From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Thu Nov 27 20:53:43 2014 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (bmeadows666 at gmail.com) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 14:53:43 -0500 Subject: [BLML] All gone quiet Message-ID: Apologies for the test message, but I've seen no messages on this list for more than a month. Brian. From bpark56 at comcast.net Fri Nov 28 01:14:17 2014 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 18:14:17 -0600 Subject: [BLML] All gone quiet In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5477BE59.5090300@comcast.net> On 11/27/14, 1:53 PM, bmeadows666 at gmail.com wrote: > Apologies for the test message, but I've seen no messages on this list > for more than a month. > > Brian. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > I'm glad you posted this. My experience has been the same. --bp From hildalirsch at gmail.com Fri Nov 28 01:55:15 2014 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 11:55:15 +1100 Subject: [BLML] All gone quiet In-Reply-To: <5477BE59.5090300@comcast.net> References: <5477BE59.5090300@comcast.net> Message-ID: Sorry, until recently I was one of blml's most prolific creators of new threads. Let us try this new topic. The Director is empowered by Law to rule that a defender's exposed card is not a Penalty Card. Is this exercise of this directorial power: (a) unconditional? or (b) constrained by meeting a specific criterion and/or criteria in the Lawbook? If (a) is currently true, should (b) become true in the 2017 Lawbook, so as to prevent the Director arbitrarily deciding the result of a tournament? Alternatively, should the Penalty Card Laws be deleted from the 2017 Lawbook, with instead Law 16D applying to a defender's exposed card(s)? Best wishes, Richard Hills On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Robert Park wrote: > On 11/27/14, 1:53 PM, bmeadows666 at gmail.com wrote: > > Apologies for the test message, but I've seen no messages on this list > > for more than a month. > > > > Brian. > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > I'm glad you posted this. My experience has been the same. > --bp > _______________________________________________ > 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/20141128/23e90147/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Fri Nov 28 08:54:24 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 08:54:24 +0100 Subject: [BLML] All gone quiet In-Reply-To: References: <5477BE59.5090300@comcast.net> Message-ID: <001801d00ae0$88365ac0$98a31040$@online.no> I see no reason to change the laws on this matter. It is clear to me that the Director has the power to ?rule otherwise? if he finds cause, but such cause must be real. As such cause most necessarily must bed of an extraordinary nature the laws do not specify possible criteria but leave it for the Director to judge. He certainly may not use his powers arbitrarily. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Richard Hills Sendt: 28. november 2014 01:55 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] All gone quiet Sorry, until recently I was one of blml's most prolific creators of new threads. Let us try this new topic. The Director is empowered by Law to rule that a defender's exposed card is not a Penalty Card. Is this exercise of this directorial power: (a) unconditional? or (b) constrained by meeting a specific criterion and/or criteria in the Lawbook? If (a) is currently true, should (b) become true in the 2017 Lawbook, so as to prevent the Director arbitrarily deciding the result of a tournament? Alternatively, should the Penalty Card Laws be deleted from the 2017 Lawbook, with instead Law 16D applying to a defender's exposed card(s)? Best wishes, Richard Hills On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Robert Park wrote: On 11/27/14, 1:53 PM, bmeadows666 at gmail.com wrote: > Apologies for the test message, but I've seen no messages on this list > for more than a month. > > Brian. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > I'm glad you posted this. My experience has been the same. --bp _______________________________________________ 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/20141128/efdf0e68/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Nov 28 10:09:31 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 10:09:31 +0100 Subject: [BLML] All gone quiet In-Reply-To: <001801d00ae0$88365ac0$98a31040$@online.no> References: <5477BE59.5090300@comcast.net> <001801d00ae0$88365ac0$98a31040$@online.no> Message-ID: <54783BCB.8050207@skynet.be> I second this view. All the cases we've seen in this manner are extraordinary - so putting them in the laws would require forsight larger than life. And it need not be said that the director should use his powers with care. Nothing in the laws stops him from seeing to it that the (male of female) object of his/her desire, despite being a beginner, wins the national championship. Nothing in the laws, but possibly something in his pay-packet in the future. Herman. Sven Pran schreef: > I see no reason to change the laws on this matter. > > It is clear to me that the Director has the power to ?rule otherwise? if > he finds cause, but such cause must be real. > > As such cause most necessarily must bed of an extraordinary nature the > laws do not specify possible criteria but leave it for the Director to > judge. He certainly may not use his powers arbitrarily. > > *Fra:*blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] *P? vegne > av* Richard Hills > *Sendt:* 28. november 2014 01:55 > *Til:* Bridge Laws Mailing List > *Emne:* Re: [BLML] All gone quiet > > Sorry, until recently I was one of blml's most prolific creators of new > threads. Let us try this new topic. The Director is empowered by Law to > rule that a defender's exposed card is not a Penalty Card. Is this > exercise of this directorial power: > > (a) unconditional? or > > (b) constrained by meeting a specific criterion and/or criteria in the > Lawbook? > > If (a) is currently true, should (b) become true in the 2017 Lawbook, > so as to prevent the Director arbitrarily deciding the result of a > tournament? > > Alternatively, should the Penalty Card Laws be deleted from the 2017 > Lawbook, with instead Law 16D applying to a defender's exposed card(s)? > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Robert Park > wrote: > > On 11/27/14, 1:53 PM, bmeadows666 at gmail.com > wrote: > > Apologies for the test message, but I've seen no messages on this list > > for more than a month. > > > > Brian. > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > I'm glad you posted this. My experience has been the same. > --bp > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Nov 28 10:17:04 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 10:17:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] not being quiet Message-ID: <54783D90.2090408@skynet.be> For those of you missing the regular banter, here's my best story from Sanya (World Championships) All the tournaments are being played with screens. I get called for an insufficient bid. North 1H - East 1D. "Just change it" I say. "But they've seen it" says North. South confirms. "who pushed the tray?". general wonder. "I never touch the tray" says East. "I did not push it" says North. There is a kibitzer to North's right; "what did you see?" "I saw nothing, I was talking to North". So I make my decision. "In all likelihood, North pushed without noticing that the bid was insufficient". I go to South. "The bid has been accepted by your partner - you just bid on". South takes out a 1Sp bid, but says "but wait a minute, it was West who opened the screen in order to check the bridgemate!" West confirms this. So I change my ruling. The tray was pushed, if such is the word, by West, so the insufficient bid has to be ruled upon. I start: "You have the right to accept this bid ..." "that's what I'll do then" says South and he puts the 1Sp which he was holding already, on the tray. Morale of the story: The writers of the regulations need to write "if the tray has been _moved_ to the other side by the offending _side_" in order to vover all bases. OK? Herman.