From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jul 1 06:02:59 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2013 04:02:59 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Numbers [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F956270@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL G.H. Hardy suggested that the number of a taxi (1729) was "dull", to which Srinivasa Ramanujan rapidly responded: "No, it is a very interesting number; it is the smallest number expressible as a sum of two cubes in two different way." [1 cubed + 12 cubed or 9 cubed + 10 cubed] John (MadDog) Probst, November 2002: >>..... >>It takes years to learn new law numbers. >>..... Grattan Endicott, November 2002: >+=+ Please amplify. Is this statement based upon actual >experience [ ], upon an assessment of the mental agility >of Tournament Directors generally [ ], or upon critical >self-appraisal [x]? > To avoid unsustainable effort please mark x in the >appropriate box. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ John (MadDog) Probst, November 2002: That, Grattan, was *very* funny. But seriously, minor re- numbering is a real pain. If one goes for it, it should be a wholesale restructuring. cheers john UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130701/693afd00/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jul 2 04:23:33 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 02:23:33 +0000 Subject: [BLML] New facts at an Appeal hearing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F9564E7@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Volker Walther: >(Warning: the following text may contain low doses of irony.) > >Hello Richard, > >thank you for the very interesting problem. > >I think there is a great lack of precision in Law 92A, and Law 92A >is irrelevant in this case anyway. > >..... > >Irrelevance: >Law 92A allows a player to "appeal for a review of any ruling made >at his table by the Director." >This does not allow to appeal any decision that the director makes >afar from this table. (For example: The TD writes down the facts >and leaves the table to reconsider the case with another TD. They >make their decision and return to the table to tell it.) Richard Hills: Many years ago I was a member of the non-offending side when this non-screen auction occurred: My RHO opened 1NT, I passed, my LHO responded 2D. After a short pause LHO (not RHO) alerted her own transfer. LHO explained to the Director that she was only trying to be helpful. RHO never forgot a transfer (a credible statement, since Jacoby transfers have been part of the furniture in the Canberra Bridge Club for decades), but RHO sometimes forgot the technical requirement to alert transfers. So to ensure that Hashmat and I did not miss out on our right to be alerted, LHO thought that she was being super-ethical in correcting RHO's failure to alert. The Directors agreed away from our table that LHO's irregularity had had no effect on RHO's subsequent auction, thus chose the mildest possible procedural penalty of educating LHO. But although the ruling was decided away from our table, the Director in charge did not rule the subsequent Ali-Hills appeal unLawful. :) :) Volker Walther: >Furthermore Law 92A does not allow to appeal any decision made at >the Appeals Committee's table. Richard Hills: However, the Director in charge did rule that the subsequent Appeals Committee ruling against LHO was unLawful, ordering the Appeals Committee to reconvene and reconsider. :) :) Volker Walther: >Suppose, the Appeals Committee discovers new facts and gives the >new case to the TD. Usually this happens after the tournament. Richard Hills: Maybe this is usual in Europe. In the Great Southern Land (there is a bad pun at the Melbourne Cricket Ground, which contains a Great Southern Stand) Appeals Committee hearings are rare, but most of those hearings are held ++during++ the tournament. Volker Walther: >So the player does not have a table anymore and L92A may not be >applied to the new decision of the TD. Richard Hills: I agree that my pedantry has been effectively countered by Volker's ironical humour. But nevertheless I believe that Volker's irony about "the table", and the EBU Law and Ethics Committee's irony about appealing from one Appeals Committee to a second Appeals Committee, have both been comprehensively demolished by this paragraph from the WBF Code of Practice (page 4): Function of an Appeal Committee The committee is to hear and make judgement upon an appeal duly made as the laws and the applicable regulations determine, ++from a ruling by a Director++ (in person or by an assistant on his behalf). An appeal against a ruling may only be made by ++a side present at the table where the ruling was given. No account is to be taken of the interests of other contestants++ in the outcome. UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130702/19d359f8/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jul 2 06:31:00 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 04:31:00 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Harry Potter and the Half-Crazed Bureaucracy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F956536@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL http://www.michiganlawreview.org/assets/pdfs/104/6/Barton.pdf Benjamin H. Barton, Harry Potter and the Half-Crazed Bureaucracy, p. 1533: One mystery that remains after The Half-Blood Prince is the legislative or rule- making power of the Ministry of Magic. It is clear that the Ministry enforces the laws, and there are discussions in the books about adopting new laws, but there is never any mention of a legislature or legislative process. The hints that Rowling drops, however, are not encouraging.* *Footnote: Harry's trial in book five suggests that the laws are quite pliable and possibly subject to change at the Minister of Magic's whim. During the trial Fudge and Dumbledore argue over a point of law and the following exchange occurs: " 'Laws can be changed,' said Fudge savagely. 'Of course they can,' said Dumbledore, inclining his head. 'And you certainly seem to be making many changes, Cornelius . . . .' " Rowling, The Order of the Phoenix Richard Hills: In no way do I suggest that the EBU Laws and Ethics Committee is a "half- crazed bureaucracy". The EBU L&EC performs honestly and diligently, often repealing its prior regulations when the L&EC discovers them to be undesirable and/or unLawful. The ACBL Laws Commission, however ... :) :) Law changes in 2017 to eliminate ambiguity are desirable. Substantive changes to the Laws in 2017 may or may not be desirable. In my opinion, as discussed to tedious excess by me in a parallel thread, permitting an Appeals Committee a "first instance" ruling on a newly discovered infraction would be such a 2017 substantive law change. But is this substantive Law change desirable? In my opinion, no, because (from the Preface to the 2007 Lawbook): "Over the years there has been a marked increase in the expertise and experience of Directors, which has been recognized in the new Code by the increased responsibilities given to them." thus on average a Director will give a "first instance" ruling with greater expertise than will an Appeals Committee. (Note my anecdote in the parallel thread, where an expert Appeals Committee lacked expertise, thus the collection of experts on the Committee gave an inexpert unLawful ruling.) Best wishes, Richard Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130702/083de21d/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jul 3 02:47:02 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 00:47:02 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Kaplan doctrine [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F956726@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL David Burn, December 2008: >>A thought experiment: >> >>You are playing with screens. LHO opens 1S, and the tray is passed. It >>returns with 4NT by partner, and a pass to the right. But on the tray is a >>small piece of paper - obviously, partner has written down his explanation >>of 4NT for his LHO's benefit, and the paper has absent-mindedly been left >>on the tray after being read. >> >>Both you and your screen-mate can see that the paper says "4NT = >>Blackwood". In fact, 4NT shows the minors - a fact that you happen to >>have written on your convention card, but partner has forgotten. You are >>100% certain, however, that your system is "minors" and not "Blackwood". >> >>Now, what is your duty under the Laws? Do you explain to your LHO that >>4NT is in fact minors and that your 5D bid is preference? If he asks you >>what your responses to Blackwood are, may you say "It isn't relevant - >>4NT isn't Blackwood, and I am not replying to it as such?" >> >>The answers to these questions are obviously "yes" and "yes". But for >>Herman, they are "no, because that indicates in some manner that a mistake >>has been made and is a breach of Law 20F5a" and "no, because your >>opponent has a right to know your system". And yet Herman seems to >>believe that he has logic on his side. Eric Landau, December 2008: >Edgar Kaplan explained the objective of full disclosure as follows: >Imagine that every player had a complete and detailed written >explanation of all of his opponents' partnership agreements, which he >was able to consult at any time without his partner or his opponents >being aware that he was doing so. Disclosure regulations should be >designed to emulate this ideal as closely as possible. > >I happen to agree with Mr. Kaplan. If that makes me a "fanatic of >full disclosure" I accept the designation happily. WBF Laws Committee, October 2010: "The committee read a comment by a player that something he termed the 'Kaplan doctrine' had been overturned by the minute regarding Law 20F1 recorded on 10th October 2008 and reaffirmed in item 13 of the minutes of 8th September 2009. Remarking that the limits of enquiry are defined in Law 20F1 the committee drew attention to the fact that they do not extend to exploration of hypothetical situations not related to the partnership understandings applicable in the current auction." UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130703/23bb0329/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jul 3 08:35:56 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 06:35:56 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Kaplan Questions (KQs) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F956853@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL David Burn, earlier post: >>[snip] >> >>Whereas you are (almost) correct in saying that there are forms of illegal >>communication which are not "the gravest possible offence", that does not >>mean that there are some forms of illegal communication that are not an >>offence at all. So serious are such offences that *anything* which follows >>as a consequence of *any* communication between partners other than by >>calls or plays must be annulled, and any advantage therefrom removed. David Burn, later post [5th February 2008]: >I am only mildly surprised, on re-reading these words, to find that I agree >with myself completely (I have been known to change my mind, although >cases of the kind are rare and, since I have just played a match in which I >changed my mind and did the wrong thing instead of the right one, I have >vowed that they will become rarer still). You are not allowed to ask >questions for the purpose of communicating with partner - indeed, you are >not allowed to initiate any kind of communication with partner except by >means of legal calls and plays. > >[snip] > >It is still my view that you would do better not to ask KQs, because you >must not create UI voluntarily. > >But when one replies to a question from an opponent, or when one alerts (or >does not alert) according to the regulations, one is not acting voluntarily. >Of course partner can hear your explanations, or your alerts, just as he can >hear your KQs. A KQ, though, is asked for the express purpose of >communicating with partner - it would not be asked unless partner could hear >it and act on it, which is why it is illegal. An explanation is given for >the express purpose of communicating with the opponents - the notion is that >while you are giving it, partner turns his deaf aid off so that he cannot >hear it. Richard Hills, current quibble: No, Laws 16B and 73C require partner to turn her deaf aid up to maximum intensity, so that pard can take a logical alternative CONTRARY to any unauthorised information transmitted by an explanation / alert / non-alert. David Burn, later post [5th February 2008]: >As Grattan and I have said many times, an explanation given to fulfil a legal >requirement is not, for legal purposes, an indication to partner per L20F5. Richard Hills, current quibble: Yes and No. Pard's explanation may, for legal purposes, be an indication constraining one's actions per L75A. David Burn, later post [5th February 2008]: >No dWS apologist has actually gainsaid this obvious fact, doubtless because >[a] it cannot be gainsaid and [b] if it is accepted (as it has been by the WBFLC) >then the dWS evaporates into thin air, from which it should never have been >condensed in the first place. > >David Burn >London, England UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130703/da60e16e/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jul 4 01:58:56 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 23:58:56 +0000 Subject: [BLML] unintended irremediably insufficient bid [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F956966@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Grattan Following completion of play (or resolution of a claim), players should reach agreement on the number of tricks won. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Jul 7 17:20:52 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2013 11:20:52 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (2017) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: From yesterday. Following completion play, East began discussing the hand with his partner. North tried to interrupt to establish agreement on the number of tricks won, saying "Down 1?" East continued his discussion. North attempted to interrupt him with the same question two more times! It seems inappropriate to give North a procedural penalty for interfering with East's enjoyment of the game. East was just as much interfering with North's enjoyment of the game. More realistically, they had conflicting agendas and no one was going to be completely happy. There was no reason (or justification?) to summon the director, right? In practice, I got a "we are arguing" call just this week. But there was no infraction (unless East had disturbed the order of his cards). But people cannot call the director for that -- they are most likely to get a disparging agreement. I would like to be able to say to East, "you should agree on the number of tricks won before you discuss the board." To think about this more deeply, suppose both sides wish to discuss the board. Is it okay if they do that before they agree on the number of tricks won? I would prefer that they first agree on number of tricks won. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Jul 7 17:29:06 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2013 11:29:06 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (2017) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 07 Jul 2013 11:01:40 -0400, Robert Frick wrote: > Following completion of play (or resolution of a claim), players should > reach agreement on the number of tricks won. Another example. East tries to establish that the contract is down 1. She is ignored. As this pair typically does, they argue about the bidding and ignore East. East is pissed. East finally takes this as implicit agreement that the contract is down and shuffles her hand and puts it back in the board. Which seems fair. North-South finish their argument, shuffle and put their cards back in the board, and then, for the first time, pay attention to East, disagreeing. North-South claim they made their contract. It would have been really nice at this point if I could have ruled North-South the offending side and ruled the contract down 1. Attempting to go over the play did not work well. East was so angry she could not watch and left the table. West stayed calm, but he could not remember the play. North was intensely insistent that she remembered the order of the play. But when I scrutinized what she said, she was not consistent. I think at one point she changed her description of play and then was intensely insistent that she was correct. West remained calm, at least on the outside. But after a while he left and never came back. From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Sun Jul 7 21:30:28 2013 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2013 21:30:28 +0200 Subject: [BLML] (2017) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Am 07.07.2013, 17:01 Uhr, schrieb Robert Frick : > Following completion of play (or resolution of a claim), players should > reach agreement on the number of tricks won. see L79A, and 79B in case of a disagreement. best regards, Petrus From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Jul 10 01:00:40 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 19:00:40 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (2017) In-Reply-To: <004f01ce7b49$c6a675b0$53f36110$@upcmail.nl> References: <004f01ce7b49$c6a675b0$53f36110$@upcmail.nl> Message-ID: On Sun, 07 Jul 2013 15:40:03 -0400, Anton Witzen wrote: > Beg you pardon but what is the problem? > If both parties want to discuss endless about the play and the TD let > that > going on, is this a TD problem? The main problem is when one pair would like to agree on the number of tricks won and the other pair wants to argue about the hand. Is there no problem when both pairs want to talk about the hand? As director, I would prefer they first agreed on the number of tricks won. Of course, other people might think it is okay for one pair to argue about the hand before agreeing on number of tricks won. Then the current laws are fine. > TD should say, (in an appropriote manner,) shut up and continue play > bridge > Is this a problem for this panel? I don?t thinks so. > Just give all the old ladies 4 VP penalty or tell them to leave the club > (or > leave the club as TD) > Regards, > anton > A.Witzen (a.k.a. ????? ) > Boniplein 86 > 1094 sg Amsterdam > > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Robert > Frick > Verzonden: zondag 7 juli 2013 17:21 > Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] (2017) > > From yesterday. Following completion play, East began discussing the > hand > with his partner. North tried to interrupt to establish agreement on the > number of tricks won, saying "Down 1?" East continued his discussion. > North attempted to interrupt him with the same question two more times! > > It seems inappropriate to give North a procedural penalty for interfering > with East's enjoyment of the game. East was just as much interfering with > North's enjoyment of the game. More realistically, they had conflicting > agendas and no one was going to be completely happy. > > There was no reason (or justification?) to summon the director, right? In > practice, I got a "we are arguing" call just this week. But there was no > infraction (unless East had disturbed the order of his cards). But people > cannot call the director for that -- they are most likely to get a > disparging agreement. > > I would like to be able to say to East, "you should agree on the number > of > tricks won before you discuss the board." > > To think about this more deeply, suppose both sides wish to discuss the > board. Is it okay if they do that before they agree on the number of > tricks > won? I would prefer that they first agree on number of tricks won. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From svenpran at online.no Wed Jul 10 01:47:42 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 01:47:42 +0200 Subject: [BLML] (2017) In-Reply-To: References: <004f01ce7b49$c6a675b0$53f36110$@upcmail.nl> Message-ID: <000801ce7cfe$b4a7b430$1df71c90$@online.no> > Robert Frick > On Sun, 07 Jul 2013 15:40:03 -0400, Anton Witzen > wrote: > > > Beg you pardon but what is the problem? > > If both parties want to discuss endless about the play and the TD let > > that going on, is this a TD problem? > > The main problem is when one pair would like to agree on the number of tricks > won and the other pair wants to argue about the hand. [Sven Pran] I have no idea why the pair that wants to agree on the number of tricks cannot just call the Director and claim violation of (particularly) Laws 74A2 and 74B4? And if the discussing pair starts fooling with their quitted tricks then they also violate Laws 65D and 79A. If both pairs discuss instead of agreeing on the result then obviously no result is recorded, and if they then cannot agree because their cards have been fooled I would seriously consider teaching them a lesson by giving both sides an artificial adjusted score combined with procedure penalties resulting in something like 0% scores to each side. From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Jul 10 20:34:51 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 14:34:51 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (2017) In-Reply-To: <000801ce7cfe$b4a7b430$1df71c90$@online.no> References: <004f01ce7b49$c6a675b0$53f36110$@upcmail.nl> <000801ce7cfe$b4a7b430$1df71c90$@online.no> Message-ID: On Tue, 09 Jul 2013 19:47:42 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick >> On Sun, 07 Jul 2013 15:40:03 -0400, Anton Witzen >> wrote: >> >> > Beg you pardon but what is the problem? >> > If both parties want to discuss endless about the play and the TD let >> > that going on, is this a TD problem? >> >> The main problem is when one pair would like to agree on the number of >> tricks >> won and the other pair wants to argue about the hand. Your comments assume essentially that when one pair wants to agree on results and the other pair wants to first discuss the hand, the pair discussing the hand is at fault. This is not in the laws. > > [Sven Pran] > I have no idea why the pair that wants to agree on the number of tricks > cannot just call the Director and claim violation of (particularly) Laws > 74A2 Actually, East was trying to have a conversation with his partner, and North kept trying to interrupt (to forge an agreement on number of tricks won). Why does 74A2 not apply to North? He was inteferring with East's enjoyment of the game. > and 74B4? Is this the law you meant? It doesn't seem relevant. > > And if the discussing pair starts fooling with their quitted tricks then > they also violate Laws 65D and 79A. > > If both pairs discuss instead of agreeing on the result then obviously > no result is recorded, and if they then cannot agree because their cards > have been fooled I would seriously consider teaching them a lesson Have they done anything wrong? by > giving both sides an artificial adjusted score combined with procedure > penalties resulting in something like 0% scores to each side. Wouldn't a good first step in education be to say they should agree on the number of tricks won before discussing the hand? Or, for that matter, before going to the bathroom or getting coffee. Bob From svenpran at online.no Wed Jul 10 21:39:36 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 21:39:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] (2017) In-Reply-To: References: <004f01ce7b49$c6a675b0$53f36110$@upcmail.nl> <000801ce7cfe$b4a7b430$1df71c90$@online.no> Message-ID: <001f01ce7da5$35c1eb20$a145c160$@online.no> > Robert Frick > Your comments assume essentially that when one pair wants to agree on > results and the other pair wants to first discuss the hand, the pair discussing > the hand is at fault. This is not in the laws. [Sven Pran] It sure is. Recording an agreed result on the board is the primary duty when play is completed. TD shall be summoned immediately in the case of a disagreement unless it can be resolved without discussion between the contestants. And discussion between the two players in a pair before the result is agreed upon and recorded is most certainly a violation of the laws I mentioned. > > [Sven Pran] > > I have no idea why the pair that wants to agree on the number of > > tricks cannot just call the Director and claim violation of > > (particularly) Laws > > 74A2 > > Actually, East was trying to have a conversation with his partner, and North > kept trying to interrupt (to forge an agreement on number of tricks won). Why > does 74A2 not apply to North? He was inteferring with East's enjoyment of the > game. > > > > and 74B4? > > Is this the law you meant? It doesn't seem relevant. > > > > > And if the discussing pair starts fooling with their quitted tricks > > then they also violate Laws 65D and 79A. > > > > If both pairs discuss instead of agreeing on the result then obviously > > no result is recorded, and if they then cannot agree because their > > cards have been fooled I would seriously consider teaching them a > > lesson > > Have they done anything wrong? > > > by > > giving both sides an artificial adjusted score combined with procedure > > penalties resulting in something like 0% scores to each side. > > Wouldn't a good first step in education be to say they should agree on the > number of tricks won before discussing the hand? Or, for that matter, before > going to the bathroom or getting coffee. [Sven Pran] See Law 65D > > > Bob > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Jul 11 02:19:21 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 20:19:21 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (2017) In-Reply-To: <001f01ce7da5$35c1eb20$a145c160$@online.no> References: <004f01ce7b49$c6a675b0$53f36110$@upcmail.nl> <000801ce7cfe$b4a7b430$1df71c90$@online.no> <001f01ce7da5$35c1eb20$a145c160$@online.no> Message-ID: On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 15:39:36 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick >> Your comments assume essentially that when one pair wants to agree on >> results and the other pair wants to first discuss the hand, the pair > discussing >> the hand is at fault. This is not in the laws. > > [Sven Pran] > It sure is. > Recording an agreed result on the board is the primary duty when play is > completed. We seem to disagree on whether the word "primary" is actually in the laws. How shall we settle this issue? "Primary" is not the right word to imagine in the laws. This might be a subtle matter of English. We want something saying that this duty is what they do first. "Primary" means it is more important than secondary but not necessarily done first. > TD shall be summoned immediately in the case of a disagreement unless it > can > be resolved without discussion between the contestants. Are you still imagining things? Surely the laws do not say this. It would be silly to summon me for a non-bridge related disagreement. And if they are arguing over placement of the coffee, then yes they should summon me, but it's hard to believe that's in the laws. Anyway, you should imagine a more carefully crafted law here. > And discussion between the two players in a pair before the result is > agreed > upon and recorded is most certainly a violation of the laws I mentioned. Ah. I could not see how anything done after play was completed could be construed as prolonging play. > >> > [Sven Pran] >> > I have no idea why the pair that wants to agree on the number of >> > tricks cannot just call the Director and claim violation of >> > (particularly) Laws >> > 74A2 >> >> Actually, East was trying to have a conversation with his partner, and > North >> kept trying to interrupt (to forge an agreement on number of tricks >> won). > Why >> does 74A2 not apply to North? He was inteferring with East's enjoyment >> of > the >> game. >> >> >> > and 74B4? >> >> Is this the law you meant? It doesn't seem relevant. >> >> > >> > And if the discussing pair starts fooling with their quitted tricks >> > then they also violate Laws 65D and 79A. >> > >> > If both pairs discuss instead of agreeing on the result then obviously >> > no result is recorded, and if they then cannot agree because their >> > cards have been fooled I would seriously consider teaching them a >> > lesson >> >> Have they done anything wrong? >> >> >> by >> > giving both sides an artificial adjusted score combined with procedure >> > penalties resulting in something like 0% scores to each side. >> >> Wouldn't a good first step in education be to say they should agree on >> the >> number of tricks won before discussing the hand? Or, for that matter, > before >> going to the bathroom or getting coffee. > > [Sven Pran] > See Law 65D I think that's all we are talking about. It says that if the players get up and get coffee and go the bathroom following play, the other pair should not disturb the other of their played cards. If they do, they jeopardize their rights. Bob From svenpran at online.no Thu Jul 11 10:01:36 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 10:01:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] (2017) In-Reply-To: References: <004f01ce7b49$c6a675b0$53f36110$@upcmail.nl> <000801ce7cfe$b4a7b430$1df71c90$@online.no> <001f01ce7da5$35c1eb20$a145c160$@online.no> Message-ID: <000d01ce7e0c$de3b2b10$9ab18130$@online.no> The Play period isn't completed until after the cards have been returned to the board (see definitions) Any extraneous action during the play period delays the play. > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Robert Frick > Sendt: 11. juli 2013 02:19 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] (2017) > > On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 15:39:36 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > > >> Robert Frick > >> Your comments assume essentially that when one pair wants to agree on > >> results and the other pair wants to first discuss the hand, the pair > > discussing > >> the hand is at fault. This is not in the laws. > > > > [Sven Pran] > > It sure is. > > Recording an agreed result on the board is the primary duty when play > > is completed. > > We seem to disagree on whether the word "primary" is actually in the laws. > How shall we settle this issue? > > "Primary" is not the right word to imagine in the laws. This might be a subtle > matter of English. We want something saying that this duty is what they do > first. "Primary" means it is more important than secondary but not necessarily > done first. > > > > TD shall be summoned immediately in the case of a disagreement unless > > it can be resolved without discussion between the contestants. > > Are you still imagining things? Surely the laws do not say this. It would be silly > to summon me for a non-bridge related disagreement. And if they are arguing > over placement of the coffee, then yes they should summon me, but it's hard to > believe that's in the laws. Anyway, you should imagine a more carefully crafted > law here. > > > And discussion between the two players in a pair before the result is > > agreed upon and recorded is most certainly a violation of the laws I > > mentioned. > > Ah. I could not see how anything done after play was completed could be > construed as prolonging play. > > > > >> > [Sven Pran] > >> > I have no idea why the pair that wants to agree on the number of > >> > tricks cannot just call the Director and claim violation of > >> > (particularly) Laws > >> > 74A2 > >> > >> Actually, East was trying to have a conversation with his partner, and > > North > >> kept trying to interrupt (to forge an agreement on number of tricks > >> won). > > Why > >> does 74A2 not apply to North? He was inteferring with East's enjoyment > >> of > > the > >> game. > >> > >> > >> > and 74B4? > >> > >> Is this the law you meant? It doesn't seem relevant. > >> > >> > > >> > And if the discussing pair starts fooling with their quitted tricks > >> > then they also violate Laws 65D and 79A. > >> > > >> > If both pairs discuss instead of agreeing on the result then obviously > >> > no result is recorded, and if they then cannot agree because their > >> > cards have been fooled I would seriously consider teaching them a > >> > lesson > >> > >> Have they done anything wrong? > >> > >> > >> by > >> > giving both sides an artificial adjusted score combined with procedure > >> > penalties resulting in something like 0% scores to each side. > >> > >> Wouldn't a good first step in education be to say they should agree on > >> the > >> number of tricks won before discussing the hand? Or, for that matter, > > before > >> going to the bathroom or getting coffee. > > > > [Sven Pran] > > See Law 65D > > > I think that's all we are talking about. It says that if the players get > up and get coffee and go the bathroom following play, the other pair > should not disturb the other of their played cards. If they do, they > jeopardize their rights. > > Bob > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Jul 11 12:16:41 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 06:16:41 -0400 Subject: [BLML] when does play end In-Reply-To: <000d01ce7e0c$de3b2b10$9ab18130$@online.no> References: <004f01ce7b49$c6a675b0$53f36110$@upcmail.nl> <000801ce7cfe$b4a7b430$1df71c90$@online.no> <001f01ce7da5$35c1eb20$a145c160$@online.no> <000d01ce7e0c$de3b2b10$9ab18130$@online.no> Message-ID: On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 04:01:36 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > The Play period isn't completed until after the cards have been returned > to > the board (see definitions) um.... wrong. "The play period itself ends when the cards are removed from their slots on the subsequent board (or when the last board of a round is quitted)" Or maybe we have different definitions. > Any extraneous action during the play period delays the play. We know that the auction period starts before the auction starts, and it ends after the auction ends. Why would you assume that the play ends at the same time as the play period? Especially when we know that, following a claim, play ceases? Also, a face down opening lead is part of play ("The contribution of a card from a player's hand to a trick, including the first card, which is the lead"). But it does not start the play period. Maybe the lawbook should have said when play ends. But I would guess everyone knows. Bob From svenpran at online.no Thu Jul 11 13:04:48 2013 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 13:04:48 +0200 Subject: [BLML] when does play end In-Reply-To: References: <004f01ce7b49$c6a675b0$53f36110$@upcmail.nl> <000801ce7cfe$b4a7b430$1df71c90$@online.no> <001f01ce7da5$35c1eb20$a145c160$@online.no> <000d01ce7e0c$de3b2b10$9ab18130$@online.no> Message-ID: <001001ce7e26$76393240$62ab96c0$@online.no> I wrote: until after..... That doesn't say that the play period actually ends when the cards have been returned to the board, only that it doesn't end earlier. My main point is that any action other than agreeing on the result and recording that result once the last card has been played is extraneous and delays the game. Consequently such extraneous action is a violation of the laws. If there is cause for any discussion at this time such discussion shall be under TD control. > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Robert Frick > Sendt: 11. juli 2013 12:17 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: [BLML] when does play end > > On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 04:01:36 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > > > The Play period isn't completed until after the cards have been > > returned to the board (see definitions) > > um.... wrong. "The play period itself ends when the cards are removed from > their slots on the subsequent board (or when the last board of a round is > quitted)" Or maybe we have different definitions. > > > Any extraneous action during the play period delays the play. > > We know that the auction period starts before the auction starts, and it ends > after the auction ends. Why would you assume that the play ends at the same > time as the play period? Especially when we know that, following a claim, play > ceases? > > Also, a face down opening lead is part of play ("The contribution of a card from > a player's hand to a trick, including the first card, which is the lead"). But it does > not start the play period. > > Maybe the lawbook should have said when play ends. But I would guess > everyone knows. > > Bob > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jul 11 15:11:24 2013 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 09:11:24 -0400 Subject: [BLML] when does play end In-Reply-To: <001001ce7e26$76393240$62ab96c0$@online.no> References: <004f01ce7b49$c6a675b0$53f36110$@upcmail.nl> <000801ce7cfe$b4a7b430$1df71c90$@online.no> <001f01ce7da5$35c1eb20$a145c160$@online.no> <000d01ce7e0c$de3b2b10$9ab18130$@online.no> <001001ce7e26$76393240$62ab96c0$@online.no> Message-ID: <7D06E824-A2ED-4876-85F6-32610BB1CA20@starpower.net> On Jul 11, 2013, at 7:04 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > I wrote: until after..... > That doesn't say that the play period actually ends when the cards have been > returned to the board, only that it doesn't end earlier. > > My main point is that any action other than agreeing on the result and > recording that result once the last card has been played is extraneous and > delays the game. > Consequently such extraneous action is a violation of the laws. > If there is cause for any discussion at this time such discussion shall be > under TD control. > >> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av >> Robert Frick >> Sendt: 11. juli 2013 12:17 >> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Emne: [BLML] when does play end >> >> On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 04:01:36 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: >> >>> The Play period isn't completed until after the cards have been >>> returned to the board (see definitions) >> >> um.... wrong. "The play period itself ends when the cards are removed from >> their slots on the subsequent board (or when the last board of a round is >> quitted)" Or maybe we have different definitions. >> >>> Any extraneous action during the play period delays the play. >> >> We know that the auction period starts before the auction starts, and it ends >> after the auction ends. Why would you assume that the play ends at the same >> time as the play period? Especially when we know that, following a claim, play >> ceases? >> >> Also, a face down opening lead is part of play ("The contribution of a card from >> a player's hand to a trick, including the first card, which is the lead"). But it does >> not start the play period. >> >> Maybe the lawbook should have said when play ends. But I would guess >> everyone knows. We're making this discussion far too complicated. Scoring is an essential part of the game. Agreeing on the number of tricks won is an essential part of scoring. L74B1 gives the TD all the authority he needs. Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Jul 11 23:29:26 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 17:29:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] when does play end In-Reply-To: <7D06E824-A2ED-4876-85F6-32610BB1CA20@starpower.net> References: <004f01ce7b49$c6a675b0$53f36110$@upcmail.nl> <000801ce7cfe$b4a7b430$1df71c90$@online.no> <001f01ce7da5$35c1eb20$a145c160$@online.no> <000d01ce7e0c$de3b2b10$9ab18130$@online.no> <001001ce7e26$76393240$62ab96c0$@online.no> <7D06E824-A2ED-4876-85F6-32610BB1CA20@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 09:11:24 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Jul 11, 2013, at 7:04 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > >> I wrote: until after..... >> That doesn't say that the play period actually ends when the cards have >> been >> returned to the board, only that it doesn't end earlier. >> >> My main point is that any action other than agreeing on the result and >> recording that result once the last card has been played is extraneous >> and >> delays the game. >> Consequently such extraneous action is a violation of the laws. >> If there is cause for any discussion at this time such discussion shall >> be >> under TD control. >> >>> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >>> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av >>> Robert Frick >>> Sendt: 11. juli 2013 12:17 >>> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List >>> Emne: [BLML] when does play end >>> >>> On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 04:01:36 -0400, Sven Pran >>> wrote: >>> >>>> The Play period isn't completed until after the cards have been >>>> returned to the board (see definitions) >>> >>> um.... wrong. "The play period itself ends when the cards are removed >>> from >>> their slots on the subsequent board (or when the last board of a round >>> is >>> quitted)" Or maybe we have different definitions. >>> >>>> Any extraneous action during the play period delays the play. >>> >>> We know that the auction period starts before the auction starts, and >>> it ends >>> after the auction ends. Why would you assume that the play ends at the >>> same >>> time as the play period? Especially when we know that, following a >>> claim, play >>> ceases? >>> >>> Also, a face down opening lead is part of play ("The contribution of a >>> card from >>> a player's hand to a trick, including the first card, which is the >>> lead"). But it does >>> not start the play period. >>> >>> Maybe the lawbook should have said when play ends. But I would guess >>> everyone knows. > > We're making this discussion far too complicated. > > Scoring is an essential part of the game. Agreeing on the number of > tricks won is an essential part of scoring. L74B1 gives the TD all the > authority he needs. From another director: It is the director's choice. One director might want to insist that players agree on the number of tricks won before having a discussion. Another director might want to allow a pair to discuss the hand first. That increased flexibility would be a good argument for not changing the laws. As the law stands now, directors like Eric who want to use L74B1 can apply it to whichever party they feel is being discourteous. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Jul 15 17:53:17 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 11:53:17 -0400 Subject: [BLML] making laws In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 07 Jul 2013 11:01:40 -0400, Robert Frick wrote: > Following completion of play (or resolution of a claim), players should > reach agreement on the number of tricks won. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml I could propose that the laws be changed to add that the player on lead should make the opening lead before recording the score. Someone could point out that I already have the power to enforce this. Therefore, it is not needed in the laws. (And I think Sven could argue, or has already argued, that it is already in the laws.) Ten years ago I could have suggested that players be required to shuffle their cards before replacing them in the board. Someone could have pointed out that I already have the power to enforce this. Therefore, it is not needed in the laws. (Or now they could argue that it should be taken out of the laws.) In the first case, a club could decide to have this law, or decide not to. Or be completely unaware of the issue. It doesn't seem like an issue to be settled in the laws. In the second case, it seems like proper procedure that the hands should not be replaced in the board in any way that gives information. If a club, or player, or director does not know about this, then they should. If someone does not want to follow this, they should anyway. I proposed that players should agree on the number of tricks won following play. This seems like good procedure. If clubs or players or directors are not aware of it, they should be. If they don't want to follow it, they should anyway. So it should be the laws. Bob From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jul 17 04:13:04 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 02:13:04 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Reiner Knizia [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F958FF0@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Extract from an interview of Reiner Knizia by Ward Batty http://gametable.blogspot.com.au/2006/04/reiner-knizia-by-numbers.html "Knizia has been successful getting games published in both the US and Europe, but acknowledges that the markets are different. Says Knizia, 'In America, the theme is seen as the game where as in the European the game mechanics and the game system are seen as the game.' Knizia tells a story about when he took a game prototype to America. It had an Egyptian theme and when an American publisher saw the theme they said, 'We are not interested in this game, we have a game about Egypt and we don't need another.' So Egypt was the game to them. Knizia asked them 'Won't you at least have a look at it?' and they said no, we don't want this game. A few weeks later he was back in Germany showed the same game to a German publisher. The publisher sees the game has an Egyptian theme and says 'Oh, are just in preparation of an Egyptian-themed game, so the Egyptian theme wouldn't work for us. But let's see the game first and then we can see what we'll do about the theme.' In Germany the game was not the theme, but the game system. So there is a very different perception of what is a 'game.' For Knizia, that understanding is the starting point for what games he offers to the different markets." What is the "game" of Duplicate Bridge in America? What is the "game" of Duplicate Bridge in Europe generally, and in Germany specifically? Best wishes, Richard Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130717/23764e47/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jul 18 00:59:48 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 22:59:48 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Reiner Knizia [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F962B50@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL >What is the "game" of Duplicate Bridge in America? >What is the "game" of Duplicate Bridge in Europe generally, and in >Germany specifically? Little Old Lady: "What do you think of the Island Club convention?" Eddie Kantar: "It sounds like some sort of regional perversion." Little Old Lady: "Tell me what you think anyway. I play with a lot of perverts." UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130717/37507e04/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Jul 20 02:53:45 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 20:53:45 -0400 Subject: [BLML] played card by declarer Message-ID: Declarer was playing a card and changed her mind. The card never stopped, but it was close to or touching the table. I ruled it wasn't played. To me, declarer's card is played when it looks played. A player questioned my judgment. Fair enough. The relevant law is L45C2(a): Declarer must play a card if it is held face up, touching or nearly touching the table.... If you take "held" as meaning "in the player's hand", it can be removed from the sentence without changing meaning: "Declarer must play a card if it *is* held face up, touching or nearly touching the table." I argued that they would not have put in the word "meaning" unless it meant something, so it should be interpreted as "maintained": "Declarer must play a card if it is *maintained* face up, touching or nearly touching the table." Of course we settle this by asking the authorities. The ACBL itself says the player is right. "Please keep in mind that this Law uses two separate clauses. Declarer?s played card is either/ or, it need not be touching and maintained. The answerer adds: "one of the major points I look for in determining if a card has been played is: Did it break the horizontal plane with the table. Once the position of the card has gone parallel with the table surface or beyond, I generally rule the card has been played by declarer." Of couse, there is nothing about this in the laws. Ah well. Lose one. From ziffbridge at t-online.de Sat Jul 20 11:38:55 2013 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 11:38:55 +0200 Subject: [BLML] played card by declarer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51EA5AAF.90104@t-online.de> Am 20.07.2013 02:53, schrieb Robert Frick: > Declarer was playing a card and changed her mind. The card never stopped, > but it was close to or touching the table. > > I ruled it wasn't played. To me, declarer's card is played when it looks > played. > Interesting way to put it. > A player questioned my judgment. Fair enough. The relevant law is > L45C2(a): Declarer must play a card if it is held face up, touching or > nearly touching the table.... > > If you take "held" as meaning "in the player's hand", it can be removed > from the sentence without changing meaning: "Declarer must play a card if > it *is* held face up, touching or nearly touching the table." > > I argued that they would not have put in the word "meaning" unless it > meant something, so it should be interpreted as "maintained": "Declarer > must play a card if it is *maintained* face up, touching or nearly > touching the table." > I am with you here, mostly. My criteria are: (a) Did it *clearly* touch the table? I discount cases where I can establish to my satisfaction that the only time where it just might have touched the table was when declarer tried to pull it back *in a fluid motion without any discernable break*. If it clearly touched the table, it is played. We have to draw the line... (b) Was it maintained in a fixed position, or moving slowly, nearly touching the table, or otherwise being held in a way that anyone could identify it as a card declarer wants to play at that point of time (even if it is about to get ripped in two by the force of declarer trying to pull it back, in a few microseconds from now..) So a fluid motion where the card does not clearly touch the table is Ok with me, too. Any major break in the motion, it`s played. So, I rule it played when it looks played, same as you. As a player at the table I would have questioned your decision only if I thought that the card clearly touched the table, or if the motion of the card slowed down considerably, so as to fall under my definition of "maintained", which may or may not differ from yours, such things are difficult without examples. > > Of course we settle this by asking the authorities. The ACBL itself says > the player is right. "Please keep in mind that this Law uses two separate > clauses. Declarer?s played card is either/ or, it need not be touching and > maintained. > > The answerer adds: "one of the major points I look for in determining if a > card has been played is: Did it break the horizontal plane with the table. > Once the position of the card has gone parallel with the table surface or > beyond, I generally rule the card has been played by declarer." > > Of couse, there is nothing about this in the laws. > > Ah well. Lose one. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Jul 20 21:21:51 2013 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 15:21:51 -0400 Subject: [BLML] played card by declarer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51EAE34F.8040908@nhcc.net> On 2013-07-19 8:53 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > L45C2(a): Declarer must play a card if it is held face up, touching or > nearly touching the table.... We had a long thread on this a few years ago. The basic problem (pointed out by Eric L., as is often the case) is that "held" is ambiguous. Does it mean "held, as opposed to dropped," or does it mean "held still, and not in motion?" As far as I know, there is no official interpretation. One could check the EBU White Book, which is excellent in most matters, but whatever it says wouldn't be authoritative outside the EBU. I thought Mattias' comments were also good, and I'd rule along the same lines as he. I think something like that, pretty much equivalent to your own suggestion "looks played," is the best one can do. As a practical matter, you should try to rule consistently in your own club. Perhaps you should also advise players that the rule is ambiguous, and they might get a different ruling in other venues. From jimfox00 at cox.net Sat Jul 20 22:11:24 2013 From: jimfox00 at cox.net (Jim Fox) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 16:11:24 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Match-Deciding Appeal: USBC Seniors Message-ID: >From the United States Bridge Federation webpage: Match-Deciding Appeal: USBC Seniors by USBF Official 07/19/2013 Event: USBC Seniors Session: Evening, July 16, 2013 Subject: Misinformation Bd: 84..................A. Fisher Vul: Both...............?AJ1064 Dlr: West...............?1064 ........................?A95 ........................?J5 M. Cohen....................................S. Beatty ?K82........................................?Q5 ?J975.......................................?A82 ?1084.......................................?KQJ76 ?A73........................................?Q102 ........................F. Hamilton ........................?973 ........................?KQ3 ........................?32 ........................?K9864 West......North.....East......South Pass......Pass......1?........Pass 1?........1?........X(1)......1NT(2) Pass......Pass......Pass (1) Support - 3 hearts (2) South to West: transfer - either a club suit or lead directing in clubs with 3 spades. North to East: no alert or explanation. Contract: 1NT by East Opening lead: ?5 Table result: Making 1 - N/S +90 Director ruling: No adjustment Director's Statement of Facts: After the lead, when dummy was tabled, West called the Tournament Director to ask about what was explained on the other side of the screen. The TD directed play to continue without letting information cross the screen and asked the players to call him back after the hand if needed. There was no subsequent call. After the teams had compared, the TD was summoned again and asked to make a ruling. The TD consulted other players and some of them said they would balance regardless of the meaning of 1NT, others would not balance regardless of the meaning of 1NT, others would balance without the information but would pass with the information. Appeals Committee Ruling After the opening lead, West (who was on South?s side of the screen and therefore had received the correct explanation of the 1NT call) felt that it was likely from North's pass of 1NT that East had received misinformation (?MI?) from North about the meaning of that call. Accordingly, West called the director to ask whether East had been given the correct information on the other side of screen. At this point, North-South became noticeably agitated at West for calling the director. During the back-and-forth which ensued, North made some statements to East to the effect of ?I forgot? and ?he probably has clubs.? The director ruled that play should continue without additional information passing from one side of the screen to the other and instructed East-West to call him back after the hand if needed. East-West did not call the director at the conclusion of the deal, but they did ask for a ruling after the comparison. They argued that had East known the meaning of the 1NT call, he might have balanced with 2?. Also, in defending 1NT, East argued that he would have won the Ace of Hearts and easily defeated the contract with the ?K return had he fully understood the meaning of the auction. North-South argued that East was substantially in possession of the correct information given North's statements at the table and should have found the diamond shift with the information he had, and also that West could have defeated the contract later in the play instead of making a ?give up? play attempting to save overtricks. Additionally, they asserted that a 2? balance by East would likely have led to a 2? contract by North, making two on normal play and defense. On the question of score adjustment: We considered the following issues: 1) Was East given MI? Clearly, the answer was yes-- during the auction, East undisputedly was not in possession of North-South's correct agreement as to the meaning of the one notrump call. 2) At what point did East obtain the correct information as to North-South's agreement? We felt that East never obtained a fully correct explanation of the 1NT bid before the conclusion of play. While East knew that something was amiss with the 1NT bid due to West's director call and subsequent statements by North, the testimony indicated that North-South never made the nature of their agreement completely clear to East. 3) Was East damaged by the MI during the auction? We felt that passing 1NT with the East hand was more attractive with the correct information than without it -- if the opponents were having an accident, 1NT was more likely than otherwise to be a silly contract. A poll conducted by the directors confirmed that East's peers found it more attractive to pass out 1NT with the correct information than with the MI. Therefore, we found that East was not damaged by the MI during the auction, and we did not need to analyze the possible results had East balanced with 2?. 4) Was East damaged by the MI during the play? We felt that when East discovered after the opening lead that 1NT had been intended as artificial, he had enough information about North-South's agreement that it should have been clear to switch to a diamond at trick two. Some committee members thought that knowing the specific North-South agreement would have made it slightly easier for East to visualize the actual position, while others thought not. After some discussion it was agreed by all that the failure to shift to the ?K was an equally clear error with the partial information East held as it would have been with full information. So, we felt that East had not been damaged in the play by the partial disclosure he had received. There was some discussion of whether East felt he was ethically constrained from taking advantage of the information gained from the director call and subsequent statements by North. The director had made a vague statement upon leaving the table which East may have interpreted in that manner based on his testimony in committee. However, even if that were the case, we had no authority to grant East redress for his own misapprehensions about the Laws in the absence of a clearly misleading statement by the director. So, given that East had not been damaged by the MI, we found no reason to adjust the table result of +90 for North-South. On the question of proper procedure: The committee also considered the issue of North-South's behavior in this matter. We felt that at the close of the auction, if either North-South player strongly suspected that there had been a misunderstanding, it was his duty to ensure that both defenders had the correct information about the North-South agreement. Quoting from the ACBL Alert Procedure pamphlet, "When the auction is over, the declaring side MUST reveal to the defenders, after first calling the Tournament Director, any errors of explanation (including Alerts or Announcements that were omitted) before the opening lead is faced." (emphasis in original) In this case, we felt that both North and South were negligent in discharging their disclosure duties. South should have strongly suspected a mix-up when his partner passed one notrump. After the final pass but before the opening lead was faced, it would have been appropriate for South to ask North, "did you alert my one notrump bid?" or something of the kind. (Among other benefits, such action would have reserved East's right under Law 21 to change his final call.) And once the director call and subsequent discussion woke North up to the fact that he had failed to alert, North should have done whatever was necessary to make sure that East had the correct information while defending the hand, procuring South's written explanations from the other side of the screen if necessary. Both North and South are extremely experienced players who should have been aware of their disclosure obligations. The committee felt that not only was there no proactive disclosure by North-South in this case, but much of North-South's conduct at the table was likely to have (and in fact did have) the effect of preventing East from obtaining a complete and timely explanation of North-South's agreements. In light of those findings, we felt that a procedural penalty against North-South was warranted. We consulted the director to determine an appropriate scale for such a penalty and were told that no fixed scale exists. However, we were given some guidance about previous penalties for negligent non-disclosure assessed in the same event, and we determined that a penalty of 3 IMPs would be equitable relative to that guidance. Appeals Committee Marty Fleisher, Chairman Dan Morse, Member Chris Willenken, Member -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130720/1b307ba6/attachment-0001.html From ziffbridge at t-online.de Sat Jul 20 23:20:49 2013 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 23:20:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Match-Deciding Appeal: USBC Seniors In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51EAFF31.5070404@t-online.de> Am 20.07.2013 22:11, schrieb Jim Fox: > So, given that East had not been damaged by the MI, we found no reason > to adjust the table result of +90 for North-South. > > On the question of proper procedure: > > The committee also considered the issue of North-South's behavior in > this matter. We felt that at the close of the auction, if either > North-South player strongly suspected that there had been a > misunderstanding, it was his duty to ensure that both defenders had the > correct information about the North-South agreement. Quoting from the > ACBL Alert Procedure pamphlet, "When the auction is over, the declaring > side MUST reveal to the defenders, after first calling the Tournament > Director, any errors of explanation (including Alerts or Announcements > that were omitted) before the opening lead is faced." (emphasis in > original) > > In this case, we felt that both North and South were negligent in > discharging their disclosure duties. South should have strongly > suspected a mix-up when his partner passed one notrump. The TD was right not to let too much information pass through the screen. And that should have continued, so I think your comments are wrong here. If there is damage, rectify it. If there is no damage, what`s the problem. Personally I do not like PPs, usually, but see below. E/W are going to profit from misunderstandings, and they are going to be protected from MI. If they goofed, they get what they deserve. > After the final > pass but before the opening lead was faced, it would have been > appropriate for South to ask North, "did you alert my one notrump bid?" > or something of the kind. Reminds me of a declarer (at my table) who asked dummy: Did you get the same information I did? And dummy answered: How should I know, that`s what the screen is for.... And right he was. No information should pass through the screen. If damage is caused by this, we know how to handle it. If there is no damage, why bother? > (Among other benefits, such action would have > reserved East's right under Law 21 to change his final call.) You determined - correctly, I think - that he was unlikely to bid differently with dorrect information. > And once > the director call and subsequent discussion woke North up to the fact > that he had failed to alert, North should have done whatever was > necessary to make sure that East had the correct information while > defending the hand, procuring South's written explanations from the > other side of the screen if necessary. Correct, up to the last part of the sentence. Who says that South`s written explanation is correct? It is likely to describe his hand, yes, but it does not necessarily give the right picture about the agreement. Why should South not have forgotten, too? Again: leave it alone, rectify damage, and be done with it. Unless... > > Both North and South are extremely experienced players who should have > been aware of their disclosure obligations. The committee felt that not > only was there no proactive disclosure by North-South in this case, but > much of North-South's conduct at the table was likely to have (and in > fact did have) the effect of preventing East from obtaining a complete > and timely explanation of North-South's agreements. In light of those > findings, we felt that a procedural penalty against North-South was > warranted. Hmmm. If you think that N did not do everything he should have done, I can live with that. I was not here, so I am not going to argue this. But S was out of it, for all practical purposes. > We consulted the director to determine an appropriate scale > for such a penalty and were told that no fixed scale exists. However, > we were given some guidance about previous penalties for negligent > non-disclosure assessed in the same event, and we determined that a > penalty of 3 IMPs would be equitable relative to that guidance. So, what is your point? You did what you felt you should do. Fine. I am not sure I agree, but one would have to been there you argue that. > > Appeals Committee > > Marty Fleisher, Chairman > > Dan Morse, Member > > Chris Willenken, Member > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Sun Jul 21 01:10:05 2013 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 00:10:05 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Match-Deciding Appeal: USBC Seniors In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51EB18CD.1070308@btinternet.com> On 20/07/2013 21:11, Jim Fox wrote: We felt that at the close of the auction, if either North-South player strongly suspected that there had been a misunderstanding, it was his duty to ensure that both defenders had the correct information about the North-South agreement. Quoting from the ACBL Alert Procedure pamphlet, "When the auction is over, the declaring side MUST reveal to the defenders, after first calling the Tournament Director, any errors of explanation (including Alerts or Announcements that were omitted) before the opening lead is faced." (emphasis in original) Is this really the regulation in the ACBL when playing with screens? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130720/56b51baa/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Jul 21 03:26:00 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 21:26:00 -0400 Subject: [BLML] played card by declarer In-Reply-To: <51EAE34F.8040908@nhcc.net> References: <51EAE34F.8040908@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 15:21:51 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > On 2013-07-19 8:53 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> L45C2(a): Declarer must play a card if it is held face up, touching or >> nearly touching the table.... > > We had a long thread on this a few years ago. The basic problem > (pointed out by Eric L., as is often the case) is that "held" is > ambiguous. Does it mean "held, as opposed to dropped," or does it mean > "held still, and not in motion?" As far as I know, there is no official > interpretation. One could check the EBU White Book, which is excellent > in most matters, but whatever it says wouldn't be authoritative outside > the EBU. I don't think it's in the White Book. The problem (or good thing, I guess depending on your perspective) is that the ACBL's Duplication Decisions has no ambiguity: "Please keep in mind that this Law uses two separate clauses. Declarer?s played card is either/ or, it need not be touching and maintained." From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Sun Jul 21 14:25:35 2013 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 13:25:35 +0100 Subject: [BLML] played card by declarer In-Reply-To: References: <51EAE34F.8040908@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <51EBD33F.9080005@btinternet.com> On 21/07/2013 02:26, Robert Frick wrote: > > I don't think it's in the White Book. > > The problem (or good thing, I guess depending on your perspective) is that > the ACBL's Duplication Decisions has no ambiguity: > > "Please keep in mind that this Law uses two separate clauses. Declarer?s > played card is either/ or, it need not be touching and maintained." That's not enough to remove ambiguity: the first clause says "held face up, touching or nearly touching the table", so we still need to resolve the meaning of the word "held", which is what causes us a problem. From ehaa at starpower.net Sun Jul 21 15:12:02 2013 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 09:12:02 -0400 Subject: [BLML] played card by declarer In-Reply-To: <51EBD33F.9080005@btinternet.com> References: <51EAE34F.8040908@nhcc.net> <51EBD33F.9080005@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <73A9B17B-07E0-4BB0-A18F-F0779BEC99A2@starpower.net> On Jul 21, 2013, at 8:25 AM, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > On 21/07/2013 02:26, Robert Frick wrote: > >> I don't think it's in the White Book. >> >> The problem (or good thing, I guess depending on your perspective) is that >> the ACBL's Duplication Decisions has no ambiguity: >> >> "Please keep in mind that this Law uses two separate clauses. Declarer?s >> played card is either/ or, it need not be touching and maintained." > > That's not enough to remove ambiguity: the first clause says "held face > up, touching or nearly touching the table", so we still need to resolve > the meaning of the word "held", which is what causes us a problem. Apparently, from Bob's citation, the ACBL's official interpretation of "held" (at least to the extent they acknowledge DD as "official") is as synonymous with "maintained". That suggests "held in position" rather than "held in hand". Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Jul 21 16:59:11 2013 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 10:59:11 -0400 Subject: [BLML] played card by declarer In-Reply-To: References: <51EAE34F.8040908@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <51EBF73F.5020909@nhcc.net> On 2013-07-20 9:26 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > Please keep in mind that this Law uses two separate clauses. Declarer???s > played card is either/ or, it need not be touching and maintained. Yes, there are two clauses. The ambiguity is in the first one. If the second clause applies -- Probst used to stick the played card on his forehead -- the first clause with its ambiguity is irrelevant. From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Jul 21 17:06:39 2013 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 11:06:39 -0400 Subject: [BLML] played card by declarer In-Reply-To: <73A9B17B-07E0-4BB0-A18F-F0779BEC99A2@starpower.net> References: <51EAE34F.8040908@nhcc.net> <51EBD33F.9080005@btinternet.com> <73A9B17B-07E0-4BB0-A18F-F0779BEC99A2@starpower.net> Message-ID: <51EBF8FF.9060600@nhcc.net> On 2013-07-21 9:12 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > Apparently, from Bob's citation, the ACBL's official interpretation > of "held" (at least to the extent they acknowledge DD as "official") > is as synonymous with "maintained". That suggests "held in position" > rather than "held in hand". Sorry, Eric, but I don't follow that. If the card is "maintained" anywhere, it's played, so the discussion is about a card that "maintained" doesn't apply to. If it's "held in position," that would be "maintained," wouldn't it? So to me, the emphasis on two separate clauses tends to suggest they are coming close to "held in hand," but I don't think it's clear at all. From jimfox00 at cox.net Sun Jul 21 17:08:29 2013 From: jimfox00 at cox.net (Jim Fox) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 11:08:29 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Match-Deciding Appeal: USBC Seniors In-Reply-To: <2nAN1m00C3o3exq01nAPkv> References: <2nAN1m00C3o3exq01nAPkv> Message-ID: The excerpt below was not composed by me but WAS included in my transmission of a USBF Appeals Committee report of their actions on a particular hand in the USBC Senior Trials for the 2013 Bermuda Bowl. That report is "publically" available in full on the USBF and BridgeWinners web pages. Jim From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Gordon Rainsford Sent: 07/20/2013 7:10 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Match-Deciding Appeal: USBC Seniors On 20/07/2013 21:11, Jim Fox wrote: We felt that at the close of the auction, if either North-South player strongly suspected that there had been a misunderstanding, it was his duty to ensure that both defenders had the correct information about the North-South agreement. Quoting from the ACBL Alert Procedure pamphlet, "When the auction is over, the declaring side MUST reveal to the defenders, after first calling the Tournament Director, any errors of explanation (including Alerts or Announcements that were omitted) before the opening lead is faced." (emphasis in original) Is this really the regulation in the ACBL when playing with screens? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130721/c5d34856/attachment.html From jimfox00 at cox.net Sun Jul 21 17:16:27 2013 From: jimfox00 at cox.net (Jim Fox) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 11:16:27 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Match-Deciding Appeal: USBC Seniors In-Reply-To: <339m1m0023o3exq0139nHf> References: <2nAN1m00C3o3exq01nAPkv> <339m1m0023o3exq0139nHf> Message-ID: Alternative version: The excerpt below was not composed by me but WAS included in my transmission of a USBF Appeals Committee report of their actions on a particular hand in the USBC Senior Trials for the 2013 Bermuda Bowl. That report is "publicly" available in full on the USBF and BridgeWinners web pages. Jim From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Jim Fox Sent: 07/21/2013 11:08 AM To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: Re: [BLML] Match-Deciding Appeal: USBC Seniors The excerpt below was not composed by me but WAS included in my transmission of a USBF Appeals Committee report of their actions on a particular hand in the USBC Senior Trials for the 2013 Bermuda Bowl. That report is "publically" available in full on the USBF and BridgeWinners web pages. Jim From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Gordon Rainsford Sent: 07/20/2013 7:10 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Match-Deciding Appeal: USBC Seniors On 20/07/2013 21:11, Jim Fox wrote: We felt that at the close of the auction, if either North-South player strongly suspected that there had been a misunderstanding, it was his duty to ensure that both defenders had the correct information about the North-South agreement. Quoting from the ACBL Alert Procedure pamphlet, "When the auction is over, the declaring side MUST reveal to the defenders, after first calling the Tournament Director, any errors of explanation (including Alerts or Announcements that were omitted) before the opening lead is faced." (emphasis in original) Is this really the regulation in the ACBL when playing with screens? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130721/88827c94/attachment-0001.html From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Jul 21 17:41:04 2013 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 11:41:04 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Match-Deciding Appeal: USBC Seniors In-Reply-To: <51EAFF31.5070404@t-online.de> References: <51EAFF31.5070404@t-online.de> Message-ID: <51EC0110.5050209@nhcc.net> On 2013-07-20 5:20 PM, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > The TD was right not to let too much information pass through the > screen. Information passing through the screen is one thing; North-South explaining their agreements to East is another. The TD seems to need some remedial training, but as the AC said, NS should have done their duty without the TD's needing to advise them. If there's anything to criticize the AC for, it's the focus on how East defended in the "MI world" without enough consideration for what would have happened in a "correct-I world." From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jul 22 01:38:30 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 23:38:30 +0000 Subject: [BLML] played card by declarer [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F96EBEC@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Grattan Endicott, 1st December 2006: > +=+ ? :) > We might perhaps extend and simplify the principle - > "A player shall pass if at his turn in the auction his > partner and an opponent so determine". > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ John (MadDog) Probst, 1st December 2006: I think the model for the passout seat should be based on the same idea as declarer's played card. "If it's obvious he passed then he's passed". Same as declarer has played a card if it's obvious he has. I play cards by sticking them to my forehead occasionally just for example. "... or by taking action in such a manner as to indicate a pass". I'm all for consistency in style, it's easier to interpret. John UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130721/c801bded/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jul 22 01:55:33 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 23:55:33 +0000 Subject: [BLML] played card by declarer [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F96EC0E@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Gordon Rainsford: >That's not enough to remove ambiguity: the first clause says "held face >up, touching or nearly touching the table", so we still need to resolve >the meaning of the word "held", which is what causes us a problem. Richard Hills: Yes and No. Not interpretation of merely "held", but instead interpretation of the phrase "held ... up". "Held" is the past tense of "hold", with the Macquarie Dictionary having sixty different definitions of "hold". Perhaps the Drafting Committee thought that the "held ... up" context demanded the adoption of definition 56(a): 56. hold up, a. to keep in an erect position. UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130721/d2e57ed6/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Jul 22 02:17:03 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 20:17:03 -0400 Subject: [BLML] played card by declarer [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F96EC0E@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F96EC0E@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 19:55:33 -0400, Richard HILLS wrote: > UNOFFICIAL > > Gordon Rainsford: > >> That's not enough to remove ambiguity: the first clause says "held face >> up, touching or nearly touching the table", so we still need to resolve >> the meaning of the word "held", which is what causes us a problem. > > Richard Hills: > > Yes and No. > > Not interpretation of merely "held", but instead interpretation of the > phrase "held ... up". > > "Held" is the past tense of "hold", with the Macquarie Dictionary having > sixty different definitions of "hold". Perhaps the Drafting Committee > thought that the "held ... up" context demanded the adoption of > definition 56(a): > > 56. hold up, > a. to keep in an erect position. > I for once appreciate your inventiveness. However, "up" is part of "face up". And keeping in an erect position doesn't work well, so we don't even want that definition anyway. Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jul 22 03:27:01 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 01:27:01 +0000 Subject: [BLML] played card by declarer [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F970D2F@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL >..... >"Held" is the past tense of "hold", with the Macquarie Dictionary having >sixty different definitions of "hold". Perhaps the Drafting Committee >thought that the "held [face] up" context demanded the adoption of >definition 56(a): > >56. hold up, >a. to keep in an erect position. Alternatively the Macquarie Dictionary definition 14: 14. to remain or continue in a specified state, relation, etc.: to hold still UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130722/41096736/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jul 22 04:36:02 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 02:36:02 +0000 Subject: [BLML] played card by declarer [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F970D6E@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Richard Hills, 2010 post: And now for something incompletely different. 2010 South West Pacific Teams, Match 4, Board 13 The anti-clockwise auction has proceeded -> RHO......Hashmat..LHO......Richard 3H.......2S(1)....Pass.....? (1) Weak jump undercall I held: K8762 7 AK AJ543 If pard held perfect cards for his weak jump undercall, then 6S would make. However, one of the Rules that Bob Hamman imposes upon his partner is: "Never play Bob for perfect cards, since he never holds them". So I dragged the 4S card out of my bidding box, and it was halfway to the table (visible to RHO* but not yet visible to pard), when suddenly... ...I realised that the clockwise auction had actually proceeded -> WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH ..........Richard.............Hashmat ..........Hills...............Ali ---.......1C(1).....Pass......2S(2) 3H........? (1) 15+ hcp, any shape (2) 8+ hcp, 2+ controls (A = 2, K = 1), at least 5/5 in the minors So I put my 4S card back into my bidding box, and announced that 2S should have been alerted. At this stage East-West called for a Director, to rule upon the status of the fool's hovering 4S bidding box card. This provided some entertainment for the entire Directing staff as they parsed the relevant part of the Bidding Box Regulation. Clause 3.5 "A call is considered made (without screens) 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." ["...held touching..." has since been amended to "...held face up, touching..." so that the ABF Bidding Box regulation would become fully analogous to Law 45C2] So the Directors' rule for the fool was that I could retract my 4S bidding card without any further rectification (although my foolish antics were unauthorised information for partner). The auction concluded -> WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH ..........Richard.............Hashmat ..........Hills...............Ali ---.......1C........Pass......2S 3H........4NT(3)....Pass......5D(4) Pass......6C........Pass......Pass Pass (3) Old-fashioned Blackwood (4) One ace The complete deal was -> ........................K8762 ........................7 ........................AK ........................AJ543 QJ5................................................A943 KQJT653............................................942 7..................................................Q6543 QT.................................................9 ........................T ........................A8 ........................JT982 ........................K8762 +1370 and 13 imps to the good guys. Rueful Rabbit redux! * RHO saw my initial intended call because I am left- handed and was using a left-handed bidding box. Unluckily RHO was the opposing team captain, was thereby inspired to appeal the Directors' ruling and therefore earned his team a fine for an appeal without merit. Richard Hills, 2013 post: Unfortunately this appeal did not achieve an Aussie precedent for the definition of "held", since both the Directors and the Appeals Committee ruled on the basis that my bidding card was further away than "nearly touching the table". Best wishes, Richard Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130722/e802442a/attachment-0001.html From g3 at nige1.com Mon Jul 22 04:18:53 2013 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 03:18:53 +0100 Subject: [BLML] played card by declarer [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F970D2F@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F970D2F@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: I thought ?held? meant deliberately taken and grasped in your hand rather than dropped inadvertently. This controversy generated many posts long before the last revision of the laws. This law provided one of the many opportunities that law-makers refused to take that would have make the game simpler for players and directors -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130722/55fadd36/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Jul 22 16:22:58 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 10:22:58 -0400 Subject: [BLML] played card by declarer [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F970D6E@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F970D6E@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 22:36:02 -0400, Richard HILLS wrote: > UNOFFICIAL > > Richard Hills, 2010 post: > > And now for something incompletely different. > > 2010 South West Pacific Teams, Match 4, Board 13 > > The anti-clockwise auction has proceeded -> > > RHO......Hashmat..LHO......Richard > 3H.......2S(1)....Pass.....? > > (1) Weak jump undercall > > I held: > > K8762 > 7 > AK > AJ543 > > If pard held perfect cards for his weak jump > undercall, then 6S would make. However, one of the > Rules that Bob Hamman imposes upon his partner is: > "Never play Bob for perfect cards, since he never > holds them". So I dragged the 4S card out of my > bidding box, and it was halfway to the table > (visible to RHO* but not yet visible to pard), > when suddenly... > > ...I realised that the clockwise auction had > actually proceeded -> > > WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH > ..........Richard.............Hashmat > ..........Hills...............Ali > ---.......1C(1).....Pass......2S(2) > 3H........? > > (1) 15+ hcp, any shape > (2) 8+ hcp, 2+ controls (A = 2, K = 1), at least > 5/5 in the minors > > So I put my 4S card back into my bidding box, and > announced that 2S should have been alerted. At > this stage East-West called for a Director, to > rule upon the status of the fool's hovering 4S > bidding box card. This provided some entertainment > for the entire Directing staff as they parsed the > relevant part of the Bidding Box Regulation. > > Clause 3.5 > > "A call is considered made (without screens) 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." > > ["...held touching..." has since been amended to > "...held face up, touching..." Congrats to the ABF. The ACBL still doesn't have "face up" in their regulation. I had a player pull the card out of her bid box, realize that there was a bid in front of her that she hadn't seen, and say "Wait a minute". By ACBL regulations the bid was not yet made. Then she set chosen the card down edge on the table facing her while she thought. According to the ACBL, it was now an irrevocable bid. Which seems like complete nonsense to me. so that the ABF > Bidding Box regulation would become fully analogous > to Law 45C2] > > So the Directors' rule for the fool was that I > could retract my 4S bidding card without any > further rectification (although my foolish antics > were unauthorised information for partner). The > auction concluded -> > > WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH > ..........Richard.............Hashmat > ..........Hills...............Ali > ---.......1C........Pass......2S > 3H........4NT(3)....Pass......5D(4) > Pass......6C........Pass......Pass > Pass > > (3) Old-fashioned Blackwood > (4) One ace > > The complete deal was -> > > ........................K8762 > ........................7 > ........................AK > ........................AJ543 > QJ5................................................A943 > KQJT653............................................942 > 7..................................................Q6543 > QT.................................................9 > ........................T > ........................A8 > ........................JT982 > ........................K8762 > > +1370 and 13 imps to the good guys. Rueful Rabbit redux! > > * RHO saw my initial intended call because I am left- > handed and was using a left-handed bidding box. > Unluckily RHO was the opposing team captain, was thereby > inspired to appeal the Directors' ruling and therefore > earned his team a fine for an appeal without merit. > > Richard Hills, 2013 post: > > Unfortunately this appeal did not achieve an Aussie > precedent for the definition of "held", since both the > Directors and the Appeals Committee ruled on the basis > that my bidding card was further away than "nearly > touching the table". > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > UNOFFICIAL > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental > privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. > See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Jul 22 16:27:34 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 10:27:34 -0400 Subject: [BLML] played card by declarer [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F970D2F@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 22:18:53 -0400, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > I thought ?held? meant deliberately taken and grasped in your hand > rather than dropped inadvertently. I note that it is very difficult to drop a card accidentally and have it be near the table. Or just touching the table. Basically, it will be flat on the table unless you catch it, and then it will be held. The point is, in this interpretation of the law (which seems to agree with the ACBL), the word "held" is irrelevant to the meaning of the sentence. This controversy generated many posts > long before the last revision of the laws. This law provided one of the > many opportunities that law-makers refused to take that would have make > the game simpler for players and directors Any suggestions for how to avoid that problem in 2017? I have given up on avoiding that problem for the yearly amendments to the regulations. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jul 23 02:48:46 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 00:48:46 +0000 Subject: [BLML] PPs on TDs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F971F5E@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Richard Hills, November 2002: >Last night I was playing TD at my local club's >walk-in pairs. > >Board 13: > >LHO......Hashmat..RHO......Richard >Pass.....1C(1)....1S.......Pass >2S.......Pass.....Pass.....Pass > >(1) Strong and artificial > >The contract was two off, for the kiss-of-death >score of -200. At the end of play LHO deduced >the reason for the kiss-of-death. Consequently >LHO gave RHO a lengthy free lesson (with >footnotes) on how overcalling with a mere four >card suit was illegal, immoral, and fattening. > >While I appreciated LHO's useful tip, which >could not help but improve my game in future, I >thought that LHO's tutorial was an infraction >of Law 74A2. Therefore, I should have summoned >myself to the table to correct the infraction. > >I did not do this, preferring to go for Plan B. >As a result, I was an after-the-fact accessory >to the infraction of Law 74A2. What PP should >I consequently assess against myself? Brian Meadows, November 2002: That one's easy. You should be compelled to play an entire session with last night's LHO as your partner. By the time that's over, you should have a full appreciation of the merits of stopping players from giving lectures at the table. Richard Hills, November 2002: >Board 14: > >...........LHO >...........AKT >...........QT8752 >...........Q >...........Q32 >Richard..............Hashmat >Q86..................975432 >AKJ9.................6 >A53..................K9 >T96..................KJ84 >...........RHO >...........J >...........43 >...........JT87642 >...........A75 > >LHO......Hashmat..RHO......Richard >---......Pass.....3D.......3H(1) >Double...Pass.....Pass.....3NT >Double...4S.......Pass.....Pass >Double...Pass.....Pass.....Pass > >(1) Plan B, showing solidarity with RHO > >In its interpretation of Law 15C, the WBF LC >has ruled that making a call with no >demonstrable bridge reason is yet another >infraction of Law 74A2. My 3H call had no >demonstrable bridge reason, since my LHO had >already proved (with footnotes) that >overcalling on a four card suit was illegal, >immoral, and fattening. > >Furthermore, my call of 3H was a *serious* >infraction, since the logical alternative of >Double would have reached a contract of 3S +140 >instead of 4Sx -100, so I had therefore donated >matchpoints to the opponents for no demonstrable >bridge reason. What *serious* PP should I have >assessed against myself for this infraction, >considering that this was my second offence on >consecutive boards? Brian Meadows, November 2002: OK, so make that *two* full sessions you have to play with LHO as your partner, since your actions gave him an excuse (as if he needed one!) to continue the lecture to his partner at the end of the round - "See, I told you four card overcalls don't work, he tried the same thing the following hand and they got a bad score too!". Brian. UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130723/82882da5/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jul 23 03:06:37 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 01:06:37 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Ruritanian Defence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F971F86@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Nigel Guthrie, November 2002: >>>What is the "[Ruritanian] Defence" to mini? >>>Oh no! Don't tell me! is it: >>>Overall = natural >>>X = 15+ >>>Ask and pass = 12-14? John (MadDog) Probst, November 2002: >>you missed ask and double :) Nigel Guthrie, November 2002: >(: Ahh right. In accord with Marvin's & your >instructions I have updated my CC as follows :) > >Pass = 0-9 >Ask & pass = 10-12 >X = 16+ >Ask & double = 13-15 >Overcall = Intermediate >Ask & overall = Weak Richard Hills, July 2013: Because of the Ruritanian Defence, the ABF has amended its disclosure reg to require pard's 1NT opening bid to be Announced (pard's 1C opening bid is also to be Announced). Best wishes, Richard Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130723/e0da0e4f/attachment.html From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Tue Jul 23 09:07:32 2013 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 03:07:32 -0400 Subject: [BLML] PPs on TDs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F971F5E@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F971F5E@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <51EE2BB4.90507@gmail.com> On 07/22/2013 08:48 PM, Richard HILLS wrote: Richard, just what is the point of re-posting discussions from more than a decade ago? It's not as if you've added anything further to the original posting. Not that I care about this one seeing the light of day again, because my solutions remain the same. Brian. > UNOFFICIAL > Richard Hills, November 2002: >>Last night I was playing TD at my local club's >>walk-in pairs. >> >>Board 13: >> >>LHO......Hashmat..RHO......Richard >>Pass.....1C(1)....1S.......Pass >>2S.......Pass.....Pass.....Pass >> >>(1) Strong and artificial >> >>The contract was two off, for the kiss-of-death >>score of -200. At the end of play LHO deduced >>the reason for the kiss-of-death. Consequently >>LHO gave RHO a lengthy free lesson (with >>footnotes) on how overcalling with a mere four >>card suit was illegal, immoral, and fattening. >> >>While I appreciated LHO's useful tip, which >>could not help but improve my game in future, I >>thought that LHO's tutorial was an infraction >>of Law 74A2. Therefore, I should have summoned >>myself to the table to correct the infraction. >> >>I did not do this, preferring to go for Plan B. >>As a result, I was an after-the-fact accessory >>to the infraction of Law 74A2. What PP should >>I consequently assess against myself? > Brian Meadows, November 2002: > > That one's easy. You should be compelled to play an entire > session with last night's LHO as your partner. By the time > that's over, you should have a full appreciation of the > merits of stopping players from giving lectures at the table. > Richard Hills, November 2002: > >>Board 14: >> >>...........LHO >>...........AKT >>...........QT8752 >>...........Q >>...........Q32 >>Richard..............Hashmat >>Q86..................975432 >>AKJ9.................6 >>A53..................K9 >>T96..................KJ84 >>...........RHO >>...........J >>...........43 >>...........JT87642 >>...........A75 >> >>LHO......Hashmat..RHO......Richard >>---......Pass.....3D.......3H(1) >>Double...Pass.....Pass.....3NT >>Double...4S.......Pass.....Pass >>Double...Pass.....Pass.....Pass >> >>(1) Plan B, showing solidarity with RHO >> >>In its interpretation of Law 15C, the WBF LC >>has ruled that making a call with no >>demonstrable bridge reason is yet another >>infraction of Law 74A2. My 3H call had no >>demonstrable bridge reason, since my LHO had >>already proved (with footnotes) that >>overcalling on a four card suit was illegal, >>immoral, and fattening. >> >>Furthermore, my call of 3H was a *serious* >>infraction, since the logical alternative of >>Double would have reached a contract of 3S +140 >>instead of 4Sx -100, so I had therefore donated >>matchpoints to the opponents for no demonstrable >>bridge reason. What *serious* PP should I have >>assessed against myself for this infraction, >>considering that this was my second offence on >>consecutive boards? > > Brian Meadows, November 2002: > > OK, so make that *two* full sessions you have to play with > LHO as your partner, since your actions gave him an excuse > (as if he needed one!) to continue the lecture to his partner > at the end of the round - "See, I told you four card > overcalls don't work, he tried the same thing the following > hand and they got a bad score too!". > > Brian. > UNOFFICIAL > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From etsand at att.net Tue Jul 23 15:41:40 2013 From: etsand at att.net (Eric Sandberg) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 06:41:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] Ruritanian Defence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F971F86@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F971F86@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <1374586900.81752.YahooMailNeo@web181205.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Maybe it is not so silly to have a policy of announcing NT ranges! ________________________________ From: Richard HILLS To: Laws Bridge Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 8:06 PM Subject: [BLML] Ruritanian Defence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] UNOFFICIAL ? Nigel Guthrie, November 2002: >>>What is the ?[Ruritanian] Defence? to mini? >>>Oh no! Don't tell me! is it: >>>Overall = natural >>>X = 15+ >>>Ask and pass = 12-14? John (MadDog) Probst, November 2002: >>you missed ask and double :) Nigel Guthrie, November 2002: >(: Ahh right. In accord with Marvin's & your >instructions I have updated my CC as follows :) > >Pass = 0-9 >Ask & pass = 10-12 >X = 16+ >Ask & double = 13-15 >Overcall = Intermediate >Ask & overall = Weak ? Richard Hills, July 2013: ? Because of the Ruritanian Defence, the ABF has amended its disclosure reg to require pard?s 1NT opening bid to be Announced (pard?s 1C opening bid is also to be Announced). ? Best wishes, ? Richard Hills UNOFFICIAL ? ? -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130723/3f4ad45a/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jul 24 00:33:20 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 22:33:20 +0000 Subject: [BLML] PPs on TDs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F97206E@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL John (MadDog) Probst, July 2006: >>>..... >>>Essentially one should not make a ruling which is in contravention of Law, >>>even if there is established custom and practice that accepts the Law is >>>frequently broken. >>>..... >>>must go back to the Law even if people think that the Law is written >>>differently from the way that it is. If we don't do it this way we get >>>anarchy as nobody knows whether the Law is in force here and today. Nige1 Guthrie, December 2011: >>A pity that so few directors seem to agree with Richard and John. For >>example, has any BLMLer ever seen zero tolerance legislation enforced, even >>when the offence is in the director's presence? Brian Meadows, July 2013: >Richard, just what is the point of re-posting discussions from more than a >decade ago? Richard Hills, July 2013: ++Because++ the post was from 2002, it would not have been seen by the many "newbie" blmlers who have joined our mailing list in the eleven years since then. Brian Meadows, July 2013: >It's not as if you've added anything further to the original posting. >..... Richard Hills: Yes and No. If discussion continued in 2013 on this revived thread, which it now has, I was going to observe that many Directors (my 2002 self included) are disastrously timid in their enforcement of the Lawbook's most important Law, Law 74A2: "A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game." Many incompetent Directors use "established custom and practice" to create anarchy by refusing to enforce Law 74A2, "even when the offence is in the Director's presence", unless and until the Director is specifically summoned to the offending table. (Marvin French once recalled a situation where he was distracted by a Law 74A2 infraction at an adjacent table, summoned the Director, only to be told that it was none of his business, with the Director then walking away.) But such inaction by a timid Director is an unLawful Director's error. Law 81C3: "to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes ++aware in any manner,++ within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C." UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130723/946ab8d5/attachment-0001.html From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Wed Jul 24 01:55:42 2013 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 19:55:42 -0400 Subject: [BLML] PPs on TDs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F97206E@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F97206E@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <51EF17FE.4030809@gmail.com> On 07/23/2013 06:33 PM, Richard HILLS wrote: > Brian Meadows, July 2013: >>Richard, just what is the point of re-posting discussions from more than a >>decade ago? > Richard Hills, July 2013: > ++Because++ the post was from 2002, it would not have been seen by the > many ?newbie? blmlers who have joined our mailing list in the eleven years > since then. Yes. This is a feature of all mailing lists, and Usenet newsgroups too for that matter. I believed that solving that problem was the reason for having the BLML archives. It's up to you, I guess, but I think you're going to find your way into a few more killfiles if you're going to make a habit of re-posting decade-old discussions. Brian. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jul 24 01:57:04 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 23:57:04 +0000 Subject: [BLML] The [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F972108@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Law 68D: ".....If ++the++ claim or concession is agreed, Law 69 applies;....." Introduction: ".....Finally, unless the context clearly dictates otherwise, the singular includes the plural....." Last night my highly ethical (and highly expert) opponent was declaring 5Dx. When I was on lead he had a slight blind spot and claimed one off for -100. I responded with a counter-claim of two off for -300 if I found the killing club switch. He promptly agreed to my counter-claim. In Law 68D does the singular "the claim" include the plural "any claims", or was I obliged by Law to waste time by summoning the Director? Best wishes, Richard Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130723/18c3695c/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jul 24 02:47:49 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 00:47:49 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Archive (was PPs on TDs) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F972133@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Richard: >>++Because++ the post was from 2002, it would not have been seen >>by the many "newbie" blmlers who have joined our mailing list in the >>eleven years since then. Brian: >Yes. This is a feature of all mailing lists, and Usenet newsgroups too >for that matter. I believed that solving that problem was the reason >for having the BLML archives. >..... Richard: The excellent magazine The Economist publishes exactly one full- page obituary each week, with the subject chosen by very quirky criteria. It dug deep into its archive with this pre-2002 obituary: http://www.economist.com/news/obituary/21571379-richard-plantagenet-englands-most-controversial-king-was-officially-rediscovered-february Best wishes, Richard Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130724/66840f9e/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jul 26 09:27:03 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 07:27:03 +0000 Subject: [BLML] making laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F97E219@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL "The Theory of Gravity is not proper procedure. It is the Law." >...... >it seems like proper procedure that the hands should not be >replaced in the board in any way that gives information. Agreed. Any blmler who has not yet done so should immediately read the classic book "Right through the Pack", by Robert Darvas, which features 52 stories each with a different card as the hero. Sherlock Holmes, in the Tale of the Two of Clubs, used extraneous information from non-randomised played cards to unmask the bridge expert Professor Moriarty. >If a club, or player, or director does not know about this, then >they should. If someone does not want to follow this, they >should anyway. >...... Again agreed. The most notable change in the behaviour of each and every Canberra Bridge Club expert since 2008 is her routinely shuffling her cards prior to her returning them to the slot. Best wishes, Richard Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130726/02a9347d/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Jul 27 00:39:27 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 18:39:27 -0400 Subject: [BLML] The insufficient bid clarifying the partnership agreement? Message-ID: 1NT 2S 2S Just to clarify things, the second 2S bidder said she didn't see the first 2S bid. So 2S was a transfer to a minor. I allowed a nonbarring 3C replacement. It seemed a lot more specific. And now the UI has disappeared too. Except for the problem I will call Convention Clarification. It is clear now that 3C is for the club suit. That's what it should be, etc. But, IF partner would have been uncertain about the meaning of 3C, it is clear now. This would seem to always be a potential problem with the replacement bid. As far as I know, we ignore it, and kind of have to in most situations. Here, the team making the insufficient bid had won 3 victory points in their first three matches. I asked the insufficient bidder what she wanted to bid, and she said 3S as a transfer to clubs. That was unlikely to be their conventional agreement. (I didn't give her that.) So they were giving me reason to worry. I have also heard beginners think that 3C on this auction is Stayman. Presumably, the meaning of the replacement bid, for purposes of L27B1, is the partnership agreement (i.e, what they would be required by law to describe as the meaning if asked for an explanation). From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Jul 27 00:53:09 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 18:53:09 -0400 Subject: [BLML] UI clarifying the partnership agreement? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Second example this month, except this is purely UI. 1NT P P X I am called to the table. The player reached to the bidding cards, played around for a while, took something partially out, put it back, then doubled. One concern might be that the UI (that he was going to bid a suit) shows a suit. If so, the X removes this UI, because his bid, conventionally, showed a suit. But, when players agree to play a convention in the direct seat, it is not as obvious if it is on in the balancing seat. Here, there was reason to worry. He perhaps had to think a while to either decide the convention was on or what to bid. When I asked her partner what the bid meant, she wasn't sure. The point is, with the UI, the X was obviously conventional. Would partner have known this? I decided that the UI was useful and that she couldn't use it. Basically that meant passing the double. DENOUEMENT I was somewhat concerned that passing the double looked like a good strategy she would not have found by herself. She had 6-8 HCP. The defender wanted to know what the X meant. It didn't make sense to have the partner describe his bid; it didn't work to have her leave the table so he could describe his own bid, because she was using a cane and not walking well and I had already taken her from the table. So I explained the problem and had defender look at the card. He figured out. The bidder might have helped quietly. He then told his partner what the bid meant. I decided that was AI to the bidder's partner, removing the UI. And he took a bid too. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jul 29 07:48:27 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 05:48:27 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Archive (was PPs on TDs) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F97E4DA@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL From the 2004 rec.games.bridge archive: >I'll also add that as a director, it creates problems >when I make a correct ruling, but the offender starts >arguing that he has made the same bid/play many >times before and nobody ever told him it was illegal, >thus the *director* must be wrong. I will usually try >to calm the offender down by offering to show him >the rule in writing after the hand, but I've had players >see a ruling in print and *still* argue about it because >they've gotten away with violating it for so long. John (MadDog) Probst pithily replied: "There's the Law. Read it. There's the door. Use it." works for me. john UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130729/5b4a8fab/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Jul 30 03:07:36 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 21:07:36 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Archive (was PPs on TDs) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F97E4DA@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F97E4DA@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Mon, 29 Jul 2013 01:48:27 -0400, Richard HILLS wrote: > UNOFFICIAL > > From the 2004 rec.games.bridge archive: > >> I'll also add that as a director, it creates problems >> when I make a correct ruling, but the offender starts >> arguing that he has made the same bid/play many >> times before and nobody ever told him it was illegal, >> thus the *director* must be wrong. I will usually try >> to calm the offender down by offering to show him >> the rule in writing after the hand, but I've had players >> see a ruling in print and *still* argue about it because >> they've gotten away with violating it for so long. > > John (MadDog) Probst pithily replied: > > "There's the Law. Read it. There's the door. Use it." > > works for me. john Doesn't work for me. The owner gets concerned about things like paying the rent and buying supplies. And paying the help. Um, like me. We are a business. We try to keep our customers. Anyway, we all know the law is wrong in places. Why should players trust it? How often do people at blml argue for a straightforward simple reading of the law? I know, there are players and directors who will not understand or believe the law no matter what. But we could try to make it more accurate and trustworthy. That's what I want. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jul 30 04:01:25 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 02:01:25 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Archive (was PPs on TDs) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F97E63C@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Law 74B5: "As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from summoning and addressing the Director in a manner discourteous to him or to other contestants." John (MadDog) Probst, rec,games.bridge 2004: >>"There's the Law. Read it. There's the door. Use it." >> >>works for me. john >Doesn't work for me. The owner gets concerned about things >like paying the rent and buying supplies. And paying the help. >Um, like me. We are a business. We try to keep our customers. >..... The late great Scottish / Australian expert George Jesner ran a most pleasant and enjoyable bridge club for many years. He sensibly realised that him privately showing the door to a single discourteous customer meant that that rude ex-customer did not discourage half-a-dozen other customers from returning. Best wishes, Richard Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130730/7d9b0fbd/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jul 30 06:56:00 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 04:56:00 +0000 Subject: [BLML] You have probably arrived at this page by mistake [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F97E65F@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL http://www.canberrabridgeclub.com.au/constitution.htm Canberra Bridge Club By-Law 5.1, second dot point: * offences relating to courtesy and etiquette. Such offences include failure to maintain a courteous attitude towards a partner or opponents, disruption of the orderly progress of the game, any remark or action which causes annoyance or embarrassment to another player or person in the club rooms, and interfering with the enjoyment of the game including making frivolous or groundless complaints. Recommended penalties are: for the first complaint-a reprimand; for the second complaint-suspension from the club for 3 months; for subsequent complaints-suspension from the club for one year. UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130730/7afe9ed8/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Jul 30 16:48:32 2013 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 10:48:32 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Archive (was PPs on TDs) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F97E63C@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F97E63C@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Mon, 29 Jul 2013 22:01:25 -0400, Richard HILLS wrote: > UNOFFICIAL > > Law 74B5: > > "As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from summoning > and addressing the Director in a manner discourteous to him or to > other contestants." > > John (MadDog) Probst, rec,games.bridge 2004: > >>> "There's the Law. Read it. There's the door. Use it." >>> >>> works for me. john > >> Doesn't work for me. The owner gets concerned about things >> like paying the rent and buying supplies. And paying the help. >> Um, like me. We are a business. We try to keep our customers. >> ..... > > The late great Scottish / Australian expert George Jesner ran a > most pleasant and enjoyable bridge club for many years. He > sensibly realised that him privately showing the door to a single > discourteous customer meant that that rude ex-customer did not > discourage half-a-dozen other customers from returning. People who are discourteous to the director can be very friendly with other customers. And vice versa. I have no problems with the two customers who other bridge players dislike the most. One is polite, friendly to me, and admirably ethical. You use the word "single". I can think of three people who have been asked not to come back in the past year or two. When do you stop? You imply that the ACBL's zero tolerance policy can be justified as a purely selfish economic measure for bridge club owners to apply. Which kind of takes the nobility out of it. And of course, zero tolerance means 100% intolerance. When do we start teaching tolerance? I don't really have any answers on this issue. I am still thinking about it. Right, some people wear me down as director. Right, some people make the game unpleasant for other people. To return to the parts you snipped, it frustrates me when I read the law to players and it supports me and not them, and they still disagree. Or tournament directors. Or blmlers. But sometimes the laws are supposed to mean something different from a plain reading of what they are. In any case, this is a small problem. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jul 31 08:26:38 2013 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 06:26:38 +0000 Subject: [BLML] The Emperor's New Clothes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC30F97E8BF@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/139388/emperors-new-clothes "In [the 1st April game] Emperor's New Clothes, players pretend to take on roles, and pretend that each role card indicates the types of resources (and sets of resources) required to score points. Dice are rolled (three rolls per turn) to pretend to acquire resources, and [blank] cards may be played by the active player and opponents to affect dice rolls, card plays, etc." Richard Hills, July 2013: >>Myself and another nit-picking blml Emperor are totally unaware of the >>transparent nature of our postings, with only our naked egos visible. Craig Senior, May 2005: > Kojak for heaven's sake, take a blood pressure pill before you explode. :) > You are far too fine a guy to let this upset you so much. >..... >Let us allow that amidst the dross there may indeed be gold nuggets? > >If you truly think all the other blml contributors are sick and all their >comments naught but posturing and crap I fear you have taken an overdose > of Rogaine. Please take the antidote and concede that a lot of us are here in >the hopes of bequeathing from our experiences a legacy of improved law and >regulation that may reverse the decline of our most excellent game. > >Grattan has the right approach...even a blind pig roots up a turnip >sometimes, and the elite lawmakers have no monopoly on good ideas. It is >too easy to get caught up in the pomp and circumstance, we need the un- >professional view sometimes to see that the emperor is not garbed so royally. William (Kojak) Schoder, May 2005: Craig, you are absolutely correct! My frustrations need to be controlled. When good people are interested in improving the game, I'm all for it. When others are nit-picking the present Laws, reading intentions into them that have been clearly stated were not there, and posing as experts I need to take a bunch of deep breaths, reach for the delete key, and go back to the heavy work we are presently engaged in in rewriting the laws. The structure whereby a law is published, and LCs throughout the system interpret this law for their constituents, and the applications are what the WBFLC intended will continue, as will the nit-picking. My apologies to those who, as you succinctly state, are making contributions to the laws. I've been wrong before. Thanks again for putting me back on track. Kojak UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130731/caace468/attachment.html