home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!noc.near.net!hri.com!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!batcomputer!cornell!uw-beaver!newsfeed.rice.edu!hsdndev!cfa203!willner
- From: willner@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner)
- Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
- Subject: Re: Alerts in real time (Was: Computer Bridge and the Law)
- Message-ID: <1993Jan25.203814.5226@head-cfa.harvard.edu>
- Date: 25 Jan 93 20:38:14 GMT
- References: <7803@tivoli.UUCP> <1993Jan12.145034.18839@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> <8204@tivoli.UUCP> <dej.0043@qpoint.ocunix.on.ca>
- Sender: willner@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner)
- Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA, USA
- Lines: 22
-
-
- In article <dej.0043@qpoint.ocunix.on.ca>, dej@qpoint.ocunix.on.ca
- (David Jones) writes:
- > Question: what happens if RHO bids before you can utter the word "Alert"?
- > (It has happened to me.)
- >
- > What laws apply in this situation given that if RHO wants to change his
- > call, then there has been unauthorized information.
-
- Law 21B1 gives RHO the right to change his call without penalty if
- the alert was not prompt. I suppose that if RHO's call was made in
- such haste as to preclude a timely alert, no change would be allowed.
- The director would have to try to determine the facts.
-
- Law 16C1 provides that all information from the change of call is
- authorized for the non-offending side. Law 16C2 says that for the
- offending side (the side that failed to alert), information from the
- withdrawn call is unauthorized.
- --
- Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa
- Cambridge, MA 02138 USA Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu
- member, League for Programming Freedom; contact league@prep.ai.mit.edu
-