulation, but IMHO has no more UI rulings than SOs which do use the Stop! card. Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 9 17:36:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g096ZkQ27381 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 17:35:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g096ZcH27352 for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 17:35:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id RAA13640 for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 17:38:18 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 09 Jan 2002 17:26:55 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Faster than a speeding bullet To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 17:23:13 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 09/01/2002 05:27:26 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In a controversial case in last year's Oz Summer Nationals, EW claimed that North had made a quick call. NS claimed that North had bid in tempo. It is possible that NS were talking about North achieving some Platonic ideal of "in normal tempo" on that deal. If that meant that North usually exceeds the Platonic ideal, should North be ruled against for bidding with unwonted speed *for North* on this deal? If the answer to the above question is yes, let us look at a consequent (not subsequent) hypothetical case: On a different deal, where it is postulated that North made a normal *for North* slow bid, can North be deemed to again restrict South's choice of LAs? (That is, does Catch-22 apply to North?) Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 9 19:03:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0983N314414 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 19:03:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0983EH14383 for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 19:03:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.36.161] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16ODWA-0002TZ-00; Wed, 09 Jan 2002 07:51:26 +0000 Message-ID: <000b01c198e3$398e26a0$a124e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , References: <200201082333.SAA21747@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 07:56:16 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 11:33 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. > Only if you read L40A as creating some requirement > for prior disclosure is there a conflict. When there > is a choice of ways to read the laws, do we really > wish to pick the way that creates a conflict? In any > case, saying that Tim's view "requires acceptance > of a conflict" seems a little exaggerated. > +=+ Depending of course where you stand. I stand on Kaplan's dictum that if there is an ambiguity in the laws it should be resolved by adopting the interpretation that the drafters intended. I am in no doubt that in drafting 40A we intended that its converse should be true, viz. that if there is an understanding it requires prior disclosure. This was Kaplan's style of composition. We had strong feelings about use of calls that call for defensive preparation by opponents. In this connection I do not consider an alert suffices if it is made when it is too late for opponents to discuss countermeasures. I am also of the opinion that an alert does not disclose the full meaning of a call or play as specified in 40C, unless linked to a full statement on the CC. The law does require in any case that the agreement be listed on the CC if a CC is prescribed. I am of the opinion that the interpretation that I support is what is needed for the good of the game. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 9 20:21:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g099Kr500035 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 20:20:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mx.poczta.interia.pl (smtp.poczta.interia.pl [217.74.65.32]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g099KeH29993 for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 20:20:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (nereus.interia.pl [127.0.0.1]) by nereus.interia.pl (MX) with SMTP id B95377D75DE for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 10:12:31 +0100 (CET) Received: from poczta.interia.pl (nyx.poczta.fm [217.74.65.51]) by mx.poczta.interia.pl (MX) with ESMTP id 12DAC7D761E for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 10:12:30 +0100 (CET) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (nyx.poczta.fm [127.0.0.1]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailserver) with SMTP id 3794CDAFD1 for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 10:12:30 +0100 (CET) Received: by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver, from userid 555) id E6E8DDAFEE; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 10:12:29 +0100 (CET) Received: from kavanagh (unknown [217.153.105.20]) by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver) with SMTP id A1448DAFE4 for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 10:12:29 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <01b301c198ec$a8f77ce0$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] The final pass? Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 09:58:26 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 X-EMID: 8b2be2c0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- > IMHO, the inherent nature of skip-bid regulations encourages their misuse > or non-use, and therefore more creation of UI than they were designed to > avoid. The ABF has never had a skip-bid regulation, but IMHO has > no more UI rulings than SOs which do use the Stop! card. > > Best wishes > > Richard > I am beginning to think that you are right. Poland does have a skip bid warning regulation but I have yet to see a proper use of it. My impression is that people have no idea what that skip bid warning is all about. Some enlightened minority does wait the required 10 seconds but when they have no problem they spend these 10 seconds looking at the ceiling for instance which nullifies the whole effect. I know that many argue that it is not the regulation that is bad it is the implementation but I think that if almost 100% of bridge players (I can speak for Poland but I see that the situation is no different in other countries) fail to grasp the both the spirit and the letter of the regulation then it is a strong clue that perhaps it should be dropped. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Pamietasz, jak wygladal system MS Windows 1.0? http://komputery.interia.pl/id/pr/pr_akt/www/wys&inf_id=212357 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 9 21:43:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g09Ah4017084 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 21:43:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g09AgtH17057 for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 21:42:56 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g09AYks17317 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 10:34:46 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 10:34 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.52.2000, Windows 98 4.10.2222 ( A ) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <000b01c198e3$398e26a0$a124e150@dodona> Grattan wrote: > > Only if you read L40A as creating some requirement > > for prior disclosure is there a conflict. When there > > is a choice of ways to read the laws, do we really > > wish to pick the way that creates a conflict? In any > > case, saying that Tim's view "requires acceptance > > of a conflict" seems a little exaggerated. > > > +=+ Depending of course where you stand. I stand > on Kaplan's dictum that if there is an ambiguity in > the laws it should be resolved by adopting the > interpretation that the drafters intended. I am in > no doubt that in drafting 40A we intended that its > converse should be true, viz. that if there is an > understanding it requires prior disclosure. This was > Kaplan's style of composition. Then I must say that you made a complete pig's ear of writing L40B. On normal reading I think anyone would assume that the "how" of disclosure is entirely down to the SO. The SO will determine what, if anything, needs prior (or indeed any) disclosure. Obviously if my SO tells me not to disclose my psyching tendencies then I won't (despite feeling it is unfair on my opponents). > We had strong feelings about use of calls that > call for defensive preparation by opponents. In this > connection I do not consider an alert suffices if it is > made when it is too late for opponents to discuss > countermeasures. In this we agree - but it's not relevant to psyching. I've never met a pair that plays different methods against "frequent psychers". I can't really imagine that anyone would wish too. (I'm not saying that requiring prior disclosure of psyching habits isn't necessary/desirable - only that it isn't necessary for that reason). > I am also of the opinion that an > alert does not disclose the full meaning of a call or > play as specified in 40C, unless linked to a full > statement on the CC. Isn't that why we also permit questions? Answering questions is how one normally discloses the meaning of sequences not shown on the CC or additional details of sequences that are. > The law does require in any > case that the agreement be listed on the CC if a > CC is prescribed. Psyching, even if frequent, is more a matter of style than agreement. Of course understandings develop and disclosure on the CC can be mandated. However, it is obviously not the case that all partnership understandings are currently required to be shown on the CC. Any experienced pair would be able to tell you (for example) - How partner chooses between 1H/1NT on 3532 hands - The suit texture needed for minimum pre-empts - When partner cue-bids lowest control/when lowest 1st round control etc, etc, Indeed I would suspect that if you challenged such pairs to list "10 understandings not disclosed on CCs that you would disclose in answer to questions" they could all do so (some many more). Meckwell have, IIRC, 100+ pages of system notes covering detailed agreements which are neither on the CC nor subject to prior disclosure (in most competitions) - are you saying this too is illegal? > I am of the opinion that the interpretation that > I support is what is needed for the good of the > game. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I am of the opinion that your approach is intended to deter psyching rather than encourage better disclosure. Obviously that can't be good for the game. Tim West-Meads -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 10 00:06:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g09D6K015720 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Jan 2002 00:06:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtpf.ha-net.ptd.net (smtpf.ha-net.ptd.net [207.44.96.86]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g09D6AH15693 for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2002 00:06:11 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 22225 invoked by uid 50005); 9 Jan 2002 12:58:02 -0000 Received: from brian@wellsborocomputing.com by smtpf with qmail-scanner-1.00 (uvscan: v4.1.60/v4179. . Clean. Processed in 0.751699 secs); 09 Jan 2002 12:58:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wellscs) ([24.229.41.52]) (envelope-sender ) by smtpf.ha-net.ptd.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 9 Jan 2002 12:58:01 -0000 From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 07:58:04 -0500 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: References: <200201082333.SAA21747@cfa183.harvard.edu> <000b01c198e3$398e26a0$a124e150@dodona> In-Reply-To: <000b01c198e3$398e26a0$a124e150@dodona> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Wed, 9 Jan 2002 07:56:16 -0000, Grattan wrote: > We had strong feelings about use of calls that >call for defensive preparation by opponents. In this >connection I do not consider an alert suffices if it is >made when it is too late for opponents to discuss >countermeasures. I am also of the opinion that an >alert does not disclose the full meaning of a call or >play as specified in 40C, unless linked to a full >statement on the CC. The law does require in any >case that the agreement be listed on the CC if a >CC is prescribed. And this, while sounding fair enough in its own right, is what brings us to a ridiculous situation if your NCBO has the rule that the EBU *at least used to have* (it *may* still have it) that supplementary sheets were not permitted. Play anything other than stone age Acol and you only had one option left to you. I well remember many an hour spent blowing a CC up to A3 size on a photocopier, and then using a Rotring (map-making) pen with an ultra fine point to fill in our agreements before shrinking the whole lot down to standard CC size again. Even then, our 'special responses' to our Precision 1C opener would hardly fit in the space provided - and we'd already got the 'other conventions' space fully booked for other gadgets. Was the result legible? In parts, yes. As a whole, not a chance, unless opponents had better than 20/20 eyesight or one of them happened to be carrying a magnifying glass. The thing was, it was LEGAL - no mention in EBU regs of a minimum size of handwriting when filling out CCs! We used to carry the A3 version of the CC as well, of course, then when any opp (or TD) claimed that the CC was illegible, my partner and I had the evidence that we had complied with the (damn silly!) regulations to the best of our abilities, and they could ask to look at a version of the CC that, while it was against the rules, they at least had some chance of deciphering. Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 10 00:41:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g09Devw22312 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Jan 2002 00:40:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (iupware.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g09DelH22290 for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2002 00:40:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id OAA09230; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 14:32:11 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id OAA12721; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 14:32:23 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020109143112.024601c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 14:35:00 +0100 To: "Konrad Ciborowski" , "Bridge Laws" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] The final pass? In-Reply-To: <01b301c198ec$a8f77ce0$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:58 9/01/2002 +0100, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >----- Original Message ----- > > IMHO, the inherent nature of skip-bid regulations encourages their misuse > > or non-use, and therefore more creation of UI than they were designed to > > avoid. The ABF has never had a skip-bid regulation, but IMHO has > > no more UI rulings than SOs which do use the Stop! card. > > > > Best wishes > > > > Richard > > > >I am beginning to think that you are right. Poland does have >a skip bid warning regulation but I have yet to see >a proper use of it. My impression is that people have >no idea what that skip bid warning is all about. >Some enlightened minority does wait the required >10 seconds but when they have no problem they >spend these 10 seconds looking at the ceiling for >instance which nullifies the whole effect. AG : there is a well-known player in the Brussels area, who often loooks at the ceiling when concentrating. Wouldn't it be proper for him to do it after a skip-warning ? BTW, it's really difficult to look concerned when you are not, especially when you know you have to Else, lie detectors would not be of any use. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 10 00:52:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g09Dqix24522 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Jan 2002 00:52:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mx.poczta.interia.pl (smtp.poczta.interia.pl [217.74.65.36]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g09DqWH24495 for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2002 00:52:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (nanon.interia.pl [127.0.0.1]) by nanon.interia.pl (MX) with SMTP id 154CF37344E for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 14:44:23 +0100 (CET) Received: from poczta.interia.pl (nyx.poczta.fm [217.74.65.51]) by mx.poczta.interia.pl (MX) with ESMTP id 754D7373546 for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 14:44:21 +0100 (CET) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (nyx.poczta.fm [127.0.0.1]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailserver) with SMTP id 3E5B0DB0A3 for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 14:44:21 +0100 (CET) Received: by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver, from userid 555) id EF5C0DB09F; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 14:44:20 +0100 (CET) Received: from kavanagh (unknown [217.153.105.20]) by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver) with SMTP id 7831CDB097 for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 14:44:20 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <006301c19912$a4844f00$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020109143112.024601c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] The final pass? Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 14:31:04 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > AG : there is a well-known player in the Brussels area, who often loooks at > the ceiling when concentrating. Wouldn't it be proper for him to do it > after a skip-warning ? > BTW, it's really difficult to look concerned when you are not, especially > when you know you have to Else, lie detectors would not be of any use. > > I'm puzzled. All of this only supports what I have written - better to drop the "skip bid warning" rule because it doesn't work. I have no trouble telling whether a player is taking his time over a skip bid concentrating or just waiting. So the whole thing seems not to work. Why then are you in a different camp, Alain? Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 10 01:14:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g09EDaX28389 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Jan 2002 01:13:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (st.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g09EDRH28361 for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2002 01:13:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id PAA10194; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 15:02:20 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id PAA16481; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 15:05:06 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020109143810.024605f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 15:07:42 +0100 To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: [BLML] Count to 10, was : A question of the English. Cc: piret@dice.ucl.ac.be In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:34 9/01/2002 +0000, Tim West-meads wrote: >Any experienced pair would be able to tell you (for example) >- How partner chooses between 1H/1NT on 3532 hands >- The suit texture needed for minimum pre-empts >- When partner cue-bids lowest control/when lowest 1st round control >etc, etc, >Indeed I would suspect that if you challenged such pairs to list "10 >understandings not disclosed on CCs that you would disclose in answer to >questions" they could all do so (some many more). AG : I take you at your word, and suggest other contributors to try the same exercise, then to check the non-inscriptibility of items in other submitted lists. 1. When opening a weak 64 major hand, choose between 2C (both majors) and 2D (Multi) according to the intermediate (rather than top-honor) texture of the 4-card suit. 2. An opening 3C or 3D is less likely to deliver Hxx or xxxx in spades than in hearts. 3. When responding to a quality-ask (such as Ogust), answer 'good suit' if the percentage of your high-card points that lie in the suit is higher than the percentage of card you have in the suit (answer 'good suit' after a weak 2-bid if you have more than 6/13 of your points in the main suit). 4. When making a passed-hand fit-jump in a major over a minor (as p - p - 1C - 1H - 2S), the major is likely to be only 4-card long, while a minor over a major will usually be 5-card long (inference of playing Dutch 2-bids). 5. We are more likely to overcall light when bidding the suit above our singleton, less likely when bidding the suit under our singleton. 6. We avoid at all costs making a bid that shows two suits when less than 1/2 of our honor strength lies in the suits. 7. The difference between 1M-2C(Drury-like even when unpassed)-2D-4M and 1M-2NT(Jacoby)-3D(minimal)-4M is that the first sequence will deliver less top tricks and more quacks. 8. 2D(Multi)-double(one long major)-2H-X-2S-pass shows spades, while 2D-X-2H-p-2S-pass shows hearts. 9. An Asptro overcall (4H/5y) of 1NT will be sounder whern the second suit are clubs. 10. Playing an unnecessary high card from dummy means 'thank you, partner'. This includes calling 'high plum' when there is only one in dummy. and many more ... Who takes up the challenge ? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 10 01:28:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g09EP4D00504 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Jan 2002 01:25:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (iupware.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g09EOrH00483 for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2002 01:24:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id PAA17527; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 15:16:19 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id PAA28267; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 15:16:33 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020109151246.0245a6e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 15:19:10 +0100 To: "Konrad Ciborowski" , "Bridge Laws" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] The final pass? In-Reply-To: <006301c19912$a4844f00$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020109143112.024601c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 14:31 9/01/2002 +0100, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > > > AG : there is a well-known player in the Brussels area, who often loooks >at > > the ceiling when concentrating. Wouldn't it be proper for him to do it > > after a skip-warning ? > > BTW, it's really difficult to look concerned when you are not, especially > > when you know you have to Else, lie detectors would not be of any use. > > > > > >I'm puzzled. All of this only supports what I have written - better >to drop the "skip bid warning" rule because it doesn't work. >I have no trouble telling whether a player is taking >his time over a skip bid concentrating or just waiting. So the whole >thing seems not to work. Why then are you in a different >camp, Alain? AG : I'm in no camp at all, except the camp that would like to generalize the use of screens and 'random tempo'. I understand that maintaining the same face when concerned or not isn't easy. The answer to this is that your partner is not allowed to look at you when you are pausing. Even your opponents may not (L74C5). Come to think of it, ostensibly looking at the ceiling whether you've got a problem or not might be the solution ! Best ragards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 10 04:17:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g09HGFF02973 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Jan 2002 04:16:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g09HG5H02954 for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2002 04:16:06 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g09H7uj07258 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 17:07:56 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 17:07 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] The final pass? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.52.2000, Windows 98 4.10.2222 ( A ) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020109151246.0245a6e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Alain wrote: > The answer to this is that your > partner is not allowed to look at you when you are pausing. Even your > opponents may not (L74C5). This law starts out "looking intently at any other player during the auction and play..". I have always read this to mean that it's OK to glance at oppos to see if they appear to have a problem but not to stare. Indeed if an opponent does hesitate unexpectedly it takes almost inhuman self-control not to look in his direction. Is this a minority view on my part? I tend to fold my cards/stare at the ceiling when genuinely thinking. After reading something here about this "showing disinterest" I start to fold when "pausing" realise I'm meant to show interest and unfold, then remember my natural habit is to fold and end up in a curious looking fumble. Yours confusedly Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 10 05:31:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g09IUxf18089 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Jan 2002 05:30:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g09IUmH18068 for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2002 05:30:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16ONMy-0000S5-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 18:22:38 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 12:55:04 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] The final pass? References: <20020108184700-r01010800-4d74ae91-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> In-Reply-To: <20020108184700-r01010800-4d74ae91-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert writes >On 1/8/02 at 12:22 AM, bridge@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) wrote: > >> Incidentally, you say use of the Stop card is optional. Last time I >> saw the reg [which may have changed since] that was not how it read to >> me. So perhaps it would be useful to find it. > >Some hours after I said that, I did find it, and found I was mistaken. I said >so: [s] >That was at about 1:45 PM yesterday. :-) You must make allowances for the Demon time machine. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 10 05:31:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g09IV2m18096 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Jan 2002 05:31:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g09IUnH18070 for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2002 05:30:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16ONMy-000GYB-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 18:22:40 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 12:49:12 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Alerting principles (was: A question of the English) References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Brambledown writes >> David Stevenson writes >>> Brambledown writes > >>> ISTM that: >>> >>> (1) In any given bidding situation there should be a 'normal' >>> non-alertable meaning for any call. >>> >>> (2) The appropriate authority should determine what that 'normal' meaning >>> should be for all common situations. >>> >>> (3) They should then determine what deviations from this 'normal' meaning >>> should warrant an alert. >>> >>> I'm not suggesting that these determinations are easy but aren't the >>> principles obvious? > >> No. We have seen many many complaints here and on RGB about ACBL >>alerting. Whether it is good or bad it tries to follow your principles, >>and that makes it complicated and difficult to learn and follow. > >You ( and others) seem to have equated my use of 'normal' to 'most likely' >or some such. I am sorry if this usage was confusing. I did not intend >any restraint on the appropriate authority in determining what was >'normal' - merely that (on any basis they wished) they pick a meaning which >a call will be taken to mean if unalerted. That is more complex than what the EBU has decided. we have gone for the simple approach of three rules. That is simpler than the approach of deciding what an unalerted call is. >In the EBU 'no alert' generally means natural and not 'unexpectedly' F/NF. >For example, if I open 2C and it is not alerted, my opponents are entitled >to assume (a) it is natural , so I hold clubs and (b) as I have opened at >the 2 level that it is forcing. In the ACBL my understanding is that 2C is >not alerted provided that it is both strong and forcing. These are >different approaches but both accord with the principles that I have >suggested are obvious. > >> The EBU has a different principle in mind: they think that it is >> desirable to make alerting rules simple and memorable. > >I have no quarrel with 'simple and memorable', in fact I think it is >essential. As an aside, however, if the EBU is going for 'simple and >memorable' (S&M :-))?) why do they require a weak 2H/S opening to be alerted >but not a weak 2H/S jump overcall? Many find this confusing - and get it >wrong! What is your basic unalerted 2H/S in old-fashioned Acol as played by the majority of club players? It is *forcing* as an openign bid but *non-forcing* as an overcall. Thus, you would have to make an exception to our three rules for it to be otherwise, and exceptions are complications. >> This leads to some anomalies, such as the one you mention. > >I see no reason why there should be what you term anomalies. The EBU >decides (say) that an unalerted 1N - 2C/D/H/S should be natural and NF (this >is consistent with their approach) - any other meaning is alertable - WTP? That is a very complex method. Should we list *every* sequence? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 10 06:37:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g09JaFB23900 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Jan 2002 06:36:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail1.svr.pol.co.uk (mail1.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.18]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g09Ja6H23896 for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2002 06:36:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.92.198.123] (helo=mail17.svr.pol.co.uk) by mail1.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.13 #0) id 16OOOD-0001G4-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 09 Jan 2002 19:27:57 +0000 Received: from modem-69.erendis.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.136.198.69] helo=laphraoig.localdomain) by mail17.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.13 #0) id 16OOOC-0002Rx-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 09 Jan 2002 19:27:57 +0000 Received: (from jeremy@localhost) by laphraoig.localdomain (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA30332; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 19:29:01 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: laphraoig.localdomain: jeremy set sender to j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk using -f To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Alerting principles (was: A question of the English) References: From: Jeremy Rickard Date: 09 Jan 2002 19:21:01 +0000 In-Reply-To: David Stevenson's message of "Wed, 9 Jan 2002 12:49:12 +0000" Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0802 (Gnus v5.8.2) Emacs/20.3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii MIME-Version: 1.0 Lines: 39 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes: > Brambledown writes > >I have no quarrel with 'simple and memorable', in fact I think it is > >essential. As an aside, however, if the EBU is going for 'simple and > >memorable' (S&M :-))?) why do they require a weak 2H/S opening to be alerted > >but not a weak 2H/S jump overcall? Many find this confusing - and get it > >wrong! > > What is your basic unalerted 2H/S in old-fashioned Acol as played by > the majority of club players? It is *forcing* as an openign bid but > *non-forcing* as an overcall. Thus, you would have to make an exception > to our three rules for it to be otherwise, and exceptions are > complications. While I agree that the EBU approach of having a few simple rules for alertability is much better than a case-by-case determination of what is/are the non-alertable meaning(s), I think you are overstating the simplicity. The EBU's "three rules" make no mention of "old-fashioned Acol". Whether one is "unlikely to expect" an opening 2H/2S to be non-forcing depends on the circles one plays in. For example, in the club I play in most, most people play these as weak twos, and so I am *less* likely to expect an opening 2H/2S to be forcing than I am to expect it to be non-forcing. Probably in other clubs things are different. So I would claim that in this case there is effectively an arbitrary choice, that doesn't follow from the three rules, of a "non-alertable" meaning of the bids. Jeremy. -- Jeremy Rickard Email: j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk WWW: http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 10 07:02:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g09K2P528046 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Jan 2002 07:02:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g09K2GH28016 for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2002 07:02:17 +1100 (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 OAA03809 for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 14:54:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA00987 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 14:54:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 14:54:06 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200201091954.OAA00987@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > +=+ Depending of course where you stand. I stand > on Kaplan's dictum that if there is an ambiguity in > the laws it should be resolved by adopting the > interpretation that the drafters intended. A reasonable position, for sure. The contrary position is also reasonable, of course. > I am in > no doubt that in drafting 40A we intended that its > converse should be true, viz. that if there is an > understanding it requires prior disclosure. This was > Kaplan's style of composition. Thank you for such a clear statement. > We had strong feelings about use of calls that > call for defensive preparation by opponents. In this > connection I do not consider an alert suffices if it is > made when it is too late for opponents to discuss > countermeasures. The question is whether the responsibility for prior disclosure rests on the players or on the SO. Leaving aside the controversial case of psychs, take a look at the 2001 December Bridge World. Quoting from JR's editorial "Failing to require full and timely disclosure often ruins the game." I trust we all agree with that! However, Walter Walvick, writer of the letter that occasioned JR's comments, wrote "I do not suggest in the slightest that our opponents misbehaved." Those opponents did, after all, comply with all the SO's regulations. What more can we demand? Or to put it another way, given that they complied, what reason can we give for adjusting scores? Grattan will presumably say L40A, but this opens up a host of other problems. How are players to know what needs to be disclosed in advance and what doesn't, other than by following SO regulations? Can my opponents, any time they have a misunderstanding, ask for an adjusted score and cite my lack of prior disclosure of some obscure agreement? Or even a not-obscure one, such as our weak 1 NT opening? It is not at all rare for pairs to be confused about what defense they are playing, even though we put the agreement on our convention card and announce our range, exactly as required. Have we failed our "L40A responsibilities?" > I am also of the opinion that an > alert does not disclose the full meaning of a call or > play as specified in 40C, unless linked to a full > statement on the CC. The law does require in any > case that the agreement be listed on the CC if a > CC is prescribed. I'm confused. Certainly we all agree that an alert can mean many things. The question is what more is to be done. Answering questions is obvious. Prior disclosure _if required by the SO_ is obvious. Listing agreements on the convention card _as required by the SO_ is obvious, but it's equally obvious that not all agreements are required to be listed. (Nor is listing all agreements possible!) I _think_ what Grattan is getting at is that agreements -- or better, understandings -- regarding "psychics" are in some special category and require disclosure even if the SO doesn't explicitly say so. But I'm not sure I've understood him, and I'm not sure why "psychics" should be different from any other partnership understanding. > I am of the opinion that the interpretation that > I support is what is needed for the good of the > game. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ As I've said before, I don't think I have seen any approach that resolves all problems, both practical and theoretical. However, I could very well say Grattan's exact words above myself. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 10 08:44:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g09LiNG17909 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Jan 2002 08:44:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout6-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.177]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g09LiEH17882 for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2002 08:44:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g09LZwu29051; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 16:35:59 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 16:33:36 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] The final pass? To: David Stevenson cc: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020109163601-r01010800-199ce7f2-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.1.8 (Bluto) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 1/9/02 at 12:55 PM, bridge@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) wrote: > You must make allowances for the Demon time machine. Ah. Of course. Sorry about that. :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 10 12:16:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0A1GMD10053 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Jan 2002 12:16:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0A1GCH10049 for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2002 12:16:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id MAA02663 for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2002 12:18:55 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 10 Jan 2002 12:07:30 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 12:03:37 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 10/01/2002 12:08:00 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Brian Meadows wrote: >And this, while sounding fair enough in its own right, is what >brings us to a ridiculous situation if your NCBO has the rule >that the EBU *at least used to have* (it *may* still have it) >that supplementary sheets were not permitted. Play anything other >than stone age Acol and you only had one option left to you. > >I well remember many an hour spent blowing a CC up to A3 size on >a photocopier, and then using a Rotring (map-making) pen with an >ultra fine point to fill in our agreements before shrinking the >whole lot down to standard CC size again. Even then, our 'special >responses' to our Precision 1C opener would hardly fit in the >space provided - and we'd already got the 'other conventions' >space fully booked for other gadgets. > >Was the result legible? In parts, yes. As a whole, not a chance, >unless opponents had better than 20/20 eyesight or one of them >happened to be carrying a magnifying glass. The thing was, it was >LEGAL - no mention in EBU regs of a minimum size of handwriting >when filling out CCs! We used to carry the A3 version of the CC >as well, of course, then when any opp (or TD) claimed that the CC >was illegible, my partner and I had the evidence that we had >complied with the (damn silly!) regulations to the best of our >abilities, and they could ask to look at a version of the CC >that, while it was against the rules, they at least had some >chance of deciphering. Presumably the EBU then had a primitively designed CC with poorly allocated space for some EBU-legal conventions. Even the state-of-the-art current ABF-promulgated CC has insufficient space in the Pre-Alert section for one scientific pair. They solved the problem with small laminated Pre-Alert sheets which they give to their opponents at the start of each round. Fortunately Australia does not have damn silly regs prohibiting supplementary sheets. When I play in National Championships, I also carry my complete Symmetric Relay system notes with me. These are freely available for the opponents' perusal, resolving the L40A prior disclosure requirement. (Some astute opponents like to know in advance what sort of interference bidding breaks our relays.) Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 10 13:14:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0A29b610091 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Jan 2002 13:09:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0A28bH10087 for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2002 13:09:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 16OUV5-0009Nd-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 10 Jan 2002 01:59:36 +0000 Message-ID: <32hcs7Dk2IP8Ew0V@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 18:36:20 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] The final pass? References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020109143112.024601c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <006301c19912$a4844f00$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> In-Reply-To: <006301c19912$a4844f00$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Konrad Ciborowski writes >I'm puzzled. All of this only supports what I have written - better >to drop the "skip bid warning" rule because it doesn't work. >I have no trouble telling whether a player is taking >his time over a skip bid concentrating or just waiting. So the whole >thing seems not to work. Why then are you in a different >camp, Alain? To say the skip bid warning does not work is a vast over- simplification. Ok, it may not work terribly well in places that ignore it, but that does not mean it does not work overall. Playing amongst average-plus English players, most follow the rules, the method works, and we are in a much better situation for UI than we were before the skip bid warning was invented. Now, places that put regs in place and then do not attempt to make sure they are followed have a problem, true, but do not assume everyone is the same. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 10 20:49:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0A9n6x03598 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Jan 2002 20:49:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mx.poczta.interia.pl (smtp.poczta.interia.pl [217.74.65.36]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0A9muH03593 for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2002 20:48:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (nanon.interia.pl [127.0.0.1]) by nanon.interia.pl (MX) with SMTP id DF266373A62 for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2002 10:40:35 +0100 (CET) Received: from poczta.interia.pl (nyx.poczta.fm [217.74.65.51]) by mx.poczta.interia.pl (MX) with ESMTP id 68BC6373A55 for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2002 10:40:35 +0100 (CET) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (nyx.poczta.fm [127.0.0.1]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailserver) with SMTP id F07A2DB1B4 for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2002 10:40:34 +0100 (CET) Received: by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver, from userid 555) id A4DB7DAF8A; Thu, 10 Jan 2002 10:35:19 +0100 (CET) Received: from kavanagh (unknown [217.153.105.20]) by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver) with SMTP id 51A7EDAF3A for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2002 10:35:19 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <003c01c199b9$04c6a010$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020109143112.024601c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <006301c19912$a4844f00$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> <32hcs7Dk2IP8Ew0V@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] The final pass? Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 10:17:51 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" > Now, places that put regs in place and then do not attempt to make > sure they are followed have a problem, true, but do not assume everyone > is the same. > Well, perhaps I biased. In Poland the vast majority of high level events i. e. First, Second & Third Division (which comprise the total of 224 teams), the trials starting from ground level, higher tables in teams competition of the main Polish congresses - are played with screens. So what is left are local and less imortant events that are played in friendly atmosphere by some lower ranked players who fail to grasp the idea behind the skip bid warning. But I have played bridge in Paris and Helsinki for a couple of months, too, and saw exactly the same phenomenon that I see in Poland. So I still remain uncovinced that what I am saying is "vast oversimplification". The best players play with screens so they needn't bother about the STOP card. The rank-and-file don't understand the idea at all. I repeat - I have yet to see a tournament where people make the proper use of the "skip bid warning". Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 10 21:33:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0AAXZJ03637 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Jan 2002 21:33:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0AAXRH03633 for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2002 21:33:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g0AAPFR16453 for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2002 11:25:16 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Jan 10 11:22:18 2002 +0100 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl (agro500s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KCWKGBT6DO003SSQ@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 10 Jan 2002 11:24:32 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 10 Jan 2002 11:24:23 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 11:24:25 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] The final pass? To: "'Konrad Ciborowski'" , Bridge Laws Mailing List Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > > Well, perhaps I biased. In Poland the vast majority of high > level events i. > e. > First, Second & Third Division (which comprise the total of > 224 teams), > the trials starting from ground level, higher tables in teams > competition > of the main Polish congresses - are played with screens. > So what is left are local and less imortant events that are played > in friendly atmosphere by some lower ranked players who > fail to grasp the idea behind the skip bid warning. > > But I have played bridge in Paris and Helsinki for a couple > of months, too, and saw exactly the same phenomenon > that I see in Poland. So I still remain uncovinced that what > I am saying is "vast oversimplification". The best players > play with screens so they needn't bother about the STOP > card. The rank-and-file don't understand the idea at all. > I repeat - I have yet to see a tournament where people > make the proper use of the "skip bid warning". > > > Konrad Ciborowski > Krakow, Poland Don't come to Holland for that. This makes life difficult for AC's. We even tend to take a thinking pause of say 6-7 seconds after a skip bid as a hesitation and a pause of 10 seconds where the player has a conversation with the people from the bar as UI telling that he certainly is not considering to make another call than pass. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 11 02:53:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0AFrEw21544 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 02:53:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (mailout5-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.169]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0AFr5H21527 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 02:53:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g0AFirq12658 for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2002 10:44:54 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 10:31:43 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] The final pass? To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 Message-ID: <20020110104459-r01010800-7dfe9200-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.1.8 (Bluto) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 1/10/02 at 10:17 AM, cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) wrote: > The best players play with screens so they needn't bother about the > STOP card. The rank-and-file don't understand the idea at all. I > repeat - I have yet to see a tournament where people make the proper > use of the "skip bid warning". I guess I'm not a "best" player - I've never played with screens, and frankly, I suspect that I'd feel a bit put out at being required to do so. OTOH, I *do* understand the idea behind the skip bid warning, and so do some, at least, of the people I play with. The problem with those who don't understand it is that they have not been educated. IMO, that's the fault, primarily, of teachers who don't teach such things, and of club TDs who make no effort to do more than the minimum required to administer their games. And secondarily of players who don't bother to look up the regs for themselves. And I do see tournaments where people make proper use of the warning. Not everybody, but some. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 11 03:52:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0AGqR202991 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 03:52:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0AGqIH02972 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 03:52:19 +1100 (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 LAA17842 for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2002 11:44:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA08788 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 10 Jan 2002 11:44:07 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 11:44:07 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200201101644.LAA08788@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I wrote: > The question is whether the responsibility for prior disclosure rests on > the players or on the SO. On further thought, it strikes me that this discussion is very closely akin to the one on "sportsmanlike dumping." Everyone is against dumping. Everyone is in favor of prior disclosure of partnership understandings. Everyone agrees that SO's should avoid conditions where dumping is favored and should mandate adequate disclosure. Where people disagree is what should happen when SO's fail to do what they ought to do. Some people refuse to dump regardless; others will dump if they perceive it to be to their advantage. Most of us think neither decision can be criticized, and it is the SO that deserves blame. Some people will restrict their bidding methods or decisions if they think the SO's disclosure rules are inadequate; others won't. (This applies to constructive methods just as much as to psychs.) I don't think either decision can be criticized, and again the SO deserves the blame. What I really dislike is the view that someone who follows the rules *as written* should be subject to penalty, criticism, or score adjustment. Surely that has to be bad for the game of bridge. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 11 04:06:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0AH5fM05086 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 04:05:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0AH5WH05064 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 04:05:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.68.216] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16OiW0-0008uS-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 10 Jan 2002 16:57:21 +0000 Message-ID: <001c01c199f7$e270ce20$d844e150@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <200201082333.SAA21747@cfa183.harvard.edu> <000b01c198e3$398e26a0$a124e150@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 12:11:28 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: 09 January 2002 12:58 Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. > > And this, while sounding fair enough in its own right, > is what brings us to a ridiculous situation if your NCBO > has the rule that the EBU *at least used to have* (it > *may* still have it) that supplementary sheets were > not permitted. Play anything other than stone age > Acol and you only had one option left to you. > +=+ It was certainly the case during the late eighties that at least one international authority decided upon a technique of limiting the number of conventions a partnership could play by limiting the permitted space in which disclosure could be made. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 11 04:14:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0AHDxg06406 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 04:13:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lycee.ns.uk.easynet.net (lycee.ns.uk.easynet.net [195.40.1.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0AHDoH06387 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 04:13:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-15-105.easynet.co.uk [212.134.26.105]) by lycee.ns.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 0DC6DBCD0 for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2002 17:02:45 +0000 (GMT) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Alerting principles (was: A question of the English) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 16:59:54 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > David Stevenson writes: >> Brambledown writes >> I see no reason why there should be what you term anomalies. >> The EBU decides (say) that an unalerted 1N - 2C/D/H/S should >> be natural and NF (this is consistent with their approach) - >> any other meaning is alertable - WTP? > That is a very complex method. *That* is very complex?? No, *this* is complex: "OB 5.3.1(d) A double (is natural) if it is (i) a take-out double of a suit bid naturally at the one, two or three level when your partner has not had a chance to call or has passed without indicating values. (ii) a penalty double otherwise; this includes the double of a suit bid other than naturally to show you hold it. Note: when you pass your partner's take out double to convert it to a penalty double, you are showing values; after this has happened take out doubles are alertable, but penalty doubles are not." You may in any event be stuck with my "complex method" under current regulations. I know just one pair (regular club players) who play neither Stayman nor transfers. Over 1N they play 2C/D/H/S as natural/NF and 3C/D/H/S as natural/F - it would not be my choice of system but it seems to work for them. They do not alert any of these bids because (i) they are natural (satisfying OB 5.2.1(a)) and (ii) since their opponents *know* (from the non-alert or otherwise) that they are natural, their F/NF nature is what the opponents would expect (satisfying OB 5.2.1(b)). ! agree with them. > Should we list *every* sequence? No, you don't list every sequence, you devise "rules" and as "simple is good" you have as few exceptions as possible. The EBU approach may be simple but it still requires two pages OB 5.3.1 (a)-(e), OB 5.4.1(a)-(h), OB 5.4.2 (a)-(d), OB 5.4.3(a)-(g) and OB 5.4.4(a)-(j) of examples and clarifications to illustrate the "simple rules". Please don't misunderstand me, I think a terrific job has been done producing the Orange Book and IMO we're lucky to have it. Neither am I unhappy in general with the approach to alerting. However, to imply that three simple rules are all that is needed for its operation is a gross misrepresentation. Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 11 04:15:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0AHF2F06558 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 04:15:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lycee.ns.uk.easynet.net (lycee.ns.uk.easynet.net [195.40.1.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0AHEqH06531 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 04:14:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-15-105.easynet.co.uk [212.134.26.105]) by lycee.ns.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 483FEBCCA for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2002 17:02:48 +0000 (GMT) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Alerting principles (was: A question of the English) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 16:59:57 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <200201081655.LAA21232@cfa183.harvard.edu> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Steve Willner writes >> From: "Brambledown" >> merely that (on any basis they wished) they pick a meaning which >> a call will be taken to mean if unalerted. > I think one concern may be that 'a meaning' is singular. I believe that we *should* be striving to avoid two distinct meanings for an unalerted bid. We have all encountered this sort of thing: "1C" (no alert). LHO (holding clubs and in tone of surprise) "Natural?" Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 11 05:10:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0AI9Rt16280 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 05:09:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0AI9JH16256 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 05:09:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g0AI18G00499 for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2002 10:01:09 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <002701c19a00$c3923120$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020109143112.024601c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <006301c19912$a4844f00$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> <32hcs7Dk2IP8Ew0V@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <003c01c199b9$04c6a010$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> Subject: Re: [BLML] The final pass? Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 09:51:26 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Konrad Ciborowski" > But I have played bridge in Paris and Helsinki for a couple > of months, too, and saw exactly the same phenomenon > that I see in Poland. So I still remain uncovinced that what > I am saying is "vast oversimplification". The best players > play with screens so they needn't bother about the STOP > card. The rank-and-file don't understand the idea at all. > I repeat - I have yet to see a tournament where people > make the proper use of the "skip bid warning". > My experience in ACBL-land has been the same, from club games to NABC+ events. The warning is not mandatory, and players are told to hesitate for 10 seconds over any jump bid, warning or no warning. The trouble with optional warnings is that players can use the warning selectively (e.g., only with a poor hand for the bid). The few who pause do not spend the time studying their hands, as is required, unless they need to do so. NOBODY pauses for 10 seconds, which is a very long time, unless they have a real problem. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 11 05:35:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0AIZMm21138 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 05:35:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lycee.ns.uk.easynet.net (lycee.ns.uk.easynet.net [195.40.1.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0AIZCH21108 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 05:35:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-14-204.easynet.co.uk [212.134.24.204]) by lycee.ns.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id E53E5B6A3 for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2002 18:26:57 +0000 (GMT) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] The final pass? Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 18:24:06 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20020106215158-r01010800-8ce4a881-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Ed Reppert writes: >> bramble@ukonline.co.uk (Brambledown) wrote: >>> Steve Willner writes: >>> We had a discussion some while ago about whether picking up the >>> bidding cards constitutes a final pass. Well, I now have practical >>> experience to report. >>> My RHO bid 1C, I bid 1D, LHO bid 2C, which I did not see. Two passes >>> and everyone picked up the bidding cards. I was quite surprised it >>> wasn't LHO's lead. >> The auction period does not end until the opening lead is faced >> (L17E). I do not know what ACBL bidding box regulations say, >> but in EBUland the position is: >> OB 7.3.6 "At the end of the auction the calls should remain in >> place until the opening lead has been faced ..." > There is absolutely nothing in the ACBL bidding box regs about > when, after the auction is over, cards are to be picked up. > In fact, the above regulation seems likely to result in rulings > that picking up the cards constitutes a final pass. > IMO, this sucks. It's one of several places in which, IMO, EBU > regs are *far* better than the ACBL ones. >> It seems unlikely that the other players started to put away >> bidding cards while you still had a call, so I suspect that you >> initiated this process thinking the auction had ended. >> If your bidding cards (and everyone else's) were still in place >> while you were still (incorrectly)awaiting LHO's lead, >> you would have had no problem, would you? > You've obviously not played in the ACBL. :-) It is "standard > practice" around here for people to start picking up their > bidding cards as soon as they assume the auction is over - > whether there have been 3, 2, 1 or 0 final passes. > For example, this auction occurred twice at the regional > 299er pairs in which I played yesterday: (1NT)-P-(3NT). > At this point, both opponents, followed by my partner, > picked up their cards. In one case, I was in second seat; > in the other, fourth. In the latter case, I was going to pass. > In neither case did I bother saying anything. > Perhaps I should have. I've also seen competitive auctions > where only one of my pair is bidding, and once he passes, > opponents assume the partner is also passing. :-( We all know that, even after a unfaced opening lead has been selected, the auction may continue following a change of call (L21B1). Whatever the precise wording of the relevant bidding box regulations, therefore, ISTM crazy to start removing bidding cards until the opening lead has been faced. While EBU regulations have always been specific on this point I won't pretend that it has been plain sailing in the UK, although I think that the rule is now generally well observed at County and National levels. At Club level, however, there are many clubs where this rule is habitually ignored and bidding cards are swept away the moment that the auction is perceived to be over. Frequently, if your side are on lead after a complicated auction and you ask for the bidding cards to be left in place, this is accepted with an air of impatience and the implication that the rule is unnecessary and that you are being fussy. These same opponents, however, would be horrified if you dared to lay down a dummy without putting trumps on dummy's right (L41D) and wouldn't see this as in the least fussy or recognise that their attitude was inconsistent. Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 11 06:08:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0AJ8B627382 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 06:08:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com [212.74.112.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0AJ7wH27353 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 06:07:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.75.95] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 16OkQT-0007tv-00; Thu, 10 Jan 2002 18:59:46 +0000 Message-ID: <001f01c19a09$40831480$5f4be150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "bridge-laws" Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 18:58:29 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Cc: Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 10:34 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. > > > Then I must say that you made a complete pig's ear > of writing L40B. > +=+ I do not recall ever having won an argument with Edgar concerning his style of English composition. I did occasionally persuade him as to what the effect of the law ought to be. +=+ > --------------- \x/ ------------------- > In this we agree - but it's not relevant to psyching. > I've never met a pair that plays different methods > against "frequent psychers". > +=+ It is not against frequency of psyching that countermeasures are so much desirable as against psyches that are the subject of particular understandings. And it is not so much 'different methods' as clarification of method where opponents are trying to muddy the waters. They should have the information and the opportunity to discuss the subject beforehand, albeit briefly. +=+ > > Psyching, even if frequent, is more a matter > of style than agreement. Of course understandings > develop and disclosure on the CC can be mandated. > +=+ The *law* calls for the understanding to be listed.+=+ > > Meckwell have, IIRC, 100+ pages of system notes > covering detailed agreements which are neither on the > CC nor subject to prior disclosure (in most competitions) > - are you saying this too is illegal? > +=+ It would be if the effect were to mislead opponents as to the meaning of bids by disclosing one meaning whilst actually knowing that it is eminently possible the hand will not correspond with the announced meaning. +=+ > > I am of the opinion that your approach is intended to > deter psyching rather than encourage better disclosure. > Obviously that can't be good for the game. > +=+ Ah well, at least I have the consolation, should I feel any need of it, that your knowledge of me is scant. I do have strong feelings about so-say psyching where players are dishonest about it. I reject any suggestion that I am hostile to the true psyche - what I wish to deter is the partnerships who, much of the time, know full well from partnership experience that they do not have their bids, but do not give opponents fair warning of their practices. These are not psyches; the actions are systemic and the failure to disclose deserves the strongest condemnation. The areas of the game in which I serve do demand the disclosure, which I believe is largely forthcoming, and the game is cleaner to the extent that the object is achieved. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 11 06:21:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0AJKtv29585 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 06:20:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtph.ha-net.ptd.net (smtph.ha-net.ptd.net [207.44.96.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g0AJKkH29571 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 06:20:47 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 32257 invoked by uid 50005); 10 Jan 2002 18:55:30 -0000 Received: from brian@wellsborocomputing.com by smtph with qmail-scanner-1.00 (uvscan: v4.1.60/v4179. . Clean. Processed in 1.923753 secs); 10 Jan 2002 18:55:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wellscs) ([24.229.41.52]) (envelope-sender ) by smtph.ha-net.ptd.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 10 Jan 2002 18:55:27 -0000 From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 14:12:38 -0500 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: References: <200201082333.SAA21747@cfa183.harvard.edu> <000b01c198e3$398e26a0$a124e150@dodona> <001c01c199f7$e270ce20$d844e150@pacific> In-Reply-To: <001c01c199f7$e270ce20$d844e150@pacific> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 12:11:28 -0000, Grattan wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Brian Meadows" >To: >Sent: 09 January 2002 12:58 >Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. > > >> >> And this, while sounding fair enough in its own right, >> is what brings us to a ridiculous situation if your NCBO >> has the rule that the EBU *at least used to have* (it >> *may* still have it) that supplementary sheets were >> not permitted. Play anything other than stone age >> Acol and you only had one option left to you. >> >+=+ It was certainly the case during the late eighties >that at least one international authority decided upon >a technique of limiting the number of conventions >a partnership could play by limiting the permitted >space in which disclosure could be made. ~ G ~ +=+ I don't know which "international authority" you mean, but at least as far as the EBU convention cards were concerned, I would defy anyone to *fully* disclose (e.g.) Reese's write-up of his greatly simplified version of Blue Team Precision ("Precision Bidding and Precision Play") on one of those cards. As a bidding system, it was a decent starting point, but hardly rocket science. Of course, if Acol players in the UK had been held (in practice, not theory!) to the same sort of disclosure standards as those playing other systems, all hell would have broken loose. Maybe it's just me (and I'll admit to being a systems geek who enjoys experimenting with bidding systems - *THANK YOU* Matt Clegg and OKBridge) but the sort of backdoor regulation that you describe gives me the very clear impression of an organisation that simply hasn't got the balls to accept full responsibility for the decisions it makes. Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 11 11:54:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0B0rOi02154 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 11:53:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0B0rBH02109 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 11:53:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16OpoU-000BSQ-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 00:44:58 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 02:36:27 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes >Presumably the EBU then had a primitively designed CC with >poorly allocated space for some EBU-legal conventions. Of course. It has only about twice as much available space for conventions as the ABF card. No, on second thoughts, three times as much. >Even the state-of-the-art current ABF-promulgated CC has >insufficient space in the Pre-Alert section for one scientific >pair. They solved the problem with small laminated Pre-Alert >sheets which they give to their opponents at the start of each >round. Fortunately Australia does not have damn silly regs >prohibiting supplementary sheets. Goodness, no. And obviously when playing two boards against you only a damn fool would want to limit the amount we have to read before we can start play. >When I play in National Championships, I also carry my >complete Symmetric Relay system notes with me. These are >freely available for the opponents' perusal, resolving the L40A >prior disclosure requirement. (Some astute opponents like to >know in advance what sort of interference bidding breaks our >relays.) Extremely helpful in making sure that two boards are played in fifteen minutes. But only a damn fool would think otherwise. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 11 14:05:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0B33Jr19275 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 14:03:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtph.ha-net.ptd.net (smtph.ha-net.ptd.net [207.44.96.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g0B33AH19271 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 14:03:11 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 30093 invoked by uid 50005); 11 Jan 2002 02:37:49 -0000 Received: from brian@wellsborocomputing.com by smtph with qmail-scanner-1.00 (uvscan: v4.1.60/v4179. . Clean. Processed in 0.779449 secs); 11 Jan 2002 02:37:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wellscs) ([24.229.41.52]) (envelope-sender ) by smtph.ha-net.ptd.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 11 Jan 2002 02:37:48 -0000 From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 21:55:02 -0500 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 02:36:27 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > Goodness, no. And obviously when playing two boards against you only >a damn fool would want to limit the amount we have to read before we can >start play. > > > Extremely helpful in making sure that two boards are played in fifteen >minutes. But only a damn fool would think otherwise. > All right, David, as the originator of the "damn silly" comment, I will ask you a simple question. How is an ordinary player under EBU jurisdiction to balance the requirement for full disclosure against the problem you imply above of giving opps too much to read at the start of the round? My experience of carrying that miniscule-writing convention card that I described earlier in this thread was that we passed it to opps, saying as we did "This is basically Precision, but with a 1NT opener that shows diamonds rather than a balanced hand, and 2D, 2H, 2S and 2NT are all multis. The rest of it is mostly relays and/or asking bids". (Yes, there was a point when four multis were legal, David Burn's name was on the 2NT opener, if I remember correctly.) Most opps would discuss how to combat the 1NT opener, a much smaller percentage would discuss how to combat each of the multis, and we got on with the game. I cannot remember any opps going through the card in detail, let alone devising defences to all the asking bids, but I'm talking about long enough ago that I can't say that there weren't one or two who did it. Maybe we took the requirement for full disclosure more literally than was intended - outlining our modified alpha, beta and gamma asking bids over the transfer positives to 1C, to take a simple example? Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 11 15:53:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0B4qcn08434 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 15:52:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from deborah.paradise.net.nz (deborah.paradise.net.nz [203.96.152.32]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0B4qUH08411 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 15:52:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from u0m7o0 (203-79-68-11.apx0.paradise.net.nz [203.79.68.11]) by deborah.paradise.net.nz (Postfix) with SMTP id DF003D1980 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 17:44:17 +1300 (NZDT) Message-ID: <003401c19a5a$bed133c0$0b444fcb@u0m7o0> From: "John Rosevear" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: [BLML] Law 41D Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 17:44:52 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002F_01C19AC7.AC8EE5A0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_002F_01C19AC7.AC8EE5A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I have a small problem with Law 41D I had an occasion to call the director when the opponents refused to lay = dummy's suits out in order of rank in a NT contract when I requested it. = Somewhat petty I agree but having spent the large part of the session = putting up with the laying out of their dummy hand in any old order = (except for trump suit) and generally behaving in a pretentious and = condescending manner, I had had enough. I did not act earlier as my partner (my wife) was somewhat averse to = confrontation and is easily put off her play. As this was the last hand = of the first session in a teams event I chose my moment. The "boss" (my = wife) would have time to recover before playing again. To my surprise, the director ruled against me so I accepted the ruling = and carried on. My action did however have the desired effect as they = have had a different attitude toward the "boss" and I ever since. However, my understanding of Law 41D was that: A. In a No Trump contract, Dummy's Cards are laid on the table, Suits in = order of rank (Law 1) from dummy's right to left and cards in numerical = rank order downwards towards Declarer, and B. If in a suit contract then the trump suit is on Dummy's right and = remaining suits in order of=20 (I hope this is clear) Am I misinterpreting this rule? If one can lay down suits that are not trumps in any order, then what is = the purpose of this law? Does the law need amending to clarify it? If one can lay suits in any order then what is to stop Dummy using any = order to suggest to declarer the order the suits should be played in? = (Or am I being too devious?) ------=_NextPart_000_002F_01C19AC7.AC8EE5A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I have a small problem with Law 41D

I had an occasion to call the director when the opponents refused to = lay=20 dummy’s suits out in order of rank in a NT contract when I = requested it.=20 Somewhat petty I agree but having spent the large part of the session = putting up=20 with the laying out of their dummy hand in any old order (except for = trump suit)=20 and generally behaving in a pretentious and condescending manner, I had = had=20 enough.

I did not act earlier as my partner (my wife) was somewhat averse to=20 confrontation and is easily put off her play. As this was the last hand = of the=20 first session in a teams event I chose my moment. The "boss" (my wife) = would=20 have time to recover before playing again.

To my surprise, the director ruled against me so I accepted the = ruling and=20 carried on. My action did however have the desired effect as they have = had a=20 different attitude toward the "boss" and I ever since.

However, my understanding of Law 41D was that:

A. In a No Trump contract, Dummy’s Cards are laid on the table, = Suits in=20 order of rank (Law 1) from dummy’s right to left and cards in = numerical rank=20 order downwards towards Declarer, and

B. If in a suit contract then the trump suit is on Dummy’s = right and=20 remaining suits in order of

(I hope this is clear)

Am I misinterpreting this rule?

If one can lay down suits that are not trumps in any order, then what = is the=20 purpose of this law? Does the law need amending to clarify it?

If one can lay suits in any order then what is to stop Dummy using = any order=20 to suggest to declarer the order the suits should be played in? (Or am I = being=20 too devious?)

 

------=_NextPart_000_002F_01C19AC7.AC8EE5A0-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 11 19:27:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0B8Qfk09920 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 19:26:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns2.minlnv.nl (dns2.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0B8QVH09892 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 19:26:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.38]) by dns2.minlnv.nl (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g0B8IHs25269 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 09:18:17 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Jan 11 09:15:20 2002 +0100 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl (agro500s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KCXUBKJUGS003T6Q@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 09:17:49 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 09:17:41 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 09:17:46 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 41D To: "'John Rosevear'" , Bridge Laws Discussion List Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I have a small problem with Law 41D I had an occasion to call the director when the opponents refused to lay dummy's suits out in order of rank in a NT contract when I requested it. Somewhat petty I agree but having spent the large part of the session putting up with the laying out of their dummy hand in any old order (except for trump suit) and generally behaving in a pretentious and condescending manner, I had had enough. I did not act earlier as my partner (my wife) was somewhat averse to confrontation and is easily put off her play. As this was the last hand of the first session in a teams event I chose my moment. The "boss" (my wife) would have time to recover before playing again. To my surprise, the director ruled against me so I accepted the ruling and carried on. My action did however have the desired effect as they have had a different attitude toward the "boss" and I ever since. However, my understanding of Law 41D was that: A. In a No Trump contract, Dummy's Cards are laid on the table, Suits in order of rank (Law 1) from dummy's right to left and cards in numerical rank order downwards towards Declarer, and B. If in a suit contract then the trump suit is on Dummy's right and remaining suits in order of (I hope this is clear) Am I misinterpreting this rule? If one can lay down suits that are not trumps in any order, then what is the purpose of this law? Does the law need amending to clarify it? If one can lay suits in any order then what is to stop Dummy using any order to suggest to declarer the order the suits should be played in? (Or am I being too devious?) My law book doesn't speak about suits to be laid down in order of rank. Nor in 41B nor somewhere else. Assuming yours isn't different you could have known that you were wrong. The purpose of that law is to regulate what it is dealing with. Easy answer but what can I say? You must be joking when saying that dummy might suggest the order of play by the order in which the suits are put on the table. What surprises me most is that you seem to say that normally dummies are doing this your way, and that this was the first time they deviated. You must be joking again. My opponent dummies normally sort their hands in red, black, red, black and put them out in that kind of order when playing no trumps. And my partners normally have problems sorting their hands. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 11 20:00:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0B8xjd14297 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 19:59:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat40.alcanet.no [193.213.239.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0B8xaH14282 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 19:59:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from netos70.alcatel.no (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with ESMTP id g0B8pFW30782; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 09:51:16 +0100 Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 41D To: "John Rosevear" Cc: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 09:50:53 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NOMAIL01/NO/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 01/11/2002 09:51:15 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g0B8xdH14287 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Law41D requires dummy to spread his cards sorted into suits with the trumps to his right, but there is no rule (except for the trumps) on the ordering of the suits. Within each suit the cards shall be in rank order. If it should be discovered that dummy somehow uses the ordering of his suits to pass illegal communication to declarer (I don't really see how that could be!) then there would be a case for action against him. regards Sven "John Rosevear" .nz> cc: Sent by: Subject: [BLML] Law 41D owner-bridge-laws@rgb. anu.edu.au 2002-01-11 18:44 I have a small problem with Law 41D I had an occasion to call the director when the opponents refused to lay dummy's suits out in order of rank in a NT contract when I requested it. Somewhat petty I agree but having spent the large part of the session putting up with the laying out of their dummy hand in any old order (except for trump suit) and generally behaving in a pretentious and condescending manner, I had had enough. I did not act earlier as my partner (my wife) was somewhat averse to confrontation and is easily put off her play. As this was the last hand of the first session in a teams event I chose my moment. The "boss" (my wife) would have time to recover before playing again. To my surprise, the director ruled against me so I accepted the ruling and carried on. My action did however have the desired effect as they have had a different attitude toward the "boss" and I ever since. However, my understanding of Law 41D was that: A. In a No Trump contract, Dummy's Cards are laid on the table, Suits in order of rank (Law 1) from dummy's right to left and cards in numerical rank order downwards towards Declarer, and B. If in a suit contract then the trump suit is on Dummy's right and remaining suits in order of (I hope this is clear) Am I misinterpreting this rule? If one can lay down suits that are not trumps in any order, then what is the purpose of this law? Does the law need amending to clarify it? If one can lay suits in any order then what is to stop Dummy using any order to suggest to declarer the order the suits should be played in? (Or am I being too devious?) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 12 00:22:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0BDLG328577 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 00:21:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (st.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0BDL7H28565 for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 00:21:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id OAA05901; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 14:09:58 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id OAA08913; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 14:12:43 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020111140401.00aaf9b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 14:15:23 +0100 To: Steve Willner , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. In-Reply-To: <200201101644.LAA08788@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:44 10/01/2002 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: >Where people disagree is what should happen when SO's fail to do what >they ought to do. Some people refuse to dump regardless; others will >dump if they perceive it to be to their advantage. Most of us think >neither decision can be criticized, and it is the SO that deserves >blame. Some people will restrict their bidding methods or decisions if >they think the SO's disclosure rules are inadequate; others won't. >(This applies to constructive methods just as much as to psychs.) I >don't think either decision can be criticized, and again the SO >deserves the blame. AG : one straightforward solution is for every National SO to specify a default list of what is allowed. In Belgium, any pairs or short-match tournament where no prior announcement (in the ad for the torunament) was made is deemed to be Class D : conventional, descriptive, openings and responses allowed ; weak bids that don't specify a suit not allowed (with 3 exceptions on grounds of frequency) ; R18 enhanced in all seats ; exceptions are made for individuals at one end and for selections and the final stages of the Cup at the other. In big countries, one may wish to defer this task to regional/state SOs. No more bad surprises, that is, if you know where to check. Best regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 12 00:23:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0BDNTh28937 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 00:23:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (Comix-files.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0BDNJH28908 for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 00:23:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id OAA08326; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 14:14:40 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id OAA11166; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 14:14:56 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020111141634.00ab3de0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 14:17:36 +0100 To: "Brambledown" , "BLML" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: RE: [BLML] Alerting principles (was: A question of the English) In-Reply-To: References: <200201081655.LAA21232@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 16:59 10/01/2002 +0000, Brambledown wrote: > > Steve Willner writes > > >> From: "Brambledown" > >> merely that (on any basis they wished) they pick a meaning which > >> a call will be taken to mean if unalerted. > > > I think one concern may be that 'a meaning' is singular. > >I believe that we *should* be striving to avoid two distinct meanings for an >unalerted bid. > >We have all encountered this sort of thing: > >"1C" (no alert). LHO (holding clubs and in tone of surprise) "Natural?" AG : no need to change the alert rules to care for this. Just apply L16 as is fit. LHO, not the rules, is responsible for the incorrection. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 12 00:41:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0BDfBm02028 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 00:41:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (st.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0BDf3H02013 for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 00:41:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id OAA09298; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 14:29:54 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id OAA27915; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 14:32:39 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020111142949.00ab5cc0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 14:35:18 +0100 To: "John Rosevear" , "Bridge Laws Discussion List" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 41D In-Reply-To: <003401c19a5a$bed133c0$0b444fcb@u0m7o0> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_2251903==_.ALT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --=====================_2251903==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 17:44 11/01/2002 +1300, John Rosevear wrote: >I have a small problem with Law 41D > >I had an occasion to call the director when the opponents refused to lay >dummy s suits out in order of rank in a NT contract when I requested it. >Somewhat petty I agree but having spent the large part of the session >putting up with the laying out of their dummy hand in any old order >(except for trump suit) and generally behaving in a pretentious and >condescending manner, I had had enough. >ss" and I ever since. > >However, my understanding of Law 41D was that: > >A. In a No Trump contract, Dummy s Cards are laid on the table, Suits in >order of rank (Law 1) from dummy s right to left and cards in numerical >rank order downwards towards Declarer, and > >B. If in a suit contract then the trump suit is on Dummy s right and >remaining suits in order of > >(I hope this is clear) > >Am I misinterpreting this rule? AG : I've seen nothing of your "suits in order of rank" in L41D. It is the cards in each suit that must be in order of rank (EG, KQ876, not 6K8Q7). If you had insisted on this against me, I would have told the TD I suspect you of using sharp practice by causing problems to a player (YT) with poor sight. Deep astigmatics have all sort of problems when H and D are put close to eachother. BTW, this is probably the reason why most European dummies are cautious enough to alternate reds and blacks when tabling their hand. I don't know about other places. Regards, Alain. --=====================_2251903==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" At 17:44 11/01/2002 +1300, John Rosevear wrote:

I have a small problem with Law 41D

I had an occasion to call the director when the opponents refused to lay dummy s suits out in order of rank in a NT contract when I requested it. Somewhat petty I agree but having spent the large part of the session putting up with the laying out of their dummy hand in any old order (except for trump suit) and generally behaving in a pretentious and condescending manner, I had had enough.
ss" and I ever since.

However, my understanding of Law 41D was that:

A. In a No Trump contract, Dummy s Cards are laid on the table, Suits in order of rank (Law 1) from dummy s right to left and cards in numerical rank order downwards towards Declarer, and

B. If in a suit contract then the trump suit is on Dummy s right and remaining suits in order of

(I hope this is clear)

Am I misinterpreting this rule?

AG : I've seen nothing of your "suits in order of rank"  in L41D. It is the cards in each suit that must be in order of rank (EG, KQ876, not 6K8Q7).
If you had insisted on this against me, I would have told the TD I suspect you of using sharp practice by causing problems to a player (YT) with poor sight. Deep astigmatics have all sort of problems when H and D are put close to eachother. BTW, this is probably the reason why most European dummies are cautious enough to alternate reds and blacks when tabling their hand. I don't know about other places.

Regards,

        Alain. --=====================_2251903==_.ALT-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 12 00:48:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0BDlrm02875 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 00:47:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.wrs.com (unknown-1-11.wrs.com [147.11.1.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0BDljH02861 for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 00:47:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from rwilleypc ([128.224.4.125]) by mail.wrs.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) with SMTP id FAA09680 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 05:38:16 -0800 (PST) From: "Richard Willey" To: Subject: RE: [BLML] A question of the English. Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 08:44:42 -0800 Message-ID: <001f01c19abf$44c55a60$7d04e080@isi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <001c01c199f7$e270ce20$d844e150@pacific> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of Grattan Endicott > Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 4:11 AM > To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. > +=+ It was certainly the case during the late eighties > that at least one international authority decided upon > a technique of limiting the number of conventions > a partnership could play by limiting the permitted > space in which disclosure could be made. ~ G ~ +=+ In my humble opinion, this type of gamesmanship by the regulating authorities is one of the most destructive things that can possibly happen in any jurisdiction. I understand the temptation on the part of the regulatory bodies to sneak additional regulations in through the backdoor. However, it is important to recognize that the main effect that this type of activity has is to destroy any powers of moral suasion that the regulatory authority might once have been able to exert. If I observe that the regulators are [essentially] twisting the rules to achieve their own ends, I am free to retaliate in kind; seizing on any loophole, ambiguity, or flaw in the regulations to ensure I can do whatever I feel like. If the "Spirit of the Laws" have no meaning for the authorities, why should they matter to the players? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 12 01:19:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0BEIiK08510 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 01:18:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0BEIYH08479 for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 01:18:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g0BEALE18977 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 15:10:21 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Jan 11 15:07:23 2002 +0100 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl (agro500s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KCY6LL1L02003URF@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 15:09:29 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 15:09:21 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 15:09:22 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] A question of the English. To: "'Richard Willey'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > > +=+ It was certainly the case during the late eighties > > that at least one international authority decided upon > > a technique of limiting the number of conventions > > a partnership could play by limiting the permitted > > space in which disclosure could be made. ~ G ~ +=+ > And Richard replies: > In my humble It doesn't sound that humble, but reading it I agree that we should take it as humble. What did authorities do to you in the last decades? Grattan mentioned (at least) one international authority and you explode. Do you know that other authorities have tried to give weights to conventions putting a total weightlimit to systems and do you know that for example the WBF has forbidden some categories of agreements in certain events? In my opinion there are no fundamental differences between those approaches all having the intention to make bridge better playable and more attractive under certain circumstances. Reading the methods used by some players to get their whole systems bible inside these small blocks, some ideas are more effective than others, but that doesn't help me to understand your strong reaction. ton opinion, this type of gamesmanship by the regulating > authorities is one of the most destructive things that can possibly > happen in any jurisdiction. > > I understand the temptation on the part of the regulatory bodies to > sneak additional regulations in through the backdoor. However, it is > important to recognize that the main effect that this type of activity > has is to destroy any powers of moral suasion that the regulatory > authority might once have been able to exert. > > If I observe that the regulators are [essentially] twisting > the rules to > achieve their own ends personal goals, you mean? Strong language again? Could you give an example? Not of a regulation you don't like, but of the personal reason to demand it. , I am free to retaliate in kind; seizing on any > loophole, ambiguity, or flaw in the regulations to ensure I can do > whatever I feel like. > > If the "Spirit of the Laws" have no meaning for the authorities, why > should they matter to the players? Indeed, but your premisse is wrong: for these authorities the spirit of the laws means a lot. I agree I can only talk about those auhorities I know of. But there are more than a few and from all over the world. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 12 02:19:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0BFHrJ18416 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 02:17:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.wrs.com (unknown-1-11.wrs.com [147.11.1.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0BFHiH18412 for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 02:17:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from rwilleypc ([128.224.4.125]) by mail.wrs.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) with SMTP id HAA13037; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 07:08:13 -0800 (PST) From: "Richard Willey" To: "Kooijman, A." , Subject: RE: [BLML] A question of the English. Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 10:14:39 -0800 Message-ID: <002501c19acb$d595fde0$7d04e080@isi.com> 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 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Do you know that other authorities have tried > to give weights to conventions putting a total > weight-limit to systems and do you know that > for example the WBF has forbidden some categories > of agreements in certain events? I am well aware of these methods. [Given that some of my favorite partners are from Sweden, it would be hard not to be aware of weight or point based mechanisms to regulate system.] > In my opinion there are no fundamental differences > between those approaches all having the intention > to make bridge better playable and more attractive > under certain circumstances. To me, at least, the major difference is that the regulatory structure that was created in Sweden is an open and honest effort to deal with the issue of system regulation. An attempt to regulate systems proliferation through regulations defining the convention cards is disingenuous at best. It suggests that a set of regulators with a specific agenda knew that they would not be able advance their agenda directly and decided to make an end run around the system. > It doesn't sound that humble, but reading it I > agree that we should take it as humble. What did > authorities do to you in the last decades? Grattan > mentioned (at least) one international authority and you > explode. You surmise [correctly] that Grattan's email has pushed one of my buttons. Recently, the ACBL instituted a new convention regulation structure based on the concept of a "Defense Database". Players who want to use methods that are banned at the GCC level but sanctioned at the MidChart Level have the obligation to submit a recommended defense to the ACBL Conventions Committee. Until the Conventions Committee approves a recommended defense and posts this defense to the Defense Database, players are not able to use the method in question. The basic idea behind this mechanism is highly laudable. I agree completely that players have an obligation to full disclosure of methods. And, it is perfectly reasonable to expect that players will provide their opponents with appropriate defenses to unfamiliar methods. Unfortunately, in practice this new set of regulations is being used as a tool by which individual members of the Convention Committee are able to ban methods that are clearly sanctioned at the Midchart Level simply by refusing to approve defenses in a timely manner. During the ACBL summer Nationals, I was forced to radically redesign half my bidding system at the last minute when the ACBL Convention Committee abruptly reversed itself. To date, I have seen a grand total of one new defense sanctioned by the Conventions Committee and after 6 months that defense still hasn't made its way onto the ACBL web site. In contrast, I have seen any number of arguments that relatively innocuous methods should be banned at all levels of competition within the ACBL. For example, Ekrens style preempts have been ruled to be an inherently destructive method can not be used in any type of ACBL competition. I saw the same authorities with the same agenda arguing that transfer opening bids in a 4 card major system [1D = Hearts, 1H = Spades] were also inherently destructive and needed to be banned. What has annoyed me more than anything else is the fact that individual members of the Convention Committee managed to turn what should have been an extremely useful tool to help provide full disclosure of methods into a modern day equivalent of the "Doomsday Book". [First we'll force everyone to register, and then we have them by the balls] >> If the "Spirit of the Laws" have no meaning for >> the authorities, why should they matter to the players? > Indeed, but your premise is wrong: for these > authorities the spirit of the laws means a lot. > I agree I can only talk about those authorities I know of. > But there are more than a few and from all over the world. Try playing in the ACBL sometime. Here, the right to psyche is reserved for Zia. The right to play new conventions is reserved for George Rosencranz. [This might be a little inaccurate. I'm sure the ACBL is equal opportunity in terms of accepting large sums of money in return for licensing conventions] -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 12 02:41:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0BFekf18429 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 02:40:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0BFecH18425 for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 02:40:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g0BFWOE13308 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 16:32:24 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Jan 11 16:29:23 2002 +0100 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl (agro500s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KCY9GPYZWK003UGR@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 16:31:51 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 16:31:43 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 16:31:42 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] A question of the English. To: "'Richard Willey'" , "Kooijman, A." , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Well, I asked for examples and I got them. I am not in a position to dispute those. What I know is that administrators in the ACBL, but also in my country are faced with the problem of less interest in competitive bridge. The reason seems to be that developments in that field make playing bridge less attractive. Hamman predicted bridge to be a dying sport, not attracting younger people. It is a rather complex problem, but I agree with those who try to find solutions based on making the sport more accessible. That should be done wisely and without bias of course. Try to see your experiences as incidents. I know that ACBL administrators are reading these postings. Who knows? ton > > Do you know that other authorities have tried > > to give weights to conventions putting a total > > weight-limit to systems and do you know that > > for example the WBF has forbidden some categories > > of agreements in certain events? > > I am well aware of these methods. [Given that some of my favorite > partners are from Sweden, it would be hard not to be aware of > weight or > point based mechanisms to regulate system.] > > > In my opinion there are no fundamental differences > > between those approaches all having the intention > > to make bridge better playable and more attractive > > under certain circumstances. > > To me, at least, the major difference is that the regulatory structure > that was created in Sweden is an open and honest effort to > deal with the > issue of system regulation. An attempt to regulate systems > proliferation through regulations defining the convention cards is > disingenuous at best. It suggests that a set of regulators with a > specific agenda knew that they would not be able advance their agenda > directly and decided to make an end run around the system. > > > It doesn't sound that humble, but reading it I > > agree that we should take it as humble. What did > > authorities do to you in the last decades? Grattan > > mentioned (at least) one international authority and you > > explode. > > You surmise [correctly] that Grattan's email has pushed one of my > buttons. > > Recently, the ACBL instituted a new convention regulation structure > based on the concept of a "Defense Database". Players who want to use > methods that are banned at the GCC level but sanctioned at > the MidChart > Level have the obligation to submit a recommended defense to the ACBL > Conventions Committee. Until the Conventions Committee approves a > recommended defense and posts this defense to the Defense Database, > players are not able to use the method in question. > > The basic idea behind this mechanism is highly laudable. I agree > completely that players have an obligation to full disclosure of > methods. And, it is perfectly reasonable to expect that players will > provide their opponents with appropriate defenses to > unfamiliar methods. > > Unfortunately, in practice this new set of regulations is > being used as > a tool by which individual members of the Convention > Committee are able > to ban methods that are clearly sanctioned at the Midchart > Level simply > by refusing to approve defenses in a timely manner. During the ACBL > summer Nationals, I was forced to radically redesign half my bidding > system at the last minute when the ACBL Convention Committee abruptly > reversed itself. > > To date, I have seen a grand total of one new defense > sanctioned by the > Conventions Committee and after 6 months that defense still > hasn't made > its way onto the ACBL web site. In contrast, I have seen any > number of > arguments that relatively innocuous methods should be banned at all > levels of competition within the ACBL. For example, Ekrens style > preempts have been ruled to be an inherently destructive > method can not > be used in any type of ACBL competition. I saw the same authorities > with the same agenda arguing that transfer opening bids in a 4 card > major system [1D = Hearts, 1H = Spades] were also inherently > destructive > and needed to be banned. > > What has annoyed me more than anything else is the fact that > individual > members of the Convention Committee managed to turn what should have > been an extremely useful tool to help provide full disclosure > of methods > into a modern day equivalent of the "Doomsday Book". [First > we'll force > everyone to register, and then we have them by the balls] > > >> If the "Spirit of the Laws" have no meaning for > >> the authorities, why should they matter to the players? > > > Indeed, but your premise is wrong: for these > > authorities the spirit of the laws means a lot. > > I agree I can only talk about those authorities I know of. > > But there are more than a few and from all over the world. > > Try playing in the ACBL sometime. > > Here, the right to psyche is reserved for Zia. > The right to play new conventions is reserved for George Rosencranz. > [This might be a little inaccurate. I'm sure the ACBL is equal > opportunity in terms of accepting large sums of money in return for > licensing conventions] > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 12 03:15:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0BGF9V18499 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 03:15:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-1.cais.net (stmpy-1.cais.net [205.252.14.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0BGF2H18495 for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 03:15:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-1.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g0BG6mv15500 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 11:06:48 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20020111104608.00b1ec00@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 11:06:36 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: [BLML] A question of the English. In-Reply-To: <002501c19acb$d595fde0$7d04e080@isi.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 01:14 PM 1/11/02, Richard wrote: >Recently, the ACBL instituted a new convention regulation structure >based on the concept of a "Defense Database". Players who want to use >methods that are banned at the GCC level but sanctioned at the MidChart >Level have the obligation to submit a recommended defense to the ACBL >Conventions Committee. Until the Conventions Committee approves a >recommended defense and posts this defense to the Defense Database, >players are not able to use the method in question. > >The basic idea behind this mechanism is highly laudable. I agree >completely that players have an obligation to full disclosure of >methods. And, it is perfectly reasonable to expect that players will >provide their opponents with appropriate defenses to unfamiliar methods. > >Unfortunately, in practice this new set of regulations is being used as >a tool by which individual members of the Convention Committee are able >to ban methods that are clearly sanctioned at the Midchart Level simply >by refusing to approve defenses in a timely manner. During the ACBL >summer Nationals, I was forced to radically redesign half my bidding >system at the last minute when the ACBL Convention Committee abruptly >reversed itself. There's nothing new in this. The ACBL has for decades been finding ways to ban, or restrict so heavily as to effectively ban, any bids that those in power disapprove of, some by straightforwardly legal means, others by questionable and roundabout, albeit, arguably, technically legal means. Their banning otherwise allowed mid-chart conventions by such roundabout means is rather similar to, but even less egregious than, their effective ban on natural non-conventional 1NT openings with less than 10 HCP, which would otherwise be legal at any level. >To date, I have seen a grand total of one new defense sanctioned by the >Conventions Committee and after 6 months that defense still hasn't made >its way onto the ACBL web site. In contrast, I have seen any number of >arguments that relatively innocuous methods should be banned at all >levels of competition within the ACBL. For example, Ekrens style >preempts have been ruled to be an inherently destructive method can not >be used in any type of ACBL competition. I saw the same authorities >with the same agenda arguing that transfer opening bids in a 4 card >major system [1D = Hearts, 1H = Spades] were also inherently destructive >and needed to be banned. This is the same claptrap they gave us with regard to the mini-NT. The ACBL uses "inherently distructive" to mean anything they want to ban, in the same way that some governments use "national security" to mean anything the don't want to tell the public about. >What has annoyed me more than anything else is the fact that individual >members of the Convention Committee managed to turn what should have >been an extremely useful tool to help provide full disclosure of methods >into a modern day equivalent of the "Doomsday Book". [First we'll force >everyone to register, and then we have them by the balls] Again, not surprising. Remember the "blue ribbon" ACBL committee that wrote the rules for Classic Bridge and, in doing so, turned a sound, some would say brilliant, concept into such a farce that, after months of ballyhoo, it was tried once and never heard of again. IIRC, there was some overlap between the membership of these two committees. >Try playing in the ACBL sometime. > >Here, the right to psyche is reserved for Zia. >The right to play new conventions is reserved for George Rosencranz. >[This might be a little inaccurate. I'm sure the ACBL is equal >opportunity in terms of accepting large sums of money in return for >licensing conventions] A harsh-sounding judgment, but still nothing new. Back in the 60s, the ACBL adamantly refused to allow any system other than then-Standard American, with minor variations, to be played in their games -- until the Wei's appeared on the scene with their brand new, and rather (at the time) radical, Precision system... and their mega-bucks. 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 12 03:30:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0BGTcw18515 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 03:29:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0BGTVH18511 for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 03:29:31 +1100 (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 LAA26512 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 11:21:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA18143 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 11:21:17 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 11:21:17 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200201111621.LAA18143@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] A question of the English. X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Kooijman, A." > Well, I asked for examples and I got them. The thing is, these examples follow a long history in the ACBL. Convention regulation here has been at best quirky for a long time. In recent days, BLML has had similar threads dealing with stop card rules and with bid box rules. Here in the ACBL, the real rules are not necessarily the ones that are written down. While our local problems are perhaps of little interest in the rest of the world, they may inject a note of caution for other jurisdictions. If you want to regulate or forbid something, go ahead, but I recommend you be clear, honest, and direct about what you are doing. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 12 03:32:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0BGWGI18528 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 03:32:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.wrs.com (unknown-1-11.windriver.com [147.11.1.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0BGW8H18524 for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 03:32:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from rwilleypc ([128.224.4.125]) by mail.wrs.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) with SMTP id IAA24293; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 08:22:38 -0800 (PST) From: "Richard Willey" To: "Kooijman, A." , Subject: RE: [BLML] A question of the English. Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 11:29:03 -0800 Message-ID: <002f01c19ad6$3a7af4e0$7d04e080@isi.com> 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 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > What I know is that administrators in the ACBL, > but also in my country are faced with the problem of less > interest in competitive bridge. The reason seems to be that > developments in that field make playing bridge less attractive. And I am one of the people who disagrees vehemently with the notion that bridge can be revitalized by "dumbing-down" the game. People who harken back to the "glory days" of bridge don't seem to recognize that there have been a series of enormous demographic shifts in society over the past 20-30 years. Simply put, if people are looking for an innocuous way to kill time in the evening, there are a lot better ways to do so than playing bridge. Bridge's glory, its competitive advantage over other forms or recreation, is the complexity of the game. Remove this from the equation and you destroy the attraction of the game altogether. The sooner that the authorities abandon the notion that bridge should be a mass market form of entertainment, the better it will be for the game. > Hamman predicted bridge to be a dying sport, not attracting > younger people. And Hamman's answer is to eliminate those portions of the game that are interesting and attractive to younger players. Young players are the ones who are constantly striving to experiment with new approaches. They are the ones who quit in disgust when they are forced to abide by the "conventional wisdom". I agree with Hamman that bridge is at a cross roads. Where we differ are the steps that are necessary to "save" the game. I believe that the best approach is to recognize that bridge is going to be relegated to a niche market. We will never relive the days in which the Culbertson - Lenz was front page news. However, we can take steps to ensure that bridge is able to make a soft landing and continue with a smaller, self sustaining membership base. The true problem that we are graplling with is that the world of bridge is dominated by individuals who have a strong vested interested in ensuring that the game continues as a mass market eentertainment form since their own livilyhood and their cushy perks depend on this. These individuals are interested in doing whatever they can in the short term, with little to no consideration for the long term. Many of these same individuals have a strong vested interest in ensuring that anything that threatens the "status quo" is supressed. If, as you surmise, the ACBL administration is reading this list, I would love to see the ACBL [or any of the Zonal Authorities] post two pieces of information. First, I would like to see a histogram of the ACBL membership sorted by age. Second, I would like to see the the change in average age of the ACBL membership over time. >From this, it should be relatively easily to predict how many years we have left before falling off the cliff. My guess is that we have 5 years before the we start to experience a catastrophic collapse in the membership rolls due to age and infirmity. As a relatively young player [mid thirties], my main interest is trying to ensure that there is something left after the apocalypse. > It is a rather complex problem, but I agree > with those who try to find solutions based on making > the sport more accessible. That should be done wisely and > without bias of > course. Try to see your experiences > as incidents. I know that ACBL administrators are reading > these postings. > Who knows? > > ton > > > > Do you know that other authorities have tried > > > to give weights to conventions putting a total > > > weight-limit to systems and do you know that > > > for example the WBF has forbidden some categories > > > of agreements in certain events? > > > > I am well aware of these methods. [Given that some of my favorite > > partners are from Sweden, it would be hard not to be aware of > > weight or > > point based mechanisms to regulate system.] > > > > > In my opinion there are no fundamental differences > > > between those approaches all having the intention > > > to make bridge better playable and more attractive > > > under certain circumstances. > > > > To me, at least, the major difference is that the > regulatory structure > > that was created in Sweden is an open and honest effort to > > deal with the > > issue of system regulation. An attempt to regulate systems > > proliferation through regulations defining the convention cards is > > disingenuous at best. It suggests that a set of regulators with a > > specific agenda knew that they would not be able advance > their agenda > > directly and decided to make an end run around the system. > > > > > It doesn't sound that humble, but reading it I > > > agree that we should take it as humble. What did > > > authorities do to you in the last decades? Grattan > > > mentioned (at least) one international authority and you > > > explode. > > > > You surmise [correctly] that Grattan's email has pushed one of my > > buttons. > > > > Recently, the ACBL instituted a new convention regulation structure > > based on the concept of a "Defense Database". Players who > want to use > > methods that are banned at the GCC level but sanctioned at > > the MidChart > > Level have the obligation to submit a recommended defense > to the ACBL > > Conventions Committee. Until the Conventions Committee approves a > > recommended defense and posts this defense to the Defense Database, > > players are not able to use the method in question. > > > > The basic idea behind this mechanism is highly laudable. I agree > > completely that players have an obligation to full disclosure of > > methods. And, it is perfectly reasonable to expect that > players will > > provide their opponents with appropriate defenses to > > unfamiliar methods. > > > > Unfortunately, in practice this new set of regulations is > > being used as > > a tool by which individual members of the Convention > > Committee are able > > to ban methods that are clearly sanctioned at the Midchart > > Level simply > > by refusing to approve defenses in a timely manner. During the ACBL > > summer Nationals, I was forced to radically redesign half my bidding > > system at the last minute when the ACBL Convention > Committee abruptly > > reversed itself. > > > > To date, I have seen a grand total of one new defense > > sanctioned by the > > Conventions Committee and after 6 months that defense still > > hasn't made > > its way onto the ACBL web site. In contrast, I have seen any > > number of > > arguments that relatively innocuous methods should be banned at all > > levels of competition within the ACBL. For example, Ekrens style > > preempts have been ruled to be an inherently destructive > > method can not > > be used in any type of ACBL competition. I saw the same authorities > > with the same agenda arguing that transfer opening bids in a 4 card > > major system [1D = Hearts, 1H = Spades] were also inherently > > destructive > > and needed to be banned. > > > > What has annoyed me more than anything else is the fact that > > individual > > members of the Convention Committee managed to turn what should have > > been an extremely useful tool to help provide full disclosure > > of methods > > into a modern day equivalent of the "Doomsday Book". [First > > we'll force > > everyone to register, and then we have them by the balls] > > > > >> If the "Spirit of the Laws" have no meaning for > > >> the authorities, why should they matter to the players? > > > > > Indeed, but your premise is wrong: for these > > > authorities the spirit of the laws means a lot. > > > I agree I can only talk about those authorities I know of. > > > But there are more than a few and from all over the world. > > > > Try playing in the ACBL sometime. > > > > Here, the right to psyche is reserved for Zia. > > The right to play new conventions is reserved for George Rosencranz. > > [This might be a little inaccurate. I'm sure the ACBL is equal > > opportunity in terms of accepting large sums of money in return for > > licensing conventions] > > > > > -- > ============================================================== > ========== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 12 05:05:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0BI2mW28188 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 05:02:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tvout.mail.uk.easynet.net (tvout.mail.uk.easynet.net [194.6.96.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0BI2dH28162 for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 05:02:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-14-5.easynet.co.uk [212.134.24.5]) by tvout.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id D6801630C7 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 17:54:24 +0000 (GMT) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Alerting principles (was: A question of the English) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 17:51:31 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Alain Gottcheiner writes: >> Brambledown wrote: >>> Steve Willner writes >>>> Brambledown wrote: >>>> merely that (on any basis they wished) they pick a meaning which >>>> a call will be taken to mean if unalerted. >>> I think one concern may be that 'a meaning' is singular. >> I believe that we *should* be striving to avoid two distinct >> meanings for an unalerted bid. >> We have all encountered this sort of thing: >> "1C" (no alert). LHO (holding clubs and in tone of surprise) "Natural?" > AG : no need to change the alert rules to care for this. Just apply L16 as > is fit. LHO, not the rules, is responsible for the incorrection. Quite so, but prevention is better than cure. Players know that in general there is rarely any need to ask questions about an unalerted bid. This will only work if its meaning is mandated. Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 12 10:26:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0BNQ2815976 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 10:26:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0BNPrH15953 for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 10:25:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g0BMa9e07138 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 14:36:09 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <004f01c19af0$48b5ff40$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200201111621.LAA18143@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 14:25:55 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Steve Willner" . > > The thing is, these examples follow a long history in the ACBL. > Convention regulation here has been at best quirky for a long time. > > In recent days, BLML has had similar threads dealing with stop card > rules and with bid box rules. Here in the ACBL, the real rules are not > necessarily the ones that are written down. > > While our local problems are perhaps of little interest in the rest of > the world, they may inject a note of caution for other jurisdictions. > If you want to regulate or forbid something, go ahead, but I recommend > you be clear, honest, and direct about what you are doing. And let TDs have some say in the development of regulations that they have to enforce. It's pointless to pass unenforceable rules. ACBL TDs tell me that it's not feasible for them to enforce current ACBL regulations. Their common argument is that doing so would not only alienate players, but also is too much of a burden for them. Whether that argument is valid or not, the rulemakers should take it into account. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 12 10:29:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0BNSrL16477 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 10:28:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0BNSiH16450 for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 10:28:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g0BIH5e07414 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 10:17:05 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <001601c19acc$28acbe60$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 41D Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 10:14:47 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven wrote: > > Law41D requires dummy to spread his cards sorted > into suits with the trumps to his right, but there is no rule > (except for the trumps) on the ordering of the suits. Danny Kleinman has suggestions for placing dummy's cards: If a weak partner is playing notrump, put down the suit led last, giving declarer time to think about the other suits. Do not put a suit bid by partner on the right, lest s/he forget the contract is notrump. If a strong partner is playing notrump, put down the suit led first, perhaps causing third hand to play without thinking. Put a suit bid by partner on the right, perhaps causing an opponent to lead "trumps" during the play. Always put down a dummy that partner expects, which may require putting a card into the wrong suit You don't want partner to be distracted by questioning your bidding. If partner is weak, make sure s/he spots the mistake by inserting a card that duplicates a rank, as it is better not to correct the "mistake" yourself. If partner is the excitable type, put down the best part of your hand first (e.g., five little clubs after passing a 1C opening). Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 12 10:55:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0BNtHB21088 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 10:55:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0BNt9H21071 for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 10:55:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g0BN6Ke17330 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 15:06:20 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <005f01c19af4$7cbf63e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <002f01c19ad6$3a7af4e0$7d04e080@isi.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 15:01:41 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Richard Willey" > Ton wrote: > Bridge's glory, its competitive advantage over other forms or > recreation, is the complexity of the game. Remove this from the > equation and you destroy the attraction of the game altogether. Make it too complex and you destroy the attraction of the game. The heyday of duplicate bridge, the late 40s, 50s, and early 60s, came when there were few complex conventions and people could pick up the game easily. Mastering it was difficult, requiring good judgment in bidding and skillful card play, but people could enjoy the game without making it a scientific endeavor. > > The sooner that the authorities abandon the notion that bridge should be > a mass market form of entertainment, the better it will be for the game. For your game, yes. You want a tight little group of cryptoanalysts playing an esoteric game that is unattractive to the majority of actual and potential bridge players. > > Hamman predicted bridge to be a dying sport, not attracting > > younger people. > > And Hamman's answer is to eliminate those portions of the game that are > interesting and attractive to younger players. His answer is to eliminate those portions of the game that most young people find uninteresting and unattractive. The "younger players" to whom you refer are a small minority who are in the game now and want it to be even more complex. Ignored are the host of potential players who are turned away by a complexity that makes the game more work than fun. Also ignored are those who play in non-sanctioned duplicate games, without conventions cards but with great enjoyment. In San Diego their number far exceeds that of players in ACBL games. > Young players are the > ones who are constantly striving to experiment with new approaches. > They are the ones who quit in disgust when they are forced to abide by > the "conventional wisdom". And there are many times as many who do not try the game because it has become too complex. There are three basic elements in the game of bridge: bidding, play of the hand, and defense. As with any game, the basic elements should be balanced for maximum enjoyment. When either offense or defense starts dominating in American football or basketball, the rules are modified to bring them back in balance. In bridge the element of bidding has come to dominate excessively. This has led to the non-bridge necessity of permitting the consultation of notes during the auction. Pretty soon everyone will have to play with a laptop at hand. It is obvious that the ACBL is trying to make everyone happy, an impossibility. I advocate a two-tier ACBL, one for those who enjoy an esoteric game of cryptoanalysis, and one for those who just want to play a balanced card game without having to devote the major part of their lives to it, or having to find a full-time partner with whom to develop bidding codes. Don't cite the failure of Classic Bridge, which was poorly conceived and poorly implemented. (snip) > First, I would like to see a histogram of the ACBL membership sorted by > age. A more interesting histogram would be the superimposition of membership numbers and complexity of conventions allowed. It would be obvious that the two have a negative correlation. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 12 10:56:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0BNuPi21228 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 10:56:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0BNu9H21197 for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 10:56:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16PASA-000Cfc-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 22:47:18 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 18:33:33 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. References: <001c01c199f7$e270ce20$d844e150@pacific> <001f01c19abf$44c55a60$7d04e080@isi.com> In-Reply-To: <001f01c19abf$44c55a60$7d04e080@isi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Richard Willey writes >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au >> [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of Grattan Endicott >> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 4:11 AM >> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au >> Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. > >> +=+ It was certainly the case during the late eighties >> that at least one international authority decided upon >> a technique of limiting the number of conventions >> a partnership could play by limiting the permitted >> space in which disclosure could be made. ~ G ~ +=+ > >In my humble opinion, this type of gamesmanship by the regulating >authorities is one of the most destructive things that can possibly >happen in any jurisdiction. > >I understand the temptation on the part of the regulatory bodies to >sneak additional regulations in through the backdoor. However, it is >important to recognize that the main effect that this type of activity >has is to destroy any powers of moral suasion that the regulatory >authority might once have been able to exert. > >If I observe that the regulators are [essentially] twisting the rules to >achieve their own ends, I am free to retaliate in kind; seizing on any >loophole, ambiguity, or flaw in the regulations to ensure I can do >whatever I feel like. > >If the "Spirit of the Laws" have no meaning for the authorities, why >should they matter to the players? It would be nice to play a game here. If it is in the best interest of the players to produce certain regs, then perhaps that improves the game? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 12 10:56:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0BNuSX21231 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 10:56:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0BNuBH21201 for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 10:56:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16PASA-000Cfe-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 22:47:22 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 18:44:51 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] The final pass? References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020109143112.024601c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <006301c19912$a4844f00$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> <32hcs7Dk2IP8Ew0V@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <003c01c199b9$04c6a010$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> <002701c19a00$c3923120$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <002701c19a00$c3923120$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes >My experience in ACBL-land has been the same, from club games to NABC+ >events. The warning is not mandatory, and players are told to hesitate >for 10 seconds over any jump bid, warning or no warning. I think we have demonstrated recently that the warning is mandatory [except in clubs which do not use it]. But if regs are ignored then of course you have not solved the problem the reg is meant to solve. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 12 10:56:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0BNuVD21236 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 10:56:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0BNuDH21207 for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 10:56:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16PASA-000Cfd-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 22:47:22 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 18:40:39 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Brian Meadows writes >On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 02:36:27 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > > > > >> Goodness, no. And obviously when playing two boards against you only >>a damn fool would want to limit the amount we have to read before we can >>start play. >> > >> >> Extremely helpful in making sure that two boards are played in fifteen >>minutes. But only a damn fool would think otherwise. >> > >All right, David, as the originator of the "damn silly" comment, >I will ask you a simple question. How is an ordinary player under >EBU jurisdiction to balance the requirement for full disclosure >against the problem you imply above of giving opps too much to >read at the start of the round? I do not know the theoretical answer, though I do not see it is anything to do with the EBU. Full disclosure, taken to its theoretical conclusion, makes the pairs game unplayable with complex agreements. In practice most authorities have a variety of solutions to this in practice. For example, in the ABF and the ACBL, Full disclosure is not expected at all. In the EBU we make a greater effort towards Full disclosure. In the EBU and the ACBL, part of the solution to the problem is to limit what people may play. Of course, people also scream at that. If you allow everything as certain people say authorities should, and require Full disclosure in advance, you have an unplayable game. If you adopt a practical approach, watering down as necessary in various ways, you get a playable game. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 12 10:56:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0BNuXF21240 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 10:56:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0BNuFH21214 for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 10:56:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16PASA-000Cfb-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 22:47:18 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 18:31:30 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Alerting principles (was: A question of the English) References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Brambledown writes >> David Stevenson writes: > >>> Brambledown writes >>> I see no reason why there should be what you term anomalies. >>> The EBU decides (say) that an unalerted 1N - 2C/D/H/S should >>> be natural and NF (this is consistent with their approach) - >>> any other meaning is alertable - WTP? > >> That is a very complex method. > >*That* is very complex?? Producing examples of something different hardly proves anything. It is a very complex method to produce lists of exceptions to simple rules to eliminate anomalies - and showing other rules does not negate that statement in any way. [s] >> Should we list *every* sequence? >No, you don't list every sequence, you devise "rules" and as "simple is >good" you have as few exceptions as possible. The EBU approach may be >simple but it still requires two pages OB 5.3.1 (a)-(e), OB 5.4.1(a)-(h), OB >5.4.2 (a)-(d), OB 5.4.3(a)-(g) and OB 5.4.4(a)-(j) of examples and >clarifications to illustrate the "simple rules". > >Please don't misunderstand me, I think a terrific job has been done >producing the Orange Book and IMO we're lucky to have it. Neither am I >unhappy in general with the approach to alerting. However, to imply that >three simple rules are all that is needed for its operation is a gross >misrepresentation. There are three rules - I am not aware I said simple. The fact that we see fit to give examples does not negate this. If we put lots of exceptions with the rules it will be more complex. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 12 11:29:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0C0THH26134 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 11:29:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0C0T8H26117 for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 11:29:09 +1100 (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 TAA27520 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 19:20:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA18788 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 19:20:55 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 19:20:55 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200201120020.TAA18788@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > I advocate a two-tier ACBL, one for those who enjoy an > esoteric game of cryptoanalysis, and one for those who just want to > play a balanced card game without having to devote the major part of > their lives to it, Isn't that what the various levels of convention chart are supposed to accomplish? I don't see why only two levels are the correct number, although in practice two seem to be adequate for the vast majority of competitions. (We have GCC and MidChart; the EBU has levels 3 and 4. I'm not sure about other jurisdictions except that Australia allows everything. :-) ) > From: David Stevenson > If you allow everything as certain people say authorities should, and > require Full disclosure in advance, Isn't this a description of the World Championships? > you have an unplayable game. I think you meant "cumbersome" or "complex" or something along those lines. I agree it is not suitable for ordinary games. It helps a lot if the rules about what is allowed and what isn't are logically thought out, not a hodgepodge. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 12 12:06:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0C16aV01667 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 12:06:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtpc.ha-net.ptd.net (smtpc.ha-net.ptd.net [207.44.96.83]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g0C16RH01640 for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 12:06:28 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 17065 invoked by uid 50005); 12 Jan 2002 00:58:11 -0000 Received: from brian@wellsborocomputing.com by smtpc with qmail-scanner-1.00 (uvscan: v4.1.60/v4179. . Clean. Processed in 1.055884 secs); 12 Jan 2002 00:58:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wellscs) ([24.229.41.52]) (envelope-sender ) by smtpc.ha-net.ptd.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 12 Jan 2002 00:58:10 -0000 From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 19:58:18 -0500 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: <0u0v3u85ooojbtaqjj9i2psor02l9mcsnj@4ax.com> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 18:40:39 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > > I do not know the theoretical answer, though I do not see it is >anything to do with the EBU. I specified the EBU in my example solely because it's the body with whose regulations I'm most familiar, and presumably you would say the same. >Full disclosure, taken to its theoretical >conclusion, makes the pairs game unplayable with complex agreements. > > In practice most authorities have a variety of solutions to this in >practice. For example, in the ABF and the ACBL, Full disclosure is not >expected at all. In the EBU we make a greater effort towards Full >disclosure. > > In the EBU and the ACBL, part of the solution to the problem is to >limit what people may play. Of course, people also scream at that. > People certainly scream when they perceive the distinctions as being arbitrary, or (whether intentionally or unintentionally) users of one bidding system appear to be placed at a disadvantage compared to users of a different bidding system. I'll plead guilty to having done my fair share of the screaming. > If you allow everything as certain people say authorities should, and >require Full disclosure in advance, you have an unplayable game. If you >adopt a practical approach, watering down as necessary in various ways, >you get a playable game. > And it's this "watering down as necessary in various ways" that seems to me to be wrong. If we are going to have regulation of systems, let us have the bodies doing the regulating do so plainly and openly, not by backhanded and backdoor methods. To return to Grattan's response to my original posting, can you really regard it as making the game "playable" for the maximum number of conventions that a pair can play to be primarily controlled by the size of their handwriting? To be honest, this idea beggars belief - how many pairs are likely to have said "Oh, we've filled in the space on our CC, that means we can't play any more gadgets."? In 99% of the cases, I suggest that what would have happened would be that pairs would have filled in the gadgets that they believed would come up the most often, and left the rest off the card "We'll alert and explain those as and when they come up". At the risk of repeating myself, if an NCBO/ZA/whatever decides to regulate the number of conventions a pair can play, then let it do so openly, producing a list of conventions in much the manner as used to be in the EBU Yellow book, before the days of the blanket licences, and then say to its players "You may play at most 'N' of the conventions on this list". Bridge regulatory authorities expect honesty and openness from the overwhelming majority of their members. Is it too much to ask for the same in return? If your answer is that there would be too many objections to the sort of procedures I describe, then maybe that should be cause to re-think the advisability of introducing such restrictions in the first place, rather than trying to impose them via a backdoor method. Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 12 12:23:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0C1Nhx04012 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 12:23:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtpf.ha-net.ptd.net (smtpf.ha-net.ptd.net [207.44.96.86]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g0C1NXH03982 for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 12:23:34 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 2705 invoked by uid 50005); 12 Jan 2002 01:15:18 -0000 Received: from brian@wellsborocomputing.com by smtpf with qmail-scanner-1.00 (uvscan: v4.1.60/v4179. . Clean. Processed in 4.093247 secs); 12 Jan 2002 01:15:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wellscs) ([24.229.41.52]) (envelope-sender ) by smtpf.ha-net.ptd.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 12 Jan 2002 01:15:12 -0000 From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 20:15:20 -0500 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: References: <002f01c19ad6$3a7af4e0$7d04e080@isi.com> <005f01c19af4$7cbf63e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <005f01c19af4$7cbf63e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 15:01:41 -0800, Marvin French wrote: >This has led to the non-bridge necessity >of permitting the consultation of notes during the auction. > Something which is certainly not recognised as a "necessity" by every NCBO. >> First, I would like to see a histogram of the ACBL membership sorted >by >> age. > >A more interesting histogram would be the superimposition of >membership numbers and complexity of conventions allowed. It would be >obvious that the two have a negative correlation. > It would also be a classic example of "lies, damned lies and statistics". What you have to realise, Marv, is that in the heyday of bridge, back when you learned the game, there were *FAR* less alternative pastimes than there are today. Any chart that doesn't take that factor into account is fundamentally flawed, IMHO. If you want to produce simplistic charts, then equally "interesting" ones would be to superimpose the membership trends of various NCBOs with widely differing policies on convention regulation - map out the membership trends of the ACBL against those of Australia and New Zealand, for example. I think you might find some correlations there, too. Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 12 13:30:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0C2TaE13619 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 13:29:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.mailstart.com (mail.mailstart.com [207.231.76.67]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0C2TSH13601 for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 13:29:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from muave [207.231.76.117] by mail.mailstart.com (SMTPD32-5.05) id AD9A5B7A00EA; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 18:21:14 -0800 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: From: "David Burn" Subject: [BLML] One at a time Message-Id: <11010211.66075@webbox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 18:21:17 -0800 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Your hand, not vulnerable against vulnerable, is: QJ1094 J4 None AQ9632 Your partner opens 1C (four cards or more unless specifically 4-3-3-3 with 15+ hcp - you are playing four-card suits, weak no trump, Acol as your grandmother would know it). RHO overcalls 2C, alerted by LHO and explained on your request as showing the majors). What call do you make? David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 12 19:40:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0C8d8m26178 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 19:39:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat40.alcanet.no [193.213.239.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0C8cwH26154 for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 19:38:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from netos70.alcatel.no (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with ESMTP id g0C8Ubw15473; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 09:30:37 +0100 Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time To: "David Burn" Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 09:30:35 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NOMAIL01/NO/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 01/12/2002 09:30:37 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Excuse me - is this a matter for BLML? If so - I must have mistaken the purpose of BLML. No offence intended, but I'm surprised regards Sven "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Sent by: cc: owner-bridge-laws@rgb. Subject: [BLML] One at a time anu.edu.au 2002-01-12 03:21 Your hand, not vulnerable against vulnerable, is: QJ1094 J4 None AQ9632 Your partner opens 1C (four cards or more unless specifically 4-3-3-3 with 15+ hcp - you are playing four-card suits, weak no trump, Acol as your grandmother would know it). RHO overcalls 2C, alerted by LHO and explained on your request as showing the majors). What call do you make? David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 12 21:37:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0CAalA16004 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 21:36:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (mta01-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0CAadH15991 for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 21:36:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from anne ([62.255.16.232]) by mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020112102824.TFVX9422.mta01-svc.ntlworld.com@anne> for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 10:28:24 +0000 Message-ID: <002d01c19b53$d420e140$e810ff3e@jones1> Reply-To: "Anne Jones" From: "Anne Jones" To: "blml" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 10:28:07 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I bet it will be Sven. Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "David Burn" Cc: Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2002 8:30 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time > > Excuse me - is this a matter for BLML? > If so - I must have mistaken the purpose of BLML. > > No offence intended, but I'm surprised > > regards Sven > > > > > "David Burn" > To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Sent by: cc: > owner-bridge-laws@rgb. Subject: [BLML] One at a time > anu.edu.au > > > 2002-01-12 03:21 > > > > > > > > Your hand, not vulnerable against vulnerable, is: > > QJ1094 J4 None AQ9632 > > Your partner opens 1C (four cards or more unless specifically > 4-3-3-3 with 15+ hcp - you are playing four-card suits, weak > no trump, Acol as your grandmother would know it). RHO overcalls > 2C, alerted by LHO and explained on your request as showing the > majors). What call do you make? > > David Burn > London, England > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 12 23:56:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0CCu8o12354 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 23:56:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ns1.telekom.ru (root@ns1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.83]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0CCtxH12338 for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 23:55:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from elnet.msk.ru (h203.50.elnet.msk.ru [195.58.50.203]) by ns1.telekom.ru (8.12.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id g0CCle5B024519 for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 15:47:41 +0300 Message-ID: <3C403212.F277DCB4@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 15:54:42 +0300 From: vitold X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [ru] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time References: <3C4000C2.6052D952@elnet.msk.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi all:) But why such a question cannot be presented in BLML? As we know - David has lots of interesting thoughts and ideas:) My bid: 4 Diamonds as Splinter. Am rather aggressive bidder Vitold -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 13 02:07:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0CF6Sb03917 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 02:06:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0CF6LH03913 for ; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 02:06:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from freenet10.carleton.ca (freenet10 [134.117.136.30]) by freenet.carleton.ca (8.11.6/8.11.6/NCF_f1_v3.03) with ESMTP id g0CEw4611922 for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 09:58:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet10.carleton.ca (8.9.3+Sun/NCF-Sun-Client) id JAA06312; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 09:58:05 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 09:58:05 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200201121458.JAA06312@freenet10.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >Hi all:) >But why such a question cannot be presented in BLML? >As we know - David has lots of interesting thoughts and ideas:) >My bid: 4 Diamonds as Splinter. Am rather aggressive bidder >Vitold > Sorry, Vitold, but I don't think this is right. David B. said old fashioned Acol, therefore no splinters. Therefore, I "feel" like bidding 5C. A ruling question? Let me guess: either I hesitated before bidding 5C (would pass by pard be an LA) or 2C was *not* michaels, and the MI caused us to miss our 5-4 spade fit. Tony (aka ac342) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 13 05:26:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0CIQ0c15974 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 05:26:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0CIPqH15954 for ; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 05:25:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from penguin.ripe.net (penguin.ripe.net [193.0.1.232]) by birch.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g0CIHXi04842; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 19:17:33 +0100 Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by penguin.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g0CIHXD11525; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 19:17:33 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: penguin.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 19:17:33 +0100 (CET) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: David Burn cc: Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time In-Reply-To: <11010211.66075@webbox.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Fri, 11 Jan 2002, David Burn wrote: > > Your hand, not vulnerable against vulnerable, is: > > QJ1094 J4 None AQ9632 > > Your partner opens 1C (four cards or more unless specifically > 4-3-3-3 with 15+ hcp - you are playing four-card suits, weak > no trump, Acol as your grandmother would know it). RHO overcalls > 2C, alerted by LHO and explained on your request as showing the > majors). What call do you make? 2H or 2S, whatever we play as a good club raise. (OK, so my grandmother doesn't know this bid, but then again, she didn't know Acol either). Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 13 10:09:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0CN8sQ05864 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 10:08:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carno.brus.online.be (carno.brus.online.be [194.88.127.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0CN8jH05839 for ; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 10:08:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from a05-206.antw.online.be ([62.112.6.206] helo=norbertf) by carno.brus.online.be with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 16PX8W-00034x-00; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 00:00:28 +0100 From: "Norbert Fornoville" To: "David Burn" Cc: Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 23:56:08 +0100 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 Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk It seems that LHO as a lot of diamonds (6+) and hearths; they seem to have atleast game in the red suits. I don't give LHO time to bid his hand. RHO could also have 2 or more diamonds => I'll bid a modest 6 clubs.. prepared to take the blame as usual. :-) Norbert Fornoville nf@glo.be ---------- > From: David Burn > To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Subject: [BLML] One at a time > Date: zaterdag 12 januari 2002 3:21 > > > Your hand, not vulnerable against vulnerable, is: > > QJ1094 J4 None AQ9632 > > Your partner opens 1C (four cards or more unless specifically > 4-3-3-3 with 15+ hcp - you are playing four-card suits, weak > no trump, Acol as your grandmother would know it). RHO overcalls > 2C, alerted by LHO and explained on your request as showing the > majors). What call do you make? > > David Burn > London, England > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 13 10:20:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0CNKgU07633 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 10:20:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0CNKYH07615 for ; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 10:20:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g0CNCJW20674 for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 15:12:19 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <002101c19bbe$6ab4a640$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: [BLML] Law Quiz Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 15:02:30 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I tried the following quiz that I found on David Stevenson's website: The Laws Quiz Test your knowledge of the [ACBL] Laws by Morris Jones and Gary Porter Got 24 out of 25, but I think there was a wrong answer for Question 10: 10. During the play, declarer or either defender may ask for an explanation of an opponent's bid. Answer: TRUE - In addition, explanation of defender's signals can also be obtained at any time during the play. (Law 20F2.) So I look at L20F2 and it says: After the final pass and throughout the play period, either defender at his own turn to play may request an explanation of opposing auction. At his or dummy's turn to play, the declarer may request an explanation of an opponent's call or card play conventions. Therefore, Mr. Jones and Mr. Porter, defenders do not have the right that declarer has to question an individual call. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 13 11:25:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0D0OZs20628 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 11:24:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0D0OPH20593 for ; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 11:24:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.36.230] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16PYG7-000Clw-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 00:12:23 +0000 Message-ID: <001801c19bc7$c9d59720$e624e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" References: <0u0v3u85ooojbtaqjj9i2psor02l9mcsnj@4ax.com> Subject: [BLML] The heat of the kitchen (was A question of the English.) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 00:15:34 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2002 12:58 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. >> To return to Grattan's response to my original > posting, can you really regard it as making the > game "playable" for the maximum number of > conventions that a pair can play to be primarily > controlled by the size of their handwriting? > +=+ Well, it was about 40% of the way through this chain; much had gone before. The method was pretty fatuous and it gave way to System Policies. The WBF and the EBL Systems Policies only 'allow anything' in Category 1 events, being only the Bermuda Bowl, Venice Cup, and the EBL competitions that qualify for these. They require full disclosure, assisting this by listing in the conventions booklet conventional agreements that may be listed on the CC without expanded explanations (if played as described in the booklet). Supplementary sheets are allowed in order to cater for the expanded explanations that are required to achieve full disclosure, and 'prior announcement' is well in advance of the events. Most events are Category 3 in which Brown Sticker agreements, for example, are forbidden. My own view is that the area that should be fully explained, as distinct from simply 'listed', on the CC should be defined by the measure of the need for opponents to prepare defences; I think the System Policies and the Orange Book etc. have been conditioned by some such concept and have groped their way towards that goal. It should be recognized that the current positions have been arrived at via a gradual development, trial and error, over many years. The technical committees that have evolved the controls, in the WBF, EBL, and the EBU, have been and are majority constituted of - but not wholly composed of - strong players. What they have produced does not smack to me of a regime that considers only the needs of the strong. This list tends to produce screams whenever we are discussing the exercise of controls over what may be played - they come from people, largely, who go on playing in the tournaments so regulated - not from those people in the main who decide to go and play unregulated games instead. Possibly we are in company here with numbers of the 'young in mind', some of whom have been around for a few years (and more) now, who would wish to have much greater freedom to advance their progressive ideas. Nothing wrong in that, but inevitably such people will always incline to protest - and so it should be, protest being the engine of progress - but in all things, good friends, 'progress' is and will be slow. And will in all things experience periods of regression. This is the human condition. We revert to the pace of the slowest, and that could just perhaps be a reflection of the compassionate nature of humankind. Perhaps. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 13 12:47:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0D1l8P06393 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 12:47:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0D1kqH06356 for ; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 12:46:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 16PZbV-000Ggb-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 01:38:37 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 00:43:34 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 41D References: <001601c19acc$28acbe60$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <001601c19acc$28acbe60$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes >Sven wrote: >> Law41D requires dummy to spread his cards sorted >> into suits with the trumps to his right, but there is no rule >> (except for the trumps) on the ordering of the suits. >Danny Kleinman has suggestions for placing dummy's cards: > >If a weak partner is playing notrump, put down the suit led last, >giving declarer time to think about the other suits. Do not put a suit >bid by partner on the right, lest s/he forget the contract is notrump. > >If a strong partner is playing notrump, put down the suit led first, >perhaps causing third hand to play without thinking. Put a suit bid by >partner on the right, perhaps causing an opponent to lead "trumps" >during the play. > >Always put down a dummy that partner expects, which may require >putting a card into the wrong suit That is illegal, of course. > You don't want partner to be >distracted by questioning your bidding. If partner is weak, make sure >s/he spots the mistake by inserting a card that duplicates a rank, as >it is better not to correct the "mistake" yourself. > >If partner is the excitable type, put down the best part of your hand >first (e.g., five little clubs after passing a 1C opening). A better rule is base don the fact that bridge is a partnership game: put down dummy in the way that partner likes, not as you think. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 13 12:47:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0D1lCT06401 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 12:47:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0D1kpH06354 for ; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 12:46:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 16PZbV-000Ggc-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 01:38:36 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 00:45:22 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven.Pran@alcatel.no writes > >Excuse me - is this a matter for BLML? >If so - I must have mistaken the purpose of BLML. > >No offence intended, but I'm surprised Patience, young Sven. I am sure all will be revealed soon. > "David Burn" >Your hand, not vulnerable against vulnerable, is: > >QJ1094 J4 None AQ9632 > >Your partner opens 1C (four cards or more unless specifically >4-3-3-3 with 15+ hcp - you are playing four-card suits, weak >no trump, Acol as your grandmother would know it). RHO overcalls >2C, alerted by LHO and explained on your request as showing the >majors). What call do you make? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 13 12:47:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0D1l6r06391 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 12:47:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0D1koH06352 for ; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 12:46:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 16PZbT-000Gga-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 01:38:35 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 00:39:12 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. References: <0u0v3u85ooojbtaqjj9i2psor02l9mcsnj@4ax.com> In-Reply-To: <0u0v3u85ooojbtaqjj9i2psor02l9mcsnj@4ax.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Brian Meadows writes >On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 18:40:39 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: >> If you allow everything as certain people say authorities should, >>and require Full disclosure in advance, you have an unplayable game. >>If you adopt a practical approach, watering down as necessary in >>various ways, you get a playable game. >And it's this "watering down as necessary in various ways" that >seems to me to be wrong. If we are going to have regulation of >systems, let us have the bodies doing the regulating do so >plainly and openly, not by backhanded and backdoor methods. So, limit the size of the CC. Why is this not open? >To return to Grattan's response to my original posting, can you >really regard it as making the game "playable" for the maximum >number of conventions that a pair can play to be primarily >controlled by the size of their handwriting? > >To be honest, this idea beggars belief - how many pairs are >likely to have said "Oh, we've filled in the space on our CC, >that means we can't play any more gadgets."? In 99% of the cases, >I suggest that what would have happened would be that pairs would >have filled in the gadgets that they believed would come up the >most often, and left the rest off the card "We'll alert and >explain those as and when they come up". Most people do not really aim to get around the regs but to follow them. Yes, I appreciate some people do not like to play to the spirit of the game, but they are in a minority. Limiting the complexity of system by the amount of CC seems a practical approach that would appeal to the majority. >At the risk of repeating myself, if an NCBO/ZA/whatever decides >to regulate the number of conventions a pair can play, then let >it do so openly, producing a list of conventions in much the >manner as used to be in the EBU Yellow book, before the days of >the blanket licences, and then say to its players "You may play >at most 'N' of the conventions on this list". The fact that you want something does not mean that a practical alternative is wrong. Also, your suggestion they are not "open" is strange: if the reg is to make the basis the amount they can fit in, what is not open about that? >Bridge regulatory authorities expect honesty and openness from >the overwhelming majority of their members. Is it too much to ask >for the same in return? If your answer is that there would be too >many objections to the sort of procedures I describe, then maybe >that should be cause to re-think the advisability of introducing >such restrictions in the first place, rather than trying to >impose them via a backdoor method. I do not see any lack of openness. If a reg says the limit is points [Sweden] or size of CC, what is the difference? I think you see something that is not there. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 13 13:13:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0D2DDH10068 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 13:13:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0D2D3H10053 for ; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 13:13:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g0D24lw08584 for ; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 02:04:47 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 02:02:43 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time References: <11010211.66075@webbox.com> In-Reply-To: <11010211.66075@webbox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <11010211.66075@webbox.com>, David Burn writes > >Your hand, not vulnerable against vulnerable, is: > >QJ1094 J4 None AQ9632 > >Your partner opens 1C (four cards or more unless specifically >4-3-3-3 with 15+ hcp - you are playing four-card suits, weak >no trump, Acol as your grandmother would know it). RHO overcalls >2C, alerted by LHO and explained on your request as showing the >majors). What call do you make? > >David Burn >London, England > > 4D, even my mother would know it agreed clubs. If not I'd shoot out 5C cheers john > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 13 15:53:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0D4qA105731 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 15:52:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0D4q2H05714 for ; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 15:52:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g0D4hlW03873 for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 20:43:47 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <002901c19bec$9788da00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <001601c19acc$28acbe60$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 41D Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 20:41:35 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "David Stevenson" > Marvin L. French writes > >Sven wrote: > > >> Law41D requires dummy to spread his cards sorted > >> into suits with the trumps to his right, but there is no rule > >> (except for the trumps) on the ordering of the suits. > > >Danny Kleinman has suggestions for placing dummy's cards: > > > >If a weak partner is playing notrump, put down the suit led last, > >giving declarer time to think about the other suits. Do not put a suit > >bid by partner on the right, lest s/he forget the contract is notrump. > > > >If a strong partner is playing notrump, put down the suit led first, > >perhaps causing third hand to play without thinking. Put a suit bid by > >partner on the right, perhaps causing an opponent to lead "trumps" > >during the play. > > > >Always put down a dummy that partner expects, which may require > >putting a card into the wrong suit > > That is illegal, of course. > > > You don't want partner to be > >distracted by questioning your bidding. If partner is weak, make sure > >s/he spots the mistake by inserting a card that duplicates a rank, as > >it is better not to correct the "mistake" yourself. > > > >If partner is the excitable type, put down the best part of your hand > >first (e.g., five little clubs after passing a 1C opening). > > A better rule is based on the fact that bridge is a partnership game: > put down dummy in the way that partner likes, not as you think. Whoops, I should have mentioned that Danny's tongue was in his cheek when he authored "Bridge for Dummies: The Advanced Course" in a very funny *Bridge World* article (Nov 2000), from which I extracted these ideas. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 13 20:42:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0D9eQm29910 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 20:40:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtpd.ha-net.ptd.net (smtpd.ha-net.ptd.net [207.44.96.84]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g0D9eGH29869 for ; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 20:40:16 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 15005 invoked by uid 50005); 13 Jan 2002 09:31:57 -0000 Received: from brian@wellsborocomputing.com by smtpd with qmail-scanner-1.00 (uvscan: v4.1.60/v4179. . Clean. Processed in 1.606095 secs); 13 Jan 2002 09:31:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wellscs) ([24.229.41.52]) (envelope-sender ) by smtpd.ha-net.ptd.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 13 Jan 2002 09:31:55 -0000 From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 04:32:01 -0500 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: References: <0u0v3u85ooojbtaqjj9i2psor02l9mcsnj@4ax.com> In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 00:39:12 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > >>And it's this "watering down as necessary in various ways" that >>seems to me to be wrong. If we are going to have regulation of >>systems, let us have the bodies doing the regulating do so >>plainly and openly, not by backhanded and backdoor methods. > > So, limit the size of the CC. Why is this not open? > It would have been open had the regulations said explicitly that the restriction on CC size was being used as a means of limiting the number of conventions, that a pair must make every effort to practice the fullest possible disclosure, and must not play anything that could not be fitted on the CC. That's my idea of openness. Let the membership know not only what you have decided, but WHY, and if saying why invokes a storm of protest, think again. >>To be honest, this idea beggars belief - how many pairs are >>likely to have said "Oh, we've filled in the space on our CC, >>that means we can't play any more gadgets."? In 99% of the cases, >>I suggest that what would have happened would be that pairs would >>have filled in the gadgets that they believed would come up the >>most often, and left the rest off the card "We'll alert and >>explain those as and when they come up". > > Most people do not really aim to get around the regs but to follow >them. In general, yes, I agree with you. In this one specific case, I think your view is overly optimistic. I think a pair will decide what they want to play, and then *usually* take disclosure as far as they can within the limits of what they can fit on the CC. I have seen FAR too many pairs that didn't fully disclose their methods with space still left on the CC to believe that size of CC will act as a limiting factor on a pair's system in the vast majority of cases. Now, let it be said that I am no-one's idea of an expert, just a decent player by the standards of *most* clubs (YC and the like excepted!) I doubt there was too much overlap, visits to Blundellsands excepted, between the sort of opponent I met up with and the sort of opponent DWS is used to meeting up with. I am just basing the above comment on personal experience, e.g. how many CCs have you seen with the section for two-level openers filled in with the single word 'Acol'? No mention of minimum defensive strength, no mention of whether 2D/2H/2S are absolute one-round forces or not, no mention of responses. As I said earlier in this thread, maybe Steve and myself took "full disclosure" more literally than was meant. I notice that a pair have allowed their CC to be published as an example in the Orange book, the CC seems to me to fall a considerable way short of what Steve and I would have regarded as full disclosure. I'll be happy to post (or e-mail you privately) a list of what I see as the shortcomings if asked. If you think that the CC is what's required by full disclosure, then I'm certainly of the opinion that Acol players are held to a far lower standard than those playing some other system, based on my personal experiences with TDs in a little over 20 years playing under EBU jurisdiction. > Limiting the complexity of >system by the amount of CC seems a practical approach that would appeal >to the majority. > Do you have any evidence for the second part of that assertion, i.e. its majority appeal? Until Grattan's posting, I've certainly never heard anyone in the EBU hierarchy say specifically that it was used as a device to limit conventions, let alone carry out any survey of a statistically significant size to gauge the measure's popularity. >>At the risk of repeating myself, if an NCBO/ZA/whatever decides >>to regulate the number of conventions a pair can play, then let >>it do so openly, producing a list of conventions in much the >>manner as used to be in the EBU Yellow book, before the days of >>the blanket licences, and then say to its players "You may play >>at most 'N' of the conventions on this list". > > The fact that you want something does not mean that a practical >alternative is wrong. No, but the same applies in reverse - the fact that the EBU, in whatever guise, may decide on something does not mean it is right, either. The basis of a discussion is that each side argues for its own opinions, and that's exactly what I'm doing here. >Also, your suggestion they are not "open" is >strange: if the reg is to make the basis the amount they can fit in, >what is not open about that? > I think I've already answered that. >>Bridge regulatory authorities expect honesty and openness from >>the overwhelming majority of their members. Is it too much to ask >>for the same in return? If your answer is that there would be too >>many objections to the sort of procedures I describe, then maybe >>that should be cause to re-think the advisability of introducing >>such restrictions in the first place, rather than trying to >>impose them via a backdoor method. > > I do not see any lack of openness. Once again, see comment above. >If a reg says the limit is points >[Sweden] or size of CC, what is the difference? To me, the difference is that I have this possibly rather idealistic belief that not only should restrictions and limits be as far as possible equal for all players, but also that the effect of factors which are not part of the game of bridge should be minimised as far as possible. I think that basing a limit on the size of a player's handwriting involves an extremely arbitrary factor which should not be part of the game of bridge. You might just as well let a pair play an additional couple of conventions for each year of partnership experience that they have. I'm not familiar with the Swedish points system that you describe, but if it's something along the lines of what I suggested in an earlier posting, then I think that is one *hell* of a lot fairer to all than the size of CC approach. >I think you see >something that is not there. > That's a matter of opinion. Certainly we appear to have radically different ideas of what constitutes openness. What seems to be a little less intangible is our respective views on the approaches used to limit conventions. If there's one thing in your posting that seems totally wrong to me, it's that there's no difference between the EBU and Swedish approaches, assuming I've correctly guessed what the 'Swedish points system" involves. I don't think size of handwriting has any part to play in the game of bridge, any more than I'd be in favour of (deliberately silly example) doubling the size of the convention card for left-handed players. Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 13 22:38:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0DBcWx20430 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 22:38:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0DBcOH20426 for ; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 22:38:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from host217-35-16-87.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([217.35.16.87]) by tungsten.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16Pipo-00070W-00; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 11:29:57 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: gordonrainsford@mail.btinternet.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <11010211.66075@webbox.com> Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 11:29:27 +0000 To: "John (MadDog) Probst" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Gordon Rainsford Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 2:02 am +0000 13/1/02, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >In article <11010211.66075@webbox.com>, David Burn > writes >> >>Your hand, not vulnerable against vulnerable, is: >> >>QJ1094 J4 None AQ9632 >> >>Your partner opens 1C (four cards or more unless specifically >>4-3-3-3 with 15+ hcp - you are playing four-card suits, weak >>no trump, Acol as your grandmother would know it). RHO overcalls >>2C, alerted by LHO and explained on your request as showing the >>majors). What call do you make? >> >>David Burn >>London, England >> >> >4D, even my mother would know it agreed clubs. If not I'd shoot out 5C > >cheers john >> If she knew it agreed clubs, she'd probably think it showed diamond length, not shortage. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 13 22:50:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0DBnxc20448 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 22:49:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ns1.telekom.ru (root@ns1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.83]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0DBnpH20444 for ; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 22:49:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from elnet.msk.ru (h82.50.elnet.msk.ru [195.58.50.82]) by ns1.telekom.ru (8.12.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id g0DBdkYj002833; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 14:39:56 +0300 Message-ID: <3C4173A9.EBDB5DA8@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 14:46:50 +0300 From: vitold X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [ru] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gordon Rainsford CC: "John (MadDog) Probst" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time References: <11010211.66075@webbox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Gordon Rainsford ÐÉÛÅÔ: > > If she knew it agreed clubs, she'd probably think it showed diamond > length, not shortage. > -- > > Gordon Rainsford > London UK OK - but even in this case 4D did show the best opening lead against possible Hearts contract:)) Regads Vitold -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 13 23:34:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0DCY4h25873 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 23:34:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0DCXtH25856 for ; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 23:33:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.60.238] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16Pje0-0000Dm-00; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 12:21:50 +0000 Message-ID: <001e01c19c2d$b08a4e80$7555e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "vitold" , "Gordon Rainsford" Cc: "John \(MadDog\) Probst" , References: <11010211.66075@webbox.com> <3C4173A9.EBDB5DA8@elnet.msk.ru> Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 12:26:09 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "Gordon Rainsford" Cc: "John (MadDog) Probst" ; Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 11:46 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time > Hi all:) > > Gordon Rainsford ÐÉÛÅÔ: > > > > > If she knew it agreed clubs, she'd probably think it showed diamond > > length, not shortage. > > -- > > > > Gordon Rainsford > > London UK > > OK - but even in this case 4D did show the best opening lead against > possible Hearts contract:)) > Regads > Vitold > +=+ Given the remarkable absence of diamonds in this deck of cards I suspect that 'majors' will turn out to be 'reds'; I am still thinking, after twenty minutes, how best to capitalize on this suspicion. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 14 04:38:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0DHamZ01450 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 04:36:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0DHacH01446 for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 04:36:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g0DHSMw12388 for ; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 17:28:22 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 17:24:53 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. References: <0u0v3u85ooojbtaqjj9i2psor02l9mcsnj@4ax.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes >Brian Meadows writes >>On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 18:40:39 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > >>> If you allow everything as certain people say authorities should, >>>and require Full disclosure in advance, you have an unplayable game. >>>If you adopt a practical approach, watering down as necessary in >>>various ways, you get a playable game. > >>And it's this "watering down as necessary in various ways" that >>seems to me to be wrong. If we are going to have regulation of >>systems, let us have the bodies doing the regulating do so >>plainly and openly, not by backhanded and backdoor methods. > > So, limit the size of the CC. Why is this not open? > >>To return to Grattan's response to my original posting, can you >>really regard it as making the game "playable" for the maximum >>number of conventions that a pair can play to be primarily >>controlled by the size of their handwriting? >> >>To be honest, this idea beggars belief - how many pairs are >>likely to have said "Oh, we've filled in the space on our CC, >>that means we can't play any more gadgets."? In 99% of the cases, >>I suggest that what would have happened would be that pairs would >>have filled in the gadgets that they believed would come up the >>most often, and left the rest off the card "We'll alert and >>explain those as and when they come up". > > Most people do not really aim to get around the regs but to follow >them. Yes, I appreciate some people do not like to play to the spirit >of the game, but they are in a minority. Limiting the complexity of >system by the amount of CC seems a practical approach that would appeal >to the majority. > >>At the risk of repeating myself, if an NCBO/ZA/whatever decides >>to regulate the number of conventions a pair can play, then let >>it do so openly, producing a list of conventions in much the >>manner as used to be in the EBU Yellow book, before the days of >>the blanket licences, and then say to its players "You may play >>at most 'N' of the conventions on this list". > > The fact that you want something does not mean that a practical >alternative is wrong. Also, your suggestion they are not "open" is >strange: if the reg is to make the basis the amount they can fit in, >what is not open about that? > >>Bridge regulatory authorities expect honesty and openness from >>the overwhelming majority of their members. Is it too much to ask >>for the same in return? If your answer is that there would be too >>many objections to the sort of procedures I describe, then maybe >>that should be cause to re-think the advisability of introducing >>such restrictions in the first place, rather than trying to >>impose them via a backdoor method. > > I do not see any lack of openness. If a reg says the limit is points >[Sweden] or size of CC, what is the difference? I think you see >something that is not there. > ~Issues postage stamp sized cc's to EBU players +-----+ |12-14| |4cd M| +-----+ cheers John -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 14 04:40:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0DHdCC01462 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 04:39:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0DHd4H01458 for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 04:39:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g0DHUMw12413 for ; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 17:30:22 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 17:27:06 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time References: <11010211.66075@webbox.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , Gordon Rainsford writes >At 2:02 am +0000 13/1/02, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >>In article <11010211.66075@webbox.com>, David Burn >> writes >>> >>>Your hand, not vulnerable against vulnerable, is: >>> >>>QJ1094 J4 None AQ9632 >>> >>>Your partner opens 1C (four cards or more unless specifically >>>4-3-3-3 with 15+ hcp - you are playing four-card suits, weak >>>no trump, Acol as your grandmother would know it). RHO overcalls >>>2C, alerted by LHO and explained on your request as showing the >>>majors). What call do you make? >>> >>>David Burn >>>London, England >>> >>> >>4D, even my mother would know it agreed clubs. If not I'd shoot out 5C >> >>cheers john >>> > > > >If she knew it agreed clubs, she'd probably think it showed diamond >length, not shortage. That should worry the opponents more than it would worry her. She'd assume first round control, and values for 5C. -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 14 04:42:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0DHfS001478 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 04:41:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0DHfJH01474 for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 04:41:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g0DHX3w12418 for ; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 17:33:03 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 17:29:54 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time References: <11010211.66075@webbox.com> <3C4173A9.EBDB5DA8@elnet.msk.ru> <001e01c19c2d$b08a4e80$7555e150@dodona> In-Reply-To: <001e01c19c2d$b08a4e80$7555e150@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <001e01c19c2d$b08a4e80$7555e150@dodona>, Grattan Endicott writes > >Grattan Endicott~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >"Lo! thy dread empire, Chaos! is restored; >Light dies before thy uncreating word: >Thy hand, great Anarch lets the curtain fall; >And universal darkness buries all. " > ~ Alexander Pope. >~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~ >----- Original Message ----- >From: "vitold" >To: "Gordon Rainsford" >Cc: "John (MadDog) Probst" ; > >Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 11:46 AM >Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time > > >> Hi all:) >> >> Gordon Rainsford ÐÉÛÅÔ: >> >> > >> > If she knew it agreed clubs, she'd probably think it showed >diamond >> > length, not shortage. >> > -- >> > >> > Gordon Rainsford >> > London UK >> >> OK - but even in this case 4D did show the best opening lead >against >> possible Hearts contract:)) >> Regads >> Vitold >> >+=+ Given the remarkable absence of >diamonds in this deck of cards I suspect >that 'majors' will turn out to be 'reds'; >I am still thinking, after twenty minutes, >how best to capitalize on this suspicion. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Playing with my mother would suit you well, Grattan. She'd have said "I have absolutely no idea what my son/partner is doing, but he's got clubs and no first round diamond loser" :) > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 14 12:58:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0E1vpI16361 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 12:57:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0E1vhH16357 for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 12:57:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-1-168-103.btinternet.com ([213.1.168.103] helo=pbncomputer) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16PwFY-0005gl-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 01:49:25 +0000 Message-ID: <005301c19c9d$7e849060$67a801d5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <11010211.66075@webbox.com> <3C4173A9.EBDB5DA8@elnet.msk.ru> <001e01c19c2d$b08a4e80$7555e150@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 01:47:56 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I was just wondering to what extent someone vaguely sensible was supposed to protect himself from damage due to misinformation. To recap: >Your hand, not vulnerable against vulnerable, is: > >QJ1094 J4 None AQ9632 > >Your partner opens 1C (four cards or more unless specifically >4-3-3-3 with 15+ hcp - you are playing four-card suits, weak >no trump, Acol as your grandmother would know it). RHO overcalls >2C, alerted by LHO and explained on your request as showing the >majors). What call do you make? Thanks to all those who have treated this as a serious bidding problem. Apologies to all those who have wondered what a bidding problem is doing on BLML in the first place. But a lot of rulings concern themselves with "what ought Mr So-and-So to do in such-and-such a position", and typically these problems tend to be judged from the top down. Running one from the bottom up seemed a good idea at the time. I was not intending to mark the chosen answers out of ten, though if I were, I would give about minus 30 to four diamonds. For what continuations were you hoping? But this is symptomatic - I have read an awful lot of stuff on this list which suggests that player X might or might not have taken double-dummy action Y in a completely different set of circumstances from [for American readers, than] those that actually occurred at the table. The truth is that most bridge players - even good ones - play alarmingly badly much of the time. 2H or whatever (club raise) is OK; pass is OK also; 3C is actually quite sensible (though no one suggested it); and 5C is pragmatic enough. Over whatever you do unless it is 5C, LHO bids 4S and this travels round. What will you do now? David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 14 14:08:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0E37tk16394 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 14:07:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0E37lH16390 for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 14:07:47 +1100 (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 VAA01484 for ; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 21:59:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id VAA23666 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 21:59:29 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 21:59:29 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200201140259.VAA23666@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "David Burn" > >QJ1094 J4 None AQ9632 My simple-minded thought was 5C, but I certainly wouldn't criticize a partner who bid a different number of clubs or whichever major is a club raise. Having read the other answers, my only original thought was to psych 2H (if that happens to be natural, which it probably isn't), which could put the opponents off their proper contract. (It could also end horrendously, of course.) > The truth is that most bridge players - even good > ones - play alarmingly badly much of the time. David has, alas, a perfect understanding of my bridge game! (He could have left out the qualification about "good ones" in my case.) > whatever you do unless it is 5C, LHO bids 4S and this travels round. It depends on what I did the first time. If I made a 4C bid or strong club raise, and partner can't bid 5C given his shortage in spades, we probably aren't making 5C. I don't expect to beat 5H and certainly don't want to guess over it, so I think I pass. Of course if my "strong club raise" created a forcing pass situation, I have to double. If I bid only 3C the first time, I think I have to bid 5C now. Partner would have no special reason to raise with any minimum hand, and presumably this is what I was hoping for when I decided to bid only 3C. I am probably influenced by Grattan's comments, though. At the table, I might very well double by reflex. I don't think one could judge any of the above "irrational, wild, or gambling," but see above about "alarmingly badly." -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 14 17:00:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0E5xef12115 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 16:59:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0E5xVH12093 for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 16:59:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g0E5pDr07153 for ; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 21:51:14 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <003a01c19cbf$71ee1700$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <11010211.66075@webbox.com> <3C4173A9.EBDB5DA8@elnet.msk.ru> <001e01c19c2d$b08a4e80$7555e150@dodona> <005301c19c9d$7e849060$67a801d5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 21:41:29 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > 2H or whatever (club raise) is OK; pass is OK also; 3C is actually quite > sensible (though no one suggested it); and 5C is pragmatic enough. Over > whatever you do unless it is 5C, LHO bids 4S and this travels round. > What will you do now? > My first inclination is to double in proper tempo. Too slow a double will unethically bar partner and give LHO the false impression that I don't have a spade stack. Eddie Kantar once doubled 4S with a stack and the opponent, who didn't run to a better spot, wanted to know afterwards just what he was thinking about. Of course Eddie was just trying to double with ethical tempo. Too fast a double might prompt a runout by an opponent to a better contract, and also gives possibly burdensome UI to partner (if I have raised). Having mulled this over a bit too long, I pass. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 14 22:11:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0EB9sJ08348 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 22:09:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from wonka.esatclear.ie (wonka.esatclear.ie [194.145.128.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0EB9jH08318 for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 22:09:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from esatclear.ie (IDENT:httpd@gratin.esatclear.ie [194.145.128.35]) by wonka.esatclear.ie (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA06010 for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 11:01:21 GMT From: "Karel" Reply-to: karel@esatclear.ie To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 10:42:43 GMT Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time X-Mailer: CWMail Web to Mail Gateway 2.6z, http://netwinsite.com/top_mail.htm Message-id: <3c42b623.a85.0@esatclear.ie> X-User-Info: 194.125.205.204 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Your hand, not vulnerable against vulnerable, is: NV S QJ1094 1C 2C(1) ??? H J4 D - (1) Majors michaels C AQ9632 Your partner opens 1C (four cards or more unless specifically 4-3-3-3 with 15+ hcp - you are playing four-card suits, weak no trump, Acol as your grandmother would know it). RHO overcalls 2C, alerted by LHO and explained on your request as showing the majors). What call do you make? [Karel - Depending on pd either Dbl, 2S, 5C or oh no can't use 4D splinter. Pd profile & bid follows ... A tory mp aged 75+, I'll bid a pragmatic 5C. Lets save pd some mental anguish and allow them to decide whether they'll get a lift home with Agnes like they've been doing for the last 55 years ... A softline tory (if such exists) 50ish with some exposure to recent bridge lierature - we'll go 2S's and pray he/she doesn't take is natural. A tony blair candidate (voting for the euro) we'll try double (unusual vs unusal) and probably get into completely the wrong contract. Looking forward to the continuation as undoubtedly a misexplanation or some pregnant pause will ensue. ] -- http://www.iol.ie -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 14 23:27:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0ECQjG24045 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 23:26:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0ECQWH24009 for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 23:26:33 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g0ECIEb29344 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 12:18:14 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 12:18 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.52.2000, Windows 98 4.10.2222 ( A ) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <005301c19c9d$7e849060$67a801d5@pbncomputer> David B wrote: > >Your hand, not vulnerable against vulnerable, is: > > > >QJ1094 J4 None AQ9632 > > > >Your partner opens 1C (four cards or more unless specifically > >4-3-3-3 with 15+ hcp - you are playing four-card suits, weak > >no trump, Acol as your grandmother would know it). RHO overcalls > >2C, alerted by LHO and explained on your request as showing the > >majors). What call do you make? > > Over > whatever you do unless it is 5C, LHO bids 4S and this travels round. > What will you do now? I tried 2D for the lead at my previous opportunity (and partially because I suspected a diamond suit instead of spades) so am grateful pard didn't try 5D. Now I'm going to double and pray that everyone sticks it. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 14 23:27:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0ECQid24043 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 23:26:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0ECQWH24002 for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 23:26:32 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g0ECIDP29321 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 12:18:13 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 12:18 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.52.2000, Windows 98 4.10.2222 ( A ) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <005f01c19af4$7cbf63e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Marv wrote: > There are three basic elements in the game of bridge: bidding, play of > the hand, and defense. As with any game, the basic elements should be > balanced for maximum enjoyment. When either offense or defense starts > dominating in American football or basketball, the rules are modified > to bring them back in balance. In bridge the element of bidding has > come to dominate excessively. This last statement is directly counter to my experiences (though I suspect that is partly due to the level of competition). On the whole I see little correlation between the number of conventions played and the ability to get to the best contract (and even then the extra information given to defence will sometimes cause problems). Most pairs that play lots of conventions seem to use that as an excuse not to discuss what their natural bidding sequences really show - a poor exchange IMO. In other words the freedom given to my opponents to play conventions increases my own score. Of course my partner and I have extremely detailed defences to the conventions of others: 1. If oppos artificially bid a suit you like then double. 2. Bidding a suit shown by opponents at your first opportunity is not natural Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 15 00:07:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0ED7fY01774 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 00:07:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns2.minlnv.nl (dns2.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0ED7WH01747 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 00:07:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.38]) by dns2.minlnv.nl (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g0ECxBK06680 for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 13:59:12 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Mon Jan 14 13:51:08 2002 +0100 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl (agro500s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KD2ATEVODM003XJ0@AGRO.NL>; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 13:53:30 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 13:53:21 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 13:53:30 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Law Quiz To: "'Marvin L. French'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I think there was a wrong answer for Question 10: > 10. During the play, declarer or either defender may ask for an > explanation of an opponent's bid. > > Answer: > > TRUE - In addition, explanation of defender's signals can also be > obtained at any time during the play. (Law 20F2.) > > So I look at L20F2 and it says: > > After the final pass and throughout the play period, either defender > at his own turn to play may request an explanation of opposing > auction. At his or dummy's turn to play, the declarer may request an > explanation of an opponent's call or card play conventions. > Therefore, Mr. Jones and Mr. Porter, defenders do not have the right > that declarer has to question an individual call. Too quick Marv, too quick. In the first place does L20F2 say something else in my ACBL-book. It speaks about a FULL explanation which supports your interpretation and it says: 'Questions may be asked about calls actually made or about relevant calls available but not made' which supports my interpretation. Furthermore did the WBFLC give an explanation which supports the answer of J&P. By heart that is: 'though the wording says that the question should cover the whole auction it is normally not considered an infraction to question one specific call'. I am very happy with that interpretation to diminish the amount of infractions caused by procedural irregularities. 24 out of 25 is not bad, so live with it. ton > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 15 00:31:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0EDUrG05939 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 00:30:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-4.cais.net (stmpy-4.cais.net [205.252.14.74]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0EDUiH05907 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 00:30:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-4.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g0EDMPF88885 for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 08:22:25 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20020114080906.00b2dec0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 08:22:19 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. In-Reply-To: <005f01c19af4$7cbf63e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> References: <002f01c19ad6$3a7af4e0$7d04e080@isi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:01 PM 1/11/02, Marvin wrote: >Don't cite the failure of Classic Bridge, which >was poorly conceived and poorly implemented. I'd call this an over-hasty judgment. IMO, Classic Bridge was brilliantly conceived, but "poorly" doesn't begin to do justice to how badly it was implemented. Had the implementation been even vaguely aligned with the original concept, the ACBL might today have a viable refuge for those who wished to play competitively while avoiding the need to deal with the complexities of modern artificial bidding. I'd even go so far as to favor their trying again if I felt they were capable of doing so sensibly (they might start by having the implementation committee drawn from players who might actually be willing to play in the game they invent). Of course, they will have to find another name; "Classic Bridge" would remind people of the original implemention disaster, and make a genuine implementation of the original concept, which would not in the least resemble the original experiment, unmarketable. > > First, I would like to see a histogram of the ACBL membership sorted >by > > age. > >A more interesting histogram would be the superimposition of >membership numbers and complexity of conventions allowed. It would be >obvious that the two have a negative correlation. It would not be interesting, as the correlation would be meaningless, with no causal implications whatsoever. The classic example of this fallacy dates back to the 1950s when someone demonstrated a decades-long correlation of better then 99.9% between teachers' salaries and alcohol consumption in the U.S. 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 15 01:06:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0EE60613236 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 01:06:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (www.DSS.Brussels-2002.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0EE5oH13205 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 01:05:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id OAA15213; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 14:57:03 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id OAA14952; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 14:57:20 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020114145010.00ab4ea0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 15:00:06 +0100 To: "Marvin L. French" , From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 41D In-Reply-To: <002901c19bec$9788da00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> References: <001601c19acc$28acbe60$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 20:41 12/01/2002 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: > > > > > >Always put down a dummy that partner expects, which may require > > >putting a card into the wrong suit > > > > That is illegal, of course. AG : illegal ? Even if not voluntary ? The prolegomena (immediately after the Table of Contents) cite L41B as an example of what should be done, but does not create per se penalties if not done. If one intended to penalize the Dummy for having missorted his cards, I'd rather stop bridge right now. About twice per session I have that problem. Since eyesight, not distraction, is involved, it would be quite unpleasant to hear the word 'ilegal' thrown at me. (no, it doesn't cause many revokes, because when the card is detached from the other I usually realise). Also, note that L72B2 speaks of infractions, not irregularities. I think misplacing dummy's cards is an irregularity rather than an infraction. *And* placing our best suit to the left when tabling is *not* an irregularity. If it helps partner remembering that he plays NT, it's a case of ensuring that partner plays well, which I consider the biggest virtue in the game. Best regards, Alain. > > > You don't want partner to be > > >distracted by questioning your bidding. If partner is weak, make >sure > > >s/he spots the mistake by inserting a card that duplicates a rank, >as > > >it is better not to correct the "mistake" yourself. > > > > > >If partner is the excitable type, put down the best part of your >hand > > >first (e.g., five little clubs after passing a 1C opening). > > > > A better rule is based on the fact that bridge is a partnership >game: > > put down dummy in the way that partner likes, not as you think. > >Whoops, I should have mentioned that Danny's tongue was in his cheek >when he authored "Bridge for Dummies: The Advanced Course" in a very >funny *Bridge World* article (Nov 2000), from which I extracted these >ideas. > >Marv >Marvin L. French >San Diego, California > > > > > > > > > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 15 01:13:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0EEDcn14781 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 01:13:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (st.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0EEDSH14746 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 01:13:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id PAA05651; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 15:02:13 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id PAA23477; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 15:04:57 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020114150452.00ac2ba0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 15:07:44 +0100 To: "David Burn" , From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time In-Reply-To: <005301c19c9d$7e849060$67a801d5@pbncomputer> References: <11010211.66075@webbox.com> <3C4173A9.EBDB5DA8@elnet.msk.ru> <001e01c19c2d$b08a4e80$7555e150@dodona> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 01:47 14/01/2002 +0000, David Burn wrote: >I was just wondering to what extent someone vaguely sensible was >supposed to protect himself from damage due to misinformation. To recap: > > >Your hand, not vulnerable against vulnerable, is: > > > >QJ1094 J4 None AQ9632 > > > >Your partner opens 1C (four cards or more unless specifically > >4-3-3-3 with 15+ hcp - you are playing four-card suits, weak > >no trump, Acol as your grandmother would know it). RHO overcalls > >2C, alerted by LHO and explained on your request as showing the > >majors). What call do you make? > >Thanks to all those who have treated this as a serious bidding problem. >Apologies to all those who have wondered what a bidding problem is doing >on BLML in the first place. But a lot of rulings concern themselves with >"what ought Mr So-and-So to do in such-and-such a position", and >typically these problems tend to be judged from the top down. Running >one from the bottom up seemed a good idea at the time. > >I was not intending to mark the chosen answers out of ten, though if I >were, I would give about minus 30 to four diamonds. For what >continuations were you hoping? But this is symptomatic - I have read an >awful lot of stuff on this list which suggests that player X might or >might not have taken double-dummy action Y in a completely different set >of circumstances from [for American readers, than] those that actually >occurred at the table. The truth is that most bridge players - even good >ones - play alarmingly badly much of the time. > >2H or whatever (club raise) is OK; pass is OK also; 3C is actually quite >sensible (though no one suggested it); and 5C is pragmatic enough. Over >whatever you do unless it is 5C, LHO bids 4S and this travels round. >What will you do now? AG : he wouldn't have done it if I made my preferred bid, ie 3S (fit-jump), but OK, let's imagine I bid 2S (in my system, GF raise in clubs) and he bids 4S. I'll double. If they're having a misunderstanding ,let's think about it later. If now RHO pulls out to 5D, I'll pass, obviously forcing. I eagerly await the 3rd question, although I'm ready to bet that it will indeed be 'what do you do over 5D ?' Best regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 15 02:17:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0EFH2b26108 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 02:17:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from wonka.esatclear.ie (wonka.esatclear.ie [194.145.128.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0EFGqH26076 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 02:16:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from esatclear.ie (IDENT:httpd@gratin.esatclear.ie [194.145.128.35]) by wonka.esatclear.ie (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA30025 for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 15:08:29 GMT From: "Karel" Reply-to: karel@esatclear.ie To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 14:49:50 GMT Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time X-Mailer: CWMail Web to Mail Gateway 2.6z, http://netwinsite.com/top_mail.htm Message-id: <3c42f00e.1c4b.0@esatclear.ie> X-User-Info: 194.125.205.204 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >> >Your hand, not vulnerable against vulnerable, is: >> > >> >QJ1094 J4 None AQ9632 >> > >> >Your partner opens 1C (four cards or more unless specifically >> >4-3-3-3 with 15+ hcp - you are playing four-card suits, weak >> >no trump, Acol as your grandmother would know it). RHO overcalls >> >2C, alerted by LHO and explained on your request as showing the >> >majors). What call do you make? Over whatever you do unless it is 5C, LHO bids 4S and this travels round. What will you do now? [Karel - Pd's hand is comming into focus. Zero spades, 5+ clubs, (depending on style less in diamonds but 4 i'd say) and probably 4 hearts (or else he should have opened 1H). 6C's is beginning to look a laydown and seven well in range if pd has both red aces. As it is going to be played from his side (protecting his worse case stopper HK) all is looking rosy. Are we in a forcing pass situation here ??? If the vul were the other way definitely ... as it is (regardless of whom I'm playing with) I can't imagine pd expects me to pass. I'm taking the bull by the horns and bidding 4NT's looking for 7C's if pd has the appropriate keycards (ok aces with normal blackwood) and forcing to 6C's regardless. I'd be amazingly unlucky to find pd without the HA or HK. Pd opened with a spade void the CK thats another 9+ points in the reds ... very unlucky indeed i would need to be. So how do I do ?? Do a see a huge MI case looming followed by the contract being put back to 4S's doubled - loads ?? -- http://www.iol.ie -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 15 02:57:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0EFtuJ04066 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 02:55:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mx.poczta.interia.pl (smtp.poczta.interia.pl [217.74.65.32]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0EFtfH04018 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 02:55:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (nereus.interia.pl [127.0.0.1]) by nereus.interia.pl (MX) with SMTP id 691E47D79B9 for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 16:47:20 +0100 (CET) Received: by mx.poczta.interia.pl (MX, from userid 555) id CA9017D774A; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 16:47:12 +0100 (CET) Received: from poczta.interia.pl (nyx.poczta.fm [217.74.65.51]) by mx.poczta.interia.pl (MX) with ESMTP id 26D9E7D7643 for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 16:47:10 +0100 (CET) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (nyx.poczta.fm [127.0.0.1]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailserver) with SMTP id EAFABDB01F for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 16:47:09 +0100 (CET) Received: by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver, from userid 555) id B2765DB01C; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 16:47:09 +0100 (CET) Received: from kavanagh (unknown [217.153.105.20]) by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver) with SMTP id F3DE3DB01B for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 16:47:08 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <007701c19d11$9cb1afe0$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: [BLML] What to do with this mess? Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 16:39:00 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 X-EMID: 8b2be2c0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi all, I was told the following story by a friend who played yesterday in a match in Polish Division Three. Unfortunately I don't have the hands diagram so you will have to live without it. N and E on the same side of the screen. N E S W 2S* pass** 2D pass 2S*** pass 2S**** pass***** pass pass****** 2S* - North opened the weak two but he didn't put the 2S card on the tray but on the table instead pass** - a man with a strong hand containing spade one-suiter failed to notice where North put his 2S card 2D - South opened 2D as Wilkosz: 6-10, 5+-5+ with at least one major 2S*** - At this point the TD was called for the first time. He ruled that the insufficient bid of 2D was accepted by West's pass and instructed the players to bid on. In these circumstances North rebid 2S this time putting the 2S card on the tray 2S**** - No one will ever know what was on South's mind when he bid this... pass***** A quick pass hoping that NS are probably heading for some disaster pass****** - East almost had a heart attack when 2S was passed back to him. After a lot of soul searching he decided to pass fearing that the double at this point wouldn't be for penalties A 2S response over Wilkosz is of "pass or correct" type South had H+C. I don't know if this is relevant but both weak twos and Wilkosz don't require alerts in Poland; they are the default meanings of these openers. East / West missed 6D which was laydown. The TD let the table result stand. What would do with this? I know that is impossible to give a ruling without the hands diagram but I would like to hear your comments anyway. Thanks. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Aktualnosci >>> Puchar Swiata z Adamem Malyszem. Oficjalna strona >>> http://ps.malysz.interia.pl/adam/aktualnosci -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 15 03:02:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0EG0jh05032 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 03:00:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0EG0VH04997 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 03:00:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16Q9P4-0000KX-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 15:52:12 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 13:27:33 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time References: <11010211.66075@webbox.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst writes >In article <11010211.66075@webbox.com>, David Burn > writes >> >>Your hand, not vulnerable against vulnerable, is: >> >>QJ1094 J4 None AQ9632 >> >>Your partner opens 1C (four cards or more unless specifically >>4-3-3-3 with 15+ hcp - you are playing four-card suits, weak >>no trump, Acol as your grandmother would know it). RHO overcalls >>2C, alerted by LHO and explained on your request as showing the >>majors). What call do you make? >4D, even my mother would know it agreed clubs. If not I'd shoot out 5C This and other similar replies show how little people are willing to bend to other people's beliefs, doesn't it? OK, in Acol as my grandmother knew it, 2D, 3D, 4D and 5D are all *clearly* natural - what else? I know the modern style is to recognise bids as agreeing partner's suit, but that is not old-fashioned Acol. I think my grandmother would probably take all bids in the majors as natural as well, though I am less sure of that. If you want to describe this hand to partner you could bid 2S first, I suppose. Why do you think Acol has changed? Because it was not good enough as a system, so it has developed. Not everyone has caught up. In Crockfords [English national k/o] a couple of days ago we held x KQTx AKx J98x JTx AK9xx KQJxxx -- We bid 1D 2C 2D 2H 4H -- I was East. Unfortunately my partner failed to make after ace and another spade, but how about the bidding? I do not know what I should have done differently. But the point of this story is that partner never thought of 3S splinter over 2D, yet he is quite a fair player. He just hasn't got on to the idea of splinters yet. Discussing it in the car going home he thought that 3S as a splinter was a great idea. Now *he* is not my grandmother: he is far advanced from her. If I bid 4D after 1C 2C [majors] I would expect him to take me for diamonds - and I bet I would be right! On the actual hand I bid 5C. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 15 03:02:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0EG0n705040 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 03:00:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0EG0VH04996 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 03:00:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16Q9P4-0000KW-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 15:52:08 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 13:15:19 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. References: <0u0v3u85ooojbtaqjj9i2psor02l9mcsnj@4ax.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Brian Meadows writes >On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 00:39:12 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > >> >>>And it's this "watering down as necessary in various ways" that >>>seems to me to be wrong. If we are going to have regulation of >>>systems, let us have the bodies doing the regulating do so >>>plainly and openly, not by backhanded and backdoor methods. >> >> So, limit the size of the CC. Why is this not open? >It would have been open had the regulations said explicitly that >the restriction on CC size was being used as a means of limiting >the number of conventions, that a pair must make every effort to >practice the fullest possible disclosure, and must not play >anything that could not be fitted on the CC. That's my idea of >openness. Let the membership know not only what you have decided, >but WHY, and if saying why invokes a storm of protest, think >again. You are assuming the membership wants this sort of detail, which I am confident they do not. What you want is a lot different from the wishes of the average player. So long as the EBU makes sure that its decisions in this area are open, detail is not required. [s] >As I said earlier in this thread, maybe Steve and myself took >"full disclosure" more literally than was meant. I notice that a >pair have allowed their CC to be published as an example in the >Orange book, the CC seems to me to fall a considerable way short >of what Steve and I would have regarded as full disclosure. I'll >be happy to post (or e-mail you privately) a list of what I see >as the shortcomings if asked. If you think that the CC is what's >required by full disclosure, then I'm certainly of the opinion >that Acol players are held to a far lower standard than those >playing some other system, based on my personal experiences with >TDs in a little over 20 years playing under EBU jurisdiction. I very much doubt that there is any basis for this belief whatever. Yes, many many pairs practise poor disclosure, but to say htat the TDs accept that from them and not from other players is just wrong. TDs adopt a practical approach of trying to educate and persuade everyone ot do better. >> Limiting the complexity of >>system by the amount of CC seems a practical approach that would appeal >>to the majority. >Do you have any evidence for the second part of that assertion, >i.e. its majority appeal? Until Grattan's posting, I've certainly >never heard anyone in the EBU hierarchy say specifically that it >was used as a device to limit conventions, let alone carry out >any survey of a statistically significant size to gauge the >measure's popularity. Oh, come on. I have given an opinion, just like yours. I have as much evidence of statistics for my opinion as you do for the opinions you have been quoting. Furthermore, I am not saying that there is any effort to limit conventions by size of CC. I just said it would be practical and accepted. >>If a reg says the limit is points >>[Sweden] or size of CC, what is the difference? >To me, the difference is that I have this possibly rather >idealistic belief that not only should restrictions and limits be >as far as possible equal for all players, but also that the >effect of factors which are not part of the game of bridge should >be minimised as far as possible. I think that basing a limit on >the size of a player's handwriting involves an extremely >arbitrary factor which should not be part of the game of bridge. >You might just as well let a pair play an additional couple of >conventions for each year of partnership experience that they >have. Any player who deliberately writes super-small to get around the reg is out of line. If the size of the writing makes reading too difficult then the CC is illegal, and there is no Full disclosure. >I'm not familiar with the Swedish points system that you >describe, but if it's something along the lines of what I >suggested in an earlier posting, then I think that is one *hell* >of a lot fairer to all than the size of CC approach. Good, you don't know it, it must be fairer. >>I think you see >>something that is not there. >That's a matter of opinion. Certainly we appear to have radically >different ideas of what constitutes openness. Sure: I think if an authority tells people what its decisions are then it is open: you don't. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 15 03:15:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0EGEEO07496 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 03:14:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from wonka.esatclear.ie (wonka.esatclear.ie [194.145.128.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0EGE4H07470 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 03:14:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from esatclear.ie (IDENT:httpd@gratin.esatclear.ie [194.145.128.35]) by wonka.esatclear.ie (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA11288 for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 16:05:41 GMT From: "Karel" Reply-to: karel@esatclear.ie To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 15:47:03 GMT Subject: RE: [BLML] Law Quiz X-Mailer: CWMail Web to Mail Gateway 2.6z, http://netwinsite.com/top_mail.htm Message-id: <3c42fd77.20be.0@esatclear.ie> X-User-Info: 194.125.205.204 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [Karel - forgive the ignorance here but I was under the impression that a player can only ask for explanations of bidding used during the auction at his FIRST turn to play and after that tough ?? Maybe I'm mixing this up with some other law ?? Does/can this rule vary depending on country ??] > > I think there was a wrong answer for Question 10: > > >> 10. During the play, declarer or either defender may ask for an >> explanation of an opponent's bid. >> -- http://www.iol.ie -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 15 04:02:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0EH2Y914862 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 04:02:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from obelix.spase.nl (c69101.upc-c.chello.nl [212.187.69.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0EH2QH14846 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 04:02:27 +1100 (EST) Received: by obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 17:54:23 +0100 Message-ID: <0022D5682F84D511B12300001CB61EFB04E624@obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> From: Martin Sinot To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Law Quiz Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 17:54:19 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > -----Original Message----- > From: Karel [mailto:karel@esatclear.ie] > Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 16:47 > To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Subject: RE: [BLML] Law Quiz > > > [Karel - forgive the ignorance here but I was under the > impression that a player > can only ask for explanations of bidding used during the > auction at his FIRST > turn to play and after that tough ?? Maybe I'm mixing this up > with some other > law ?? Does/can this rule vary depending on country ??] I think you are mixing up. L41B states that you may ask for a REBID only at the first turn to play; after that you may only ask what the contract is and whether it is (re)doubled (but not by whom) -- L41C. However (L41B) during play declarer and defenders retain the right to request explanation, each at his own turn to play. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 15 04:16:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0EHGfO16924 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 04:16:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mx.poczta.interia.pl (smtp.poczta.interia.pl [217.74.65.32]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0EHGEH16840 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 04:16:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (nereus.interia.pl [127.0.0.1]) by nereus.interia.pl (MX) with SMTP id C973E7D7623 for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 18:07:54 +0100 (CET) Received: by mx.poczta.interia.pl (MX, from userid 555) id 53CB17D75F6; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 18:07:53 +0100 (CET) Received: from poczta.interia.pl (nyx.poczta.fm [217.74.65.51]) by mx.poczta.interia.pl (MX) with ESMTP id 280657D752B for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 18:07:53 +0100 (CET) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (nyx.poczta.fm [127.0.0.1]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailserver) with SMTP id 9641ADB0AF for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 18:07:50 +0100 (CET) Received: by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver, from userid 555) id 206FDDAF64; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 18:07:49 +0100 (CET) Received: from kavanagh (unknown [217.153.105.20]) by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver) with SMTP id 03E2DDB0C6 for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 18:07:49 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <00c801c19d1c$e1846580$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: References: <11010211.66075@webbox.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 17:55:00 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 X-EMID: 8b2be2c0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2002 3:21 AM Subject: [BLML] One at a time > > Your hand, not vulnerable against vulnerable, is: > > QJ1094 J4 None AQ9632 > > Your partner opens 1C (four cards or more unless specifically > 4-3-3-3 with 15+ hcp - you are playing four-card suits, weak > no trump, Acol as your grandmother would know it). RHO overcalls > 2C, alerted by LHO and explained on your request as showing the > majors). What call do you make? > > David Burn > London, England > 2H as a club raise. QJ in S and HJ after Michales are not very good cards for a splinter bid Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Bojkot dokumentow w formacie Worda? http://komputery.interia.pl/id/arch/www/wys&inf_id=218065 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 15 04:31:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0EHV9O19563 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 04:31:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from wonka.esatclear.ie (wonka.esatclear.ie [194.145.128.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0EHV0H19540 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 04:31:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from esatclear.ie (IDENT:httpd@gratin.esatclear.ie [194.145.128.35]) by wonka.esatclear.ie (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA30192 for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 17:22:37 GMT From: "Karel" Reply-to: karel@esatclear.ie To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 17:03:58 GMT Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time X-Mailer: CWMail Web to Mail Gateway 2.6z, http://netwinsite.com/top_mail.htm Message-id: <3c430f7e.257f.0@esatclear.ie> X-User-Info: 194.125.205.204 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > This and other similar replies show how little people are willing to bend to other people's beliefs, doesn't it? > OK, in Acol as my grandmother knew it, 2D, 3D, 4D and 5D are all >*clearly* natural - what else? [Karel - well having taught myself bridge many moons ago by reading Gorens 500+ pages of "complete bridge" (a BIG fact red book) only to find out that it was a complete waste as everyone played acol, I was fortunate enough to find a lady (to whom I owe alot) who taught me solid Acol, weak NT, no transfers(never heard of a transfer for years), strong 2's, gerber etc. I can unequivocally say that any number of diamonds in Acol (original) on this sequence is Nat. > I know the modern style is to recognise bids as agreeing partner's >suit, but that is not old-fashioned Acol. > > I think my grandmother would probably take all bids in the majors as >natural as well, though I am less sure of that. If you want to describe >this hand to partner you could bid 2S first, I suppose. [Karel - I doubt any number of spades or hearts would be taken as natural, as the acolites I grew up with would never dream of playing in a suit shown by the opposition. High level bids in the majors on this sequence would probably cause a heart attack and lose you a partner whether they recovered or not ...] > x KQTx > AKx J98x > JTx AK9xx > KQJxxx -- > > We bid > 1D > 2C 2D > 2H 4H > -- [Karel - 2/1 it goes 1D 2C 2H 2S(4SF) 2NT 3D 3NT. Old Acol 1D 2C 2D (as 2M would be a reverse) 2H 2NT(NF) 3D 3NT/5D which describes both hands extremely well. ] I posted this hand on a bidding forum and so far 5C's is getting a large mark. ] Still waiting for the final chapter as 2C strikes me as not being the majors at all. I'd say they where playing Ghestem or similar and he meant to show hearts and diamonds. An absolute minefield ...] -- http://www.iol.ie -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 15 04:40:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0EHciM20421 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 04:38:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0EHcZH20405 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 04:38:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g0EHUIw15227 for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 17:30:19 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 17:24:22 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , Tim West-meads writes >In-Reply-To: <005f01c19af4$7cbf63e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> >Marv wrote: > >> There are three basic elements in the game of bridge: bidding, play of >> the hand, and defense. As with any game, the basic elements should be >> balanced for maximum enjoyment. When either offense or defense starts >> dominating in American football or basketball, the rules are modified >> to bring them back in balance. In bridge the element of bidding has >> come to dominate excessively. > >This last statement is directly counter to my experiences (though I >suspect that is partly due to the level of competition). On the whole I >see little correlation between the number of conventions played and the >ability to get to the best contract (and even then the extra information >given to defence will sometimes cause problems). Most pairs that play >lots of conventions seem to use that as an excuse not to discuss what >their natural bidding sequences really show - a poor exchange IMO. > >In other words the freedom given to my opponents to play conventions >increases my own score. Of course my partner and I have extremely >detailed defences to the conventions of others: >1. If oppos artificially bid a suit you like then double. >2. Bidding a suit shown by opponents at your first opportunity is not >natural > >Tim One of our rubber bridge team members was gobsmacked that his opponents in one match had a 9 bid precision auction to an inferior 3NT contract when Tim and I got to 4S in 4 bids. (13 in). He (like Tim and I) is convinced that conventions are pointless if that's what it leads to. I think Tim and I consider splinters are useful, and can do without most everything else. -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 15 04:44:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0EHhPd21082 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 04:43:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0EHhFH21051 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 04:43:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g0EHZ0w15235 for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 17:35:00 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 17:29:07 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time References: <11010211.66075@webbox.com> <3C4173A9.EBDB5DA8@elnet.msk.ru> <001e01c19c2d$b08a4e80$7555e150@dodona> <005301c19c9d$7e849060$67a801d5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <005301c19c9d$7e849060$67a801d5@pbncomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <005301c19c9d$7e849060$67a801d5@pbncomputer>, David Burn writes >I was just wondering to what extent someone vaguely sensible was >supposed to protect himself from damage due to misinformation. To recap: > >>Your hand, not vulnerable against vulnerable, is: >> >>QJ1094 J4 None AQ9632 >> >>Your partner opens 1C (four cards or more unless specifically >>4-3-3-3 with 15+ hcp - you are playing four-card suits, weak >>no trump, Acol as your grandmother would know it). RHO overcalls >>2C, alerted by LHO and explained on your request as showing the >>majors). What call do you make? > >Thanks to all those who have treated this as a serious bidding problem. >Apologies to all those who have wondered what a bidding problem is doing >on BLML in the first place. But a lot of rulings concern themselves with >"what ought Mr So-and-So to do in such-and-such a position", and >typically these problems tend to be judged from the top down. Running >one from the bottom up seemed a good idea at the time. > >I was not intending to mark the chosen answers out of ten, though if I >were, I would give about minus 30 to four diamonds. For what >continuations were you hoping? But this is symptomatic - I have read an >awful lot of stuff on this list which suggests that player X might or >might not have taken double-dummy action Y in a completely different set >of circumstances from [for American readers, than] those that actually >occurred at the table. The truth is that most bridge players - even good >ones - play alarmingly badly much of the time. > >2H or whatever (club raise) is OK; pass is OK also; 3C is actually quite >sensible (though no one suggested it); and 5C is pragmatic enough. Over >whatever you do unless it is 5C, LHO bids 4S and this travels round. >What will you do now? > I was a 4D bidder (undiscussed with my mother) I now double, and fold my cards. She'll get the message. cheers john >David Burn >London, England > > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 15 05:06:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0EI6R324570 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 05:06:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat40.alcanet.no [193.213.239.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0EI6IH24551 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 05:06:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from netos70.alcatel.no (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with ESMTP id g0EHGaT08963; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 18:16:36 +0100 Subject: RE: [BLML] Law Quiz To: karel@esatclear.ie Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 18:16:34 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NOMAIL01/NO/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 01/14/2002 18:16:35 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk There is a very important distinction here: During the auction and until his first time to play any player can have the entire auction repeated and explained (at his turn to call or play). Later during the play any player (except dummy) can still request explanations, but may no longer request a full repetition of the the auction, only the final contract and whether it was doubled or redoubled (but not by whom). regards Sven "Karel" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Sent by: cc: owner-bridge-laws@rgb. Subject: RE: [BLML] Law Quiz anu.edu.au 2002-01-14 16:47 Please respond to karel [Karel - forgive the ignorance here but I was under the impression that a player can only ask for explanations of bidding used during the auction at his FIRST turn to play and after that tough ?? Maybe I'm mixing this up with some other law ?? Does/can this rule vary depending on country ??] > > I think there was a wrong answer for Question 10: > > >> 10. During the play, declarer or either defender may ask for an >> explanation of an opponent's bid. >> -- http://www.iol.ie -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 15 05:16:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0EIG2125821 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 05:16:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat40.alcanet.no [193.213.239.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0EIFrH25805 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 05:15:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from netos70.alcatel.no (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with ESMTP id g0EI7Uo12044 for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 19:07:30 +0100 Subject: Re: [BLML] What to do with this mess? To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 19:07:28 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NOMAIL01/NO/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 01/14/2002 19:07:29 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Konrad Ciborowski wrote: My immediate reaction is indeed "what a mess". And my first question is: Was this late in a tournament where they consumed at least a pint (of beer) with each board? Now I have never played with screens myself, I know the regulations of course (at least as we have them in Norway, which I believe match the internationally used regulations) and have tried to insert what I feel are sensible comments below >Hi all, > I was told the following story by a friend who >played yesterday in a match in Polish Division Three. >Unfortunately I don't have the hands diagram so you >will have to live without it. >N and E on the same side of the screen. >N E S W >2S* pass** 2D pass >2S*** pass 2S**** pass***** >pass pass****** >2S* - North opened the weak two but he didn't put the 2S card on the >tray but on the table instead First irregularity - why did East not react? >pass** - a man with a strong hand containing spade one-suiter failed >to notice where North put his 2S card North and East are jointly responsible for the tray not being passed under the screen with calls constituting violation(s) of Laws 26 thru 32. Here the tray is passed with an opening call (pass) out of turn. >2D - South opened 2D as Wilkosz: 6-10, 5+-5+ with at least one major Second irregularity - as seen from the SW side of the screen East has made an initial pass out of turn, and nobody noticed? >2S*** - At this point the TD was called for the first time. He ruled that >the insufficient bid of 2D was accepted by West's pass and instructed the >players to bid on. I assume TD was called after the tray had been passed back to the NE side? (Before that there was no insufficient bid present) According to the Norwegian regulations for using screens: When a tray containing a bid violating any of the laws 26 thru 32 is passed to the other side of the screen and the error is not noticed at that side, but both players on that side of the screen call and eventually send the tray back to the first side then all calls made so far stand as given without any penalty or correction except that Law35 is used as applicable. > In these circumstances North rebid 2S this time putting >the 2S card on the tray >2S**** - No one will ever know what was on South's mind when he bid this... >pass***** A quick pass hoping that NS are probably heading for some >disaster Third irregularity - West is not entitled to accept the incorrect bid, he is responsible for calling the TD and have the bid corrected under the applicable law before the tray is sendt back to the other side. >pass****** - East almost had a heart attack when 2S was passed back to >him. Fourth irregularity - when a tray containing call(s) violating any of the laws mentioned above is received from the other side of the screen, both players are responsible for calling the TD who shall have the tray sent back for correction. If those players do not note the error(s) we are back at the regulation I quoted above. >After a lot of soul searching he decided to pass fearing that the double >at this point wouldn't be for penalties >A 2S response over Wilkosz is of "pass or correct" type >South had H+C. >I don't know if this is relevant but both weak twos and Wilkosz >don't require alerts in Poland; they are the default meanings >of these openers. I don't think this is material. >East / West missed 6D which was laydown. The TD let the >table result stand. I agree with the TD. >What would do with this? I know that is impossible to >give a ruling without the hands diagram but I would like >to hear your comments anyway. Thanks. It so happens that once in a while you *can* make a ruling without seeing the actual hands involved. However, I must stress the condition that it all depends upon the facts being correctly described. regards Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 15 07:19:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0EKJ0n17849 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 07:19:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ns1.telekom.ru (root@ns1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.83]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0EKIoH17818 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 07:18:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from elnet.msk.ru (h35.50.elnet.msk.ru [195.58.50.35]) by ns1.telekom.ru (8.12.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id g0EK4dZK008347; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 23:04:39 +0300 Message-ID: <3C433B80.48BDC3F5@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 23:11:44 +0300 From: vitold X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [ru] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "John (MadDog) Probst" CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time References: <11010211.66075@webbox.com> <3C4173A9.EBDB5DA8@elnet.msk.ru> <001e01c19c2d$b08a4e80$7555e150@dodona> <005301c19c9d$7e849060$67a801d5@pbncomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi all:) I am 4Dia-bidder too And I used rather try to bid as I would do it in real game: that means that it will take no more than 20-25 sec for the call. Only after 4S from my LHO I will understand that 2C were misunderstood (or misexplained). So - I do not know about our possibilities in red contracts and therefore Pass: I guess it is their worst contract, we'll receive several hundreds when board rather belongs to them. Vitold "John (MadDog) Probst" ÐÉÛÅÔ: > In article <005301c19c9d$7e849060$67a801d5@pbncomputer>, David Burn > writes > >I was just wondering to what extent someone vaguely sensible was > >supposed to protect himself from damage due to misinformation. To recap: > > > >>Your hand, not vulnerable against vulnerable, is: > >> > >>QJ1094 J4 None AQ9632 > >> > >>Your partner opens 1C (four cards or more unless specifically > >>4-3-3-3 with 15+ hcp - you are playing four-card suits, weak > >>no trump, Acol as your grandmother would know it). RHO overcalls > >>2C, alerted by LHO and explained on your request as showing the > >>majors). What call do you make? > > > >Thanks to all those who have treated this as a serious bidding problem. > >Apologies to all those who have wondered what a bidding problem is doing > >on BLML in the first place. But a lot of rulings concern themselves with > >"what ought Mr So-and-So to do in such-and-such a position", and > >typically these problems tend to be judged from the top down. Running > >one from the bottom up seemed a good idea at the time. > > > >I was not intending to mark the chosen answers out of ten, though if I > >were, I would give about minus 30 to four diamonds. For what > >continuations were you hoping? But this is symptomatic - I have read an > >awful lot of stuff on this list which suggests that player X might or > >might not have taken double-dummy action Y in a completely different set > >of circumstances from [for American readers, than] those that actually > >occurred at the table. The truth is that most bridge players - even good > >ones - play alarmingly badly much of the time. > > > >2H or whatever (club raise) is OK; pass is OK also; 3C is actually quite > >sensible (though no one suggested it); and 5C is pragmatic enough. Over > >whatever you do unless it is 5C, LHO bids 4S and this travels round. > >What will you do now? > > > I was a 4D bidder (undiscussed with my mother) > I now double, and fold my cards. She'll get the message. > cheers john > >David Burn > >London, England > > > > > > > >-- > >======================================================================== > >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- > John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 > 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou > London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com > +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 15 07:23:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0EKN2518675 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 07:23:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0EKMrH18648 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 07:22:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g0EKEY612694 for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 12:14:34 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <002101c19d38$0ecf98a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Law Quiz Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 12:08:51 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From Sven > > There is a very important distinction here: > During the auction and until his first time to play any player > can have the entire auction repeated and explained (at his > turn to call or play). > Later during the play any player (except dummy) can still > request explanations, but may no longer request a full > repetition of the the auction, only the final contract and > whether it was doubled or redoubled (but not by whom). > > [Karel - forgive the ignorance here but I was under the impression that a > player > can only ask for explanations of bidding used during the auction at his > FIRST > turn to play and after that tough ?? Maybe I'm mixing this up with some > other > law ?? Does/can this rule vary depending on country ??] Let us not confuse L20A/B/C/D/E, which have to do with reviews of the auction, with L20F, which deals with explanations of the auction. The subject of question 10 does not involve a review of the auction. The laws relating to review of the auction are quite clear, but L20F1 and L20F2, covering explanations of the auction, are evidently not well understood. L20F1 covers requests for "full" explanations during the auction, which may be made by a player at "his own turn to call." [why that word "own"?]. As confirmed by the WBFLC in Lille, this means that questioning a particular call among many is not in accordance with this law, although seeking further information about an explained call (or a relevant call available but not made) may be necessary. L20F2 permits defenders to request this full explanation of the auction "at his own turn to call or play" throughout the play period, even after playing to one or more tricks. An explanation of the auction does not necessarily include a review of the auction, as only calls that are the subject of a special partnership agreement need be explained. This means a defender cannot get a needed review of the auction through the subterfuge of asking for an explanation of the auction. A more subtle point is whether the actual calls must always be restated when explaining them, although it is usual. That is, a defender should perhaps be assumed to know what the auction was (too late to find that out) when explanations are given. "My overcall showed spades and hearts, and his response was conventional, asking for clarification" should be sufficient. Those who continue to believe that questioning individual calls during the auction is legal (despite the WBF LC's contrary statement) ought to explain why L20F2 carefully distinguishes between an explanation of auction (defender's only right) and an explanation of a call (only declarer's right). > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > > I think there was a wrong answer for Question 10: > > > >> 10. During the play, declarer or either defender may ask for an > >> explanation of an opponent's bid. > >> False! Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 15 07:56:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0EKttl23929 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 07:55:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com [212.74.112.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0EKtjH23907 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 07:55:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.64.152.161] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 16QE0q-0008YY-00; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 20:47:25 +0000 Message-ID: <001d01c19d3c$f79acb00$a198403e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Burn" , "bridge-laws" References: <11010211.66075@webbox.com> <3C4173A9.EBDB5DA8@elnet.msk.ru> <001e01c19c2d$b08a4e80$7555e150@dodona> <005301c19c9d$7e849060$67a801d5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 20:48:41 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 1:47 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time > I was just wondering to what extent someone vaguely > sensible was supposed to protect himself from damage > due to misinformation. To recap: > > >Your hand, not vulnerable against vulnerable, is: > > > >QJ1094 J4 None AQ9632 > > > >Your partner opens 1C (four cards or more unless > > specifically 4-3-3-3 with 15+ hcp - you are playing > > four-card suits, weak no trump, Acol as your > > grandmother would know it). RHO overcalls 2C, > > alerted by LHO and explained on your request as > > showing the majors). What call do you make? > -------------------- \x/ --------------- > > 2H or whatever (club raise) is OK; pass is OK also; > 3C is actually quite sensible (though no one suggested > it); and 5C is pragmatic enough. Over whatever you do > unless it is 5C, LHO bids 4S and this travels round. > What will you do now? > +=+ Experience suggests that there are often exactly thirteen cards in each suit. In this deck there do now seem to be a surfeit of spades and a deficiency of diamonds. Anything will be wrong. A plus score is on offer and I think she may be the only girl in town. Being sensibly vague I make a pass, convinced that diamonds may prove to be a girl's best friend. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 15 08:07:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0EL7So26223 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 08:07:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0EL7JH26202 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 08:07:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA14809; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 12:58:58 -0800 Message-Id: <200201142058.MAA14809@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Law Quiz In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 14 Jan 2002 12:08:51 PST." <002101c19d38$0ecf98a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 12:58:59 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marv wrote: > The laws relating to review of the auction are quite clear, but L20F1 > and L20F2, covering explanations of the auction, are evidently not > well understood. > > L20F1 covers requests for "full" explanations during the auction, > which may be made by a player at "his own turn to call." [why that > word "own"?]. As confirmed by the WBFLC in Lille, this means that > questioning a particular call among many is not in accordance with > this law, although seeking further information about an explained call > (or a relevant call available but not made) may be necessary. > > L20F2 permits defenders to request this full explanation of the > auction "at his own turn to call or play" throughout the play period, > even after playing to one or more tricks. An explanation of the > auction does not necessarily include a review of the auction, as only > calls that are the subject of a special partnership agreement need be > explained. This means a defender cannot get a needed review of the > auction through the subterfuge of asking for an explanation of the > auction. > > A more subtle point is whether the actual calls must always be > restated when explaining them, although it is usual. That is, a > defender should perhaps be assumed to know what the auction was (too > late to find that out) when explanations are given. > > "My overcall showed spades and hearts, and his response was > conventional, asking for clarification" should be sufficient. > > Those who continue to believe that questioning individual calls during > the auction is legal (despite the WBF LC's contrary statement) ought > to explain why L20F2 carefully distinguishes between an explanation of > auction (defender's only right) and an explanation of a call (only > declarer's right). Part of the problem is that the whole text from the Lille document is 9: Laws 20F1 and 20F2. In relation to the phrase "a full explanation of the opponents' auction" in Laws 20F1 and 20F2, it was agreed this refers to an explanation of the whole auction. However, it is recognized that in practical play players would frequently ask about the meaning of one particular call; this marginal infringement of the laws should not normally attract a penalty but players must be aware of the increased risk of the creation of unauthorised information that it entails and the relevance of Law 16 to such circumstances. So although the WBF has said that asking about an individual call is a "marginal infringement" (which does mean it's illegal), it has also said that, for all practical purposes, it should be treated as legal, by saying it should "not normally attract a penalty". The result of all this is that I don't see anything to distinguish this illegal action from a legal action; the illegal action is labeled "illegal" but this label is nothing more than a label, since there are no consequences arising from that label. (The possibility of an L16 violation isn't a consequence of the illegality of the question, since L16 violations can arise from perfectly legal questions or from other legal actions.) So I think it's forgivable to think that asking about an individual call is legal. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck . . . Personally, I think the WBF just ought to amend Law 20 to come right out and say what it really means---either it should say that asking about an individual call is legal, or it should say that it's illegal. (Or leave it up to SO's.) -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 15 08:16:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0ELG2s27889 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 08:16:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0ELFrH27863 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 08:15:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA15004; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 13:07:33 -0800 Message-Id: <200201142107.NAA15004@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 12 Jan 2002 19:17:33 +0100." Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 13:07:33 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Henk wrote: > On Fri, 11 Jan 2002, David Burn wrote: > > > > > Your hand, not vulnerable against vulnerable, is: > > > > QJ1094 J4 None AQ9632 > > > > Your partner opens 1C (four cards or more unless specifically > > 4-3-3-3 with 15+ hcp - you are playing four-card suits, weak > > no trump, Acol as your grandmother would know it). RHO overcalls > > 2C, alerted by LHO and explained on your request as showing the > > majors). What call do you make? > > 2H or 2S, whatever we play as a good club raise. > > (OK, so my grandmother doesn't know this bid, but then again, she didn't > know Acol either). My grandmother didn't play bridge at all, so does that mean I'm prohibited from answering the question? :) -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 15 08:44:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0ELi2q03120 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 08:44:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0ELhsH03107 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 08:43:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g0ELZa617258 for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 13:35:36 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <003101c19d43$5cbc52a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <002f01c19ad6$3a7af4e0$7d04e080@isi.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20020114080906.00b2dec0@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 13:32:07 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 5:22 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. > At 06:01 PM 1/11/02, Marvin wrote: > > >Don't cite the failure of Classic Bridge, which > >was poorly conceived and poorly implemented. > > I'd call this an over-hasty judgment. IMO, Classic Bridge was > brilliantly conceived, but "poorly" doesn't begin to do justice to how > badly it was implemented. Had the implementation been even vaguely > aligned with the original concept, the ACBL might today have a viable > refuge for those who wished to play competitively while avoiding the > need to deal with the complexities of modern artificial bidding. I'd > even go so far as to favor their trying again if I felt they were > capable of doing so sensibly (they might start by having the > implementation committee drawn from players who might actually be > willing to play in the game they invent). Of course, they will have to > find another name; "Classic Bridge" would remind people of the original > implemention disaster, and make a genuine implementation of the > original concept, which would not in the least resemble the original > experiment, unmarketable. My name for an alternative I designed was "True Bridge." I would have preferred "Classic Bridge," but the ACBL stole the term from me, applying it to a game that was not classic at all. True Bridge incorporates four-card majors and a very limited number of conventions. I went to the considerable trouble of creating a "True Bridge Bidding Specification," a standard that players could assume in the absence of special partnership agreements. For a number of reasons, it's too late for True Bridge, which would require a humongous and expensive effort on the part of the ACBL. Americans are now convinced that four-card majors are too dangerous, and changing their minds is very difficult. Perhaps some on-line game could offer True Bridge as an option, and that would be a start. The SAYC is a disaster, a crappy system that inexperienced players can't handle. While True Bridge uses 16-18 HCP 1NT openings, I may incorporate a novice option using weak notrumps. Rebid considerations for a minimum opening make four-card majors somewhat difficult for beginners. With too many HCP for 1NT there is usually no rebid problem and they can just open their best suit, very easy. > > > > First, I would like to see a histogram of the ACBL membership sorted > >by > > > age. > > > >A more interesting histogram would be the superimposition of > >membership numbers and complexity of conventions allowed. It would be > >obvious that the two have a negative correlation. > > It would not be interesting, as the correlation would be meaningless, > with no causal implications whatsoever. The classic example of this > fallacy dates back to the 1950s when someone demonstrated a > decades-long correlation of better then 99.9% between teachers' > salaries and alcohol consumption in the U.S. I was present when hordes of players quit the ACBL, or would not join the ACBL, because of the proliferation of conventions and the increasing complexity of the convention card. At least, that's what they told me when I surveyed a bunch of dropouts and potentials here in San Diego. That was the time for a two-tier ACBL to be established, separating those who just want to play a challenging card game from those who want to engage in a cryptoanalytical exercise. Both types of game are legitimate, extremely enjoyable for participants, but each group should not be forced to endure the wishes of the other. As with so many human activities (e.g., peace and war), compromise is not a solution. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 15 08:47:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0ELlfP03738 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 08:47:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com [212.74.112.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0ELlSH03709 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 08:47:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.27.223] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 16QEot-000Hux-00; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 21:39:08 +0000 Message-ID: <005801c19d44$3147a380$a198403e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." , "'Marvin L. French'" , "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Law Quiz Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 21:32:51 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott >. Furthermore did > the WBFLC give an explanation which supports the > answer of J&P. By heart that is: 'though the wording > says that the question should cover the whole auction > it is normally not considered an infraction to question > one specific call'. I am very happy with that interpretation > to diminish the amount of infractions caused by > procedural irregularities. > +=+ The cavalry arrives. Extract from Minutes 30 Aug 98. ""In relation to the phrase "a full explanation of the opponents' auction in Laws 20F1 and 20F2, it was agreed this refers to an explanation of the whole auction. However, it is recognized that in practical play players would frequently ask about the significance of one particular call; this marginal infringement of the laws should not normally attract a penalty but players must be aware of the increased risk of the creation of unauthorized information that it entails and the relevance of Law 16 to such circumstances."" I am sure that in drafting these laws the drafting committee intended to avoid any use of enquiry about a single call to communicate interest in that call; but experience has shown that the purpose is not achieved - players find it cumbersome and ignore the law. So the WBFLC has moved the ground more than slightly. Directors should apply Law 16 if they believe UI has been created in this way and acted upon. As for "not normally attract a penalty", it seems to me that a penalty should apply where this happens and the action is sufficiently gross to persuade the Director that the questioner knew what he was doing. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 15 08:47:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0ELlgm03740 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 08:47:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com [212.74.112.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0ELlUH03715 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 08:47:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.27.223] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 16QEov-000Hux-00; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 21:39:10 +0000 Message-ID: <005901c19d44$326c9b80$a198403e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" , "bridge-laws" References: <002101c19d38$0ecf98a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law Quiz Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 21:38:02 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 8:08 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law Quiz > > Those who continue to believe that questioning individual > calls during the auction is legal (despite the WBF LC's > contrary statement) ought to explain why L20F2 carefully > distinguishes between an explanation of auction (defender's > only right) and an explanation of a call (only declarer's > right). > +=+ I think Marv you should go further in what you say. Yes, there is an infraction of the law as it is today, but the WBFLC has said it is an infraction that should not normally be penalized. This probably foreshadows a coming change in the law. I have commented in a parallel post on this situation. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 15 09:15:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0EMFNY08322 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 09:15:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-2.cais.net (stmpy-2.cais.net [205.252.14.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0EMFEH08305 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 09:15:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-2.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g0EM6sV42877 for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 17:06:54 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20020114165825.00b2d210@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 17:06:49 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. In-Reply-To: <003101c19d43$5cbc52a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> References: <002f01c19ad6$3a7af4e0$7d04e080@isi.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20020114080906.00b2dec0@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 04:32 PM 1/14/02, Marvin wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Eric Landau" > > > I'd call this an over-hasty judgment. IMO, Classic Bridge was > > brilliantly conceived, but "poorly" doesn't begin to do justice to >how > > badly it was implemented. Had the implementation been even vaguely > > aligned with the original concept, the ACBL might today have a >viable > > refuge for those who wished to play competitively while avoiding the > > need to deal with the complexities of modern artificial bidding. >I'd > > even go so far as to favor their trying again if I felt they were > > capable of doing so sensibly (they might start by having the > > implementation committee drawn from players who might actually be > > willing to play in the game they invent). Of course, they will have >to > > find another name; "Classic Bridge" would remind people of the >original > > implemention disaster, and make a genuine implementation of the > > original concept, which would not in the least resemble the original > > experiment, unmarketable. > >My name for an alternative I designed was "True Bridge." I would have >preferred "Classic Bridge," but the ACBL stole the term from me, >applying it to a game that was not classic at all. True Bridge >incorporates four-card majors and a very limited number of >conventions. I went to the considerable trouble of creating a "True >Bridge Bidding Specification," a standard that players could assume in >the absence of special partnership agreements. > >For a number of reasons, it's too late for True Bridge, which would >require a humongous and expensive effort on the part of the ACBL. >Americans are now convinced that four-card majors are too dangerous, >and changing their minds is very difficult. Perhaps some on-line game >could offer True Bridge as an option, and that would be a start. The >SAYC is a disaster, a crappy system that inexperienced players can't >handle. > >While True Bridge uses 16-18 HCP 1NT openings, I may incorporate a >novice option using weak notrumps. Rebid considerations for a minimum >opening make four-card majors somewhat difficult for beginners. With >too many HCP for 1NT there is usually no rebid problem and they can >just open their best suit, very easy. "True Bridge" is just another variation of the ACBL's version of "Classic Bridge". Where the ACBL started to go wrong was when the Classic Bridge committee decided -- or, more likely, assumed going in -- that it was their job to develop a "Classic Bridge System". That wasn't the original idea behind Classic Bridge at all. That was what Yellow Card was about; Classic Bridge was to have been something entirely different. The original idea for Classic Bridge was very simple: You could play ANY methods you liked, provided that they were NATURAL. However, the ONLY conventions allowed would come from a very short list, no more than half a dozen or so, such as takeout doubles, Stayman, Blackwood, and perhaps a couple of other near-universally-played ones. This is radically different from having events in which everyone plays some standard system, whether it be the Yellow Card System, the committee-developed Classic Bridge System, or Marv's True Bridge System. 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 15 09:34:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0EMYM111459 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 09:34:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0EMYBH11441 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 09:34:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g0EMPr603353 for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 14:25:53 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <004001c19d4a$5f5792c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Law Quiz Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 14:15:33 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Kooijman, A." > > I think there was a wrong answer for Question 10: > > > > 10. During the play, declarer or either defender may ask for an > > explanation of an opponent's bid. > > > > Answer: > > > > TRUE - In addition, explanation of defender's signals can also be > > obtained at any time during the play. (Law 20F2.) > > > > So I look at L20F2 and it says: > > > > After the final pass and throughout the play period, either defender > > at his own turn to play may request an explanation of opposing > > auction. At his or dummy's turn to play, the declarer may request an > > explanation of an opponent's call or card play conventions. > > > Therefore, Mr. Jones and Mr. Porter, defenders do not have the right > > that declarer has to question an individual call. > > Too quick Marv, too quick. > In the first place does L20F2 say something else in my ACBL-book. It speaks > about a FULL explanation which supports your interpretation and it says: > 'Questions may be asked about calls actually made or about relevant calls > available but not made' which supports my interpretation. That's 20F1, not 20F2, but the parenthetical remark (you omitted the parentheses), subordinate to the "entire auction" requirement because of the parentheses, no doubt applies to both. It clearly means that any necessary further questioning of calls, within the context of a full explanation, may address not only calls actually made but also relevant calls available but not made. Do I have to keep repeating history? This is *defa vue* all over again. At one time questioning of individual calls was permitted: 1975: During the auction...a full explanation of any call may be requested by any player... That lead to too many "pro questions" and too much UI, so they changed it: 1987: During the auction...any player... may request a full explanation of the opposing auction... Did that change mean nothing? The parenthetical remark was added in 1997 because, I believe, ACBL TDs were ruling that you could get information only about calls actually made. There was no new intention of permitting indiscriminate questioning of individual calls ("What did two clubs mean?), and I remember Grattan saying that he didn't consider that the added parenthetical remark made any material change to the intent of L20F1. > Furthermore did > the WBFLC give an explanation which supports the answer of J&P. > By heart that is: 'though the wording says that the question should cover > the whole auction it is normally not considered an infraction to question > one specific call'. Your heart is not in tune with the facts. Here's what the WBFLC said about 20F1/F2: "...it was agreed this refers to an explanation of the whole auction. [Asking] about the meaning of one particular call [is] a marginal infringement of the laws [that] should not normally attract a penalty but players should be aware of the increased risk of the creation of unauthorized information..." However "marginal," it is an irregularity that does not accord with the Laws. I prefer to follow the Laws and wish others would do so. I am sick of the "pro question" perpetrated so often with impunity at my table. Let mutually-consenting opponents ask away if that's what they want, but not at my table, please. > I am very happy with that interpretation to diminish the amount of > infractions caused by procedural irregularities. > Then let the WBFLC return to the 1975 wording. Pros will love that. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 15 09:59:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0EMxNL16228 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 09:59:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0EMxEH16203 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 09:59:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA17148; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 14:50:53 -0800 Message-Id: <200201142250.OAA17148@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Law Quiz In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 14 Jan 2002 14:15:33 PST." <004001c19d4a$5f5792c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 14:50:54 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marv wrote: > Do I have to keep repeating history? This is *defa vue* all over > again. At one time questioning of individual calls was permitted: > > 1975: During the auction...a full explanation of any call may be > requested by any player... > > That lead to too many "pro questions" and too much UI, so they changed > it: > > 1987: During the auction...any player... may request a full > explanation of the opposing auction... > > Did that change mean nothing? . . . . . > Then let the WBFLC return to the 1975 wording. Pros will love that. Sorry, but I don't see how this has anything to do with "pro questions". If I understand correctly, some people see it as a problem that a pro will ask a question he knows the answer to, when his client might not even realize that a question ought to be asked. I don't see how the 1987 change affects that at all, in particular about the pro's ability to ask a question about the last call made by one of the opponents. It means the pro has to ask for an explanation of the entire auction instead of an explanation of the last call, but it still serves the same purpose (making sure the client understands the meaning of a call), doesn't it? What am I missing? -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 15 10:14:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0ENEbC18976 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 10:14:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0ENETH18947 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 10:14:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g0EN6B617894 for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 15:06:11 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <005001c19d4f$fae0d3a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200201142058.MAA14809@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law Quiz Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 15:03:21 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Adam Beneschan" > > So although the WBF has said that asking about an individual call is a > "marginal infringement" (which does mean it's illegal), it has also > said that, for all practical purposes, it should be treated as legal, > by saying it should "not normally attract a penalty". The result of > all this is that I don't see anything to distinguish this illegal > action from a legal action; the illegal action is labeled "illegal" > but this label is nothing more than a label, since there are no > consequences arising from that label. "not normally," Adam, does not make it indistinguishable from a legal action. It is not normally treated as illegal because it's too much trouble, and too difficult at times, for TDs to detect L16 violations coming out of the questioning of individual calls. Just what is the big deal here? Everyone readily accepts the requirement that one must ask for a complete review of the auction, not a partial review, not interrupting it, and not asking "What was the first suit bid by dummy?" Why can't players do the same for explanations of auctions? Why should they be able to say "What did two clubs mean? or ask only about bids in which they have an interest? The change to this law in 1987 to remove permission to question individual calls was made for good reasons, and I wish Edgar were around to remind everyone of them. > > Personally, I think the WBF just ought to amend Law 20 to come right > out and say what it really means---either it should say that asking > about an individual call is legal, or it should say that it's illegal. > (Or leave it up to SO's.) > The meaning has always been quite clear to me, whether in 1975, 1987, or 1997. Finally, I don't think it's right for the WBFLC to be telling SOs how serious to consider an infraction of some Law. Different SOs may have different ideas about such things, and right now we have a serious problem in this part of ACBL-land with selective questioning of calls. It is very difficult to nail someone on an L16 violation, and the solution is to ask players to follow what L20F1 says. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 15 11:18:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0F0I5X01358 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 11:18:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0F0HuH01335 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 11:17:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g0F09c611575; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 16:09:38 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <006801c19d58$d008b900$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 16:00:30 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim West-Meads wrote > > Marv wrote: > > > There are three basic elements in the game of bridge: bidding, play of > > the hand, and defense. As with any game, the basic elements should be > > balanced for maximum enjoyment. When either offense or defense starts > > dominating in American football or basketball, the rules are modified > > to bring them back in balance. In bridge the element of bidding has > > come to dominate excessively. > > This last statement is directly counter to my experiences (though I > suspect that is partly due to the level of competition). On the whole I > see little correlation between the number of conventions played and the > ability to get to the best contract (and even then the extra information > given to defence will sometimes cause problems). Most pairs that play > lots of conventions seem to use that as an excuse not to discuss what > their natural bidding sequences really show - a poor exchange IMO. I agree with that. I was thinking of two classes: (1) the top echelon, who can handle multiple complex conventions, and (2) the bottom echelon, who cannot handle much of anything. Group (1) has made bidding the dominant element in its competitions, with skillful play much less important. There's nothing wrong with that, for those who want to go in that direction. Some of us like to remember that bridge is a card game, and feel that the card-play element should carry greater weight in proportion to bidding in high-level bridge. Just a matter of taste, I suppose. The use of external bidding aids, especially, reminding me of the "bidding wheels" used by novices, is not an attractive change to the game of bridge. I would prefer that SOs simply bar any convention that requires them, because using them constitutes a new game, not the classic game of bridge (in which aids are not permitted). Group (2) has been aping Group (1) unwisely. It would be doing the inexperienced a favor to restrict their conventions (unless, of course, they want to play on an equal basis with the big guns), at least until they learn to play cards. My Swiss team in Reno won 17 imps on a board when an opponent with a convention-clogged CC went down in 6S spades holding A10983 of spades opposite K765, no outside losers. I had the pleasure of claiming at trick one (with appropriate statment). > > In other words the freedom given to my opponents to play conventions > increases my own score. Of course my partner and I have extremely > detailed defences to the conventions of others: > 1. If oppos artificially bid a suit you like then double. > 2. Bidding a suit shown by opponents at your first opportunity is > not natural > My defenses also, with a slight embellishment for 1. Doubling with a one-suiter limits the hand, denying the ability to bid at a higher level, while doubling with a two-suiter is unlimited. When offered an "approved defense" by someone playing a Mid-Chart convention, I politely decline the offer. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 15 12:05:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0F15R410020 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 12:05:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0F15JH09999 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 12:05:19 +1100 (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 TAA24128 for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 19:57:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA09019 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 19:57:00 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 19:57:00 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200201150057.TAA09019@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Law Quiz Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > As for "not > normally attract a penalty", it seems to me that a penalty > should apply where this happens and the action is > sufficiently gross to persuade the Director that the > questioner knew what he was doing. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Let me propose a couple of examples, and Grattan can tell us if they reflect what is intended. If there's an unopposed auction 1S-2S-3D-4S, and somebody asks "What was 3D?" thats a technical violation but wildly unlikely to be penalized. The defenders are likely to have a pretty good guess about the other three bids! On the other hand, if there's an auction with 12 artificial bids, and somebody asks about the fifth one alone, that's a real problem. It ought to draw a penalty or at least a warning, and the director should be very alert to apply L16 if need be. OK, these are extremes. I have no idea how to put the principles into words, although in fact the current language doesn't seem bad to me. Education and enforcement seem more important than redrafting the language. Marv will be amused but unsurprised to hear that some of my opponents have refused to answer "Please explain your auction." They insist I ask about each specific call. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 15 12:17:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0F1H1d12014 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 12:17:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0F1GqH11984 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 12:16:52 +1100 (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 UAA24319 for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 20:08:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id UAA09169 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 20:08:33 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 20:08:33 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200201150108.UAA09169@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > The original idea for Classic Bridge was very simple: You could play > ANY methods you liked, provided that they were NATURAL. However, the > ONLY conventions allowed would come from a very short list, no more > than half a dozen or so, such as takeout doubles, Stayman, Blackwood, Looks like a complete enough list to me! Actually, I think I'd change "Blackwood" to something like "bids of 4NT and above after the opening bid," allowing all kinds of high level slam methods. You _might_ be able to talk me into lead-directing doubles, but I don't see what else we need. Allowing transfers, for example, as Classic Bridge did, is ludicrous. > radically different from having events in which everyone plays some > standard system, whether it be the Yellow Card System, the > committee-developed Classic Bridge System, or Marv's True Bridge System. Indeed. There's a place for "standard card" competitions, but I wouldn't expect them to be as popular as a properly constituted version of "Classic Bridge." Too bad we'll never find out. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 15 12:29:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0F1Saw13953 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 12:28:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0F1SPH13931 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 12:28:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g0F1K6611689 for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 17:20:07 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <009701c19d62$9eea5e00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "bridge-laws" References: <002101c19d38$0ecf98a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <005901c19d44$326c9b80$a198403e@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law Quiz Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 17:16:24 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Grattan Endicott > From: "Marvin L. French" > > > > Those who continue to believe that questioning individual > > calls during the auction is legal (despite the WBF LC's > > contrary statement) ought to explain why L20F2 carefully > > distinguishes between an explanation of auction (defender's > > only right) and an explanation of a call (only declarer's > > right). > > > +=+ I think Marv you should go further in what you say. > Yes, there is an infraction of the law as it is today, but the > WBFLC has said it is an infraction that should not normally > be penalized. This probably foreshadows a coming change > in the law. The quiz was based on the current Laws, not what future Laws might be. Are we to assume L25B doesn't exist now, because it is likely to go away in a few years? How heavily, how often, or under what circumstances a TD/AC/SO wishes to penalize a procedural irregularity is up to the TD/AC/SO, not the WBFLC. Their words concerning this one constitute advice, not instruction. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 15 13:11:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0F2BCS21827 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 13:11:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com ([63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0F2B3H21801 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 13:11:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA20871; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 18:02:39 -0800 Message-Id: <200201150202.SAA20871@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? (long) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 18:02:39 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is an excerpt from a thread on r.g.b. I've been in an argument with David desJardins on a question about disclosure. I wanted to know what thoughts anyone else might have about the matter. The quick summary is that a poster asked whether you must mention that you underlead aces sometimes; my opinion is that this is outside the realm of "agreements" (including implicit agreements) that the Laws require you to disclose, while David disagrees. The discussion is shown below. -- thanks, Adam Phil wrote: # Also, as another question, when opps ask about your leads, must you # mention to them that you underlead aces sometimes? I wrote: # No---there is no requirement in the Laws for you to inform the # opponents that you play bridge. David desJardins wrote, responding to Phil: # It depends what questions they ask, and what your agreements are. If # you have specific knowledge that your partner will often underlead aces, # because you have discussed it or from extensive experience, and if the # opponent asks if your partner is likely to underlead an ace, you have to # give an honest answer. I responded: # I don't think that's quite right. You're required to give information # about your *agreements*, including implicit agreements; for the # defenders, this has to do with what card you play when you want to # send a message to your partner, or when you want to give your partner # information on what your holding is. This has more to do with which # card you select from equals or cards of equal value (or equal # worthlessness)---e.g. when you lead a spot card at notrump, you # probably have some agreements about which card you lead. There may be # some implicit agreements also---if your agreement is to lead fourth # best, but your undiscussed experience is that partner often leads # highest or second highest from five to the nothing, that ought to be # disclosed also, since partner is leading this way for your benefit (to # avoid making you think he has a suit that can be set up). # # But when it comes to underleading an ace: that has nothing to do with # agreements. When you underlead an ace, you do it for bridge # reasons---i.e. you think it will work (perhaps because it will deceive # declarer, or because it will preserve an entry or will get partner on # lead when declarer has a singleton in the suit or whatever), and not # to give any information to partner. Thus, since the ace underlead has # to do with bridge technique and not with agreements (implicit or # explicit), it doesn't have to be disclosed under the Laws. That's # what I meant by my earlier message that "you don't have to inform the # opponents that you play bridge". David: > But when it comes to underleading an ace: that has nothing to do with > agreements. # Of course it does. If you tell your partner, "I often underlead aces, # so remember to take that into account when deciding whether to finesse # against dummy," that is obviously an agreement. If you don't explicitly # state this, but partner learns it from experience playing with you, then # it's still an ageement. # # It's exactly the same as if you often make off-shape preempts, and # partner knows that and can take it into account in the subsequent # bidding and play. > When you underlead an ace, you do it for bridge reasons---i.e. you > think it will work (perhaps because it will deceive declarer, or > because it will preserve an entry or will get partner on lead when > declarer has a singleton in the suit or whatever), and not to give any > information to partner. # When I open 2S with five spades and five clubs, I do so for "bridge # reasons"---i.e. I do it because I think it will obstruct the opponents' # auction, and not to give any information to partner. Does it follow # that we don't have to disclose our tendencies? Of course not. Me: # Assuming you play 2S as weak, just what do you disclose, and when? I # think your only requirement here is that you don't misinform the # opponents by saying (or implying) that you never open a weak 2 with a # five-card side suit; I don't see any positive requirement to say that # a five-card club suit is a possibility, unless the opponents # specifically ask whether it is. # # Similarly, in respect to the original question, if your partner # occasionally underleads aces against suits, I think your only # responsibility is to avoid misleading the opponents into thinking that # your partnership *never* underleads aces against suits. I.e. if they # ask a direct question about underleading aces, all you have to say is # that it's possible, i.e. you have no agreement prohibiting it. # # If you believe that more than this is required, could you explain # what? In other words, what question would an opponent ask that would # require you to disclose something about this? David: > Assuming you play 2S as weak, just what do you disclose, and when? # Your question amounts to: list every question that the opponents # might ask, and your response to it. I can't do that. > If you believe that more than this is required, could you explain > what? In other words, what question would an opponent ask that would > require you to disclose something about this? # Just read what I wrote before: >>> It depends what questions they ask, and what your agreements are. >>> If you have specific knowledge that your partner will often >>> underlead aces, because you have discussed it or from extensive >>> experience, and if the opponent asks if your partner is likely to >>> underlead an ace, you have to give an honest answer. # If your opponent were to ask, "Does your partner often underlead aces?" # and you have specifically discussed the fact that partner often # underleads aces, then you would have to reveal that. # # You say that's not true, that you would be allowed to conceal that # fact. But your reasons why seem wholly unconvincing to me. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 15 13:18:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0F2IRT22992 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 13:18:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com [212.74.112.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0F2IIH22972 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 13:18:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.64.152.95] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 16QJ2z-000AtZ-00; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 02:09:57 +0000 Message-ID: <003801c19d6a$06c2abc0$5f98403e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" , "bridge-laws" References: <200201142058.MAA14809@mailhub.irvine.com> <005001c19d4f$fae0d3a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law Quiz Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 02:10:06 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 11:03 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law Quiz > > Finally, I don't think it's right for the WBFLC to be > telling SOs how serious to consider an infraction > of some Law. Different SOs may have different ideas > about such things, and right now we have a serious > problem in this part of ACBL-land with selective > questioning of calls. It is very difficult to nail > someone on an L16 violation, and the solution is > to ask players to follow what L20F1 says. > +=+ I respect your right to an opinion. However, the WBFLC is directed that it 'shall interpret the laws' and where it perceives doubt or inconsistency it has a duty to do so. Interpretation necessarily extends to pronouncement on the force of the language, given the content of the 'Scope and Interpretation'. In Law 20F the language is generally soft but there is no direct indication about penalizing infractions; the Committee recognized a duty to state a position and did so. You may feel it not right to tell affiliates how serious this offence or that is to be considered, but the laws set out to do so and we are under direction to support the process where the laws are unclear about it (and to set a lead in the search for harmony of interpretation and consistency of rulings). Of the seven members present when this decision was taken, ton and I were from Zone 1, John Wignall from Zone 7, three ( Anderson, Gerard, Howes) were from Zone 2 and the seventh participant was Kojak (whose aim is independence of his Zonal background but who carries traces of an American upbringing, and may feel he knows something about bridge in ACBL-land). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 15 13:33:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0F2XER25103 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 13:33:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0F2WxH25073 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 13:33:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16QJHA-0006oS-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 02:24:39 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 16:17:53 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 41D References: <001601c19acc$28acbe60$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <002901c19bec$9788da00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20020114145010.00ab4ea0@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020114145010.00ab4ea0@pop.ulb.ac.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner writes >At 20:41 12/01/2002 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: > >> > > >> > >Always put down a dummy that partner expects, which may require >> > >putting a card into the wrong suit >> > >> > That is illegal, of course. > >AG : illegal ? Even if not voluntary ? The prolegomena (immediately after >the Table of Contents) cite L41B as an example of what should be done, but >does not create per se penalties if not done. If one intended to penalize >the Dummy for having missorted his cards, I'd rather stop bridge right now. >About twice per session I have that problem. Since eyesight, not >distraction, is involved, it would be quite unpleasant to hear the word >'ilegal' thrown at me. (no, it doesn't cause many revokes, because when the >card is detached from the other I usually realise). >Also, note that L72B2 speaks of infractions, not irregularities. I think >misplacing dummy's cards is an irregularity rather than an infraction. >*And* placing our best suit to the left when tabling is *not* an >irregularity. If it helps partner remembering that he plays NT, it's a >case of ensuring that partner plays well, which I consider the biggest >virtue in the game. When you do something against the Laws, whether the Laws of Bridge or of the land, that's illegal. Where did I suggest you should be penalised for making a mistake? That suddenly moves me [and every other TD] from someone trying to run the game to someone trying to spoil it. If you don't like you illegal acts being called that, I am sorry. But everyone does illegal acts the whole time, and just because they are not serious, or because they are not usually penalised, does not make them legal. To do something against the Laws is illegal whether done intentionally or not. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 15 13:33:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0F2XDo25101 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 13:33:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0F2WwH25069 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 13:32:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16QJH9-00040w-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 02:24:39 +0000 Message-ID: <4PePSkEkOwQ8EwPW@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 16:13:24 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. References: <002f01c19ad6$3a7af4e0$7d04e080@isi.com> <005f01c19af4$7cbf63e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20020114080906.00b2dec0@127.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20020114080906.00b2dec0@127.0.0.1> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau writes >At 06:01 PM 1/11/02, Marvin wrote: > >>Don't cite the failure of Classic Bridge, which >>was poorly conceived and poorly implemented. > >I'd call this an over-hasty judgment. IMO, Classic Bridge was >brilliantly conceived, but "poorly" doesn't begin to do justice to how >badly it was implemented. Had the implementation been even vaguely >aligned with the original concept, the ACBL might today have a viable >refuge for those who wished to play competitively while avoiding the >need to deal with the complexities of modern artificial bidding. I'd >even go so far as to favor their trying again if I felt they were >capable of doing so sensibly (they might start by having the >implementation committee drawn from players who might actually be >willing to play in the game they invent). Of course, they will have to >find another name; "Classic Bridge" would remind people of the original >implemention disaster, and make a genuine implementation of the >original concept, which would not in the least resemble the original >experiment, unmarketable. > >> > First, I would like to see a histogram of the ACBL membership sorted >>by >> > age. >> >>A more interesting histogram would be the superimposition of >>membership numbers and complexity of conventions allowed. It would be >>obvious that the two have a negative correlation. > >It would not be interesting, as the correlation would be meaningless, >with no causal implications whatsoever. The classic example of this >fallacy dates back to the 1950s when someone demonstrated a >decades-long correlation of better then 99.9% between teachers' >salaries and alcohol consumption in the U.S. Statistic from the 50s: well over 90% of British criminals drink tea. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 15 13:33:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0F2XH325107 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 13:33:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0F2WwH25068 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 13:32:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16QJHA-00040z-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 02:24:38 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 16:22:18 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] What to do with this mess? References: <007701c19d11$9cb1afe0$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> In-Reply-To: <007701c19d11$9cb1afe0$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Konrad Ciborowski writes >Hi all, > > I was told the following story by a friend who >played yesterday in a match in Polish Division Three. >Unfortunately I don't have the hands diagram so you >will have to live without it. > >N and E on the same side of the screen. > >N E S W >2S* pass** 2D pass >2S*** pass 2S**** pass***** >pass pass****** > >2S* - North opened the weak two but he didn't put the 2S card on the >tray but on the table instead >pass** - a man with a strong hand containing spade one-suiter failed >to notice where North put his 2S card >2D - South opened 2D as Wilkosz: 6-10, 5+-5+ with at least one major >2S*** - At this point the TD was called for the first time. He ruled that >the >insufficient bid of 2D was accepted by West's pass and instructed the >players to bid on. In these circumstances North rebid 2S this time putting >the 2S card on the tray >2S**** - No one will ever know what was on South's mind when he bid this... >pass***** A quick pass hoping that NS are probably heading for some >disaster >pass****** - East almost had a heart attack when 2S was passed back to >him. >After a lot of soul searching he decided to pass fearing that the double >at this point wouldn't be for penalties > >A 2S response over Wilkosz is of "pass or correct" type >South had H+C. >I don't know if this is relevant but both weak twos and Wilkosz >don't require alerts in Poland; they are the default meanings >of these openers. > >East / West missed 6D which was laydown. The TD let the >table result stand. > >What would do with this? I know that is impossible to >give a ruling without the hands diagram but I would like >to hear your comments anyway. Thanks. A round of drinks seems about right. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 15 17:31:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0F6Uqd29782 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 17:30:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0F6UhH29753 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 17:30:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g0F6MO621380 for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 22:22:24 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <00b001c19d8c$ab9d9ca0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <002f01c19ad6$3a7af4e0$7d04e080@isi.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20020114080906.00b2dec0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20020114165825.00b2d210@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 22:16:09 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Eric Landau" > > The original idea for Classic Bridge was very simple: You could play > ANY methods you liked, provided that they were NATURAL. However, the > ONLY conventions allowed would come from a very short list, no more > than half a dozen or so, such as takeout doubles, Stayman, Blackwood, > and perhaps a couple of other near-universally-played ones. This is > radically different from having events in which everyone plays some > standard system, whether it be the Yellow Card System, the > committee-developed Classic Bridge System, or Marv's True Bridge System. > I didn't make it clear, but my system specification for True Bridge is a suggestion only. Players are free to use any bidding treatments they wish, as only conventions are limited. Moreover, variations of allowed conventions (within reason) would be permitted. Most Stayman variations, for instance. I guess that means True Bridge and the original Classic Bridge idea are identical, and it was only the ACBL's implementation of Classic Bridge that was a problem. Reduced masterpoint awards didn't help its popularity, by the way. However, offering Classic Bridge or True Bridge to today's duplicate players isn't going to work. Obviously most of them like a lot of conventions or they wouldn't be playing at sectionals, regionals, and NABCs. Instead, it should be offered to a new and much larger generation of players, with an "Audrey Grant" bidding series that doesn't foist an inappropriate bidding system on beginners. That generation, emphasizing card-playing over the intricacies of 5-card majors, transfer bids, etc., would in time beat the pants off the current crop of B and C-level wannabe scientists. My wife Alice says that won't work either. She is well acquainted with a large number of non-member players, and is sure that new players would be told by friends about the joys of conventions and the dangers of four-card majors. They then would be unwilling to trust anyone who advocates a simpler approach to the game. So, True Bridge remains on my back burner. There is a new ACBL attempt now, called EasyBridge, "The Fast Track to Modern Bridge." This rather unstructured approach, emphasizing the fun of the game, is fully described on the ACBL website. I understand the dropout rate is extremely high here in San Diego, after the initial free sessions that include food and fun, run by a "Presenter" who is expected to be a standup comedian. However, the owner of the Escondido Bridge club tells me that Easybridge is a great success there. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 15 18:01:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0F71KI03770 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 18:01:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0F71BH03746 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 18:01:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g0F6qq629411; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 22:52:52 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <00bf01c19d90$e5615fe0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: <200201142250.OAA17148@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law Quiz Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 22:48:28 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Adam Beneschan" > > Marv wrote: > > > Do I have to keep repeating history? This is *defa vue* all over > > again. At one time questioning of individual calls was permitted: > > > > 1975: During the auction...a full explanation of any call may be > > requested by any player... > > > > That lead to too many "pro questions" and too much UI, so they changed > > it: > > > > 1987: During the auction...any player... may request a full > > explanation of the opposing auction... > > > > Did that change mean nothing? > > . . . . . > > > Then let the WBFLC return to the 1975 wording. Pros will love that. > > Sorry, but I don't see how this has anything to do with "pro > questions". If I understand correctly, some people see it as a > problem that a pro will ask a question he knows the answer to, when > his client might not even realize that a question ought to be asked. > I don't see how the 1987 change affects that at all, in particular > about the pro's ability to ask a question about the last call made by > one of the opponents. It means the pro has to ask for an explanation > of the entire auction instead of an explanation of the last call, but > it still serves the same purpose (making sure the client understands > the meaning of a call), doesn't it? > > What am I missing? Nothing, except that the right procedure makes it less obvious which call is of great interest. An unethical pro can't ask, before doubling West's slam, "What was the first suit bid by East?" He can accomplish the same goal by asking for a complete review of the bidding before doubling, but a typical client might not get the message that way. The same principle applies to explanations of the auction: Individual calls should not be highlighted. But L20F1 is not aimed at pros, who are mostly very ethical. It is aimed at the player who, perhaps ignorant of ethical niceties, wants to question a bid made several rounds ago because he has a nice holding in the suit. While L16 is supposed to handle that situation, it's much easier for all concerned if the question is not permitted. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 15 18:40:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0F7eTJ09484 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 18:40:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0F7eKH09463 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 18:40:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g0F7W1606959 for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 23:32:01 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <00e401c19d96$48d5a220$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200201150108.UAA09169@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 23:28:31 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Steve Willner" > > From: Eric Landau > > The original idea for Classic Bridge was very simple: You could play > > ANY methods you liked, provided that they were NATURAL. However, the > > ONLY conventions allowed would come from a very short list, no more > > than half a dozen or so, such as takeout doubles, Stayman, Blackwood, > > Looks like a complete enough list to me! Actually, I think I'd change > "Blackwood" to something like "bids of 4NT and above after the opening > bid," allowing all kinds of high level slam methods. You _might_ be > able to talk me into lead-directing doubles, but I don't see what else > we need. Allowing transfers, for example, as Classic Bridge did, is > ludicrous. > Yes, but when you start looking closely, there are conventions that are needed to make the game playable, most of them quite traditional. My list is: Takeout doubles "S. O. S." redoubles that ask for a rescue Weakness responses to forcing openings Stayman in response to NT openings or overcalls Opposite a NT opening bid or overcall, cue bid of opposing suit to ask for a major Yes, any slam method at or above 4NT Gerber over notrump (reluctantly) Countermeasures to any convention I might add two less-traditional conventions that are nearly indispensable: Checkback minor suit bids after a NT response or rebid Fourth Suit Artificial Also, opening leads must be "standard," with the allowed exception of ace from AK. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 15 19:00:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0F80gw13153 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 19:00:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0F80XH13136 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 19:00:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g0F7qE609992 for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 23:52:14 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <00f001c19d99$16f1ff80$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200201150057.TAA09019@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law Quiz Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 23:48:49 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Steve Willner" > If there's an unopposed auction 1S-2S-3D-4S, and somebody asks "What was > 3D?" thats a technical violation but wildly unlikely to be penalized. > The defenders are likely to have a pretty good guess about the other > three bids! > If the question comes from the opening leader's partner before passing 4S, I would consider that to be a very serious infraction. If from the opening leader, no problem. While on this subject, isn't everyone tired of the defender who asks questions before making the final pass, with no intention of acting? Can't this be made illegal without resorting to L16? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 15 19:09:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0F88gO14511 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 19:08:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com [212.74.112.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0F88WH14485 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 19:08:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.69.79] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 16QOVv-0002Bp-00; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 08:00:11 +0000 Message-ID: <002701c19d9a$f41dc280$4f45e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" , "bridge-laws" References: <002101c19d38$0ecf98a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <005901c19d44$326c9b80$a198403e@dodona> <009701c19d62$9eea5e00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law Quiz Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 08:01:06 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "bridge-laws" Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 1:16 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law Quiz > > From Grattan: > > +=+ I think Marv you should go further in what you say. > > Yes, there is an infraction of the law as it is today, but the > > WBFLC has said it is an infraction that should not normally > > be penalized. This probably foreshadows a coming change > > in the law. > > Marv replies: > The quiz was based on the current Laws, not what future > Laws might be. Are we to assume L25B doesn't exist now, > because it is likely to go away in a few years? > +=+ Come on, Marv, you are being petty here. The reference to what might happen to the law in future was an aside, and you know it. My statement about the WBFLC's interpretation of the current law was not affected by it.+=+ > > How heavily, how often, or under what circumstances a > TD/AC/SO wishes to penalize a procedural irregularity is > up to the TD/AC/SO, not the WBFLC. > +=+ This is agreed between us +=+ > > Their words concerning this one constitute advice, not > instruction. > +=+ Wrong. The WBFLC's words constitute instruction as to the meaning of the law - definition of the ground on which the TD/AC/SO will play out their roles as above. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 15 19:24:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0F8NbD17384 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 19:23:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0F8NRH17359 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 19:23:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g0F8F7E19473 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 09:15:07 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue Jan 15 09:12:07 2002 +0100 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl (agro500s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KD3FCDI3TO003XHK@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 09:14:07 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 09:13:58 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 09:14:06 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Law Quiz To: "'Steve Willner'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > As for "not > > normally attract a penalty", it seems to me that a penalty > > should apply where this happens and the action is > > sufficiently gross to persuade the Director that the > > questioner knew what he was doing. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Let me propose a couple of examples, and Grattan can tell us if they > reflect what is intended. > > If there's an unopposed auction 1S-2S-3D-4S, and somebody > asks "What was > 3D?" thats a technical violation but wildly unlikely to be penalized. > The defenders are likely to have a pretty good guess about the other > three bids! > > On the other hand, if there's an auction with 12 artificial bids, and > somebody asks about the fifth one alone, that's a real problem. It > ought to draw a penalty or at least a warning, and the director should > be very alert to apply L16 if need be. > > OK, these are extremes. I have no idea how to put the principles into > words, although in fact the current language doesn't seem bad to me. > Education and enforcement seem more important than redrafting the > language. Marv will be amused but unsurprised to hear that some of my > opponents have refused to answer "Please explain your auction." They > insist I ask about each specific call. Your examples are very well chosen. I am really surprised that some of us are thinking that demanding a full (every call) explanation will help to solve anything. We seem to live in two worlds: one where bridge is played and one where people try to interpret the laws, no effort being made to combine or integrate those. Would anyone like to suggest that in the auction 1S - 2S - 3D - 4S starting to ask the meaning of 1S and then 2S, so getting to 3D where the answer might not be satisfying and a second or even third question is asked, finishing with a question about 4S (!?!?!; part of the auction isn't it Marvin?) will help us in any way to solve the problem L20 wants to tackle? ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 15 19:30:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0F8U5G18457 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 19:30:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0F8TuH18432 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 19:29:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g0F8LZE21922 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 09:21:35 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue Jan 15 09:18:34 2002 +0100 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl (agro500s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KD3FKLUGZ2003Z2V@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 09:20:45 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 09:20:36 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 09:20:42 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Law Quiz To: "'Marvin L. French'" , bridge-laws Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > The quiz was based on the current Laws, not what future Laws > might be. Are > we to assume L25B doesn't exist now, because it is likely to > go away in a > few years? The WBFLC has given an interpretation of L20 which should be considered to be part of the laws. As far as I remember nothing similar has been doen in L25. You are acting as the angry pupil here, not only making the exam but also wanting to assess it. That normally goes wrong, when wrong answers are given. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 15 19:44:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0F8i1k21106 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 19:44:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0F8hpH21073 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 19:43:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g0F8ZTE26692 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 09:35:30 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue Jan 15 09:32:28 2002 +0100 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl (agro500s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KD3G3IVG0O003YP6@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 09:35:13 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 09:35:04 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 09:35:12 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Law Quiz To: "'Marvin L. French'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > If the question comes from the opening leader's partner > before passing 4S, > I would consider that to be a very serious infraction. If > from the opening > leader, no problem. > > While on this subject, isn't everyone tired of the defender who asks > questions before making the final pass, with no intention of > acting? Can't > this be made illegal without resorting to L16? We await suggestions but I don't see how to do it in another way than 'threatening' with L16. And we could put more emphasis on that. What we also could do after the auction has been closed is not to allow RHO to question the auction before he has to play herself, which solves part of the problem. ton > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > > > > > > > > -- > ============================================================== > ========== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at > http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-> LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 15 20:24:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0F9NfR28435 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 20:23:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0F9NWH28405 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 20:23:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id KAA18427; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 10:12:16 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id KAA09509; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 10:14:59 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020115094648.00a64df0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 10:17:49 +0100 To: "Konrad Ciborowski" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] What to do with this mess? In-Reply-To: <007701c19d11$9cb1afe0$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 16:39 14/01/2002 +0100, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: AG : all this looks like a joke intended to prove that even you, the TD, will sometimes be left without an answer. Or perhaps it did take place somewhere in the intergalactic space. What the heck, let's try and sort it out : >N and E on the same side of the screen. > >N E S W >2S* pass** 2D pass >2S*** pass 2S**** pass***** >pass pass****** > >2S* - North opened the weak two but he didn't put the 2S card on the >tray but on the table instead AG : this is an incorrection if using normal screen rules. >pass** - a man with a strong hand containing spade one-suiter failed >to notice where North put his 2S card AG : L74B1 enabled. >2D - South opened 2D as Wilkosz: 6-10, 5+-5+ with at least one major >2S*** - At this point the TD was called for the first time. He ruled that >the insufficient bid of 2D was accepted by West's pass AG : this is absurd. Tu condone an insufficient bid, one must have been able to see it was an insufficient bid. South didn't enjoy free will in this case. (notice the French pun : 'libre arbitre' = both 'free will' and 'free TD'). Before South bid a second time, the TD could have ruled, for equity and using L82A, that the bidding went back to North, who must make a sufficient call. Information from his 2D is UI, since his partner's error prompted the mess. NS are an offending side. What trifles me is that neither South nor West realised that East had passed OOT ! (if North's 2S is not on the tray, East seems to have made the first declaration, while North was dealer) > and instructed the >players to bid on. In these circumstances North rebid 2S this time putting >the 2S card on the tray AG : The rule having been given as it was, North's second 2S bid is not subject to L72B1 : when he misplaced the bidding cards, he didn't know it could help him. >2S**** - No one will ever know what was on South's mind when he bid this... AG : I will tell you : 2S is P/C. South knows from his partner's previous 2S bid that it isn't. Since passing is too well noticeable, and would incur him L16 penalties, he decided to make it more funny, also silencing partner in the process (he thought he would be disallowed to bid 2S, and would replace this by a pass). *Here*, L23 could apply, although I don't see how North could wish to bid anything else in the future (except 2S, perhaps ). >pass***** A quick pass hoping that NS are probably heading for some >disaster AG : not clever. NS obviously intended to play in 2S. >pass****** - East almost had a heart attack when 2S was passed back to >him. >After a lot of soul searching he decided to pass fearing that the double >at this point wouldn't be for penalties AG : I would, too, because I never discussed the sequence :-)) >East / West missed 6D which was laydown. The TD let the >table result stand. > >What would do with this? AG : North is somewhat responsible for the mess, as I said, but his incorrection is a minor one. East also has a slight amount of responsibility. But the main responsible is the TD, who by his strange ruling complicated matters a lot. However, I would be reluctant to apply L82C to a bunch of players who did all they could to deepen the problem. One thing is still available : L12A1 ... but with two OSs. Perhaps the best ruling would be to send back all five of them where they belong - the outer space. > I know that is impossible to >give a ruling without the hands diagram AG : I'd bet that it wouldn't help. Best regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 15 21:06:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0FA6Dd06671 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 21:06:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0FA64H06637 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 21:06:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id KAA02633; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 10:54:48 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id KAA26563; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 10:57:32 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020115104250.00ac1250@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 11:00:21 +0100 To: Adam Beneschan , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? (long) Cc: adam@irvine.com In-Reply-To: <200201150202.SAA20871@mailhub.irvine.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 18:02 14/01/2002 -0800, Adam Beneschan wrote: >David desJardins wrote, responding to Phil: > ># It depends what questions they ask, and what your agreements are. If ># you have specific knowledge that your partner will often underlead aces, ># because you have discussed it or from extensive experience, and if the ># opponent asks if your partner is likely to underlead an ace, you have to ># give an honest answer. AG : I do agree. Alex has an habit of underleading Aces when the bidding goes 1m-p-p-p. I know it. I also know it pays. L75C explicitly compels me to say it if asked, because this comes from knowing my partner's habits, not from playing bridge. >if your agreement is to lead fourth ># best, but your undiscussed experience is that partner often leads ># highest or second highest from five to the nothing, that ought to be ># disclosed also, since partner is leading this way for your benefit (to ># avoid making you think he has a suit that can be set up). AG : so, when they ask you whether partner often parts from your written conventions, you have to respond honestly. Don't you see this is in fact agreeing with Phil (and me) ? In some partnerships, I've played 'all lead conventions and signals off against suit slams, excpet K for count'. Might I have hidden this ??? > ># But when it comes to underleading an ace: that has nothing to do with ># agreements. AG : in fact, it has. It means you're an aggressive leader, and the opponents have the right to know this. Most would expect the lead from xxx to be more frequent than the lead from Axx. We don't, at least against partials. This is not a convention, but it is partnership style - a thing that has to be revealed, in the same way you have to reveal whether you are aggressive overcallers, whether you make speculative penalty doubles, or whether your preempts are sound or light. (all questions that the instructions for filling in the WBF CC specifically mention) >David: > > > But when it comes to underleading an ace: that has nothing to do with > > agreements. > ># Of course it does. If you tell your partner, "I often underlead aces, ># so remember to take that into account when deciding whether to finesse ># against dummy," AG : that's it. Alex and I indeed discussed this. > ># Assuming you play 2S as weak, just what do you disclose, and when? I ># think your only requirement here is that you don't misinform the ># opponents by saying (or implying) that you never open a weak 2 with a ># five-card side suit AG : I disagree. There is ample space on the CC to mention that you can open a 5-card weak 2-bid, a 2-suiter, etc. (see a thread on this in The Bridge World about 15 years ago). >; I don't see any positive requirement to say that ># a five-card club suit is a possibility, unless the opponents ># specifically ask whether it is. AG : the minimum is to mention on the CC that you might depart from traditional W2 requirements ; then opponents may ask. If you simply mention "weak 2", you are retaining information. When Gilles opens a 3-bid, I alert. If asked, I explain 'preemptive, but may be spectacularly wild', because I know it and opps are entitled to know it. But it's just playing bridge, trying to make life difficult to the opponents ATV, isn't it? Still, it's alertable. Best regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 15 21:21:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0FALdg09472 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 21:21:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtpd.ha-net.ptd.net (smtpd.ha-net.ptd.net [207.44.96.84]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g0FALTH09445 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 21:21:30 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 19209 invoked by uid 50005); 15 Jan 2002 10:13:09 -0000 Received: from brian@wellsborocomputing.com by smtpd with qmail-scanner-1.00 (uvscan: v4.1.60/v4180. . Clean. Processed in 0.337726 secs); 15 Jan 2002 10:13:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wellscs) ([24.229.41.52]) (envelope-sender ) by smtpd.ha-net.ptd.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 15 Jan 2002 10:13:09 -0000 From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 05:13:10 -0500 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: References: <0u0v3u85ooojbtaqjj9i2psor02l9mcsnj@4ax.com> In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Mon, 14 Jan 2002 13:15:19 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > > You are assuming the membership wants this sort of detail, which I am >confident they do not. What you want is a lot different from the wishes >of the average player. So long as the EBU makes sure that its decisions >in this area are open, detail is not required. > Then we simply disagree on what constitutes openness, or the degree of same. > [s] > >>As I said earlier in this thread, maybe Steve and myself took >>"full disclosure" more literally than was meant. I notice that a >>pair have allowed their CC to be published as an example in the >>Orange book, the CC seems to me to fall a considerable way short >>of what Steve and I would have regarded as full disclosure. I'll >>be happy to post (or e-mail you privately) a list of what I see >>as the shortcomings if asked. If you think that the CC is what's >>required by full disclosure, then I'm certainly of the opinion >>that Acol players are held to a far lower standard than those >>playing some other system, based on my personal experiences with >>TDs in a little over 20 years playing under EBU jurisdiction. > > I very much doubt that there is any basis for this belief whatever. I've told you explicitly what the basis for the belief is - my personal experience. >Yes, many many pairs practise poor disclosure, but to say htat the TDs >accept that from them and not from other players is just wrong. Great. I state that I have personal experience as the basis for what I say, whereas you, without benefit of knowing time, place or details, state that you very much doubt that there is any basis for what I believe, and that my conclusion is just plain wrong. I'm happy to leave it up to the BLML readership to decide who sounds the more plausible. >TDs >adopt a practical approach of trying to educate and persuade everyone ot >do better. > I have no problem with accepting that is their aim. I am merely saying that there were a significant number of occasions in my personal experience where I question the implementation. > > Oh, come on. I have given an opinion, just like yours. I have as >much evidence of statistics for my opinion as you do for the opinions >you have been quoting. > The difference is that I haven't claimed that my opinions carry majority appeal. > Furthermore, I am not saying that there is any effort to limit >conventions by size of CC. I just said it would be practical and >accepted. > Then it is your fault for not making that clear earlier. Grattan explicitly stated that one organisation did exactly that, and that was the point at which you came in. > > Any player who deliberately writes super-small to get around the reg >is out of line. If the size of the writing makes reading too difficult >then the CC is illegal, and there is no Full disclosure. > And had the EBU said, in a manner which I would describe as open, that the intent of the regulation was to limit how much could be fitted on the CC, and that decreasing the size of writing to detail as many agreements as possible was not acceptable, we wouldn't have done it. They didn't, at least not in a manner that communicated their decision to the membership at large. I only wish I still had a copy of that CC, it would be very interesting to post a full-sized scan of it on my website and ask for opinions from BLML as to whether we were doing our best to practice full disclosure or not. Unfortunately, as with so much of my bridge literature, it didn't survive my emigration to the USA. >>I'm not familiar with the Swedish points system that you >>describe, but if it's something along the lines of what I >>suggested in an earlier posting, then I think that is one *hell* >>of a lot fairer to all than the size of CC approach. > > Good, you don't know it, it must be fairer. > What you hope to gain by pretending that you don't recognise a conditional statement when you see one is beyond me. > > Sure: I think if an authority tells people what its decisions are then >it is open: you don't. > When there are additional ramifications to that decision, or the purpose of the decision is to have some additional (but unmentioned) effect, then I think those should be disclosed as well, you don't. Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 15 21:27:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0FAR1W10228 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 21:27:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (st.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0FAQqH10207 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 21:26:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id LAA08383; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 11:15:36 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id LAA19637; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 11:18:20 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020115111435.00abd0e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 11:21:10 +0100 To: "Kooijman, A." , "'Marvin L. French'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: RE: [BLML] Law Quiz In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:35 15/01/2002 +0100, Kooijman, A. wrote: >We await suggestions but I don't see how to do it in another way than >'threatening' with L16. And we could put more emphasis on that. What we also >could do after the auction has been closed is not to allow RHO to question >the auction before he has to play herself, which solves part of the problem. AG : it won't work, because the auction is not closed until after the lead (L17E). One could at least explicitly specify in the footnote to L20F 'law 16 may apply' : 'especially to questions asked in passout position or about non-alerted bids'. What does 'he plays herself' mean ? I've got at least one (bridge !) partner to whom this might apply (I let you guess why), but isn't this strange ? Or is PCness a higher priority than rules of agreement ? Best regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 15 21:42:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0FAgBA10311 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 21:42:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns2.minlnv.nl (dns2.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0FAg2H10307 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 21:42:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.38]) by dns2.minlnv.nl (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g0FAXfK16533 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 11:33:41 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue Jan 15 11:25:33 2002 +0100 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl (agro500s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KD3K1DAVKA003ZLN@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 11:28:01 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 11:27:52 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 11:28:00 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Law Quiz To: "'Alain Gottcheiner'" , "Kooijman, A." , "'Marvin L. French'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >the auction before he has to play herself, which solves part > of the problem. > What does 'he plays herself' mean ? I've got at least one (bridge !) > partner to whom this might apply (I let you guess why), but > isn't this > strange ? Or is PCness a higher priority than rules of agreement ? > Once in a while I feel the need to emphasize that my statements are not gender biased. ton > Best regards, > > Alain. > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 15 23:37:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0FCZfC26770 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 23:35:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0FCZWH26746 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 23:35:33 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g0FCRAZ20626 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 12:27:11 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 12:27 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.52.2000, Windows 98 4.10.2222 ( A ) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <006801c19d58$d008b900$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Marv wrote: > I agree with that. I was thinking of two classes: (1) the top echelon, > who can handle multiple complex conventions, and (2) the bottom > echelon, who cannot handle much of anything. > > Group (1) has made bidding the dominant element in its competitions, > with skillful play much less important. There's nothing wrong with > that, for those who want to go in that direction. Some of us like to > remember that bridge is a card game, and feel that the card-play > element should carry greater weight in proportion to bidding in > high-level bridge. Just a matter of taste, I suppose. Perhaps it is inevitability rather than taste. Top echelon players *all* know their cardplay techniques while the science of bidding is still developing (GIB's performance in the relative areas seems to support the fact that card-play technique is currently more fully explored). > Group (2) has been aping Group (1) unwisely. It would be doing the > inexperienced a favor to restrict their conventions Agreed. But IMO that is a job for their teachers rather than the legislators. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 16 00:18:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0FDIBv03122 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 00:18:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net (snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0FDI2H03106 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 00:18:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from pool0470.cvx31-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.147.215] helo=c1r5i8) by snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16QTLR-0001Z2-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 05:09:41 -0800 Message-ID: <009301c19dc5$d2f256e0$d793b3d1@c1r5i8> Reply-To: "Thomas Wood" From: "Thomas Wood" To: "BLML" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020115104250.00ac1250@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? (long) + (longer) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 05:09:09 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner opined, v-a-v Adam's posting: > At 18:02 14/01/2002 -0800, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > >David desJardins wrote, responding to Phil: > > > ># It depends what questions they ask, and what your agreements are. If > ># you have specific knowledge that your partner will often underlead aces, > ># because you have discussed it or from extensive experience, and if the > ># opponent asks if your partner is likely to underlead an ace, you have to > ># give an honest answer. > > AG : I do agree. Alex has an habit of underleading Aces when the bidding > goes 1m-p-p-p. I know it. > I also know it pays. L75C explicitly compels me to say it if asked, because > this comes from knowing my partner's habits, not from playing bridge. > Opponents often ask a general question about a lead. E.g., "What does the C3 tell you in your style?" or "Meaning?" [pointing at the C3 lead]. Given our style, I would answer: "3rd or 5th, even 4th if 3rd-best would be a 6 or higher, but avoiding such a lead without a top honor -- and that includes sometimes leading low from the A." To offer a vague answer, in the face of a surely known specific style, is to play the game unethically. I will concede, however, that partner and I have no greater irritation at the table than knowing that not one opponent in fifty will give us such a careful and honest answer, and I would guess that at least 10 opponents in 50 are being intentionally, carefully vague in their answers. [I guess the rationalization is probably: "Well, no one else does it." (= is forthcoming about known style & de facto conventions)] > > >if your agreement is to lead fourth > ># best, but your undiscussed experience is that partner often leads > ># highest or second highest from five to the nothing, that ought to be > ># disclosed also, since partner is leading this way for your benefit (to > ># avoid making you think he has a suit that can be set up). > > AG : so, when they ask you whether partner often parts from your written > conventions, you have to respond honestly. Don't you see this is in fact > agreeing with Phil (and me) ? > In some partnerships, I've played 'all lead conventions and signals off > against suit slams, excpet K for count'. Might I have hidden this ??? > The ACBL CC addresses this issue head-on, with pre-printed card groups for which to indicate lead style: in this case, xxxxx, with each of the top two 'x's circled on our card. Failure to mark these groups comprehensively is downright unethical. When asked about leads against slams, we regularly reply: "By agreement, *anything goes* on leads against slams. Do not count on getting a lead conforming to our normal style." > > > ># But when it comes to underleading an ace: that has nothing to do with > ># agreements. > > AG : in fact, it has. It means you're an aggressive leader, and the > opponents have the right to know this. Most would expect the lead from xxx > to be more frequent than the lead from Axx. We don't, at least against > partials. This is not a convention, but it is partnership style - a thing > that has to be revealed, in the same way you have to reveal whether you are > aggressive overcallers, whether you make speculative penalty doubles, or > whether your preempts are sound or light. (all questions that the > instructions for filling in the WBF CC specifically mention) > Agree totally, Alain. Ace-underlead style frequency *must* be disclosed, especially if an opponent's question goes anywhere near this topic. (See above.) On the other hand, I do *not* feel obligated to shore up opponent's apparent lack of general bridge knowledge or inference. That's his problem. > > >David: > > > > > But when it comes to underleading an ace: that has nothing to do with > > > agreements. > > > ># Of course it does. If you tell your partner, "I often underlead aces, > ># so remember to take that into account when deciding whether to finesse > ># against dummy," > > AG : that's it. Alex and I indeed discussed this. > > > > ># Assuming you play 2S as weak, just what do you disclose, and when? I > ># think your only requirement here is that you don't misinform the > ># opponents by saying (or implying) that you never open a weak 2 with a > ># five-card side suit > > AG : I disagree. There is ample space on the CC to mention that you can > open a 5-card weak 2-bid, a 2-suiter, etc. (see a thread on this in The > Bridge World about 15 years ago). > In ACBLdom, it is very rare to find an amplifying style note in the weak-2 boxes. "Almost no constraints on side-suit distribution" or "Anything goes in side suits" would be greatly appreciated. We have opponents open weak-2S with Kxxxxx QJxxxx -- x. When we have asked, after this fact comes to light, "Is this sort of distribution common in your weak-2 style?", we often get a testy response like "You're allowed to do it. No rule against it!" Unfortunately, in the Southern CA area, our experience is that the mandate to "play bridge as an open-information game" is either unknown, honored with less than half measures, or blatantly ignored. > > >; I don't see any positive requirement to say that > ># a five-card club suit is a possibility, unless the opponents > ># specifically ask whether it is. > > AG : the minimum is to mention on the CC that you might depart from > traditional W2 requirements ; then opponents may ask. If you simply mention > "weak 2", you are retaining information. > When Gilles opens a 3-bid, I alert. If asked, I explain 'preemptive, but > may be spectacularly wild', because I know it and opps are entitled to know > it. But it's just playing bridge, trying to make life difficult to the > opponents ATV, isn't it? Still, it's alertable. > In a previous partnership, partner would alert any overcall which I made over opponent's strong-2C (or even strong/forcing-1C) and explain: "Partner is known for very unusual overcalls in this auction situation. His calls often seem to have little to do with the cards he is looking at." > Best regards, > > Alain. > Cheers. Tom Wood -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 16 01:16:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0FEGIH13585 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 01:16:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net (snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0FEGAH13562 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 01:16:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from pool0470.cvx31-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.147.215] helo=c1r5i8) by snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16QUFh-0007kn-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 06:07:50 -0800 Message-ID: <009a01c19dcd$f1fb0160$d793b3d1@c1r5i8> Reply-To: "Thomas Wood" From: "Thomas Wood" To: "BLML" References: <200201150108.UAA09169@cfa183.harvard.edu> <00e401c19d96$48d5a220$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. -- Classic/True Bridge Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 06:07:17 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marv wrote: > > From: "Steve Willner" > > > > From: Eric Landau > > > > The original idea for Classic Bridge was very simple: You could play > > > ANY methods you liked, provided that they were NATURAL. However, the > > > ONLY conventions allowed would come from a very short list, no more > > > than half a dozen or so, such as takeout doubles, Stayman, Blackwood, > > > > Looks like a complete enough list to me! Actually, I think I'd change > > "Blackwood" to something like "bids of 4NT and above after the opening > > bid," allowing all kinds of high level slam methods. You _might_ be > > able to talk me into lead-directing doubles, but I don't see what else > > we need. Allowing transfers, for example, as Classic Bridge did, is > > ludicrous. > > > Yes, but when you start looking closely, there are conventions that are > needed to make the game playable, most of them quite traditional. > My list is: > Takeout doubles Of course. > "S. O. S." redoubles that ask for a rescue Very handy, but freq-of-occurrence must be quite low. Odd to find this as your #2 [Maybe your convention order is pseudo-random.] > Weakness responses to forcing openings Maybe not. For 20 years, I've played a Forcing-1C without having any Negative response defined. Opponents often repeat "But what is your Negative response???" when we have just told them that we have none. I will concede that a near-complete loss of conventional responses and rebids might make our approach more difficult. --- BTW, what are these "forcing openings" to which you refer? Certainly not 1C or 2C artificial and forcing, for you have not included these in your handful of 'alloweds'. [Unless my astigmatism has gotten the better of me again.] > Stayman in response to NT openings or overcalls Convention corruption setting in. The Convention Taliban are starting to stir . . . > Opposite a NT opening bid or overcall, cue bid of opposing > suit to ask for a major Really? I could see forgoing *this* cue, but notice that you have not allowed any other cuebid! No double-and-cue for you, no matter how big the hand. No cues to 'drive the auction forward.' Tell me that you just overlooked the lowly cuebid. > Yes, any slam method at or above 4NT Why the prejudicial 4NT threshold? Why not 3NT? Kickback Blackwood (asking with suit above agreed suit) seems like a more rational convention allowance than 4NT ace-ask. However, I do like your "any slam method" phrase. > Gerber over notrump (reluctantly) Ah, notice that 4C Gerber ace-ask is essentially Kickback for no agreed suit (= NT agreed, and C is the rank above). > Countermeasures to any convention Wow! You'd allow *any* such countermeasures? Even Inverted Psycho-Suction against opening 1NT? :) I think you're rapidly losing the 'purity' of your near-natural, hands-tied bidding style. > > I might add two less-traditional conventions that are nearly indispensable: > Checkback minor suit bids after a NT response or rebid Are you not stepping past the point of no return? > Fourth Suit Artificial Now you've done it, with these last two. Next thing you know, you'll slip negative dbls in and the Convention Taliban shall haul you off to the soccer field. :-\\ > > Also, opening leads must be "standard," with the allowed exception of ace > from AK. Unbelievable! Were you not begging for a True Bridge, where *play of the cards* is paramount and bidding is an unfortunate, but necessary prelude to the play? [I suppose that discards and attitude and count plays must be 'standard', too.] Maybe you mean that agreed opening lead style must be "standard" but that one is allowed to deviate from this agreed style. Else what next? Are you next going to insist on 100% "second hand low"? And no ducking? And no false-carding? Arrrrgh :-) > > Marv > Marvin L. French > Tom Wood, admittedly out of my depth in the near-natural bidding arena and admittedly addicted to conventional bidding wisdom -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 16 01:19:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0FEIvX14024 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 01:18:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be ([134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0FEIlH14002 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 01:18:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id PAA02523; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 15:08:27 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id PAA10711; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 15:08:43 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020115145814.00abfc00@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 15:11:32 +0100 To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:27 15/01/2002 +0000, Tim West-meads wrote: >Perhaps it is inevitability rather than taste. Top echelon players *all* >know their cardplay techniques while the science of bidding is still >developing (GIB's performance in the relative areas seems to support the >fact that card-play technique is currently more fully explored). AG : I wouldn't like to decree that there is a logical link here. My feeling is that : 1) card play technique can be quantified in terms of probability over the set of possible cases, dominance between lines of play and mixed strategies (in the game-theoretical sense). Most falsecards are mandatory, or at least their need can be seen from the possible ensuing lines of play. When arithmetics is the key factor, the computer is master. The power of present-day ordinary computers is enough to endeavour systematic research, like they do it at chess. 2) bidding depends more from the personal factor, as Mollo called it, strategy in the present match (rather than far-horizoned strategy), may include non-systematic false bids, and must adapt to the opponent's system. Those skills are much more difficult to integrate into a program. Perhaps they are also difficult to integrate into human brains, which would explain the difference in high-level play. But even if expert at some time would became more regular in bidding than in card play, I don't expect computers to be. Best regards, Alain. > > Group (2) has been aping Group (1) unwisely. It would be doing the > > inexperienced a favor to restrict their conventions > >Agreed. But IMO that is a job for their teachers rather than the >legislators. > >Tim > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 16 01:34:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0FEY3V16668 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 01:34:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be ([134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0FEXsH16651 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 01:33:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id PAA06060; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 15:23:35 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id PAA26349; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 15:23:52 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020115151325.00a63ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 15:26:41 +0100 To: "Thomas Wood" , "BLML" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? (long) + (longer) In-Reply-To: <009301c19dc5$d2f256e0$d793b3d1@c1r5i8> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020115104250.00ac1250@pop.ulb.ac.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 05:09 15/01/2002 -0800, Thomas Wood wrote: > > AG : I disagree. There is ample space on the CC to mention that you can > > open a 5-card weak 2-bid, a 2-suiter, etc. (see a thread on this in The > > Bridge World about 15 years ago). > > >In ACBLdom, it is very rare to find an amplifying style note in the weak-2 >boxes. AG : while thanking you for your thoughtful response, I intend to be rude here. Please skip if needed. I meant 'space on a genuine CC', not on the ACBL rag. When you've got two blank lines of 100+ characters to fill about style and responses, to leave them blank means you stick to a very traditional style. Not mentioning wide departures - like weak 5-carder, 55, 0HCP, 13HCP, good 4 cards in other major ... would be misinformation, and I would have no hesitation at all to penalize if a pair wanted to make twice use of their 'absolute right to do whatever they want'. However, the predisposed places for information and limited general space on the ACBL whatsit encourage the players to withhold information. > "Almost no constraints on side-suit distribution" or "Anything goes >in side suits" would be greatly appreciated. We have opponents open >weak-2S with Kxxxxx QJxxxx -- x. When we have asked, after this >fact comes to light, "Is this sort of distribution common in your weak-2 >style?", we often get a testy response like "You're allowed to do it. No >rule against it!" AG : I'd answer 'yes, there is. The second sentence of L75B. Accordingly, I fine you 20%'. I've done it before. >In a previous partnership, partner would alert any overcall which I made >over opponent's strong-2C (or even strong/forcing-1C) and explain: "Partner >is known for very unusual overcalls in this auction situation. His calls >often >seem to have little to do with the cards he is looking at." AG : that could look like a warning about non-descriptive overcalls overcalls . If they are allowed, then proceed. But they wouldn't be, I guess, this side of the Atlantic. However, alerting those overcalls to mention they might be very light, or on a bad suit, seems me proper. Best regards, with apologies for the words used above - but I meant them. Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 16 01:37:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0FEbDl17110 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 01:37:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net (snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0FEb4H17098 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 01:37:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from pool0470.cvx31-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.147.215] helo=c1r5i8) by snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16QUZw-0004zE-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 06:28:44 -0800 Message-ID: <00a101c19dd0$dde33d20$d793b3d1@c1r5i8> Reply-To: "Thomas Wood" From: "Thomas Wood" To: "BLML" References: <200201150057.TAA09019@cfa183.harvard.edu> <00f001c19d99$16f1ff80$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law Quiz -- "Just one question, before I Pass . . ." Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 06:28:13 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin essayed: > > From: "Steve Willner" > > > If there's an unopposed auction 1S-2S-3D-4S, and somebody asks "What was > > 3D?" thats a technical violation but wildly unlikely to be penalized. > > The defenders are likely to have a pretty good guess about the other > > three bids! > > > If the question comes from the opening leader's partner before passing 4S, > I would consider that to be a very serious infraction. If from the opening > leader, no problem. > > While on this subject, isn't everyone tired of the defender who asks > questions before making the final pass, with no intention of acting? Can't > this be made illegal without resorting to L16? > Classic case many years ago. Two 'nice ladies' from your town played at Bridge Week in LA. Partner and I bid our way to 3NT. Let's say it was 1NT - pass - 3C [INV with length in Clubs] - pass 3NT - pass - Pass - QUESTION! Q: "What did 3C mean?" (answered) Q: "But if your partner had bid 3D instead . . . What would *that* have meant?" Then a belated "pass". Face-down opening lead selected by LHO. Director called. Head Director Bob Dischner, rest his soul, took a folksy approach. "Ma'm, if I were this fellow (pointing at me), I'd be mighty unhappy if it appeared that your questions just might have influenced your partner's opening lead." As Bob left the table with a "Call me back if necessary.", RHO & LHO let loose a fusillade of "Well, I NEVER!!!"s. So, yes, Marv, if you get this problem solved, I'll nominate you for some high reward. BTW, RHO held DKQT9x and an outside A. LHO held HQJTx and Dxx but was just 'inspired' to lead Dx, this time. > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California Tom Wood -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 16 01:48:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0FEmI218900 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 01:48:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f46.law15.hotmail.com [64.4.23.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0FEm8H18879 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 01:48:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 06:39:44 -0800 Received: from 128.224.4.125 by lw15fd.law15.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 14:39:43 GMT X-Originating-IP: [128.224.4.125] From: "richard willey" To: agot@ulb.ac.be, twm@cix.compulink.co.uk, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 14:39:43 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Jan 2002 14:39:44.0093 (UTC) FILETIME=[78F268D0:01C19DD2] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk

A Game Theorist was I, in the far West, when the world was young.

Tim is correct when he states that there is a qualitative difference between trying to apply standard game theoretic techniques to bidding theory as opposed declarer play.  However, from my perspective the difference between the two cases is somewhat different  that Tim suggests.

First, while both bidding and card play can be modelled as a multi-stage game, the bidding "game" will have many more stages than the card play game.  Simply put, this makes the math much more difficult.  Recursing through a large tree is really ugly, and the sheer number of possible rounds of bidding makes it extremely difficult to analyze what might happen.

Second, the payoff matrix is much more complex in the bidding "game" than in the case of the card play game.  [In fact, the payoff matrix for the bidding game is dependant on the results of the card play game]

>At 12:27 15/01/2002 +0000, Tim West-meads wrote:

>
>
>>Perhaps it is inevitability rather than taste. Top echelon players
>>*all*
>>know their cardplay techniques while the science of bidding is
>>still
>>developing (GIB's performance in the relative areas seems to
>>support the
>>fact that card-play technique is currently more fully explored).
>
>AG : I wouldn't like to decree that there is a logical link here. My
>feeling is that :
>1) card play technique can be quantified in terms of probability
>over the
>set of possible cases, dominance between lines of play and mixed
>strategies
>(in the game-theoretical sense). Most falsecards are mandatory, or
>at least
>their need can be seen from the possible ensuing lines of play. When
>arithmetics is the key factor, the computer is master. The power of
>present-day ordinary computers is enough to endeavour systematic
>research,
>like they do it at chess.
>2) bidding depends more from the personal factor, as Mollo called
>it,
>strategy in the present match (rather than far-horizoned strategy),
>may
>include non-systematic false bids, and must adapt to the opponent's
>system.
>Those skills are much more difficult to integrate into a program.
>Perhaps
>they are also difficult to integrate into human brains, which would
>explain
>the difference in high-level play. But even if expert at some time
>would
>became more regular in bidding than in card play, I don't expect
>computers
>to be.
>
>Best regards,
>
> Alain.
>
>
>
>> > Group (2) has been aping Group (1) unwisely. It would be doing
>>the
>> > inexperienced a favor to restrict their conventions
>>
>>Agreed. But IMO that is a job for their teachers rather than the
>>legislators.
>>
>>Tim
>>
>>--
>>========================================================================
>>(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au
>>with
>>"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the
>>message.
>>A Web archive is at
>>http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/
>
>--
>========================================================================
>(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au
>with
>"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the
>message.
>A Web archive is at
>http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com.
-- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 16 02:03:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0FF3JW21598 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 02:03:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (mta05-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.45]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0FF3AH21575 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 02:03:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from tinyhrieuyik ([213.104.152.15]) by mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020115145449.RKIE7206.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@tinyhrieuyik> for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 14:54:49 +0000 Message-ID: <001d01c19dd6$41622dc0$0a9c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> From: "Guthrie" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] Xenophobia Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 15:05:53 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In another topic, it seems members of this forum support the idea of the WBF defining a world-wide simple system. However, national bridge bodies appear to pay at most lip service to this aspiration. For example, in the full knowledge that most of the world employs a strong no-trump and five-card majors, the EBU still insists on Acol-based "simple english". Even more xenophobic are local attitudes to conventions and alerts. Of course, it would be better to scrap alerting altogether; but if we must perpetuate this licence to cheat, then surely all countries should adopt the same rules. The current practice seems to mean that you must alert conventions that are unfamiliar to your countrymen but must not alert local conventions that are unfamiliar to foreigners. Surely this is exactly the wrong way round and completely chauvinist: it is the foreigners who are most in need of the alerting information. It is not just what you alert but how you alert. I am told that in America, the rules are berserk with all sorts of pre-alerts, super-alerts, verbal-alerts, and so on all based on whatever conventions are currently in local fashion. Again it seems that neophytes, occasional players, and foreigners are unfairly disadvantaged. If all you want to do is to play bridge it is unjust that you are penalized unless you devote hours of study to arbitrary, irrelevant and stupid alerting rules, that exacerbate the informational disadvantage of the most vulnerable. If the law insists on alerts, surely things should be kept simple and independent of natinal prejudices. For example: Alert any bid that is not intended as the final contract. Include: "short club", "take-out double", "change of suit forcing", "cue-bid", "trial bid", "fit-jump" "splinter" and so on. This would mean that you would have to alert even quite ordinary bids that seem completely standard and natural to you, such as "the forcing pass". -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 16 02:06:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0FF62K21955 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 02:06:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from wonka.esatclear.ie (wonka.esatclear.ie [194.145.128.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0FF5qH21929 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 02:05:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from esatclear.ie (IDENT:httpd@gratin.esatclear.ie [194.145.128.35]) by wonka.esatclear.ie (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA27267; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 14:57:27 GMT From: "Karel" Reply-to: karel@esatclear.ie To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, adam@irvine.com Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 14:38:45 GMT Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? (long) X-Mailer: CWMail Web to Mail Gateway 2.6z, http://netwinsite.com/top_mail.htm Message-id: <3c443ef5.525a.0@esatclear.ie> X-User-Info: 194.125.148.104 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk My understanding is as follows: If you have an agreement or from experience know that pd will (eg) underlead an ace in certain circumstances or psych in some standard position (eg) 1m DBL 1M or open a weak 2 with a 5CM and distribution, then this must be included in any RELEVANT explanations given to any RELEVANT question asked by the opps. So if on the auction 1m P P P your partner has more of a tendency to underlead an ace than ususal, then when asked "what your is your lead style?", you should include this information (ie) he is quite happy to underlead an ace should he feel like it. Having said that, I think we need to draw the line somewhere or else every lead style question will require a 15 minute explanation of every possible deviation from the norm or based on partnership experience. It is my opinion (I'm sure I'll get crucified here ...)that the question asked by declarer DOES influence the information imparted. (eg) "what are your leads ??" This normally means do you play 4th best, 3rd & 5th, rusinov, 2nd from 4/5 bad, etc. Including that this particular lead may be away from an ace because 3 weeks ago pd did so, could be deemed misleading (ie) you have drawn attention to the fact that pd underleads aces and while he may underlead them more frequently than the normal player, this doesn't mean it is in anyway normal and shouldn't be emphasised/presented as such. Declarer asked for the type of lead you NORMALLY make NOT particular cases. If the question was "What is your lead style ?" - completely different ball game. Now declarer's question is wide ranging and not specific. Just on that note, the answer "Normal or standard" is the worst answer and the most misleading I feel one can give. Normal & standard are I can garuntee completely different in every players book. I think any case in which such a response is given should be ruled against the defenders automatically. It shouldn't be declarers job to interpret "normal or standard". I play fairly robust 2 openers. Their range, quality, length etc vary greatly on position, vul, state of the match, mood, day of the week, etc. When asked to explain the bid I say "5+ H\S 0-10 but more normally 5-10 and in this position or vul can be blah blah. If 5+ major tends to have outside distribution in the form of a 4+m etc etc. " Now if I was asked what "the point count range of the bid is" (ie) the opps assume its a 6 card weak 2 then I will impart the information on the range BUT not the shape as the opps have indicated no need for this information and I feel under no obligation to supply them with it. Just an aside here - we play 2D/2H as weak 5+ transfer bids in the next suit (0-10 depending on vul and position) OR some strong 20+ types. Is the range 0-10 legal ?? Finally - if you are playing unusal leads/carding etc are you required to alert pd's lead/carding or only if declarer asks ?? Karel -- http://www.iol.ie -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 16 02:18:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0FFIDx24028 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 02:18:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lexington.fscv.net ([216.206.44.34]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0FFI4H24005 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 02:18:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from walt.com (216.206.47.49 [216.206.47.49]) by lexington.fscv.net with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id 4DAF6QC8; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 10:09:43 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020115095118.00ac0280@mail.fscv.net> X-Sender: Walt.Flory@mail.fscv.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 10:09:23 -0500 To: "Marvin L. French" , From: Walt Flory Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. In-Reply-To: <005f01c19af4$7cbf63e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> References: <002f01c19ad6$3a7af4e0$7d04e080@isi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Regression analysis is a tricky thing and what appears at first to explain a trend may not be linked to it. Even if the two series have a strong negative correlation how do we know that "complexity of conventions" and "membership numbers" are cause and effect? Other cultural and demographic data could have more to do with the trend, and have as strong a correlation. I do agree it would be an interesting graph to look at, Marv. Walt A more interesting histogram would be the superimposition of membership numbers and complexity of conventions allowed. It would be obvious that the two have a negative correlation. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 16 02:23:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0FFNFZ24826 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 02:23:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0FFN5H24802 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 02:23:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id QAA19466; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 16:11:49 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id QAA19647; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 16:14:31 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020115160321.00ac1cd0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 16:17:21 +0100 To: "Thomas Wood" , "BLML" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Law Quiz -- "Just one question, before I Pass . . ." In-Reply-To: <00a101c19dd0$dde33d20$d793b3d1@c1r5i8> References: <200201150057.TAA09019@cfa183.harvard.edu> <00f001c19d99$16f1ff80$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:28 15/01/2002 -0800, Thomas Wood wrote: >Classic case many years ago. Two 'nice ladies' from your town played at >Bridge Week in LA. Partner and I bid our way to 3NT. Let's say it was >1NT - pass - 3C [INV with length in Clubs] - pass >3NT - pass - Pass - QUESTION! >Q: "What did 3C mean?" (answered) >Q: "But if your partner had bid 3D instead . . . What would *that* have >meant?" >Then a belated "pass". >Face-down opening lead selected by LHO. >Director called. Head Director Bob Dischner, rest his soul, took a folksy >approach. "Ma'm, if I were this fellow (pointing at me), I'd be mighty >unhappy >if it appeared that your questions just might have influenced your partner's >opening lead." As Bob left the table with a "Call me back if necessary.", >RHO & LHO let loose a fusillade of "Well, I NEVER!!!"s. AG : I'm always wary when sending to blml a 'WTP' post, but really, here, WTP ? You are not compelled to state that the question *did* influence partner. You are merely asked to realise that it could have suggested the action (L16A). It did, because the very suit that was led was mentioned in the question. If RHO has asked 'what if he had bid 3D, 3H or 3S ?', you'd have less grounds on which to act. Penalize them once, and perhaps they will NEVER again ?? (If their soul is as pure as they pretend, at least). Penalize systematically (and you are allowed to do that) and you will lessen the number of times LHO mistimes his questions. You could even tell them that you intend to do it systematically and that the Laws suggest that you do. Of course, as I wrote in a recent post, it would be useful to officially state that questions before a final pass are more likely to create UI. There could also be mentioned that any question asked by a player whose turn of bid it isn't may not be asked by partner thereafter, ore even that asking out of turn might disallow any enquiry on the deal. If you want to get rid of an illness, you have to eradicate it, not merely cure its symptoms. And I consider mistimed asking as a non-benign illness. A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 16 02:24:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0FFOgk25019 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 02:24:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0FFOWH24997 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 02:24:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id QAA19879; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 16:13:16 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id QAA21604; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 16:15:59 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020115161820.00ac03f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 16:18:48 +0100 To: "richard willey" , twm@cix.compulink.co.uk, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 14:39 15/01/2002 +0000, richard willey wrote: >A Game Theorist was I, in the far West, when the world was young. > >Tim is correct when he states that there is a qualitative difference >between trying to apply standard game theoretic techniques to bidding >theory as opposed declarer play. However, from my perspective the >difference between the two cases is somewhat different that Tim suggests. > >First, while both bidding and card play can be modelled as a multi-stage >game, the bidding "game" will have many more stages than the card play >game. Simply put, this makes the math much more difficult. Recursing >through a large tree is really ugly, and the sheer number of possible >rounds of bidding makes it extremely difficult to analyze what might happen. > >Second, the payoff matrix is much more complex in the bidding "game" than >in the case of the card play game. [In fact, the payoff matrix for the >bidding game is dependant on the results of the card play game] AG : not to mention that it varies according to the identity of the opponents. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 16 02:56:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0FFuYa29878 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 02:56:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout6-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.177]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0FFuMH29849 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 02:56:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g0FFm0u24292 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 10:48:00 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 10:46:15 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 Message-ID: <20020115104800-r01010800-fa5626db-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.1.8 (Bluto) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 1/14/02 at 5:06 PM, elandau@cais.com (Eric Landau) wrote: > The original idea for Classic Bridge was very simple: You could play > ANY methods you liked, provided that they were NATURAL. However, the > ONLY conventions allowed would come from a very short list, no more > than half a dozen or so, such as takeout doubles, Stayman, Blackwood, > and perhaps a couple of other near-universally-played ones. That might actually make for an interesting game. :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 16 02:56:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0FFubg29883 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 02:56:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.125]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0FFuQH29858 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 02:56:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g0FFm4u24376 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 10:48:04 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 10:45:59 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Law Quiz To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 Message-ID: <20020115104804-r01010800-17b093da-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.1.8 (Bluto) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 1/14/02 at 12:58 PM, adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) wrote: > So although the WBF has said that asking about an individual call is a > "marginal infringement" (which does mean it's illegal), it has also > said that, for all practical purposes, it should be treated as legal, > by saying it should "not normally attract a penalty". The result of > all this is that I don't see anything to distinguish this illegal > action from a legal action; the illegal action is labeled "illegal" > but this label is nothing more than a label, since there are no > consequences arising from that label. Indeed. It sounds like the WBF is saying "it's illegal, but everybody does it, so never mind." If everybody revokes, are we supposed to ignore that, too? :--( Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 16 03:05:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0FG5Uq01260 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 03:05:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout6-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.177]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0FG5LH01242 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 03:05:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g0FFv0u02013; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 10:57:00 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 10:52:03 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Law Quiz To: Steve Willner , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <200201150057.TAA09019@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <20020115105659-r01010800-77a87adc-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.1.8 (Bluto) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 1/14/02 at 7:57 PM, willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) wrote: > Marv will be amused but unsurprised to hear that some of my > opponents have refused to answer "Please explain your auction." They > insist I ask about each specific call. I haven't had that happen. I have gotten blank looks from opponents who apparently have no clue what "please explain your auction" means. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 16 03:15:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0FGFfi03158 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 03:15:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.125]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0FGFWH03137 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 03:15:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g0FG60u09914; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 11:06:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 11:01:25 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Law Quiz To: "Marvin L. French" , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <00f001c19d99$16f1ff80$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <20020115110600-r01010800-10912775-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.1.8 (Bluto) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 1/14/02 at 11:48 PM, mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) wrote: > While on this subject, isn't everyone tired of the defender who asks > questions before making the final pass, with no intention of acting? Can't > this be made illegal without resorting to L16? What gets me is this scenario: Board one. Partner opens 1D. Alert!. RHO: Explain, please. I do so.... Board two. I open 1D. Partner alerts. LHO: Explain, please. Me, thinking to myself "Weren't you here for the last board?" :-( Perhaps LHO thinks partner and I are playing different systems. :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 16 03:28:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0FGRga04765 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 03:27:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0FGRYH04747 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 03:27:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA04443; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 08:19:13 -0800 Message-Id: <200201151619.IAA04443@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Law Quiz In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 15 Jan 2002 10:52:03 EST." <20020115105659-r01010800-77a87adc-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 08:19:13 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed wrote: > On 1/14/02 at 7:57 PM, willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) wrote: > > > Marv will be amused but unsurprised to hear that some of my > > opponents have refused to answer "Please explain your auction." They > > insist I ask about each specific call. > > I haven't had that happen. I have gotten blank looks from opponents who > apparently have no clue what "please explain your auction" means. I think the ACBL did something right when they decided that the proper form of question after an Alert is simply "Please explain". Everyone assumes that you want the Alerted call explained, which is almost certainly what you do want when you ask that; however, since there's no object of the verb, no one can claim that you violated Law 20F by asking about a specific call. Quite clever. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 16 03:29:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0FGTWP04990 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 03:29:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0FGTNH04967 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 03:29:24 +1100 (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 LAA19564 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 11:21:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA17948 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 11:21:03 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 11:21:03 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200201151621.LAA17948@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Law Quiz X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Kooijman, A." > What we also > could do after the auction has been closed is not to allow RHO to question > the auction before he has to play herself, which solves part of the problem. I think I misunderstood Ton on first reading. Should "before he has to play herself" be "before his own turn to play?" Declarer's RHO needs a chance to question the auction, and the preferred time seems to be after the opening lead but before RHO plays to trick one. I don't think it matters whether RHO's questions are before or after dummy comes down, but perhaps I am missing something. Unfortunately, a simple rule fails, because _sometimes_ RHO indeed needs to ask questions before the final pass, as for example when a sacrifice or lead directing double is a live possibility. Ideally this need should be based on the auction alone and not on RHO's actual cards. Like Ton, I don't see any perfect answer; L16 may be the best we can do. As with so many other problems, education and enforcement could help a lot. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 16 03:38:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0FGblI06019 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 03:37:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0FGbcH06002 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 03:37:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA04573; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 08:29:17 -0800 Message-Id: <200201151629.IAA04573@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Law Quiz In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 15 Jan 2002 11:01:25 EST." <20020115110600-r01010800-10912775-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 08:29:18 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: > On 1/14/02 at 11:48 PM, mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) wrote: > > > While on this subject, isn't everyone tired of the defender who asks > > questions before making the final pass, with no intention of acting? Can't > > this be made illegal without resorting to L16? > > What gets me is this scenario: > > Board one. Partner opens 1D. Alert!. RHO: Explain, please. I do so.... > Board two. I open 1D. Partner alerts. LHO: Explain, please. Me, thinking to > myself "Weren't you here for the last board?" :-( > > Perhaps LHO thinks partner and I are playing different systems. :-) And in some cases they might be right. I once played in a Precision partnership where our 1NT opening was 10-13 but only nonvulnerable in 1st-2nd seat, and 13-16 in all other positions. Given that, it would be quite common for an opening 1D to mean one thing on one board and another thing on the next board---even if made by the same player. So there are good reasons for asking about an Alert even if the same alert occurred on the previous board. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 16 03:48:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0FGmgc07760 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 03:48:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0FGmXH07748 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 03:48:34 +1100 (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 LAA20775 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 11:40:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA17985 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 11:40:13 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 11:40:13 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200201151640.LAA17985@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > Takeout doubles We all agree on this one. > "S. O. S." redoubles that ask for a rescue Good grief. Of course not! > Weakness responses to forcing openings If you think the usual 1NT response to one of a suit, not promising a balanced hand but simply anything too weak for 2/1, is conventional, then I guess you have to allow it. I'm willing to say it's not conventional. (It isn't on the ACBL convention charts, is it?) I would put 2NT weakness response to a strong two-bid in the same category as the above 1NT. You don't imagine we would allow _conventional_ forcing openings, do you? :-) > Stayman in response to NT openings or overcalls Openings, not overcalls, at least if we allow cue bids. > Opposite a NT opening bid or overcall, cue bid of opposing > suit to ask for a major I missed artificial bids in suits shown by opponents. Guess we should allow that, although I could certainly be persuaded otherwise. Maybe only after NT bids is a compromise. > Yes, any slam method at or above 4NT OK. To answer another poster, the reason for making the level 4NT is that bids at the four level are so often natural; we don't want to allow them to become conventional. 4NT is rarely natural, and it seems fair to allow anything higher as part of slam methods. The opponents are unlikely to need special, prearranged defenses! > Gerber over notrump (reluctantly) No way! Adds complexity that we don't want. > Countermeasures to any convention Not sure about this one; my initial reaction is no. At face value, it would allow complex relays over takeout doubles. > I might add two less-traditional conventions that are nearly indispensable: > > Checkback minor suit bids after a NT response or rebid > Fourth Suit Artificial Hardly! > Also, opening leads must be "standard," with the allowed exception of ace > from AK. Again, I remain to be persuaded. If the purpose of the game is to emphasize card play, then defensive agreements might be part of it. I would tend to say only monotonic card ordering strategies allowed (i.e., bottom up or top down, no odd-even), but as I say, there are reasonable arguments for and against. Opening lead agreements don't seem to present any problem to declarer and are easily explained, so I would tend to allow whatever players want in that respect. All this uncertainty about what to allow is why one would want a sensible group to study the problem and maybe experiment a bit before deciding what the rules for such a game should really be. I would love to see it but don't expect it in my lifetime. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 16 03:59:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0FGxcA09727 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 03:59:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0FGxTH09703 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 03:59:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id RAA13950; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 17:48:10 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id RAA21984; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 17:50:55 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020115174249.00ac5be0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 17:53:29 +0100 To: karel@esatclear.ie, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, adam@irvine.com From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? (long) In-Reply-To: <3c443ef5.525a.0@esatclear.ie> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 14:38 15/01/2002 +0000, Karel wrote: >I play fairly robust 2 openers. Their range, quality, length etc vary greatly >on position, vul, state of the match, mood, day of the week, etc. When asked >to explain the bid I say "5+ H\S 0-10 but more normally 5-10 and in this >position >or vul can be blah blah. If 5+ major tends to have outside distribution in >the form of a 4+m etc etc. " > >Now if I was asked what "the point count range of the bid is" (ie) the opps >assume its a 6 card weak 2 then I will impart the information on the range BUT >not the shape as the opps have indicated no need for this information and I >feel under no obligation to supply them with it. AG : some months ago, I was fired on this very list for having said that to the question 'weak ?', I responded 'indeed' ('inderdaad') because the bid was weak ... and two-suited. Many interpreted the question as 'is that a weak 2-bid ?' My idea of a clever manner of asking is to ask 'is that a classical weak 2-bid' when you mean 'is that a classical weak 2-bid' and to inquire about range if that's what you want to know (let's put UI aspects aside for a moment). BTW, standard weak 2s are not alertable in Belgium, so the question is dubious in itself. Perhaps I'm doing too much programming. But how easy life would be if we asked 'which way is the station, please ?' rather than 'do you happen to know where the station lies ?' ; To the second, I'm prone to answer 'yes, I do'. Probably this is not a very useful approach, but at bridge, to try and guess what the opp's question *really* means is too much leaf-reading for me. I will stick to answering the question as it is asked. This will include answering 'does he promise 5 or 6 cards ?' with 'indeed, he does'. How did the saying go ? Logic, like whiskey, loses its virtues when used too massively ? Best regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 16 04:06:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0FH56j10776 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 04:05:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be ([134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0FH4tH10739 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 04:04:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id RAA11607; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 17:56:05 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id RAA26405; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 17:56:21 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020115175636.00ac4200@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 17:59:05 +0100 To: Ed Reppert , "Marvin L. French" , Bridge Laws From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Law Quiz In-Reply-To: <20020115110600-r01010800-10912775-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> References: <00f001c19d99$16f1ff80$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:01 15/01/2002 -0500, Ed Reppert wrote: >On 1/14/02 at 11:48 PM, mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) wrote: > > > While on this subject, isn't everyone tired of the defender who asks > > questions before making the final pass, with no intention of acting? Can't > > this be made illegal without resorting to L16? > >What gets me is this scenario: > >Board one. Partner opens 1D. Alert!. RHO: Explain, please. I do so.... >Board two. I open 1D. Partner alerts. LHO: Explain, please. Me, thinking to >myself "Weren't you here for the last board?" :-( AG : hmm... not absurd. On the two boards, the dealer was not the same. I play 1NT-2H and p-p-1NT-2H as different, and the lady who forgot to ask the second time got a strange result. Well, she isn't a lady, but the rest of the story is true. A better approach would be to answer 'same as on the previous board' and refuse to go through again without calling the TD for possible UI. A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 16 04:43:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0FHhOx17259 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 04:43:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0FHhFH17243 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 04:43:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA05449; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 09:34:53 -0800 Message-Id: <200201151734.JAA05449@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Law Quiz In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 15 Jan 2002 17:59:05 +0100." <5.1.0.14.0.20020115175636.00ac4200@pop.ulb.ac.be> Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 09:34:54 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 11:01 15/01/2002 -0500, Ed Reppert wrote: > >On 1/14/02 at 11:48 PM, mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) wrote: > > > > > While on this subject, isn't everyone tired of the defender who asks > > > questions before making the final pass, with no intention of acting? Can't > > > this be made illegal without resorting to L16? > > > >What gets me is this scenario: > > > >Board one. Partner opens 1D. Alert!. RHO: Explain, please. I do so.... > >Board two. I open 1D. Partner alerts. LHO: Explain, please. Me, thinking to > >myself "Weren't you here for the last board?" :-( > > AG : hmm... not absurd. On the two boards, the dealer was not the same. I > play 1NT-2H and p-p-1NT-2H as different, and the lady who forgot to ask the > second time got a strange result. Well, she isn't a lady, but the rest of > the story is true. A better approach would be to answer 'same as on the > previous board' and refuse to go through again without calling the TD for > possible UI. I think even this last is going too far. The game of bridge requires that you remember what's gone on since the beginning of the hand, but there's no requirement that you remember what happened on a previous hand. Especially if a bid has a somewhat complex explanation, I don't see any reason to impose an added burden on players to remember the explanation from one hand to the next. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 16 05:12:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0FIBa122620 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 05:11:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0FIBQH22584 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 05:11:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16QXvJ-000BcO-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 18:03:04 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 02:44:25 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. References: <006801c19d58$d008b900$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <006801c19d58$d008b900$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes >When offered an "approved defense" by someone playing a Mid-Chart >convention, I politely decline the offer. Ooh! I had one of those when playing with Alan LeB in Las Vegas. "Aha" said Alan, "Multi: shall we play the approved defence?" "No," I said. One of the appeals we had in LasV was because of using the approved defence, which was flawed. There was a feeling in Committee that giving each side 13 imps, and fining the ACBL 26 imps to compensate, seemed fairest. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 16 05:19:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0FIJGG24099 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 05:19:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0FIJ7H24078 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 05:19:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g0FIAlh20274 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 10:10:47 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <001501c19def$efcfc480$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" References: <001d01c19dd6$41622dc0$0a9c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> Subject: Re: [BLML] Xenophobia Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 10:10:06 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Guthrie" > I am told that in America, the rules are berserk with all sorts > of pre-alerts, super-alerts, verbal-alerts, and so on all based on whatever > conventions are currently in local fashion. Someone has exaggerated. It's bad, but not that bad. We have pre-Alerts that seem reasonable, Announcements that seem reasonable, Post-Alerts that seem reasonable, and plain Alerts, which are unnecessarily inconsistent and complex. "Special Alerts" are no longer required. > Again it seems that neophytes, > occasional players, and foreigners are unfairly disadvantaged. If all you > want to do is to play bridge it is unjust that you are penalized unless you > devote hours of study to arbitrary, irrelevant and stupid alerting rules, > that exacerbate the informational disadvantage of the most vulnerable. Fully agreed. > > If the law insists on alerts, surely things should be kept simple and > independent of natinal prejudices. For example: Alert any bid that is not > intended as the final contract. Include: "short club", "take-out double", > "change of suit forcing", "cue-bid", "trial bid", "fit-jump" "splinter" and > so on. This would mean that you would have to alert even quite ordinary bids > that seem completely standard and natural to you, such as "the forcing > pass". Some of that is going too far, although I favor simplicity, such as Alerting: Every convention except takeout doubles of natural suit openings Weak bids that bypass one level Non-forcing responses or advances that bypass one level, by an unpassed hand Strong suit bids that bypass two or more levels, except raises Natural bid in a suit shown by an opponent And then: Require that declarer or dummy offer to disclose all special partnership agreements that pertain to the auction before the opening lead is made. Require a pre-Alert of HUMs (All this off the top of my head, so don't take it too literally) Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 16 06:11:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0FJAV403834 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 06:10:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0FJAMH03811 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 06:10:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g0FJ22h10226 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 11:02:02 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <002e01c19df7$16b18460$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <002f01c19ad6$3a7af4e0$7d04e080@isi.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20020115095118.00ac0280@mail.fscv.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 10:51:21 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Walt Flory" < > Regression analysis is a tricky thing and what appears at first to explain > a trend may not be linked to it. > Even if the two series have a strong negative correlation how do we know > that "complexity of conventions" and "membership numbers" are cause and > effect? Other cultural and demographic data could have more to do with the > trend, and have as strong a correlation. > Very true, but it is useful for reinforcing a hypothesis that is independently developed. ACBL members told me why they were quitting organized duplicate bridge, and non-members told me why they were not interested in joining the ACBL. Reasons given mostly concerned the increasing proliferation of allowed conventions and consequent CC complexity. While some non-members said they also didn't like the "atmosphere" of ACBL games, those quitting never gave that reason. As president of the San Diego Unit during some of that period, these matters interested me greatly. > Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 16 07:22:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0FKM5R17406 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 07:22:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lexington.fscv.net ([216.206.44.34]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0FKLuH17386 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 07:21:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from walt.com (216.206.47.49 [216.206.47.49]) by lexington.fscv.net with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id 4DAF6QJC; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 15:13:34 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020115151058.00aa6030@mail.fscv.net> X-Sender: Walt.Flory@mail.fscv.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 15:13:12 -0500 To: Alain Gottcheiner , Ed Reppert , "Marvin L. French" , Bridge Laws From: Walt Flory Subject: Re: [BLML] Law Quiz In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020115175636.00ac4200@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <20020115110600-r01010800-10912775-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <00f001c19d99$16f1ff80$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sometimes a player is just tired and doesn't remember the previous explanation. I don't see any reason to instantly expect this is a UI situation. Walt At 05:59 PM 1/15/02 +0100, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >At 11:01 15/01/2002 -0500, Ed Reppert wrote: >>On 1/14/02 at 11:48 PM, mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) wrote: >> >> > While on this subject, isn't everyone tired of the defender who asks >> > questions before making the final pass, with no intention of acting? Can't >> > this be made illegal without resorting to L16? >> >>What gets me is this scenario: >> >>Board one. Partner opens 1D. Alert!. RHO: Explain, please. I do so.... >>Board two. I open 1D. Partner alerts. LHO: Explain, please. Me, thinking to >>myself "Weren't you here for the last board?" :-( > >AG : hmm... not absurd. On the two boards, the dealer was not the same. I >play 1NT-2H and p-p-1NT-2H as different, and the lady who forgot to ask >the second time got a strange result. Well, she isn't a lady, but the rest >of the story is true. A better approach would be to answer 'same as on the >previous board' and refuse to go through again without calling the TD for >possible UI. > > A. > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 16 07:54:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0FKrs523557 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 07:53:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lexington.fscv.net ([216.206.44.34]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0FKrjH23529 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 07:53:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from walt.com (216.206.47.49 [216.206.47.49]) by lexington.fscv.net with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id 4DAF6QJQ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 15:45:24 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020115154343.00ab6910@mail.fscv.net> X-Sender: Walt.Flory@mail.fscv.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 15:45:02 -0500 To: From: Walt Flory Subject: Re: [BLML] Law Quiz In-Reply-To: <004001c19d4a$5f5792c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk If I wait until after the auction is over to find out why a call was alerted should I first ask to have the auction reviewed? Walt At 02:15 PM 1/14/02 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: >From: "Kooijman, A." > > > > I think there was a wrong answer for Question 10: > > > > > > > 10. During the play, declarer or either defender may ask for an > > > explanation of an opponent's bid. > > > > > > Answer: > > > > > > TRUE - In addition, explanation of defender's signals can also be > > > obtained at any time during the play. (Law 20F2.) > > > > > > So I look at L20F2 and it says: > > > > > > After the final pass and throughout the play period, either >defender > > > at his own turn to play may request an explanation of opposing > > > auction. At his or dummy's turn to play, the declarer may request >an > > > explanation of an opponent's call or card play conventions. > > > > > Therefore, Mr. Jones and Mr. Porter, defenders do not have the >right > > > that declarer has to question an individual call. > > > > Too quick Marv, too quick. > > In the first place does L20F2 say something else in my ACBL-book. It >speaks > > about a FULL explanation which supports your interpretation and it >says: > > 'Questions may be asked about calls actually made or about relevant >calls > > available but not made' which supports my interpretation. > >That's 20F1, not 20F2, but the parenthetical remark (you omitted the >parentheses), subordinate to the "entire auction" requirement because >of the parentheses, no doubt applies to both. It clearly means that >any necessary further questioning of calls, within the context of a >full explanation, may address not only calls actually made but also >relevant calls available but not made. > >Do I have to keep repeating history? This is *defa vue* all over >again. At one time questioning of individual calls was permitted: > >1975: During the auction...a full explanation of any call may be >requested by any player... > >That lead to too many "pro questions" and too much UI, so they changed >it: > >1987: During the auction...any player... may request a full >explanation of the opposing auction... > >Did that change mean nothing? > >The parenthetical remark was added in 1997 because, I believe, ACBL >TDs were ruling that you could get information only about calls >actually made. There was no new intention of permitting indiscriminate >questioning of individual calls ("What did two clubs mean?), and I >remember Grattan saying that he didn't consider that the added >parenthetical remark made any material change to the intent of L20F1. > > > Furthermore did > > the WBFLC give an explanation which supports the answer of J&P. > > By heart that is: 'though the wording says that the question should >cover > > the whole auction it is normally not considered an infraction to >question > > one specific call'. > >Your heart is not in tune with the facts. Here's what the WBFLC said >about 20F1/F2: > >"...it was agreed this refers to an explanation of the whole auction. >[Asking] about the meaning of one particular call [is] a marginal >infringement of the laws [that] should not normally attract a penalty >but players should be aware of the increased risk of the creation of >unauthorized information..." > >However "marginal," it is an irregularity that does not accord with >the Laws. I prefer to follow the Laws and wish others would do so. I >am sick of the "pro question" perpetrated so often with impunity at my >table. Let mutually-consenting opponents ask away if that's what they >want, but not at my table, please. > > > I am very happy with that interpretation to diminish the amount of > > infractions caused by procedural irregularities. > > >Then let the WBFLC return to the 1975 wording. Pros will love that. > >Marv >Marvin L. French >San Diego, California > > > > > > > > > > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 16 09:25:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0FMOok10438 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 09:24:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat40.alcanet.no [193.213.239.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0FMOdH10405; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 09:24:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from netos70.alcatel.no (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with ESMTP id g0FMFfh24231; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 23:15:42 +0100 Subject: RE: [BLML] Law Quiz To: Steve Willner Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 23:15:39 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NOMAIL01/NO/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 01/15/2002 23:15:41 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: "Kooijman, A." >> What we also >> could do after the auction has been closed is not to allow RHO to question >> the auction before he has to play herself, which solves part of the problem. >I think I misunderstood Ton on first reading. Should "before he has to >play herself" be "before his own turn to play?" >Declarer's RHO needs a chance to question the auction, and the >preferred time seems to be after the opening lead but before RHO plays >to trick one. I don't think it matters whether RHO's questions are >before or after dummy comes down, but perhaps I am missing something. You are indeed missing something: The auction has not ended as long as the opening lead is not faced. The correct procedure after three consecutive passes is (unless SO has decided differently): LHO asks his questions and then selects his opening lead, placing it face down on the table. Then RHO asks his questions and when satisfied indicates to LHO that he may face his opening lead. (All my LHO and RHO references here and below are relative to the presumed declarer) If any misinformation by the presumed declarer or dummy is revealed during this process TD may (and should if the last opponent to pass claims that his last call was influenced by the MI) apply Law 21B1 and roll back the auction so that this opponent may withdraw his last pass replacing it by another call, after which the auction proceeds. (The final outcome could even be that the originally presumed declarer finds himself a defender when the play period eventually begins.) >Unfortunately, a simple rule fails, because _sometimes_ RHO indeed >needs to ask questions before the final pass, as for example when a >sacrifice or lead directing double is a live possibility. Ideally this >need should be based on the auction alone and not on RHO's actual >cards. Like Ton, I don't see any perfect answer; L16 may be the best >we can do. Of course if RHO really has an alternative to his final pass depending upon an explanation received at this time he is entitled to ask, but if his intention is to pass regardless of any answer to his possible question(s) he should definitely first pass and then rely upon the correct procedure (quoted by me above) to protect his interests. >As with so many other problems, education and enforcement could help a >lot. true (Incidently, ever so often you hear declarer or dummy nod to LHO "yes, it is your lead". That is none of their business. The "permission" to face the opening lead shall come from RHO as a confirmation that he has no more questions to ask. I wonder how many players are unaware of this?) regards Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 16 09:52:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0FMpod14569 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 09:51:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0FMpgH14557 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 09:51:43 +1100 (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 RAA04200 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 17:43:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA18427 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 17:43:21 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 17:43:21 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200201152243.RAA18427@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Law Quiz X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no > You are indeed missing something: The auction has not ended as long > as the opening lead is not faced. Quite right; the preferred time for declarer's RHO is after the face-down opening lead but before it is faced or dummy is spread. > Of course if RHO really has an alternative to his final pass depending > upon an explanation received at this time he is entitled to ask, but if > his intention is to pass regardless of any answer to his possible > question(s) he should definitely first pass and then rely upon the > correct procedure (quoted by me above) to protect his interests. Now I think it is Sven who is missing something. Whether (presumed) RHO should ask questions before the auction is over should depend not on his "intention" or the cards he happens to hold but rather on whether it is _likely_ he might hold a hand suitable for something other than pass. Otherwise, asking or failing to ask gives UI to partner and unnecessary information to opponents. Of course deciding this is easier in theory than in practice, but after a complex slam auction, for example, it is probably right to ask every time. A lead directing double cannot be rare. Of course it is especially important in such instances to phrase the questions as neutrally as possible, as Marv keeps pointing out to us. I realize not every jurisdiction agrees with the above, but I think it has to be correct in theory. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 16 09:57:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0FMvaC15176 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 09:57:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.125]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0FMvOH15145 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 09:57:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g0FMn0u13077; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 17:49:01 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 17:46:35 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: RE: [BLML] Law Quiz To: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no, Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020115174900-r01010800-0b586d2a-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.1.8 (Bluto) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 1/15/02 at 11:15 PM, Sven.Pran@alcatel.no wrote: > Then RHO asks his questions and when satisfied > indicates to LHO that he may face his opening lead. (All my LHO and > RHO references here and below are relative to the presumed declarer) I believe presumed declarer is also entitled to ask questions before the lead is faced. Or have I misread it? Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 16 09:57:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0FMvdF15181 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 09:57:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout6-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.177]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0FMvRH15154 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 09:57:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g0FMn4u13147; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 17:49:05 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 17:45:09 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Law Quiz To: Walt Flory , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020115151058.00aa6030@mail.fscv.net> Message-ID: <20020115174903-r01010800-a6b27894-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.1.8 (Bluto) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 1/15/02 at 3:13 PM, Walt.Flory@fscv.net (Walt Flory) wrote: > I don't see any reason to instantly expect this is a UI situation. I do not suggest it was. I suspect that in most cases, it's a reflex ("he alerted, I must ask"). Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 16 10:09:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0FN8gs16761 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 10:08:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0FN8VH16744 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 10:08:32 +1100 (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 SAA09702 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 18:00:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA18463 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 18:00:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 18:00:11 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200201152300.SAA18463@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? (long) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Alain Gottcheiner > L75C explicitly compels me to say it if asked, because > this comes from knowing my partner's habits, not from playing bridge. I was going to say much the same. If I add to the rgb thread, it will be to the effect that DdJ's position is, if anything, not sufficiently emphatic about full disclosure. > From: "Thomas Wood" > To offer a vague answer, in the face of a surely > known specific style, is to play the game unethically. Indeed! > not > one opponent in fifty will give us such a careful and honest answer, and I > would guess that at least 10 opponents in 50 are being intentionally, > carefully vague in their answers. Note to Grattan: non-disclosure of play agreements is a _vastly_ greater problem than non-disclosure of "psychic" tendencies or understandings. > From: "Karel" > It is my opinion (I'm sure I'll get crucified here ...)that the question asked > by declarer DOES influence the information imparted. I don't know about "crucified," but Karel's position is specifically rejected by the ACBL. _Any_ relevant question is supposed to result in a _full_ explanation. Of course there are practical limitations, and "X, Y, Z, would you like to know more?" may be a reasonable response if the complete answer is very long. Still, as Thomas says, it is surely wrong to give a partial answer with the implication that it is complete. Personally, I think the ACBL has this one right. (Now if they would only enforce the stated rule....) > From: Alain Gottcheiner > how easy life would be if we > asked 'which way is the station, please ?' rather than 'do you happen to > know where the station lies ?' Yes, no doubt we can all improve our phrasing of questions. Nevertheless, when answering questions about partnership understandings, we should answer the intended question rather than the one actually asked. (BTW, Miss Manners, an American writer on etiquette, says this is the correct principle in real life, too. But she also says that etiquette is very dependent on culture, so this principle may not apply elsewhere.) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 16 10:16:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0FNFxk17713 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 10:15:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat40.alcanet.no [193.213.239.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0FNFoH17691 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 10:15:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from netos70.alcatel.no (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with ESMTP id g0FN7BR27045; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 00:07:11 +0100 Subject: RE: [BLML] Law Quiz To: Ed Reppert Cc: Bridge Laws X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 00:07:09 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NOMAIL01/NO/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 01/16/2002 00:07:10 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert asked (to my post): >> Then RHO asks his questions and when satisfied >> indicates to LHO that he may face his opening lead. (All my LHO and >> RHO references here and below are relative to the presumed declarer) >I believe presumed declarer is also entitled to ask questions before the lead is >faced. Or have I misread it? No, you have not misread it. (Law 41B) And the way I read the laws, even the presumed declarer or dummy as the case may be could possibly be entitled to have the auction rolled back under Law21B1 in the highly exceptional case that MI from presumed defenders is revealed before the opening lead is faced, enabling declarer and dummy to reach a different contract than the one they are about to play. regards Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 16 11:27:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0G0Qou00372 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 11:26:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0G0QeH00347 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 11:26:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-67-251.btinternet.com ([213.122.67.251] helo=pbncomputer) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16QdmU-0001gw-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 00:18:18 +0000 Message-ID: <003901c19e22$fbe8cfe0$fb437ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <200201152300.SAA18463@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? (long) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 00:16:01 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I actually find this quite alarming. I once had something like 842 of spades; partner had bid them, RHO was in 4H. About to lead the systemic two of spades, it occurred to me vaguely that since I had four hearts to the nine, perhaps it might be a good idea to lead the eight of spades instead. I did this, partner played three rounds, declarer asked about our leading methods and was told the truth. She ruffed high, she went down, and she called the director. Now then. Has it become part of my discloseable methods that I lead low from three small in partner's suit unless I have a promotable trump, when I might lead high? Am I supposed to write on my convention card, for the benefit of future opponents, a description of every false or unorthodox card I have ever played, since these are now part of my "system"? I must say that I would regard as laughable the notion that a declarer could ask me "Does your partner tend to underlead aces?" - but that is what appears to be being suggested. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 16 18:06:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0G73YU17597 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 18:03:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0G73PH17584 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 18:03:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g0G6t4h05591 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 22:55:04 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <00a601c19e5a$1ce37b00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" References: <200201150108.UAA09169@cfa183.harvard.edu> <00e401c19d96$48d5a220$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <009a01c19dcd$f1fb0160$d793b3d1@c1r5i8> Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. -- Classic/True Bridge Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 22:50:34 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Thomas Wood" Marv wrote: > > Yes, but when you start looking closely, there are conventions that are > > needed to make the game playable, most of them quite traditional. > > My list is: > > > Takeout doubles > Of course. > > > "S. O. S." redoubles that ask for a rescue > Very handy, but freq-of-occurrence must be quite low. Odd to find > this as your #2 [Maybe your convention order is pseudo-random.] Not ordered. Maybe I can do without this one. I thought weak players would insist on it, but perhaps I'm mistaken. > > > Weakness responses to forcing openings > Maybe not. For 20 years, I've played a Forcing-1C without > having any Negative response defined. Opponents often repeat > "But what is your Negative response???" when we have just told > them that we have none. I will concede that a near-complete loss > of conventional responses and rebids might make our approach more > difficult. --- BTW, what are these "forcing openings" to which you > refer? Certainly not 1C or 2C artificial and forcing, for you have not > included these in your handful of 'alloweds'. [Unless my astigmatism > has gotten the better of me again.] Natural forcing openings, e.g., strong two bids. Artificial forcing openings not allowed. > > > Stayman in response to NT openings or overcalls > Convention corruption setting in. The Convention Taliban are > starting to stir . . . Almost as standard as takeout doubles, even beginners know about it. Can't leave it out. Besides, notrump bidding is too haphazard without it. However, I did limp along without Stayman before it was popularized. With an invitational hand we raised to 2NT and hoped partner could bid a major on his way to 3NT. With a forcing hand we jumped in our better minor (not a convention) and opener would bid a major if he had one. Not very satisfactory. > > > Opposite a NT opening bid or overcall, cue bid of opposing > > suit to ask for a major > Really? I could see forgoing *this* cue, but notice that you have > not allowed any other cuebid! No double-and-cue for you, no > matter how big the hand. No cues to 'drive the auction forward.' > Tell me that you just overlooked the lowly cuebid. I don't regard cue bids (or control bids) as conventions, but I suppose they are. They are as traditional as takeout doubles, so must be allowed. I could shorten this and just say that cue bids (bid in a suit shown by the opposition) may be used for any purpose. > > > Yes, any slam method at or above 4NT > Why the prejudicial 4NT threshold? Why not 3NT? Kickback > Blackwood (asking with suit above agreed suit) seems like a more > rational convention allowance than 4NT ace-ask. However, I do > like your "any slam method" phrase. > > > Gerber over notrump (reluctantly) > Ah, notice that 4C Gerber ace-ask is essentially Kickback for > no agreed suit (= NT agreed, and C is the rank above). > > > Countermeasures to any convention > Wow! You'd allow *any* such countermeasures? Even Inverted > Psycho-Suction against opening 1NT? :) 1NT is not a convention. I was thinking of such things as DOPI and DEPO. Maybe the statement is too broad. > I think you're rapidly > losing the 'purity' of your near-natural, hands-tied bidding style. > > > > I might add two less-traditional conventions that are nearly > indispensable: > > Checkback minor suit bids after a NT response or rebid > Are you not stepping past the point of no return? > > Fourth Suit Artificial > Now you've done it, with these last two. Next thing you know, you'll > slip negative dbls in and the Convention Taliban shall haul you off to > the soccer field. :-\\ I thought about adding these because bridge is quite unplayable without them. When partner resoponds or rebids 1NT, you may want to sign off, invite, or force, but only two levels are available and three into two won't go without Old Black Magic. And sometimes there is simply no logical bid for responder to make after three suits have been bid. However, I concede these may be too fancy for this purpose. > > > > Also, opening leads must be "standard," with the allowed exception of ace > > from AK. > Unbelievable! Were you not begging for a True Bridge, where *play of the > cards* is paramount and bidding is an unfortunate, but necessary prelude > to the play? [I suppose that discards and attitude and count plays must be > 'standard', too.] Maybe you mean that agreed opening lead style must be > "standard" but that one is allowed to deviate from this agreed style. Opening leads and count/attitude signals constitute conventions. I think it's best that True Bridge require pairs to use standard play conventions. Of course deviations (falsecarding, etc) based on style and judgment are permissible. > Else what next? Are you next going to insist on 100% "second hand low"? > And no ducking? And no false-carding? Arrrrgh :-) > Those aren't conventions, so no restrictions on those. Hey, I said that what I wrote was off the top of my head. Thanks for your comments. Marv -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 16 21:31:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0GAVNi22211 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 21:31:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (mta03-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.43]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0GAVEH22195 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 21:31:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from tinyhrieuyik ([213.104.153.210]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020116102251.WUEZ8780.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@tinyhrieuyik> for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 10:22:51 +0000 Message-ID: <002c01c19e79$6e3e69a0$d29968d5@tinyhrieuyik> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" References: <001d01c19dd6$41622dc0$0a9c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> Subject: Re: [BLML] Xenophobia Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 10:33:59 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [ng, ng2 (below) = Nigel Guthrie] [rp = Roger Pewick] [mlf = Marvin L French] [ng] In another topic, it seems members of this forum support the idea of the WBF defining a world-wide simple system. However, national bridge bodies appear to pay at most lip service to this aspiration. For example, in the full knowledge that most of the world employs a strong no-trump and five-card majors, the EBU still insists on Acol-based "simple english". [ng] Even more xenophobic are local attitudes to conventions and alerts. Of course, it would be better to scrap alerting altogether; but if we must perpetuate this licence to cheat, then surely all countries should adopt the same rules. The current practice seems to mean that you must alert conventions that are unfamiliar to your countrymen but must not alert local conventions that are unfamiliar to foreigners. Surely this is exactly the wrong way round and completely chauvinist: it is the foreigners who are most in need of the alerting information. [ng] It is not just what you alert but how you alert. I am told that in America, the rules are berserk with all sorts of pre-alerts, super-alerts, verbal-alerts, and so on all based on whatever conventions are currently in local fashion. [rp] Indeed, silly Americans. [mlf] Someone has exaggerated. It's bad, but not that bad. We have pre-Alerts that seem reasonable, Announcements that seem reasonable, Post-Alerts that seem reasonable, and plain Alerts, which are unnecessarily inconsistent and complex. "Special Alerts" are no longer required. [ng] Again it seems that neophytes,occasional players, and foreigners are unfairly disadvantaged. If all you want to do is to play bridge it is unjust that you are penalized unless you devote hours of study to arbitrary, irrelevant and stupid alerting rules, that exacerbate the informational disadvantage of the most vulnerable. [mlf] Fully agreed. [ng] If the law insists on alerts, surely things should be kept simple and independent of natinal prejudices. For example: Alert any bid that is not intended as the final contract. Include: "short club", "take-out double", "change of suit forcing", "cue-bid", "trial bid", "fit-jump" "splinter" and so on. This would mean that you would have to alert even quite ordinary bids that seem completely standard and natural to you, such as "the forcing pass". [rp] Ah, the question ("If the law insists on alerts?"). Except for screens the law forbids alerts via 80F and 73B1. That merely means that a lawful mechanism for facilitating disclosure is needed. [mlf] Some of that is going too far, although I favor simplicity, such as Alerting Every convention except... ...takeout doubles of natural suit openings ...Weak bids that bypass one level ...Non-forcing responses or advances that bypass one level, by an unpassed hand ...Strong suit bids that bypass two or more levels, except raises ...Natural bid in a suit shown by an opponent [mlf] And then: [mlf] Require that declarer or dummy offer to disclose all special partnership agreements that pertain to the auction before the opening lead is made. Require a pre-Alert of HUMs [mlf] (All this off the top of my head, so don't take it too literally) [ng2] More experienced players protested when the alert procedure was first introduced. We got a temporary reprieve in the form of permission to display a card saying "PLEASE DO NOT ALERT". Especially against "experts" with complicated systems, this resulted in many excellent scores from their frequent misunderstandings -- when they could not rely on the crutch of their alert "wake-up call". If an opponent alerted (or made as if to alert), in spite of our request to refrain, we would call the TD, who would often rule that the alert was UI. [ng2] Unfortunatley, as time went on, TDs started to rule that opponents could not be expected to remember to make an exception only at our tables so we had to suffer the same disadvantage as everyone else and we abandoned our card. Nowadays, for example, when I see "Ghestem" on an opponent's card, I sigh nostalgically, because without the alert system it would presage a likely top. [ng2] Now the set of international variations in alert rules is more complex than the whole of the rest of the laws of Bridge. Alerting is almost a separate game and IMO deters more would-be players than anything else in bridge. Surely the re-introduction of permission to use a "PLEASE DO NOT ALERT" card (with teeth) would be a small concession for simple souls like me. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 16 22:29:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0GBT4j02706 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 22:29:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0GBSmH02664 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 22:28:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16Qo79-000MEM-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 11:20:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 02:13:11 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Xenophobia References: <001d01c19dd6$41622dc0$0a9c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> In-Reply-To: <001d01c19dd6$41622dc0$0a9c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Guthrie writes >In another topic, it seems members of this forum support the idea of the WBF >defining a world-wide simple system. However, national bridge bodies appear >to pay at most lip service to this aspiration. For example, in the full >knowledge that most of the world employs a strong no-trump and five-card >majors, the EBU still insists on Acol-based "simple english". I am surprised to find anyone on this forum supporting the idea of a world-wide simple system. In fact, I think you are mistaken. While different areas play different approaches as local in their area I feel such a world-wide system would not do any good. The EBU, for example, supports a simple system as being in line with the way a majority of its players play. >Even more xenophobic are local attitudes to conventions and alerts. Of >course, it would be better to scrap alerting altogether; but if we must >perpetuate this licence to cheat, then surely all countries should adopt the >same rules. There is no logic behind this statement. The best alerting rules are those that do the job best. This does not mean that alerting rules suitable for American systems are useful in New Zealand. As for a licence to cheat, I think that a very ill-advised belief: alerting has improved the game immeasurably since its inception. The minority of people who actually cheat will use whatever tools are available. > The current practice seems to mean that you must alert >conventions that are unfamiliar to your countrymen but must not alert local >conventions that are unfamiliar to foreigners. You have to have practical and useful alerting rules. Basing them on being unhelpful to the majority of people seems a poor approach. > Surely this is exactly the >wrong way round and completely chauvinist: it is the foreigners who are most >in need of the alerting information. It is not just what you alert but how >you alert. I am told that in America, the rules are berserk with all sorts >of pre-alerts, super-alerts, verbal-alerts, and so on all based on whatever >conventions are currently in local fashion. Again it seems that neophytes, >occasional players, and foreigners are unfairly disadvantaged. If all you >want to do is to play bridge it is unjust that you are penalized unless you >devote hours of study to arbitrary, irrelevant and stupid alerting rules, >that exacerbate the informational disadvantage of the most vulnerable. No-one has suggested that you should do this, any more than you check every rule appertaining to the countryside before taking a walk there. Alerting is generally learnt over time, and sinks in. When you go to another country, you should get a basic idea of alerting, true, but you will probably survive without too much difficulty by adopting a practical approach. >If the law insists on alerts, surely things should be kept simple and >independent of natinal prejudices. For example: Alert any bid that is not >intended as the final contract. Include: "short club", "take-out double", >"change of suit forcing", "cue-bid", "trial bid", "fit-jump" "splinter" and >so on. This would mean that you would have to alert even quite ordinary bids >that seem completely standard and natural to you, such as "the forcing >pass". Maybe this rule would work, but it seems to me at first sight that it would be far worse than any current rule. In general, it seems to me that the best basis for alerting is to alert what is strange: unfortunately that, while a simple concept, is difficult to put into practice. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 16 22:29:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0GBTDi02724 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 22:29:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0GBSrH02687 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 22:28:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16Qo79-000MEN-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 11:20:26 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 02:15:25 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. References: <0u0v3u85ooojbtaqjj9i2psor02l9mcsnj@4ax.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Brian Meadows writes >On Mon, 14 Jan 2002 13:15:19 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: >>Yes, many many pairs practise poor disclosure, but to say htat the TDs >>accept that from them and not from other players is just wrong. >Great. I state that I have personal experience as the basis for >what I say, whereas you, without benefit of knowing time, place >or details, state that you very much doubt that there is any >basis for what I believe, and that my conclusion is just plain >wrong. I'm happy to leave it up to the BLML readership to decide >who sounds the more plausible. No doubt they will assume that we both have a lot of personal experience. [s] >> Oh, come on. I have given an opinion, just like yours. I have as >>much evidence of statistics for my opinion as you do for the opinions >>you have been quoting. >The difference is that I haven't claimed that my opinions carry >majority appeal. Very cunning, young Brian! However, you are by-passing the point: it *is* my opinion that the view stated has majority appeal, whether my opinion is right or wrong. It is my view that the average person in an organisation does not want mega-bytes of detail, and is only worried if things are being hidden from him. Sure, I can be wrong, but that is my view. >> Furthermore, I am not saying that there is any effort to limit >>conventions by size of CC. I just said it would be practical and >>accepted. >Then it is your fault for not making that clear earlier. Grattan >explicitly stated that one organisation did exactly that, and >that was the point at which you came in. When I say something, I mean what I say, not something different. I suppose I might as well repeat what I said earlier in case it needs clarification: I believe that a lot of players, probably a majority, feel that their opponents should be limited in some ways as to what they can play, and they will find limiting it to a readable CC as an acceptable method. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 16 22:29:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0GBT4C02707 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 22:29:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0GBSmH02662 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 22:28:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16Qo78-000MEL-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 11:20:24 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 01:16:46 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law Quiz References: <00f001c19d99$16f1ff80$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <20020115110600-r01010800-10912775-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> In-Reply-To: <20020115110600-r01010800-10912775-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert writes >On 1/14/02 at 11:48 PM, mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) wrote: > >> While on this subject, isn't everyone tired of the defender who asks >> questions before making the final pass, with no intention of acting? Can't >> this be made illegal without resorting to L16? > >What gets me is this scenario: > >Board one. Partner opens 1D. Alert!. RHO: Explain, please. I do so.... >Board two. I open 1D. Partner alerts. LHO: Explain, please. Me, thinking to >myself "Weren't you here for the last board?" :-( > >Perhaps LHO thinks partner and I are playing different systems. :-) I am surprised to find doubts expressed over something I do regularly. I do not expect to remember oppos's system nor do I take the trouble to work out whether the dealer/vulnerability is the same. It is just easier to ask. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 16 22:29:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0GBTD702725 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 22:29:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0GBSvH02693 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 22:28:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16Qo79-000MEP-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 11:20:29 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 02:34:09 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] Card Called from Dummy MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk My correspondent in Pune, India, Yogesh Abhyankar, has attempted to send the following problem to BLML, but it failed to get here for some reason. So I have posted it for him. =================================================================== Dear Friends Incident given to me by my friend. Only relevant cards and things given here, full hand and details not given here to make message short. South is Declarer playing 3NT Doubled. North Dummy holds Clubs AKT9x, Declarer has Clubs Qx After winning opening lead CQ is played from the hand to which all follow. Small Club is played to A in dummy, all follow. A small diamond is played from dummy which loses to West (LHO) and a spade is returned won in hand. Declarer enters dummy by playing to heart king and next trick just says "club" (dummy has KT9 remaining). Dummy plays king (on his own), East (RHO) plays club jack, declarer discards. At this point LHO who has a small club suggests declarer that he should nominate the card, if he just names the suit, the smallest card must be played. Some argument takes place between Declarer and West (LHO) and TD is called. West said he had no intention to call director, but since he did not appreciate the answer given by declarer, something like "I don't have to" or so, West got annoyed and said now better we call TD). Director Tells Declarer to play small club, result down 3, -800. If club king is played, nine tricks are made and contract succeeds. South appeals. I do not know what decision AC has given. I request comments from our members, purely on bridge laws and practices, disregarding hurt egos mentioned above. 1. Should West have objected immediately or wait till his turn to play comes? 2. Does West loses his right to object since the next player (his partner) and declarer have played? 3. Since the play of the small card was not a logical or rational play considering the full hand and play taken place so far, can the TD ask declarer to take club king back and play small card from dummy? Thanks and Best Regards Yogesh -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 16 23:04:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0GC3YU08095 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 23:03:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0GC3LH08066 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 23:03:22 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g0GBswQ16175 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 11:54:58 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 11:54 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] A question of the English. To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.52.2000, Windows 98 4.10.2222 ( A ) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <20020115104800-r01010800-fa5626db-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> Ed Reppert wrote: > On 1/14/02 at 5:06 PM, elandau@cais.com (Eric Landau) wrote: > > > The original idea for Classic Bridge was very simple: You could play > > ANY methods you liked, provided that they were NATURAL. However, the > > ONLY conventions allowed would come from a very short list, no more > > than half a dozen or so, such as takeout doubles, Stayman, Blackwood, > > and perhaps a couple of other near-universally-played ones. > > That might actually make for an interesting game. :-) If you add splinters and FSF to the above list you can play for any stakes (20p-£10/100) at St John's Wood. 16+ hands an hour - and it is definitely an interesting game. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 16 23:04:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0GC3Zw08102 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 23:03:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0GC3NH08070 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 23:03:23 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g0GBt0M16226 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 11:55:00 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 11:54 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? (long) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.52.2000, Windows 98 4.10.2222 ( A ) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <003901c19e22$fbe8cfe0$fb437ad5@pbncomputer> David Burn wrote: > I actually find this quite alarming. I once had something like 842 of > spades; partner had bid them, RHO was in 4H. About to lead the systemic > two of spades, it occurred to me vaguely that since I had four hearts to > the nine, perhaps it might be a good idea to lead the eight of spades > instead. I did this, partner played three rounds, declarer asked about > our leading methods and was told the truth. She ruffed high, she went > down, and she called the director. > Now then. Has it become part of my discloseable methods that I lead low > from three small in partner's suit unless I have a promotable trump, > when I might lead high? How do you think your partner should reply if asked "In what circumstances is David likely to lead top from 3 small?". > Am I supposed to write on my convention card, > for the benefit of future opponents, a description of every false or > unorthodox card I have ever played, since these are now part of my > "system"? I don't think so. If partnership awareness creates a mutual understanding then I think you should disclose it in answer to questions. Obviously one can't fit everything on a CC. > I must say that I would regard as laughable the notion that a > declarer could ask me "Does your partner tend to underlead aces?" - but > that is what appears to be being suggested. It seems a reasonable question. You may be aware of some abnormal habit of your partner's of which declarer is unaware. I'd expect "not so that I'd noticed" to be a pretty common response. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 16 23:35:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0GCZ3w13187 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 23:35:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat40.alcanet.no [193.213.239.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0GCYsH13159 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 23:34:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from netos70.alcatel.no (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with ESMTP id g0GCQ0430352; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 13:26:00 +0100 Subject: Re: [BLML] Card Called from Dummy To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 13:25:58 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NOMAIL01/NO/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 01/16/2002 13:25:59 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote on behalf of Yogesh Abhyankar (part of the post stripped): ...(snip) > South is Declarer playing 3NT Doubled. > North Dummy holds Clubs AKT9x, Declarer has Clubs Qx > After winning opening lead CQ is played from the hand to which all >follow. Small Club is played to A in dummy, all follow. A small >diamond is played from dummy which loses to West (LHO) and a spade is >returned won in hand. Declarer enters dummy by playing to heart king >and next trick just says "club" (dummy has KT9 remaining). Dummy plays >king (on his own), East (RHO) plays club jack, declarer discards. At >this point LHO who has a small club suggests declarer that he should >nominate the card, if he just names the suit, the smallest card must be >played. . . . (snip) > Director Tells Declarer to play small club, result down 3, -800. If >club king is played, nine tricks are made and contract succeeds. South >appeals. I do not know what decision AC has given. > I request comments from our members, purely on bridge laws and >practices, disregarding hurt egos mentioned above. >1. Should West have objected immediately or wait till his turn to play >comes? Relevant laws are 46B2, 45F, 45D, 9A2(a) and 9B. West may object at any time as long as not both sides have played to the *next* trick! >2. Does West loses his right to object since the next player (his >partner) and declarer have played? No, see above (The rule you have in mind applies after lead out of turn, not here) >3. Since the play of the small card was not a logical or rational play >considering the full hand and play taken place so far, can the TD ask >declarer to take club king back and play small card from dummy? Yes, he can, but he doesn't have to. This is a matter of judgement. If TD finds that South might have forgotten the outstanding Jack believing that all his Clubs are high, he should probably rule that the smallest club is played, otherwise it seems reasonable that he might apply the "except when declarer's different intention is incontrovertible" rule from Law 46B. Regards Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 16 23:40:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0GCbpV13676 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 23:37:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (www.DSS.Brussels-2002.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0GCbgH13655 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 23:37:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id NAA12891; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 13:28:50 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id NAA05737; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 13:29:09 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020116132646.00a68630@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 13:31:59 +0100 To: "David Burn" , From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? (long) In-Reply-To: <003901c19e22$fbe8cfe0$fb437ad5@pbncomputer> References: <200201152300.SAA18463@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 00:16 16/01/2002 +0000, David Burn wrote: >Now then. Has it become part of my discloseable methods that I lead low >from three small in partner's suit unless I have a promotable trump, >when I might lead high? Am I supposed to write on my convention card, >for the benefit of future opponents, a description of every false or >unorthodox card I have ever played, since these are now part of my >"system"? AG : no, you are not. False cards are, by definition, outside the system. But I'd like to see a mention of the frequency of falsecarding. With Nicole, our count signals are less frequent than with some other partners. I mentioned it on our card. It is in fact the same procedure as with psyches. >I must say that I would regard as laughable the notion that a >declarer could ask me "Does your partner tend to underlead aces?" - but >that is what appears to be being suggested. AG : there is a big difference : underleading an Ace is not falsecarding, it is part of the partnership style. Just ask yourself one question : is it more likely for a 3-spot to come from three small or from Axx ? If it is the latter, it is markedly nonstandard, and your opponents have evry right to know it. Regards, Alain. >David Burn >London, England > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 17 00:44:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0GDhmX25793 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 00:43:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0GDhcH25772 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 00:43:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-156-121.btinternet.com ([213.122.156.121] helo=pbncomputer) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16QqDi-0005w5-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 13:35:15 +0000 Message-ID: <000f01c19e92$4693f500$799c7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <200201152300.SAA18463@cfa183.harvard.edu> <5.1.0.14.0.20020116132646.00a68630@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? (long) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 13:32:40 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain wrote: > AG : there is a big difference : underleading an Ace is not falsecarding, > it is part of the partnership style. Just ask yourself one question : is it > more likely for a 3-spot to come from three small or from > Axx ? If it is the latter, it is markedly nonstandard, and your opponents > have evry right to know it. I don't quite understand this. Obviously I won't lead the three from xxx less frequently than from Axx - not even Helgemo would do that. The underlead of an ace is unusual, but I don't think anyone would describe it as "non-standard" - it is surely "standard" to do whatever you think gives you the best chance to beat the contract. It is not part of my "methods" to underlead aces, just as it is not part of my "methods" to lead, say, the king from Kx against a suit contract. If I do lead a king against a suit, and declarer with AJx in dummy facing xxx in hand asks partner what our leading methods are, and partner says (truthfully) "the king is from KQ or shortage", I do not think that declarer has the right to ask: "Well, how often on average does your partner lead from Kx as opposed to a KQ holding?" If he did have that right, then presumably I would be obliged to keep statistics, in order to be able to comply with full disclosure. Is this what is being suggested? Can declarer ask "Suppose your partner had a hand such as J10x Kxxx Qxxx Ax - which suit would he be most likely to lead against a strong no trump, passed out?" I very much doubt it, but this is an inevitable corollary of what is being suggested. This has gone far enough. My opponents have the right to know that I am trying to beat the contract. They do not have the right to know how. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 17 00:53:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0GDr1q26922 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 00:53:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0GDqpH26885 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 00:52:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-156-121.btinternet.com ([213.122.156.121] helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16QqMa-0000Ai-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 13:44:25 +0000 Message-ID: <001701c19e93$8e7b2220$799c7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? (long) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 13:41:50 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim wrote: > How do you think your partner should reply if asked "In what circumstances > is David likely to lead top from 3 small?". He should not reply. I do not consider this a legitimate question. I am not "likely" to lead top from three small; I have to the best of my recollection done it once, for a specific purpose. If I were "likely" to do it, then I would put on our convention card that I lead third most of the time, higher occasionally. > I don't think so. If partnership awareness creates a mutual understanding > then I think you should disclose it in answer to questions. Obviously one > can't fit everything on a CC. We do not have a "mutual understanding" that I will lead high from three small. We certainly do not have a "special" understanding that we will do so, for most of the time, we won't. This really isn't something to which Law 40B applies - it is surely part of general bridge knowledge that defenders may occasionally depart either from their announced carding methods or from "standard practice" in order to achieve a particular end. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 17 01:48:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0GEltI05033 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 01:47:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0GEljH05011 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 01:47:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g0GEdTw20652 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 14:39:29 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 14:36:47 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Card Called from Dummy References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , Sven.Pran@alcatel.no writes > >David Stevenson wrote on behalf of Yogesh Abhyankar (part of the post >stripped): >...(snip) > >> South is Declarer playing 3NT Doubled. > >> North Dummy holds Clubs AKT9x, Declarer has Clubs Qx > >> After winning opening lead CQ is played from the hand to which all >>follow. Small Club is played to A in dummy, all follow. A small >>diamond is played from dummy which loses to West (LHO) and a spade is >>returned won in hand. Declarer enters dummy by playing to heart king >>and next trick just says "club" (dummy has KT9 remaining). Dummy plays >>king (on his own), East (RHO) plays club jack, declarer discards. At >>this point LHO who has a small club suggests declarer that he should >>nominate the card, if he just names the suit, the smallest card must be >>played. >. . . (snip) >> Director Tells Declarer to play small club, result down 3, -800. If >>club king is played, nine tricks are made and contract succeeds. South >>appeals. I do not know what decision AC has given. > >> I request comments from our members, purely on bridge laws and >>practices, disregarding hurt egos mentioned above. This is an interesting problem for me. In London, England, there is no doubt that the word "club" explicitly means "small club". It is completely standard here for players to specify the smallest card in a suit in this manner. It comes I think from the Young Chelsea, whose members have a much better working knowledge of the laws than most players, and when I was directing there all players were aware that in this case I would rule "the smallest card is specified". This habit has spread throughout London. This causes problems when these players venture into Stevenson territory because when a Northern player specifies a card in this way (even if his intent may well have been incontrovertible) they expect that a small card has explicitly been nominated. It becomes even more interesting for me when I'm directing at an EBU event which is not in London. I am certain that I err on the side of "small card is specified" much more than most other UK TD's. In the case in point there is no doubt that the NO's are in time as their side has not played to the next trick. This is not an issue here. As for the ruling itself I'd be inclined to support the TD's ruling and rule that the specification of "club" meant "small club". I do this because it is not the case that declarer was running the club suit, but returned to it later in the hand and can therefore more easily have lost track of the position. Had he played Q, A then said "club" I might well have allowed the King, but given that some tricks have intervened I find that declarer's intent was not incontrovertible. As for the wording of the Law, well, it sucks. There is no need for the "unless his intention ..." bit at all. This is a mechanical Law and should be written as such - it would save much argument. cheers john > >>1. Should West have objected immediately or wait till his turn to play >>comes? > >Relevant laws are 46B2, 45F, 45D, 9A2(a) and 9B. West may object at >any time as long as not both sides have played to the *next* trick! > >>2. Does West loses his right to object since the next player (his >>partner) and declarer have played? > >No, see above >(The rule you have in mind applies after lead out of turn, not here) > >>3. Since the play of the small card was not a logical or rational play >>considering the full hand and play taken place so far, can the TD ask >>declarer to take club king back and play small card from dummy? > >Yes, he can, but he doesn't have to. This is a matter of judgement. >If TD finds that South might have forgotten the outstanding Jack >believing that all his Clubs are high, he should probably rule that >the smallest club is played, otherwise it seems reasonable that he might >apply the "except when declarer's different intention is incontrovertible" >rule from Law 46B. > >Regards Sven > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 17 02:06:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0GF5rQ08281 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 02:05:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.132]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0GF5iH08259 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 02:05:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-46924.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.55.76]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g0GEuVY07270 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 15:56:31 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C4594A4.5030204@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 15:56:36 +0100 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? (long) References: <001701c19e93$8e7b2220$799c7ad5@pbncomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk All of these problems would disappear if we would just stop using shorthand. Playing high-low, David was not saying to his partner : I have 2 cards, but rather, "I want you to return this suit -probably because I can ruff it". That is the known meaning, and that is exactly what is being told (again in shorthand). So there is actually no misinformation when David turns up with a third spade - he did want the spade return to get a trump trick - only not at that particular moment. David Burn wrote: > Tim wrote: > > >>How do you think your partner should reply if asked "In what >> > circumstances > >>is David likely to lead top from 3 small?". >> > > He should not reply. I do not consider this a legitimate question. I am > not "likely" to lead top from three small; I have to the best of my > recollection done it once, for a specific purpose. If I were "likely" to > do it, then I would put on our convention card that I lead third most of > the time, higher occasionally. > > >>I don't think so. If partnership awareness creates a mutual >> > understanding > >>then I think you should disclose it in answer to questions. Obviously >> > one > >>can't fit everything on a CC. >> > > We do not have a "mutual understanding" that I will lead high from three > small. We certainly do not have a "special" understanding that we will > do so, for most of the time, we won't. This really isn't something to > which Law 40B applies - it is surely part of general bridge knowledge > that defenders may occasionally depart either from their announced > carding methods or from "standard practice" in order to achieve a > particular end. > > David Burn > London, England > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 17 02:25:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0GFOri11603 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 02:24:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (mta01-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0GFOiH11579 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 02:24:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from tinyhrieuyik ([213.104.151.188]) by mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020116151620.GZGC9422.mta01-svc.ntlworld.com@tinyhrieuyik> for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 15:16:20 +0000 Message-ID: <001d01c19ea2$6ec6d6e0$bc9768d5@tinyhrieuyik> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" References: <001d01c19dd6$41622dc0$0a9c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> Subject: Re: [BLML] Xenophobia Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 15:26:04 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [n2] In reply to David Stevenson [ds] [ng] In another topic, it seems members of this forum support the idea of the WBF defining a world-wide simple system. However, national bridge bodies appear to pay at most lip service to this aspiration. For example, in the full knowledge that most of the world employs a strong no-trump and five-card majors, the EBU still insists on Acol-based "simple english". [ds] I am surprised to find anyone on this forum supporting the idea of a world-wide simple system. In fact, I think you are mistaken. While different areas play different approaches as local in their area I feel such a world-wide system would not do any good. The EBU, for example, supports a simple system as being in line with the way a majority of its players play. [n2] I apologise for misinterpreting other members feelings. I suppose that national organisations like to promote local systems but I wonder whether many in the rank an file would object to a world-wide simple system. Obviously such a system would result in a more level playing field for foreigners. [ng] Even more xenophobic are local attitudes to conventions and alerts. Of course, it would be better to scrap alerting altogether; but if we must perpetuate this licence to cheat, then surely all countries should adopt the same rules. [ds] There is no logic behind this statement. The best alerting rules are those that do the job best. This does not mean that alerting rules suitable for American systems are useful in New Zealand. [n2] I was stating feelings without reasons -- but I can provide arguments. [ds] As for a licence to cheat, I think that a very ill-advised belief: alerting has improved the game immeasurably since its inception. The minority of people who actually cheat will use whatever tools are available. [n2] IMO alerting is worse than a licence to cheat. It tempts people to cheat who would not normally do so. And having lapsed in this area their standards may slip in other areas. [n2] For example, suppose you arrive at a system "gray-area" in the auction; partner alerts a bid you thought was natural or fails to alert a bid you deemed conventional. It is tempting to rationalise partner's manifest interpretation as the systemically correct interpretion; and to pretend that you would have come to this conclusion independently, without the benefit of the alerting procedure. Of course, the actively ethical bidder would stick to his original interpretation through thick and thin, brave his partner's wrath, and take his bottom like a man. In decades of experience, however, I have never met such an actively ethical person. [n2] If people did adopt a council of perfection, you would expect many misunderstandings, similar to the above example. They would occur several times per session, judging from my earlier experiences when we were allowed to display a "PLEASE DO NOT ALERT" card (narrated in another thread). [n2] In summary then, alerting is of doubtful efficacy and actively promulgates cheating. (: This time I have provided arguments :) [ng] The current practice seems to mean that you must alert conventions that are unfamiliar to your countrymen but must not alert local conventions that are unfamiliar to foreigners. [ds] You have to have practical and useful alerting rules. Basing them on being unhelpful to the majority of people seems a poor approach. [ng] Surely this is exactly the wrong way round and completely chauvinist: it is the foreigners who are most in need of the alerting information. It is not just what you alert but how you alert. I am told that in America, the rules are berserk with all sorts of pre-alerts, super-alerts, verbal-alerts, and so on all based on whatever conventions are currently in local fashion. Again it seems that neophytes, occasional players, and foreigners are unfairly disadvantaged. If all you want to do is to play bridge it is unjust that you are penalized unless you devote hours of study to arbitrary, irrelevant and stupid alerting rules, that exacerbate the informational disadvantage of the most vulnerable. [ds] No-one has suggested that you should do this, any more than you check every rule appertaining to the countryside before taking a walk there. Alerting is generally learnt over time, and sinks in. When you go to another country, you should get a basic idea of alerting, true, but you will probably survive without too much difficulty by adopting a practical approach. [n2] Only a few play Bridge just to survive; most play to win and enjoy themselves; but even in major competitions in America, I am told that foreigners have fallen foul of the idiosyncracies of the local alert-laws. If these reports are accurate they do seem to show that such rules are not waived for those unfamiliar with them. Foreigners are put at this unnecessary extra disadvantage (apart from the unavoidable disadvantages of language and so on). [ng] If the law insists on alerts, surely things should be kept simple and independent of natinal prejudices. For example: Alert any bid that is not intended as the final contract. Include: "short club", "take-out double", "change of suit forcing", "cue-bid", "trial bid", "fit-jump" "splinter" and so on. This would mean that you would have to alert even quite ordinary bids that seem completely standard and natural to you, such as "the forcing pass". [ds] Maybe this rule would work, but it seems to me at first sight that it would be far worse than any current rule. In general, it seems to me that the best basis for alerting is to alert what is strange: unfortunately that, while a simple concept, is difficult to put into practice. [n2] The simplest rule would be "NO alerts", the next simplest would be mine. The trouble with other all other rules is that what is natural to you is strange to me and bizarre to the neophyte and foreigner who is most in need of protection from the local poison gas. [n2] After 102 emails arrived within a couple of days of my subscribing to BLML, Sandra (my wife) insisted that the acronym must stand for "bulimial". -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 17 02:36:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0GFaCK13595 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 02:36:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0GFa3H13569 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 02:36:04 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g0GFReM20366 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 15:27:40 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 15:27 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? (long) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.52.2000, Windows 98 4.10.2222 ( A ) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <001701c19e93$8e7b2220$799c7ad5@pbncomputer> David Burn wrote: > > How do you think your partner should reply if asked "In what > > circumstances is David likely to lead top from 3 small?". > > He should not reply. I do not consider this a legitimate question. Why not? Declarer doesn't know you and your partner does. You might be a pair that has agreed "never false card on opening lead" or a Papa type who "only leads a true card if he is singleton". To be honest I'd expect most people to answer, quite correctly, "I don't know". > I am not "likely" to lead top from three small; I have to the best of my > recollection done it once, for a specific purpose. If I were "likely" to > do it, then I would put on our convention card that I lead third most of > the time, higher occasionally. I fully agree that the vast majority of the time you will lead according to your CC. However, I suspect that if: a) You hold 3 small opposite a partner known to hold a 5/6 card suit b) You have a "promotable" trump holding c) You think declarer has "tricks to spare" d) You don't think that a third round of the suit will harm your side. Then it is very likely *in those circumstances* that you will lead top. I know that I would lead top (not my agreement), I've done it several times in the past and will doubtless do it again - it often works. It's almost a mandatory false card position in these circumstances. > > I don't think so. If partnership awareness creates a mutual > > understanding then I think you should disclose it in answer to > > questions. Obviously one can't fit everything on a CC. > We do not have a "mutual understanding" that I will lead high from three > small. One case certainly doesn't mean an understanding (just like psyching). Although if, say during the post-mortem, you and partner agree that it worked well and that you should both be aware of similar opportunities in the future then it certainly would be a mutual understanding. > We certainly do not have a "special" understanding that we will > do so, for most of the time, we won't. This really isn't something to > which Law 40B applies - it is surely part of general bridge knowledge > that defenders may occasionally depart either from their announced > carding methods or from "standard practice" in order to achieve a > particular end. As with carding so with bidding. Sure it's general bridge knowledge that people sometimes depart from their agreed methods. However, if your partner knows by experience when *you* are likely to do so I really believe that he should disclose his knowledge if asked a question (or however else he is mandated to do by his SO). Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 17 02:39:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0GFdT213969 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 02:39:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0GFdKH13950 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 02:39:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from laval (PPP8.UQuebec.CA [192.77.50.9] (may be forged)) by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA09706; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 10:30:53 -0500 (EST) From: "Laval Dubreuil" To: , Subject: RE: [BLML] Card Called from Dummy Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 10:34:02 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: In the case in point there is no doubt that the NO's are in time as their side has not played to the next trick. This is not an issue here. As for the ruling itself I'd be inclined to support the TD's ruling and rule that the specification of "club" meant "small club". I do this because it is not the case that declarer was running the club suit, but returned to it later in the hand and can therefore more easily have lost track of the position. Had he played Q, A then said "club" I might well have allowed the King, but given that some tricks have intervened I find that declarer's intent was not incontrovertible. As for the wording of the Law, well, it sucks. There is no need for the "unless his intention ..." bit at all. This is a mechanical Law and should be written as such - it would save much argument. cheers john _____________________________________________________________________ I sent such a case to BLML some months ago. I hate such Law formulation (unless his intention...) and have problem reading in minds. So, when declarer is not running the suit, I use to rule that "club" means the lowest (46B2). How can I know if he remember that the suit was good... Next time, he will name suit and rank. IMHO, Laws should be written to avoid such intrepretation of intention. (remember the famous Vancouver case). You said "club", you have to play small. Thats it thats all. Just pay attention to the game and name cards correctly. In most other games and sports, facts are importants, not "intentions". When Tiger Woods is on the green, some inches to the cup, and miss because of a butterfly flying around or some other such reason, his "intention" was "incontrovertibly" to put his ball there and all know he can do, but no discussion: he just add 1. Laval Du Breuil Qubec City -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 17 02:46:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0GFkep15218 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 02:46:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat40.alcanet.no [193.213.239.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0GFkUH15198 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 02:46:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from netos70.alcatel.no (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with ESMTP id g0GFc6e26531; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 16:38:06 +0100 Subject: Re: [BLML] Card Called from Dummy To: "John (MadDog) Probst" Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 16:38:04 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NOMAIL01/NO/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 01/16/2002 16:38:05 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Just one short remark to John Probst: who may have overloked (or maybe I failed to express myself clear enough) that allowing anything else than the lowest ranking card in the suit to be played in a case like this is an exception. It shall require more than "common sense" to allow such play, but for instance (like John also indicates) while running a suit from the top and then requesting "another club", "continue", "more clubs" or words to that effect would strongly support that it is not at all the intention to play anything but the highest ranking card available. Without having been present at the occation described we can hardly come to a clear conclution, but what have been told supports the TD ruling as far as I can see. Sven In article , Sven.Pran@alcatel.no writes > >David Stevenson wrote on behalf of Yogesh Abhyankar (part of the post >stripped): >...(snip) > >> South is Declarer playing 3NT Doubled. > >> North Dummy holds Clubs AKT9x, Declarer has Clubs Qx > >> After winning opening lead CQ is played from the hand to which all >>follow. Small Club is played to A in dummy, all follow. A small >>diamond is played from dummy which loses to West (LHO) and a spade is >>returned won in hand. Declarer enters dummy by playing to heart king >>and next trick just says "club" (dummy has KT9 remaining). Dummy plays >>king (on his own), East (RHO) plays club jack, declarer discards. At >>this point LHO who has a small club suggests declarer that he should >>nominate the card, if he just names the suit, the smallest card must be >>played. >. . . (snip) >> Director Tells Declarer to play small club, result down 3, -800. If >>club king is played, nine tricks are made and contract succeeds. South >>appeals. I do not know what decision AC has given. > >> I request comments from our members, purely on bridge laws and >>practices, disregarding hurt egos mentioned above. This is an interesting problem for me. In London, England, there is no doubt that the word "club" explicitly means "small club". It is completely standard here for players to specify the smallest card in a suit in this manner. It comes I think from the Young Chelsea, whose members have a much better working knowledge of the laws than most players, and when I was directing there all players were aware that in this case I would rule "the smallest card is specified". This habit has spread throughout London. This causes problems when these players venture into Stevenson territory because when a Northern player specifies a card in this way (even if his intent may well have been incontrovertible) they expect that a small card has explicitly been nominated. It becomes even more interesting for me when I'm directing at an EBU event which is not in London. I am certain that I err on the side of "small card is specified" much more than most other UK TD's. In the case in point there is no doubt that the NO's are in time as their side has not played to the next trick. This is not an issue here. As for the ruling itself I'd be inclined to support the TD's ruling and rule that the specification of "club" meant "small club". I do this because it is not the case that declarer was running the club suit, but returned to it later in the hand and can therefore more easily have lost track of the position. Had he played Q, A then said "club" I might well have allowed the King, but given that some tricks have intervened I find that declarer's intent was not incontrovertible. As for the wording of the Law, well, it sucks. There is no need for the "unless his intention ..." bit at all. This is a mechanical Law and should be written as such - it would save much argument. cheers john > >>1. Should West have objected immediately or wait till his turn to play >>comes? > >Relevant laws are 46B2, 45F, 45D, 9A2(a) and 9B. West may object at >any time as long as not both sides have played to the *next* trick! > >>2. Does West loses his right to object since the next player (his >>partner) and declarer have played? > >No, see above >(The rule you have in mind applies after lead out of turn, not here) > >>3. Since the play of the small card was not a logical or rational play >>considering the full hand and play taken place so far, can the TD ask >>declarer to take club king back and play small card from dummy? > >Yes, he can, but he doesn't have to. This is a matter of judgement. >If TD finds that South might have forgotten the outstanding Jack >believing that all his Clubs are high, he should probably rule that >the smallest club is played, otherwise it seems reasonable that he might >apply the "except when declarer's different intention is incontrovertible" >rule from Law 46B. > >Regards Sven > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 17 03:31:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0GGUq321884 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 03:30:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mx.poczta.interia.pl (smtp.poczta.interia.pl [217.74.65.32]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0GGUeH21854 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 03:30:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (nereus.interia.pl [127.0.0.1]) by nereus.interia.pl (MX) with SMTP id 1072B7D76DB for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 17:22:08 +0100 (CET) Received: by mx.poczta.interia.pl (MX, from userid 555) id 6F4427D75DB; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 17:06:12 +0100 (CET) Received: from poczta.interia.pl (nyx.poczta.fm [217.74.65.51]) by mx.poczta.interia.pl (MX) with ESMTP id C83587D793A for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 17:06:10 +0100 (CET) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (nyx.poczta.fm [127.0.0.1]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailserver) with SMTP id 4F929DAF51 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 17:06:10 +0100 (CET) Received: by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver, from userid 555) id EE3D5DAF3F; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 17:06:09 +0100 (CET) Received: from kavanagh (unknown [217.153.105.20]) by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver) with SMTP id 3D204DAF3A for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 17:06:09 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <009201c19ea6$962e9700$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: References: <11010211.66075@webbox.com> <3C4173A9.EBDB5DA8@elnet.msk.ru> <001e01c19c2d$b08a4e80$7555e150@dodona> <005301c19c9d$7e849060$67a801d5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 16:53:50 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 X-EMID: 8b2be2c0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 2:47 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time > I was just wondering to what extent someone vaguely sensible was > supposed to protect himself from damage due to misinformation. To recap: > > >Your hand, not vulnerable against vulnerable, is: > > > >QJ1094 J4 None AQ9632 > > > >Your partner opens 1C (four cards or more unless specifically > >4-3-3-3 with 15+ hcp - you are playing four-card suits, weak > >no trump, Acol as your grandmother would know it). RHO overcalls > >2C, alerted by LHO and explained on your request as showing the > >majors). What call do you make? > > Thanks to all those who have treated this as a serious bidding problem. > Apologies to all those who have wondered what a bidding problem is doing > on BLML in the first place. But a lot of rulings concern themselves with > "what ought Mr So-and-So to do in such-and-such a position", and > typically these problems tend to be judged from the top down. Running > one from the bottom up seemed a good idea at the time. > > I was not intending to mark the chosen answers out of ten, though if I > were, I would give about minus 30 to four diamonds. For what > continuations were you hoping? But this is symptomatic - I have read an > awful lot of stuff on this list which suggests that player X might or > might not have taken double-dummy action Y in a completely different set > of circumstances from [for American readers, than] those that actually > occurred at the table. The truth is that most bridge players - even good > ones - play alarmingly badly much of the time. > > 2H or whatever (club raise) is OK; pass is OK also; 3C is actually quite > sensible (though no one suggested it); and 5C is pragmatic enough. Over > whatever you do unless it is 5C, LHO bids 4S and this travels round. > What will you do now? > Hard to tell as we all know that RHO doesn't have the majors. So I gave this problem to several friends of mine - a bunch of young wolves, all of them very decent players, some of them playing at the near-to-expert level. The auction imposed on them included a 2H response to the 1C opener (after the 2C overcall). Only one of them passed - the other five doubled. Their arguments went along the lines "4S doesn't make and in case they run partner will take care of diamonds. I don't pass because a) there is a good chance that 4Sx will become the final contract b) 6C is still not out of the question and 5C should be close to making" albeit all of them wanted to know if this was MPs or IMPs - the information I was unable to provide. So where is the gag, Mr. Burn? I am anxious to know the whole story so please come of the bushes, David. :-) Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sciaga, szkola, MATURA, studia... >>> http://matura.interia.pl/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 17 04:10:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0GHATl28115 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 04:10:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0GHAKH28087 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 04:10:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA02858; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 09:01:57 -0800 Message-Id: <200201161701.JAA02858@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? (long) In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 16 Jan 2002 13:32:40 GMT." <000f01c19e92$4693f500$799c7ad5@pbncomputer> Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 09:01:57 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > Alain wrote: > > > AG : there is a big difference : underleading an Ace is not > > falsecarding, it is part of the partnership style. Just ask > > yourself one question : is it more likely for a 3-spot to come > > from three small or from Axx ? If it is the latter, it is markedly > > nonstandard, and your opponents have evry right to know it. > > I don't quite understand this. Obviously I won't lead the three from xxx > less frequently than from Axx - not even Helgemo would do that. The > underlead of an ace is unusual, but I don't think anyone would describe > it as "non-standard" - it is surely "standard" to do whatever you think > gives you the best chance to beat the contract. My feelings exactly. I do not understand how underleading an Ace can be referred to as a "style". Like David, when I lead a card, I do this based on which card I believe is most likely to beat the contract (or hold down the number of overtricks at MPs). Unlike David, when I lead a card, usually any of the other 12 cards would accomplish that task better. Now, if I've decided (probably disastrously) that a low card from Axxx will work best, *which* low card I lead is a matter of agreement or style (barring a deliberate falsecard). The choice between low cards in the same suit can be considered a matter of style; so is the choice of high cards when leading from equals. Those are clearly disclosable. But the choice between leading the ace, leading low from the ace, or leading some card from another suit, is NOT a matter of style; this is a matter of logic and thinking, and I do NOT believe the opponents are entitled to any information about my logical thought processes. > It is not part of my "methods" to underlead aces, just as it is not > part of my "methods" to lead, say, the king from Kx against a suit > contract. If I do lead a king against a suit, and declarer with AJx > in dummy facing xxx in hand asks partner what our leading methods > are, and partner says (truthfully) "the king is from KQ or > shortage", I do not think that declarer has the right to ask: "Well, > how often on average does your partner lead from Kx as opposed to a > KQ holding?" If he did have that right, then presumably I would be > obliged to keep statistics, in order to be able to comply with full > disclosure. Is this what is being suggested? > > Can declarer ask "Suppose your partner had a hand such as J10x Kxxx Qxxx > Ax - which suit would he be most likely to lead against a strong no > trump, passed out?" I very much doubt it, but this is an inevitable > corollary of what is being suggested. > > This has gone far enough. My opponents have the right to know that I am > trying to beat the contract. They do not have the right to know how. Very well said. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 17 05:08:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0GI8BU07940 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 05:08:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0GI83H07921 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 05:08:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA03875; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 09:59:40 -0800 Message-Id: <200201161759.JAA03875@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? (long) In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 16 Jan 2002 11:54:00 GMT." Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 09:59:39 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim West-Meads wrote: > > I must say that I would regard as laughable the notion that a > > declarer could ask me "Does your partner tend to underlead aces?" - but > > that is what appears to be being suggested. > > It seems a reasonable question. You may be aware of some abnormal habit > of your partner's of which declarer is unaware. I'd expect "not so that > I'd noticed" to be a pretty common response. If, for one's partner, underleading aces is an "abnormal habit" rather than a reasoned attempt at selecting the best opening lead in a particular situation, then perhaps the best solution is to get a different partner. On the other hand, perhaps this is the flaw in my thinking. My whole argument has been based on the assumption that one has a logical partner who will understand the alternatives, think about them logically, and make a decision based on what's the best way to maximize one's score on the hand. I suppose that if you have a partner whose bids and leads are selected by some unconscious "force of habit" process rather than through some sort of thought process, then my assumption is invalid and disclosure *is* perhaps required. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 17 06:38:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0GJbmK24545 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 06:37:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (mta05-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.45]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0GJbdH24523 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 06:37:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from tinyhrieuyik ([213.104.148.148]) by mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020116192916.IIXZ7206.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@tinyhrieuyik> for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 19:29:16 +0000 Message-ID: <002801c19ec5$c49f3a80$949468d5@tinyhrieuyik> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Card Called from Dummy Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 19:40:36 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [Nigel Guthrie] below in reply to [John (MadDog) Probst] In the case in point there is no doubt that the NO's are in time as their side has not played to the next trick. This is not an issue here. As for the ruling itself I'd be inclined to support the TD's ruling and rule that the specification of "club" meant "small club". I do this because it is not the case that declarer was running the club suit, but returned to it later in the hand and can therefore more easily have lost track of the position. Had he played Q, A then said "club" I might well have allowed the King, but given that some tricks have intervened I find that declarer's intent was not incontrovertible. As for the wording of the Law, well, it sucks. There is no need for the "unless his intention ..." bit at all. This is a mechanical Law and should be written as such - it would save much argument. cheers john _____________________________________________________________________ [Laval Dubreuil] I sent such a case to BLML some months ago. I hate such Law formulation (unless his intention...) and have problem reading in minds. So, when declarer is not running the suit, I use to rule that "club" means the lowest (46B2). How can I know if he remember that the suit was good... Next time, he will name suit and rank. IMHO, Laws should be written to avoid such intrepretation of intention. (remember the famous Vancouver case). You said "club", you have to play small. Thats it thats all. Just pay attention to the game and name cards correctly. In most other games and sports, facts are importants, not "intentions". When Tiger Woods is on the green, some inches to the cup, and miss because of a butterfly flying around or some other such reason, his "intention" was "incontrovertibly" to put his ball there and all know he can do, but no discussion: he just add 1. [ng=Nigel Guthrie] I agree with both John and Laval. The interpretation of a Bridge Law should not depend on a player's intent. Especially when nominating dummy's cards or selecting bids from bidding boxes. If, in two similar cases involving professed intent, the law rules against player "A" but in favour of player "B" then nobody should be surprised if "A" sues for slander. [ng] An analogous anomoly arises with assessment of ability. For example players "A" and "B" both make a faulty claims. The TD rules against player "A" but opines that no player of "A"s ability could go wrong in the ending. Bridge ability is an even more nebulous quality than intent. Anyway, ability does not make you immune to blunders. Even Belladonna often blundered, he was just rather good at recovery. [ng] IMO Bridge law is in urgent need of redrafting to remove all references to subjective assessments of ability and intent. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 17 07:10:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0GKACu00622 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 07:10:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-2.cais.net (stmpy-2.cais.net [205.252.14.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0GKA4H00594 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 07:10:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-2.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g0GK1eV75647 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 15:01:40 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20020116145455.00b3fba0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 15:01:36 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? (long) In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:54 AM 1/16/02, twm wrote: >David Burn wrote: > > > I must say that I would regard as laughable the notion that a > > declarer could ask me "Does your partner tend to underlead aces?" - but > > that is what appears to be being suggested. > >It seems a reasonable question. You may be aware of some abnormal habit >of your partner's of which declarer is unaware. I'd expect "not so that >I'd noticed" to be a pretty common response. Closer to David's "laughable" than to Tim's "reasonable" IMO, as the only answer I could imagine giving to such a question is something along the lines of, "Only when she thinks it's right." Imagine a declarer leading small towards a KJx in dummy. LHO plays low, and declarer now turns to RHO and asks, "Does your partner tend to grab his aces in positions like this?" I don't see any fundamental difference in nature between these two questions, and would give the same answer to either. 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 17 07:20:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0GKK6Z01809 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 07:20:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0GKJwH01794 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 07:19:58 +1100 (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 PAA23025 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 15:11:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA27549 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 15:11:35 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 15:11:35 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200201162011.PAA27549@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? (long) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "David Burn" > He should not reply. I do not consider this a legitimate question. This is a very interesting thread! Do we agree that whatever answer applies here -- departures from announced defensive agreements -- also applies to psychic bidding? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 17 08:28:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0GLRhP14964 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 08:27:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-1.cais.net (stmpy-1.cais.net [205.252.14.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0GLRYH14939 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 08:27:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-1.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g0GLJAv21165 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 16:19:10 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20020116160121.00b3be30@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 16:19:06 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? (long) In-Reply-To: <200201162011.PAA27549@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 03:11 PM 1/16/02, Steve wrote: > > From: "David Burn" > > He should not reply. I do not consider this a legitimate question. > >This is a very interesting thread! > >Do we agree that whatever answer applies here -- departures from >announced defensive agreements -- also applies to psychic bidding? Not at all; there is no parallel. Underleading an ace is not anything like a "departure[] from announced defensive agreements" -- unless, of course, you have, as a result of a total lack of understanding of the game, foolishly made some sort of ridiculous agreement with your partner that you will never do such a thing. For the sane, the decision to underlead, or not underlead, an ace comes as the result of whatever analysis one is capable of, and represents not an attempt to send any kind of message to partner, but rather an attempt to accomplish one's immediate objective, i.e. either to maximize one's chance of beating the contract or to minimize declarer's expected number of tricks. The decision is dictated by the bridge analysis, not by a partnership agreement. The idea that the choice among underleading an ace, laying it down, or leading some other suit is somehow equivalent to the choice among leading the K, Q or J from KQJx (to which Steve's analogy to psyhcic bidding might apply) is nonsense. 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 17 10:22:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0GNLqF05656 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 10:21:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0GNLhH05632 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 10:21:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16QzF6-0008lI-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 23:13:19 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 23:10:49 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] Tabiano and the WBFLC MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Thanks to Jesper Dybdal, Ton Kooijman, Christina MacEachan and Grattan Endicott I have now got [I believe] all the documents from the EBL TD course at Tabiano in September 2001 available for download from my site. The URL is http://blakjak.com/lwz_ste2.htm Please note that if you have downloaded them before in many cases you will have got drafts, and even the documents you may have seen before may have changed. So if you want a full set of documents I suggest you download the "All Files" file. Note that in the case of the Adjustments lecture given by myself I have added two small sections because of discussions at the end of that lecture so people who were present might find the main document more complete than that handed out at the time. As far as WBFLC minutes are concerned I have now added Hammamet in 1997 so I believe I have all minutes available for download from 1997 onwards. The URL is http://blakjak.com/wbf_lcmn.htm -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 17 10:48:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0GNloI10652 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 10:47:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from protactinium.btinternet.com (protactinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.176]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0GNlfH10628 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 10:47:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-72-24.btinternet.com ([213.122.72.24] helo=pbncomputer) by protactinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16QzeH-0000xQ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 23:39:18 +0000 Message-ID: <002501c19ee6$d3fe2740$18487ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <11010211.66075@webbox.com> <3C4173A9.EBDB5DA8@elnet.msk.ru> <001e01c19c2d$b08a4e80$7555e150@dodona> <005301c19c9d$7e849060$67a801d5@pbncomputer> <009201c19ea6$962e9700$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 23:37:53 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Konrad wrote: > > >Your hand, not vulnerable against vulnerable, is: > > > > > >QJ1094 J4 None AQ9632 > > > > > >Your partner opens 1C (four cards or more unless specifically > > >4-3-3-3 with 15+ hcp - you are playing four-card suits, weak > > >no trump, Acol as your grandmother would know it). RHO overcalls > > >2C, alerted by LHO and explained on your request as showing the > > >majors). What call do you make? [The auction, in the scenario as hypothetically continued by Konrad, was: West North East South You 1C 2C* 2H** 4S Pass Pass ? *majors **club raise. The actual auction was identical, except that South passed rather than bid 2H. The question answered by Konrad below was: what call do you now make?] > Hard to tell as we all know that RHO doesn't have the majors. So I gave > this problem to several friends of mine - a bunch of young wolves, > all of them very decent players, some of them playing at the > near-to-expert level. The auction imposed on them included > a 2H response to the 1C opener (after the 2C overcall). Only one > of them passed - the other five doubled. Their arguments > went along the lines "4S doesn't make and in case they run > partner will take care of diamonds. I don't pass because > > a) there is a good chance that 4Sx will become the final contract > b) 6C is still not out of the question and 5C should be close to making" > > albeit all of them wanted to know if this was MPs or IMPs - the > information I was unable to provide. > > So where is the gag, Mr. Burn? I am anxious to know the whole > story so please come of the bushes, David. :-) Well, suppose that you bid 6C. After all, you "know" from the auction that partner has a void in spades, and even if you are missing the top hearts, there is at least some chance that a spade will be led, allowing partner to discard your hearts on the high diamonds that he "must" now have (since he has at most 2 points in the majors and 4 in clubs on this scenario). It turns out, not very much to anyone's surprise but yours, that RHO does not have the majors, and that partner has to lose both major-suit aces. You call for arbitration. The opponents' agreement was that 2C showed the majors; RHO had simply misbid (and had done pretty well to make an ethical pass of 4S on her 2-5-5-1 shape; she would, of course, have bitten the bullet and passed 4S doubled also). What adjustment, if any, do you regard as your entitlement? The form of scoring, since you ask, was matchpoints. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 17 10:54:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0GNs2Y11895 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 10:54:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lexington.fscv.net ([216.206.44.34]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0GNrrH11867 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 10:53:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from walt.com (216.206.47.49 [216.206.47.49]) by lexington.fscv.net with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id 4DAF6Q9A; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 18:45:29 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020116183819.00aa8c30@mail.fscv.net> X-Sender: Walt.Flory@mail.fscv.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 18:45:05 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Walt Flory Subject: Re: [BLML] Card Called from Dummy In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I would expect to see the same ruling here, John. (Middle of the east coast of the United States.) If I didn't specify which club (or say something akin to "big club) I would expect to be penalized. If I was thinking top club and could convince the director that I changed my call without pause for thought then I might escape the penalty. But certainly "club", "small club", and "little club" are synonymous. Walt At 02:36 PM 1/16/02 +0000, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >In article , >Sven.Pran@alcatel.no writes > > > >David Stevenson wrote on behalf of Yogesh Abhyankar (part of the post > >stripped): > >...(snip) > > > >> South is Declarer playing 3NT Doubled. > > > >> North Dummy holds Clubs AKT9x, Declarer has Clubs Qx > > > >> After winning opening lead CQ is played from the hand to which all > >>follow. Small Club is played to A in dummy, all follow. A small > >>diamond is played from dummy which loses to West (LHO) and a spade is > >>returned won in hand. Declarer enters dummy by playing to heart king > >>and next trick just says "club" (dummy has KT9 remaining). Dummy plays > >>king (on his own), East (RHO) plays club jack, declarer discards. At > >>this point LHO who has a small club suggests declarer that he should > >>nominate the card, if he just names the suit, the smallest card must be > >>played. > >. . . (snip) > >> Director Tells Declarer to play small club, result down 3, -800. If > >>club king is played, nine tricks are made and contract succeeds. South > >>appeals. I do not know what decision AC has given. > > > >> I request comments from our members, purely on bridge laws and > >>practices, disregarding hurt egos mentioned above. > >This is an interesting problem for me. In London, England, there is no >doubt that the word "club" explicitly means "small club". It is >completely standard here for players to specify the smallest card in a >suit in this manner. It comes I think from the Young Chelsea, whose >members have a much better working knowledge of the laws than most >players, and when I was directing there all players were aware that in >this case I would rule "the smallest card is specified". This habit has >spread throughout London. > >This causes problems when these players venture into Stevenson territory >because when a Northern player specifies a card in this way (even if his >intent may well have been incontrovertible) they expect that a small >card has explicitly been nominated. > >It becomes even more interesting for me when I'm directing at an EBU >event which is not in London. I am certain that I err on the side of >"small card is specified" much more than most other UK TD's. > >In the case in point there is no doubt that the NO's are in time as >their side has not played to the next trick. This is not an issue here. >As for the ruling itself I'd be inclined to support the TD's ruling and >rule that the specification of "club" meant "small club". I do this >because it is not the case that declarer was running the club suit, but >returned to it later in the hand and can therefore more easily have lost >track of the position. Had he played Q, A then said "club" I might well >have allowed the King, but given that some tricks have intervened I find >that declarer's intent was not incontrovertible. > >As for the wording of the Law, well, it sucks. There is no need for the >"unless his intention ..." bit at all. This is a mechanical Law and >should be written as such - it would save much argument. cheers john > > > >>1. Should West have objected immediately or wait till his turn to play > >>comes? > > > >Relevant laws are 46B2, 45F, 45D, 9A2(a) and 9B. West may object at > >any time as long as not both sides have played to the *next* trick! > > > >>2. Does West loses his right to object since the next player (his > >>partner) and declarer have played? > > > >No, see above > >(The rule you have in mind applies after lead out of turn, not here) > > > >>3. Since the play of the small card was not a logical or rational play > >>considering the full hand and play taken place so far, can the TD ask > >>declarer to take club king back and play small card from dummy? > > > >Yes, he can, but he doesn't have to. This is a matter of judgement. > >If TD finds that South might have forgotten the outstanding Jack > >believing that all his Clubs are high, he should probably rule that > >the smallest club is played, otherwise it seems reasonable that he might > >apply the "except when declarer's different intention is incontrovertible" > >rule from Law 46B. > > > >Regards Sven > > > >-- > >======================================================================== > >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > >-- >John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 >451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou >London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com >+44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 17 11:17:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0H0Gm216263 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 11:16:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0H0GdH16237 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 11:16:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g0H08Nw21739 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 00:08:23 GMT Message-ID: <7VXl78CNThR8Ew2R@asimere.com> Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 00:03:25 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time References: <11010211.66075@webbox.com> <3C4173A9.EBDB5DA8@elnet.msk.ru> <001e01c19c2d$b08a4e80$7555e150@dodona> <005301c19c9d$7e849060$67a801d5@pbncomputer> <009201c19ea6$962e9700$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> <002501c19ee6$d3fe2740$18487ad5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <002501c19ee6$d3fe2740$18487ad5@pbncomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <002501c19ee6$d3fe2740$18487ad5@pbncomputer>, David Burn writes >Konrad wrote: > >> > >Your hand, not vulnerable against vulnerable, is: >> > > >> > >QJ1094 J4 None AQ9632 >> > > >> > >Your partner opens 1C (four cards or more unless specifically >> > >4-3-3-3 with 15+ hcp - you are playing four-card suits, weak >> > >no trump, Acol as your grandmother would know it). RHO overcalls >> > >2C, alerted by LHO and explained on your request as showing the >> > >majors). What call do you make? > >[The auction, in the scenario as hypothetically continued by Konrad, >was: > >West North East South > You > 1C 2C* 2H** >4S Pass Pass ? > >*majors **club raise. > >The actual auction was identical, except that South passed rather than >bid 2H. The question answered by Konrad below was: what call do you now >make?] > >> Hard to tell as we all know that RHO doesn't have the majors. So I >gave >> this problem to several friends of mine - a bunch of young wolves, >> all of them very decent players, some of them playing at the >> near-to-expert level. The auction imposed on them included >> a 2H response to the 1C opener (after the 2C overcall). Only one >> of them passed - the other five doubled. Their arguments >> went along the lines "4S doesn't make and in case they run >> partner will take care of diamonds. I don't pass because >> >> a) there is a good chance that 4Sx will become the final contract >> b) 6C is still not out of the question and 5C should be close to >making" >> >> albeit all of them wanted to know if this was MPs or IMPs - the >> information I was unable to provide. >> >> So where is the gag, Mr. Burn? I am anxious to know the whole >> story so please come of the bushes, David. :-) > >Well, suppose that you bid 6C. After all, you "know" from the auction >that partner has a void in spades, and even if you are missing the top >hearts, there is at least some chance that a spade will be led, allowing >partner to discard your hearts on the high diamonds that he "must" now >have (since he has at most 2 points in the majors and 4 in clubs on this >scenario). > >It turns out, not very much to anyone's surprise but yours, that RHO >does not have the majors, and that partner has to lose both major-suit >aces. You call for arbitration. The opponents' agreement was that 2C >showed the majors; RHO had simply misbid (and had done pretty well to >make an ethical pass of 4S on her 2-5-5-1 shape; she would, of course, >have bitten the bullet and passed 4S doubled also). What adjustment, if >any, do you regard as your entitlement? > >The form of scoring, since you ask, was matchpoints. Result stands. Why was the TD called? cheers john > >David Burn >London, England > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 17 11:20:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0H0KAO16920 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 11:20:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0H0K1H16905 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 11:20:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g0H0Bkw21744 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 00:11:46 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 00:07:05 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Tabiano and the WBFLC References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes > > Thanks to Jesper Dybdal, Ton Kooijman, Christina MacEachan and Grattan >Endicott I have now got [I believe] all the documents from the EBL TD >course at Tabiano in September 2001 available for download from my site. >The URL is this is going to keep me busy for a while. Thanks a lot David for putting in this effort. > > http://blakjak.com/lwz_ste2.htm > > Please note that if you have downloaded them before in many cases you >will have got drafts, and even the documents you may have seen before >may have changed. So if you want a full set of documents I suggest you >download the "All Files" file. > > Note that in the case of the Adjustments lecture given by myself I >have added two small sections because of discussions at the end of that >lecture so people who were present might find the main document more >complete than that handed out at the time. > > As far as WBFLC minutes are concerned I have now added Hammamet in >1997 so I believe I have all minutes available for download from 1997 >onwards. The URL is > > http://blakjak.com/wbf_lcmn.htm > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 17 11:58:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0H0w7c23409 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 11:58:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pn2.vsnl.net.in (pn2.vsnl.net.in [202.54.10.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0H0vuH23384 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 11:57:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from pn2.vsnl.net.in (unknown [203.197.84.1]) by pn2.vsnl.net.in (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CA85FEB7; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 06:19:26 +0530 (IST) Message-ID: <3C461BA5.DCDE28AE@pn2.vsnl.net.in> Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 06:02:37 +0530 From: n y abhyankar X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nigel Guthrie Cc: BLML Subject: Re: [BLML] Card Called from Dummy References: <002801c19ec5$c49f3a80$949468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi All, In this case intention of declarer to play K was clear since when dummy played on his own CK he did not stop him, then he also played to the trick. Yogesh Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Nigel Guthrie] below in reply to > [John (MadDog) Probst] > In the case in point there is no doubt that the NO's are in time as > their side has not played to the next trick. This is not an issue here. > As for the ruling itself I'd be inclined to support the TD's ruling and > rule that the specification of "club" meant "small club". I do this > because it is not the case that declarer was running the club suit, but > returned to it later in the hand and can therefore more easily have lost > track of the position. Had he played Q, A then said "club" I might well > have allowed the King, but given that some tricks have intervened I find > that declarer's intent was not incontrovertible. > > As for the wording of the Law, well, it sucks. There is no need for the > "unless his intention ..." bit at all. This is a mechanical Law and > should be written as such - it would save much argument. cheers john > _____________________________________________________________________ > [Laval Dubreuil] > I sent such a case to BLML some months ago. I hate such Law formulation > (unless his intention...) and have problem reading in minds. So, > when declarer is not running the suit, I use to rule that "club" means > the lowest (46B2). How can I know if he remember that the suit was > good... Next time, he will name suit and rank. > > IMHO, Laws should be written to avoid such intrepretation of intention. > (remember the famous Vancouver case). You said "club", you have to play > small. Thats it thats all. Just pay attention to the game and name cards > correctly. > > In most other games and sports, facts are importants, not "intentions". > When Tiger Woods is on the green, some inches to the cup, and miss > because of a butterfly flying around or some other such reason, his > "intention" was "incontrovertibly" to put his ball there and all know > he can do, but no discussion: he just add 1. > > [ng=Nigel Guthrie] > I agree with both John and Laval. The interpretation of a Bridge Law should > not depend on a player's intent. Especially when nominating dummy's cards or > selecting bids from bidding boxes. If, in two similar cases involving > professed intent, the law rules against player "A" but in favour of player > "B" then nobody should be surprised if "A" sues for slander. > > [ng] > An analogous anomoly arises with assessment of ability. For example players > "A" and "B" both make a faulty claims. The TD rules against player "A" but > opines that no player of "A"s ability could go wrong in the ending. Bridge > ability is an even more nebulous quality than intent. Anyway, ability does > not make you immune to blunders. Even Belladonna often blundered, he was > just rather good at recovery. > > [ng] > IMO Bridge law is in urgent need of redrafting to remove all references to > subjective assessments of ability and intent. > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 17 13:36:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0H2ZVT06464 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 13:35:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (mta03-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.43]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0H2ZMH06460 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 13:35:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from anne ([62.255.16.89]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020117022657.TUIB8780.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@anne> for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 02:26:57 +0000 Message-ID: <002f01c19efe$72cb6a60$5910ff3e@jones1> Reply-To: "Anne Jones" From: "Anne Jones" To: "blml" References: <002801c19ec5$c49f3a80$949468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <3C461BA5.DCDE28AE@pn2.vsnl.net.in> Subject: Re: [BLML] Card Called from Dummy Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 02:27:01 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk No Yogesh - that is irrelevant. Dummy is not allowed to help declarer play the hand. Declarer "might" have been happy to accept Dummy's advice. Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "n y abhyankar" To: "Nigel Guthrie" Cc: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 12:32 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Card Called from Dummy > Hi All, > > In this case intention of declarer to play K was clear since when dummy played > on his own CK he did not stop him, then he also played to the trick. > > Yogesh > > Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > > [Nigel Guthrie] below in reply to > > [John (MadDog) Probst] > > In the case in point there is no doubt that the NO's are in time as > > their side has not played to the next trick. This is not an issue here. > > As for the ruling itself I'd be inclined to support the TD's ruling and > > rule that the specification of "club" meant "small club". I do this > > because it is not the case that declarer was running the club suit, but > > returned to it later in the hand and can therefore more easily have lost > > track of the position. Had he played Q, A then said "club" I might well > > have allowed the King, but given that some tricks have intervened I find > > that declarer's intent was not incontrovertible. > > > > As for the wording of the Law, well, it sucks. There is no need for the > > "unless his intention ..." bit at all. This is a mechanical Law and > > should be written as such - it would save much argument. cheers john > > _____________________________________________________________________ > > [Laval Dubreuil] > > I sent such a case to BLML some months ago. I hate such Law formulation > > (unless his intention...) and have problem reading in minds. So, > > when declarer is not running the suit, I use to rule that "club" means > > the lowest (46B2). How can I know if he remember that the suit was > > good... Next time, he will name suit and rank. > > > > IMHO, Laws should be written to avoid such intrepretation of intention. > > (remember the famous Vancouver case). You said "club", you have to play > > small. Thats it thats all. Just pay attention to the game and name cards > > correctly. > > > > In most other games and sports, facts are importants, not "intentions". > > When Tiger Woods is on the green, some inches to the cup, and miss > > because of a butterfly flying around or some other such reason, his > > "intention" was "incontrovertibly" to put his ball there and all know > > he can do, but no discussion: he just add 1. > > > > [ng=Nigel Guthrie] > > I agree with both John and Laval. The interpretation of a Bridge Law should > > not depend on a player's intent. Especially when nominating dummy's cards or > > selecting bids from bidding boxes. If, in two similar cases involving > > professed intent, the law rules against player "A" but in favour of player > > "B" then nobody should be surprised if "A" sues for slander. > > > > [ng] > > An analogous anomoly arises with assessment of ability. For example players > > "A" and "B" both make a faulty claims. The TD rules against player "A" but > > opines that no player of "A"s ability could go wrong in the ending. Bridge > > ability is an even more nebulous quality than intent. Anyway, ability does > > not make you immune to blunders. Even Belladonna often blundered, he was > > just rather good at recovery. > > > > [ng] > > IMO Bridge law is in urgent need of redrafting to remove all references to > > subjective assessments of ability and intent. > > > > -- > > ======================================================================== > > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 17 17:20:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0H6IW401822 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 17:18:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from web12403.mail.yahoo.com (web12403.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.173.130]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g0H6INH01808 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 17:18:24 +1100 (EST) Message-ID: <20020117061000.65235.qmail@web12403.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [147.237.73.254] by web12403.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 06:10:00 GMT Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 06:10:00 +0000 (GMT) From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Brian=20Zietman?= Subject: [BLML] Slow pass To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Dear all, I had the following problem at the recent play-off for the Israel League Championships. Playing with screens all vulnerable : South opened 1NT with only 14 points (despite the fact that he was playing 15-17) : Spades Kxx Hearts Jxx Diamonds Qx Clubs AKJxx North bid 2 clubs (puppet Stayman) and South responded 2 NT (not 4 or 5 card major and not maximum points). North bid 3 NT and West doubled. It was established and agreed that the tray took a long time to return from North and East with 2 passes. South now pulled to 4 clubs. 4 clubs went down 2 for 200 and 3 NT would have gone down 2 doubled for 500. How would you rule ? Brian Zietman Jerusalem, Israel __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 17 19:14:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0H8Bdn18130 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 19:11:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat40.alcanet.no [193.213.239.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0H8BUH18112 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 19:11:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from netos70.alcatel.no (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with ESMTP id g0H82xY13051; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 09:02:59 +0100 Subject: Re: [BLML] Slow pass To: Brian Zietman Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 09:02:54 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NOMAIL01/NO/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 01/17/2002 09:02:59 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Brian Zietman asked: >Dear all, >I had the following problem at the recent play-off for >the Israel League Championships. Playing with screens >all vulnerable : >South opened 1NT with only 14 points (despite the fact >that he was playing 15-17) : >Spades Kxx >Hearts Jxx >Diamonds Qx >Clubs AKJxx >North bid 2 clubs (puppet Stayman) and South responded >2 NT (not 4 or 5 card major and not maximum points). >North bid 3 NT and West doubled. It was established >and agreed that the tray took a long time to return >from North and East with 2 passes. >South now pulled to 4 clubs. >4 clubs went down 2 for 200 and 3 NT would have gone >down 2 doubled for 500. >How would you rule ? Variation in tempo may give cause for adjustment under Law 16 (Unauthorized information), but this is hardly relevant when screens are in use. South cannot know why the tray took so long to return the last time, he may suspect that North was in doubt, but it could also be that East was in doubt. It could even be (as in a famous incicent some years ago) if the delay was substantial enough that both North and East had to go to the toilet! Where is the UI? I would let the result stand. (Unless of course anybody can claim a real reason to accuse North and South of having concealed agreements in NT bidding sequences, but such allegations must be based upon previous experience with that pair). regards Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 17 21:22:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0HAJPe10429 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 21:19:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0HAJFH10402 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 21:19:16 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g0HAApW14474 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 10:10:51 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 10:10 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? (long) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.52.2000, Windows 98 4.10.2222 ( A ) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20020116145455.00b3fba0@127.0.0.1> Eric wrote: > > > I must say that I would regard as laughable the notion that a > > > declarer could ask me "Does your partner tend to underlead aces?" - > > > but that is what appears to be being suggested. > > > > It seems a reasonable question. You may be aware of some abnormal > > habit of your partner's of which declarer is unaware. I'd expect "not > > so that I'd noticed" to be a pretty common response. > > Closer to David's "laughable" than to Tim's "reasonable" IMO, as the > only answer I could imagine giving to such a question is something > along the lines of, "Only when she thinks it's right." I play regularly with a wide range of people my answers with just 3: Alfie: Never, he thinks he'd go to hell if he tried Charlie:When he's dealt one - he thinks it's clever Emily: Quite often. (so far this foible hasn't been a top learning priority for us). I will base my play on my knowledge of the stylistic differences between these players - I think my opponents have a right to have the above question answered. Tim West-Meads -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 17 23:35:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0HCXuX25000 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 23:33:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mx.poczta.interia.pl (smtp.poczta.interia.pl [217.74.65.36]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0HCXgH24996 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 23:33:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (nanon.interia.pl [127.0.0.1]) by nanon.interia.pl (MX) with SMTP id 904D83724B2 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 13:25:12 +0100 (CET) Received: by mx.poczta.interia.pl (MX, from userid 555) id BF014372450; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 13:10:02 +0100 (CET) Received: from poczta.interia.pl (nyx.poczta.fm [217.74.65.51]) by mx.poczta.interia.pl (MX) with ESMTP id 12F9C371C35 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 13:10:00 +0100 (CET) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (nyx.poczta.fm [127.0.0.1]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailserver) with SMTP id 5983FDB120 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 13:09:59 +0100 (CET) Received: by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver, from userid 555) id 664ADDB194; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 13:06:40 +0100 (CET) Received: from kavanagh (unknown [217.153.105.20]) by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver) with SMTP id 7332DDAF9D for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 13:05:33 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <008e01c19f4e$25ba33f0$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: "BLML" References: <001d01c19dd6$41622dc0$0a9c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> <001d01c19ea2$6ec6d6e0$bc9768d5@tinyhrieuyik> Subject: Re: [BLML] Xenophobia Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 12:55:26 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 X-EMID: 8b2be2c0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Guthrie" > [n2] I apologise for misinterpreting other members feelings. I suppose that > national organisations like to promote local systems but I wonder whether > many in the rank an file would object to a world-wide simple system. What would that system look like? I wonder how many people all over the world would want to change their lifetime habits. In Poland almost 100% percent of players use multi-meaning, artificial 1C opening with a multi-meaning, artificial 1D response. The natural 1C opening and the natural 1D response require an alert here. In Finland and in Great Britain the majority plays four card majors. In Poland and in Scandinavia reverse count is far more popular than natural count. In France the vast majority plays third/fifth rather than fourth best. And so on, and so forth. So how would this "simple world wide system" would look like? Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wiesz, co daja dzisiaj w TV? >>> http://tv.interia.pl/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 17 23:36:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0HCZnI25007 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 23:35:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mx.poczta.interia.pl (smtp.poczta.interia.pl [217.74.65.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0HCZYH25003 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 23:35:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (natori.interia.pl [127.0.0.1]) by natori.interia.pl (MX) with SMTP id A1CD01362B for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 13:27:08 +0100 (CET) Received: by mx.poczta.interia.pl (MX, from userid 555) id 28F9313602; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 13:27:08 +0100 (CET) Received: from poczta.interia.pl (nyx.poczta.fm [217.74.65.51]) by mx.poczta.interia.pl (MX) with ESMTP id 08F66138E3 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 13:27:06 +0100 (CET) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (nyx.poczta.fm [127.0.0.1]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailserver) with SMTP id 3AC68DB0CB for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 13:26:49 +0100 (CET) Received: by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver, from userid 555) id 4D41ADB017; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 13:25:56 +0100 (CET) Received: from kavanagh (unknown [217.153.105.20]) by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver) with SMTP id 3A2E9DB01C for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 13:25:53 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <00a301c19f50$fc941dd0$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: References: <11010211.66075@webbox.com> <3C4173A9.EBDB5DA8@elnet.msk.ru> <001e01c19c2d$b08a4e80$7555e150@dodona> <005301c19c9d$7e849060$67a801d5@pbncomputer> <009201c19ea6$962e9700$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> <002501c19ee6$d3fe2740$18487ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 13:09:27 +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 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 X-EMID: 8b2be2c0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" > It turns out, not very much to anyone's surprise but yours, that RHO > does not have the majors, and that partner has to lose both major-suit > aces. You call for arbitration. The opponents' agreement was that 2C > showed the majors; RHO had simply misbid (and had done pretty well to > make an ethical pass of 4S on her 2-5-5-1 shape; she would, of course, > have bitten the bullet and passed 4S doubled also). What adjustment, if > any, do you regard as your entitlement? > > The form of scoring, since you ask, was matchpoints. > > David Burn > London, England If the opponents' agreement was that 2C was for the majors (I assume they could demonstrate it with their CC or system notes) that RHO simply misbid, North / South received a proper explanation, RHO ethically didn't use the UI information from his partner's explanation. I cannot believe that David doesn't know that an automatic and absolutely obvious ruling in this case is "result stands, what's the problem?" so I assume that there is a catch somewhere. Do you want all misbids punished regadless of the subsequent result? Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Czy widziales juz najnowsze wiadomosci? >>> http://fakty.interia.pl/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 17 23:53:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0HCoud25030 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 23:50:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from fep1.012.net.il (fep1.goldenlines.net.il [212.117.129.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0HColH25026 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 23:50:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from zshilon ([212.199.34.118]) by fep1.012.net.il with SMTP id <20020117124254.BICP15134.fep1@zshilon> for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 14:42:54 +0200 From: "Zvi Shilon" To: Subject: RE: [BLML] Slow pass Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 14:44:03 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi, Bryan: I cannot think of any reason for the delay to be due to East. It would seem the hesitation came from North. I believe the contract should be 3nt doubled. zvika -----Original Message----- From: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of Sven.Pran@alcatel.no Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 10:03 AM To: Brian Zietman Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Slow pass Brian Zietman asked: >Dear all, >I had the following problem at the recent play-off for >the Israel League Championships. Playing with screens >all vulnerable : >South opened 1NT with only 14 points (despite the fact >that he was playing 15-17) : >Spades Kxx >Hearts Jxx >Diamonds Qx >Clubs AKJxx >North bid 2 clubs (puppet Stayman) and South responded >2 NT (not 4 or 5 card major and not maximum points). >North bid 3 NT and West doubled. It was established >and agreed that the tray took a long time to return >from North and East with 2 passes. >South now pulled to 4 clubs. >4 clubs went down 2 for 200 and 3 NT would have gone >down 2 doubled for 500. >How would you rule ? Variation in tempo may give cause for adjustment under Law 16 (Unauthorized information), but this is hardly relevant when screens are in use. South cannot know why the tray took so long to return the last time, he may suspect that North was in doubt, but it could also be that East was in doubt. It could even be (as in a famous incicent some years ago) if the delay was substantial enough that both North and East had to go to the toilet! Where is the UI? I would let the result stand. (Unless of course anybody can claim a real reason to accuse North and South of having concealed agreements in NT bidding sequences, but such allegations must be based upon previous experience with that pair). regards Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 18 00:25:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0HDO5j25057 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 00:24:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mx.poczta.interia.pl (smtp.poczta.interia.pl [217.74.65.36]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0HDNtH25053 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 00:23:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (nanon.interia.pl [127.0.0.1]) by nanon.interia.pl (MX) with SMTP id 2F1F5371922 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 14:15:27 +0100 (CET) Received: by mx.poczta.interia.pl (MX, from userid 555) id C7727372679; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 14:02:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from poczta.interia.pl (nyx.poczta.fm [217.74.65.51]) by mx.poczta.interia.pl (MX) with ESMTP id 9026F371FED for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 14:02:17 +0100 (CET) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (nyx.poczta.fm [127.0.0.1]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailserver) with SMTP id A33A1DB1AD for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 14:01:59 +0100 (CET) Received: by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver, from userid 555) id 41819DB125; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 13:56:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from kavanagh (unknown [217.153.105.20]) by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver) with SMTP id A6F2CDB143 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 13:56:11 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <00d001c19f55$38ebf970$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Slow pass Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 13:42:33 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 X-EMID: 8b2be2c0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Brian Zietman" Cc: Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 9:02 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Slow pass > > > Brian Zietman asked: > >Dear all, > >I had the following problem at the recent play-off for > >the Israel League Championships. Playing with screens > >all vulnerable : > >South opened 1NT with only 14 points (despite the fact > >that he was playing 15-17) : > > >Spades Kxx > >Hearts Jxx > >Diamonds Qx > >Clubs AKJxx > > >North bid 2 clubs (puppet Stayman) and South responded > >2 NT (not 4 or 5 card major and not maximum points). > >North bid 3 NT and West doubled. It was established > >and agreed that the tray took a long time to return > >from North and East with 2 passes. > >South now pulled to 4 clubs. > >4 clubs went down 2 for 200 and 3 NT would have gone > >down 2 doubled for 500. > >How would you rule ? > > Variation in tempo may give cause for adjustment under > Law 16 (Unauthorized information), but this is hardly > relevant when screens are in use. > Too quick, IM(H)O. Assuming that "Israel League Championships playoffs" means that decent players are involved only North could do any thnking. West doubled, West is on lead, the double is clearly for penalties. Why should East hesitate at all? No - I would adjust to 3NTx for -500. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Czy widziales juz najnowsze wiadomosci? >>> http://fakty.interia.pl/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 18 00:30:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0HDTAl25069 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 00:29:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-2.cais.net (stmpy-2.cais.net [205.252.14.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0HDT2H25065 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 00:29:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-2.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g0HDKbV73651 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 08:20:37 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20020117081157.00acf710@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 08:20:35 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time In-Reply-To: <002501c19ee6$d3fe2740$18487ad5@pbncomputer> References: <11010211.66075@webbox.com> <3C4173A9.EBDB5DA8@elnet.msk.ru> <001e01c19c2d$b08a4e80$7555e150@dodona> <005301c19c9d$7e849060$67a801d5@pbncomputer> <009201c19ea6$962e9700$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:37 PM 1/16/02, David wrote: >It turns out, not very much to anyone's surprise but yours, that RHO >does not have the majors, and that partner has to lose both major-suit >aces. You call for arbitration. The opponents' agreement was that 2C >showed the majors; RHO had simply misbid (and had done pretty well to >make an ethical pass of 4S on her 2-5-5-1 shape; she would, of course, >have bitten the bullet and passed 4S doubled also). What adjustment, if >any, do you regard as your entitlement? None. There was no MI (L75 Example 2: "East-West did receive an accurate description of the North-South agreement; they have no claim to an accurate description of the North-South hands"). There's no UI problem. There's no possible "could have known" that could bring L73F2 into the picture. Doesn't sound to me like there was any infraction on which to base an adjustment. 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 18 01:08:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0HE7Au25097 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 01:07:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92] (may be forged)) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0HE72H25092 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 01:07:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-39-212.btinternet.com ([213.122.39.212] helo=pbncomputer) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16RD08-0000KN-00; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 13:54:44 +0000 Message-ID: <000f01c19f5e$5510ef80$d4277ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Konrad Ciborowski" , References: <11010211.66075@webbox.com> <3C4173A9.EBDB5DA8@elnet.msk.ru> <001e01c19c2d$b08a4e80$7555e150@dodona> <005301c19c9d$7e849060$67a801d5@pbncomputer> <009201c19ea6$962e9700$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> <002501c19ee6$d3fe2740$18487ad5@pbncomputer> <00a301c19f50$fc941dd0$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 13:53:21 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Konrad wrote: > If the opponents' agreement was that 2C was for the majors > (I assume they could demonstrate it with their CC or system > notes) that RHO simply misbid, North / South received > a proper explanation, RHO ethically didn't use the UI > information from his partner's explanation. > I cannot believe that David doesn't know that an automatic > and absolutely obvious ruling in this case is "result > stands, what's the problem?" so I assume that there > is a catch somewhere. Do you want all misbids > punished regadless of the subsequent result? No, no - and once again, my apologies for the somewhat ponderous nature of this thread. It is merely that I thought, having been involved in the hand at the table, that it might be a useful one to illustrate various aspects of the laws relating to misinformation, and I am simply endeavouring to check my conclusions at every stage (hence the title of the thread). It seemed to me, as it seems to everyone who has contributed so far (to whom my thanks) that in a case where the agreement was that 2C showed majors, there has been no infraction and hence no redress would be due in the event of an unsuccessful jump to 6C. However, that was not what actually happened. Suppose instead it transpired that the opponents' agreement was that 2C showed red suits. West had forgotten, East had acted ethically in passing 4S. South, when 6C failed, asked for arbitration (as indeed he might have done even if it had made, for 4S doubled would cost 1400). The Director informed him that he "should have known from his own hand that he had been misinformed, and should have doubled 4S instead". Should South appeal? David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 18 02:02:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0HF0me01830 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 02:00:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-4.cais.net (stmpy-4.cais.net [205.252.14.74]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0HF0dH01803 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 02:00:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-4.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g0HEqDF56043 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 09:52:14 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20020117094408.00a89f00@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 09:52:12 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time In-Reply-To: <000f01c19f5e$5510ef80$d4277ad5@pbncomputer> References: <11010211.66075@webbox.com> <3C4173A9.EBDB5DA8@elnet.msk.ru> <001e01c19c2d$b08a4e80$7555e150@dodona> <005301c19c9d$7e849060$67a801d5@pbncomputer> <009201c19ea6$962e9700$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> <002501c19ee6$d3fe2740$18487ad5@pbncomputer> <00a301c19f50$fc941dd0$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:53 AM 1/17/02, David wrote: >However, that was not what actually happened. Suppose instead it >transpired that the opponents' agreement was that 2C showed red suits. >West had forgotten, East had acted ethically in passing 4S. South, when >6C failed, asked for arbitration (as indeed he might have done even if >it had made, for 4S doubled would cost 1400). The Director informed him >that he "should have known from his own hand that he had been >misinformed, and should have doubled 4S instead". Should South appeal? I would. This is a bridge judgment, and the TD has not fully justified his. "Should have known" isn't strong enough; a player is not required to get these positions right, and while a cogent analysis would presumably have revealed that he must have been misinformed, he is not required to make such an analysis on the spot when 4S comes around to him. Let the committee decide not whether he "should have known from his own hand that he had been misinformed", but, rather, whether it "should have been immediately obvious, given his own hand, that he had been misinformed". 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 18 02:24:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0HFN3n06386 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 02:23:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from eomer.vianetworks.nl (eomer.vianetworks.nl [212.61.15.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0HFMrH06363 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 02:22:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from b0e7g1 (pm17d328.iae.nl [212.61.5.74]) by eomer.vianetworks.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 63B7520FE0 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 16:14:27 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <007c01c19f69$89689700$4a053dd4@b0e7g1> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: Fw: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? (long) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 16:09:56 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Whatever the answer is, body language will reveal the possession of the ace. ben ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 2:32 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? (long) > Alain wrote: > > > AG : there is a big difference : underleading an Ace is not > falsecarding, > > it is part of the partnership style. Just ask yourself one question : > is it > > more likely for a 3-spot to come from three small or from > > Axx ? If it is the latter, it is markedly nonstandard, and your > opponents > > have evry right to know it. > > I don't quite understand this. Obviously I won't lead the three from xxx > less frequently than from Axx - not even Helgemo would do that. The > underlead of an ace is unusual, but I don't think anyone would describe > it as "non-standard" - it is surely "standard" to do whatever you think > gives you the best chance to beat the contract. It is not part of my > "methods" to underlead aces, just as it is not part of my "methods" to > lead, say, the king from Kx against a suit contract. If I do lead a king > against a suit, and declarer with AJx in dummy facing xxx in hand asks > partner what our leading methods are, and partner says (truthfully) "the > king is from KQ or shortage", I do not think that declarer has the right > to ask: "Well, how often on average does your partner lead from Kx as > opposed to a KQ holding?" If he did have that right, then presumably I > would be obliged to keep statistics, in order to be able to comply with > full disclosure. Is this what is being suggested? > > Can declarer ask "Suppose your partner had a hand such as J10x Kxxx Qxxx > Ax - which suit would he be most likely to lead against a strong no > trump, passed out?" I very much doubt it, but this is an inevitable > corollary of what is being suggested. > > This has gone far enough. My opponents have the right to know that I am > trying to beat the contract. They do not have the right to know how. > > David Burn > London, England > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 18 02:27:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0HFQ0506836 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 02:26:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mx.poczta.interia.pl (smtp.poczta.interia.pl [217.74.65.36]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0HFPjH06791 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 02:25:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (nanon.interia.pl [127.0.0.1]) by nanon.interia.pl (MX) with SMTP id 3C0DB3721AB for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 16:17:19 +0100 (CET) Received: by mx.poczta.interia.pl (MX, from userid 555) id 454AD371F48; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 16:16:06 +0100 (CET) Received: from poczta.interia.pl (nyx.poczta.fm [217.74.65.51]) by mx.poczta.interia.pl (MX) with ESMTP id 811F6372C31 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 16:16:01 +0100 (CET) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (nyx.poczta.fm [127.0.0.1]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailserver) with SMTP id B1355DB1E6 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 16:15:45 +0100 (CET) Received: by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver, from userid 555) id 07F19DB12D; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 15:58:09 +0100 (CET) Received: from kavanagh (unknown [217.153.105.20]) by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver) with SMTP id 91D70DB00C for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 15:58:08 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <00ed01c19f66$417ee3c0$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: References: <11010211.66075@webbox.com> <3C4173A9.EBDB5DA8@elnet.msk.ru> <001e01c19c2d$b08a4e80$7555e150@dodona> <005301c19c9d$7e849060$67a801d5@pbncomputer> <009201c19ea6$962e9700$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> <002501c19ee6$d3fe2740$18487ad5@pbncomputer> <00a301c19f50$fc941dd0$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> <000f01c19f5e$5510ef80$d4277ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 15:46:27 +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 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 X-EMID: 8b2be2c0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" > However, that was not what actually happened. Suppose instead it > transpired that the opponents' agreement was that 2C showed red suits. > West had forgotten, East had acted ethically in passing 4S. South, when > 6C failed, asked for arbitration (as indeed he might have done even if > it had made, for 4S doubled would cost 1400). The Director informed him > that he "should have known from his own hand that he had been > misinformed, and should have doubled 4S instead". Should South appeal? > I know that six people I asked is not a very big sample. I also have no idea if they are South's peers in terms of class assuming they are it looks that failing to double 4S was a very serious error - the one I'd call 'irrational, wild or gambling". So I would have let the table result stand for NS (the link between infraction damage was broken) but I would have adjusted to 4Sx -1400 for EW. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wiesz, co daja dzisiaj w TV? >>> http://tv.interia.pl/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 18 03:12:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0HGB2p14389 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 03:11:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tvrelay.mail.uk.easynet.net (tvrelay.mail.uk.easynet.net [194.6.96.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0HGAqH14370 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 03:10:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-12-132.easynet.co.uk [212.134.20.132]) by tvrelay.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id ED436679A8 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 16:00:41 +0000 (GMT) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] Split Ruling Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 15:57:39 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I was consulted on the following muddle which occurred this week. The decision was not critical as neither pair involved was in contention. It would be nice though, for future reference to get BLML views on whether we got it broadly right. There were murmurs of grievance from both sides afterwards, so perhaps we weren't too far out! Board 17 - Love All, dealer North - Pairs 10 6 3 K 7 3 10 9 8 7 6 3 2 A K J 9 8 Void 10 A J 8 6 5 4 2 2 A J 4 3 K Q 10 8 5 4 9 6 Q 7 5 4 2 Q 9 K Q 5 A J 7 Bidding: N E S W - 1H 2S(a) 3C 4S 5H x - - - (a) Alerted (incorrectly in EBU) and described (on W's enquiry) as Weak, 6-10, 6+ spades After the final pass, South states (illegally - L75D2) "my partner's explanation was incorrect". The TD is called, establishes from NS's cc that 2S was "strong", offers E the opportunity (declined) to change his final pass (L21B1) and instructs play to continue. Table result: 5Hx-2, +300 to NS. The TD determined that Ns incorrect alert and Ss illegal statement had not affected matters. East claimed that, had he known 2S was strong, he would have passed over 4S. TD was sceptical about this believing that most players in this position with 11 red cards would have ventured 5H (or even 5D). Believing, however, that perhaps 20-30% might choose to pass, he ruled a generous 40% for this course of action and judged that NS would then play in 4SX-4, -800 to NS. The balance of the time the TD assumed that East would play in 5H, but he cancelled the double, since he ruled that S had UI from N's explanation and a pass by S over 5H was a LA. Thus: 40% 4Sx-4, -800 to NS and 60% 5H-2, +100 to NS. On a technical note, we implemented this ruling by calculating the NS/EW matchpoint scores for -800 and +100 and adding 40% of the former to 60% of the latter. Is there any clear guidance on scoring the rest of the field on this board? It is, of course, possible to score the whole field using firstly -800 and secondly +100 and then to combine the results (presumably using, for the rest of the field, the "true estimate" of around 25%/75% instead of the "generous estimate" of 40%/60%) but this is cumbersome and the computer program is unlikely to be helpful. In practice, we entered A5050 for the result at this table so that the rest of the field were scored as though the board had been fouled at this table (L87B) and then made a manual adjustment to the scores of the involved pairs so as to give them the scores already determined. All comments welcome! Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 18 03:24:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0HGN7t16009 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 03:23:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.132]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0HGMwH15982 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 03:22:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (80-200-0-3.adsl.powered-by.skynet.be [80.200.0.3]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g0HGE9Y10864 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 17:14:09 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C46F858.8010408@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 17:14:16 +0100 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Split Ruling References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Brambledown wrote: > > On a technical note, we implemented this ruling by calculating the NS/EW > matchpoint scores for -800 and +100 and adding 40% of the former to 60% of > the latter. Is there any clear guidance on scoring the rest of the field > on this board? It is, of course, possible to score the whole field using > firstly -800 and secondly +100 and then to combine the results (presumably > using, for the rest of the field, the "true estimate" of around 25%/75% > instead of the "generous estimate" of 40%/60%) but this is cumbersome and > the computer program is unlikely to be helpful. In practice, we entered > A5050 for the result at this table so that the rest of the field were scored > as though the board had been fouled at this table (L87B) and then made a > manual adjustment to the scores of the involved pairs so as to give them the > scores already determined. > > All comments welcome! > My suggestion is to add 40% to the frequency of -800, 60% to the frequency of +100, and calculate from there. This sounds complicated, and it is. But I believe it is the correct application of some basic principles that we can agree upon. > Chas Fellows (Brambledown) > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 18 03:31:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0HGTQg17115 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 03:29:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0HGTHH17094 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 03:29:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g0HGL1w23746 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 16:21:01 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 16:13:27 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Slow pass References: <20020117061000.65235.qmail@web12403.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20020117061000.65235.qmail@web12403.mail.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <20020117061000.65235.qmail@web12403.mail.yahoo.com>, Brian Zietman writes >Dear all, >I had the following problem at the recent play-off for >the Israel League Championships. Playing with screens >all vulnerable : >South opened 1NT with only 14 points (despite the fact >that he was playing 15-17) : > >Spades Kxx >Hearts Jxx >Diamonds Qx >Clubs AKJxx > I assume the x is fourth seat after 3N S W | N E 1N P | 2C P 2N P | 3N P P x | P P 4C End >North bid 2 clubs (puppet Stayman) and South responded >2 NT (not 4 or 5 card major and not maximum points). >North bid 3 NT and West doubled. It was established >and agreed that the tray took a long time to return >from North and East with 2 passes. >South now pulled to 4 clubs. >4 clubs went down 2 for 200 and 3 NT would have gone >down 2 doubled for 500. >How would you rule ? My inclination is to adjust, but I would have needed to be there. >Brian Zietman >Jerusalem, >Israel > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Everything you'll ever need on one web page >from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts >http://uk.my.yahoo.com >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 18 03:31:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0HGU7L17236 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 03:30:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (cosmos.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca [132.156.47.32]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0HGTwH17218 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 03:29:59 +1100 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g0HGLWs24735 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 11:21:32 -0500 (EST) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200201171621.g0HGLWs24735@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Slow pass To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 11:21:31 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <00d001c19f55$38ebf970$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> from "Konrad Ciborowski" at Jan 17, 2002 01:42:33 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL4] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: "Brian Zietman" > Cc: > Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 9:02 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Slow pass > > > > > > > > Brian Zietman asked: > > >Dear all, > > >I had the following problem at the recent play-off for > > >the Israel League Championships. Playing with screens > > >all vulnerable : > > >South opened 1NT with only 14 points (despite the fact > > >that he was playing 15-17) : > > > > >Spades Kxx > > >Hearts Jxx > > >Diamonds Qx > > >Clubs AKJxx > > > > >North bid 2 clubs (puppet Stayman) and South responded > > >2 NT (not 4 or 5 card major and not maximum points). > > >North bid 3 NT and West doubled. It was established > > >and agreed that the tray took a long time to return > > >from North and East with 2 passes. > > >South now pulled to 4 clubs. > > >4 clubs went down 2 for 200 and 3 NT would have gone > > >down 2 doubled for 500. > > >How would you rule ? > > > > Variation in tempo may give cause for adjustment under > > Law 16 (Unauthorized information), but this is hardly > > relevant when screens are in use. > > > > Too quick, IM(H)O. Assuming that "Israel League Championships > playoffs" means that decent players are involved only North could > do any thnking. West doubled, West is on lead, the double > is clearly for penalties. Why should East hesitate at all? > No - I would adjust to 3NTx for -500. > I don't buy these arguments entirely. It's at least as likely that North was stewing over a redouble. Or that West spent some time trying to work out whether he could beat a runout. Besides, if you buy the argument thatWest couldn't hesitate because he's got the contract beat in his own hand, a pass by South probably isn't logical. He knows that if West thinks his heart suit is running, he's right. I don't feel really strongly about it, but I know I'd argue for -200 for an expert South. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 18 03:35:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0HGYHs17764 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 03:34:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0HGY9H17745 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 03:34:09 +1100 (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 LAA03769 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 11:25:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA04924 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 11:25:44 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 11:25:44 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200201171625.LAA04924@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "David Burn" > The Director informed him > that he "should have known from his own hand that he had been > misinformed, and should have doubled 4S instead". Should South appeal? It doesn't sound as though the TD has a legal basis for his ruling, so an appeal may well be in order. However, both South's initial pass (failing to support partner's clubs) and his subsequent jump to 6C look "wild or gambling" to me, so I doubt South will get redress. As Konrad says, the opponents' score may well be reduced. In a KO match, that's still good for NS. An interesting legal point is that Konrad is basing his adjustment for the OS (-1400) on a scenario where the MI infraction occurs. (If South is correctly informed "red suits," I don't think he will double 4S.) I believe this adjustment is correct, but not everyone agrees. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 18 03:43:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0HGgLq18918 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 03:42:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0HGgDH18894 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 03:42:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA01623; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 08:33:49 -0800 Message-Id: <200201171633.IAA01623@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "bridge-laws" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Fw: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? (long) In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 17 Jan 2002 16:09:56 +0100." <007c01c19f69$89689700$4a053dd4@b0e7g1> Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 08:33:48 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ben Schelen wrote: > Whatever the answer is, body language will reveal the possession of the ace. Roger Pewick made much the same point in a private e-mail (I assume it's OK with Roger to quote it here). He suggested that the question itself is unacceptable, saying: # It requires a straight face from the partner and the answer and # the way that it is given tells the asker who does have the ace- or # creates grounds of an accusation of lying. This is the nature of what # is termed 'a leading question'. . . . This is an excellent point IMHO. It's somewhat tangential to the issue I was trying to raise, which is to find where the line is that divides things that need to be disclosed from things that don't. But it's still an important factor. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 18 03:51:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0HGo8i20003 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 03:50:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from wonka.esatclear.ie (wonka.esatclear.ie [194.145.128.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0HGnvH19977 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 03:49:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from esatclear.ie (IDENT:httpd@gratin.esatclear.ie [194.145.128.35]) by wonka.esatclear.ie (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA11298; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 16:41:27 GMT From: "Karel" Reply-to: karel@esatclear.ie To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 16:22:40 GMT Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? (long) X-Mailer: CWMail Web to Mail Gateway 2.6z, http://netwinsite.com/top_mail.htm Message-id: <3c46fa50.4bbb.0@esatclear.ie> X-User-Info: 194.125.134.206 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [snip Tim ] >I play regularly with a wide range of people my answers with just 3: >Alfie: Never, he thinks he'd go to hell if he tried >Charlie:When he's dealt one - he thinks it's clever >Emily: Quite often. (so far this foible hasn't been a top learning >priority for us). >I will base my play on my knowledge of the stylistic differences between >these players - I think my opponents have a right to have the above >question answered. We've started to come down a selected ace asking path here. I think any direct specific question should be answered to the best of your ability regardless of how laughable or otherwise you feel the question is. I still think initial theme of this tread has not been answered. If an opponent asks you a general lead style question or other similar broad question at any stage, how far do we go ?? Do we order some coffee and go through our last 2 year's experiences?? How do we decide what is relevant and what not ?? If we start including possible trends or recent abnormal leads are we endanger of basically muddying the waters ?? I can see the following 2 scenario's (a) What is your lead style please ?? We play 3rd and fifth (not strict). From 4 rags we may play the 2nd. King is for count ace or queen attitude. We may underlead aces. We have also been known to lead top from 3 small or x from Hx. Our honor lead combinations are normal. If we can, we try to lead a low card indicating a suit in which we have interest (ie) at least one honour. I could go on. The point is declarer is sorry he asked and has basically got an answer, which while truthful is meaningless. (b) What is your lead style please ?? we play 3rd & fifth. The hand is played out, pd has led his 4th best (the 3rd time this month) - declarer misplayed the hand. In the ensuing conversation he asks is 4th a normal practice and I divulge that no it is not but that in the last month at least 2 opportunties based on deductions from bidding have arisen which made pd choose his 4th best as oppose to normal 3/5. Declarer is of the opinion that this should have been alerted and calls the td. etc etc. here we have given minimal information and either we decided that 2/3 times in 1 month is not worth mentioning orrrr we plain forgot about pd's cleverness. Had we mentioned pd's cleverness, declarer may well play the hand on the basis that 4th versus his contract type is now the norm (as why mention it otherwise) and still call the td. Seems abit catch 22 to me. Surely a general answer to a general question is the way to go. (c) What is your lead style ? We play 3/5 not strict. If we feel the conditions are right, we have been known to try "other" leads. Simply put - normally 1/3/5 but from experience this is not always the case. If declarer wants more info let him ask and order the coffee .. Karel -- http://www.iol.ie -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 18 04:31:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0HHTMq25547 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 04:29:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (mta05-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.45]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0HHTDH25524 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 04:29:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from tinyhrieuyik ([213.104.150.132]) by mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020117172047.LBQT7206.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@tinyhrieuyik> for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 17:20:47 +0000 Message-ID: <004201c19f7c$fd9d7380$849668d5@tinyhrieuyik> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" Subject: re: [BLML] One at a time Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 17:31:51 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "Konrad Ciborowski" Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 4:57 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time [David Burn] It turns out, not very much to anyone's surprise but yours, that RHO does not have the majors, and that partner has to lose both major-suit aces. You call for arbitration. The opponents' agreement was that 2C showed the majors; RHO had simply misbid (and had done pretty well to make an ethical pass of 4S on her 2-5-5-1 shape; she would, of course, have bitten the bullet and passed 4S doubled also). What adjustment, if any, do you regard as your entitlement? The form of scoring, since you ask, was matchpoints. [Konrad Ciborowski] If the opponents' agreement was that 2C was for the majors (I assume they could demonstrate it with their CC or system notes) that RHO simply misbid, North / South received a proper explanation, RHO ethically didn't use the UI information from his partner's explanation. I cannot believe that David doesn't know that an automatic and absolutely obvious ruling in this case is "result stands, what's the problem?" so I assume that there is a catch somewhere. Do you want all misbids punished regadless of the subsequent result? [Nigel Guthrie] I understand David Burn's implication that South is overly naive or opportunistic; but it is difficult for South to know how to protect his interests in such circumstances. There seem to be 3 possibilities... (1) East has deliberately psyched or made a bidding mistake. (2) West has forgot his agreement or is deliberately lying about it. (3) West has given a correct explanation and East has the majors. [ng] If South believes opponents, then 6C is the reasonable down the middle action (I suppose you could argue for 7C but that is more risky). If it does turn out that 2C was a misexplanation(3) , then the TD may regard any other action -- including doubling 4S -- as an attempt by South to have his cake and eat it. {NG] Ghestem "errors" frequently land opponents in such difficult positions. Sometimes, Ghestem experts end up playing your suit for a cheap sacrifice against your game or slam. You may be reluctant to double, however, in case opponents run and you get no redress because you chose a greedy non-standard action. [NG] This minefield for the NOS is deemed to be "convention disruption" by Bobby Wolfe but, as far as I know, there is no remedy in Bridge Law. Nevertheless, since Ghestem misunderstandings so often show a legitimate profit to the OS, were I a TD, in any close decision, I would rule for the NOS. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 18 04:33:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0HHVok26021 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 04:31:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0HHVfH25997 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 04:31:41 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g0HHNGl19221 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 17:23:16 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 17:23 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Split Ruling To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.52.2000, Windows 98 4.10.2222 ( A ) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: Brambledown wrote: > Believing, however, that perhaps 20-30% might choose to pass, he > ruled a generous 40% for this course of action and judged that NS would > then play in 4SX-4, -800 to NS. A minor point but I think 4S might be beaten 6 tricks, beating it 5 looks easy. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 18 05:18:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0HIH1I03372 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 05:17:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mx.poczta.interia.pl (smtp.poczta.interia.pl [217.74.65.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0HIGkH03335 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 05:16:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (natori.interia.pl [127.0.0.1]) by natori.interia.pl (MX) with SMTP id ADB6E138FF for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 18:22:47 +0100 (CET) Received: by mx.poczta.interia.pl (MX, from userid 555) id 4AEC6138F5; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 18:22:47 +0100 (CET) Received: from poczta.interia.pl (nyx.poczta.fm [217.74.65.51]) by mx.poczta.interia.pl (MX) with ESMTP id 62357138ED for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 18:22:46 +0100 (CET) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (nyx.poczta.fm [127.0.0.1]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailserver) with SMTP id 0A858DB0CD for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 18:22:31 +0100 (CET) Received: by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver, from userid 555) id BCC8ADB0CA; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 18:22:30 +0100 (CET) Received: from kavanagh (unknown [217.153.105.20]) by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver) with SMTP id 05F46DB0C3 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 18:22:30 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <01ed01c19f7a$6bc76260$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: [BLML] Appeals Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 18:13:52 +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 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 X-EMID: 8b2be2c0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi all, In the "Appeals" file from Tobiano I read a sentence that I found quite surprising: +------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Players should not discuss the decision with Committee members afterwards. They can appeal to the National Authority. +------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Why shouldn't they? I very often discuss with the TDs after the tournament. The more complex and interesting the case and the better the TD the more I want to discuss. Either I can learn something or, if I think the ruling was incorrect, I can try to persuade the Director that he erred. Or I can be persuaded myself. I also often disucss the rulings with the AC members afterwards. Can anybody tell me why this is wrong? Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland PS In the Appeals.doc file the suit symbols are corrupted. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wiesz, co daja dzisiaj w TV? >>> http://tv.interia.pl/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 18 05:25:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0HINvX04573 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 05:23:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from umc-mail01.missouri.edu (umc-mail01.missouri.edu [128.206.10.216]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0HINmH04546 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 05:23:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from [128.206.98.1] (mu-098001.dhcp.missouri.edu [128.206.98.1]) by umc-mail01.missouri.edu with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id C59DJA8J; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 12:15:24 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <002501c19ee6$d3fe2740$18487ad5@pbncomputer> References: <11010211.66075@webbox.com> <3C4173A9.EBDB5DA8@elnet.msk.ru> <001e01c19c2d$b08a4e80$7555e150@dodona> <005301c19c9d$7e849060$67a801d5@pbncomputer> <009201c19ea6$962e9700$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 12:31:32 -0600 To: "David Burn" , From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Konrad wrote: > >> > >Your hand, not vulnerable against vulnerable, is: >> > > >> > >QJ1094 J4 None AQ9632 >> > > >> > >Your partner opens 1C (four cards or more unless specifically >> > >4-3-3-3 with 15+ hcp - you are playing four-card suits, weak >> > >no trump, Acol as your grandmother would know it). RHO overcalls >> > >2C, alerted by LHO and explained on your request as showing the >> > >majors). What call do you make? > >[The auction, in the scenario as hypothetically continued by Konrad, >was: > >West North East South > You > 1C 2C* 2H** >4S Pass Pass ? > >*majors **club raise. > >The actual auction was identical, except that South passed rather than >bid 2H. The question answered by Konrad below was: what call do you now >make?] > >> Hard to tell as we all know that RHO doesn't have the majors. So I >gave >> this problem to several friends of mine - a bunch of young wolves, >> all of them very decent players, some of them playing at the >> near-to-expert level. The auction imposed on them included >> a 2H response to the 1C opener (after the 2C overcall). Only one >> of them passed - the other five doubled. Their arguments >> went along the lines "4S doesn't make and in case they run >> partner will take care of diamonds. I don't pass because >> >> a) there is a good chance that 4Sx will become the final contract >> b) 6C is still not out of the question and 5C should be close to >making" >> >> albeit all of them wanted to know if this was MPs or IMPs - the >> information I was unable to provide. >> >> So where is the gag, Mr. Burn? I am anxious to know the whole >> story so please come of the bushes, David. :-) > >Well, suppose that you bid 6C. After all, you "know" from the auction >that partner has a void in spades, and even if you are missing the top >hearts, there is at least some chance that a spade will be led, allowing >partner to discard your hearts on the high diamonds that he "must" now >have (since he has at most 2 points in the majors and 4 in clubs on this >scenario). > >It turns out, not very much to anyone's surprise but yours, that RHO >does not have the majors, and that partner has to lose both major-suit >aces. You call for arbitration. The opponents' agreement was that 2C >showed the majors; RHO had simply misbid (and had done pretty well to >make an ethical pass of 4S on her 2-5-5-1 shape; she would, of course, >have bitten the bullet and passed 4S doubled also). What adjustment, if >any, do you regard as your entitlement? > >The form of scoring, since you ask, was matchpoints. > >David Burn >London, England > No adjustment. Table result stands. Correct information given about agreements, unless 2C bidder often forgets agreements. Incidentally, although I did not reply to the original post, my immediate reaction was to bid 5C. Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 18 06:12:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0HJAmB13013 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 06:10:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (mta03-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.43]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0HJAdH12997 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 06:10:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from tinyhrieuyik ([213.104.149.164]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020117190214.ORFT8780.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@tinyhrieuyik>; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 19:02:14 +0000 Message-ID: <003b01c19f8b$293208e0$a49568d5@tinyhrieuyik> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "Konrad Ciborowski" Cc: "BLML" References: <001d01c19dd6$41622dc0$0a9c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> <001d01c19ea2$6ec6d6e0$bc9768d5@tinyhrieuyik> <008e01c19f4e$25ba33f0$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> Subject: Re: [BLML] Xenophobia Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 19:13:29 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [n3] below [Nigel Guthrie] I apologise for misinterpreting other members feelings. I suppose that national organisations like to promote local systems but I wonder whether many in the rank and file would object to a world-wide simple system. [Konrad Ciborowski] What would that system look like? I wonder how many people all over the world would want to change their lifetime habits. In Poland almost 100% percent of players use multi-meaning, artificial 1C opening with a multi-meaning, artificial 1D response. The natural 1C opening and the natural 1D response require an alert here. In Finland and in Great Britain the majority plays four card majors. In Poland and in Scandinavia reverse count is far more popular than natural count. In France the vast majority plays third/fifth rather than fourth best. And so on, and so forth. So how would this "simple world wide system" would look like? [n3] You have an excellent point. Some years ago, at a French Club, I called the TD because an opponent opened 1D on a three card suit with no alert. The TD explained that it was I who should alert all my four card suit openings. Again, this illustrates how the alerting procedure disciminates against neophytes and stangers. [n3] Of course, I also agree that Polish systems are more simple and straight-forward than Acol or Standard American. [n3] If the WBF duck the resposibility of attempting an official decision on the question of a common simple system, however, they will find that my recommendation is being overtaken by events on on the net, because there even Polish players already adapt to Standard American Yellow Card. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 18 10:25:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0HNNDZ29777 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:23:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0HNMuH29755 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:22:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16RLjj-0001Au-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 23:14:27 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 00:18:34 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? (long) References: <200201152300.SAA18463@cfa183.harvard.edu> <5.1.0.14.0.20020116132646.00a68630@pop.ulb.ac.be> <000f01c19e92$4693f500$799c7ad5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <000f01c19e92$4693f500$799c7ad5@pbncomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn writes >I don't quite understand this. Obviously I won't lead the three from xxx >less frequently than from Axx - not even Helgemo would do that. The >underlead of an ace is unusual, but I don't think anyone would describe >it as "non-standard" - it is surely "standard" to do whatever you think >gives you the best chance to beat the contract. It is not part of my >"methods" to underlead aces, just as it is not part of my "methods" to >lead, say, the king from Kx against a suit contract. If I do lead a king >against a suit, and declarer with AJx in dummy facing xxx in hand asks >partner what our leading methods are, and partner says (truthfully) "the >king is from KQ or shortage", I do not think that declarer has the right >to ask: "Well, how often on average does your partner lead from Kx as >opposed to a KQ holding?" If he did have that right, then presumably I >would be obliged to keep statistics, in order to be able to comply with >full disclosure. Is this what is being suggested? If you need to keep statistics then you do not have an agreement and have nothing to disclose, so let us not worry about that. But suppose you realise that your partner underleads aces considerably more often than is normal practice. Are you required to disclose that? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 18 10:25:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0HNNAA29772 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:23:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0HNMrH29736 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:22:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16RLjj-0001Av-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 23:14:28 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 00:24:03 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? (long) References: <4.3.2.7.1.20020116145455.00b3fba0@127.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20020116145455.00b3fba0@127.0.0.1> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau writes >Imagine a declarer leading small towards a KJx in dummy. LHO plays >low, and declarer now turns to RHO and asks, "Does your partner tend to >grab his aces in positions like this?" I don't see any fundamental >difference in nature between these two questions, and would give the >same answer to either. Let us suppose that you know your partner always takes his ace in these situations. Declarer [who has said nothing] finesses the jack to your queen, and you have to cash the setting trick *now*. Do you play partner for the ace or for a possible trick elsewhere? Correct: you look for the trick elsewhere because you *know* partner has not got the ace. Do you feel it is fair that you are allowed to use this knowledge but are not required to divulge it? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 18 10:25:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0HNN9U29769 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:23:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0HNMoH29731 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:22:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16RLjj-0001As-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 23:14:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 00:12:36 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Card Called from Dummy References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst writes >This is an interesting problem for me. In London, England, there is no >doubt that the word "club" explicitly means "small club". It is >completely standard here for players to specify the smallest card in a >suit in this manner. It comes I think from the Young Chelsea, whose >members have a much better working knowledge of the laws than most >players, and when I was directing there all players were aware that in >this case I would rule "the smallest card is specified". This habit has >spread throughout London. > >This causes problems when these players venture into Stevenson territory >because when a Northern player specifies a card in this way (even if his >intent may well have been incontrovertible) they expect that a small >card has explicitly been nominated. > >It becomes even more interesting for me when I'm directing at an EBU >event which is not in London. I am certain that I err on the side of >"small card is specified" much more than most other UK TD's. The small card is specified: that is even in our Law book that we use oop norf. I really do not understand this principle that because the YC follows the written Law that the rest of us don't. The Law is unambiguous, and despite John's strange view of England, a "club" means a small club unless declarer's different intention is incontrovertible both oop norf and dahn sarf [and probably in a few other countries as well!]. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 18 10:25:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0HNNCv29775 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:23:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0HNMpH29732 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:22:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16RLjj-0001At-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 23:14:26 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 00:14:57 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Card Called from Dummy References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Laval Dubreuil writes >In most other games and sports, facts are importants, not "intentions". >When Tiger Woods is on the green, some inches to the cup, and miss >because of a butterfly flying around or some other such reason, his >"intention" was "incontrovertibly" to put his ball there and all know >he can do, but no discussion: he just add 1. One example proves very little: in most forms of football the referees have to decide whether some types of foul are intentional or not. I doubt that there are many sports where a player's intention is never considered. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 18 11:24:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0I0MPQ09736 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 11:22:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0I0MGH09714 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 11:22:17 +1100 (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 TAA02213 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 19:13:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA05459 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 19:13:51 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 19:13:51 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200201180013.TAA05459@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Card Called from Dummy X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: David Stevenson > The small card is specified: that is even in our Law book that we use > oop norf. It is interesting to compare Tabiano "Exam Start questions.doc" question 5. (Why does that deck have two C-6's in it?) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 18 11:53:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0I0q1D15371 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 11:52:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0I0ppH15341 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 11:51:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g0I0hZw24824 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 00:43:36 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 00:41:55 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time References: <11010211.66075@webbox.com> <3C4173A9.EBDB5DA8@elnet.msk.ru> <001e01c19c2d$b08a4e80$7555e150@dodona> <005301c19c9d$7e849060$67a801d5@pbncomputer> <009201c19ea6$962e9700$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> <002501c19ee6$d3fe2740$18487ad5@pbncomputer> <00a301c19f50$fc941dd0$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> <000f01c19f5e$5510ef80$d4277ad5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <000f01c19f5e$5510ef80$d4277ad5@pbncomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <000f01c19f5e$5510ef80$d4277ad5@pbncomputer>, David Burn writes >Konrad wrote: > >> If the opponents' agreement was that 2C was for the majors >> (I assume they could demonstrate it with their CC or system >> notes) that RHO simply misbid, North / South received >> a proper explanation, RHO ethically didn't use the UI >> information from his partner's explanation. >> I cannot believe that David doesn't know that an automatic >> and absolutely obvious ruling in this case is "result >> stands, what's the problem?" so I assume that there >> is a catch somewhere. Do you want all misbids >> punished regadless of the subsequent result? > >No, no - and once again, my apologies for the somewhat ponderous nature >of this thread. It is merely that I thought, having been involved in the >hand at the table, that it might be a useful one to illustrate various >aspects of the laws relating to misinformation, and I am simply >endeavouring to check my conclusions at every stage (hence the title of >the thread). It seemed to me, as it seems to everyone who has >contributed so far (to whom my thanks) that in a case where the >agreement was that 2C showed majors, there has been no infraction and >hence no redress would be due in the event of an unsuccessful jump to >6C. > >However, that was not what actually happened. Suppose instead it >transpired that the opponents' agreement was that 2C showed red suits. >West had forgotten, East had acted ethically in passing 4S. South, when >6C failed, asked for arbitration (as indeed he might have done even if >it had made, for 4S doubled would cost 1400). The Director informed him >that he "should have known from his own hand that he had been >misinformed, and should have doubled 4S instead". Should South appeal? The 6 club bid is a *huge double shot*. Even I would rule result stands. cheers john > >David Burn >London, England > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 18 11:58:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0I0vLU16323 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 11:57:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0I0vCH16294 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 11:57:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g0I0muw24851 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 00:48:56 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 00:47:23 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Split Ruling References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , Brambledown writes >I was consulted on the following muddle which occurred this week. The >decision was not critical as neither pair involved was in contention. It >would be nice though, for future reference to get BLML views on whether we >got it broadly right. There were murmurs of grievance from both sides >afterwards, so perhaps we weren't too far out! > >Board 17 - Love All, dealer North - Pairs > > 10 6 3 > K 7 3 > 10 9 8 7 6 > 3 2 > A K J 9 8 Void > 10 A J 8 6 5 4 2 > 2 A J 4 3 > K Q 10 8 5 4 9 6 > Q 7 5 4 2 > Q 9 > K Q 5 > A J 7 > >Bidding: N E S W > - 1H 2S(a) 3C > 4S 5H x - > - - > >(a) Alerted (incorrectly in EBU) and described (on W's enquiry) as Weak, >6-10, 6+ spades > >After the final pass, South states (illegally - L75D2) "my partner's >explanation was incorrect". > >The TD is called, establishes from NS's cc that 2S was "strong", offers E >the opportunity (declined) to change his final pass (L21B1) and instructs >play to continue. Table result: 5Hx-2, +300 to NS. > >The TD determined that Ns incorrect alert and Ss illegal statement had not >affected matters. East claimed that, had he known 2S was strong, he would >have passed over 4S. TD was sceptical about this believing that most >players in this position with 11 red cards would have ventured 5H (or even >5D). Believing, however, that perhaps 20-30% might choose to pass, he >ruled a generous 40% for this course of action and judged that NS would then >play in 4SX-4, -800 to NS. The balance of the time the TD assumed that >East would play in 5H, but he cancelled the double, since he ruled that S >had UI from N's explanation and a pass by S over 5H was a LA. Thus: 40% >4Sx-4, -800 to NS and 60% 5H-2, +100 to NS. > >On a technical note, we implemented this ruling by calculating the NS/EW >matchpoint scores for -800 and +100 and adding 40% of the former to 60% of >the latter. Is there any clear guidance on scoring the rest of the field >on this board? Unless your program handles it properly, enter the scores as 50/50 and adjust the overalls. Your approach is correct IMO. > It is, of course, possible to score the whole field using >firstly -800 and secondly +100 and then to combine the results (presumably >using, for the rest of the field, the "true estimate" of around 25%/75% >instead of the "generous estimate" of 40%/60%) but this is cumbersome and >the computer program is unlikely to be helpful. In practice, we entered >A5050 for the result at this table so that the rest of the field were scored >as though the board had been fouled at this table (L87B) and then made a >manual adjustment to the scores of the involved pairs so as to give them the >scores already determined. > >All comments welcome! > >Chas Fellows (Brambledown) > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 18 12:01:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0I105616733 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 12:00:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0I0xrH16709 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 11:59:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g0I0pbw24856 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 00:51:37 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 00:49:52 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals References: <01ed01c19f7a$6bc76260$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> In-Reply-To: <01ed01c19f7a$6bc76260$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <01ed01c19f7a$6bc76260$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie>, Konrad Ciborowski writes >Hi all, > >In the "Appeals" file from Tobiano I read a sentence >that I found quite surprising: > >+------------------------------------------------------------------------+ >Players should not discuss the decision with Committee >members afterwards. They can appeal to the National Authority. >+------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Promoting amiable discussion of a ruling in the bar afterwards is the essence of a good TD. It can include "Christ! Probst! that was a f*****g awful ruling" without being out of order IMO. Both the players and the TD learn from this. Anyway that's what I've always done. > > >Why shouldn't they? I very often discuss with the TDs >after the tournament. The more complex and interesting >the case and the better the TD the more I want >to discuss. Either I can learn something or, if I >think the ruling was incorrect, I can try to persuade >the Director that he erred. Or I can be persuaded >myself. I also often disucss the rulings with the AC members >afterwards. Can anybody tell me why this is wrong? > > > Konrad Ciborowski > Krakow, Poland > > >PS In the Appeals.doc file the suit symbols are >corrupted. > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Wiesz, co daja dzisiaj w TV? >>> http://tv.interia.pl/ > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 18 14:25:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0I3MaE08595 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 14:22:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0I3MRH08566 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 14:22:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA15744; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 19:14:00 -0800 Message-Id: <200201180314.TAA15744@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? (long) In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 17 Jan 2002 00:24:03 GMT." Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 19:14:01 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Eric Landau writes > > >Imagine a declarer leading small towards a KJx in dummy. LHO plays > >low, and declarer now turns to RHO and asks, "Does your partner tend to > >grab his aces in positions like this?" I don't see any fundamental > >difference in nature between these two questions, and would give the > >same answer to either. > > Let us suppose that you know your partner always takes his ace in > these situations. I suppose that if I have a partner who always takes his ace in such situations, I might need to disclose that; while if I have a partner who actually thinks about the hand and tries to make the right play, all I would need to disclose is that "Partner plays whatever he thinks is the right play on the hand"---right? I really never considered the first possibility when I tried to make my case, probably because the notion that I (or anyone I would play with) would take the trouble to drive to the bridge club, pay good money to play, and then just pull cards out of my hand without thinking, seems not worth taking into consideration. Why wouldn't I just stay home and stare at the television instead? But I guess there are players who play like that. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 18 16:19:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0I5G5n27657 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 16:16:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com ([24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0I5FvH27629 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 16:15:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g0I57Uo09759 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 21:07:30 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <018001c19fdd$a61271e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: [BLML] New ACBL Alert Procedure (cont'd) X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 21:03:36 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I have more information now, and will have more next week. The proposed Alert Procedure (AP) on the ACBL website was not the version sent to the BoD for a vote. Webmaster Peter Mollemet has delinked it at my request, and will replace it with Schedule 3 of the BoD Las Vegas meeting minutes, which is what they approved. I will be sent this document before then, but I think I know pretty well what is in it after discussions with Rich Colker. He tells me that the new AP will be featured in one or more upcoming issues of *The Bridge Bulletin*, and that it will probably be made available to players at tournament sites, perhaps as wall posters. I see in the Las Vegas minutes (finally on the website) that nine directors voted against it. I also see that the BoD voted in a new CEO, Jay Baum, to take office on January 1, 2002. So here's what I have now: The ACBL Board of Directors approved a new Alert Procedure that will become effective March 1, 2002. A new convention card will accompany it. A moratorium on additional changes exists until 2005. Highlights of changes: (changes to my last on this subject are marked with ***). Some of the *** items may NOT be in Schedule 3 but are official (at this time, anyway) interpretations of that document. Announce the range of *all* NT openings bids and direct (not balancing) NT overcalls. *** Just want y'all to know I was right about this item, which was not in the website version. Non-forcing opening bids of 1C or 1D that may be shorter than 3 cards in length will be Announced: "May be short." *** Precision 1D will NOT be Alertable, as all non-forcing "may-be-shorts" will be Announceable, even an opening that may be short only with an exact distribution Forcing "may-be-shorts" are Alertable. All transfers from diamonds to hearts and hearts to spades (at any level) are Announced after opener's notrump opening, even in competition.This also applies to a notrump rebid by an artificial strong opener (e.g., 2C-P-2D-P; 2NT), after which Stayman is not Alertable etiher. It applies even to the Kokish 2NT (2C=2D=2H=2S=2NT), as it is the first natural bid by a strong opener. *** A diamond transfer to hearts is Announced as such, even if it could on rare occasions be a strong hand without hearts. *** "Stayman" double of a 2C overcall of 1NT remains Alertable, but it has not yet been decided whether Stayman 2C over a double (artificial or penalty) is Alertable. Probably not, over an arificial double anyway. Checkback Stayman over notrump rebids and unusual Stayman usages (e.g., Puppet Stayman) remain Alertable. NO LONGER ALERTABLE: Natural non-forcing 2NT responses, even a jump. Double of a 1NT response as a takeout of opener's suit (e.g., 1S-P-1NT-Dbl) *** Possible major suit bypass by opener (e.g., 1C=1D=1NT) or responder (e.g., 1C-P-1NT) *** 1D response denying a major unless strong. If it definitely denies a major, it's Alertable. Most doubles: take-out, responsive, negative, co-operative, card-showing, support; and most penalty doubles (but penalty doubles of overcalls remain Alertable). *** Rebidding 2C with a doubleton after a 1NT response to a 1H (i.e., 1H=1NT=2C) is not Alertable if opener is 2-2 in the minors.(more specific than the previous rule). Doubles with specific limited holdings or unusual meanings (including off-shape takeout doubles) will still require an Alert. Most "to play" cue bids will no longer be Alertable (e.g., 1D-P-1H-2D or 2H natural). Only a DIRECT cue-bid of a natural opening bid played as natural will be Alertable. *** This applies to "may be short" openings, which for this purpose are treated as natural. Weak jump raises or weak jump takeouts, except for those made in the absence of competition. Forcing passes (which may not have been Alertable previously) *** Redoubles that are clearly S.O.S. *** A redouble that is "to play," shows general values, or shows or denies values in the redoubled suit. If you lead LOW from a doubleton, this will be a new PRE-ALERT. DELAYED ALERTS are unchanged. As always, any call that conveys a highly unusual message, either by partnership agreement or past experience, of which the opponents are likely to be unaware, requires an Alert irrespective of any of the other provisions of the Alert Procedure. -- Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 18 19:14:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0I8Btm21414 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 19:11:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from eowyn.vianetworks.nl (eowyn.iae.nl [212.61.25.227]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0I8BjH21389 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 19:11:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from b0e7g1 (pm17d388.iae.nl [212.61.5.134]) by eowyn.vianetworks.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 42BE8210BD for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 09:03:19 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <001f01c19ff6$78c78f40$86053dd4@b0e7g1> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: Fw: [BLML] One at a time Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 09:00:47 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk According to the WBF Code of Practice there is a possibility for compensation of the damage.- Ben > [David Burn] > It turns out, not very much to anyone's surprise but yours, that RHO > does not have the majors, and that partner has to lose both major-suit > aces. You call for arbitration. The opponents' agreement was that 2C > showed the majors; RHO had simply misbid (and had done pretty well to > make an ethical pass of 4S on her 2-5-5-1 shape; she would, of course, > have bitten the bullet and passed 4S doubled also). What adjustment, if > any, do you regard as your entitlement? The form of scoring, since you ask, > was matchpoints. >> NOS. > > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 18 19:44:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0I8gUD26914 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 19:42:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mx.poczta.interia.pl (smtp.poczta.interia.pl [217.74.65.36]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0I8gHH26885 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 19:42:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (nanon.interia.pl [127.0.0.1]) by nanon.interia.pl (MX) with SMTP id 3160B371F29 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 09:33:47 +0100 (CET) Received: by mx.poczta.interia.pl (MX, from userid 555) id 6FD78371F27; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 09:33:46 +0100 (CET) Received: from poczta.interia.pl (nyx.poczta.fm [217.74.65.51]) by mx.poczta.interia.pl (MX) with ESMTP id D4DC3372146 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 09:33:45 +0100 (CET) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (nyx.poczta.fm [127.0.0.1]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailserver) with SMTP id B81AADB0D5 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 09:33:45 +0100 (CET) Received: by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver, from userid 555) id 798B1DB0A1; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 09:33:45 +0100 (CET) Received: from kavanagh (unknown [217.153.105.20]) by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver) with SMTP id A74A0DB0DC for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 09:33:44 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <003b01c19ff9$b707a850$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: References: <200201171621.g0HGLWs24735@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Slow pass Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 09:16:33 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 X-EMID: 8b2be2c0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Johnson" > I don't buy these arguments entirely. It's at least as likely that North > was stewing over a redouble. Or that West spent some time trying to work > out whether he could beat a runout. > If West "spent time trying to work out whether he could beat a runout" then South knows about it - West & South are on the same side of the screen. > Besides, if you buy the argument thatWest couldn't hesitate because > he's got the contract beat in his own hand, Ditto. Perhaps you do have the point about the redouble but I don't believe that over the double contemplating the redouble is "at least as likely" as thinking about the possibility of a run-out. Yes, it is a possibility but a rather remote one, IM(H)O. Be honest: what was the last time you saw a player contemplating a redouble when the final contract was doubled? What was the last time you did it yourself? On the other hand I very often see players who take their time and think through the possibility of a run-out. So while it is theoretically possible that it was East who was thinking or that North was considering the possibility of a redouble the odds are definitely that North was thinking whether to stay in 3NTx or to run. So I'd adjust. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wiesz, co daja dzisiaj w TV? >>> http://tv.interia.pl/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 18 20:26:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0I9NVr03799 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 20:23:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from splat.mosquitonet.com (splat.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0I9NMH03764 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 20:23:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from bigbyte.mosquitonet.com (bigbyte.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.2]) by splat.mosquitonet.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g0I9H8j18216 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 00:17:08 -0900 Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 00:13:15 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] Mispull vs change of mind Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I ran into an unusual Law 25 situation tonight. It's a situation that comes up fairly easily in an online tournament, but is quite difficult to recreate in a face-to-face game. Here is the hand: |Dealer: E ===North======== Brd# 7706 | |Declarer: N Scoring: IMP | |Vulnerable: Both S: AQT72 | |Contract: 4H Dbl H: QJ54 | |Result: Down 2 D: Q4 | |Score: -500 C: 95 | |===West========= ===East========= | |S: 98 | | S: KJ543 | |H: K9863 | | H: | |D: AT5 | | D: 932 | |C: 862 .----------. C: AKJ43 | | ===South======== | | S: 6 | | H: AT72 | | D: KJ876 | | C: QT7 | .----------------------------------------------------. East passed as dealer, a misclick. (Passing instead of bidding, for reasons to do with how the bid-box is displayed on the screen, is pretty easy.) In order to stop the bidding before partner calls, standard procedure is for the misclicker to stand from the table (halting play perforce) and summon the director, immediately telling him what was intended (so we can tell the misclicks from the changes of mind.) After he stands, East cannot see his cards anymore. (Not unlike leaving a real life table, really.) When East summoned me, he stated he had misclicked Pass for 1C. I reset the bidding, reseated the players ... and east opened 1S. The full auction was West North East South 1S Dbl Pass 2H Pass 4H Dbl Pass Pass Pass and minus 500 was an awful result for NS. The rest of the table knew East has misclicked, but none of the other three players ever heard about East's original intention being 1C. At the table I took the pragmatic approach of leaving 1S alone and not resetting the bidding again, in hopes of obtaining SOME semblence of a normal bridge result. Looking for damage afterward, I concluded a> that the NS bidding was shockingly bad, b> that 1S might have been a warning to them that they were in trouble with wasted values in that suit ... but, troubling, c> it's just possible that the bidding could have started 1C-1D-1H, warning NS to avoid playing hearts, if I had forced East to bid 1C. East of course is in for a lecture for changing his mind. You may criticize me for not stopping the bidding a second time after 1S, reading L25B and L16 to everyone, and turning the whole hand into such a mush of 'nonstandard information' (some UI some not) that it would bear no resemblence to a hand of bridge by the time I was done with it. My question to you -- is, given how things played out, what do you think is an equitable result on this board? GRB -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 18 21:00:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0I9xqd10063 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 20:59:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0I9xgH10035 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 20:59:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g0I9pBE09007 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:51:11 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Jan 18 10:48:05 2002 +0100 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl (agro500s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KD7PKYHFVI00441I@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:50:32 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:50:22 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:50:28 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Split Ruling To: "'Herman De Wael'" , Bridge Laws Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Brambledown wrote: > > > > > On a technical note, we implemented this ruling by > calculating the NS/EW > > matchpoint scores for -800 and +100 and adding 40% of the > former to 60% of > > the latter. Is there any clear guidance on scoring the > rest of the field > > on this board? It is, of course, possible to score the > whole field using > > firstly -800 and secondly +100 and then to combine the > results (presumably > > using, for the rest of the field, the "true estimate" of > around 25%/75% > > instead of the "generous estimate" of 40%/60%) but this is > cumbersome and > > the computer program is unlikely to be helpful. In > practice, we entered > > A5050 for the result at this table so that the rest of the > field were scored > > as though the board had been fouled at this table (L87B) > and then made a > > manual adjustment to the scores of the involved pairs so as > to give them the > > scores already determined. > > > > All comments welcome! > > Herman answered: > > My suggestion is to add 40% to the frequency of -800, 60% to > the frequency of +100, and calculate from there. > This sounds complicated, and it is. But I believe it is the > correct application of some basic principles that we can > agree upon. > Let us first have the definitions right. This is not called a split score, but a weighted score. A split score is given under L12C2, when the scores for both sides are not complementary. When a score is a combination of two or more possible results on a board that is done under L12C3 for which a TD needs some approval at the moment. It is worth to elaborate Herman's remark somewhat further: Let us assume that the frequency table without this board is: +100 2 times + 13 + 50 2 times + 9 -420 4 times + 3 A way to calculate the matchpoints is to start with -1 and to add the frequencies in the following way: for - 420 add 4 (the frequency) to -1 giving 3 mp; for +50 add 4 + 2 to 3 (mp) giving 9 mp; for +100 add 2 + 2 to 9 (mp) giving 13 mp. It is easy to prove that this works (for each other score lower you receive 2 points etc.) Now we add the result on this board and follow the same way of calculation which gives: +100 2.6 times +14.4 + 50 2 times + 9.8 -420 4 times + 3.8 -800 .4 times - .6 The mp for the original weighted score will be .4 x 0 + .6 x 14 = 8.4. This description makes clear that programming it should not be too difficult. On the other hand you need both frequency tables for the original weighted score and also could use those to calculate the others. This method by far is the fastest when doing the results manually. In my opinion this approach is the best to use, superior to the idea of using Neuberg with one missing score. But once more I have to say that sponsoring organisations are not very keen in producing prescriptions for calculation. In the WBF I myself probably should make these proposals, causing headaches to result rooms. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 18 21:09:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0IA7bk11223 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 21:07:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0IA7RH11200 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 21:07:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g0I9x1E11454 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:59:01 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Jan 18 10:56:00 2002 +0100 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl (agro500s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KD7PUDL6RI0044FT@AGRO.NL> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:58:08 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:57:57 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:58:02 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: [BLML] another question about questioning the meaning of calls To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I got the following question (and already gave an answer): Presumed declarer gets a first lead from the wrong side (faced up). To make the right decision between all his options he wants to know the meaning of one or more opponent calls (one for me, all of them for some of you). Is he allowed to ask? (Paraphrasing this: his questioning might lead to the conclusion that it is his turn to play now, cancelling most of his options) ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 18 21:21:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0IAJaI13515 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 21:19:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0IAJQH13480 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 21:19:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g0IAAxE17117 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 11:11:00 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Jan 18 11:07:57 2002 +0100 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl (agro500s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KD7QAETBZG0044G9@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 11:10:16 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 11:10:06 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 11:10:10 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Mispull vs change of mind To: "'Gordon Bower'" , Bridge Laws Mailing List Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > I ran into an unusual Law 25 situation tonight. It's a situation that > comes up fairly easily in an online tournament, but is quite > difficult to > recreate in a face-to-face game. > > Here is the hand: > > |Dealer: E ===North======== Brd# 7706 | > |Declarer: N Scoring: IMP | > |Vulnerable: Both S: AQT72 | > |Contract: 4H Dbl H: QJ54 | > |Result: Down 2 D: Q4 | > |Score: -500 C: 95 | > |===West========= ===East========= | > |S: 98 | | S: KJ543 | > |H: K9863 | | H: | > |D: AT5 | | D: 932 | > |C: 862 .----------. C: AKJ43 | > | ===South======== | > | S: 6 | > | H: AT72 | > | D: KJ876 | > | C: QT7 | > .----------------------------------------------------. > > East passed as dealer, a misclick. (Passing instead of bidding, for > reasons to do with how the bid-box is displayed on the > screen, is pretty > easy.) > > In order to stop the bidding before partner calls, standard > procedure is > for the misclicker to stand from the table (halting play perforce) and > summon the director, immediately telling him what was > intended (so we can > tell the misclicks from the changes of mind.) After he > stands, East cannot > see his cards anymore. (Not unlike leaving a real life table, really.) > > When East summoned me, he stated he had misclicked Pass for > 1C. I reset > the bidding, reseated the players ... and east opened 1S. The > full auction > was > > West North East South > 1S Dbl > Pass 2H Pass 4H > Dbl Pass Pass Pass > > and minus 500 was an awful result for NS. > > The rest of the table knew East has misclicked, but none of the other > three players ever heard about East's original intention being 1C. > > At the table I took the pragmatic approach of leaving 1S alone and not > resetting the bidding again, in hopes of obtaining SOME semblence of a > normal bridge result. Looking for damage afterward, I > concluded a> that > the NS bidding was shockingly bad, b> that 1S might have been > a warning to > them that they were in trouble with wasted values in that > suit ... but, > troubling, c> it's just possible that the bidding could have started > 1C-1D-1H, warning NS to avoid playing hearts, if I had forced > East to bid > 1C. > > East of course is in for a lecture for changing his mind. You may > criticize me for not stopping the bidding a second time after > 1S, reading > L25B and L16 to everyone, and turning the whole hand into such a > mush of 'nonstandard information' (some UI some not) that it > would bear no > resemblence to a hand of bridge by the time I was done with it. > > My question to you -- is, given how things played out, what > do you think > is an equitable result on this board? > > GRB You apparently forgot to tell East that he had to bid 1club to be able to apply L25A? If not and he still bid 1spade a severe procedural penalty should be given and L25B should be applied, leaving the result for NS and average minus for EW. If you forgot we have to assume that NS are damaged. Then both pairs are entitled to average- plus, I am afraid. There might be an escape. If there is a majority normal score on this board you could assign that one to both sides, applying L12C2 for non-offenders. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 18 21:36:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0IAYRj15708 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 21:34:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat40.alcanet.no [193.213.239.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0IAYHH15682 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 21:34:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from netos70.alcatel.no (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with ESMTP id g0IAPZ230373; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 11:25:35 +0100 Subject: Re: [BLML] Mispull vs change of mind To: Gordon Bower Cc: Bridge Laws Mailing List X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 11:25:30 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NOMAIL01/NO/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 01/18/2002 11:25:34 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Gordon Bower wrote and I must ask immediately: How certain can you be that when East said he had misclicked pass for 1C this was not another misclick for 1S? Frankly, Easts hand seems to me a sound and natural 1S opening rather than a 1C opening? (But I am of course not familiar with your systems). Maybe the layout on the screens for online bridge should be reconsidered? And the disaster for N-S ending up in 4H on a combined 21HCP, no special distributional values, and with 3 immediate and more probable losers seems rather self-inflected to me? regards Sven GB: I ran into an unusual Law 25 situation tonight. It's a situation that comes up fairly easily in an online tournament, but is quite difficult to recreate in a face-to-face game. Here is the hand: |Dealer: E ===North======== Brd# 7706 | |Declarer: N Scoring: IMP | |Vulnerable: Both S: AQT72 | |Contract: 4H Dbl H: QJ54 | |Result: Down 2 D: Q4 | |Score: -500 C: 95 | |===West========= ===East========= | |S: 98 | | S: KJ543 | |H: K9863 | | H: | |D: AT5 | | D: 932 | |C: 862 .----------. C: AKJ43 | | ===South======== | | S: 6 | | H: AT72 | | D: KJ876 | | C: QT7 | .----------------------------------------------------. East passed as dealer, a misclick. (Passing instead of bidding, for reasons to do with how the bid-box is displayed on the screen, is pretty easy.) In order to stop the bidding before partner calls, standard procedure is for the misclicker to stand from the table (halting play perforce) and summon the director, immediately telling him what was intended (so we can tell the misclicks from the changes of mind.) After he stands, East cannot see his cards anymore. (Not unlike leaving a real life table, really.) When East summoned me, he stated he had misclicked Pass for 1C. I reset the bidding, reseated the players ... and east opened 1S. The full auction was West North East South 1S Dbl Pass 2H Pass 4H Dbl Pass Pass Pass and minus 500 was an awful result for NS. The rest of the table knew East has misclicked, but none of the other three players ever heard about East's original intention being 1C. At the table I took the pragmatic approach of leaving 1S alone and not resetting the bidding again, in hopes of obtaining SOME semblence of a normal bridge result. Looking for damage afterward, I concluded a> that the NS bidding was shockingly bad, b> that 1S might have been a warning to them that they were in trouble with wasted values in that suit ... but, troubling, c> it's just possible that the bidding could have started 1C-1D-1H, warning NS to avoid playing hearts, if I had forced East to bid 1C. East of course is in for a lecture for changing his mind. You may criticize me for not stopping the bidding a second time after 1S, reading L25B and L16 to everyone, and turning the whole hand into such a mush of 'nonstandard information' (some UI some not) that it would bear no resemblence to a hand of bridge by the time I was done with it. My question to you -- is, given how things played out, what do you think is an equitable result on this board? GRB -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 18 21:36:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0IAa0k15938 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 21:36:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.132]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0IAZnH15914 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 21:35:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-47709.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.58.93]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g0IAQwY25158 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 11:26:58 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C47F878.3000803@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 11:27:04 +0100 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Split Ruling References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Kooijman, A. wrote: > > It is worth to elaborate Herman's remark somewhat further: Let us assume > that the frequency table without this board is: > > +100 2 times + 13 > + 50 2 times + 9 > -420 4 times + 3 > > A way to calculate the matchpoints is to start with -1 and to add the > frequencies in the following way: for - 420 add 4 (the frequency) to -1 > giving 3 mp; for +50 add 4 + 2 to 3 (mp) giving 9 mp; for +100 add 2 + 2 to > 9 (mp) giving 13 mp. It is easy to prove that this works (for each other > score lower you receive 2 points etc.) > > Now we add the result on this board and follow the same way of calculation > which gives: > > +100 2.6 times +14.4 > + 50 2 times + 9.8 > -420 4 times + 3.8 > -800 .4 times - .6 > > The mp for the original weighted score will be .4 x 0 + .6 x 14 = 8.4. > should that not be : (.4)x(-.6) + (.6)x(14.4) = 8.4 ? > > > This description makes clear that programming it should not be too > difficult. On the other hand you need both frequency tables for the original > weighted score and also could use those to calculate the others. This method > by far is the fastest when doing the results manually. > > In my opinion this approach is the best to use, superior to the idea of > using Neuberg with one missing score. But once more I have to say that > sponsoring organisations are not very keen in producing prescriptions for > calculation. In the WBF I myself probably should make these proposals, > causing headaches to result rooms. > Why to result rooms ? only to programmers - and I'm certain there would be the exact small group of people who would understand ! > > ton > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 18 22:01:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0IAxrQ19520 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 21:59:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0IAxhH19496 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 21:59:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g0IApGE04671 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 11:51:17 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Jan 18 11:48:14 2002 +0100 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl (agro500s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KD7RO9DSBM0043OD@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 11:50:28 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 11:50:18 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 11:50:23 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Split Ruling To: "'Herman De Wael'" , Bridge Laws Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ton: > > > The mp for the original weighted score will be .4 x 0 + .6 > x 14 = 8.4. Herman: > > > should that not be : (.4)x(-.6) + (.6)x(14.4) = 8.4 ? Why not? But this merely proofs that we might call our doing reasonably consistent. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 19 00:16:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0IDE6514696 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 00:14:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0IDDvH14675 for ; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 00:13:58 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g0ID5U105165 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 13:05:30 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 13:05 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Slow pass To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.52.2000, Windows 98 4.10.2222 ( A ) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <003b01c19ff9$b707a850$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> Konrad wrote: > Perhaps you do have the point about the redouble but I > don't believe that over the double contemplating the redouble is > "at least as likely" as thinking about the possibility of > a run-out. Yes, it is a possibility but a rather remote one, > IM(H)O. Be honest: what was the last time you saw > a player contemplating a redouble when the final > contract was doubled? I expect to see this once a session when playing Chicago where the scoring works similarly to teams. > What was the last time you did it yourself? In a teams match last night (I didn't, but should have!). >From your holding I think partner could only be contemplating a pull with a 6 card diamond suit. Overall I'd reckon it more likely that he was indeed contemplating a redouble (not that I consider 4C an LA - why would I give partner a chance to butcher the contract, especially with the lead through my SKxx). BTW, it is, IMO, completely irrational to double a 3NT you are beating if you think that opponents can make 4m. When considering not awarding an adjusted score does it matter that the "wild/gambling/irrational" action occurred before, rather than after, the infraction. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 19 00:16:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0IDDNx14572 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 00:13:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0IDDEH14551 for ; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 00:13:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id OAA19371; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 14:01:53 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id OAA27632; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 14:04:35 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020118140636.00ac8850@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 14:07:30 +0100 To: "John (MadDog) Probst" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Card Called from Dummy In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 14:36 16/01/2002 +0000, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >> After winning opening lead CQ is played from the hand to which all > >>follow. Small Club is played to A in dummy, all follow. A small > >>diamond is played from dummy which loses to West (LHO) and a spade is > >>returned won in hand. Declarer enters dummy by playing to heart king > >>and next trick just says "club" (dummy has KT9 remaining). Dummy plays > >>king (on his own), East (RHO) plays club jack, declarer discards. At > >>this point LHO who has a small club suggests declarer that he should > >>nominate the card, if he just names the suit, the smallest card must be > >>played. > >. . . (snip) > >> Director Tells Declarer to play small club, result down 3, -800. If > >>club king is played, nine tricks are made and contract succeeds. South > >>appeals. I do not know what decision AC has given. > > > >> I request comments from our members, purely on bridge laws and > >>practices, disregarding hurt egos mentioned above. > >This is an interesting problem for me. In London, England, there is no >doubt that the word "club" explicitly means "small club". It is >completely standard here for players to specify the smallest card in a >suit in this manner. It comes I think from the Young Chelsea, whose >members have a much better working knowledge of the laws than most >players, and when I was directing there all players were aware that in >this case I would rule "the smallest card is specified". This habit has >spread throughout London. AG : in Brussels too, many experimented players do it systematically. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 19 00:37:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0IDZgT18939 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 00:35:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0IDZYH18918 for ; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 00:35:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16RZ2x-0005vE-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 08:27:07 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020118080901.00b5f780@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 08:27:08 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.1.20020116145455.00b3fba0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20020116145455.00b3fba0@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 07:24 PM 1/16/02, David wrote: >Eric Landau writes > > >Imagine a declarer leading small towards a KJx in dummy. LHO plays > >low, and declarer now turns to RHO and asks, "Does your partner tend to > >grab his aces in positions like this?" I don't see any fundamental > >difference in nature between these two questions, and would give the > >same answer to either. > > Let us suppose that you know your partner always takes his ace in >these situations. Declarer [who has said nothing] finesses the jack to >your queen, and you have to cash the setting trick *now*. Do you play >partner for the ace or for a possible trick elsewhere? > > Correct: you look for the trick elsewhere because you *know* partner >has not got the ace. Do you feel it is fair that you are allowed to use >this knowledge but are not required to divulge it? I concede to David's hypothetical case; in such a situation, I would feel compelled to disclose what I know. But in real life, such a situation could never arise. If I could not say honestly that partner grabs his ace "only when he thinks it's right" I wouldn't be playing with this partner (OK, I could imagine a raw novice who "always" thinks it's right, but then I wouldn't disclose that he "always" did what I would be actively encouraging, and expecting, him to stop "always" doing forthwith.) If partner deviates from the norm, grabbing in significantly more or fewer positions than most, either his deviations on the whole produce negative results, in which case I would not expect him to continue to do so, or produce positive results, in which case his deviation is simply the result of his being a better player than most, and I am not required to explain to my opponents how to play good bridge. I'll stick with David B. on this. Disclosure is about agreements. Underleading or grabbing aces is about trying to maximize tricks taken or probability of defeating the contract; whether and when you do it, and how successfully, depends on your ability as a bridge player, not on your agreements with your partner. Eric Landau e-mail address in transition; stay tuned. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 19 01:06:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0IE55v24626 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 01:05:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0IE4tH24595 for ; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 01:04:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g0IDuSE03605 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 14:56:29 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Jan 18 14:53:23 2002 +0100 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl (agro500s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KD7Y6A51KA0044BE@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 14:56:01 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 14:55:51 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 14:55:52 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? To: "'Eric Landau'" , Bridge Laws Discussion List Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > >Eric Landau writes > > > > >Imagine a declarer leading small towards a KJx in dummy. LHO plays > > >low, and declarer now turns to RHO and asks, "Does your > partner tend to > > >grab his aces in positions like this?" I am quite amazed about this discussion. I am joining the position David B. has taken here, but like to illustrate this with a different approach. Declarer should not be allowed to ask such an impertinent, embarrassing question. The question is comparable with : 'is your partner able to play bridge?'. I know that you will try to find more subtle ones. What I really want to say is that it is possible to manoeuvre a discussion into an impossible position by starting with wrong premisses. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 19 01:09:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0IE88u25214 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 01:08:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com ([194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0IE7xH25186 for ; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 01:07:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-106-188.btinternet.com ([213.122.106.188] helo=pbncomputer) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16RZYH-0000WH-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 13:59:30 +0000 Message-ID: <00c701c1a028$2669f9e0$090c7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <200201152300.SAA18463@cfa183.harvard.edu> <5.1.0.14.0.20020116132646.00a68630@pop.ulb.ac.be> <000f01c19e92$4693f500$799c7ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? (long) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 13:57:58 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > But suppose you realise that your partner underleads aces considerably > more often than is normal practice. Are you required to disclose that? No, I don't think so. I am not aware of any requirement to disclose to the opponents my partner's standard as a bridge player, or his views on what might or might not constitute good bridge - even though I know far more about these than the opponents do. If my partner underleads aces, it is not because he and I have agreed that this is what he should do, nor has it become part of any implicit understanding that we may have built up. It is not part of our "methods", nor (therefore) is it subject to Law 40. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 19 01:29:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0IERQ328717 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 01:27:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0IERGH28688 for ; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 01:27:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g0IEJ1w26380 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 14:19:01 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 14:16:43 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] another question about questioning the meaning of calls References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , Kooijman, A. writes >I got the following question (and already gave an answer): > >Presumed declarer gets a first lead from the wrong side (faced up). To make >the right decision between all his options he wants to know the meaning of >one or more opponent calls (one for me, all of them for some of you). Is he >allowed to ask? (Paraphrasing this: his questioning might lead to the >conclusion that it is his turn to play now, cancelling most of his options) > I think the answer to this one is quite subtle. There's nothing specific in Law 54 which either permits or stops presumed declarer from asking questions. But I think reductio ad absurdum permits him to. Let's assume he can't, and makes a decision which is different from the one he would have made had he had all the facts. Law 17E definitely makes it clear that we are in the play period. Law 41B now permits us to have all calls and meanings explained. We can now examine Law 47E2(a) and discover that once a card (from either potential dummy) is faced we can't go back. We also discover we can get to 40C from Law 47E2(b). In order for this to occur we only have to demonstrate we would have played a different card based on the misinformation of an incomplete explanation. This would occur if we can show we would have made a different decision, certainly if we'd have had the lead from the other side than where the lead was actually chosen. Given that we can now get to adjusting the score. Further to all this we can now toss in 72B1, because the OLOOTer could have known (but if and only if his opponents aren't allowed to ask questions). So we're in a position where the Laws require us to award an adjusted score whenever there is a faced OLOOT and the NO's could show damage as a result of a lack of full disclosure that is required by Law. Patently absurd. If we allow presumed declarer to ask all the questions he likes then we never have to award an adjusted score (unless it's some blatant effort to mislead of course). So I rule, with justification, that presumed declarer may enquire about the auction before he makes his decision. cheers john >ton >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 19 02:04:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0IF3MT05404 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 02:03:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.de [213.165.64.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g0IF3CH05377 for ; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 02:03:12 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 10441 invoked by uid 0); 18 Jan 2002 14:54:40 -0000 Received: from pd9e38988.dip.t-dialin.net (HELO www) (217.227.137.136) by mail.gmx.net (mp015-rz3) with SMTP; 18 Jan 2002 14:54:40 -0000 From: "stefan filonardi" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 15:53:41 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: Re: [BLML] Card Called from Dummy Message-ID: <3C484505.21459.14F6F46@localhost> In-reply-to: References: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from Quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g0IF3EH05381 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello David & blml, On 17 Jan 2002, at 0:12, David Stevenson wrote: > The Law is unambiguous, and despite John's strange view of > England, a > "club" means a small club unless declarer's different intention > is incontrovertible both oop norf and dahn sarf [and probably in > a few other countries as well!]. The law is indeed unambiguous but we seem to forget that §46B is already a way to handle an infraction commited by declarer not following §46A. But if the intention of lawmaker is indeed "Dear player, if you are not able to respect the law 46A and furthermore you do not like our way to handle with your infraction as described in §46B we still will analyse the hand to find out what your incontrovertible intention was when you choosed to infringe $46A." then I will not argue against, will just sigh about this ulterior "imho unnecessary" burden putted on the shoulders of TD's. ciao stefan :-) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 19 02:33:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0IFWoB10809 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 02:32:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0IFWgH10780 for ; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 02:32:42 +1100 (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 KAA24027 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:24:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA14061 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:24:15 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:24:15 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200201181524.KAA14061@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > Disclosure is about > agreements. Underleading or grabbing aces is about trying to maximize... So what is the analogy during the auction? If partner promotes aces and tens and devalues minor honors (or doesn't), is that disclosable? After all, the bidding is also an effort to maximize our scores. Or are you claiming there is a fundamental difference between bidding and play understandings? If so, where do you find that in the FLB? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 19 03:10:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0IG8cA17216 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 03:08:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0IG8UH17186 for ; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 03:08:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from freenet10.carleton.ca (freenet10 [134.117.136.30]) by freenet.carleton.ca (8.11.6/8.11.6/NCF_f1_v3.03) with ESMTP id g0IG01601546 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 11:00:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet10.carleton.ca (8.9.3+Sun/NCF-Sun-Client) id LAA07092; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 11:00:01 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 11:00:01 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200201181600.LAA07092@freenet10.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Mispull vs change of mind Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > >I ran into an unusual Law 25 situation tonight. It's a situation that >comes up fairly easily in an online tournament, but is quite difficult to >recreate in a face-to-face game. > >Here is the hand: > > |Dealer: E ===North======== Brd# 7706 | > |Declarer: N Scoring: IMP | > |Vulnerable: Both S: AQT72 | > |Contract: 4H Dbl H: QJ54 | > |Result: Down 2 D: Q4 | > |Score: -500 C: 95 | > |===West========= ===East========= | > |S: 98 | | S: KJ543 | > |H: K9863 | | H: | > |D: AT5 | | D: 932 | > |C: 862 .----------. C: AKJ43 | > | ===South======== | > | S: 6 | > | H: AT72 | > | D: KJ876 | > | C: QT7 | > .----------------------------------------------------. > >East passed as dealer, a misclick. (Passing instead of bidding, for >reasons to do with how the bid-box is displayed on the screen, is pretty >easy.) > >In order to stop the bidding before partner calls, standard procedure is >for the misclicker to stand from the table (halting play perforce) and >summon the director, immediately telling him what was intended (so we can >tell the misclicks from the changes of mind.) After he stands, East cannot >see his cards anymore. (Not unlike leaving a real life table, really.) > >When East summoned me, he stated he had misclicked Pass for 1C. I reset >the bidding, reseated the players ... and east opened 1S. The full auction >was > >West North East South > 1S Dbl >Pass 2H Pass 4H >Dbl Pass Pass Pass > >and minus 500 was an awful result for NS. > >The rest of the table knew East has misclicked, but none of the other >three players ever heard about East's original intention being 1C. > >At the table I took the pragmatic approach of leaving 1S alone and not >resetting the bidding again, in hopes of obtaining SOME semblence of a >normal bridge result. Looking for damage afterward, I concluded a> that >the NS bidding was shockingly bad, b> that 1S might have been a warning to >them that they were in trouble with wasted values in that suit ... but, >troubling, c> it's just possible that the bidding could have started >1C-1D-1H, warning NS to avoid playing hearts, if I had forced East to bid >1C. > >East of course is in for a lecture for changing his mind. You may >criticize me for not stopping the bidding a second time after 1S, reading >L25B and L16 to everyone, and turning the whole hand into such a >mush of 'nonstandard information' (some UI some not) that it would bear no >resemblence to a hand of bridge by the time I was done with it. > >My question to you -- is, given how things played out, what do you think >is an equitable result on this board? > >GRB > Result stands. The player has told the director that he has accidently chosen the wrong bid (misclicked). The director has ruled that he may change his previous call to the one he wished to make. As far as I know, IMHO, for the purposes of L25(a), the director doesn't need to know or even find out what the substitute call is before the player makes it; nor is the player required to use a substitution that was voluntarily and privately suggested to the director. Tony (aka ac342) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 19 03:22:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0IGKv519054 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 03:20:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat40.alcanet.no [193.213.239.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0IGKmH19036 for ; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 03:20:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from netos70.alcatel.no (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with ESMTP id g0IGCGD14720; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 17:12:16 +0100 Subject: Re: [BLML] another question about questioning the meaning of calls To: "John (MadDog) Probst" Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 17:12:13 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NOMAIL01/NO/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 01/18/2002 17:12:15 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk While I agree with John Probst in his result when he wrote the following, I am not convinced of his reasoning and have taken the liberty to add some comments below. However, I think this is a situation which might need some clarification in the laws to support John and me that the declarer should have full freedom to ask his questions before making his decision under law54. >In article >, Kooijman, A. writes >>I got the following question (and already gave an answer): >> >>Presumed declarer gets a first lead from the wrong side (faced up). To make >>the right decision between all his options he wants to know the meaning of >>one or more opponent calls (one for me, all of them for some of you). Is he >>allowed to ask? (Paraphrasing this: his questioning might lead to the >>conclusion that it is his turn to play now, cancelling most of his options) >> >I think the answer to this one is quite subtle. There's nothing specific >in Law 54 which either permits or stops presumed declarer from asking >questions. But I think reductio ad absurdum permits him to. > >Let's assume he can't, and makes a decision which is different from the >one he would have made had he had all the facts. > >Law 17E definitely makes it clear that we are in the play period. No, I don't think this is true. We have some time ago discussed a case where the presumed dummy made the initial lead open faced, the essential outcome of that discussion was that this was not OLOOT but card exposed during the auction. Law 54 institutes an exception to law 41 in that the auction can be ended and play period begin when an OLOOT is made by the wrong defender. Let us consider a different case which should clarify this: Before any attempt by presumed defenders to make an opening lead the presumed declarer makes some questions on the auction and reveals that there has been (serious) misinformation by opponents. He summons the director and gets the auction rolled back to the last pass (by presumed declarer or dummy) and eventually bids a slam instead of the first contract which was only for game. If any card had been incorrectly exposed during this process leading to the auction being rolled back we must logically rule that any such card is handled as cards exposed during the auction. Back to our case: IMHO we are still within the auction period until after presumed declarer has made his decision under law54 when that law applies. If this view is accepted then presumed declarer has all his privileges under Law 41B until he makes this decision. Assuming this makes the remainder of Johns post redundant I just snip it to save some volume. . . . . (snip) >So I rule, with justification, that presumed declarer may enquire about >the auction before he makes his decision. >cheers john And here we fully agree! regards Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 19 03:30:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0IGSo520032 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 03:28:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from xgate.npl.co.uk (IDENT:root@xgate.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.160]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0IGSdH19995 for ; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 03:28:40 +1100 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by xgate.npl.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g0IGK0V04805; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 16:20:00 GMT Received: by xgate.npl.co.uk XSMTPD; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 16:20:00 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by fermat.npl.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g0IGK0F29188; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 16:20:00 GMT Received: by fermat.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 16:20:00 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA11693; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 16:19:59 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id QAA09965; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 16:19:58 GMT Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 16:19:58 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200201181619.QAA09965@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Subject: Re: [BLML] Mispull vs change of mind X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > > Result stands. The player has told the director that he has > accidently chosen the wrong bid (misclicked). The director has > ruled that he may change his previous call to the one he wished > to make. As far as I know, IMHO, for the purposes of L25(a), the > director doesn't need to know or even find out what the substitute > call is before the player makes it; nor is the player required to > use a substitution that was voluntarily and privately suggested to > the director. > Tony (aka ac342) L25 requires the player to substitute his intended call. Although the player is not required to tell the TD what the intended call was, once the TD knows the intended call he (the TD) must act if the player makes another call. There is the possibility of TD error: "you may withdraw the pass and bid" against "you may substitute your intended call for the pass". If the TD's instruction was clear, he should now rule under L25B. Robin -- Robin Barker | Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk CMSC, Building 10, | Phone: +44 (0) 20 8943 7090 National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 20 8977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 OLW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 19 05:46:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0IIj5U12033 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 05:45:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0IIiuH12018 for ; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 05:44:56 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g0IIaTa06315 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 18:36:29 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 18:36 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? (long) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.52.2000, Windows 98 4.10.2222 ( A ) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <00c701c1a028$2669f9e0$090c7ad5@pbncomputer> David Burn wrote: > No, I don't think so. I am not aware of any requirement to disclose to > the opponents my partner's standard as a bridge player, or his views on > what might or might not constitute good bridge - even though I know far > more about these than the opponents do. If my partner underleads aces, > it is not because he and I have agreed that this is what he should do, > nor has it become part of any implicit understanding that we may have > built up. It is not part of our "methods", nor (therefore) is it subject > to Law 40. Will somebody please tell me what the hell is going on here. On one side I have Grattan telling me that where understandings develop from partnership experience they are not only disclosable but actually require prior written disclosure on the CC or they are illegal. On the other side I have David Burn telling me that I don't need to disclose anything apart from agreed methods even when I know full well that partner's style diverges from the norm and I am asked a direct question. Personally I'd be delighted to say that while L40 doesn't give the power to forbid partnership understandings it does confer the power to regulate how (or whether) they should be disclosed. Then the only problem I have to solve is that I know my wife sometimes follows suit with the *higher* of touching honours - except when she has been reminded not to (eg by writing it on the CC before a session)! Tim West-Meads -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 19 05:55:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0IIs6i13631 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 05:54:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tvrelay.mail.uk.easynet.net (tvrelay.mail.uk.easynet.net [194.6.96.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0IIruH13605 for ; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 05:53:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-14-84.easynet.co.uk [212.134.24.84]) by tvrelay.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 90ABE67AE7 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 18:45:15 +0000 (GMT) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Split Ruling Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 18:42:11 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Thanks for all the helpful technical comments, particularly the suggestion from Herman (& others) that an 'exact' answer (if I may call it that) can be obtained by including both weighted scores into the frequency table with a fractional frequency. The result on this approach using the actual frequencies would have looked like this: NS Score Freq NS MPts +100 1.6 13.4 + 50 2 9.8 -420 3 4.8 -500 1 0.8 -800 0.4 -0.6 MP Score for NS pair involved = 0.6 x 13.4 + 0.4 x -0.6 = 7.8 It can easily be shown that this result is the same as that produced by including +100 & -800 separately each with a frequency of 1 and combining them in the ratio 6:4. OTOH, the 'average' method (which we used) produces this slightly different result: NS Score Freq Factored Freq NS MPts +100 1 1.14 13.86 + 50 2 2.29 10.43 -420 3 3.43 4.71 -500 1 1.14 0.14 MP Score for NS pair involved = 0.6 x 13 + 0.4 x 0 = 7.8, as before A colleague has drawn my attention to para 12.22 of the EBU Tournament Director's Guide: "Effect of an assigned adjusted score on other contestants: If contestants are awarded a single 'balanced' adjusted score, then that score is taken into account in determining the scores of other contestants (eg match-pointed pairs). Otherwise, for the purposes of determining the scores of other contestants, the score is treated as average." IOW, the average method as above, which The Guide is presumably adopting as a practical approach. On the wider issue of the application of weighted scores, the same colleague has pointed out that even if L12C3 is sanctioned, the TD doesn't have to make use of it, and that its use may be inappropriate at Club level. ISTM that producing wildly unbalanced scores under L12C2 is quite likely to produce two unhappy pairs. In the example in this string a TD might well have ruled -800 to NS (0 MPs out of 14) and -100 to EW(1 MP out of 14). My view is that if we can achieve better equity by giving weighted scores without too much trouble then it is sensible to do so at all levels of the game. Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 19 05:55:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0IIsDs13650 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 05:54:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tvrelay.mail.uk.easynet.net (tvrelay.mail.uk.easynet.net [194.6.96.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0IIs1H13624 for ; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 05:54:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-14-84.easynet.co.uk [212.134.24.84]) by tvrelay.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id D9EA567920 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 18:45:17 +0000 (GMT) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Split Ruling Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 18:42:14 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Tim West-meads wrote: >> Brambledown wrote: >> Believing, however, that perhaps 20-30% might choose to pass, he >> ruled a generous 40% for this course of action and judged that NS would >> then play in 4SX-4, -800 to NS. > > A minor point but I think 4S might be beaten 6 tricks, beating it 5 looks > easy. This is absolutely right, of course. We noted that 4 off was all that was needed for a complete top and didn't consider it further. Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 19 06:43:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0IJgF022557 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 06:42:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0IJg6H22538 for ; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 06:42:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA00822; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 11:33:40 -0800 Message-Id: <200201181933.LAA00822@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:24:15 EST." <200201181524.KAA14061@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 11:33:39 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Eric Landau > > Disclosure is about > > agreements. Underleading or grabbing aces is about trying to maximize... > > So what is the analogy during the auction? If partner promotes aces > and tens and devalues minor honors (or doesn't), is that disclosable? > After all, the bidding is also an effort to maximize our scores. You can't make a clean analogy between auction and defense. I'll explain why below. > Or are you claiming there is a fundamental difference between bidding > and play understandings? If so, where do you find that in the FLB? I think there's a fundamental difference between bidding and play; I don't need the Lawbook to tell me that. Basically, the difference, as it pertains to agreements, is this: During the auction, every call you make (with some exceptions) has, as part of its purpose, communicating something about your hand to partner. This is because the primary purpose of the auction is to find the contract that will maximize your score, and in almost all cases, you cannot do that except by a cooperative effort with your partner to describe the important features of your hands to each other. During the play, the goal of the defenders is to take a certain number of tricks. Here, playing the right cards at each trick is the most important factor; communicating information about your hand to partner is important, but the importance is relatively much less than it is during the auction. Often, you have to play one specific card at a given trick in order to achieve your goal; in such cases, you cannot worry about what message it sends your partner, you have to play that card. At other times, you may have to play (for example) "low" in a specific suit to achieve your goal; your choice of low card may send some sort of message to partner, but when making the choice to play a low card vis-a-vis playing a high card or playing a card of a different suit, you often cannot be concerned about what message the card sends partner. This situation (in which communication with partner is unimportant) occurs much more often in play than it does in the auction; thus, I have to conclude that there are such fundamental differences between bidding and defense that you can't make clean analogies between the two. It ought to be noted that the WBF seems to agree that the two are not entirely analagous. In the "Code of Practice for Appeal Committees", there are four paragraphs dealing with psychic calls and when psychic calls could become implicit agreements and when psychic tendencies need to be disclosed; but for falsecarding, they say simply: Always provided that a true disclosure is made of the agreed meanings and expectations of card plays by defenders, intermittent false carding by defenders is lawful. Declarer then relies at his own risk upon his reading of the fall of the cards. I realize that all of the above is a little bit fuzzy, but hopefully it will get people to see that the fine points about full disclosure during the auction that we often discuss do *not* always translate exactly to defense, since the two are such fundamentally different animals. There is one area of bidding that is more closely related to the issues at hand: that is when someone makes a call that determines the final contract for his side. Often this call is "pass", but sometimes it can be a bid which partner is virtually required to pass, such as 3NT after partner opens 1NT. (By the way, I'm not talking about passes in situations where there's a significant probability that the opponents will keep the bidding open.) In fact, a few years ago, on r.g.b., I got involved in a long discussion of this issue regarding the auction 1NT-3NT, so I'll use it as an example. When you place the contract, you're not really giving any information to partner except "This is where I think we should play"---implying that you have no interest in exploring alternative contracts. The opponents are entitled to know your system, so they are certainly entitled to know about the tools you could have used instead. For example, in the case 1NT-3NT, the opponents clearly have the right to know that you have Stayman available to check for a major-suit fit, and they have the right to know what hands are appropriate hands for using Stayman. But does this mean that the opponents have the right to *know*, when you bid 1NT-3NT, whether you have a hand that could have used Stayman but chose not to? Not really, IMHO (unless you actually *do* have an unwise agreement that you would not bid 3NT on such a hand). If you do have a hand that could have used Stayman, presumably you have logical reasons why you chose to place the contract rather than looking for a fit---and those reasons are not something that need to be disclosed. Thus, if the opponents ask your partner how likely you are to bid that like with a 4-card major, I don't believe this question needs to be answered. There were several people on r.g.b that disagreed strongly with me on this point. To sum up: All calls and plays are, in a sense, an attempt to maximize one's score. However, I believe the line has to be drawn between these two cases: (1) An action that maximizes the score because, in whole or in part, of the message it sends to one's partner. (2) An action that maximizes the score *only* for logical "bridge" reasons, without regard to the message it sends partner. Most calls fall into category (1), except for the sort of contract-placing calls I've been discussing, which fall into category (2); there are many defensive plays in each category. It's my belief that only information about things in the first category should be subject to disclosure; actions that are based purely on the logic of the hand, and in no way on communication, shouldn't need to be disclosed. I hope this helps explain things. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 19 07:38:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0IKaYk02435 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 07:36:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from splat.mosquitonet.com (splat.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0IKaPH02407 for ; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 07:36:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from bigbyte.mosquitonet.com (bigbyte.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.2]) by splat.mosquitonet.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g0IKU8j01165; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 11:30:08 -0900 Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 11:26:12 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no cc: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Mispull vs change of mind In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Fri, 18 Jan 2002 Sven.Pran@alcatel.no wrote: > > Gordon Bower wrote and I must ask immediately: > > How certain can you be that when East said he had misclicked pass for 1C > this > was not another misclick for 1S? I asked East about that. The answer I got was that he'd decided to bid 1C, passed accidentally, stood from the table, and called me. After the bidding was reset and he was reeated, he looked at his cards again and discovered he also had the 5-card spade suit. Not surprisingly, noone else in the room opened 1C. :) I didn't actually spell out for East that he wasn't allowed to change his mind from 1C -- it never occurred to me that if someone said "I meant to bid 1C, can I fix it?" that he'd do anything else. First time I've ever had someone say one thing and do another. Guess I will have to trot out a new, more dire, warning. GRB -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 19 08:08:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0IL6nV08373 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 08:06:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0IL6fH08350 for ; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 08:06:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16Rg5W-0001YT-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 15:58:14 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020118153606.00b4bae0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 15:58:16 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 01:36 PM 1/18/02, twm wrote: >In-Reply-To: <00c701c1a028$2669f9e0$090c7ad5@pbncomputer> >David Burn wrote: > > > No, I don't think so. I am not aware of any requirement to disclose to > > the opponents my partner's standard as a bridge player, or his views on > > what might or might not constitute good bridge - even though I know far > > more about these than the opponents do. If my partner underleads aces, > > it is not because he and I have agreed that this is what he should do, > > nor has it become part of any implicit understanding that we may have > > built up. It is not part of our "methods", nor (therefore) is it > subject > > to Law 40. > >Will somebody please tell me what the hell is going on here. On one side >I have Grattan telling me that where understandings develop from >partnership experience they are not only disclosable but actually require >prior written disclosure on the CC or they are illegal. > >On the other side I have David Burn telling me that I don't need to >disclose anything apart from agreed methods even when I know full well >that partner's style diverges from the norm and I am asked a direct >question. > >Personally I'd be delighted to say that while L40 doesn't give the power >to forbid partnership understandings it does confer the power to >regulate how (or whether) they should be disclosed. What is an "understanding"? Tim seems to be using it to mean [AHD, def. 3] "Individual or specified judgment or outlook in a matter; opinion; interpretation". David uses it to mean [AHD def. 4] "a. A compact implicit between two or more persons or groups. b. The matter implicit in such a compact" and/or [AHD def. 5] "A reconciliation of differences; an agreement". In either sense, "understandings [may] develop from partnership experience". TFLB, however, consistently refers not, ambiguously, just to "understandings", but rather, specifically, to "partnership understandings". When Grattan speaks of "understandings", he is presumably using it as shorthand for "partnership understandings", which are the only kind referred to in TFLB. In the phrase "partnership understandings", "understandings" can only take the latter meaning. To argue otherwise is to argue that one's opponents have the right to full disclosure of everything you know. When I pick up 20 HCP, I quickly come to the "understanding" that I have a very good hand, but I don't believe I'm required to disclose this "understanding" to my opponents. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 19 08:45:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0ILhLX15615 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 08:43:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0ILhBH15587 for ; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 08:43:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16Rger-0001gi-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 16:34:45 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020118162030.00b45490@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 16:34:47 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? In-Reply-To: <200201181933.LAA00822@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 02:33 PM 1/18/02, Adam wrote: >To sum up: All calls and plays are, in a sense, an attempt to maximize >one's score. However, I believe the line has to be drawn between >these two cases: > >(1) An action that maximizes the score because, in whole or in part, > of the message it sends to one's partner. > >(2) An action that maximizes the score *only* for logical "bridge" > reasons, without regard to the message it sends partner. > >Most calls fall into category (1), except for the sort of >contract-placing calls I've been discussing, which fall into category >(2); there are many defensive plays in each category. It's my belief >that only information about things in the first category should be >subject to disclosure; actions that are based purely on the logic of >the hand, and in no way on communication, shouldn't need to be >disclosed. Adam understates his own case. Even "contract-placing" calls (Adam gives the example 1NT-P-3NT) "determine[] the final contract" only because the partnership has agreed that they shall do so. But when you decide which card to play in order to give your side a chance to beat a contract or maximize the expected number of tricks to be taken (apart from the sometimes-necessary secondary decision of which card to select from functional equals, which may have message-to-partner implications) you either make the right decision and succeed in accomplishing your objective, or make the wrong decision and fail; no agreement you can make with your partner can change that. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 19 09:08:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0IM74Z19134 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 09:07:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0IM6uH19117 for ; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 09:06:57 +1100 (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 QAA20961 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 16:58:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA14638 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 16:58:29 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 16:58:29 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200201182158.QAA14638@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > But when you decide which card to play in order to give your side a > chance... you either make the right decision and > succeed in accomplishing your objective, or make the wrong decision and > fail; no agreement you can make with your partner can change that. But the same can be said about reaching the most profitable final contract. Yes, there are a variety of ways to get where you want to be, but in the end you either do or don't get there. I do think we are making progress, but the answer is still far from clear to me. In particular, I still believe that defenders often have understandings, and base their own decisions on them, while declarer is unaware of them. That still bothers me. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 19 09:13:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0IMBxp19897 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 09:11:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0IMBgH19850 for ; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 09:11:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA04068; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 14:03:05 -0800 Message-Id: <200201182203.OAA04068@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws Discussion List CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 18 Jan 2002 16:34:47 EST." <4.3.2.7.0.20020118162030.00b45490@pop.cais.com> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 14:03:03 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > At 02:33 PM 1/18/02, Adam wrote: > > >To sum up: All calls and plays are, in a sense, an attempt to maximize > >one's score. However, I believe the line has to be drawn between > >these two cases: > > > >(1) An action that maximizes the score because, in whole or in part, > > of the message it sends to one's partner. > > > >(2) An action that maximizes the score *only* for logical "bridge" > > reasons, without regard to the message it sends partner. > > > >Most calls fall into category (1), except for the sort of > >contract-placing calls I've been discussing, which fall into category > >(2); there are many defensive plays in each category. It's my belief > >that only information about things in the first category should be > >subject to disclosure; actions that are based purely on the logic of > >the hand, and in no way on communication, shouldn't need to be > >disclosed. > > Adam understates his own case. Even "contract-placing" calls (Adam > gives the example 1NT-P-3NT) "determine[] the final contract" only > because the partnership has agreed that they shall do so. Well, right, and you certainly have to disclose that 3NT is a shutout bid. You don't (IMHO) have to disclose why partner might have decided to make that bid (besides disclosing other bids partner might have used). I guess this means that some individual actions have components in both categories (1) and (2). This would include ace underleads, where you don't (IMHO) have to disclose how often partner underleads aces but you still would have to disclose whether the lead should be 4th best or 3rd/5th or whatever. This would have complicated my explanation even more, but I hope the general ideas got through anyway. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 19 09:44:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0IMgMQ24930 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 09:42:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (lheapop.gsfc.nasa.gov [128.183.16.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0IMgDH24909 for ; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 09:42:14 +1100 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g0IMXfj27319 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 17:33:41 -0500 From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200201182233.g0IMXfj27319@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 17:33:41 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "Adam Beneschan" at Jan 18, 2002 11:33:39 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL5] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I've been staying out of this discussion until now, but Adam says a few things that I just disagree with: > Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 11:33:39 -0800 > From: Adam Beneschan > > You can't make a clean analogy between auction and defense. I'll > explain why below. > TY: I disagree with your premise here. You can make an analogy between auction and defense. I think you over-simplify the situations and hence make the communication aspect of the auction and defense more black-and-white than they really are. > > Or are you claiming there is a fundamental difference between bidding > > and play understandings? If so, where do you find that in the FLB? > > I think there's a fundamental difference between bidding and play; I > don't need the Lawbook to tell me that. Basically, the difference, as > it pertains to agreements, is this: > > During the auction, every call you make (with some exceptions) has, as > part of its purpose, communicating something about your hand to > partner. This is because the primary purpose of the auction is to > find the contract that will maximize your score, and in almost all > cases, you cannot do that except by a cooperative effort with your > partner to describe the important features of your hands to each > other. > TY: Here is why I disagree. There are many calls in auctions that are not cooperative. If you bid or play any type of relay system, then that is not cooperative. One player is asking for information without passing any information along at all. For example, if you play Kokish game tries (1S-P-2S-P-2NT asking for the lowest suit to which partner would accept a help suit GT), then the 2NT bid is not showing anything. In fact, if partner wanted to discourage the opponents from competing, partner might make a Kokish GT and sign off opposite your answer. You would have to assume that this was not the right answer and accept the signoff. But, the Kokish doesn't necessarily show extras or anything at all. Likewise, how many people bid 2NT over a week 2 bid and then sign off at the 3 level with a hand with no interest in going on? This is done frequently. Or people who bid fake suits trying to keep the opponents out of the right contract (like responding 2S to partner's 2H bid with short spades and then converting back to hearts). None of these is intended to convey any information to partner but to either ask for information or to mislead the opponents. Although I agree with you the primary purpose of the auction is to communicate what you have to partner, there are many situations where bids by you are not intended to convey information to partner. > During the play, the goal of the defenders is to take a certain number > of tricks. Here, playing the right cards at each trick is the most > important factor; communicating information about your hand to partner > is important, but the importance is relatively much less than it is > during the auction. Often, you have to play one specific card at a > given trick in order to achieve your goal; in such cases, you cannot > worry about what message it sends your partner, you have to play that > card. At other times, you may have to play (for example) "low" in a > specific suit to achieve your goal; your choice of low card may send > some sort of message to partner, but when making the choice to play a > low card vis-a-vis playing a high card or playing a card of a > different suit, you often cannot be concerned about what message the > card sends partner. This situation (in which communication with > partner is unimportant) occurs much more often in play than it does in > the auction; thus, I have to conclude that there are such fundamental > differences between bidding and defense that you can't make clean > analogies between the two. > TY: I think the difference here is that you seem to downplay the communication aspect of defense and magnify the communication aspect of bidding. I think they are much closer and greyer than you promote. In defense, players often go out of their way to communicate what they have so that one player or the other can make the right play. The whole point behind different signaling systems is to maximize the amount of useful information that can be passed on defense. Between count, attitude, suit preference, and discard signals, including, but not limited to Lavinthal, Smith, Foster, Odd-Even, UDCA, etc, etc, people are trying to maximise what information you take. The ultimate goal is to take the most tricks, not just a certain number of tricks. Especially when playing matchpoints. For instance, if you are defending 4 of a major, you aren't just trying to take 4 tricks to set the contract, that may not be enough to win the hand. You may need to set it 3 tricks to beat part scores, or even set it 2 tricks instead of 1 trick to beat the field. Your communication is critical to maximizing the defensive potential. Making your argument about having to play a certain card on defense analogous to the bidding, sometimes due to preempts or space-consuming bids (like jump shifts, etc), players are forced to bid certain bids. The concept of "Last Train" (if you read Steve Robinson's Washington Standard Bridge system, this is an artificial bid below the level of game or below the level of partscore to make game or slam tries without bypassing the potentially last making contract) or artificial game tries like 1S-3D (Bergen)-3H, etc are all along the same lines of having to play one specific card. > It ought to be noted that the WBF seems to agree that the two are not > entirely analagous. In the "Code of Practice for Appeal Committees", > there are four paragraphs dealing with psychic calls and when psychic > calls could become implicit agreements and when psychic tendencies > need to be disclosed; but for falsecarding, they say simply: > > Always provided that a true disclosure is made of the agreed > meanings and expectations of card plays by defenders, > intermittent false carding by defenders is lawful. Declarer then > relies at his own risk upon his reading of the fall of the cards. > > I realize that all of the above is a little bit fuzzy, but hopefully > it will get people to see that the fine points about full disclosure > during the auction that we often discuss do *not* always translate > exactly to defense, since the two are such fundamentally different > animals. > TY: I don't think think they are that fundamentally different other than one is bidding and one is play. But the concepts of communication vs results are much more similar than you imply. Back to the topic at hand. I think that if you as a partnership make any unusual leads with enough frequency that third hand could intuit an unusual play, that you are obligated to explain if someone asks. If someone asks the usual question, "What are your leads?" you should identify those things that the opponent is unlikely to gather. So if partner leads a non-honor, you should state whatever your leads are (fourth best, 2nd and 4th, 3rd and 5th, attitude, etc) followed by "and partner may underlead an ace." You don't imply (s)he has, or even that it is implied or even frequency, just that it may happen. If you were playing unusual leads and someone asked about your leads, you'd mention that you lead Roussineau or Journalist, or whatever it is, wouldn't you? Why not just disclose this if they ask? -Ted. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 19 10:16:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0INEXQ01117 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 10:14:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from wonka.esatclear.ie (wonka.esatclear.ie [194.145.128.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0INENH01090 for ; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 10:14:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from kdr600 (r-airlock006.esatclear.ie [194.165.171.6]) by wonka.esatclear.ie (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA32172 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 23:05:50 GMT From: "Karel" To: Subject: RE: [BLML] One at a time Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 23:13:29 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >However, that was not what actually happened. Suppose instead it >transpired that the opponents' agreement was that 2C showed red suits. >West had forgotten, East had acted ethically in passing 4S. South, when >6C failed, asked for arbitration (as indeed he might have done even if >it had made, for 4S doubled would cost 1400). The Director informed him >that he "should have known from his own hand that he had been >misinformed, and should have doubled 4S instead". Should South appeal? The 6 club bid is a *huge double shot*. Even I would rule result stands. cheers john [Karel - now call me niave - but when the opponents bid and alert various bids as meaning x, y or z, I as any good bridge player try to build up a picture of their distributions for further bidding, lead & defence purposes. Now to expect me to ASSUME that the opponents have got it wrong just because I happen to have 5 trumps in my hand is ridiculous. Why should I suspect MI ?? I've met some pretty weird and wonderful hands in my time and expect to meet many more. I'm certainly not going to start 2nd guessing myself by assuming the opps screwed up in their bidding. On the given auction 6C is an extremely reasonable bid and infact assuming sane opponents should be the winning bid. To call it a huge double shot you must be on some other planet. Not only that but hey 2C actually does show the majors and hey I'm sorry but I got it wrong and btw thanks for the top ... really !! So next time I'm playing, I know I can't psych a conventinal bid, but who cares I'll bid it anyway and when pd alerts it correctly, I can fall back on the ole ... "ahh sorry there opps I canda had a late night last night and plain ole forgot that convention ... " I know in Holland that ghestem screw ups routinely get ruled against and I can't vouch for every case but to bid an eminently reasonable 6C and then get shot in the ass ... well just sucks !! And if that is the current law then I agree with Bobby's CD crusade. ] -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 19 13:23:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0J2LjV07452 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 13:21:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0J2LZH07422 for ; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 13:21:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-123-116.btinternet.com ([213.122.123.116] helo=pbncomputer) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16Rl0E-0005Cn-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 02:13:07 +0000 Message-ID: <002d01c1a08e$9e3729a0$747b7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? (long) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 02:10:56 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim wrote: > Will somebody please tell me what the hell is going on here. On one side > I have Grattan telling me that where understandings develop from > partnership experience they are not only disclosable but actually require > prior written disclosure on the CC or they are illegal. > > On the other side I have David Burn telling me that I don't need to > disclose anything apart from agreed methods even when I know full well > that partner's style diverges from the norm and I am asked a direct > question. Others may put this more learnedly. But in simple terms, you are trying to compare apples with aardvarks. You are confused, and I can understand this, for into the already sufficiently turbulent maelstrom of "full disclosure" has been introduced the truly wretched notion of "style". "Style" is a more or less meaningless concept, though one can see dimly where there might be a requirement to disclose it as far as bidding is concerned. If my idea of decent bridge is to open 3S on Jxxxxxx xx xx xx, then I will describe my pre-empting "style" as aggressive, otherwise I will not, and my opponents are entitled to whatever conclusions they may draw therefrom. But there is no such thing as "style" when it comes to the play of cards in defence. There is no question of partnerships having "understandings" from which they "depart" - there are simply two people trying to take X tricks, where X = 8 minus the level of the contract. Now, in order to do this, these two people will have a set of agreements about the messages conveyed by some of the cards they play. For example, I might lead the king from KQ and small cards, you might lead the queen. Our goal is the same - to establish the other honour as one of our 8-minus-level tricks; our message is the same - we have the other honour. But the declarer has a right to know in what way we are attempting to convey the same message in our efforts towards the same goal. Similarly: you may play a low card to encourage a continuation of partner's suit, I may play a high card. Declarer has a right to that information also - if we are to send messages, he is allowed to know the code. So says the Law, so says Grattan, and so say I. But what declarer does not have a right to know is the basis upon which we as individuals, without "understanding" or "agreement" elect to use the defensive assets we have - our high cards - in pursuit of our goal. When I lead low from Axxx against a suit contract, I choose the same card as I would choose from Qxxx. If dummy displays Jxx and partner has K10xx, he may or may not play the king, and this may or may not be the right thing to do - that is up to him. But there is no encryption here, no code to the key of which declarer has a legal right. Analogies between psychic, or "tactical", bids and false cards are... well, I would use the word "fatuous", but that might bring down the wrath of the politically correct upon my already battered cranium. You may have - you probably do have - agreements by which you signal certain holdings to partner in certain ways. But those agreements do not and can not extend to what you do with unsupported aces, whether on lead, or in front of dummy's king-jack, or whatever. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 19 13:40:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0J2d6c10871 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 13:39:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from blount.mail.mindspring.net (blount.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0J2cwH10850 for ; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 13:38:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from user-33qt9ts.dialup.mindspring.com ([199.174.167.188] helo=cmesa.ix.netcom.com) by blount.mail.mindspring.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16RlH3-0006e2-00; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 21:30:29 -0500 Message-ID: <050101c1a090$b77ad5e0$58a8aec7@ix.netcom.com> From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "Marvin L. French" , References: <018001c19fdd$a61271e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] New ACBL Alert Procedure (cont'd) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 20:26:34 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marv writes: > > All transfers from diamonds to hearts and hearts to spades (at any level) > are Announced after opener's notrump opening, even in competition.This > also applies to a notrump rebid by an artificial strong opener (e.g., > 2C-P-2D-P; 2NT), after which Stayman is not Alertable etiher. It applies > even to the Kokish 2NT (2C=2D=2H=2S=2NT), as it is the first natural bid > by a strong opener. > > DELAYED ALERTS are unchanged. Is there such a thing as a Delayed Announce? The two rules seem to contract. For example, if 4H is Texas in 2C=2D=2N=4H, then it should not be announced, but delay-alerted, since it is after Opener's rebid and above 3NT, correct? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 19 15:39:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0J4b6d03255 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 15:37:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0J4avH03240 for ; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 15:36:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g0J4SUG18530 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 20:28:30 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <005c01c1a0a1$a26e4900$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020118153606.00b4bae0@pop.cais.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 20:27:36 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Eric Landau" > > > > What is an "understanding"? Tim seems to be using it to mean [AHD, > def. 3] "Individual or specified judgment or outlook in a matter; > opinion; interpretation". David uses it to mean [AHD def. 4] "a. A > compact implicit between two or more persons or groups. b. The matter > implicit in such a compact" and/or [AHD def. 5] "A reconciliation of > differences; an agreement". In either sense, "understandings [may] > develop from partnership experience". TFLB, however, consistently > refers not, ambiguously, just to "understandings", but rather, > specifically, to "partnership understandings". And specifically to *special* partnership understandings/agreements. L40B, L75A The word "special" must have some meaning or it wouldn't be there. If there is nothing special about a partnership agreement, it need not be disclosed. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 19 15:48:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0J4lFx05198 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 15:47:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0J4l6H05181 for ; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 15:47:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g0J4ceG22108 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 20:38:40 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <008201c1a0a3$09911120$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <018001c19fdd$a61271e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <050101c1a090$b77ad5e0$58a8aec7@ix.netcom.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] New ACBL Alert Procedure (cont'd) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 20:34:26 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Jerry Fusselman" > Marv writes: > > > > > All transfers from diamonds to hearts and hearts to spades (at any level) > > are Announced after opener's notrump opening, even in competition.This > > also applies to a notrump rebid by an artificial strong opener (e.g., > > 2C-P-2D-P; 2NT), after which Stayman is not Alertable etiher. It applies > > even to the Kokish 2NT (2C=2D=2H=2S=2NT), as it is the first natural bid > > by a strong opener. > > > > > DELAYED ALERTS are unchanged. > > Is there such a thing as a Delayed Announce? The two rules seem to contract. > For example, if 4H is Texas in > > 2C=2D=2N=4H, > > then it should not be announced, but delay-alerted, since it is after > Opener's rebid and above 3NT, correct? > Since the rules about Delayed Alerts only mention Alerts, I infer that Announcements are never delayed. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 19 21:59:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0JAujQ10297 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 21:56:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta02-svc.ntlworld.com (mta02-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.42]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0JAuZH10277 for ; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 21:56:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from tinyhrieuyik ([213.104.157.26]) by mta02-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020119104803.ZNHP8848.mta02-svc.ntlworld.com@tinyhrieuyik> for ; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 10:48:03 +0000 Message-ID: <002301c1a0d8$7771a080$1a9d68d5@tinyhrieuyik> From: "Guthrie" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 10:55:53 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ...Underleading or grabbing aces is about trying to maximize... So what is the analogy during the auction? If partner promotes aces and tens and devalues minor honors (or doesn't), is that disclosable? After all, the bidding is also an effort to maximize our scores. You can't make a clean analogy between auction and defense. I'll explain why below. Or are you claiming there is a fundamental difference between bidding and play understandings? If so, where do you find that in the FLB? I think there's a fundamental difference between bidding and play; I don't need the Lawbook to tell me that. Basically, the difference, as it pertains to agreements, is this: During the auction, every call you make (with some exceptions) has, as part of its purpose, communicating something about your hand to partner. This is because the primary purpose of the auction is to find the contract that will maximize your score, and in almost all cases, you cannot do that except by a cooperative effort with your partner to describe the important features of your hands to each other. During the play, the goal of the defenders is to take a certain number of tricks. Here, playing the right cards at each trick is the most important factor; communicating information about your hand to partner is important, but the importance is relatively much less than it is during the auction. Often, you have to play one specific card at a given trick in order to achieve your goal; in such cases, you cannot worry about what message it sends your partner, you have to play that card. At other times, you may have to play (for example) "low" in a specific suit to achieve your goal; your choice of low card may send some sort of message to partner, but when making the choice to play a low card vis-a-vis playing a high card or playing a card of a different suit, you often cannot be concerned about what message the card sends partner. This situation (in which communication with partner is unimportant) occurs much more often in play than it does in the auction; thus, I have to conclude that there are such fundamental differences between bidding and defense that you can't make clean analogies between the two. It ought to be noted that the WBF seems to agree that the two are not entirely analagous. In the "Code of Practice for Appeal Committees", there are four paragraphs dealing with psychic calls and when psychic calls could become implicit agreements and when psychic tendencies need to be disclosed; but for falsecarding, they say simply: Always provided that a true disclosure is made of the agreed meanings and expectations of card plays by defenders, intermittent false carding by defenders is lawful. Declarer then relies at his own risk upon his reading of the fall of the cards. I realize that all of the above is a little bit fuzzy, but hopefully it will get people to see that the fine points about full disclosure during the auction that we often discuss do *not* always translate exactly to defense, since the two are such fundamentally different animals. There is one area of bidding that is more closely related to the issues at hand: that is when someone makes a call that determines the final contract for his side. Often this call is "pass", but sometimes it can be a bid which partner is virtually required to pass, such as 3NT after partner opens 1NT. (By the way, I'm not talking about passes in situations where there's a significant probability that the opponents will keep the bidding open.) In fact, a few years ago, on r.g.b., I got involved in a long discussion of this issue regarding the auction 1NT-3NT, so I'll use it as an example. When you place the contract, you're not really giving any information to partner except "This is where I think we should play"---implying that you have no interest in exploring alternative contracts. The opponents are entitled to know your system, so they are certainly entitled to know about the tools you could have used instead. For example, in the case 1NT-3NT, the opponents clearly have the right to know that you have Stayman available to check for a major-suit fit, and they have the right to know what hands are appropriate hands for using Stayman. But does this mean that the opponents have the right to *know*, when you bid 1NT-3NT, whether you have a hand that could have used Stayman but chose not to? Not really, IMHO (unless you actually *do* have an unwise agreement that you would not bid 3NT on such a hand). If you do have a hand that could have used Stayman, presumably you have logical reasons why you chose to place the contract rather than looking for a fit---and those reasons are not something that need to be disclosed. Thus, if the opponents ask your partner how likely you are to bid that like with a 4-card major, I don't believe this question needs to be answered. There were several people on r.g.b that disagreed strongly with me on this point. To sum up: All calls and plays are, in a sense, an attempt to maximize one's score. However, I believe the line has to be drawn between these two cases: (1) An action that maximizes the score because, in whole or in part, of the message it sends to one's partner. (2) An action that maximizes the score *only* for logical "bridge" reasons, without regard to the message it sends partner. Most calls fall into category (1), except for the sort of contract-placing calls I've been discussing, which fall into category (2); there are many defensive plays in each category. It's my belief that only information about things in the first category should be subject to disclosure; actions that are based purely on the logic of the hand, and in no way on communication, shouldn't need to be disclosed. I hope this helps explain things. Adam explains the current legal considerations clearly. I presume the original question was concerned mainly about opening leads against slams and suit contracts, where some like Zia Mahmoud are much more adventurous than others. Adam's analogy with the auction 1N-3N seems apt. Opposite a 12-14 no-trump, most adventurous players would regard the raise to 3N as automatic with say S:xx H:x D:Jxxxxxx C:Jxxx hoping to reach the good game opposite even a suitable minimum such as S:Ax H:Axx D:Axxx C:Txx. Others, such as myself, will usually wait for a better hand although I frequently forgo Stayman. Still others rarely raise directly to 3N with a good four card major. To know which are likely, you have to be familiar with the individual's habits, unless an opponent is generous enough to divulge their normal practice, in response to a question. According to the majority opinion so far, an opponent is not obliged to divulge this implicit understanding. This increases the disadvantage non-local players. [ng] Here are questions that IMO are related to this topic. (1) Is an opponent obliged to reply honestly when you ask this question: "What has your partner shown by his bids so far?". Or must you ask about every individual bid made and not made. (2) Suppose I start with a blank convention card and NEVER discuss system or conventions with my regular partner. Over the course of years we build up a detailed rapport in bidding and play based purely on experience of each others habits. Inter alia, I learn to anticipate when he is likely to underlead Aces, lead top of nothing, or jump to three-notrump. To what extent can I fob off opponents who enquire about this and other matters with replies such as "undiscussed" or "common-sense bridge knowledge". [ng] Even if it requires a change in the law, IMO the law should encourage full disclosure. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 20 00:06:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0JD4mj05578 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 00:04:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0JD4bH05543 for ; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 00:04:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-51-135.btinternet.com ([213.122.51.135] helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16Rv2U-0002TM-00; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 12:56:07 +0000 Message-ID: <000b01c1a0e8$6b33d3a0$87337ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Marvin L. French" Cc: "Bridge Laws" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020118153606.00b4bae0@pop.cais.com> <005c01c1a0a1$a26e4900$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 12:53:41 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi Marvin > And specifically to *special* partnership understandings/agreements. L40B, > L75A > > The word "special" must have some meaning or it wouldn't be there. You are making the common mistake of assuming that because an English word appears in the Laws of bridge as promulgated in English, that word will necessarily have some import related to its meaning in the English language. I am in a position to tell you, from first-hand experience, that this is not so. For example, the word "normal" as used in the Laws relating to claims does not mean anything like what the word "normal" means in English. Nor do the words "careless", "inferior", and "irrational". Much effort has been expended towards working out what these English words actually do mean in the context of a language called, for the sake of simplicity, LCese. It seemed for a short while that some progress might have been made, but our scholars report that they cannot construe a phrase interpreted as "for the class of player involved" in such a way as to make sense of anything. Their tentative conclusion is that a deity called Dublubbefelsie has gone crazy, and should henceforth be regarded as a renegade God. But, for one reason or another, they are reluctant to publicise this opinion. > If there > is nothing special about a partnership agreement, it need not be disclosed. What is special to you is not of necessity special to anyone else. The word "special", like the word "normal", has in effect no meaning at all, and to insist that it be clarified is a fruitless task. If you think it isn't, remember that you are dealing with a body of people to whom the phrase "related to a suit or suits" does not mean "related to a suit". Then despair. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 20 00:45:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0JDgru13024 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 00:42:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f164.law15.hotmail.com [64.4.23.164]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0JDgiH13002 for ; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 00:42:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 05:34:11 -0800 Received: from 66.31.3.32 by lw15fd.law15.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 13:34:11 GMT X-Originating-IP: [66.31.3.32] From: "richard willey" To: dburn@btinternet.com, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? (long) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 13:34:11 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jan 2002 13:34:11.0885 (UTC) FILETIME=[FAD215D0:01C1A0ED] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk

David Burn wrote
 

 

 

>Style" is a more or less meaningless concept, though one can see dimly

>where there might be a requirement to disclose it as far as bidding is

>concerned. If my idea of decent bridge is to open 3S on Jxxxxxx xx xx

>xx, then I will describe my pre-empting "style" as aggressive, otherwise

>I will not, and my opponents are entitled to whatever conclusions they

>may draw there from.

 

>But there is no such thing as "style" when it comes to the play of cards

>in defense.

 

I disagree strongly with this assertion.  Individual players often have specific “styles” in defense.  Some players can be characterized as being “active”.  Others tend to be passive.

 

Just last week I was re-reading Cathy Chua’s excellent book “Fair Play or Foul:  Cheating Scandals at Bridge.  In one section she discusses the accusations leveled against the Manoppo brothers.  Chua suggests that the Manoppo brothers have a very active style that differs significantly from that of many other pairs.  The Manoppo’s frequently underlead Aces, sometimes with spectacular success.  At other times, these untraditional leads have lead to failure. 

 

I found Chua’s exposition especially interesting since I had recently worked through one of Mike Lawrence’s computer programs on Defense.  Lawrence has an almost religious conviction that it is [almost] never correct to under lead an Ace.

 

If I were declaring a contract against either player, I would certainly want to understand their general tendencies.

Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: Click Here
-- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 20 01:35:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0JEXwM23158 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 01:33:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tvrelay.mail.uk.easynet.net (tvrelay.mail.uk.easynet.net [194.6.96.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0JEXnH23138 for ; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 01:33:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-15-223.easynet.co.uk [212.134.26.223]) by tvrelay.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 6CB3466BBD for ; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 14:24:49 +0000 (GMT) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] One at a time Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 14:21:46 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Karel wrote: > Not only that but hey 2C actually does show the majors and hey I'm > sorry but I got it wrong and btw thanks for the top ... really !! > So next time I'm playing, I know I can't psych a conventional bid, > but who cares I'll bid it anyway and when pd alerts it correctly, > I can fall back on the ole ... "ahh sorry there opps I canda had a late > night last night and plain ole forgot that convention ... " > > I know in Holland that ghestem screw ups routinely get ruled against > and I can't vouch for every case but to bid an eminently reasonable 6C > and then get shot in the ass ... well just sucks !! > And if that is the current law then I agree with Bobby's CD crusade. I know nothing about this crusade, but I never have been happy with the principles behind the footnote to L75. If an opponent's hand differs significantly from the explanation given, it matters little to the NOS, in terms of damage, whether it was a mistaken explanation or a mistaken bid. Oh, I know the counter to this - the bidder may have psyched, a legitimate ploy. So what the Laws are doing is to protect the misbidders along with the psychers. The solution is obvious: (1) If you put a convention such as "Ghestem" on your card, you should not be permitted to psyche it. It seems that this may already be the case in Holland and in the EBU we have started along this route by banning the psyche of an artificial GF or near GF opening. (2) If you misbid a conventional bid that you were not allowed to psyche, you would be treated as though you had psyched. (3) A psyche/misbid would need to be a *gross* distortion of shape or values and it would, of course, be necessary to define which conventional bids fell under this umbrella. These no doubt constitute major changes, but the benefit would be that players would soon learn that forgetting a convention leads inevitably to a bad board and would stop playing conventions they have difficulty remembering. Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 20 02:44:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0JFfnU05803 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 02:41:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail1.svr.pol.co.uk (mail1.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.18]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0JFfdH05781 for ; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 02:41:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.92.198.123] (helo=mail17.svr.pol.co.uk) by mail1.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.13 #0) id 16RxUU-0004Cz-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 15:33:10 +0000 Received: from modem-14.belegaer.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.136.137.14] helo=laphraoig.localdomain) by mail17.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.13 #0) id 16RxUS-0005IF-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 15:33:09 +0000 Received: (from jeremy@localhost) by laphraoig.localdomain (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA05077; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 15:35:40 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: laphraoig.localdomain: jeremy set sender to j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk using -f To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time References: From: Jeremy Rickard Date: 19 Jan 2002 15:31:37 +0000 In-Reply-To: "Brambledown"'s message of "Sat, 19 Jan 2002 14:21:46 -0000" Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0802 (Gnus v5.8.2) Emacs/20.3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii MIME-Version: 1.0 Lines: 40 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Brambledown" writes: > > Karel wrote: > > > Not only that but hey 2C actually does show the majors and hey I'm > > sorry but I got it wrong and btw thanks for the top ... really !! > > So next time I'm playing, I know I can't psych a conventional bid, > > but who cares I'll bid it anyway and when pd alerts it correctly, > > I can fall back on the ole ... "ahh sorry there opps I canda had a late > > night last night and plain ole forgot that convention ... " > > > > I know in Holland that ghestem screw ups routinely get ruled against > > and I can't vouch for every case but to bid an eminently reasonable 6C > > and then get shot in the ass ... well just sucks !! > > And if that is the current law then I agree with Bobby's CD crusade. > > I know nothing about this crusade, but I never have been happy with the > principles behind the footnote to L75. If an opponent's hand differs > significantly from the explanation given, it matters little to the NOS, in > terms of damage, whether it was a mistaken explanation or a mistaken bid. > Oh, I know the counter to this - the bidder may have psyched, a legitimate > ploy. So what the Laws are doing is to protect the misbidders along with > the psychers. No, the counter is that if it is a mistaken explanation then they have done something illegal; if it is a mistaken bid then they haven't. If my opponents find the only (very difficult) defence to beat my contract, then it matters little to me, in terms of damage, whether it was by illegal knowledge of one another's hands, by sheer genius, or by being beginners who have no idea of normal defensive technique and just strike lucky. That doesn't mean that the latter two possibilities should be penalized in the same way as the first. Jeremy. -- Jeremy Rickard Email: j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk WWW: http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 20 05:33:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0JIWHV07552 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 05:32:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tvout.mail.uk.easynet.net (tvout.mail.uk.easynet.net [194.6.96.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0JIW7H07530 for ; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 05:32:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-15-205.easynet.co.uk [212.134.26.205]) by tvout.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 98E3C63766 for ; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 18:23:37 +0000 (GMT) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] One at a time Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 18:20:34 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Jeremy Rickard wrote: >> "Brambledown" writes: >> > Karel wrote: >> > Not only that but hey 2C actually does show the majors and hey I'm >> > sorry but I got it wrong and btw thanks for the top ... really !! >> > So next time I'm playing, I know I can't psych a conventional bid, >> > but who cares I'll bid it anyway and when pd alerts it correctly, >> > I can fall back on the ole ... "ahh sorry there opps I canda had a late >> > night last night and plain ole forgot that convention ... " >> > >> > I know in Holland that ghestem screw ups routinely get ruled against >> > and I can't vouch for every case but to bid an eminently reasonable 6C >> > and then get shot in the ass ... well just sucks !! >> > And if that is the current law then I agree with Bobby's CD crusade. >> I know nothing about this crusade, but I never have been happy with the >> principles behind the footnote to L75. If an opponent's hand differs >> significantly from the explanation given, it matters little to the NOS, in >> terms of damage, whether it was a mistaken explanation or a mistaken bid. >> Oh, I know the counter to this - the bidder may have psyched, a >> legitimate ploy. So what the Laws are doing is to protect the misbidders >> along with the psychers. >No, the counter is that if it is a mistaken explanation then they have >done something illegal; if it is a mistaken bid then they haven't. It's not illegal under the current laws, this is what Karel is complaining about. We're indulging in "What if ...?" here. > If my opponents find the only (very difficult) defence to beat my > contract, then it matters little to me, in terms of damage, whether it > was by illegal knowledge of one another's hands, by sheer genius, or > by being beginners who have no idea of normal defensive technique and > just strike lucky. That doesn't mean that the latter two possibilities > should be penalized in the same way as the first. Adjustment may be justified in the first case - it obviously wouldn't in the second or third. Unfortunately, this seems to have absolutely nothing to do with what we are discussing! The suggestion is that if you choose to play certain conventions of which Ghestem is a typical example, you are under an obligation to get it right, both in the initial bid and the explanation. Psyching it would be illegal, and misbidding it would carry the same penalty. Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 20 08:10:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0JL8xn05074 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 08:08:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0JL8oH05054 for ; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 08:08:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g0JL0Mi22685 for ; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 13:00:22 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <002c01c1a12c$41f51be0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020118153606.00b4bae0@pop.cais.com> <005c01c1a0a1$a26e4900$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <000b01c1a0e8$6b33d3a0$87337ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 12:50:23 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > Marv wrote: > > And specifically to *special* partnership understandings/agreements. > L40B, > > L75A > > > > The word "special" must have some meaning or it wouldn't be there. > > You are making the common mistake of assuming that because an English > word appears in the Laws of bridge as promulgated in English, that word > will necessarily have some import related to its meaning in the English > language. I am in a position to tell you, from first-hand experience, > that this is not so. > Yes, I understand that, and it's sad. As a perhaps-typical player-reader of the Laws, not a TD, I found "special" perfectly understandable at first reading. It meant to me an agreement that would not be shared by the great majority of good players, absent any discussion. I once filled in for Los Angeles expert Morris Portugal's sick partner, with no time for system discussion. We had a lot of general-knowlege agreements, but none of the "special" category. When an opponent asked me about one of his bids, Port jumped in with "Do you know how to answer that question? You just say conventional or not conventional." That may not have been politically correct (we didn't call TDs much in those days), but he had the right idea, which is that ordinary, not special, bridge understandings need not be disclosed unless they constitute a convention. I treasure a postcard from Edgar Kaplan in which he agreed with this principle. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 20 09:04:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0JM3Ei13594 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 09:03:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhost.netscapeonline.co.uk (mailhost.netscapeonline.co.uk [194.201.52.152]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0JM23H13368 for ; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 09:02:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from ch8as14-78-169-237.cw-visp.com ([212.137.169.237] helo=netscapeonline.co.uk) by mailhost.netscapeonline.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.02 #1) id 16S3Fl-0004lc-00; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 21:42:21 +0000 Message-ID: <3C49EB8C.9FBC4865@netscapeonline.co.uk> Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 21:56:28 +0000 From: endeictic Organization: Netscape Online member X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en-gb]C-CCK-MCD NetscapeOnline.co.uk (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en-GB,en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Burn CC: Bridge Laws , Grattan Endicott Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? (longer) References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020118153606.00b4bae0@pop.cais.com> <005c01c1a0a1$a26e4900$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <000b01c1a0e8$6b33d3a0$87337ad5@pbncomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > .What is special to you is not of necessity special to anyone else. The > word "special", like the word "normal", has in effect no meaning at all, > and to insist that it be clarified is a fruitless task. If you think it > isn't, remember that you are dealing with a body of people to whom the > phrase "related to a suit or suits" does not mean "related to a suit". > Then despair. > +=+ Exceptionally I am responding from a reserve position. Either the cyaxares PC has developed a hatred for the sign BLML or the ISP has decided the correspondence is pornographic or maj***omo has cut me off with the proverbial penny. Whatever, no blml item inward has hit cyaxares since a message from Probst Snr on 17th - ah, yes, that may be it! The question posed concerns the effect of 'special' in the law phrase 'special partnership understanding'. My reactions are these: 1. It has not been defined in the laws. 2. Individual members of the WBFLC have views they have no difficulty in expressing. 3. They have not addressed the question as a committee. 4. The one published WBF statement to now is in the Code of Practice. It says "In the laws, regulations, and this CoP, 'special' means 'additional to what is normal and general'. 5. In fact I have not noticed the word used, so far, elsewhere in the CoP. 6. There are two chief elements in my appreciation of 'special'. 7. First, I believe the standard relates to the degree to which an understanding is esoteric. 8. If it is fully explained in a short sentence it is not 'special'. 9. If full disclosure requires extended explanation of the method it is 'special'. 10. Since I am addressing principle not specifics I wish not to be held to a particular illustration of the difference. 11. That said, let me offer, subject to discussion, a possible example. If a player responds to 1C with 1M - a partnership understanding would be 'natural and forcing', a special partnership understanding would be 'natural, forcing, having five of the suit to two top honours'. 12. I have a view that it may be inferred from the laws that 'special' has to do largely with the extent to which players could be expected to prepare defences in advance without prior notice. 13. Is the understanding one they should readily anticipate meeting? 14. The second area of my relevant beliefs concerns interpretation. 15. Since 'special' is undefined in the laws I believe any need for definition should be supplied by regulating authorities. 16. If I turn up the corner of a page I find the following text in some personal work I have been doing on the laws: "A special understanding is an understanding as to meaning or treatment, of calls in the auction or of defensive carding in the play, which in the opinion of the Regulating Authority will not be readily understood and anticipated by a substantial (? significant) number of the participating players in the tournament". 17. This would leave RAs free to regulate differently on this question as between different levels of tournaments. (Levels in the OB sense). Does the above not reveal, at the very least, a coherent position? Cheers, ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 20 09:10:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0JM99U14541 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 09:09:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (mta03-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.43]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0JM8xH14514 for ; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 09:09:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from tinyhrieuyik ([213.104.150.155]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020119220029.XEID8780.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@tinyhrieuyik>; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 22:00:29 +0000 Message-ID: <004c01c1a136$67e74440$9b9668d5@tinyhrieuyik> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "Konrad Ciborowski" Cc: "BLML" References: <200201171621.g0HGLWs24735@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> <003b01c19ff9$b707a850$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> Subject: Re: [BLML] Slow pass Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 22:11:56 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [Konrad Ciborowski] Perhaps you do have the point about the redouble but I don't believe that over the double contemplating the redouble is "at least as likely" as thinking about the possibility of a run-out. Yes, it is a possibility but a rather remote one, IM(H)O. Be honest: what was the last time you saw a player contemplating a redouble when the final contract was doubled? What was the last time you did it yourself? On the other hand I very often see players who take their time and think through the possibility of a run-out. So while it is theoretically possible that it was East who was thinking or that North was considering the possibility of a redouble the odds are definitely that North was thinking whether to stay in 3NTx or to run. So I'd adjust. [Nigel Guthrie] Suppose the TD decides to adjust the score back to 3NX-2 but then on appeal East admits that it was he rather than North who hesitated. A. Should the appeal committee... [1] Support the TD's ruling 3NX-2 [500] or [2] Rule it back to 4C-2 [200] undoubled or [3] Rule it back to 4C-2 [200] but also award a procedural penalty against South for taking advantage of PROBABLE UI? B. Suppose East and North both claim the other hesitated but several supposedly neutral kibitzers unanimously say it was East. May you take their evidence into account? C. Again would it make any difference if you find out later that a closed circuit TV camera confirms North's claim? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 20 20:06:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0K91EG15856 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 20:01:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from excalibur.skynet.be (excalibur.skynet.be [195.238.3.135]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0K912H15815 for ; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 20:01:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-46518.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.53.182]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g0K8qN819001 for ; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 09:52:23 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C4A8550.6090405@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 09:52:32 +0100 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Brambledown wrote: > > I know nothing about this crusade, but I never have been happy with the > principles behind the footnote to L75. If an opponent's hand differs > significantly from the explanation given, it matters little to the NOS, in > terms of damage, whether it was a mistaken explanation or a mistaken bid. > Oh, I know the counter to this - the bidder may have psyched, a legitimate > ploy. So what the Laws are doing is to protect the misbidders along with > the psychers. > > The solution is obvious: > (1) If you put a convention such as "Ghestem" on your card, you should not > be permitted to psyche it. It seems that this may already be the case in > Holland and in the EBU we have started along this route by banning the > psyche of an artificial GF or near GF opening. > (2) If you misbid a conventional bid that you were not allowed to psyche, > you would be treated as though you had psyched. > (3) A psyche/misbid would need to be a *gross* distortion of shape or values > and it would, of course, be necessary to define which conventional bids fell > under this umbrella. > > These no doubt constitute major changes, but the benefit would be that > players would soon learn that forgetting a convention leads inevitably to a > bad board and would stop playing conventions they have difficulty > remembering. > > Chas Fellows (Brambledown) > Please remember that you are using a big stick on a small problem. Most of the time, when I misbid, partner will trust me and we are in a bad contract. No Laws needed to take away the damage. No problem. Only with Ghestem does this problem crop up. Since there are only 3 suits, when I misbid, I'm bound to have one right. Now more often than not, partner will pick the wrong one, but sometimes he picks the right one. And then of course, since neither of us has that suit, opponents are talked out of a serious fit in that fourth suit. And we have a real fit, so there's bound to be damage. I agree that this is a problem, but I don't agree that we need to change the Laws more than we have to to solve this. IIRC the general rule in Holland is that Ghestem mistakes are always treated as misinformation, and that is a complete way of solving this problem. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 20 21:28:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0KAPBN02280 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 21:25:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (mta05-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.45]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0KAP2H02256 for ; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 21:25:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from tinyhrieuyik ([213.104.149.92]) by mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020120101631.CFIF7206.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@tinyhrieuyik>; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 10:16:31 +0000 Message-ID: <002201c1a19d$3ac7e200$5c9568d5@tinyhrieuyik> From: "Guthrie" To: Cc: "BLML" References: <002301c1a0d8$7771a080$1a9d68d5@tinyhrieuyik> Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 10:25:55 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [Nigel Guthrie]...(2) Suppose I start with a blank convention card and NEVER discuss system or conventions with my regular partner... [Brian Meadows] I believe that both players are required to play the same system, at least under the jurisdictions with which I'm familiar. [Nigel Guthrie] This extreme theoretal example was a (seemingly flawed) part of my attempt to argue for full disclosure. [ng] Here is a more realistic example from my past. To enhance my Bridge education, I used to play with a group of experts who did not discuss their system or conventions. I suppose that their system was Acol with a strong notrump. I think they played takeout doubles, cue bids, trial bids, and strong single jumps. Perhaps they also played Blackwood but I don't remember them using it. They would not play Sputnik, Stayman, or anything else. In defence, they led top of a sequence and fourth highest. They had no agreed method of signals or discards except "keep winners throw losers". When an opponent asked about such a bid or play they would reply "no agreement". If pressed they would say "common-sense". Under cross-examination, they would protest "I am here to play bridge not teach it." [ng] These players were scrupulously ethical and they never agreed with my argument that over the years, they built up implicit understandings (of the type under discussion in this topic), which required more complete disclosure. [ng] I suppose that their attitide was as if you asked God for a proof of Fermat's last therem; and he replied "I am not here to teach you Mathematics, here are the axioms of arithmetic -- go and work it out for yourself". However that may not be germane to my obvious main point: that partnership experience engenders implicit understandings which the law should encourage you to reveal. [ng] I readily concede that, for most people, the motive for many Bridge habits is to make contracts or defeat contracts rather than to enhance communication for its own sake -- but does that really make a difference to any obligation to disclose? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 20 21:28:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0KANsd02052 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 21:23:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (mta05-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.45]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0KANjH02030 for ; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 21:23:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from tinyhrieuyik ([213.104.149.92]) by mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020120101514.CEYC7206.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@tinyhrieuyik> for ; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 10:15:14 +0000 Message-ID: <001f01c1a19d$0cb042e0$5c9568d5@tinyhrieuyik> From: "Guthrie" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] Pause for thought Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 09:13:46 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This qestion is about ordinary duplicate with out screens. I read somewhere that it used to be unethical to make a bid suggested by partner's hesitation. Nowadays, I have noticed that all experienced players try hard to avoid hesitations unless they want partner to pass. For example, suppose South's hand is poor in attack and defence like H:xx S:Qxxx D:xxxx C:xxx. North opens 1S and this competitive auction ensues (with E-W bids in brackets) and everybody bidding: 1S(2H)2S(4H)4S(5H)? Here, any unethical South will hesitate -- to prevent North from doubling or bidding -- unless North can underwrite his action. Hence, nowadays, with a street-wise partner, it seems right for for an ethical North to make the bid that he would have done, without the hesitation. What is the modern interpretation? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 20 23:05:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0KC0vW19683 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 23:00:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtph.ha-net.ptd.net (smtph.ha-net.ptd.net [207.44.96.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g0KC0mH19657 for ; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 23:00:49 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 13049 invoked by uid 50005); 20 Jan 2002 11:33:54 -0000 Received: from brian@wellsborocomputing.com by smtph with qmail-scanner-1.00 (uvscan: v4.1.60/v4180. . Clean. Processed in 0.279182 secs); 20 Jan 2002 11:33:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wellscs) ([24.229.41.52]) (envelope-sender ) by smtph.ha-net.ptd.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 20 Jan 2002 11:33:53 -0000 From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? (longer) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 06:52:23 -0500 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020118153606.00b4bae0@pop.cais.com> <005c01c1a0a1$a26e4900$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <000b01c1a0e8$6b33d3a0$87337ad5@pbncomputer> <3C49EB8C.9FBC4865@netscapeonline.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <3C49EB8C.9FBC4865@netscapeonline.co.uk> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Sat, 19 Jan 2002 21:56:28 +0000, Grattan wrote: >8. If it is fully explained in a short sentence it is not 'special'. >9. If full disclosure requires extended explanation of the method it is >'special'. >10. Since I am addressing principle not specifics I wish not to be held to >a particular illustration of the difference. >11. That said, let me offer, subject to discussion, a possible example. If >a player responds to 1C with 1M - a partnership understanding would >be 'natural and forcing', a special partnership understanding would be >'natural, forcing, having five of the suit to two top honours'. > >Does the above not reveal, at the very least, a coherent position? I understand that you don't want to be drawn into specifics. However, I think that points 8) and 9) above are asking for trouble, as certainly your second example in 11) would seem to come under category 8), at least IMHO. Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 20 23:16:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0KCC4D21928 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 23:12:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cmailg7.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailg7.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.195.177]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0KCBrH21891 for ; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 23:11:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.92.67.23] (helo=mail18.svr.pol.co.uk) by cmailg7.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.13 #0) id 16SGh0-0002U5-00 for Bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 12:03:22 +0000 Received: from modem-54.coris-wrasse.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.136.253.54] helo=laphraoig.localdomain) by mail18.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.13 #0) id 16SGgy-000723-00 for Bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 12:03:21 +0000 Received: (from jeremy@localhost) by laphraoig.localdomain (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA02633; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 12:05:54 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: laphraoig.localdomain: jeremy set sender to j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk using -f To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time References: From: Jeremy Rickard Date: 20 Jan 2002 11:24:01 +0000 In-Reply-To: "Brambledown"'s message of "Sat, 19 Jan 2002 18:20:34 -0000" Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0802 (Gnus v5.8.2) Emacs/20.3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii MIME-Version: 1.0 Lines: 61 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Brambledown" writes: > > Jeremy Rickard wrote: > >> "Brambledown" writes: > >> I know nothing about this crusade, but I never have been happy with the > >> principles behind the footnote to L75. If an opponent's hand differs > >> significantly from the explanation given, it matters little to the NOS, > in > >> terms of damage, whether it was a mistaken explanation or a mistaken bid. > >> Oh, I know the counter to this - the bidder may have psyched, a > >> legitimate ploy. So what the Laws are doing is to protect the > misbidders > >> along with the psychers. > > >No, the counter is that if it is a mistaken explanation then they have > >done something illegal; if it is a mistaken bid then they haven't. > > It's not illegal under the current laws, this is what Karel is complaining > about. We're indulging in "What if ...?" here. > > > If my opponents find the only (very difficult) defence to beat my > > contract, then it matters little to me, in terms of damage, whether it > > was by illegal knowledge of one another's hands, by sheer genius, or > > by being beginners who have no idea of normal defensive technique and > > just strike lucky. That doesn't mean that the latter two possibilities > > should be penalized in the same way as the first. > > Adjustment may be justified in the first case - it obviously wouldn't in the > second or third. Unfortunately, this seems to have absolutely nothing to > do with what we are discussing! You seemed to be suggesting that mistaken explanations and mistaken bids should (at least in some circumstances) be dealt with in the same way *because the damage to the opponents is the same*. I was just trying to make the point that declaring something illegal just because it has the same effect as something that is already illegal seems to me to be a very bad way to make the laws. There is a law against giving mistaken explanations because we don't want to play bridge with secret or hidden partnership understandings. The existence of that law is not a justification for having a law against misbidding, even if misexplaining and misbidding can damage the opponents in the same way, because misbidding has nothing to do with secret or hidden partnership understandings. > The suggestion is that if you choose to play certain conventions of which > Ghestem is a typical example, you are under an obligation to get it right, > both in the initial bid and the explanation. Psyching it would be > illegal, and misbidding it would carry the same penalty. Jeremy. -- Jeremy Rickard Email: j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk WWW: http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 21 05:12:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0KI69J19988 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 05:06:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat40.alcanet.no [193.213.239.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0KI5wH19960; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 05:05:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from netos70.alcatel.no (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with ESMTP id g0KHvMU28973; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 18:57:22 +0100 Subject: Re: [BLML] Pause for thought To: "Guthrie" Cc: "BLML" , owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 18:57:19 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NOMAIL01/NO/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 01/20/2002 18:57:21 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This qestion is about ordinary duplicate with out screens. I read somewhere that it used to be unethical to make a bid suggested by partner's hesitation. Nowadays, I have noticed that all experienced players try hard to avoid hesitations unless they want partner to pass. For example, suppose South's hand is poor in attack and defence like H:xx S:Qxxx D:xxxx C:xxx. North opens 1S and this competitive auction ensues (with E-W bids in brackets) and everybody bidding: 1S(2H)2S(4H)4S(5H)? Here, any unethical South will hesitate -- to prevent North from doubling or bidding -- unless North can underwrite his action. Hence, nowadays, with a street-wise partner, it seems right for for an ethical North to make the bid that he would have done, without the hesitation. What is the modern interpretation? Simple: If the hesitation is a "variation in tempo" and the partner has a logical alternative to passing, he may not select to pass if this "could have been suggested by the variation in tempo". It takes some guts for TD to force an active call in such cases, but it has been done and should sometimes be done. regards Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 21 05:32:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0KIPAP23331 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 05:25:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0KIP1H23306 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 05:25:01 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g0KIG2g19782 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 18:16:02 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 18:16 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? (long) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.52.2000, Windows 98 4.10.2222 ( A ) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <002d01c1a08e$9e3729a0$747b7ad5@pbncomputer> David Burn wrote: > Analogies between psychic, or "tactical", bids and false cards are... > well, I would use the word "fatuous", but that might bring down the > wrath of the politically correct upon my already battered cranium. Both a regulated by the same law, using the same words. It should be possible to draw some pretty close analogies. > You > may have - you probably do have - agreements by which you signal certain > holdings to partner in certain ways. But those agreements do not and can > not extend to what you do with unsupported aces, whether on lead, or in > front of dummy's king-jack, or whatever. Why not? I have played with partners who will *never* underlead an ace against suit contracts - they have had this drummed into them during lesson two (the exceptions are taught in lesson 25). Of this is not an agreement (but then neither are psyches) but is certainly an something I understand about my partner (just as she might understand how often I might choose to psych, while sometimes disagreeing vehemently with my choice). On a different note I have an implicit understanding with another (much better) player that leading a suit effectively denies a holding of Qxx (technically it can show a holding of exactly Qxx in all leadable suits) in almost any situation* where a different suit might have been chosen (this player believes that any lead is better than one from Qxx). *It's just about OK when making an aggressive lead against a slam. Tim West-Meads -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 21 05:32:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0KIPhn23423 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 05:25:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0KIOcH23242 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 05:24:39 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g0KIG2419771 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 18:16:02 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 18:16 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.52.2000, Windows 98 4.10.2222 ( A ) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020118153606.00b4bae0@pop.cais.com> Eric Landau wrote: > What is an "understanding"? Tim seems to be using it to mean [AHD, > def. 3] "Individual or specified judgment or outlook in a matter; > opinion; interpretation". David uses it to mean [AHD def. 4] "a. A > compact implicit between two or more persons or groups. b. The matter > implicit in such a compact" and/or [AHD def. 5] "A reconciliation of > differences; an agreement". I believe my usage is somewhere between the two. "There is something I know about my partner that you don't. I have learnt this something by playing with partner." For instance I may be aware that partner routinely false cards in situations where he should play true cards. I don't like it, it is certainly not an agreement but I am aware of it. Personally I would be quite happy with def 4]. IOW the mere fact that I am aware of partner's psyching habits doesn't make it an understanding. However, I am aware that interpretation appears in direct conflict with the approach, endorsed by the WBF, championed here by Grattan that such awareness constitutes a partnership understanding. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 21 05:32:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0KIPrb23453 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 05:25:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0KIOxH23304 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 05:25:20 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g0KIG1P19757 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 18:16:01 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 18:16 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: RE: [BLML] Split Ruling To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.52.2000, Windows 98 4.10.2222 ( A ) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: chas fellows wrote: > This is absolutely right, of course. We noted that 4 off was all that > was needed for a complete top and didn't consider it further. Which wouldn't matter if a simple adjusted score was being awarded. It could be very significant, depending on how the split adjustment is calculated, in the actual case. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 21 07:24:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0KKGti07254 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 07:16:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0KKGlH07222 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 07:16:47 +1100 (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 PAA07276 for ; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 15:08:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA14875 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 15:08:16 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 15:08:16 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200201202008.PAA14875@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Split Ruling Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > We noted that 4 off was all that > > was needed for a complete top and didn't consider it further. From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) > Which wouldn't matter if a simple adjusted score was being awarded. It > could be very significant, depending on how the split adjustment is > calculated, in the actual case. Not for any reasonable method of calculation. All you want are the _matchpoints_ for each score that enters the weightings. (By the way, as a matter of terminology it's a "weighted score," not a split score.) A top is still a top, and for matchpoints, that's all one needs to know. The actual number of undertricks would, of course, matter a great deal if the scoring were IMPs or total points or other quantitative method. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 21 07:42:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0KKZXf10899 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 07:35:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0KKZOH10880 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 07:35:25 +1100 (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 PAA07519 for ; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 15:26:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA15163 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 15:26:54 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 15:26:54 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200201202026.PAA15163@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? (longer) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: endeictic > 'special partnership understanding'. My reactions are these: There is much good in the comments I have (in the usual BLML spirit) deleted. However, > 8. If it is fully explained in a short sentence it is not 'special'. > 9. If full disclosure requires extended explanation of the method it is > 'special'. I don't think the above will do. Suppose I play my opening NT as 14-16, a range that is virtually unknown here in North America. That does not qualify as "special" under 8/9, but it does by any other standard. a) I would never assume it playing with an unknown partner or opponent (here). b) Opponents may well need to know it to prepare their defense. (Do they use their "weak NT" or "strong NT" defense?) c) I cannot imagine Grattan is saying it doesn't have to be disclosed. --------- This thread continues to be of great interest. It seems clear now that one may know certain things about partner's game that nevertheless do not constitute agreements. (The frequency of ace underleads is one obvious example, but there are examples in bidding as well.) There is obviously no agreement about what, if any, of this knowledge needs to be disclosed. Food for thought: 1. Some people maintain that past experience with partner's psychic bids needs to be disclosed, but one may not act on this experience. 2. Some people maintain that past experience with partner's ace underleads need not be disclosed, but one may act on this experience. 3. My personal view is that anything that might influence one's actions is subject to disclosure, but I am not sure the converse is true. It would certainly simplify the rules if the two categories were the same. I do not believe we are in a satisfactory state of understanding yet. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 21 11:08:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0L00n515643 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 11:00:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0L00NH15589 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 11:00:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16SRkY-000226-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 23:51:52 +0000 Message-ID: <1VinnhAPH2R8EwGM@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 23:44:15 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time References: <11010211.66075@webbox.com> <3C4173A9.EBDB5DA8@elnet.msk.ru> <001e01c19c2d$b08a4e80$7555e150@dodona> <005301c19c9d$7e849060$67a801d5@pbncomputer> <009201c19ea6$962e9700$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> <002501c19ee6$d3fe2740$18487ad5@pbncomputer> <00a301c19f50$fc941dd0$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> In-Reply-To: <00a301c19f50$fc941dd0$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Konrad Ciborowski writes >From: "David Burn" >> It turns out, not very much to anyone's surprise but yours, that RHO >> does not have the majors, and that partner has to lose both major-suit >> aces. You call for arbitration. The opponents' agreement was that 2C >> showed the majors; RHO had simply misbid (and had done pretty well to >> make an ethical pass of 4S on her 2-5-5-1 shape; she would, of course, >> have bitten the bullet and passed 4S doubled also). What adjustment, if >> any, do you regard as your entitlement? >> >> The form of scoring, since you ask, was matchpoints. >If the opponents' agreement was that 2C was for the majors >(I assume they could demonstrate it with their CC or system >notes) that RHO simply misbid, North / South received >a proper explanation, RHO ethically didn't use the UI >information from his partner's explanation. >I cannot believe that David doesn't know that an automatic >and absolutely obvious ruling in this case is "result >stands, what's the problem?" so I assume that there >is a catch somewhere. Do you want all misbids >punished regadless of the subsequent result? Despite people guessing correctly what the problem is not everyone has finished in a high-scoring contract. If you think there is no problem in this I suggest you re-read some of the answers to the original question. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 21 11:08:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0L00jT15637 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 11:00:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0L00OH15595 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 11:00:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16SRkY-00022C-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 23:51:53 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 23:54:58 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Slow pass References: <00d001c19f55$38ebf970$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> <200201171621.g0HGLWs24735@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> In-Reply-To: <200201171621.g0HGLWs24735@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ron Johnson writes >> From: >> Too quick, IM(H)O. Assuming that "Israel League Championships >> playoffs" means that decent players are involved only North could >> do any thnking. West doubled, West is on lead, the double >> is clearly for penalties. Why should East hesitate at all? >> No - I would adjust to 3NTx for -500. >I don't buy these arguments entirely. It's at least as likely that North >was stewing over a redouble. Or that West spent some time trying to work >out whether he could beat a runout. Surely West is on the same side of the screen as South? So South has to decide whether the delay was by North or *East*, and on this sequence East has not been invited to the party. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 21 11:08:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0L00gi15631 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 11:00:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0L00KH15582 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 11:00:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16SRkY-00022D-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 23:51:47 +0000 Message-ID: <8V7l3HBrX2R8EwH6@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 00:01:47 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals References: <01ed01c19f7a$6bc76260$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> In-Reply-To: <01ed01c19f7a$6bc76260$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Konrad Ciborowski writes >In the "Appeals" file from Tobiano I read a sentence >that I found quite surprising: > >+------------------------------------------------------------------------+ >Players should not discuss the decision with Committee >members afterwards. They can appeal to the National Authority. >+------------------------------------------------------------------------+ > >Why shouldn't they? I very often discuss with the TDs >after the tournament. The more complex and interesting >the case and the better the TD the more I want >to discuss. Either I can learn something or, if I >think the ruling was incorrect, I can try to persuade >the Director that he erred. Or I can be persuaded >myself. I also often disucss the rulings with the AC members >afterwards. Can anybody tell me why this is wrong? The majority of people who "discuss" matters with an AC afterwards are trying to indicate that they would be prepared to pay for marriage licences for the members' parents. I do not think there is any real problem if you really mean to discuss, not just to disagree. Note that the above comment refers to the alternative of appealing to the National Authority which I think gives the flavour of the discussion to which they refer. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 21 11:08:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0L00ho15634 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 11:00:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0L00LH15583 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 11:00:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16SRkY-00022E-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 23:51:49 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 00:21:34 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Split Ruling References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Brambledown writes >I was consulted on the following muddle which occurred this week. The >decision was not critical as neither pair involved was in contention. It >would be nice though, for future reference to get BLML views on whether we >got it broadly right. There were murmurs of grievance from both sides >afterwards, so perhaps we weren't too far out! > >Board 17 - Love All, dealer North - Pairs > > 10 6 3 > K 7 3 > 10 9 8 7 6 > 3 2 > A K J 9 8 Void > 10 A J 8 6 5 4 2 > 2 A J 4 3 > K Q 10 8 5 4 9 6 > Q 7 5 4 2 > Q 9 > K Q 5 > A J 7 > >Bidding: N E S W > - 1H 2S(a) 3C > 4S 5H x - > - - > >(a) Alerted (incorrectly in EBU) and described (on W's enquiry) as Weak, >6-10, 6+ spades > >After the final pass, South states (illegally - L75D2) "my partner's >explanation was incorrect". > >The TD is called, establishes from NS's cc that 2S was "strong", offers E >the opportunity (declined) to change his final pass (L21B1) and instructs >play to continue. Table result: 5Hx-2, +300 to NS. > >The TD determined that Ns incorrect alert and Ss illegal statement had not >affected matters. East claimed that, had he known 2S was strong, he would >have passed over 4S. TD was sceptical about this believing that most >players in this position with 11 red cards would have ventured 5H (or even >5D). Believing, however, that perhaps 20-30% might choose to pass, he >ruled a generous 40% for this course of action and judged that NS would then >play in 4SX-4, -800 to NS. The balance of the time the TD assumed that >East would play in 5H, but he cancelled the double, since he ruled that S >had UI from N's explanation and a pass by S over 5H was a LA. Thus: 40% >4Sx-4, -800 to NS and 60% 5H-2, +100 to NS. > >On a technical note, we implemented this ruling by calculating the NS/EW >matchpoint scores for -800 and +100 and adding 40% of the former to 60% of >the latter. Is there any clear guidance on scoring the rest of the field >on this board? It is, of course, possible to score the whole field using >firstly -800 and secondly +100 and then to combine the results (presumably >using, for the rest of the field, the "true estimate" of around 25%/75% >instead of the "generous estimate" of 40%/60%) but this is cumbersome and >the computer program is unlikely to be helpful. In practice, we entered >A5050 for the result at this table so that the rest of the field were scored >as though the board had been fouled at this table (L87B) and then made a >manual adjustment to the scores of the involved pairs so as to give them the >scores already determined. I tend to feel that if East is bidding 5H on this hand he will do so whatever the meaning of 2S, so I doubt whether I would adjust at all. I do agree with removing the double which seems based on UI. A messy hand, true, very suitable for an appeal. However, let us consider the technical matters. First, nomenclature. It was noted on this list some years ago that the term "split rulings" was being used for two different types of rulings, namely those in which the two sides are given different scores under L12C2, and the those where a variety of scores are given under L12C3. It was decided here, and has been followed generally everywhere, to call L12C2 rulings "split rulings" and L12C3 rulings "weighted rulings". Thus this hand is an example of a weighted ruling. Second, as far as choosing percentages are concerned, there are three methods generally being considered. One is to try to get the percentages as accurate as possible, which is called "True weighting". The WBF uses this in its events, but recommends PPs as well to deter offenders. One problem with this approach as seen at Maastricht is that in practice the PPs are very rare. However, the method is reasonable for World or Zonal championships. Another method is to give some generosity in the weightings, as you have done, though probably about 10% is normal. This is called "Sympathetic weighting", and has the advantages that it allows for the percentages being a little off, giving the non-offenders the benefit of the doubt, while acting as a deterrent without any PPs. It seems to be the method that should be used at lower levels, and is in fact recommended by the EBU. The EBL, interestingly, recommended "Sympathetic weighting" at its TD meeting in Paris, but did not pass the information on particularly to its TDs, while the Appeals Committees in Tenerife followed "True weighting", but without PPs. A third method, called "Skewed weighting", gives Sympathetic weighting to the non-offenders, whilst giving the offenders the worst result at all probable. No authority that I know suggests this, though certain areas [and one or two readers of this list] have been considering it. Until we get decent software that calculates weighted scores correctly I agree with your general approach: enter A5050, calculate the two scores by hand and enter a manual adjustment. This is what the EBU does. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 21 11:08:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0L00mO15641 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 11:00:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0L00OH15597 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 11:00:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16SRkY-00022B-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 23:51:53 +0000 Message-ID: <6lXk7sAYL2R8EwFZ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 23:48:40 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Xenophobia References: <001d01c19dd6$41622dc0$0a9c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> <001d01c19ea2$6ec6d6e0$bc9768d5@tinyhrieuyik> <008e01c19f4e$25ba33f0$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> <003b01c19f8b$293208e0$a49568d5@tinyhrieuyik> In-Reply-To: <003b01c19f8b$293208e0$a49568d5@tinyhrieuyik> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Nigel Guthrie writes >[n3] below > >[Nigel Guthrie] I apologise for misinterpreting other members feelings. I >suppose that national organisations like to promote local systems but I >wonder whether many in the rank and file would object to a world-wide simple >system. > >[Konrad Ciborowski] What would that system look like? I wonder how many >people all over the world would want to change their lifetime habits. In >Poland almost 100% percent of players use multi-meaning, artificial >1C opening with a multi-meaning, artificial 1D response. The natural 1C >opening and the natural 1D response require an alert here. In Finland and in >Great Britain the majority plays four card majors. In Poland and in >Scandinavia reverse count is far more popular than natural count. In France >the vast majority plays third/fifth rather than fourth best. And so on, and >so forth. So how would this "simple world wide system" would look like? > >[n3] You have an excellent point. Some years ago, at a French Club, I called >the TD because an opponent opened 1D on a three card suit with no alert. The >TD explained that it was I who should alert all my four card suit openings. >Again, this illustrates how the alerting procedure disciminates against >neophytes and stangers. Not at all. What is required is for unusual bidding to be alerted, and in this case it was. >[n3] Of course, I also agree that Polish systems are more simple and >straight-forward than Acol or Standard American. > >[n3] If the WBF duck the resposibility of attempting an official decision on >the question of a common simple system, however, they will find that my >recommendation is being overtaken by events on on the net, because there >even Polish players already adapt to Standard American Yellow Card. The WBF have no responsibility to duck. Why should they make a world- wide simple system that no-one wants? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 21 12:38:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0L1VZ029198 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 12:31:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhost.netscapeonline.co.uk ([194.201.52.152]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0L1VQH29168 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 12:31:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from ch8as16-80-171-113.cw-visp.com ([212.137.171.113] helo=netscapeonline.co.uk) by mailhost.netscapeonline.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.02 #1) id 16SSzq-00065N-00; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 01:11:39 +0000 Message-ID: <3C4B6A7D.F288C0CE@netscapeonline.co.uk> Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 01:10:22 +0000 From: endeictic Organization: Netscape Online member X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en-gb]C-CCK-MCD NetscapeOnline.co.uk (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en-GB,en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steve Willner CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? (longer) References: <200201202026.PAA15163@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > > 8. If it is fully explained in a short sentence it is not 'special'. > > 9. If full disclosure requires extended explanation of the method it is > > 'special'. > > I don't think the above will do. Suppose I play my opening NT as > 14-16, a range that is virtually unknown here in North America. That > does not qualify as "special" under 8/9, but it does by any other > standard. > >>> > c) I cannot imagine Grattan is saying it doesn't have to be disclosed. > +=+ No, I am not saying that. I am expressing a concept and groping for words with which to define it. In the past drafting has tended to stop short when the drafter (usually Kaplan*) decided he could understand the intention in the text he had written. In these more testing times I think we have got to try to look on the words from the outside - it might even be right, in certain areas of the laws, when we have decided what the intention of the law is to be, to put the proposed wording on view for a period before submitting it for ratification. Mind you, my efforts will be directed to spelling out the laws in simple language and to X-Mozilla-Status: 0009e text about the intention of the law (and in defining words for their purposes). ~ G ~ +=+ [* I think his colleagues did not quite understand, at times, how he would propose to construe his text.] -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 21 20:37:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0L9ZIh17863 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 20:35:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0L9Z9H17859 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 20:35:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g0L8eNE27819 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 09:42:59 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Mon Jan 21 09:36:29 2002 +0100 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl (agro500s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KDBTXX1L6000484W@AGRO.NL>; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 09:38:41 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 09:38:31 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 09:38:37 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] One at a time To: "'Brambledown'" , BLML Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >> > > >> > I know in Holland that ghestem screw ups routinely get > ruled against You know more than I do about bridge in Holland then. What I know is that there is a tendency to see a mistaken bid when applying Ghestem as an infraction in Holland. My reversed crusade is to try to convince those people that such an approach is illegal. And it won't help to see such a mistake as a psyche, which could be forbidden when using Ghestem. I still have my personal doubts about the legality of forbidding psyches on conventional calls and using L40D for that, but I hope that everybody agrees with me that mistakes and psyches can't be put under the same denominator. > >> I know nothing about this crusade, but I never have been > happy with the > >> principles behind the footnote to L75. If an opponent's > hand differs > >> significantly from the explanation given, it matters > little to the NOS, > in > >> terms of damage, whether it was a mistaken explanation or > a mistaken bid. > >> Oh, I know the counter to this - the bidder may have psyched, a > >> legitimate ploy. So what the Laws are doing is to protect the > misbidders > >> along with the psychers. That is just a small point. The main issue is that bridge would be a rather dull game if mistakes aren't allowed anymore. It wouldn't take long to define a mistake as anything which leads the final result on a board away from the par score. In bidding and play! The winner becoming the pair with most opposing mistakes, receiving most average-plusses. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 21 21:25:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0LANXQ17891 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 21:23:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from excalibur.skynet.be (excalibur.skynet.be [195.238.3.135]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0LANOH17887 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 21:23:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-47787.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.58.171]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g0LAEa822066 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 11:14:36 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C4BEA14.8010008@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 11:14:44 +0100 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Kooijman, A. wrote: >>>>>I know in Holland that ghestem screw ups routinely get >>>>> >>ruled against >> > > > You know more than I do about bridge in Holland then. What I know is that > there is a tendency to > see a mistaken bid when applying Ghestem as an infraction in Holland. My > reversed crusade is to > try to convince those people that such an approach is illegal. > And it won't help to see such a mistake as a psyche, which could be > forbidden when using Ghestem. I still have my personal doubts about the > legality of forbidding psyches on conventional calls and using L40D for > that, but I hope that everybody agrees with me that mistakes and psyches > can't be put under the same denominator. > > You are, of course, right, Ton. Any manner of trying to rule against a Ghestem mistake is illegal. Yet there is a perceived problem. People are asking to see this problem remedied, and it is perhaps up to the WBFLC to create the framework in which this can be done. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 21 21:25:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0LAP6f17897 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 21:25:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from wonka.esatclear.ie (wonka.esatclear.ie [194.145.128.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0LAOvH17893 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 21:24:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from esatclear.ie (IDENT:httpd@gratin.esatclear.ie [194.145.128.35]) by wonka.esatclear.ie (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA32173 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 10:16:20 GMT From: "Karel" Reply-to: karel@esatclear.ie To: Bridge Laws Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 09:57:22 GMT Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time X-Mailer: CWMail Web to Mail Gateway 2.6z, http://netwinsite.com/top_mail.htm Message-id: <3c4be602.4e56.0@esatclear.ie> X-User-Info: 194.125.148.244 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Only with Ghestem does this problem crop up. Since there are >only 3 suits, when I misbid, I'm bound to have one right. >Now more often than not, partner will pick the wrong one, >but sometimes he picks the right one. And then of course, >since neither of us has that suit, opponents are talked out >of a serious fit in that fourth suit. And we have a real >fit, so there's bound to be damage. > >I agree that this is a problem, but I don't agree that we >need to change the Laws more than we have to to solve this. >IIRC the general rule in Holland is that Ghestem mistakes >are always treated as misinformation, and that is a complete >way of solving this problem. Well in the actual case the 2 suited overcall (and this should probably be expanded to other various multi suit conventions) is in effect identical to a ghestem. It should then be treated as MI. The NOS are free to bid a rational 6C's and IF it turns out they were grossly misinformed the score adjusted. The other point that the overcaller in this case acted "ethically" by passing 4S is absolute nonsense. Anyone with a slight knowledge of the laws as they currently stand knows that any "rescue" attempt by the overcaller will inevitably result in the score being adjusted back to the best possible score for the NOS, in this case 4S doubled minus buckets. The only action for self preservation is to pass and pray - nothing to do with ethics. Getting a clap on the back for not making a further fool of yourself is hardly any excuse for the fact that the opps have been completely misinformed. Rational, logical actions based on the opps MI, deliberate or accidental can't in fairness to the game and the NOS be penalised. Karel -- http://www.iol.ie -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 21 21:52:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0LAoCf17921 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 21:50:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from wonka.esatclear.ie (wonka.esatclear.ie [194.145.128.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0LAo3H17917 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 21:50:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from esatclear.ie (IDENT:httpd@gratin.esatclear.ie [194.145.128.35]) by wonka.esatclear.ie (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA05120 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 10:41:27 GMT From: "Karel" Reply-to: karel@esatclear.ie To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 10:22:30 GMT Subject: RE: [BLML] One at a time X-Mailer: CWMail Web to Mail Gateway 2.6z, http://netwinsite.com/top_mail.htm Message-id: <3c4bebe6.5031.0@esatclear.ie> X-User-Info: 194.125.148.244 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [snip ...] >My reversed crusade is to >try to convince those people that such an approach is illegal. >And it won't help to see such a mistake as a psyche, which could be >forbidden when using Ghestem. I still have my personal doubts about the >legality of forbidding psyches on conventional calls and using L40D for >that, but I hope that everybody agrees with me that mistakes and psyches >can't be put under the same denominator. well theorectically this is great - but how do differnentiate between them without coming dangerously close to a lawsuit?? I think the point people are making is that there are mistakes and there are mistakes. Alerting multi suited overcalls as showing x and y gives the NOS a gross mis representation of the distribution. To claim that they should bid on rationally under these circumstances and arrive at the normal contract is far fetched. I think certain types of convention which due to their nature are extremely disruptive if mis alerted should be ruled for the NOS. I'm not trying to eradicate errors from bridge bidding but flip the coin ... why should the NOS suffer from information they take in good faith. I realise bridge is just a game but I can think of numerous cases in real life where not only would MI be deemed in appropriate but that you could get sued or even jailed. You are suggesting that the OS get off scot free because they got lucky and/or acted ethically ??? -- http://www.iol.ie -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 21 21:56:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0LAtIM17938 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 21:55:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0LAt6H17930 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 21:55:07 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g0LAkXp23236 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 10:46:33 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 10:46 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.52.2000, Windows 98 4.10.2222 ( A ) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <200201182203.OAA04068@mailhub.irvine.com> Adam wrote: > Well, right, and you certainly have to disclose that 3NT is a shutout > bid. You don't (IMHO) have to disclose why partner might have decided > to make that bid (besides disclosing other bids partner might have > used). My partner is the cautious type, she will not raise my weak NT to 3 on xx,xx,xx,AQxxxxx (perhaps she's seen me play). I reckon the contract will often have play and will raise hers. Are you suggesting that we need not disclose this sort of information if asked about the hand types on which the auction might go 1N-3N? Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 21 21:56:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0LAtIo17939 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 21:55:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0LAt6H17931 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 21:55:07 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g0LAkYI23257 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 10:46:34 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 10:46 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: RE: [BLML] Split Ruling To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.52.2000, Windows 98 4.10.2222 ( A ) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <200201202008.PAA14875@cfa183.harvard.edu> Steve Willner wrote: > Not for any reasonable method of calculation. All you want are the > _matchpoints_ for each score that enters the weightings. Fair enough. My somewhat shaky understanding was that the Laws permitted doing the weighting calculation and applying MPs to the result. I am happy to be wrong about that. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 22 00:10:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0LD8KH13232 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 00:08:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0LD86H13203 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 00:08:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16Se2t-000Htn-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 12:59:33 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 01:31:09 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] New ACBL Alert Procedure (cont'd) References: <018001c19fdd$a61271e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <018001c19fdd$a61271e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes >So here's what I have now: > >The ACBL Board of Directors approved a new Alert Procedure that will >become effective March 1, 2002. A new convention card will accompany it. >A moratorium on additional changes exists until 2005. > >Highlights of changes: (changes to my last on this subject are marked >with ***). Some of the *** items may NOT be in Schedule 3 but are >official (at this time, anyway) interpretations of that document. [s] >*** A diamond transfer to hearts is Announced as such, even if it could >on rare occasions be a strong hand without hearts. I *really* dislike this one. People will assume an announced Transfer guarantees hearts leading to problems. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 22 00:10:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0LD8Or13239 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 00:08:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0LD8BH13219 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 00:08:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16Se2y-000Htp-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 12:59:39 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 01:33:49 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Mispull vs change of mind References: <200201181600.LAA07092@freenet10.carleton.ca> In-Reply-To: <200201181600.LAA07092@freenet10.carleton.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk A. L. Edwards writes > Result stands. The player has told the director that he has >accidently chosen the wrong bid (misclicked). The director has >ruled that he may change his previous call to the one he wished >to make. As far as I know, IMHO, for the purposes of L25(a), the >director doesn't need to know or even find out what the substitute >call is before the player makes it; nor is the player required to >use a substitution that was voluntarily and privately suggested to >the director. You are only allowed to change a call under L25A to the call that you intended to make at the moment you mis-clicked. If that is 1C then you are not allowed to change to 1S except via L25B. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 22 00:10:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0LD8Lr13235 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 00:08:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0LD87H13205 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 00:08:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16Se2t-000Htm-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 12:59:35 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 01:16:47 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Brambledown writes >> Karel wrote: > >> Not only that but hey 2C actually does show the majors and hey I'm >> sorry but I got it wrong and btw thanks for the top ... really !! >> So next time I'm playing, I know I can't psych a conventional bid, >> but who cares I'll bid it anyway and when pd alerts it correctly, >> I can fall back on the ole ... "ahh sorry there opps I canda had a late >> night last night and plain ole forgot that convention ... " >> >> I know in Holland that ghestem screw ups routinely get ruled against >> and I can't vouch for every case but to bid an eminently reasonable 6C >> and then get shot in the ass ... well just sucks !! >> And if that is the current law then I agree with Bobby's CD crusade. > >I know nothing about this crusade, but I never have been happy with the >principles behind the footnote to L75. If an opponent's hand differs >significantly from the explanation given, it matters little to the NOS, in >terms of damage, whether it was a mistaken explanation or a mistaken bid. >Oh, I know the counter to this - the bidder may have psyched, a legitimate >ploy. So what the Laws are doing is to protect the misbidders along with >the psychers. > >The solution is obvious: >(1) If you put a convention such as "Ghestem" on your card, you should not >be permitted to psyche it. It seems that this may already be the case in >Holland and in the EBU we have started along this route by banning the >psyche of an artificial GF or near GF opening. >(2) If you misbid a conventional bid that you were not allowed to psyche, >you would be treated as though you had psyched. >(3) A psyche/misbid would need to be a *gross* distortion of shape or values >and it would, of course, be necessary to define which conventional bids fell >under this umbrella. > >These no doubt constitute major changes, but the benefit would be that >players would soon learn that forgetting a convention leads inevitably to a >bad board and would stop playing conventions they have difficulty >remembering. Would this be a benefit? Personally, I prefer my opponents to make mistakes, and accept that if they do they will occasionally gain from them. Your solution is obvious, of course, but only if it is seen as a good thing to treat conventions in this way. Why should misinformation be treated as a worse offence with artificial calls than with natural ones? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 22 01:30:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0LET6M28736 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 01:29:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from excalibur.skynet.be (excalibur.skynet.be [195.238.3.135]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0LESuH28710 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 01:28:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-47787.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.58.171]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g0LEJx814447 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 15:19:59 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C4C2396.9010207@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 15:20:06 +0100 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: >> >>These no doubt constitute major changes, but the benefit would be that >>players would soon learn that forgetting a convention leads inevitably to a >>bad board and would stop playing conventions they have difficulty >>remembering. >> > > Would this be a benefit? Personally, I prefer my opponents to make > mistakes, and accept that if they do they will occasionally gain from > them. > > Your solution is obvious, of course, but only if it is seen as a good > thing to treat conventions in this way. Why should misinformation be > treated as a worse offence with artificial calls than with natural ones? > Because we're not just talking of artificial calls, we're talking of two-suiters. With any other misbid, the chances of misbidders benefitting is small enough so that NOs can be appeased with the argumentation above, and for Os to learn from their mistake. But in the specific case of two-suiters, there is about a 40% chance of misbidders benefitting, and this is too high. This is a specific problem and our players might well be right in demanding a specific solution. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 22 02:15:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0LFDWf29809 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 02:13:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from wonka.esatclear.ie (wonka.esatclear.ie [194.145.128.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0LFDOH29805 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 02:13:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from esatclear.ie (IDENT:httpd@gratin.esatclear.ie [194.145.128.35]) by wonka.esatclear.ie (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA32145 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 15:04:47 GMT From: "Karel" Reply-to: karel@esatclear.ie To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 14:45:49 GMT Subject: [BLML] Actual case X-Mailer: CWMail Web to Mail Gateway 2.6z, http://netwinsite.com/top_mail.htm Message-id: <3c4c299d.60bc.0@esatclear.ie> X-User-Info: 194.125.148.244 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi part story. We'll set the plot and let you make a ruling. Then we'll lob in some more "maybe" relevant factors and see if they make any difference. A recent national teams event N/S Vul North S A73 Bidding N E S W H K9 1NT P 2C P D AKT42 2D P 2NT P West C K72 East 3NT P P P S 9 S JT865 H AT653 H 872 D QJ63 D 87 C AT8 South C QJ3 S KQ42 H QJ4 D 95 C 9654 As west placed his lead the SJ face down on the table, North said "oh by the way the 2C bid does not promise a 4CM". West at this stage called the director. When asked what the problem was he said he would have bid had the 2C bid been alerted. The director said to play on and call him back if E/W felt injured. Winning the SJ with the Q, declarer next finessed the DT at trick 2 and made 9 tricks. E/W called the director back. E/W felt they had been damaged. West said that had he been told the 2C bid did not garuntee a 4CM he would have bid 2H's. He felt this would change the tempo of the defence and may even have resulted in the opps not reaching 3NT. The director eventually made some ruling (I'm not going to mention it here) which was completely illegal. E/W appealed the decision. At the appeal hearing the following extra info became available. (1) N/S did not attend the appeal. (2) E/W & N/S would both be considered very able players. (3) The committee wanted to know why West had not bid 2H's anyway. West said that at mps he would have bid 2H's in a flash. At imps such an action when it was 50/50 that RHO held 4 hearts was an action which could incur a substancial penalty a risk he felt was unwarranted. If he had been informed that 2C's did not necessarily show a 4CM this would have influenced him sufficiently to bid 2H's. (4) The committee looked at the hand and stated that even after a heart lead, 3NT is always home so long as declarer finesses the DT. They wished to know what basis E/W were looking for an adjustment. E/W stated they felt that 1stly, the 2H bid may well have altered the auction sufficiently that the opps either did not reach 3NT or they arrived at an alternative contract (eg) 2H's doubled. 2ndly that while a heart lead on this auction would not beat the contract outright, the tempo and extra pressure it created may have induced declarer to play the contract differently. 3rdly they felt that the unfortunate necessity of having to call the director and stating west would have bid infront of all 4 players, alerted declarer to the fact that South had extra values and made the winning play on the DT a much better prospect. Your call ... On a personal objective basis - I'm not sure about the precise procedure, but should South say nothing and at the end on the play call the TD and state his claim or should he reserve his rights immediately or should he call the TD immediately both of which will alert declarer to the fact that South intended action and this in turn requires values or should he possibly excuse himself under some pretence, find a TD and state his case ?? >From my readings /cases on BLM an immediate TD call is recommended which seems to me to surely pass UI to the other players at the table. I assume for instance that East could not suddenly change his lead to a heart !! If not can we allow declarer to play 3NT with the UI of points in the West hand ?? -- http://www.iol.ie -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 22 02:20:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0LFJHQ29827 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 02:19:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0LFJ9H29823 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 02:19:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.79.38] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16R7BQ-000DGR-00; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 07:42:01 +0000 Message-ID: <000a01c19f2b$4bee40c0$264fe150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" , "David Burn" References: <11010211.66075@webbox.com> <3C4173A9.EBDB5DA8@elnet.msk.ru> <001e01c19c2d$b08a4e80$7555e150@dodona> <005301c19c9d$7e849060$67a801d5@pbncomputer> <009201c19ea6$962e9700$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> <002501c19ee6$d3fe2740$18487ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 07:43:39 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 11:37 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time > > Well, suppose that you bid 6C. After all, you "know" > from the auction that partner has a void in spades, > and even if you are missing the top hearts, there is > at least some chance that a spade will be led, > allowing partner to discard your hearts on the high > diamonds that he "must" now have (since he has at > most 2 points in the majors and 4 in clubs on this > scenario). > > It turns out, not very much to anyone's surprise > but yours, that RHO does not have the majors, and > that partner has to lose both major-suit aces. You > call for arbitration. The opponents' agreement was > that 2C showed the majors; RHO had simply misbid > (and had done pretty well to make an ethical pass > of 4S on her 2-5-5-1 shape; she would, of course, > have bitten the bullet and passed 4S doubled also). > What adjustment, if any, do you regard as your > entitlement? > +=+ If by agreement 2C showed majors (as explained) what infraction has occurred? Only Bobby Wolff would argue a basis just now to punish "convention disruption". I think had 2C shown "Hearts and a minor" the action in reaching 6C is not IWoG and there should be redress. Depending on the bidding sequence that might be in 4Sx otherwise in 5C ? As an aside, 'convention disruption' is not yet a violation of the laws. The question is one put for the drafting sub-committee when it meets. A possible scenario might be to allow an option to regulators to institute requirements at certain levels of competition, in their choice. Any views? Of course not, silly to ask :-). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 22 02:28:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0LFQYt29842 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 02:26:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0LFQRH29838 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 02:26:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from freenet10.carleton.ca (freenet10 [134.117.136.30]) by freenet.carleton.ca (8.11.6/8.11.6/NCF_f1_v3.03) with ESMTP id g0LFHre00540 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 10:17:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet10.carleton.ca (8.9.3+Sun/NCF-Sun-Client) id KAA17952; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 10:17:52 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 10:17:52 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200201211517.KAA17952@freenet10.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Mispull vs change of mind Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >A. L. Edwards writes > >> Result stands. The player has told the director that he has >>accidently chosen the wrong bid (misclicked). The director has >>ruled that he may change his previous call to the one he wished >>to make. As far as I know, IMHO, for the purposes of L25(a), the >>director doesn't need to know or even find out what the substitute >>call is before the player makes it; nor is the player required to >>use a substitution that was voluntarily and privately suggested to >>the director. > > You are only allowed to change a call under L25A to the call that you >intended to make at the moment you mis-clicked. If that is 1C then you >are not allowed to change to 1S except via L25B. > >-- >David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ >Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ >-- I get called to the table. The player tells me that the wrong card was taken from the bidding box. I rule L25(a). I was under the impression that this forum had determined that asking/looking at the player's hand was a very bad idea. We use the honour system (reserving the right to an adjusted score) and let the player decide what his call should be. I get called to the table. The player tells me that the wrong card was taken from the bidding box, *and the intended call was X, not Y*. Here, I have no discretion. I rule L25(a), and X is the call. I am the director of an online game. The player tells me privately that a mis-mouse caused one call,Y, not X, the call intended. I rule L25(a). I undo, and the player chooses not X, but Z. Now, F2F, this would be unacceptable, and I would have to act. But is this perhaps a problem with F2F, and not a problem with online bridge? Online, there is no UI problem to deal with. Yes, there is still the problem with "but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, without pause for thought". The problem is, we now have to define what "pause for thought" means; has a player actually "thought" about his hand after a misclick? I would argue, better to give the player the benefit of the doubt, than to use the strong arm of the Law, especially when the opponents have in no way been damaged. Not that it matters, but on a personal note: I think the game would be better if all bids/plays were more like chess, touch move; no take-backs, no undos. Tony (aka ac342) ps. yes, I realize that, technically, my hands are tied by L25(a), and I should act; it's not that I hate to work, I just don't like to make work. I also think online Laws elimate many F2F problems (although do create some of their own). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 22 03:00:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0LFwlY29875 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 02:58:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0LFwdH29871 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 02:58:40 +1100 (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 KAA01110 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 10:50:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA24869 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 10:50:07 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 10:50:07 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200201211550.KAA24869@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Split Ruling X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) > My somewhat shaky understanding was that the Laws permitted > doing the weighting calculation and applying MPs to the result. I am > happy to be wrong about that. I don't think you are wrong about the Laws: as far as I can tell, L12C3 permits anything anything an AC wants to do. However, doing the weighting on raw scores is a dreadful method, even if it is technically legal. I suggest that SO's (or ZO's) that enable 12C3 should adopt regulations about how the weighting is to be done. In the absence of regulations, TD's should do the weightings the sensible way, not the ridiculous way. (Yes, the calculations are harder. Sorry about that.) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 22 03:17:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0LGGIg29925 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 03:16:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com [212.74.112.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0LGG9H29921 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 03:16:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.9.177] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 16Sgyu-000JTh-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 16:07:36 +0000 Message-ID: <001601c1a295$bbb654c0$b109e150@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 16:05:55 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: 19 January 2002 14:21 Subject: RE: [BLML] One at a time > I know nothing about this crusade, but I never > have been happy with the principles behind > the footnote to L75. If an opponent's hand > differs significantly from the explanation given, > it matters little to the NOS, in terms of damage, > whether it was a mistaken explanation or a > mistaken bid. Oh, I know the counter to this - > the bidder may have psyched, a legitimate > ploy. So what the Laws are doing is to protect > the misbidders along with the psychers. > +=+ All about where we should go next, of course. There is here a single principle behind the present law : a player is entitled to know what opponents are saying to each other, but not whether they are telling the truth (so long as they are misleading themselves as much as they are anyone else). The entitlement is to full disclosure of partnership agreements and understandings, not to knowing how/whether there is false use - deliberate or not - of those agreements. It is a whole philosophical discussion surrounding the intention of the laws on this subject, and what should be the intention. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ { BLML lines to gester no longer interrupted. It was the ISP (Interception of Supposed Pornography) } -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 22 03:29:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0LGSLU01430 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 03:28:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.90]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0LGS9H01399 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 03:28:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16ShAU-000Ijo-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 16:19:36 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 13:23:48 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time References: <3c4bebe6.5031.0@esatclear.ie> In-Reply-To: <3c4bebe6.5031.0@esatclear.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Karel writes >[snip ...] >>My reversed crusade is to >>try to convince those people that such an approach is illegal. >>And it won't help to see such a mistake as a psyche, which could be >>forbidden when using Ghestem. I still have my personal doubts about the >>legality of forbidding psyches on conventional calls and using L40D for >>that, but I hope that everybody agrees with me that mistakes and psyches >>can't be put under the same denominator. > >well theorectically this is great - but how do differnentiate between them >without >coming dangerously close to a lawsuit?? I think the point people are making >is that there are mistakes and there are mistakes. Alerting multi suited >overcalls >as showing x and y gives the NOS a gross mis representation of the distribution. > To claim that they should bid on rationally under these circumstances and >arrive >at the normal contract is far fetched. > >I think certain types of convention which due to their nature are extremely >disruptive if mis alerted should be ruled for the NOS. I'm not trying to >eradicate >errors from bridge bidding but flip the coin ... why should the NOS suffer from >information they take in good faith. > >I realise bridge is just a game but I can think of numerous cases in real life >where not only would MI be deemed in appropriate but that you could get sued >or even jailed. You are suggesting that the OS get off scot free because they >got lucky and/or acted ethically ??? Perhaps you should quote some of your numerous cases and let us see whether they really are similar. People who make serious mistakes do not "get off scot free" in bridge. When you and your partner have a serious bidding misunderstanding, especially getting the suits wrong in Ghestem, one of a number of things happen: 1 You get an awful score from landing in the wrong place. 2 You use UI to correct the situation and get given an awful score by the TD. 3 You get fairly lucky and get an ordinary score despite everything. 4 You reach a reasonable contract but the opponents could have done better if not misinformed and they get an adjustment which worsens your score 5 You get really lucky and happen to get a fair score without being ruled against by not using UI and by the MI either not existing [a misbid] or not damaging opponents. Now, the fact that #5 happens does not mean that it is to the pair's benefit to get Ghestem wrong. On balance, if I play against a pair that routinely forgets Ghestem I expect on average to gain, maybe 3 imps a Ghestem board. Bridge is a game of mistakes, and most types of mistakes are not punished: UI and MI are not punished exactly, but often lead to adjustments against the people who make the mistakes. Comparing with life you have to be careful: comparisons are meaningless unless you choose something similar in effect, and I think you will find that in life the effects are not too dissimilar. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 22 03:29:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0LGSKA01424 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 03:28:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.90]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0LGS8H01397 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 03:28:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16ShAU-000Ijq-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 16:19:35 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 13:25:43 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Split Ruling References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads writes >In-Reply-To: <200201202008.PAA14875@cfa183.harvard.edu> >Steve Willner wrote: > >> Not for any reasonable method of calculation. All you want are the >> _matchpoints_ for each score that enters the weightings. > >Fair enough. My somewhat shaky understanding was that the Laws permitted >doing the weighting calculation and applying MPs to the result. I am >happy to be wrong about that. I think it is possible that the Laws permit that. It is just that it has been agreed that is not the way to apply L12C3. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 22 03:38:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0LGb7103017 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 03:37:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mx.poczta.interia.pl (smtp.poczta.interia.pl [217.74.65.32]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0LGZJH02699 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 03:35:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (nereus.interia.pl [127.0.0.1]) by nereus.interia.pl (MX) with SMTP id F22867DD29A for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 17:09:16 +0100 (CET) Received: by mx.poczta.interia.pl (MX, from userid 555) id ED49B7DA9A0; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 16:06:40 +0100 (CET) Received: from poczta.interia.pl (nyx.poczta.fm [217.74.65.51]) by mx.poczta.interia.pl (MX) with ESMTP id 7AC047D9DC3 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 15:35:23 +0100 (CET) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (nyx.poczta.fm [127.0.0.1]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailserver) with SMTP id 72723DB248 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 15:35:22 +0100 (CET) Received: by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver, from userid 555) id D0CEFDB11A; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 15:32:37 +0100 (CET) Received: from kavanagh (unknown [217.153.105.20]) by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver) with SMTP id EE9F1DB114 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 15:32:36 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <009601c1a288$78b081d0$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3c4be602.4e56.0@esatclear.ie> Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 15:31:02 +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 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 X-EMID: 8b2be2c0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karel" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 10:57 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time > The other point that the overcaller in this case acted "ethically" by passing > 4S is absolute nonsense. Anyone with a slight knowledge of the laws as they > currently stand knows that any "rescue" attempt by the overcaller will inevitably > result in the score being adjusted back to the best possible score for the NOS, > in this case 4S doubled minus buckets. The only action for self preservation > is to pass and pray - nothing to do with ethics. Then why people keep running from 4Sx in auctions like this? Because the TDs rarely adjust in these situations, that's why. The give A+/A-, they cancel the board, they tell the players to reshuffle. Very sad but true. Only in top level events things are different. So still running to 5 of the overcaller's own suit is an odds-on strategy. Not to mention that very often the opponents who beat 5Dx for 800 don't call the TD as they fail to see that the score should be adjusted to 4Sx -1700. Some of them are even unaware that there was an infraciton at all. So passing 4Sx *is* an ethical action. Even at the highest levels of the game. David Burn might remember an award given to Juuri-Oja for his ethical pass in a similar situation in Junior World Championships ( IIRC David was the one who described the whole incident - David, do you remember the datails?). So indeed it looks that "passing & praying" is not that obvious to many if you get awards for doing just that. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Czy widziales juz najnowsze wiadomosci? >>> http://fakty.interia.pl/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 22 03:52:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0LGomp05454 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 03:50:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (st.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0LGodH05426 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 03:50:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id RAA05771; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 17:39:13 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id RAA25758; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 17:41:53 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020121173951.00a6e1f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 17:44:55 +0100 To: "David Burn" , From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? (long) In-Reply-To: <000f01c19e92$4693f500$799c7ad5@pbncomputer> References: <200201152300.SAA18463@cfa183.harvard.edu> <5.1.0.14.0.20020116132646.00a68630@pop.ulb.ac.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 13:32 16/01/2002 +0000, David Burn wrote: >Alain wrote: > > > AG : there is a big difference : underleading an Ace is not >falsecarding, > > it is part of the partnership style. Just ask yourself one question : >is it > > more likely for a 3-spot to come from three small or from > > Axx ? If it is the latter, it is markedly nonstandard, and your >opponents > > have evry right to know it. > >I don't quite understand this. Obviously I won't lead the three from xxx >less frequently than from Axx - not even Helgemo would do that. AG : I would, because from 432 my lead would be the 4, at least against low-level contract. BTA I'm not Geir Helgemo. >The >underlead of an ace is unusual, but I don't think anyone would describe >it as "non-standard" AG : right ! but not answering the truth is the opponent asks me "is he more likely to have 432 or A43" isn't very ethical, is it ? >- it is surely "standard" to do whatever you think >gives you the best chance to beat the contract. It is not part of my >"methods" to underlead aces, just as it is not part of my "methods" to >lead, say, the king from Kx against a suit contract. If I do lead a king >against a suit, and declarer with AJx in dummy facing xxx in hand asks >partner what our leading methods are, and partner says (truthfully) "the >king is from KQ or shortage", I do not think that declarer has the right >to ask: "Well, how often on average does your partner lead from Kx as >opposed to a KQ holding?" If he did have that right, then presumably I >would be obliged to keep statistics, in order to be able to comply with >full disclosure. Is this what is being suggested? AG : no.Either it is fairly straightforward, and you have to answer (as I would have to in said case), or it isn't, and you have every right to answer "I don't know", but only when you don't know. >Can declarer ask "Suppose your partner had a hand such as J10x Kxxx Qxxx >Ax - which suit would he be most likely to lead against a strong no >trump, passed out?" I very much doubt it, but this is an inevitable >corollary of what is being suggested. AG : if somebody asked me "is your partner an aggressive leader", I would feel compelled to answer that he is (as a matter of fact, he is). Matters of style are among the things that they're entitled to know. Best regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 22 03:54:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0LGr3P05853 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 03:53:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (radio.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0LGqrH05820 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 03:52:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id RAA11198; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 17:43:48 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id RAA27423; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 17:44:06 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020121174600.00acf480@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 17:47:08 +0100 To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? (long) Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 15:27 16/01/2002 +0000, Tim West-meads wrote: > > > > He should not reply. I do not consider this a legitimate question. > >Why not? Declarer doesn't know you and your partner does. You might be a >pair that has agreed "never false card on opening lead" or a Papa type who >"only leads a true card if he is singleton". To be honest I'd expect most >people to answer, quite correctly, "I don't know". AG : indeed, but only if they don't know. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 22 03:56:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0LGsnD06116 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 03:54:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (radio.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0LGseH06101 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 03:54:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id RAA11508; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 17:45:36 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id RAA28890; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 17:45:54 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020121174739.00acda10@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 17:48:56 +0100 To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? (long) In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20020116145455.00b3fba0@127.0.0.1> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >Imagine a declarer leading small towards a KJx in dummy. LHO plays low, >and declarer now turns to RHO and asks, "Does your partner tend to grab >his aces in positions like this?" I don't see any fundamental difference >in nature between these two questions AG : I do. The original case, in some partnerships, be a metter of style, while yours is only a matter of bridge. ne should read carefully the wording of L75C. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 22 04:01:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0LGxxK06999 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 03:59:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (radio.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0LGxnH06979; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 03:59:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id RAA12264; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 17:50:45 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id RAA02524; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 17:51:03 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020121175054.00acf210@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 17:54:05 +0100 To: karel@esatclear.ie, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, twm@cix.compulink.co.uk, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? (long) In-Reply-To: <3c46fa50.4bbb.0@esatclear.ie> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 16:22 17/01/2002 +0000, Karel wrote: >(c) What is your lead style ? We play 3/5 not strict. If we feel the >conditions >are right, we have been known to try "other" leads. > > >Simply put - normally 1/3/5 but from experience this is not always the case. > If declarer wants more info let him ask and order the coffee .. AG : of course, but some, including David and Adam, would not feel necessary to say "but from ...". This is what I'm fighting against. In French-speaking countries, there has even been devised a term from this : "3e/5e souple". "souple" may be translated as "flexible". You see, no need to go into lengths to explain it. One more word does suffice. Best regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 22 04:03:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0LH2si07476 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 04:02:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.128.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0LH2iH07459 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 04:02:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from conversion-daemon by neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.4.0.2000.10.12.16.25.p8) id <0GQA00501SAB0S@neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 17:54:11 +0100 (MET) Received: from localhost (Isis154.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.138.154]) by neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.4.0.2000.10.12.16.25.p8) with ESMTP id <0GQA0042XSA829@neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de>; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 17:54:11 +0100 (MET) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 17:54:07 +0100 From: Richard Bley Subject: Re[2]: [BLML] One at a time In-reply-to: <001601c1a295$bbb654c0$b109e150@pacific> To: Grattan Endicott Cc: BLML Reply-to: Richard Bley Message-id: <46916179.20020121175407@uni-duesseldorf.de> Organization: Univ. =?UNKNOWN?Q?D=FCsseldorf?= MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.53d) Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <001601c1a295$bbb654c0$b109e150@pacific> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk G> { G> BLML lines to gester no longer interrupted. It was G> the ISP (Interception of Supposed Pornography) hehehehe -- Cheers Richard mailto:bley@uni-duesseldorf.de -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 22 04:03:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0LH1o507297 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 04:01:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (st.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0LH1dH07260 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 04:01:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id RAA07406; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 17:50:13 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id RAA03818; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 17:52:54 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020121175453.02442bb0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 17:55:56 +0100 To: "David Burn" , From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? (long) In-Reply-To: <00c701c1a028$2669f9e0$090c7ad5@pbncomputer> References: <200201152300.SAA18463@cfa183.harvard.edu> <5.1.0.14.0.20020116132646.00a68630@pop.ulb.ac.be> <000f01c19e92$4693f500$799c7ad5@pbncomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 13:57 18/01/2002 +0000, David Burn wrote: >DWS wrote: > > > But suppose you realise that your partner underleads aces >considerably > > more often than is normal practice. Are you required to disclose >that? > >No, I don't think so. I am not aware of any requirement to disclose to >the opponents my partner's standard as a bridge player, or his views on >what might or might not constitute good bridge - even though I know far >more about these than the opponents do. If my partner underleads aces, >it is not because he and I have agreed that this is what he should do, AG : but for mine and me, it *is* . That's why we have to say it. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 22 04:04:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0LH3Bp07522 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 04:03:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mx.poczta.interia.pl (smtp.poczta.interia.pl [217.74.65.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0LH30H07494 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 04:03:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (natori.interia.pl [127.0.0.1]) by natori.interia.pl (MX) with SMTP id EFC6613A17 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 17:54:13 +0100 (CET) Received: by mx.poczta.interia.pl (MX, from userid 555) id BB0A213879; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 17:37:28 +0100 (CET) Received: from poczta.interia.pl (nyx.poczta.fm [217.74.65.51]) by mx.poczta.interia.pl (MX) with ESMTP id 8A1D813AA6 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 17:37:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (nyx.poczta.fm [127.0.0.1]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailserver) with SMTP id 2F192DB000 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 17:37:27 +0100 (CET) Received: by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver, from userid 555) id DF02EDAFFC; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 17:37:26 +0100 (CET) Received: from kavanagh (unknown [217.153.105.20]) by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver) with SMTP id 2DAFCDAFE8 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 17:37:26 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <00cc01c1a299$e857d1d0$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 17:32:56 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 X-EMID: 8b2be2c0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-meads" To: Cc: Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 11:46 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? > In-Reply-To: <200201182203.OAA04068@mailhub.irvine.com> > Adam wrote: > > > Well, right, and you certainly have to disclose that 3NT is a shutout > > bid. You don't (IMHO) have to disclose why partner might have decided > > to make that bid (besides disclosing other bids partner might have > > used). > > My partner is the cautious type, she will not raise my weak NT to 3 on > xx,xx,xx,AQxxxxx (perhaps she's seen me play). I reckon the contract will > often have play and will raise hers. Are you suggesting that we need not > disclose this sort of information if asked about the hand types on which > the auction might go 1N-3N? > Why should you? Are you suggesting that players should disclose what they regard as "good bridge" and what they don't? Am I suppose to disclose that I might respond 6D to 1NT on Axx --- Axxxxxxx xx when being down by 70 IMPs with 16 boards to go in a KO match? That's crazy. If you face a problem "partner has a balanced 15-17 hand and you hold the hand X: what contract do you think is best for your side given the form of scoring, vulnerability and state of the match?" then this has nothing to do with "agreements". It has to do with bridge sensu stricto. The difference between me and Zia is that Zia deals better with the problems of this kind than I do & therefore he has better results. If indeed this is what we are all suppose to "disclose" than the next time I'll be playing against Balicki - Zmudzinski on screens and will hold Axxxxx xxx Ax Dx after me and my partner's uncontested auction starts: 1D - 1S - 2D - ? I'll simply ask one of them (the one who will happen to be on my side of the screen): "What on average does your partner do when he holds a hand with 10PCs, weak 6S without a fit a D unappropriate for a NT rebid after the 1D - 1S - 2D start?". There is a great chance that thier judgement will be better than mine. What sort of answer do you think I am going to get? Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Wiesz co daja dzisiaj w TV? >>> http://tv.interia.pl/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 22 04:17:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0LHGAq09654 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 04:16:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (radio.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0LHG1H09636 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 04:16:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id SAA14926; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 18:06:56 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id SAA14461; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 18:07:15 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020121180929.00a6fdb0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 18:10:17 +0100 To: "Konrad Ciborowski" , From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Slow pass In-Reply-To: <00d001c19f55$38ebf970$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 13:42 17/01/2002 +0100, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: >To: "Brian Zietman" >Cc: >Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 9:02 AM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Slow pass > > > > > > > > Brian Zietman asked: > > >Dear all, > > >I had the following problem at the recent play-off for > > >the Israel League Championships. Playing with screens > > >all vulnerable : > > >South opened 1NT with only 14 points (despite the fact > > >that he was playing 15-17) : > > > > >Spades Kxx > > >Hearts Jxx > > >Diamonds Qx > > >Clubs AKJxx > > > > >North bid 2 clubs (puppet Stayman) and South responded > > >2 NT (not 4 or 5 card major and not maximum points). > > >North bid 3 NT and West doubled. It was established > > >and agreed that the tray took a long time to return > > >from North and East with 2 passes. > > >South now pulled to 4 clubs. > > >4 clubs went down 2 for 200 and 3 NT would have gone > > >down 2 doubled for 500. > > >How would you rule ? > > > > Variation in tempo may give cause for adjustment under > > Law 16 (Unauthorized information), but this is hardly > > relevant when screens are in use. > > > >Too quick, IM(H)O. Assuming that "Israel League Championships >playoffs" means that decent players are involved only North could >do any thnking. West doubled, West is on lead, the double >is clearly for penalties. Why should East hesitate at all? >No - I would adjust to 3NTx for -500. AG : agreed, but if West/North were screenmates, the opposite would be true. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 22 04:19:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0LHI6O09974 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 04:18:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (st.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0LHHvH09949 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 04:17:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id SAA10478; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 18:06:29 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id SAA16091; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 18:09:10 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020121181135.00a75d30@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 18:12:12 +0100 To: "Konrad Ciborowski" , From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Slow pass In-Reply-To: <003b01c19ff9$b707a850$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> References: <200201171621.g0HGLWs24735@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:16 18/01/2002 +0100, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >Perhaps you do have the point about the redouble but I >don't believe that over the double contemplating the redouble is >"at least as likely" as thinking about the possibility of >a run-out. Yes, it is a possibility but a rather remote one, >IM(H)O. Be honest: what was the last time you saw >a player contemplating a redouble when the final >contract was doubled? What was the last time >you did it yourself? On the other hand I very >often see players who take their time and think >through the possibility of a run-out. AG : and many players now play RD as suggesting a runout. Which would make the case more blatant still. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 22 04:27:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0LHQEB11185 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 04:26:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (radio.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0LHQ5H11162 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 04:26:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id SAA16691; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 18:17:01 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id SAA22112; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 18:17:19 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020121181452.00a6f490@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 18:20:21 +0100 To: karel@esatclear.ie, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Actual case In-Reply-To: <3c4c299d.60bc.0@esatclear.ie> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 14:45 21/01/2002 +0000, Karel wrote: >(3) The committee wanted to know why West had not bid 2H's anyway. West said >that at mps he would have bid 2H's in a flash. At imps such an action when >it was 50/50 that RHO held 4 hearts AG : IBTD. Seeing West's hand, it is about 1 against 3, if South has to hold a major. >(4) The committee looked at the hand and stated that even after a heart lead, >3NT is always home so long as declarer finesses the DT. They wished to know >what basis E/W were looking for an adjustment. >E/W stated they felt that >1stly, the 2H bid may well have altered the auction sufficiently that the opps >either did not reach 3NT or they arrived at an alternative contract (eg) 2H's >doubled. > >2ndly that while a heart lead on this auction would not beat the contract >outright, >the tempo and extra pressure it created may have induced declarer to play the >contract differently. > >3rdly they felt that the unfortunate necessity of having to call the director >and stating west would have bid infront of all 4 players, alerted declarer to >the fact that South had extra values and made the winning play on the DT a >much >better prospect. AG. Maybe. Why then did he say it in front of everybody ? Couldn't he have asked to speak to the TD face-to-face ? I've done it before, and as a TD have been asked it before. >On a personal objective basis - I'm not sure about the precise procedure, but >should South say nothing and at the end on the play call the TD and state his >claim or should he reserve his rights immediately or should he call the TD >immediately >both of which will alert declarer to the fact that South intended action and >this in turn requires values or should he possibly excuse himself under some >pretence, find a TD and state his case ?? AG : I think that the information would be quite minor. West could have thought of anything, including doubling 2C, doubling 3NT, or showing majors (via a 3D bid in my system, if 2C is non-majoric). Not all of these show a strong hand, not all show or deny a finessable D honor. Best regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 22 05:01:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0LHxeK16792 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 04:59:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mx.poczta.interia.pl (smtp.poczta.interia.pl [217.74.65.36]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0LHxIH16724 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 04:59:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (nanon.interia.pl [127.0.0.1]) by nanon.interia.pl (MX) with SMTP id F2E5B377B3D for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 18:44:15 +0100 (CET) Received: by mx.poczta.interia.pl (MX, from userid 555) id 9BB113755FD; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 17:58:46 +0100 (CET) Received: from poczta.interia.pl (nyx.poczta.fm [217.74.65.51]) by mx.poczta.interia.pl (MX) with ESMTP id C37FB3786AE for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 17:39:31 +0100 (CET) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (nyx.poczta.fm [127.0.0.1]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailserver) with SMTP id B98FBDB075 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 17:39:31 +0100 (CET) Received: by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver, from userid 555) id 824D8DB072; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 17:39:31 +0100 (CET) Received: from kavanagh (unknown [217.153.105.20]) by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver) with SMTP id AF52FDB062 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 17:39:30 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <00cf01c1a29a$32884820$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: "BLML" References: <001f01c1a19d$0cb042e0$5c9568d5@tinyhrieuyik> Subject: Re: [BLML] Pause for thought Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 17:39:28 +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 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 X-EMID: 8b2be2c0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Here, any unethical South will hesitate -- to prevent North from > doubling or bidding -- unless North can underwrite his action. Hence, > nowadays, with a street-wise partner, it seems right for for an ethical > North to make the bid that he would have done, without the hesitation. What > is the modern interpretation? > > -- See the "Could have known?" thread in the web archive http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ started by myself in July. You'll find there a lot of intereting BLMLers' comments. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Znasz pogode na jutro? >>> http://pogoda.interia.pl/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 22 05:06:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0LI4ll17756 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 05:04:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0LI4bH17728 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 05:04:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g0LHuKw02040 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 17:56:20 GMT Message-ID: <4BslOmCqWFT8EwGd@asimere.com> Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 17:53:46 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Split Ruling References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes >Tim West-meads writes >>In-Reply-To: <200201202008.PAA14875@cfa183.harvard.edu> >>Steve Willner wrote: >> >>> Not for any reasonable method of calculation. All you want are the >>> _matchpoints_ for each score that enters the weightings. >> >>Fair enough. My somewhat shaky understanding was that the Laws permitted >>doing the weighting calculation and applying MPs to the result. I am >>happy to be wrong about that. > > I think it is possible that the Laws permit that. It is just that it >has been agreed that is not the way to apply L12C3. > The Laws related to scoring give a lot of flexibility. I'd have no problem if they were applied that way, in a legalistic sense. They allow the SO to use virtually any method of scoring. In terms of what weighted scores set out to achieve it would be a nonsense. cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 22 06:01:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0LIvl827679 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 05:57:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lycee.ns.uk.easynet.net (lycee.ns.uk.easynet.net [195.40.1.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0LIvZH27642 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 05:57:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-14-494.easynet.co.uk [212.134.25.238]) by lycee.ns.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 60F869EEB for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 18:49:02 +0000 (GMT) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] One at a time Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 18:45:56 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Kooijman, A. writes: >> Karel wrote: >> I know in Holland that ghestem screw ups routinely get ruled against > ...but I hope that everybody agrees with me that mistakes and psyches > can't be put under the same denominator. I don't think this is true in circumstances where a 'psyche' has been banned. In this case it is undesirable that an offender should be able to escape any penalty for this if he can convince the TD that his bid was accidental and therefore a misbid not a psyche. In Holland, it would appear that Ghestem psyches are banned and Ghestem misbids are routinely ruled against. If this is the case it would seem that the authorites there do not agree with your statement. Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 22 06:01:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0LIvsS27699 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 05:57:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lycee.ns.uk.easynet.net (lycee.ns.uk.easynet.net [195.40.1.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0LIvYH27640 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 05:57:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-14-494.easynet.co.uk [212.134.25.238]) by lycee.ns.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 06DF69C2B for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 18:49:01 +0000 (GMT) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] One at a time Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 18:45:54 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: <3C4A8550.6090405@village.uunet.be> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Herman De Wael writes: >I agree that this is a problem, but I don't agree that we >need to change the Laws more than we have to to solve this. >IIRC the general rule in Holland is that Ghestem mistakes >are always treated as misinformation, and that is a complete >way of solving this problem. I don't understand this. One of my opponents makes a Ghestem bid but has forgotten the system and has the wrong two suits. It is correctly alerted, I am given a correct explanation of the system, LHO makes no call inconsistent with his explanation and RHO makes no subsequent call based on UI from partner's explanation. Now the footnote to Law 75D makes it abundantly clear that I have no redress. "Here there is no infraction of Law, since (the NOS) did receive an accurate description of the (opponents' ) agreement,..." and "regardless of damage, the Director shall allow the result to stand." How then do the authorities in Holland, or anywhere else where thay seek to penalise in this situation, justify their position? Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 22 06:05:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0LIxl628083 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 05:59:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0LIxcH28064 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 05:59:39 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g0LIp5K14326 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 18:51:05 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 18:51 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.52.2000, Windows 98 4.10.2222 ( A ) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <00cc01c1a299$e857d1d0$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > My partner is the cautious type, she will not raise my weak NT to 3 on > > xx,xx,xx,AQxxxxx (perhaps she's seen me play). I reckon the contract > > will often have play and will raise hers. Are you suggesting that we > > need not disclose this sort of information if asked about the hand > > types on which the auction might go 1N-3N? > > > > Why should you? Are you suggesting that players should disclose > what they regard as "good bridge" and what they don't? I am suggesting that if an opponent asks me what partner has for her bid I answer truthfully. In this case "12+ balanced, no more than 44/53 in majors and then only if most of her points are in the minors." I think she should (assuming she has noticed my habits) answer "12+ balanced, no more than 44/53 in majors and then only if most of his points are in the minors. Could also be a weaker hand with a probable running minor." I regard both styles as "good bridge" I intend to pull to 4m if doubled and generally expect to play a delicate contract carefully* for a reasonable score. She is somewhat less experienced and a doubled and delicate 4m contract is likely to prove costly for our side. I can see no reason not to give a complete and accurate answer when oppos ask a genuine question. *My bidding style has given me plenty of experience in delicate contracts, as I am sure Probst will testify. > Am I suppose to disclose that I might respond 6D to 1NT > on Axx --- Axxxxxxx xx when being down by 70 IMPs > with 16 boards to go in a KO match? No. Your partner is supposed to disclose, when asked, the types of hands on which you typically, when 70imps down, respond 6m to 1N in his experience. Most of my partners wouldn't be able to answer this one. > That's crazy. If you face a problem "partner has a balanced 15-17 hand > and you hold the hand X: what contract do you think is best for your > side given the form of scoring, vulnerability and state of the match?" > then this has nothing to do with "agreements". It has > to do with bridge sensu stricto. We are not talking about agreements, but understandings (defined by me as things you know about partner that oppos don't). I am trying to establish whether such understandings need to be disclosed (and how). Tim West-Meads -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 22 07:03:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0LK2ed07992 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 07:02:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0LK2VH07961 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 07:02:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-151-97.btinternet.com ([213.122.151.97] helo=pbncomputer) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16SkVp-0005SF-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 19:53:50 +0000 Message-ID: <016501c1a2b5$26325e60$61977ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 19:51:40 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Chas wrote: > I don't understand this. One of my opponents makes a Ghestem bid but has > forgotten the system and has the wrong two suits. It is correctly alerted, > I am given a correct explanation of the system, LHO makes no call > inconsistent with his explanation and RHO makes no subsequent call based on > UI from partner's explanation. > > Now the footnote to Law 75D makes it abundantly clear that I have no > redress. "Here there is no infraction of Law, since (the NOS) did receive > an accurate description of the (opponents' ) agreement,..." and "regardless > of damage, the Director shall allow the result to stand." > > How then do the authorities in Holland, or anywhere else where thay seek to > penalise in this situation, justify their position? In pretty much the same way as Edgar Kaplan did when he compared the forgetting of one's methods to an act of discourtesy towards the opponents or the game itself - if memory serves, I think he used an analogy with spitting on the table. One might say with some justification that forgetting the system constitutes paying insufficient attention to the game, and is thus a breach of Law (74B1). It is not immediately obvious to me that a breach of L74 can result in an adjustment under L12, but I don't have any particular difficulty with the idea. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 22 07:10:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0LK98e09139 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 07:09:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com ([63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0LK8xH09114 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 07:08:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA10793; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 12:00:18 -0800 Message-Id: <200201212000.MAA10793@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 21 Jan 2002 18:51:00 GMT." Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 12:00:18 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim West-Meads wrote: > In-Reply-To: <00cc01c1a299$e857d1d0$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> > Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > > > My partner is the cautious type, she will not raise my weak NT to 3 on > > > xx,xx,xx,AQxxxxx (perhaps she's seen me play). I reckon the contract > > > will often have play and will raise hers. Are you suggesting that we > > > need not disclose this sort of information if asked about the hand > > > types on which the auction might go 1N-3N? > > > > > > > Why should you? Are you suggesting that players should disclose > > what they regard as "good bridge" and what they don't? > > I am suggesting that if an opponent asks me what partner has for her bid I > answer truthfully. I can't find anywhere in the Laws where it says you have to tell the opponents what your partner *has*. You have to tell the opponents what your partner's calls *mean* according to your agreements. That's how I read Laws 40 and 75. In most cases, while the conversation during the auction is still ongoing, there's really not much difference between what a call "means" and what a call says about what the caller "has". Or, more accurately, the "meaning" of a call includes information about what the caller "has". So I can understand why someone would be confused into thinking the Laws require you to tell what your partner "has". But the Laws don't say that, and the distinction becomes important in those cases where the "meaning" of a call does *not* say anything about what one has. In this case, the "meaning" of 3NT is "THIS IS WHERE WE'RE GOING TO PLAY, NOW SHUT UP AND TRY TO MAKE IT". So there's no requirement, as far as I can tell, to disclose what you think your partner "has". (Asking bids are another exception. If partner bids 4NT Blackwood, and an opponent asks me "What does your partner have for that bid?", what should I tell him? "A hand that wants to know how many aces I have." What else?) > We are not talking about agreements, but understandings (defined by me as > things you know about partner that oppos don't). I am trying to establish > whether such understandings need to be disclosed (and how). Note that Law 40B talks about a "special partnership understanding" as something that has "meaning". This, to me, makes no sense unless an "understanding" is, in essence, an agreement about the meaning of a call or play. A statistical analysis of what partner has had in the past when she has made that call is not a "meaning", to me. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 22 07:14:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0LKCZO09844 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 07:12:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0LKCQH09821 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 07:12:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-151-97.btinternet.com ([213.122.151.97] helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16SkfU-0004DZ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 20:03:48 +0000 Message-ID: <017901c1a2b6$8ae9a4c0$61977ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 20:00:18 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim wrote: > We are not talking about agreements, but understandings (defined by me as > things you know about partner that oppos don't). Well, that is a possible definition, but I am very far from being sure that it is the sense in which the word "understanding" is used in L40. Of course I "understand" that my partner will be doing his best to win the match, or the board, or three tricks, or whatever. Because I have some idea of how skilful a player my partner is, I may have more data than the opponents have as to the lines of defence he is likely to adopt - but this knowledge is not a set of "understandings" that we have with one another, and does not form any part of our disclosable methods. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 22 07:17:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0LKGFp10580 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 07:16:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0LKG6H10555 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 07:16:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g0LK7Xg02264 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 12:07:33 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <002801c1a2b7$3658f900$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <018001c19fdd$a61271e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] New ACBL Alert Procedure (cont'd) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 11:57:41 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote > Marvin L. French writes > > >So here's what I have now: > > > >The ACBL Board of Directors approved a new Alert Procedure that will > >become effective March 1, 2002. A new convention card will accompany it. > >A moratorium on additional changes exists until 2005. > > > >Highlights of changes: (changes to my last on this subject are marked > >with ***). Some of the *** items may NOT be in Schedule 3 but are > >official (at this time, anyway) interpretations of that document. > > [s] > > >*** A diamond transfer to hearts is Announced as such, even if it could > >on rare occasions be a strong hand without hearts. > > I *really* dislike this one. People will assume an announced Transfer > guarantees hearts leading to problems. > Evidently some influential pair plays a convention that starts with a 2D bid without hearts. Tired of Alerting and having people say "That's Announceable, not Alertable" when 95% or more of the time responder does have hearts, they got this odd rule approved by the C&C committee. The argument was that a non-heart hand is strong when using this very infrequent convention, so it is unlikely that opponents will want to compete. Of course the non-heart possibility is Alerted when it becomes known in the auction. At the meeting where this was discussed, no one seemed to be sure whether responder's "strong" hand had to be game-going or merely invitational for the Announcement to be allowed. If responder does not need a good hand, a 2D response that doesn't promise hearts is Alertable, not Announceable. We have yet to see for sure what the official Alert Procedure (exhibit 3 to the BoD minutes) has to say in this regard. That should be available this week. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 22 07:28:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0LKQTf12665 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 07:26:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0LKQKH12639 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 07:26:21 +1100 (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 PAA14715 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 15:17:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA26379 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 15:17:48 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 15:17:48 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200201212017.PAA26379@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "David Burn" > It is not > immediately obvious to me that a breach of L74 can result in an > adjustment under L12, but I don't have any particular difficulty with > the idea. Sure, why not, if it damages opponents? L74 then L12A1 then 12C2 or 12C3. On the other hand, I don't think any of us would be happy to have this approach used in ordinary misbid or psych situations. If there is a specific problem with Ghestem, why not SO regulations to the effect that: you may only use this convention if you indeed have N-card (4 or 5 in each or total of 9, whatever the SO likes) length in both the suits promised. The effect of a violation will be an adjusted score under L12C2 (or 12C3 but not 12C1). Given that SO's have unlimited powers to regulate conventions, I don't see that the above is any legal problem. (As to desirability, opinions no doubt will vary!) ------ In the original problem, it does seem to me rather a deep position to avoid supporting partner's suit on the first round when holding six cards in it. The effect of this was to force the player to guess at the five level on the next round. While any guess could have been right, the only reason for having to guess was the previous decision. I would have a great deal of sympathy for ruling that a player who puts himself in this position has taken "wild or gambling" action. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 22 08:00:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0LKwmm18189 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 07:58:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0LKwcH18155 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 07:58:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA11861; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 12:50:04 -0800 Message-Id: <200201212050.MAA11861@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] New ACBL Alert Procedure (cont'd) In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 21 Jan 2002 11:57:41 PST." <002801c1a2b7$3658f900$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 12:50:04 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin wrote: > David Stevenson wrote > > > Marvin L. French writes > > > > >So here's what I have now: > > > > > >The ACBL Board of Directors approved a new Alert Procedure that will > > >become effective March 1, 2002. A new convention card will accompany it. > > >A moratorium on additional changes exists until 2005. > > > > > >Highlights of changes: (changes to my last on this subject are marked > > >with ***). Some of the *** items may NOT be in Schedule 3 but are > > >official (at this time, anyway) interpretations of that document. > > > > [s] > > > > >*** A diamond transfer to hearts is Announced as such, even if it could > > >on rare occasions be a strong hand without hearts. > > > > I *really* dislike this one. People will assume an announced Transfer > > guarantees hearts leading to problems. > > > Evidently some influential pair plays a convention that starts with a 2D > bid without hearts. This convention is described in at least one of Max Hardy's "Two Over One Game Force" books. So perhaps Hardy is the influential one here. There may be a few other people who use this convention. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 22 08:12:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0LLAnD20361 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 08:10:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from femail42.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail42.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.254.60.36]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0LLAeH20341 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 08:10:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from cc664387-b.alumni.princeton.edu ([68.55.147.239]) by femail42.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with ESMTP id <20020121210205.IFHB28557.femail42.sdc1.sfba.home.com@cc664387-b.alumni.princeton.edu>; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 13:02:05 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020121152735.02570c60@mail.rdc1.md.home.com> X-Sender: david-grabiner@mail.rdc1.md.home.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 15:50:45 -0500 To: karel@esatclear.ie, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: [BLML] Actual case In-Reply-To: <3c4c299d.60bc.0@esatclear.ie> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 02:45 PM 1/21/02 +0000, Karel wrote: >A recent national teams event > >N/S Vul > > North > S A73 Bidding N E S W > H K9 1NT P 2C P > D AKT42 2D P 2NT P >West C K72 East 3NT P P P >S 9 S JT865 >H AT653 H 872 >D QJ63 D 87 >C AT8 South C QJ3 > S KQ42 > H QJ4 > D 95 > C 9654 > >As west placed his lead the SJ face down on the table, North said "oh by the >way the 2C bid does not promise a 4CM". West at this stage called the >director. > When asked what the problem was he said he would have bid had the 2C bid > been >alerted. The director said to play on and call him back if E/W felt injured. I don't know your alerting rules, but I will assume that this is a failure to alert at the proper time. >Winning the SJ with the Q, declarer next finessed the DT at trick 2 and made >9 tricks. > >E/W called the director back. E/W felt they had been damaged. West said that >had he been told the 2C bid did not garuntee a 4CM he would have bid 2H's. >He felt this would change the tempo of the defence and may even have resulted >in the opps not reaching 3NT. > >The director eventually made some ruling (I'm not going to mention it here) >which was completely illegal. E/W appealed the decision. > > >At the appeal hearing the following extra info became available. > >(1) N/S did not attend the appeal. > >(2) E/W & N/S would both be considered very able players. > >(3) The committee wanted to know why West had not bid 2H's anyway. West said >that at mps he would have bid 2H's in a flash. At imps such an action when >it was 50/50 that RHO held 4 hearts was an action which could incur a >substancial >penalty a risk he felt was unwarranted. If he had been informed that 2C's did >not necessarily show a 4CM this would have influenced him sufficiently to bid >2H's. West is a good player, and should be aware that it is not 50/50 that South has four hearts given that West has five hearts and only one spade. In addition, the probability isn't changed that much by a 2C bid which "might" not have a four-card major. More than half of all invitational 2NT bids do have a four-card major, and South could be intending a bid of 3NT in which is must have a four-card major. While it is true that the failure to alert makes 2H slightly more attractive, I don't think this is enough to meet the "likely" or "at all probable" standards required for an adjustment, so I rule no damage. However, I'll continue below as if such a conclusion was made. >(4) The committee looked at the hand and stated that even after a heart lead, >3NT is always home so long as declarer finesses the DT. They wished to know >what basis E/W were looking for an adjustment. >E/W stated they felt that >1stly, the 2H bid may well have altered the auction sufficiently that the opps >either did not reach 3NT or they arrived at an alternative contract (eg) 2H's >doubled. Assuming that we do accept the 2H bid, is it likely (or at all probable) that the result would be different? North would pass over 2H, and if East doesn't raise to 3H, then South will bid 2NT and North will go on to three. If East does raise to 3H, though, South will probably double, and 3Hx looks to go down two. I am inclined to rule that a 3H bid is "at all probable" but not "likely". Thus, if West's 2H bid is granted, I rule +300 to N-S, -620 to E-W. >2ndly that while a heart lead on this auction would not beat the contract >outright, >the tempo and extra pressure it created may have induced declarer to play the >contract differently. I don't think this is likely. The diamond finesse is the theoretically best way to play the suit, and after a heart lead, it is even more important to hold the suit to one loser. >3rdly they felt that the unfortunate necessity of having to call the director >and stating west would have bid infront of all 4 players, alerted declarer to >the fact that South had extra values and made the winning play on the DT a >much >better prospect. This is the director's fault, and if it were the key issue (that is, the declarer would have been likely to take the wrong line had the director taken West away from the table), then it could be the basis for a favorable ruling to both sides. However, I don't think this is the case, since the declarer's line appears to be the right line anyway. >Your call ... > >On a personal objective basis - I'm not sure about the precise procedure, but >should South say nothing and at the end on the play call the TD and state his >claim or should he reserve his rights immediately or should he call the TD >immediately >both of which will alert declarer to the fact that South intended action and >this in turn requires values or should he possibly excuse himself under some >pretence, find a TD and state his case ?? South is supposed to call the TD as soon as the auction ends, and correct the explanation. Standard procedure in the US on an auction like this is for South to simply make the correction himself in cases such as this, in which a failure to alert is probably harmless. (Yes, it's a violation of the Laws, but if the TD were called every tome someone forgot an alert, we would need twice as many TD's, so I'm not going to penalize South for making the correction and leaving West to call the TD.) > From my readings /cases on BLM an immediate TD call is recommended which > seems >to me to surely pass UI to the other players at the table. No UI; the TD is supposed to be called by declarer or dummy at the end of the auction, or by a defender at the end of the hand, because this avoids passing UI. > I assume for instance >that East could not suddenly change his lead to a heart !! He certainly could, assuming that the lead had not yet been faced. However, the misinformation did not suggest that East lead a heart, so even if he didn't change his lead, E-W could still argue that East would have led a heart had West been properly informed. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 22 10:09:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0LN7cM10816 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 10:07:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0LN7UH10801 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 10:07:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g0LMwwg08976 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 14:58:58 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <006001c1a2cf$15304720$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3c4c299d.60bc.0@esatclear.ie> Subject: Re: [BLML] Actual case Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 14:57:59 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Karel" > > On a personal objective basis - I'm not sure about the precise procedure, but > should South say nothing and at the end on the play call the TD and state his > claim or should he reserve his rights immediately I believe "reserving rights" applies to UI, not to MI. > or should he call the TD immediately > both of which will alert declarer to the fact that South intended action and > this in turn requires values or should he possibly excuse himself under some > pretence, find a TD and state his case ?? > > From my readings /cases on BLM an immediate TD call is recommended which seems > to me to surely pass UI to the other players at the table. I assume for instance > that East could not suddenly change his lead to a heart !! If not can we allow > declarer to play 3NT with the UI of points in the West hand ?? > There is no UI if proper procedure is always followed, which is to call the TD immediately when MI is announced. This is not time-consuming for the TD unless a change of call is in order, as he should only say "play on" and return later to see if there was any damaging MI. He should definitely *not* question the non-offenders other than to offer a change of call when that is possible. The ACBL TD practice of doing so is indeed a waste of time, both for the players and for the TD. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 22 10:14:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0LNCqx11740 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 10:12:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com [212.74.112.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0LNChH11711 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 10:12:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.9.56] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 16SnU0-000D68-00; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 23:04:09 +0000 Message-ID: <004601c1a2d0$3fde11e0$3809e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Burn" Cc: "bridge-laws" References: <016501c1a2b5$26325e60$61977ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 23:05:11 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 7:51 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time > In pretty much the same way as Edgar Kaplan > did when he compared the forgetting of one's > methods to an act of discourtesy towards the > opponents or the game itself - if memory serves, > I think he used an analogy with spitting on the > table. One might say with some justification that > forgetting the system constitutes paying insufficient > attention to the game, and is thus a breach of > Law (74B1). It is not immediately obvious to me > that a breach of L74 can result in an adjustment > under L12, but I don't have any particular difficulty > with the idea. > > David Burn > London, England > +=+ Or, in the particular, you may not see a difficulty. Law 74 is concerned with courtesy and etiquette - proper attitudes. Violations of its precepts are subject to penalties - procedural or disciplinary, depending on circumstance. As a discourtesy inattention (74B1) is a matter of indiscipline; a disciplinary penalty does not attract a score adjustment in my view. But no-one seems to have mentioned Law 75B. It is Law 75B that die Hollander are setting aside in this regulation of a convention. Not that we can deny them the power to do so - they do but add themselves to the distinguished list of those who take advantage of the Geneva ruling. Were it not for this recourse (zuflucht), 75B declares unequivocally that it is lawful for a player to psyche or misbid so long as partner is unaware of the violation. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 22 10:32:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0LNUk714776 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 10:30:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0LNUbH14754 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 10:30:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-186-44.btinternet.com ([213.122.186.44] helo=pbncomputer) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16SnlL-0004nO-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 23:22:03 +0000 Message-ID: <000a01c1a2d2$3c964f00$2cba7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <200201212017.PAA26379@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 23:20:36 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve wrote: > Sure, why not, if it damages opponents? L74 then L12A1 then 12C2 or > 12C3. On the other hand, I don't think any of us would be happy to > have this approach used in ordinary misbid or psych situations. Well, L12 does contain the caveat that it may be used only when the other Laws empower it. Now, there are references in other Laws to the Director "standing ready" to award an adjusted score (does this mean that no director is allowed to use L12 while seated?) but I see no such reference in L74. My own view is, in fact, that since L75 and L40 both explicitly make legal the act of departing from one's system, and since they do not appear to me to distinguish between intentional and unintentional violations, to say that a violation is automatically subject to adjustment is not supported by the present Laws. However, since a SO has the power to regulate the use of conventions, I suppose that a SO has the right to make this regulation: "if you forget a convention, then your opponents will receive an adjusted score as if they were a non-offending side for the purposes of L12, unless their actual score is better than any such adjustment would be". David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 22 11:37:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0M0Zmd26459 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 11:35:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tisch.mail.mindspring.net (tisch.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.157]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0M0ZdH26425 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 11:35:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from user-33qtmil.dialup.mindspring.com ([199.174.218.85] helo=mindspring.com) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16SomH-0004cH-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 19:27:05 -0500 Message-ID: <3C4CB2B7.5080108@mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 16:30:47 -0800 From: "John R. Mayne" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? References: <200201212000.MAA10793@mailhub.irvine.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > Tim West-Meads wrote: > > >>In-Reply-To: <00cc01c1a299$e857d1d0$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> >>Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >> >> >>>>My partner is the cautious type, she will not raise my weak NT to 3 on >>>>xx,xx,xx,AQxxxxx (perhaps she's seen me play). I reckon the contract >>>>will often have play and will raise hers. Are you suggesting that we >>>>need not disclose this sort of information if asked about the hand >>>>types on which the auction might go 1N-3N? >>>> >>>> >>>Why should you? Are you suggesting that players should disclose >>>what they regard as "good bridge" and what they don't? >>> >>I am suggesting that if an opponent asks me what partner has for her bid I >>answer truthfully. >> > > I can't find anywhere in the Laws where it says you have to tell the > opponents what your partner *has*. > > You have to tell the opponents what your partner's calls *mean* > according to your agreements. That's how I read Laws 40 and 75. > > In most cases, while the conversation during the auction is still > ongoing, there's really not much difference between what a call > "means" and what a call says about what the caller "has". Or, more > accurately, the "meaning" of a call includes information about what > the caller "has". So I can understand why someone would be confused > into thinking the Laws require you to tell what your partner "has". > But the Laws don't say that, and the distinction becomes important in > those cases where the "meaning" of a call does *not* say anything > about what one has. In this case, the "meaning" of 3NT is "THIS IS > WHERE WE'RE GOING TO PLAY, NOW SHUT UP AND TRY TO MAKE IT". So > there's no requirement, as far as I can tell, to disclose what you > think your partner "has". OK, then. In Soylent Green (played/playable only nv vs. v), an opening 1H bid is 8-12, 4-5 hearts. A raise to 2H is a non-invitational offer to play. Fortunately, I don't have to disclose that it's often a really bad offer to play; usually 3-card hearts, but the following are automatic 2H bids: xxx -- xxx J9xxxxx AJxx Kx AJxx J9x xxx xxx xxx xxxx There are some disclosable agreements under the Beneschan Theory (that, for instance, after this start new suits by either party are non-forcing natural offers to play), but not the frequently tactical nature of the raise. (I don't believe by any reasonable definition that these are psychic raises. They are systemic, and the system has determined that offering to play in the 4-0, or offering to play in what may well be a 25-point 4-2 fit, is percentage.) I think the differentiation between "mean" and "has" is not a good one; I think in many situations you need to disclose more. --JRM -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 22 11:52:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0M0pFq28667 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 11:51:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lycee.ns.uk.easynet.net (lycee.ns.uk.easynet.net [195.40.1.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0M0p6H28641 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 11:51:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-15-55.easynet.co.uk [212.134.26.55]) by lycee.ns.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 1E26F9D3C for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 00:42:33 +0000 (GMT) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] One at a time Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 00:39:27 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: <004601c1a2d0$3fde11e0$3809e150@dodona> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Grattan Endicott writes: > But no-one seems to have mentioned > Law 75B. It is Law 75B that die Hollander are > setting aside in this regulation of a convention. > Not that we can deny them the power to do so > - they do but add themselves to the distinguished > list of those who take advantage of the Geneva > ruling. Were it not for this recourse (zuflucht), > 75B declares unequivocally that it is lawful for a > player to psyche or misbid so long as partner is > unaware of the violation. Is the EBU using the same recourse to ban the psyche of a GF or nearly GF artificial opening? More importantly, perhaps, why does it do so? Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 22 12:03:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0M121P00533 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 12:02:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0M11qH00512 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 12:01:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA17216; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 16:53:16 -0800 Message-Id: <200201220053.QAA17216@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 21 Jan 2002 16:30:47 PST." <3C4CB2B7.5080108@mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 16:53:16 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John Mayne wrote: > Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > In most cases, while the conversation during the auction is still > > ongoing, there's really not much difference between what a call > > "means" and what a call says about what the caller "has". Or, more > > accurately, the "meaning" of a call includes information about what > > the caller "has". So I can understand why someone would be confused > > into thinking the Laws require you to tell what your partner "has". > > But the Laws don't say that, and the distinction becomes important in > > those cases where the "meaning" of a call does *not* say anything > > about what one has. In this case, the "meaning" of 3NT is "THIS IS > > WHERE WE'RE GOING TO PLAY, NOW SHUT UP AND TRY TO MAKE IT". So > > there's no requirement, as far as I can tell, to disclose what you > > think your partner "has". > > > OK, then. In Soylent Green (played/playable only nv vs. v), an opening > 1H bid is 8-12, 4-5 hearts. A raise to 2H is a non-invitational offer to > play. > > Fortunately, I don't have to disclose that it's often a really bad offer > to play; usually 3-card hearts, but the following are automatic 2H bids: > > xxx -- xxx J9xxxxx > AJxx Kx AJxx J9x > xxx xxx xxx xxxx > > There are some disclosable agreements under the Beneschan Theory (that, > for instance, after this start new suits by either party are non-forcing > natural offers to play), but not the frequently tactical nature of the > raise. > > (I don't believe by any reasonable definition that these are psychic > raises. They are systemic, and the system has determined that offering > to play in the 4-0, or offering to play in what may well be a 25-point > 4-2 fit, is percentage.) > > I think the differentiation between "mean" and "has" is not a good one; > I think in many situations you need to disclose more. The Beneschan Theory(tm) is intended to apply to cases where a call is intended to end the auction and set the final contract. This requires a couple conditions: (1) Either this call is a pass; or else the opening bidder has already described his hand sufficiently so that opener is virtually required to pass. (2) The probability of the opponents reopening is relatively slim. [I did mention this requirement several posts ago, in parentheses.] Whether or not your example meets condition #1, it clearly doesn't meet #2. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 22 13:44:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0M2hXo17064 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 13:43:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0M2hJH17030 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 13:43:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16Sqll-000LLR-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 02:34:45 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 18:26:23 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Mispull vs change of mind References: <200201211517.KAA17952@freenet10.carleton.ca> In-Reply-To: <200201211517.KAA17952@freenet10.carleton.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk A. L. Edwards writes > I wrote >>A. L. Edwards writes >>> Result stands. The player has told the director that he has >>>accidently chosen the wrong bid (misclicked). The director has >>>ruled that he may change his previous call to the one he wished >>>to make. As far as I know, IMHO, for the purposes of L25(a), the >>>director doesn't need to know or even find out what the substitute >>>call is before the player makes it; nor is the player required to >>>use a substitution that was voluntarily and privately suggested to >>>the director. >> You are only allowed to change a call under L25A to the call that you >>intended to make at the moment you mis-clicked. If that is 1C then you >>are not allowed to change to 1S except via L25B. > I get called to the table. The player tells me that the wrong >card was taken from the bidding box. I rule L25(a). > I was under the impression that this forum had determined that >asking/looking at the player's hand was a very bad idea. We >use the honour system (reserving the right to an adjusted score) >and let the player decide what his call should be. We do not look at player's hands. But where is this honour system thing come from? It is like every other judgement ruling we make, we ask questions and come to a conclusion. > I get called to the table. The player tells me that the wrong >card was taken from the bidding box, *and the intended call was X, >not Y*. Here, I have no discretion. I rule L25(a), and X is the call. Of course you have discretion. You ask him what he intended to do at the moment he reached for the bidding box, and dependent on his answer, you either apply L25A, or you do not. You make a ruling, deciding whether he made a mechanical error, and whether it was in time to change it. If you believe that at the moment he reached for the box he intended to bid X [and he is in time] then you rule the call is X under L25A: never Z. > I am the director of an online game. The player tells me >privately that a mis-mouse caused one call,Y, not X, the call intended. >I rule L25(a). I undo, and the player chooses not X, but Z. >Now, F2F, this would be unacceptable, and I would have to act. >But is this perhaps a problem with F2F, and not a problem with >online bridge? Online, there is no UI problem to deal with. Who said that the reason for L25A being the way it is is solely because of UI? The law-makers made a decision as to what is allowed. >Yes, there is still the problem with "but only if he does so, or attempts >to do so, without pause for thought". The problem is, we now have to >define what "pause for thought" means; has a player actually "thought" >about his hand after a misclick? I would argue, better to give the player >the benefit of the doubt, than to use the strong arm of the Law, >especially when the opponents have in no way been damaged. He has told you that he meant to bid X. For him to bid Z is illegal under L25A. It does not matter that it is OLB: unless you have a different law-book, and it allows such a change, then such a change is illegal. Of course, perhaps you think that when you rule online you will not follow certain laws because of some agenda of your own: fine, but what is the point of asking BLML whether they are legal? They are not. Finally, I find it very strange that you even want it to be acceptable that a player takes no notice of a ruling and you allow it. If you say to a player at the table "You are required to lead a heart" and he does not because he does not feel like it then I find it strange that you would say to yourself "The law is a bit harsh: let us let him get away with it". -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 22 13:44:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0M2hYW17066 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 13:43:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0M2hKH17032 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 13:43:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16Sqll-000LLT-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 02:34:46 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 18:46:51 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Actual case References: <3c4c299d.60bc.0@esatclear.ie> In-Reply-To: <3c4c299d.60bc.0@esatclear.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Karel writes >This is a multi part story. We'll set the plot and let you make a ruling. Then >we'll lob in some more "maybe" relevant factors and see if they make any >difference. > >A recent national teams event > >N/S Vul > > North > S A73 Bidding N E S W > H K9 1NT P 2C P > D AKT42 2D P 2NT P >West C K72 East 3NT P P P >S 9 S JT865 >H AT653 H 872 >D QJ63 D 87 >C AT8 South C QJ3 > S KQ42 > H QJ4 > D 95 > C 9654 > >As west placed his lead the SJ face down on the table, North said "oh by the >way the 2C bid does not promise a 4CM". West at this stage called the director. > When asked what the problem was he said he would have bid had the 2C bid been >alerted. The director said to play on and call him back if E/W felt injured. I presume from the way this has been put that if 2C is not alerted a major is guaranteed? Note it was East who led. >Winning the SJ with the Q, declarer next finessed the DT at trick 2 and made >9 tricks. > >E/W called the director back. E/W felt they had been damaged. West said that >had he been told the 2C bid did not garuntee a 4CM he would have bid 2H's. >He felt this would change the tempo of the defence and may even have resulted >in the opps not reaching 3NT. > >The director eventually made some ruling (I'm not going to mention it here) >which was completely illegal. E/W appealed the decision. Of course you are not going to tell us that N/S got average minus and E/W got average plus. [s] >Your call ... > >On a personal objective basis - I'm not sure about the precise procedure, but >should South say nothing and at the end on the play call the TD and state his >claim or should he reserve his rights immediately or should he call the TD >immediately >both of which will alert declarer to the fact that South intended action and >this in turn requires values or should he possibly excuse himself under some >pretence, find a TD and state his case ?? None of the above. He should call the TD and explain what has happened. The TD will then decide whether there has been MI. Assuming there has been MI in his view then the TD will allow West to take back his last pass if it is affected by the MI [hardly credible here] and allow East to change his opening lead [which he might: the H7 seems more likely now that South might have no major]. He will explain that anything else is to be discussed at the end of the hand. The TD will make every effort to stop West saying what he would have done if alerted. Now I read back it says: > When asked what the problem was he said he would have bid had the 2C bid been >alerted. The director said to play on and call him back if E/W felt injured. and I wonder if the TD got it wrong. The moment he discovered it was an MI case he should warn the players against saying too much, and keep the UI to a minimum. >From my readings /cases on BLM an immediate TD call is recommended which seems >to me to surely pass UI to the other players at the table. I assume for >instance >that East could not suddenly change his lead to a heart !! If not can we allow >declarer to play 3NT with the UI of points in the West hand ?? Why did East not call the TD? When you are told that you have been given MI you call the TD. Discussions here and elsewhere have proved one thing to me: the time an immediate TD call is most needed is when there is MI. UI cases can often be left to the end of the hand. The EBU L&EC has ratified a proposal by me to write a series of articles for English Bridge on the practical application of the laws for players. One of the articles is on when it is *important* to call the TD immediately. Of course, there is a small snag: English Bridge does not see L&EC articles as very important so there is often a delay in getting them published! Mind you, the Laws give North a special responsibility to call the TD *before* correcting the MI, which he failed to do. This makes it easier for the TD to stop the defenders saying how they might be damaged, and giving out various other bits of UI. South also had a responsibility to call the TD. But this does not absolve East and West from their responsibility, and it is unfortunately ingrained in most bridge players the idea that you call the TD "on" your opponents: the game is so much pleasanter when players call the TD for their own infractions, or for their partners. In this case if East had immediately called the TD it would have been less obvious that West had the problem. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 22 13:44:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0M2hfi17082 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 13:43:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0M2hRH17051 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 13:43:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16Sqlw-000LLQ-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 02:34:54 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 02:32:53 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] Matchpointing formula (Law 78A) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk For those of you who are interested in the mathematics of scoring at matchpoints there is an article by Keith Wignall of Christchurch, New Zealand, on my Lawspage at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lwx_wgn0.htm Keith would love to hear from you if this sort of thing interests you: his eddress is in the article. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 22 18:36:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0M7ZFP02323 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 18:35:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0M7Z7H02319 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 18:35:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.28.235] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16SvGE-0003UF-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 07:22:26 +0000 Message-ID: <000401c1a316$6dcf6180$eb1ce150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: [BLML] Traffic 17 to 21 Jan inclusive Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 07:26:48 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 19:09:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.23.175] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16Svnl-000FFJ-00; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 07:57:05 +0000 Message-ID: <001b01c1a31b$44e9c4e0$eb1ce150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Brambledown" Cc: "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 08:02:17 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 12:39 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] One at a time > > Grattan Endicott writes: > > Not that we can deny them the power to do so > > - they do but add themselves to the distinguished > > list of those who take advantage of the Geneva > > ruling. >> > Is the EBU using the same recourse to ban the > psyche of a GF or nearly GF artificial opening? >More importantly, perhaps, why does it do so? > > Chas Fellows (Brambledown) > +=+ Why do people do anything? Because they think it the thing to do or because something compels them to do it. Long ago there was a widely-held view that psyching the biggest bid in a system was unsporting; when a committee had a strong majority of a mind to prevent it a regulation was born. The 'Geneva' ruling, made over the heads of the WBFLC, has this effect: 1. Law 80F provides a general power to regulate. This is subject to a condition that prohibits regulations in conflict with the provisions elsewhere of the laws. 2. Separately there are in the laws powers given to regulate certain specific matters. These powers are not restricted by the condition in Law 80F. 3. 'Specific matters', as in (2), will be found in Laws 40D and E, footnote to 40E, 80E. I do not recall others offhand where, as in these cases, the powers are unrestricted. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 22 19:45:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0M8isi02375 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 19:44:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net (avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.50]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0M8ijH02371 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 19:44:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from pool0084.cvx31-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.146.84] helo=c1r5i8) by avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16SwPc-0005dA-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 00:36:12 -0800 Message-ID: <004001bf64b3$af6022e0$5492b3d1@c1r5i8> Reply-To: "Thomas Wood" From: "Thomas Wood" To: "BLML" References: <200201212050.MAA11861@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] New ACBL Alert Procedure (cont'd) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 00:35:45 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Subject: Re: [BLML] New ACBL Alert Procedure (cont'd) Adam wrote: > > Marvin wrote: > > > David Stevenson wrote > > > > > Marvin L. French writes > > > > > > >So here's what I have now: > > > > > > > >The ACBL Board of Directors approved a new Alert Procedure that will > > > >become effective March 1, 2002. A new convention card will accompany it. > > > >A moratorium on additional changes exists until 2005. > > > > > > > >Highlights of changes: (changes to my last on this subject are marked > > > >with ***). Some of the *** items may NOT be in Schedule 3 but are > > > >official (at this time, anyway) interpretations of that document. > > > > > > >*** A diamond transfer to hearts is Announced as such, even if it could > > > >on rare occasions be a strong hand without hearts. > > > > > > I *really* dislike this one. People will assume an announced Transfer > > > guarantees hearts leading to problems. > > > > > Evidently some influential pair plays a convention that starts with a 2D > > bid without hearts. > > This convention is described in at least one of Max Hardy's "Two Over > One Game Force" books. So perhaps Hardy is the influential one here. > There may be a few other people who use this convention. > > -- Adam > "WALSH RELAYS" Indeed, this is a style often see in the Los Angeles area and known as "Walsh (Minor-suit) Relays." [used by a high percentage of 2/1 bidders] After 1NT -- 2D (presumed, at the time, to be a Heart transfer) 2H -- ? 2S by Responder 'cancels' the Heart-transfer meaning and puppets Opener to 2NT. At this point, Responder trots out a C or D slam try. 1NT -- 2D (presumed, at the time, to be a Heart transfer) 2H -- 2S (not a Heart transfer, this time) 2NT -- ? (forced rebid by Opener) 3C/D = broken-suit slam try in C/D 3H/S = solid-suit slam try in C/D Finally, because of this dual meaning of 2D, the only pre-accept of Hearts allowed over 2D is 2S, to avoid derailing Responder's minor-suit slam try, if that is what he is about. I prefer "ALERT". -- My reaction to the ACBL's sanctioning a "Transfer" announcement at the point of 2D? I don't like it at all. I would much prefer "Alert" [or "Transfer and Alert", although I have never seen the phrase "Transfer and Alert" in use in the ACBL]. I have conveyed many such viewpoints to the ACBL Tournament Division re the New Alerts. Tom Wood ACBL, LA-area -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 22 21:57:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0MArqq24538 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 21:53:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.128]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0MArfH24507 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 21:53:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-70341.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.146.197]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g0MAj4g02519 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 11:45:04 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C4D42BA.9040303@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 11:45:14 +0100 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Brambledown wrote: > > I don't understand this. One of my opponents makes a Ghestem bid but has > forgotten the system and has the wrong two suits. It is correctly alerted, > I am given a correct explanation of the system, LHO makes no call > inconsistent with his explanation and RHO makes no subsequent call based on > UI from partner's explanation. > > Now the footnote to Law 75D makes it abundantly clear that I have no > redress. "Here there is no infraction of Law, since (the NOS) did receive > an accurate description of the (opponents' ) agreement,..." and "regardless > of damage, the Director shall allow the result to stand." > > How then do the authorities in Holland, or anywhere else where thay seek to > penalise in this situation, justify their position? > They don't. They simply cater for a genuine wish among the (paying) public that this should not go unpunished. > Chas Fellows (Brambledown) > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 22 22:13:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0MBDhv28341 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 22:13:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mx.poczta.interia.pl (smtp.poczta.interia.pl [217.74.65.32]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0MBDTH28318 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 22:13:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (nereus.interia.pl [127.0.0.1]) by nereus.interia.pl (MX) with SMTP id 2B4AA7D76CF for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 12:04:51 +0100 (CET) Received: by mx.poczta.interia.pl (MX, from userid 555) id 0C9257D7620; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 12:04:48 +0100 (CET) Received: from poczta.interia.pl (nyx.poczta.fm [217.74.65.51]) by mx.poczta.interia.pl (MX) with ESMTP id 2D6B07D760A for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 12:04:47 +0100 (CET) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (nyx.poczta.fm [127.0.0.1]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailserver) with SMTP id 1D050DB1E6 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 12:04:45 +0100 (CET) Received: by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver, from userid 555) id 1DCD5DB060; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 12:02:01 +0100 (CET) Received: from kavanagh (unknown [217.153.105.20]) by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver) with SMTP id B3371DAF72 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 12:01:58 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <007f01c1a334$369b0340$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 11:51:50 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 X-EMID: 8b2be2c0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-meads" > We are not talking about agreements, but understandings (defined by me as > things you know about partner that oppos don't). If you think that full disclosure requires us to disclose everything we know about out partner that the opponents don't then it means that the defenders are entitled to ask question about their opponent's "style" when he is declarer. "Does your partner, when having a choice, plays rather for a squeeze or for a finesse?" "How often does he choose a psychological chance (like playing a queen from hand on Qxx - Axx) instead of a technical chance? When playing a hopeless contract would he rather try to steal a trick as early as possible or would he start cashing winners in his long suit to put pressure on the defense?" Do you think they are legitimate questions? What is the difference between them and asking about the frequency of underleading aces or hopping up with aces in front of KJx? These things are all "understandings" - "things we know about our partner which the opponents don't", aren't they? Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Znasz pogode na jutro? >>> http://pogoda.interia.pl/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 22 22:55:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0MBtLR04831 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 22:55:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rebecca.tiscali.nl (rebecca.tiscali.nl [195.241.76.181]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0MBtBH04809 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 22:55:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from tkooij (xs241-182-239.dial.tiscali.nl [195.241.182.239]) by rebecca.tiscali.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 081B48A4EAD; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 12:46:00 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <003001c1a338$ce01b900$efb6f1c3@tkooij> From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "David Burn" Cc: "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 12:34:40 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >> In pretty much the same way as Edgar Kaplan >> did when he compared the forgetting of one's >> methods to an act of discourtesy towards the >> opponents or the game itself - if memory serves, >> I think he used an analogy with spitting on the >> table. One might say with some justification that >> forgetting the system constitutes paying insufficient >> attention to the game, and is thus a breach of >> Law (74B1). It is not immediately obvious to me >> that a breach of L74 can result in an adjustment >> under L12, but I don't have any particular difficulty >> with the idea. >> >> David Burn >> London, England >> >+=+ Or, in the particular, you may not see a >difficulty. > Law 74 is concerned with courtesy and >etiquette - proper attitudes. Violations of its >precepts are subject to penalties - procedural >or disciplinary, depending on circumstance. >As a discourtesy inattention (74B1) is a matter >of indiscipline; a disciplinary penalty does not >attract a score adjustment in my view. > But no-one seems to have mentioned >Law 75B. It is Law 75B that die Hollander are >setting aside in this regulation of a convention. >Not that we can deny them the power to do so >- they do but add themselves to the distinguished >list of those who take advantage of the Geneva >ruling. Were it not for this recourse (zuflucht), What are you doing? You should know that Dutch is not a strange way of spelling the word Deutsch (German). Zuflucht is German. Or are you suggesting to know something about the South African language? I don't believe it. The Dutch word is toevlucht. >75B declares unequivocally that it is lawful for a >player to psyche or misbid so long as partner is >unaware of the violation. As long as you support the idea of forbidding psyches using L 40 it seems better not to mention laws supporting the use of psyches without other restrictions than given. ton > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 22 23:36:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0MCaFk11183 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 23:36:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0MCZpH11112 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 23:35:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16T01C-0003cJ-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 12:27:16 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 03:02:54 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? References: <00cc01c1a299$e857d1d0$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> In-Reply-To: <00cc01c1a299$e857d1d0$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Konrad Ciborowski writes >From: "Tim West-meads" >> Adam wrote: >> > Well, right, and you certainly have to disclose that 3NT is a shutout >> > bid. You don't (IMHO) have to disclose why partner might have decided >> > to make that bid (besides disclosing other bids partner might have >> > used). >> My partner is the cautious type, she will not raise my weak NT to 3 on >> xx,xx,xx,AQxxxxx (perhaps she's seen me play). I reckon the contract will >> often have play and will raise hers. Are you suggesting that we need not >> disclose this sort of information if asked about the hand types on which >> the auction might go 1N-3N? >Why should you? Are you suggesting that players should disclose >what they regard as "good bridge" and what they don't? >Am I suppose to disclose that I might respond 6D to 1NT >on Axx --- Axxxxxxx xx when being down by 70 IMPs >with 16 boards to go in a KO match? >That's crazy. If you face a problem "partner has a balanced 15-17 hand >and you hold the hand X: what contract do you think is best for your side >given the form of scoring, vulnerability and state of the match?" >then this has nothing to do with "agreements". It has >to do with bridge sensu stricto. >The difference between me and Zia is that Zia deals better >with the problems of this kind than I do & therefore he >has better results. > >If indeed this is what we are all suppose to "disclose" than >the next time I'll be playing against Balicki - Zmudzinski >on screens and will hold Axxxxx xxx Ax Dx after me and my >partner's uncontested auction starts: >1D - 1S - 2D - ? I'll simply ask one of them >(the one who will happen to be on my side of the screen): "What on >average does your partner do when he holds a hand >with 10PCs, weak 6S without a fit a D unappropriate for >a NT rebid after the 1D - 1S - 2D start?". There is a great >chance that thier judgement will be better than mine. >What sort of answer do you think I am going to get? What you deserve I expect, for wasting everyone's time. But the fact that you can make a ridiculous case out does not affect the common-sense position. You and your partner have an understanding over the meaning of a call in your partnership and you wish to hide that understanding from the opponents. I don't like it just because your understanding is over style. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 22 23:36:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0MCaUA11206 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 23:36:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0MCZrH11129 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 23:35:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16T01F-0003cI-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 12:27:19 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 02:56:37 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time References: <3C4A8550.6090405@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Brambledown writes >> Herman De Wael writes: > >>I agree that this is a problem, but I don't agree that we >>need to change the Laws more than we have to to solve this. >>IIRC the general rule in Holland is that Ghestem mistakes >>are always treated as misinformation, and that is a complete >>way of solving this problem. > >I don't understand this. One of my opponents makes a Ghestem bid but has >forgotten the system and has the wrong two suits. It is correctly alerted, >I am given a correct explanation of the system, LHO makes no call >inconsistent with his explanation and RHO makes no subsequent call based on >UI from partner's explanation. > >Now the footnote to Law 75D makes it abundantly clear that I have no >redress. "Here there is no infraction of Law, since (the NOS) did receive >an accurate description of the (opponents' ) agreement,..." and "regardless >of damage, the Director shall allow the result to stand." > >How then do the authorities in Holland, or anywhere else where thay seek to >penalise in this situation, justify their position? There seems some difference of opinion as to whether this really happens in the Netherlands, but if it does the legal basis is under L40D. You make a regulation that Ghestem may only be used subject to a certain something, and make that something whatever you like. Perhaps you make it subject to penalty to psyche it or forget it. The infraction of Law is not MI or UI exactly: it is using a convention in a way not sanctioned by the SO. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 22 23:36:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0MCaJ711189 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 23:36:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0MCZtH11137 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 23:35:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16T01G-000GW8-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 12:27:21 +0000 Message-ID: <2NcnBKN9eNT8EwG6@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 03:08:45 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] New ACBL Alert Procedure (cont'd) References: <002801c1a2b7$3658f900$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <200201212050.MAA11861@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200201212050.MAA11861@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan writes >This convention is described in at least one of Max Hardy's "Two Over >One Game Force" books. So perhaps Hardy is the influential one here. >There may be a few other people who use this convention. One of my local partners insist we play this horror. I play with him as rarely as I can get away with. There may be a connection between the first and second sentences. 1NT - 2D - 2H - 2S is forcing to game, asking for four-card suits: other bids [sic] over 2H show that the 2D bidder has 5+ hearts. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 22 23:36:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0MCaJw11188 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 23:36:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0MCZsH11131 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 23:35:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16T01F-000GW9-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 12:27:19 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 02:58:29 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time References: <004601c1a2d0$3fde11e0$3809e150@dodona> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Brambledown writes >> Grattan Endicott writes: >> But no-one seems to have mentioned >> Law 75B. It is Law 75B that die Hollander are >> setting aside in this regulation of a convention. >> Not that we can deny them the power to do so >> - they do but add themselves to the distinguished >> list of those who take advantage of the Geneva >> ruling. Were it not for this recourse (zuflucht), >> 75B declares unequivocally that it is lawful for a >> player to psyche or misbid so long as partner is >> unaware of the violation. > >Is the EBU using the same recourse to ban the psyche of a GF or nearly GF >artificial opening? I believe it to be done under L40D - see my other post. > More importantly, perhaps, why does it do so? No idea - before my time. I have suggested we look at it when the next Orange book is due. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 22 23:36:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0MCaDq11179 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 23:36:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0MCZoH11111 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 23:35:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16T01C-000GW8-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 12:27:16 +0000 Message-ID: <2NSnhNMFPNT8EwmU@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 02:51:49 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time References: <3c4be602.4e56.0@esatclear.ie> <009601c1a288$78b081d0$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> In-Reply-To: <009601c1a288$78b081d0$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Konrad Ciborowski writes >Then why people keep running from 4Sx in auctions like this? >Because the TDs rarely adjust in these situations, that's why. >The give A+/A-, they cancel the board, they tell the players >to reshuffle. Very sad but true. I am shocked and surprised to hear you say this, but it is certainly not true in many jurisdictions. If it is true where you are then it is time something radical was done to the way the game is run locally. But I would not want you to think that it is normal everywhere. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 22 23:36:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0MCaIP11186 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 23:36:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0MCZsH11132 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 23:35:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16T01G-000GXe-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 12:27:20 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 02:59:23 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time References: <001601c1a295$bbb654c0$b109e150@pacific> <46916179.20020121175407@uni-duesseldorf.de> In-Reply-To: <46916179.20020121175407@uni-duesseldorf.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Richard Bley writes > >G> { >G> BLML lines to gester no longer interrupted. It was >G> the ISP (Interception of Supposed Pornography) > >hehehehe Some of us would like to know which posting of Herman's or Eric's actually led to this. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 23 00:47:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0MDl0p21754 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 00:47:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0MDkpH21738 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 00:46:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16T17x-00039r-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 08:38:17 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020122082240.00b61220@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 08:38:26 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: [BLML] One at a time In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:21 AM 1/19/02, Brambledown wrote: >I know nothing about this crusade, but I never have been happy with the >principles behind the footnote to L75. If an opponent's hand differs >significantly from the explanation given, it matters little to the NOS, in >terms of damage, whether it was a mistaken explanation or a mistaken bid. >Oh, I know the counter to this - the bidder may have psyched, a legitimate >ploy. So what the Laws are doing is to protect the misbidders along with >the psychers. I very much doubt that the "protection" afforded by the Laws to misbidders has anything at all to do with psyching. Misbids are "protected" per se. They are errors. They are "protected" by the fundamental principle that nothing in the laws does or should make it illegal to make a "bridge mistake". I would argue strongly that we do not want to let this particular camel's nose into the tent. Setting the precedent that playing bad bridge can give rise to an infraction of law sets us on a path that could fundamentally alter the nature of the competitive game, and one I think we would be better off avoiding. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 23 00:50:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0MDoWJ22456 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 00:50:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-r03.mx.aol.com (imo-r03.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.99]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0MDoNH22437 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 00:50:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-r03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.25.) id c.41.17184ee2 (4406); Tue, 22 Jan 2002 08:40:57 -0500 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: <41.17184ee2.297ec5f3@aol.com> Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 08:41:07 EST Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time To: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl, cyaxares@lineone.net, dburn@btinternet.com CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_41.17184ee2.297ec5f3_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_41.17184ee2.297ec5f3_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/22/02 6:48:45 AM Eastern Standard Time, t.kooyman@worldonline.nl writes: > . The Dutch word is toevlucht. > > > > Of course alliterated to the English alphabet. ++++K++++ --part1_41.17184ee2.297ec5f3_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/22/02 6:48:45 AM Eastern Standard Time, t.kooyman@worldonline.nl writes:


. The Dutch word is toevlucht.





Of course alliterated to the English alphabet.  ++++K++++ --part1_41.17184ee2.297ec5f3_boundary-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 23 01:02:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0ME2Kc24773 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 01:02:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mx.poczta.interia.pl (smtp.poczta.interia.pl [217.74.65.32]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0ME16H24523 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 01:02:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (nereus.interia.pl [127.0.0.1]) by nereus.interia.pl (MX) with SMTP id 533E67D7523 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 14:49:50 +0100 (CET) Received: by mx.poczta.interia.pl (MX, from userid 555) id BE9D77D76FB; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 14:45:36 +0100 (CET) Received: from poczta.interia.pl (nyx.poczta.fm [217.74.65.51]) by mx.poczta.interia.pl (MX) with ESMTP id 36E627D78F5 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 14:45:36 +0100 (CET) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (nyx.poczta.fm [127.0.0.1]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailserver) with SMTP id 8B827DAFFA for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 14:45:10 +0100 (CET) Received: by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver, from userid 555) id BB114DB0F4; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 14:45:08 +0100 (CET) Received: from kavanagh (unknown [217.153.105.20]) by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver) with SMTP id A543EDB0E4 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 14:45:05 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <00f301c1a34b$00002a10$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: References: <3c4be602.4e56.0@esatclear.ie> <009601c1a288$78b081d0$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> <2NSnhNMFPNT8EwmU@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 14:42:20 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 X-EMID: 8b2be2c0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 3:51 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time > Konrad Ciborowski writes > > >Then why people keep running from 4Sx in auctions like this? > >Because the TDs rarely adjust in these situations, that's why. > >The give A+/A-, they cancel the board, they tell the players > >to reshuffle. Very sad but true. > > I am shocked and surprised to hear you say this, but it is certainly > not true in many jurisdictions. If it is true where you are then it is > time something radical was done to the way the game is run locally. But > I would not want you to think that it is normal everywhere. > I'd say that such rulings are very typical to club games. I forgot to add one more: A+/A+ to both sides is very frequent (or an adjustment is made for the NOs while the Os are allowed to keep their good score). My imression is that TDs go out if their way not to upset the paying customers with a -1700 ruling. When it comes to national events it is a different story but at the club level the Director try not to "harm" their customers in any way. I don't think this is typical for Krakow. I have seen it everywhere I played club bridge which includes also the "Trocadéro" & "Friedland" clubs in Paris and the "Bridge Areena" club in Helsinki - both are regarded as the best clubs in these cities. The TDs in these clubs include Philippe Soulet and Kauko Koistinen who both play for their national teams. From what Marv says about American club TDs I have the impression that in USA the situation is exactly the same (right, Marv?). I repeat - when in comes to national events (championships, trials, First & Second Division) it is a different story - this is all-out competition (almost all of them are played with screens, anyway). But club bridge is treated everywhere mainly as pass-time and Directors don't want to go through the process of explaining to the 65 year old gentleman why they change his score from +990 to -1700. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Znasz pogode na jutro? >>> http://pogoda.interia.pl/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 23 01:08:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0ME7uW25813 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 01:07:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mx.poczta.interia.pl (smtp.poczta.interia.pl [217.74.65.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0ME6sH25619 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 01:06:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (natori.interia.pl [127.0.0.1]) by natori.interia.pl (MX) with SMTP id 0CF8E13A7C for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 14:58:14 +0100 (CET) Received: by mx.poczta.interia.pl (MX, from userid 555) id DC6D613955; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 14:41:11 +0100 (CET) Received: from poczta.interia.pl (nyx.poczta.fm [217.74.65.51]) by mx.poczta.interia.pl (MX) with ESMTP id 5DC5D139E8 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 14:41:07 +0100 (CET) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (nyx.poczta.fm [127.0.0.1]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailserver) with SMTP id DB98CDB0A9 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 14:41:05 +0100 (CET) Received: by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver, from userid 555) id A3768DB08B; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 14:41:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from kavanagh (unknown [217.153.105.20]) by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver) with SMTP id F137CDB142 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 14:40:53 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <00e301c1a34a$6c82e6b0$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: References: <3c4be602.4e56.0@esatclear.ie> <009601c1a288$78b081d0$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> <2NSnhNMFPNT8EwmU@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 14:38:04 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 X-EMID: 8b2be2c0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 3:51 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time > Konrad Ciborowski writes > > >Then why people keep running from 4Sx in auctions like this? > >Because the TDs rarely adjust in these situations, that's why. > >The give A+/A-, they cancel the board, they tell the players > >to reshuffle. Very sad but true. > > I am shocked and surprised to hear you say this, but it is certainly > not true in many jurisdictions. If it is true where you are then it is > time something radical was done to the way the game is run locally. But > I would not want you to think that it is normal everywhere. > I'd say that such rulings are very typical to club games. I forgot to add one more: A+/A+ to both sides is very frequent (or an adjustment is made for the NOs while the Os are allowed to keep their good score). My imression is that TDs go out if their way not to upset the paying customers with a -1700 ruling. When it comes to national events it is a different story but at the club level the Director try not to "harm" their customers in any way. I don't think this is typical for Krakow. I have seen it everywhere I played club bridge which includes also the "Trocadéro" & "Friedland" clubs in Paris and the "Bridge Areena" club in Helsinki - both are regarded as the best clubs in these cities. >From what Marv says about American club TDs I have the impression that in USA the situation is exactly the same (right, Marv?). I repeat - when in comes to national events (championships, trials, First & Second Division) it is a different story - this is all-out competition (almost all of them are played with screens, anyway). But club bridge is treated everywhere mainly as pass-time and Directors don't want to go through the process of explaining to the 65 year old gentleman why they change his score from +990 to -1700. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Wiesz co daja dzisiaj w TV? >>> http://tv.interia.pl/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 23 01:27:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0MERXm29356 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 01:27:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0MEROH29339 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 01:27:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16T1lD-0002Nk-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 09:18:51 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020122090856.00aa0b10@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 09:19:00 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time In-Reply-To: <3c4be602.4e56.0@esatclear.ie> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 04:57 AM 1/21/02, karel wrote: >Well in the actual case the 2 suited overcall (and this should >probably be expanded >to other various multi suit conventions) is in effect identical to a >ghestem. > It should then be treated as MI. The NOS are free to bid a rational > 6C's and >IF it turns out they were grossly misinformed the score adjusted. > >The other point that the overcaller in this case acted "ethically" by >passing >4S is absolute nonsense. Anyone with a slight knowledge of the laws >as they >currently stand knows that any "rescue" attempt by the overcaller will >inevitably >result in the score being adjusted back to the best possible score for >the NOS, >in this case 4S doubled minus buckets. The only action for self >preservation >is to pass and pray - nothing to do with ethics. Getting a clap on >the back >for not making a further fool of yourself is hardly any excuse for the >fact >that the opps have been completely misinformed. > >Rational, logical actions based on the opps MI, deliberate or >accidental can't >in fairness to the game and the NOS be penalised. Yes, but sometimes there's no MI to penalize. Here W promised a 5-card spade suit according to his partnership agreement. E disclosed this, and clearly bid on the expectation that W would have this holding. There is no obligation in the Laws to tell your opponents what you hold, and they have indeed been correctly informed about what your agreement is, which is all TFLB entitles them to. To convince me that we have a problem here, you would have to show that it is at least possible that when a player shows a 5-card suit holding a small doubleton, his partner bids on the assumption that he has five of them, and he does nothing to suggest that he does not, he can be expected to gain on average, or at least that he might believe this to be the case; either premise strikes me as absurd. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 23 01:44:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0MEiMm02307 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 01:44:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0MEiDH02285 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 01:44:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16T21U-0005Rm-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 09:35:40 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020122092612.00b63c30@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 09:35:50 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: [BLML] One at a time In-Reply-To: <3c4bebe6.5031.0@esatclear.ie> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 05:22 AM 1/21/02, karel wrote: >I realise bridge is just a game but I can think of numerous cases in >real life >where not only would MI be deemed in appropriate but that you could >get sued >or even jailed. You are suggesting that the OS get off scot free >because they >got lucky and/or acted ethically ??? Analogies to real life are fine when we're discussing the application of our jurisprudence, but not when we're discussing its substance. Real life isn't a zero-sum game. It is a misrepresentation to suggest that the argument is that "the OS [should] get off scot free". The argument is that there is no OS ("offending side") as there has been no offense. If the side that misbid acted ethically thereafter, they did nothing wrong or illegal. If they "got lucky", that implies that they could not have had any prior reason to believe that their misbid would be likely to work to their advantage. They "get off scot free" for the same reason their opponents "get off scot free"; neither has committed any infraction nor done anything wrong. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 23 01:55:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0MEtIn03672 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 01:55:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0MEt5H03641 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 01:55:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.11.81] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16T2Bx-000Gb5-00; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 14:46:30 +0000 Message-ID: <003701c1a353$90d55e40$510be150@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Ton Kooijman" , "Grattan Endicott" , "David Burn" Cc: "bridge-laws" References: <003001c1a338$ce01b900$efb6f1c3@tkooij> Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 14:29:48 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "Grattan Endicott" ; "David Burn" Cc: "bridge-laws" Sent: 22 January 2002 11:34 Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time > > > >> In pretty much the same way as Edgar Kaplan > >> did when he compared the forgetting of one's > >> methods to an act of discourtesy towards the > >> opponents or the game itself - if memory serves, > >> I think he used an analogy with spitting on the > >> table. One might say with some justification that > >> forgetting the system constitutes paying insufficient > >> attention to the game, and is thus a breach of > >> Law (74B1). It is not immediately obvious to me > >> that a breach of L74 can result in an adjustment > >> under L12, but I don't have any particular difficulty > >> with the idea. > >> > >> David Burn > >> London, England > >> > >+=+ Or, in the particular, you may not see a > >difficulty. > > Law 74 is concerned with courtesy and > >etiquette - proper attitudes. Violations of its > >precepts are subject to penalties - procedural > >or disciplinary, depending on circumstance. > >As a discourtesy inattention (74B1) is a matter > >of indiscipline; a disciplinary penalty does not > >attract a score adjustment in my view. > > But no-one seems to have mentioned > >Law 75B. It is Law 75B that die Hollander are > >setting aside in this regulation of a convention. > >Not that we can deny them the power to do so > >- they do but add themselves to the distinguished > >list of those who take advantage of the Geneva > >ruling. Were it not for this recourse (zuflucht), > > What are you doing? You should know that Dutch > is not a strange way of spelling the word Deutsch > (German). Zuflucht is German. Or are you suggesting > to know something about the South African language? > I don't believe it. The Dutch word is toevlucht. > +=+ I knew that if I quoted the German word ton would assist with the Dutch translation. I would have said he should have read my mind :-) +=+ > > > >75B declares unequivocally that it is lawful for a > >player to psyche or misbid so long as partner is > >unaware of the violation. > > As long as you support the idea of forbidding > psyches using L 40 it seems better not to mention > laws supporting the use of psyches without other > restrictions than given. > > ton > +=+ I am not sure we are co-ordinated in our several statements here. My position is that it is unlawful to psyche on the basis of a partnership understanding without prior disclosure. I do not accept that an alert is 'prior' disclosure. I believe the intention of 'prior' was and is that the opponents have a right to an opportunity to discuss their counter-actions before they play against methods that are esoteric and that require defensive preparation. Further I acknowledge the powers of regulators to allow, allow with conditions, or to ban use of conventions. This extends to the power, if desired, to prohibit psyches of conventional actions. This unrestricted power of regulation of conventions is affirmed by Kaplan in correspondence in 1984-6 and it is part of what the Executive and the R&R Committee agreed in Geneva in 1990. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 23 01:55:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0MEtFQ03668 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 01:55:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0MEt2H03637 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 01:55:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.11.81] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16T2Bv-000Gb5-00; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 14:46:28 +0000 Message-ID: <003601c1a353$8fa8c520$510be150@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <004601c1a2d0$3fde11e0$3809e150@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 14:26:25 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: 22 January 2002 02:58 Subject: Re: [BLML] One at a time > Brambledown writes > >> Grattan Endicott writes: > >> But no-one seems to have mentioned > >> Law 75B. It is Law 75B that die Hollander are > >> setting aside in this regulation of a convention. > >> Not that we can deny them the power to do so > >> - they do but add themselves to the distinguished > >> list of those who take advantage of the Geneva > >> ruling. Were it not for this recourse (zuflucht), > >> 75B declares unequivocally that it is lawful for a > >> player to psyche or misbid so long as partner is > >> unaware of the violation. > > > >Is the EBU using the same recourse to ban the > >psyche of a GF or nearly GF artificial opening? > > I believe it to be done under L40D - see my > other post. > +=+ Agreed. But this exercises the power, promulgated in Geneva, to regulate conventions unrestrictedly under Law 40D - against the views of some who believed 40D to be subordinate to 80F. The power was affirmed earlier by Kaplan, in writing, but he did not put the question to the WBFLC, so that Geneva is the first time it has official recognition. In Geneva it was not the WBFLC but the Executive and the R&R Committee that stated this to be so.+=+ > > > More importantly, perhaps, why does it do so? > > No idea - before my time. I have suggested we > look at it when the next Orange book is due. > +=+ The protagonists of such an EBU regulation in my early days were Harold Franklin, Dimmie Fleming, and Geoffrey Butler. +=+ ~ Grattan ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 23 01:59:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0MExT304166 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 01:59:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0MExLH04146 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 01:59:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16T2G7-0000eV-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 09:50:47 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020122093652.00b635e0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 09:50:57 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 05:46 AM 1/21/02, twm wrote: >In-Reply-To: <200201182203.OAA04068@mailhub.irvine.com> >Adam wrote: > > > Well, right, and you certainly have to disclose that 3NT is a shutout > > bid. You don't (IMHO) have to disclose why partner might have decided > > to make that bid (besides disclosing other bids partner might have > > used). > >My partner is the cautious type, she will not raise my weak NT to 3 on >xx,xx,xx,AQxxxxx (perhaps she's seen me play). I reckon the contract >will >often have play and will raise hers. Are you suggesting that we need not >disclose this sort of information if asked about the hand types on which >the auction might go 1N-3N? Yes. It sounds to me like your agreement with your partner, explicit and/or implicit, is that (either of) you will raise to 3NT holding a hand with which you believe that 3NT will be the best contract for your side. You are not obligated to inform your opponents as to the reasoning you will use to make that determination. If asked about hand types, you must reveal any inferences available from your agreements; for example, playing Stayman, you might need to disclose that partner's 3NT suggests a hand without a four-card major. You need not reveal that your personal opinion and experience tells you that when you hold xx/xx/xx/AQxxxxx opposite a strong 1NT opener you will make 3NT more often than not. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 23 02:32:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0MFW2D09546 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 02:32:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0MFVsH09530 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 02:31:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16T2lc-0007Wh-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 10:23:20 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020122101725.00b6ba90@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 10:23:30 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 01:51 PM 1/21/02, twm wrote: >We are not talking about agreements, but understandings (defined by me as >things you know about partner that oppos don't). I am trying to >establish >whether such understandings need to be disclosed (and how). Understandings, defined as "things you know about partner that oppos don't", fall into two categories, those which are "partnership understandings" and those which are not. Only the former are even mentioned in TFLB, and only they need be disclosed. Now that's not very much help operationally. But I suggest that the appropriate direction for the current debate is to focus on making the distinction between "partnership understandings" and what we might call "individual understandings". By Tim's definition, I have developed through experience with a particular partner the "understanding" that he is nowhere near as good a bridge player as he thinks he is. I don't think anyone is arguing that I am obligated by the rules of full disclosure to reveal this understanding to my opponents, or even that I should be. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 23 03:02:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0MG2D514875 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 03:02:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0MG1wH14850 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 03:01:59 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g0MFrOo16709 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 15:53:24 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 15:53 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.52.2000, Windows 98 4.10.2222 ( A ) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020122093652.00b635e0@pop.cais.com> Eric Landau wrote: > You need not reveal that your personal opinion and experience > tells you that when you hold xx/xx/xx/AQxxxxx opposite a strong 1NT > opener you will make 3NT more often than not. Sure opposite a strong NT. I am raising on this opposite a *weak* NT, I don't care whether it makes or not (often does). It's difficult for opps to X, they can usually make 3M (or more) and if I run to 4m after a double my partner knows not to bid on because this is what I will have. I don't think this style makes 3N alertable (it's still natural, to play and usually a stronger more balanced hand). I don't think it's part of our agreements (my partner doesn't play the same style and I can choose to pass or make a weakness takeout on the same hand). To me it is just an understanding that partner should disclose if asked. Just as I know that she considers *any* 5332 a balanced hand and she knows that I don't regard singletons as a major impediment to opening 1N. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 23 03:02:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0MG2Mk14896 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 03:02:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0MG1xH14851 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 03:01:59 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g0MFrOs16719 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 15:53:25 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 15:53 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.52.2000, Windows 98 4.10.2222 ( A ) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <007f01c1a334$369b0340$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > If you think that full disclosure requires us to disclose everything we > know about out partner that the opponents don't then it means > that the defenders are entitled to ask question about their > opponent's "style" when he is declarer. "Does your partner, > when having a choice, plays rather for a squeeze or > for a finesse?" If these questions are asked during the auction then I will try to answer them as best I can (after all I might choose my call based on the answers). Once I am dummy (or about to be) I will simply reply "I will tell you at the end of the hand". After all when I am dummy there is no possible way that knowing the answers to such questions can give me an unfair advantage over the opposition. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 23 03:08:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0MG7xn15776 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 03:07:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from florence.ie.alphyra.com (IDENT:JQdd+TC9VbWsaMXOykZqGx3Vx5r9APkS@florence.ie.alphyra.com [193.120.224.170]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0MG7nH15747 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 03:07:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from alphyra.ie (yogi.dev.ie.alphyra.com [192.168.1.135]) by florence.ie.alphyra.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g0MFxEo06345 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 15:59:14 GMT Message-ID: <3C4D8CC5.BD137FE8@alphyra.ie> Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 16:01:09 +0000 From: James X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.2-2 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: [BLML] Archive of BLD? References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020122093652.00b635e0@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi All, Is there an archive of posts to this group. Many thanks, James. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 23 03:24:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0MGNac18400 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 03:23:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from florence.ie.alphyra.com (IDENT:mWMtMRvOjjfYOe/oBugnWNqOsw0plmHx@florence.ie.alphyra.com [193.120.224.170]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0MGNLH18376 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 03:23:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from alphyra.ie (yogi.dev.ie.alphyra.com [192.168.1.135]) by florence.ie.alphyra.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g0MGEko07058 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 16:14:46 GMT Message-ID: <3C4D9069.C794E91D@alphyra.ie> Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 16:16:41 +0000 From: James X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.2-2 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: [BLML] Re: Archive of BLD? References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020122093652.00b635e0@pop.cais.com> <3C4D8CC5.BD137FE8@alphyra.ie> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Apologies All, I found my answer at the end of Eric's posts. James wrote: > > Hi All, > > Is there an archive of posts to this group. > > Many thanks, > > James. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 23 03:34:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0MGXv519762 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 03:33:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from wonka.esatclear.ie (wonka.esatclear.ie [194.145.128.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0MGXlH19742 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 03:33:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from esatclear.ie (IDENT:httpd@gratin.esatclear.ie [194.145.128.35]) by wonka.esatclear.ie (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA10687 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 16:25:08 GMT From: "Karel" Reply-to: karel@esatclear.ie To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 16:06:07 GMT Subject: Re: [BLML] Actual case X-Mailer: CWMail Web to Mail Gateway 2.6z, http://netwinsite.com/top_mail.htm Message-id: <3c4d8def.1a88.0@esatclear.ie> X-User-Info: 194.125.205.180 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >> >>N/S Vul >> >> North >> S A73 Bidding N E S W >> H K9 1NT P 2C P >> D AKT42 2D P 2NT P >>West C K72 East 3NT P P P >>S 9 S JT865 >>H AT653 H 872 >>D QJ63 D 87 >>C AT8 South C QJ3 >> S KQ42 >> H QJ4 >> D 95 >> C 9654 [snip .. None of the above. He should call the TD and explain what has happened. The TD will then decide whether there has been MI. Assuming there has been MI in his view then the TD will allow West to take back his last pass if it is affected by the MI [hardly credible here] [Karel - whow ... can an auction actually be rolled right back 7/8 bids ?? How can you continue from the changed call and hope to achieve a normal bidding sequence with the UI available to both sides ?? That must really make life difficult. I'm surprised at the general response to the 2H bid in the face of a genuine/art stayman 2C bid. Imps by nature is more conservative in the bidding. Any bid made effects 4 people not 2. We've all seen players make completely different bids with almost identical hands depending on the scoring used. Is it so completely ridiculous that West decided to go safely on what he considered a close call but with extra information available he states he would categorically bid ?? Clearly from the writeup of the case West really wanted to bid but curbed his enthusiasm in the face of a possible large penalty. Why should we condem his somewhat conservative action as "hardly credible" ?? Percentages aside I'm sure West was good enough to realise that the chances of South having 4 spades was higher than 4 hearts due to his own distribution as mentioned in a previous response. I don't think he meant his odds to be taken literally. I feel west was simply implying that with a 2C stayman not necessarily showing the majors would have been sufficient to swing him from his conservative action to a more active 2H overcall. Must we not accept his statement that he would have bid if he was properly informed ?? ] [snip ... > Now I read back it says: When asked what the problem was he said he would have bid had the 2C bid been alerted. The director said to play on and call him back if E/W felt injured.and I wonder if the TD got it wrong. The moment he discovered it was an MI case he should warn the players against saying too much, and keep the UI to a minimum. ] [Karel - yes I was wondering about that - this approach to the problem seems much more realistic and practical aimed at minimising UI. So here the TD should have decided if there was MI (there is), called the player (west in this case) away from the table and asked would he have bid differently. If no fine bidding/play/lead as was, otherwise the new call is inserted and the bidding continues. Presumably East (if west passes) also gets this chance to change his bid option ?? [snip ...] > Why did East not call the TD? When you are told that you have been >given MI you call the TD. > Mind you, the Laws give North a special responsibility to call the TD >*before* correcting the MI, which he failed to do. This makes it easier >for the TD to stop the defenders saying how they might be damaged. in this case if East had immediately called the TD it >would have been less obvious that West had the problem. [Karel - from my experience players will rarely call the TD if they feel that the MI would not have effected their bid anyway and rarely see the problem from pd's side (ie) if pd has a problem he'll speak up. As to N/S calling the TD, extremely rare in my experience that players call the TD on themselves. So ineffect the player with the problem is usually left with this decision. ] I'll continue the scenario ..... At the other table, 2C was also used in a non strict stayman fashion. It was alerted, but West did not ask for an explanation and bid 2H anyway. 3NT was reached via a similar auction but not in a confident manner. A heart was led and this time declarer went down 2 (line of play was not recorded but the DT must not have been finessed). The 4 players were good players. Would the fact that an active 2H bid nearly caused 3NT not to be reached and that a heart lead (possibly creating extra pressure and tempo) may have caused declarer to misplay the hand and go down, be seen as corroborating evidence that the original case had alot of merit and that the score should infact have been adjusted ?? -- http://www.iol.ie -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 23 04:04:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0MH4Dq25599 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 04:04:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0MH44H25573 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 04:04:04 +1100 (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 LAA26820; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 11:55:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA05050; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 11:55:24 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 11:55:24 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200201221655.LAA05050@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Matchpointing formula (Law 78A) Cc: k.wignall@netaccess.co.nz X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > For those of you who are interested in the mathematics of scoring at > matchpoints there is an article by Keith Wignall of Christchurch, New > Zealand, on my Lawspage at > http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lwx_wgn0.htm Keith's proposal is "Aschermann scoring," as far as I can tell. I believe Herman has more about it on his page. Aschermann is equivalent to the "Neuberg formula" for fouled boards, except that Keith proposes to apply it more generally, not just when a board is fouled. What it amounts to is an _ad hoc_ compensation for the greater variance of results in small sections. The disadvantage is that the expectancy of a given score becomes dependent on section size. For more on this disadvantage, see: http://www.desjardins.org/david/factor.txt Personally I favor Neuberg/Aschermann, but reasonable people disagree. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 23 10:22:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0MNLMc11018 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 10:21:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.iol.ie (mail1.mail.iol.ie [194.125.2.192]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0MNLBH10976 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 10:21:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (dialup-019.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.211]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA87757 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 23:12:30 GMT Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 23:11:31 -0000 Message-ID: <01C1A39A.20ED53C0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: [BLML] Another state of things Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 23:11:30 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I was called to table at the weekend and couldn't believe my eyes. The four players had apparently Passed Out a board ... but East (dealer) had merely left her Pass card on the table from the previous board. South sorted her hand, noticed East's Pass and Passed herself. West and North did likewise. This is of course easier than the original problem - but nonetheless interesting. Best regards, Fearghal. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 23 12:31:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0N1VKB05181 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 12:31:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0N1VAH05147 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 12:31:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.14.163] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16TC3Y-0000nL-00; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 01:18:29 +0000 Message-ID: <000901c1a3ac$c198bf00$a30ee150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , "bridge-laws" Cc: References: <200201221655.LAA05050@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Matchpointing formula (Law 78A) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 01:24:12 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Cc: Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 4:55 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Matchpointing formula (Law 78A) > > Personally I favor Neuberg/Aschermann, > but reasonable people disagree. > -- +=+ Really? Now there is a thing. "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." (GBS) +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 23 14:45:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0N3ipl00947 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 14:44:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0N3ifH00914 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 14:44:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g0N3aOw05924 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 03:36:24 GMT Message-ID: <8nnE30EG2iT8Ew0U@asimere.com> Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 03:27:02 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Matchpointing formula (Law 78A) References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes > > For those of you who are interested in the mathematics of scoring at >matchpoints there is an article by Keith Wignall of Christchurch, New >Zealand, on my Lawspage at > > http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lwx_wgn0.htm > > Keith would love to hear from you if this sort of thing interests you: >his eddress is in the article. > This is Ascherman scoring. Period. -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 23 14:46:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0N3k9V01167 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 14:46:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0N3k0H01148 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 14:46:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g0N3biw05928 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 03:37:44 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 03:28:21 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Matchpointing formula (Law 78A) References: <200201221655.LAA05050@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200201221655.LAA05050@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <200201221655.LAA05050@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: David Stevenson >> For those of you who are interested in the mathematics of scoring at >> matchpoints there is an article by Keith Wignall of Christchurch, New >> Zealand, on my Lawspage at >> http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lwx_wgn0.htm > >Keith's proposal is "Aschermann scoring," as far as I can tell. I >believe Herman has more about it on his page. > >Aschermann is equivalent to the "Neuberg formula" for fouled boards, >except that Keith proposes to apply it more generally, not just when a >board is fouled. What it amounts to is an _ad hoc_ compensation for >the greater variance of results in small sections. The disadvantage is >that the expectancy of a given score becomes dependent on section >size. For more on this disadvantage, see: >http://www.desjardins.org/david/factor.txt > >Personally I favor Neuberg/Aschermann, but reasonable people disagree. Aschermann looks fairer to me under certain circumstances. In most cases it makes no difference. cheers john >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 23 19:38:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0N8XxE08398 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 19:33:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.128]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0N8XoH08394 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 19:33:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-48156.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.60.28]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g0N8P8g20639 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 09:25:08 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C4E736B.6030508@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 09:25:15 +0100 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Matchpointing formula (Law 78A) References: <200201221655.LAA05050@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >> >>Personally I favor Neuberg/Aschermann, but reasonable people disagree. >> > > Aschermann looks fairer to me under certain circumstances. In most cases > it makes no difference. cheers john > In all cases it makes no difference. Only in a very small number of cases is there a difference - and then only because artificial scores are, well, artificial. The advantages of Ascherman are not in its correctness but in its ease of use. Have you ever tried to explain the Neuberg formula to a player ? Have you ever tried to explain why he gets 0 and someone else gets 0.1 on some other board. Yet explaining the difference between 1.0 and 1.1 is very easy, and even the simple player can not only understand, but do thee calculation himself. Furthermore, all these newfangled ideas that I am throwing around, and that are slowly gaining recognition (like how to calculate weighted scores and splitscores) work equally well in Ascherman and in classical Neuberg (I use the name Mitchell for that). But in Mitchell, they can lead to negative scores. In Ascherman, they lead to scores like 0.5. Those are the advantages of Ascherman. You know Ascherman was not an original idea of mine. First of all, of course, Ir. W Ascherman of the Netherlands thought of it some 30 years before I did. And in a booklet I wrote about it more than a decade ago, I predicted that someday someone in New Zealand (exotic place, isn't it) would rediscover it. That is what Keith has done. Well done, Keith. >>-- >>======================================================================== >>(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >>"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >>A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ >> > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 23 22:20:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0NBJkK04221 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 22:19:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from wonka.esatclear.ie (wonka.esatclear.ie [194.145.128.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0NBJbH04196 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 22:19:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from esatclear.ie (IDENT:httpd@gratin.esatclear.ie [194.145.128.35]) by wonka.esatclear.ie (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA11191 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 11:10:55 GMT From: "Karel" Reply-to: karel@esatclear.ie To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 10:51:52 GMT Subject: [BLML] re - one at a time X-Mailer: CWMail Web to Mail Gateway 2.6z, http://netwinsite.com/top_mail.htm Message-id: <3c4e95c8.3d13.0@esatclear.ie> X-User-Info: 194.125.220.35 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [snip ... > As an aside, 'convention disruption' is not yet a >violation of the laws. The question is one put for the >drafting sub-committee when it meets. A possible >scenario might be to allow an option to regulators to >institute requirements at certain levels of competition, >in their choice. Any views? Of course not, silly to >ask :-). Karel - I agree. CD should certainly be punished at higher levels. The higher the level, the more "professional" a pair should be and the more disruptive MI would be. I can only speak for myself but if I was playing in a top level competition I would feel it more acceptable to get penalised for forgetting my conventions as a reflection of my level of bridge. -- http://www.iol.ie -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 24 00:32:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0NDVUo01316 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 00:31:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (st.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0NDVKH01296 for ; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 00:31:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id OAA06277; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 14:19:48 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id OAA17444; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 14:22:27 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020123134141.02572b70@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 14:24:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: [BLML] Snafu-killing Cc: pitchoubis@hotmail.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g0NDVMH01299 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Dear blmlists, I'd like to tell you about a case from a recent Belgian match. The question will be : is there anything to do at all ?, so you can guess we didn't find anything. In Belgian T4 championships, apart from Premiership, no TD is present, and any non-automatic problem should be reported and left aside for a committee to decide. The nine players implied, including YT, have played bridge before, even if this is not completely apparent from the facts. In the Closed Room, everybody gets one's share of boards to deal. West (a member of team A, playing in its own clubhouse) gets # 13 and 14. He exits after a short time, but when asked, he confirms having dealt them. Board 14 results in a great slam played and won by EW - not a difficult one. In the Open Room, where Team A sits NS, of course, and where team B(opponent)'s NPC kibitzes, the bidding begins 1NT-2C-2D-3H, at which point South scribbles a hand on a notesheet, turns to the kibitz (let's call him Jay) and asks him to peek into North 's hand to see whether the hand is the one he wrote down. Even if it is not kosher, Jay obliges (the two teams were friends - note the use of preterit), and confirms. Obviously, the board was not redealt from a previous match. The players quickly agree to replay the board and transmit it to the other table. The re-deal. Team B's EW pair overbid wildly and get the ridiculous result they deserve. They are booked for -14IMPs, but what the heck ! South gets his reward for being honest. Jay takes the board and gives it at the other table, with the following explanation : 'sorry, folks, but this board has been played before. You'll have to replay it'. Team B's NS pair don't like it (remember, they've bid and played seven spades), but can't do anything about it. A couple of hours later, team B compares scores. Board 13 (first of the set) : plus 100, plus 130, win 6, well stopped, thank you. Board 14A, oops, lose 14 ... Since there was another oops of negative magnitude, they lost the match 23-7. Then, North (the best player in team B) asks about an explanation of 'what was that *** contract you played on board 14A ?'. When told it was 5SX, he roared that it was absurd (it was), and the whole team went into a burst of peremptory statements about the position of the spades, from which it emerged that there were 16 of them. Another couple of minutes, and the truth emerged : the Closed Room had re-dealt board 14 after it came from the Open Room, meaning they had played still another board ... Is that enough of a Snafu for you ? I'd add that board 14A was given back to the Open Room table, and nobody understood that it implied that the Closed Roomers intended it to be still to play in the Open Room. As the scoring had been made, three things were obvious. a) board 14 had to be cancelled. b) according to the Conditions of Contest, there would be no substitute board because the result for the match, minus that one board, was known. c) The result became 20-10. In a RR-type of competition, this could make a big difference. Before the match, after 11 turns, B was just 3 VPs before A. The A team (especially their NS pair) had every reason to feel despoiled. The next round of drinks is on Jay's account. Let me specify thay Jay is a player of the highest ethics, national TD and member of many ACs. Nobody would ever dream (nightmare ?) of suggesting his explanation 'you'll have to replay it' was purposely ambiguous, except a drunkard who happened to be present and thinks he is a bridge player. Now, a) is there anything that can be done to restore equity ? b) should it be done here ? c) does the fact that 'a side is responsible for its kibitzers' play any rôle ? Among the arguments that were put on the table, let's mention : - if A's South had shut his big trap, the board would have been a push, so WTP ? (interesting, as it was uttered by A's East, who happens to be South's partner in life). - A's West, by not dealing, is the ultimate responsible for the mess. Too bad, then, for A. - the last line can be falsified by the application of the 'subsequent error' principle, but does it apply to procedural errors, especially when committed by non-players ? Etc. Your opinion would be welcome, and we're ETBF. Best regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 24 00:55:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0NDscw05732 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 00:54:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (st.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0NDsTH05700 for ; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 00:54:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id OAA10928; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 14:42:59 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id OAA10814; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 14:45:39 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020123143800.02571c80@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 14:48:44 +0100 To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: RE: [BLML] One at a time In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020122082240.00b61220@pop.cais.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:38 22/01/2002 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >At 09:21 AM 1/19/02, Brambledown wrote: > >>I know nothing about this crusade, but I never have been happy with the >>principles behind the footnote to L75. If an opponent's hand differs >>significantly from the explanation given, it matters little to the NOS, in >>terms of damage, whether it was a mistaken explanation or a mistaken bid. >>Oh, I know the counter to this - the bidder may have psyched, a legitimate >>ploy. So what the Laws are doing is to protect the misbidders along with >>the psychers. > >I very much doubt that the "protection" afforded by the Laws to misbidders >has anything at all to do with psyching. Misbids are "protected" per >se. They are errors. They are "protected" by the fundamental principle >that nothing in the laws does or should make it illegal to make a "bridge >mistake". > >I would argue strongly that we do not want to let this particular camel's >nose into the tent. AG : you didn't ever see the nose of any Dutch camel, did you ? This regulation, which has been considered but rejected so far in Belgium, is based on the following, very specific, and well-ascertained facts : a. Ghestem is one of the most popular conventions in the Netherlands. b. It shows identified suits, and as such is not treated as very artificial. It is thus allowed in most competitions, where it is used even by/agaisnt weak players. c. It causes an unusually high level of misbids (some have spoken of 30% of the uses). d. As there are concurrent versions, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between MI and MB. e. Nobody would ever dram of psyching a Ghestem. f. MI problems arising from Ghestem are especially difficult to be dealt with. The easy way to cope with all that would have been to artificially give it a high conventionality level, restricting it to levels where errors are less frequent - and less forgiveable. My preferred way would be to disallow any pair who erred twice in the use of the convention to play it anymore, but there isn't solid ground on which to build this ruling. The Dutch way, as Herman pointed it out, was in accordance with the wishes of many players. Since I feel bridge should be regulated in such a way as to look fun for a maximum number of players, I think the Dutch way is better than the easy way. Best regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 24 03:19:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0NGIsr25799 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 03:18:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat39.alcanet.no [193.213.239.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0NGIiH25795 for ; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 03:18:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from netos70.alcatel.no (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with ESMTP id g0NGA1103055; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 17:10:01 +0100 Subject: Re: [BLML] Snafu-killing To: Alain Gottcheiner Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 17:09:57 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NOMAIL01/NO/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 01/23/2002 17:10:00 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g0NGIlH25796 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner wrote: (and I have inserted comments within his text, clearly marked with + in the first column) Dear blmlists, I'd like to tell you about a case from a recent Belgian match. The question will be : is there anything to do at all ?, so you can guess we didn't find anything. In Belgian T4 championships, apart from Premiership, no TD is present, and any non-automatic problem should be reported and left aside for a committee to decide. The nine players implied, including YT, have played bridge before, even if this is not completely apparent from the facts. In the Closed Room, everybody gets one's share of boards to deal. West (a member of team A, playing in its own clubhouse) gets # 13 and 14. He exits after a short time, but when asked, he confirms having dealt them. Board 14 results in a great slam played and won by EW - not a difficult one. In the Open Room, where Team A sits NS, of course, and where team B(opponent)'s NPC kibitzes, the bidding begins 1NT-2C-2D-3H, at which point South scribbles a hand on a notesheet, turns to the kibitz (let's call him Jay) and asks him to peek into North 's hand to see whether the hand is the one he wrote down. Even if it is not kosher, Jay obliges (the two teams were friends - note the use of preterit), and confirms. Obviously, the board was not redealt from a previous match. The players quickly agree to replay the board and transmit it to the other table. The re-deal. Team B's EW pair overbid wildly and get the ridiculous result they deserve. They are booked for -14IMPs, but what the heck ! South gets his reward for being honest. + With TD present the correct procedure would have been for South to summon + him (law 9) and inform him of his suspicion that the board has not been + dealt properly. So what to do when there is no TD available? + The laws are silent, I believe South chose the best procedure possible, + and when it was indeed confirmed that there had been a violation of law 6 + so that at least he himself had too much information it was quite proper to + stop the auction and cancel the board right there. + + Note that even if all four players at the first board denied any previous + knowledge of the hands (they may have forgotten, or may possibly not even + have seen the board before), this board should be cancelled also for that + table Jay takes the board and gives it at the other table, with the following explanation : 'sorry, folks, but this board has been played before. You'll have to replay it'. Team B's NS pair don't like it (remember, they've bid and played seven spades), but can't do anything about it. + He said "replay" not "deal again" or words to that effect? IMO West on + team A was to blame for the original failure (not dealing the board), + this time there obviously was a misunderstanding which I wouldn't blame + on anybody, nor even Jay. It's of course a pity that Jay didn't ensure + that the table just re-played the board without re-dealing, but this is + after-wisdom. A couple of hours later, team B compares scores. Board 13 (first of the set) : plus 100, plus 130, win 6, well stopped, thank you. Board 14A, oops, lose 14 ... Since there was another oops of negative magnitude, they lost the match 23-7. Then, North (the best player in team B) asks about an explanation of 'what was that *** contract you played on board 14A ?'. When told it was 5SX, he roared that it was absurd (it was), and the whole team went into a burst of peremptory statements about the position of the spades, from which it emerged that there were 16 of them. Another couple of minutes, and the truth emerged : the Closed Room had re-dealt board 14 after it came from the Open Room, meaning they had played still another board ... Is that enough of a Snafu for you ? I'd add that board 14A was given back to the Open Room table, and nobody understood that it implied that the Closed Roomers intended it to be still to play in the Open Room. As the scoring had been made, three things were obvious. a) board 14 had to be cancelled. + Absolutely b) according to the Conditions of Contest, there would be no substitute board because the result for the match, minus that one board, was known. +True c) The result became 20-10. In a RR-type of competition, this could make a big difference. Before the match, after 11 turns, B was just 3 VPs before A. The A team (especially their NS pair) had every reason to feel despoiled. The next round of drinks is on Jay's account. Let me specify thay Jay is a player of the highest ethics, national TD and member of many ACs. Nobody would ever dream (nightmare ?) of suggesting his explanation 'you'll have to replay it' was purposely ambiguous, except a drunkard who happened to be present and thinks he is a bridge player. Now, a) is there anything that can be done to restore equity ? + Follow the rules for a cancelled board where team B is definitely + not to blame, I have a feeling that team A is all to blame. b) should it be done here ? + Sure c) does the fact that 'a side is responsible for its kibitzers' play any rôle ? + I see no reason for that, "Jay" has only followed the instructions given + to him by South to the letter, and has had no influence on the events at all. + It was South who first suspected, and then called attention to the error + (quite properly) Among the arguments that were put on the table, let's mention : - if A's South had shut his big trap, the board would have been a push, so WTP ? (interesting, as it was uttered by A's East, who happens to be South's partner in life). + If South had shut his big trap he would have violated law 9 - A's West, by not dealing, is the ultimate responsible for the mess. Too bad, then, for A. + Quite correct - the last line can be falsified by the application of the 'subsequent error' principle, but does it apply to procedural errors, especially when committed by non-players ? + I don't get it. Remember there was no TD available, what procedural errors + have been committed here, and in particular committed by non-players? + In my opinion South did what he could to save the board, without his + action my ruling would have been A+ to team B and A- to team A because of + the initial failure to deal the board. Etc. Your opinion would be welcome, and we're ETBF. Best regards, Alain. + Regards Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 24 04:52:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0NHpYq25842 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 04:51:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0NHpQH25838 for ; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 04:51:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g0NHgnN08043 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 09:42:50 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <000001c1a435$5f288ec0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <8nnE30EG2iT8Ew0U@asimere.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Matchpointing formula (Law 78A) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 00:18:07 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "John (MadDog) Probst" David Stevenson writes > > > > For those of you who are interested in the mathematics of scoring at > >matchpoints there is an article by Keith Wignall of Christchurch, New > >Zealand, on my Lawspage at > > > > http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lwx_wgn0.htm > > > > Keith would love to hear from you if this sort of thing interests you: > >his address is in the article. > > > This is Ascherman scoring. Period. > -- I congratulated Keith for coming up with the concept independently, which took some smarts. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 24 07:52:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0NKpoO01172 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 07:51:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout2.netvision.net.il (mxout2.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.21]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0NKpeH01141 for ; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 07:51:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.77.101]) by mxout2.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GQE0078ZS7IEC@mxout2.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 22:42:57 +0200 (IST) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 22:36:56 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Konrad Ciborowski Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <000201c1a44e$67610360$654d003e@erdnbaum> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 Content-type: text/plain; charset=Windows-1252 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <007f01c1a334$369b0340$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Has anyone answered your questions ? ESpecially if affirmative. I"ll be very obliged if you"ll let me know Israel Erdenbaum Tel- Aviv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 12:51 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tim West-meads" > > > We are not talking about agreements, but understandings (defined by me as > > things you know about partner that oppos don't). > > If you think that full disclosure requires us to disclose everything we > know about out partner that the opponents don't then it means > that the defenders are entitled to ask question about their > opponent's "style" when he is declarer. "Does your partner, > when having a choice, plays rather for a squeeze or > for a finesse?" "How often does he choose a psychological > chance (like playing a queen from hand on Qxx - Axx) > instead of a technical chance? When playing a hopeless > contract would he rather try to steal a trick as early > as possible or would he start cashing winners in his > long suit to put pressure on the defense?" > > Do you think they are legitimate questions? What > is the difference between them and asking > about the frequency of underleading aces > or hopping up with aces in front of KJx? > These things are all "understandings" - > "things we know about our partner which > the opponents don't", aren't they? > > > Konrad Ciborowski > Krakow, Poland > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> Znasz pogode na jutro? >>> http://pogoda.interia.pl/ > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 24 09:36:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0NMZgg06613 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 09:35:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (mta01-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0NMZVH06579 for ; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 09:35:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from tinyhrieuyik ([213.104.152.4]) by mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020123222649.TAIU9422.mta01-svc.ntlworld.com@tinyhrieuyik>; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 22:26:49 +0000 Message-ID: <002a01c1a45e$c4155ce0$049868d5@tinyhrieuyik> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "Konrad Ciborowski" Cc: "BLML" References: <00cc01c1a299$e857d1d0$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 22:38:34 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk If you think that full disclosure requires us to disclose everything we know about out partner that the opponents don't then it means that the defenders are entitled to ask question about their opponent's "style" when he is declarer. "Does your partner, when having a choice, plays rather for a squeeze or for a finesse?" "How often does he choose a psychological chance (like playing a queen from hand on Qxx - Axx) instead of a technical chance? When playing a hopeless contract would he rather try to steal a trick as early as possible or would he start cashing winners in his long suit to put pressure on the defense?" Do you think they are legitimate questions? What is the difference between them and asking about the frequency of underleading aces or hopping up with aces in front of KJx? These things are all "understandings" - "things we know about our partner which the opponents don't", aren't they? IMO there is a difference. When you are dummy, your choice of action is unnaffectd by knowledge of partner's habits as declarer. When you bid or defend, however, understandings can change what you do. For example, West your partner leads H:2 against a slam. Declarer plays the H:J from dummy's H:KJT9. Do you, East play H:Q from H:Q543. If your partner almost never underleads an Ace, you are likely to play low. Now suppose declarer has H:A876. Knowledge about your partner's ace-underleading habits would help declarer to locate H:Q? Also, with this dummy, if declarer knows that your partner rarely underleads aces, he will always play dummy's knave because even although the moon is blue and partner has in fact underled an ace, if declarer is lucky, the knave will still sometimes win the trick. IMO the analogy between this situation and raising 1N to 3N or psyching is apt. The bidding panel of Bridge Magazine were given a problem hand like S:AKQJ H:xxx D:xxx C:xxx. They were asked what to bid at favourable vulnerability, third in hand, after two passes. At the time, in Britain, it was illegal to open this hand, by agreement, at most levels of competitition familiar to readers. Maybe it still is. Nevertheless, all the British panellists opened. They seemed to regard it as a mandatory psyche. My circle advocate light openers but we had carefully eschewed such third in hand opening psyches for fear of flouting the dreaded British Orange Book. I confess I would like to know if ever my opponents believed such psyches to be virtually automatic. If partner's habit may influence what you do, it does not make much difference whether it is an undiscussed idiosyncracy, a matter of style, or an agreed convention; nor does it matter if its purpose is to defeat a contract or impart information. If it is a bid or play and it may affect your bid or play, IMO opponents are entitled to be let in on the secret. If, for example, partner peters in trumps just to remind you that it is your turn to buy the drinks then you do not have to tell opponents. Finally, it is hard work to extract relevant information about opponents' agreements; especially when your opponents are convinced that their peculiar methods are completely standard and natural and that you are trying to con them out of a free bridge lesson. To provide such players with another excuse to rationalize obfuscation is a retrograde step. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 24 13:57:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0O2quQ28689 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 13:52:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from femail8.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail8.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0O2qlH28659 for ; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 13:52:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from cc664387-b.alumni.princeton.edu ([68.55.147.239]) by femail8.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with ESMTP id <20020124024410.ZGGV4306.femail8.sdc1.sfba.home.com@cc664387-b.alumni.princeton.edu> for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 18:44:10 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020123212032.025a53b0@mail.rdc1.md.home.com> X-Sender: david-grabiner@mail.rdc1.md.home.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 21:28:44 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: [BLML] What do players think the mispull rule is? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk We all know what the rule is for misbids from bidding boxes, but what is being done to educate players? N E S 1D 1S 1H,oops,X West called the TD, and South had no idea that she had done anything wrong. The TD, of course, ruled that she couldn't have pulled 1H while intending to double, cancelled the double as a premature correction and UI to North, and allowed South to correct to 2H. This is one of those situations in which TD's should have a standard formula, as they do for OLOOT, "You have five options. You may..." The formula should be something like, "What was your intention when you pulled the card out of the box?" Do most TD's do this? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 24 18:16:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0O7Fqn16461 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 18:15:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0O7FhH16457 for ; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 18:15:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.58.36] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16TduT-0007IB-00; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 07:02:57 +0000 Message-ID: <000e01c1a4a6$0daaac60$243ae150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Israel Erdnbaum" , , "Konrad Ciborowski" Cc: "Israel Erdenbaum" References: <007f01c1a334$369b0340$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> <000201c1a44e$67610360$654d003e@erdnbaum> Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 23:52:11 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: ; "Konrad Ciborowski" Cc: "Israel Erdenbaum" Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 8:36 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? > > From: "Tim West-meads" > > > > > We are not talking about agreements, but > > > understandings (defined by me as things > > >you know about partner that oppos don't). > > +=+ You may like to think of it as such, Tim, but what the law means by 'understanding', if not specially defined in the law book, is the dictionary meaning of it. 'Understanding' = an informal or unspoken agreement or arrangement. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 24 21:36:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0OAaFJ17082 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 21:36:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0OAa6H17049 for ; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 21:36:06 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g0OARRv16540 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 10:27:27 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 10:27 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.52.2000, Windows 98 4.10.2222 ( A ) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <000e01c1a4a6$0daaac60$243ae150@dodona> Grattan wrote: > > > > > > > We are not talking about agreements, but > > > > understandings (defined by me as things > > > >you know about partner that oppos don't). > > > > +=+ You may like to think of it as such, Tim, but > what the law means by 'understanding', if not > specially defined in the law book, is the dictionary > meaning of it. > 'Understanding' = an informal or unspoken > agreement or arrangement. Grattan, it is you who has been pushing for the definition more like mine than the one you now give (dictionaries contain several possible definitions BTW). You have consistently said that an awareness of partner's habits/tendencies around psyches requires prior disclosure. This cannot be the case if disclosure applies only to "informal or unspoken agreement or arrangement". I think I slightly missed my intent in the definition above (Eric pointed out an obvious flaw on something he knew about partner of which his partner was unaware). I think we are all (except Marv) agreed that "informal or unspoken arrangements" (and obviously formal ones) are subject to disclosure according to SO requirements. How about "Things of which both partners are mutually aware, approve of/may cater to" (For example in DBs partnership they know that DB is prepared to lead 8 from 8xx when he wants to show the table a doubleton). "Things of which both partners are mutually aware, don't approve of/cater to". Eg the frequency with which HdW psyches 1H, or that I will psyche strong 3rd in hand pre-empts. "Things of which one partner would expect the other to be aware even though this is not, as it happens, the case" (eg if a system has been agreed where one player doesn't actually know that system it is still subject to disclosure). I am happy that "Things one partner knows but doesn't expect the other to know" can't possibly be disclosable. Tim West-Meads -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 25 00:27:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0ODPBv21242 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 00:25:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0ODOfH21148 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 00:24:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16TjjK-0003Nd-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 08:15:50 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020124080316.00ac61b0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 08:16:00 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? In-Reply-To: <002a01c1a45e$c4155ce0$049868d5@tinyhrieuyik> References: <00cc01c1a299$e857d1d0$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 05:38 PM 1/23/02, Nigel wrote: > For example, West your partner leads H:2 against a slam. Declarer >plays the H:J from dummy's H:KJT9. Do you, East play H:Q from H:Q543. If >your partner almost never underleads an Ace, you are likely to play low. >Now suppose declarer has H:A876. Knowledge about your partner's >ace-underleading habits would help declarer to locate H:Q? Of course it would help. So would knowing how to count hands, or run squeezes. The question is whether this is information you are required to supply. > Also, with this dummy, if declarer knows that your partner rarely >underleads aces, he will always play dummy's knave because even >although the >moon is blue and partner has in fact underled an ace, if declarer is >lucky, >the knave will still sometimes win the trick. In Nigel's world, declarer asks LHO whether RHO is likely to underlead the ace. He is told that it is rare. He plays the J. RHO plays low. Now he asks LHO whether RHO is likely to duck holding the queen in this position. Then he leads another suit towards his hand, asks LHO whether RHO is likely to duck his ace in this position, plays the Q, and asks RHO whether LHO is likely to duck his ace in this position. Then he... and he asks... Is this the game we want? > IMO the analogy between this situation and raising 1N to 3N or >psyching >is apt. The bidding panel of Bridge Magazine were given a problem >hand like >S:AKQJ H:xxx D:xxx C:xxx. They were asked what to bid at favourable >vulnerability, third in hand, after two passes. At the time, in >Britain, it >was illegal to open this hand, by agreement, at most levels of >competitition >familiar to readers. Maybe it still is. Nevertheless, all the British >panellists opened. They seemed to regard it as a mandatory psyche. My >circle advocate light openers but we had carefully eschewed such third in >hand opening psyches for fear of flouting the dreaded British Orange >Book. I >confess I would like to know if ever my opponents believed such psyches to >be virtually automatic. > > If partner's habit may influence what you do, it does not make much >difference whether it is an undiscussed idiosyncracy, a matter of >style, or >an agreed convention; nor does it matter if its purpose is to defeat a >contract or impart information. If it is a bid or play and it may affect >your bid or play, IMO opponents are entitled to be let in on the >secret. If, >for example, partner peters in trumps just to remind you that it is your >turn to buy the drinks then you do not have to tell opponents. Of course you do! Otherwise the opponents are likely to be misled into believing that the trump peter has its common, usual meaning. The meaning of a trump peter is established by agreement (whether explicit or implicit), not dictated by the logic of the defense. > Finally, it is hard work to extract relevant information about >opponents' agreements; especially when your opponents are convinced that >their peculiar methods are completely standard and natural and that >you are >trying to con them out of a free bridge lesson. To provide such >players with >another excuse to rationalize obfuscation is a retrograde step. It is indeed sometimes hard work to extract relevant information about opponents' agreements, and that's what we should be worrying about -- full disclosure of information about opponents' AGREEMENTS. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 25 00:58:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0ODvNd27795 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 00:57:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resulb.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0ODvDH27766 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 00:57:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id OAA17573; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 14:45:41 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id OAA15197; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 14:48:20 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020124144747.00a84590@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 14:51:29 +0100 To: "David J. Grabiner" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] What do players think the mispull rule is? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020123212032.025a53b0@mail.rdc1.md.home.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 21:28 23/01/2002 -0500, David J. Grabiner wrote: >We all know what the rule is for misbids from bidding boxes, but what is >being done to educate players? > >N E S >1D 1S 1H,oops,X > >West called the TD, and South had no idea that she had done anything >wrong. The TD, of course, ruled that she couldn't have pulled 1H while >intending to double, AG : I've heard about that principle before. It is wrong, alas. It assumes that the cards are well arranged in the BB, while the main reason for pulling the wrong card is that they aren't, rather than having pulled one card too much or too little. If there is a double lurking next to 1H, it could as well be pulled as would 1D, perhaps even more. At least in some BB patterns. Regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 25 01:19:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0OEIZo01965 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 01:18:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0OEIMH01935 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 01:18:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.24.72] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16TkZQ-000GhX-00; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 14:09:41 +0000 Message-ID: <003101c1a4e0$bfb00ce0$743be150@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Cc: References: Subject: Partners do it, stylishly, was [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 14:08:44 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Cc: Sent: 24 January 2002 10:27 Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? > In-Reply-To: <000e01c1a4a6$0daaac60$243ae150@dodona> > Grattan wrote: > +=+ We are talking about things that are understandings between the partners. All explicit agreements are partnership understandings. In addition 'partnership understandings' covers implicit agreements that arise from the past events in the partnership and the practices of the partners of which they are mutually aware; partnership understandings can also arise from shared knowledge of matters extraneous to the partnership (e.g. "the way everyone does it in our club").Implicit agreements are in their nature undiscussed - but a casual mention of the tendency is enough to turn it into an explicit agreement. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 25 01:35:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0OEYa904981 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 01:34:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0OEXsH04867 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 01:33:59 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g0OEP8f19348 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 14:25:08 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 14:25 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? To: ehaa@starpower.net, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.52.2000, Windows 98 4.10.2222 ( A ) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020124080316.00ac61b0@pop.starpower.net> Eric Landau wrote: > It is indeed sometimes hard work to extract relevant information about > opponents' agreements, and that's what we should be worrying about -- > full disclosure of information about opponents' AGREEMENTS. According to the laws we are also supposed to disclose/entitled to disclosure of "Partnership understandings". You clearly believe there is a category "Mutual partnership knowledge that doesn't need to be disclosed". I think you are correct. What I don't understand is where the line between this and "partnership understanding" is to be drawn. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 25 03:02:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0OG0kn21572 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 03:00:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0OG0QH21523 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 03:00:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from host217-35-8-107.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([217.35.8.107]) by carbon.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16TmAF-0002n7-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 15:51:47 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: gordonrainsford@mail.btinternet.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020124144747.00a84590@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020124144747.00a84590@pop.ulb.ac.be> Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 15:51:38 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Gordon Rainsford Subject: Re: [BLML] What do players think the mispull rule is? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 2:51 pm +0100 24/1/02, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >At 21:28 23/01/2002 -0500, David J. Grabiner wrote: >>We all know what the rule is for misbids from bidding boxes, but >>what is being done to educate players? >> >>N E S >>1D 1S 1H,oops,X >> >>West called the TD, and South had no idea that she had done >>anything wrong. The TD, of course, ruled that she couldn't have >>pulled 1H while intending to double, > >AG : I've heard about that principle before. It is wrong, alas. It >assumes that the cards are well arranged in the BB, while the main >reason for pulling the wrong card is that they aren't, rather than >having pulled one card too much or too little. If there is a double >lurking next to 1H, We would of course need to be shown that was indeed the case. >it could as well be pulled as would 1D, perhaps even more. At least >in some BB patterns. I expect you are correct, though I can't ever recall using a bidding box in which the double card is a similar size or shape to the 1H card. > >Regards, > > Alain. > > -- Gordon Rainsford London UK -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 25 03:37:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0OGZUV26845 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 03:35:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu ([131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0OGZMH26820 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 03:35:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id LAA28975 for ; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 11:26:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA24894 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 11:26:41 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 11:26:41 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200201241626.LAA24894@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] What do players think the mispull rule is? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > At 21:28 23/01/2002 -0500, David J. Grabiner wrote: > >We all know what the rule is for misbids from bidding boxes, but what is > >being done to educate players? > > > >N E S > >1D 1S 1H,oops,X > > > >West called the TD, and South had no idea that she had done anything > >wrong. The TD, of course, ruled that she couldn't have pulled 1H while > >intending to double, > > From: Alain Gottcheiner > AG : I've heard about that principle before. It is wrong, alas. I don't think we disagree with Alain: after investigation, the TD may rule that this was a L25A case after all. If so, no problem. However, the way the usual bidding boxes around here are arranged, that ruling is rather unlikely. David's questions, if I understand them, are: 1. How should the TD go about investigating? Is there a standard question to ask or other standard procedure? 2. If the TD determines that the change was a change of mind, how should he explain the rule to players so they will understand it in the future? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 25 04:39:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0OHcTY28863 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 04:38:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0OHcLH28859 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 04:38:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g0OHThD25152 for ; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 09:29:43 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <015d01c1a4fa$d4d20f00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <003101c1a4e0$bfb00ce0$743be150@pacific> Subject: Re: Partners do it, stylishly, was [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 09:14:53 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Grattan Endicott" > that arise from the past events in the partnership > and the practices of the partners of which they > are mutually aware; partnership understandings > can also arise from shared knowledge of matters > extraneous to the partnership (e.g. "the way > everyone does it in our club").Implicit agreements > are in their nature undiscussed - but a casual > mention of the tendency is enough to turn it > into an explicit agreement. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > But does that make it a "special" agreement? (L40B, L75C) I think not. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 25 06:55:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0OJt8G10078 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 06:55:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com [212.74.112.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0OJsxH10057 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 06:54:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.64.135.88] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 16TppB-000NMH-00; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 19:46:17 +0000 Message-ID: <001a01c1a510$1e7490a0$5887403e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" , "bridge-laws" References: <003101c1a4e0$bfb00ce0$743be150@pacific> <015d01c1a4fa$d4d20f00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: Partners do it, stylishly, was [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 19:46:38 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 5:14 PM Subject: Re: Partners do it, stylishly, was [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > > that arise from the past events in the partnership > > and the practices of the partners of which they > > are mutually aware; partnership understandings > > can also arise from shared knowledge of matters > > extraneous to the partnership (e.g. "the way > > everyone does it in our club").Implicit agreements > > are in their nature undiscussed - but a casual > > mention of the tendency is enough to turn it > > into an explicit agreement. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > But does that make it a "special" agreement? (L40B, L75C) > > I think not. > +=+ :-) Keep circling, we came this way before! 'Special': "additional to what is normal and general" (WBF definition). And, to repeat, it is clearly open to regulators to apply this or a similar definition to specific matters when regulating - so settling what is 'special'. (I have expressed a personal opinion that 'special' is the condition of those understandings that will not be readily anticipated and understood by a significant number of players in a tournament without explanation in extended detail.) Also it is open to Directors and Appeals Committees to apply given definitions in practice, or in the absence of given definitions to make bridge judgements concerning them when questions arise. Understandings must be disclosed; special understandings call for disclosure and explanation. I think so. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 25 08:37:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0OLawd28745 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 08:36:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0OLaoH28741 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 08:36:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id QAA21147 for ; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 16:28:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA25294 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 16:28:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 16:28:12 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200201242128.QAA25294@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Partners do it, stylishly, was [BLML] Underleading an Ace??? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > Understandings must be disclosed; special > understandings call for disclosure and explanation. You had me confused before (maybe still), but I think I begin to see where you are going. You are reading the 'special' in L40B to have a different meaning than the 'special' in L75C. I think Marv may be concentrating on 75C. I know I was. The other point of confusion is that some of the discussion has been about what the current Laws say, while other discussion has been about what the rules ought to be to make the game better. (Nothing unusual about that here on BLML!) If I understand Grattan now, he is proposing that there are three categories: a) no partnership understanding: no disclosure required b) PU but not special: disclose in response to questions c) PU that is special: must disclose in advance (As I've mentioned before, I don't think the above categories can be derived from the plain meaning of the present Laws text, nor do I think they are a useful categorization for the future. But quite possibly I still have not understood properly.) For comparison, my categories are: a) as above b) PU for which the SO requires advance disclosure c) PU where the SO does not require advance disclosure d) PU that is not special Perhaps we have been talking past each other. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 25 09:14:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0OMEBc28778 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 09:14:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat39.alcanet.no [193.213.239.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0OME3H28774 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 09:14:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from netos70.alcatel.no (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with ESMTP id g0OM4kq24050; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 23:04:46 +0100 Subject: Re: [BLML] What do players think the mispull rule is? To: Steve Willner Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 23:04:43 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NOMAIL01/NO/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 01/24/2002 23:04:45 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner referred two questions: >> At 21:28 23/01/2002 -0500, David J. Grabiner wrote: >> >We all know what the rule is for misbids from bidding boxes, but what is >> >being done to educate players? >> > >> >N E S >> >1D 1S 1H,oops,X >> > >> >West called the TD, and South had no idea that she had done anything >> >wrong. The TD, of course, ruled that she couldn't have pulled 1H while >> >intending to double, >> >> From: Alain Gottcheiner >> AG : I've heard about that principle before. It is wrong, alas. >I don't think we disagree with Alain: after investigation, the TD may >rule that this was a L25A case after all. If so, no problem. However, >the way the usual bidding boxes around here are arranged, that ruling >is rather unlikely. >David's questions, if I understand them, are: >1. How should the TD go about investigating? Is there a standard >question to ask or other standard procedure? >2. If the TD determines that the change was a change of mind, how >should he explain the rule to players so they will understand it in the >future? When arriving at the table TD should briefly explain the difference between a "slip of the hand" and a "slip of the mind" and that his job now is to clarify what apparently (preferably to all four players) had happened in the offending player's mind from how things appeared (body language etc.) Here it would be natural to say that if South (suddenly) seemed surprised of his own bid (rather than double) then TD would tend to rule law 25A, but if South while in the process of bidding 1H seemed suddenly aware ("oops") that East had bid rather than just called, it was more likely that South had indeed changed his mind, leading to a ruling under law 25B. My experience is that when players are explained the difference between laws 25A and 25B this way they both understand it and in fact give TD what he needs for a correct ruling. Of course, it takes a more convincing body language to have TD accept mispull 1H for X compared to for instance 1H for another bid, but there should be no automatic reject here. regards Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 25 10:33:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0ONXG704173 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 10:33:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.90]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0ONWxH04124 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 10:33:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16TtE8-000Nq8-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 23:24:20 +0000 Message-ID: <2ORXRtRIXZT8EwmK@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 16:39:36 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Tabiano and the WBFLC References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes > > Thanks to Jesper Dybdal, Ton Kooijman, Christina MacEachan and Grattan >Endicott I have now got [I believe] all the documents from the EBL TD >course at Tabiano in September 2001 available for download from my site. >The URL is > > http://blakjak.com/lwz_ste2.htm > > Please note that if you have downloaded them before in many cases you >will have got drafts, and even the documents you may have seen before >may have changed. So if you want a full set of documents I suggest you >download the "All Files" file. Three further comments. One of the zip files contains photographs taken at Tabiano, and I have had some requests to say who everyone is in the photos. I do not know everyone, and it looks quite a fair-sized job. Please could someone knowledgeable do that for me, naming everyone in each photo from left to right, and I shall add a small text file with these details. One of the files was produced by the EBL, giving details of all course members, both staff and pupils. I know there was at least one error, possibly more, so if anyone was present please could they check their details and let me know if anything is wrong before the end of February. At that time I shall update that file. This should include the one person who has already told me his details are wrong, because I have [sorry!!!] lost your email. ??? Was it Yuri ??? At least one person has suggested that I do not make it easy to get documents from my site, and suggested that PDF files would be easier to read, especially for non-PC users. Of course, I do not have a copy of the relevant Adobe program [which costs a fair amount, I believe], and it would add to the difficulty, and I do always provide a text alternative. But I am willing to listen to suggestions. This is a general point, not just for the Tabiano papers, since I provide WBFLC minutes and various other papers in the same way. So, if you have too much difficulty with current arrangements, let me know, and I shall see what I can do. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 25 10:33:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0ONXFt04171 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 10:33:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.90]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0ONWwH04121 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 10:33:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16TtE8-000Nq7-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 23:24:19 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 13:57:23 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Traffic 17 to 21 Jan inclusive References: <000401c1a316$6dcf6180$eb1ce150@dodona> In-Reply-To: <000401c1a316$6dcf6180$eb1ce150@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott writes >+=+ With the link to blml restored I have >received an avalanche of delayed messages. >If there is one amongst them that I should be >certain to read, please draw my attention to it, >preferably in an email not sent vis blml and >without the blml inscription that routes it into >my blml folder. Thank you. ~ G ~ +=+ I am sure that the interesting article is the one that sprung the anti-porn trap ..... -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 25 20:49:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0P9ksQ26141 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 20:46:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from florence.ie.alphyra.com (IDENT:n5MHWuCanZ1av3Cy5EYMfyT4QvRtJ3iY@[193.120.224.170]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0P9kjH26136 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 20:46:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from alphyra.ie (yogi.dev.ie.alphyra.com [192.168.1.135]) by florence.ie.alphyra.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g0P9c2o04458 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 09:38:03 GMT Message-ID: <3C5127E1.C675FAA1@alphyra.ie> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 09:39:45 +0000 From: James X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.2-2 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Who are the leaders playing? References: <003101c1a4e0$bfb00ce0$743be150@pacific> <015d01c1a4fa$d4d20f00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi All, Situation : We were playing the last board in the last match of a teams comp. Were down on the first 7 boards. Were placed 5th with a reasonable chance of 3rd, playing the 2nd placed team who are a safe for 2nd and are trailing 1st place by about 15. I'm considering punting 6s. However, In fairness to first place, I dont want to chuck a heavy win to our opponents. At this stage I want to size up the leaders opponents. If there weak, I'll bid 6, otherwise not. Have I any right to know at this stage? If so, how do I go about finding this out? Regards, James. -- ------------------------------ - James Heneghan - - alphyra - - DDI +353 (0)1 2076076 - ------------------------------ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 25 21:37:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0PAZs326165 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 21:35:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f71.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0PAZlH26161 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 21:35:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 02:27:03 -0800 Received: from 192.160.109.219 by lw7fd.law7.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 10:27:03 GMT X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.219] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Snafu-killing Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 10:27:03 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Jan 2002 10:27:03.0351 (UTC) FILETIME=[D4924470:01C1A58A] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner: The nine players implied, including YT, have played bridge before, even if this is not completely apparent from the facts. To literary critics, I believe, the style of this paragraph is refered to as "school of Burn." _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 25 22:03:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0PB1x826187 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 22:01:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (mta07-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0PB1oH26183 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 22:01:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from tinyhrieuyik ([213.104.153.17]) by mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020125105310.SLIY6966.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@tinyhrieuyik> for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 10:53:10 +0000 Message-ID: <001d01c1a590$3421f980$119968d5@tinyhrieuyik> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] Curator ad Litem Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 11:04:49 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In interesting cases, is there provision for a TD to appeal against himself? If so, is there a mechanism for providing appeal deposits and representing absent appellants? I raised this question last Sunday with John Vickers who was co-directing a a minor county event, at which an incident occurred. [presented only for completeness in the next paragraph -- skip it if you like] At pairs, only we were vulnerable. I opened a Precision club (alerted). LHO jump-overcalled 3C. Partner doubled (alerted). LHO passed and I passed too (for penalties). LHO now removed himself to 3S. After two more passes, I closed the auction with three-notrump. On enquiry, RHO explained that they played Ghestem in other circumstances but that over an artificial club, his partner's 3C should have been natural. On a spade lead, 3NT was unmakeble and I went three down. It turned out that LHO had five card suppport for his partner's putative clubs, so I called the director. LHO explained that he would normally raise pre-emptively but, in view of my partner's double, he decided to wait and see. By the time, the auction came back to RHO, it was clear to him that LHO did not have his bid. In view of opponents' arguments and the low calibre of the event, the TD ruled that the result stand; but he said he would welcome an appeal. I declined, explaining that: we were not in contention; we called the TD only for the sake of other contestants; we judged the TD's decision to be reasonable; and we did not have time to wait for an appeal. I had second thoughts, later, givng rise to three questions A. What is done to encourage players who are doing badly to ask for rulings, for the sake of other contestants? B. Furthermore, since it is rare for such players to appeal themselves, is there a mechanism available to advance and to represent marginal cases. C. Finally, in different circumstances, but for similar reasons, should the NOS be allowed to waive penalties against the OS? A couple of years ago, at Brighton, a TD confided that he coped with the last problem by ruling in favour of non-experts in marginal cases. Is that the right approach? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 25 22:09:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0PB7Qc26199 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 22:07:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (mta07-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0PB7IH26195 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 22:07:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from tinyhrieuyik ([213.104.153.17]) by mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020125105837.SPHO6966.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@tinyhrieuyik> for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 10:58:37 +0000 Message-ID: <003c01c1a590$f77b2140$119968d5@tinyhrieuyik> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] Curator ad Litem Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 11:10:50 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In interesting cases, is there provision for a TD to appeal against himself? If so, is there a mechanism for providing appeal deposits and representing absent appellants? I raised this question last Sunday with John Vickers who was co-directing a a minor county event, at which an incident occurred. [presented only for completeness in the next paragraph -- skip it if you like] At pairs, only we were vulnerable. I opened a Precision club (alerted). LHO jump-overcalled 3C. Partner doubled (alerted). RHO passed and I passed too (for penalties). LHO now removed himself to 3S. After two more passes, I closed the auction with three-notrump. On enquiry, RHO explained that they played Ghestem in other circumstances but that over an artificial club, his partner's 3C should have been natural. On a spade lead, 3NT was unmakeble and I went three down. It turned out that RHO had five card suppport for his partner's putative clubs, so I called the director. RHO explained that he would normally raise pre-emptively but, in view of my partner's double, he decided to wait and see. By the time, the auction came back to RHO, it was clear to him that LHO did not have his bid. In view of opponents' arguments and the low calibre of the event, the TD ruled that the result stand; but he said he would welcome an appeal. I declined, explaining that: we were not in contention; we called the TD only for the sake of other contestants; we judged the TD's decision to be reasonable; and we did not have time to wait for an appeal. I had second thoughts, later, givng rise to three questions A. What is done to encourage players who are doing badly to ask for rulings, for the sake of other contestants? B. Furthermore, since it is rare for such players to appeal themselves, is there a mechanism available to advance and to represent marginal cases. C. Finally, in different circumstances, but for similar reasons, should the NOS be allowed to waive penalties against the OS? A couple of years ago, at Brighton, a TD confided that he coped with the last problem by ruling in favour of non-experts in marginal cases. Is that the right approach? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 25 23:44:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0PCbvT13071 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 23:37:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from xgate.npl.co.uk (IDENT:root@[139.143.5.160]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0PCbgH13026 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 23:37:47 +1100 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by xgate.npl.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g0PCSsb07961; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 12:28:54 GMT Received: by xgate.npl.co.uk XSMTPD; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 12:28:54 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by fermat.npl.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g0PCSsK29284; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 12:28:54 GMT Received: by fermat.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 12:28:54 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA09572; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 12:28:54 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id MAA21346; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 12:28:53 GMT Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 12:28:53 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200201251228.MAA21346@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Curator ad Litem X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > In interesting cases, is there provision for a TD to appeal against himself? > If so, is there a mechanism for providing appeal deposits and representing > absent appellants? There is such a provision: Law 83, this provision was new in 1997 (IIRC) LAW 83 - NOTIFICATION OF THE RIGHT TO APPEAL If the Director believes that a review of his decision on a point of fact or exercise of his discretionary power might be in order (as when he awards an adjusted score under Law 12), he shall advise a contestant of his right to appeal or may refer the matter to an appropriate committee. The last phrase "may refer the matter to an appropriate committee" allows the TD to refer her ruling to an appeals committee without either side wishing to appeal. I don't think the TD should exercise this option just because she is unhappy with her ruling, she should consult (with TDs, other players, or other the phone) to get the ruling right in the first place. This should also avoid the need for the TD to go to an appeals committee to protect the field. (DWS - "the field can look after itself") I think a TD may appeal her own decision when new facts have come to light after the initial ruling has been given. It is possible to change the ruling under L82C, but it may be more expedient to get an appeals committee to consider the whole case from scratch. Although a TD can not be fined for an appeal without merit, if the AC find that there is nothing to discuss and they have been deprived of drinking time by the TD, she will not hear the end of it. Robin -- Robin Barker | Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk CMSC, Building 10, | Phone: +44 (0) 20 8943 7090 National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 20 8977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 OLW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 26 00:27:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0PDQ1822880 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 00:26:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (radio.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0PDPqH22859 for ; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 00:25:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id OAA02516; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 14:16:38 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id OAA02724; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 14:17:11 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020125141717.00a83050@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 14:20:08 +0100 To: "Norman Scorbie" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Snafu-killing In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:27 25/01/2002 +0000, Norman Scorbie wrote: >Alain Gottcheiner: >The nine players implied, including YT, have played bridge before, >even if this is not completely apparent from the facts. > >To literary critics, I believe, the style of this paragraph is refered to >as "school of Burn." AG : I'd very much like to know more about this school.. I would have characterized said passage as a combination epanorthosis / litotes, not that it makes it more obvious. Thank you for the enlightenment. Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 26 00:33:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0PDWE024051 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 00:32:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe75.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.210]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0PDW6H24022 for ; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 00:32:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 05:23:22 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [209.245.199.64] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" Subject: [BLML] L74B3 help Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 00:13:35 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Jan 2002 13:23:22.0055 (UTC) FILETIME=[75F86570:01C1A5A3] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I have a friend with a relationship problem at the bridge table. Can someone suggest a solution? In a home rubber game (but possibly duplicate) one of the players has a history of detaching a card before his turn and putting it face down on the table with the expectation he will indeed play it next. It is felt that it is done to 'show off' his prowess in predicting the course of play. Requests to not do so have achieved the result that the stunt is not done when they partner. However, he persists when partnering others in spite of continued requests to not do so. Given the person's history of ignoring the requests to desist the problem is how to achieve the outcome without ruffling feathers, so to speak. My impression is that it would not be satisfactory to 'threaten' expulsion. thanks roger pewick -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 26 01:03:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0PE1Ig29517 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 01:01:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mx.poczta.interia.pl (smtp.poczta.interia.pl [217.74.65.32]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0PE16H29496 for ; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 01:01:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (nereus.interia.pl [127.0.0.1]) by nereus.interia.pl (MX) with SMTP id A107C7D769A for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 14:52:11 +0100 (CET) Received: by mx.poczta.interia.pl (MX, from userid 555) id 6A45F7D7629; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 14:51:45 +0100 (CET) Received: from poczta.interia.pl (naos.interia.pl [217.74.65.50]) by mx.poczta.interia.pl (MX) with ESMTP id 1BFDF7D75B5 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 14:51:40 +0100 (CET) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (naos.interia.pl [127.0.0.1]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailserver) with SMTP id DFEE77F0D for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 14:51:39 +0100 (CET) Received: by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver, from userid 555) id 9E4607E95; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 14:51:39 +0100 (CET) Received: from kavanagh (unknown [217.153.105.20]) by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver) with SMTP id D7F8C7E8C for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 14:51:38 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <00df01c1a5a7$66e46490$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: References: <003101c1a4e0$bfb00ce0$743be150@pacific> <015d01c1a4fa$d4d20f00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3C5127E1.C675FAA1@alphyra.ie> Subject: Re: [BLML] Who are the leaders playing? Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 14:41:39 +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 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 X-EMID: 8b2be2c0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "James" To: Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 10:39 AM Subject: [BLML] Who are the leaders playing? > Hi All, > > Situation : > We were playing the last board in the last match of a teams comp. > Were down on the first 7 boards. > Were placed 5th with a reasonable chance of 3rd, playing the 2nd > placed team who are a safe for 2nd and are trailing 1st place by about > 15. > > I'm considering punting 6s. However, In fairness to first place, > I dont want to chuck a heavy win to our opponents. I was in a similar situation in a Thrid Division match many years ago. We needed 25 VP win to qualify to play-offs. After the first half the score was 36-36 IMPs. So we played the second half very aggresively trying to create swings out of thin air as the boards were rather flat. In a sense we were right - during the second half our opponents didn't make many mistakes so playing normal bridge wouldn't have given us the 25 VP win we needed. As a result we lost the match by 5-25 VPs. Thanks to this big win our opponents finished first after the Round Robin which gave them automatical promotion to the Second Division without the need to play in the play offs. The team that failed to finish first because of the result in our match lost later in the play offs so one might say that the leaders failed to win the promotion because of what we did in the second half of our match. Even if this is true all I can say is that they were just unlucky. When I play bridge I am trying to maximize my score regardless of the impact it has on the rest of the field. If I need a big win I'm playing for it. You say thay I shouldn't as this is what "fairness" to first place demands. I don't like using this word in this context as this implies that people with my attitude to this problem are "unfair" to their opponents. So if I were in your position I would bid 6S and wouldn't bother about the leaders. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Czy widziales juz najnowsze wiadomosci? >>> http://fakty.interia.pl/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 26 01:43:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0PEgCs07850 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 01:42:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from picard.skynet.be (picard.skynet.be [195.238.3.131]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0PEg2H07820 for ; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 01:42:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-47922.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.59.50]) by picard.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g0PEXMi13241 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 15:33:22 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C516CBD.3010305@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 15:33:33 +0100 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] L74B3 help References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Maybe a succesfull tactic would be to always play an unexpected suit when he does this. Roger Pewick wrote: > I have a friend with a relationship problem at the bridge table. Can > someone suggest a solution? > > In a home rubber game (but possibly duplicate) one of the players has > a history of detaching a card before his turn and putting it face down > on the table with the expectation he will indeed play it next. It is > felt that it is done to 'show off' his prowess in predicting the > course of play. Requests to not do so have achieved the result that > the stunt is not done when they partner. However, he persists when > partnering others in spite of continued requests to not do so. > > Given the person's history of ignoring the requests to desist the > problem is how to achieve the outcome without ruffling feathers, so to > speak. My impression is that it would not be satisfactory to > 'threaten' expulsion. > > thanks > roger pewick > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 26 01:53:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0PEqFj09863 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 01:52:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0PEq3H09824 for ; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 01:52:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16U7ZU-000I3D-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 14:43:22 +0000 Message-ID: <+73OP+BReVU8Ew9Y@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 13:03:13 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Snafu-killing References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020123134141.02572b70@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020123134141.02572b70@pop.ulb.ac.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner writes >I'd like to tell you about a case from a recent Belgian match. The question >will be : is there anything to do at all ?, so you can guess we didn't find >anything. >In Belgian T4 championships, apart from Premiership, no TD is present, and >any non-automatic problem should be reported and left aside for a committee >to decide. [s] >Your opinion would be welcome, and we're ETBF. Whatever you do about the actual board I wonder about the basic approach. In England it is normal for over 95% of all matches to be played without a TD being present. However, especially for technical matters, you should take rulings to a TD, not to an AC. I think your method here is asking for trouble. Why do you not make sure that any ruling is submitted to a TD, either by phone, or by writing it down and submitting it to a TD later? It would be a better approach. In England many regulating authorities provide phone numbers of TDs. I recommend this practice to other authorities. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 26 01:53:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0PEqLR09872 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 01:52:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0PEq7H09839 for ; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 01:52:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16U7ZU-000I3C-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 14:43:25 +0000 Message-ID: <3LpMjxBqUVU8Ew$a@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 12:52:58 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Actual case References: <3c4d8def.1a88.0@esatclear.ie> In-Reply-To: <3c4d8def.1a88.0@esatclear.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Karel writes Most of the quotes in here part from Karel's are by David Stevenson >>>N/S Vul >>> >>> North >>> S A73 Bidding N E S W >>> H K9 1NT P 2C P >>> D AKT42 2D P 2NT P >>>West C K72 East 3NT P P P >>>S 9 S JT865 >>>H AT653 H 872 >>>D QJ63 D 87 >>>C AT8 South C QJ3 >>> S KQ42 >>> H QJ4 >>> D 95 >>> C 9654 >[snip .. >None of the above. He should call the TD and explain what has >happened. The TD will then decide whether there has been MI. Assuming there >has been MI in his view then the TD will allow West to take back his last pass >if it is affected by the MI [hardly credible here] >[Karel - whow ... can an auction actually be rolled right back 7/8 bids ?? No, it can't. Read L21B1: it may be rolled back a maximum of two *calls*. >How can you continue from the changed call and hope to achieve a normal bidding >sequence with the UI available to both sides ?? That must really make life >difficult. > >I'm surprised at the general response to the 2H bid in the face of a genuine/art >stayman 2C bid. Imps by nature is more conservative in the bidding. Any bid >made effects 4 people not 2. We've all seen players make completely different >bids with almost identical hands depending on the scoring used. Is it so >completely >ridiculous that West decided to go safely on what he considered a close call >but with extra information available he states he would categorically bid ?? > Clearly from the writeup of the case West really wanted to bid but curbed his >enthusiasm in the face of a possible large penalty. Why should we condem his >somewhat conservative action as "hardly credible" ?? If 2C has a major then with one spade and five hearts the chances of that player having four hearts is [say] one in eight. if 2C does not need a major then the chance of that player having four hearts is [say] one in ten. Not only is that a minor difference, but the chance of going for a large penalty when bidding a bad suit against two opponents bidding and a passing partner is quite high in either case anyway, and it makes a totally trivial difference whether it guarantees a major. >Percentages aside I'm sure West was good enough to realise that the chances >of South having 4 spades was higher than 4 hearts due to his own distribution >as mentioned in a previous response. I don't think he meant his odds to be >taken literally. I feel west was simply implying that with a 2C stayman not >necessarily showing the majors would have been sufficient to swing him from >his conservative action to a more active 2H overcall. Must we not accept his >statement that he would have bid if he was properly informed ?? ] Oh, please! If we always believe whatever players tell us then both sides would gain twenty imps on all boards! After the hand players do have a habit of looking on the bright side! TDs rule based on their judgement {and that of their consultant[s]}, not on the judgement of the players, which is likely to be biased. >[snip ... >> Now I read back it says: >When asked what the problem was he said he would have bid had the 2C bid been >alerted. The director said to play on and call him back if E/W felt injured.and >I wonder if the TD got it wrong. The moment he discovered it was an MI case >he should warn the players against saying too much, and keep the UI to a >minimum. > ] >[Karel - yes I was wondering about that - this approach to the problem seems >much more realistic and practical aimed at minimising UI. So here the TD should >have decided if there was MI (there is), called the player (west in this case) >away from the table and asked would he have bid differently. > If no fine >bidding/play/lead >as was, otherwise the new call is inserted and the bidding continues. >Presumably >East (if west passes) also gets this chance to change his bid option ?? It is only the last pass that may be changed, plus the lead, and the TD does not need to take anyone away from the table. He explains the situation and then asks if they wish to change their call/lead. >[snip ...] >> Why did East not call the TD? When you are told that you have been >>given MI you call the TD. >> Mind you, the Laws give North a special responsibility to call the TD >>*before* correcting the MI, which he failed to do. This makes it easier >>for the TD to stop the defenders saying how they might be damaged. >in this case if East had immediately called the TD it >>would have been less obvious that West had the problem. > >[Karel - from my experience players will rarely call the TD if they feel that >the MI would not have effected their bid anyway and rarely see the problem from >pd's side (ie) if pd has a problem he'll speak up. As to N/S calling the TD, >extremely rare in my experience that players call the TD on themselves. So >ineffect the player with the problem is usually left with this decision. ] They are not calling the TD "on" themselves. While it is true it is rare it is not unheard of. >I'll continue the scenario ..... > >At the other table, 2C was also used in a non strict stayman fashion. It was >alerted, but West did not ask for an explanation and bid 2H anyway. 3NT was >reached via a similar auction but not in a confident manner. A heart was led >and this time declarer went down 2 (line of play was not recorded but the DT >must not have been finessed). The 4 players were good players. > >Would the fact that an active 2H bid nearly caused 3NT not to be reached and >that a heart lead (possibly creating extra pressure and tempo) may have caused >declarer to misplay the hand and go down, be seen as corroborating evidence >that the original case had alot of merit and that the score should infact have >been adjusted ?? No. What happened with different players and a different ambience at one table is not much evidence. Whether the score should have been adjusted depends on the merits of the case. In my view I can see no reason to adjust unless the TD erred. The lead could have been changed, and as long as this was offered there was no reason to adjust. If a player bids 2H when the Stayman bid does not show a four card major then he would have bid it if it does not. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 26 01:53:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0PEqPs09887 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 01:52:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0PEqBH09853 for ; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 01:52:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16U7Zb-0009oa-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 14:43:31 +0000 Message-ID: <+r+ObIC0jVU8Ewc9@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 13:09:08 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] What do players think the mispull rule is? References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020123212032.025a53b0@mail.rdc1.md.home.com> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020123212032.025a53b0@mail.rdc1.md.home.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David J. Grabiner writes >We all know what the rule is for misbids from bidding boxes, but what is >being done to educate players? > >N E S >1D 1S 1H,oops,X > >West called the TD, and South had no idea that she had done anything >wrong. The TD, of course, ruled that she couldn't have pulled 1H while >intending to double, cancelled the double as a premature correction and UI >to North, and allowed South to correct to 2H. Of course? Did he not investigate? >This is one of those situations in which TD's should have a standard >formula, as they do for OLOOT, "You have five options. You may..." The >formula should be something like, "What was your intention when you pulled >the card out of the box?" Do most TD's do this? I hope so, except that I ask them what they intended when their hand went towards the box. It is true that this case looks very clear. This is the classical change of mind when South realises East has not passed. As for the education of players the only thing I would say is that the TD must explain carefully why he is not allowing a change under L25A. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 26 02:54:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0PFqwB21447 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 02:52:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resulb.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0PFqnH21422 for ; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 02:52:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id QAA16918; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 16:41:14 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id QAA19081; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 16:44:08 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020125164513.00a3a080@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 16:47:05 +0100 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] L74B3 help In-Reply-To: <3C516CBD.3010305@village.uunet.be> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 15:33 25/01/2002 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Maybe a succesfull tactic would be to always play an unexpected suit when >he does this. AG : I've done this many times. But you have to be pretty sure this doesn't cost you a trick. By the way, is the player always compelled to play his detached card, provided it is not a revoke ? If he is, an unexpected deep finesse could be the way to teach him. Regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 26 03:39:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0PGc7Z27260 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 03:38:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.128]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0PGbvH27236 for ; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 03:37:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-80656.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.187.16]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g0PGT6g00666 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 17:29:06 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C5187DC.4010007@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 17:29:16 +0100 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Snafu-killing References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020123134141.02572b70@pop.ulb.ac.be> <+73OP+BReVU8Ew9Y@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain is actually wrong when he states that cases are referred to committee. They are referred to a TD. Then you can still appeal. I don't know why Alain did not rule himself. Most of my opponents accept this in technical matters. David Stevenson wrote: > Alain Gottcheiner writes > > >>I'd like to tell you about a case from a recent Belgian match. The question >>will be : is there anything to do at all ?, so you can guess we didn't find >>anything. >>In Belgian T4 championships, apart from Premiership, no TD is present, and >>any non-automatic problem should be reported and left aside for a committee >>to decide. >> > > [s] > > >>Your opinion would be welcome, and we're ETBF. >> > > Whatever you do about the actual board I wonder about the basic > approach. In England it is normal for over 95% of all matches to be > played without a TD being present. However, especially for technical > matters, you should take rulings to a TD, not to an AC. I think your > method here is asking for trouble. > > Why do you not make sure that any ruling is submitted to a TD, either > by phone, or by writing it down and submitting it to a TD later? It > would be a better approach. > > In England many regulating authorities provide phone numbers of TDs. > I recommend this practice to other authorities. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 26 04:25:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0PHNWD03589 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 04:23:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe61.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.196]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0PHNOH03576 for ; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 04:23:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 09:14:40 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [209.245.202.140] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <3C516CBD.3010305@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] L74B3 help Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 11:14:49 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Jan 2002 17:14:40.0613 (UTC) FILETIME=[C63C4950:01C1A5C3] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 8:33 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] L74B3 help | Maybe a succesfull tactic would be to always play an | unexpected suit when he does this. | | Roger Pewick wrote: | | > I have a friend with a relationship problem at the bridge table. Can | > someone suggest a solution? | > | > In a home rubber game (but possibly duplicate) one of the players has | > a history of detaching a card before his turn and putting it face down | > on the table with the expectation he will indeed play it next. It is | > felt that it is done to 'show off' his prowess in predicting the | > course of play. Requests to not do so have achieved the result that | > the stunt is not done when they partner. However, he persists when | > partnering others in spite of continued requests to not do so. | > | > Given the person's history of ignoring the requests to desist the | > problem is how to achieve the outcome without ruffling feathers, so to | > speak. My impression is that it would not be satisfactory to | > 'threaten' expulsion. | > | > thanks | > roger pewick Thanks Herman. However, one aspect of this player's antics is that of distraction and intimidation. Another is that unauthorized inferences can be drawn from the information that he thinks he knows what is coming. I would think that playing the game 'Trip You Up' merely would be distracting and exacerbates the creation of UI. It is my sense that delving into such UI problems would be unwelcome. What is desired to avoid such UI altogether. regards roger pewick -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 26 04:28:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0PHQvW04220 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 04:26:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0PHQmH04200 for ; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 04:26:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id SAA29113; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 18:15:16 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id SAA26436; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 18:18:08 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020125181202.00a872a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 18:21:05 +0100 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Snafu-killing In-Reply-To: <3C5187DC.4010007@village.uunet.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020123134141.02572b70@pop.ulb.ac.be> <+73OP+BReVU8Ew9Y@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 17:29 25/01/2002 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Alain is actually wrong when he states that cases are referred to >committee. They are referred to a TD. >Then you can still appeal. > >I don't know why Alain did not rule himself. Most of my opponents accept >this in technical matters. AG :as for the 1st stage : everybody at the table, even me, agreed that the board should be replayed (I was sitting West for B at the Open Table, where the problem was discovered). No need to make any decision. As for the 2nd stage, I let Jay, who is a TD himself, and a close friend of South, do the trouble-shooting. He was our NPC, after all. We reached an agreement, that cancelling the substitute board and doing nothing else was the best way to cope with this ridiculous problem, because : a) Team A (more precisely, West) caused the initial problem, so the claim of one of their players that they should get a compensation to account for their vanished 14 IMPs was brushed aside. b) Wouldn't we all make fools of ourselves by telling the whole affair from the rooftops ? Best regards, Alain. >David Stevenson wrote: > >>Alain Gottcheiner writes >> >>>I'd like to tell you about a case from a recent Belgian match. The >>>question will be : is there anything to do at all ?, so you can guess we >>>didn't find anything. >>>In Belgian T4 championships, apart from Premiership, no TD is present, >>>and any non-automatic problem should be reported and left aside for a >>>committee to decide. >> [s] >> >>>Your opinion would be welcome, and we're ETBF. >> Whatever you do about the actual board I wonder about the basic >>approach. In England it is normal for over 95% of all matches to be >>played without a TD being present. However, especially for technical >>matters, you should take rulings to a TD, not to an AC. I think your >>method here is asking for trouble. >> Why do you not make sure that any ruling is submitted to a TD, either >>by phone, or by writing it down and submitting it to a TD later? It >>would be a better approach. >> In England many regulating authorities provide phone numbers of TDs. >>I recommend this practice to other authorities. > > >-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 26 05:57:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0PItX419261 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 05:55:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (mta01-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0PItOH19239 for ; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 05:55:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from tinyhrieuyik ([213.104.152.229]) by mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020125184643.VXLV9422.mta01-svc.ntlworld.com@tinyhrieuyik> for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 18:46:43 +0000 Message-ID: <000f01c1a5d2$5bcd9740$e59868d5@tinyhrieuyik> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] Expert claim? Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 18:58:26 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk A member of our club has a habit which he may have picked up from watching experts. As declarer, at teams, after some tricks have been played, he picks up his quitted tricks, shuffles them into the rest of his hand, and writes down the score. His implication is that he has the rest of the tricks. Does this constitute a claim? Does play cease, as in normal claims? Is he bound to show his hand, if asked? if challenged is he allowed to elucidate his line of play? IMO this is an annoying waste of time. Also, after the hand has been shuffled, it is difficult to dispute tricks or establish revokes. At normal levels, can such behaviour be penalized --or at least discouraged? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 26 06:23:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0PJLxp24422 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 06:21:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0PJJnH24076 for ; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 06:19:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from Panther901.eiu.edu (Panther901.eiu.edu [139.67.11.140]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0PJB1v09535 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 13:11:01 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20020125125910.00a2aec0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 13:12:19 -0600 To: "BLML" From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Expert claim? In-Reply-To: <000f01c1a5d2$5bcd9740$e59868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:58 PM 1/25/02 +0000, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >A member of our club has a habit which he may have picked up from watching >experts. As declarer, at teams, after some tricks have been played, he picks >up his quitted tricks, shuffles them into the rest of his hand, and writes >down the score. His implication is that he has the rest of the tricks. >Does this constitute a claim? Does play cease, as in normal claims? Is he He has manifestly "suggested that play be curtailed", so yes, it is a claim like any other. Being a claim, play ceases. >bound to show his hand, if asked? if challenged is he allowed to elucidate If you contest his claim, as is certainly your right, the TD will require him to put his remaining cards face up on the table [L70b2]. I assume this means 'the cards that remained at the instant of his claim', so he can't get out of it by saying that he hasn't got any cards remaining. I don't think off the top of my head that you can simply demand to see his cards, but I may be forgetting something. >his line of play? IMO this is an annoying waste of time. Also, after the Yes, he can elucidate a line of play, and you should encourage him to do so, since if the line of play he states is 'normal' then the TD will ignore it if there is an alternative inferior normal line, while if the line of play he states is irrational he'll be stuck with it. :) It's too late for an original clarification statement. It is not an annoying _waste of time_ if you never ask to see his cards--it saves a lot of time. It _is_ immensely annoying...so annoying, in fact, that I would say that it "might interfere with the enjoyment of the game" per L74a2. It clearly interferes with yours. >hand has been shuffled, it is difficult to dispute tricks or establish Indeed. If I were TD at your game, it would certainly interfere with _my_ enjoyment of the game the first time I got called to sort out a shuffled-card possible revoke. :) >revokes. At normal levels, can such behaviour be penalized --or at least >discouraged? It is a violation of L74, and of L68c [although this is a less serious violation, I think], at the very least. As such, it should be discouraged, and penalized if he continues it after having been asked to desist by the TD. I would ask him politely not to put his cards away without giving me a chance to see them, first, and then ask the TD to speak to him if that fails, as I suspect it will. Respectfully, Grant Sterling -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 26 06:39:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0PJbOa27506 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 06:37:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0PJbFH27481 for ; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 06:37:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA21739; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 11:28:34 -0800 Message-Id: <200201251928.LAA21739@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "BLML" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Expert claim? In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 25 Jan 2002 18:58:26 GMT." <000f01c1a5d2$5bcd9740$e59868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 11:28:34 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Nigel Guthrie wrote: > A member of our club has a habit which he may have picked up from watching > experts. As declarer, at teams, after some tricks have been played, he picks > up his quitted tricks, shuffles them into the rest of his hand, and writes > down the score. His implication is that he has the rest of the tricks. > Does this constitute a claim? This seems to be a clear suggestion that play be curtailed, so it's a claim by Law 68A. > Does play cease, as in normal claims? It's a claim, so play does cease. > Is he bound to show his hand, if asked? Technically, I don't think there's anything in the Laws that give the opponents the right to see his hand without contesting the claim. However, if the opponents do contest the claim, then the TD is summoned (68D), and certainly the TD needs to see the hand in order to adjudicate it. I think that's a better route for the opponents to take, anyway. If they call the TD every time Mister Expert Wannabe pulls this stunt, this will probably rid him of this obnoxious habit faster than if they just demanded to see his hand. > if challenged is he allowed to elucidate > his line of play? It should be treated as any other claim that's made without a statement. I'm not saying that we automatically rule against declarer; personally, I sometimes make claims just by showing my hand, when I know that the opponents are good enough to see that the line of play I'm going to take is obvious. Nobody has contested any of my statementless claims yet. > IMO this is an annoying waste of time. Also, after the > hand has been shuffled, it is difficult to dispute tricks or establish > revokes. Law 65D deals with this. In particular, this behavior "jeopardizes his right to claim ownership of doubtful tricks." > At normal levels, can such behaviour be penalized --or at least > discouraged? 65D says "A player should not disturb the order of his played cards until agreement has been reached on the number of tricks won." The Laws say the word *should* means the infraction will "seldom" incur a procedural penalty, but it leaves the door open to do so if the player has been warned against doing this and continues to do so. I think if the opponents call the TD every time he does this, this will also discourage him. There are, of course, other ways to discourage him, involving (for example) pipe wrenches, or, as Tim West-Meads suggested on r.g.b., cattle prods. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 26 06:55:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0PJrLN00600 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 06:53:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (cosmos.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca [132.156.47.32]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0PJrDH00579 for ; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 06:53:13 +1100 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g0PJiWT23801 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 14:44:33 -0500 (EST) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200201251944.g0PJiWT23801@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Expert claim? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 14:44:32 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <000f01c1a5d2$5bcd9740$e59868d5@tinyhrieuyik> from "Nigel Guthrie" at Jan 25, 2002 06:58:26 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL4] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > A member of our club has a habit which he may have picked up from watching > experts. As declarer, at teams, after some tricks have been played, he picks > up his quitted tricks, shuffles them into the rest of his hand, and writes > down the score. His implication is that he has the rest of the tricks. > Does this constitute a claim? Does play cease, as in normal claims? Is he > bound to show his hand, if asked? if challenged is he allowed to elucidate > his line of play? He's claimed with no statement of play. The was a hand famous 30some years ago (I'll see if I can dig it up) Ira Rubin passed throughout and was on lead against a major suit game (A 10 card fit missing the Queen. High honor in both hands) Rubin cahed Ace, King and an Ace and the declarer (Billy Eisenberg) put his hand pack in the slot. Rubin's partner (Phil Feldesman) screamed for the director. He had Qxx of trump and was awarded a trick. Controversial because even Ira Rubin was unlikely to have passed a 13 count in first seat in a hand that had 3 quick tricks. (Point being that any expert would have played Feldesman as the only one who could have had Qxx on the auction and play. But Eisenberg hadn't made a statement.) This was from the finals of one of the major US knockout events. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 26 07:05:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0PK3uV02649 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 07:03:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat39.alcanet.no [193.213.239.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0PK3lH02621 for ; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 07:03:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from netos70.alcatel.no (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with ESMTP id g0PJt0H01573; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 20:55:00 +0100 Subject: Re: [BLML] Expert claim? To: "Nigel Guthrie" Cc: "\"BLML\" Nigel Guthrie wrote": X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 20:54:58 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NOMAIL01/NO/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 01/25/2002 20:54:58 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Nigel Guthrie wrote: >A member of our club has a habit which he may have picked up from watching >experts. As declarer, at teams, after some tricks have been played, he picks >up his quitted tricks, shuffles them into the rest of his hand, and writes >down the score. His implication is that he has the rest of the tricks. >Does this constitute a claim? Does play cease, as in normal claims? Is he >bound to show his hand, if asked? if challenged is he allowed to elucidate >his line of play? IMO this is an annoying waste of time. Also, after the >hand has been shuffled, it is difficult to dispute tricks or establish >revokes. At normal levels, can such behaviour be penalized --or at least >discouraged? This is a terrible habit, and I seriously doubt if he has picked that up from watching experts. To begin with you can take a look at Laws 65C, 65D and 79A Also Law 74A2 could in my opinion be considered relevant. It does constitute a claim (Law 68A "he suggests that play be curtailed") If I were called to the table on a case like that I would probably rule that he had claimed without giving any statement, and thus also deny him the right to "repeat" such statement afterwards (see law 70B1 - when "repeating" a statement he is not allowed to make any change or addition to the statement originally given, and here he gave none). The consequence is that if defenders can show any play (excluding pure irrational plays) that will give them one or more tricks I should rule accordingly. In addition I should probably give him a procedure penalty, you said team match?, at least 3 IMPS or 0,5 VP (unless he is a beginner who had better receive some kind education on how to behave in Bridge). As for the question of establishing possible revokes etc. I would deny him any right to claim the order in which his cards were played unless his claim is confirmed by defenders (or as being self evident). (This is a principle I always enforce when at a table the question arises on the sequence in which cards have actually been played and one or more players are unable to demonstrate this sequence from an orderly arrangement of their played cards on the table, for instance because the cards are collected in two piles "our tricks" and "their tricks", or by being shuffled) I trust this answers the rest of your questions. regards Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 26 07:59:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0PKwCm13329 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 07:58:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat39.alcanet.no [193.213.239.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0PKw3H13293 for ; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 07:58:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from netos70.alcatel.no (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with ESMTP id g0PKn7Q03556; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 21:49:07 +0100 Subject: Re: [BLML] Expert claim? To: Ron Johnson Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 21:49:06 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NOMAIL01/NO/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 01/25/2002 21:49:07 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ron Johnson wrote: . . . . (snip) >The was a hand famous 30some years ago (I'll see if I can dig it up) >Ira Rubin passed throughout and was on lead against a major suit >game (A 10 card fit missing the Queen. High honor in both hands) >Rubin cached Ace, King and an Ace and the declarer (Billy Eisenberg) >put his hand pack in the slot. >Rubin's partner (Phil Feldesman) screamed for the director. He had Qxx of >trump and was awarded a trick. Controversial because even Ira Rubin was >unlikely to have passed a 13 count in first seat in a hand that had 3 >quick tricks. (Point being that any expert would have played Feldesman >as the only one who could have had Qxx on the auction and play. But >Eisenberg hadn't made a statement.) >This was from the finals of one of the major US knockout events. In my humble opinion a perfectly correct ruling. It was careless but not irrational play, even at this level to lose a trick to Qxx at RHO. True: Any expert would have played . . ., but then any expert would also have made a statement to that effect with his claim. Even experts can be careless. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 26 08:28:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0PLQPR17307 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 08:26:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0PLQGH17281 for ; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 08:26:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16UDj5-0003ZI-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 16:17:35 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020125161012.00aff420@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 16:17:45 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Expert claim? In-Reply-To: <000f01c1a5d2$5bcd9740$e59868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 01:58 PM 1/25/02, Nigel wrote: >A member of our club has a habit which he may have picked up from watching >experts. As declarer, at teams, after some tricks have been played, he >picks >up his quitted tricks, shuffles them into the rest of his hand, and writes >down the score. His implication is that he has the rest of the tricks. >Does this constitute a claim? Yes. He has "suggest[ed] that play be curtailed" (L68A). >Does play cease, as in normal claims? Yes (L68D). >Is he >bound to show his hand, if asked? Yes (L70B2). >if challenged is he allowed to elucidate >his line of play? Yes. But his doing so is unlikely to matter; the TD will normally not accept it (L70D). >IMO this is an annoying waste of time. Also, after the >hand has been shuffled, it is difficult to dispute tricks or establish >revokes. At normal levels, can such behaviour be penalized --or at least >discouraged? Yes. It is improper, and can be penalized. And should be. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 26 09:23:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0PMLHd27673 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 09:21:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0PML8H27656 for ; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 09:21:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g0PMCTI19100 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 14:12:29 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <004201c1a5ed$5cd85c40$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" References: <5.1.0.14.1.20020125125910.00a2aec0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Expert claim? Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 14:05:38 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Grant Sterling > At 06:58 PM 1/25/02 +0000, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > >A member of our club has a habit which he may have picked up from watching > >experts. As declarer, at teams, after some tricks have been played, he picks > >up his quitted tricks, shuffles them into the rest of his hand, and writes > >down the score. His implication is that he has the rest of the tricks. > >Does this constitute a claim? Does play cease, as in normal claims? Is he > > He has manifestly "suggested that play be curtailed", so yes, > it is a claim like any other. Being a claim, play ceases. > > >bound to show his hand, if asked? if challenged is he allowed to elucidate > > If you contest his claim, as is certainly your right, the > TD will require him to put his remaining cards face up on > the table [L70b2]. I assume this means 'the cards that remained > at the instant of his claim', so he can't get out of it by > saying that he hasn't got any cards remaining. I don't think off the > top of my head that you can simply demand to see his cards, but > I may be forgetting something. > > >his line of play? IMO this is an annoying waste of time. Also, after the > > Yes, he can elucidate a line of play, and you should > encourage him to do so, since if the line of play he states > is 'normal' then the TD will ignore it if there is an alternative > inferior normal line, while if the line of play he states is > irrational he'll be stuck with it. :) Unless, for some strange reason, the irrational line includes a revoke. Or, for that matter, maybe no irrational play can be accepted. Perhaps some of our more permissive BLMLers can tell us. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 26 09:57:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0PMtNx04389 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 09:55:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (mta05-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.45]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0PMtBH04361 for ; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 09:55:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from tinyhrieuyik ([213.104.152.103]) by mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020125224630.RSNV7206.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@tinyhrieuyik>; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 22:46:30 +0000 Message-ID: <000301c1a5f3$db6d64a0$679868d5@tinyhrieuyik> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "Robin Barker" Cc: "BLML" References: <200201251228.MAA21346@tempest.npl.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Curator ad Litem Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 20:52:32 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [Nigel Guthrie] In interesting cases, is there provision for a TD to appeal against himself? If so, is there a mechanism for providing appeal deposits and representing absent appellants? [Robin Barker] There is such a provision: Law 83, this provision was new in 1997 (IIRC) "LAW 83 - NOTIFICATION OF THE RIGHT TO APPEAL" "If the Director believes that a review of his decision on a point of fact or exercise of his discretionary power might be in order (as when he awards an adjusted score under Law 12), he shall advise a contestant of his right to appeal or may refer the matter to an appropriate committee." [rb] The last phrase "may refer the matter to an appropriate committee" allows the TD to refer her ruling to an appeals committee without either side wishing to appeal. [rb] I don't think the TD should exercise this option just because she is unhappy with her ruling, she should consult (with TDs, other players, or other the phone) to get the ruling right in the first place. This should also avoid the need for the TD to go to an appeals committee to protect the field. (DWS - "the field can look after itself") [rb] I think a TD may appeal her own decision when new facts have come to light after the initial ruling has been given. It is possible to change the ruling under L82C, but it may be more expedient to get an appeals committee to consider the whole case from scratch. [rb] Although a TD can not be fined for an appeal without merit, if the AC find that there is nothing to discuss and they have been deprived of drinking time by the TD, she will not hear the end of it. [ng] Thank you, Robin. I am relieved to hear there is provision for cases where the side initially ruled against is not in contention and do not want to appeal themselves. Has a TD ever invoked this law, in such circumstances? If so, who represented the absent appellants? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 26 09:57:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0PMtVU04400 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 09:55:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (mta05-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.45]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0PMtIH04381 for ; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 09:55:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from tinyhrieuyik ([213.104.152.103]) by mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020125224636.RSPL7206.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@tinyhrieuyik>; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 22:46:36 +0000 Message-ID: <000401c1a5f3$df535160$679868d5@tinyhrieuyik> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "Grant Sterling" Cc: "BLML" References: <5.1.0.14.1.20020125125910.00a2aec0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Expert claim? Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 20:53:42 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [Nigel Guthrie] A member of our club has a habit which he may have picked up from watching experts. As declarer, at teams, after some tricks have been played, he picks up his quitted tricks, shuffles them into the rest of his hand, and writes down the score. His implication is that he has the rest of the tricks. Does this constitute a claim? Does play cease, as in normal claims? [Grant Sterling] He has manifestly "suggested that play be curtailed", so yes, it is a claim like any other. Being a claim, play ceases. [ng] Is he bound to show his hand, if asked? if challenged is he allowed to elucidate his line of play? [gs] If you contest his claim, as is certainly your right, the TD will require him to put his remaining cards face up on the table [L70b2]. I assume this means 'the cards that remained at the instant of his claim', so he can't get out of it by saying that he hasn't got any cards remaining. I don't think off the top of my head that you can simply demand to see his cards, but I may be forgetting something. [ng] IMO this is an annoying waste of time. [gs] Yes, he can elucidate a line of play, and you should encourage him to do so, since if the line of play he states is 'normal' then the TD will ignore it if there is an alternative inferior normal line, while if the line of play he states is irrational he'll be stuck with it. :) It's too late for an original clarification statement. It is not an annoying _waste of time_ if you never ask to see his cards--it saves a lot of time. It _is_ immensely annoying...so annoying, in fact, that I would say that it "might interfere with the enjoyment of the game" per L74a2. It clearly interferes with yours. [ng] Also, after the hand has been shuffled, it is difficult to dispute tricks or establish revokes. [gs] Indeed. If I were TD at your game, it would certainly interfere with _my_ enjoyment of the game the first time I got called to sort out a shuffled-card possible revoke. :) [ng] At normal levels, can such behaviour be penalized --or at least discouraged? [gs] It is a violation of L74, and of L68c [although this is a less serious violation, I think], at the very least. As such, it should be discouraged, and penalized if he continues it after having been asked to desist by the TD. I would ask him politely not to put his cards away without giving me a chance to see them, first, and then ask the TD to speak to him if that fails, as I suspect it will. [ng] Thank you, Grant, for your enlightening and practical answer. One more question. How would you cope with this behaviour in a match where no TD is available? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 26 09:57:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0PMtGE04376 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 09:55:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (mta05-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.45]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0PMt5H04337 for ; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 09:55:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from tinyhrieuyik ([213.104.152.103]) by mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020125224624.RSLW7206.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@tinyhrieuyik>; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 22:46:24 +0000 Message-ID: <000201c1a5f3$d7dceae0$679868d5@tinyhrieuyik> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: Cc: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Pause for thought Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 20:52:09 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This qestion is about ordinary duplicate with out screens. I read somewhere that it used to be unethical to make a bid suggested by partner's hesitation. Nowadays, I have noticed that all experienced players try hard to avoid hesitations unless they want partner to pass. For example, suppose South's hand is poor in attack and defence like H:xx S:Qxxx D:xxxx C:xxx. North opens 1S and this competitive auction ensues (with E-W bids in brackets) and everybody bidding: 1S(2H)2S(4H)4S(5H)? Here, any unethical South will hesitate -- to prevent North from doubling or bidding -- unless North can underwrite his action. Hence, nowadays, with a street-wise partner, it seems right for for an ethical North to make the bid that he would have done, without the hesitation. What is the modern interpretation? See the "Could have known?" thread in the web Simple: If the hesitation is a "variation in tempo" and the partner has a logical alternative to passing, he may not select to pass if this "could have been suggested by the variation in tempo". It takes some guts for TD to force an active call in such cases, but it has been done and should sometimes be done. Thanks Konrad, Sven. This conference is a mine of education! -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 26 12:48:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0Q1juI04816 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 12:45:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tvout.mail.uk.easynet.net (tvout.mail.uk.easynet.net [194.6.96.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0Q1jlH04796 for ; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 12:45:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-14-196.easynet.co.uk [212.134.24.196]) by tvout.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id A112F63379 for ; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 01:37:05 +0000 (GMT) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Expert claim? Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 01:33:54 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: <000f01c1a5d2$5bcd9740$e59868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Nigel Guthrie writes: > A member of our club has a habit which he may have picked up from watching > experts. As declarer, at teams, after some tricks have been > played, he picks up his quitted tricks, shuffles them into the rest of his hand, > and writes down the score. His implication is that he has the rest of the tricks. There is another interpretation of this action. Since he has mixed his remaining cards with his quitted tricks without any explanation, he may be deemed to have abandoned his hand. In accordance with L68B "a player concedes all the remaining tricks when he abandons his hand". As a defender I might be inclined to counter this declarer's obnoxious habit with a casual "Six off, then?" and leave him to convince the TD that this was manifestly not his intention. I doubt he would do it at my table again, nor at any other if the TD gave him a sufficiently hard time over it. Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 26 21:48:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0QAjmj02619 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 21:45:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.gmx.net (pop.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g0QAjdH02592 for ; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 21:45:40 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 6074 invoked by uid 0); 26 Jan 2002 10:36:52 -0000 Received: from pd9e38a03.dip.t-dialin.net (HELO www) (217.227.138.3) by mail.gmx.net (mp014-rz3) with SMTP; 26 Jan 2002 10:36:52 -0000 From: "stefan filonardi" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 11:35:28 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: [BLML] Copyright of the laws. Message-ID: <3C529480.10022.F22F4C@localhost> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello, since I wanted to prepare myself a little bit better for the kroegendrive saison in the netherlands I went online to search the bridge laws in dutch to read the vocabulary in the definitions. To my big surprise I discovered that there is no dutch version online. In a newsgroup they told me that it is due of copyright reasons. Considering that I can find online for instance the the danish, the english, the french, the german, the italian, the norwegian, the portugese, the spanish, the swedish version etc. How do you look upon this choice of the NBB to limit the access to the bridge laws (for personal use)? with best regards stefan filonardi -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 26 22:56:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0QBsiW13469 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 22:54:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0QBsYH13445 for ; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 22:54:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from penguin.ripe.net (penguin.ripe.net [193.0.1.232]) by birch.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g0QBjnW14751; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 12:45:49 +0100 Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by penguin.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g0QBjmH01698; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 12:45:48 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: penguin.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 12:45:48 +0100 (CET) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: stefan filonardi cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Copyright of the laws. In-Reply-To: <3C529480.10022.F22F4C@localhost> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi, > since I wanted to prepare myself a little bit better for the > kroegendrive saison in the netherlands I went online to search Calling a TD in a kroegendrive ?? Calling a TD in most of these events is 'not-done' and if you do so, a helpful but clueless 'table assistant' will come to the table. These people know one or two basic rulings, that's it. In all other cases, their instruction is to give A+/A- and stop the fight. Remember that a kroegendrive is an event where a game vaguely resembling bridge is played, not a bridge tournament. > How do you look upon this choice of the NBB to limit the access > to the bridge laws (for personal use)? So-far, it has never been an issue, the few TD's who need a law-book online are perfectly happy with the English version. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 27 09:00:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0QLvUB00298 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 Jan 2002 08:57:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0QLvMH00269 for ; Sun, 27 Jan 2002 08:57:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g0QLmdt24664 for ; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 13:48:39 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <000901c1a6b3$2f0e2ee0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3C529480.10022.F22F4C@localhost> Subject: Re: [BLML] Copyright of the laws. Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 13:47:44 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Stefan Filonardi wrote: > since I wanted to prepare myself a little bit better for the > kroegendrive saison in the netherlands I went online to search > the bridge laws in dutch to read the vocabulary in the > definitions. To my big surprise I discovered that there is no > dutch version online. In a newsgroup they told me that it is due > of copyright reasons. > > Considering that I can find online for instance the the danish, > the english, the french, the german, the italian, the norwegian, > the portugese, the spanish, the swedish version etc. > > How do you look upon this choice of the NBB to limit the access > to the bridge laws (for personal use)? The Copyright of the 1997 Code in all non-English speaking countries in Europe (other than Spain and Portugal) is vested in the European Bridge League. The Copyright in the area of the British Commonwealth past and present (other than the Western Hemisphere), the Continent of Africa, Spain, Portugal and all English speaking countries in the Eastern Hemisphere is vested in the Portland Club. The Copyright in the Western Hemisphere and in the Republic of Philippines is vested in the American Contract Bridge League. Extracts from these Laws either verbatim or paraphrased are not permitted without the sanction of the Authority holding the Copyright. Within those areas where the Copyright is vested in the European Bridge League, the League sanctions, without charge, the translation and verbatim reproduction of the 1997 Code both in written and electronic forms, provided the European Bridge League's Copyright is acknowledged. (That information copied from the WBF web site.) Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 27 20:46:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0R9iSh15271 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 Jan 2002 20:44:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.gmx.net (pop.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g0R9iIH15267 for ; Sun, 27 Jan 2002 20:44:19 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 32323 invoked by uid 0); 27 Jan 2002 09:35:30 -0000 Received: from pd9e38b3c.dip.t-dialin.net (HELO www) (217.227.139.60) by mail.gmx.net (mp009-rz3) with SMTP; 27 Jan 2002 09:35:30 -0000 From: "stefan filonardi" To: "Marvin L. French" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 10:33:59 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: [BLML] Copyright of the laws. Message-ID: <3C53D797.7038.31BEAD@localhost> In-reply-to: <000901c1a6b3$2f0e2ee0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello, On 26 Jan 2002, at 13:47, Marvin L. French wrote: > The Copyright of the 1997 Code in all non-English speaking > countries in Europe (other than Spain and Portugal) is vested in > the European Bridge League. The Copyright in the area of the > British Commonwealth past and present (other than the Western > Hemisphere), the Continent of Africa, Spain, Portugal and all > English speaking countries in the Eastern Hemisphere is vested in > the Portland Club. The Copyright in the Western Hemisphere and in > the Republic of Philippines is vested in the American Contract > Bridge League. Extracts from these Laws either verbatim or > paraphrased are not permitted without the sanction of the > Authority holding the Copyright. > > Within those areas where the Copyright is vested in the European > Bridge League, the League sanctions, without charge, the > translation and verbatim reproduction of the 1997 Code both in > written and electronic forms, provided the European Bridge > League's Copyright is acknowledged. Sorry I am not a copyright lawyer, does this mean that the NBB does not have any copyright? What if all federations would follow the example of the NBB? ciao stefan -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 27 21:58:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0RAu7M27898 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 Jan 2002 21:56:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat39.alcanet.no [193.213.239.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0RAtvH27871 for ; Sun, 27 Jan 2002 21:55:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from netos70.alcatel.no (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with ESMTP id g0RAkrH14819; Sun, 27 Jan 2002 11:46:53 +0100 Subject: Re: [BLML] Copyright of the laws. To: "stefan filonardi" Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, "Marvin L. French" X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 11:46:51 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NOMAIL01/NO/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 01/27/2002 11:46:52 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Stefan Filonardi wrote: >Hello, >On 26 Jan 2002, at 13:47, Marvin L. French wrote: >> The Copyright of the 1997 Code in all non-English speaking >> countries in Europe (other than Spain and Portugal) is vested in >> the European Bridge League. The Copyright in the area of the >> British Commonwealth past and present (other than the Western >> Hemisphere), the Continent of Africa, Spain, Portugal and all >> English speaking countries in the Eastern Hemisphere is vested in >> the Portland Club. The Copyright in the Western Hemisphere and in >> the Republic of Philippines is vested in the American Contract >> Bridge League. Extracts from these Laws either verbatim or >> paraphrased are not permitted without the sanction of the >> Authority holding the Copyright. >> >> Within those areas where the Copyright is vested in the European >> Bridge League, the League sanctions, without charge, the >> translation and verbatim reproduction of the 1997 Code both in >> written and electronic forms, provided the European Bridge >> League's Copyright is acknowledged. >Sorry I am not a copyright lawyer, does this mean that the NBB >does not have any copyright? Yes, but the last phrase also gives anybody (yes ANYBODY) in the EBL domain (at least as I read it) permission to translate and to reproduce the laws both on paper and in electronic form provided the EBL copyright notice is included. The natural action is of course that the national federations prepare such translations, but I see nothing to stop anybody (preferably in agreement with his/her national federation) to do that job except of course that each national federation must have the final word as to exactly which translation shall be the "official" one to be used in competitions under their authority. >What if all federations would follow the example of the NBB? Seems silly, but do we really know what they "have done" (or rather have not done)? regards Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 27 22:18:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0RBGe502105 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 Jan 2002 22:16:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat39.alcanet.no [193.213.239.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0RBGVH02082 for ; Sun, 27 Jan 2002 22:16:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from netos70.alcatel.no (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with ESMTP id g0RB7g815511; Sun, 27 Jan 2002 12:07:42 +0100 Subject: Re: [BLML] Copyright of the laws. To: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, stefan filonardi X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 12:07:40 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NOMAIL01/NO/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 01/27/2002 12:07:41 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Henk Uijterwaal wrote >Hi, . . . (a bit snipped) >> How do you look upon this choice of the NBB to limit the access >> to the bridge laws (for personal use)? >So-far, it has never been an issue, the few TD's who need a law-book >online are perfectly happy with the English version. >Henk In Norway, and I believe in most other countries as well, the translation was made writing it on a PC. When the work was done and the manuscript was sent to print they also made that same manuscript available on the Norwegian Federation web pages. Simple as that. I assume you have a Dutch translation published in a law book? And I would be surprised if that translation has not been written to a file somewhere. So what is the problem with making this file available on the web? (I too am very happy with the English text and in fact often return to that when I am in the least doubt about the interpretation of the Norwegian law text. Also, for various reasons I even have two copies of my Norwegian law book (I always tend to forget one somewhere). Most (I hope all!) Norwegian Directors have their personal copy. But I still find it very handy to know that I can at any time look up the Norwegian text on the web if I should want to.) regards Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 28 00:07:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0RD4qr24291 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 00:04:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0RD4gH24256 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 00:04:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from penguin.ripe.net (penguin.ripe.net [193.0.1.232]) by birch.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g0RCtsW16950; Sun, 27 Jan 2002 13:55:54 +0100 Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by penguin.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g0RCtrC17177; Sun, 27 Jan 2002 13:55:53 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: penguin.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 13:55:53 +0100 (CET) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, stefan filonardi Subject: Re: [BLML] Copyright of the laws. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Sun, 27 Jan 2002 Sven.Pran@alcatel.no wrote: > I assume you have a Dutch translation published in a law book? > And I would be surprised if that translation has not been written > to a file somewhere. So what is the problem with making this file > available on the web? In principle nothing but when I asked a few years ago, I was told that the NBB held the rights to the Dutch translation and it was not allowed to put the laws online (either by copying the files or typing them in from a law book). Since there were only a few TD's online, I didn't pursue the matter further and (so-far) there hasn't been much interest in laws online. That said, I've already asked in the Dutch newsgroup if there are a few volunteers to turn the files into HTML, I'm happy to ask the powers that be for the files and permission to publish again. (I lack the time to do this myself). Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 28 02:32:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0RFUAs23924 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 02:30:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from eowyn.vianetworks.nl (eowyn.iae.nl [212.61.25.227]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0RFU1H23903 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 02:30:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from b0e7g1 (pm17d074.iae.nl [212.61.3.74]) by eowyn.vianetworks.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id AF39D20FB9 for ; Sun, 27 Jan 2002 16:21:16 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <004901c1a746$226554a0$4a033dd4@b0e7g1> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: [BLML] Two times diamond king Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 16:10:51 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The auction resulted in a game. The opening lead is a small diamond and dummy's hand is spread. The diamond king is played from dummy followed by a small diamond and another diamond king by declarer. It appeared that declarer has fourteen cards and the diamond king belongs to a forgoing board. The TD is summoned. Possible laws to apply are: 1, 7C, (17D, 87A), but 14 has no counterpart. If the TD puts the king back in the forgoing board and play continues, it appears that declarer belongs to the only pair that has bid and made game. Your reaction please. Ben -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 28 05:11:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0RI9YU20276 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 05:09:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat39.alcanet.no [193.213.239.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0RI9NH20252 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 05:09:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from netos70.alcatel.no (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with ESMTP id g0RI0Pn29318; Sun, 27 Jan 2002 19:00:25 +0100 Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king To: "Ben Schelen" Cc: "bridge-laws" X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 19:00:26 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NOMAIL01/NO/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 01/27/2002 19:00:25 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ben Schelen wrote: >The auction resulted in a game. >The opening lead is a small diamond and dummy's hand is spread. The diamond >king is played from dummy followed by a small diamond and another diamond >king by declarer. It appeared that declarer has fourteen cards and the >diamond king belongs to a forgoing board. >The TD is summoned. >Possible laws to apply are: 1, 7C, (17D, 87A), but 14 has no counterpart. >If the TD puts the king back in the forgoing board and play continues, it >appears that declarer belongs to the only pair that has bid and made game. >Your reaction please. The relevant law is law 1, and in "Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge 1987" by Endicott and Hansen it is said very clearly: "No result is ever to be considered valid if the pack does not conform to the specifications in this Law. This holds true even when the discrepancy appears to be irrelevant, such as there being two deuces of clubs but no three." (None of the other laws in the book deals with a pack containing more than 52 cards) So this board has to be cancelled, defenders will receive an average plus score while declarer (who is responsible for the irregularity) receives average minus - or even less if TD finds reason to additionally give a procedure penalty. There has recently been a discussion on a similar case where dummy spread a hand containing 14 cards, and the general reaction seemed to be that the extra card should simply be returned to the correct board and play be completed. I am reluctant to agree, but the reasoning was that the calls from dummy during the auction described a hand without this extra card, so there was every reason to believe that it had somehow been mixed into dummys hand when being spread on the table, not before. In your case the description seems to prove that the extra card must have been present in declares hand all the time, and in fact played an important role during the auction in reaching the final contract. That definitely leaves no alternative to cancelling the board. regards Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 28 08:27:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0RLPSc03737 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 08:25:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0RLPKH03733 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 08:25:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from penguin.ripe.net (penguin.ripe.net [193.0.1.232]) by birch.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g0RLGWW22472; Sun, 27 Jan 2002 22:16:32 +0100 Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by penguin.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g0RLGV904428; Sun, 27 Jan 2002 22:16:31 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: penguin.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 22:16:31 +0100 (CET) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Ben Schelen cc: bridge-laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king In-Reply-To: <004901c1a746$226554a0$4a033dd4@b0e7g1> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Sun, 27 Jan 2002, Ben Schelen wrote: > The auction resulted in a game. > The opening lead is a small diamond and dummy's hand is spread. The diamond > king is played from dummy followed by a small diamond and another diamond > king by declarer. It appeared that declarer has fourteen cards and the > diamond king belongs to a forgoing board. > The TD is summoned. The second DK doesn't belong to this board, to avoid confusion, it is removed from declarers hand and play continues. > Possible laws to apply are: 1, 7C, (17D, 87A), but 14 has no counterpart. 7C applies IMHO to the previous board, 17D refers to case where he took all 13 cards from another board, 87A to a case where the 52 cards are distributed in a different way. > If the TD puts the king back in the forgoing board and play continues, it > appears that declarer belongs to the only pair that has bid and made game. Bad luck for the NO-side, in general the offenders won't like it if a king is removed from their assets after the auction. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 28 14:03:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0S30gR27121 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 14:00:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com [212.74.112.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0S30YH27117 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 14:00:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.31.254] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 16V1tU-0008uY-00; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 02:51:41 +0000 Message-ID: <001c01c1a7a7$0e94e2e0$7634e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Henk Uijterwaal \(RIPE-NCC\)" , "Ben Schelen" Cc: "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 02:53:06 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "Ben Schelen" Cc: "bridge-laws" Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 9:16 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king > On Sun, 27 Jan 2002, Ben Schelen wrote: > > > The auction resulted in a game. > > The opening lead is a small diamond and dummy's > > hand is spread. The diamond king is played from > > dummy followed by a small diamond and another > > diamond king by declarer. It appeared that declarer > > has fourteen cards and the diamond king belongs > > to a forgoing board. The TD is summoned. > > The second DK doesn't belong to this board, to > > avoid confusion, it is removed from declarers > > hand and play continues. > > > > Possible laws to apply are: 1, 7C, (17D, 87A), > > but 14 has no counterpart. > > 7C applies IMHO to the previous board, 17D refers > to case where he took all 13 cards from another > board, 87A to a case where the 52 cards are > distributed in a different way. > > > > If the TD puts the king back in the forgoing board > > and play continues, it appears that declarer > > belongs to the only pair that has bid and made > > game. > > Bad luck for the NO-side, in general the offenders > won't like it if a king is removed from their assets > after the auction. > +=+ Hang on. What are we doing about Law 13? Has no-one made a call on this hand with 14 cards? ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 28 14:18:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0S3HBW27722 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 14:17:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lycee.ns.uk.easynet.net ([195.40.1.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0S3H2H27697 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 14:17:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-14-3.easynet.co.uk [212.134.24.3]) by lycee.ns.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 7A34DAC76 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 03:05:27 +0000 (GMT) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Two times diamond king Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 03:02:14 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Sven.Pran@alcatel.no writes: >>> Ben Schelen wrote: >>> The auction resulted in a game. The opening lead is a small diamond >>> and dummy's hand is spread. The diamond king is played from dummy >>> followed by a small diamond and another diamond king by declarer. >>> It appeared that declarer has fourteen cards and the diamond king >>> belongs to a forgoing board. The TD is summoned. >>> Possible laws to apply are: 1, 7C, (17D, 87A), but 14 has no counterpart. >>> If the TD puts the king back in the forgoing board and play continues, it >>> appears that declarer belongs to the only pair that has bid and made game. > The relevant law is law 1, and in "Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate > Contract Bridge 1987" by Endicott and Hansen it is said very clearly: No, no, no. We cannot rush to L1 just because we seem to have one too many cards, any more than we should do so when a card has been mislaid. L1 has not been breached, the pack conforms in every respect. It even arrived at the table with 13 of its cards in each pocket. The problem is an 'intruder' in declarer's hand. It may look like the DK, it may even have a similar 'back' to the rest of the pack, but (as far as this pack is concerned) it is *not* the DK. It is an imposter just as much as a Joker masquerading as a knave would have been. It should, of course, have been discovered when the holder counted his cards (L7B1). >> Henk Uijterwaal wrote: >> The second DK doesn't belong to this board, to avoid confusion, it is >> removed from declarers hand and play continues. >>> If the TD puts the king back in the forgoing board and play continues, it >>> appears that declarer belongs to the only pair that has bid and made game. >> Bad luck for the NO-side, in general the offenders won't like it if a king >> is removed from their assets after the auction. In the absence of guidance to the contrary, Henk's approach seems eminently sensible in the case given. What would we have done, however, if the error had come to light later in the play, after the 'false DK' had been 'played' and accepted as genuine by all of the players (including the holder of the 'true' DK)? L14 deals in some detail with the problem of a missing card. While it is less likely that we will encounter the problem of too many cards, it surely cannot be that rare an occurence. Why does this not warrant at least a mention in the Laws? Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 28 19:41:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0S8dgc01033 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 19:39:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0S8dWH01013 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 19:39:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from x49.ripe.net (x49.ripe.net [193.0.1.49]) by birch.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g0S8UiW15684; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 09:30:44 +0100 Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g0S8Uhu13685; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 09:30:43 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 09:30:41 +0100 (CET) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Grattan Endicott cc: Ben Schelen , bridge-laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king In-Reply-To: <001c01c1a7a7$0e94e2e0$7634e150@dodona> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > +=+ Hang on. What are we doing about Law 13? Nothing, the opening sentence of 13 points you to 14, nor does any section of 13 apply to this case. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 28 19:47:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0S8k0r02217 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 19:46:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0S8jpH02192 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 19:45:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from x49.ripe.net (x49.ripe.net [193.0.1.49]) by birch.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g0S8b2W17154; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 09:37:02 +0100 Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g0S8b1P13690; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 09:37:01 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 09:37:01 +0100 (CET) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Brambledown cc: BLML Subject: RE: [BLML] Two times diamond king In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >> Bad luck for the NO-side, in general the offenders won't like it if a > king > >> is removed from their assets after the auction. > > In the absence of guidance to the contrary, Henk's approach seems eminently > sensible in the case given. What would we have done, however, if the error > had come to light later in the play, after the 'false DK' had been 'played' > and accepted as genuine by all of the players (including the holder of the > 'true' DK)? You can assume that most players will notice it when a honor from another deck is played, so I'd rule that the player with the 'false DK' showed a card not belonging to this deck and still has to play to this trick. For a small card, this is an argument for using decks with different colors on the back. I've had a case where a small card was left on the table from a previous board, the player noticed it when he turned the trick over and noticed that it had a different color. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 28 19:54:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0S8qfw03428 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 19:52:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mx.poczta.interia.pl (smtp.poczta.interia.pl [217.74.65.32]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0S8qUH03394 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 19:52:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (nereus.interia.pl [127.0.0.1]) by nereus.interia.pl (MX) with SMTP id 99CF37D7728 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 09:43:44 +0100 (CET) Received: by mx.poczta.interia.pl (MX, from userid 555) id 46EB87D7703; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 09:43:44 +0100 (CET) Received: from poczta.interia.pl (naos.interia.pl [217.74.65.50]) by mx.poczta.interia.pl (MX) with ESMTP id 77A0A7D76EE for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 09:43:42 +0100 (CET) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (naos.interia.pl [127.0.0.1]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailserver) with SMTP id 3DD607EB6 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 09:43:42 +0100 (CET) Received: by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver, from userid 555) id A27357EAD; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 09:43:41 +0100 (CET) Received: from kavanagh (unknown [217.153.105.20]) by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver) with SMTP id ED4397E86 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 09:43:37 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <00a301c1a7d7$e123edc0$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: [BLML] Simple systems? Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 09:40:58 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 X-EMID: 8b2be2c0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi, I found this information on the Polish Bridge Union site: "During the 4th IOC Grand Prix only simple bidding systems are allowed. The Poles not only won't be allowed to use Wilkosz but had to redesign their systems completely. The aim is to make the game as comprehensible as possible to spectators" I find this pretty shocking. It really looks that we are heading towards having us all play French Standard. This is very sad to me as one of the reasons why I loved bridge so much was the possibility to experiment with interesting, non-standard, bidding systems. Almost all of my friends started their adventure with bridge from the strong pass systems - I played "No Name" on my first tournament. Now I'm 28 and I can see that the WBF almost killed that phenomenon entirely. Many of the major Polish tournaments are qualifications to the world (or European) championships. This includes Polish Junior Pairs Championships, for instance. This includes Polish trials, both junior and open. You cannot find any more Strong Pass pairs now - I stopped playing strong pass systems myself as I would have to switch to something else during the most important events. Now it looks that WBF is trying to kill the another Polish national system - the one that about 95% of Polish players use in the name of making bridge a more popular sport. I find this rather amazing that in USA where there are the most system restrictions in the name of making bridge "more popular" the average of age of ACBL members is very, very high. In Poland where the youngsters are allowed to experiment we have 50 pairs in a local junior tournament. If this post sounds like being written by a frustrated man that's because it is. Sorry for the tone but what could you expect on Monday morning? :-)) Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Zanim zaczniesz swoj dzien... >>> http://dziendobry.interia.pl/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 28 20:03:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0S92l604839 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 20:02:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mx.poczta.interia.pl (smtp.poczta.interia.pl [217.74.65.32]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0S92bH04822 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 20:02:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (nereus.interia.pl [127.0.0.1]) by nereus.interia.pl (MX) with SMTP id 448347D7556 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 09:53:52 +0100 (CET) Received: by mx.poczta.interia.pl (MX, from userid 555) id 08A1C7D7643; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 09:53:52 +0100 (CET) Received: from poczta.interia.pl (naos.interia.pl [217.74.65.50]) by mx.poczta.interia.pl (MX) with ESMTP id 820F77D75DA for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 09:53:51 +0100 (CET) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (naos.interia.pl [127.0.0.1]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailserver) with SMTP id 48AE67EED for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 09:53:51 +0100 (CET) Received: by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver, from userid 555) id DA1367EE9; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 09:53:50 +0100 (CET) Received: from kavanagh (unknown [217.153.105.20]) by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver) with SMTP id 0866D7EDC for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 09:53:50 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <00b901c1a7d9$4e0be9f0$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: [BLML] Simple systems? Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 09:52:59 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 X-EMID: 8b2be2c0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi, I found this information on the Polish Bridge Union site: "During the 4th IOC Grand Prix only simple bidding systems are allowed. The Poles not only won't be allowed to use Wilkosz but had to redesign their systems completely. The aim is to make the game as comprehensible as possible to spectators" I find this pretty shocking. It really looks that we are heading towards having us all play French Standard. This is very sad to me as one of the reasons why I loved bridge so much was the possibility to experiment with interesting, non-standard, bidding systems. Almost all of my friends started their adventure with bridge from the strong pass systems - I played "No Name" on my first tournament. Now I'm 28 and I can see that the WBF almost killed that phenomenon entirely. Many of the major Polish tournaments are qualifications to the world (or European) championships. This includes Polish Junior Pairs Championships, for instance. This includes Polish trials, both junior and open. You cannot find any more Strong Pass pairs now - I stopped playing strong pass systems myself as I would have to switch to something else during the most important events. Now it looks that WBF is trying to do something that will kill the another Polish national system - the one that about 95% of Polish players use in the name of making bridge a more popular sport. I find this rather amazing that in USA where there are the most system restrictions in the name of making bridge "more popular" the average of age of ACBL members is very, very high. In Poland where the youngsters are allowed to experiment we have 50 pairs in a local junior tournament. To make myself clear - I don't think that WBF is anti-Polish, very far from that. I just think it is all about the choice of the strategy of promoting bridge which I think is really misguided. This strategy now is "bridge is a simple, easy to learn game. So easy that even you can learn to play it" while I think that it would be better to promote it as a challenging, difficult game. If this post sounds like being written by a frustrated man that's because it is. Sorry for the tone but what could you expect on Monday morning? :-)) Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Codzienny, bezplatny Biuletyn Ekonomiczny. Informacje gospodarcze. Gielda. Kursy. Stopy. Waluty... http://biznes.interia.pl/biuletyn/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 28 20:12:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0S9AqA05962 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 20:10:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from deborah.paradise.net.nz (deborah.paradise.net.nz [203.96.152.32]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0S9AhH05941 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 20:10:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from u0m7o0 (203-79-107-245.apx0.paradise.net.nz [203.79.107.245]) by deborah.paradise.net.nz (Postfix) with SMTP id 3028DD15B2 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 22:01:58 +1300 (NZDT) Message-ID: <002a01c1a7da$be1d87c0$f56b4fcb@u0m7o0> From: "John Rosevear" To: "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 22:04:02 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: "Grattan Endicott" Cc: "Ben Schelen" ; "bridge-laws" Sent: Monday, 28 January 2002 21:30 Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king > > > +=+ Hang on. What are we doing about Law 13? > > Nothing, the opening sentence of 13 points you to 14, nor does any section > of 13 apply to this case. > Henk But the third hand is NOT deficient (Footnote) Therefore law 13 does apply score adjusted to the board result with penalty to side who did not count cards Why complicate the issue? > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net > RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk > Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 > 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 > The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > > That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 28 21:16:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0SAEkW18322 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 21:14:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat39.alcanet.no [193.213.239.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0SAEYH18286; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 21:14:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from netos70.alcatel.no (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with ESMTP id g0SA50L18228; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 11:05:00 +0100 Subject: RE: [BLML] Two times diamond king To: "Brambledown" Cc: "BLML" , owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 11:04:58 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NOMAIL01/NO/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 01/28/2002 11:05:00 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Brambledown wrote: (and I have placed all my comments at the end) >> Sven.Pran@alcatel.no writes: ....(snip) >> The relevant law is law 1, and in "Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate >> Contract Bridge 1987" by Endicott and Hansen it is said very clearly: >No, no, no. We cannot rush to L1 just because we seem to have one too many >cards, any more than we should do so when a card has been mislaid. L1 has >not been breached, the pack conforms in every respect. It even arrived at >the table with 13 of its cards in each pocket. The problem is an >'intruder' in declarer's hand. It may look like the DK, it may even have a >similar 'back' to the rest of the pack, but (as far as this pack is >concerned) it is *not* the DK. It is an imposter just as much as a Joker >masquerading as a knave would have been. It should, of course, have been >discovered when the holder counted his cards (L7B1). >>> Henk Uijterwaal wrote: >>> The second DK doesn't belong to this board, to avoid confusion, it is >>> removed from declarers hand and play continues. >>>> If the TD puts the king back in the forgoing board and play continues, it >>>> appears that declarer belongs to the only pair that has bid and made game. >>> Bad luck for the NO-side, in general the offenders won't like it if a king >>> is removed from their assets after the auction. >In the absence of guidance to the contrary, Henk's approach seems eminently >sensible in the case given. What would we have done, however, if the error >had come to light later in the play, after the 'false DK' had been 'played' >and accepted as genuine by all of the players (including the holder of the >'true' DK)? >L14 deals in some detail with the problem of a missing card. While it is >less likely that we will encounter the problem of too many cards, it surely >cannot be that rare an occurence. Why does this not warrant at least a >mention in the Laws? >Chas Fellows (Brambledown) As has been pointed out, not only by me, there is no law other than Law 1 that explicitly deals with a pack containing more than 52 cards, and law 1 disqualifies all attempts to play a game of bridge with a pack that doesn't strictly conform to this law. Is it material how the pack happended to be different from that specified? Of course not. What must be important is that an attempt of play is in progress. If it can be revealed before the game begins, or in some cases even during the game, that the pack is incorrect then fine, it is to be restored and depending upon the actual case some of our laws are applicable to handle the restoration of equity needed after this irregularity. What is the consequence of Henk's approach? Consider for a moment that the board in question not only contained two Kings of diamond, but also lacked some other card so that the total number of cards were correct with 13 in each hand. Consider further that the mixing of the cards happened at the table, after each player had retrieved their cards from the board. The board evidently arrived at the table in a correct version. Each hand was retrieved correctly by each player, but alas one player dropped a card on the floor and didn't realise that (s)he picked up the King of diamonds which had been lost from a previous board instead of the card belonging to this board. According to Henk's approach the extra King of Diamonds is still an "intruder" not belonging to the board, it should just be removed with no comments. Now we obviously have a case subject to law 14: Three correct hands and one with only 12 cards, except that imposing upon the deficient hand the (sometimes harsh) consequences of not discovering in time that the hand is deficient seems out of proportion here. After all (s)he did count the cards and had no indication of any possible problem. But then consider the same story except that the mixup is undetected at the table where it happens. The board is passed on to the next table where it is eventually discovered that the pack contains two DK. Now there can be no debate that law 1 applies to this board? Am I really the only one to see the fallacy here? Or am I completely mistaken as to the purpose and implication of law 1? Why shall it be material how the board (i.e. the pack) happened to become incorrect before used in the game? What about equity for NOS if (as in the original post) the irregularity by chance lead to an unwarranted poor result for NOS? Hard luck? No that cannot possibly be the purpose of the laws. If we accept law 1 to be absolute except that cases of incorrect boards are to be corrected when covered by laws 13 or 14, we have no such problems. regards Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 28 21:16:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0SAGIv18641 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 21:16:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from front1.netvisao.pt ([213.228.128.56]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g0SAG7H18605 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 21:16:08 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 27045 invoked from network); 28 Jan 2002 10:06:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO c1) (217.129.63.158) by front1.netvisao.pt with SMTP; 28 Jan 2002 10:06:15 -0000 From: "Rui Marques" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Subject: RE: [BLML] Simple systems? Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 10:06:48 -0000 Message-ID: <000001c1a7e3$80235ae0$9e3f81d9@netvisao.pt> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2616 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <00b901c1a7d9$4e0be9f0$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g0SAGAH18615 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Maybe that the IOC Grand Prix is, for now, a way to promote Bridge among the general public, and to increase awareness of the game, and not to promote Bridge among Bridge players?... And I don´t think that using such a strategy is wrong. The door to the Olympic movement is so difficult to open, and so important to the game, that one should not regard the IOC GP as an event by the WBF and IOC for bridge players, but rather an event BY bridge players FOR the world. Rui Marques -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 28 21:21:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0SAK5v19177 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 21:20:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat39.alcanet.no [193.213.239.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0SAJtH19149 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 21:19:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from netos70.alcatel.no (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with ESMTP id g0SA9es18853; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 11:09:40 +0100 Subject: RE: [BLML] Two times diamond king To: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" Cc: Brambledown , BLML X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 11:09:38 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NOMAIL01/NO/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 01/28/2002 11:09:39 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Henk Uijterwaal wrote: >> >> Bad luck for the NO-side, in general the offenders won't like it if a >> king >> >> is removed from their assets after the auction. >> >> In the absence of guidance to the contrary, Henk's approach seems eminently >> sensible in the case given. What would we have done, however, if the error >> had come to light later in the play, after the 'false DK' had been 'played' >> and accepted as genuine by all of the players (including the holder of the >> 'true' DK)? >You can assume that most players will notice it when a honor from another >deck is played, so I'd rule that the player with the 'false DK' showed a >card not belonging to this deck and still has to play to this trick. >For a small card, this is an argument for using decks with different >colors on the back. I've had a case where a small card was left on the >table from a previous board, the player noticed it when he turned the >trick over and noticed that it had a different color. >Henk There is no requirement in the corrent laws that the back side of the 52 cards shall be (approximately) identical. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 28 22:47:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0SBirV03897 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 22:44:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0SBihH03861; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 22:44:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from x49.ripe.net (x49.ripe.net [193.0.1.49]) by birch.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g0SBZsW27146; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 12:35:54 +0100 Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g0SBZqw14366; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 12:35:53 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 12:35:52 +0100 (CET) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no cc: Brambledown , BLML , Subject: RE: [BLML] Two times diamond king In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > What is the consequence of Henk's approach? Consider for a moment that the > board in question not only contained two Kings of diamond, but also lacked > some other card so that the total number of cards were correct with 13 in > each hand. Consider further that the mixing of the cards happened at the > table, after each player had retrieved their cards from the board. This is an entirely different case: this board has 52 cards except that there are 2 DK's and one small card is missing. If all players follow the correct procedure, this won't be noticed until sometime in the play. Since no result can be obtained anymore, all you can do is A+/A+. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 28 23:18:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0SCIFE10309 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 23:18:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0SCI6H10287 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 23:18:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.64.152.132] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16VAX2-000Bhg-00; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 12:05:05 +0000 Message-ID: <001001c1a7f4$979ea560$8498403e@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Henk Uijterwaal \(RIPE-NCC\)" , "Grattan Endicott" Cc: "Ben Schelen" , "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 12:08:21 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "Grattan Endicott" Cc: "Ben Schelen" ; "bridge-laws" Sent: 28 January 2002 08:30 Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king > > > +=+ Hang on. What are we doing about > > Law 13? > > Nothing, the opening sentence of 13 points > you to 14, nor does any section of 13 apply > to this case. > +=+ Wrong. A surplus is NOT a deficiency. Law 14 only applies when three hands have thirteen cards each and the fourth has *fewer* than 13. Somehow a card has been added to one of the hands. The Director, who has to assume that at some stage there were 14 cards in one of the pockets of the board, deals with the case under Law 13. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 28 23:44:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0SCgMN15128 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 23:42:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0SCgBH15095; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 23:42:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.28.232] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16VAyT-0001Oi-00; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 12:33:25 +0000 Message-ID: <001301c1a7f7$f44667a0$e81ce150@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Brambledown" , Cc: "BLML" , References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 12:31:47 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "Brambledown" Cc: "BLML" ; Sent: 28 January 2002 10:04 Subject: RE: [BLML] Two times diamond king > > > If we accept law 1 to be absolute except that > cases of incorrect boards are to be corrected > when covered by laws 13 or 14, we have no > such problems. > +=+ Law 13 deals with all cases where a hand has an incorrect number of cards* other than the special situation for which Law 14 provides. In this case, since the player with 14 cards has called, the Director's correct action is specified in the main body of Law 13 stopping short prior to the words "If no such call has been made, then:" Read from "When the Director determines...." to "....... and may penalise an offender". ~Grattan ~ +=+ [* however it has happened. The Director should not be persuaded that there is no way there could not have been 14 cards in a pocket of the board at some point. He should not get into an argument on the point. He just cannot be sure and acts with common sense accordingly.] -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 28 23:55:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0SCrtG17296 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 23:53:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resulb.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0SCrkH17271 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 23:53:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id NAA16630; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 13:42:06 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id NAA04362; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 13:45:00 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020128134321.00a7d830@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 13:47:56 +0100 To: "Nigel Guthrie" , "BLML" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Expert claim? In-Reply-To: <000f01c1a5d2$5bcd9740$e59868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 18:58 25/01/2002 +0000, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >A member of our club has a habit which he may have picked up from watching >experts. As declarer, at teams, after some tricks have been played, he picks >up his quitted tricks, shuffles them into the rest of his hand, and writes >down the score. His implication is that he has the rest of the tricks. >Does this constitute a claim? Does play cease, as in normal claims? Is he >bound to show his hand, if asked? if challenged is he allowed to elucidate >his line of play? IMO this is an annoying waste of time. Also, after the >hand has been shuffled, it is difficult to dispute tricks or establish >revokes. At normal levels, can such behaviour be penalized --or at least >discouraged? AG : there is a way to discourage it very strongly : the next time he does it against you, call the TD and tell him that declarer revoked on the trick before the claim. As he has shuffled his hand, the TD will, in accordance with L66D, decide there was indeed a revoke. There is no stronger deterrent against the premature shuffling than the perspective of losing two tricks everytime he performs it. Best regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 29 00:02:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0SD0x618598 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 00:00:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0SD0gH18561 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 00:00:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16VBGK-000Mpn-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 12:51:56 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 02:36:28 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Curator ad Litem References: <200201251228.MAA21346@tempest.npl.co.uk> <000301c1a5f3$db6d64a0$679868d5@tinyhrieuyik> In-Reply-To: <000301c1a5f3$db6d64a0$679868d5@tinyhrieuyik> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Nigel Guthrie writes >[Nigel Guthrie] In interesting cases, is there provision for a TD to appeal >against himself? If so, is there a mechanism for providing appeal deposits >and representing absent appellants? > >[Robin Barker] There is such a provision: Law 83, this provision was new in >1997 (IIRC) > > "LAW 83 - NOTIFICATION OF THE RIGHT TO APPEAL" > >"If the Director believes that a review of his decision on a point of fact >or exercise of his discretionary power might be in order (as when he awards >an adjusted score under Law 12), he shall advise a contestant of his right >to appeal or may refer the matter to an appropriate committee." > >[rb] The last phrase "may refer the matter to an appropriate committee" >allows the TD to refer her ruling to an appeals committee without either >side wishing to appeal. > >[rb] I don't think the TD should exercise this option just because she is >unhappy with her ruling, she should consult (with TDs, other players, or >other the phone) to get the ruling right in the first place. This should >also avoid the need for the TD to go to an appeals committee to protect the >field. > >(DWS - "the field can look after itself") > >[rb] I think a TD may appeal her own decision when new facts have come to >light after the initial ruling has been given. It is possible to change the >ruling under L82C, but it may be more expedient to get an appeals committee >to consider the whole case from scratch. > >[rb] Although a TD can not be fined for an appeal without merit, if the AC >find that there is nothing to discuss and they have been deprived of >drinking time by the TD, she will not hear the end of it. > >[ng] Thank you, Robin. I am relieved to hear there is provision for cases >where the side initially ruled against is not in contention and do not want >to appeal themselves. Has a TD ever invoked this law, in such circumstances? >If so, who represented the absent appellants? Robin said that there was a legal method, not that it was desirable nor that we have much experience of it. In fact, I cannot remember such an appeal. However, appeals have been heard without all players attending - I remember a case from about 15 years ago where neither the appellants nor my co-defendant, Grattan Endicott, turned up. [The AC gave us, the OS, a better score!] The AC will get as much info as they can from the people who do attend and from the Appeals form. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 29 00:02:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0SD0uo18591 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 00:00:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0SD0fH18557 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 00:00:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16VBGK-000MpO-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 12:51:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 02:24:32 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] L74B3 help References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Roger Pewick writes >I have a friend with a relationship problem at the bridge table. Can >someone suggest a solution? > >In a home rubber game (but possibly duplicate) one of the players has >a history of detaching a card before his turn and putting it face down >on the table with the expectation he will indeed play it next. It is >felt that it is done to 'show off' his prowess in predicting the >course of play. Requests to not do so have achieved the result that >the stunt is not done when they partner. However, he persists when >partnering others in spite of continued requests to not do so. > >Given the person's history of ignoring the requests to desist the >problem is how to achieve the outcome without ruffling feathers, so to >speak. My impression is that it would not be satisfactory to >'threaten' expulsion. I think a lesser threat would be in order. Dependent on the game, but I assume it is a regular set of people who play? Then tell him that the others have agreed after consultation with an outside authority [that's you, Roger] that this is so disruptive that they will apply automatic penalties. Then penalise him one trick until he gives up the practice. Yes, there will be ruffled feathers, but I think that is unavoidable: I reckon this will produce the least feather-ruffling of effective deterrents. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 29 00:02:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0SD0vK18593 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 00:00:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0SD0fH18558 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 00:00:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16VBGK-000MpZ-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 12:51:56 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 02:32:03 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Curator ad Litem References: <001d01c1a590$3421f980$119968d5@tinyhrieuyik> In-Reply-To: <001d01c1a590$3421f980$119968d5@tinyhrieuyik> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Nigel Guthrie writes >In interesting cases, is there provision for a TD to appeal against himself? >If so, is there a mechanism for providing appeal deposits and representing >absent appellants? It is legal for a TD to bring a case to an AC but it is rare and not encouraged. >I raised this question last Sunday with John Vickers who was co-directing a >a minor county event, at which an incident occurred. [presented only for >completeness in the next paragraph -- skip it if you like] > >At pairs, only we were vulnerable. I opened a Precision club (alerted). LHO >jump-overcalled 3C. Partner doubled (alerted). LHO passed and I passed too >(for penalties). LHO now removed himself to 3S. After two more passes, I >closed the auction with three-notrump. On enquiry, RHO explained that they >played Ghestem in other circumstances but that over an artificial club, his >partner's 3C should have been natural. On a spade lead, 3NT was unmakeble >and I went three down. It turned out that LHO had five card suppport for his >partner's putative clubs, so I called the director. LHO explained that he >would normally raise pre-emptively but, in view of my partner's double, he >decided to wait and see. By the time, the auction came back to RHO, it was >clear to him that LHO did not have his bid. > >In view of opponents' arguments and the low calibre of the event, the TD >ruled that the result stand; but he said he would welcome an appeal. I >declined, explaining that: we were not in contention; we called the TD only >for the sake of other contestants; we judged the TD's decision to be >reasonable; and we did not have time to wait for an appeal. Fine. >I had second thoughts, later, givng rise to three questions >A. What is done to encourage players who are doing badly to ask for rulings, >for the sake of other contestants? The basic approach to ruling the game of bridge is to consider the table where the irregularity occurred and that table only. >B. Furthermore, since it is rare for such players to appeal themselves, is >there a mechanism available to advance and to represent marginal cases. No. For the reasons in my last paragraph, and also because it is not perceived as desirable to increase appeals. I would say that most jurisdictions and authorities believe that if we could reduce the number of appeals to zero the game would be better. >C. Finally, in different circumstances, but for similar reasons, should the >NOS be allowed to waive penalties against the OS? The NOS are permitted to ask the TD to waive penalties for cause. I do nto really understand what point oyu are making here, but again there exists a legal remedy. It does require a cause, for example if a card is dropped because of a player's disability I trust that few players would want a penalty card. >A couple of years ago, at Brighton, a TD confided that he coped with the >last problem by ruling in favour of non-experts in marginal cases. Is that >the right approach? Absolutely not. In marginal cases he rules as he feels is correct, as in non-marginal cases. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 29 00:06:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0SD4ag19216 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 00:04:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resulb.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0SD4QH19191 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 00:04:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id NAA18814; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 13:52:47 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id NAA16319; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 13:55:39 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020128135637.00a83c10@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 13:58:42 +0100 To: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" , Brambledown From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: RE: [BLML] Two times diamond king Cc: BLML In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:37 28/01/2002 +0100, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > > >> Bad luck for the NO-side, in general the offenders won't like it if a > > king > > >> is removed from their assets after the auction. > > > > In the absence of guidance to the contrary, Henk's approach seems eminently > > sensible in the case given. What would we have done, however, if the error > > had come to light later in the play, after the 'false DK' had been 'played' > > and accepted as genuine by all of the players (including the holder of the > > 'true' DK)? > >You can assume that most players will notice it when a honor from another >deck is played, so I'd rule that the player with the 'false DK' showed a >card not belonging to this deck and still has to play to this trick. AG : allowing for an unintensional Alcatraz coup, ie he can't benefit from seeing any card played to this trick after the play of the wrong card. Is this what Mollo referred to as 'falsecarding even with a singleton' ? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 29 00:07:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0SD6Nr19492 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 00:06:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0SD6DH19471 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 00:06:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from x49.ripe.net (x49.ripe.net [193.0.1.49]) by birch.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g0SCvOW28939 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 13:57:24 +0100 Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g0SCvOI14947 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 13:57:24 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 13:57:24 +0100 (CET) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: bridge-laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king In-Reply-To: <001001c1a7f4$979ea560$8498403e@pacific> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > The Director, who has to assume that at some stage there were 14 cards > in one of the pockets of the board, Why does he have to assume that? (In fact, I'd think that this assumption is usually wrong) Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 29 00:57:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0SDtZb27786 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 00:55:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (st.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0SDtPH27758 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 00:55:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id OAA01606; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 14:43:48 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id OAA21425; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 14:46:39 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020128144208.00a37e20@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 14:49:40 +0100 To: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" , bridge-laws From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king In-Reply-To: References: <001001c1a7f4$979ea560$8498403e@pacific> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 13:57 28/01/2002 +0100, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > > The Director, who has to assume that at some stage there were 14 cards > > in one of the pockets of the board, > >Why does he have to assume that? (In fact, I'd think that this assumption >is usually wrong) > >Henk AG : I'd incline to agree with Henk. L14 is there because, when a player has 12 cards and the others have 13, it is usually because he let one card fall on the floor, not because they played with a 51-card pack. I've seen this happen about a dozen times, and in all the cases but one, the missing card was quickly found back - sometimes still lying in the board, sometimes on the floor, even in the BB. While it is more difficult to add a card to a pack than to remove one, if one player has 14 cards and the others have 13, logic tells us he picked the 14th somewhere. Thus the pack was most probably correct at start. To cancel a 14-13-13-13 board would open the door to players finding a new way not to keep their bottom score, at would the cancellation of a 13-13-13-12 board. L14 tells us he won't go away with it (remember the Hog's sandwich ?). Why should it be different in the present case ? Best regards, ALAIN. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 29 01:02:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0SE0qa28679 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 01:00:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from florence.ie.alphyra.com (IDENT:NczksSRExeItH70wgKREsc7sq9wxisxd@florence.ie.alphyra.com [193.120.224.170]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0SE0hH28645 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 01:00:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from alphyra.ie (yogi.dev.ie.alphyra.com [192.168.1.135]) by florence.ie.alphyra.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g0SDpso32294 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 13:51:54 GMT Message-ID: <3C5557D3.271260D0@alphyra.ie> Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 13:53:23 +0000 From: James X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.2-2 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Who are the leaders playing? References: <003101c1a4e0$bfb00ce0$743be150@pacific> <015d01c1a4fa$d4d20f00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3C5127E1.C675FAA1@alphyra.ie> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Have I the right to leave the table and ask the director privately? > | Hi All, > | > | Situation : > | We were playing the last board in the last match of a teams comp. > | Were down on the first 7 boards. > | Were placed 5th with a reasonable chance of 3rd, playing the 2nd > | placed team who are a safe for 2nd and are trailing 1st place by > about > | 15. > | > | I'm considering punting 6s. However, In fairness to first place, > | I dont want to chuck a heavy win to our opponents. > | > | At this stage I want to size up the leaders opponents. If > | there weak, I'll bid 6, otherwise not. > | > | Have I any right to know at this stage? > | If so, how do I go about finding this out? > | Regards, > | > | James. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 29 01:10:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0SE9Cj00321 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 01:09:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (mta07-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0SE92H00285 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 01:09:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from tinyhrieuyik ([213.104.152.93]) by mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020128140014.GPSS8005.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@tinyhrieuyik>; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 14:00:14 +0000 Message-ID: <001101c1a805$d8fac320$5d9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "Rui Marques" Cc: "BLML" References: <000001c1a7e3$80235ae0$9e3f81d9@netvisao.pt> Subject: Re: [BLML] Simple systems? Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 14:11:41 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [Konrad Ciborowski] I found this information on the Polish Bridge Union site: [kc] "During the 4th IOC Grand Prix only simple bidding systems are allowed. The Poles not only won't be allowed to use Wilkosz but had to redesign their systems completely. The aim is to make the game as comprehensible as possible to spectators" [kc] I find this pretty shocking. It really looks that we are heading towards having us all play French Standard. This is very sad to me as one of the reasons why I loved bridge so much was the possibility to experiment with interesting, non-standard, bidding systems. Almost all of my friends started their adventure with bridge from the strong pass systems - I played "No Name" on my first tournament. Now I'm 28 and I can see that the WBF almost killed that phenomenon entirely. Many of the major Polish tournaments are qualifications to the world (or European) championships. This includes Polish Junior Pairs Championships, for instance. This includes Polish trials, both junior and open. You cannot find any more Strong Pass pairs now - I stopped playing strong pass systems myself as I would have to switch to something else during the most important events. [kc] Now it looks that WBF is trying to do something that will kill the another Polish national system - the one that about 95% of Polish players use in the name of making bridge a more popular sport. I find this rather amazing that in USA where there are the most system restrictions in the name of making bridge "more popular" the average of age of ACBL members is very, very high. In Poland where the youngsters are allowed to experiment we have 50 pairs in a local junior tournament. [kc] To make myself clear - I don't think that WBF is anti-Polish, very far from that. I just think it is all about the choice of the strategy of promoting bridge which I think is really misguided. This strategy now is "bridge is a simple, easy to learn game. So easy that even you can learn to play it" while I think that it would be better to promote it as a challenging, difficult game. [kc] If this post sounds like being written by a frustrated man that's because it is. Sorry for the tone but what could you expect on Monday morning? :-)) [Rui Marques] Maybe that the IOC Grand Prix is, for now, a way to promote Bridge among the general public, and to increase awareness of the game, and not to promote Bridge among Bridge players?... And I don´t think that using such a strategy is wrong. The door to the Olympic movement is so difficult to open, and so important to the game, that one should not regard the IOC GP as an event by the WBF and IOC for bridge players, but rather an event BY bridge players FOR the world. [Nigel Guthrie] My sympathy is with Konrad. In the "Xenophobia" thread I warned that were we not vigiilant, then a variant of the highly artificial "Standard American Yellow Card" would become the de facto "WBF Simple System". [ng] IMO, each country should submit a "WBF Simple System" candidate to be chosen by lottery or by formal vote. I would vote for some simple natural system like "Forcing Pass" every time but I would happily abide by any democratic decision. It is dictatorship by stealth to which I object. [ng] IMO there should be only two levels of system allowed in Bridge competition: either WBF "simple system" or "anything goes". Twenty years of teaching Bridge confirm Konrad's experience that tyros love to experiment with conventions and systems. IMO it is the plethora of unecessarily complex laws that deter would-be players from duplicate. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 29 01:51:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0SEnbn08290 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 01:49:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (mta06-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0SEnRH08262 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 01:49:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from tinyhrieuyik ([213.104.152.82]) by mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020128144040.OVQW7000.mta06-svc.ntlworld.com@tinyhrieuyik>; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 14:40:40 +0000 Message-ID: <004701c1a80b$7ec30060$5d9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "David Stevenson" Cc: "BLML" References: <001d01c1a590$3421f980$119968d5@tinyhrieuyik> Subject: Re: [BLML] Curator ad Litem Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 14:52:24 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [Nigel Guthrie] In interesting cases, is there provision for a TD to appeal against himself? If so, is there a mechanism for providing appeal deposits and representing absent appellants? [David Stevenson] It is legal for a TD to bring a case to an AC but it is rare and not encouraged. [ng] I raised this question last Sunday with John Vickers who was co-directing a a minor county event, at which an incident occurred. [presented only for completeness in the next paragraph -- skip it if you like] At pairs, only we were vulnerable. I opened a Precision club (alerted). LHO jump-overcalled 3C. Partner doubled (alerted). LHO passed and I passed too (for penalties). LHO now removed himself to 3S. After two more passes, I closed the auction with three-notrump. On enquiry, RHO explained that they played Ghestem in other circumstances but that over an artificial club, his partner's 3C should have been natural. On a spade lead, 3NT was unmakeble and I went three down. It turned out that LHO had five card suppport for his partner's putative clubs, so I called the director. LHO explained that he would normally raise pre-emptively but, in view of my partner's double, he decided to wait and see. By the time, the auction came back to RHO, it was clear to him that LHO did not have his bid. In view of opponents' arguments and the low calibre of the event, the TD ruled that the result stand; but he said he would welcome an appeal. I declined, explaining that: we were not in contention; we called the TD only for the sake of other contestants; we judged the TD's decision to be reasonable; and we did not have time to wait for an appeal. [ds] Fine. [ng] I had second thoughts, later, givng rise to three questions A. What is done to encourage players who are doing badly to ask for rulings, for the sake of other contestants? [ds] The basic approach to ruling the game of bridge is to consider the table where the irregularity occurred and that table only. [ng] B. Furthermore, since it is rare for such players to appeal themselves, is there a mechanism available to advance and to represent marginal cases. [ds] No. For the reasons in my last paragraph, and also because it is not perceived as desirable to increase appeals. I would say that most jurisdictions and authorities believe that if we could reduce the number of appeals to zero the game would be better. [ng] C. Finally, in different circumstances, but for similar reasons, should the NOS be allowed to waive penalties against the OS? [ds] The NOS are permitted to ask the TD to waive penalties for cause. I do not really understand what point you are making here, but again there exists a legal remedy. It does require a cause, for example if a card is dropped because of a player's disability I trust that few players would want a penalty card. [n2] The point I am making is that if you playing badly, it is tempting to waive penalties against those who are in contention because they are friends or because you do not want to cause ill-feeling. [n2] Thirty years ago, in a big pairs competition, a world champion made a claim (2S just making) which I disputed (2 down vulnerable). Declarer wrote down the score. We insisted on reviewing the tricks. Declarer shuffled the tricks, returned the hand to the slot, and put the next board on the table. We called the TD. Before the TD arrived, dummy (another world-champion) shrugged his shoulders; declarer was furious but took the hint and amended the score to two down. Unsurprizingly, our illustrious opponents still won a prize. Had we not been in contention, would we have engendered all this aggro? I wonder how many of their other opponents had been more compliant than we? It is because of many experiences like this that I feel that even those not in contention should be actively encouraged to ask for rulings, to enforce penalties, and to appeal (if necessary, in absentia, without jeapardising a deposit). [ng] A couple of years ago, at Brighton, a TD confided that he coped with the last problem by ruling in favour of non-experts in marginal cases. Is that the right approach? [ds] Absolutely not. In marginal cases he rules as he feels is correct, as in non-marginal cases. [ng] OK -- I think I understand -- the key tenet of the law is "The Field can look after itself" -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 29 02:24:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0SFMD714803 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 02:22:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lexington.fscv.net ([216.206.44.34]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0SFM3H14770 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 02:22:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from walt.com (216.206.47.49 [216.206.47.49]) by lexington.fscv.net with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id 4DAF6VTD; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 10:13:15 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020128100347.00a3b8d0@mail.fscv.net> X-Sender: Walt.Flory@mail.fscv.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 10:13:00 -0500 To: "BLML" From: Walt Flory Subject: Re: [BLML] Simple systems? In-Reply-To: <001101c1a805$d8fac320$5d9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> References: <000001c1a7e3$80235ae0$9e3f81d9@netvisao.pt> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g0SFM5H14782 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [Walt Flory] The ACBL strategy seems to be to allow little innovation at the lowest levels, and while a few at those levels are in favor of this (more at the club level are interested in the methods we are using), many are not. If they drive off all those who would like to learn and use complex and innovative methods then no doubt all will be in favor. :(( I have friends who play entirely online to avoid the ACBL regulations. They simply find online bridge to be more fun. [Konrad Ciborowski] I found this information on the Polish Bridge Union site: [kc] "During the 4th IOC Grand Prix only simple bidding systems are allowed. The Poles not only won't be allowed to use Wilkosz but had to redesign their systems completely. The aim is to make the game as comprehensible as possible to spectators" [kc] I find this pretty shocking. It really looks that we are heading towards having us all play French Standard. This is very sad to me as one of the reasons why I loved bridge so much was the possibility to experiment with interesting, non-standard, bidding systems. Almost all of my friends started their adventure with bridge from the strong pass systems - I played "No Name" on my first tournament. Now I'm 28 and I can see that the WBF almost killed that phenomenon entirely. Many of the major Polish tournaments are qualifications to the world (or European) championships. This includes Polish Junior Pairs Championships, for instance. This includes Polish trials, both junior and open. You cannot find any more Strong Pass pairs now - I stopped playing strong pass systems myself as I would have to switch to something else during the most important events. [kc] Now it looks that WBF is trying to do something that will kill the another Polish national system - the one that about 95% of Polish players use in the name of making bridge a more popular sport. I find this rather amazing that in USA where there are the most system restrictions in the name of making bridge "more popular" the average of age of ACBL members is very, very high. In Poland where the youngsters are allowed to experiment we have 50 pairs in a local junior tournament. [kc] To make myself clear - I don't think that WBF is anti-Polish, very far from that. I just think it is all about the choice of the strategy of promoting bridge which I think is really misguided. This strategy now is "bridge is a simple, easy to learn game. So easy that even you can learn to play it" while I think that it would be better to promote it as a challenging, difficult game. [kc] If this post sounds like being written by a frustrated man that's because it is. Sorry for the tone but what could you expect on Monday morning? :-)) [Rui Marques] Maybe that the IOC Grand Prix is, for now, a way to promote Bridge among the general public, and to increase awareness of the game, and not to promote Bridge among Bridge players?... And I don´t think that using such a strategy is wrong. The door to the Olympic movement is so difficult to open, and so important to the game, that one should not regard the IOC GP as an event by the WBF and IOC for bridge players, but rather an event BY bridge players FOR the world. [Nigel Guthrie] My sympathy is with Konrad. In the "Xenophobia" thread I warned that were we not vigilant, then a variant of the highly artificial "Standard American Yellow Card" would become the de facto "WBF Simple System". [ng] IMO, each country should submit a "WBF Simple System" candidate to be chosen by lottery or by formal vote. I would vote for some simple natural system like "Forcing Pass" every time but I would happily abide by any democratic decision. It is dictatorship by stealth to which I object. [ng] IMO there should be only two levels of system allowed in Bridge competition: either WBF "simple system" or "anything goes". Twenty years of teaching Bridge confirm Konrad's experience that tyros love to experiment with conventions and systems. IMO it is the plethora of unnecessarily complex laws that deter would-be players from duplicate. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 29 03:01:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0SFxRq22391 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 02:59:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0SFxJH22369 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 02:59:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id KAA28091 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 10:50:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA16686 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 10:50:33 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 10:50:33 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200201281550.KAA16686@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > +=+ Wrong. A surplus is NOT a deficiency. > Law 14 only applies when three hands have > thirteen cards each and the fourth has *fewer* > than 13. Somehow a card has been added to > one of the hands. The Director, who has to > assume that at some stage there were 14 > cards in one of the pockets of the board, deals > with the case under Law 13. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I agree with almost all the above, and I'm astonished at some of the other answers. What is the problem? L13 is quite clear. My one disagreement with Grattan is that I don't see why the TD has to "assume" anything. He needs to investigate how the extra card got into the plethoric (What a great word. Thanks, Marv!) hand. Yes, most likely he will conclude that the card arrived in one of the pockets and apply L13, but if the facts turn out to be as in Sven's case (the player grabbed a card off the floor), then L13 won't apply after all. Indeed this seems to be what happened in the case in the earlier thread, where dummy appeared to put down 14 cards. If the TD determines that the card was added by dummy, rather than arriving in the board, he should just remove the extra card and allow play to continue. (If play has continued too long for this to be feasible, L12A2 is the only answer I see, but perhaps there's another law I'm missing.) The problem with L1 is that it doesn't tell us what to do if it's violated. L13 is a specific law, telling us exactly what to do when it applies. So when it applies, we use it. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 29 03:19:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0SGILQ25489 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 03:18:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from wonka.esatclear.ie (wonka.esatclear.ie [194.145.128.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0SGIBH25462 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 03:18:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from esatclear.ie (IDENT:httpd@gratin.esatclear.ie [194.145.128.35]) by wonka.esatclear.ie (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA28507 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 16:09:20 GMT From: "Karel" Reply-to: karel@esatclear.ie To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 15:50:02 GMT Subject: Re: [BLML] Actual case X-Mailer: CWMail Web to Mail Gateway 2.6z, http://netwinsite.com/top_mail.htm Message-id: <3c55732a.200a.0@esatclear.ie> X-User-Info: 194.125.220.245 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [snip ... ] In my view I can see no reason to adjust unless the TD erred. The lead could have been changed, and as long as this was offered there was no reason to adjust. If a player bids 2H when the Stayman bid does not show a four card major then he would have bid it if it does not. [Karel - east was not given the option to change his lead. West had indicated at the table that he would have bid. TD felt enough had been said didn't want any further UI to complicate an already potentially loaded case. ] Ok final part to this : 1st off the NOS appealed the case against the original ruling which was 2 imps to NOS and 9 to the OS (originally 11 to the OS). The TD's Logic was that in maybe 2/11 cases a 2H bid may have infact "effected" declarer sufficiently for him to go down or for the contract not to be reached. I've never seen/heard of such a ruling and I'd be pretty certain it's illegal. The 2 imp "present" was also infact a dud as it made no difference to the final result. 2nd I believe the actual ruling of 3NT making is pretty routine - declarer at one table finessed and the other didn't. Whatever the reasons the making declarer deserves his result. The evidence that UI may have urged him to double finesse does not have sufficient weight. I think that 17 opposite a reasonable 2NT will always bid 3NT. 3rd - apparently (this from 2nd hand) the majority of the appeal was concerned with whether the ruling was meritless or not. The vote was apparently 2/3 against meritless case. I felt that while the NOS case was weakish it was hardly meritless. Change the hand to >> North >> S A73 Bidding N E S W >> H K9 1NT P 2C P >> D AKT42 2D P 2NT P >>West C K72 East 3NT P P P >>S 9 S T8652 >>H AJT65 H 872 >>D Q863 D J7 >>C AT8 South C QJ3 >> S KQJ4 >> H Q43 >> D 95 >> C 9654 Now a heart lead is essential and the "recommended" play of a diamond to the 10 fatal. The best line is probably a straigth club to the K, should be better than 50%. Do we still say - sorry mate your case is too weak you missed the boat result stands ?? and finally this case was heavily influenced by the following paragraph. I'd like your reaction to it Alerting (c) Players have the duty to ascertain the following information at the start of each round: (i) Their opponents basic system (ii) Strength of NT (iii) The meaning of a 2C response to a 1NT in an uncontested auction (iv) System, leads signals and discards Players are assumed to know these things, regardless of alerts, and bear the onus for any embarrassment caused by failure to find them out by asking the meaning of an opponent's call. Karel .. -- http://www.iol.ie -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 29 03:30:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0SGSh726879 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 03:28:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat39.alcanet.no [193.213.239.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0SGSXH26859 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 03:28:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from netos70.alcatel.no (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with ESMTP id g0SGJe507730; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 17:19:40 +0100 Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king To: Alain Gottcheiner Cc: bridge-laws , "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 17:19:36 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NOMAIL01/NO/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 01/28/2002 17:19:39 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >At 13:57 28/01/2002 +0100, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: >>>[Grattan Endicott]: The Director, who has to assume that at some stage >>> there were 14 cards in one of the pockets of the board, >> >>Why does he have to assume that? (In fact, I'd think that this assumption >>is usually wrong) >> >>Henk >AG : I'd incline to agree with Henk. L14 is there because, when a player >has 12 cards and the others have 13, it is usually because he let one card >fall on the floor, not because they played with a 51-card pack. I've seen >this happen about a dozen times, and in all the cases but one, the missing >card was quickly found back - sometimes still lying in the board, sometimes >on the floor, even in the BB. While it is more difficult to add a card to a >pack than to remove one, if one player has 14 cards and the others have 13, >logic tells us he picked the 14th somewhere. Thus the pack was most >probably correct at start. >To cancel a 14-13-13-13 board would open the door to players finding a new >way not to keep their bottom score, at would the cancellation of a >13-13-13-12 board. L14 tells us he won't go away with it (remember the >Hog's sandwich ?). Why should it be different in the present case ? First of all I am most satisfied with the clarification by Grattan who stipulates that law 13 shall apply in all cases where at least one hand contains an incorrect number of cards. (except in the special case of three correct hands and one deficient, where law 14 applies). Essentially this leads to the rule that if a player with an incorrect hand has looked at it and thereby seen a card belonging to another hand, or in any case if (s)he has made a call, the board cannot be played without the concurrence of all four players at the table and even then only if the Director deems that it is still possible to play the board "normally" after correction (with no change of any call). Furthermore I think it is a fair assumption that when a hand is found to be incorrect, it was incorrect already before being retrieved from the pocket unless there are significant indications to the contrary. What are then the most common causes for an incorrect hand (except for the trivial cases of 12-/14+ distribution between two hands)? My experience (for what it is worth) is that a deficient hand is usually the result of leaving one or more cards behind in the pocket when retrieving them initially. Number two cause is that the cards are "sticky" so that the player fails to separate a couple of cards and number three cause is that (s)he has lost one or more cards on the floor without noticing. A number four cause is that the card never made it to the board. I have also experienced excessive hands, and the cause has always been an extra card in one of the pockets, most commonly due to a card being found and returned to the wrong board at a previous table or (on one single occation) that for some strange reason which I never managed to clarify, an extra card must have made its way to the board already at home when I duplicated the boards. (It did strike my mind that somebody might have tried to pull my leg at the time, but for various reasons I don't think so). However, I have never experienced a player finding excess card(s) on or near the table to assume without double-checking that such card(s) really belong(s) to the hand (s)he is currently playing (or about to play). (As for my experience I figure I have by now been responsible for a total of at least some 250.000+ boards over the last ten to fifteen years. Scares me a bit to think about them!) Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 29 03:48:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0SGkO828991 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 03:46:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from wonka.esatclear.ie (wonka.esatclear.ie [194.145.128.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0SGkFH28968 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 03:46:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from esatclear.ie (IDENT:httpd@gratin.esatclear.ie [194.145.128.35]) by wonka.esatclear.ie (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA03649 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 16:37:25 GMT From: "Karel" Reply-to: karel@esatclear.ie To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 16:18:07 GMT Subject: [BLML] Lengthy defense X-Mailer: CWMail Web to Mail Gateway 2.6z, http://netwinsite.com/top_mail.htm Message-id: <3c5579bf.2225.0@esatclear.ie> X-User-Info: 194.125.220.245 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Teams E/W Vul, Dealer S North S KT8xx Bidding N E S W H Tx 1C 1S D ATxxx P P DBL All Pass C Q S Q9xxx S - H x H Q98xxx Lead QC to A. spade to J. D Kxx D Q9x C AJ7x C Kxxx S AJx H AKJx D Jx C T86x At this stage south went into his box for about 20 secs and eventually led back the club 8 (not optimal). Ruff, HT, J. club small ruff. heart ruff, another spade T, and once again south went into his box for another 15 secs. At this stage Declarer called the TD for slow play. South took a further 10 secs or so and eventually overtook the ST and returned another club (again not optimal). ruff, DA and diamond to J and K. At this stage declarer played a diamond to the Q which south happily ruffed !! West called the TD again and asked for a score adjustment. He claimed South played soo slowly that he had forgotten what cards were played and shouldn't be penalised for south's intolerable defensive pace. Comments ?? Karel -- http://www.iol.ie -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 29 03:58:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0SGuHk00991 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 03:56:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0SGu1H00947 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 03:56:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16VEw2-00039F-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 16:47:13 +0000 Message-ID: <$2CVvlCfsVV8Ew01@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 14:07:27 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Simple systems? References: <00a301c1a7d7$e123edc0$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> In-Reply-To: <00a301c1a7d7$e123edc0$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Konrad Ciborowski writes > I found this information on the Polish Bridge Union site: > >"During the 4th IOC Grand Prix only simple bidding systems >are allowed. The Poles not only won't be allowed to use >Wilkosz but had to redesign their systems completely. >The aim is to make the game as comprehensible as >possible to spectators" > > I find this pretty shocking. It really looks that we are >heading towards having us all play French Standard. >This is very sad to me as one of the reasons why >I loved bridge so much was the possibility to >experiment with interesting, non-standard, bidding >systems. Almost all of my friends started their >adventure with bridge from the strong pass >systems - I played "No Name" on my first tournament. >Now I'm 28 and I can see that the WBF almost >killed that phenomenon entirely. Many of the >major Polish tournaments are qualifications >to the world (or European) championships. >This includes Polish Junior Pairs Championships, for instance. >This includes Polish trials, both junior and open. >You cannot find any more Strong Pass pairs now - >I stopped playing strong pass systems myself >as I would have to switch to something else during >the most important events. > >Now it looks that WBF is trying to kill the another >Polish national system - the one that about 95% >of Polish players use in the name of making >bridge a more popular sport. I find this >rather amazing that in USA where there are the most >system restrictions in the name of making bridge >"more popular" the average of age of ACBL members >is very, very high. In Poland where the youngsters >are allowed to experiment we have 50 pairs >in a local junior tournament. One of the nice things about this game is that you can all sorts of different tourneys. You can play Swiss Pairs [except in North America!], Swiss Teams, BAM Teams [in North America!], K/O teams, Individuals, rubber, and so on. You can have tourneys which allow you to play anything, tourneys which allow everything but the most esoteric, tourneys that allow a general range of things to play and tourneys restricted to very few conventions. Isn't that nice? However, one of the bad things about this game, is that you will always get complaints whatever you run. Why should the WBF not run a simple systems game? To suggest that this is an attempt to drive strange systems out of the game completely is ridiculous. You might just as well say that allowing women to play in Women's football is the end for the professional football game. Of course it isn't: it is just a tournament which has different restrictions. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 29 03:58:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0SGuHY00992 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 03:56:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0SGu2H00957 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 03:56:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16VEw3-00039R-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 16:47:16 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 14:18:37 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Copyright of the laws. References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven.Pran@alcatel.no writes >(I too am very happy with the English text and in fact often return >to that when I am in the least doubt about the interpretation of the >Norwegian law text. Also, for various reasons I even have two copies >of my Norwegian law book (I always tend to forget one somewhere). >Most (I hope all!) Norwegian Directors have their personal copy. Roy Higson, one of our great TDs of the past, used to assume that any Law book he found lying around was his. He was especially proud of keeping one marked very clearly "STOLEN FROM MAX BAVIN". -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 29 03:58:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0SGuIi00994 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 03:56:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0SGu1H00949 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 03:56:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16VEw3-00039G-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 16:47:16 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 14:16:09 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Copyright of the laws. References: <000901c1a6b3$2f0e2ee0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3C53D797.7038.31BEAD@localhost> In-Reply-To: <3C53D797.7038.31BEAD@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk stefan filonardi writes >Hello, > >On 26 Jan 2002, at 13:47, Marvin L. French wrote: > >> The Copyright of the 1997 Code in all non-English speaking >> countries in Europe (other than Spain and Portugal) is vested in >> the European Bridge League. The Copyright in the area of the >> British Commonwealth past and present (other than the Western >> Hemisphere), the Continent of Africa, Spain, Portugal and all >> English speaking countries in the Eastern Hemisphere is vested in >> the Portland Club. The Copyright in the Western Hemisphere and in >> the Republic of Philippines is vested in the American Contract >> Bridge League. Extracts from these Laws either verbatim or >> paraphrased are not permitted without the sanction of the >> Authority holding the Copyright. >> >> Within those areas where the Copyright is vested in the European >> Bridge League, the League sanctions, without charge, the >> translation and verbatim reproduction of the 1997 Code both in >> written and electronic forms, provided the European Bridge >> League's Copyright is acknowledged. > >Sorry I am not a copyright lawyer, does this mean that the NBB >does not have any copyright? > >What if all federations would follow the example of the NBB? What if all bridge organisations decided to allow individual tourneys only? Look, they don't. The copyright holders of the English version have granted licence to two people, David Stevenson and Niels Wendell Pedersen, to provide Duplicate and Rubber Law books on the web. The copyright holders of the American version asked Niels Wendell Pedersen to put the Laws online on their site. The trouble with the Dutch edition is that generally the copyright issues get a bit mangled because the official WBF law book is in English, so these are translations of official laws, rather than real laws in their place. The Danes, for example, just did the same as the Americans [I believe]: asked Neils Wendell Pedersen to put Laws online for them. OK, the Dutch have not seen fit to do so. But does that mean the same thing as they will not permit them to be online? I am willing to bet it does not, just that they do not want to [or bother to] themselves. If Niels and I were to seek permission to put a Dutch version online what would happen? At a complete guess, everyone would be happy! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 29 04:07:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0SH61q02639 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 04:06:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0SH5oH02614 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 04:05:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from x49.ripe.net (x49.ripe.net [193.0.1.49]) by birch.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g0SGv1W02150; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 17:57:01 +0100 Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g0SGv0G16639; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 17:57:00 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 17:57:00 +0100 (CET) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: David Stevenson cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Copyright of the laws. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David, > If Niels and I were to seek permission to put a Dutch version online > what would happen? I'm planning to ask for permission (again) if there are people interested in putting the laws online. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 29 04:30:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0SHSqS06426 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 04:28:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (listserv.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0SHShH06402 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 04:28:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id SAA00730; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 18:19:20 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id SAA12950; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 18:19:55 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020128181858.00a85530@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 18:22:59 +0100 To: karel@esatclear.ie, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Lengthy defense In-Reply-To: <3c5579bf.2225.0@esatclear.ie> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 16:18 28/01/2002 +0000, Karel wrote: >Teams E/W Vul, Dealer S > > North > S KT8xx Bidding N E S W > H Tx 1C 1S > D ATxxx P P DBL All Pass > C Q >S Q9xxx S - >H x H Q98xxx Lead QC to A. spade to J. >D Kxx D Q9x >C AJ7x C Kxxx > S AJx > H AKJx > D Jx > C T86x > >At this stage south went into his box for about 20 secs and eventually led >back >the club 8 (not optimal). Ruff, HT, J. club small ruff. heart ruff, another >spade T, and once again south went into his box for another 15 secs. At this >stage Declarer called the TD for slow play. South took a further 10 secs or >so and eventually overtook the ST and returned another club (again not >optimal). > ruff, DA and diamond to J and K. At this stage declarer played a diamond to >the Q which south happily ruffed !! > >West called the TD again and asked for a score adjustment. He claimed South >played soo slowly that he had forgotten what cards were played and shouldn't >be penalised for south's intolerable defensive pace. > >Comments ?? AG : just one. Apply L12B and note that L74B4 specifies 'without reason', which implies that when there is a reasonable, or even semi-reasonable, bridge reason, there is nothing unethical about thinking slowly. If it results in bypassing the time schedule, don't forget that West's second, frivolous, call took away more time than South's pauses. His first call could have been reasonable. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 29 07:30:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0SKSlr09209 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 07:28:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rebecca.tiscali.nl (rebecca.tiscali.nl [195.241.76.181]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0SKSZH09179 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 07:28:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from tkooij (xs241-182-214.dial.tiscali.nl [195.241.182.214]) by rebecca.tiscali.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 0E86A8A3DF6; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 21:19:25 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <005001c1a837$66e5fa20$64b6f1c3@tkooij> From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" , "Grattan Endicott" Cc: "Ben Schelen" , "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 21:06:32 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >> +=+ Hang on. What are we doing about Law 13? > >Nothing, the opening sentence of 13 points you to 14, nor does any section >of 13 apply to this case. > > >Henk Henk, I like your style of answers being clear and short, and normally to the point as well. But this one seems wrong to me, as does Grattan's reply. Law 13 deals with a pocket of a board with more than 13 cards. Whether there are 52 or more card doesn't make a difference. I read this case as a board containing four times 13 cards and one player adding a card to his 13 during the preparations to start the auction or even later (who knows?). If that is the case the TD dealt with it in the same way I would (I agree: no guarantee, but it means something). If we don't accept this solution I promise severe problems of the following kind. Any time a player can predict the board to become a disaster for his side he will produce the 14th card to get it cancelled! Don't tell me you wouldn't have found that solution yourself. This leads to the following conclusion: The penalty for not counting your hand should prevent such behaviour. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 29 07:45:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0SKhtR11924 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 07:43:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0SKhkH11900 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 07:43:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from penguin.ripe.net (penguin.ripe.net [193.0.1.232]) by birch.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g0SKYtW30543; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 21:34:55 +0100 Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by penguin.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g0SKYs413506; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 21:34:54 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: penguin.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 21:34:54 +0100 (CET) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Ton Kooijman cc: Grattan Endicott , Ben Schelen , bridge-laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king In-Reply-To: <005001c1a837$66e5fa20$64b6f1c3@tkooij> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ton, I'm not quite sure if I've understood you correctly here: > >> +=+ Hang on. What are we doing about Law 13? > > > >Nothing, the opening sentence of 13 points you to 14, nor does any section > >of 13 apply to this case. > Henk, I like your style of answers being clear and short, and normally to > the point as well. But this one seems wrong to me, as does Grattan's reply. > Law 13 deals with a pocket of a board with more than 13 cards. Whether there > are 52 or more card doesn't make a difference. I read this case as a board > containing four times 13 cards and one player adding a card to his 13 during > the preparations to start the auction or even later (who knows?). If that is > the case the TD dealt with it in the same way I would (I agree: no > guarantee, but it means something). > If we don't accept this solution I promise severe problems of the following > kind. Any time a player can predict the board to become a disaster for his > side he will produce the 14th card to get it cancelled! Don't tell me you > wouldn't have found that solution yourself. Exactly. > This leads to the following conclusion: The penalty for not counting your > hand should prevent such behaviour. Agreed and I think this can be accomplished by removing the extra card, similar to the case of a missing card (L14, where the card is added and is assumed to have been in the 12 card hand all the time). Do you suggest to do anything differently? Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 29 09:15:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0SMDmB29777 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 09:13:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0SMDdH29754 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 09:13:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16VJtU-0006PS-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 17:04:52 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020128165647.00afce90@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 17:05:09 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Lengthy defense In-Reply-To: <3c5579bf.2225.0@esatclear.ie> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:18 AM 1/28/02, karel wrote: >West called the TD again and asked for a score adjustment. He claimed >South >played soo slowly that he had forgotten what cards were played and >shouldn't >be penalised for south's intolerable defensive pace. > >Comments ?? Slow play is a procedural infraction. The TD should investigate, and if he finds that S's pace was indeed "intolerable" he should give N-S a penalty (L90B2). There is not, however, any legal basis for adjusting the E-W score; they keep their result regardless of what the TD decides to do to N-S. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 29 10:54:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0SNr0Y17559 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 10:53:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0SNqpH17535 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 10:52:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id SAA22765 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 18:44:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA18628 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 18:44:04 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 18:44:04 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200201282344.SAA18628@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Lengthy defense X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > Slow play is a procedural infraction. The TD should investigate, and > if he finds that S's pace was indeed "intolerable" he should give N-S a > penalty (L90B2). There is not, however, any legal basis for adjusting > the E-W score; they keep their result regardless of what the TD decides > to do to N-S. Eric seems to have overlooked L12A1. While it would be rare to do so, a TD could give an adjusted score in the unlikely event he believes one side's slow play _caused_ damage to the other side. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 29 11:15:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0T0DWZ21582 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 11:13:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0T0DMH21550 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 11:13:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.54.129] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16VLlL-000HBv-00; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 00:04:35 +0000 Message-ID: <003501c1a858$dfcb0fe0$8136e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Henk Uijterwaal \(RIPE-NCC\)" , "Ton Kooijman" Cc: "Ben Schelen" , "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 00:05:51 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "Ton Kooijman" Cc: "Grattan Endicott" ; "Ben Schelen" ; "bridge-laws" Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 8:34 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king > > Do you suggest to do anything differently? > > Henk > +=+ Very strongly so. This is a situation where the player with 14 cards is at fault. An adjusted score is needed. I do not recall any power granted anywhere in the laws to the Director to rectify a hand of 14 cards after the player has made a call on it. I do not believe the Director has such a power and I am firmly of the view that such a law and any such action by the Director would be undesirable in the extreme. If he finds it unsatisfactory to proceed according to Law 13 - which would be practical directing, and only requires him to form an opinion that the pocket probably contained the fourteen cards at some point, maybe after it reached the table - he is left with Laws 12A1 and 82B1. As for fears about cheating players deliberately adding a 14th card to a hand, paranoia has set in - and anyway the Director has ways to deal with this if he suspects it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 29 11:52:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0T0oWb28649 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 11:50:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0T0oOH28625 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 11:50:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id TAA24265 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 19:41:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA18739 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 19:41:38 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 19:41:38 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200201290041.TAA18739@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > As for fears about cheating players deliberately > adding a 14th card to a hand, paranoia has set in > - and anyway the Director has ways to deal with > this if he suspects it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ L72B1 comes to mind. (Hah, John P.... beat you to it!) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 29 12:52:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0T1o8S09689 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 12:50:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0T1nxH09663 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 12:50:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g0T1fhw22462 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 01:41:43 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 01:38:57 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king References: <200201290041.TAA18739@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200201290041.TAA18739@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <200201290041.TAA18739@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: "Grattan Endicott" >> As for fears about cheating players deliberately >> adding a 14th card to a hand, paranoia has set in >> - and anyway the Director has ways to deal with >> this if he suspects it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >L72B1 comes to mind. (Hah, John P.... beat you to it!) Hehe.. I usually deal with the extraneous card by tearing it into small pieces, and fining the player a deck of cards for the replacement when I find someone who's only got 12 cards. "That'll teach you not to count them" >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 29 13:22:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0T2KI513468 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 13:20:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from eowyn.vianetworks.nl (eowyn.iae.nl [212.61.25.227]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0T2K8H13438 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 13:20:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from b0e7g1 (pm17d140.iae.nl [212.61.3.140]) by eowyn.vianetworks.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 645AC20F37 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 03:11:20 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <005701c1a86a$1c6d2800$8c033dd4@b0e7g1> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: <200201281550.KAA16686@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 02:56:50 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The second diamond king did not arrive in the board, but was left on the table. The player counted 13 cards but has not done that with the forgoing board: Law7C. The player is always busy talking (retoric) between two boards. Ben ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 4:50 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > +=+ Wrong. A surplus is NOT a deficiency. > > Law 14 only applies when three hands have > > thirteen cards each and the fourth has *fewer* > > than 13. Somehow a card has been added to > > one of the hands. The Director, who has to > > assume that at some stage there were 14 > > cards in one of the pockets of the board, deals > > with the case under Law 13. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > I agree with almost all the above, and I'm astonished at some of the > other answers. What is the problem? L13 is quite clear. > > My one disagreement with Grattan is that I don't see why the TD has to > "assume" anything. He needs to investigate how the extra card got into > the plethoric (What a great word. Thanks, Marv!) hand. Yes, most > likely he will conclude that the card arrived in one of the pockets and > apply L13, but if the facts turn out to be as in Sven's case (the > player grabbed a card off the floor), then L13 won't apply after all. > Indeed this seems to be what happened in the case in the earlier > thread, where dummy appeared to put down 14 cards. If the TD > determines that the card was added by dummy, rather than arriving in > the board, he should just remove the extra card and allow play to > continue. (If play has continued too long for this to be feasible, > L12A2 is the only answer I see, but perhaps there's another law I'm > missing.) > > The problem with L1 is that it doesn't tell us what to do if it's > violated. L13 is a specific law, telling us exactly what to do when it > applies. So when it applies, we use it. > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 29 20:03:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0T91ul24915 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 20:01:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mx.poczta.interia.pl (smtp.poczta.interia.pl [217.74.65.32]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0T91jH24892 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 20:01:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (nereus.interia.pl [127.0.0.1]) by nereus.interia.pl (MX) with SMTP id 5783B7D761C for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 09:52:57 +0100 (CET) Received: by mx.poczta.interia.pl (MX, from userid 555) id 38AE57D75B3; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 09:52:56 +0100 (CET) Received: from poczta.interia.pl (naos.interia.pl [217.74.65.50]) by mx.poczta.interia.pl (MX) with ESMTP id 06A497D7589 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 09:52:55 +0100 (CET) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (naos.interia.pl [127.0.0.1]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailserver) with SMTP id D7F937EB3 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 09:52:54 +0100 (CET) Received: by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver, from userid 555) id AA59C7E9F; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 09:52:53 +0100 (CET) Received: from kavanagh (unknown [217.153.105.20]) by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver) with SMTP id 013C27E94 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 09:52:53 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <002101c1a8a2$56659230$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: References: <00a301c1a7d7$e123edc0$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> <$2CVvlCfsVV8Ew01@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Simple systems? Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 09:44:32 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 X-EMID: 8b2be2c0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" > One of the nice things about this game is that you can all sorts of > different tourneys. You can play Swiss Pairs [except in North > America!], Swiss Teams, BAM Teams [in North America!], K/O teams, > Individuals, rubber, and so on. You can have tourneys which allow you > to play anything, tourneys which allow everything but the most esoteric, > tourneys that allow a general range of things to play and tourneys > restricted to very few conventions. Isn't that nice? > What not organise a tournament where "any bid musn't be forcing" following David Burn's proposal? The 4th IOC Grand Prix is a very prestiguous event and I think that eliminating a national system of one of the strongest bridge playing nations is definitely going too far. How would you feel if had to redesign completely your whole system just before an important event? Not just two-level openers but the whole system from scratch? Even after the 1D/C/S openings the rebid structure in Polish Club is quite different from Acol, Majeure Cinquième or Standard American. Why other nations *are* allowed to play their national systems while Poland is not? > However, one of the bad things about this game, is that you will > always get complaints whatever you run. Why should the WBF not run a > simple systems game? To suggest that this is an attempt to drive > strange systems out of the game completely is ridiculous. You might > just as well say that allowing women to play in Women's football is the > end for the professional football game. Of course it isn't: it is just > a tournament which has different restrictions. > This was precisely that sort of argument that was used when the strong pass systems were banned for the first time. If my suggestion that this is the end of strange systems is "completely ridiculous" then please tell in what top level events you can play the strong pass system? Certainly you couldn't in the Olympic final in Maastricht . In what other high level events can you play it? Rosemblum? World Pairs Championships? The only event where you can play HUMs is Bermuda Bowl. The point is that in practice it did drive out HUMs out of the game. Fallenius - Nilsland no longer play "Mini Major". Balicki - Zmudzinski stopped playing "Suspensor" because they were allowed to play it in very few events and only in the final stages. I stopped playing a HUM for the same reason - what is the point in working on a sytem, have training sessions (I bid approx. 150 deals a week with my partner) when you are forced to switch to a completely new system for the most important event of the year (like trials, for instance)? You just give up HUM right away. In Poland due to system restrictions HUMs imposed by WBF HUMs disappeared almost completely. Sorry, but I don't buy that "different sorts of tournament" argument. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Wiesz co daja dzisiaj w TV? >>> http://tv.interia.pl/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 29 20:46:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0T9j7E02095 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 20:45:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from eomer.vianetworks.nl (eomer.vianetworks.nl [212.61.15.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0T9iwH02076 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 20:44:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from b0e7g1 (pm17d279.iae.nl [212.61.5.25]) by eomer.vianetworks.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 4902A22AC7 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 10:36:10 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <002801c1a8a8$40f8bde0$4b053dd4@b0e7g1> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Copyright of the laws. Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 10:33:33 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Henk, You need permission of the Belgium Vlaamse Bridge Liga as well. Ben ----- Original Message ----- From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: "David Stevenson" Cc: Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 5:57 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Copyright of the laws. > > David, > > > If Niels and I were to seek permission to put a Dutch version online > > what would happen? > > I'm planning to ask for permission (again) if there are people interested > in putting the laws online. > > Henk > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net > RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk > Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 > 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 > The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > > That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 29 21:03:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0TA1Lx03988 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 21:01:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (eurasianchemtech.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0TA1CH03968 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 21:01:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id KAA03922; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 10:51:48 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id KAA20883; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 10:52:24 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020129104559.00a7a1e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 10:55:29 +0100 To: "Ben Schelen" , "bridge-laws" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king In-Reply-To: <005701c1a86a$1c6d2800$8c033dd4@b0e7g1> References: <200201281550.KAA16686@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 02:56 29/01/2002 +0100, Ben Schelen wrote: >The second diamond king did not arrive in the board, but was left on the >table. The player counted 13 cards but has not done that with the forgoing >board: Law7C. >The player is always busy talking (retoric) between two boards. > >Ben AG : the player did something uncautious, ans got a top for his reward. Yesterday, for the umpteenth time, I had put a club in my spades, opened 1S, and for that resaon got to 4S from the right side and without mentioning another suit. This got me a top. If the TD had voided this top because I was uncautious, I wouldn't have liked it. Of course, I didn't commit any infraction by opening 1S, but I infringed L74B1 (or rather, my ophtalmologist did). Now you tell me that in the case of a player putting a card from another board among his own, the infringement was of another type. I don't think so ; the board contained 52 cards, one of each. The main infraction of the player was against L74B1. And in this case many of you think he can't keep his top ?? That he doesn't deserve it is immaterial, and he couldn't have done it on purpose. Also, note that he could well have counted his hand, the DK jumping in thereafter. Best regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 29 21:42:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0TAeZN09163 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 21:40:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0TAePH09140 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 21:40:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from x49.ripe.net (x49.ripe.net [193.0.1.49]) by birch.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g0TAVYW03436; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 11:31:34 +0100 Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g0TAVYi29299; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 11:31:34 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 11:31:33 +0100 (CET) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Grattan Endicott cc: Ton Kooijman , Ben Schelen , bridge-laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king In-Reply-To: <003501c1a858$dfcb0fe0$8136e150@dodona> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Tue, 29 Jan 2002, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > Grattan Endicott ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > "I don't like reading a book if I must have > three other books open alongside it in order > to understand what it is saying" > ~ 'Nick' - radio discussion on > Iris Murdoch, 24 January 2002 > ~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" > To: "Ton Kooijman" > Cc: "Grattan Endicott" ; > "Ben Schelen" ; > "bridge-laws" > Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 8:34 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king > > > > > > Do you suggest to do anything differently? > > > > Henk > > > +=+ Very strongly so. This is a situation where > the player with 14 cards is at fault. An adjusted > score is needed. I do not recall any power granted > anywhere in the laws to the Director to rectify a > hand of 14 cards after the player has made a call > on it. Doesn't 13 imply that the TD can correct a 14 card hand after a call has been made? > I do not believe the Director has such a power > and I am firmly of the view that such a law and any > such action by the Director would be undesirable in > the extreme. > If he finds it unsatisfactory to proceed according to Law 13 - which > would be practical directing, That's what I'm trying to do: Law 13 allows a board to be played if the director rules that information gained is inconsequential. That appears to be the case here, all this player knows is that on some other board, he will hold the DK. > and only requires him to form an opinion that the pocket probably > contained the fourteen cards at some point, maybe after it reached the > table This unlikely, I can remember 2 cases with >52 cards. In both cases, a player didn't return all cards to the pocket on the previous board, counted the cards he took from the next board (and got 13), then picked up _all_ cards in front of him. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 29 22:45:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0TBhLL20531 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 22:43:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f101.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0TBhCH20504 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 22:43:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 03:34:20 -0800 Received: from 172.175.89.216 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 11:34:16 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.175.89.216] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: kneebee@hotmail.com Subject: [BLML] Virus snafu Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 03:34:16 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Jan 2002 11:34:20.0825 (UTC) FILETIME=[E4BEE890:01C1A8B8] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The most revelevant information can be found at: http://www.cert.org/incident_notes/IN-2002-01.html I've received more copies of this since yesterday morning than I have any other single virus. I think it will be more widespread because many people do not realize that .com is an executable file extension on DOS/Windows systems. If you've received the worm from me (which you shouldn't have, so let me know if you have), I offer my apologies. Links to many anti-virus software programs' webpages can be found from the cert site. They are quite thorough and efficient. -Todd, returned home safely from Seattle. _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 29 22:56:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0TBsPH22247 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 22:54:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat39.alcanet.no [193.213.239.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0TBsGH22221 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 22:54:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from netos70.alcatel.no (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with ESMTP id g0TBjJd22977; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 12:45:19 +0100 Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king To: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" Cc: bridge-laws , Ben Schelen , Grattan Endicott , Ton Kooijman X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 12:45:10 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NOMAIL01/NO/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 01/29/2002 12:45:19 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Henk Uijterwaal wrote: >Doesn't 13 imply that the TD can correct a 14 card hand after a call has >been made? That is the way I read Law 13 >That's what I'm trying to do: Law 13 allows a board to be played if the >director rules that information gained is inconsequential. But on a very important additional condition: All four players must agree! >This unlikely, I can remember 2 cases with >52 cards. In both cases, a >player didn't return all cards to the pocket on the previous board, >counted the cards he took from the next board (and got 13), then picked up >_all_ cards in front of him. I have different experiences. But again, the way I read law 13 it is immaterial for the application of this law how the hand happened to contain 14 (or even more) cards. The Director may "determine" that the pocket actually contained all the cards involved, and I think he always ought to do so except when there is strong evidence to the contrary. Note that when the Director makes such a determination it is ususlly to the advantage of the player holding that hand. Now he is "only" subject to a violation of law 7B1 while otherwise he would be open for an accusation of maliciously tampering with his hand, having himself added extraneous cards. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 29 23:21:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0TCJoT24369 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 23:19:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (iupware.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0TCJfH24352 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 23:19:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id NAA00492; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 13:10:17 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id NAA15998; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 13:10:53 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020129130543.02f18ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 13:13:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: [BLML] just another LA case Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Dear blmlists, here is a UI / LA case from a recent match : A10xxx Jx xx Q10xx J9xxx Q A10x xxxxx Qxx Axx Kx Axxx Kx KQx KJ10xx Jxx S W N E 1D p 1S p 1NT p p ...p East admits having taken about 10 seconds before his final pass. West leads a small heart, after which the contract can't be made. Now we have to consider whether there was UI from the slow pass. a) is there any suggestion of some specific lead ? b) can one decree that spades are a LA ? (obviously, diamonds aren't) After a spade lead, the contract will sometimes be made. c) does the fact that South played to the diamond *ten* allow the TD to pretend that he would have done the same after a spade lead ? Thaks for your advice. Best regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 29 23:43:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0TCgFs27504 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 23:42:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0TCg1H27462 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 23:42:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16VXRl-000FjK-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 12:33:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 02:49:31 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Actual case References: <3c55732a.200a.0@esatclear.ie> In-Reply-To: <3c55732a.200a.0@esatclear.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Karel writes >[snip ... ] >In my view I can see no reason to adjust unless the TD erred. The >lead could have been changed, and as long as this was offered there was no >reason >to adjust. If a player bids 2H when the Stayman bid does not show a four card >major then he would have bid it if it does not. > >[Karel - east was not given the option to change his lead. West had indicated >at the table that he would have bid. TD felt enough had been said didn't want >any further UI to complicate an already potentially loaded case. ] This of course leads to a further problem. Once a TD has made a mistake the onus changes. It would have been much better if the TD had allowed the change that the Laws permit. >Ok final part to this : > >1st off the NOS appealed the case against the original ruling which was 2 imps >to NOS and 9 to the OS (originally 11 to the OS). The TD's Logic was that in >maybe 2/11 cases a 2H bid may have infact "effected" declarer sufficiently for >him to go down or for the contract not to be reached. I've never seen/heard >of such a ruling and I'd be pretty certain it's illegal. The 2 imp "present" >was also infact a dud as it made no difference to the final result. This sounds a bit like a weighted ruling under L12C3 but without the TD really understanding the mechanics. It also sounds a not unreasonable ruling in effect even if not reached by the correct process. >2nd I believe the actual ruling of 3NT making is pretty routine - declarer at >one table finessed and the other didn't. Whatever the reasons the making >declarer >deserves his result. The evidence that UI may have urged him to double finesse >does not have sufficient weight. I think that 17 opposite a reasonable 2NT >will always bid 3NT. To say he deserves his result is not very fair: if he has gotoppone [s] >and finally this case was heavily influenced by the following paragraph. I'd >like your reaction to it > >Alerting > >(c) Players have the duty to ascertain the following information at the start >of each round: >(i) Their opponents basic system >(ii) Strength of NT >(iii) The meaning of a 2C response to a 1NT in an uncontested auction >(iv) System, leads signals and discards > >Players are assumed to know these things, regardless of alerts, and bear the >onus for any embarrassment caused by failure to find them out by asking the >meaning of an opponent's call. That looks familiar! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 29 23:43:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0TCgGs27509 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 23:42:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0TCg1H27461 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 23:42:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16VXRl-000FjL-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 12:33:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 02:55:43 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Curator ad Litem References: <001d01c1a590$3421f980$119968d5@tinyhrieuyik> <004701c1a80b$7ec30060$5d9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> In-Reply-To: <004701c1a80b$7ec30060$5d9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Nigel Guthrie writes Is it possible for you to use a mail or news reader with a Reply-to mechanism? Your posts are *very* difficult to read. [s] >[ng] C. Finally, in different circumstances, but for similar reasons, should >the NOS be allowed to waive penalties against the OS? > >[ds] The NOS are permitted to ask the TD to waive penalties for cause. I >do not really understand what point you are making here, but again there >exists a legal remedy. It does require a cause, for example if a card >is dropped because of a player's disability I trust that few players >would want a penalty card. > >[n2] The point I am making is that if you playing badly, it is tempting to >waive penalties against those who are in contention because they are friends >or because you do not want to cause ill-feeling. To do this is illegal. You cannot waive penalties: you can ask the TD to do so, and only "for cause". The fact that they are your friends would not be thought by a TD to be an adequate cause. >[n2] Thirty years ago, in a big pairs competition, a world champion made a >claim (2S just making) which I disputed (2 down vulnerable). Declarer wrote >down the score. We insisted on reviewing the tricks. Declarer shuffled the >tricks, returned the hand to the slot, and put the next board on the table. >We called the TD. Before the TD arrived, dummy (another world-champion) >shrugged his shoulders; declarer was furious but took the hint and amended >the score to two down. Unsurprizingly, our illustrious opponents still won a >prize. Had we not been in contention, would we have engendered all this >aggro? I wonder how many of their other opponents had been more compliant >than we? It is because of many experiences like this that I feel that even >those not in contention should be actively encouraged to ask for rulings, to >enforce penalties, and to appeal (if necessary, in absentia, without >jeapardising a deposit). Yeah, well, so you had a bad experience. But what about all the good experiences? If a player tries fancy tactics against you, ok, you do everything you can to deal with him, but that hardly means you have to stay for an appeal you do not want in a situation where no-one has tried any such thing - which is far more common. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 29 23:49:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0TCliH28506 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 23:47:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0TClYH28476 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 23:47:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.56.159] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16VXT0-000Cma-00; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 12:34:27 +0000 Message-ID: <000401c1a8c1$dc88ec80$9f38e150@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Henk Uijterwaal \(RIPE-NCC\)" , "Grattan Endicott" Cc: "Ton Kooijman" , "Ben Schelen" , "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 12:32:25 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "Grattan Endicott" Cc: "Ton Kooijman" ; "Ben Schelen" ; "bridge-laws" Sent: 29 January 2002 10:31 Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king > On Tue, 29 Jan 2002, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > > Grattan Endicott > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > "I don't like reading a book if I must have > > three other books open alongside it in order > > to understand what it is saying" > > ~ 'Nick' - radio discussion on > > Iris Murdoch, 24 January 2002 > > ~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~ > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" > > To: "Ton Kooijman" > > Cc: "Grattan Endicott" ; > > "Ben Schelen" ; > > "bridge-laws" > > Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 8:34 PM > > Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king > > > > Doesn't 13 imply that the TD can correct a 14 card > hand after a call has been made? > +=+ Only in the given circumstances under Law 13. > There is no such power outside of Law 13 and if > the Director decides he cannot apply Law 13 he > does not have the power to rectify a hand on which > the player has made a call. +=+ > ------------- \x/ -------------- > > That's what I'm trying to do: Law 13 allows a board > to be played if the director rules that information > gained is inconsequential. > +=+ AND provided all four players consent to play the board, and always provided the Director is making his ruling under Law 13, not otherwise. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 30 01:52:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0TEoY720495 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 01:50:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0TEoPH20478 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 01:50:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16VZS5-0002LI-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 09:41:37 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020129080309.00b00d10@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 09:41:53 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: [BLML] Applying L12A1 to L90B [WAS Lengthy defense In-Reply-To: <200201282344.SAA18628@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:44 PM 1/28/02, Steve wrote: > > From: Eric Landau > > Slow play is a procedural infraction. The TD should investigate, and > > if he finds that S's pace was indeed "intolerable" he should give > N-S a > > penalty (L90B2). There is not, however, any legal basis for adjusting > > the E-W score; they keep their result regardless of what the TD > decides > > to do to N-S. > >Eric seems to have overlooked L12A1. While it would be rare to do so, >a TD could give an adjusted score in the unlikely event he believes one >side's slow play _caused_ damage to the other side. I am as anti-slow-play as they come. The pace of play at the local duplicates is the primary reason why I play so little duplicate these days. I frequently argue that our TDs (both locally and throughout the ACBL) are seriously remiss in their failure to penalize players for repeatedly violating L90B2. I personally fall victim to the "Sominex coup" far more often than most, to the point where serious partners have identified this as one of the primary weaknesses of my game. But I must say it never has occurred to me, nor will it, to ask for redress when an opponent has executed a successful Sominex coup against me. But Steve is quite right. Slow play is an infraction, and L12A1 allows the TD to adjust when "the[] Laws do not provide indemnity to the non-offending constestant for the particular type of violation... committed by an opponent". So "a TD *could* give an adjusted score". However, L12A1 is wide open; it gives the TD the opportunity, if he so chooses, to adjust the score for the NOs any time he feels that they might have been damaged by an opponent's procedural infraction. Under what circumstances should he do so? As much as I favor a hard line on slow play, it wouldn't have occurred to me to apply L12A1 in a slow play case absent a finding that the offenders had violated L74C7. I worry about the precedent. If a player can be "damaged" by particularly slow play per se, surely a player can also be damaged by particularly fast play as well. I have reservations about our jurisprudence creating a precedent that becomes an implicit requirement, inferred from rather than explicit in the Laws, for players to play at a pace which is comfortable for their opponents, lest they suffer, if not from score adjustments, at minimum from having to put up with more-or-less speculative calls for the TD whenever the opponents don't like their pace of play. And it's not just pace; if we open up L12A1 in slow play cases, we will have created a de facto obligation to use it (in the sense of being required to make a determination as to whether to adjust under it, even if we choose not to do so) whenever there is a procedural infraction accompanied by a claim of consequent damage. This may not significantly increase the number of adjusted scores, but will certainly greatly increase the number of TD calls and appeals. Perhaps we should consider adding something to TFLB that explicitly addresses the question of when a score adjustment is warranted based on an opponent's violation of proper procedure (per L90B), or, possibly, of proper conduct and etiquette (per L74) as well. One possibility would be to borrow the language of L73F2 and incorporate it into L90A: "The Director... may also assess penalties for... In addition, he may award an adjusted score to the non-offending side if he determines that the offender had no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and could have known, at the time of the offense, that the action could work to his benefit." In real life, this would come very close to my implicit personal criterion for when to apply (i.e. consider awarding an adjusted score under) L12A1. But others, I'm sure, have personal criteria which are more or less stringent than mine. In the interest of achieving greater consistency, it might be nice if TFLB provided us with some sort of guideline for such cases rather than leaving them to the necessarily nebulous "catch-all" of L12A1. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 30 03:11:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0TG9JC03878 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 03:09:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from wonka.esatclear.ie (wonka.esatclear.ie [194.145.128.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0TG99H03845 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 03:09:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from esatclear.ie (IDENT:httpd@gratin.esatclear.ie [194.145.128.35]) by wonka.esatclear.ie (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA27418 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 16:00:17 GMT From: "Karel" Reply-to: karel@esatclear.ie To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 15:40:56 GMT Subject: Re: [BLML] just another LA case X-Mailer: CWMail Web to Mail Gateway 2.6z, http://netwinsite.com/top_mail.htm Message-id: <3c56c288.57ca.0@esatclear.ie> X-User-Info: 194.125.134.149 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > A10xxx > Jx > xx > Q10xx > >J9xxx Q >A10x xxxxx >Qxx Axx >Kx Axxx > > Kx > KQx > KJ10xx > Jxx > > S W N E > > 1D p 1S p > 1NT p p ...p >a) is there any suggestion of some specific lead ? Nope. Maybe East was going to bid 2C's, maybe a balancing double, maybe 2 hearts, maybe penalty double, possibly even 2D's .... On this auction, nothing to do with the pause, it is likely east has 4 hearts. >b) can one decree that spades are a LA ? (obviously, diamonds aren't) >After a spade lead, the contract will sometimes be made. Sure spades are LA so is the CK. But it requires alot from partner for either of these two leads to work. A heart lead requires any Honour from pd and/or the HJ in the south hand - alot less >c) does the fact that South played to the diamond *ten* allow the TD to pretend that he would have done the same after a spade lead ? The only time playing to the K becomes a consideration is when you have 6 definite tricks up infront of you. For this to happen you need to set up a club. This means losing the lead at least 3 times. Assuming fair defence, this means the opps are ahead of you in the race. Even if you do get 6 tricks you are still down to a 50/50. Conversely - abandoning clubs and playing an immediate finesse gets you 2 tricks straight away if the DQ is onside. If it works you are ahead of the opps and even if it doesn't good things may yet happen. If I were playing 1NT, I'd go for 2H's 3S's and 2D's. Karel -- http://www.iol.ie -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 30 03:14:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0TGCaG04404 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 03:12:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0TGCRH04382 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 03:12:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from laval (PPP22.UQuebec.CA [192.77.50.22]) by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA22475 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 11:03:38 -0500 (EST) From: "Laval Dubreuil" To: "BLML" Subject: TR: [BLML] What do players think the mispull rule is? Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 11:03:07 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David's questions, if I understand them, are: 1. How should the TD go about investigating? Is there a standard question to ask or other standard procedure? 2. If the TD determines that the change was a change of mind, how should he explain the rule to players so they will understand it in the future? ______________________________________________________________________ 1. When called by a player who tells he misbid, I always ask the same question: "Did you make a mistake with your hand or with your mind (distraction, change of mind, etc.). On your mother's head, tell me." I think most players tell the truth and I have to judge from the "table feeling". I have no problem when they pull 2H instead of 2S, but rarely allow 25A if they pull X instead of 2S.... 2. After choosing an option (hand or mind). I say something like: a)"your hand made the misbid so you can change your bid without penalty" (if partner has not bid afterward); b)"sorry, but I think you misbid in your mind so I cannot allow a change of call" (or apply Law 25B if I have to ...). I also explain to offender's partner that he cannot use UI. IMHO, most players are able to make difference between "hand error" and "mind error" and can understand that the last one is worse. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 30 06:07:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0TJ6aF08080 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 06:06:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from eowyn.vianetworks.nl (eowyn.iae.nl [212.61.25.227]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0TJ6QH08053 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 06:06:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from b0e7g1 (pm17d124.iae.nl [212.61.3.124]) by eowyn.vianetworks.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 54E2C21495; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 19:56:57 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <000301c1a8f6$983adc20$7c033dd4@b0e7g1> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" , "stefan filonardi" References: <3C56849B.117.BC6CC9@localhost> Subject: [BLML] Re: Copyright of the laws. Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 19:40:43 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Stefan, No, but you can buy the (double)dutch Law-book: euro 6,50 A dutch bargain, because the english book is priced euro 7,- Everybody speaks english after having beer, so don't worry. Ben ----- Original Message ----- From: "stefan filonardi" To: "Ben Schelen" ; "David Stevenson" Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 11:16 AM Subject: Re: Copyright of the laws. > Hello, > > On 29 Jan 2002, at 10:33, Ben Schelen wrote: > > > You need permission of the Belgium Vlaamse Bridge Liga as well. > > and maybe from the Bridge Bond Nederlandse Antillen? > > David I am afraid that your offer to bet about was a little bit > optimistic and you will never get the beer from me > > your stefan ;-) > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 30 10:55:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0TNt8j05220 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 10:55:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0TNswH05186 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 10:54:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id SAA10528 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 18:46:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA26562 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 18:46:09 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 18:46:09 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200201292346.SAA26562@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Applying L12A1 to L90B [WAS Lengthy defense X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > As much as I favor a hard line on slow play, it wouldn't have occurred > to me to apply L12A1 in a slow play case absent a finding that the > offenders had violated L74C7. I worry about the precedent. Eric and I seem to be in complete agreement here. I think my personal criterion for an adjusted score would be when a violation grossly departs from expected tempo. A ten or fifteen second or even a minute-long huddle doesn't come close. Leaving the table for five minutes, though, even for a genuine personal emergency, would make me want to give an adjusted score. But reasonable people could certainly draw the line somewhere else, depending perhaps on the conditions of a specific competition. Do we need guidelines in TFLB? We already have 72B1 to take care of any "could have known" cases. No problem there. My inclination would be to let SO's adopt guidelines or regulations if they care to do so and otherwise leave the matter to the TD's discretion. I don't honestly believe we have any problem, and my suggestion in the case that started this thread was probably a bad idea. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 30 11:05:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0U04w007205 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 11:04:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0U04oH07184 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 11:04:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id SAA10769 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 18:56:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA26576 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 18:56:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 18:56:02 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200201292356.SAA26576@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Copyright of the laws. X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > Extracts from these Laws > either verbatim or paraphrased are not permitted without the sanction of the > Authority holding the Copyright. I'm not any kind of lawyer, but at least in the US, the above is probably a bit of an overstatement. We have a "doctrine of fair use," which in general allows anyone to publish short excerpts from copyrighted works provided the copyright holder is not thereby deprived of significant revenue or other benefits. For example, a reviewer is probably safe to quote a single sentence or even a paragraph from a novel, but quoting a two-line poem in its entirety would be a no-no. Probably much more than you want to know is at: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 30 13:26:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0U2Pgv04706 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 13:25:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0U2PYH04676 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 13:25:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id NAA19011 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 13:28:04 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 13:15:46 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Simple systems? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 13:11:51 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 30/01/2002 01:16:11 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Konrad Ciborowski wrote: [snip] >The only event where you can play HUMs is Bermuda Bowl. >The point is that in practice it did drive out HUMs out of the game. >Fallenius - Nilsland no longer play "Mini Major". >Balicki - Zmudzinski stopped playing >"Suspensor" because they were allowed to play it >in very few events and only in the final stages. [snip] In all major imp events in Australia HUMs are permitted, usually even in the qualifying stages. The winning pair in the 2002 Australian Youth Trials were "Suspensor" aficionados. IMHO, the Simple Systems? problem should be solved by enforcing complete prior disclosure (as HUMs are treated in Australia). Major events where complete prior disclosure is impractical - matchpoint pairs, and teams events with short matches - are the only major events where HUMs should be banned. Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 30 13:57:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0U2vFd10501 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 13:57:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.90]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0U2v5H10480 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 13:57:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16VknE-000Nlk-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 02:48:14 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 13:18:50 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Lengthy defense References: <200201282344.SAA18628@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200201282344.SAA18628@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner writes >> From: Eric Landau >> Slow play is a procedural infraction. The TD should investigate, and >> if he finds that S's pace was indeed "intolerable" he should give N-S a >> penalty (L90B2). There is not, however, any legal basis for adjusting >> the E-W score; they keep their result regardless of what the TD decides >> to do to N-S. > >Eric seems to have overlooked L12A1. While it would be rare to do so, >a TD could give an adjusted score in the unlikely event he believes one >side's slow play _caused_ damage to the other side. Eric is telling him what TDs do, which is probably what he wanted. Yes, you could always adjust under L12A1 if you found a case, but not the actual case cited, surely? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 30 15:45:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0U4jAN01692 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 15:45:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0U4j1H01672 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 15:45:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-174-225.btinternet.com ([213.122.174.225] helo=pbncomputer) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16VmTi-0004Nz-00; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 04:36:11 +0000 Message-ID: <055d01c1a947$6821c3e0$23a07ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Cc: "Grattan Endicott" References: <001001c1a7f4$979ea560$8498403e@pacific> Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 04:33:49 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: > > > +=+ Hang on. What are we doing about > > > Law 13? > > > > Nothing, the opening sentence of 13 points > > you to 14, nor does any section of 13 apply > > to this case. > > > +=+ Wrong. A surplus is NOT a deficiency. > Law 14 only applies when three hands have > thirteen cards each and the fourth has *fewer* > than 13. I have not been watching this thread. But it's very important. I don't know the details of the case, and I don't care about them - but about this I do care: Grattan ought not to be able to explain to people whose native language is not English that they have got it "wrong" in not knowing the difference between a "surplus" and a "deficiency". These are very difficult English words, and I am myself not sure that I would not regard a hand with 14 cards as "defective". If the Laws intend that a 53-card pack should be treated otherwise than a 51-card pack, then the Laws should say so in a way that can be understood from Kensal Green to Kathmandu. They do not, except perhaps to a speaker of Kaplan's Impeccable English. If they did, then we could not be having this discussion. I have a proposal for the next draft of the Laws, and I do not see why it should not be carried through. It is this: no English word in the 2005 (7?) Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge shall contain more that two syllables, except where a representative of every bridge-playing nation on Earth has signed a solemn declaration that the translation of such word will be clearly understood by every bridge player in her (or his) country. In addition, if a single representative of any bridge-playing nation on Earth expresses a difficulty in translating the Laws into her (or his) native tongue, the WBFLC shall be obliged to redraft the Law until such time as everybody knows what it means. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 30 18:49:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0U7nBL03410 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 18:49:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0U7n3H03406 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 18:49:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.23.218] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16VpLp-000Gg2-00; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 07:40:14 +0000 Message-ID: <001501c1a961$b246f0c0$da17e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Burn" , "Bridge Laws" References: <001001c1a7f4$979ea560$8498403e@pacific> <055d01c1a947$6821c3e0$23a07ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 07:41:06 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws" Cc: "Grattan Endicott" Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 4:33 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king > > Grattan ought not to be able to explain to people > whose native language is not English that they > have got it "wrong" in not knowing the difference > between a "surplus" and a "deficiency". These > are very difficult English words, and I am myself > not sure that I would not regard a hand with 14 > cards as "defective". > +=+ I have much sympathy with the underlying philosophy of this message, and it did occur to me that perhaps there were those who thought 'deficient' had something to do with 'defect'. However, we are still obliged to wrestle with the Kaplanese of the current laws. I have little doubt that it is intended that in the next revision we should ensure the intentions are stated simply.And that the concepts should be less opaque, too. Mind you, it is not only to do with the length of the words; in Law 92B it is easy for the translator to miss the significance of 'request or appeal'. The 'request' bit really belongs to Law 9B. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 30 19:23:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0U8NXN03432 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 19:23:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alcatel.no (nat39.alcanet.no [193.213.239.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0U8NPH03428 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 19:23:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from netos70.alcatel.no (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alcatel.no (8.11.2/8.11.2/Alcanet1.0) with ESMTP id g0U8ETi15528; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 09:14:29 +0100 Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king To: "David Burn" Cc: "Bridge Laws" , "Grattan Endicott" X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: Sven.Pran@alcatel.no Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 09:14:25 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NOMAIL01/NO/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 01/30/2002 09:14:28 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >I have not been watching this thread. But it's very important. I don't >know the details of the case, and I don't care about them - but about >this I do care: >Grattan ought not to be able to explain to people whose native language >is not English that they have got it "wrong" in not knowing the >difference between a "surplus" and a "deficiency". These are very >difficult English words, and I am myself not sure that I would not >regard a hand with 14 cards as "defective". Grattan can surely speak for himself, but even with English not being my native language I have little difficulty understanding the difference between "defective" as a trick containing too few _OR_ too many cards (law 67) - similarly for a hand - meaning that it is incorrect in some way, and "deficient" as a hand missing one or more cards (law 14). >If the Laws intend that a 53-card pack should be treated otherwise than >a 51-card pack, then the Laws should say so in a way that can be >understood from Kensal Green to Kathmandu. They do not, except perhaps >to a speaker of Kaplan's Impeccable English. If they did, then we could >not be having this discussion. The laws have clearly been written with the understanding that a missing card is far more common than an extraneous card when the pack is "defective". My impression from this thread is that even so we can apply the existing laws sensibly to also such cases, but there might be a reason for some clarifying footnote to law 13 (and maybe also to law 1). Still I do not fancy too much footnotes, they sometimes tend to obscure the text itself. >I have a proposal for the next draft of the Laws, and I do not see why >it should not be carried through. It is this: no English word in the >2005 (7?) Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge shall contain more that two >syllables Maybe we should request the laws to be re-written in Pidgin? >except where a representative of every bridge-playing nation >on Earth has signed a solemn declaration that the translation of such >word will be clearly understood by every bridge player in her (or his) >country. Why not a representative of every bridge club? That would eliminate the need for the next clause: >In addition, if a single representative of any bridge-playing nation on >Earth expresses a difficulty in translating the Laws into her (or his) >native tongue, the WBFLC shall be obliged to redraft the Law until such >time as everybody knows what it means. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 31 00:48:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0UDkUN26179 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 00:46:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0UDkLH26165 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 00:46:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16Vuvb-0006Lj-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 08:37:32 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020130080724.00a91c00@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 08:37:49 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Applying L12A1 to L90B In-Reply-To: <200201292346.SAA26562@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:46 PM 1/29/02, Steve wrote: > > From: Eric Landau > > As much as I favor a hard line on slow play, it wouldn't have occurred > > to me to apply L12A1 in a slow play case absent a finding that the > > offenders had violated L74C7. I worry about the precedent. > >Eric and I seem to be in complete agreement here. > >I think my personal criterion for an adjusted score would be when a >violation grossly departs from expected tempo. A ten or fifteen second >or even a minute-long huddle doesn't come close. Leaving the table for >five minutes, though, even for a genuine personal emergency, would make >me want to give an adjusted score. But reasonable people could >certainly draw the line somewhere else, depending perhaps on the >conditions of a specific competition. > >Do we need guidelines in TFLB? We already have 72B1 to take care of >any "could have known" cases. No problem there. I had been misreading L72B1 as applying only when the hand was still in progress, but on rereading it looks like Steve is correct and it could be applied. The problem with L72B1 in slow play cases, though, is that it's too broad. It applies any time the offender "could have known", and that can be made to apply to virtually any case; I've argued in the past that "could have known" is used in TFLB to allow us to penalize based on intent without having to explicitly find intent. I think we need two conditions, analogous to L73F2: (1) "could have known", and (2) "no demonstrable bridge reason for the action"; in combination, they make a prima facie case for intent -- if someone does something that disconcerts an opponent, and there is no other reason for him to have done it, we proceed as though he did it with the intended purpose of disconcerting that opponent without having to actually establish that that was the case. If I were the Emperor of Bridge, anyone who took more than their alotted time to play a hand would receive an automatic 1/4-board penalty, but the offense and penalty could explicitly be made not subject to L72B2. A player who got to a hard-to-bid tricky slam, assumed he was playing for all the matchpoints, and needed a five minute huddle to analyze the play, would be allowed to take the time, provided he was prepared to accept the 1/4-board penalty graciously. (Chess clocks, anyone?) In that ideal world, under those circumstances, there wouldn't be a justification for adjusting the score. I see a parallel to the real world, where time clocks and slow play penalties are a joke. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 31 04:54:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0UHr4o06663 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 04:53:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.worldcom.ch (mail1.worldcom.ch [212.74.176.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0UHqtH06633 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 04:52:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (portmp060.worldcom.ch [212.74.135.60]) by mail.worldcom.ch (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA17389 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 18:43:57 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20020130184428.00803bb0@worldcom.ch> X-Sender: fsb@worldcom.ch X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 18:44:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Yvan Calame Subject: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi all, A friend asks: >Do you know the WBF and EBL Laws regarding Opening 1NT (15-17) with >a singleton? If so, what is specifically stated? It used to be HAS in Europe: * EBL - SYSTEMS POLICY * B) DEFINITION AND ADMINISTRATION * 1. Definition of Highly Artificial Systems * For the purpose of this Policy, a Highly Artificial System (H.A. * System) of the following features, as a matter of partnership agreement: * [...] * b) The partnership employs [...] a bid of One No Trump which * shows neither a balanced hand of at least 9 H.C.P., nor an * unbalanced hand guaranteeing at least 17 H.C.P. I dont see anything about 1NT in the WBF System policy (http://www.bridge.gr/Dept/systems/policy.htm), and I didnt find anything on the ebl site about the current EBL Systems policy. Does anybody know more ? yvan -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 31 09:27:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0UMQHd19365 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 09:26:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com [212.74.112.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0UMQ7H19351 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 09:26:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.57.8] (helo=dawnhass) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 16W32Z-0009O0-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 22:17:15 +0000 Message-ID: <000d01c1a9db$a92b3e40$62fafea9@dawnhass> From: "Damian Hassan" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <001001c1a7f4$979ea560$8498403e@pacific> <055d01c1a947$6821c3e0$23a07ad5@pbncomputer> <001501c1a961$b246f0c0$da17e150@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 22:15:43 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Burn" ; "Bridge Laws" Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 7:41 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king > > Grattan Endicott ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > "Seal up the mouth of outrage for a while > Until we can clear these ambiguities." > ['Romeo and Juliet'] > ~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Burn" > To: "Bridge Laws" > Cc: "Grattan Endicott" > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 4:33 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king > > > > > > Grattan ought not to be able to explain to people > > whose native language is not English that they > > have got it "wrong" in not knowing the difference > > between a "surplus" and a "deficiency". These > > are very difficult English words, and I am myself > > not sure that I would not regard a hand with 14 > > cards as "defective". > > > +=+ I have much sympathy with the underlying > philosophy of this message, and it did occur to me > that perhaps there were those who thought > 'deficient' had something to do with 'defect'. Now I am confused! Of course deficient has something to do with defect. Both words are from the Latin - deficere, defectum. According to the OED, both words have a history of similar meanings, and Chambers gives definitions as: Defect: a deficiency, a want, imperfection, blemish, fault Deficiency: defect, shortage Deficient: wanting, less than complete, defective Not quite synonymous, but pretty close. > However, we are still obliged to wrestle > with the Kaplanese of the current laws. I have > little doubt that it is intended that in the next > revision we should ensure the intentions are stated > simply.And that the concepts should be less > opaque, too. > Mind you, it is not only to do with the > length of the words; in Law 92B it is easy for the > translator to miss the significance of 'request or > appeal'. The 'request' bit really belongs to Law 9B. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > -- > ======================================================================== -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 31 10:30:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0UNU0J01170 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 10:30:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0UNTlH01126 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 10:29:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.51.119] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16W3xw-0007gS-00; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 23:16:34 +0000 Message-ID: <000801c1a9e5$1c5ac440$7733e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Yvan Calame" Cc: "bridge-laws" References: <3.0.6.32.20020130184428.00803bb0@worldcom.ch> Subject: Re: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 23:15:30 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 5:44 PM Subject: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton > Hi all, > > A friend asks: > > > Do you know the WBF and EBL Laws regarding > > Opening 1NT (15-17) with > > a singleton? If so, what is specifically stated? > ------------------ \x/ ---------------- > > Does anybody know more ? > > yvan > +=+ Hi Yvan! The WBF and the EBL Systems Policies are identical in all save one respect (unless something has escaped my notice). The difference is the addition in the EBL Policy of: "In the EBL Pairs Championships psychic conventional opening bids are prohibited." (I have observed that the draft regulations for the Mixed Teams in Oostende extend this prohibition to the matches in the round robin.) Neither Policy makes any reference to an exclusion of hands containing a singleton from opening NT bids. The alerting policy indicates a requirement to alert NT openers if they are not "balanced or semi-balanced" and this implies that there should be disclosure of any agreement to open 1NT with a singleton. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 31 10:37:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0UNbf602657 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 10:37:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0UNbVH02622 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 10:37:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.0.7] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16W45T-000An6-00; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 23:24:20 +0000 Message-ID: <001601c1a9e6$31d80f20$7733e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Damian Hassan" , "Bridge Laws" References: <001001c1a7f4$979ea560$8498403e@pacific> <055d01c1a947$6821c3e0$23a07ad5@pbncomputer> <001501c1a961$b246f0c0$da17e150@dodona> <000d01c1a9db$a92b3e40$62fafea9@dawnhass> Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 23:30:07 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 10:15 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Grattan Endicott" > To: "David Burn" ; "Bridge Laws" > > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 7:41 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king > > > > > > Grattan Endicott > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > "Seal up the mouth of outrage for a while > > Until we can clear these ambiguities." > > ['Romeo and Juliet'] > > ~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~ > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "David Burn" > > To: "Bridge Laws" > > Cc: "Grattan Endicott" > > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 4:33 AM > > Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king > > > > Now I am confused! Of course deficient has > something to do with defect. Both words are > from the Latin - deficere, defectum. According > to the OED, both words have a history of > similar meanings, and Chambers gives definitions > as: Defect: a deficiency, a want, imperfection, > blemish, fault Deficiency: defect, shortage > Deficient: wanting, less than complete, defective > Not quite synonymous, but pretty close. > +=+ Yes, but in the sense of shortage or deficit; not in all the senses of 'defect'. Defects, flaws, of excess are not included in the meaning of 'deficient'. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 31 12:11:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0V1AdA18398 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 12:10:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0V1A7H18333 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 12:10:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16W5bC-000OZf-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 01:01:16 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 17:43:24 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Expert claim? References: <5.1.0.14.1.20020125125910.00a2aec0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <000401c1a5f3$df535160$679868d5@tinyhrieuyik> In-Reply-To: <000401c1a5f3$df535160$679868d5@tinyhrieuyik> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Nigel Guthrie writes >[gs] It is a violation of L74, and of L68c [although this is >a less serious violation, I think], at the very least. As such, >it should be discouraged, and penalized if he continues it >after having been asked to desist by the TD. I would ask >him politely not to put his cards away without giving me a >chance to see them, first, and then ask the TD to speak to >him if that fails, as I suspect it will. > >[ng] Thank you, Grant, for your enlightening and practical answer. One more >question. How would you cope with this behaviour in a match where no TD is >available? As with any other ruling, you have to follow the normal procedure. Phoning a TD is a good method, writing down the situation and asking for a ruling later is another. If there is no real problem apart from dislike at him doing it then I would ask him politely to desist: if he did not I would write a letter of complaint to the organisers. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 31 12:11:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0V1AdN18401 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 12:10:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0V1A8H18335 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 12:10:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16W5bC-000OZe-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 01:01:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 17:39:51 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Expert claim? References: <000f01c1a5d2$5bcd9740$e59868d5@tinyhrieuyik> In-Reply-To: <000f01c1a5d2$5bcd9740$e59868d5@tinyhrieuyik> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Nigel Guthrie writes >A member of our club has a habit which he may have picked up from watching >experts. As declarer, at teams, after some tricks have been played, he picks >up his quitted tricks, shuffles them into the rest of his hand, and writes >down the score. His implication is that he has the rest of the tricks. >Does this constitute a claim? Yes, definitely. > Does play cease, as in normal claims? Yes. > Is he >bound to show his hand, if asked? Yes. > if challenged is he allowed to elucidate >his line of play? No, he has made it quite clear that he thinks the rest are his, and the TD will take that assumption as the line of play. > IMO this is an annoying waste of time. If it is then it is something that needs to be dealt with. Experts do it when playing with each other in situations where the player believes everyone understands the situation, and they are usually right. It is still fairly rude in such situations. If he is doing it against lesser players then he is in breach of the Laws on Etiquette and needs to be dealt with. > Also, after the >hand has been shuffled, it is difficult to dispute tricks or establish >revokes. Not at all: the TD will naturally give the benefit of *any* doubt to the opponents, so it is easy to dispute tricks or revokes. > At normal levels, can such behaviour be penalized --or at least >discouraged? It can be penalised at any level. If it is causing trouble then it should be discouraged at any level. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 31 12:11:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0V1Adh18405 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 12:10:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0V1A9H18338 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 12:10:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16W5bE-000OZg-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 01:01:19 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 17:48:08 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Expert claim? References: <000f01c1a5d2$5bcd9740$e59868d5@tinyhrieuyik> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Brambledown writes >> Nigel Guthrie writes: > >> A member of our club has a habit which he may have picked up from watching >> experts. As declarer, at teams, after some tricks have been >> played, he picks up his quitted tricks, shuffles them into the rest of his >hand, >> and writes down the score. His implication is that he has the rest of the >tricks. > >There is another interpretation of this action. Since he has mixed his >remaining cards with his quitted tricks without any explanation, he may be >deemed to have abandoned his hand. In accordance with L68B "a player >concedes all the remaining tricks when he abandons his hand". As a >defender I might be inclined to counter this declarer's obnoxious habit with >a casual "Six off, then?" and leave him to convince the TD that this was >manifestly not his intention. I doubt he would do it at my table again, >nor at any other if the TD gave him a sufficiently hard time over it. I do not think it is a valid interpretation when done in a situation where everyone realises he probably has the rest of the tricks, but I like the methodology of assuming it and letting him explain to the TD! -------- Alain Gottcheiner writes >AG : there is a way to discourage it very strongly : the next time he does >it against you, call the TD and tell him that declarer revoked on the trick >before the claim. As he has shuffled his hand, the TD will, in accordance >with L66D, decide there was indeed a revoke. There is no stronger deterrent >against the premature shuffling than the perspective of losing two tricks >everytime he performs it. That'll do nicely as well! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 31 12:11:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0V1AeV18404 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 12:10:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0V1ACH18356 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 12:10:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16W5bL-000OZe-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 01:01:22 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 17:55:39 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king References: <001001c1a7f4$979ea560$8498403e@pacific> In-Reply-To: <001001c1a7f4$979ea560$8498403e@pacific> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott writes >From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" >> > +=+ Hang on. What are we doing about >> > Law 13? >> Nothing, the opening sentence of 13 points >> you to 14, nor does any section of 13 apply >> to this case. >+=+ Wrong. A surplus is NOT a deficiency. >Law 14 only applies when three hands have >thirteen cards each and the fourth has *fewer* >than 13. Somehow a card has been added to >one of the hands. The Director, who has to >assume that at some stage there were 14 >cards in one of the pockets of the board, deals >with the case under Law 13. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Why do we have to assume it when it is quite possible it did not happen? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 31 12:11:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0V1Af418408 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 12:10:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0V1A6H18331 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 12:10:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16W5bC-000OZd-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 01:01:15 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 17:34:18 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Who are the leaders playing? References: <003101c1a4e0$bfb00ce0$743be150@pacific> <015d01c1a4fa$d4d20f00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3C5127E1.C675FAA1@alphyra.ie> <3C5557D3.271260D0@alphyra.ie> In-Reply-To: <3C5557D3.271260D0@alphyra.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk James writes >Have I the right to leave the table and ask the director privately? If I was the Director I would not dream of telling you. It is not information that a Director should give you: you might just as well go to the Director and say "What should I bid on this hand?" >> | Situation : >> | We were playing the last board in the last match of a teams comp. >> | Were down on the first 7 boards. >> | Were placed 5th with a reasonable chance of 3rd, playing the 2nd >> | placed team who are a safe for 2nd and are trailing 1st place by >> about >> | 15. >> | >> | I'm considering punting 6s. However, In fairness to first place, >> | I dont want to chuck a heavy win to our opponents. Why "In fairness to first place"? Other people's results are not your affair, surely? >> | At this stage I want to size up the leaders opponents. If >> | there weak, I'll bid 6, otherwise not. >> | >> | Have I any right to know at this stage? >> | If so, how do I go about finding this out? If you really want to base your efforts on the results at other tables and who is playing then I suggest you find out before you play the match. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 31 12:11:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0V1AhJ18410 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 12:10:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0V1AEH18360 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 12:10:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16W5bM-000OZZ-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 01:01:23 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 18:05:08 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king References: <001301c1a7f7$f44667a0$e81ce150@pacific> In-Reply-To: <001301c1a7f7$f44667a0$e81ce150@pacific> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott writes >> If we accept law 1 to be absolute except that >> cases of incorrect boards are to be corrected >> when covered by laws 13 or 14, we have no >> such problems. >> >+=+ Law 13 deals with all cases where a hand >has an incorrect number of cards* other than the >special situation for which Law 14 provides. In >this case, since the player with 14 cards has called, >the Director's correct action is specified in the main >body of Law 13 stopping short prior to the words "If >no such call has been made, then:" Read from >"When the Director determines...." to "....... and >may penalise an offender". ~Grattan ~ +=+ > >[* however it has happened. The Director should >not be persuaded that there is no way there could >not have been 14 cards in a pocket of the board at >some point. He should not get into an argument on >the point. He just cannot be sure and acts with >common sense accordingly.] Our general approach is to try to judge what happened, not to make unjustified assumptions. If we wanted to make unjustified assumptions, of course, we would assume the card was added after the cards were taken from the board, since that is considerably more likely. But why should we? Why should we not do our job and investigate? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 31 12:11:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0V1Amh18418 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 12:10:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0V1AEH18364 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 12:10:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16W5bM-000OZd-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 01:01:24 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 18:01:41 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven.Pran@alcatel.no writes >Brambledown wrote: (and I have placed all my comments at the end) >>> Sven.Pran@alcatel.no writes: >....(snip) > >>> The relevant law is law 1, and in "Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate >>> Contract Bridge 1987" by Endicott and Hansen it is said very clearly: > >>No, no, no. We cannot rush to L1 just because we seem to have one too >many >>cards, any more than we should do so when a card has been mislaid. L1 >has >>not been breached, the pack conforms in every respect. It even arrived >at >>the table with 13 of its cards in each pocket. The problem is an >>'intruder' in declarer's hand. It may look like the DK, it may even have >a >>similar 'back' to the rest of the pack, but (as far as this pack is >>concerned) it is *not* the DK. It is an imposter just as much as a Joker >>masquerading as a knave would have been. It should, of course, have been >>discovered when the holder counted his cards (L7B1). > >>>> Henk Uijterwaal wrote: >>>> The second DK doesn't belong to this board, to avoid confusion, it is >>>> removed from declarers hand and play continues. > >>>>> If the TD puts the king back in the forgoing board and play continues, >it >>>>> appears that declarer belongs to the only pair that has bid and made >game. > >>>> Bad luck for the NO-side, in general the offenders won't like it if a >king >>>> is removed from their assets after the auction. > >>In the absence of guidance to the contrary, Henk's approach seems >eminently >>sensible in the case given. What would we have done, however, if the >error >>had come to light later in the play, after the 'false DK' had been >'played' >>and accepted as genuine by all of the players (including the holder of the >>'true' DK)? > >>L14 deals in some detail with the problem of a missing card. While it is >>less likely that we will encounter the problem of too many cards, it >surely >>cannot be that rare an occurence. Why does this not warrant at least a >>mention in the Laws? > >>Chas Fellows (Brambledown) > >As has been pointed out, not only by me, there is no law other than Law 1 >that explicitly deals with a pack containing more than 52 cards, >and law 1 disqualifies all attempts to play a game of bridge with a pack >that doesn't strictly conform to this law. > >Is it material how the pack happended to be different from that specified? >Of course not. What must be important is that an attempt of play is in >progress. So, if I am getting -1700, I can add a card from the previous board, **tell you what I have done**, and I will get average-minus? You must not confuse difficulties with applying the Laws to what the laws are. L1 tells us that bridge is played with a specific 52 cards. If there is an extra card in the board at the start then we have L13. If there is not then we started with 52 cards, L1 is satisfied, and the addition of some extra thing [card, sweet-paper or whatever] does not affect it. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 31 19:43:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0V8ggI05440 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 19:42:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0V8gWH05416 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 19:42:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from x49.ripe.net (x49.ripe.net [193.0.1.49]) by birch.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g0V8Xch16819; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 09:33:38 +0100 Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g0V8XaA28057; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 09:33:36 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 09:33:36 +0100 (CET) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Grattan Endicott cc: Damian Hassan , Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king In-Reply-To: <001601c1a9e6$31d80f20$7733e150@dodona> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Grattan Endicott wrote: > From: "Damian Hassan" > > Now I am confused! Of course deficient has > > something to do with defect. Both words are > > from the Latin - deficere, defectum. According > > to the OED, both words have a history of > > similar meanings, and Chambers gives definitions > > as: Defect: a deficiency, a want, imperfection, > > blemish, fault Deficiency: defect, shortage > > Deficient: wanting, less than complete, defective > > Not quite synonymous, but pretty close. > > > +=+ Yes, but in the sense of shortage or deficit; > not in all the senses of 'defect'. > Defects, flaws, of excess are not included > in the meaning of 'deficient'. ~ G ~ +=+ I agree with David and Damian: it _is_ confusing, in particular since no TD wants to carry the OED around and check every word before each ruling. So, for the 2007 laws, can we simply replace "deficient" by "less than 13 cards"? (And judging from the length of this discussion, a law 14-bis, dealing with "extra cards", seems useful addition as well). Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 31 19:53:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0V8qwx06684 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 19:52:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0V8qnH06667 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 19:52:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.65.177] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16WCkp-000P8N-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 08:39:36 +0000 Message-ID: <002901c1aa33$c529f5c0$b141e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" References: <001301c1a7f7$f44667a0$e81ce150@pacific> Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 08:45:06 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 6:05 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Two times diamond king > Our general approach is to try to judge what > happened, not to make unjustified assumptions. > If we wanted to make unjustified assumptions, > of course, we would assume the card was added > after the cards were taken from the board, since > that is considerably more likely. But why should > we? Why should we not do our job and investigate? > +=+ It was not my contention that the Director should not seek to establish facts. However, in a case like this it can be difficult to get a clear picture - the players may well not know precisely what happened; a card lying loose may have been "put back" into the board, for example, but as it happens into the wrong board. In this correspondence I have twice seen it said that Law 13 refers to a board that arrives at the table with a defective hand; those who have said this should read the Law again. If there were 14 cards in the hand when he took it from the slot this meets the condition in the Law. It is open to a Director who fails to establish clearly what did happen to deem that there may have been 14 cards in the hand when the player lifted it from the board, no matter how or when the fourteenth arrived there. Such a decision is not 'unjustified' and allows the Director to make a ruling based upon Law 13. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 31 21:21:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g0VAKxK22303 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 21:20:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0VAKnH22278 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 21:20:50 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g0VABwd13063 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 10:11:58 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 10:11 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] EBL Systems Policy - 1NT with a singleton To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.52.2000, Windows 98 4.10.2222 ( A ) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <000801c1a9e5$1c5ac440$7733e150@dodona> Grattan wrote: > The alerting policy indicates a requirement to alert NT > openers if they are not "balanced or semi-balanced" and > this implies that there should be disclosure of any > agreement to open 1NT with a singleton. I would have described 4333, 4432, 5332 as balanced and 5422, 6322, 4441, 5431 as semi-balanced (not sure about 6331). I'm not sure where others would draw the distinction. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/