 |
|
 |
|
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 12:29:12 -0800 (PST), Andrew <...@gmail.com
On Feb 18, 12:04 pm, Stu G <...@sbcglobal.net
I can't see adjusting the score to 4S making. If she had wanted to,
she could have raised 3S to 4S on the actual auction, so I don't see
any injury from the incorrect ruling.
Andrew
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:17:40 -0800 (PST), Adam Beneschan <...@irvine.com
On Feb 18, 12:04 pm, Stu G <...@sbcglobal.net
One aspect of this I'm not completely clear on: Suppose the TD had
ruled that 2H was inadvertent. What's the status of the 3C that LHO
made when she thought 2H was an insufficient bid (rather than an
inadvertent one)? Is 3C now an insufficient bid, or is it just
cancelled (and UI to someone)? Or (since she may have made the 3C bid
before the 3H bid was actually made) a bid out of rotation?
-- Adam
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:46:22 -0800 (PST), Tim DeLaney <...@comcast.net
On Feb 18, 6:17 pm, Adam Beneschan <...@irvine.com
Good question. Had it been made before the correction, it would be
cancelled, and 25A4 applies. However, the way I read the incident,
the opponent knew that it was a mechanical error, and "accepted" it
improperly. Arguably, this makes the opponents of the OP the
offending side, since they are the only side to commit an
impropriety. Ergo, they are not entitled to any adjustment.
I don't know that I would consider it a bid out of rotation, though
you could make a case for that. But in light of the first director's
ruling, that would be a moot point, since there is no longer an
opportunity to rectify the bid out of rotation.
Tim
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 00:58:10 +0000, David Stevenson <...@nospam.demon.co.uk
Stu G wrote
Who knows? You have not shown us the hands. But quite possibly, yes.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682
<...@googlemail.com Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
Owing to incompetence by my ISP my Bridgepage is temporarily offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 12:42:23 -0800 (PST), Robin Barker <...@npl.co.uk
We need to see the hands to decide if this is credible:
Would LHO really bid 4C over 3H?
Would RHO bid 4S if LHO bids 4C? Just because RHO bid 3S over 3C, they
might bid 5C over 4C, or make some slam try.
Would 4S make? There might be a different lead/defence to 4S than to
3S.
Yes, if 4S= is a possible outcome if you had been allowed to bid 3H.
Law 82C requires an adjusted score treating both sides as non-
offending. In the ACBL this means both sides get the most favourable
result that was likely (Law 12C1(e)(i)). I guess this is 3S+1 for
your side, 4S= for the opponents.
If the Regulatory Authority uses weighted scores (Law 12C1(c)) then
you would get some weighting of 3S+1 and 4S= and the opponents would
get a more favourable weighting of those results (or perhaps 100%
4S=).
Robin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 13:03:16 -0800 (PST), Tim DeLaney <...@comcast.net
On Feb 18, 3:42 pm, Robin Barker <...@npl.co.uk
Had LHO commented: "I'd have bid 4C over 3H", then I might agree. I
might even agree if I judged that a 4C bid -- to the exclusion of all
other bids -- was LHO's most likely action over 3H.
But the story as I interpret it is that LHO discovered the number of
tricks that could be taken at a spade contract before making this
claim. I think it's unfair to the rest of the field to allow this
retrospective bite at the apple.
Tim
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:19:17 -0800 (PST), richlp <...@hotmail.com
On Feb 18, 1:03 pm, Tim DeLaney <...@comcast.net
"I think it's unfair to the rest of the field to allow this
retrospective bite at the apple."
Regardless of the merits of adjusting, "Protect the field" should
never be a consideration.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Feb 18, 12:04 pm, Stu G <...@sbcglobal.net
Clarification: in ACBL land, you are now required to call the director
when you (or anyone at the table) calls attention to the insufficient
bid. No matter how obvious the situation may appear to be, you risk
possible loss of your rights if you do anything else instead such as
attempt to make the bid sufficient. This reflects a change in the
Laws that has been widely publicized in recent months.
John Hoffman
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 01:09:23 +0000, David Stevenson <...@nospam.demon.co.uk
wrote
That is not a change in the Law at all, even if it may have been
widely publicised as such.
LAW 9 PROCEDURE FOLLOWING AN IRREGULARITY
B. After Attention Is Called to an Irregularity
1. Summoning the Director
(a) When to Summon
The Director must be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an
irregularity
That is taken from the 1997 Laws. In fact it has been watered down,
*not strengthened*, in ht e2007 Laws with 'should' replacing 'must':
LAW 9: PROCEDURE FOLLOWING AN IRREGULARITY
B. After Attention Is Drawn to an Irregularity
1. (a) The Director should be summoned at once when attention is
drawn to an irregularity.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682
<...@googlemail.com Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
Owing to incompetence by my ISP my Bridgepage is temporarily offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 22:26:53 +0100, "Sven Pran" <...@mail.please
<...@g3g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
My first impression when reading OP was that this was a Law 25A case
(unintended call). This is also apparently what the senior TD ruled. Law 25A
does NOT give LHO the option to accept the first call, this call simply does
not exist and never existed.
However, when I read the description more carefully it seems to me that OP
really intended the 2H bid at first but changed his mind when he discovered
that it would be an insufficient bid. Regardless of how quickly he changes
his call ("without pause for thought" is irrelevant), once the fact is that
he has changed his intention makes it a Law 25B/Law 27 case. Note that under
Laws 25B and 27 the alternatives of accepting or rejecting the first call
(insufficient bid) are a privilege for LHO to choose between!
But whatever the score, if LHO accepts the first call she cannot afterwards
claim damage and rectification on the ground that she would have gotten a
more favourable score had she not accepted the first call.
regards Sven
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:09:41 -0800 (PST), Adam Beneschan <...@irvine.com
On Feb 18, 1:26 pm, "Sven Pran" <...@mail.please
[John Hoffman:]
I'm not sure what "change" you're referring to: the language "The
Director must be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an
irregularity" has been in the Laws at least since 1987. I don't see
anything different in Laws 25 or 27 regarding a new requirement to
call the Director that didn't exist before. (The only thing I see is
that due to some other changes in how Law 27 is applied, you can get
yourself in more trouble than previously if you correct your
insufficient bid to the lowest sufficient bid without waiting for the
Director to explain what's going on. I don't think that's pertinent
in this case anyway, since none of the bids involved are
conventional.)
[Sven:]
I don't see it that way; Stu phrased this as "the wrong bid card was
down", and my interpretation of "the wrong bid card" is "a card that
isn't the one I intended to put down". Regardless, I don't think
anyone can tell on the Internet whether there really was a pause for
thought or a mispull. That judgment has to be made by the TD at the
table. I'm willing to trust that Stu is telling the truth because
I've played with him a couple times and he seems like an honest
fellow. Also, I'd be more willing to trust that the call was
inadvertent, because I think most insufficient calls arise because a
player doesn't notice the last player's bid, but in this case, Stu
would have had to miss *two* previous bids and/or think he was raising
his partner's 2H bid to 2H. Or just have a total mental lapse, which
I allow is possible but is just less likely.
-- Adam
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 20:57:12 +0100, "Sven Pran" <...@mail.please
"Adam Beneschan" <...@o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
...............
If "the wrong bid card" refers to his own bid card I agree. And as this
seems more probable I now feel that I should have stuck with my first
impression that this was a law 25A case.
regards Sven
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 12:22:48 -0800 (PST), Tim DeLaney <...@comcast.net
On Feb 18, 3:04 pm, Stu G <...@sbcglobal.net
For purposes of the ruling, both sides should be considered non-
offending. Therefore, neither side should be given the benefit of any
doubt.
LHO's assertion that she would have forced the partnership to game had
your bid been 3H is contravened by the fact that she did not raise 3S
to 4S. No adjustment.
In effect, LHO is saying that she should be awarded the optimum
result, regardless of the actual table result. Sorry, only one bite
at the apple. What would she have said if the limit on the hand were
9 tricks?
Tim
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 01:13:28 +0000, David Stevenson <...@nospam.demon.co.uk
Tim DeLaney wrote
Both sides, not neither side!!!!!!
===================================================================
Tim DeLaney wrote
According to L25A4 if a substituted call is allowed then LHO may
withdraw any call over the first call. The Law makes no reference to
why he called over the first call so his intent is irrelevant. So 3C
would just be withdrawn.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682
<...@googlemail.com Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
Owing to incompetence by my ISP my Bridgepage is temporarily offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 02:12:02 GMT, Travis Crump <...@techhouse.org
If LHO knew at the time that the bidding cards presently on the table
are there in error than I think no call has yet been made. Suppose for
sake of absurdity the bidder drops half his bidding stack on the table;
are you really suggesting that next player can bid anything he wants and
then retract it without penalty when the top half of the bidding stack
reaches the table?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:09:25 -0800 (PST), Adam Beneschan <...@irvine.com
On Feb 18, 5:13 pm, David Stevenson <...@nospam.demon.co.ukwrote:
Ah, I see... that one *is* new. In the 1997 Laws there weren't any
subsections of L25A, so it looks like the correct ruling might not
have been clear under those Laws, but this situation has gotten
addressed in the 2007 Laws.
One thing that bothers me: The 2007 Laws say that the withdrawn 3C is
authorized to the side that made the 3C call over the inadvertent 2H,
but not to the opponents. This seems more or less fair, since the
side that made the inadvertent call was the one that screwed up. But
it also seems like it would give an opportunity to real sharp types
who also have good reflexes---if they can tell RHO has just made an
inadvertent call (whether insufficient or not) and is about to correct
himself, they can sneak in a quick lead-directing bid if they're fast
enough. I suppose that the Director can find something somewhere in
the Lawbook to prevent them from taking advantage like this---or
perhaps they can just use the entire Lawbook to whack the sharp player
on the nose---I don't know how what the correct way is to deal with
that sort of practice.
-- Adam
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 12:18:54 +0000, David Stevenson <...@nospam.demon.co.uk
Adam Beneschan wrote
The EBU/WBU and others made an interpretation along these lines many
years ago, as no doubt other authorities did. It is one thing the
lawmakers have done right, to include it this time.
I think you are worrying about nothing - I do not really believe the
situation can occur.
==================================================================
Travis Crump wrote
No, but the call has not been made, so it is not a Law 25A case
anyway.
==================================================================
Tim DeLaney wrote
Sounds good, but it is not really what the Laws say.
==================================================================
Tim DeLaney wrote
No doubt. But knowing IBs can be accepted, the probability is about
99% that he thought he was accepting an IB, whether intended or not, and
about 1% he was trying to get around the Law.
And what does it matter? As is so often the case, we rule without
determining intent.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682
<...@googlemail.com Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
Owing to incompetence by my ISP my Bridgepage is temporarily offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 20:03:05 -0800 (PST), Tim DeLaney <...@comcast.net
On Feb 18, 8:13 pm, David Stevenson <...@nospam.demon.co.ukwrote:
It is not the intent that I call into question. An irregularity has
occurred (the 2H bid) and the opponent, instead of summoning the
director, has taken it on himself to interpret the law. Without any
reference to his intent, his action is improper, is it not?.
You evidently don't agree with the idea that his 3C bid should be
treated as a bid out of rotation, and I'm fine with that. But if I
interpret the incident correctly, "accepting" the 2H bid is tantamount
to making a ruling that only the director can make.
By his improper action, the 3C bidder has precipitated the incident.
Had he acted properly and called the director, the director would have
made one of two possible findings of fact: Either the 2H bid was
insufficient, or it was inadvertant. In either case, the incident
would have been resolved in routine fashion.
If the director had then ruled that the 2H bid was insufficient rather
than inadvertant, the OP would have the option of appealing the
ruling. Had he ruled that it was inadvertant, but that the opponent
had the option of accepting it, then an adjustment might well be
appropriate.
IMHO, by usurping on the role of director, I argue the 3C bidder has
contributed to the problem, and should not now be allowed to profit
thereby.
Tim
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 22:23:08 -0800 (PST), blackshoe <...@mac.com
On Feb 18, 11:03 pm, Tim DeLaney <...@comcast.net
Has he? Law 27A1 says "Any insufficient bid may be accepted (treated
as legal) at the option of offender’s LHO. it is accepted if that
player calls." There is no prerequisite in this law that LHO call the
director before accepting the IB. Now, if someone (including LHO) says
"that's insufficient" or the like, and *then* LHO says "I'll accept
it", we have a problem, for once attention has been drawn to an
irregularity, the TD should be called, and "no player shall take any
action until the director has explained all matters in regard to
rectification." At this point, the acceptance is itself an
irregularity. But if no one has called attention to the IB, "I accept
it" or simply calling without saying anything is not IMO illegal.
I see an awful lot of "what ifs" on the internet, along the lines of
"what if a player is a cheat, an operator, a dirty rotten scoundrel?"
IMO, this kind of speculation is counterproductive, silly, and a waste
of time. Sure it's possible there are a few people like that around -
but their shenanigans won't go unnoticed forever. "By their deeds
shall ye know them" - and once they're known, they'll not get away
with it again. Far better to accept that such... persons ... may get
away with something for a while before they get caught than to go on
witch hunts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 22:42:16 -0800 (PST), Tim DeLaney <...@comcast.net
On Feb 19, 1:23 am, blackshoe <...@mac.com
But in this case, the 2H bidder has been informed that the 2H bid was
not insufficient, but rather inadvertant, at least in my reading of
the original post. The 3C bidder (as I read it) acted after being so
informed.
Tim
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 12:47:01 -0800 (PST), Stu G <...@sbcglobal.net
On Feb 18, 10:42 pm, Tim DeLaney <...@comcast.net
As the OP and 2H bidder, I can say that LHO said "I accept" and put
down 3C as quickly as possible, expecting that once done I would not
be able to correct my IB, inadvertent or otherwise. She didn't
realize the law states I can correct an inadvertent bid up until my
partner makes a call. The first TD was subsequently called after the
3C bid and ruled 2H is accepted.
-Stu Goodgold
San Jose, CA
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 13:12:48 -0800 (PST), Michael Angelo Ravera <...@prodigy.net
On Feb 19, 12:47 pm, Stu G <...@sbcglobal.net
And that is a just plain wrong ruling. The right to correct an
inadvertant call under law 25 is stronger than the right to accept an
insufficient call under law 27. This strength stems from the fact that
you get up to your partner's bid to fix an inadvertant call and your
right to accept an insufficeint bid ends after you choose whether to
accept it by making a legal call or choose not to accept it after
being advised of your right to accept it by the TD.
Stu is wrong about one thing, however. The fact that the 3C bidder
would have accepted th 2H bid and would have bid 3C over it, if she
were allowed to, is AUTHORIZED INFORMATION under Law 25.
One of the reasons that the "inadvertant call" change is worded as it
does is to avoid sticking a player with an inadvertant call by quick
calling opponents. (as was attempted here).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 03:06:48 -0800 (PST), Free <...@gmail.com
On Feb 18, 9:04 pm, Stu G <...@sbcglobal.net
No, LHO had the opportunity to bid 4C and deliberately didn't. Crying
afterwards is ridiculous...
Free
http://freebridge.blogspot.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 16:21:14 -0800 (PST), Hank Youngerman <...@redtopbg.com
Regardless of anything else, I would not "protect" the opponents,
because they made their own ruling. Certainly, every experienced
player has made their own ruling at one time or another, but when you
do and you don't get it right, you lose any opportunity for redress.
Period.
On Feb 18, 3:04 pm, Stu G <...@sbcglobal.net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 03:10:15 -0800 (PST), "axm...@hotmail.com" <...@hotmail.com
So far so good.
This is trouble.
L25A1 states the required condition is to correct the call without
pause for thought. If you wait for a decision for a TD there has been
a pause for thought. In this case I would rule that the 3C was
subsequent to the correction to 3H [as he was told to wait, if he
wanted to dispute the 3H call he must first get a ruling- which he
didn't ] and therefore 3C was insufficient.
Some might believe that 3C is a form of sharp practice.
There seems to be a rash of this. Yesterday after reading the law
book 3 times for an opponent's BOOT the TD required that I bid out of
turn supposedly because the law book does not allow the opponents the
opportunity to condone or not the BOOT. I Pointed out that I was
told to BOOT and the TD decided to read the book a fourth and a fifth
time.
82C. Director’s Error
If a ruling has been given that the Director subsequently determines
to be incorrect, and if no rectification will allow the board to be
scored normally, he shall award an adjusted score, treating both sides
as non-offending for that purpose.
As I see it LHO improper insufficient bid created UI [the distinction
between 4C and wanting to bid 3C when the chance to bid 3C could have
been taken] and RHO acted [was influenced] upon the UI.
I find the assertion that he would have bid 4C self serving and
without merit if for no other reason than he had the opportunity to
bid 4S later and thought better of it after improperly finding out
that partner didn't want to accept the 3C invitation.
As such the rectification is a stiff warning to LHO about sharp
practice, a finding of no damage from the incorrect ruling, and the
board be scored as played.
regards
axman
> San Jose, CA
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 08:47:54 -0800 (PST), boblipton <...@nyc.rr.com
On Feb 19, 6:10 am, "axm...@hotmail.com" <...@hotmail.com
SNIP.
And some might believe that 3H oh, wait, 2H is a form of sharp
practice. How else are you going to bid 2.5 hearts? Call the
director and have him sort it out and then move on.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 12:27:42 +0000, David Stevenson <...@nospam.demon.co.uk
axma...@hotmail.com wrote
Not according to either my Law book nor widely accepted international
practice.
My Law book refers to "or attempts to" and everyone everywhere has
accepted that "Whoops, sorry, that is not what I intended" or the like
counts as an attempt to - and now the TD may be called.
You can hardly rule that something happened after something else when
as a matter of fact it did not.
Some would believe that opening 1S on 11 points is sharp practice [I
was accused of that many years ago]. But sensible people use their
experience and realise that a player who wishes to accept an IB will
accept it immediately and this is no more than that in 99% of cases.
[s]
I do not see why you are so suspicious. Silly people outnumber sly
ones by a large majority.
Of course it is self-serving, as a matter of fact, but how can you
possibly say it is without merit without seeing the hands? Unlikely,
perhaps.
You really are going to have to adjust your attitude. People do silly
things: warning them about sharp practice when they have probably been
silly and done what a million other bridge players would have done will
only lose customers.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682
<...@googlemail.com Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
Owing to incompetence by my ISP my Bridgepage is temporarily offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 06:05:53 -0800 (PST), "axm...@hotmail.com" <...@hotmail.com
But, by law 3C is subsquent:
LAW 33 - SIMULTANEOUS CALLS
A call made simultaneously with one made by the player whose turn it
was to call is deemed to be a subsequent call.
And this should probably not be ignored either:
L21A. Call Based on Caller’s Misunderstanding
No rectification or redress is due to a player who acts on the basis
of his own misunderstanding.
regards
axman
The correction was in progress and LHO called 3C after the correction
was started.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 05:55:37 -0800 (PST), "axm...@hotmail.com" <...@hotmail.com
Saying something is this when it really is that does not make it
this. For centuries cast populations knew that the earth was flat
because government entities said it was so and deterred people from
considering to think otherwise.
When someone says, 'oops, I did not intend that.' They merely have
said the words. One might anticipate that they will then correct [but
might not do so] or then attempt to correct [but might not do so].
But it is quite clear that at that point in time the player has not
yet corrected nor has not yet attempted to correct.
Now, let us say that as N is pulling his bidding card and says,
'oops.' And immediately LHO calls, 'director.' This is an example of
a player attempting to correct his call and then being prevented from
doing so.
Now, let us say that as N is pulling his bidding card the TD yells
FIRE, the player is distracted and upon things settling down he looks
at his offending bidding card for the first time after removing it
from the bidding box, finds that his call is different from intended,
says so, and then immediately corrects it. This is an example of a
player being prevented from recognizing he took the wrong bidding
card, but recognized it at his first opportunity and acted to correct
without pause for thought.
And, for a player that takes the wrong card at what point can it be
expected for him to recognize the error and do something about it? It
is the the point at which the bidding card clears the remaining
bidding cards. Why? Because he has a responsibility to inspect his
card as he removes it and puts it on the table. Even when the bidding
cards are removed briskly and quickly put on the table it is not
difficult to recognize an error and start doing something about it by
the time the cards start descending towards the table. So, by the
time the cards have reached the table it can be said that there has
been pause for thought from the first opportunity to recognize the
error.
As my vision is quite less than decent and my speed with the bidding
cards is lightening fast when I err it is routine for me to state,
'Not this' as the card starts coming down and then immediately proceed
to correct it.
btw, I use the phrase 'Not this' to make it clear that I intend to
correct rather than the oblique 'oops' which can mean 'I intended to
bid this but my plan was wrong' [Vancouver appeal #5 comes to mind].
The 3C bidder was told that a correction was imminent and he acted
after he was told so. That makes 3C subsequent the correction. The
player went about communicating UI to his partner [which is a breach
of L73] by using excessive haste to entrap his opponent and severely
delay the game.
If the TD is not going to help the player his behavior is not going to
improve sooner.
regards
axman
> David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 14:58:01 -0800 (PST), Stu G <...@sbcglobal.net
On Feb 22, 5:55 am, "axm...@hotmail.com" <...@hotmail.com
Perhaps you have time to see the card if you play right-handed. But
playing left-handed as I do, with the bidding box on the right you
don't get to see your bidding card until you look down at the table,
because the card quickly disappears under your left forearm as you
flip it around to face the center. At times I make a concerted effort
to pull the card and examine it while it is still vertical, and before
it gets flipped around. This time I didn't do so.
-Stu Goodgold
San Jose, CA
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 16:02:14 -0800 (PST), blackshoe <...@mac.com
Most of the lefties I see around here, except for one, don't bother
turning the bidding cards around to face the center. The one exception
is a woman who carries her own personal left-handed bidding box around
with her.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 00:57:02 +0000, David Stevenson <...@nospam.demon.co.uk
axma...@hotmail.com wrote
That is irrelevant. The rules of bridge are not some natural Law of
the universe which could have been misunderstood: they are an effective
means of controlling a game as set down by an authority and interpreted
by other authorities. Of course you can argue all the authorities are
wrong, but you have no basis for doing so.
Despite having read these paragraphs twice I fail to understand your
point. The Law book says there must be no pause for thought: the
accepted interpretation is that that applies from the realisation. You
give examples that support this [!!!] and then a personal approach that
does not seem relevant.
If he was told something was imminent and bid before it happened, then
it had not happened. That is a pure matter of language. If you are
told that your vehicle is in imminent danger of crashing and you jump in
time to avoid being in it before the crash, then you have jumped before
the crash, not after.
Accusing players of sharp practice when there has been no sharp
practice is hardly going to help the player.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682
<...@googlemail.com Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
Owing to incompetence by my ISP my Bridgepage is temporarily offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 12:14:05 -0800 (PST), Adam Beneschan <...@irvine.com
On Feb 22, 5:55 am, "axm...@hotmail.com" <...@hotmail.com
As David said, this does not apply when talking about Laws that
Lawmakers write; we have to accept that the Laws mean whatever the
Lawmakers subsequently explain that it means, even if they may not
have written it perfectly the first time.
One other thing: it's a *very* important principle in the Laws that
players do not sacrifice their rights by calling the Director. (In
fact, I believe some of the Laws were rewritten in 1987 to ensure that
principle; prior to that, you could put your own hand down as dummy if
RHO makes an opening lead out of turn but that wasn't one of your
options if the Director were called. Now it is.) If I understand you
correctly, you're saying that if someone realizes they made an
incorrect bid, and calls the Director rather than trying to correct
the bid right away, they've lost their right to correct the bid. That
conclusion would violate the important principle, and thus cannot be
the correct interpretation.
I have no idea what "...centuries cast populations..." means---was
this a typo for "centuries past"? In any case, I seriously question
your statement. According to the information I have, the masses
thought the earth was flat because they were ignorant; more educated
people always believed the earth was round but differed from Columbus
about how big it was, which is why they thought he'd never make it.
(It turns out *both* sides seriously *underestimated* the size, and
that Columbus really never would have made it if it weren't for some
little heretofore-undiscovered land mass in the way.) But unless you
can provide some documented evidence otherwise, I don't think
"government entities" were responsible for telling people that the
earth was flat and for deterring everyone else from thinking so. Was
this just something you made up? That doesn't make it so; as someone
once said, "Saying something is this when it really is that does not
make it this."
-- Adam
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:06:13 -0800 (PST), "axm...@hotmail.com" <...@hotmail.com
They no longer may - once there has been** a pause for thought-
correct their call on their own volition. Notably, L25B does not
permit a player [since 2007, for instance] to change a call on his own
volition. It DOES specifies what is to happen should he do so in
spite of what's allowed.
**upon calling the TD a pause for thought has occurred
If the player had immediately said wait and forthwith proceeded to do
such thing as would correct the call and the opponent called the TD
all things stop and the player certainly may [supposedly] finish once
the TD has investigated an ruled.
A dubious assertion in bridge law.
The mythology [school history books] goes that entities such as church
officials had a vested interest in keeping the masses ignorant.
Apparently they felt that knowledge that would derive from the belief
that the earth was spherical would weaken the hold over the
'masses'.Supposedly there had been proclamations that the earth was
flat and to acknowledge otherwise would speak to the infallibility of
the church.
I merely was attempting to demonstrate that large numbers can believe
something that is not so for a long period of time.
And I of course was speaking to the assertion that 'oops' is an
attempt. It is not an attempt- it is the acknowledgement of an error.
What I did not address directly is that the notion that when some time
passes between when a call is made and it is recognized that a
different call had been intended, that no pause for tthought has
occurred.
The trigger event for measuring time between a call being made and the
beginning of its correction necessarily is the point at which the call
is made [not at the point at which it is recognized that the incorrect
call has been made]. Supposedly bidding box regs have something to
say about this.
Yet, some will assert that the bit until partner has called must have
some meaning- which must be that yet privilege to correct extends past
the time LHO has bid in every instance. But that is not what the law
provides. It provides*** that the time extends up until the point in
time where there has been pause for thought. And the normal
circumstance is that the right to correct without penalty will end
well before LHO does call. So why provide for a time that extends to
partner making his call?
I can think of some situations. [a] someont yells fire and in the
commotion the error isn't recognized [with cause] in a timely manner
[b] LHO bids in haste cuasing distraction and even preventing the
start of correction within the standard of law [c] an opponent calls
for the TD so fast as to preclude a timely action.
***That players and directors have come up with a method of not
penalizing changes of call that do not satisfy the law's standards for
not penalizing merely is a statement that people do not necessarily
read accurately. Surely it can be said that the LC having presided
for some number of decades over the practice of measuring the
beginning of pause for thought from the point in time when a player
says he first recognized his error [rather than the time he first
could have recognized] without doing anything might suggest that they
are satisfied with the law. But what of the people that do read the
law and can find no basis for such practice? It would be quite a
different story if the law indeed said, 'measuring the beginning of
pause for thought from the point in time when a player SAYS he first
recognized his error ' the meaning would be self evident and the same
as the practice. But it is not.
If players indeed learned to start correcting their calls before the
cards got to the table and LHOs did not reach for the bidding box
until RHO was done, there would be considerably less litigation, a
sense of fair play, less contentiousness, and better scores.
regards
axman
> -- Adam
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 18:13:41 -0800 (PST), Adam Beneschan <...@irvine.com
On Feb 23, 3:06 pm, "axm...@hotmail.com" <...@hotmail.com
[snip]
You missed 9B1(c), perhaps?
-- Adam
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 17:35:47 -0800 (PST), blackshoe <...@mac.com
On Feb 23, 6:06 pm, "axm...@hotmail.com" <...@hotmail.com
The law does not say that, so any conclusions based on it are invalid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 04:25:21 -0800 (PST), "axm...@hotmail.com" <...@hotmail.com
Normally you display a level headedness that should be admired.
However, the above sentence is non sequitur.
A player has called the TD. The thought to call the TD occurred
subsequent an inadvertent call and before [the yet to be] correcting
the call. Ergo, a pause for thought occurred prior to the [errr]
failure to correct the call without pause for thought.
regards
axman
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 07:15:06 -0800 (PST), blackshoe <...@mac.com
On Feb 24, 7:25 am, "axm...@hotmail.com" <...@hotmail.com
Well, let me put it this way: if a player tells me that his call was
inadvertent, but that he made no attempt to change it because an
opponent immediately called the director, then given that the laws do
not allow *any* player to take *any* action from that point until the
director has done his thing, I am *not* going to rule that the player
cannot correct his inadvertent call because "there was a pause for
thought". And I think that any director who does so rule is flat
wrong. If the player who made the inadvertent call called the director
himself, and tells me he did so because he was not sure what the law
allowed, again I am not going to rule that he cannot change his call
because "there was a pause for thought". In effect, this situation
*is* an attempt to change his call - he just wanted to be sure he's
allowed to do so. So the fact that the director was called, whoever
called him, does not invoke the "pause for thought" clause of law 25A.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|