From henk@amsterdamned.org Sun Sep 1 20:07:51 2002 From: henk@amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 21:07:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] test Message-ID: testing the list in sept... From henk@ripe.net Sun Sep 1 20:45:25 2002 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 21:45:25 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] New host for the mailing list. In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20020901145920.00b46378@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: Dear all, Months ago, Markus asked for a new host for the bridge-laws mailing list. I'm pleased to announce that we've have now set this up. (Well, 99% of it has been done by Dave Knight from the RIPE NCC operations department, I just asked him to set this up). The new address of the list will be: blml@rtflb.org Sometime in the next few days, I'm going to take Markus' list and subscribe everybody on that list to the new list. After that, everybody will be unsubscribed from the old list and the old list will be turned into an alias for "blml@rtflb.org". You'll get another mail when the list has been switched over. This means that mail sent to the old list (bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au) will still arrive and be archived, at least for the time being, though it is recommended to start using the new address as soon as possible after the switch. If you do NOT want this action to be taken, please send me a mail beforehand. You won't be put on the new list then and won't be dropped from the old list, but mail is likely to dry up after a few days. If you want to subscribe to the new list yourself, then you can so at: http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) NOTE: My email address (and a hole in our mailing list software) is being abused by a spammer. We are working on fixing this hole and tracking the spammer down. If you receive mail from "henk@ripe.net" that is obviously spam, please send me a copy of the mail including ALL headers. I'm sorry for any inconvenience caused by this. From henk@ripe.net Thu Sep 5 21:05:59 2002 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 22:05:59 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] New host for the mailing list. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear all, > Months ago, Markus asked for a new host for the bridge-laws mailing list. > I'm pleased to announce that we've have now set this up. (Well, 99% of it > has been done by Dave Knight from the RIPE NCC operations department, I > just asked him to set this up). > > The new address of the list will be: > > blml@rtflb.org > > Sometime in the next few days, I'm going to take Markus' list and > subscribe everybody on that list to the new list. After that, everybody > will be unsubscribed from the old list and the old list will be turned > into an alias for "blml@rtflb.org". You'll get another mail when the list > has been switched over. I just moved the list to the new site. > This means that mail sent to the old list (bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au) > will still arrive and be archived, at least for the time being, though it > is recommended to start using the new address as soon as possible after > the switch. > > If you do NOT want this action to be taken, please send me a mail > beforehand. You won't be put on the new list then and won't be dropped > from the old list, but mail is likely to dry up after a few days. > > If you want to subscribe to the new list yourself, then you can so at: > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml At this location, you can also set various options for your subscription, such as digest mode, passwords, acknowledgements and such. If you have any questions, please mail them to henk@rtflb.org. Do NOT use my work address (henk@ripe.net), I'll ignore the mail unread. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) From svenpran@online.no Thu Sep 5 21:46:18 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 22:46:18 +0200 Subject: [BLML] test reply to New host for the mailing list. References: Message-ID: <002c01c2551d$499c0750$6400a8c0@WINXP> Test reply to verify i got it correct Sven ----- Original Message ----- From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 10:09 PM Subject: [BLML] New host for the mailing list. > > On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > > > Dear all, > > > > > Months ago, Markus asked for a new host for the bridge-laws mailing list. > > > I'm pleased to announce that we've have now set this up. (Well, 99% of it > > > has been done by Dave Knight from the RIPE NCC operations department, I > > > just asked him to set this up). > > > > > > The new address of the list will be: > > > > > > blml@rtflb.org > > > > > > Sometime in the next few days, I'm going to take Markus' list and > > > subscribe everybody on that list to the new list. After that, everybody > > > will be unsubscribed from the old list and the old list will be turned > > > into an alias for "blml@rtflb.org". You'll get another mail when the list > > > has been switched over. > > > > I just moved the list to the new site. > > If you did NOT receive a mail labelled > > [blml] New host for the mailing list. > > today, then something has gone wrong during the move. To fix the problem, > please resubscribe yourself at: > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > Henk From henk@amsterdamned.org Thu Sep 5 22:13:45 2002 From: henk@amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 23:13:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] test Message-ID: test test From rwilley@mit.edu Fri Sep 6 01:14:06 2002 From: rwilley@mit.edu (rwilley@mit.edu) Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 20:14:06 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Lucy in the sky with diamonds Message-ID: <1031271246.3d77f34e5eb96@webmail.mit.edu> From: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au [mailto:owner-bridge- laws@rgb.anu.edu.au] On Behalf Of Herman De Wael Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 3:53 PM To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Lucy in the sky with diamonds >Ah come on Eric, does that include your right to smoke, to drink, and >to have secret forms of communication with partner ? >While the third is quite normally a bridge regulation, the first two >clearly are not, yet go largely unquestioned. This analogy fails on any number of grounds. In North America, smoking is regulated in public locations because of the well documented threat second hand smoke poses. However, people have the right to use it to their hearts content in the confines of their own home. I fail to see why other drugs should be treated differently. I am not aware of any regulations that specifically forbid drinking during a bridge tournament. I've have imbided large amounts of beer and tequila in any number of midnight zip swiss events. I've had a beer or two during side games. From henk@ripe.net Fri Sep 6 08:48:14 2002 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 09:48:14 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] Testing the list Message-ID: Testing the list ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) NOTE: My email address (and a hole in our mailing list software) is being abused by a spammer. We are working on fixing this hole and tracking the spammer down. If you receive mail from "henk@ripe.net" that is obviously spam, please send me a copy of the mail including ALL headers. I'm sorry for any inconvenience caused by this. From cfgcs@eiu.edu Mon Sep 9 18:18:53 2002 From: cfgcs@eiu.edu (Grant Sterling) Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 12:18:53 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The Blackwood Strikes Back In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.1.20020909115115.00a81a00@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> At 03:44 PM 9/9/02 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >This problem appeared in the May 2002 issue of the >Australian Directors' Bulletin, and has a published >discussion by a panel in the subsequent August 2002 >issue: > >Pairs - aggregate (total points) scoring. >Bd. 2 / E / NS > > AJ > AK > Q9543 > 9852 >K8632 104 >J1085 9764 >J2 106 >A10 K7643 > Q975 > Q32 > AK87 > QJ > >West North East South >- - Pass 1D >1S 2C(1) Pass 2NT(2) >Pass 4NT(3) All Pass > >1. Alerted and explained as non-forcing (6-card suit, >less than 10 HCP). > >2. Explained as "stronger than our No Trump >opening" (15-17) when West inquired. > >3. After a long hesitation: intended as an Ace ask. > >Result: N/S + 630 > >E/W are unhappy about South's decision to pass 4NT >given the explanations and the huddle. South says >that 4NT has no meaning in this sequence. He also OK, it would be helpful to know whether there is any other knowledge of NS's actual agreements. But here's a start: I assume that when S bid 2NT it was to play opposite N's weak hand, and he did not, in fact, believe that his bid was 'stronger than 15-17'. [If he psyched a strong bid...he's odd.] If so, then if we reconstruct the AI we get: 1D 2C "I've got a weak hand with clubs" 2N "OK, let's stop here" 4N... What could 4N mean on this sequence? Nothing, of course--S is exactly right. It cannot be anything other than a mis-pull, or a misunderstanding. What are the LA's opposite such a bid? I cannot imagine doing anything other than passing and praying you don't get doubled. What contract could be better? If clubs would play better, why hasn't partner insisted on them? This isn't even a coherent place for 2C to have been a psyche from partner. I cannot construct a single hand for partner with <10 points and a 6-card club suit that would bid 4NT over a weak 2N. Given the system S thought he was playing, there are no LA's to passing. Am I missing something? Well, someone will surely tell me if I am. :) >says he believed it would have been wrong of him to >bid on after the tempo break because he now knew >that North must have a strong hand. Actually, S has conflicting UI: N thinks that S is much stronger than he said he was, but N himself must be stronger than he said he was to be blackwooding now. If I thought that bidding on was a LA given the AI, I would have a much harder time sorting out this mess, especially if N is actually right about their agreements. Fortunately, I think this is irrelevant. >How would you rule? Result stands. >Best wishes > >Richard Sincerely, Grant From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Sep 10 01:56:52 2002 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 01:56:52 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Lucy in the sky with diamonds References: Message-ID: <001f01c25865$43bd0f00$7b5d87d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Cc: Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 8:30 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Lucy in the sky with diamonds > In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020909091326.00a8bf00@pop.starpower.net> > > We have no more reason to believe that bridge has a "doping problem" > > than that bridge has a "damnation problem". > > All bridge players will go to hell - cards are the devil's work. On > arrival they will be separated into groups of 3. > > Tim > "There's a great text in Galatians, Once you trip on it, entails Twenty-nine distinct damnations, One sure, if another fails." ('Soliloquy of the Spanish Cloister'.) From dknight@ripe.net Tue Sep 10 08:54:55 2002 From: dknight@ripe.net (Dave Knight) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 09:54:55 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] TEST - Please Ignore Message-ID: Apparently there are some problems distributing mail to the list .. just testing .. dave Dave Knight RIPE NCC From svenpran@online.no Tue Sep 10 09:24:43 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 10:24:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] test References: Message-ID: <005501c258a3$84783860$70d8fea9@WINXP> Well, let's see if it works this time. (If it does, do we switch over asap?) Sven ----- Original Message ----- From: "Henk Uijterwaal" To: Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 11:13 PM Subject: [blml] test > test > test > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From henk@ripe.net Tue Sep 10 09:37:40 2002 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 10:37:40 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] test In-Reply-To: <005501c258a3$84783860$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Sven Pran wrote: > Well, let's see if it works this time. I haven't had a chance to talk to my sysadmin to find out what was wrong, but it appears that the queue was stuck but has been unstuck > (If it does, do we switch over asap?) Yes, Markus and I want to complete the transition ASAP. Henk > Sven > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Henk Uijterwaal" > To: > Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 11:13 PM > Subject: [blml] test > > > > test > > test > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) NOTE: My email address (and a hole in our mailing list software) is being abused by a spammer. We are working on fixing this hole and tracking the spammer down. If you receive mail from "henk@ripe.net" that is obviously spam, please send me a copy of the mail including ALL headers. I'm sorry for any inconvenience caused by this. From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Sep 10 10:36:55 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 11:36:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] TEST - Please Ignore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020910113629.00aa9ad0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:54 10/09/2002 +0200, Dave Knight wrote: >Apparently there are some problems distributing mail to the list .. just >testing .. AG : got 2 test messages in a row. If only 2 were sent, then it works. From henk@ripe.net Tue Sep 10 16:39:44 2002 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 17:39:44 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] [ADMINISTRIVIA] Seeking a new home In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020906091341.0298eaa8@acsys.anu.edu.au> Message-ID: Hi Markus, > Let me know when you're ready to cutover, and I'll modify the aliases here. At the risk that things will crash again 10' after I make the announcement: please switch over the mailing list to its new address. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) NOTE: My email address (and a hole in our mailing list software) is being abused by a spammer. We are working on fixing this hole and tracking the spammer down. If you receive mail from "henk@ripe.net" that is obviously spam, please send me a copy of the mail including ALL headers. I'm sorry for any inconvenience caused by this. From henk@toybox.amsterdamned.org Tue Sep 10 16:43:19 2002 From: henk@toybox.amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 17:43:19 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] Fw: Lower tops (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 14:27:24 -0700 From: Marvin L. French To: bridge-laws@rtflb.org Subject: Fw: Lower tops With his permission, I am forwarding e-mails from Henry Bethe on this subject to BLML. Not all, but those that seem particular interesting. - Marv From: To: ; Cc: ; ; ; > I think it is important that each board in a bridge game is a separate event. > How you do on other boards has nothing at all to do with how your score on a > board you actually played will or would matchpoint. Sometimes your skill, or > the opponent's lack thereof, will produce a zero. > I hate to descend into actual examples, but here is one from our local club: > > West East > S - AK84 S - J109653 > H - 6 H - A5 > D - AKQJ42 D - 9 > C - 52 C - A843 > > The hand was played 9 times as shown. One pair bid 7NT. Two others bid 7S. 5 > bid 6S. One bid 4S. 7NT is a 75% contract. 7S is 88%. 6S is nearly 100%. On > the hand as dealt, Qxx of spades was offside, diamonds were 5-1, the stiff > with Qxx of spades, and both opponents have natural club leads against slams, > one from KQx the other from J109x, while both have broken heart holdings. Not > quite surprisingly, the pair that bid 7NT was the strongest pair in the > field. And won the session. > > At 4 other tables the East and West hands were interchanged. At those four > one pair bid 7S, three bid 6S. Obviously these pairs all made their contract. > > Should the fact that the 7NT bidders are the strongest pair have any > influence on how their -400 should score when converted to a 12 top? I don't > think so. Should the knowledge of the contracts bid at the 4 tables that > played the board reversed have any influence? Again I don't think so. So we > are not really dealing with a board in the context of how a pair did on other > boards played in that session or on their performance in other sessions/other > events. > > We are dealing with how this pair did on this board. > > Henry Bethe. > From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Sep 10 22:44:13 2002 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 22:44:13 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Lucy in the sky with diamonds References: <100902253.30169@webbox.com> Message-ID: <002a01c25913$50bfe840$84a1193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Cc: Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 4:22 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Lucy in the sky with diamonds > > >Nice enough games for a week or two, maybe a month, > >they won't keep one interested for eternity though. > > Not to worry. They could always form themselves into > a group and send messages to each other about the rules. > Any non-bridge-player considered worthy of particularly > exquisite torture could then be compelled to join it. > +=+ Ah! now I understand....... just as I was considering the odds if I were to volunteer for an eternal triangle...... ~ G ~ +=+ From Markus.Buchhorn@anu.edu.au Wed Sep 11 00:08:41 2002 From: Markus.Buchhorn@anu.edu.au (Markus Buchhorn) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 09:08:41 +1000 Subject: [BLML] [ADMINISTRIVIA] Seeking a new home In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020906091341.0298eaa8@acsys.anu.edu.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020911090433.030b2ae0@acsys.anu.edu.au> Hi Henk, et al At 05:39 PM 10/09/2002 +0200, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: >At the risk that things will crash again 10' after I make the >announcement: please switch over the mailing list to its new address. The deed is done, the list is moved. Here's hoping... :-) For those of you wondering, the official list address is now blml@rtflb.org - please use that from now on. The bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au address now just forwards to the new address. I will manually intercept and forward majordomo-type requests to Henk. Both of these arrangements will go away in a few weeks once everybody has settled across. Note that list administration, and archive access, can all be handled through the new web interface at www.rtflb.org. Henk has most of the archives already, I'll forward the remainder shortly. Let me or Henk know if you have any problems. Cheers, Markus Markus Buchhorn, ANU Internet Futures Project, | Ph: +61 2 61258810 Markus.Buchhorn@anu.edu.au, mail: Bldg #108 - CS&IT |Fax: +61 2 61259805 Australian National University, Canberra 0200, Aust. |Mobile: 0417 281429 From Markus.Buchhorn@anu.edu.au Wed Sep 11 00:08:41 2002 From: Markus.Buchhorn@anu.edu.au (Markus Buchhorn) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 09:08:41 +1000 Subject: [BLML] [ADMINISTRIVIA] Seeking a new home In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020906091341.0298eaa8@acsys.anu.edu.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020911090433.030b2ae0@acsys.anu.edu.au> Hi Henk, et al At 05:39 PM 10/09/2002 +0200, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: >At the risk that things will crash again 10' after I make the >announcement: please switch over the mailing list to its new address. The deed is done, the list is moved. Here's hoping... :-) For those of you wondering, the official list address is now blml@rtflb.org - please use that from now on. The bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au address now just forwards to the new address. I will manually intercept and forward majordomo-type requests to Henk. Both of these arrangements will go away in a few weeks once everybody has settled across. Note that list administration, and archive access, can all be handled through the new web interface at www.rtflb.org. Henk has most of the archives already, I'll forward the remainder shortly. Let me or Henk know if you have any problems. Cheers, Markus Markus Buchhorn, ANU Internet Futures Project, | Ph: +61 2 61258810 Markus.Buchhorn@anu.edu.au, mail: Bldg #108 - CS&IT |Fax: +61 2 61259805 Australian National University, Canberra 0200, Aust. |Mobile: 0417 281429 From mikedod@gte.net Wed Sep 11 01:24:11 2002 From: mikedod@gte.net (mike dodson) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 17:24:11 -0700 Subject: Fw: [BLML] assistance sorting this mess Message-ID: <004c01c2592a$8ad4de20$0100a8c0@MIKE> ----- Original Message ----- From: "mike dodson" To: Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 4:35 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] assistance sorting this mess > > > > > > > David Barton wrote: > > > > >E-W vul > > >Dealer S > > >Scoring match points at the local club > > > > > > x > > > AKxxxxx > > > xx > > > xxx > > > > > >Qxxx AKxxxxx > > >J xx > > >Q10xx Jx > > >Q10xx Ax > > > > > > x > > > Qxx > > > AKxxx > > > KJxx > > > > > >N E S W > > > 1D P > > >1H 3S X(1) P > > >4H P P 4S > > >P P 5H P > > >P P > > > > > >(1)W asked and was informed it was penalty > > > > > >S now informs the defenders that the double > > >was take out. (The correct explanation was > > >probably no agreement since the scratch N-S > > >partnership had agreed to play sputnik > > >doubles but not agreed whether they applied > > >at this level). > > > > > >Unfortunately before you arrive at the > > >table W has her say about what actions she > > >could or would have taken with the correct > > >explanation. > > > > > >Do you allow South's 5H as he has UI that N > > >has pulled a penalty double and failed to > > >double 4S after a penalty double of 3S? > > > > > >Do you allow E to substitute 5S for his > > >final pass per Law 21B1? > > > It seems to me that all discussion of what happens at the 5 level is mute. > The damage on the hand occurs when W doesn't bid 4S over the double. N > passes thinking S doesn't have heart support and S passes thinking he has > shown his hand. 4S makes if N doesn't switch to clubs before S cashes two > diamonds. None of this is certain but all together strikes me as at least > "at all probable" and I would argue for "most favorable result that was > likely". > > E/W +620 N/S -620, PP to W for speaking out of turn before the director > arrived (PPw most likely). E/W -100 N/S -620 second choice. > > On second thought, a ruling is necessary at the table to finish the hand so: > E can change final pass must be warned against using UI and can be told that > damage previous to the final pass may still be redressed. Effectively N/S > get to play 5H. If they go down and the split ruling above is chosen then > E/W +100 N/S -620. Perhaps this is the correct split score in any case and > the actual play should have no bearing on the ruling. > > Mike Dodson > > From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Sep 11 02:57:15 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 11:57:15 +1000 Subject: [BLML] The Blackwood Strikes Back Message-ID: >>Pairs - aggregate (total points) scoring. >>Bd. 2 / E / NS >> AJ >> AK >> Q9543 >> 9852 >>K8632 104 >>J1085 9764 >>J2 106 >>A10 K7643 >> Q975 >> Q32 >> AK87 >> QJ >> >>West North East South >>- - Pass 1D >>1S 2C(1) Pass 2NT(2) >>Pass 4NT(3) All Pass >> >>1. Alerted and explained as non-forcing (6-card suit, >>less than 10 HCP). >> >>2. Explained as "stronger than our No Trump >>opening" (15-17) when West inquired. >> >>3. After a long hesitation: intended as an Ace ask. >> >>Result: N/S + 630 David Burn wrote: [big snip] >If it turned out that 2C was indeed non-forcing (North >had forgotten), then I would ask South why he bid 2NT. >If he told me that he hoped to make game facing a North >hand with CAK10xxx and a stray card, so that he wasn't >unhappy about representing his hand as 18-19, I might >believe him. [big snip] Given the explanation of "less than 10 hcp", if North held C AK10xxx the only useful stray card would be the queen of diamonds. Even then, opposite such a perfect maximum, 3NT could fail by losing the first five heart tricks. As an AC member, I would rule that South's only logical alternative as a rebid was Pass. (Note that the aggregate form of scoring means that a safe +110 in 2C is demonstrably superior to a risky +120 in 2NT.) In EBU-land, I would rule that South's bid of 2NT causes a Red Psyche situation. However, on reflection, under Australian rules I believe that South's non-logical 2NT is not an infraction. Suppose South's correct explanation of 2C was, "systemically less than 10 hcp, but pard has forgotten before and bid 2C with a strong hand, so I am going to keep the auction alive with a 2NT bid". *At the point when South bid 2NT*, the MI has not damaged EW, and the UI has not yet benefited North. Therefore, under Australian rules, the score cannot be adjusted to 2C +110. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Sep 11 03:48:53 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 12:48:53 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Should misbid = misexplanation? Message-ID: In Las Vegas case 33, Bobby Wolff wrote: >>Theoretical: I've already said enough about the rule that >>treats misbids and misexplanations differently. This appeal >>represents CD in one of its more insidious forms. Some top >>players (East in this case) base their judgment on what is >>told to them which, rightly or wrongly, makes CD even worse. >> >>Furthermore, this decision could encourage this N/S pair to >>have more strategic misbids in the future. >> >>It is disgusting to be cavalier about not addressing and >>immediately changing a part of our appeal process which is >>harmful to serious ethical players and caters to chicanery. Rich Colker replied: [snip] >Well, we didn't discuss whether splinters are on after >doubles, nor did we discuss whether they apply as a passed >hand, after an opponent overcalls, when the suit being >raised is opener's second suit (e.g., 1D-1H; 1S-4C), or when >we are the overcallers. But these auctions will come up, as >this one did, and someone must make a decision. [snip] >Accidents are *not* chicanery. > >And it's not the appeal process which would need changing if >we were to adopt Wolffie's philosophy; it's the laws and >regulations themselves. To adopt Wolffie's philosophy for >the general bridge public (or even the top players in the >top events) would be suicidal for bridge. We cannot legislate >against memory failure or try to penalize it out of existence. > >We can redress damage caused by MI, but we cannot accept good >boards from the opponents when they forget what they're >playing and then on the next deal penalize them for precisely >the same thing if their error happens to work in their own >favor. Rub-of-the-green goes both ways. [snip] In Canberra there is a regulation that states, "It is inherent in the Laws that players know their own system." There is a similar regulation in the ACBL General Conditions of Contest, which requires players to have agreements in "to be expected sequences". Under Rich Colker's interpretation of Law, are these regulations invalid? Best wishes Richard= From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Sep 11 06:22:33 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 15:22:33 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Las Vegas Case Thirty-Seven Message-ID: An interesting case. The view of the TD, AC and Rich Colker is directly contrary to the view of the De Wael School, Jeff Polisner and Bobby Wolff. Best wishes Richard Las Vegas Case Thirty-Seven Subject (MI): Charmingly Strange Event: Reisinger, 25 Nov 01, First Qualifying Session Bd: 19 Luigi Montefusco Dlr: South K1093 Vul: E/W K105 KQ843 4 Michel Abecassis Barnet Shenkin Q875 AJ642 --- Q874 AJ1052 6 7632 J95 Mourad Meregion --- AJ9632 97 AKQ108 West North East South 1H Pass 3C(1) Pass 3NT(2) Pass 4H Pass Pass Pass (1) Limit raise in hearts (2) Pass-or-correct The Facts: 4H made five, +450 for N/S. The opening lead was the spade 7. Based on the explanation of 3NT as pass-or-correct, East played the spade A at trick one, after which declarer lost only one diamond and one heart. E/W believed that if the spade J was played at trick one and declarer then played the heart AK, East would have been able to obtain a diamond ruff. The Director ruled that there was no evidence that the explanation given was not N/S's agreement. The table result was allowed to stand. The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling. South did not attend the hearing. E/W found it difficult to believe that North's explanation of 3NT as natural and non- forcing was accurate. Had East suspected that South's hand was unbalanced, he might have played the spade J at trick one. If declarer then played hearts as he did (ace first), he would not have had the spade K available for a diamond discard and a defensive diamond ruff would have held him to ten tricks. N/S's agreement on the meaning of South's 3NT was that it was non- forcing, offering a choice between 3NT and 4H. Had North held a flat hand, he would have passed 3NT; as it was he pulled to 4H because of his singleton club. North was of the opinion that his partner had misbid and misplayed (in playing the heart A rather than a low heart to the king), but he saw no justification for adjusting the score. The opening lead was the spade 7 to the ten, ace and heart 2. At that point, the Director was called. 3C was defined as a three-card limit raise or better with any shape. N/S had been using this convention together for five years. In only one very specific auction did they play 3NT as a non-natural, forward-going bid, and that was not after a 3C response. N/S did not possess system notes for this convention. The Committee Decision: The Committee would have liked to be able to question South about his actions, but he was otherwise occupied, as his team was far short of qualifying. Despite the strangeness of South's bid, the Committee believed that North had explained his partnership's agreement accurately, and that South had simply taken a flyer. The statements made at the table by N/S to the Director, the length of their partnership, and their relative lack of experience all pointed to South's having taken an unusual action rather than his having made a systemic conventional bid of some type. The Committee found that there had been no MI and allowed the table result to stand. DIC of Event: Henry Cukoff Committee: Doug Doub (chair), Ellen Melson, Barry Rigal, David Stevenson, Adam Wildavsky [snip] Jeff Polisner wrote: >>>The Director (and Committee) are to presume >>>misexplanation rather than misbid unless the >>>'offending' side establishes by credible evidence >>>that the partnership agreement was as explained. I >>>see nothing which even comes close to meeting that >>>burden here and would therefore have to find MI and >>>damage to E/W." Bobby Wolff wrote: >>A truly awful decision. Why give the benefit of the >>doubt to possible offenders and why does that misbid >>versus misexplanation continue to come up? What real >>chance did East have here. He didn't! It's okay to not >>give the nonoffenders a doubtful trick (I'm for that) >>but allowing such awful MI to go unpunished is harmful >>to our game. Rich Colker replied: [snip] >In other words, we require *reasonable* evidence of a >concealed understanding, MI, or UI (as per the Rule of >Coincidence; or differing explanations from the two >players - see Law 75) before we place a pair in the >position of presuming them guilty. > >In this case I can find no reasonable evidence on which >to base a presumption of MI. First, 3C showed only >three-card support, so playing 3NT as natural makes a >lot of sense. Second, if we suspect opener's 3NT was >artificial, what do we think it meant? If it asked for >responder's singleton, then why didn't North show his >stiff club? And why wouldn't N/S use 3D as their asking >bid? It would give them a lot more room to exchange >information and investigate slam. > >So Jeff's claim that N/S are obligated to provide >"credible evidence" that pass-or-correct is their >agreement is not accurate. First we need a good reason >to suspect that N/S are not playing what they claim. >South's hand, in my opinion, is not nearly enough to >justify this presumption and the Director, the >Committee and the majority of the panelists all agree >with me. > >Of course this doesn't mean there's no reason to be >suspicious, but that's what the Recorder system is for. >In fact, Wolffie has it backwards: "possible" offenders >should not be presumed guilty until proven innocent - >only "probable" offenders should be. If Wolffie had it >his way, every misbid or psych of a natural bid (natural >bids are usually not documented on our CCs) would be >considered grounds for a score adjustment (which fits >nicely with Wolffie's overall agenda). If East didn't >have a chance, maybe it was because South chose the >perfect time for a tactical 3NT bid (or a flyer). Sorry, >but the evidence of a hidden agreement is, to say the >least, underwhelming here. [snip]= From vitold@elnet.msk.ru Wed Sep 11 07:28:07 2002 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru (vitold) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 10:28:07 +0400 Subject: [BLML] [ADMINISTRIVIA] Seeking a new home References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020906091341.0298eaa8@acsys.anu.edu.au> <5.1.0.14.0.20020911090433.030b2ae0@acsys.anu.edu.au> Message-ID: <3D7EE277.6A9C5916@elnet.msk.ru> Hi, Markus:) Thx a lot fo your contribution during years Best wishes and regards Sincerely yours, Vitold Markus Buchhorn =D0=C9=DB=C5=D4: > Hi Henk, et al > > At 05:39 PM 10/09/2002 +0200, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > >At the risk that things will crash again 10' after I make the > >announcement: please switch over the mailing list to its new address. > > The deed is done, the list is moved. Here's hoping... :-) > > For those of you wondering, the official list address is now blml@rtflb= .org - please use that from now on. The bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au addres= s now just forwards to the new address. I will manually intercept and for= ward majordomo-type requests to Henk. Both of these arrangements will go = away in a few weeks once everybody has settled across. > > Note that list administration, and archive access, can all be handled t= hrough the new web interface at www.rtflb.org. Henk has most of the archi= ves already, I'll forward the remainder shortly. > > Let me or Henk know if you have any problems. > > Cheers, > Markus > > Markus Buchhorn, ANU Internet Futures Project, | Ph: +61 2 61258= 810 > Markus.Buchhorn@anu.edu.au, mail: Bldg #108 - CS&IT |Fax: +61 2 61259= 805 > Australian National University, Canberra 0200, Aust. |Mobile: 0417 281= 429 > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From vitold@elnet.msk.ru Wed Sep 11 07:28:07 2002 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru (vitold) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 10:28:07 +0400 Subject: [BLML] [ADMINISTRIVIA] Seeking a new home References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020906091341.0298eaa8@acsys.anu.edu.au> <5.1.0.14.0.20020911090433.030b2ae0@acsys.anu.edu.au> Message-ID: <3D7EE277.6A9C5916@elnet.msk.ru> Hi, Markus:) Thx a lot fo your contribution during years Best wishes and regards Sincerely yours, Vitold Markus Buchhorn =D0=C9=DB=C5=D4: > Hi Henk, et al > > At 05:39 PM 10/09/2002 +0200, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > >At the risk that things will crash again 10' after I make the > >announcement: please switch over the mailing list to its new address. > > The deed is done, the list is moved. Here's hoping... :-) > > For those of you wondering, the official list address is now blml@rtflb= .org - please use that from now on. The bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au addres= s now just forwards to the new address. I will manually intercept and for= ward majordomo-type requests to Henk. Both of these arrangements will go = away in a few weeks once everybody has settled across. > > Note that list administration, and archive access, can all be handled t= hrough the new web interface at www.rtflb.org. Henk has most of the archi= ves already, I'll forward the remainder shortly. > > Let me or Henk know if you have any problems. > > Cheers, > Markus > > Markus Buchhorn, ANU Internet Futures Project, | Ph: +61 2 61258= 810 > Markus.Buchhorn@anu.edu.au, mail: Bldg #108 - CS&IT |Fax: +61 2 61259= 805 > Australian National University, Canberra 0200, Aust. |Mobile: 0417 281= 429 > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Sep 11 08:24:38 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 17:24:38 +1000 Subject: [BLML] illegal convention Message-ID: In commenting on Las Vegas case forty-two, David Stevenson and Rich Colker had slight differences on the preferred method of adjusting scores after use of an illegal convention. Can blmlers offer further nuances? Best wishes Richard David Stevenson wrote: [snip] >>any result that allows E/W to get a good score >>from an illegal convention suggests that it is >>time the ACBL had a new look at what to do >>when an illegal convention is used. No one >>knows what would have happened if it had not >>been used because no one knows what system E/W >>would have used if they had realized they were >>not allowed to play their 1NT response. >>Perhaps they would have played Precision or >>EHAA [a system whose name aptly describes its >>philosophy: the acronym stands for Every Hand >>An Adventure. - Ed.] >> >>Law 12C2 does not really work when the whole >>auction is poisoned, as often happens with an >>illegal convention. Working out what would >>have happened is just not practical, so I >>suggest an English idea: When an illegal >>convention is used Law 12A2 is applied - i.e., >>it is ruled that "no rectification can be made >>that will permit normal play of the board." >>Then an artificial score is applied such as >>Average-Plus/Average-Minus in favor of the >>non-offenders. >> >>If this was decided it should be made a >>regulation, so that it would be applied >>consistently. Here are a couple of further >>thoughts: The hand should always be played >>out, and if the non-offenders get more than >>Average-Plus then there is no damage, so no >>adjustment. Also, to follow ACBL ideas, the >>non-offenders can be expected to play bridge >>and keep their bad score if they make an >>egregious error. Here, for example, E/W >>would get an Average-Minus but N/S would keep >>their bad score which they earned. >> >>One last thought. Sometimes an artificial bid >>is made which has various possibilities, some >>illegal. The result should still be canceled >>even if the bit used was not the illegal bit. >>It is still not known what would have happened >>if they had played a legal bid. Rich Colker replied: [snip] >As for dealing with illegal conventions, it is >normal to allow the hand to be played out (if >possible) and the result to stand if the non- >offenders are not damaged. In general, a pair >is not allowed to obtain a good score from an >illegal convention unless the illegal bid is >judged not to have disadvantaged the opponents >(as here, where N/S actually ended up having >more useful information because of the illegal >bid than they would have otherwise). In the >present case I can see no good reason for >adjusting the score. (Call this the "No harm, >no foul" principle.) [snip] From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Sep 11 13:45:39 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 08:45:39 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Should misbid = misexplanation? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20020911083300.00b85820@pop.starpower.net> At 10:48 PM 9/10/02, richard.hills wrote: >Rich Colker replied: > > >And it's not the appeal process which would need changing if > >we were to adopt Wolffie's philosophy; it's the laws and > >regulations themselves. To adopt Wolffie's philosophy for > >the general bridge public (or even the top players in the > >top events) would be suicidal for bridge. We cannot legislate > >against memory failure or try to penalize it out of existence. > > > >We can redress damage caused by MI, but we cannot accept good > >boards from the opponents when they forget what they're > >playing and then on the next deal penalize them for precisely > >the same thing if their error happens to work in their own > >favor. Rub-of-the-green goes both ways. > >In Canberra there is a regulation that states, "It is inherent >in the Laws that players know their own system." > >There is a similar regulation in the ACBL General Conditions of >Contest, which requires players to have agreements in "to be >expected sequences". > >Under Rich Colker's interpretation of Law, are these regulations >invalid? The Australian rule would be invalid, but the ACBL's would not. Mr. Colker's interpretation would not preclude a requirement that pairs must have agreements about particular sequences, and would allow penalties for failing to have such agreements. But it would preclude a requirement that pairs remember their agreements, and would not allow penalties for forgetting them. I suppose that has the advantage of simplifying the potential UI/MI cases arising from such sequences, which can become a lot more complicated when the TD/AC finds that the offending pair in fact had no agreement about the sequence. My personal opinion, though, is that this would split the legal hair a bit too finely, and we'd be better off without any rules that involve penalizing players for not knowing what they're doing, whether TFLB allows them or not. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Sep 11 14:05:21 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 14:05:21 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Lucy in the sky with diamonds References: Message-ID: <00fd01c25993$e37f71c0$249468d5@SCRAP> Patrick Jourdain was quoted as writing: <..snip> 2. If the WBF deemed it appropriate to strip a contestant of their silver medal for possibly using a performance-enhancing drug, then the WBF was being inconsistent. Under the Laws, the *entire team* was "the contestant". Therefore, by this reasoning, the silver medals should have been awarded to the team originally placed third. Nigel Guthrie: Has this thread addressed this issue? Is Patrick Jourdain right in law? If so why did the committee flout the law? Presumably, had the committee threatened to enforce it, the Canadian team might have put some pressure on the Test-refuser to honour the conditions of contest, to which she had initially assented? If you intend to break a condition of contest, should you refuse selection? Or should you at least inform the selectors of your position, before accepting? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.386 / Virus Database: 218 - Release Date: 09/09/2002 From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Sep 11 14:16:57 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 09:16:57 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Las Vegas Case Thirty-Seven In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20020911085909.00abb2e0@pop.starpower.net> At 01:22 AM 9/11/02, richard.hills wrote: >An interesting case. The view of the TD, AC and Rich >Colker is directly contrary to the view of the De Wael >School, Jeff Polisner and Bobby Wolff. I see this case as a poster example of what's wrong with Mr. Wolff's "convention disruption" theory. On the facts given, the TD, AC and Mr. Colker are absolutely right; there is no credible evidence here that N-S committed any infraction at all. Messrs. Wolff and Polisner seem to want to punish South for the "offense" of having taken a call which they themselves would not have considered. They build an entire case around the argument that since *they* would never bid 3NT pass-or-correct with South's hand, there must have been some kind of infraction involved in South's doing so. To give Herman his due, I don't think that the "De Wael school" has any relationship to the "convention disruption school" or any relevance to this case. The De Wael school advocates giving deliberate MI to avoid giving UI. Here there is no evidence that anybody gave either. It would be unfair to Herman to tar his reputation by associating his (IMO) somewhat misguided theory with Mr. Wolff's (IMO) totally crackpot one. ------------------------------------------------------- >Las Vegas Case Thirty-Seven >Subject (MI): Charmingly Strange >Event: Reisinger, 25 Nov 01, First Qualifying Session > >Bd: 19 Luigi Montefusco >Dlr: South K1093 >Vul: E/W K105 > KQ843 > 4 >Michel Abecassis Barnet Shenkin >Q875 AJ642 >--- Q874 >AJ1052 6 >7632 J95 > Mourad Meregion > --- > AJ9632 > 97 > AKQ108 > >West North East South > 1H >Pass 3C(1) Pass 3NT(2) >Pass 4H Pass Pass >Pass > >(1) Limit raise in hearts >(2) Pass-or-correct > >The Facts: > >4H made five, +450 for N/S. The opening lead was the >spade 7. > >Based on the explanation of 3NT as pass-or-correct, >East played the spade A at trick one, after which >declarer lost only one diamond and one heart. E/W >believed that if the spade J was played at trick one >and declarer then played the heart AK, East would >have been able to obtain a diamond ruff. > >The Director ruled that there was no evidence that the >explanation given was not N/S's agreement. The table >result was allowed to stand. > >The Appeal: > >E/W appealed the Director's ruling. South did not >attend the hearing. E/W found it difficult to believe >that North's explanation of 3NT as natural and non- >forcing was accurate. Had East suspected that South's >hand was unbalanced, he might have played the spade J >at trick one. If declarer then played hearts as he did >(ace first), he would not have had the spade K >available for a diamond discard and a defensive diamond >ruff would have held him to ten tricks. N/S's agreement >on the meaning of South's 3NT was that it was non- >forcing, offering a choice between 3NT and 4H. Had >North held a flat hand, he would have passed 3NT; as it >was he pulled to 4H because of his singleton club. > >North was of the opinion that his partner had misbid >and misplayed (in playing the heart A rather than a low >heart to the king), but he saw no justification for >adjusting the score. > >The opening lead was the spade 7 to the ten, ace and >heart 2. At that point, the Director was called. 3C was >defined as a three-card limit raise or better with any >shape. N/S had been using this convention together for >five years. In only one very specific auction did they >play 3NT as a non-natural, forward-going bid, and that >was not after a 3C response. N/S did not possess system >notes for this convention. > >The Committee Decision: > >The Committee would have liked to be able to question >South about his actions, but he was otherwise occupied, >as his team was far short of qualifying. Despite the >strangeness of South's bid, the Committee believed that >North had explained his partnership's agreement >accurately, and that South had simply taken a flyer. The >statements made at the table by N/S to the Director, the >length of their partnership, and their relative lack of >experience all pointed to South's having taken an unusual >action rather than his having made a systemic >conventional bid of some type. The Committee found that >there had been no MI and allowed the table result to >stand. > >DIC of Event: Henry Cukoff >Committee: Doug Doub (chair), Ellen Melson, Barry Rigal, >David Stevenson, Adam Wildavsky > >[snip] > >Jeff Polisner wrote: > > >>>The Director (and Committee) are to presume > >>>misexplanation rather than misbid unless the > >>>'offending' side establishes by credible evidence > >>>that the partnership agreement was as explained. I > >>>see nothing which even comes close to meeting that > >>>burden here and would therefore have to find MI and > >>>damage to E/W." > >Bobby Wolff wrote: > > >>A truly awful decision. Why give the benefit of the > >>doubt to possible offenders and why does that misbid > >>versus misexplanation continue to come up? What real > >>chance did East have here. He didn't! It's okay to not > >>give the nonoffenders a doubtful trick (I'm for that) > >>but allowing such awful MI to go unpunished is harmful > >>to our game. > >Rich Colker replied: > >[snip] > > >In other words, we require *reasonable* evidence of a > >concealed understanding, MI, or UI (as per the Rule of > >Coincidence; or differing explanations from the two > >players - see Law 75) before we place a pair in the > >position of presuming them guilty. > > > >In this case I can find no reasonable evidence on which > >to base a presumption of MI. First, 3C showed only > >three-card support, so playing 3NT as natural makes a > >lot of sense. Second, if we suspect opener's 3NT was > >artificial, what do we think it meant? If it asked for > >responder's singleton, then why didn't North show his > >stiff club? And why wouldn't N/S use 3D as their asking > >bid? It would give them a lot more room to exchange > >information and investigate slam. > > > >So Jeff's claim that N/S are obligated to provide > >"credible evidence" that pass-or-correct is their > >agreement is not accurate. First we need a good reason > >to suspect that N/S are not playing what they claim. > >South's hand, in my opinion, is not nearly enough to > >justify this presumption and the Director, the > >Committee and the majority of the panelists all agree > >with me. > > > >Of course this doesn't mean there's no reason to be > >suspicious, but that's what the Recorder system is for. > >In fact, Wolffie has it backwards: "possible" offenders > >should not be presumed guilty until proven innocent - > >only "probable" offenders should be. If Wolffie had it > >his way, every misbid or psych of a natural bid (natural > >bids are usually not documented on our CCs) would be > >considered grounds for a score adjustment (which fits > >nicely with Wolffie's overall agenda). If East didn't > >have a chance, maybe it was because South chose the > >perfect time for a tactical 3NT bid (or a flyer). Sorry, > >but the evidence of a hidden agreement is, to say the > >least, underwhelming here. > >[snip] > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Sep 11 14:49:42 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 14:49:42 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Wish list References: <00b301c24c55$a47b9990$239c68d5@SCRAP> <005701c24d50$f0d0e6a0$1c9868d5@SCRAP> <017601c24f7f$3baab7c0$1c9c68d5@SCRAP> Message-ID: <013401c2599a$15b08200$249468d5@SCRAP> Nigel1: {Convention[ Card banning is another rule I have never heard of being enforced. David Stevenson: Have you called the TD in such a case? Nigel2: Thank you David Stevenson/Burn/.. for examples where TDs did enforce CC laws. At the Welsh teams last weekend, our opponents called the TD about another matter and as the TD was leaving, I mentioned that one opponent had no convention card to describe his complex system because he "left it at home". It amazed me but will come as no surprise to David et al, that the TD ruled that he would have to use simple system until he completed a card like his partner's. The opponent started copying out the card, including names, WBU reg numbers etc, while enjoining us to "get a life." The TD said he would award us 3 imps for each unplayed board and the copying process speeded up. My partner and I played quickly to ensure that we played all the boards. After the match, our opponent complained that "nobody else had been concerned about the missing card"; he had "never met such rude opponents" (us); and, had he been a beginner, he would never play in that competition again. My action in politely drawing attention to the missing card may have been a trifle churlish but I thought I would experiment with David's suggestion. OK. I will think twice next time. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.386 / Virus Database: 218 - Release Date: 09/09/2002 From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Sep 11 15:04:58 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 16:04:58 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Las Vegas Case Thirty-Seven In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020911085909.00abb2e0@pop.starpower.net> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020911155450.00a31540@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:16 11/09/2002 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >At 01:22 AM 9/11/02, richard.hills wrote: > >>An interesting case. The view of the TD, AC and Rich >>Colker is directly contrary to the view of the De Wael >>School, Jeff Polisner and Bobby Wolff. > >I see this case as a poster example of what's wrong with Mr. Wolff's >"convention disruption" theory. On the facts given, the TD, AC and Mr. >Colker are absolutely right; there is no credible evidence here that N-S >committed any infraction at all. Messrs. Wolff and Polisner seem to want >to punish South for the "offense" of having taken a call which they >themselves would not have considered. They build an entire case around >the argument that since *they* would never bid 3NT pass-or-correct with >South's hand, there must have been some kind of infraction involved in >South's doing so. AG : what evidence do we have ? We have South's hand. It is obvious evidence that South didn't intend his bid as natural (ie about strong NT values with spread honors). We then have to choose between MI and MB by South. Barring evidence to the contrary, we must decide MI. Convention disruption has nothing to do with this : the only thing we do use is the principle that "without due evdence of the contrary, one assumes MI, not MB". To adjust the score is, IMOBO, absolutely right, unless NS can produce notes to testify for the meaning of South's bid. Those who don't want to adjust the scores are pretending that the 3NT bid must be natural, because nothing else makes sense. This goes beyond what one is allowed to assume. Just look at South's hand. NB : I play 1H-2NT-3NT as artificial, short spades. Perhaps NS do, too, and South assumed the same held after 3C. >>The Committee Decision: >> >>The Committee would have liked to be able to question >>South about his actions, but he was otherwise occupied, >>as his team was far short of qualifying. Despite the >>strangeness of South's bid, the Committee believed that >>North had explained his partnership's agreement >>accurately, and that South had simply taken a flyer. The >>statements made at the table by N/S to the Director, the >>length of their partnership, and their relative lack of >>experience all pointed to South's having taken an unusual >>action rather than his having made a systemic >>conventional bid of some type. AG : the committee really believed South had psyched his natural 3NT bid ? This must be a nightmare. Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Sep 11 15:19:21 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 16:19:21 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Wish list In-Reply-To: <013401c2599a$15b08200$249468d5@SCRAP> References: <00b301c24c55$a47b9990$239c68d5@SCRAP> <005701c24d50$f0d0e6a0$1c9868d5@SCRAP> <017601c24f7f$3baab7c0$1c9c68d5@SCRAP> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020911161051.00a32e70@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:49 11/09/2002 +0100, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >Nigel1: {Convention[ Card banning is another rule I have never heard of > being enforced. >David Stevenson: Have you called the TD in such a case? >Nigel2: Thank you David Stevenson/Burn/.. for examples where TDs > did enforce CC laws. > At the Welsh teams last weekend, our opponents called the TD > about another matter and as the TD was leaving, I mentioned > that one opponent had no convention card to describe > his complex system because he "left it at home". AG : why not believe him ? Alex leaves his systems notes behind him about once a month. > It amazed me but will come as no surprise to David et al, > that the TD ruled that he would have to use simple system > until he completed a card like his partner's. AG : too harsh IMO. There was a CC for reference. The mere fact that opponents would need some time to take turns looking at the CC doesn't constitute disruption of the tournament. My decision would have been : 1) at the 1st opportunity, you'll have to make a copy of the one card by any available means. 2) in any case, you must have two CCs available for the next session or I would dictate simple system. 3) You lose the right of invoking UI if one opponents reaches for the CC which lies in front of his partner. Same idea as after a skip bid without stop. Why not take turns using dummy time to do the copy job ? > The opponent started copying out the card, including names, > WBU reg numbers etc, while enjoining us to "get a life." > The TD said he would award us 3 imps for each unplayed board > and the copying process speeded up. My partner and I played > quickly to ensure that we played all the boards. > After the match, our opponent complained that "nobody else > had been concerned about the missing card"; > he had "never met such rude opponents" (us); and, > had he been a beginner, he would never play in that > competition again. AG : that's probably the truth. But the TD, not you, would be responsible for that. The infraction of having only one CC is a minor one, nothing to compare with the infraction of having none. It shouldn't be treated the same way. From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Sep 11 16:36:52 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 17:36:52 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Las Vegas Case Thirty-Seven References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020911085909.00abb2e0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <3D7F6314.5050600@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > At 01:22 AM 9/11/02, richard.hills wrote: > >> An interesting case. The view of the TD, AC and Rich >> Colker is directly contrary to the view of the De Wael >> School, Jeff Polisner and Bobby Wolff. > > > > To give Herman his due, I don't think that the "De Wael school" has any > relationship to the "convention disruption school" or any relevance to > this case. The De Wael school advocates giving deliberate MI to avoid > giving UI. Here there is no evidence that anybody gave either. It > would be unfair to Herman to tar his reputation by associating his (IMO) > somewhat misguided theory with Mr. Wolff's (IMO) totally crackpot one. > Thanks Eric. I did write a reply but it did not get through. Maybe this one will. > ------------------------------------------------------- > >> Las Vegas Case Thirty-Seven >> Subject (MI): Charmingly Strange >> Event: Reisinger, 25 Nov 01, First Qualifying Session >> >> Bd: 19 Luigi Montefusco >> Dlr: South K1093 >> Vul: E/W K105 >> KQ843 >> 4 >> Michel Abecassis Barnet Shenkin >> Q875 AJ642 >> --- Q874 >> AJ1052 6 >> 7632 J95 >> Mourad Meregion >> --- >> AJ9632 >> 97 >> AKQ108 >> >> West North East South >> 1H >> Pass 3C(1) Pass 3NT(2) >> Pass 4H Pass Pass >> Pass >> >> (1) Limit raise in hearts >> (2) Pass-or-correct >> >> The Facts: >> >> 4H made five, +450 for N/S. The opening lead was the >> spade 7. >> >> Based on the explanation of 3NT as pass-or-correct, >> East played the spade A at trick one, after which >> declarer lost only one diamond and one heart. E/W >> believed that if the spade J was played at trick one >> and declarer then played the heart AK, East would >> have been able to obtain a diamond ruff. >> >> The Director ruled that there was no evidence that the >> explanation given was not N/S's agreement. The table >> result was allowed to stand. >> >> The Appeal: >> >> E/W appealed the Director's ruling. South did not >> attend the hearing. E/W found it difficult to believe >> that North's explanation of 3NT as natural and non- >> forcing was accurate. Had East suspected that South's >> hand was unbalanced, he might have played the spade J >> at trick one. If declarer then played hearts as he did >> (ace first), he would not have had the spade K >> available for a diamond discard and a defensive diamond >> ruff would have held him to ten tricks. N/S's agreement >> on the meaning of South's 3NT was that it was non- >> forcing, offering a choice between 3NT and 4H. Had >> North held a flat hand, he would have passed 3NT; as it >> was he pulled to 4H because of his singleton club. >> >> North was of the opinion that his partner had misbid >> and misplayed (in playing the heart A rather than a low >> heart to the king), but he saw no justification for >> adjusting the score. >> >> The opening lead was the spade 7 to the ten, ace and >> heart 2. At that point, the Director was called. 3C was >> defined as a three-card limit raise or better with any >> shape. N/S had been using this convention together for >> five years. In only one very specific auction did they >> play 3NT as a non-natural, forward-going bid, and that >> was not after a 3C response. N/S did not possess system >> notes for this convention. >> >> The Committee Decision: >> >> The Committee would have liked to be able to question >> South about his actions, but he was otherwise occupied, >> as his team was far short of qualifying. Despite the >> strangeness of South's bid, the Committee believed that >> North had explained his partnership's agreement >> accurately, and that South had simply taken a flyer. The >> statements made at the table by N/S to the Director, the >> length of their partnership, and their relative lack of >> experience all pointed to South's having taken an unusual >> action rather than his having made a systemic >> conventional bid of some type. The Committee found that >> there had been no MI and allowed the table result to >> stand. >> >> DIC of Event: Henry Cukoff >> Committee: Doug Doub (chair), Ellen Melson, Barry Rigal, >> David Stevenson, Adam Wildavsky >> >> [snip] >> >> Jeff Polisner wrote: >> >> >>>The Director (and Committee) are to presume >> >>>misexplanation rather than misbid unless the >> >>>'offending' side establishes by credible evidence >> >>>that the partnership agreement was as explained. I >> >>>see nothing which even comes close to meeting that >> >>>burden here and would therefore have to find MI and >> >>>damage to E/W." >> >> Bobby Wolff wrote: >> >> >>A truly awful decision. Why give the benefit of the >> >>doubt to possible offenders and why does that misbid >> >>versus misexplanation continue to come up? What real >> >>chance did East have here. He didn't! It's okay to not >> >>give the nonoffenders a doubtful trick (I'm for that) >> >>but allowing such awful MI to go unpunished is harmful >> >>to our game. >> >> Rich Colker replied: >> >> [snip] >> >> >In other words, we require *reasonable* evidence of a >> >concealed understanding, MI, or UI (as per the Rule of >> >Coincidence; or differing explanations from the two >> >players - see Law 75) before we place a pair in the >> >position of presuming them guilty. >> > >> >In this case I can find no reasonable evidence on which >> >to base a presumption of MI. First, 3C showed only >> >three-card support, so playing 3NT as natural makes a >> >lot of sense. Second, if we suspect opener's 3NT was >> >artificial, what do we think it meant? If it asked for >> >responder's singleton, then why didn't North show his >> >stiff club? And why wouldn't N/S use 3D as their asking >> >bid? It would give them a lot more room to exchange >> >information and investigate slam. >> > >> >So Jeff's claim that N/S are obligated to provide >> >"credible evidence" that pass-or-correct is their >> >agreement is not accurate. First we need a good reason >> >to suspect that N/S are not playing what they claim. >> >South's hand, in my opinion, is not nearly enough to >> >justify this presumption and the Director, the >> >Committee and the majority of the panelists all agree >> >with me. >> > >> >Of course this doesn't mean there's no reason to be >> >suspicious, but that's what the Recorder system is for. >> >In fact, Wolffie has it backwards: "possible" offenders >> >should not be presumed guilty until proven innocent - >> >only "probable" offenders should be. If Wolffie had it >> >his way, every misbid or psych of a natural bid (natural >> >bids are usually not documented on our CCs) would be >> >considered grounds for a score adjustment (which fits >> >nicely with Wolffie's overall agenda). If East didn't >> >have a chance, maybe it was because South chose the >> >perfect time for a tactical 3NT bid (or a flyer). Sorry, >> >but the evidence of a hidden agreement is, to say the >> >least, underwhelming here. >> >> [snip] >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml@rtflb.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gester@lineone.net Wed Sep 11 17:20:04 2002 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 17:20:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lucy. Message-ID: <000901c259af$396d2bc0$4f242850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: Subject: Press Release from the World Bridge Federation Date: 11 September 2002 12:56 WORLD BRIDGE FEDERATION Paris, 10 September, 2002 Release At its Meeting held on Friday 30th August, the Executive Council of the World Bridge Federation resolved to disqualify one of the players in the McConnell Cup. The player was informed that she was not eligible to take her place on the podium, receive a medal nor be entitled to any Master Points. The WBF wants to remind to those concerned that 1) The WBF was recognised as an International Sports Federation by the International Olympic Committee in 1999 on condition that it adopts: a) the Olympic Charter b) the court of arbitration c) the anti doping regulations All of the above have been incorporated into the WBF Constitution and By-laws 2) It is the absolute belief of the WBF that the anti doping regulations are: a) to protect the players' health b) to ensure the integrity of the competition and would have been enforced anyway even in the absence of IOC recognition. 3) That it is recognised that some substances can enhance concentration and stamina at bridge, as well as be also injurious to the person or persons using them 4) That the regulations as they are published in the 2002 General Conditions of Contest are mandatory for everybody and that the refusal to take a drug test is consequently subject to penalties. 5) That the regulations as published by the IOC and referred to in the Conditions of Contest provide for any participant to inform the laboratories before the test if any medicine is taken under prescription which would be acceptable. From adam@tameware.com Wed Sep 11 17:28:34 2002 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 12:28:34 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Las Vegas Case Thirty-Seven In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020911155450.00a31540@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020911155450.00a31540@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: At 4:04 PM +0200 9/11/02, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >the committee really believed South had psyched his natural 3NT bid >? This must be a nightmare. I don't find that assertion in the writeup. We believed that South intended his 3NT bid as natural, and saw no law under which we could or should adjust the score if that was the case. NS were not a strong pair, especially relative to the field in this event. Their team had a score of under 25%. Is it so hard to believe that they made many bids like this, most of which produced poor scores? That said, I've have been happier with our ruling had we been able to talk to South. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Sep 11 18:17:40 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 10:17:40 -0700 Subject: [BLML] illegal convention References: Message-ID: <000901c259b7$2d77ac20$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Richard Hills wrote: > > In commenting on Las Vegas case forty-two, > David Stevenson and Rich Colker had slight > differences on the preferred method of > adjusting scores after use of an illegal > convention. > > Can blmlers offer further nuances? > I agree 100% with David Stevenson's opinion: > > >>any result that allows E/W to get a good score > >>from an illegal convention suggests that it is > >>time the ACBL had a new look at what to do > >>when an illegal convention is used. No one > >>knows what would have happened if it had not > >>been used because no one knows what system E/W > >>would have used if they had realized they were > >>not allowed to play their 1NT response. > >>Perhaps they would have played Precision or > >>EHAA [a system whose name aptly describes its > >>philosophy: the acronym stands for Every Hand > >>An Adventure. - Ed.] > >> > >>Law 12C2 does not really work when the whole > >>auction is poisoned, as often happens with an > >>illegal convention. Working out what would > >>have happened is just not practical, so I > >>suggest an English idea: When an illegal > >>convention is used Law 12A2 is applied - i.e., > >>it is ruled that "no rectification can be made > >>that will permit normal play of the board." > >>Then an artificial score is applied such as > >>Average-Plus/Average-Minus in favor of the > >>non-offenders. > >> > >>If this was decided it should be made a > >>regulation, so that it would be applied > >>consistently. Here are a couple of further > >>thoughts: The hand should always be played > >>out, and if the non-offenders get more than > >>Average-Plus then there is no damage, so no > >>adjustment. Also, to follow ACBL ideas, the > >>non-offenders can be expected to play bridge > >>and keep their bad score if they make an > >>egregious error. Here, for example, E/W > >>would get an Average-Minus but N/S would keep > >>their bad score which they earned. > >> > >>One last thought. Sometimes an artificial bid > >>is made which has various possibilities, some > >>illegal. The result should still be canceled > >>even if the bit used was not the illegal bit. > >>It is still not known what would have happened > >>if they had played a legal bid. > However, David does not go far enough. The OS should be told in harsh language not to use the illegal convention in the future. They should also be given, not just an avg- on the board, but a huge PP. And what about pairs previously played by the OS against whom the illegal convention may have obtained a good result? A TD should investigate whether that has occurred during the session and if so adjust scores appropriately. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Sep 11 19:23:15 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 14:23:15 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Las Vegas Case Thirty-Seven In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020911155450.00a31540@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020911085909.00abb2e0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20020911132705.00b88980@pop.starpower.net> At 10:04 AM 9/11/02, Alain wrote: >AG : what evidence do we have ? We have South's hand. On the other side, we have North's testimony, that 3NT was natural by partnership agreement, and that he would have passed it with a balanced hand. >It is obvious evidence that South didn't intend his bid as natural (ie >about strong NT values with spread honors). The fact that Alain, or Mr. Wolff, or Mr, Polisner would never bid a natural 3NT with that hand is not "obvious evidence" that South agrees with them and therefore must be committing some kind of infraction. It could just as easily be taken as evidence that South forgot his actual agreement, thought he desperately needed an aberrant top to win the event, or was just trying to "mix it up" against these particular opponents hoping something good would happen. >We then have to choose between MI and MB by South. Barring evidence to >the contrary, we must decide MI. Sure, but we have evidence to the contrary: North's testimony. As David S. keeps reminding us, the fact that it is self-serving testimony means that we must examine it with greater care than we otherwise might, but doesn't mean that it doesn't exist or that we must ignore it entirely. If we accepted only testimony which had no "self-serving" component to it, we would have no testimonial evidence available ever. >Convention disruption has nothing to do with this : the only thing we >do use is the principle that "without due evdence of the contrary, one >assumes MI, not MB". To adjust the score is, IMOBO, absolutely right, >unless NS can produce notes to testify for the meaning of South's bid. >Those who don't want to adjust the scores are pretending that the 3NT >bid must be natural, because nothing else makes sense. This goes >beyond what one is allowed to assume. Just look at South's hand. The choice for the TD/AC was to either (a) accept North's testimony about the partnership agreement and presume that South misbid (either accidentally or intentionally), or (b) accept the "evidence of South's hand" and assume that N-S gave deliberate MI and then North lied to both the TD and the AC. (a) seems a lot more satisfactory based on both presumption of innocence and Occam's razor. >NB : I play 1H-2NT-3NT as artificial, short spades. Perhaps NS do, >too, and South assumed the same held after 3C. If that were the actual scenario, it would still mean that South misbid (he would have "assumed the same held after 3C", and would have been wrong), and there would still have been no MI. The problem with Alain's and Herman's "strong presumption" theory -- essentially that MI rather than misbid must be assumed barring any evidence to the contrary *other than the testimony of the players involved* -- is that it means that *any time* a player takes a call that the TD or AC wouldn't consider making playing that player's methods and (like 99.99% of us) doesn't have written system notes to prove that his partnership's methods are what they claim they are, and gets a good score, it will be taken away. IOW, it would make it de facto illegal to violate any partnership agreement that wasn't written down and available to the TD and AC. >AG : the committee really believed South had psyched his natural 3NT >bid ? This must be a nightmare. The committee's finding was that the evidence "pointed to South's having taken an unusual action rather than his having made a systemic conventional bid of some type". That is all that is required to refuse redress to E-W. It makes no difference at all whether he took that unusual action as a deliberate psych or as an accidental misbid. In either case, it was not a "systemic conventional bid" if it wasn't part of N-S's system. It is only those who follow Mr. Wolff's "convention disruption" theory who would require the committee to rule that South had psyched rather than misbid in order to deny redress. For the rest of us, it is not an infraction for him to have screwed up and gotten lucky. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Wed Sep 11 22:56:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 22:56 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Lucy. Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <000901c259af$396d2bc0$4f242850@pacific> Grattan wrote: > 1) The WBF was recognised as an International Sports Federation by > the International Olympic Committee in 1999 on condition that it > adopts: > > a) the Olympic Charter > b) the court of arbitration > c) the anti doping regulations I understand that c) is incorrect. The "the" should be substituted with "appropriate" > All of the above have been incorporated into the WBF Constitution and > By-laws > > 2) It is the absolute belief of the WBF that the anti doping > regulations are: > a) to protect the players' health This is absolutely no business of the WBF whatsoever. Our health is our concern not theirs. > b) to ensure the integrity of the competition how on earth do regulations about steroids "protect the integrity of the competition"? > and would have been enforced anyway even in the absence of IOC > recognition. The WBF becomes more ludicrous by the minute. There is no evidence to suggest that *any* drugs on the list boost bridge performance. Even the WADA was quoted as saying the regulations were ridiculous for bridge. Tim From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu Sep 12 01:20:13 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 20:20:13 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [BLML] Las Vegas Case Thirty-Seven Message-ID: <200209120020.UAA20864@cfa183.harvard.edu> > From: Eric Landau > It is only those who follow Mr. Wolff's "convention disruption" theory ... In this case, it isn't even "convention" disruption. The player (apparently) made a natural, "to play" bid of 3NT, not a convention at all. It seems Mr. Wolff would like to extend his theory; maybe it needs a new name. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Sep 12 06:43:31 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 15:43:31 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Lucy in the sky with diamonds Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie wrote: >Patrick Jourdain was quoted as writing: ><..snip> Actually, Nigel misread one of my posts. After quoting Patrick Jourdain, I then added my own comments, so I am responsible for writing this paragraph which Nigel excerpted: Richard Hills wrote: >>2. If the WBF deemed it appropriate to strip a >> contestant of their silver medal for >> possibly using a performance-enhancing drug, >> then the WBF was being inconsistent. Under >> the Laws, the *entire team* was "the >> contestant". Therefore, by this reasoning, >> the silver medals should have been awarded >> to the team originally placed third. [snip] Nigel Guthrie continued: >Has this thread addressed this issue? >Is (strikethrough: Patrick Jourdain) [Richard Hills] right in law? Laws, Chapter 1, Definitions Contestant - [snip] in a team event, four or more players playing as team-mates. >If so why did the committee flout the law? >Presumably, had the committee threatened to enforce >it, the Canadian team might have put some pressure on >the Test-refuser to honour the conditions of contest, >to which she had initially assented? >If you intend to break a condition of contest, >should you refuse selection? >Or should you at least inform the selectors of >your position, before accepting? The WBF can legally strip an individual of a medal as an individual disciplinary move, because that individual disobeyed a regulation. The WBF can also legally allow the individual's team-mates to retain their medals if the WBF so desires. The point that I was trying to make was that even the WBF was implicitly admitting that there was no factual basis for the existence of that regulation - that is, there are no known bridge-enhancing prohibited drugs. If the WBF thought that the Test-refuser had discovered an unknown drug which increased her successful double- squeezes, then the WBF would have disqualified her entire team. The WBF didn't, so the WBF thought she hadn't. :-) Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Sep 12 07:12:47 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 16:12:47 +1000 Subject: [BLML] illegal convention Message-ID: Marv wrote: [snip] >However, David does not go far enough. The OS should >be told in harsh language not to use the illegal >convention in the future. They should also be given, >not just an avg- on the board, but a huge PP. [snip] In an earlier thread, Marv opposed PPs for breaches of L73C. Marv now insists on a huge PP for a breach of L40D. My belief is the direct contrary. I believe that L73C is the more fundamental law. Therefore, as TD I would be more inclined (in general) to fine the OS a PP for a breach of L73C, than to fine the OS a PP for a breach of L40D. Of course, my general inclination would be modified by the circumstances of each specific case. I also believe that TDs as well as players should be courteous (L74A1). "Firm" language from the TD yes; "harsh" language from the TD definitely no. Best wishes Richard From gester@lineone.net Thu Sep 12 10:51:06 2002 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 10:51:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lucy. References: Message-ID: <000e01c25a42$0f3b96a0$29242850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: Cc: Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 10:56 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Lucy. > In-Reply-To: <000901c259af$396d2bc0$4f242850@pacific> > Grattan wrote: > > > 1) The WBF was recognised as an International Sports > > Federation > +=+ I wrote nothing. I merely passed on a copy of the #WBF# Press Release that I had received. ~ G ~ +=+ From con.holzscherer@philips.com Thu Sep 12 11:07:28 2002 From: con.holzscherer@philips.com (con.holzscherer@philips.com) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 12:07:28 +0200 Subject: [BLML] [ADMINISTRIVIA] Seeking a new home Message-ID: Vitold wrote: V> Hi, Markus:) V> Thx a lot fo your contribution during years I want to second this explicitly. Regards, Con Holzscherer From David.J.Barton@lineone.net Thu Sep 12 13:26:53 2002 From: David.J.Barton@lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 13:26:53 +0100 Subject: [BLML] assistance sorting this mess References: <004c01c2592a$8ad4de20$0100a8c0@MIKE> Message-ID: <001201c25a57$b2eb12c0$0300a8c0@mshome.net> Thanks for rescuing my post from oblivion - even if that's where it belongs. David Barton wrote: > > > > > > >E-W vul > > > >Dealer S > > > >Scoring match points at the local club > > > > > > > > x > > > > AKxxxxx > > > > xx > > > > xxx > > > > > > > >Qxxx AKxxxxx > > > >J xx > > > >Q10xx Jx > > > >Q10xx Ax > > > > > > > > x > > > > Qxx > > > > AKxxx > > > > KJxx > > > > > > > >N E S W > > > > 1D P > > > >1H 3S X(1) P > > > >4H P P 4S > > > >P P 5H P > > > >P P > > > > > > > >(1)W asked and was informed it was penalty > > > > > > > >S now informs the defenders that the double > > > >was take out. (The correct explanation was > > > >probably no agreement since the scratch N-S > > > >partnership had agreed to play sputnik > > > >doubles but not agreed whether they applied > > > >at this level). > > > > > > > >Unfortunately before you arrive at the > > > >table W has her say about what actions she > > > >could or would have taken with the correct > > > >explanation. > > > > > > > >Do you allow South's 5H as he has UI that N > > > >has pulled a penalty double and failed to > > > >double 4S after a penalty double of 3S? > > > > > > > >Do you allow E to substitute 5S for his > > > >final pass per Law 21B1? > > > Richard Hill wrote >As TD, I advise East that East can replace the >cancelled pass with any call, including >another pass While I am sure this must be right I felt distinctly uneasy about giving East an option that if he exercised would then be subject to penalty. >South's 5H was demonstrably suggested by the UI, >pass is a logical alternative, so the contract is >altered to 4S, N-S +100, E-W -100. (If N-S are >not only a scratch partnership, but also a less- >than-expert partnership, then as TD I would >award a weighted L12C3 result to the 4S contract, >since some of the time a less-than-expert N-S pair >would misdefend to let 4S make.) See below re W bidding 4S at her first turn. I was expecting the adjustment to be N-S -620 E-W +620 as it appears easy for the defence to slip. (Is this another example of "experts" getting more favourable rulings than other players?) Mike Dodson wrote > > It seems to me that all discussion of what happens at the 5 level is mute. > > The damage on the hand occurs when W doesn't bid 4S over the double. N > > passes thinking S doesn't have heart support and S passes thinking he has > > shown his hand. 4S makes if N doesn't switch to clubs before S cashes two > > diamonds. None of this is certain but all together strikes me as at least > > "at all probable" and I would argue for "most favorable result that was > > likely". > > > > E/W +620 N/S -620, PP to W for speaking out of turn before the director > > arrived (PPw most likely). E/W -100 N/S -620 second choice. > > > > On second thought, a ruling is necessary at the table to finish the hand > so: > > E can change final pass must be warned against using UI and can be told > that > > damage previous to the final pass may still be redressed. Effectively N/S > > get to play 5H. If they go down and the split ruling above is chosen then > > E/W +100 N/S -620. Perhaps this is the correct split score in any case > and > > the actual play should have no bearing on the ruling. > > West passed knowing, or should have known, that the double was not penalty. Should she be allowed the "double shot" of passing in the hope of playing 3SX and then claiming she would have bid 4S "had she known" it was take out? (Perhaps not particularly relevant if you disallow the subsequent 5H bid) If you are not summoned back at the end of the hand because the outcome was 5H off one, with E-W not realising they may get an adjustment for the use of UI by S in bidding 5H, do you adjust the score anyway? Thanks for all comments (past and future) David.Barton@cwcom.net From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Sep 12 14:42:04 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 09:42:04 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Las Vegas Case Thirty-Seven In-Reply-To: <200209120020.UAA20864@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20020912093818.00b71db0@pop.starpower.net> At 08:20 PM 9/11/02, Steve wrote: > > From: Eric Landau > > It is only those who follow Mr. Wolff's "convention disruption" theory > >In this case, it isn't even "convention" disruption. The player >(apparently) made a natural, "to play" bid of 3NT, not a convention at >all. It seems Mr. Wolff would like to extend his theory; maybe it needs >a new name. He probably realizes that he wouldn't get very far with it if he gave it a descriptive name, which would be something along the lines of the "penalties for bad bidding" theory. "Convention disruption" sounds so much better; who could possibly be in favor of "disruption"? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Sep 12 15:40:01 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 15:40:01 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Lucy in the sky with diamonds References: Message-ID: <00ea01c25a6a$47222b10$849468d5@SCRAP> Richard Hills (not Patrick Jourdain -- sorry Richard) wrote: >>2. If the WBF deemed it appropriate to strip a >> contestant of their silver medal for >> possibly using a performance-enhancing drug, >> then the WBF was being inconsistent. Under >> the Laws, the *entire team* was "the >> contestant". Therefore, by this reasoning, >> the silver medals should have been awarded >> to the team originally placed third. Nigel Guthrie continued: Has this thread addressed this issue? Is Richard Hills right in law? Richard2: Laws, Chapter 1, Definitions Contestant - [snip] in a team event, four or more players playing as team-mates. Nigel: >If so why did the committee flout the law? >Presumably, had the committee threatened to enforce >it, the Canadian team might have put some pressure on >the Test-refuser to honour the conditions of contest, >to which she had initially assented? >If you intend to break a condition of contest, >should you refuse selection? >Or should you at least inform the selectors of >your position, before accepting? Richard2: The WBF can legally strip an individual of a medal as an individual disciplinary move, because that individual disobeyed a regulation. The WBF can also legally allow the individual's team-mates to retain their medals if the WBF so desires. The point that I was trying to make was that even the WBF was implicitly admitting that there was no factual basis for the existence of that regulation - that is, there are no known bridge-enhancing prohibited drugs. If the WBF thought that the Test-refuser had discovered an unknown drug which increased her successful double- squeezes, then the WBF would have disqualified her entire team. The WBF didn't, so the WBF thought she hadn't. :-) Nigel: I agree with David Burn that it is irrelevant whether the alleged unspecified drug could enhance Bridge performance. It matters only that a contestants agrees to abide by WBF rules including drugs policy as a condition of contest. Prima facie, belated persistent refusal to comply should disqualify a contestant, in this case the whole Canadian Team? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.386 / Virus Database: 218 - Release Date: 09/09/2002 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Sep 12 23:38:19 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 08:38:19 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Las Vegas Case Thirty-Seven Message-ID: Eric Landau wrote: [big snip] >The problem with Alain's and Herman's "strong >presumption" theory -- essentially that MI rather >than misbid must be assumed barring any evidence to >the contrary *other than the testimony of the >players involved* -- is that it means that *any >time* a player takes a call that the TD or AC >wouldn't consider making playing that player's >methods and (like 99.99% of us) doesn't have written >system notes to prove that his partnership's methods >are what they claim they are, and gets a good score, >it will be taken away. [big snip] Compulsory play of defender's card, L45C1, includes the words "it is possible for his partner to see its face". That law is based on a *strong presumption*. For that law, the TD is _required_ to ignore testimony of the player involved whether the player _actually_ saw the face of the card. Other laws have similar *strong presumptions*, for example L16A and L73F2. Alain and Herman therefore have a prima facie reasonable argument that the footnote to L75 should be interpreted in an analogous way to other laws. That is, Alain and Herman believe that the TD is _required_ to ignore testimony of the players involved whether the players _actually_ misbid. However, the L75 footnote is not as straightforwardly analogous to L45C1 as may seem to Alain and Herman. The footnote states, "presume Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken Bid, in the absence of evidence to the contrary" However, the footnote also dissonantly states, "they have no claim to an accurate description of the North-South hands." In my opinion, the "no claim" clause in the L75 footnote means that the "presume" clause in the L75 footnote is in the nature of a *tiebreaker* for when there is *conflicting* evidence from the two partners. That is, when there is evidence of Mistaken Bid, and the *only* evidence of Mistaken Explanation is the hand itself, the tiebreaking "presume Mistaken Explanation" cannot use its casting vote, because there is no tie to break. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Sep 13 00:02:05 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 09:02:05 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Las Vegas Case Thirty-Seven Message-ID: Eric Landau wrote: >>He probably realizes that he wouldn't get very far >>with it if he gave it a descriptive name, which >>would be something along the lines of the >>"penalties for bad bidding" theory. "Convention >>disruption" sounds so much better; who could >>possibly be in favor of "disruption"? However, a commentator in the Las Vegas casebook *does* seem to be in favour of "penalties for bad bidding". Howard Weinstein wrote: [snip] >Call me a fuddyduddy, but if the bid was a flyer, I >don't like this kind of randomness in the >Reisinger, where the call on some small level >affects the whole field. Maybe we will soon have >our B-A-M KO and South can have all the fun he >wants. Is L74B1 the Lawful basis for penalising bad bidding in bridge? Of course, I totally agree with Howard Weinstein's other point that people should not play bridge for the despicable purpose of having fun. Best wishes Richard= From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Sep 13 00:23:05 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 09:23:05 +1000 Subject: [BLML] assistance sorting this mess Message-ID: [snip] Richard Hills: >>As TD, I advise East that East can replace the >>cancelled pass with any call, including >>another pass. David Barton: >While I am sure this must be right I felt >distinctly uneasy about giving East an option >that if he exercised would then be subject to >penalty. One should *not* feel uneasy about giving East an option under L21B1. After all, does one feel uneasy about giving East an option under the default L17C? In both cases, East's exercise of options is potentially restricted by L16A. Richard Hills: >>South's 5H was demonstrably suggested by the UI, >>pass is a logical alternative, so the contract is >>altered to 4S, N-S +100, E-W -100. (If N-S are >>not only a scratch partnership, but also a less- >>than-expert partnership, then as TD I would >>award a weighted L12C3 result to the 4S contract, >>since some of the time a less-than-expert N-S pair >>would misdefend to let 4S make.) David Barton: >See below re W bidding 4S at her first turn. >I was expecting the adjustment to be N-S -620 E-W +620 >as it appears easy for the defence to slip. >(Is this another example of "experts" getting more >favourable rulings than other players?) Yes. Contrariwise, in other situations non-experts get more favourable rulings than experts. (For example, experts receive more frequent and larger PPs for Law violations than non-experts do.) [snip] Best wishes Richard From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Sep 13 04:43:52 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 23:43:52 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Wish list Message-ID: On 9/11/02, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > After the match, our opponent complained that "nobody else > had been concerned about the missing card"; > he had "never met such rude opponents" (us); and, > had he been a beginner, he would never play in that > competition again. It seems to me that (a) you are not responsible for another player's decision whether or not, or where, to play, (b) the "rude opponent" in this case was the one making these complaints, and (c) perhaps the TD should have read to him Law 74A2. :-) From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Sep 13 04:44:07 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 23:44:07 -0400 Subject: [blml] Lucy. Message-ID: On 9/11/02, gester@lineone.net wrote: >2) It is the absolute belief of the WBF that the anti doping >regulations are: >a) to protect the players' health >b) to ensure the integrity of the competition and would have been >enforced anyway even in the absence of IOC recognition. > >3) That it is recognised that some substances can enhance >concentration and stamina at bridge, as well as be also injurious to >the person or persons using them It is none of the WBF's (or anybody else's) business if an individual wants to ingest a substance which may be harmful to them. If the IOC, or the WBF, is using this as a grounds for legitimizing "anti-doping" regulations, well, they're flat wrong. "To insure the integrity of the competition", OTOH, *is* a legitimate reason for such regulations - provided the substance in question is known to affect that integrity. A ban on something that would harm the integrity of, say, a footrace, but which has no effect on mental acuity, has no place in regulations affecting a Bridge Tournament. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Sep 13 06:33:23 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 15:33:23 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Impossible cuebid Message-ID: There was a panel discussion of the hand below in the August 2002 edition of the Australian Directors' Bulletin. On the facts as given, the panel was unanimous in ruling that North-South's score should be negatively adjusted. (There was, of course, total lack of unanimity as to what the adjustment should be: varying from -420 to -1100 to NS.) However, an interesting hypothetical was only tangentally discussed. Suppose North-South had produced written notes which *guaranteed* that: 1. The system meaning of North's 2NT opening was 22-24 balanced. 2. The system meaning of South's 3H response was a transfer to spades. 3. The system meaning of North's 4C rebid was good spades and the *ace* of clubs. After a hypothetical documented *impossible* bid by North, does South have *zero* logical alternatives? If so, is L16A *irrelevant* to any call South might subsequently make? Best wishes Richard * * * State Championship Mixed Pairs - Plate section. Bd. 21 / N / NS K10 2 AK932 98732 Q A9875 KQ109643 AJ875 Q4 105 KQJ 10 J6432 --- J876 A654 West North East South 2NT(1) Pass 3H(2) Dbl(3) 4C Pass(4) Pass Pass Pass 1. 5-5 minors, 6-10 HCP, not alerted. 2. Alerted and explained as "forcing". 3. Lead directional. 4. East now inquired further about the auction, whereupon North volunteered that her 2NT showed the minors. South than apologised and said he had thought it was strong! Result: N/S +130 At the conclusion of play, West calls the director and complains that N/S would not languish in 4C without North's gratuitous comments. South acknowledges that he intended 3H as a transfer to spades but says 4C couldn't logically have been a cue bid (super-accept) because he held the CA. East admits she wasn't sure that West's double guaranteed heart length, which is why she didn't bid on over 4C. East also says she might have doubled 2NT for take-out if it had been alerted originally. From toddz@worldnet.att.com Fri Sep 13 08:46:10 2002 From: toddz@worldnet.att.com (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 03:46:10 -0400 Subject: [blml] Lucy. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Ed Reppert > Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 11:44 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Lucy. > > It is none of the WBF's (or anybody else's) business if > an individual > wants to ingest a substance which may be harmful to > them. If the IOC, or > the WBF, is using this as a grounds for legitimizing > "anti-doping" regulations, well, they're flat wrong. As the organizers of the contest, they can promote any agenda they please regardless of its direct or indirect relevance to the game. They can do this without any justification, as well. The IOC probably recognizes that Olympic champions often become childrens' role models and wants to ensure that Olympic athletes live up to their standard of what a role model should be. It is their image, their ideal, their money/marketing/promotion, and their right to jealously protect it all. -Todd (p.s. I think it's a bit silly for bridge to align itself with the Olympic movement on the highly optimistic hope that it will increase popularity of the game among people who currently do not play.) From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Sep 13 09:28:38 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 13 Sep 2002 01:28:38 -0700 Subject: [blml] Lucy. Message-ID: <130902256.5318@webbox.com> Ed wrote: >It is none of the WBF's (or anybody else's) business if an individual wants to ingest a substance which may be harmful to them. Can we please have an end to this line of non-argument? Of course the WBF cannot tell you what you may or may not ingest. But it can certainly tell you what you may not ingest if you want to play in WBF tournaments. David Burn London, England From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 13 10:52:57 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 11:52:57 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Las Vegas Case Thirty-Seven In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020911132705.00b88980@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020911155450.00a31540@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020911085909.00abb2e0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020913114843.00aaf3c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:23 11/09/2002 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >The choice for the TD/AC was to either (a) accept North's testimony about >the partnership agreement and presume that South misbid (either >accidentally or intentionally), or (b) accept the "evidence of South's >hand" and assume that N-S gave deliberate MI and then North lied to both >the TD and the AC. (a) seems a lot more satisfactory based on both >presumption of innocence and Occam's razor. AG : thank you for mentioning one of my favorite principles. However, I've always thought the presumtion to be used was one of culpability in this case. NB : the fact that North (wrongly) believes the system to be such-and-such is no evidence that he lied ; this is a horse of a very different color. ... Why not just ask him to produce his system notes ? >The problem with Alain's and Herman's "strong presumption" theory -- >essentially that MI rather than misbid must be assumed barring any >evidence to the contrary *other than the testimony of the players >involved* -- is that it means that *any time* a player takes a call that >the TD or AC wouldn't consider making playing that player's methods and >(like 99.99% of us) doesn't have written system notes to prove that his >partnership's methods are what they claim they are AG : I'm happy to be in the 00,01% minority. This would, of course, depend of the level, but my view is that, if you intend to play in a hgh-level event, even if you are the underdog, you must comply to the customs of this field, one of which is (or should be) having exhaustive system notes. When you don't, you pay the price. Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 13 12:38:47 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 13:38:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] Lucy. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020913133656.00ab1e80@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 22:56 11/09/2002 +0100, Tim West-meads wrote: >The WBF becomes more ludicrous by the minute. There is no evidence to >suggest that *any* drugs on the list boost bridge performance. AG : caffeine is one. It is banned in most sports. This doesn't mean it should be banned at bridge (I hope it will never be !) but that Tim's last sentence is somewhat overhasty. From karel@esatclear.ie Fri Sep 13 13:52:47 2002 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 13:52:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Pausitis Message-ID: <3d81df9f.455.0@esatclear.ie> Hi all - the summer is over and the bridge season restarts (big cheer). Needless to say Blm will be getting more queries from now on. Our first event is of course the classic 2 week mixed pairs and what do ya know but this beauty came up Pairs Dealer W N/S vul S AQxx bidding H AQ8x N E S W D Q9x P C Jx 1NT P 2C Dbl 2H P 4H all pass S JT9x S Kxxx H Kx H Txx D Kx D xxxx C A98x2 C Tx S x H J97x D AJTx C KQxx N/S would be considered a good mixed partnership. North is probably one of the top 5 lady players in Ireland. Opening lead CT. E S W N Trick 1 CT Cx CA Cx Trick 2 Cx Cx C2 CJ At this stage North went into her box - the estimate was 17-22 seconds. She had of course just realised that not overtaking the CJ was a serious mistake especially when the C2 clearly indicated the diamond finesse was not working. Anyway ... Trick 3 Sx Sx Sx SA Trick 4 Sx Hx Sx Sx East at his turn placed a spade face down on the table paused for 4-5 seconds and turned it over. When asked was he ok he said he was thinking. Trick 5 Hx H7 Hx HQ East before playing the Hx paused 6-8 seconds (agreed). North at this stage assumed the hearts were 4/1 with east (otherwise why the long pause) and played a heart toward the J. The club ruff then put the contract down 1. N/S called the director and stated that East's pause was completely unethical and that without the pause N would cash the HA and make 4H+1 (losing 1C & 1D - spades away on the clubs after a heart to the J). Your ruling ... -- http://www.iol.ie From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Sep 13 14:06:13 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 09:06:13 -0400 Subject: [blml] Lucy. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20020913080051.00a97a00@pop.starpower.net> At 03:46 AM 9/13/02, Todd wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ed Reppert > > > > It is none of the WBF's (or anybody else's) business if > > an individual > > wants to ingest a substance which may be harmful to > > them. If the IOC, or > > the WBF, is using this as a grounds for legitimizing > > "anti-doping" regulations, well, they're flat wrong. > > As the organizers of the contest, they can promote any agenda >they please regardless of its direct or indirect relevance to the >game. They can do this without any justification, as well. As the organizers of the contest, they are acting on behalf of their constituency, which, for a non-profit organization, means their members (or, in the case of such as the WBF, their member organizations' members) and, arguably, their potential members. They may have the practical power to promote any agenda they please, but they are derelict in their duty and fail to meet their responsibilities if they promote an agenda that is contrary to the collective interest of that constituency. It is implicit in that responsibility that the organization's decision-makers confine their decision-making to the area of affinity that defines the group, as, by definition, it is in that area, and only in that area, that their constituency shares a common interest. Agendas that are not related to that area of affinity will serve the interest of some constituents while adversely affecting the interests of others. Their lack of relevance to the "advertised" purpose of the organization will, if the subject is of any (ideological or practical) significance to their constituent's lives, ensure that they become devisive and controversial. To responsibly serve the common interest of their constituents, they must confine themselves to agendas relevant to whatever that common interest is; that is the purpose for which and the rationale by which the organization was consituted in the first place. The explicit purpose of the WBF, for which it was founded and for which it exists, is to regulate and promote the game of bridge. If it is to serve that purpose, it must act as an affinity group for a consitutency that includes *all* bridge players world-wide. Hidden agendas serve nobody but those who hide them; if the WBF wishes to pursue agendas unrelated to the game of bridge, it is their absolute responsibility to acknowledge those agendas explicitly to their members and potential members. But in doing that, they reduce their affinity group to those whose affinity lies not only in matters related to the game of bridge but to the additional agenda as well. If they take on the agenda of protecting the health of their players, they by definition become an organization whose purpose is to regulate and promote the game of bridge and to protect the health of its players, and their affinity group thus becomes all bridge players world-wide who wish to have their health protected. The one thing the current debate (here, on r.g.b., in conversations at clubs, tournaments and informal gatherings of bridge players, and in the press) has made unarguably clear is that this is *not* the entire community of bridge players. So they can regulate and promote our health if they want, but if they do, they cannot claim to be representing the collective interest of all bridge players. Moreover, for the WBF to claim that drug tests are in service to the goal of protecting the health of their players is patent hypocrisy. If that was truly their objective, drug tests would have a far lower priority than, say, weigh-ins or blood-sugar tests, as obesity and bad diet threaten the collective health of their players to a far greater degree than does athletic-performance-enhancing dope. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From karel@esatclear.ie Fri Sep 13 14:14:25 2002 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 14:14:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lucy. Message-ID: <3d81e4b1.525.0@esatclear.ie> I haven't completely followed this trend but I assume we are talking about the disqualification in montreal of one of the bridge players who was found positive for a banned drug. Apparently the drug was prescribed for her back condition. Bridge is unlike most athletic sports in which banned drugs can give you an edge (ie) the classic Michael johnson case. Having said that - there must be "substances" which improve/prolong alertness giving the taker an edge. I tend to agree with both David Burn & Alain. If a drug is on the list as banned well end of story though it should be possible for individual allowances to be made before the competition by the powers to be. Having said that - I think the WBF needs to be very careful what they ban. Banning a strong cup of coffee or similar would reduce the bridge population drastically. Bridge never struck me as a drug taking sport - but it is conceivable that this may be on the increase and some regulations should be enforced. As to the actual case - I dont know the individual in question or her past record but it seemed like a case of innocence to me and not one of deliberate performance boosting. To strip her of her medal seemed phenomonally harsh. Finally where I for instance on medication for some ailment - before this scenario - It would never ever cross my mind that I would need to check a drugs list to see if I were ok. The WBF needs to launch some sort of campaign to substancially increase the players awareness of the issue. Karel At 22:56 11/09/2002 +0100, Tim West-meads wrote: > >>The WBF becomes more ludicrous by the minute. There is no evidence to >>suggest that *any* drugs on the list boost bridge performance. > >AG : caffeine is one. It is banned in most sports. This doesn't mean it >should be banned at bridge (I hope it will never be !) but that Tim's last >sentence is somewhat overhasty. > -- http://www.iol.ie From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Sep 13 14:34:31 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 09:34:31 -0400 Subject: [blml] Lucy. In-Reply-To: <130902256.5318@webbox.com> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20020913091129.00a9ea90@pop.starpower.net> --=====================_6510405==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 04:28 AM 9/13/02, David wrote: >Ed wrote: > > >It is none of the WBF's (or anybody else's) business if >an individual wants to ingest a substance which may be harmful >to them. > >Can we please have an end to this line of non-argument? Of course >the WBF cannot tell you what you may or may not ingest. But it >can certainly tell you what you may not ingest if you want to >play in WBF tournaments. Of course it can. It unarguably has the power to tell us we can't take steroids and play in WBF tournaments. It also has the power to tell us that we can't smoke tobacco and play in WBF tournaments, that we can't drink beer and play in WBF tournaments, that we can't eat unhealthy foods and play in WBF tournaments, that we can't drive faster than 30 MPH and play in WBF tournaments, that we can't sleep with members of the same (or opposite) sex and play in WBF tournaments, or that we can't have dark skin and play in WBF tournaments. It has the power to tell us that if we wish to play in WBF tournaments we must pledge loyalty to the Queen of England, must join the Communist Party, or must acknowledge Jesus Christ as our savior. We're not debating about what the WBF *can* do; we're debating about what the WBF *should* do. So when Ed, or anybody else, says that none of these should be the WBF's business, it is totally irrelevant and unresponsive to point out in reply that the WBF has the power to make it their business if they want to. We know that. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 --=====================_6510405==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" At 04:28 AM 9/13/02, David wrote:

Ed wrote:

>It is none of the WBF's (or anybody else's) business if
an individual wants to ingest a substance which may be harmful
to them.

Can we please have an end to this line of non-argument? Of course
the WBF cannot tell you what you may or may not ingest. But it
can certainly tell you what you may not ingest if you want to
play in WBF tournaments.

Of course it can.  It unarguably has the power to tell us we can't take steroids and play in WBF tournaments.  It also has the power to tell us that we can't smoke tobacco and play in WBF tournaments, that we can't drink beer and play in WBF tournaments, that we can't eat unhealthy foods and play in WBF tournaments, that we can't drive faster than 30 MPH and play in WBF tournaments, that we can't sleep with members of the same (or opposite) sex and play in WBF tournaments, or that we can't have dark skin and play in WBF tournaments.  It has the power to tell us that if we wish to play in WBF tournaments we must pledge loyalty to the Queen of England, must join the Communist Party, or must acknowledge Jesus Christ as our savior.

We're not debating about what the WBF *can* do; we're debating about what the WBF *should* do.

So when Ed, or anybody else, says that none of these should be the WBF's business, it is totally irrelevant and unresponsive to point out in reply that the WBF has the power to make it their business if they want to.  We know that.


Eric Landau                     ehaa@starpower.net
1107 Dale Drive                 (301) 608-0347
Silver Spring MD 20910-1607     Fax (301) 589-4618 --=====================_6510405==_.ALT-- From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Sep 13 14:51:28 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 09:51:28 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Las Vegas Case Thirty-Seven In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020913114843.00aaf3c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020911132705.00b88980@pop.starpower.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20020911155450.00a31540@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020911085909.00abb2e0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20020913094000.00b76c10@pop.starpower.net> At 05:52 AM 9/13/02, Alain wrote: >At 14:23 11/09/2002 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > >>The choice for the TD/AC was to either (a) accept North's testimony >>about the partnership agreement and presume that South misbid (either >>accidentally or intentionally), or (b) accept the "evidence of >>South's hand" and assume that N-S gave deliberate MI and then North >>lied to both the TD and the AC. (a) seems a lot more satisfactory >>based on both presumption of innocence and Occam's razor. > >AG : thank you for mentioning one of my favorite principles. Just out of curiosity, which one? >However, I've always thought the presumtion to be used was one of >culpability in this case. NB : the fact that North (wrongly) believes >the system to be such-and-such is no evidence that he lied ; this is a >horse of a very different color. ... Why not just ask him to produce >his system notes ? By all means ask him to produce his system notes. But you must be prepared to be told that he doesn't have any. If when that happens you presume culpability, you wind punishing him for the "offense" of not having system notes. Which is fine if the rules require him to have them. But they don't. >>The problem with Alain's and Herman's "strong presumption" theory -- >>essentially that MI rather than misbid must be assumed barring any >>evidence to the contrary *other than the testimony of the players >>involved* -- is that it means that *any time* a player takes a call >>that the TD or AC wouldn't consider making playing that player's >>methods and (like 99.99% of us) doesn't have written system notes to >>prove that his partnership's methods are what they claim they are > >AG : I'm happy to be in the 00,01% minority. This would, of course, >depend of the level, but my view is that, if you intend to play in a >hgh-level event, even if you are the underdog, you must comply to the >customs of this field, one of which is (or should be) having >exhaustive system notes. When you don't, you pay the price. There is a case to be made -- and I expect Alain could make it eloquently -- for requiring players in sufficiently high-level events to have system notes. But until that happens, those who don't have system notes have not committed any infraction, and cannot be cannot be held to "pay the price" for failing to do something which was not required of them. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Sep 13 15:02:54 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 15:02:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lucy. References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020913080051.00a97a00@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <009201c25b2e$423ad3d0$439468d5@SCRAP> (IMO...) The WBF are right to explore the possibility of Olympic recognition and so have to adopt an appropriate drugs policy. Hence, the WBF has to enforce their own legislation, but, as Richard said, it should have disqualified the whole Team for persistent wanton refusal to comply with the conditions of contest to which they had previously consented. Of course, the WBF should campaign that the IOC scrap anti-drugs laws because like so many ill-thought out bridge laws, they are controversial, widely flouted, difficult to apply, and rarely enforced. In fact, for similar reasons, I would legalize drugs in the real world. The IOC/WBF could reconsider its position after the future discovery of conclusive fool-proof tests, specific to performance enhancing drugs. In the mean time, the WBF should radically adapt their drugs policy to be relevant to Bridge, define some method of consistent enforcement, and publicise it. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.386 / Virus Database: 218 - Release Date: 09/09/2002 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Sep 13 15:10:10 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 15:10:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lucy. Message-ID: <00a501c25b2f$46970c90$439468d5@SCRAP> (IMO...) The WBF is right to explore the possibility of Olympic recognition and so has to adopt an appropriate drugs policy. Hence, the WBF has to enforce their own legislation, but, as Richard said, it should have disqualified the whole Team for persistent wanton refusal to comply with the conditions of contest to which they had previously consented. Of course, the WBF should campaign that the IOC scrap anti-drugs laws because like so many ill-thought out bridge laws, they are controversial, widely flouted, difficult to apply, and rarely enforced. In fact, for similar reasons, I would legalize drugs in the real world. The IOC/WBF could reconsider its position after the future discovery of conclusive fool-proof tests, specific to performance enhancing drugs. In the mean time, the WBF should radically adapt its drugs policy to be relevant to Bridge, define some method of consistent enforcement, and publicise it. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.386 / Virus Database: 218 - Release Date: 09/09/2002 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Sep 13 15:11:45 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 15:11:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lucy. Message-ID: <00ab01c25b2f$7eaf1870$439468d5@SCRAP> (IMO...) The WBF is right to explore the possibility of Olympic recognition and so has to adopt an appropriate drugs policy. Hence, the WBF has to enforce its own legislation, but, as Richard said, it should have disqualified the whole Team for persistent wanton refusal to comply with the conditions of contest to which it had previously consented. Of course, the WBF should campaign that the IOC scrap anti-drugs laws because like so many ill-thought out bridge laws, they are controversial, widely flouted, difficult to apply, and rarely enforced. In fact, for similar reasons, I would legalize drugs in the real world. The IOC/WBF could reconsider its position after the future discovery of conclusive fool-proof tests, specific to performance enhancing drugs. In the mean time, the WBF should radically adapt its drugs policy to be relevant to Bridge, define some method of consistent enforcement, and publicise it. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.386 / Virus Database: 218 - Release Date: 09/09/2002 From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Fri Sep 13 15:41:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 15:41 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Lucy. Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020913133656.00ab1e80@pop.ulb.ac.be> > At 22:56 11/09/2002 +0100, Tim West-meads wrote: > > >The WBF becomes more ludicrous by the minute. There is no evidence to > >suggest that *any* drugs on the list boost bridge performance. > > AG : caffeine is one. It is banned in most sports. But not Olympic ones. A fairly high dose is permitted in the IOC regulations. I am not convinced that caffeine actually is a booster for bridge (though I remain willing to consider evidence). I am *extremely* sceptical of the idea that caffeine beyond the 3-4 cup of coffee limit provides additional benefits. > This doesn't mean it > should be banned at bridge (I hope it will never be !) but that Tim's > last sentence is somewhat overhasty. I could easily believe that caffeine (or nicotine) deprivation would be detrimental to my performance but that would be a function of the withdrawal symptoms rather than the loss of performance boost. Tim From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Fri Sep 13 15:42:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 15:42 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Lucy. Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <130902256.5318@webbox.com> David Burn wrote: > >It is none of the WBF's (or anybody else's) business if > an individual wants to ingest a substance which may be harmful > to them. > > Can we please have an end to this line of non-argument? Of course > the WBF cannot tell you what you may or may not ingest. But it > can certainly tell you what you may not ingest if you want to > play in WBF tournaments. Of course it can. It can also tell me that I must wear red underpants. As with drugs (bridge performance enhancers excepted) the colour of my underpants is, IMO, none of their business. That they should choose to exercise their powers in matters that should not concern them is no surprise to me. It remains a disappointment that they have chosen so to do. Tim From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Fri Sep 13 16:05:10 2002 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 11:05:10 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Lucy. In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020913133656.00ab1e80@pop.ulb.ac.be> from "Alain Gottcheiner" at Sep 13, 2002 01:38:47 PM Message-ID: <200209131505.LAA12728@gcpdb.ccrs.emr.ca> Alain Gottcheiner writes: > > At 22:56 11/09/2002 +0100, Tim West-meads wrote: > > >The WBF becomes more ludicrous by the minute. There is no evidence to > >suggest that *any* drugs on the list boost bridge performance. > > AG : caffeine is one. It is banned in most sports. This doesn't mean it > should be banned at bridge (I hope it will never be !) but that Tim's last > sentence is somewhat overhasty. > But is it performance enhancing at bridge? As somebody has pointed out most things that are banned are performance enhancing in athletic events. Something that improves a bridge player's time in the 100 meter dash is of very little importance in any bridge competition that I'm aware of. According to a very interesting post to RGB what we really ought to be looking at (stipulating that there is drug testing in bridge -- and I'm with Ed, Eric and others on the subject) is glucose. And that's going to be a tricky subject considering the number of diabetics among the top players. My take for what it's worth. Any test that you'll grant an exemption for a physician's certificate alone is a waste of time. And since that appears to be the WBF's policy it appears to me to be as stupid as I can imagine any organization coming up with. I will actively work to get the WBF to drop its current policy. And I will not play (Ha! -- as if that matters) or volunteer my time at any WBF event (for instance Montreal)as long as they have this ill thought out process in place. My loss I suppose. From cfgcs@eiu.edu Fri Sep 13 16:40:31 2002 From: cfgcs@eiu.edu (Grant Sterling) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 10:40:31 -0500 Subject: Forgetting and Fielding Psyches (was Re: [BLML] The Blackwood Strikes Back) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.1.20020912110105.00a83920@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> My server has been acting up, and I have missed some posts, so apologies if this has already been covered. At 11:57 AM 9/11/02 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > >>Pairs - aggregate (total points) scoring. > >>Bd. 2 / E / NS > >> AJ > >> AK > >> Q9543 > >> 9852 > >>K8632 104 > >>J1085 9764 > >>J2 106 > >>A10 K7643 > >> Q975 > >> Q32 > >> AK87 > >> QJ > >> > >>West North East South > >>- - Pass 1D > >>1S 2C(1) Pass 2NT(2) > >>Pass 4NT(3) All Pass > >> > >>1. Alerted and explained as non-forcing (6-card suit, > >>less than 10 HCP). > >> > >>2. Explained as "stronger than our No Trump > >>opening" (15-17) when West inquired. > >> > >>3. After a long hesitation: intended as an Ace ask. > >> > >>Result: N/S + 630 > >David Burn wrote: > >[big snip] > > >If it turned out that 2C was indeed non-forcing (North > >had forgotten), then I would ask South why he bid 2NT. > >If he told me that he hoped to make game facing a North > >hand with CAK10xxx and a stray card, so that he wasn't > >unhappy about representing his hand as 18-19, I might > >believe him. [This assumes, BTW, that N's explanation of 2NT is correct.] >[big snip] > >Given the explanation of "less than 10 hcp", if North >held C AK10xxx the only useful stray card would be the >queen of diamonds. Even then, opposite such a perfect >maximum, 3NT could fail by losing the first five heart >tricks. > >As an AC member, I would rule that South's only logical >alternative as a rebid was Pass. (Note that the >aggregate form of scoring means that a safe +110 in 2C >is demonstrably superior to a risky +120 in 2NT.) In other words, you think S made a really bad bid. OK, so what? >In EBU-land, I would rule that South's bid of 2NT causes >a Red Psyche situation. > >However, on reflection, under Australian rules I believe >that South's non-logical 2NT is not an infraction. > >Suppose South's correct explanation of 2C was, >"systemically less than 10 hcp, but pard has forgotten >before and bid 2C with a strong hand, so I am going to >keep the auction alive with a 2NT bid". > >*At the point when South bid 2NT*, the MI has not damaged >EW, and the UI has not yet benefited North. {If this was the case, when did the MI begin to damage EW, and how? When did the UI benefit N and how?} I want to understand EBU rules more clearly, so I will ask: If I have an agreement with partner which he frequently forgets, and I sometimes make odd bids to cater to this possibility, does that constitute a Red Psyche situation? How should this be handled in ACBL-land? Suppose I do, in fact, give explanations such as the one above. [Presumably I do not have to explicitly add "so I am going to keep the auction alive with a 2NT bid", do I?] Does this mean that the result will now be treated differently, even in cases where the opponents' calls and plays would not have been affected by the difference? [I.e., does it cease to be a Red Psyche if I give this explanation?] >Best wishes > >Richard Respectfully, Grant From nardulloennio@tiscali.it Fri Sep 13 16:48:10 2002 From: nardulloennio@tiscali.it (ENNIO NARDULLO) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 17:48:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] conversion IMP to VP for 72 boards Message-ID: Someone knows the scale for a numebr boards superior of 48? Bye EN From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 13 17:17:34 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 18:17:34 +0200 Subject: [blml] Lucy - horresco referens. In-Reply-To: <3d81e4b1.525.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020913180226.02440110@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:14 13/09/2002 +0100, Karel wrote: >I haven't completely followed this trend but I assume we are talking about the >disqualification in montreal of one of the bridge players who was found >positive >for a banned drug. Apparently the drug was prescribed for her back condition. AG : it just happens that I'm reading the notice of my new antiallergic medication. It is available without any prescription, as it is considered quite benign. It contains pseudo-ephedrin. This is on all lists of banned drugs in every long-distance sport. It allows more regular respiration. Of course, that's why I use it. The conclusion is obvious : between april and august, plus the time to eliminate said substance, I'm not allowed to play any competition organized by the WBF. As ephedrin derivatives could be harmful if taken at heavy doses, they even have an argument to ban it. ;;; or perhaps somebody should say to the WBF persons in charge that only _physical_ long duration activity is helped by the use of such a substance ? From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Fri Sep 13 17:08:23 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 12:08:23 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Lucy. Message-ID: <200209131608.MAA04781@cfa183.harvard.edu> > From: Alain Gottcheiner > AG : caffeine is one. It is banned in most sports. This doesn't mean it > should be banned at bridge (I hope it will never be !)... Actually it isn't banned altogether, but the blood level is limited. Is Ritalin (sorry, I don't know the generic name) on the banned list? There's a drug that might truly be helpful. From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 13 17:26:51 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 18:26:51 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Las Vegas Case Thirty-Seven In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020913094000.00b76c10@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020913114843.00aaf3c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020911132705.00b88980@pop.starpower.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20020911155450.00a31540@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020911085909.00abb2e0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020913182419.00accc80@pop.ulb.ac.be> > >There is a case to be made -- and I expect Alain could make it eloquently >-- for requiring players in sufficiently high-level events to have system >notes. But until that happens, those who don't have system notes have not >committed any infraction, and cannot be cannot be held to "pay the price" >for failing to do something which was not required of them. > AG : no relation at all, IMOBO, between both parts of Eric's last sentence. You are not required by law to take your umbrella when you go out walking. However, if it rains, you have to pay the price for it. It acts as a precaution, just in case ... System notes act ia the same way : they help you making your case when confronted with a MI problem. If you don't have any, too bad for you. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Sep 13 17:28:47 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 13 Sep 2002 09:28:47 -0700 Subject: Forgetting and Fielding Psyches (was Re: [BLML] The Blackwood Strikes Back) Message-ID: <130902256.34127@webbox.com> Grant wrote: Pairs - aggregate (total points) scoring. Bd. 2 / E / NS AJ AK Q9543 9852 K8632 104 J1085 9764 J2 106 A10 K7643 Q975 Q32 AK87 QJ West North East South - - Pass 1D 1S 2C(1) Pass 2NT(2) Pass 4NT(3) All Pass 1. Alerted and explained as non-forcing (6-card suit, less than 10 HCP). 2. Explained as "stronger than our No Trump opening" (15-17) when West inquired. 3. After a long hesitation: intended as an Ace ask. Result: N/S + 630 >David Burn wrote: >>[big snip] >> >>If it turned out that 2C was indeed non-forcing (North >>had forgotten), then I would ask South why he bid 2NT. >>If he told me that he hoped to make game facing a North >>hand with CAK10xxx and a stray card, so that he wasn't >>unhappy about representing his hand as 18-19, I might >>believe him. I did indeed. >[This assumes, BTW, that N's explanation of 2NT >is correct.] Well, that is one of the reasons I would ask South why he bid it. It would seem an odd thing to do if it really did show 18-19. >>[big snip] >>Given the explanation of "less than 10 hcp", if North >>held C AK10xxx the only useful stray card would be the >>queen of diamonds. Even then, opposite such a perfect >>maximum, 3NT could fail by losing the first five heart >>tricks. I didn't write this. I would not argue with South at the table, nor would I necessarily disbelieve him in an appeals committee (though I might). >>As an AC member, I would rule that South's only logical >>alternative as a rebid was Pass. I didn't write this either. I don't know what it means. If it means that South is supposed to consider logical alternatives to 2NT, he is under no such obligation; he has received no UI from North as yet. >In other words, you think S made a really bad >bid. OK, so what? I don't care about the quality of the bid he made, only the reasons for it. If it transpired, for example, that North had shown some signs of alarm when South explained 2C as non-forcing, then South would be under some severe constraint, and one might indeed rule that he should pass. But there was no suggestion of this in the original post. >>In EBU-land, I would rule that South's bid of 2NT causes >>a Red Psyche situation. I did not write this either, and I do not necessarily agree with it. If the notion is that North has "psyched" a non-forcing 2C bid and South has "fielded" it by bidding 2NT when he ought to pass, then I suppose that is a possible view of the matter, but I am not sure that I would take it. >>However, on reflection, under Australian rules I believe >>that South's non-logical 2NT is not an infraction. As you may have gathered by now, I did not write this either. Under Australian Rules, nothing short of murder is an infraction, and even then, you seem to be allowed to kill people provided that they are carrying some funny egg-shaped object. >>Suppose South's correct explanation of 2C was, >>"systemically less than 10 hcp, but pard has forgotten >>before and bid 2C with a strong hand, so I am going to >>keep the auction alive with a 2NT bid". An ingenious notion, but he had better give that explanation only to East and West. >>*At the point when South bid 2NT*, the MI has not damaged >>EW, and the UI has not yet benefited North. >{If this was the case, when did the MI begin to damage >EW, and how? I do not think that this was an MI problem. Rather, East-West were complaining that North-South had failed to damage themselves sufficiently through their own misunderstanding, and had in some way achieved this by means of UI. Nothing in the original post suggests that East-West were damaged in the bidding or the play by having the North-South hands misdescribed to them. >When did the UI benefit N and how?} It benefitted North because he knew from South's explanation that South did not have 18-19. He thus did not bid 6NT, as he might have done; rather, he made a bid that he knew South would pass while justifying it as an ace-ask, impossible in context. North's bidding was actually quite clever, as well as being wholly illegal. >I want to understand EBU rules more clearly A commendable ambition. So do I. Unfortunately, every time I think we have made some of them, it turns out that the minutes of the meeting bear no resemblance to what I think was said, and I am as much in the dark as before. >I will ask: >If I have an agreement with partner which he >frequently forgets, and I sometimes make odd bids to >cater to this possibility, does that constitute a >Red Psyche situation? Up to a point, in that a Red Psyche is a special case of "evidence of a concealed partnership understanding". If your partner frequently forgets, say, Astro, then your actual method over 1NT is that 2C shows hearts and another, or clubs. If you tell the opponents only that it shows hearts and another, you are concealing from them your actual understanding. Whether your partner habitually violates your methods by accident or on purpose, as soon as the violations become a habit at all, they are part of your implicit agreements. As such, they must be disclosed - and of course, they must be legal within the context of the event in question. >How should this be handled in ACBL-land? I do not know, but in the current climate, I imagine that war should be declared on the offenders. >Suppose I do, in fact, give explanations >such as the one above. [Presumably I do not have >to explicitly add "so I am going to keep the auction >alive with a 2NT bid", do I?] Does this mean that >the result will now be treated differently, even in >cases where the opponents' calls and plays would not >have been affected by the difference? [I.e., does it >cease to be a Red Psyche if I give this explanation?] It would cease to be a psyche of any kind, though this aspect is not at all obvious. Some explanation may help; the matter is a complex one, but seekers after knowledge should not be turned away. Suppose you have a lot of clubs, and the person to your right opens 1NT. Well, you might bid two clubs because you think that's what you do to show a lot of clubs, or you might bid two clubs because you think it would be fun to show hearts and another when you haven't got them. The first is a misbid, the second is a psyche - the crucial difference is that a psyche is an intentional distortion of your hand, while a misbid is unintentional. In either case, the hand will be played to a finish, and it will be discovered that you had a lot of clubs. Now, it does not matter *why* you showed hearts and another when you had a lot of clubs; the fact remains that you *did* show hearts and another when you had a lot of clubs. If you never do it again, no one will worry very much. But if you do do it again, your partner will come to realise that when you bid 2C over 1NT, you might have hearts and another, or you might have a lot of clubs. We in the EBU determine (in accordance with the Laws) that your partnership agreement is, in effect, that 2C shows hearts and another, or clubs. As soon as that is determined, the next time you bid two clubs, it will be in accordance with your agreement. As such, it will not be a violation of it, and it cannot therefore be a psyche. Of course, you may not be allowed to play that 2C shows hearts and another or clubs at the level of competition in which you are involved. Then, you will be penalised for playing an unlicensed method - but not for fielding a psyche. If, then, you say: "2C was once upon a time non-forcing, and he may well have that, but our experience has been that he forgets and may well have a game force with clubs", then you have told your opponents what your methods are (2C is natural, and you might or might not be going to pass it). If that is a legal method, you may play it; moreover, unless you don't actually have clubs, it is no longer possible to psyche it. David Burn London, England From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Fri Sep 13 17:31:32 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 12:31:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Pausitis Message-ID: <200209131631.MAA04808@cfa183.harvard.edu> > From: "Karel" > N/S called the director and stated that East's pause was completely unethical First, NS get a serious DP for this accusation. At least double the standard penalty seems about right, but perhaps a full board could be justified. A lot depends on North's exact words and tone. With less experienced players, an explanation of why this conduct is unacceptable might suffice. > and that without the pause N would cash the HA and make 4H+1 (losing 1C & 1D > > - spades away on the clubs after a heart to the J). Yes, it seems quite likely you will adjust the score under L73F2. Of course you would want to give East a chance to explain the "bridge reason" for his pause, but I can't see what it could be. From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Sep 13 18:02:56 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 13:02:56 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Las Vegas Case Thirty-Seven In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020913182419.00accc80@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020913094000.00b76c10@pop.starpower.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20020913114843.00aaf3c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020911132705.00b88980@pop.starpower.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20020911155450.00a31540@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020911085909.00abb2e0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20020913124548.00b784a0@pop.starpower.net> At 12:26 PM 9/13/02, Alain wrote: >>There is a case to be made -- and I expect Alain could make it >>eloquently -- for requiring players in sufficiently high-level events >>to have system notes. But until that happens, those who don't have >>system notes have not committed any infraction, and cannot be cannot >>be held to "pay the price" for failing to do something which was not >>required of them. > >AG : no relation at all, IMOBO, between both parts of Eric's last >sentence. You are not required by law to take your umbrella when you >go out walking. However, if it rains, you have to pay the price for >it. It acts as a precaution, just in case ... System notes act ia the >same way : they help you making your case when confronted with a MI >problem. If you don't have any, too bad for you. System notes do, as they should, "help you mak[e] your case when confronted with a[n] MI problem". But the operative word in that sentence is "help". If, however, in the absence of system notes, we are constrained to ignore evidence in the form of testimony from the players, then the notes are no longer merely helpful in making one's case, they are a prerequisite to being allowed to attempt to make one's case. To make sense, the rules must either require system notes, outlaw misbids, or incorporate some way for a player who does not have system notes to present a credible case for having made a misbid when he has in fact done so. If you don't take your umbrella, and it rains, you can cover your head with a newspaper, stand under an awning, or take refuge in a shop or movie house until the rain stops. You are not required by law to take an umbrella when you go out, but if you do not take an umbrella, and it rains, you are not legally required to get wet. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Sep 13 20:42:37 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 20:42:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lucy. References: Message-ID: <004301c25b5d$b7d87e60$b3ae27d9@pbncomputer> Tim wrote: > > Can we please have an end to this line of non-argument? Of course > > the WBF cannot tell you what you may or may not ingest. But it > > can certainly tell you what you may not ingest if you want to > > play in WBF tournaments. > > Of course it can. It can also tell me that I must wear red underpants. > As with drugs (bridge performance enhancers excepted) the colour of my > underpants is, IMO, none of their business. That they should choose to > exercise their powers in matters that should not concern them is no > surprise to me. It remains a disappointment that they have chosen so to > do. There was a time when petitio principii was a fallacy; judging by many of the contributions to this thread, it has now become mainstream logic. There was a time when the distinction between the conditional and the preterite was of some significance; children, dear, should it have been yesterday? There was also a time when I was a more than usually patient man; in memory of those bygone days, I will attempt to separate some of the issues that appear to me to have become all but inextricably tangled in the course of the discussion. The organising body of a game has penalised a player of that game for breaking a regulation governing the conduct of people involved in the playing of that game. Should it have done this? Stated thus, the answer seems to me to be the simple: "Of course it should". There is, after all, not a great deal of point in making regulations if you are not going to do anything when they are broken. But there are those who hold one or both of these views: (1a) The regulation is a violation of some human right; (1b) the regulation is therefore unsound; and (1c) the player should not have been penalised for breaking it. (2a) While the principle behind the regulation is sound, (2b) the implementation of the regulation is in this particular case unsound; and (2c) the player should therefore not have been penalised for breaking it. To deal with (1), the "human right" of which the regulation is considered a violation is (in effect) the right to act as one pleases, or as one is compelled by circumstances beyond one's control, provided that one does not thereby harm a fellow human being. If I want to take cocaine, or need to take beta-blockers, to prevent me from doing so is to deprive me of my right. That is true, but irrelevant. The WBF does not say: "You must not take cocaine because it is bad for you", only: "You must not take cocaine so that the effects of doing so persist while you are playing bridge." The former would indeed be a violation of a human right, and would be entirely ultra vires as far as the WBF is concerned; but the WBF does not do the former. The latter does not appear to me to be a violation of any human right; it appears (other things being equal) to be an entirely sound and reasonable regulation. Other things are not, in this case, equal - a point to which I will return. For the moment, I do not see that (1) is a tenable ground on which to oppose the actions of the WBF in the Montreal case. To deal with (2), the principle behind the regulation is this: competitors in a [sport or] game should win or lose according to their ability to play the game; that ability should not be enhanced by artificial means, but should arise entirely from a combination of natural talent and practice at the game. Now, this principle appears to me to be sound. I have not read any argument in this discussion to the effect that it is not. What I have read are a number of (unsubstantiated) assertions to the effect that in the particular context of bridge, it would not be possible for any player to enhance his ability by artificial means. Therefore, runs the argument, the player in this particular case did not do so, and should not have been penalised. But only if it can be shown that it is indeed impossible for a bridge player to derive some artificially induced benefit from a course of action should that course of action be permitted while the player is involved in a bridge tournament. If there is any possibility that a course of action will lead to an artificial enhancement of ability, that course of action is correctly proscribed by any authority. To put this another way, if the WBF were to say: "We are not sure, but it may be that taking cough syrup helps you to play better bridge, so we will disqualify anyone found to have taken cough syrup during an event", I would say that the WBF was acting entirely correctly. Were a player then to say: "You are depriving me of my chance to win the Bermuda Bowl because I can't concentrate properly while I have this terrible cough", I would say that this was unlucky, just as I would call unlucky a man who could not run in the Olympic 100 metres final because he had broken his leg while training. This is, perhaps, not the easiest of arguments to accept, for it seems to run contrary to the "presumption of innocence" about which John Mortimer, via his alter ego Rumpole of the Bailey, used to bang on at interminable length. (Apologies, by the way, for the number of Latin phrases and references to English cultural icons that have permeated this message; when I was a small boy, I wanted to be a lawyer.) People are innocent until proven guilty, but drugs are - to my way of thinking - guilty until proven innocent. Eric has made the point that it is the proper conduct of an organisation to act in the interests of its members. This is so; I do not gainsay it. Others have made the point that the implementation of an anti-doping policy by the WBF has been botched, since it has involved the banning of substances which cannot possibly be performance-enhancing in the context of bridge. This is very likely indeed to be so; I do not gainsay it either. But it does not follow from this that the adoption of an anti-doping policy in the first place was contrary to the interests of WBF members; only that the adoption of this particular one was. There were reasons why the "wrong" policy was adopted; these had to do with the constraints imposed by the IOC on the WBF and the timescales within which those constraints had to be met. It may be argued that the WBF acted contrary to the interests of its members in attempting to gain for bridge full admission to the Olympic Games. I do not myself believe this; I am sorry that the attempt has failed, though I can understand the IOC's point of view. But I am sure that the WBF believed that it was acting in its members' interests while it pursued its program, I believe that it was in fact acting in my interests in so doing, and if the Montreal incident was a consequence of that pursuit, then it was an appropriate and inevitable consequence. To return briefly to the question of human rights, it may be that in the wider social context, there are actions so repugnant that were the WBF to take them, even if it had the power to do so as the final arbiter of bridge, one would rightly consider that it was an unfit body to fulfil that role. If, for example, the WBF created a regulation that prevented Moslems from entering the Rosenblum, that regulation would rightly be challenged; were the WBF to disqualify a winner of the World Pairs on the grounds that he was a Moslem, the WBF would rightly be vilified and (no doubt) its decision overturned by whatever court dealt with the matter. (Not that there is much danger of this if Zia is going to carry on bidding as he did on the last two boards, of course.) But suppose the WBF were to create a regulation that prohibited strict Moslems from performing the ritual of Salah while a tournament was in progress. This might, I suppose, be viewed as a de facto ban on the participation in WBF events by members of certain Moslem sects. I do not think that it should be so regarded; by the same token, I do not think that a player who was effectively prevented from playing in a tournament because the medication that he needed to sustain his life was on the banned list would have grounds for complaint. There will, no doubt, be those who think otherwise. As a man who became an English cultural icon despite what many would consider the insurmountable obstacle of being French put it: The question's very much too wide, And much too round, and much too hollow, And learned men on either side Use arguments I cannot follow. David Burn London, England From HarrisR@missouri.edu Fri Sep 13 23:00:56 2002 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 17:00:56 -0500 Subject: [blml] Lucy. In-Reply-To: <130902256.5318@webbox.com> Message-ID: >Ed wrote: > >>It is none of the WBF's (or anybody else's) business if >an individual wants to ingest a substance which may be harmful >to them. > >Can we please have an end to this line of non-argument? Of course >the WBF cannot tell you what you may or may not ingest. But it >can certainly tell you what you may not ingest if you want to >play in WBF tournaments. > >David Burn >London, England > > Perhaps someone would be so kind as to provide a complete list of the performance enhancing drugs useful in bridge? After my performance in last night's ACBL Instant Match Point Game I could use some. (So far as I know, they aren't outlawed at the ACBL level.) Seriously, it makes good sense to outlaw such drugs as might help me play bridge a little less badly. Outlawing the ones useful (in some sense) for athletics seems silly to me, and a complete waste of efforts that could be better spent on improving other parts of competitive contract bridge. REH > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From cyaxares@lineone.net Sat Sep 14 08:23:08 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 08:23:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lucy. References: <004301c25b5d$b7d87e60$b3ae27d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <000d01c25bcd$bd05ea60$1901e150@dodona> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, September 13, 2002 8:42 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Lucy. . > a man who became an English cultural icon > despite what many would consider the > insurmountable obstacle of being French > Initially a trifle soft, Though famed for cautionary rhymes, Since fifty-three he writes aloft, An icon of the Holy Times. From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Sat Sep 14 11:45:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 11:45 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Lucy. Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <004301c25b5d$b7d87e60$b3ae27d9@pbncomputer> David Burn wrote: > The organising body of a game has penalised a player of that game for > breaking a regulation governing the conduct of people involved in the > playing of that game. Should it have done this? If you build a premise (implicitly in this case) into your question you are likely to get an "obvious" answer. If you phrase the question as "Should a person be penalised for breaking an unjust rule that should never have been put in place?" you will no doubt get a different set of responses. > But there are those who hold one or both of these views: > > (1a) The regulation is a violation of some human right; (1b) the > regulation is therefore unsound; and (1c) the player should not have > been penalised for breaking it. > > (2a) While the principle behind the regulation is sound, (2b) the > implementation of the regulation is in this particular case unsound; and > (2c) the player should therefore not have been penalised for breaking > it. > > To deal with (1), the "human right" of which the regulation is > considered a violation is (in effect) the right to act as one pleases, Most definitely not. The right being "violated" is the right to privacy (particularly in matters medical). This right is generally accepted in our society. It is not an absolute right (society has determined that the right to privacy of a criminal suspect is outweighed by the right of society to investigate crime through DNA testing). Creating rules in conflict with the right to privacy is not a task to be taken lightly. Personally I would support the WBF's right to test for substances that "enhance concentration and stamina at bridge, as well as be also injurious to the person or persons using them." This I think is the "sound principle" on which a drug policy might be based. There are many substances (in diet, drugs, and lifestyle) that may help enhance performance in bridge while also being generally beneficial to users. There are many substances potentially injurious to the user's health that have no benefit to bridge performance. Regulating substances in either of these categories should therefore be outside the purview of the WBF. > The WBF does > not say: "You must not take cocaine because it is bad for you", only: > "You must not take cocaine so that the effects of doing so persist while > you are playing bridge." The former would indeed be a violation of a > human right, and would be entirely ultra vires as far as the WBF is > concerned; but the WBF does not do the former. The problem is that it does. While I personally doubt that cocaine falls into the category of boosting bridge performance I will let that ride for a while. Cocaine, as with many such drugs, can be detected in the body long after any possible effects on the mind have subsided (Cannabis is a spectacular example of such a substance). In addition the IOC regime allows for "out-of-competition" testing (which is necessary where certain steroids are concerned) but probably irrelevant to mind-enhancing drugs. > To deal with (2), the principle behind the regulation is this: > competitors in a [sport or] game should win or lose according to their > ability to play the game; that ability should not be enhanced by > artificial means, but should arise entirely from a combination of > natural talent and practice at the game. Substitute "harmful" for "artificial" means and we are close to agreement. I would maintain that a healthy lifestyle (choice of diet, appropriate vitamin/mineral supplements, regular taking of small doses of aspirin etc, a glass of malted milk to help one sleep) might just contribute (albeit a fairly tiny amount) to better performance at the table. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Sat Sep 14 12:18:58 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 12:18:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lucy. References: Message-ID: <000901c25be0$852cc1a0$fe2127d9@pbncomputer> Tim wrote: > > The organising body of a game has penalised a player of that game for > > breaking a regulation governing the conduct of people involved in the > > playing of that game. Should it have done this? > > If you build a premise (implicitly in this case) into your question you > are likely to get an "obvious" answer. If you phrase the question as > "Should a person be penalised for breaking an unjust rule that should > never have been put in place?" you will no doubt get a different set of > responses. By a curious coincidence, that is precisely what the rest of my nessage addressed. The technique of reading all of an examination paper before starting to answer it is a useful one in later life also. If you use words like "unjust" and "should never have been", you are committing the fallacy of begging the question to which I have referred. No doubt the set of responses might be different, but that is of almost no consequence, since the question would not be valid. > > But there are those who hold one or both of these views: > > > > (1a) The regulation is a violation of some human right; (1b) the > > regulation is therefore unsound; and (1c) the player should not have > > been penalised for breaking it. > > > > (2a) While the principle behind the regulation is sound, (2b) the > > implementation of the regulation is in this particular case unsound; and > > (2c) the player should therefore not have been penalised for breaking > > it. > > > > To deal with (1), the "human right" of which the regulation is > > considered a violation is (in effect) the right to act as one pleases, > > Most definitely not. The right being "violated" is the right to privacy > (particularly in matters medical). If you enter a competition in which you are going to be tested for the presence of drugs in your system, you knowingly and willingly forfeit some or all of that right. Or at least, even if in fact you did not know that you would forfeit that right, and would not have entered the competition had you known, it is reasonable to presume that you did know and did consent. Just as it is a good idea to read an exam before you answer it, so it is a good idea to know the rules of a game before you play it. > This right is generally accepted in > our society. It is not an absolute right (society has determined that the > right to privacy of a criminal suspect is outweighed by the right of > society to investigate crime through DNA testing). Creating rules in > conflict with the right to privacy is not a task to be taken lightly. "Society", or at any rate the sporting community, has also determined that the right to privacy in medical matters of a participant in a sport is outweighed by the right of participants in that sport to compete on equal terms. Claiming the right to privacy in order to secure an unfair advantage is also not to be taken lightly. (The term "unfair" is of course a subjective one, but it is certainly the right and the duty of the organising body of a game to lay down rules as to what constitutes unfair play. There is moreover - as I have said before - no reason why those rules should conform to any extraneous moral or ethical standards.) > Personally I would support the WBF's right to test for substances that > "enhance concentration and stamina at bridge, as well as be also injurious > to the person or persons using them." This I think is the "sound > principle" on which a drug policy might be based. Yes, but you do not think that there are any such substances, so the above is simple nonsense. Personally, I do not think that the WBF should concern itself with whether a drug that a competitor might take would harm them - it should concern itself only with whether or not it would confer an unfair advantage. > There are many substances (in diet, drugs, and lifestyle) that may help > enhance performance in bridge while also being generally beneficial to > users. There are many substances potentially injurious to the user's > health that have no benefit to bridge performance. Regulating substances > in either of these categories should therefore be outside the purview of > the WBF. The question of the health of competitors should be outside the purview of the WBF in any case. Only the question of what is fair and unfair play at bridge should be within its purview. But in that context, its determinations should not be challenged unless they are obviously wholly unreasonable, in which category the notion that an amphetamine might enhance performance clearly does not fall. > > The WBF does > > not say: "You must not take cocaine because it is bad for you", only: > > "You must not take cocaine so that the effects of doing so persist while > > you are playing bridge." The former would indeed be a violation of a > > human right, and would be entirely ultra vires as far as the WBF is > > concerned; but the WBF does not do the former. > The problem is that it does. While I personally doubt that cocaine falls > into the category of boosting bridge performance I will let that ride for > a while. Cocaine, as with many such drugs, can be detected in the body > long after any possible effects on the mind have subsided (Cannabis is a > spectacular example of such a substance). In addition the IOC regime > allows for "out-of-competition" testing (which is necessary where certain > steroids are concerned) but probably irrelevant to mind-enhancing drugs. Nothing in any of the rest of that paragraph bears out your assertion in the first sentence. It is true that the WBF press release contained a reference to protecting the health of competitors via its anti-doping policy, but that was silly. Nowhere has the WBF asserted that cocaine is bad for you, while it does assert that you should not take it so that it affects you while playing bridge. The former might be true, but it has got nothing to do with the WBF; the latter might be based on a mistaken notion that cocaine will help you play better, but while it is not known whether that is a mistake or not, the WBF can and should make the regulation in question. > > To deal with (2), the principle behind the regulation is this: > > competitors in a [sport or] game should win or lose according to their > > ability to play the game; that ability should not be enhanced by > > artificial means, but should arise entirely from a combination of > > natural talent and practice at the game. > Substitute "harmful" for "artificial" means and we are close to agreement. Then we will have to remain as far apart as ever. David Burn London, England From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Sat Sep 14 12:26:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 12:26 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Lucy. Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <004301c25b5d$b7d87e60$b3ae27d9@pbncomputer> Apologies for incomplete previous version. David Burn wrote: > The organising body of a game has penalised a player of that game for > breaking a regulation governing the conduct of people involved in the > playing of that game. Should it have done this? If you build a premise (implicitly in this case) into your question you are likely to get an "obvious" answer. If you phrase the question as "Should a person be penalised for breaking an unjust rule that should never have been put in place?" you will no doubt get a different set of responses. > But there are those who hold one or both of these views: > > (1a) The regulation is a violation of some human right; (1b) the > regulation is therefore unsound; and (1c) the player should not have > been penalised for breaking it. > > (2a) While the principle behind the regulation is sound, (2b) the > implementation of the regulation is in this particular case unsound; and > (2c) the player should therefore not have been penalised for breaking > it. The objections here come in two parts. Between a) and b) is the possibility that the regulation purporting to enshrine the principle completely failed to do so. With particular regard to the specific case there are also the stories that a player selected for random testing was permitted to avoid it. If that story is true then I believe any other competitor is entitled to object on a point of principle - the implementation being obviously flawed. (I don't think this is why the competitor actually said she refused). > To deal with (1), the "human right" of which the regulation is > considered a violation is (in effect) the right to act as one pleases, Most definitely not. The right being "violated" is the right to privacy (particularly in matters medical). This right is generally accepted in our society. It is not an absolute right (society has determined that the right to privacy of a criminal suspect is outweighed by the right of society to investigate crime through DNA testing). Creating rules in conflict with the right to privacy is not a task to be taken lightly. Personally I would support the WBF's right to test for substances that "enhance concentration and stamina at bridge, as well as be also injurious to the person or persons using them." This I think is the "sound principle" on which a drug policy might be based. There are many substances (in diet, drugs, and lifestyle) that may help enhance performance in bridge while also being generally beneficial to users. There are many substances potentially injurious to the user's health that have no benefit to bridge performance. Regulating substances in either of these categories should therefore be outside the purview of the WBF. > The WBF does > not say: "You must not take cocaine because it is bad for you", only: > "You must not take cocaine so that the effects of doing so persist while > you are playing bridge." The former would indeed be a violation of a > human right, and would be entirely ultra vires as far as the WBF is > concerned; but the WBF does not do the former. The problem is that it does. While I personally doubt that cocaine falls into the category of boosting bridge performance I will let that ride for a while. Cocaine, as with many such drugs, can be detected in the body long after any possible effects on the mind have subsided (Cannabis is a spectacular example of such a substance). In addition the IOC regime allows for "out-of-competition" testing (which is necessary, for sports, where certain steroids are concerned) but probably irrelevant to mind-enhancing drugs. > To deal with (2), the principle behind the regulation is this: > competitors in a [sport or] game should win or lose according to their > ability to play the game; that ability should not be enhanced by > artificial means, but should arise entirely from a combination of > natural talent and practice at the game. Substitute "harmful" for "artificial" means and we are close to agreement. I would maintain that a healthy lifestyle (choice of diet, appropriate vitamin/mineral supplements, regular taking of small doses of aspirin etc, a glass of malted milk to help one sleep) might just contribute (albeit a fairly tiny amount) to better performance at the table. > What I have > read are a number of (unsubstantiated) assertions to the effect that in > the particular context of bridge, it would not be possible for any > player to enhance his ability by artificial means. It may, or may not, be impossible. I have certainly asserted that the drugs on the IOC list are not enhancers for bridge. I have seen (unsubstantiated) assertions that some are. I do not consider that such assertions are sufficient grounds to justify invading personal privacy through drug testing. > To put this another way, if the WBF were to say: "We are not sure, but > it may be that taking cough syrup helps you to play better bridge, so we > will disqualify anyone found to have taken cough syrup during an event", > I would say that the WBF was acting entirely correctly. And I would maintain that they were not. Were they to say "We have seen evidence to suggest that taking cough syrup may enhance bridge performance and could be detrimental to the health of competitors and, as a precaution, we have banned cough syrup during an event." it would be a different matter. > People are innocent until proven guilty, but drugs are - to my way of > thinking - guilty until proven innocent. Whereas I would say that drugs are more akin to civil case. Thy can be "convicted" on the balance on probability but are innocent in the absence of evidence. Thus I would expect the WBF, when including a drug on the banned list, to state the evidence on which it has been convicted. Thus going back to cocaine, on what basis did the WBF determine that it might be performance enhancing? > It may be argued that the WBF acted contrary > to the interests of its members in attempting to gain for bridge full > admission to the Olympic Games. Contrary is perhaps too strong a word. Tangentially and misguidedly would be more in order IMO. Promoting "bridge as sport" cost time and money and carried considerable risk of failure. Had the time and money been spent promoting "Bridge the wonderful game for young and old" it might have been better spent. Thus I consider the WBF approach a poor decision made largely in good faith. > I do not think that a player who was effectively prevented from playing > in a tournament because the medication that he needed to sustain his > life was on the banned list would have grounds for complaint. How do you square this with the underlying principle? To consider a medication that is "needed to sustain his life" as "harmful" seems like a bit of a stretch. Put another way - whose interest would be served if the player concerned choose to forego his medication in order to compete despite knowing the price he would pay? Tim From dalburn@btopenworld.com Sat Sep 14 17:17:59 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 17:17:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lucy. References: Message-ID: <000b01c25c0a$4b16a9c0$871a27d9@pbncomputer> Tim wrote: > The objections here come in two parts. Between a) and b) is the > possibility that the regulation purporting to enshrine the principle > completely failed to do so. With particular regard to the specific case > there are also the stories that a player selected for random testing was > permitted to avoid it. Lynn Deas, who is in a wheelchair and suffers from a number of exceptionally serious illnesses, would not have passed a dope test because of the medicines that she requires. She was allowed not to take the test, even though her name was among those randomly drawn to undergo it. Personally, I do not think that the question should have arisen - I think that she should not have competed. As I have said: > > I do not think that a player who was effectively prevented from playing > > in a tournament because the medication that he needed to sustain his > > life was on the banned list would have grounds for complaint. > How do you square this with the underlying principle? Easily. The underlying principle is that players should not gain an advantage by embarking on course of action X, where course of action X is considered unfair in the context of bridge (or any other game). Now, that principle is, or should be, absolute - one cannot say: "Well, this person may not follow X, while this other person may." It does not matter whether X is harmful, or beneficial, or necessary for the very survival of the individual concerned; if X is unfair, then players who do X are disqualified. If people need to do X in order to live, then they will have to live without playing in world bridge championships. Now, it may be felt that this is unduly harsh, but I think that it is an essential foundation for any anti-doping policy in any sport. It was known well in advance of Montreal that (a) Lynn Deas wished to compete and (b) that the medications she had to take would cause her to fail a dope test. What should have happened - indeed, what would have happened in a sport that has had time to implement an anti-doping policy properly - is this. The specific drugs that Lynn needs should have been examined to determine whether they could confer an unfair advantage on a bridge player. If so, then Lynn should have been told either that she must change her medication, or, if this were impossible, that she should not compete. If not, the WBF should have requested the IOC to remove those drugs from the "banned list" for the purposes of bridge events. The primary effect of this would have been to kick-start the sorely needed creation of a sensible anti-doping policy for bridge. But there wasn't the time and there were not the resources to do this. I do not assert, I have never asserted, that the WBF went about adopting its anti-doping regulations sensibly; it did not. But that is not to say that all of its regulations and processes were flawed, only that some of them were. Those that were applied in the case of Hjordis Eythorsdottir were not. David Burn London, England From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Sat Sep 14 20:39:26 2002 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 11:39:26 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] Lucy. In-Reply-To: <000901c25be0$852cc1a0$fe2127d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: On Sat, 14 Sep 2002, David Burn wrote: > If you enter a competition in which you are going to be tested for the > presence of drugs in your system, you knowingly and willingly forfeit > some or all of that right. Or at least, even if in fact you did not know > that you would forfeit that right, and would not have entered the > competition had you known, it is reasonable to presume that you did know > and did consent. Just as it is a good idea to read an exam before you > answer it, so it is a good idea to know the rules of a game before you > play it. Yes. A lesson to which many of us had our eyes freshly opened in these past few weeks. I agree with the principle that signing an "I agree to the conditions of contest" form when submitting your entry does constitute a waiver of some of one's rights. A problem can still arise in one of two ways. One way is illustrated by airline security in the past year: I am forced to submit to extensive invasion of privacy, most of it without much in the way of increased safety in return, to which I would by choice never consent, because given where I live, I *have* to fly to get anywhere. (Yes, I know BLML is not the appropriate forum to discuss that matter. Yes, I have written more than once to the FAA and my congressman about it.) It's possible a bridge professional would use that same argument, but it seems a bit of a stretch. The other problem is the one that actually DOES arise. Players say the agree to the CoC assuming they are agreeing to a reasonable, sensible policy. Neither ACBL nor WBF provides a copy of their drug policy. Finding it on the Olympics website takes considerable effort (and isn't something you could do while at a tournament, if you don't own a laptop.) And upon finding the policy, you would discover it contains all sorts of draconian measures: "we will kick out anyone we want, whenever we want, based on whatever evidence we can get, if they have done something we don't like. We will give lip service to providing exemptions for people with medical conditions, but only if you give us a record of your medical needs, engraved on stone tablets and signed by Moses, before the game." I am sure the vast majority of those who played in Montreal played with a vague awareness there was a drug policy in place, but with every confidence that it was only a test for illegal drugs, i.e., that no over-the-counter drugs would be tested for and that most all prescription drugs would be OK with nothing more than saying "I have a prescription." I know I would have. I view it in much the same light as agreeing to take a drug test if asked to do so by my employer: all I have agreed to is to not do anything against the law or that incapacitates me to the point of injuring my coworkers while I am on duty. I remain in the camp that says the only reason we have a drug policy was to pander to the IOC, and that currently the WBF has issued a press release in self-defense while it scrambles to figure out what to do. (I still give them the benefit of the doubt that they will try to implement a more sensible policy - perhaps even working with WADA to decide on a policy for non-physical activities - in the next year or two.) GRB From dalburn@btopenworld.com Sat Sep 14 21:51:37 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 21:51:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lucy. References: Message-ID: <007101c25c30$84e9dde0$871a27d9@pbncomputer> Gordon wrote: > The other problem is the one that actually DOES arise. Players say they > agree to the CoC assuming they are agreeing to a reasonable, sensible > policy. In pratcice, they do. In theory, of course, they should not. There is, as I have said many times, no reason at all why the rules of a game should be "reasonable" or "sensible"; if you assume that they are, you act at your own risk. But when push comes to shove, if the makers of the rules say: "You knew what they were, and our presumption is that if you acted contrary to them, you did so knowingly and are subject to penalty", while a player says: "I did not know what the rules were, and I did not knowingly break them", then (provided that the player could have known what the rules were), that defence must fail. It may be true, of course, but that does not matter - the principle that "ignorance of the law is no excuse" (I have given up Latin for the moment) is accepted more or less everywhere. > Neither ACBL nor WBF provides a copy of their drug policy. That's because it isn't theirs. They think that a reference to someone else's ought to be enough. Maybe, for human beings in the real world, it is not as a practical matter enough. But that does not invalidate the principle. > And upon > finding the policy, you would discover it contains all sorts of draconian > measures: "we will kick out anyone we want, whenever we want, based on > whatever evidence we can get, if they have done something we don't > like. We will give lip service to providing exemptions for people with > medical conditions, but only if you give us a record of your medical > needs, engraved on stone tablets and signed by Moses, before the game." That's one way of putting it. Another might be to say: "We would like the Olympic 100 metres final to be won by the man who can run 100 metres faster than anybody else solely by virtue of his ability to run fast and his dedication to running fast. We would not like the 100 metres final to be won by anyone who has enhanced his ability to run fast by following some regime that would not, in the normal course of events, be available to those without specialist knowledge of pharmacology." > I am sure the vast majority of those who played in Montreal played with a > vague awareness there was a drug policy in place, but with every > confidence that it was only a test for illegal drugs, i.e., that no > over-the-counter drugs would be tested for and that most all prescription > drugs would be OK with nothing more than saying "I have a prescription." I think that after Maastricht, the first occasion (as far as I know) on which dope testing was actually carried out (it was threatened in Bermuda, but I do not know whether or not it happened), just about everyone who considered themselves a medal prospect would have been aware that there was an anti-doping policy in place that was as rigid as that adopted by the IOC (because, in effect, it was the IOC's policy lock, stock, and no-smoking barrels). > I view it in much the same light as agreeing to take a > drug test if asked to do so by my employer: all I have agreed to is to not > do anything against the law or that incapacitates me to the point of > injuring my coworkers while I am on duty. I am afraid that I do not see the analogy; after all, your employer is scarcely going to ask you whether you are taking anything that might make you work better than your colleagues. > I remain in the camp that says the only reason we have a drug policy was > to pander to the IOC For what it may be worth, I think so too. But it is not worth a hill of beans. The governing body of our game laid down a set of regulations. As the governing body of our game, it could do that. Whether or not it should have done that, whatever the reasons for which it did that, it did that. It is not (in my view) a defence against a penalty for disobeying those regulations to say: "Those regulations should not have been made" unless those regulations were manifestly contrary to human rights. > and that currently the WBF has issued a press > release in self-defense while it scrambles to figure out what to do. (I > still give them the benefit of the doubt that they will try to implement a > more sensible policy - perhaps even working with WADA to decide on a > policy for non-physical activities - in the next year or two.) With all of that paragraph, I agree entirely. David Burn London, England From ehaa@starpower.net Sat Sep 14 22:43:01 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 17:43:01 -0400 Subject: [blml] Lucy. In-Reply-To: <004301c25b5d$b7d87e60$b3ae27d9@pbncomputer> References: Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20020913163240.00ac0900@pop.starpower.net> At 03:42 PM 9/13/02, David wrote: >Tim wrote: > > > > Can we please have an end to this line of non-argument? Of course > > > the WBF cannot tell you what you may or may not ingest. But it > > > can certainly tell you what you may not ingest if you want to > > > play in WBF tournaments. > > > > Of course it can. It can also tell me that I must wear red >underpants. > > As with drugs (bridge performance enhancers excepted) the colour of my > > underpants is, IMO, none of their business. That they should choose >to > > exercise their powers in matters that should not concern them is no > > surprise to me. It remains a disappointment that they have chosen so >to > > do. > >There was a time when petitio principii was a fallacy; judging by many >of the contributions to this thread, it has now become mainstream logic. >There was a time when the distinction between the conditional and the >preterite was of some significance; children, dear, should it have been >yesterday? There was also a time when I was a more than usually patient >man; in memory of those bygone days, I will attempt to separate some of >the issues that appear to me to have become all but inextricably tangled >in the course of the discussion. > >The organising body of a game has penalised a player of that game for >breaking a regulation governing the conduct of people involved in the >playing of that game. Should it have done this? > >Stated thus, the answer seems to me to be the simple: "Of course it >should". There is, after all, not a great deal of point in making >regulations if you are not going to do anything when they are broken. Quite right. >But there are those who hold one or both of these views: > >(1a) The regulation is a violation of some human right; It is. Human beings have a fundamental right not to have their personal freedoms impinged upon for no reason. I hear very few arguing that the WBF is perforce wrong to drug test in bridge merely because it restricts their personal freedom. I hear many sensible people arguing that the WBF is wrong because it restricts their personal freedom when the WBF has no valid or compelling reason to do so. >(1b) the >regulation is therefore unsound; It is. >and (1c) the player should not have >been penalised for breaking it. That does not follow, and is wrong. Of course the player should have been penalized. I hear nobody on BLML, and very few elsewhere, who believe otherwise. >(2a) While the principle behind the regulation is sound, Arguably true. >(2b) the >implementation of the regulation is in this particular case unsound; Certainly true. >and >(2c) the player should therefore not have been penalised for breaking >it. False. And would not follow from (2a) and (2b). And entirely beside the point. We are not debating whether the WBF should have penalized Ms. Eythorsdottir for violating the rules (but see Note, below); we concede that once they put the rule on the books they had no choice but to enforce it. We are debating about whether, by leaving the rule on the books now that it is no longer justified (if it ever was), they should force themselves to have to penalize others in the future. We do not argue that because it is a bad rule it should not have been enforced. We argue that because it is a bad rule it should be repealed, so it will not have to be enforced in the future. Note: The WBF should be aware that there are widespread rumors, both word of mouth and over the Internet, to the effect that Ms. Eythorsdottir is not the only player in Montreal to have refused to submit to a drug test, but was the only one disciplined for that refusal. If that were true, then their case for having penalized Ms. Eythorsdottir would fall apart, and the rationale for their having done so would be specious, mendacious and hypocritical. If it is not true (and I have no reason whatsoever to believe that it might be), the WBF should protect itself by clearly and publically denying the allegation. >To deal with (1), the "human right" of which the regulation is >considered a violation is (in effect) the right to act as one pleases, >or as one is compelled by circumstances beyond one's control, provided >that one does not thereby harm a fellow human being. If I want to take >cocaine, or need to take beta-blockers, to prevent me from doing so is >to deprive me of my right. That is true, but irrelevant. The WBF does >not say: "You must not take cocaine because it is bad for you", only: >"You must not take cocaine so that the effects of doing so persist while >you are playing bridge." Which, if not justified on the grounds that "it is bad for you", can only be justified on the grounds that it has some distinct effect on your playing bridge, and then only if that effect is in some way detrimental to others' playing bridge. The whole problem here is that the WBF has failed to include a defensible "because" clause in that last sentence. If they're not outlawing cocaine because it's bad for you, they only need tell us what their actual reason for doing so is; if they can defend their facts, the debate (over cocaine, at least) will be over. But if they're outlawing cocaine because they believe it enhances performance at bridge, they will find themselves unable to defend their facts, as there is an overwhelming body of both scientific and anecdotal evidence that precisely the opposite is true. >The former would indeed be a violation of a >human right, and would be entirely ultra vires as far as the WBF is >concerned; but the WBF does not do the former. The latter does not >appear to me to be a violation of any human right; it appears (other >things being equal) to be an entirely sound and reasonable regulation. We have yet to hear any justification for that belief that relates not to morality or health, but to bridge. Bridge *is* what the WBF is all about, isn't it? It may, arguably, have been "sound and reasonable" when it was a prerequisite to having bridge accepted into the Olympics -- that does, after all, has something to do with bridge -- but why now? If such a reason exists, where was it all these years? I do not believe that the WBF was about to institute a drug policy -- adopt the IOC's, no less! -- independently of and purely coincidentally with the effort to gain Olympic recognition. I do not believe that the WBF ever even imagined, much less seriously considered, the possiblity that bridge had a doping problem or needed an anti-doping policy before the Olympics became a factor in their decision-making. And I do not believe them now if they say that they not only think we have a problem and need a policy to solve it, but would be saying the same thing if the Olympics had not come up. The WBF seems to me to be suffering from a classic case of cognitive dissonance, a well-documented psychological phenomenon: They adopted what they knew at the time to be an inappropriate and distasteful drug-testing policy because they were forced to do so in pursuit of an overriding objective, being recognized by the IOC. Unfortunately, the incident in Montreal caused that policy to be widely and publically questioned, and so forced the WBF to defend it. The princple of cognitive dissonance predicts that anyone who vigorously defends any position will tend to come to believe in it, even if they previously opposed it and had simply agreed to adopt it for purposes of debate. The WBF has now convinced themselves, against their own better judgment, that the IOC policy was neither inappropriate nor distasteful, and are clinging to at least vestiges of that misguided belief. Had the rule not been violated by Ms. Eythorsdottir in Montreal, the WBF would not have been forced to commit themselves to a public position on it, and would have quietly and happily repealed it by now. >Other things are not, in this case, equal - a point to which I will >return. For the moment, I do not see that (1) is a tenable ground on >which to oppose the actions of the WBF in the Montreal case. > >To deal with (2), the principle behind the regulation is this: >competitors in a [sport or] game should win or lose according to their >ability to play the game; that ability should not be enhanced by >artificial means, but should arise entirely from a combination of >natural talent and practice at the game. One's inherent talent for playing the game is "natural". Arguably, the enhancement of one's ability that comes with experience playing the game is also "natural". But why would drinking coffee or taking steroids be any more "unnatural" a way to enhance one's ability than reading bridge books, bidding practice deals, taking more comfortable hotel rooms, or hiring professionals? You can't argue that it should be acceptable to enhance one's talent by "natural" means but not by "artificial" ones if you can't distinguish between what is natural and what is artificial. >Now, this principle appears to me to be sound. I have not read any >argument in this discussion to the effect that it is not. What I have >read are a number of (unsubstantiated) assertions to the effect that in >the particular context of bridge, it would not be possible for any >player to enhance his ability by artificial means. Therefore, runs the >argument, the player in this particular case did not do so, and should >not have been penalised. But only if it can be shown that it is indeed >impossible for a bridge player to derive some artificially induced >benefit from a course of action should that course of action be >permitted while the player is involved in a bridge tournament. If there >is any possibility that a course of action will lead to an artificial >enhancement of ability, that course of action is correctly proscribed by >any authority. But if that authority retains to itself the power to label any possible "enhancement of ability" of which it dissapproves as "artificial" while not so labeling those of which it approves, that argument becomes circular and meaningless. >To put this another way, if the WBF were to say: "We are not sure, but >it may be that taking cough syrup helps you to play better bridge, so we >will disqualify anyone found to have taken cough syrup during an event", >I would say that the WBF was acting entirely correctly. Were a player >then to say: "You are depriving me of my chance to win the Bermuda Bowl >because I can't concentrate properly while I have this terrible cough", >I would say that this was unlucky, just as I would call unlucky a man >who could not run in the Olympic 100 metres final because he had broken >his leg while training. > >This is, perhaps, not the easiest of arguments to accept, for it seems >to run contrary to the "presumption of innocence" about which John >Mortimer, via his alter ego Rumpole of the Bailey, used to bang on at >interminable length. (Apologies, by the way, for the number of Latin >phrases and references to English cultural icons that have permeated >this message; when I was a small boy, I wanted to be a lawyer.) People >are innocent until proven guilty, but drugs are - to my way of >thinking - guilty until proven innocent. Semantic twaddle. Sounds like a John Ashcroft sound bite. Drugs aren't innocent or guilty; people are innocent or guilty. Presumption of innocence is too good for anyone who takes dope? Lock 'em up and let 'em rot? >Eric has made the point that it is the proper conduct of an organisation >to act in the interests of its members. This is so; I do not gainsay it. >Others have made the point that the implementation of an anti-doping >policy by the WBF has been botched, since it has involved the banning of >substances which cannot possibly be performance-enhancing in the context >of bridge. This is very likely indeed to be so; I do not gainsay it >either. > >But it does not follow from this that the adoption of an anti-doping >policy in the first place was contrary to the interests of WBF members; >only that the adoption of this particular one was. There were reasons >why the "wrong" policy was adopted; these had to do with the constraints >imposed by the IOC on the WBF and the timescales within which those >constraints had to be met. It may be argued that the WBF acted contrary >to the interests of its members in attempting to gain for bridge full >admission to the Olympic Games. I do not myself believe this; I am sorry >that the attempt has failed, though I can understand the IOC's point of >view. I'm quite prepared to accept all of this. I argued against the Olympic effort when the subject came up originally, but concede that, at least among those I talk to, it was favored by the majority and favored overwhelmingly by those who would be most affected by it. Even then, there were serious objections to the IOC drug policy, but a consensus that suffering it was necessary (few if any realized that it wasn't per se mandatory). But that doesn't matter. It's just history. >But I am sure that the WBF believed that it was acting in its >members' interests while it pursued its program, I believe that it was >in fact acting in my interests in so doing, and if the Montreal incident >was a consequence of that pursuit, then it was an appropriate and >inevitable consequence. They may have been appropriate and they may have been inevitable, but what they surely were was unfortunate and undesirable. The Montreal incident was an appropriate consequence of the drug polcy, and the drug policy may once have been an inevitable consequence of the Olympic effort, but as of today it seems transparently clear that the IOC drug policy is neither appropriate nor inevitable for the WBF. The only sensible course for the WBF to follow now is to strike it from the books. Serious questions have been raised about whether the WBF should have any kind of drug testing policy at all and, if so, of what sort, with many vital details (such as what drugs would be covered) yet to be resolved. The debate can and should continue, and the WBF (and the lesser governing bodies) should listen, consider, and decide as best they can. But no sane person thinks that the WBF should continue to operate under the IOC rules, and only a fringe minority seems willing to defend them even as temporarily better than nothing. What the WBF cannot possibly want is for another such appropriate but unfortunate and undesirable consequence to be inevitable at their next championship. The IOC policy must be gone by then, in everyone's interest. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Sep 15 00:57:06 2002 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 00:57:06 +0100 Subject: Woodman spare that tree [ was Re: [blml] Lucy.] References: <004301c25b5d$b7d87e60$b3ae27d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <002701c25c4b$1d4d4120$02b1193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, September 13, 2002 8:42 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Lucy. > > But there are those who hold one or both of these views: > > (1a) The regulation is a violation of some human right; (1b) the > regulation is therefore unsound; and (1c) the player should not have > been penalised for breaking it. > > (2a) While the principle behind the regulation is sound, (2b) the > implementation of the regulation is in this particular case unsound; and > (2c) the player should therefore not have been penalised for breaking > it. > +=+ When a kitten climbs into a tree and then mews plaintively because it does not know how to climb down again, humankind is apt to run off in all directions weeping sympathy, calling for ladders, fire services and for men in hard hats with clipboards. The tree was there previously and if we thought it a danger to kittens we could have written treatises to blml on the subject long before the kitten was even born. We are doing it again over a regulation and doping tests that have had their place at World Championships for several years; on this occasion a kitten climbed into the tree and now, sympathy aroused, we want to put an axe to the tree. Kitten's rights, and natural jusrtice, would appear to say that the kitten has a right to climb into the tree, and if it chooses to do so must expect to pay its dues. Post facto sympathy has little consolation to offer; to argue the case now is not to base argument on cool, objective appraisal, but on tangled emotions. Where were the woodmen and their axes in previous years? Oh, and by the way, don't try to tell me that if you are playing 56+ boards a day for fourteen or more days, stamina and drugs that will sustain stamina is not an issue. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Sep 15 01:07:45 2002 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 01:07:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lucy. References: Message-ID: <004501c25c4e$2e3317a0$02b1193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2002 8:39 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Lucy. > > > On Sat, 14 Sep 2002, David Burn wrote: > >. Finding > it on the Olympics website takes considerable effort (and isn't something > you could do while at a tournament, if you don't own a laptop.) > +=+ There was an Internet Room for the players with a bank of PCs linked to the internet. +=+ From dalburn@btopenworld.com Sun Sep 15 01:21:18 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 01:21:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lucy. References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020913163240.00ac0900@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <001301c25c4d$cfc92ba0$871a27d9@pbncomputer> Eric wrote: > >But there are those who hold one or both of these views: > > > >(1a) The regulation is a violation of some human right; > > It is. Human beings have a fundamental right not to have their > personal freedoms impinged upon for no reason. Indeed. But it is not an argument against what happened in Montreal to say (without justification) that it happened "for no reason"; that is, once again, to beg the question. Eric has written nearly as much as (perhaps more than) I have on this topic, and I am aware that I have not until now considered the sensible arguments that he has introduced. I propose to remedy forthwith this deplorable deficiency, but I am surprised and pleased to find that he and I actually agree with one another in every major aspect of the matter. > I hear very few arguing > that the WBF is perforce wrong to drug test in bridge merely because it > restricts their personal freedom. I hear many sensible people arguing > that the WBF is wrong because it restricts their personal freedom when > the WBF has no valid or compelling reason to do so. The WBF has a valid and compelling reason to say this: "You [a player] may not play in our events if you have done, or during the course of one of our events do, something that will confer on you an unfair advantage over other competitors. If we can show that you have done X, and if doing X will in our opinion confer on you an unfair advantage, then we have the right to disqualify you." Now, the only ground upon which one might object to this (as far as I can see) is the specific: "You [the WBF] say that what I [a player] have done will confer an unfair advantage; I say that this is not so." At this point, the specific course of action taken by the player should be examined by an independent body to determine whether it would or would not in fact confer an unfair advantage. The definition of "unfair" in this context rests a priori with the WBF; they are the final arbiters of what constitutes fair and unfair play in bridge. In practice, what has happened is this. Because the WBF wished the game of bridge to be admitted to a wider sporting community, it adopted the rules of that community without due consideration of their applicability to bridge. In so doing, it made the game of bridge subject to the rules of that community. This may or may not have been a "good" thing to do - but for the moment, that did not matter. The rules of the wider community had become, for better or for worse, part of the rules of bridge, and the WBF was bound to enforce those rules. In my view, the WBF was not acting outside its remit or contrary to the interests of its members in trying to make bridge a part of that wider community. I am aware that Eric holds a contrary view - but this does not matter either. While the WBF was doing what it could to ensure that bridge became an Olympic Game (there is, by the way, nothing called the "Olympic Sports"), it had plenty of valid and compelling reasons to say that bridge players should be subject to the same rules as marathon runners. > >(1b) the > >regulation is therefore unsound; > It is. Only if you grant that the WBF had no reason to act as it did, which is something that (as I hope I have explained in the foregoing) I do not grant. Whereas I know that Eric and I have very different opinions as to whether the WBF's efforts to become an Olympic Game were desirable, I hope that Eric will see that the WBF's adoption of the IOC's doping regulations was done for the reason that the WBF wanted the IOC to consider bridge as an Olympic Game, and that (as far as the WBF was concerned) this was a compelling reason. > >and (1c) the player should not have > >been penalised for breaking it. > > That does not follow, and is wrong. Of course the player should have > been penalized. I hear nobody on BLML, and very few elsewhere, who > believe otherwise. Well, I am glad to hear it, though somewhat baffled, because that is not the view that I have thought others were attempting to express. > >(2a) While the principle behind the regulation is sound, > > Arguably true. Not my argument, merely a paraphrase of others. Perhaps not a very good paraphrase, but at least it enables us to skip: > >(2b) the > >implementation of the regulation is in this particular case unsound; > > Certainly true. > >and > >(2c) the player should therefore not have been penalised for breaking > >it. > > False. And would not follow from (2a) and (2b). And entirely beside > the point. Buy that man a drink. > We are not debating whether the WBF should have penalized Ms. > Eythorsdottir for violating the rules (but see Note, below); we concede > that once they put the rule on the books they had no choice but to > enforce it. We are debating about whether, by leaving the rule on the > books now that it is no longer justified (if it ever was), they should > force themselves to have to penalize others in the future. Are we? It seems to me that I have been devoting an awful lot of time to the question of whether the actions taken in the original case were justified. It does not seem to me that others are prepared to concede what you have said that "we" concede above. If they are, and if I have been subjecting them to vitriolic abuse couched in long-winded prose, then I apologise forthwith. > We do not > argue that because it is a bad rule it should not have been > enforced. We argue that because it is a bad rule it should be > repealed, so it will not have to be enforced in the future. I don't know about "repealed". Bridge players should not be allowed to take drugs that will temporarily make them better bridge players. But someone should find out what these are before implementing this rule. > Note: The WBF should be aware that there are widespread rumors, both > word of mouth and over the Internet, to the effect that Ms. > Eythorsdottir is not the only player in Montreal to have refused to > submit to a drug test, but was the only one disciplined for that > refusal. These rumours are codswallop, and are not the WBF's fault. Lynn Deas did not take a drug test, even though her name was drawn at random for having to take one, but she is a wheelchair-bound invalid who needs a lot of the stuff on the IOC banned list to survive. > If that were true, then their case for having penalized Ms. > Eythorsdottir would fall apart, and the rationale for their having done > so would be specious, mendacious and hypocritical. If it is not true > (and I have no reason whatsoever to believe that it might be), the WBF > should protect itself by clearly and publically denying the allegation. What "allegation"? It is as true today as it was when the chap first said it, that a lie can be half way round the world before the truth has got its boots on. > >The WBF does > >not say: "You must not take cocaine because it is bad for you", only: > >"You must not take cocaine so that the effects of doing so persist while > >you are playing bridge." > Which, if not justified on the grounds that "it is bad for you", can > only be justified on the grounds that it has some distinct effect on > your playing bridge, and then only if that effect is in some way > detrimental to others' playing bridge. What has that second part got to do with anything? The first part is right: "you must not take anything that will enable you to play better bridge than you could otherwise play with nothing but your own unenhanced brain to support you". But I am not talking about tendencies to affect the behaviour of others here; a sporting authority may rightly say that a player may not take pharmaceuticals that will enable him better to compete in the sport. > But if they're outlawing cocaine because they believe it > enhances performance at bridge, they will find themselves unable to > defend their facts, as there is an overwhelming body of both scientific > and anecdotal evidence that precisely the opposite is true. There isn't. Quite the contrary (though it should be understood that I was not talking specifically about cocaine - the WBF would in practice do better to ban glucose). This does not matter at all - the WBF should outlaw anything that can be shown to enhance performance at bridge, whether or not it causes irreperable brain damage or cures cancer. > We have yet to hear any justification for that belief that relates not > to morality or health, but to bridge. Bridge *is* what the WBF is all > about, isn't it? It may, arguably, have been "sound and reasonable" > when it was a prerequisite to having bridge accepted into the Olympics > -- that does, after all, has something to do with bridge -- but why now? Because whether or not bridge is accepted into the Olympics, you still should not cheat at it. > One's inherent talent for playing the game is "natural". Arguably, the > enhancement of one's ability that comes with experience playing the > game is also "natural". But why would drinking coffee or taking > steroids be any more "unnatural" a way to enhance one's ability than > reading bridge books, bidding practice deals, taking more comfortable > hotel rooms, or hiring professionals? You can't argue that it should be > acceptable to enhance one's talent by "natural" means but not by > "artificial" ones if you can't distinguish between what is natural and > what is artificial. Perhaps I can't. But why should runners not be allowed to take steroids if bridge players are allowed to drink coffee? I think that there may be some fundamental difference of opinion here that has nothing to do with the Montreal case. Suppose it were shown beyond doubt that ten grammes of Compound X would make you, Eric Landau, a better bridge player than Eric Rodwell if you took them twenty minutes before a session. Suppose also that Compound X did you no physical harm whatever. And suppose Compound X cost a billion dollars a gramme. Would you, as the WBF, say that the taking of Compound X should be prohibited for entrants to the Bermuda Bowl, in case the team of Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Eric Landau and anyone were to win it? I am pretty sure that I would. David Burn London, England From nancy@dressing.org Sun Sep 15 04:56:08 2002 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 23:56:08 -0400 Subject: [blml] Convention card at clubs. Message-ID: <001001c25c6b$d2aeead0$6401a8c0@hare> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C25C4A.4B804CF0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Can anyone tell me the law # (if there is one) that requires players to = have a convention card on the table at *club* games. Law 40 does not = state this and is the only law referring to the convention card. The = Tech files on ACBLscor refer to use of convention cards at Sectionals = and Regionals but nothing is stated about clubs. Thanks, Nancy ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C25C4A.4B804CF0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Can anyone tell me the law # (if there is one) that requires = players to=20 have a convention card on the table at *club* games.  Law 40 does = not state=20 this and is the only law referring to the convention card.  The = Tech files=20 on ACBLscor refer to use of convention cards at Sectionals and Regionals = but=20 nothing is stated about clubs.  Thanks, Nancy
------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C25C4A.4B804CF0-- From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sun Sep 15 05:45:00 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 21:45:00 -0700 Subject: [blml] Convention card at clubs. References: <001001c25c6b$d2aeead0$6401a8c0@hare> Message-ID: <006201c25c72$ef650f40$1c981e18@san.rr.com> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nancy T Dressing" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2002 8:56 PM Subject: [blml] Convention card at clubs. Can anyone tell me the law # (if there is one) that requires players to have a convention card on the table at *club* games. Law 40 does not state this and is the only law referring to the convention card. The Tech files on ACBLscor refer to use of convention cards at Sectionals and Regionals but nothing is stated about clubs. Thanks, Nancy From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sun Sep 15 05:59:38 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 21:59:38 -0700 Subject: [blml] Convention card at clubs. References: <001001c25c6b$d2aeead0$6401a8c0@hare> Message-ID: <006901c25c74$cef1a5a0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Nancy Dressing wrote: > Can anyone tell me the law # (if there is one) that requires players to have a convention card on the table at *club* games. Law 40 does not state this and is the only law referring to the convention card. The Tech files on ACBLscor refer to use of convention cards at Sectionals and Regionals but nothing is stated about clubs. Clubs can make their own rules about convention cards, even barring them if they wish. I think it's bad policy to ignore the ACBL regulations just because they apply only to sectional and higher games, but the person running the club must make that decision. If there are players who will be competing at a higher level, at least some of the club games should adhere to ACBL cc regulations. Not knowing them would put such players at a disadvantage when they play up. That does not mean all club games are exempt from the regs. Multi-site events such as Sectional Tournament at Clubs (STaC) must follow them. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Sep 15 09:11:07 2002 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 09:11:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lucy. References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020913163240.00ac0900@pop.starpower.net> <001301c25c4d$cfc92ba0$871a27d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <003201c25c8f$96731b80$f63487d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2002 1:21 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Lucy. > > > Because whether or not bridge is accepted into the Olympics, you still > should not cheat at it. > > > One's inherent talent for playing the game is "natural". Arguably, > > the enhancement of one's ability that comes with experience playing > > the game is also "natural". But why would drinking coffee or taking > > steroids be any more "unnatural" a way to enhance one's ability than > > reading bridge books, bidding practice deals, taking more comfortable > > hotel rooms, or hiring professionals? You can't argue that it should > > be acceptable to enhance one's talent by "natural" means but not by > > "artificial" ones if you can't distinguish between what is natural and > > what is artificial. > +=+ I am not convinced this is the whole of the matter. It seems to me that the WBF could equally argue that it is in the interests of WBF tournaments that players should not be allowed to ingest drugs that may (a) affect their behaviour at the table, and/or (b) bring the WBF into disrepute for permitting the use of them. My personal inclination is to think that it would now be right, if the WBF agrees that there is nothing to be pursued with the IOC for twenty years, for the WBF to establish its own drugs policy. (But the WBF may believe it should not forfeit the level of IOC recognition it has already achieved). I would not argue against a ban on the use of (i) drugs that 'enhance concentration and stamina' (sic); (ii) hallucinatory drugs. A dispensation for drugs prescribed for life-threatening medical conditions could well be appropriate in a game where those threatened can still participate. Even if the current regime is to continue I could think there is advantage in seeking to negotiate such a modification. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Sep 15 08:31:26 2002 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 08:31:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Convention card at clubs. References: <001001c25c6b$d2aeead0$6401a8c0@hare> Message-ID: <003101c25c8f$9524f0a0$f63487d9@4nrw70j> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0023_01C25C92.47FDEF40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Grattan Endicott
Grattan Endicott<grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
"Not=20 very well, I can only write prose=20 today".
          &n= bsp; =20 {W.B. Yeats, being asked 'How are=20 you?'}
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Nancy = T=20 Dressing
Sent: Sunday, September 15, = 2002 4:56=20 AM
Subject: [blml] Convention card = at=20 clubs.

Can anyone tell me the law # (if there is one) that requires =
players to have a convention card on the table at *club*
games.  Law 40 does not state this and is the only law =
referring to the convention card.  The Tech files on
ACBLscor refer to use of convention cards at Sectionals
and Regionals but nothing is stated about clubs. 
Thanks, Nancy
 
+=3D+ It is not a matter of law = (beyond the=20 enabling Law 40E).
NBOs may make it a regulation for = their clubs to=20 adopt the
use of a CC. Usually, and probably = wisely, they=20 leave it to
individual clubs to decide for = themselves. If=20 clubs do ask
players to fill out convention cards = it is still=20 a question for
the club to address how rigorously = the=20 requirement is to be
applied - often the attitude is very = relaxed. The=20 proportion of
clubs allowing complex systems to be = used is not=20 high.
      Law = 40E does make=20 a statement as to what the purpose
of a CC shall be when one is=20 required.
          &nbs= p;            = ;            =             &= nbsp;         ~=20 Grattan ~  +=3D+
------=_NextPart_000_0023_01C25C92.47FDEF40-- From nancy@dressing.org Sun Sep 15 18:41:33 2002 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 13:41:33 -0400 Subject: [blml] Convention card at clubs. References: <001001c25c6b$d2aeead0$6401a8c0@hare> <003101c25c8f$9524f0a0$f63487d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <002501c25cdf$21f98be0$6401a8c0@hare> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0022_01C25CBD.9ACC74A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable My next question now is for a definition of "Sponsoring Organization". = Am I as a club owner the "sponsoring organization" of my game or is it = the ACBL who has granted me a sanction to run a game under their laws, = rules and regulations? I have been told that it is the ACBL.. If a = club is the training ground for players who will be moving on to higher = competitions, shouldn't the rules be the same for all at all levels? = If not, then aren't we just providing a social outlet for bridge players = who are tired of rubber bridge??? =20 Nancy ----- Original Message -----=20 From: grandeval=20 To: Nancy T Dressing ; Bridge Laws=20 Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2002 3:31 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Convention card at clubs. Grattan Endicott
My next question now is for a definition of "Sponsoring=20 Organization".  Am I as a club owner the "sponsoring organization" = of my=20 game or is it the ACBL who has granted me a sanction to run a game under = their=20 laws, rules and regulations?  I have been told that it is the = ACBL.. =20 If a club is the training ground for players who will be moving on to = higher=20 competitions, shouldn't the rules be the same for all at all = levels?  =20 If not, then aren't we just providing a social outlet for bridge players = who are=20 tired of rubber bridge??? 
Nancy
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 grandeval
To: Nancy T Dressing ; Bridge Laws =
Sent: Sunday, September 15, = 2002 3:31=20 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] Convention = card at=20 clubs.

Grattan Endicott<grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
"Not=20 very well, I can only write prose=20 = today".
          &n= bsp; =20 {W.B. Yeats, being asked 'How are=20 you?'}
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Nancy T=20 Dressing
Sent: Sunday, September 15, = 2002 4:56=20 AM
Subject: [blml] Convention = card at=20 clubs.

Can anyone tell me the law # (if there is one) that requires =
players to have a convention card on the table at *club*
games.  Law 40 does not state this and is the only law =
referring to the convention card.  The Tech files on =
ACBLscor refer to use of convention cards at Sectionals
and Regionals but nothing is stated about clubs. 
Thanks, Nancy
 
+=3D+ It is not a matter of law = (beyond the=20 enabling Law 40E).
NBOs may make it a regulation for = their clubs=20 to adopt the
use of a CC. Usually, and probably = wisely, they=20 leave it to
individual clubs to decide for = themselves. If=20 clubs do ask
players to fill out convention = cards it is=20 still a question for
the club to address how rigorously = the=20 requirement is to be
applied - often the attitude is = very relaxed.=20 The proportion of
clubs allowing complex systems to = be used is=20 not high.
      Law = 40E does=20 make a statement as to what the purpose
of a CC shall be when one is=20 required.
          &nbs= p;            = ;            =             &= nbsp;         ~=20 Grattan ~  = +=3D+
------=_NextPart_000_0022_01C25CBD.9ACC74A0-- From Walt.Flory@fscv.net Sun Sep 15 19:00:14 2002 From: Walt.Flory@fscv.net (Walt.Flory@fscv.net) Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 14:00:14 -0400 Subject: [blml] Convention card at clubs. In-Reply-To: <002501c25cdf$21f98be0$6401a8c0@hare> References: <001001c25c6b$d2aeead0$6401a8c0@hare> <003101c25c8f$9524f0a0$f63487d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20020915135233.02b85e30@mail.fscv.net> Nancy I believe the theory is that as a club owner you are running a business and that the ACBL by allowing you to cater to the desires of your customers allows both you and the them (through the "table fees" you pay them) to maximize the size of your games and the amount of profit you both make. Walt At 01:41 PM 15/09/2002 -0400, Nancy T Dressing wrote: >My next question now is for a definition of "Sponsoring Organization". Am >I as a club owner the "sponsoring organization" of my game or is it the >ACBL who has granted me a sanction to run a game under their laws, rules >and regulations? I have been told that it is the ACBL.. If a club is the >training ground for players who will be moving on to higher competitions, >shouldn't the rules be the same for all at all levels? If not, then >aren't we just providing a social outlet for bridge players who are tired >of rubber bridge??? >Nancy >----- Original Message ----- >From: grandeval >To: Nancy T Dressing ; >Bridge Laws >Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2002 3:31 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] Convention card at clubs. > >Grattan >Endicott<grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk >====================================== >"Not very well, I can only write prose today". > {W.B. Yeats, being asked 'How are you?'} >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >----- Original Message ----- >From: Nancy T Dressing >To: Bridge Laws >Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2002 4:56 AM >Subject: [blml] Convention card at clubs. > >Can anyone tell me the law # (if there is one) that requires >players to have a convention card on the table at *club* >games. Law 40 does not state this and is the only law >referring to the convention card. The Tech files on >ACBLscor refer to use of convention cards at Sectionals >and Regionals but nothing is stated about clubs. >Thanks, Nancy > >+=+ It is not a matter of law (beyond the enabling Law 40E). >NBOs may make it a regulation for their clubs to adopt the >use of a CC. Usually, and probably wisely, they leave it to >individual clubs to decide for themselves. If clubs do ask >players to fill out convention cards it is still a question for >the club to address how rigorously the requirement is to be >applied - often the attitude is very relaxed. The proportion of >clubs allowing complex systems to be used is not high. > Law 40E does make a statement as to what the purpose >of a CC shall be when one is required. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Sep 15 20:53:55 2002 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 20:53:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Convention card at clubs. References: <001001c25c6b$d2aeead0$6401a8c0@hare> <003101c25c8f$9524f0a0$f63487d9@4nrw70j> <5.1.1.6.0.20020915135233.02b85e30@mail.fscv.net> Message-ID: <000601c25cfd$68e4c6a0$dc6e87d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2002 7:00 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Convention card at clubs. > Nancy > > I believe the theory is that as a club owner you are > running a business and that the ACBL by allowing > you to cater to the desires of your customers > allows both you and the them (through the "table > fees" you pay them) to maximize the size of your > games and the amount of profit you both make. > > Walt > > > At 01:41 PM 15/09/2002 -0400, Nancy T Dressing > > wrote: My next question now is for a definition of > > "Sponsoring Organization". Am I as a club owner > > the "sponsoring organization" of my game or is it the > >ACBL who has granted me a sanction to run a game > > under their laws, rules and regulations? I have been > > told that it is the ACBL.. > > +=+ I am always on perilous ground when I try to follow the so-different set-up in the ACBL from what we have over here in Europe. In England, Nancy, you would be the 'Sponsoring Organization' because we allow clubs to make their own decisions as far as regulations go. [Most of them immdiately adopt the regulations put about by the NBO (National Bridge Organization).Life is easier that way, and at club lebel the EBU regulations are simple.] In the ACBL I suspect that the ACBL plays much of the role of the sponsoring organization because it imposes its own regulations (or so it seems from here); but I may well be wrong: the key is the basis on which the club rules of play are decided - do you have freedom to do differently than the ACBL suggests, or is the ACBL fiat more a demand than a suggestion at club level? Perhaps a good samaritan from Acoboland will set your mind to rest. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Sep 16 00:01:30 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 19:01:30 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Convention card at clubs. Message-ID: <200209152301.TAA05821@cfa183.harvard.edu> > My next question now is for a definition of "Sponsoring Organization". = > Am I as a club owner the "sponsoring organization" of my game or is it = > the ACBL who has granted me a sanction to run a game under their laws, = You are the SO, but as a condition of receiving ACBL sanction, you are required to conform to some but not all ACBL regulations. Unfortunately, it isn't always clear -- at least to me -- which regulations are mandatory and which are optional for clubs. The convention regulations are entirely at your discretion. (The club where I usually play allows MidChart methods, for example, and may well allow things not even on the MidChart.) I am pretty sure convention card regulations are also discretionary, although it makes practical sense to use the familiar ACBL card if you use convention cards at all. You could adopt written bidding (as in Australia) if you like, and I think the skip bid and alert regulations are optional. At the opposite extreme, you are obviously required to conform to Zonal options such as allowing defenders to ask each other about a possible revoke. You may not bar players on grounds of race, religion, etc., at least in an "open" game. You are also required to follow the ACBL election with regard to L16, although in practice nothing will happen to you if you ignore it. I am not sure about bidding box regulations. Using boxes is optional, but if you use them, could you have your own regulations? I don't know. There are many other regulations in this unclear (to me) category. Of course if your customers often play in other ACBL games, they may be unhappy with you if you use unfamiliar (to them) regulations. By the way, my information comes mainly from reading and BLML correspondence. If you want to know for sure about a particular rule, you will probably have to check with Memphis. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Sep 16 00:06:53 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 19:06:53 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Woodman spare that tree [ was Re: [blml] Lucy.] Message-ID: <200209152306.TAA05919@cfa183.harvard.edu> > From: "grandeval" > Where were the woodmen and their axes in previous years? There have been plenty of complaints in the past about the ridiculous WBF drug policy. Anyone who is unaware of them was not paying attention to the rank and file. In fact, I would be astonished if no one in the leadership raised the same concerns when the policy was adopted. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Sep 16 00:28:01 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 19:28:01 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Lucy. Message-ID: <200209152328.TAA06258@cfa183.harvard.edu> > From: "David Burn" > While the WBF was doing what it could to ensure that bridge became an > Olympic Game (there is, by the way, nothing called the "Olympic > Sports"), it had plenty of valid and compelling reasons to say that > bridge players should be subject to the same rules as marathon runners. Is this so? I thought the Olympic rule was that each federation had to adopt "appropriate" anti-doping regulations, not specifically the ones intended for marathon runners. Even if nothing else could have been done in the time available, surely it would have been possible to go through the IOC list and remove most of the substances that clearly confer no advantage whatsoever in bridge. > I don't know about "repealed". Bridge players should not be allowed to > take drugs that will temporarily make them better bridge players. But > someone should find out what these are before implementing this rule. Buy that man a drink, as someone said. But see below. > These rumours are codswallop, and are not the WBF's fault. Lynn Deas did > not take a drug test, even though her name was drawn at random for > having to take one, but she is a wheelchair-bound invalid who needs a > lot of the stuff on the IOC banned list to survive. If the WBF regulations were reasonable, this would be no excuse. I thought that is what you were arguing yourself, giving the example of a runner with a broken leg. Surely if a drug confers an unfair advantage, it isn't right to allow _any_ competitor to take it. > right: "you must not take anything that will enable you to play better > bridge than you could otherwise play with nothing but your own > unenhanced brain to support you". Are we now back to discussing what the regulations should say? If so, even the above is going to far. Am I allowed to eat before a session? I assure you I wouldn't survive long without food. Am I allowed to avoid eating before a session, if eating makes me sleepy? As you rightly say, the WBF will have to decide what is fair and what is not, and at some level, any decision will be arbitrary. However, in making its decisions, it should try to figure out what will be best for the game in the long run. > Perhaps I can't. But why should runners not be allowed to take steroids > if bridge players are allowed to drink coffee? This is exactly the right sort of question. The problem with steroids, of course, is that they are generally harmful in the long term, although in the short term they build muscle. What about small doses of aspirin, which undoubtedly promote cardiovascular health if taken over a long period of time? As Grattan has pointed out, stamina is a big factor in a long event. Should aspirin therefore be banned as unfair? > Suppose it were shown beyond doubt that ten grammes > of Compound X would make you, Eric Landau, a better bridge player than > Eric Rodwell if you took them twenty minutes before a session. And suppose compound X is an easily available, cheap, and generally promotes good health? Wouldn't we want all bridge players to take it? What about a compound that promotes good mental functioning if taken in the long term? (Its promoters claim that ginkgo biloba has this property, but as far as I can tell, there is little evidence to back them up. Still, we can imagine some compound with this property.) Would it be fair to bar players who take it? Or how about a drug that cures Alzheimers, should some pharmaceutical company develop one? > Suppose > also that Compound X did you no physical harm whatever. And suppose > Compound X cost a billion dollars a gramme. This is an interesting philosophical question, although not one likely to be of much practical relevance. I don't think these questions are simple ones. As Eric said much earlier, though, surely the element of harm to the user has to be considered in the decision to ban something. Otherwise there is no obvious line between "healthy living" and "artificial enhancements." From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Sep 16 03:26:36 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 12:26:36 +1000 Subject: [blml] Lucy. Message-ID: Eric Landau wrote: [snip] >One's inherent talent for playing the game is >"natural". Arguably, the enhancement of one's >ability that comes with experience playing the >game is also "natural". But why would drinking >coffee or taking steroids be any more "unnatural" >a way to enhance one's ability than reading >bridge books, bidding practice deals, taking more >comfortable hotel rooms, or hiring professionals? [snip] The ACBL has, in effect, ruled that hiring professionals is "unnatural", by enacting regs requiring each team-member in a team of 5 or 6 to play 50% of boards. The laudable idea is to prevent rich incompetents from buying bridge titles. In theory, the 50% reg gives an all-expert team a significant edge over another team which has a sponsor as "lead in its saddlebags". However, in major ACBL-land teams events, the vast majority of experts play in sponsored teams. This nullifies the intent of the 50% reg. So, in ACBL-land, "unnatural" wealth gives a demonstrable edge in winning a bridge event, but is legal. "Unnatural" drugs give a non-demonstrable edge, but are illegal. :-) Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Sep 16 07:46:58 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 16:46:58 +1000 Subject: Forgetting and Fielding Psyches (was Re: [BLML] The Blackwood Strikes Back) Message-ID: [big snip] >If, then, you say: "2C was once upon a time >non-forcing, and he may well have that, but our >experience has been that he forgets and may >well have a game force with clubs", then you >have told your opponents what your methods are >(2C is natural, and you might or might not be >going to pass it). If that is a legal method, >you may play it; moreover, unless you don't >actually have clubs, it is no longer possible >to psyche it. > >David Burn >London, England Since L40D prevents an SO regulating non- conventional bids at the 2-level, how can "2C = natural and extremely wide-ranging in strength" be an illegal method under an SO's regs? Of course, playing such a wide-ranging 2C response is an extremely silly action, which will randomly distribute tops and bottoms. Therefore, a big-brother SO will protect such a pair from themselves by ruling their system illegal under the "paying insufficent attention to the game" provisions of L74B1. Improperly interpreted, L74B1 permits a big- brother SO to make any reg that they like. For example: "No-one is permitted to claim, for that pays insufficent attention to the requirements of inexperienced players in the game." Best wishes Richard From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Mon Sep 16 10:19:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 10:19 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Lucy. Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <000901c25be0$852cc1a0$fe2127d9@pbncomputer> David Burn wrote: > > If you build a premise (implicitly in this case) into your question > you > > are likely to get an "obvious" answer. If you phrase the question as > > "Should a person be penalised for breaking an unjust rule that should > > never have been put in place?" you will no doubt get a different set > of responses. > > By a curious coincidence, that is precisely what the rest of my nessage > addressed. The technique of reading all of an examination paper before > starting to answer it is a useful one in later life also. As did the rest of my response. > If you use words like "unjust" and "should never have been", you are > committing the fallacy of begging the question to which I have referred. > No doubt the set of responses might be different, but that is of almost > no consequence, since the question would not be valid. The validity of the question is the whole point. If the regulation is considered invalid the reactions to it's breach may differ. I considered it implicit in your question that the regulation was reasonable. > > > To deal with (1), the "human right" of which the regulation is > > > considered a violation is (in effect) the right to act as one > pleases, > > > > Most definitely not. The right being "violated" is the right to > privacy > > (particularly in matters medical). > > If you enter a competition in which you are going to be tested for the > presence of drugs in your system, you knowingly and willingly forfeit > some or all of that right. Or at least, even if in fact you did not know > that you would forfeit that right, and would not have entered the > competition had you known, it is reasonable to presume that you did know > and did consent. Just as it is a good idea to read an exam before you > answer it, so it is a good idea to know the rules of a game before you > play it. > > > This right is generally accepted in > > our society. It is not an absolute right (society has determined that > the > > right to privacy of a criminal suspect is outweighed by the right of > > society to investigate crime through DNA testing). Creating rules in > > conflict with the right to privacy is not a task to be taken lightly. > > "Society", or at any rate the sporting community, has also determined > that the right to privacy in medical matters of a participant in a sport > is outweighed by the right of participants in that sport to compete on > equal terms. Claiming the right to privacy in order to secure an unfair > advantage is also not to be taken lightly. (The term "unfair" is of > course a subjective one, but it is certainly the right and the duty of > the organising body of a game to lay down rules as to what constitutes > unfair play. There is moreover - as I have said before - no reason why > those rules should conform to any extraneous moral or ethical > standards.) > > > Personally I would support the WBF's right to test for substances that > > "enhance concentration and stamina at bridge, as well as be also > injurious > > to the person or persons using them." This I think is the "sound > > principle" on which a drug policy might be based. > > Yes, but you do not think that there are any such substances, so the > above is simple nonsense. I have been told that Ritalin (not on the list as far as I am aware) is just such a substance. Since it is a drug that has been licensed to address attention deficit problems there is a high chance that it can boost performance. > Personally, I do not think that the WBF should > concern itself with whether a drug that a competitor might take would > harm them - it should concern itself only with whether or not it would > confer an unfair advantage. No. The WBF would, IMO, be wholly wrong to ban substances which are beneficial to healthy living. While I do not choose to adopt a healthy lifestyle myself I would not wish to see a ban on those that do. The reason the IOC and WBF give (quite rightly) is to prevent competitors harming themselves in order to gain short-term competitive advantage. > But in that context, its > determinations should not be challenged unless they are obviously wholly > unreasonable, in which category the notion that an amphetamine might > enhance performance clearly does not fall. The notion is one that is certainly worth investigating. Evidence can be considered and a decision reached. However forming a policy based on a mere "notion" is clearly wrong. > > > The WBF does > > > not say: "You must not take cocaine because it is bad for you", > only: > > > "You must not take cocaine so that the effects of doing so persist > while > > > you are playing bridge." The former would indeed be a violation of a > > > human right, and would be entirely ultra vires as far as the WBF is > > > concerned; but the WBF does not do the former. > > > The problem is that it does. While I personally doubt that cocaine > falls > > into the category of boosting bridge performance I will let that ride > for > > a while. Cocaine, as with many such drugs, can be detected in the > body > > long after any possible effects on the mind have subsided (Cannabis is > a > > spectacular example of such a substance). In addition the IOC regime > > allows for "out-of-competition" testing (which is necessary where > certain > > steroids are concerned) but probably irrelevant to mind-enhancing > drugs. > > Nothing in any of the rest of that paragraph bears out your assertion in > the first sentence. It is true that the WBF press release contained a > reference to protecting the health of competitors via its anti-doping > policy, but that was silly. You may consider it silly. The WBF obviously considers it the principle on which drug testing was introduced - that's why they said it. > Nowhere has the WBF asserted that cocaine is bad for you Two assertions are implicit in the WBF ban on cocaine 1. It is bad for you (there is considerable evidence that this is correct) 2. It will benefit your performance (I doubt they have evidence for this) > affects you while playing bridge. The former might be true, but it has > got nothing to do with the WBF; the latter might be based on a mistaken > notion that cocaine will help you play better, but while it is not known > whether that is a mistake or not, the WBF can and should make the > regulation in question. No more than they should be banning Moslems because Allah is more likely to inspire their two-way finesses than God is yours. It may be true but there is no evidence (again as far as I am aware) to suggest it. Again I say that more than mere notions are needed before making substantial invasions into the privacy of individuals. > > > To deal with (2), the principle behind the regulation is this: > > > competitors in a [sport or] game should win or lose according to > their > > > ability to play the game; that ability should not be enhanced by > > > artificial means, but should arise entirely from a combination of > > > natural talent and practice at the game. > > > Substitute "harmful" for "artificial" means and we are close to > agreement. > > Then we will have to remain as far apart as ever. Artificial is pretty useless in this context. Why is eating coca leaves any more "artificial" than eating lettuce? Why are hash cookies any more "artificial" than chocolate chip brownies? Tim From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Mon Sep 16 10:19:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 10:19 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Lucy. Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <003201c25c8f$96731b80$f63487d9@4nrw70j> Grattan wrote: > +=+ I am not convinced this is the whole of the matter. It seems to me > that the WBF could equally argue that it is in the interests of WBF > tournaments that players should not be allowed to ingest drugs that > may (a) affect their behaviour at the table, and/or They could, no doubt, so argue. One would hope that in the course of such an argument they would realise that 1) many substances (from sugar to nicotine) *may* affect behaviour at the table. 2) There are already laws about behaviour which are sufficient to deal with actual breaches regardless of cause. > (b) bring the WBF into disrepute for permitting the use of them. The WBF could acknowledge that it was not their place to regulate such drugs - but rather a matter of governmental policy in the match location. > My personal inclination is to think that it would now be right, > if the WBF agrees that there is nothing to be pursued with the IOC for > twenty years, for the WBF to establish its own drugs policy. (But the > WBF may believe it should not forfeit the level of IOC recognition it > has already achieved). I would think that were a sensible policy to be pursued in conjunction with experts from WADA it would not affect that recognition (and might actually help). > I would not argue against a ban on the use of > (i) drugs that 'enhance concentration and stamina' (sic); We need to be careful here. I, and every other unfit member of my club, have the stamina to sit in a chair and stay awake for 8 hours a day 14 days in a row. Drugs which increase physical stamina would be extremely unlikely to provide benefits in any way. However change it to drugs which "enhance the intensity or duration of concentration" and I think you would be pretty close. Drugs which temporarily enhance mathematical or social perceptions should also be considered (if any exist, or may come to exist). > (ii) hallucinatory drugs. I would strongly recommend that the WBF restrict it's concerns to drugs relating to enhancing bridge performance. Those whom the WBF ultimately represents may cover a wide range of opinions regarding recreational drugs and I seriously doubt that any policy in this area can even pretend to be representative of the views of these members. It isn't bridge, it isn't anything to do with bridge and whatever interference is decided upon would antagonise part of the membership. > A dispensation for drugs prescribed for life-threatening medical > conditions could well be appropriate in a game where those threatened > can still participate. Perhaps it would be better to reinforce the principle of "gaining through self-harm". Drugs required to stay alive cannot be described as self-harming (even if the same drugs, or different dosages) can prove harmful in the wider population. I would also suggest that should a drug be invented which is wholly beneficial (ie would be generally recommended to the whole population and devoid of harmful side-effects) it would be an ill-advised WBF that banned such a drug because it happened to assist performance. Unnecessarily putting people at a disadvantage in their "real" lives should be avoided. Tim From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Mon Sep 16 12:06:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 12:06 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Lucy. Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <000b01c25c0a$4b16a9c0$871a27d9@pbncomputer> DALB wrote: > Easily. The underlying principle is that players should not gain an > advantage by embarking on course of action X, where course of action X > is considered unfair in the context of bridge (or any other game). Now, > that principle is, or should be, absolute - one cannot say: "Well, this > person may not follow X, while this other person may." The principle can be absolute while admitting different treatment for different individuals. "Players should not have an incentive to put their health at risk in order to gain competitive advantage." is a possible principle. It avoids giving "unfair" advantage to those willing to risk their health. Since "fair"/"unfair" are matters you consider the purview of the WBF this policy could be adopted. If those who invest time and money in studying diet/drugs find a way (consistent with this principle) to gain an advantage over those who cannot be bothered it would be a "fair" advantage (most athletes have specialist guidance in this area). > It does not > matter whether X is harmful, or beneficial, or necessary for the very > survival of the individual concerned; if X is unfair, then players who > do X are disqualified. Of course having established that X is unfair (based on whatever principle) the players should* be disqualified for doing X. I say "should", but then something like this occurs. > Lynn Deas, who is in a wheelchair and suffers from a number of > exceptionally serious illnesses, would not have passed a dope test > because of the medicines that she requires. She was allowed not to take > the test, even though her name was among those randomly drawn to undergo > it. It appears that the WBF deliberately ignored it's own procedures on random testing. Surely Lynn should have been tested, failed, and then stripped of her medal (or permitted to keep it on medical grounds). > But that is not to say > that all of its regulations and processes were flawed, only that some of > them were. Those that were applied in the case of Hjordis Eythorsdottir > were not. It seems obvious to me that they were! The regulation was that randomly selected players should submit to testing. This regulation was not applied. If the WBF decided the regulation was not in force (by exempting Lynn) that was their choice. However, having made that decision they should not try and enforce the regulation on other players. I do not see how anyone can see the selective enforcement of mandatory testing as "fair". On a different issue: > Now, it may be felt that this is unduly harsh, but I think that it is an > essential foundation for any anti-doping policy in any sport. It was > known well in advance of Montreal that (a) Lynn Deas wished to compete > and (b) that the medications she had to take would cause her to fail a > dope test. What should have happened - indeed, what would have happened > in a sport that has had time to implement an anti-doping policy > properly - is this. The specific drugs that Lynn needs should have been > examined to determine whether they could confer an unfair advantage on a > bridge player. If so, then Lynn should have been told either that she > must change her medication, or, if this were impossible, that she should > not compete. This causes me some concern. Suppose that Lynn had chosen to switch to a somewhat riskier/less efficacious course of medicines *in order to compete*. Suppose that her health had suffered seriously as a result. Would this have been "better" or "fairer"? > If not, the WBF should have requested the IOC to remove > those drugs from the "banned list" for the purposes of bridge events. One of us has misunderstood the obligation the WBF had to the IOC. From what WADA and the IOC have said the WBF could have adopted a partial and/or different list without the IOC having to give approval. It is clear that WADA regarded the unabridged adoption of the IOC list as ridiculous. > The primary effect of this would have been to kick-start the sorely > needed creation of a sensible anti-doping policy for bridge. Which I, for one, regard as an essential prerequisite for *any* form of testing. Indeed it is the lack of just such a policy that has caused me to waste so many keystrokes on the whole bloody mess. Tim From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Mon Sep 16 12:06:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 12:06 +0100 (BST) Subject: Woodman spare that tree [ was Re: [blml] Lucy.] Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <002701c25c4b$1d4d4120$02b1193e@4nrw70j> Grattan wrote: > We are doing it again over a regulation and doping tests that have > had their place at World Championships for several years; on this > occasion a kitten climbed into the tree and now, sympathy aroused, we > want to put an axe to the tree. A possible explanation for the "sudden" appearance of the pro-kitten faction. The WBF has had a very silly drug-testing policy for several years, it has been largely peripheral to the game and we have been lucky that it's sillyness has not previously been exposed (sure a few people were allegedly tested and failed, but *not by much*, which was OK, so nothing came to public view). The first time it was genuinely put to the test was the first time the possibility of the Emperor's nakedness was considered by the population at large. Perhaps, had the little boy kept quiet, the policy could have meandered meaninglessly on for years. Tim From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Sep 16 12:39:03 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 16 Sep 2002 04:39:03 -0700 Subject: [blml] Lucy. Message-ID: <160902259.16743@webbox.com> Tim wrote: >This causes me some concern. Suppose that Lynn had chosen to switch to a somewhat riskier/less efficacious course of medicines *in order to compete*. That would have been her choice. If you have got a broken leg, then you are probably not wise to compete in the 3000 metres steeplechase, because (a) you will come second last in front of the British entrant; (b) you will not do your leg any good. But if you decide to run anyway, no one can or should stop you solely on the grounds that you will hurt yourself. But if you take some painkillers to stop you from hurting yourself (or at any rate to avoid feeling the hurt), and those painkillers are on the banned list, then you should not compete, and if you do compete, then you should be disqualified. >Suppose that her health had suffered seriously as a result. Would this have been "better" or "fairer"? It would have been neither; nor would it have been worse or more unfair. It would have been the proper exercise of an individual's choice as to whether the risk to her health of entering a competition was worth the rewards of that competition. That choice should in no way be influenced by the WBF's policy, which should consist simply and solely in saying: "You may not take drug X and compete in a WBF event." The rest is up to the individual. David Burn London, England From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Sep 16 13:04:15 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 08:04:15 -0400 Subject: [blml] Lucy. In-Reply-To: <000901c25be0$852cc1a0$fe2127d9@pbncomputer> References: Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20020914175258.00b7ecf0@pop.starpower.net> At 07:18 AM 9/14/02, David wrote: >Tim wrote: > > > This right is generally accepted in > > our society. It is not an absolute right (society has determined that >the > > right to privacy of a criminal suspect is outweighed by the right of > > society to investigate crime through DNA testing). Creating rules in > > conflict with the right to privacy is not a task to be taken lightly. > >"Society", or at any rate the sporting community, has also determined >that the right to privacy in medical matters of a participant in a sport >is outweighed by the right of participants in that sport to compete on >equal terms. Claiming the right to privacy in order to secure an unfair >advantage is also not to be taken lightly. (The term "unfair" is of >course a subjective one, but it is certainly the right and the duty of >the organising body of a game to lay down rules as to what constitutes >unfair play. There is moreover - as I have said before - no reason why >those rules should conform to any extraneous moral or ethical >standards.) Dictators aside, those who make rules for a society or a sporting community do so on behalf the members of that society or sporting community, whom they represent. If that constituency shares consensual moral or ethical standards, there is every reason why the rule-makers should make rules that conform to those standards; they are derelict in their responsibility to society or their community if they don't. > > Personally I would support the WBF's right to test for substances that > > "enhance concentration and stamina at bridge, as well as be also >injurious > > to the person or persons using them." This I think is the "sound > > principle" on which a drug policy might be based. > >Yes, but you do not think that there are any such substances, so the >above is simple nonsense. Personally, I do not think that the WBF should >concern itself with whether a drug that a competitor might take would >harm them - it should concern itself only with whether or not it would >confer an unfair advantage. There are many ways to gain advantage; we've mentioned bridge books, luxury hotel rooms and hired professionals, among others. These are, of course, harmless to one's physical health. If we do not consider potential harm, we are left with how to judge the advantage that may be conveyed by particular drugs comparably to how we judge such other forms of advantage. Principle aside, if we concern ourselves only with drugs that are potentially harmful -- or better yet, don't even distinguish drugs at all, but concern ourselves with *any* means of enhancing one's performance that's harmful to one's health, which will turn out to be much the same thing in the long run, but evade many of those moral and ethical objections -- this is a non-issue. The original justification for anti-doping policies in sports was to protect the athletes from the temptation to do themselves physical harm in order to improve their chances in competition. It did not come from any notion of "level playing field". There is no sport where the playing field is absolutely level, nobody would want one (think "Harrison Bergeron"), and drugs don't often have the potential to tilt the playing field nearly as much as other, non-health-threatening factors do (as is certainly the case in bridge). If it improves your game and isn't bad for you -- think "reading bridge books" -- why shouldn't everyone be encouraged to do it? > > There are many substances (in diet, drugs, and lifestyle) that may >help > > enhance performance in bridge while also being generally beneficial to > > users. There are many substances potentially injurious to the user's > > health that have no benefit to bridge performance. Regulating >substances > > in either of these categories should therefore be outside the purview >of > > the WBF. > >The question of the health of competitors should be outside the purview >of the WBF in any case. Only the question of what is fair and unfair >play at bridge should be within its purview. But in that context, its >determinations should not be challenged unless they are obviously wholly >unreasonable, in which category the notion that an amphetamine might >enhance performance clearly does not fall. > > > > The WBF does > > > not say: "You must not take cocaine because it is bad for you", >only: > > > "You must not take cocaine so that the effects of doing so persist >while > > > you are playing bridge." The former would indeed be a violation of a > > > human right, and would be entirely ultra vires as far as the WBF is > > > concerned; but the WBF does not do the former. > > > The problem is that it does. While I personally doubt that cocaine >falls > > into the category of boosting bridge performance I will let that ride >for > > a while. Cocaine, as with many such drugs, can be detected in the >body > > long after any possible effects on the mind have subsided (Cannabis is >a > > spectacular example of such a substance). In addition the IOC regime > > allows for "out-of-competition" testing (which is necessary where >certain > > steroids are concerned) but probably irrelevant to mind-enhancing >drugs. > >Nothing in any of the rest of that paragraph bears out your assertion in >the first sentence. It is true that the WBF press release contained a >reference to protecting the health of competitors via its anti-doping >policy, but that was silly. Nowhere has the WBF asserted that cocaine is >bad for you, while it does assert that you should not take it so that it >affects you while playing bridge. The former might be true, but it has >got nothing to do with the WBF; the latter might be based on a mistaken >notion that cocaine will help you play better, but while it is not known >whether that is a mistake or not, the WBF can and should make the >regulation in question. I think David misses Tim's point here, which is a somewhat technical one. You may have a rule that one may not take cocaine so that it effects you while playing bridge, but cannot fairly enforce that rule, because a urine test will show cocaine long past the point at which it can possibly effect you while playing bridge. This is separate from the questions of whether there is an effect, whether it is a beneficial one performance-wise, or whether that should matter if the WBF, in its wisdom, believes that there's any minute possibility that it might be. > > > To deal with (2), the principle behind the regulation is this: > > > competitors in a [sport or] game should win or lose according to >their > > > ability to play the game; that ability should not be enhanced by > > > artificial means, but should arise entirely from a combination of > > > natural talent and practice at the game. > > > Substitute "harmful" for "artificial" means and we are close to >agreement. > >Then we will have to remain as far apart as ever. I predict that David will ultimately find himself supporting something closer to Tim's position than he now thinks, not for moral, ethical, philosophical or political reasons, but for purely pragmatic ones. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 16 13:26:45 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 14:26:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] Convention card at clubs. In-Reply-To: <200209152301.TAA05821@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020916141949.00a99570@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 19:01 15/09/2002 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: >You are the SO, but as a condition of receiving ACBL sanction, you are >required to conform to some but not all ACBL regulations. >Unfortunately, it isn't always clear -- at least to me -- which >regulations are mandatory and which are optional for clubs. > >The convention regulations are entirely at your discretion. (The club >where I usually play allows MidChart methods, for example, and may well >allow things not even on the MidChart.) AG : in Belgium, the rule for any event at a larger scale than club is that one is required to specify its set of allowed conventions, on a 7-degree scale which is defined once and for all. If it doesn't, it is deemed to be degree D (which is slightly more permissive than mid-chart). However, this rule is seldom enforced by the Belgian Federation, except for its own events. Clubs are encouraged to do the same. For example, Pieterman, one of the biggest clubs here (don't imagine anything : this translates into 25-table evenings at most) use degree E for most of its events, but has a degree B evening once a week and a Butler regularity challenge which uses degree F (BSC allowed). Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 16 13:57:36 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 14:57:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] Lucy. In-Reply-To: <160902259.16743@webbox.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020916145238.00a9b470@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 04:39 16/09/2002 -0700, David Burn wrote: > >Suppose that her health had suffered seriously as a result. >Would this have been "better" or "fairer"? > >It would have been neither; nor would it have been worse or more >unfair. It would have been the proper exercise of an individual's >choice as to whether the risk to her health of entering a competition >was worth the rewards of that competition. AG : it seems like you have missed the main point here. The basic reason for banning performance-enhancing drugs is *not*, or at least, should not be, that you could harm yourself ; it is that you leave other competitors, if they want to have a go at said rewards, with the unenviable choice between taking drugs (and harming their health) and not taking them (and losing any ambition). That's why only _harmful_ drugs should be disallowed. That's also why you often hear, nowadays, racing cyclists just caught dark-red-blooded explain 'what else should I have done if I wished to have any chance ?' Best regards, Alain. >That choice should >in no way be influenced by the WBF's policy, which should consist >simply and solely in saying: "You may not take drug X and compete >in a WBF event." The rest is up to the individual. > >David Burn >London, England > > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From axman22@hotmail.com Mon Sep 16 13:47:45 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 07:47:45 -0500 Subject: [blml] Lucy. References: <160902259.16743@webbox.com> Message-ID: Is bridge about taking drugs? or not taking drugs? or about what is ingested in the body? or not? Is it about what kind of haircut one wears? Well, bridge is a game about what the players do given the limitations on communication. And if you make it about something else that is what you have, something else. The bridge community has chosen to play the game of Olympics. The manufacture of criminals is a dangerous thing and that is what this thread has been about, the right of the WBF to manufacture criminals. If one is to be wise about the making of policy it behooves him to have a clear picture of what it is he loves, otherwise he indeed is likely to wind up with something else. And it is only right to call it by a different name. regards roger pewick ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 6:39 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Lucy. > > Tim wrote: > > >This causes me some concern. Suppose that Lynn had chosen to > switch to a somewhat riskier/less efficacious course of medicines > *in order to compete*. > > That would have been her choice. If you have got a broken leg, > then you are probably not wise to compete in the 3000 metres > steeplechase, because (a) you will come second last in front > of the British entrant; (b) you will not do your leg any good. > But if you decide to run anyway, no one can or should stop you > solely on the grounds that you will hurt yourself. > > But if you take some painkillers to stop you from hurting yourself > (or at any rate to avoid feeling the hurt), and those painkillers > are on the banned list, then you should not compete, and if you > do compete, then you should be disqualified. > > >Suppose that her health had suffered seriously as a result. > Would this have been "better" or "fairer"? > > It would have been neither; nor would it have been worse or more > unfair. It would have been the proper exercise of an individual's > choice as to whether the risk to her health of entering a competition > was worth the rewards of that competition. That choice should > in no way be influenced by the WBF's policy, which should consist > simply and solely in saying: "You may not take drug X and compete > in a WBF event." The rest is up to the individual. > > David Burn > London, England > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Mon Sep 16 14:02:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 14:02 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Lucy. Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <160902259.16743@webbox.com> DALB wrote: > It would have been neither; nor would it have been worse or more > unfair. It would have been the proper exercise of an individual's > choice as to whether the risk to her health of entering a competition > was worth the rewards of that competition. That choice should > in no way be influenced by the WBF's policy, which should consist > simply and solely in saying: "You may not take drug X and compete > in a WBF event." The rest is up to the individual. That is a possible policy. However, if we are not making health concerns one of the reasons for our policy we could also use "Take whatever drugs you want." This policy is also fair to all (researching the best combination for yourself would be a task you could choose to do or not, just like developing defences to opponent's conventions) and the decisions made about risks are still up to the individual. The opportunity for commercial drug companies to sponsor teams might even bring a new source of revenue to the game and eliminate the need for playing sponsors. If we start now the UK may have a team of 6 genetically enhanced and superdrugged David Burn clones ready for the 2024 Olympic Trials. Tim From karel@esatclear.ie Mon Sep 16 14:47:15 2002 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 14:47:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Pausitis Message-ID: <3d85e0e3.6bcd.0@esatclear.ie> See original post for the hand and circumstances - but basically declarer finesses and LHO pauses with Txx leading declarer to believe the trumps are KTxx offside. [snip] >First, NS get a serious DP for this accusation. At least double the >standard penalty seems about right, but perhaps a full board could >be justified. A lot depends on North's exact words and tone. [Karel - the "unethical" statement was never actually said at the table though the implications after the TD call etc were self evident. I think something along the lines of "you can't do that ... or you're not allowed to pause like that ..." may have been used followed immediately by calling the TD. ] [snip] >Yes, it seems quite likely you will adjust the score under L73F2. Of >course you would want to give East a chance to explain the "bridge >reason" for his pause, but I can't see what it could be. [Karel - East was given a chance to explain his pause but no "bridge reason" could be found. ] [Karel - The TD ruled results stands and PP to E/W. The TD felt that 4H could only make on a 3/2 heart split and north's experience was such that a small heart to the J was a sufficiently poor play to not have the score adjusted. I'm not a TD, but I have read cases where the expertise of the player(s) was such that their subsequent play/defence was deemed to be so poor as to forfeit their right to an adjustment. In this case had the scoring been teams I think the TD's ruling has more going for it because now making the contract is paramount and -1 or -2 is irrelevant. Imps regardless of ANY other factors the HA is correct and north's lvl of expertise would make a low heart to the J an extremely poor play. But even then would it be sufficient to lose her an adjusted score under L73F2 ?? At pairs though, 4H-1 is equally as likely to be a good or average score as 4H making or +1 especially if a competent declarer believes the cards are lying badly and plays accordingly. In the actual case I feel L73F2 was pretty clear cut and the result should have been restored to 4H+1. Others suggested that the play of her peers at this stage could effect the ruling ?? Karel -- http://www.iol.ie From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Sep 16 15:23:29 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 10:23:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Pausitis Message-ID: <200209161423.KAA19175@cfa183.harvard.edu> > From: "Karel" > [Karel - the "unethical" statement was never actually said at the table though > the implications after the TD call etc were self evident. I think something > along the lines of "you can't do that ... or you're not allowed to pause like > that ..." may have been used followed immediately by calling the TD. ] There is no substitute for being on the spot and knowing the players. It is entirely proper to call the TD and report the facts, but any suggestion of unethical conduct (other than privately to the TD or by other process established by regulatory authorities) must be stamped out. > I'm not a TD, but I have read cases where the expertise of the player(s) was > such that their subsequent play/defence was deemed to be so poor as to forfeit > their right to an adjustment. This is, in general, a wholly mistaken approach. The relevant question after an infraction is _not_ "Should the NOS have got it right anyway?" Instead, it is "Without the infraction, what would have happened?" Many people -- some of whom should know better -- get this wrong. In this case, there seems little doubt declarer would have gotten it right but for the infraction. There is, of course, the question of whether declarer's play was "irrational, wild, or gambling," (or whatever applies in your jurisdiction), but that is a much stiffer standard than mere poor play. From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Mon Sep 16 15:25:43 2002 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 10:25:43 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Lucy. In-Reply-To: <004501c25c4e$2e3317a0$02b1193e@4nrw70j> from "grandeval" at Sep 15, 2002 01:07:45 AM Message-ID: <200209161425.KAA21475@gcpdb.ccrs.emr.ca> grandeval writes: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Gordon Bower" > To: > Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2002 8:39 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Lucy. > > > > > > > > On Sat, 14 Sep 2002, David Burn wrote: > > > >. Finding > > it on the Olympics website takes considerable effort (and isn't something > > you could do while at a tournament, if you don't own a laptop.) > > > +=+ There was an Internet Room for the players with a bank of PCs > linked to the internet. +=+ > True. But this doesn't seem to have been widely known. I found it by accident, not even looking for it. Tony Edwards had been there for over a week and hadn't heard about it. And had been looking for an internet cafe in the area. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Sep 16 15:48:23 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 10:48:23 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Lucy. Message-ID: <200209161448.KAA19561@cfa183.harvard.edu> > From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) > Suppose that Lynn had chosen to switch to a > somewhat riskier/less efficacious course of medicines *in order to > compete*. I am reminded of a professional colleague who had serious health problems but decided he had to be active and in good form on a certain day. He was able to persuade his doctors to give him some medication that was quite effective on that day but had serious risks in the longer term. (No, I don't remember what it was.) Should such a course of action be allowed in the case of a bridge competition? I think reasonable people could come to different conclusions on this question, but given that the WBF has ignored much simpler questions, I doubt they have grappled with this one. > From: "David Burn" > It would have been the proper exercise of an individual's > choice as to whether the risk to her health of entering a competition > was worth the rewards of that competition. That choice should > in no way be influenced by the WBF's policy, which should consist > simply and solely in saying: "You may not take drug X and compete > in a WBF event." The rest is up to the individual. I think most of us are agreed that once a sensible policy is adopted, players are obliged to follow it. The principle area of continued discussion seems to me to be what policy would be a sensible one for bridge. There is also a minor subthread about what players and officials should do in case the adopted policy is wholly unreasonable on its face and whether the WBF policy falls into that category. I doubt we will reach consensus on these questions. From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Sep 16 15:51:00 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 10:51:00 -0400 Subject: [blml] Lucy. In-Reply-To: <001301c25c4d$cfc92ba0$871a27d9@pbncomputer> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020913163240.00ac0900@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20020916083551.00ba2180@pop.starpower.net> At 08:21 PM 9/14/02, David wrote: >Eric wrote: [...] >The WBF has a valid and compelling reason to say this: "You [a player] >may not play in our events if you have done, or during the course of one >of our events do, something that will confer on you an unfair advantage >over other competitors. If we can show that you have done X, and if >doing X will in our opinion confer on you an unfair advantage, then we >have the right to disqualify you." In order for that proposition to be defensible, the WBF must offer some reasonable operational definition of "unfair advantage". In order to do so successfully, that definition must be close enough to what those who actually play the game believe to be "unfair advantage", else the WBF forteits its credibility and its moral authority. >Now, the only ground upon which one might object to this (as far as I >can see) is the specific: "You [the WBF] say that what I [a player] have >done will confer an unfair advantage; I say that this is not so." At >this point, the specific course of action taken by the player should be >examined by an independent body to determine whether it would or would >not in fact confer an unfair advantage. The definition of "unfair" in >this context rests a priori with the WBF; they are the final arbiters of >what constitutes fair and unfair play in bridge. They have the power to make those decisions, but it is incumbent upon them to make them fairly and consistently. Else the WBF's drug policy will become as much reviled as the ACBL's one-time conventions policy, which was widely ridiculed over the striking correlation between what was allowed and what the members of the ACBL BoD personally preferred to play. The WBF may be the final arbiters, but that doesn't make it reasonable for them to arbitrarily tell us that substance X (which just happens to be taken by some highly-placed WBF official) is "fair" but substance Y, which is not, and of which the officialdom of the WBF personally disapproves for moral or political reasons, is "unfair". The WBF must *tell us* what "fair" and "unfair" mean before they can credibly tell us which substances that (might) produce gains in ability fall into which category. Else they shall surely stand accused (whether or not they are guilty) of legalizing only what they themselves choose to play... I mean ingest. >In practice, what has happened is this. Because the WBF wished the game >of bridge to be admitted to a wider sporting community, it adopted the >rules of that community without due consideration of their applicability >to bridge. In so doing, it made the game of bridge subject to the rules >of that community. This may or may not have been a "good" thing to do - >but for the moment, that did not matter. The rules of the wider >community had become, for better or for worse, part of the rules of >bridge, and the WBF was bound to enforce those rules. In my view, the >WBF was not acting outside its remit or contrary to the interests of its >members in trying to make bridge a part of that wider community. I am >aware that Eric holds a contrary view - but this does not matter either. >While the WBF was doing what it could to ensure that bridge became an >Olympic Game (there is, by the way, nothing called the "Olympic >Sports"), it had plenty of valid and compelling reasons to say that >bridge players should be subject to the same rules as marathon runners. > > > >(1b) the > > >regulation is therefore unsound; > > > It is. > >Only if you grant that the WBF had no reason to act as it did, which is >something that (as I hope I have explained in the foregoing) I do not >grant. Whereas I know that Eric and I have very different opinions as to >whether the WBF's efforts to become an Olympic Game were desirable, I >hope that Eric will see that the WBF's adoption of the IOC's doping >regulations was done for the reason that the WBF wanted the IOC to >consider bridge as an Olympic Game, and that (as far as the WBF was >concerned) this was a compelling reason. This is the heart of the matter. I am prepared to grant that the WBF had reason to act as it did. I am therefore prepared to grant that the regulation may have been sound at the time the WBF added it to its books. But time marches on, and conditions have changed. As of right now -- roughly 10:30 AM, Monday the 16th of September, in the Year of Our Lord 2002 -- that regulation is patently unsound and undesirable. All else is simply history. > > >and (1c) the player should not have > > >been penalised for breaking it. > > > > That does not follow, and is wrong. Of course the player should have > > been penalized. I hear nobody on BLML, and very few elsewhere, who > > believe otherwise. > >Well, I am glad to hear it, though somewhat baffled, because that is not >the view that I have thought others were attempting to express. IIRC, this thread began when I wrote a post that said, verbatim, "Now that it has become clear that the IOC will not accept bridge as an Olympic event in the foreseeable future, can we assume that the WBF will sensibly drop this nonsense from the GCoC before they are used again?" I can't speak for others, but this is the position I have been attempting to defend from the start. > > >(2a) While the principle behind the regulation is sound, > > > > Arguably true. > >Not my argument, merely a paraphrase of others. Perhaps not a very good >paraphrase, but at least it enables us to skip: > > > >(2b) the > > >implementation of the regulation is in this particular case unsound; > > > > Certainly true. > > > >and > > >(2c) the player should therefore not have been penalised for breaking > > >it. > > > > False. And would not follow from (2a) and (2b). And entirely beside > > the point. > >Buy that man a drink. > > > We are not debating whether the WBF should have penalized Ms. > > Eythorsdottir for violating the rules (but see Note, below); we >concede > > that once they put the rule on the books they had no choice but to > > enforce it. We are debating about whether, by leaving the rule on the > > books now that it is no longer justified (if it ever was), they should > > force themselves to have to penalize others in the future. > >Are we? It seems to me that I have been devoting an awful lot of time to >the question of whether the actions taken in the original case were >justified. It does not seem to me that others are prepared to concede >what you have said that "we" concede above. If they are, and if I have >been subjecting them to vitriolic abuse couched in long-winded prose, >then I apologise forthwith. > > > We do not > > argue that because it is a bad rule it should not have been > > enforced. We argue that because it is a bad rule it should be > > repealed, so it will not have to be enforced in the future. > >I don't know about "repealed". Bridge players should not be allowed to >take drugs that will temporarily make them better bridge players. But >someone should find out what these are before implementing this rule. Of course it must be repealed; to suggest otherwise is to directly contradict the point which David has been trying to make all along: We cannot criticize the WBF for disciplining Ms. Eythorsdottir, because *the rule was on the books* and thus the WBF had *no choice* but to implement it. The lesson is clear: We must not have rules on our books that we are not prepared to, or do not wish to be forced to, implement. > > Note: The WBF should be aware that there are widespread rumors, both > > word of mouth and over the Internet, to the effect that Ms. > > Eythorsdottir is not the only player in Montreal to have refused to > > submit to a drug test, but was the only one disciplined for that > > refusal. > >These rumours are codswallop, and are not the WBF's fault. Lynn Deas did >not take a drug test, even though her name was drawn at random for >having to take one, but she is a wheelchair-bound invalid who needs a >lot of the stuff on the IOC banned list to survive. Which means the rumors are not codswallop at all, but are true. AFAIK, there is nothing in the IOC drug policy that specifies exceptions for wheelchair-bound invalids. Under the IOC's doping policy (or the analog in any sport that has its own), Ms. Deas would have been clearly ineligible to play. Both Ms. Eythorsdottir and Ms. Deas both were in the position of expecting to fail the drug test because of drugs they take for legitmate medical reasons. The only possible explanation for testing Ms. Eythorsdottir and exempting Ms. Deas is that the decision-makers at the WBF like Ms. Deas and do not like Ms. Eythorsdottir. That "like" here may translate to "have sympathy for because she is a wheelchair-bound invalid" doesn't make an iota of difference. Until now, I did not believe the rumors I reported, but now they are confirmed, and I am deeply disturbed. David had convinced me that the WBF acted properly in Ms. Eythorsdottir's case by arguing so eloquently that once the WBF incorporated the IOC drug policy into their conditions of contest they no choice but to follow that policy. But they did not follow that policy -- they followed it for Ms. Eythorsdottir, but declined to do so for Ms. Deas. That leaves David's most cogent argument lying in tatters at his feet, revealed as nothing more than hypocritical nonsense. Can it really be true that Ms. Eythorsdottir's name was chosen, and she wound up publically stripped of her silver medal, while Ms. Deas' name was also chosen, and today her gold medal rests comfortably on her mantelpiece? Pardon me while I throw up. > > If that were true, then their case for having penalized Ms. > > Eythorsdottir would fall apart, and the rationale for their having >done > > so would be specious, mendacious and hypocritical. If it is not true > > (and I have no reason whatsoever to believe that it might be), the WBF > > should protect itself by clearly and publically denying the >allegation. > >What "allegation"? It is as true today as it was when the chap first >said it, that a lie can be half way round the world before the truth has >got its boots on. Precisely that "allegation" which David confirms above to be true. > > >The WBF does > > >not say: "You must not take cocaine because it is bad for you", only: > > >"You must not take cocaine so that the effects of doing so persist >while > > >you are playing bridge." > > > Which, if not justified on the grounds that "it is bad for you", can > > only be justified on the grounds that it has some distinct effect on > > your playing bridge, and then only if that effect is in some way > > detrimental to others' playing bridge. > >What has that second part got to do with anything? The first part is >right: "you must not take anything that will enable you to play better >bridge than you could otherwise play with nothing but your own >unenhanced brain to support you". But I am not talking about tendencies >to affect the behaviour of others here; a sporting authority may rightly >say that a player may not take pharmaceuticals that will enable him >better to compete in the sport. The statement that "you must not take anything that will enable you to play better bridge than you could otherwise play with nothing but your own unenhanced brain to support you" is implicitly (if perhaps not consciously) based on the subjective moral notion that drugs are inherently evil and it is up to the WBF to do its part to rid society of them. If that were not so, why wouldn't David have written "you must not *do* anything that will enable you to play better bridge than you could otherwise play with nothing but your own unenhanced brain to support you"? The answer, of course, is that the former aids in "stamping out the evil of dope", whereas even the WBF can see that the latter would lead us into the world of Harrison Bergeron. The WBF cannot claim to be acting out of concern for the fairness of the contest rather than out of a moral distaste for those who would take drugs while simultaneously conceding that actions that upset the balance of fairness are perfectly acceptable provided that those actions don't involve the evils of dope, but of sufficiently serious concern to require action when they do. > > But if they're outlawing cocaine because they believe it > > enhances performance at bridge, they will find themselves unable to > > defend their facts, as there is an overwhelming body of both >scientific > > and anecdotal evidence that precisely the opposite is true. > >There isn't. Quite the contrary (though it should be understood that I >was not talking specifically about cocaine - the WBF would in practice >do better to ban glucose). This does not matter at all - the WBF should >outlaw anything that can be shown to enhance performance at bridge, >whether or not it causes irreperable brain damage or cures cancer. As has been said several times already, if that were true we would be forced to conclude that the WBF should outlaw bridge books, bidding practice, luxury hotel rooms, hired professionals, etc., etc., etc. -- a virtually infinite list of things "that can be shown to enhance performance at bridge" but have nothing to do with ingesting partcular substances. > > We have yet to hear any justification for that belief that relates not > > to morality or health, but to bridge. Bridge *is* what the WBF is all > > about, isn't it? It may, arguably, have been "sound and reasonable" > > when it was a prerequisite to having bridge accepted into the Olympics > > -- that does, after all, has something to do with bridge -- but why >now? > >Because whether or not bridge is accepted into the Olympics, you still >should not cheat at it. We're not talking about whether you should cheat; of course you shouldn't. But nobody wants to be capriciously and arbitrarily turned into a cheater by the existence of a rule which serves no compelling interest and whose sole effect in the context of competitive bridge is to turn otherwise law-abiding players into cheaters. David says that "cheating" is whatever the WBF says it is; I say that, notwithstanding the truth of that statement, the WBF is derelict in its duties and responsibilities if it defines "cheating" in a manner that is contrary to what the players it claims to serve think it is. How valid would David's argument be if he were to tell us that the WBF has made a rule against criticizing the actions of the WBF, and therefore anybody who does so is "cheating at bridge"? > > One's inherent talent for playing the game is "natural". Arguably, >the > > enhancement of one's ability that comes with experience playing the > > game is also "natural". But why would drinking coffee or taking > > steroids be any more "unnatural" a way to enhance one's ability than > > reading bridge books, bidding practice deals, taking more comfortable > > hotel rooms, or hiring professionals? You can't argue that it should >be > > acceptable to enhance one's talent by "natural" means but not by > > "artificial" ones if you can't distinguish between what is natural and > > what is artificial. > >Perhaps I can't. But why should runners not be allowed to take steroids >if bridge players are allowed to drink coffee? I think that there may be >some fundamental difference of opinion here that has nothing to do with >the Montreal case. Suppose it were shown beyond doubt that ten grammes >of Compound X would make you, Eric Landau, a better bridge player than >Eric Rodwell if you took them twenty minutes before a session. Suppose >also that Compound X did you no physical harm whatever. And suppose >Compound X cost a billion dollars a gramme. Would you, as the WBF, say >that the taking of Compound X should be prohibited for entrants to the >Bermuda Bowl, in case the team of Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Eric >Landau and anyone were to win it? I am pretty sure that I would. Why suppose? I know for a fact that I could hire Jeff Meckstroth, Eric Rodwell, Paul Soloway and Bob Hamman to play on my team in a WBF event for a fraction of what a hypothetical gramme of Compound X would cost, although it would still cost more than what most bridge players could afford to pay. I am 100% certain that if I did so, my results would be better than those of any number of players who have more "unenhanced natural talent and ability" than I do. That is not hypothetical; that is a fact. Does the WBF therefore say that therefore I should be prohibited from doing so? They do not. Does David? If David's premises are valid, why not? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Sep 16 16:08:25 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 11:08:25 -0400 Subject: [blml] Convention card at clubs. In-Reply-To: <002501c25cdf$21f98be0$6401a8c0@hare> References: <001001c25c6b$d2aeead0$6401a8c0@hare> <003101c25c8f$9524f0a0$f63487d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20020916110113.00b843b0@pop.starpower.net> At 01:41 PM 9/15/02, Nancy wrote: >My next question now is for a definition of "Sponsoring >Organization". Am I as a club owner the "sponsoring organization" of >my game or is it the ACBL who has granted me a sanction to run a game >under their laws, rules and regulations? I have been told that it is >the ACBL.. If a club is the training ground for players who will be >moving on to higher competitions, shouldn't the rules be the same for >all at all levels? If not, then aren't we just providing a social >outlet for bridge players who are tired of rubber bridge??? Yes. And there's nothing wrong with that. The ACBL is willing to sanction clubs that "just provid[e] a social outlet for bridge players who are tired of rubber bridge" as well as clubs that serve as a "training ground for players who will be moving on to higher competitions". The ACBL sees itself as an organization that serves both classes of players, and therefore needs clubs that cater to both classes of players. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From B.Schelen@IAE.NL Mon Sep 16 19:51:05 2002 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 20:51:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] not shuffled Message-ID: <004801c25db2$565a1020$de053dd4@b0e7g1> In Montreal the packs has to be shuffled by the players before each team contest. One board was ignored. Two spectators, one of them was NPC of the playing team, followed the achievements of that team and so recognized the deal of the former contest. It was strange that the playing pair did not. Both spectators discussed it and were sure of the situation. What should be done?. From henk@ripe.net Mon Sep 16 21:01:43 2002 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 22:01:43 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] not shuffled In-Reply-To: <004801c25db2$565a1020$de053dd4@b0e7g1> Message-ID: On Mon, 16 Sep 2002, Ben Schelen wrote: > In Montreal the packs has to be shuffled by the players before each team > contest. One board was ignored. Two spectators, one of them was NPC of the > playing team, followed the achievements of that team and so recognized the > deal of the former contest. It was strange that the playing pair did not. > Both spectators discussed it and were sure of the situation. > What should be done?. I don't think that there is anything that can be done other than cancel the board. Law 6 doesn't say that the players have to notice that the board has been played before. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Sep 16 21:24:23 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 16:24:23 -0400 Subject: Fwd: [blml] Harrison Bergeron [WAS Lucy]. Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20020916162129.00a88f00@pop.starpower.net> After sending this to Steve and receiving his reply, I offer it to the rest of the group. >Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 11:59:20 -0400 >To: Steve Willner >From: Eric Landau >Subject: [blml] Harrison Bergeron [WAS Lucy]. > >Steve Willner wrote off-line (I trust, Steve, that you don't mind >being cited to the list): > >> > latter would lead us into the world of Harrison Bergeron. The WBF >> >>Who? Probably you should explain to the list. Or am I the only >>one who hasn't heard of him? > >"Harrison Bergeron" is a short story by Kurt Vonnegut, written in >1961, and considered a classic of modern science fiction: > >"The year was 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren't >only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which >way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking >than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else.... > >"It was tragic, all right, but George and Hazel couldn't think about >it very hard. Hazel had a perfectly average intelligence, which meant >she couldn't think about anything except in short bursts. And George, >while his intelligence was way above normal, had a little mental >handicap radio in his ear. He was required by law to wear it at all >times. It was tuned to a government transmitter. Every twenty >seconds or so, the transmitter would send out some sharp noise to keep >people like George from taking unfair advantage of their brains.... > >"The rest of Harrison's appearance was Halloween and hardware. Nobody >had ever born [sic] heavier handicaps. He had outgrown hindrances >faster than the H-G men could think them up. Instead of a little ear >radio for a mental handicap, he wore a tremendous pair of earphones, >and spectacles with think wavy lenses. The spectacles were intended >to make him not only half blind, but to give him whanging headaches >besides...." Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From svenpran@online.no Mon Sep 16 22:05:39 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 23:05:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] not shuffled References: Message-ID: <000b01c25dc4$cf7f6100$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" > On Mon, 16 Sep 2002, Ben Schelen wrote: > > > In Montreal the packs has to be shuffled by the players before each team > > contest. One board was ignored. Two spectators, one of them was NPC of the > > playing team, followed the achievements of that team and so recognized the > > deal of the former contest. It was strange that the playing pair did not. > > Both spectators discussed it and were sure of the situation. > > What should be done?. > > I don't think that there is anything that can be done other than cancel > the board. Law 6 doesn't say that the players have to notice that the > board has been played before. > > Henk And Law 6D2 explicitly states that "No result may stand .....if the deal had previouosly been played in a different session" (It doesn't even have to have been played by the same players!!!!!) Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Sep 17 00:31:11 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 09:31:11 +1000 Subject: [blml] not shuffled Message-ID: Ben Schelen wrote: >>In Montreal the packs has to be shuffled by the >>players before each team contest. One board was >>ignored. Two spectators, one of them was NPC of >>the playing team, followed the achievements of >>that team and so recognized the deal of the >>former contest. It was strange that the playing >>pair did not. Both spectators discussed it and >>were sure of the situation. What should be done?. Henk Uijterwaal replied: >I don't think that there is anything that can be >done other than cancel the board. Law 6 doesn't >say that the players have to notice that the >board has been played before. Not so. In this case, L76B takes precedence over L6, so the board cannot yet be cancelled. Unless specifically requested by the TD, spectators must remain mute. (If the *actual players* later realise that the board was unshuffled before expiry of the correction period, then the TD can still cancel the board.) Best wishes Richard From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Sep 17 01:36:43 2002 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 01:36:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] not shuffled References: Message-ID: <001e01c25de2$63fb4980$99f0193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 12:31 AM Subject: Re: [blml] not shuffled > Henk Uijterwaal replied: > > >I don't think that there is anything that can be > >done other than cancel the board. Law 6 doesn't > >say that the players have to notice that the > >board has been played before. > > Not so. In this case, L76B takes precedence over > L6, so the board cannot yet be cancelled. > > Unless specifically requested by the TD, > spectators must remain mute. > +=+ " At any time when a comparison of scores is allowed a non-playing Captain may draw his players' attention to his observation of an infraction but he is bound as a spectator by Law 76B until that time." [WBF General Conditions of Contest] +=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Sep 17 02:58:28 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 11:58:28 +1000 Subject: Fwd: [blml] Harrison Bergeron [WAS Lucy]. Message-ID: Kurt Vonnegut wrote: >Every twenty seconds or so, the transmitter would send >out some sharp noise to keep people like George from >taking unfair advantage of their brains.... Last Sunday, a six-round Swiss teams in Canberra was organised in a Harrison Bergeron style. Of the 24 teams entered, eight were classified as restricted due to minimal team masterpoints. For the first half of the event, forced pairings of teams were used, so that the 8 restricted teams played only amongst themselves. Therefore, the half-time leader on 69 vps was a restricted team. For the final three matches, the non-restricted and restricted fields were merged. In round four, therefore, two lucky non-restricted contending teams played the two leading restricted teams and duly each scored a 25 vp blitz. Thanks to these bonus vps, these two non-restricted contending teams eventually finished first and second. Meanwhile, the remaining non-restricted contending teams played against each other in round four, therefore finishing unplaced. Best wishes Richard From cfgcs@eiu.edu Tue Sep 17 04:45:41 2002 From: cfgcs@eiu.edu (Grant Sterling) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 22:45:41 -0500 Subject: [blml] RESCUE the inept director! Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.1.20020916223620.00a7ba10@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Our club has one director that handles rulings questions well [that's me], and another who runs the movements [that's not me]. Well, tonight the movement director was gone, leaving me as playing director in charge of everything. [I had some rulings questions, and got them mostly right. Unfortunately, that's not the point of this story.] We had a 7 table Mitchell. I was as happy as a clam. I can run a 7 table Mitchell. But then a 15th pair showed up late. OK, I adjust. I put three boards on each table. I set up a bye stand. I put the extra pair as 8 EW, sitting out. Everything's beautiful. Except.... I left 3 boards on table 8. After the end of the first round, my players at table 7 quite naturally grabbed the boards from table 8, and the players at table 1 passed their to the vacant table 8. Now my movement is messed up--I have 3 extra boards in play. But, of course, I'm playing and I don't know it.... We get to round 5. 4 of the EW pairs are now looking at boards they've already played. Not yet knowing what happened [I wouldn't have known how to fix it anyway] I order the boards moved a second time, putting two sets of boards sitting out on the stand. This nicely rectifies the movement--things now progress normally, with no pair playing any boards twice, everybody meeting everybody else, etc. I have invented a new movement. :) But now I have most of the boards played 7 times, but some played 6 and some 5 times. IS THERE ANY WAY TO SCORE THIS FAIRLY? CAN I FACTOR THE SHORT-BOARDS SOMEHOW TO A 6 TOP? For extra credit: Can this be entered into ACBLscore? If not, can it be reported to the ACBL for the awarding of points? Prompt responses greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance, Grant From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Sep 17 05:33:59 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 14:33:59 +1000 Subject: [blml] RESCUE the inept director! Message-ID: [snip] >I have invented a new movement. :) > >But now I have most of the boards played 7 times, >but some played 6 and some 5 times. > > IS THERE ANY WAY TO SCORE THIS FAIRLY? Yes. >CAN I FACTOR THE SHORT-BOARDS SOMEHOW TO A 6 TOP? Yes, factoring by hand (and pocket calculator) may be easier using a 7-board 6-top base [12-top base for SOs which define scoring units as matchpoints, rather than the ACBL style which defines scoring units as half-matchpoints], since less boards need to be factored. >For extra credit: Can this be entered into ACBLscore? Who cares? Computers are *not* necessary to matchpoint events, they merely do the job usually quicker than manual calculation. Former CTD of Australia, Richard Grenside, was quicker at pencil-and-paper matchpointing than most TDs are at computerised data entry of matchpointing. >If not, can it be reported to the ACBL for the awarding >of points? Surely the ACBL should only need results for its masterpointing purposes. If, however, the ACBL requires a ACBLscore datadump, then at worst some nominal forgery on ACBLscore can generate appropriate masterpoint awards. >Prompt responses greatly appreciated. > >Thanks in advance, >Grant Hope this has helped Richard From henk@ripe.net Tue Sep 17 07:37:13 2002 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 08:37:13 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] not shuffled In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 17 Sep 2002 richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > Ben Schelen wrote: > > >>In Montreal the packs has to be shuffled by the > >>players before each team contest. One board was > >>ignored. Two spectators, one of them was NPC of > >>the playing team, followed the achievements of > >>that team and so recognized the deal of the > >>former contest. It was strange that the playing > >>pair did not. Both spectators discussed it and > >>were sure of the situation. What should be done?. > > Henk Uijterwaal replied: > > >I don't think that there is anything that can be > >done other than cancel the board. Law 6 doesn't > >say that the players have to notice that the > >board has been played before. > > Not so. In this case, L76B takes precedence over > L6, so the board cannot yet be cancelled. > > Unless specifically requested by the TD, > spectators must remain mute. Yes, of course. But the NPC of the team is allowed to point out the infraction after the set. The kibitzer shouldn't say anything during the set, but if I saw this, I'd talk to a TD afterwards in private. After all, this might be a variation on the various tricks that players have tried to play boards with a known layout. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) From olivier.beauvillain@wanadoo.fr Tue Sep 17 08:11:39 2002 From: olivier.beauvillain@wanadoo.fr (Olivier Beauvillain) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 09:11:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] RESCUE the inept director! References: <5.1.0.14.1.20020916223620.00a7ba10@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Message-ID: <002301c25e19$77d471c0$5f4ff9c1@olivier> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grant Sterling" To: Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 5:45 AM Subject: [blml] RESCUE the inept director! > Our club has one director that handles rulings > questions well [that's me], and another who runs the > movements [that's not me]. Well, tonight the movement > director was gone, leaving me as playing director in > charge of everything. [I had some rulings questions, > and got them mostly right. Unfortunately, that's > not the point of this story.] > We had a 7 table Mitchell. I was as happy > as a clam. I can run a 7 table Mitchell. But then > a 15th pair showed up late. > OK, I adjust. I put three boards on each table. > I set up a bye stand. I put the extra pair as 8 EW, > sitting out. Everything's beautiful. Except.... > I left 3 boards on table 8. After the end of the > first round, my players at table 7 quite naturally grabbed > the boards from table 8, and the players at table 1 > passed their to the vacant table 8. Now my movement > is messed up--I have 3 extra boards in play. But, of > course, I'm playing and I don't know it.... > > We get to round 5. 4 of the EW pairs are now > looking at boards they've already played. Not yet > knowing what happened [I wouldn't have known how to fix it > anyway] I order the boards moved a second time, putting > two sets of boards sitting out on the stand. This nicely > rectifies the movement--things now progress normally, > with no pair playing any boards twice, everybody meeting > everybody else, etc. I have invented a new movement. :) > But now I have most of the boards played 7 times, > but some played 6 and some 5 times. It's a pitty you didn't skip a table at this time! You can skip the pairs or the boards, it works ... > > IS THERE ANY WAY TO SCORE THIS FAIRLY? CAN I > FACTOR THE SHORT-BOARDS SOMEHOW TO A 6 TOP? Yes of course, use the Neuberg formula, it should be installed in any bridge program by now BigTop =3D (SmallTop + 1 ) * BigNbRound / SmallNbRound - 1 > > For extra credit: Can this be entered into ACBLscore? > If not, can it be reported to the ACBL for the awarding > of points? > > Prompt responses greatly appreciated. > > Thanks in advance, > Grant Olivier Simultan=E9 Bretagne Anjou Clubs_sympathiques Jeudi 3 octobre soir Liste des clubs participants : http://www.bretagnebridgecomite.com/fichiers/Simliste.htm Kenavo A+ Olivier Beauvillain > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Sep 17 08:55:24 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 08:55:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] VP scale for 72 boards. Message-ID: <000401c25e21$03bb3f50$623ce150@endicott> Grattan Endicott Message-ID: <3D86EAC9.3060900@skynet.be> Grattan Endicott wrote: > Grattan Endicott +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > " There are no new truths, but only truths that > have not been recognized by those who have > perceived them without noticing." [ Mary McCarthy ] > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > +=+ I consulted Max Bavin. He is puzzled in what way > such a scale could be useful. > So would I. Rather divide it into 3 24-board matches. > But his solution is to take the 48 board scale and > multiply all the figures by the square root of 72/48 - > i.e. about 1.225. He says the principle can be applied > to other numbers of boards. ~ G ~ +=+ > I think taking the 32-board scale and multiplying by sqrt(72/32) would be better (one rounding instead of 2). > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Sep 17 10:15:34 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 11:15:34 +0200 Subject: [blml] not shuffled In-Reply-To: <004801c25db2$565a1020$de053dd4@b0e7g1> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020917111152.00a87080@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 20:51 16/09/2002 +0200, Ben Schelen wrote: >In Montreal the packs has to be shuffled by the players before each team >contest. One board was ignored. Two spectators, one of them was NPC of the >playing team, followed the achievements of that team and so recognized the >deal of the former contest. It was strange that the playing pair did not. >Both spectators discussed it and were sure of the situation. >What should be done?. AG : the spectators should have reported their suspicions to the TD, which would have applied L81C6 and cancelled the board (and replaced it if the round hadn't ended yet). BTW, the fact that the boards were played twice by the same team is irrelevant. It is quite possible that a member of team A decide to kibitz encounter B vs C, and see a board that he has already played. The board is then unshuffled, whether some of the players currently playing it had played it before or not. Best regards, Alain. >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From henk@ripe.net Tue Sep 17 10:13:39 2002 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 11:13:39 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] VP scale for 72 boards. In-Reply-To: <3D86EAC9.3060900@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Tue, 17 Sep 2002, Herman De Wael wrote: > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > " There are no new truths, but only truths that > > have not been recognized by those who have > > perceived them without noticing." [ Mary McCarthy ] > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > +=+ I consulted Max Bavin. He is puzzled in what way > > such a scale could be useful. > > > > > So would I. How about team trials with 3 or 4 teams playing a long round robin? > Rather divide it into 3 24-board matches. It depends on how important winning is for the losing team. If total VP's is all that matters, then 3x24 and 1x72 doesn't make a big difference. If winning the 72 boards is important, then it does: If the first 2 matches end in 22-8 (35 imp's difference) in favor of one team, then the third match becomes irrelevant for winning the 72 board contest. OTOH, one can score 70 imp's in 24 boards, tie the score in imp's and still get 15 VP's each. Henk > > > > But his solution is to take the 48 board scale and > > multiply all the figures by the square root of 72/48 - > > i.e. about 1.225. He says the principle can be applied > > to other numbers of boards. ~ G ~ +=+ > > > > > I think taking the 32-board scale and multiplying by sqrt(72/32) would > be better (one rounding instead of 2). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Sep 17 10:41:04 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 11:41:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] RESCUE the inept director! In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.1.20020916223620.00a7ba10@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020917112231.00a81d70@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 22:45 16/09/2002 -0500, Grant Sterling wrote: > Our club has one director that handles rulings >questions well [that's me], and another who runs the >movements [that's not me]. Well, tonight the movement >director was gone, leaving me as playing director in >charge of everything. [I had some rulings questions, >and got them mostly right. Unfortunately, that's >not the point of this story.] > We had a 7 table Mitchell. I was as happy >as a clam. AG : were you or weren't you happy ? From the sequel, I infer you were. I can't find this colloquialism in my dictionary. In French, being extremely happy about the way things go on is "as happy as a louse in cream". Not convincing either. > I can run a 7 table Mitchell. But then >a 15th pair showed up late. AG : the easiest thing when this happens it to let the movement stand, and add a nomad pair. Provided that such a movement is handled by your program. > OK, I adjust. I put three boards on each table. >I set up a bye stand. I put the extra pair as 8 EW, >sitting out. Everything's beautiful. Except.... > I left 3 boards on table 8. After the end of the >first round, my players at table 7 quite naturally grabbed >the boards from table 8, and the players at table 1 >passed their to the vacant table 8. Now my movement >is messed up--I have 3 extra boards in play. But, of >course, I'm playing and I don't know it.... AG : I don't understand this. With the added pair EW, it means that there is no NS #8. Which means that no irregularity can possibly happen before half the tables are played. > We get to round 5. 4 of the EW pairs are now >looking at boards they've already played. Not yet >knowing what happened [I wouldn't have known how to fix it >anyway] I order the boards moved a second time, AG : this escapes me. Ordering that the pairs skip a table would have made the movement a clasical 8-table skip movement. No harm done, except for the knowledge from the bidding if it has begun at some table with the wrong pairings (usually benign) and the fact that fewer boards are played (not the end of the world either). >putting >two sets of boards sitting out on the stand. This nicely >rectifies the movement--things now progress normally, >with no pair playing any boards twice, everybody meeting >everybody else, etc. I have invented a new movement. :) > But now I have most of the boards played 7 times, >but some played 6 and some 5 times. > > IS THERE ANY WAY TO SCORE THIS FAIRLY? CAN I >FACTOR THE SHORT-BOARDS SOMEHOW TO A 6 TOP? AG : the programs I know won't work. However, you can compute every pair's score by hand (not too difficult, on such low tops) and factor it agaisnt the pair's possible maximum. Not absolutely perfect, but % differences will be very small. Best regards, Alain. From B.Schelen@IAE.NL Tue Sep 17 10:35:16 2002 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 11:35:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] not shuffled References: <001e01c25de2$63fb4980$99f0193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <00a601c25e33$6e8750a0$53053dd4@b0e7g1> >> > > +=+ " At any time when a comparison of scores is allowed > a non-playing Captain may draw his players' attention to his > observation of an infraction but he is bound as a spectator by > Law 76B until that time." > [WBF General Conditions of Contest] +=+ Continuation: In Montreal the NPC and the other spectator remained mute and the players realized the unshuffled board before play ended. The TD ordered the board redealt. ' But in case the NPC draws attention to the unshuffled board when the comparison of scores starts, he has to stop the comparison in order to give the TD the opportunity to apply Law86C. From gester@lineone.net Tue Sep 17 12:22:00 2002 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 12:22:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] not shuffled References: <001e01c25de2$63fb4980$99f0193e@4nrw70j> <00a601c25e33$6e8750a0$53053dd4@b0e7g1> Message-ID: <000401c25e51$836fcf60$2f182850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 10:35 AM Subject: Re: [blml] not shuffled > > >> > > > +=+ " At any time when a comparison of scores is allowed > > a non-playing Captain may draw his players' attention to his > > observation of an infraction but he is bound as a spectator by > > Law 76B until that time." > > [WBF General Conditions of Contest] +=+ > > Continuation: > In Montreal the NPC and the other spectator remained > mute and the players realized the unshuffled board before > play ended. The TD ordered the board redealt. > ' > But in case the NPC draws attention to the unshuffled > board when the comparison of scores starts, he has to > stop the comparison in order to give the TD the opportunity > to apply Law86C. > +=+ Too late for 86C - at this stage one or more of the players *could* know the result without that board. The board is null - the facts make it null whether the Director is aware of them or not, he only has to confirm as much when he learns of it. ~ G ~ +=+ From David Stevenson Tue Sep 17 15:23:27 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 15:23:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Wot {sic} happened? Message-ID: I go away for a few days and return to find my computer littered with emails with BLML in the title. The mailing list seems to have gone mad. I cannot find any instructions on what to do. Now there are those of you who apparently get BLML just as so many separate emails. Permit me to say that you are crazy!!! If I had to get a mailing list that way with no threading I would unsubscribe in a heartbeat. The reason for all the fancy software on computers is to make life easier. Of course some of you use Outlook Express which means it is more difficult for others not yourself - it reads as easily as wading through a truckload of manure, but I believe you actually can thread with it. When I use OE at a friend's house I spend a fair time editing to make it readable but most people regrettably do not bother. Anyway, I have finally guessed what to do and the result seems to be that BLML messages from Richard Hills are lying about all over my machine, but all other BLML messages are threading. why is your address for posting different, Richard? Aha! But can I post? Yes, I know I can by wasting my time, but I mean by using the capabilities of the software, not needing all this Reply-To stuff, and sending sometimes to the list or to a person by accident. From my mailing list it just does it automatically, and does it right. So can I post? Have you read this? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Sep 16 22:02:38 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 22:02:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cyaxares resumes. Message-ID: <003b01c25dc4$d0b59710$2e50e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott Message-ID: On Tue, 17 Sep 2002, David Stevenson wrote: > > I go away for a few days and return to find my computer littered with > emails with BLML in the title. The mailing list seems to have gone mad. > I cannot find any instructions on what to do. 1. Did you read BLML in digest mode before? 2. Can you please send me the HEADERS of one of the messages that you received more than once. This should look something like; X-Recipient: Received: from postman.ripe.net (postman.ripe.net [193.0.0.199]) by birch.ripe.net (8.12.5/8.11.6) with SMTP id g8HEYWKu004670 for ; Tue, 17 Sep 2002 16:34:32 +0200 Received: (qmail 30662 invoked by uid 0); 17 Sep 2002 14:34:32 -0000 Received: from toybox.amsterdamned.org (193.0.0.161) by postman.ripe.net with SMTP; 17 Sep 2002 14:34:32 -0000 etc, etc, etc, until the real message starts. 3. As far as I can see, you are on the list once. > So can I post? Have you read this? Yes, I have read this. Henk ps. There is a problem with postings that don't have blml@rtlfb.org in the To: or Cc: field. Working on this. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Sep 17 16:56:16 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 11:56:16 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] The European Way? Message-ID: <200209171556.LAA27015@cfa183.harvard.edu> I am puzzled by something in Montreal Bulletin 15, page 6 http://www.bridge.gr/bulletin/02_2%20Montreal/pdf/bul_15.pdf Ton wrote: We did the scoring the European way in Montreal. Which puts a greater burden on the players to check their results as entered in the computer. What is "the European way?" From john@asimere.com Tue Sep 17 18:11:27 2002 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 18:11:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Wot {sic} happened? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , David Stevenson writes > > I go away for a few days and return to find my computer littered with >emails with BLML in the title. The mailing list seems to have gone mad. >I cannot find any instructions on what to do. > > Now there are those of you who apparently get BLML just as so many >separate emails. Permit me to say that you are crazy!!! If I had to >get a mailing list that way with no threading I would unsubscribe in a >heartbeat. The reason for all the fancy software on computers is to >make life easier. > > Of course some of you use Outlook Express which means it is more >difficult for others not yourself - it reads as easily as wading through >a truckload of manure, but I believe you actually can thread with it. >When I use OE at a friend's house I spend a fair time editing to make it >readable but most people regrettably do not bother. > > Anyway, I have finally guessed what to do and the result seems to be >that BLML messages from Richard Hills are lying about all over my >machine, but all other BLML messages are threading. why is your address >for posting different, Richard? > > Aha! But can I post? Yes, I know I can by wasting my time, but I >mean by using the capabilities of the software, not needing all this >Reply-To stuff, and sending sometimes to the list or to a person by >accident. From my mailing list it just does it automatically, and does >it right. > > So can I post? Have you read this? > yeah, I've got crap all over my box too. We Turnpike users are just SO spoilt. I think I'll have to unsubscribe and start again. maybe that'll be a blessing for you all :) -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Sep 17 18:32:24 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 10:32:24 -0700 Subject: [blml] VP scale for 72 boards. References: <000401c25e21$03bb3f50$623ce150@endicott> Message-ID: <001701c25e70$3d179920$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Henry Bethe has offered to the ACBL Competitions & Conventions committee four options concerning the current 10-10 to 20-0 VP scale that is in use. His motivation for the last two options was to have every imp count for something. The four options suggested for a vote were: A. Don't change anything B. Change the break points above 15-5 on the current scale to reflect the value of additional imps more appropriately. The current scale overvalues large margins, so make the gaps between steps above 15-5 larger. C. Use a formula scale that gives every imp an effect and takes into account the number of boards played. VP = Average x (2-exp[-margin/(7 x sqrt (number of boards))] The winner's score can approach 20 VP, but not quite reach it, so there is no total blitz. Let the computer take this to two decimal places, and give players an approximate scale on the convention card D. Avoid decimals by approximating C. with a much larger scale using integers, perhaps 100-100 to 200-0 I predict that C. will be approved by the C&C in November at the Phoenix NABC, and a subsequent BoD vote will adopt it. Wishful thinking, perhaps. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From toddz@worldnet.att.com Tue Sep 17 18:59:25 2002 From: toddz@worldnet.att.com (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 13:59:25 -0400 Subject: [blml] VP scale for 72 boards. In-Reply-To: <001701c25e70$3d179920$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Marvin L. French > Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 1:32 PM > To: bridge laws mailing list > Subject: Re: [blml] VP scale for 72 boards. > > C. Use a formula scale that gives every imp an effect > and takes into account the > number of boards played. > > VP = Average x (2-exp[-margin/(7 x sqrt (number of boards))] Parser failed! ;) Average of what? Is that 2^(-margin/(7(#boards^0.5))), 2-e^(...), or ....? For example, if the results of the match were 5-0, 10-5, and 15-5, what would the result of the function be? > The winner's score can approach 20 VP, but not quite > reach it, so there is no total blitz. That doesn't sound like it will make it a popular option. One thing that I have never understood about the VP scales is scaling factor over boards. The scales seem to assume that if a team wins an 8 board match by 16 imps that they should win a 16 board match by ~23 imps rather than by 32 imps. Is there empirical evidence to support making this assumption? -Todd From adam@tameware.com Tue Sep 17 18:37:14 2002 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 13:37:14 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 18-14 vp instead of 17-13 In-Reply-To: <000e01c1f862$8c178680$8c51fdd4@ethemhome> References: <000e01c1f862$8c178680$8c51fdd4@ethemhome> Message-ID: At 11:36 PM +0300 5/10/02, Ethem Urkac wrote: >In last nationals there was a ruling thought to be unjust for other >teams. I wonder if the ruling is correct or not. > >In round-robin team-of-4 one of the player told about a cold 4H >contract loudly which is heard at onather table and a player from >that table called the TD and informed that the board he is just >beginning to play he heard abouth a called 4H contract. TD ruled for >ave+ for both teams and applied a penalty for the other player. > >match finished scoring 18-14 instead of 17-13. is this the correct rulling? It seems correct, but what about the penalty assigned to the loud player? It will not accrue to his opponents and might as well be assessed in VP. If there's any justice it will amount to at least 2VP, so his match might award a total of 28 VP or even less. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From john@asimere.com Tue Sep 17 19:19:52 2002 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 19:19:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] VP scale for 72 boards. In-Reply-To: References: <001701c25e70$3d179920$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: In message , Todd Zimnoch writes >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Marvin L. French >> Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 1:32 PM >> To: bridge laws mailing list >> Subject: Re: [blml] VP scale for 72 boards. >> >> C. Use a formula scale that gives every imp an effect >> and takes into account the >> number of boards played. >> >> VP = Average x (2-exp[-margin/(7 x sqrt (number of boards))] > > Parser failed! ;) > > Average of what? Is that 2^(-margin/(7(#boards^0.5))), >2-e^(...), or ....? > > For example, if the results of the match were 5-0, 10-5, and >15-5, what would the result of the function be? > >> The winner's score can approach 20 VP, but not quite >> reach it, so there is no total blitz. > > That doesn't sound like it will make it a popular option. > > One thing that I have never understood about the VP scales is >scaling factor over boards. The scales seem to assume that if a >team wins an 8 board match by 16 imps that they should win a 16 >board match by ~23 imps rather than by 32 imps. Is there >empirical evidence to support making this assumption? absolutely so. there's a square root in the equation If 8 boards is 30 imps for 20-0 then 32 boards is 60 imps for 20-0 > >-Todd > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk From toddz@worldnet.att.com Tue Sep 17 20:01:14 2002 From: toddz@worldnet.att.com (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 15:01:14 -0400 Subject: [blml] VP scale for 72 boards. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: John (MadDog) Probst > Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 2:20 PM > To: Todd Zimnoch > Cc: bridge laws mailing list > Subject: Re: [blml] VP scale for 72 boards. > > >Is there > >empirical evidence to support making this assumption? > > absolutely so. there's a square root in the equation > > If 8 boards is 30 imps for 20-0 then 32 boards is 60 > imps for 20-0 There is a square root in the equation because the assumption has already been made. I've played matches where the margin of victory seems to remain constant past the 1st quarter, others where the margin increases linearly, a few where the margin grows rapidly, and alas, my share where the margin of victory becomes a margin of loss. Despite the range of experiences, I've felt on average that the growth was linear. -Todd From adam@tameware.com Tue Sep 17 20:46:26 2002 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 15:46:26 -0400 Subject: [blml] RE: VP scale formulas (was VP scale for 72 boards) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 1:59 PM -0400 9/17/02, Todd Zimnoch wrote: >(Marvin L. French reported Henry Bethe's proposed formula:) > > VP = Average x (2-exp[-margin/(7 x sqrt (number of boards))] > > Parser failed! ;) > > Average of what? Average VPs per team per match. With a 30 VP scale it would be 15. Here it is expressed in Excel: =15*(2-EXP(-ImpMargin/(7*SQRT(NumberOfBoards)))) >For example, if the results of the match were 5-0, 10-5, and 15-5, >what would the result of the function be? Only the margin of victory is taken into account, properly in my view, so 5-0 and 10-5 produce the same result. What do BLML members who study such things think of the formula? Here's the beginning of the 30 point scale for a seven board match, rounded to two decimals: IMP Margin Winner VPs Loser 0 15.00 15.00 1 15.79 14.21 2 16.54 13.46 3 17.24 12.76 4 17.91 12.09 5 18.55 11.45 6 19.15 10.85 7 19.72 10.28 8 20.26 9.74 9 20.77 9.23 10 21.26 8.74 11 21.72 8.28 12 22.15 7.85 13 22.57 7.43 14 22.96 7.04 15 23.33 6.67 16 23.68 6.32 17 24.01 5.99 18 24.32 5.68 19 24.62 5.38 20 24.91 5.09 21 25.17 4.83 22 25.43 4.57 23 25.67 4.33 24 25.90 4.10 25 26.11 3.89 26 26.32 3.68 27 26.51 3.49 28 26.69 3.31 -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Sep 17 20:56:53 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 12:56:53 -0700 Subject: [blml] VP scale for 72 boards. References: Message-ID: <003e01c25e84$a05defc0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Todd Zimnoch" > > From: Marvin L. French > > C. Use a formula scale that gives every imp an effect > > and takes into account the > > number of boards played. > > > > VP = Average x (2-exp[-margin/(7 x sqrt (number of boards))] > > Parser failed! ;) > > Average of what? Is that 2^(-margin/(7(#boards^0.5))), > 2-e^(...), or ....? Average is 1/2 of the desired scale range, which is 10 for a range going from 10-10 to 20-0. In other words, the VPs each side gets for a tied match. Working backward in the equation, take the square root of the number of boards times 7 ( the 7 derived by Henry from empirical data). Which is divided into the imp margin of the match, with the result negated. That becomes the exponent for 2.7183 (e), the answer to which is subtracted from 2 and that result multiplied by average. > > For example, if the results of the match were 5-0, 10-5, and > 15-5, what would the result of the function be? For seven boards, 5-imp margin, that's -5 / (7 x sqrt 7) = - 0.27 e ^ -0.27 = .7634 2 - .7634 = 1.2366 x 10 = 12.37 VPs for the winners (and 7.63 VPs for the losers) For a margin of 10 imps, the answer is 14.17 VPs to the winners. Thanks for asking, because this non-math type also had trouble understanding Henry's shorthand. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From adam@tameware.com Tue Sep 17 21:16:05 2002 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 16:16:05 -0400 Subject: [blml] VP scale formulas In-Reply-To: <003e01c25e84$a05defc0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> References: <003e01c25e84$a05defc0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: At 12:56 PM -0700 9/17/02, Marvin L. French wrote: >For seven boards, 5-imp margin, that's -5 / (7 x sqrt 7) = - 0.27 > >e ^ -0.27 = .7634 >2 - .7634 = 1.2366 x 10 = 12.37 VPs for the winners (and 7.63 VPs >for the losers) > >For a margin of 10 imps, the answer is 14.17 VPs to the winners. Happily my figures agree with Marvin's. Multiplying 12.37 and 14.17 by 1.5 (because I used a 30 point scale while Marvin used a 20 point scale) gives 18.555 and 21.255. The corresponding entries in my table are 18.55 and 21.26. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From vitold@elnet.msk.ru Tue Sep 17 18:51:38 2002 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru (vitold) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 21:51:38 +0400 Subject: [blml] TD Code References: <3D73A39A.9070600@skynet.be> <3D770488.7090209@skynet.be> <3D7851BC.9010309@skynet.be> Message-ID: <3D876BAA.5DC047@elnet.msk.ru> ]rn qnnayemhe g`jndhpnb`mn b tnpl`re MIME h qnqrnhr hg meqjnk|jhu w`qrei. --------------70280B0355D87F995DF86370 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all:) It is my second try - I made rather more formal draft of TD Code: I tried to avoid any belletristic comments. Grattan wrote: "Vitold should be encouraged", - and I was:) I have used numerous remarks from several posts that were sent so public (via blml) as private - thanks all contributors for help, remarks and advises. My special thanks to J. Dybdal, M. French, R. Hill,S. Kapustin, S. Litvak and M. Rosenblum - for suggestings, comments and discussion. Hundreds bridge-lawyers during years were working out a lot of useful documents so I tried to use them too. That's why there are countless adoptions from documents of EBL (Tournament Director Regulations, The Perfect TD Ruling), ACBL (Rules and Regulations, Disciplinary Code, Disciplinary Procedure), EBU (White Book, Orange Book). The text is really too large (30 pages, 40 Articles and 3 possible Appendixes) that's why the file is attached to this post (Word-6 .doc file, under Windows-95): any blmlist, interesting in the problem, may easy open it. The text surely may be (and I hope - will be) improved - but it became far beyond me. It seems to me that it's high time to similar document and the only aim of this posting is to prepare (with help of blmlists) draft for correspondent authority body (Laws Committee? Competition-Tournament Committee?) for possible future consideration. Best regards, Vitold Brushtunov (Witold Brouchtounov in French transcription) aka vitold. --------------70280B0355D87F995DF86370 Content-Type: application/msword; name="project final.doc" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="project final.doc" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 0M8R4KGxGuEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPgADAP7/CQAGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACAAAAsAAAAAAA AAAAEAAAsQAAAAEAAAD+////AAAAAK4AAACvAAAA//////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////cpWgAY+AJBAAAAABlAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAwAA 9B8BAHVbAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA9BwBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAFYBAMYDAAAAVgEAxgMAAMZZAQAAAAAAxlkBAAAAAADGWQEAAAAAAMZZAQAAAAAA xlkBABQAAADaWQEAAAAAANpZAQAAAAAA2lkBAAAAAADaWQEAAAAAANpZAQAAAAAA2lkBABwA AAD2WQEAiAAAANpZAQAAAAAAuVoBAEMAAAB+WgEAFgAAAJRaAQAAAAAAlFoBAAAAAACUWgEA AAAAAJRaAQAAAAAAlFoBAA8AAACjWgEADAAAAK9aAQAIAAAAt1oBAAIAAAC5WgEAAAAAALla AQAAAAAAuVoBAAAAAAC5WgEAAAAAALlaAQAAAAAAuVoBAAAAAAD8WgEAWAAAAFRbAQAhAAAA uVoBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAxlkBAAAAAAC3WgEAAAAAAAAAkQCVAAQAFgCUWgEA AAAAAJRaAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALdaAQAAAAAAt1oBAAAAAAC5WgEAAAAAALda AQAAAAAAxlkBAAAAAADGWQEAAAAAAJRaAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH5aAQAAAAAA t1oBAAAAAAC3WgEAAAAAALdaAQAAAAAAt1oBAAAAAADGWQEAAAAAAJRaAQAAAAAAxlkBAAAA AACUWgEAAAAAALdaAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAgYK+TGl7CAdpZAQAAAAAA2lkBAAAAAADGWQEA AAAAAMZZAQAAAAAAxlkBAAAAAADGWQEAAAAAALdaAQAAAAAAt1oBAAAAAAC3WgEAAAAAALda AQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABXQkYgVEQgQ29kZSAocHJv amVjdCkNVGFibGUgb2YgQ29udGVudHMNEyBUT0MgXG8gIjEtNCIgFFByZWZhY2UJMg1DaGFw dGVyIDEuIERlZmluaXRpb25zCTMNQ2hhcHRlciAyLiBHZW5lcmFscwk0DUFydC4gMS4gT2Js aWdhdG9yeSBDb25kaXRpb24gb2YgQ29udGVzdAk0DUFydC4gMi4gR2VuZXJhbCBSZXNwb25z aWJpbGl0eQk0DUFydC4gMy4gVEQncyBhbmQgQUMncyBTcGhlcmVzIG9mIEluZmx1ZW5jZQk0 DUFydC4gNC4gQmFzaWMgRnVuY3Rpb25zCTUNQ2hhcHRlciAzLiBURCBPcmdhbml6YXRpb24J Ng1BcnQuIDUuIFJlZ3VsYXRpbmcgQm9kaWVzCTYNQXJ0LiA2LiBURCBSYW5raW5nCTYNQXJ0 LiA3LiBFeGFtaW5hdGlvbnMJNg1BcnQuIDguIEFwcG9pbnRtZW50IG9mIHRoZSBDaGllZiBU RAk2DUFydC4gOS4gTWFpbiBEZW1hbmRzIGZvciBDbHViIERpcmVjdG9yCTcNQ2hhcHRlciA0 LiBHZW5lcmFsIFJpZ2h0cyBhbmQgT2JsaWdhdGlvbnMgb2YgVEQJOA1BcnQuIDEwLiBSaWdo dHMgb2YgUmVnaXN0ZXJlZCBURHMJOA1BcnQuIDExLiBEdXRpZXMgb2YgUmVnaXN0ZXJlZCBU RHMJOA1BcnQuIDEyLiBTdWZmaWNpZW50IERpZmZlcmVuY2UgYmV0d2VlbiBDbHViIEdhbWUg YW5kIE5hdGlvbmFsL0ludGVybmF0aW9uYWwgQ29udGVzdAk4DUFydC4gMTMuIE1haW4gRXhw ZWN0YXRpb25zIGZyb20gdGhlIFRECTgNQ2hhcHRlciA1LiBURCdzIER1dGllcyBiZWZvcmUg Q29udGVzdAkxMA1BcnQuIDE0LiBDby1vcGVyYXRpb24gd2l0aCBTcG9uc29yaW5nIE9yZ2Fu aXphdGlvbgkxMA1BcnQuIDE1LiBUb3VybmFtZW50IFN0YWZmCTEwDUFydC4gMTYuIFByZS10 b3VybmFtZW50IEFycmFuZ2VtZW50cwkxMg1DaGFwdGVyIDYuIFREJ3MgRHV0aWVzIGp1c3Qg YmVmb3JlIFN0YXJ0aW5nIG9mIHRoZSBDb250ZXN0CTE0DUFydC4gMTcuIEdldHRpbmcgUmVh ZHkgdG8gU3RhcnQJMTQNQXJ0LiAxOC4gV2hhdCBTaG91bGQgQmUgRG9uZSBqdXN0IGJlZm9y ZSBTdGFydGluZwkxNA1DaGFwdGVyIDcuIFREJ3MgRHV0aWVzIGR1cmluZyB0aGUgQ29udGVz dAkxNQ1BcnQuIDE5LiAgSnVzdCBCZWZvcmUgU2Vzc2lvbgkxNQ1BcnQuIDIwLiBEdXJpbmcg U2Vzc2lvbgkxNQ1BcnQuIDIxLiBBcHByb2FjaCB0byB0aGUgVGFibGUJMTUNQXJ0LiAyMi4g UHJvY2VkdXJlIG9mIFJ1bGluZwkxNQ1BcnQuIDIzLiBCaWFzIFJ1bGluZyAoZm9yIE5PUykJ MTcNQXJ0LiAyNC4gU3VwZXJ2aXNpbmcJMTgNQXJ0LiAyNS4gUHJvY2VkdXJhbCBQZW5hbHRp ZXMgKFBQKQkxOA1BcnQuIDI2LiBMZXNzIEV4cGVyaWVuY2VkIFBsYXllcnMJMTkNQXJ0LiAy Ny4gSXJyZWd1bGFyaXR5IG5vdCBOb3RpY2VkIGJ5IFBsYXllcnMJMjANQXJ0LiAyOC4gQWRq dXN0bWVudHMJMjANQXJ0LiAyOS4gVGhlIFNlc3Npb24gSXMgT3ZlcgkyMQ1DaGFwdGVyIDgu IFREJ3MgRHV0aWVzIGFmdGVyIHRoZSBFbmQgb2YgdGhlIENvbnRlc3QJMjINQXJ0LiAzMC4g VGhlIENvbnRlc3QgSXMgT3ZlcgkyMg1DaGFwdGVyIDkuICBEaXNjaXBsaW5hcnkgUG93ZXIJ MjMNQXJ0LiAzMS4gQ2x1YiBEaXNjaXBsaW5lCTIzDUFydC4gMzIuIE5CTyBDb21wZXRpdGlv biBSZWd1bGF0aW9ucwkyMw1BcnQuIDMzLiBaZXJvIFRvbGVyYW5jZSBQb2xpY3kJMjMNQXJ0 LiAzNC4gTkJPIERpc2NpcGxpbmFyeSBDb2RlCTI0DUNoYXB0ZXIgMTAuICBQcm9wcmlldGll cwkyOA1BcnQuIDM1LiBFdGhpY3MJMjgNQXJ0LiAzNi4gIFByb3BlciBBdHRpdHVkZQkyOA1B cnQuIDM3LiBFdGlxdWV0dGUJMjgNQXJ0LiAzOC4gVmlvbGF0aW9ucyBvZiBQcm9jZWR1cmUJ MjgNQXJ0LiAzOS4gQ29uZHVjdCBkdXJpbmcgQmlkZGluZyBvciBQbGF5CTI4DUFydC4gNDAu IFdpdGhkcmF3YWwJMjkNQXBwZW5kaXhlczogVGVjaG5pY2FsIHF1ZXN0aW9ucwkzMA1LaW5k cyBvZiBjb250ZXN0cwkzMA1NZXRob2RzIG9mIHNjb3JpbmcJMzANU2NoZW1lcyBvZiBtb3Zl bWVudHMJMzANFQ0MDSBQcmVmYWNlDVRoaXMgVG91cm5hbWVudCBEaXJlY3RvciAoVEQpIENv ZGUgaXMgZGVzaWduZWQgdG8gZGVmaW5lIG1haW4gYWltcyBhbmQgZnVuY3Rpb25zIG9mIFRv dXJuYW1lbnQgRGlyZWN0b3JzIGFuZCBjb3JyZWN0IHByb2NlZHVyZSBvZiBURC1zaGlwLg0M Q2hhcHRlciAxLiBEZWZpbml0aW9ucw0NQXBwZWFsIENvbW1pdHRlZSAoQUMpDW1lYW5zIGEg c3BlY2lhbCBib2R5IHRoYXQgaXMgZXN0YWJsaXNoZWQgYnkgU3BvbnNvcmluZyBPcmdhbml6 YXRpb24gd2l0aCBhaW0gb2YgaGVhcmluZyBhbmQgcnVsaW5nIGFwcGVhbHMuDUNoaWVmIFRv dXJuYW1lbnQgRGlyZWN0b3IgKENURCksIEFzc2lzdGFudCBDaGllZiBUb3VybmFtZW50IERp cmVjdG9yDW1lYW46DXRoZSByZXNwZWN0aXZlIERpcmVjdG9ycyBzbyBkZXNpZ25hdGVkIGJ5 IFNwb25zb3JpbmcgT3JnYW5pemF0aW9uIGZvciBicmlkZ2UgdG91cm5hbWVudCBiZWluZyBy ZXNwb25zaWJsZSBmb3IgaXRzIGNvbmR1Y3Rpbmc7DXJhbmsgb2YgVG91cm5hbWVudCBEaXJl Y3RvciB0aGF0IGlzIGdpdmVuIHRvIHBlcnNvbiBieSBjb3JyZXNwb25kZW50IFdCRiwgWk8g b3IgTkJPIGJvZHkuDURpcmVjdG9yLWluLUNoYXJnZSAoRElDKQ1tZWFucyAoaW4gc29tZSBO Qk8pIHRoZSByZXNwZWN0aXZlIERpcmVjdG9yIHNvIGRlc2lnbmF0ZWQgYnkgU3BvbnNvcmlu ZyBPcmdhbml6YXRpb24gZm9yIGJyaWRnZSB0b3VybmFtZW50IGJlaW5nIHJlc3BvbnNpYmxl IGZvciBpdHMgY29uZHVjdGluZyAoYWxtb3N0IHNhbWUgYXMgQ1REICJhIikuDURpcmVjdG9y IG9yIFRvdXJuYW1lbnQgRGlyZWN0b3INbWVhbnMgYSBEaXJlY3RvciBhcyBkZWZpbmVkIGlu IHRoZSBMYXdzIG9mIER1cGxpY2F0ZSBDb250cmFjdCBCcmlkZ2UgMTk5NyBhcHBvaW50ZWQg Zm9yIGJyaWRnZSB0b3VybmFtZW50Lg1MYXcNbWVhbnMgYSBMYXcgY29udGFpbmVkIGluIHRo ZSBMYXdzIG9mIER1cGxpY2F0ZSBDb250cmFjdCBCcmlkZ2UgMTk5NywgdGhlc2UgYmVpbmcg bnVtYmVyZWQgZnJvbSAxIHRvIDkzIGluY2x1c2l2ZS4gSXQgd2lsbCBiZSBhcHBlYXJlZCBp biB0aGUgdGV4dCBvZiB0aGUgQ29kZSBhcyBMbm4sIHdoZXJlIG5uIGlzIG51bWJlciBvZiBM YXcgZnJvbSB0aGUgTGF3cy4NTkJPDW1lYW5zIGEgTmF0aW9uYWwgQnJpZGdlIE9yZ2FuaXph dGlvbiB0aGF0IGlzIGEgbWVtYmVyIG9mIHRoZSBXQkYuDU5PUw1tZWFucyBub24tb2ZmZW5k aW5nIHNpZGUuDU9TDW1lYW5zIG9mZmVuZGluZyBzaWRlLg1QbGF5aW5nIEFyZWENdGhlIGFy ZWEgZGVmaW5lZCBieSB0aGUgV0JGIHdoaWNoIG1heSBpbmNsdWRlIHRoZSBsb2JieSBpbiB0 aGUgaW1tZWRpYXRlIHZpY2luaXR5IG9mIHRoZSBhY3R1YWwgcGxheWluZyByb29tcywgdGhl IHRvaWxldHMgYWRqb2luaW5nIHRoZSBwbGF5aW5nIHJvb21zIHdoaWNoIGFyZSBkZXNpZ25h dGVkIGZvciB0aGUgdXNlIG9mIHRoZSBwbGF5ZXJzIGFuZCBhbnkgb3RoZXIgcm9vbXMvbG9i YnkgYXJlYXMgdG8gYmUgZGVjaWRlZCBvbiBzaXRlLiBTdWNoIGFyZWFzIHdpbGwgYmUgaWRl bnRpZmllZCB0byB0aGUgcGFydGljaXBhbnRzIHRocm91Z2ggdGhlIERhaWx5IE5ld3MgYXQg dGhlIENoYW1waW9uc2hpcHMuDVNjaGVkdWxlIG9mIFBsYXkNbWVhbnMgdGhlIHNjaGVkdWxl IGZvciB0aGUgcGxheSBvZiB0aGUgY29udGVzdCBhcyBkZXRlcm1pbmVkIGJ5IFNwb25zb3Jp bmcgT3JnYW5pemF0aW9uLg1TZXNzaW9uDW1lYW5zIGEgc2VnbWVudCBvZiBwbGF5IChhcyBw cmVzY3JpYmVkIGJ5IHRoZSBTY2hlZHVsZSBvZiBQbGF5KSBhZnRlciB3aGljaCBzY29yZXMg YXJlIGNvbXB1dGVkLg1TcG9uc29yaW5nIE9yZ2FuaXphdGlvbiAoU08pDW1lYW5zIG9yZ2Fu aXphdGlvbiB0aGF0IGNvbmR1Y3RzIGJyaWRnZSBjb250ZXN0IGluIGFjY29yZGFuY2Ugd2l0 aCBMODAuDVpvbmFsIE9yZ2FuaXphdGlvbiAoWk8pDW1lYW5zIGEgb3JnYW5pemF0aW9uIGlu IGdlb2dyYXBoaWNhbCB6b25lIG9mIHRoZSBXQkYgdGhhdCBpbmNsdWRlcyBhbnkgTkJPIG9y IE5CT3MgcmVwcmVzZW50aW5nIGEgWm9uZS4NDENoYXB0ZXIgMi4gR2VuZXJhbHMNDUFydC4g MS4gT2JsaWdhdG9yeSBDb25kaXRpb24gb2YgQ29udGVzdA1BbGwgYnJpZGdlIGNvbXBldGl0 aW9ucyBhbmQgQ2hhbXBpb25zaGlwcyBvcmdhbml6ZWQgZGlyZWN0bHkgYnkgV0JGLCBaTywg TkJPIG11c3QgYmUgcnVuIGFuZCBkaXJlY3RlZCBieSBUb3VybmFtZW50IERpcmVjdG9ycyAo VERzKSB3aG8gYXJlIGF1dGhvcml6ZWQgYW5kIHJlY29nbml6ZWQgYnkgdGhlc2Ugb3JnYW5p emF0aW9ucyBieSBzcGVjaWFsIGFwcG9pbnRtZW50Lg1Db21wbGlhbmNlIHdpdGggdGhlIGFi b3ZlIHByb3Zpc2lvbiBpcyBhbiBlc3NlbnRpYWwgcmVxdWlyZW1lbnQgZm9yIHZhbGlkYXRp b24gb2YgY29tcGV0aXRpb24gcmVzdWx0cyBhbmQgcmFua2luZ3MgYW5kIHRoZSBhd2FyZCBv ZiBjb3JyZXNwb25kZW50IE1hc3RlciBQb2ludHMuDUFsbCBOQk9zIGFyZSBleHBlY3RlZCB0 byBiZSBhd2FyZSBvZiBhbmQgb2JzZXJ2ZSB0aGUgYWZvcmVtZW50aW9uZWQgcHJvdmlzaW9u Lg1BbGwgYnJpZGdlIGNvbXBldGl0aW9ucyBhbmQgdG91cm5hbWVudHMgKGluY2x1ZGVkIGlu dGVybmF0aW9uYWwpIG9yZ2FuaXplZCBieSBicmlkZ2UgY2x1YnMgb3IgbG9jYWwgYnJpZGdl IG9yZ2FuaXphdGlvbiBtdXN0IGJlIHJ1biBhbmQgZGlyZWN0ZWQgYnkgVERzIHdobyBhcmUg YXV0aG9yaXplZCBhbmQgcmVjb2duaXplZCBieSBOQk8gb2YgdGhpcyBjbHViIG9yIGxvY2Fs IGJyaWRnZSBvcmdhbml6YXRpb24uDQ1BcnQuIDIuIEdlbmVyYWwgUmVzcG9uc2liaWxpdHkN VGhlIFREIGlzIHJlc3BvbnNpYmxlIGZvciB0aGUgdGVjaG5pY2FsIHJlYWxpemF0aW9uIG9m IHRoZSBpbnRlbnRpb25zIG9mIHRoZSBzcG9uc29yaW5nIG9yZ2FuaXphdGlvbi4gVG8gdGhh dCBlbmQgaGUgaXMgZ2l2ZW4gZnVsbCBtYW5hZ2VtZW50IG9mIHRoZSB0b3VybmFtZW50IG9u IHNpdGUsIHdpdGggd2lkZSBwb3dlcnMgdG8gYWNoaWV2ZSBoaXMgb2JqZWN0aXZlcy4NQXMg dGhlIHJlcHJlc2VudGF0aXZlIG9mIHRoZSBzcG9uc29yaW5nIG9yZ2FuaXphdGlvbiwgaGUg aXMgZXhwZWN0ZWQgdG8gcHJlc2VudCB0aGUga2luZCBvZiBwZXJzb25hbCBpbWFnZSB3aGlj aCBpcyBhcHByb3ByaWF0ZSwgYW5kIHRoZSBiZXN0IFREIHdpbGwgbWFpbnRhaW4gYSBjYWxt LCBpZiBmaXJtLCBjb3VydGVzeSBpbiB0aGUgZmFjZSBvZiB0aGUgbW9zdCB0cnlpbmcgY2ly Y3Vtc3RhbmNlcy4gSGUgc2hvdWxkIGFpbSBmb3IgY29vbCBlZmZpY2llbmN5IGFuZCBhIHN0 YXRlIG9mIG1pbmQsIHdoaWNoIGRvZXMgbm90IHJlc3BvbmQgd2l0aCBhbmdlciB0byBwcm92 b2NhdGlvbi4NVGhlIFREIHNob3VsZCBiZSBjb252ZXJzYW50IHdpdGgsIGFuZCBjYXBhYmxl IG9mIGFwcGx5aW5nLCB0aGUgcmVsZXZhbnQgY29uZGl0aW9ucyBpbiBsaW5lIHdpdGggdGhl IHB1YmxpY2F0aW9ucyBsaXN0ZWQgaW4gdGhpcyBDb2RlLiBUaGlzIHdpbGwgZW5hYmxlIHRo ZSBURCB0byBpc29sYXRlIHRoZSBzaXR1YXRpb24gYW5kIGVzdGFibGlzaCB0aGUgY29ycmVj dCBwcm9jZWR1cmUuIFRoZSBiYXNpYyByZXF1aXJlbWVudCBpcyB0byBrbm93IHdoYXQgaXMg YXBwbGljYWJsZSBhbmQgd2hlcmUgaXQgaXMgdG8gYmUgZm91bmQuIENvbnRlc3RhbnRzIHNo b3VsZCBiZSBnaXZlbiB0aGUgb3Bwb3J0dW5pdHkgdG8gc2VlIHRoZSByZWxldmFudCBwdWJs aWNhdGlvbiBpZiByZXF1aXJlZDoNdGhlIExhd3Mgb2YgRHVwbGljYXRlIENvbnRyYWN0IEJy aWRnZSAxOTk3Ow10aGUgVG91cm5hbWVudCBEaXJlY3RvcnMgQ29kZTsNdGhlIEd1aWRlIGZv ciBUb3VybmFtZW50IERpcmVjdG9ycyBwdWJsaXNoZWQgYnkgdGhlIFpvbmFsIE9yZ2FuaXph dGlvbjsNdGhlIFN1cHBsZW1lbnRhcnkgR3VpZGUgZm9yIFRvdXJuYW1lbnQgRGlyZWN0b3Jz IHB1Ymxpc2hlZCBieSB0aGUgTkJPIChpZiBhbnkpOw10aGUgY3VycmVudCBZZWFyIEJvb2sg YW5kIGFueSBvdGhlciBBdXRob3JpemVkIERpcmVjdGl2ZXMgcHVibGlzaGVkIGJ5IHRoZSBO Qk8gKGlmIGFueSk7DWFsbCBjb25kaXRpb25zIG9mIHRoZSBldmVudCBwdWJsaXNoZWQgYnkg dGhlIFNwb25zb3JpbmcgT3JnYW5pemF0aW9uIHJlc3BvbnNpYmxlIGZvciB0aGUgZXZlbnQs IG9mdGVuIGluIHRoZSBmb3JtIG9mIGEgcHJpbnRlZCBwcm9ncmFtIGZvciB0aGUgdG91cm5h bWVudC4NDUFydC4gMy4gVEQncyBhbmQgQUMncyBTcGhlcmVzIG9mIEluZmx1ZW5jZQ1UaGUg VEQgaXMgdGhlIGZpcnN0IHBlcnNvbiB3aG9tIGNvbnRlc3RhbnRzIGFkZHJlc3MgZm9yIGhl bHAgYW5kIHJ1bGluZyBzdHJpY3QtYnJpZGdlIGFuZCBuZWFyLWJyaWRnZSBjb25mbGljdHMs IHRoZSBmaXJzdCwgd2hvIHJ1bGVzIHRoZXNlIGNvbmZsaWN0cywgc3VtbWFyaXppbmcgdGhl IHJlbGV2YW50IGZhY3RzIGFuZCBpc3N1ZXMgYWxvbmcgd2l0aCB0aGUgcGVydGluZW50IGxh dy4gDVREIGVuZm9yY2VzIHRoZSBMYXdzIG9mIER1cGxpY2F0ZSBDb250cmFjdCBCcmlkZ2Uu IFRoZSBURCBjYW4gYWRqdXN0IHNjb3JlcyAoTDEyKSBhbmQgZ2l2ZSBwcm9jZWR1cmFsIHBl bmFsdGllcyAoTDkwKS4NVGhlIExhd3Mgb2YgRHVwbGljYXRlIENvbnRyYWN0IEJyaWRnZSBh bGxvdyBjb250ZXN0YW50cyB0byBhcHBlYWwgYW55IHJ1bGluZyBtYWRlIGF0IHRoZWlyIHRh YmxlIGJ5IHRoZSBEaXJlY3RvciAoTDkyKS4gRXZlbiBpZiBhbiBBQyBpcyBhdmFpbGFibGUs IHRoZSBDaGllZiBUb3VybmFtZW50IERpcmVjdG9yIChDVEQpIHN0aWxsIGhlYXJzIGFuIGFw cGVhbCBpZiBpdCBpcyBiYXNlZCBzb2xlbHkgb24gTGF3IG9yIFJlZ3VsYXRpb24uIE90aGVy IGFwcGVhbHMgZ28gZGlyZWN0bHkgdG8gY29tbWl0dGVlLiBJbiBjYXNlcyBkZWFsaW5nIHNv bGVseSB3aXRoIExhdyBvciBSZWd1bGF0aW9uLCB0aGUgY29udGVzdGFudCBtYXkgYXBwZWFs IHRoZSBDVEQncyBydWxpbmcuIEhvd2V2ZXIsIG5vIGNvbW1pdHRlZSBjYW4gb3ZlcnJ1bGUg YSBURCBvbiBhIHBvaW50IG9mIExhdyBvciBSZWd1bGF0aW9uLiBJdCBjYW4gb25seSByZWNv bW1lbmQgdGhlIENoaWVmIERpcmVjdG9yIHJlY29uc2lkZXIgaGlzIG9yIGhlciBkZWNpc2lv biAoTDkzKS4gDU9uZSBjYW4gaWRlbnRpZnkgaW4gZ2VuZXJhbCB0ZXJtcyB0aGUgc3BlY2lh bCBhcmVhcyBvZiByZXNwb25zaWJpbGl0eSBmb3IgYXBwbGljYXRpb24gb2YgTGF3IGFuZCBS ZWd1bGF0aW9uOg1hKSBUaGUgVEQgYXBwbGllcyB0aGUgYm9vayBsYXdzLCBtYWtlcyB0aGUg bWVjaGFuaWNhbCBydWxpbmdzLCBnaXZlcyBwbGFpbiBwcmVsaW1pbmFyeSBydWxpbmdzIGlu IHZhbHVlIGp1ZGdlbWVudCBzaXR1YXRpb25zDWIpIFRoZSBhcHBlYWxzIGNvbW1pdHRlZSB0 ZXN0cyB0aGUgVESScyBhcHByZWNpYXRpb24gb2YgdGhlIGZhY3RzLCBhbmQgYnJpbmdzIGJy aWRnZSBleHBlcnRpc2UgdG8gdGhlIGZpbmVyIHBvaW50cyBvZiBicmlkZ2UganVkZ2VtZW50 IGluIGV4YW1pbmluZyB0aGUgY2FzZSBmb3IgZWFjaCBzaWRlIGluIHRoZSBtYXR0ZXIgYmVm b3JlIGl0Ow1jKSBUaGUgTmF0aW9uYWwgQXV0aG9yaXR5IGNvbmNlcm5zIGl0c2VsZiBwcmlt YXJpbHkgd2l0aCBtYXR0ZXJzIG9mIHByaW5jaXBsZSBhbmQgaW50ZXJwcmV0YXRpb246IGl0 IGVzdGFibGlzaGVzIHRoZSBiYXNpcyB1cG9uIHdoaWNoIHRoZSBydWxpbmdzIGFuZCBqdWRn ZW1lbnRzIG9mIHRoZSBURCBhbmQgYXBwZWFscyBjb21taXR0ZWVzIHNoYWxsIGJlIG1hZGUu IEl0IHJldGFpbnMgYSBjb250cm9sbGluZyBwb3dlciB0byBlbnN1cmUgdGhlc2UgcHJpbmNp cGxlcyBhbmQgaW50ZXJwcmV0YXRpb25zIGFyZSB1bmRlcnN0b29kIGFuZCBhcHBsaWVkLg0N QXJ0LiA0LiBCYXNpYyBGdW5jdGlvbnMNVGhlcmUgYXJlIHR3byBiYXNpYyBmdW5jdGlvbnMg b2YgVEQ6DVREIHNob3VsZCBzZXJ2ZSBwbGF5ZXJzIGZvciB0aGVpciBiZWluZyBjb21mb3J0 YWJsZSBkdXJpbmcgdGhlIHBsYXkgb2YgYnJpZGdlLA1URCBzaG91bGQgZXhlY3V0ZSBldmVy eSBkZW1hbmRzIGFuZCBjb25kaXRpb25zIG9mIHRoZSBMYXdzLCBSZWd1bGF0aW9ucyBvZiBh dXRob3JpdHkgYm9kaWVzIG9mIFdCRiwgWk8sIE5CTyBhbmQgU3BvbnNvcmluZyBPcmdhbml6 YXRpb24gKHdoZW4gdGhleSBkbyBub3QgY29udHJhZGljdCB0byB0aGUgTGF3cykuDUF0IGNs dWIvbG9jYWwgbGV2ZWwgZmlyc3QgZnVuY3Rpb24gc2hvdWxkIHByZXZhaWwgYW5kIGF0IG5h dGlvbmFsL2ludGVybmF0aW9uYWwgY2hhbXBpb25zaGlwcyBzZWNvbmQgZnVuY3Rpb24gYmVj b21lcyBtb3JlIHN1YnN0YW50aWFsLg0MQ2hhcHRlciAzLiBURCBPcmdhbml6YXRpb24NDUFy dC4gNS4gUmVndWxhdGluZyBCb2RpZXMNV0JGLCBaTywgTkJPIG9yZ2FuaXplIGNvcnJlc3Bv bmRlbnQgYm9keSB3aXRoIGluc3RpdHV0aW9uYWwgYWltcyBvZiB0b3VybmFtZW50IGRpcmVj dGluZyAoVEQgQ29tbWl0dGVlKS4gV0JGLCBaTywgTkJPIGRldGVybWluZSBjb21wb3NpdGlv biwgc2NoZWR1bGUgb2Ygd29yaywgZnVuY3Rpb24gb2YgbWVtYmVycyBvZiB0aGlzIGJvZHks IHByb2NlZHVyZSBvZiBub21pbmF0aW5nIFREcywgdGhlaXIgcmVnaXN0ZXIsIHByb21vdGlv biwgcmVtb3ZhbCBmcm9tIHJlZ2lzdGVyIGV0Yy4NVGhlIG9yZ2FuaXphdGlvbiwgcmVjcnVp dG1lbnQsIHRyYWluaW5nIGFuZCBlbXBsb3ltZW50IG9mIFRvdXJuYW1lbnQgRGlyZWN0b3Jz IGFyZSB0aGUgcmVzcG9uc2liaWxpdHkgb2YgdGhlIGNvcnJlc3BvbmRlbnQgVEQgQ29tbWl0 dGVlLg0NQXJ0LiA2LiBURCBSYW5raW5nDVRoZXJlIGFyZSAzIGNsYXNzZXMgb2YgVERzOiBj bHViL2xvY2FsLCBuYXRpb25hbCBhbmQgaW50ZXIgY2xhc3MsIC0gYW5kIDkgY2F0ZWdvcmll cy4gVGhlcmUgYXJlIGZvbGxvd2luZyAzIGNhdGVnb3JpZXMgb2YgY2x1Yi9yZWdpb25hbCBj bGFzczoNYSkJQ2x1YiBEaXJlY3RvcjsNYikJTG9jYWwgQXNzaXN0YW50IENoaWVmIFREOw1j KQlMb2NhbCBDaGllZiBURC4NVGhlcmUgYXJlIGZvbGxvd2luZyAzIGNhdGVnb3JpZXMgb2Yg bmF0aW9uYWwgY2xhc3M6IA1OYXRpb25hbCBURDsNYikJTmF0aW9uYWwgQXNzaXN0YW50IENo aWVmIFREOw1jKQlOYXRpb25hbCBDaGllZiBURC4NVGhlcmUgYXJlIGZvbGxvd2luZyAzIGNh dGVnb3JpZXMgb2YgaW50ZXJuYXRpb25hbCBjbGFzczogDWEpCUludGVybmF0aW9uYWwgVEQ7 DWIpCUludGVybmF0aW9uYWwgQXNzaXN0YW50IENoaWVmIFREOw1jKQlJbnRlcm5hdGlvbmFs IENoaWVmIFRELg1aTyBhbmQgTkJPIG1heSBoaXN0b3JpY2FsbHkgcHJvdmlkZSBhbm90aGVy IHN0cnVjdHVyZSBvZiB0aGVpciBpbm5lciBURC1yYW5raW5nLg0NQXJ0LiA3LiBFeGFtaW5h dGlvbnMNRnV0dXJlIFREIHNob3VsZCBwYXNzIHRocm91Z2ggZW50cnkgZXhhbWluYXRpb24g c2Vzc2lvbi4gVEQgb2YgZXZlcnkgY2F0ZWdvcnkgc2hvdWxkIGNvbmZpcm0gdGhlaXIgbGV2 ZWwgYXQgZXhhbWluYXRpb24gb25jZSBwZXIgdHdvIHllYXJzLiBURCBtYXkgcHJvdmUgdGhl aXIgcXVhbGlmaWNhdGlvbiBmb3IgcG9zc2libGUgcHJvbW90aW9uIGFsc28gdmlhIGV4YW1p bmF0aW9uLiBUaGUgQ2hhaXJtYW4gb2YgdGhlIGNvcnJlc3BvbmRlZCBURCBDb21taXR0ZWUg KGF0IGNsdWIgbGV2ZWwgLSBvd25lciBvciBjaGllZiBtYW5hZ2VyIG9mIHRoZSBjbHViKSBz ZW5kcyB0byBhbGwgaW50ZXJlc3RlZCBwYXJ0aWVzIGF0IGFuIGFwcHJvcHJpYXRlIHRpbWUg aW4gYWR2YW5jZSBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiBvbiB0aGUgdmVudWVzLCBkYXRlcywgdGVybXMgYW5k IGNvbmRpdGlvbnMgb2YgZXhhbWluYXRpb24gc2Vzc2lvbnMuIEV4YW1pbmF0aW9ucyBjb25z aXN0IG9mIHdyaXR0ZW4sIG9yYWwgYW5kIHByYWN0aWNhbCBzZXNzaW9ucyBhbmQgY29uY2Vy biBrbm93bGVkZ2Ugb2YgdGhlIGdhbWUsIGluIGJvdGggdGhlIGJpZGRpbmcgYW5kIGNhcmQg cGxheSwgdGhlIExhd3MgYW5kIFJ1bGVzIGFuZCBSZWd1bGF0aW9ucywgaXNzdWVkIGJ5IGF1 dGhvcml0eSBib2RpZXMsIG9uIHRoZSBjb21wZXRlbnQgZGlyZWN0aW5nIGluIHRoZSBwbGF5 aW5nIHJvb20sIHRoZSBjb25kdWN0IG9mIGFwcGVhbHMgYW5kIG9uIGJlaGF2aW9yLg1UaGUg RXhhbWluYXRpb24gQm9hcmQgbWF5IGF0IGl0cyBkaXNjcmV0aW9uIHBhc3Mgb3IgZmFpbCBh IGNhbmRpZGF0ZSBiYXNlZCBvbiB0aGUgcmVzdWx0cyBpbiB0aGUgZXhhbWluYXRpb24uIENh bmRpZGF0ZXMgZGVlbWVkIGluYXBwcm9wcmlhdGUgbWF5IHNpdCB0aGUgZXhhbWluYXRpb24g b25jZSBhZ2FpbiB1c3VhbGx5IGFmdGVyIGEgcGVyaW9kIG9mIG9uZSB5ZWFyLiANVGhlIGNv cnJlc3BvbmRlZCBURCBDb21taXR0ZWUgYXBwb2ludHMgdGhpcyBFeGFtaW5hdGlvbiBCb2Fy ZCAoYXQgY2x1YiBsZXZlbCAtIGJ5IGFuLiBvd25lciBvciBjaGllZiBtYW5hZ2VyIG9mIHRo ZSBjbHViKS4NVGhlIGNvcnJlc3BvbmRlZCBURCBDb21taXR0ZWUgb3JnYW5pemVzIFByb2Zl c3Npb25hbCByZWZyZXNoZXIgY291cnNlcy4gVGhpcyBURCBDb21taXR0ZWUgZGVjaWRlcyB0 aGUgc3ViamVjdHMgZm9yIGRpc2N1c3Npb24gYW5kIGNvdXJzZSBvcmdhbml6YXRpb24uIElu Zm9ybWF0aW9uIG9uIGNvdXJzZXMgaXMgc2VudCB0byBhbGwgaW50ZXJlc3RlZCBwYXJ0aWVz Lg0NQXJ0LiA4LiBBcHBvaW50bWVudCBvZiB0aGUgQ2hpZWYgVEQNRm9yIGV2ZXJ5IGNvbnRl c3QgKGV4Y2VwdCByZWd1bGFyIGNsdWIgZ2FtZXMpIHRoZSBURCBDb21taXR0ZWUgQ2hhaXJt YW4gd2lsbCBhcHBvaW50IHRoZSBDaGllZiBURCAob3IgRGlyZWN0b3ItaW4tQ2hhcmdlKSB3 aG8gd2lsbCBiZSB0aGUgb25seSBwZXJzb24gcmVzcG9uc2libGUgZm9yIGFsbCBtYXR0ZXJz IHJlbGF0aW5nIHRvIGRpcmVjdGluZyB0aGUgY29tcGV0aXRpb24uIE1pbmltYWwgVEQtcmFu ayBvZiB0aGlzIHBlcnNvbiBpcyBkZXRlcm1pbmVkIGJ5IFNPIG9mIHRoZSBjb250ZXN0Lg1J biBwYXJ0aWN1bGFyIHRoZSBDaGllZiBURCBtdXN0Og1hKQlhc3NpZ24gdGhlIHJvbGVzIGFu ZCBkdXRpZXMgdG8gaGlzIEFzc2lzdGFudHMgYW5kIHN0YWZmLCBkZWNpZGluZyByb3N0ZXJz IHdoZXJlIG5lY2Vzc2FyeTsNYikJc3VwZXJ2aXNlIGFuZCBjb29yZGluYXRlIHRoZSBkaXJl Y3Rpbmcgb2YgYWxsIGFzc2lzdGFudHMsIGNoZWNraW5nIHRoYXQgaXQgaXMgYWx3YXlzIGNh cnJpZWQgb3V0IGluIHRoZSBiZXN0IHdheSBwb3NzaWJsZSBhbmQgZnVsZmlsbGluZyB0aGUg YWltIG9mIHRoZSBldmVudDsNYykJd3JpdGUgYSByZXBvcnQgb24gdGhlIHJ1bm5pbmcgb2Yg dGhlIGNvbXBldGl0aW9ucywgZGV0YWlsaW5nIHRoZSBldmVudHMgd2hpY2ggcmVxdWlyZWQg VEQgaW50ZXJ2ZW50aW9uIGFuZCB3aGljaCBtYXkgcmVzdWx0IGluIGRpc2NpcGxpbmFyeSBh Y3Rpb24sIGVuY2xvc2luZyB0aGUgcmVsZXZhbnQgcmVwb3J0cyBmcm9tIGFzc2lzdGFudHMs IGFuZCBhbHNvIGFsbCB0aGUgZG9jdW1lbnRzIHJlbGF0aW5nIHRvIGNvbXBsYWludHM7DWQp CXdyaXRlIGEgcmVwb3J0IG9uIGhpcyBhc3Npc3RhbnRzkiB3b3JrIGFuZCBvbiB0aGVpciBs ZXZlbCBvZiBwcm9mZXNzaW9uYWxpc207IHN1Z2dlc3RpbmcgcG9zc2libGUgaW1wcm92ZW1l bnRzIHRvIHJhaXNlIHRoZSBzdGFuZGFyZCBvZiB0aGVpciB3b3JrIGFuZCBpbmRpY2F0aW5n IGluIGFueSBjYXNlIHRoZWlyIGF0dGl0dWRlLg1UaGUgVEQgQ29tbWl0dGVlIENoYWlybWFu LCBpbiBjb25zdWx0YXRpb24gd2l0aCB0aGUgQ2hpZWYgVEQsIHdpbGwgYWxzbyBhcHBvaW50 IGZvciB0aGUgc2FtZSBjb21wZXRpdGlvbiB0aGUgQXNzaXN0YW50IENoaWVmIFREcyBhbmQg YWxsIG90aGVyIFREcyBmb3IgdGhlIGNvbnRlc3QuIA0NQXJ0LiA5LiBNYWluIERlbWFuZHMg Zm9yIENsdWIgRGlyZWN0b3INVGhlIHBsYXllcnMgYW5kIHRoZSBTcG9uc29yaW5nIE9yZ2Fu aXphdGlvbiB0YWtlIGEgY2x1YiBnYW1lIGRpZmZlcmVudGx5IGZyb20gYSB0b3VybmFtZW50 IGF0IG5hdGlvbmFsIChhbmQgZXZlbiBhdCByZWdpb25hbCkgbGV2ZWwuIFRoYXQncyB3aHkg Q2x1YiBEaXJlY3RvciBmaXJzdCBvZiBhbGwgc2hvdWxkIHNlcnZlIHBsYXllcnMgZm9yIHRo ZWlyIGJlaW5nIGNvbWZvcnRhYmxlIGR1cmluZyB0aGUgcGxheSBvZiBicmlkZ2UsDUFzIGJy aWRnZSBjbHVicyBhcmUgYmFzaWMgdW5pdHMgZm9yIGFueSBicmlkZ2Ugb3JnYW5pemF0aW9u LCB0aGVyZSBzaG91bGQgYmUgdW5kZXJsaW5lZCB0aGUgZm9sbG93aW5nIGRlbWFuZHMgZm9y IGJlaW5nIENsdWIgRGlyZWN0b3I6DS0gb25lIHNob3VsZCBoYXZlIGEgdGhvcm91Z2gga25v d2xlZGdlIGFuZCB1bmRlcnN0YW5kaW5nIG9mIHRoZSBMYXdzIG9mIER1cGxpY2F0ZSBDb250 cmFjdCBCcmlkZ2UgYW5kIFpPL05CTyByZWd1bGF0aW9uczsNLSBwdWJsaWMgcmVsYXRpb25z IHNraWxscyBhcmUgY3J1Y2lhbDsgb25lIG11c3QgYmUgYWJsZSB0byBiYWxhbmNlIHRoZSBm b2xsb3dpbmc6IGJlaW5nIGEgZmF0aGVyICh3aG8gY3JlYXRlcyBmcmllbmRseSBhdG1vc3Bo ZXJlKSwgcmVmZXJlZSBhbmQgYSBqdWRnZSwgaGF2aW5nIHRoZSBzZW5zaXRpdml0eSBvZiBh IHNjaG9vbCB0ZWFjaGVyLCBoYXZpbmcgdGhlIGluc2lnaHQgb2YgYSBwc3ljaG9sb2dpc3Qg YW5kIHRoZSBwZW9wbGUgc2tpbGxzIG9mIGEgY3J1aXNlIGRpcmVjdG9yOw0tIG9idmlvdXNs eSBvbmUgbXVzdCBoYXZlIHRoZSB0ZWNobmljYWwgc2tpbGxzIG5lZWRlZCB0byBydW4gYnJp ZGdlIGdhbWVzIG9mIGFsbCB0eXBlcyBhbmQgc2l6ZXM7IGZ1cnRoZXJtb3JlLCBvbmUgbXVz dCBiZSBhYmxlIHRvIHByYWN0aWNlIGFsbCBvZiB0aGVzZSB2YXJpZWQgdGFza3MgaW4gYSBi dXN5IGFuZCBub2lzeSBhdG1vc3BoZXJlOyBvbmUgbXVzdCBhbHNvIGJlIGFibGUgdG8gZGVh bCB3aXRoIHN0cmVzcyB3aGlsZSBtYWludGFpbmluZyBhbiBldmVuIGFuZCBmcmllbmRseSBk aXNwb3NpdGlvbjsgYW5nZXIgbWFuYWdlbWVudCBpcyBpbmFkbWlzc2libGU7DS0gb25lIHNo b3VsZCBoYXZlIGEgY29tcGxldGUga25vd2xlZGdlIG9mIGFsbCBtb3ZlbWVudHMgb25lIG1p Z2h0IGVuY291bnRlciBhdCBhIHRvdXJuYW1lbnQ7IHdpdGggYW5kIHdpdGhvdXQgaGFuZCBy ZWNvcmQgZHVwbGljYXRpb247IGluIGFkZGl0aW9uLCBvbmUgbXVzdCBrbm93IGFsbCBtb3Zl bWVudHMgZGVhbGluZyB3aXRoIGhhbGYgdGFibGVzIGFuZCBoYXZlIHRoZSBhYmlsaXR5IHRv IGFkZCB0YWJsZXMgYWZ0ZXIgYSBnYW1lIGhhcyBzdGFydGVkIHJlZ2FyZGxlc3Mgb2YgdGhl IG1vdmVtZW50IGJlaW5nIHVzZWQ7IGl0IGlzIGltcG9ydGFudCB0byBrbm93IGhvdyB0byBy ZXBhaXIgbW92ZW1lbnRzIHRoYXQgaGF2ZSBnb25lIG9mZiB0cmFjayAoZS5nLiBwYWlycyBv ciBib2FyZHMgZ29pbmcgdG8gdGhlIHdyb25nIHRhYmxlKSB3aXRoIGEgbWluaW11bSBvZiBk ZWxheTsNLSBvbmUgc2hvdWxkIG5ldmVyIGZvcmdldCB0aGUgc29jaWFsIHNpZGUgb2YgdGhl IGdhbWU7IG9uZSBtdXN0IGF0IGFsbCB0aW1lcyBiZSBhd2FyZSBvZiB0aGUgcGVyc29uYWwg bmVlZHMgb2YgY2x1YiBwbGF5ZXJzOyB0aGlzIGlzIGFuIGV2ZW4gbW9yZSBpbXBvcnRhbnQg YXNwZWN0IG9mIGRpcmVjdGluZyB0aGFuIHJ1bm5pbmcgdGhlIGNvbnRlc3RzIGluIGEgdGVj aG5pY2FsbHkgY29ycmVjdCBtYW5uZXI7IGVxdWFsbHkgY3J1Y2lhbCBpcyBtYWludGFpbmlu ZyBvcmRlciwgZGlzY2lwbGluZSwgYW5kIGFzc3VyaW5nIGFsbCBjb250ZXN0YW50cyB0aGF0 IHRoZXkgd2lsbCBiZSBzcGVuZGluZyB0aGVpciB0aW1lIGluIGEgcGxlYXNhbnQgYW5kIGNv bWZvcnRhYmxlIGF0bW9zcGhlcmU7IHdoaWxlIGl0IGlzIHZpdGFsIHRvIGRlYWwgd2l0aCBy dWxpbmdzIGFuZCBwZW5hbHRpZXMgaW4gYSBtYW5uZXIgY29uc2lzdGVudCB3aXRoIGxhd3Mg YW5kIHJlZ3VsYXRpb25zLCBpdCBpcyBldmVuIG1vcmUgaW1wb3J0YW50IHRvIGRvIHNvIGlu IGEgbWFubmVyIHRoYXQgc2hvd3MgdGhhdCBDbHViIERpcmVjdG9yIHJlYWxpemVzIHRoYXQg dGhlc2UgcGxheWVycyBhcmUgY3VzdG9tZXJzIGFuZCBoYXZlIG1hbnkgb3RoZXIgb3B0aW9u cyBmb3Igc3BlbmRpbmcgdGhlaXIgbGVpc3VyZSB0aW1lLg0tIHRoYXQncyB3aHkgcHJlc2Vu dGF0aW9uIGlzIGV2ZXJ5dGhpbmc7IG9uZSBzaG91bGQgYmUgZnJpZW5kbHkgYW5kIHBvbGl0 ZSBidXQgcmVtZW1iZXIgdGhhdCB0aGUgQ2x1YiBEaXJlY3RvciBtdXN0IGFsd2F5cyBiZSBp biBjb250cm9sOiBjbHViIGdhbWVzIG11c3QgYmUgcnVuIHNtb290aGx5LCBvbiB0aW1lIGFu ZCB3aXRoIGxpdHRsZSBvciBubyBkaXN0dXJiYW5jZSB0byB0aGUgY2x1YiB2aXNpdG9ycyAo c28gY29udGVzdGFudHMgYXMga2liaXR6ZXJzKSBmcm9tIHRoZSBzdGFmZiwga2liaXR6ZXJz IG9yIG90aGVyIGNvbnRlc3RhbnRzOyBvbmUgbXVzdCBiZSBjb25zaXN0ZW50IGFuZCBpbXBh cnRpYWw7DS0gd2hlbiBDbHViIERpcmVjdG9yIGRvZXMgbWFrZSBhIG1pc3Rha2UsIGhlIHNo b3VsZCBhZG1pdCBpdCwgYXBvbG9naXplIGFuZCBmaXggaXQgYXMgYmVzdCBoZSBjYW47IGl0 IGlzIGNydWNpYWwgdGhhdCB0aGUgcGxheWVycyBjb25zaWRlciB0aGlzIERpcmVjdG9yIHNv bWVvbmUgdGhleSBjYW4gcmVseSBvbiB0byBiZSBjb21wZXRlbnQsIGZhaXIgYW5kIG9iamVj dGl2ZTsgdGhlIFREIHNob3VsZCB1c3VhbGx5IHRyeSB2ZXJ5IGhhcmQgdG8gdHJlYXQgYWxs IGNvbnRlc3RhbnRzIGVxdWFsbHksIGJlIHRoZXkgZXhwZXJ0IG9yIG5ld2NvbWVyIChidXQg c2VlIEFydC4gMTIgYW5kIDI2KS4NDENoYXB0ZXIgNC4gR2VuZXJhbCBSaWdodHMgYW5kIE9i bGlnYXRpb25zIG9mIFREDQ1BcnQuIDEwLiBSaWdodHMgb2YgUmVnaXN0ZXJlZCBURHMNUGVy c29ucyByZWdpc3RlcmVkIGluIHRoZSBPZmZpY2lhbCBURCBSZWdpc3RlciBoYXZlIHRoZSBy aWdodCB0byBiZWFyIHRoZSB0aXRsZSBhY2hpZXZlZC4gDVREcyBoYXZlIHRoZSByaWdodCB0 byBkZWZlbmQgdGhlaXIgb3duIGltYWdlIGFuZCBob25vci4gVGhleSBhbHNvIGhhdmUgdGhl IHJpZ2h0IG9mIHByb3RlY3Rpb24gYXMgbWF5IGJlIG5lY2Vzc2FyeSBieSB0aGUgV0JGLCBa TywgTkJPcyBhbmQgb3RoZXIgY29tcGV0aXRpb24gb3JnYW5pemVycy4NRm9yIHRoZWlyIHBy b2Zlc3Npb25hbCBzZXJ2aWNlcyBURHMgYXJlIGVudGl0bGVkIHRvIGZlZXMsIGV4cGVuc2Vz IGFuZCBhbGxvd2FuY2VzIHRvIGJlIHBhaWQgYnkgdGhlIHN0cnVjdHVyZXMgaW4gd2hpY2gg dGhleSBvcGVyYXRlIG9yIGNhcnJ5IG91dCB0aGVpciBhY3Rpdml0eS4gDQ1BcnQuIDExLiBE dXRpZXMgb2YgUmVnaXN0ZXJlZCBURHMNVERzIGFyZSBib3VuZCB0bzoNYSkJY29tcGx5IHdp dGggdGhlIExhd3MsIFJ1bGVzIGFuZCBSZWd1bGF0aW9ucyBnaXZlbiBieSBjb3JyZXNwb25k ZW50IGF1dGhvcml0eSBib2RpZXMgYW5kIGRpcmVjdGl2ZXMgb2YgU3BvbnNvcmluZyBPcmdh bml6YXRpb247DWIpCW1haW50YWluIGFwcHJvcHJpYXRlIGJlaGF2aW9yIGluIHN0cmljdCBy ZXNwZWN0IG9mIGV0aGljIGNyaXRlcmlhOw1jKQljb21waWxlIHRoZWlyIG93biBwcm9mZXNz aW9uYWwgQ3VycmljdWx1bSB0cnV0aGZ1bGx5Ow1kKQlkaXJlY3QgY29tcGV0aXRpb25zLCBw YXJ0aWNpcGF0ZSBpbiBjb3Vyc2VzIGFuZCBtZWV0aW5ncyBmb3Igd2hpY2ggdGhleSBhcmUg YXBwb2ludGVkIG9yIGNvbnZva2VkIGJ5IHRoZSBhcHByb3ByaWF0ZSBib2RpZXMsIGV4Y2Vw dCBpbiBjYXNlIG9mIGxlZ2l0aW1hdGUgaW1wZWRpbWVudCBvZiBmb3JjZSBtYWpvcjsNZSkJ c2VuZCByZXBvcnRzIG9uIGNvbXBldGl0aW9uczsNZikJYXR0ZW5kIHJlZnJlc2hlciBjb3Vy c2VzIG9yZ2FuaXplZCBieSBjb3JyZXNwb25kZW50IGJvZGllczsNZykJY2FycnkgdGhlaXIg VEQgYmFkZ2UgdmlzaWJseSBkdXJpbmcgdGhlIHdob2xlIGNvbXBldGl0aW9uOw1oKQlpbmZv cm0sIHZlcmJhbGx5IG9yIGluIHdyaXRpbmcgYXMgYXBwcm9wcmlhdGUsIGFueSBpbnRlcmVz dGVkIHBhcnR5IHdob20gdGhleSBpbnRlbmQgdG8gZGlzY2lwbGluZS4NDUFydC4gMTIuIFN1 ZmZpY2llbnQgRGlmZmVyZW5jZSBiZXR3ZWVuIENsdWIgR2FtZSBhbmQgTmF0aW9uYWwvSW50 ZXJuYXRpb25hbCBDb250ZXN0DUF0IGNsdWIgbGV2ZWwgaXQgaXMgVEQgd2hvIHNob3VsZCBj cmVhdGUgYXRtb3NwaGVyZSBpbiBwbGF5aW5nIGFyZWEuIEhlIHNoYWxsOg1pbiBldmVyeSBx dWVzdGlvbnMgb2YgdGhlIExhd3MgYmUgYSB0ZWFjaGVyIGZvciBhdmVyYWdlIHBsYXllcnMg YW5kIGV2ZW4gLSAiZmF0aGVyLXRlYWNoZXIiIGZvciBub3ZpY2VzOyANdHJlYXQgbm92aWNl cyBhcyBzb2Z0IGFzIHBvc3NpYmxlICh3aGVuIGhlIGhhcyBvcHRpb24pIC0gZXhwbGFuYXRp b25zIGFuZCByZW1hcmtzIGFyZSB0byBiZSByaWdodCB3YXkgdG8gbWFrZSB0aGVpciBlbnRy eSB0byBicmlkZ2UgbW9yZSBwbGVhc2FudDsNdHJ5IHRvIGNvbmR1Y3QgYW55IGNvbnRlc3Rz IGluIG1hbm5lciB0aGF0IHdpbGwgbWFrZSB0aGUgZ2FtZSBhcyBjb21mb3J0YWJsZSBmb3Ig cGxheWVycyBhcyBpdCBpcyBwb3NzaWJsZS4NQXQgbmF0aW9uYWwvaW50ZXJuYXRpb25hbCBj aGFtcGlvbnNoaXBzIG1haW4gYWltIG9mIFREIGlzIHRvIG9yZ2FuaXplIHRoZSB2ZXJ5IHBy b2Nlc3Mgb2YgdGhlIGNvbnRlc3QgZm9yOg1tYXhpbWFsIGV4ZWN1dGluZyBvZiBhbGwgdGhl IGRlbWFuZHMgb2YgdGhlIExhd3MgYW5kIFJlZ3VsYXRpb25zOw1tYXhpbWFsIGVxdWl0eSBv ZiBhbGwgcGFydGljaXBhbnRzIG9mIHRoZSBjb250ZXN0IChzbyBpbiB0cmVhdGluZyB0aGVt IGJ5IG9mZmljZXJzIGFzIGluIGNvbmRpdGlvbnMgb2YgcGxheWluZykuDVNwb25zb3Jpbmcg T3JnYW5pemF0aW9uIG9mIG5vbi1vZmZpY2lhbCBpbnRlcm5hdGlvbmFsIGNvbnRlc3QgbWF5 IGRlY2xhcmUgdGhhdCB0aGUgY29udGVzdCBzaG91bGQgYmUgcHJvdmlkZWQgYXMgaW50ZXJu YXRpb25hbCBjaGFtcCBvciBhcyBjb250ZXN0IG9mIGNsdWIgbGV2ZWwuDQ1BcnQuIDEzLiBN YWluIEV4cGVjdGF0aW9ucyBmcm9tIHRoZSBURA0xLiBIZSBpcyBub3QgZXhwZWN0ZWQgdG8g a25vdyB0aGUgTGF3cyBieSBoZWFydDogaGUgaXMgZXhwZWN0ZWQgdG8ga25vdyB3aGVyZSB0 byBsb29rIGluIHRoZSBMYXdzLCBhbmQgd2hhdCByZWd1bGF0aW9ucyBoZSBtYXkgdHVybiB0 by4NMi4gSGUgaXMgbm90IGV4cGVjdGVkIHRvIGhhdmUgdGhlIGJyaWRnZSBqdWRnZW1lbnQg b2YgYSBmcm9udC1yYW5rIGludGVybmF0aW9uYWwgcGxheWVyOyBoZSBpcyBleHBlY3RlZCB0 byBoYXZlIGEgc291bmQga25vd2xlZGdlIG9mIHRoZSBnYW1lIGFuZCB0byBiZSBhYmxlIHRv IG1ha2UgYnJvYWQganVkZ2VtZW50cyBvbiB0aGF0IGJhc2lzLg0zLiBIZSBpcyBub3QgZXhw ZWN0ZWQgdG8gYWN0IGFzIGNvdW5zZWxvciB0byBwbGF5ZXJzIG9uIGFueSBicmlkZ2UgbWF0 dGVyczsgaGUgaXMgZXhwZWN0ZWQgdG8gcnVsZSBicmlkZ2UgY29uZmxpY3RzIGluIGFjY29y ZGFuY2Ugd2l0aCB0aGUgTGF3cyBhbmQgUmVndWxhdGlvbnMsIGFuZCB0byBhcHBseSB0aGVz ZSB3aXRoIHNvdW5kIGludGVycHJldGF0aW9ucyB3aGVyZSByZXF1aXNpdGUuDTQuIEhlIGlz IG5vdCBleHBlY3RlZCB0byBhY3QgYXMgY291bnNlbG9yIHRvIGFwcGVhbHMgY29tbWl0dGVl cyBvbiBicmlkZ2UgbWF0dGVyczsgaGUgaXMgZXhwZWN0ZWQgdG8gcHJvdmlkZSB0aGVtIHdp dGggY29ycmVjdCBzdGF0ZW1lbnRzIG9mIExhdyBhbmQgUmVndWxhdGlvbiwgYW5kIHRvIGFt cGxpZnkgdGhlc2Ugd2l0aCBzb3VuZCBpbnRlcnByZXRhdGlvbnMgd2hlcmUgcmVxdWlzaXRl Lg01LiBIZSBpcyBleHBlY3RlZCB0byBmdXJuaXNoIGFwcGVhbHMgY29tbWl0dGVlcyB3aXRo IGZhY3R1YWwgYWNjb3VudHMgb2Ygd2hhdCBoYXMgb2NjdXJyZWQgaW4gaGlzIHByZXNlbmNl LCBhbmQgd2l0aCBmYWl0aGZ1bCByZXByb2R1Y3Rpb25zIG9mIHRoZSB3b3JkcyBzcG9rZW4g YnkgcGxheWVycyBldGMuIGluIGhpcyBwcmVzZW5jZTsgdG8gdGhpcyBlbmQgaGUgc2hvdWxk IGNvbW1pdCBub3RlcyB0byBwYXBlciB3aGlsc3QgdGhlIG1hdHRlciBpcyBmcmVzaCBpbiBo aXMgbWluZC4NNi4gSGUgaXMgZXhwZWN0ZWQgdG8gaW5mb3JtIHRoZSBhcHBlYWxzIGNvbW1p dHRlZSBvZiBoaXMgZmluZGluZ3Mgb2YgZmFjdCBjb25jZXJuaW5nIHF1ZXN0aW9ucyBkcmF3 biB0byBoaXMgYXR0ZW50aW9uLCBhbmQgb24gd2hhdCBiYXNpcyBoZSBoYXMgcmVhY2hlZCBo aXMgb3BpbmlvbjsgaGVyZSBoZSB3aWxsIGNvbW11bmljYXRlIHNvbWV0aGluZyBvZiB0aGUg bnVhbmNlcyBhbmQgaW5mZXJlbmNlcyB1cG9uIHdoaWNoIHRoZSBtb3JlIHN1Y2Nlc3NmdWwg VEQgd2lsbCByZWx5IHNvIGZyZXF1ZW50bHkuDTcuIEhlIGlzIGV4cGVjdGVkIHRvIGhhdmUg bWFkZSBhIGNsZWFyIGFuZCB1bmVxdWl2b2NhbCBydWxpbmcsIG9mIHdoaWNoIGhlIGNhbiBn aXZlIHRoZSBhcHBlYWxzIGNvbW1pdHRlZSBhIHN1Y2NpbmN0IHN0YXRlbWVudC4NOC4gSGUg aGFzIGEgZHV0eSB0byBtYWludGFpbiBnb29kIG9yZGVyIGFuZCB3aWxsIHVzZSBoaXMgcG93 ZXJzIHVuZGVyIExhdyA5MSBpbiBhbiBlcXVhYmxlIG1hbm5lciB0byB0aGlzIGVuZDsgaGUg d2lsbCBhbHNvIGV4ZXJjaXNlIGEgY29udHJvbCBvZiBzcGVjdGF0b3JzIGFuZCBvdGhlciB2 aXNpdG9ycyB0byB0aGUgcGxheWluZyBhcmVhcyBhbmQgdGhlIHRvdXJuYW1lbnQgZW52aXJv bm1lbnQuDQxDaGFwdGVyIDUuIFREJ3MgRHV0aWVzIGJlZm9yZSBDb250ZXN0DQ1BcnQuIDE0 LiBDby1vcGVyYXRpb24gd2l0aCBTcG9uc29yaW5nIE9yZ2FuaXphdGlvbg1BZnRlciBiZWlu ZyBhcHBvaW50ZWQgYXMgQ1REL0RJQyBvZiB0aGUgY2VydGFpbiB0b3VybmFtZW50IG9uZSBz aG91bGQgY29ubmVjdCB3aXRoIFNwb25zb3JpbmcgT3JnYW5pemF0aW9uIGFuZCBjby1vcGVy YXRlIHdpdGggaXQgaW4gYWR2YW5jZSBpbiBzdWNoIHF1ZXN0aW9ucyBhcyAgKGVzcGVjaWFs bHkgLSBhdCBuYXRpb25hbC9pbnRlcm5hdGlvbmFsIGNoYW1waW9uc2hpcHMpOg0xLiBDaGVj a2luZyBSdWxlcyBhbmQgUmVndWxhdGlvbnMNVGhlIENURC9ESUMgc2hvdWxkIGNoZWNrIFJ1 bGVzIGFuZCBSZWd1bGF0aW9ucyBmb3IgdGhhdCB2ZXJ5IGNvbnRlc3QgYW5kIHN1Z2dlc3Qg KHRvIFNwb25zb3JpbmcgT3JnYW5pemF0aW9uKSBjb3JyZWN0aW9ucyBpbiBjYXNlIG9mIGNv bnRyYWRpY3Rpb24gYmV0d2VlbiB0aGVtIGFuZCB0aGUgTGF3cyAoYW5kIHRoZSBSZWd1bGF0 aW9ucyBvZiBhdXRob3JpdHkgYm9kaWVzIG9mIFpPL05CTykgb3IgcHJlcGFyZSB3aXRoIFNw b25zb3JpbmcgT3JnYW5pemF0aW9uIHN1Y2ggUnVsZXMgYW5kIFJlZ3VsYXRpb24gaW4gYWR2 YW5jZTsNMi4gUHJldmFpbGFiaWxpdHkgb2YgQ1REL0RJQydzIEludGVycHJldGF0aW9uDUlm IGEgcXVlc3Rpb24gYXJpc2VzIG9uIGludGVycHJldGF0aW9uIG9mIGFuIFpPL05CTyByZWd1 bGF0aW9uLCB0aGUgQ1REL0RJQydzIGludGVycHJldGF0aW9uIHByZXZhaWxzIGZvciB0aGUg ZHVyYXRpb24gb2YgdGhlIGV2ZW50LiBJZiwgZm9yIGV4YW1wbGUsIHRoZXJlIGlzIGEgcXVl c3Rpb24gYWJvdXQgd2hldGhlciBhIHBhcnRpY3VsYXIgcHJvY2VkdXJlIGlzIG1hbmRhdG9y eSBvciBvcHRpb25hbCwgdGhlIENURC9ESUMgaW50ZXJwcmV0cyB0aGUgcmVndWxhdGlvbiBh bmQgbWFrZXMgdGhlIGRlY2lzaW9uLiANMy4gVG91cm5hbWVudCBPcHRpb25zIA1UaGUgQ1RE L0RJQyBtdXN0IGRpc2N1c3MgYWxsIG9wdGlvbnMgZm9yIHRoZSB0b3VybmFtZW50IHdpdGgg dGhlIHRvdXJuYW1lbnQgY2hhaXJtYW4gYW5kIGNvbWUgdG8gYWdyZWVtZW50IG9uIHdoYXQg dGhlIHByb2NlZHVyZXMgd2lsbCBiZS4gVGhlIENURC9ESUMgc2hvdWxkIGdldCB0aGVzZSBp bnN0cnVjdGlvbnMgaW4gYWR2YW5jZSBvZiB0aGUgdG91cm5hbWVudCB3aGVuZXZlciBwb3Nz aWJsZSwgYnV0IGNlcnRhaW5seSBpbiBhZHZhbmNlIG9mIGFueSBldmVudCB3aGVyZSB0aGV5 IG1heSBhcmlzZS4gTWFueSBzcG9uc29yaW5nIG9yZ2FuaXphdGlvbnMgZXN0YWJsaXNoIHN0 YW5kaW5nIGluc3RydWN0aW9ucywgd2hpY2ggYXBwbHkgdG8gYWxsIG9mIHRoZWlyIHRvdXJu YW1lbnRzLiANNC4gRW5mb3JjZW1lbnQgb2YgWk8vTkJPIFJlZ3VsYXRpb25zIA1UaGUgQ1RE L0RJQyBpcyByZXNwb25zaWJsZSBmb3IgZW5mb3JjaW5nIGFsbCBaTy9OQk8gcmVndWxhdGlv bnMgYW5kIHNlZWluZyB0aGF0IGFsbCBzdGFmZiBtZW1iZXJzIGNvbmZvcm0gdG8gWk8vTkJP IHN0YW5kYXJkcyBvZiBjb25kdWN0LiBTb21lIGltcG9ydGFudCBjb25zaWRlcmF0aW9ucyBh cmUgY2hvaWNlIG9mIG1vdmVtZW50cywgY29uZGl0aW9ucyBvZiBjb250ZXN0IGFuZCBtYWlu dGFpbmluZyBvcmRlci4gDTUuIENob2ljZSBvZiBNb3ZlbWVudHMgDVpPL05CTyBtYXkgaGF2 ZSB0aGVpciBoaXN0b3JpY2FsIHN0YW5kYXJkcyBhbmQgdmFyaWF0aW9uIGluIHRoZSBwaHlz aWNhbCBzZXR1cCBvZiBnYW1lcyBhbmQgaW4gdGhlIHNlbGVjdGlvbiBvZiBtb3ZlbWVudHMg YXQgc2VjdGlvbmFsIGFuZCByZWdpb25hbCB0b3VybmFtZW50cy4gVGhlIENURC9ESUMgdXN1 YWxseSBydW5zIGdhbWVzIHVzaW5nIGNvbW1vbiwgcHJvdmVuIG1ldGhvZHMuIFdoZW4gbm8g c3RhbmRvdXQgY2hvaWNlIGV4aXN0cywgdGhlIENURC9ESUMgc2hvdWxkIGV4cGxhaW4gdGhl IHByb3MgYW5kIGNvbnMgb2YgZWFjaCBwb3NzaWJsZSBjaG9pY2UgdG8gdGhlIFNwb25zb3Jp bmcgT3JnYW5pemF0aW9uIGFuZCBtYWtlIGEgcmVjb21tZW5kYXRpb24uIFRoZSBTcG9uc29y aW5nIE9yZ2FuaXphdGlvbiBtYWtlcyB0aGUgZGVjaXNpb24gZnJvbSB0aGUgbWVudSBvZiBj aG9pY2VzIG9mZmVyZWQuIA02LiBDb25kaXRpb25zIG9mIENvbnRlc3QNVGhlIFNwb25zb3Jp bmcgT3JnYW5pemF0aW9uIHNldHMgY29uZGl0aW9ucyBvZiBjb250ZXN0IHdpdGggdGhlIGFz c2lzdGFuY2Ugb2YgdGhlIENURC9ESUMuIE9uY2UgdGhlIENURC9ESUMgYW5ub3VuY2VzIHRo ZSBjb25kaXRpb25zIG9mIGNvbnRlc3QgYW5kIHRoZSBldmVudCBiZWdpbnMsIHVzdWFsbHkg bmVpdGhlciB0aGUgcGxheWVycyBub3IgdGhlIFNwb25zb3JpbmcgT3JnYW5pemF0aW9uIG1h eSByZXZpc2UgY29uZGl0aW9ucyBvZiBwbGF5LiBUaGUgU3BvbnNvcmluZyBPcmdhbml6YXRp b24gbWF5IG1vZGlmeSBvciByZXZpc2UgY29uZGl0aW9ucyBvbmx5IHVuZGVyIGV4dHJhb3Jk aW5hcnkgY2lyY3Vtc3RhbmNlcy4gDTcuIFNwZWNpYWwgcmVxdWlyZW1lbnRzIG9mIFNwb25z b3JpbmcgT3JnYW5pemF0aW9uDUlmIHRoZSBTcG9uc29yaW5nIE9yZ2FuaXphdGlvbiBoYXZl IGFueSB1bnVzdWFsIHJlcXVlc3RzLCBpdCBzaG91bGQgYmUgdGhlIENURC9ESUMgd2hvIGlz IHJlc3BvbnNpYmxlIGZvciBjYXJyeWluZyBvdXQgdGhlc2Ugd2lzaGVzLCBhbmQgdGhpcyBp cyBsaWtlbHkgdG8gaW52b2x2ZSBzb21lIGFkdmFuY2UgcGxhbm5pbmcuIEZvciBleGFtcGxl LCB0aGVyZSBtYXkgYmUgc3BlY2lhbCBwcml6ZXMgZm9yIJFub24tZXhwZXJ0kiBwbGF5ZXJz LCBpbiB3aGljaCBjYXNlIHRoaXMgQ1REL0RJQyB3aWxsIG5lZWQgdG8gc2V0IHVwIHNvbWUg c3lzdGVtIGZvciBpZGVudGlmeWluZyBzdWNoIHBsYXllcnMuIFN1Y2ggdGhpbmdzIHNob3Vs ZCBiZSBhZG1pbmlzdGVyZWQgaW4gYWR2YW5jZS4NDUFydC4gMTUuIFRvdXJuYW1lbnQgU3Rh ZmYNQW5vdGhlciBwcm9ibGVtIHRoYXQgc2hvdWxkIGJlIGNvbnNpZGVyZWQgYW5kIHJlc29s dmVkIGJlZm9yZSB0aGUgY29udGVzdCBzdGFydHMgLSBpcyB0byBvcmdhbml6ZSB0b3VybmFt ZW50IHN0YWZmIChlc3BlY2lhbGx5IC0gZm9yIGNvbnRlc3QgYXQgaW50ZXJuYXRpb25hbC9u YXRpb25hbCBsZXZlbCkgYW5kIHRvIGdvdmVybiBpdHMgd29yay4gQSBtb3N0IChidXQgbm90 IGFsbCkgb2YgdGhlc2UgcXVlc3Rpb25zIGFsc28gc2hvdWxkIGJlIHJlc29sdmVkIGluIGNv LW9wZXJhdGlvbiB3aXRoIFNwb25zb3JpbmcgT3JnYW5pemF0aW9uLiANMS4gIFRvdXJuYW1l bnQgRGlyZWN0b3JzIA1TcG9uc29yaW5nIE9yZ2FuaXphdGlvbiBtYXkgcmVxdWVzdCBzcGVj aWZpYyBkaXJlY3Rpbmcgc3RhZmYgZm9yIHRoZWlyIHRvdXJuYW1lbnRzLiBJbiB0aGUgZXZl bnQgb2Ygc3RhZmZpbmcgY29uZmxpY3RzIGFtb25nIHRvdXJuYW1lbnRzIChmb3IgZXhhbXBs ZSwgdHdvIHJlcXVlc3RzIGZvciB0aGUgc2FtZSB0b3VybmFtZW50IGRpcmVjdG9yIGF0IHRo ZSBzYW1lIHRpbWUpLCB0aGUgWk8vTkJPIFRvdXJuYW1lbnQgRGVwYXJ0bWVudCB3aWxsIHJl c29sdmUgdGhlIHByb2JsZW0uIA1BbGwgc3RhZmYgcmVxdWVzdHMgYnkgdGhlIENURC9ESUMg YXJlIHN1YmplY3QgdG8gcmV2aWV3IGJ5IHRoZSBTcG9uc29yaW5nIE9yZ2FuaXphdGlvbi4g U3BvbnNvcmluZyBPcmdhbml6YXRpb24gKGFmdGVyIGNvbnN1bHRpbmcgd2l0aCBDVEQvRElD KSBtYXkgaGF2ZSBzcGVjaWZpYyByZXF1ZXN0cyBmb3IgdGhlIFpPL05CTyBUb3VybmFtZW50 IERlcGFydG1lbnQgdG8gYXNzaWduIG9yIG5vdCBhc3NpZ24gcGFydGljdWxhciBpbmRpdmlk dWFscyB0byBzdGFmZiB0aGVpciB0b3VybmFtZW50cy4gU3BvbnNvcmluZyBPcmdhbml6YXRp b24gc2hvdWxkIHNlbmQgc3VjaCByZXF1ZXN0cyBhbmQgdGhlIHJlYXNvbnMgZm9yIG1ha2lu ZyB0aGVtIGluIHdyaXRpbmcuIA1UaGUgQ1REL0RJQyBpcyByZXNwb25zaWJsZSBmb3IgdGhl IHByb3BlciBjb25kdWN0LCBhcHBlYXJhbmNlIGFuZCBkZW1lYW5vciBvZiB0aGUgdG91cm5h bWVudCBkaXJlY3RvcnMgYXNzaWduZWQuIA0yLiBBc3NpZ25tZW50cyANVGhlIENEVC9ESUMg cmVxdWVzdHMgdG91cm5hbWVudCBzdGFmZiBiYXNlZCBvbiB0aGUgbnVtYmVyIG9mIHRhYmxl cyBhbnRpY2lwYXRlZCwgdGhlIHByb3hpbWl0eSBvZiB0aGUgcHJvcG9zZWQgZGlyZWN0b3In cyByZXNpZGVuY2UgdG8gdGhlIHRvdXJuYW1lbnQgbG9jYXRpb24sIGV4cGVydGlzZSBvciBy YW5rIG9mIHRoZSBwcm9wb3NlZCBkaXJlY3Rvciwgb3ZlcmFsbCBzdGFmZiBoYXJtb255LCBT cG9uc29yaW5nIE9yZ2FuaXphdGlvbiByZXF1ZXN0LCBlbXBsb3llZSBzdGF0dXMgKHNhbGFy aWVkLCBmdWxsIG9yIHBhcnQtdGltZSksIGFuZCBnZW5lcmFsIHdvcmtsb2FkIG9mIHNwZWNp ZmljIHRvdXJuYW1lbnQgZGlyZWN0b3JzLiBNYXR0ZXJzIG5vdCByZWxhdGVkIHRvIGFueSBv ZiB0aGUgZm9yZWdvaW5nIHNob3VsZCBub3QgYmUgY29uc2lkZXJlZC4gDVRoZSBDVEQvRElD IChhZnRlciByZWFjaGluZyBhZ3JlZW1lbnQgd2l0aCBTcG9uc29yaW5nIE9yZ2FuaXphdGlv bikgc3VibWl0cyBhIHN0YWZmIHJlcXVlc3QgdG8gdGhlIFpPL05CTyBUb3VybmFtZW50IERl cGFydG1lbnQgaW5kaWNhdGluZyB3aGljaCB0b3VybmFtZW50IGRpcmVjdGluZyBwZXJzb25u ZWwgaGUgd291bGQgbGlrZSBhc3NpZ25lZCB0byB0aGUgdG91cm5hbWVudCBhbmQgdGhlIHNl c3Npb25zIGVhY2ggZGlyZWN0b3Igd291bGQgYmUgd29ya2luZy4gQWZ0ZXIgYSByZXZpZXcg b2YgdGhlIHN0YWZmLCB0aGUgVG91cm5hbWVudCBEZXBhcnRtZW50IG1ha2VzIHRoZSBhc3Np Z25tZW50cy4gDVVzdWFsbHkgdGhlcmUgc2hvdWxkIGJlIG9uZSBkaXJlY3RvciBmb3IgZXZl cnkgMTQtMjIgdGFibGVzLiBGYWN0b3JzIHN1Y2ggYXMgdGhlIHR5cGUgb2Ygc3BhY2UsIG51 bWJlciBvZiBwbGF5aW5nIHJvb21zLCBsb2NhbCBzdXBwb3J0LCBhbmQgdGhlIG51bWJlciBh bmQgdHlwZSBvZiBldmVudHMgYWZmZWN0IHRoZSBudW1iZXIgb2YgZGlyZWN0b3JzIG5lZWRl ZC4gDTMuIFRvdXJuYW1lbnQgQXNzaXN0YW50cw1TcG9uc29yaW5nIE9yZ2FuaXphdGlvbiBt YXkgY2hvb3NlIHRvIGhpcmUgYSB0b3VybmFtZW50IGFzc2lzdGFudCAoYXNzaXN0YW50cyBv ZiBURCwgY29tcHV0ZXIgc2NvcmVycywgZXRjLikgdG8gd29yayBhdCB0aGVpciB0b3VybmFt ZW50LiBJZiB0aGlzIGluZGl2aWR1YWwgaXMgdG8gd29yayBpbiBsaWV1IG9mIGEgdG91cm5h bWVudCBkaXJlY3RvciwgaGUgb3Igc2hlIG11c3QgaGF2ZSBwYXNzZWQgdGhlIFpPL05CTyBD bHViIERpcmVjdG9yIGV4YW0gYW5kIG1lZXQgdGhlIGFwcHJvdmFsIG9mIHRoZSBDVEQvRElD LiBBbGwgZW1wbG95bWVudCBpc3N1ZXMgc3VjaCBhcyBjb21wZW5zYXRpb24sIHBheXJvbGwg dGF4ZXMsIGluc3VyYW5jZSwgZXRjLiBhcmUgdGhlIHJlc3BvbnNpYmlsaXR5IG9mIHRoZSBT cG9uc29yaW5nIE9yZ2FuaXphdGlvbi4gDTQuIENhZGRpZXMgDVRoZSBudW1iZXIgb2YgY2Fk ZGllcyByZXF1aXJlZCBhbmQgb3RoZXIgc3BlY2lhbCBjYWRkeSBjb25zaWRlcmF0aW9ucyBz aG91bGQgYmUgd29ya2VkIG91dCBwcmlvciB0byB0aGUgdG91cm5hbWVudC4gVXBvbiBhcnJp dmFsIGZvciB3b3JrLCB0aGUgY2FkZGllcyBiZWNvbWUgdGhlIHJlc3BvbnNpYmlsaXR5IG9m IHRoZSBDVEQvRElDLiBUaGUgU3BvbnNvcmluZyBPcmdhbml6YXRpb24gbWF5IHByb3ZpZGUg YSBsb2NhbCB2b2x1bnRlZXIgdG8gb3JnYW5pemUgYW5kIHRyYWluIGNhZGRpZXMgcHJpb3Ig dG8gYW5kL29yIGR1cmluZyB0aGUgdG91cm5hbWVudC4gSWYgdGhlIFNwb25zb3JpbmcgT3Jn YW5pemF0aW9uIGRvZXMgbm90IGRvIHRoaXMsIHRoZSBDVEQvRElDIG11c3QgbWFrZSBhcnJh bmdlbWVudHMgZm9yIHRyYWluaW5nIGF0IHRoZSB0b3VybmFtZW50LiANNS4gVm9sdW50ZWVy cyANVGhlcmUgYXJlIG1hbnkgbWVtYmVycyBvZiB0aGUgU3BvbnNvcmluZyBPcmdhbml6YXRp b24gc3RhZmYgd2hvIGFyZSB1c3VhbGx5IHZvbHVudGVlcnMgYnV0IHRoZXkgbWF5IGJlIHBh aWQgYnkgdGhlIFNwb25zb3JpbmcgT3JnYW5pemF0aW9uIG9yIGdpdmVuIGJlbmVmaXRzIHN1 Y2ggYXMgYSBjb21wbGltZW50YXJ5IHJvb20gb3IgZnJlZSBwbGF5cy4gU29tZSBvZiB0aGVz ZSBwb3NpdGlvbnMgY291bGQgYmU6IA1EYWlseSBCdWxsZXRpbiBlZGl0b3IgDVBhcnRuZXJz aGlwIGRlc2sgDUNhZGR5IG9yZ2FuaXplciANUHJpemUgZGVzayANUmVnaXN0cmF0aW9uIGRl c2sgDUluZm9ybWF0aW9uL0hvc3BpdGFsaXR5IGRlc2sgDTYuIFBsYW5uaW5nIHRoZSBQcm9j ZXNzaW5nIG9mIHRoZSBDb250ZXN0DUFmdGVyIGNvbXBsZXRpbmcgdGhlIHN0YWZmLCBDVEQv RElDIHNob3VsZCByZXRoaW5rIGFuZCBwbGFuIHRoZSB2ZXJ5IGNvbnRlc3QgcHJvY2Vzc2lu Zy4gRG9pbmcgc28gaGUgc2hvdWxkIGluc3RydWN0aW5nIHRoZW0gYWJvdXQgdGhlaXIgZHV0 aWVzIGR1cmluZyB0aGUgY29udGVzdCAoZXNwZWNpYWxseSAtIGluc3RydWN0aW5nIFREcykg YW5kICByZXNvbHZlIGluIGFkdmFuY2UgdGhlIHN0YWZmIHByb2JsZW1zOiANaGFzIGhpcyBz dGFmZiBhbGwgYmVlbiBub3RpZmllZCBvZiB0aGUgYXJyYW5nZW1lbnRzLCBzdWNoIGFzIHdo ZXJlIHRoZXkgYXJlIHN0YXlpbmcsIHdoYXQgdGltZSB0aGV5IHNob3VsZCByZXBvcnQgZm9y IGR1dHksIGV0Yy4/IA13aGF0IGFycmFuZ2VtZW50cyBoYXZlIGJlZW4gbWFkZSBmb3IgkWFw cGVhbHOSPyANd2hhdCBhcnJhbmdlbWVudHMgZm9yIHByaXplcz8gDXdoYXQgY2F0ZXJpbmcg YXJyYW5nZW1lbnRzIGhhdmUgYmVlbiBtYWRlPyANd2hhdCBhcnJhbmdlbWVudHMgaGF2ZSBi ZWVuIG1hZGUgZm9yIJFzZXJ2aWNpbmeSIHRoZSBwbGF5aW5nIHJvb21zIGJldHdlZW4gb3Ig ZHVyaW5nIHNlc3Npb25zPw03LiBUaGUgVGVhbSBvZiBTdGFmZiANRWFjaCBwZXJzb24gaW52 b2x2ZWQgaW4gdGhlIHJ1bm5pbmcgb2YgdGhlIGNvbXBldGl0aW9uIHNob3VsZCBkbyBzbyBh cyBhIG1lbWJlciBvZiBhIHdlbGwtb3JnYW5pemVkIGFuZCB3ZWxsLW1vdGl2YXRlZCB0ZWFt LiBDVEQvRElDIHNob3VsZCBhbHdheXMgbWFrZSBzdXJlIHRoYXQgZWFjaCBtZW1iZXIgb2Yg dGhlIHRlYW0ga25vd3MgZXhhY3RseSB3aGF0IHRoZXkgd2lsbCBiZSBkb2luZyBpbiBlYWNo IHNlc3Npb24sIGhvdyB0aGF0IHBhcnRpY3VsYXIgZnVuY3Rpb24gc2xvdHMgaW50byB0aGUg b3ZlcmFsbCBzY2hlbWUgb2YgdGhpbmdzIGFuZCCWIGVxdWFsbHkgaW1wb3J0YW50IJYgdGhh dCB0aGV5IGFyZSBhd2FyZSBvZiB3aGF0IHRoZWlyIGNvbGxlYWd1ZXMgYXJlIGRvaW5nLiBU aGlzIGxhdHRlciBwb2ludCBpcyBub3Qgb25seSB1c2VmdWwgaW4gY2FzZSBvZiBhbiBlbWVy Z2VuY3kgb2Ygc29tZSBzb3J0IChlLmcuIHNob3VsZCBoZSBuZWVkIHRvIHJlYXJyYW5nZSB0 aGluZ3MgcXVpY2tseSksIGl0IGlzIGFsc28gZ29vZCBmb3IgdGVhbSBtb3JhbC4gDQ1BcnQu IDE2LiBQcmUtdG91cm5hbWVudCBBcnJhbmdlbWVudHMNTm90IGZ1bGwgbGlzdCBvZiBtYWlu IGR1dGllcyBvZiBDVEQvRElDIHRoYXQgYWxzbyBvdWdodCB0byBiZSBmdWxmaWxsZWQgaW4g YWR2YW5jZSwgd2hlbiB0aGUgY29udGVzdCBpcyBwcmVwYXJlZCAgKGVzcGVjaWFsbHkgLSBh dCBuYXRpb25hbC9pbnRlcm5hdGlvbmFsIGxldmVsKToNMS4gR2VuZXJhbCBDb25zaWRlcmF0 aW9uDUNURC9ESUMgc2hvdWxkOg0tIEVzdGFibGlzaCB0aGUgdG90YWwgYW50aWNpcGF0ZWQg ZW50cnkgdG8gdGhlIGNvbXBldGl0aW9uIGFuZCByZXNvbHZlIHBvc3NpYmxlIHByb2JsZW0g b2YgYWRkaXRpb25hbCBlbnRyaWVzIG9uIHRoZSBkYXksIGFuZCBhc3NpZ24gcGVyc29uIHdo byB3aWxsIGJlIGNvbGxlY3Rpbmcgc3VjaCBlbnRyaWVzLiBQcmUtYXJyYW5naW5nIHNldmVy YWwgdmVyc2lvbnMgb2Ygc2NoZWR1bGVzOiBURCdzIGluIGNoYXJnZSBhbmQgbW92ZW1lbnQg b2YgY29udGVzdGFudHMuDS0gQ2hlY2sgcmVhZGluZXNzIG9mIHRoZSBwbGF5aW5nIGFyZWEu IENvbmZpcm0gdGhhdCB0aGUgdGFibGVzLCBib2FyZHMsIHN0YXRpb25lcnkgYW5kIGVxdWlw bWVudCB3aWxsIGJlIGRlbGl2ZXJlZC4gVGhpbmsgdGhyb3VnaCBlYWNoIHNlc3Npb24gb2Yg dGhlIGNvbXBldGl0aW9uIHdpdGggcmVnYXJkIHRvIHRoZSBzdGF0aW9uZXJ5IGhlIHdpbGwg bmVlZC4gRXN0YWJsaXNoIHdoZXJlIHRoZSBwbGF5aW5nIHJvb21zIGFyZSBsb2NhdGVkLCBh bmQgcGxhbiB3aGVyZSB0aGUgdGFibGVzIHNob3VsZCBiZSBwbGFjZWQuIERlY2lkZSB3aG8g d2lsbCBiZSBzZXR0aW5nIHVwIHRoZSB0YWJsZXMgYW5kIHdoZW4gdGhpcyBzaG91bGQgYmUg ZG9uZS4gUmVzb2x2ZSB0aGUgcHJvYmxlbSBvZiBwb3NzaWJsZSBuZWVkIG9mIG1vdmluZyBh bnkgdGFibGVzIGJldHdlZW4gc2Vzc2lvbnMgYW5kIHdobyBhbmQgd2hlbiBzaG91bGQgZG8g dGhpcy4NLSBDaGVjayBvcmdhbml6ZXIgdGVjaG5pcXVlIChpbmZvLXNjcmVlbnMsIGJyaWRn ZXJhbWEgZXRjLiksIGNvbXB1dGVycywgcHJpbnRlcnMgZXRjLiwgYW5kIGVzcGVjaWFsbHkg LSB0ZXN0IHByb2dyYW1zIHRvIGJlIHN1cmUgdGhhdCBzY2hlZHVsZSBvZiBtb3ZlbWVudCwg c2NvcmluZywgdHlwaW5nIHJlc3VsdHMgZXRjLiBoYXZlIG5vIGVycm9ycy4gDS0gSW4gY2Fz ZSBvZiBjb21wdXRlciBwcmVwYXJhdGlvbiBvZiBib2FyZHM6IGNvbXBhcmUgb3ZlcmFsbCBz dGF0aXN0aWNhbCBwYXJhbWV0ZXJzIG9mIHByZXBhcmVkIHNldCBvZiBib2FyZHMgd2l0aCB0 aGVvcmV0aWNhbCBhbmQgKGZvciBXb3JsZCBvciBab25hbCBDaGFtcGlvbnNoaXApIGluIGNh c2Ugb2YgZ3Jvc3MgZGV2aWF0aW9uIHRoZXNlIHN0YXRpc3RpY2FsIHBhcmFtZXRlcnMgZnJv bSB0aGVvcmV0aWNhbCBvbmVzIC0gb3JkZXJpbmcgdG8gbWFrZSBhbm90aGVyIHNldCBvZiBi b2FyZHMuDTIuIEFkdmFuY2UgUHJlcGFyYXRpb24NQ1REL0RJUyBzaG91bGQgYWx3YXlzIHBs YW4gYWhlYWQuIEFzIG11Y2ggd29yayBzaG91bGQgYmUgZG9uZSBhcyBpdCBpcyByZWFzb25h Ymx5IHBvc3NpYmxlIHdlbGwgYmVmb3JlIHRoZSB0b3VybmFtZW50IHN0YXJ0cy4gRm9yIGV4 YW1wbGUsIGhlIG1pZ2h0IGtub3cgaW4gYWR2YW5jZSB0aGF0IGhlIHdpbGwgaGF2ZSBhIGZp bmFsIG9mIHNvbWUgZGVzY3JpcHRpb24sIHdoaWNoIHdpbGwgcmVxdWlyZSBhIHNwZWNpYWwg bW92ZW1lbnQuIEluIHN1Y2ggYSBjYXNlLCBDVEQvRElDIGNhbiB3cml0ZSBvdXQgdGhlIG1v dmVtZW50IGluIGFkdmFuY2UgYW5kIG1ha2UgcGxhbnMgZm9yIGluc3RhbGxpbmcgdGhlIG1v dmVtZW50IG9udG8gdGhlIGNvbXB1dGVyLiBIZSB3aWxsIGFsbW9zdCBjZXJ0YWlubHkgbmVl ZCBzb21lIHBvc3RlcnMgcHJlcGFyZWQgb3IgKGJldHRlciBzdGlsbCkgaGF2ZSBhIHByb2dy YW0gcHJpbnRlZC4gVGhpcyBpcyB0aGUgc29ydCBvZiB0aGluZyB3aGljaCBjYW4gKGFuZCBz aG91bGQpIGJlIGRvbmUgaW4gYWR2YW5jZS4gSW5kZWVkLCBpbiB0aGUgY2FzZSBvZiBhIHBy aW50ZWQgcHJvZ3JhbSBpdCBpcyBvYnZpb3VzbHkgZXNzZW50aWFsIHRoYXQgaXQgYmUgZG9u ZSB3ZWxsIGluIGFkdmFuY2UuDUNURC9ESUMgc2hvdWxkIHByZXBhcmUgYW5ub3VuY2Ugc29t ZSB0ZWNobmljYWwgaW5mb3JtYXRpb24gdG8gY29udGVzdGFudHMuIFR5cGljYWwgaW5mb3Jt YXRpb24sIHdoaWNoIHRoZSBwbGF5ZXJzIHdpbGwsIG5lZWQgaW5jbHVkZToNLSB0aW1lcyBv ZiBwbGF5Ow0tIG1hc3Rlci1wb2ludCBhd2FyZHMgKGluY2x1ZGluZyBob3cgYW5kIHdoZW4g dGhleSB3aWxsIGJlIGRpc3RyaWJ1dGVkKTsNLSBwcml6ZXMgKGluY2x1ZGluZyBhcnJhbmdl bWVudHMgZm9yIHRoZSBwcmVzZW50YXRpb24gb3IgY29sbGVjdGlvbiB0aGVyZW9mKTsNLSBm b3JtYXQgb2YgdGhlIGV2ZW50IChpbmNsdWRpbmcgcXVhbGlmeWluZyByYXRpb3MgaWYgYXBw cm9wcmlhdGUpOw0tIGxvY2F0aW9ucyBvZiBwbGF5Ow0tIHN0YXJ0aW5nIGluc3RydWN0aW9u cyAoaW5jbHVkaW5nIGNvbXBsZXRpb24gb2YgYW55IHBhcGVyd29yayk7DS0gYW55IHNwZWNp YWwgcmVndWxhdGlvbnMgc3VjaCBhcyBzcGxpdC10aWUgcHJvY2VkdXJlczsgcHJvdGVzdCB0 aW1lLCBzbW9raW5nIHJlZ3VsYXRpb25zLCBsaWNlbnNlZCBzeXN0ZW1zIGFuZCBjb252ZW50 aW9ucyBldGMuDUNURC9ESUMgaGFzIHRvIGRlY2lkZSB3aGVyZSB0aGUgcmVzdWx0cyBhbmQg aGlzIG90aGVyIHBvc3RlcnMgc2hvdWxkIGJlIHBvc3RlZC4gQ1REL0RJQyBvdWdodCB0byB0 aGluayB0aGUgbWF0dGVyIGNhcmVmdWxseSBhbmQgZGVjaWRlIHdoZXRoZXIgaGUgY2FuIGRv IGFueXRoaW5nIHRvIGVuaGFuY2UgdGhlIHVzdWFsIChpLmUuIG5vdCB2ZXJ5IGdvb2QpIG1l dGhvZHMgb2YgZGlzcGxheSBpbiB0aGlzIHJlZ2FyZC4NDQxDaGFwdGVyIDYuIFREJ3MgRHV0 aWVzIGp1c3QgYmVmb3JlIFN0YXJ0aW5nIG9mIHRoZSBDb250ZXN0DQ1BcnQuIDE3LiBHZXR0 aW5nIFJlYWR5IHRvIFN0YXJ0DTEuIFRoZSB0YWJsZXMgYXJlIHNldCB1cCwgdGhlIHBsYW4g b2YgdGhlIGV2ZW50IGlzIHJlYWR5LiBBbGwgdGhlIHN0YXRpb25lcnkgaXMgb3V0LiBDdXJ0 YWluIGNhcmRzIGhhdmUgYmVlbiBwcmVwYXJlZCByZWFkeSBmb3IgZGlzdHJpYnV0aW9uIHdo ZXJlIGFwcHJvcHJpYXRlLiBTdGFydGluZyBwb3NpdGlvbnMgYXJlIHBvc3RlZCAoaWYgdGhp cyBpcyB0aGUgbWV0aG9kIGluIHVzZSksIG9yIGEgY2xlYXIgaW5zdHJ1Y3Rpb24gdG8gc2l0 IGFueXdoZXJlIG9yIGNvbGxlY3QgYSBzdGFydGluZyBwb3NpdGlvbiBmcm9tIHdoZXJldmVy IGhhcyBiZWVuIGlzc3VlZC4gQW5kIG5vdyBDVEQvRElDIHNob3VsZCB0cnkgdG8gaW1hZ2lu ZSBoaW1zZWxmOiANLSBXaGF0IGhhcyBiZWVuIGZvcmdvdHRlbiBhbmQgd2hhdCBjYW4gZ28g d3Jvbmc/IA0tIFdoYXQgd2lsbCBoYXBwZW4gaWYgdGhlIG51bWJlciBvZiB0YWJsZXMgcHJl c2VudCBpcyBsZXNzIHRoYW4gZXhwZWN0ZWQ/IA0tIFNpbWlsYXJseSwgd2hhdCB3aWxsIGhh cHBlbiBpZiBzb21lIHRhYmxlcyB0dXJuIHVwIHVuYW5ub3VuY2VkPw0yLiBJZiB0aGVyZSBp cyBhIGNvbXB1dGVyIHNjb3JlciwgZGV2aXNlIHNvbWUgcGxhbiBmb3IgkXBpY2tpbmcgdXCS IHJlc3VsdHMgYXQgc2Vuc2libHkgdGltZWQgaW50ZXJ2YWxzIJYgZW5zdXJlIHRoYXQgdGhl IHN0YWZmIGlzIGF3YXJlIG9mIHRoZSBwbGFuLg1QbGFuIHdoYXQgYW5ub3VuY2VtZW50cyBh cmUgZ29pbmcgdG8gYmUgbWFkZSAodGhlcmUgaXMgYSBtaWNyb3Bob25lIGlmIG5lZWRlZCBp c24ndCB0aGVyZT8pLiBJZiB0aGVyZSBhcmUgc2V2ZXJhbCBwbGF5aW5nIGFyZWFzLCB0aGVu IGJyaWVmIGNvbGxlYWd1ZXMgdG8gZ2l2ZSB0aGUgbWFpbiBhbm5vdW5jZW1lbnRzLiBBbm5v dW5jZW1lbnRzIHNob3VsZCBiZSBrZXB0IHRvIGEgbWluaW11bSwgYW5kIHNob3VsZCBiZSBj b25maW5lZCB0byBlc3NlbnRpYWwgaW5mb3JtYXRpb24uIEFubm91bmNlbWVudHMgc2hvdWxk IHN1cHBsZW1lbnQgdGhlIHByaW50ZWQgcHJvZ3JhbSBvciBwb3N0ZXJzLg0zLiBBbiBob3Vy IGJlZm9yZSB0aGUgc3RhcnQgb2YgdGhlIGNvbnRlc3QgaXQgaXMgcmVjb21tZW5kZWQgdG8g aGF2ZSBhIGZpbmFsIG1lZXRpbmcgd2l0aCBhbGwgdGhlIHN0YWZmLiBDb2xsZWFndWVzIHNo b3VsZCBjb25maXJtIHRoYXQgdGhleSBoYXZlIG5vIHBhcnRpY3VsYXIgd29ycmllcyBvdGhl ciB0aGFuIHRob3NlIHRoYXQgaGF2ZSBhbHJlYWR5IGJlZW4gaWRlbnRpZmllZC4gDQ0NQXJ0 LiAxOC4gV2hhdCBTaG91bGQgQmUgRG9uZSBqdXN0IGJlZm9yZSBTdGFydGluZw1NYWluIGR1 dGllcyBvZiBDVEQvRElDIHRoYXQgb3VnaHQgdG8gYmUgZnVsZmlsbGVkIGp1c3QgYmVmb3Jl IHN0YXJ0aW5nIG9mIHRoZSBjb250ZXN0LCBhZnRlciB0aGUgbGlzdCBvZiBjb250ZXN0YW50 cyBpcyBhbG1vc3QgY29tcGxldGVkLCBhcmU6DWFzc2lnbmluZyBwb3NpdGlvbiBmb3IgYWxs IHRoZSBjb250ZXN0YW50cyBmb3IgdGhlIGZpcnN0IHJvdW5kOw1wdWJsaXNoaW5nIHRoaXMg YXNzaWduaW5nOw1pbnRyb2R1Y2luZyAodG8gYWxsIHRoZSBwYXJ0aWNpcGFudHMgLSB2aWEg bGF1ZC1zcGVha2VyIG9yIGJ5IHB1Ymxpc2hpbmcpIGhpbXNlbGYgYXMgQ1REL0RJQyBhbmQg YWxsIHRoZSBURCdzIHN0YWZmOw1yZW1pbmRpbmcgKHRvIGFsbCB0aGUgcGFydGljaXBhbnRz IC0gdmlhIGxhdWQtc3BlYWtlciBvciBieSBwdWJsaXNoaW5nKSBtYWluIGZlYXR1cmVzIG9m IHRoZSBjb250ZXN0Ow1yZW1pbmRpbmcgKHRvIGFsbCB0aGUgcGFydGljaXBhbnRzIC0gdmlh IGxhdWQtc3BlYWtlciBvciBieSBwdWJsaXNoaW5nKSBtYWluIGRlbWFuZHMgb2YgUmVndWxh dGlvbiBmb3IgdGhlIGNvbnRlc3Q7DWFubm91bmNpbmcgdGhlIHN0YXJ0IG9mIHRoZSBmaXJz dCByb3VuZCBvZiB0aGUgZmlyc3Qgc2Vzc2lvbjsNcmVzb2x2aW5nIChpbiBwYWlyIGNvbnRl c3QpIHByb2JsZW0gb2YgcGFpcnMgdGhhdCBhcmUgbGF0ZS4NRXNwZWNpYWxseSBhdCBjbHVi IGxldmVsIC0gdGhlIERJQyAodXN1YWxseSAtIENsdWIgRGlyZWN0b3IpIHNob3VsZCBmb3Jl Y2FzdCB0aGF0IGluIHBhaXIgY29udGVzdCBzZXZlcmFsIHBhaXJzIG1heSBhcnJpdmUgc29t ZSBtaW51dGVzIGxhdGUgYW5kIHN1Y2ggcGFpcnMgc2hvdWxkIGJlIHBlcm1pdHRlZCB0byB0 YWtlIHBhcnQgaW4gdGhlIGNvbnRlc3QgZXZlbiBhZnRlciAxLXN0IHJvdW5kIGlzIG92ZXIg YnV0IGJlZm9yZSBzdGFydCBvZiBzZWNvbmQgcm91bmQuIERJQyBzaG91bGQgdHJ5IHRoYXQg bm9ib2R5IGxlYXZlcyBicmlkZ2UgY2x1YiB3aXRob3V0IHBsYXlpbmcgYnJpZGdlLg0NDENo YXB0ZXIgNy4gVEQncyBEdXRpZXMgZHVyaW5nIHRoZSBDb250ZXN0DQ1BcnQuIDE5LiAgSnVz dCBCZWZvcmUgU2Vzc2lvbg1DVEQvRElDIHNob3VsZCAoVEQgYXQgcGxheWluZyBhcmVhIG9m IGhpcyByZXNwb25zaWJpbGl0eSBoYXMgdGhlIHNhbWUgZHV0aWVzKToNd2FybiB0aGF0IHRo ZXJlIGFyZSBzZXZlcmFsIG1pbnV0ZXMgYmVmb3JlIHRoZSBzZXNzaW9uIGJlZ2lubmluZywg DXRoZW4gaW52aXRlIHBsYXllcnMgdG8gdGFrZSB0aGVpciBwb3NpdGlvbiwgDWNoZWNrIGlm IHRoZXJlIGFyZSBhbnkgZW1wdHkgcGxhY2VzIGF0IHBsYXlpbmcgdGFibGVzLCANaWYgdGhl cmUgYXJlIC0gdHJ5IHRvIHJlc29sdmUgdGhpcyBwcm9ibGVtLCBhbmQNdGhlbiBkZWNsYXJl IHRoZSBiZWdpbm5pbmcgb2YgdGhlIHNlc3Npb24uDQ1BcnQuIDIwLiBEdXJpbmcgU2Vzc2lv bg1EdXJpbmcgdGhlIHNlc3Npb24gVEQncyBkdXRpZXMgYXJlOg1zdXBlcnZpc2luZyB0aGUg b3JkZXIgaW4gcGxheWluZyByb29tLCANbWFraW5nIHJ1bGluZ3MgYW5kIGNvcnJlY3Rpb25z LCANYXNzZXNzbWVudCBwZW5hbHRpZXMgKGRpc2NpcGxpbmFyeSBhbmQgcHJvY2VkdXJhbCks IA1hbm5vdW5jaW5nIHRoZSBzdGFydCBhbmQgZmluaXNoIG9mIGVhY2ggcm91bmRzIChpbiBw YWlycyksIGV0Yy4gDUJlc2lkZXMgdGhhdCBURCBvdWdodCB0byBrZWVwIHVuZGVyIGhpcyBj b250cm9sIGFsbCBoYXBwZW5pbmdzIGF0IHRoZSBwbGF5aW5nIGFyZWEgd2hlcmUgaGUgaXMg VEQtaW4tY2hhcmdlOyB0aGF0IG1lYW5zIC0gVEQgc2hvdWxkIGJlIGluc2lkZSB0aGlzIGFy ZWEsIHdvcmtpbmcgYWxsIGFyb3VuZCB0aGUgc2Vzc2lvbiAib24gaGlzIGZlZXQiLCB0cnlp bmcgdG8gYmUgYSB3aXRuZXNzIGluIGV2ZXJ5IGhhcHBlbmluZyBhdCBldmVyeSB0YWJsZSBi dXQgbm90IHBheWluZyBoaXMgYXR0ZW50aW9uIG9ubHkgdG8gb25lIHRhYmxlIChzbyBjYWxs ZWQgImFjdGl2ZSBURC1zaGlwIiBzdHlsZSwgd2l0aCB0aGlzIGFpbSBvbmUgc2hvdWxkIGxp bWl0IHBsYXlpbmcgYXJlYSB0byAxMi0xNSB0YWJsZXMgcGVyIGEgVEQpLg0NQXJ0LiAyMS4g QXBwcm9hY2ggdG8gdGhlIFRhYmxlDVdoZW4gdGhlIFREIGFwcHJvYWNoZXMgYSB0YWJsZSB0 byBtYWtlIGEgcnVsaW5nIGhlIGlzIGRpcmVjdGx5IHJlcHJlc2VudGluZyB0aGUgU3BvbnNv cmluZyBPcmdhbml6YXRpb24gYW5kIGRpc3BsYXlpbmcgaGlzIG93biBhYmlsaXRpZXMgYW5k IGtub3dsZWRnZS4gDVRoZSBURCBzaG91bGQgYmUgYXdhcmUgb2YgdGhlIG5vaXNlIGxldmVs IGFuZCBlbW90aW9uYWwgY29udGVudC4gTWFueSB0aW1lcyBvbmUgY2FuIGhlYXIgYSBzaXR1 YXRpb24gZGV2ZWxvcGluZyBhbmQgY2FuIGJlIGluIHRoZSB2aWNpbml0eSBldmVuIGJlZm9y ZSBjYWxsZWQuIElmIG9uZSBpcyBvbiB0b3Agb2YgdGhlc2UgaW5jaWRlbnRzIGl0IHdpbGwg a2VlcCB0aGUgZXZlbnQgcXVpZXRlciwgbGVzcyB0ZW5zZSBhbmQgbW92aW5nIG1vcmUgZWFz aWx5LiBUaGUgVEQgc2hvdWxkIG5vdCBnZXQgaW52b2x2ZWQgdGFsa2luZyB3aXRoIHBsYXll cnMgb3IgZnJpZW5kcyBzbyB0aGF0IGhlIG11c3QgYmUgY2FsbGVkIHR3byBvciB0aHJlZSB0 aW1lcyBiZWZvcmUgdGhlIHBsYXllcnMgY29uY2VybmVkIGNhbiBnZXQgaGlzIGF0dGVudGlv bi4gSWYgdGhpcyBpcyBhbGxvd2VkIHRvIGhhcHBlbiB0aGUgcGxheWVycyBhcmUgcHJvYmFi bHkgaXJyaXRhdGVkIGV2ZW4gYmVmb3JlIHRoZSB0YWJsZSBpcyByZWFjaGVkOiBpbGwtZmVl bGluZyBjYW4gYmUgY2F1c2VkLiBUaGUgc29vbmVyIFREIGdldHMgdG8gdGhlIHRhYmxlLCB0 aGUgbGVzcyB0aW1lIHRoZXJlIHdpbGwgYmUgZm9yIGFuIGV4cGxvc2l2ZSBzaXR1YXRpb24g dG8gZGV2ZWxvcC4NQXMgc29vbiBhcyBhIGNhbGwgaXMgaGVhcmQsIHRoZSBURCBzaG91bGQg bG9jYXRlIHRoZSBhcmVhIGFuZCBhY2tub3dsZWRnZS4gVGhpcyB3aWxsIHN0b3AgbW9yZSBm b2xsb3ctdXAgY2FsbHMgYW5kIGNvbnNlcXVlbnQgaXJyaXRhdGlvbiBhbmQgbm9pc2UuIElm IGhlIGNhbm5vdCBsb2NhdGUgdGhlIGNhbGwsIGhlIHNob3VsZCBhc2sgk1dobyBjYWxsZWQ/ lC4gV2hlbiB0aGV5IHJhaXNlIHRoZWlyIGhhbmQsIGhlIHNob3VsZCBhY2tub3dsZWRnZSBh bmQgcHJvY2VlZCBUaGUgVEQgc2hvdWxkIGFwcHJvYWNoIHRoZSB0YWJsZSBhcyBzbW9vdGhs eSBhcyBwb3NzaWJsZSB3aXRob3V0IGRpc3R1cmJpbmcgdGhlIHJlc3Qgb2YgdGhlIHBsYXll cnMuIFRoaXMgbWF5IG5lY2Vzc2l0YXRlIHRha2luZyBkZXRvdXJzIHRvIGF2b2lkIHB1c2hp bmcgaW4gdGhlIGJhY2tzIG9mIG90aGVyIHBsYXllcnMgb3Igb3RoZXJ3aXNlIGRpc3R1cmJp bmcgdGhlbS4gU3VjaCBjb25zaWRlcmF0aW9uIGhlbHBzIHRvIGF2b2lkIGFubm95YW5jZS4N DUFydC4gMjIuIFByb2NlZHVyZSBvZiBSdWxpbmcNRGlyZWN0aW5nIHNob3VsZCBiZSBkb25l IHVzaW5nIGEgc3RyaWN0IHByb2NlZHVyYWwgYXBwcm9hY2gsIHN1cHBvcnRpbmcgdGhlIFRE IGluIGhpcyB3b3JrLCBoZWxwaW5nIGhpbSB0byBtYWtlIHRoZSByaWdodCBkZWNpc2lvbnMg YW5kIGJyaW5naW5nIG9yZGVyIGluIGEgc2l0dWF0aW9uIHdoaWNoIGlzIG5vdCBhbHdheXMg ZWFzeSB0byBoYW5kbGUuIFRoaXMgaXMgYSBkZXNjcmlwdGlvbiBvZiB0aGUgdGhpbmdzIHRv IGJlIGRvbmUgaW4gZWxldmVuIHN0ZXBzLCB3aXRoIGVtcGhhc2lzIG9uIG9uZSBvciBhbm90 aGVyIGRlcGVuZGluZyBvbiB0aGUga2luZCBvZiBpcnJlZ3VsYXJpdHkgdG8gc29sdmUuIA0x LiBUaGUgVEQgYWRkcmVzc2VzIHRoZSBwbGF5ZXIgd2hvIHRvb2sgdGhlIGluaXRpYXRpdmUg dG8gY2FsbCBmb3IgaGltLiBXaGVuIHRoZSBURCBhcnJpdmVzIGF0IHRoZSB0YWJsZSwgaGlz IG1hbm5lciBzaG91bGQgYmUgZnJpZW5kbHksIGNvdXJ0ZW91cywgdW5iaWFzZWQgYW5kIGNv bXBsZXRlbHkgaW1wZXJzb25hbC4gSGUgc2hvdWxkIGFzayCTSG93IGNhbiBJIGhlbHA/lCBS ZW1lbWJlciwgdGhlIHBsYXllcnMgbWF5IGJlIGFscmVhZHkgc29tZXdoYXQgZGlzY29uY2Vy dGVkIGJ5IGFuIGlycmVndWxhcml0eSBhbmQgY291bGQgYmUgb24gdGhlIGRlZmVuc2l2ZS4g QW55dGhpbmcgdGhlIFREIGNhbiBkbyB0byByZWxheCBhbmQgZWFzZSB0aGUgc2l0dWF0aW9u IHdpbGwgYmUgdG8gaGlzIG93biBhZHZhbnRhZ2UuIFRoZSBURCB3aWxsIGJlIGFibGUgdG8g dGhpbmsgYW5kIGNvbXByZWhlbmQgbW9yZSBxdWlja2x5LCBhbmQgdGhlIHBsYXllcnMgd2ls bCBmaW5kIGl0IGVhc2llciB0byBleHBsYWluIGFuZCBsaXN0ZW4gaWYgdGhlIHRlbnNpb24g aXMgcmVsYXhlZC4gSGUgc2hvdWxkIGNsYXNzaWZ5IHRoZSBwcm9ibGVtIGFyZWEgYXMgcXVp Y2tseSBhcyBwb3NzaWJsZSBpLmUuIGF1Y3Rpb24sIHBsYXkgb3IgZXRoaWNzLiBRdWl0ZSBv ZnRlbiB0aGUgcnVsaW5nIGlzIGluaXRpYWxseSBjb25mdXNpbmcgYmVjYXVzZSBtb3JlIHRo YW4gb25lIG9mIHRoZSBwbGF5ZXJzIHN0YXJ0cyB0ZWxsaW5nIHdoYXQgaGFwcGVuZWQgYW5k IG90aGVycyByZWFjdC4gV2hlbiB0aGUgcGxheWVycyBzZWUgdGhhdCB0aGUgVEQgaXMgcmVh ZHkgdG8gbGlzdGVuLCB0aGV5IG1heSBhbGwgc3RhcnQgdGFsa2luZyBhdCBvbmNlLiBJbiB0 aGlzIHNvcnQgb2Ygc2l0dWF0aW9uLCB0aGUgVEQgc2hvdWxkIHNheSBzb21ldGhpbmcgbGlr ZSCTSnVzdCBhIG1vbWVudCBwbGVhc2UsIG9uZSBhdCBhIHRpbWUuIiBIZSBzaG91bGQgaW5k aWNhdGUgYSBwbGF5ZXIsIG5vcm1hbGx5IHRoZSBvbmUgdGhhdCBjYWxsZWQsIGFuZCBzYXlz IJNXaGF0IGlzIHRoZSBwcm9ibGVtP5QuIElmIHRoZSBkdW1teSBjYWxsZWQgdGhlIFREIGFu ZCBwbGF5IHdhcyBub3QgY29tcGxldGVkLCBvbmUgc2hvdWxkIGNoZWNrIHdoZXRoZXIgaGUg dG9vayB0aGUgaW5pdGlhdGl2ZSBoaW1zZWxmLCBzaW5jZSB1c3VhbGx5IGhlIGlzIG5vdCBh bGxvd2VkIHRvIGRvIHNvIHVubGVzcyBhdHRlbnRpb24gaGFzIGJlZW4gZHJhd24gdG8gYW4g aXJyZWd1bGFyaXR5IGJ5IGFub3RoZXIgcGxheWVyLiBBbmQgVEQgc2hvdWxkIHRlbGwgdGhl IG90aGVyIHNpZGUgdGhhdCBoZSB3aWxsIGFzayB0aGVpciB2aWV3IGFzIHdlbGwuIA0yLiBM ZXQgdGhlIHBsYXllciBnaXZlIGhpcyBmdWxsIHN0b3J5LiBBdm9pZCBpbnRlcnJ1cHRpb25z IGZyb20gdGhlIG90aGVyIHBhaXIsIGlmIG5lY2Vzc2FyeSBleHBsYWluaW5nIG9uY2UgbW9y ZSB0aGF0IHRoZWlyIHR1cm4gY29tZXMgbGF0ZXIuIEFuZCCRdHJhbnNsYXRlkiB3aGF0IGlz IHRvbGQgaW4gc3VjaCBhIHdheSB0aGF0IHJlbGV2YW50IGFkZGl0aW9uYWwgaW5mb3JtYXRp b24gY2FuIGJlIGFza2VkLCBzbyAtIGJlIGFuIGFjdGl2ZSBsaXN0ZW5lci4gSWYgYSBwbGF5 ZXIgdGVsbHMgdGhhdCBoaXMgb3Bwb25lbnQgbWFkZSBhbiBvcGVuaW5nIGJpZCBvdXQgb2Yg dHVybiwgVEQgc2hvdWxkIGdldCB0byBrbm93IGlmIExITyBtYWRlIGEgY2FsbCB0aGVyZWFm dGVyLiBBbmQgaWYgYSBwbGF5ZXIgaGVzaXRhdGVkIHRoZW4gb25lIHNob3VsZCB0cnkgdG8g ZmluZCBvdXQgZm9yIGhvdyBsb25nLiANMy4gVGhlbiBhc2sgdGhlIG9wcG9uZW50cyB3aGV0 aGVyIHRoZXkgYWdyZWUgd2l0aCB0aGUgZmFjdHMgYXMgZ2l2ZW4uIElmIG5lY2Vzc2FyeSBn aXZlIGEgc3VtbWFyeSB0byBlbXBoYXNpemUgdGhlIHJlYWxseSBpbXBvcnRhbnQgdGhpbmdz LiBJZiBhIHBsYXllciBkb2VzIG5vdCBhZ3JlZSB3aXRoIGhpcyBwYXVzZSBmb3IgdGhvdWdo dCBiZWluZyAzMCBzZWNvbmRzLCCRaGVscJIgaGltIGJ5IGFza2luZyBob3cgbG9uZyBoZSB0 aG91Z2h0IHRoZSBwYXVzZSB3YXMsIG9yIGJ5IJF1bmRlcnN0YW5kaW5nkiB0aGF0IGhlIG5l ZWRlZCBzb21lIHRpbWUgdG8gY29uc2lkZXIgaGlzIGNhbGwgaW4gdGhpcyBjb21wbGljYXRl ZCBvciBjb21wZXRpdGl2ZSBhdWN0aW9uLiBFc3RhYmxpc2hpbmcgdGhlIGZhY3Qgb2YgdGhl IGhlc2l0YXRpb24gaXMgbW9yZSBpbXBvcnRhbnQgdGhhbiB0aGUgcHJlY2lzZSBsZW5ndGgg b2YgaXQuIEl0IG9mdGVuIGhlbHBzIHRvIGFzayBhIHBsYXllciB3aHkgaGUgZGVjaWRlZCB0 byBtYWtlIHRoYXQgY2FsbC4gSWYgaXQgZGV2aWF0ZXMgZnJvbSB0aGUgYWdyZWVtZW50cyBh bmQgdGhlIGFuc3dlciBpcyB0aGF0IHRoZXJlIHdhcyBubyBvdGhlciBjYWxsIGF2YWlsYWJs ZSwgdGhlbiBURCBmb3VuZCBhIGxlYWsgaW4gdGhlIHN5c3RlbSwgYW5kIG5vdCBhIGFjY2lk ZW50YWwgZGV2aWF0aW9uLiBUaGUgVEQgc2hvdWxkIGxpc3RlbiB0byB0aGUgZmFjdHMgYXMg cmVsYXRlZCBieSBhbGwsIG9uZSBhdCBhIHRpbWUuIEF0IHRoZSBjb21wbGV0aW9uIG9mIHRo ZWlyIHN0YXRlbWVudHMsIGhlIHNob3VsZCB2ZXJpZnkgdGhhdCB0aGlzIGlzIGluZGVlZCB3 aGF0IGhhcHBlbmVkIGJ5IHJlcGVhdGluZyBpdCB0byB0aGUgcGxheWVycyBzZXF1ZW50aWFs bHkgYW5kIGxvZ2ljYWxseS4gSGUgc2hvdWxkIG5vdCB0cnkgdG8gbWFrZSBhIHJ1bGluZyB1 bnRpbCBoZSBoYXMgYmVlbiBhYmxlIHRvIGRvIHRoaXMuIElmIG9uZSBpcyBub3QgY2FyZWZ1 bCwgb25lIG1heSBiZSBxdW90aW5nIExhd3MsIGV0Yy4gdGhhdCBkbyBub3QgYXBwbHkgdG8g dGhlIHNpdHVhdGlvbi4gDTQuIEluIG1hbnkgY2FzZXMgKGxlYWQgb3V0IG9mIHR1cm4sIE1J IHByb2JsZW0gdGhhdCBjb21lcyBiZWZvcmUgcGxheSBzdGFydHMsIGV0Yy4pIG9uZSBvZiB0 aGUgZmlyc3QgVEQncyBxdWVzdGlvbiBzaG91bGQgYmU6ICJEaWQgYW55IG9wcG9uZW50cycg YWN0aW9uIGluZmx1ZW5jZWQgb24geW91ciBkb2luZz8iLiBJZiBzbywgVEQgc2hvdWxkIGNv bnNpZGVyIGNvcnJlc3BvbmRlbnQgcG9zc2liaWxpdHkuDTUuIFdoZW4gYWxsIGZhY3RzIGFy ZSBjbGVhciB0aGUgVEQgaXMgYWJsZSB0byBtYWtlIHRoZSBkZWNpc2lvbiwgYWx3YXlzIHdp dGggdGhlIGhlbHAgb2YgaGlzIGxhdyBib29rLiBUaGUgYWR2aWNlIGlzIHRvIHVzZSB0aGUg bGF3IGJvb2sgYXMgbXVjaCBhcyBwb3NzaWJsZSwgcmVhZGluZyB0byB0aGUgcGxheWVycyB3 aGF0IGhhcyB0byBiZSBkb25lLiBUaGlzIHByZXZlbnRzIG1pc3Rha2VzLCBjb252aW5jZXMg dGhlIHBsYXllcnMgb2YgdGhlIGNvcnJlY3RuZXNzIG9mIHRoZSBydWxpbmcgYW5kIG1pZ2h0 IGV2ZW4gYXNzdXJlIHRoZSBURCBpbiBoaXMgam9iLCBub3QgZm9yZ2V0dGluZyBpbXBvcnRh bnQgZGV0YWlscyBzdWNoIGFzIHRoZSBwb3NzaWJsZSBhcHBsaWNhdGlvbiBvZiBMMTYsIEwy NiBldGMuIEl0IGlzIG5vdGhpbmcgdG8gYmUgYXNoYW1lZCBvZiB3aGVuIHRoZSBURCBuZWVk cyB0byB1c2UgdGhlIGNvbnRlbnRzIG9yIGluZGV4IHRvIGZpbmQgdGhlIHJpZ2h0IGxhdyB0 byBiZSB1c2VkLCB0aG91Z2ggaXQgaXMgcHJlZmVyYWJsZSB0byBrbm93IHdoZXJlIHRvIGdv IGF0IG9uY2UuIE9ubHkgaW4gdGhlIG1vc3QgkXJlZ3VsYXIgaXJyZWd1bGFyaXRpZXOSIGl0 IGlzIGFjY2VwdGFibGUgdG8gcnVsZSBieSBoZWFydC4gRm9yIGEgbGVhZCBvdXQgb2YgdHVy biBpdCBpcyBldmVuIJFtYW5kYXRvcnmSLCB0byBiZSBhYmxlIHRvIGZpbmlzaCB0aGUgcnVs aW5nIGluIHRpbWUuIA02LiBUaGUgVEQgkXRyYW5zbGF0ZXOSIHRoZSBhcHBsaWNhYmxlIGxh d3MgdG8gdGhlIHNwZWNpZmljIHNpdHVhdGlvbiwgcmVwbGFjaW5nIHRoZSBnZW5lcmFsIGRl c2NyaXB0aW9ucyBmb3IgdGhlIGZhY3R1YWwgZGF0YSBpbiB0aGlzIGlycmVndWxhcml0eS4g kUVhc3SSIGluc3RlYWQgb2YgUkhPIG9yIG9mZmVuZGVyknMgcGFydG5lciwgYW5kIJFoZWFy dHOSIGluc3RlYWQgb2YgdGhlIHNwZWNpZmllZCBzdWl0LiBJdCBpcyBpbXBvc3NpYmxlIHRv IGxldCB0aGUgcGxheWVycyB1bmRlcnN0YW5kIHdoYXQgdG8gZG8gaWYgdGhlIFREIGJhcmVs eSB1bmRlcnN0YW5kcyB3aGF0IGhlIGlzIHJlYWRpbmcgaGltc2VsZi4gRXNwZWNpYWxseSBh dCBjbHViIGxldmVsIC0gYmUgYXdhcmUgdGhhdCB5b3VyIG93biBsYXcgYm9vayBpbiBmYW1p bGlhciBsYW5ndWFnZSBpcyBtdWNoIGVhc2llciB0byBoYW5kbGUgdGhhbiB0aGUgRW5nbGlz aCBsYXcgYm9vaywgd2hlcmUgZXZlcnl0aGluZyBpcyBzb21ld2hlcmUgZWxzZSBvbiBhbm90 aGVyIHBhZ2UuIA03LiBCZSBjb21wbGV0ZSwgd2l0aG91dCBleGFnZ2VyYXRpbmcuIFdoZW4g dGhlcmUgYXJlIG9wdGlvbnMgZm9yIHBsYXllcnMsIFREIGhhcyB0byBleHBsYWluIGFsbCB0 aGUgb3B0aW9ucyBhdmFpbGFibGUgYW5kIHNob3VsZCBtYWtlIHNvbWUgZWZmb3J0cyBmb3Ig Z3VhcmFudGVlaW5nIHRoYXQgcGxheWVycyB1bmRlcnN0YW5kIHNlbnNlIG9mIGV2ZXJ5IGF2 YWlsYWJsZSBwb3NzaWJpbGl0aWVzIGluIG9yZGVyIHRvIGVuc3VyZSB0aGVpciByaWdodHMg aW4gZnVsbC4gQnV0IFREIHNob3VsZCBub3Qgc3RhcnQgZXhwbGFpbmluZyBhIGRldGFpbGVk IGFwcGxpY2F0aW9uIG9mIEwyMywgdW5sZXNzIGhlIGFscmVhZHkgaGFzIHRoZSBmZWVsaW5n IHRoYXQgaXQgbWlnaHQgYmUgcmVsZXZhbnQuIE1lbnRpb25pbmcgbGVhZCBwZW5hbHRpZXMg aXMgbmVjZXNzYXJ5IHRvIGxldCBhIHBsYXllciBtYWtlIHRoZSByaWdodCBjaG9pY2UgYmV0 d2VlbiB3aXRoZHJhd2luZyBhbmQgcmVwZWF0aW5nLiANOC4gVGhlIFREIGNoZWNrcyB3aGV0 aGVyIGV2ZXJ5b25lIGhhcyB1bmRlcnN0b29kIHdoYXQgaGUgc2FpZC4gT25seSB0aGVuIHRo ZSBwbGF5ZXIgd2l0aCBhbHRlcm5hdGl2ZXMgaGFzIHRvIGRlY2lkZSB3aGljaCBvbmUgdG8g Y2hvb3NlLiBNYWtpbmcgY2hvaWNlIC0gcGxheWVycycgYnVzaW5lc3MgYW5kIFREIHNob3Vs ZCBhdm9pZCBldmVuIHNsaWdodGVzdCBhbGx1c2lvbiBpbiBmYXZvciBvZiBhbnkgYXZhaWxh YmxlIGFsdGVybmF0aXZlLiBPbmNlIHRoYXQgaXMgZG9uZSB0aGUgVEQgcmVtaW5kcyB0aGUg cGxheWVycyBvZiBpdHMgY29uc2VxdWVuY2VzLiBIZSBzaG91bGQgc3RhbmQgYnkgdG8gc2Vl IHRoYXQgdGhlIG9wdGlvbnMgYW5kIHBlbmFsdGllcyBhcmUgc2VsZWN0ZWQgYW5kIHBhaWQu DTkuIElmIHBhcnQgb2YgdGhlIGFwcGxpY2F0aW9uIGlzIGRlbGF5ZWQsIGFzIHdpdGggYSBs ZWFkIHBlbmFsdHksIHRoZSBURCBzdGF5cyBhdCB0aGUgdGFibGUuIERvbpJ0IGJlbGlldmUg dGhleSByZWFsbHkgZGlkIHVuZGVyc3RhbmQgeW91LCBzbyB0cnkgdG8gc3RheSBhdCB0aGUg dGFibGUgaWYgdGhlIHByb2dyZXNzIGluIHBsYXkgZGVwZW5kcyBvbiB0aGF0IHVuZGVyc3Rh bmRpbmcuIExlYWQgcGVuYWx0aWVzIGFuZCBwZW5hbHR5IGNhcmRzIGFyZSBnb29kIGV4YW1w bGVzLiBUaGUgbnVtYmVyIG9mIHRyaWNrcyB0byBiZSB0cmFuc2ZlcnJlZCBpbiBhIHJldm9r ZSBpcyBub3QsIHNvIHRoZSBURCBzaG91bGQgcmV0dXJuIHRvIHRoZSB0YWJsZSBhdCB0aGUg ZW5kIG9mIHBsYXkgdG8gY2hlY2sgb24gdGhlIG1hdHRlci4gDTEwLiBJZiBURCBkZWNpZGVz IHRvIGF3YXJkIGFkanVzdGVkIHNjb3JlIChhcnRpZmljaWFsIG9yIGFzc2lnbmVkKSwgaGUg c2hvdWxkIHdyaXRlIGhpcyBkZWNpc2lvbiBpbiB0cmF2ZWxsZXIgaW1tZWRpYXRlbHkuIFN1 Y2ggYSBkb2luZyB3aWxsIHByZXZlbnQgaGlzIGRlY2lzaW9uIGZyb20gYmVpbmcgZGlzdG9y dGVkLiANMTEuIFRoaXMgZGVzY3JpcHRpb24sIG1hZGUgYWJvdmUsIGlzIGxlc3MgdXNlZnVs IGluIGp1ZGdtZW50IGNhc2VzLCBpbnZvbHZpbmcgY2xhaW1zIG9mIGRhbWFnZSwgdGhvdWdo IGZpbmRpbmcgdGhlIGZhY3RzIGlzIGFzIGltcG9ydGFudCBhcyBpbiB0ZWNobmljYWwgcnVs aW5ncy4gVGhlIFREIHNob3VsZCBlbnN1cmUgdGhhdCBhbGwgcGxheWVycyBoYXZlIHN0YXRl ZCBpbiBzZXF1ZW5jZSBob3cgdGhleSBjb25zaWRlciBkYW1hZ2UgaGFzIG9jY3VycmVkIGFu ZCB0aGF0IHRoZXkgaGF2ZSBub3RoaW5nIGZ1cnRoZXIgdG8gYWRkLiBUaGUgVEQgZG9lcyBu b3Qgbm9ybWFsbHkgbWFrZSBhIHJ1bGluZyBvciBhZGp1c3RtZW50IGltbWVkaWF0ZWx5LiBJ biB0aGVzZSBjYXNlcyBoZSB1c3VhbGx5IHNheXMgdGhhdCCTSSB3aXNoIHRvIGNvbnNpZGVy IHRoZSBwcm9ibGVtIG1vcmUgZnVsbHkgYW5kIHdpbGwgbGV0IGFsbCBvZiB5b3Uga25vdyBt eSBkZWNpc2lvbiBhcyBzb29uIGFzIHBvc3NpYmxlLiBTY29yZSBpdCBhcyBwbGF5ZWQgZm9y IHRoZSBwcmVzZW50LpQuIE9mdGVuIHRoZSBwbGF5IGhhcyBmaW5pc2hlZCwgYW5kIGlmIG5v dCAtIGFsbW9zdCBhbGwgdGhlIHRpbWUgdGhlIFREIHdpbGwgaW5zdHJ1Y3QgdGhlIHBsYXll cnMgdG8gY29udGludWUgcGxheSBhZnRlciBoZSBoYXMgZXN0YWJsaXNoZWQgdGhlIGZhY3Rz LiBJZiBhIHBsYXllciBjYWxscyBoaW0gdG8gcmVzZXJ2ZSBoaXMgcmlnaHRzIChpbiBjYXNl IG9wcG9uZW50cyBkbyBub3QgYWdyZWUgd2l0aCBmYWN0cykgdGhlIFREIHNob3VsZCBhc2sg aGltIHdoYXQgaXJyZWd1bGFyaXR5IGhlIGlzIHJlZmVycmluZyB0byAoYW5kIHNlZSBwb2lu dCAzIGFib3ZlKS4gV2hlbiBnaXZpbmcgYSBqdWRnZW1lbnQgcnVsaW5nLCB0aGUgVEQgc2hv dWxkIGluZm9ybSB0aGUgcGxheWVycyBvZiB0aGVpciByaWdodCB0byBhcHBlYWwuIEF0IHNv bWUgZXZlbnRzLCB0aGVyZSBtYXkgYmUgYW4gYXBwZWFscyBjb25zdWx0YW50IG9mZmljaWFs bHkgYXBwb2ludGVkIGJ5IHRoZSBTcG9uc29yaW5nIE9yZ2FuaXphdGlvbi4gSWYgdGhlIHBs YXllcnMgd2lzaCB0byB0YWtlIGFkdmFudGFnZSBvZiB0aGlzIHNlcnZpY2UsIHRoZSBURCBz aG91bGQgaW50cm9kdWNlIHRoZW0gdG8gdGhlIGNvbnN1bHRhbnQgaW4gb3JkZXIgdGhhdCB0 aGV5IG1heSBkaXNjdXNzIHRoZWlyIGNhc2UgbW9yZSBmdWxseSBiZWZvcmUgZGVjaWRpbmcg d2hldGhlciB0byBwcm9jZWVkIHdpdGggYSBmb3JtYWwgYXBwZWFsLiANDUFydC4gMjMuIEJp YXMgUnVsaW5nIChmb3IgTk9TKQ1JdCBpcyBpbXBvcnRhbnQgZm9yIHRoZSBURCB0byByZWNv Z25pemUgdGhlIGxpbWl0YXRpb25zIG5vdyBwbGFjZWQgdXBvbiBoaXMgZXhlcmNpc2Ugb2Yg YnJpZGdlIGp1ZGdlbWVudC4gRXNwZWNpYWxseSBhdCBuYXRpb25hbC9pbnRlcm5hdGlvbmFs IGNvbnRlc3QgdGhlcmUgcGxhY2VkIGVtcGhhc2lzIHVwb24gdGhlIGRlc2lyZSB0aGF0IHRo ZSBzaWRlLCB3aGljaCBmaW5kcyBhIG5lZWQgdG8gYXBwZWFsLCBzaG91bGQgYmUgdGhlIG9u ZSB0aGF0IGhhcyBjcmVhdGVkIHRoZSBzaXR1YXRpb24uIEl0IHByb3ZpZGVzIHRvIHByZXNz dXJlIG9uIFREcyB0byBydWxlIGluIGZhdm9yIG9mIHRoZSBub24tb2ZmZW5kaW5nIHNpZGUu IEl0IGlzIHVuZGVzaXJhYmxlIHRoYXQgYSBub24tb2ZmZW5kaW5nIHNpZGUgc2hvdWxkIGZp bmQgaXRzZWxmIHB1dCB0byB0aGUgbmVjZXNzaXR5IG9mIG1ha2luZyBhbiBhcHBlYWwgaW4g b3JkZXIgdG8gcHJvdGVjdCBpdHMgaW50ZXJlc3RzLiBUaGUgbWFyZ2luIG9mIGFueSByZWFz b25hYmxlIGRvdWJ0IG11c3QgYmUgZXhlcmNpc2VkIGJ5IHRoZSBURCBpbiBmYXZvciBvZiB0 aGUgbm9uLW9mZmVuZGluZyBzaWRlLiBIZSB3aWxsIHJ1bGUgZm9yIHRoZSCRb2ZmZW5kaW5n kiBzaWRlIG9ubHkgd2hlbiBoZSBjb25zaWRlcnMgdGhlIGRlY2lzaW9uIHF1aXRlIGNsZWFy LWN1dCCWIHdoZW4sIGluIGZhY3QsIGhlIGRvZXMgbm90IGJlbGlldmUgaXQgcmVhc29uYWJs ZSB0byB0aGluayBoaXMgZGVjaXNpb24gY291bGQgYmUgb3ZlcnR1cm5lZCBvbiBhcHBlYWwu DVRvIHJ1bGUgaW4gZmF2b3Igb2YgYW4gkW9mZmVuZGluZ5Igc2lkZSBURCBuZWVkcyB0byBi ZSBjb252aW5jZWQgdGhhdCwgaW4gYW4gYXBwZWFscyBjb21taXR0ZWUgb2YsIHNheSwgdGhy ZWUgcGVyc29ucywgdGhlcmUgd2lsbCBub3QgYmUgb25lIHdobyBhcmd1ZXMgY29udHJhcnkg dG8gaGlzIGRlY2lzaW9uLiBJZiBoZSBzdXNwZWN0cyB0aGVyZSBjb3VsZCBiZSBvbmUgd2hv IHdvdWxkIHN1Z2dlc3QgaGlzIGRlY2lzaW9uIGJlIG92ZXJ0dXJuZWQsIGhlIHNob3VsZCBy dWxlIGluIGZhdm9yIG9mIG5vbi1vZmZlbmRpbmcgc2lkZS4NV2hlbiBoZSBoYXMgdGhlIG9w cG9ydHVuaXR5IG9mIGNvbnN1bHRhdGlvbiB3aXRoIGEgY29sbGVhZ3VlIGhlIHNob3VsZCBu ZXZlciBpZ25vcmUgdG8gZG8gc28uIElmIGVpdGhlciBvZiB0aGUgdHdvIGluIGNvbnN1bHRh dGlvbiBoYXMgZG91YnRzLCAgdGhlIG5vbi1vZmZlbmRpbmcgc2lkZSBoYXMgdGhlIGJlbmVm aXQgb2YgdGhhdCBkb3VidCwgYW5kIGEgd2lsbGZ1bCBURCBzaG91bGQgbm90IGRlY2lkZSB0 aGF0IGhpcyBvcGluaW9uIJYgaW4gZmF2b3Igb2YgdGhlIG9mZmVuZGluZyBzaWRlIJYgaXMg c3VwZXJpb3IgdG8gaGlzIGNvbGxlYWd1ZSdzIGV4cHJlc3NlZCBkb3VidHMuIEhlIHNob3Vs ZCByZWNvZ25pemUgdGhlIGludGVudGlvbiB0aGF0IHRoZSBURCBpcyBub3QgdG8gYmUgdGhl IGFyYml0ZXIgb2YgYnJpZGdlIGp1ZGdlbWVudCwgd2hpY2ggaXMgcGVjdWxpYXJseSB0aGUg cHJvdmluY2Ugb2YgdGhlIGFwcGVhbHMgY29tbWl0dGVlcyBhbmQgcmVmZXJlZXMuDUlmIHRo ZXJlIGFyZSBkb3VidHMgYWJvdXQgdGhlIHZlcnkgYnJpZGdlIGZhY3QgKGFzIGl0IHVzdWFs bHkgaGFwcGVucykgdGhlIFREIHNob3VsZCAoYXMgdXN1YWwpIHRvIHJ1bGUgZm9yIHBvdGVu dGlhbCBOT1MgYW5kIGltcGVsIHBvdGVudGlhbCBPUyB0byBhcHBlYWwgaGlzIGRlY2lzaW9u OiB0aGUgQXBwZWFsIENvbW1pdHRlZSB3aWxsIGhhdmUgZW5vdWdoIHRpbWUgZm9yIGZhaXIg anVkZ2UuDQ0NDQ1BcnQuIDI0LiBTdXBlcnZpc2luZw1PbmUgc2hvdWxkIGhhdmUgZGVjaWRl ZCB3aGV0aGVyIHRvIGFkb3B0IGEgbm9ybWFsIFREIHJvbGUgaW4gb25lIG9mIHRoZSBzZWN0 aW9ucywgb3Igd2hldGhlciB0byBhY3QgYXMgYSBnZW5lcmFsIHN1cGVydmlzb3IgZm9yIGFs bCBhcmVhcy4gVGhlIGdlbmVyYWwgc3VwZXJ2aXNvciByb2xlIGlzIG5vcm1hbGx5IGFwcHJv cHJpYXRlIG9ubHkgZm9yIGEgdmVyeSBsYXJnZSBvciBjb21wbGV4IHRvdXJuYW1lbnQsIHdo ZXJlIGFudGljaXBhdGVkIG51bWVyb3VzIJFsaXZlkiBwcm9ibGVtcyBmcm9tIHZhcmlvdXMg cXVhcnRlcnMgd2lsbCByZXF1aXJlIHBhcnRpY3VsYXIgYXR0ZW50aW9uIG9yIG9waW5pb24u IFVzdWFsbHkgaW4gc2ltaWxhciBjaXJjdW1zdGFuY2VzIHRoZXJlIGlzIHRoZSBmdW5jdGlv biBvZiBDVEQvRElDLiANT25lIG9mIFREIHNob3VsZCBiZSByZXNwb25zaWJsZSAodXN1YWxs eSAtIGFzc2lzdGFudCBvZiBDVEQvRElDKSBmb3IgZW5zdXJpbmcgdGhhdCBldmVyeXRoaW5n IGlzIGdvaW5nIGFzIHBsYW5uZWQgKGZvciBleGFtcGxlLCB0aGF0IGFsbCB0aGUgcGxheWlu ZyBhcmVhcyBhcmUgdXAgYW5kIHJ1bm5pbmc7IG5hbWUtc2xpcHMgaGF2ZSBiZWVuIGNvbGxl Y3RlZDsgdGhlIGNvbXB1dGVyIHJvb20ga25vd3MgZXhhY3RseSB3aGF0IGlzIGhhcHBlbmlu ZywgdGhlIGNhdGVyaW5nIHN0YWZmIHdpbGwgYmUgZGVsaXZlcmluZyB0aGluZ3Mgb24gdGlt ZSwgZXRjLikuDVRoZSBURCBzaG91bGQgY29uc3VsdCBvbiBhbGwgkWV0aGljYWySIHJ1bGlu Z3Mgd2l0aCBDVEQvRElDLiBNb3JlIHBhcnRpY3VsYXJseSwgQ1REL0RJQyBzaG91bGQgIGJl IGluZm9ybWVkIG9mIGFueSCRaW5jaWRlbnRzkiB0aGF0IG1heSBhcmlzZS4gSWYgc29tZXRo aW5nIGNvbWVzIHVwIG9mIGEgkWRpc2NpcGxpbmFyeZIgbmF0dXJlLCB0aGVyZSBhcmUgQ1RE L0RJQyBvciBoaXMgYXNzaXN0YW50IHRvIGRlYWwgd2l0aCBpdC4gRnVydGhlcm1vcmUsIENU RC9ESUMgd2lsbCBuZWVkIHRvIGRlY2lkZSB3aGV0aGVyIGFueSBzdWNoIG1hdHRlciBpcyBv ZiBzdWZmaWNpZW50IGltcG9ydCB0byByZXF1aXJlIGEgZm9ybWFsIHJlcG9ydCB0byB0aGUg U3BvbnNvcmluZyBPcmdhbml6YXRpb24gliB0aGlzIGluIGFkZGl0aW9uIHRvIGFueSBhY3Rp b24gdGFrZW4gb3Igbm90IHRha2VuIJFvbi1zaXRlki4NDUFydC4gMjUuIFByb2NlZHVyYWwg UGVuYWx0aWVzIChQUCkNV2hlbiBpcnJlZ3VsYXJpdHkgdmlvbGF0ZXMgY29ycmVjdCBwcm9j ZWR1cmUgb3IgcmVxdWlyZXMgdGhlIGF3YXJkIG9mIGFuIGFkanVzdGVkIHNjb3JlIGF0IGFu b3RoZXIgdGFibGUgdGhlIFREIG1heSBhc3Nlc3MgcHJvY2VkdXJhbCBwZW5hbHRpZXMuIFBy b2NlZHVyYWwgcGVuYWx0aWVzIGFyZSBleHByZXNzZWQgaW4gdGVybXMgb2YgdGhlIGZpbmFs IG1ldGhvZCBvZiBzY29yaW5nLCBvciB0aGUgbWV0aG9kIGJ5IHdoaWNoIHRoZSBjb250ZXN0 YW50cyBhcmUgcHJpbWFyaWx5IHJhbmtlZC4gVGhleSBkbyBub3QgYWZmZWN0IG90aGVyIGNv bnRlc3RhbnRzLCBleGNlcHQgaW4gYSCRaGVhZC10by1oZWFkIiBjb250ZXN0LCB3aGVuIHRo ZXkgcmVkdWNlIHRoZSBzY29yZSBvZiB0aGUgb2ZmZW5kZXIsIGFzIGV4cHJlc3NlZCBpbiB0 aGUgYmFzaWMgbWV0aG9kIG9mIHNjb3JpbmcuIA1Vc3VhbGx5IGdyYWRhdGlvbnMgb2YgUFBz IGFyZSBkZXRlcm1pbmVkIGJ5IFNwb25zb3JpbmcgT3JnYW5pemF0aW9uIChaTywgTkJPKS4g VGhlcmUgYXJlIHR3byBjbGFzc2VzIG9mIFBQOiAidXN1YWwiIGFuZCAiZXh0cmFvcmRpbmFy eSIuIENsYXNzIG9mICJ1c3VhbCIgUFAgaW5jbHVkZXMgIm1pbmltYWwiLCAiYXZlcmFnZSIg YW5kICJtYXhpbWFsIiBQUHMuIENsYXNzIG9mICJleHRyYW9yZGluYXJ5IiBQUCBpbmNsdWRl cyAiZXh0cmEtbG93IiwgImV4dHJhLWF2ZXJhZ2UiIGFuZCAiZXh0cmEtaGlnaCIgUFAuIFRo ZSB0YWJsZSBzZXQgb3V0IGJlbG93IGluY2x1ZGVzIHRoZSBlcXVpdmFsZW50IHRvIHRoZSCR dXN1YWwgYXZlcmFnZZIgUFAgZm9yIGNlcnRhaW4gb3RoZXIgbWV0aG9kcyBvZiBzY29yaW5n Lg1UYWJsZSAxDU1ldGhvZCBvZiBTY29yaW5nByJVc3VhbCBhdmVyYWdlIiBQUAdNaW5pbXVt IHVuaXQNT2Ygc2NvcmluZw0HB01hdGNoIFBvaW50cwcxMCUgb2Ygb25lLWJvYXJkLXRvcAcw LjFtcAcHSU1QB1JvdW5kZWQgdG8gdGhlIG5lYXJlc3QgaW50ZWdlciBhYm92ZSBudW1iZXIg U3FydCg0eCksIHdoZXJlIHggPSB0aGUgbnVtYmVyIG9mIHRpbWVzIHRoZSBib2FyZCB3YXMg cGxheWVkIGluIHRoZSBtYXRjaC4gVGh1cyB0aGUgYWRqdXN0bWVudCBpcyAzIElNUHMgZm9y IHRlYW1zICBvZiBmb3VyLCBhbmQgNCBJTVBzIGZvciB0ZWFtcyBvZiBlaWdodCAod2hlcmUg dGhlIGZvdXIgc2NvcmVzIGFyZSBhZ2dyZWdhdGVkIGJlZm9yZSBjb252ZXJzaW9uIHRvIElN UHMpLiBJTVAtcGFpciBjb250ZXN0IGlzIHNjb3JlZCBhcyB0ZWFtIG9mIGZvdXIuBzEgSU1Q BwdBZ2dyZWdhdGUHMTAwIHBvaW50cwcxMCBwb2ludHMHB1BvaW50IGEgYm9hcmQHMC41IHBv aW50IChhc3N1bWluZyAyIHBvaW50cyBmb3IgYSB3aW4pBzAuNSBwb2ludAcHTWF0Y2ggZm9y IFZQB1RoZSBhbW91bnQgYWZ0ZXIgZGl2aXNpb246IA0obWF4aW11bSBWUHMsIGF2YWlsYWJs ZSBpbiBtYXRjaCkvKDYgeCBudW1iZXIgb2YgYm9hcmRzIGluIHRoZSBtYXRjaCkuIA1JZiBu b3QgYSBtdWx0aXBsZSBvZiAwLjUgVlAsIHRoaXMgaXMgcm91bmRlZCB0byB0aGUgbmV4dCBo aWdoZXIgc3VjaCBtdWx0aXBsZS4HMC41IFZQBwdDcm9zcy1pbXANU2NvcmluZwdSb3VuZGVk IHRvIHRoZSBuZWFyZXN0IGFib3ZlIGludGVnZXIgbnVtYmVyIFNxcnQgKDh4KSwgd2hlcmUg eCA9IHRoZSBudW1iZXIgb2YgY29tcGFyaXNvbnMuIFRodXMgdGhlIGFkanVzdG1lbnQgaXMg MyBJTVBzIGZvciBvbmUgY29tcGFyaXNvbiBhbmQgNiBJTVBzIGZvciBmb3VyIGNvbXBhcmlz b25zBzEgSU1QBwdCdXRsZXIgc2NvcmluZwcyIElNUHMHMC41IElNUAcHDVRoZSBzYW1lIHNj YWxlIG1heSBiZSB1c2VkIGZvciBhZGp1c3RtZW50IHB1cnBvc2UgKGFzICJhdmVyYWdlLXBs dXMiIGFuZCAiYXZlcmFnZS1taW51cyIgYWRqdXN0bWVudHMpLg0NVGhlIHRhYmxlIHNldCBv dXQgYmVsb3cgaW5jbHVkZXMgZXF1aXZhbGVudHMgdG8gdGhlc2UgUFBzIGZvciBjZXJ0YWlu IG90aGVyIG1ldGhvZHMgb2Ygc2NvcmluZy4NVGFibGUgMg1NZXRob2Qgb2YgU2NvcmluZwdV c3VhbCBtaW5pbWFsB1VzdWFsIGF2ZXJhZ2UHVXN1YWwgbWF4aW1hbAdFeHRyYS1sb3cHRXh0 cmEtYXZlcmFnZQdFeHRyYS1oaWdoBwdNYXRjaCBQb2ludHMHNSUHMTAlBzE1JQcyNSUHNTAl BzEwMCUHB0lNUHMHMQczBzUHNwcxMAcxNQcHQWdncmVnYXRlBzUwBzEwMAcyMDAHMzAwBzUw MAcxMDAwBwdQb2ludCBhIGJvYXJkBzAuNQcwLjUHMC41BzEuMAcxLjUHMi4wBwdCdXRsZXIg c2NvcmluZwcxBzIHMwc1BzcHMTAHB0ZvciBWUC1zY29yaW5nIFBQcyBhcmUgY2FsY3VsYXRl ZCBmcm9tICJ1c3VhbC1hdmVyYWdlIiAoZGVzY3JpYmVkIGF0IHRhYmxlIDEpIGluIHRoZSBz YW1lIHByb3BvcnRpb24gYXMgZm9yIE1QLXNjb3JpbmcgKGF0IHRhYmxlIDIpLg1Gb3IgY3Jv c3MtaW1wIHNjb3JpbmcgUFBzIGFyZSBjYWxjdWxhdGVkIGZyb20gInVzdWFsLWF2ZXJhZ2Ui IChkZXNjcmliZWQgYXQgdGFibGUgMSkgaW4gdGhlIHNhbWUgcHJvcG9ydGlvbiBhcyBmb3Ig QnV0bGVyIHNjb3JpbmcgKGF0IHRhYmxlIDIpLg1TcG9uc29yaW5nIE9yZ2FuaXphdGlvbiBz aG91bGQgZGV0ZXJtaW5lIGFtb3VudHMgb2YgcGVuYWx0aWVzIChhbmQgYWRqdXN0bWVudHMp IGZvciBjb21tb24gaW5mcmFjdGlvbnMuIEl0IGlzIHByZWZlcmFibGUgdG8gZGV0ZXJtaW5l IFBQIGZvciBtYXRjaCBpbiB0ZXJtcyBvZiBWUHMgdGhhbiBpbiB0ZXJtcyBvZiBJTVBzLg0N QXJ0LiAyNi4gTGVzcyBFeHBlcmllbmNlZCBQbGF5ZXJzIA1URHMgbXVzdCBhbHdheXMgYXBw bHkgdGhlIGxhdywgYnV0IHdoZW4gdGhleSBhcmUgYWxsb3dlZCB0byBleGVyY2lzZSBkaXNj cmV0aW9uIHRoZXkgbWF5IHRyZWF0IG1vcmUgZ2VudGx5IHRoZSBsZXNzIGV4cGVyaWVuY2Vk IHBsYXllciB3aG8gaXMgdW5saWtlbHkgdG8gYmUgYXdhcmUgb2YgZXZlcnkgdGVjaG5pY2Fs aXR5IG9yIG9mIHByb3ByaWV0eSAtIGVzcGVjaWFsbHkgYXQgY2x1YiBnYW1lDVVzdWFsbHkg YSBwbGF5ZXIgd2lsbCBrbm93IGhvdyBoZSBvciBzaGUgaGFzIGJlZW4gZGFtYWdlZCwgd2ls bCBiZSBhYmxlIHRvIHRlbGwgdGhlIFREIGhvdyB0aGlzIHdhcywgYW5kIHdpbGwgbm90IG5l ZWQgdG8gYmUgcHJvbXB0ZWQgYnkgcGFydG5lciBvciCRbGVkkiBieSB0aGUgVEQuIEhvd2V2 ZXIsIHdlYWtlciBvciBsZXNzIGV4cGVyaWVuY2VkIHBsYXllcnMgbWF5IG5lZWQgdG8gYmUg Y2FyZWZ1bGx5IHF1ZXN0aW9uZWQgYnkgdGhlIFREIHRvIGVzdGFibGlzaCB3aGF0IHRoZWly IGFjdGlvbnMgd291bGQgaGF2ZSBiZWVuOiBtYW55IHN1Y2ggcGxheWVycyB3b3VsZCBuZWVk IHN1ZmZpY2llbnQgZWZmb3J0cyB0byBkZXRlcm1pbmUgd2hhdCB0aGVpciBhY3Rpb24gd291 bGQgaGF2ZSBiZWVuIGluIGh5cG90aGV0aWNhbCBjaXJjdW1zdGFuY2VzLiBUaGVpciBwYXJ0 bmVyknMgY29tbWVudCB3aWxsIHJhcmVseSBiZSBoZWxwZnVsLCBhbmQgc2hvdWxkIGJlIGRp c2NvdXJhZ2VkIGF0IGxlYXN0IHVudGlsIHRoZSBURCBoYXMgY29tcGxldGVkIHF1ZXN0aW9u aW5nIHRoZSBwbGF5ZXIuDVREIHNob3VsZCBoYXZlIGluIG1pbmQgdGhhdCB0aGUgTGF3cyBh cmUgbm90IGludGVuZGVkIHRvIHByb3ZpZGUgc2NvcGUgZm9yIGtub3dsZWRnZWFibGUgcGxh eWVycyB0byBnYWluIGFkdmFudGFnZSBhdCB0aGUgZXhwZW5zZSBvZiBpbmV4cGVyaWVuY2Vk IHBsYXllcnMuDUluIGEgbnVtYmVyIG9mIGNpcmN1bXN0YW5jZXMsIHRoZSBURCBjYW4gaW1w b3NlIHBlbmFsdGllcyBmb3IgZmFpbHVyZSB0byBjb21wbHkgd2l0aCB0aGUgTGF3cyBvciBS ZWd1bGF0aW9ucy4gVGhlc2UgY2lyY3Vtc3RhbmNlcyB2YXJ5IGZyb20gdGhlIGFkbWluaXN0 cmF0aXZlIChzdWNoIGFzIHNlYXRpbmcgYXQgdGhlIHdyb25nIHRhYmxlKSwgdG8gdGhlIHF1 ZXN0aW9uIG9mIGRhbWFnZSB0byBvcHBvbmVudHMgKGZvciBleGFtcGxlIGJ5IGZhaWxpbmcg dG8gYWxlcnQpLg1HZW5lcmFsbHkgdGhlIG1vcmUgkWFkbWluaXN0cmF0aXZlkiB0aGUgaXNz dWUgdGhlIG1vcmUgY29uc2lzdGVudCBzaG91bGQgYmUgdGhlIHBvbGljeSBmb3IgaW1wb3Np bmcgdGhlIHBlbmFsdHksIHNpbmNlIHRoZSB2YXN0IG1ham9yaXR5IG9mIHBsYXllcnMgc2hv dWxkIGtub3cgZW5vdWdoLCBmb3IgZXhhbXBsZSwgdG8gdHVybiB1cCB0byBhbiBldmVudCBv biB0aW1lLiBGb3IgaW5mcmFjdGlvbnMgdGhhdCBtaWdodCBkYW1hZ2UgdGhlIG9wcG9uZW50 cywgc3VjaCBhcyBieSBmYWlsaW5nIHRvIGFsZXJ0IG9yIGZhaWxpbmcgdG8gc3RvcCBhZnRl ciBhIHN0b3AgYmlkIHdhcm5pbmcsIHRoZSBURCBzaG91bGQgdXN1YWxseSB0cmVhdCB0aGUg bGVzcyBleHBlcmllbmNlZCwgb3Igd2Vha2VyLCBwbGF5ZXIgbW9yZSBsZW5pZW50bHkuIFN1 Y2ggcGxheWVycyBhcmUgb2Z0ZW4gbGVzcyBhYmxlIHRvIHJlbWVtYmVyIHByZWNpc2VseSB3 aGljaCBydWxlIGFwcGxpZXMgaW4gd2hpY2ggY2lyY3Vtc3RhbmNlIGFuZCBsZXNzIGFibGUg dG8gdXNlIGlycmVndWxhcml0eSBmb3IgdGhlaXIgcHJvZml0LiBPZiBjb3Vyc2UgdGhlIExh d3MgYXJlIHRoZSBzYW1lIGZvciB0aGVtIGFzIGZvciBvdGhlcnMsIGJ1dCBpZiB0aGUgVEQg aGFzIGRpc2NyZXRpb24gaGUgc2hvdWxkIHJlbWVtYmVyIHRoYXQsIGZvciBzdWNoIHBsYXll cnMsIGJyaWRnZSBpcyBtb3JlIGEgc29jaWFsIGV2ZW50IHRoYW4gYSBtYXR0ZXIgb2Ygc2Vy aW91cyBjb21wZXRpdGlvbiAtIGVzcGVjaWFsbHkgYXQgY2x1Yi9yZWdpb25hbCBnYW1lcy4N TGVzcyBleHBlcmllbmNlZCwgYW5kIHdlYWtlciBwbGF5ZXJzLCBsaWtlIGV4cGVyaWVuY2Vk IGFuZCBzdHJvbmcgcGxheWVycywgbWF5IG5vdCBkcmF3IGluZmVyZW5jZXMgZnJvbSB0aGVp ciBwYXJ0bmVyc5IgaGVzaXRhdGlvbnMsIGJ1dCBURHMgYW5kIGFwcGVhbHMgY29tbWl0dGVl cyBzaG91bGQgYmVhciBpbiBtaW5kIHRoYXQgYSBoZXNpdGF0aW9uIJFjb3VsZCByZWFzb25h Ymx5IHN1Z2dlc3SSIGRpZmZlcmVudCBhY3Rpb25zIHRvIGEgbGVzcyBleHBlcmllbmNlZCBh bmQgd2Vha2VyIHBsYXllciB0aGFuIHRvIGEgc3Ryb25nIG9yIGV4cGVyaWVuY2VkIHBsYXll ci4NVGhlIFREIHNob3VsZCB1c2UgaGlzIG9yIGhlciBleHBlcmllbmNlIHRvIGRldGVjdCB3 ZWFrIGFuZCBpbmV4cGVyaWVuY2VkIHBsYXllcnMuIEl0IGlzIG5vdCBlYXN5IHRvIGdpdmUg c2ltcGxlIGd1aWRhbmNlIG9uIHRoaXMgc3ViamVjdDogbW9zdCBwbGF5ZXJzIHF1aWNrbHkg anVkZ2UgdGhlIHNraWxsIG9mIHRoZWlyIG9wcG9uZW50czsgdGhlIHNhbWUgYXBwbGllcyB0 byBtb3N0IFREcy4NDUFydC4gMjcuIElycmVndWxhcml0eSBub3QgTm90aWNlZCBieSBQbGF5 ZXJzDVdoZW4gY2FsbGVkIHRvIHRoZSB0YWJsZSB0byBzb3J0IG91dCBvbmUgcHJvYmxlbSwg YSBURCBtYXkgbm90aWNlIGEgcXVpdGUgc2VwYXJhdGUgb25lLiBUaG91Z2ggZHV0eS1ib3Vu ZCB0byBkZWFsIHdpdGggYW55IGlycmVndWxhcml0eSB0aGF0IG1heSBhcmlzZSwgYSBURCB3 aWxsIGJlIHVud2lsbGluZyB0byByZW1lZHkgYSBkYW1hZ2UgdGhhdCB3YXMgbm90IGNsYWlt ZWQgYW5kIHdpbGwgZG8gc28gb25seSBpZiBpdCBpcyBvYnZpb3VzLiANVGhlIG1vcmUgY29t cGxleCBjYXNlIC0gVEQgbm90aWNlcyBpcnJlZ3VsYXJpdHkgYnV0IHdhcyBub3QgY2FsbGVk IHRvIHRoZSB0YWJsZSBhdCBhbGwuIElmIHN1Y2ggYW4gaXJyZWd1bGFyaXR5IGlzIGRpc2Np cGxpbmFyeSAobG91ZCBkaXNjdXNzaW9uIGFib3V0IHBsYXllZCBib2FyZCwgc3RhcnQgb2Yg cXVhcnJlbCBvciBzaW1pbGFyKSBvciBwcm9jZWR1cmFsIChmb3IgZXhhbXBsZSwgVEQgaGFz IHBvc3NpYmlsaXR5IHRvIHJlYWxpemUgdGhhdCBhIHRhYmxlIGlzIHBsYXlpbmcgYSB3cm9u ZyBib2FyZCwgb3IgdGhlIHBsYXllcnMgYXQgYSB0YWJsZSBhcmUgbm90IHRoZSBwbGF5ZXJz IHdobyBzaG91bGQgcGxheSB0aGVyZSwgb3IgYSB0YWJsZSBpbiBhIHRlYW1zIG1hdGNoIGlz IHBsYXlpbmcgYSBib2FyZCB3aXRoIHRoZSBOUy9FVyBkaXJlY3Rpb25zIHJldmVyc2VkLCBv ciBldmVuIC0gYW4gZXhwZXJpZW5jZWQgcGxheWVyIHdpdGggaW5leHBlcmllbmNlZCBvcHBv bmVudHMgaXMgcnVsaW5nIG9uIGEgaXJyZWd1bGFyaXR5IGhpbXNlbGYpLCAtIFREIG11c3Qg aW50ZXJmZXJlIGltbWVkaWF0ZWx5LiBCdXQgaWYgc3VjaCBhbiBpcnJlZ3VsYXJpdHkgaGFz IHB1cmUgYnJpZGdlIGNoYXJhY3RlciAocmV2b2tlLCBvciBNSSwgb3IgTE9PVCBldGMuKSBh bmQgcGxheWVycyBkaWQgbm90IG5vdGljZSBpdCAtIHRoZXJlIHNob3VsZCBiZSBtYWRlIHNl dmVyYWwgc3RlcHM6DTEuIEJlZm9yZSB1c2FnZSBvZiBMODFDNiBURCBtdXN0IGJlIGFic29s dXRlbHkgc3VyZSB0aGF0IHRoZXJlIHdhcyBpbmZyYWN0aW9uLiBFdmVuIGluIHN1Y2ggYSBj YXNlIFREIHNob3VsZCBub3QgaW50ZXJmZXJlIGJlZm9yZSBib2FyZCB3b3VsZCBiZSBmaW5p c2hlZDogcGxheWVycyBzaG91bGQgaGF2ZSB0aGVpciBjaGFuY2UgZm9yIG5vdGljZSB0aGUg aXJyZWd1bGFyaXR5IGFuZCBjYWxsIHRoZSBURC4NMi4gSW4gY2FzZSBvZiBub3QgYmVpbmcg Y2FsbGVkIFREIHNob3VsZCBjb25zaWRlciB0d28gcG9zc2liaWxpdGllczogKGEpIE5PUyBo YWQgbm8gYWJpbGl0eSBub3IgcG9zc2liaWxpdHkgdG8gbm90aWNlIHRoaXMgaW5mcmFjdGlv biAodGhleSBhcmUgd2Vhaywgbm9uLWV4cGVyaWVuY2UgcGFpciBvciBpbmZyYWN0aW9uIHdh cyBoaWRkZW4gYnkgT1MncyBhY3Rpb24gZnJvbSBldmVuIGV4cGVyaWVuY2VkIHBhaXIpIGFu ZCAoYikgTk9TIGhhZCBhYmlsaXR5IGFuZCBwb3NzaWJpbGl0eSB0byBub3RpY2UgdGhlIGlu ZnJhY3Rpb24gYnV0IGZhaWxlZCB0byBkby4NMy4gSW4gY2FzZSAoYSkgaWYgdGhlcmUgd2Fz IGRhbWFnZSAtIHRoZXJlIHNob3VsZCBiZSByZXN0b3JlICJlcXVpdHkiLCBhbmQgYm90aCBw YWlycyBzaG91bGQgYmUgaW5mb3JtZWQgYWJvdXQgdGhlIGRlY2lzaW9uIChmb3IgcG9zc2li bGUgYXBwZWFsaW5nKS4NNC4gSW4gY2FzZSAoYikgdGhlIE5PUyByZXN1bHQgc2hvdWxkIHN0 YW5kIGFuZCBPUyByZXN1bHQgc2hvdWxkIGJlIGFkanVzdCAtIGFueSBiZW5lZml0IChjb25z ZXF1ZW50IGFuZCBzdWJzZXF1ZW50KSBzaG91bGQgYmUgdGFrZW4gb2ZmLCBhbmQgYWdhaW4g Ym90aCBwYWlyIHNob3VsZCBiZSBpbmZvcm1lZCBhYm91dCB0aGUgZGVjaXNpb24gKGZvciBw b3NzaWJsZSBhcHBlYWxpbmcpDTUuIFRoZXJlIHNob3VsZCBiZSBubyBvdGhlciBwZW5hbHR5 IGZvciBzdWNoIGluZnJhY3Rpb24sIHVubm90aWNlZCBieSBwbGF5ZXJzLg0NRm9yIG5vdGlj aW5nIGFzIG11Y2ggaXJyZWd1bGFyaXRpZXMgYXMgaXQgaXMgcG9zc2libGUgVEQgc2hvdWxk IGJlIHByZXNlbnQgaW5zaWRlIHBsYXlpbmcgYXJlYSBhbGwgdGhlIHRpbWUgZHVyaW5nIHRo ZSBzZXNzaW9uIGFuZCBjb250aW51b3VzbHkgcGF5IGhpcyBhdHRlbnRpb24gdG8gYWxsIGhh cHBlbmluZ3MgKHNvIGNhbGxlZCAtICJhY3RpdmUgVEQtc2hpcCIpLiBUaGF0J3Mgd2h5IHRo ZSBwbGF5aW5nIGFyZWEgKGVzcGVjaWFsbHkgaW4gcGFpciBjb250ZXN0KSBzaG91bGQgbm90 IGV4Y2VlZCAxNC0xNiB0YWJsZXMgcGVyIDEgVEQuDQ1BcnQuIDI4LiBBZGp1c3RtZW50cw0x LiBBIHNjb3JlIGlzIGFkanVzdGVkIGlmIGFuIGluZnJhY3Rpb24gZGFtYWdlcyB0aGUgbm9u LW9mZmVuZGVycyBvciBpZiBpdCBicmluZ3MgYmVuZWZpdCB0byBvZmZlbmRlcnMuIEEgVEQg b3IgYW4gYXBwZWFscyBjb21taXR0ZWUgd2lsbCBnaXZlIHRoZSBiZW5lZml0IG9mIHRoZSBk b3VidCB0byB0aGUgbm9uLW9mZmVuZGluZyBzaWRlIGFuZCB3aWxsIGFkanVzdCB0aGUgc2Nv cmUgaW4gaXRzIGZhdm9yIGlmIHRoZXkgZmVlbCBpdCBoYXMgZ29uZSB3cm9uZyBhcyBhIHJl c3VsdCBvZiBwcmVzc3VyZXMgY3JlYXRlZCBieSBhbiBpbmZyYWN0aW9uLg1JbiBhZGp1c3Rp bmcgdGhlIHNjb3JlLCBob3dldmVyLCB0aGV5IHdpbGwgbm90IHRha2UgaW50byBhY2NvdW50 IGFueSBzdWJzZXF1ZW50IGRhbWFnZSwgd2hpY2ggdGhleSBkbyBub3QgYmVsaWV2ZSB0byBo YXZlIGJlZW4gY2F1c2VkIGJ5IHRoZSBvcmlnaW5hbCBpcnJlZ3VsYXJpdHkuIElmIHRoZSBu b24tb2ZmZW5kaW5nIHNpZGUgdGFrZXMgd2hhdCB0aGUgVEQgb3IgYXBwZWFscyBjb21taXR0 ZWUgYmVsaWV2ZXMgdG8gYmUgkXdpbGQgYW5kIGdhbWJsaW5nIGFjdGlvbpIgYW5kIHN1ZmZl ciBkYW1hZ2UgYXMgYSByZXN1bHQgb2YgaXQsIHRoZXkgY2FuIGV4cGVjdCBubyByZWRyZXNz Lg1TdGFuZGFyZCAoMTAlKSBhZGp1c3RtZW50IChmb3IgYXJ0aWZpY2lhbCBhZGp1c3RlZCBz Y29yZSkgZm9yIGRpZmZlcmVudCBtZXRob2Qgb2Ygc2NvcmluZyBpcyB0aGUgc2FtZSBhcyAi dXN1YWwgYXZlcmFnZSIgUFAgZnJvbSBUYWJsZSBpbiBBcnQuIDI1LiANMi4gSWYgY29udGVz dGFudHMgYXJlIGF3YXJkZWQgYSBzaW5nbGUgkWJhbGFuY2VkkiBhc3NpZ25lZCBhZGp1c3Rl ZCBzY29yZSwgdGhlbiB0aGF0IHNjb3JlIGlzIHRha2VuIGludG8gYWNjb3VudCBpbiBkZXRl cm1pbmluZyB0aGUgc2NvcmUgb2Ygb3RoZXIgY29udGVzdGFudHMgKGUuZy4gbWF0Y2gtcG9p bnRlZCBwYWlycykuIE90aGVyd2lzZSwgb25lIG9mIHR3byBwb3NzaWJpbGl0aWVzIHNob3Vs ZCBiZSBpbmRpY2F0ZWQgYnkgU3BvbnNvcmluZyBPcmdhbml6YXRpb246DShhKSBmb3IgdGhl IHB1cnBvc2VzIG9mIGRldGVybWluaW5nIHRoZSBzY29yZSBvZiBvdGhlciBjb250ZXN0YW50 cywgdGhlIHNjb3JlIGlzIHRyZWF0ZWQgYXMgYXZlcmFnZSwgT1INKGIpIHJlc3VsdHMgb2Yg TlMtY29udGVzdGFudHMgYW5kIEVXLWNvbnRlc3RhbnRzIGFyZSBkZXRlcm1pbmVkIHNlcGFy YXRlbHksIHRoZSBhd2FyZGVkIG5vbi1iYWxhbmNlZCBzY29yZXMgYXJlIHRha2VuIGludG8g YWNjb3VudCAtIGVhY2ggdGFrZW4gc2VwYXJhdGVseSBmb3IgaXRzIHNpZGUgb25seS4NMy4g SWYgKGluIGNhc2UgImEiKSBpbiBtYXRjaC1wb2ludGVkIHBhaXJzLCBhbiBhc3NpZ25lZCBh ZGp1c3RlZCBzY29yZSBoYXMgbm90IG9jY3VycmVkIG9uIHRoZSBib2FyZCwgdGhlbiB0aGUg bWF0Y2gtcG9pbnRzIGZvciB0aGUgY29udGVzdGFudHMgaXMgdGhlIHdlaWdodGVkIChieSB0 aGVpciBmcmVxdWVuY3kpIGF2ZXJhZ2Ugb2YgdGhlIHNjb3JlcyBvbiB0aGUgYm9hcmQgbmV4 dCBoaWdoZXIsIGFuZCBuZXh0IGxvd2VyLg1Gb3IgZXhhbXBsZSwgaWYgTlMgYXJlIGFzc2ln bmVkICs0MzAsIGFuZCB0aGUgYm9hcmQgY29udGFpbnMgbm8gKzQzMHMsIGJ1dCBjb250YWlu cyBmaXZlICs0MjBzIChmb3IgNCBtcHMgZWFjaCkgYW5kIHR3byArNDUwcyAoZm9yIDExIG1w cyBlYWNoKSwgdGhlbiA5IG1wcyBzaG91bGQgYmUgYXNzaWduZWQgdG8gKzQzMCwgYmVjYXVz ZSA1KzQgKG9yIDExLTIpIGVxdWFscyA5LCBpLmUuIHRoZSBtYXRjaC1wb2ludHMgYXNzaWdu ZWQgdG8gdGhlIG5leHQgbG93ZXIgc2NvcmUgcGx1cyBpdHMgZnJlcXVlbmN5IChvciCWIGZv ciB0aGUgc2FtZSBzb2x1dGlvbiCWIHRoZSBtYXRjaC1wb2ludHMgYXNzaWduZWQgdG8gdGhl IG5leHQgaGlnaGVyIHNjb3JlIGxlc3MgaXRzIGZyZXF1ZW5jeSkuIE9mIGNvdXJzZSBvbmUg Y2FuIG5ldmVyIGJlIGF3YXJkZWQgZ3JlYXRlciB0aGFuIGEgdG9wIG9yIGxlc3MgdGhhbiB6 ZXJvLg00LiBJZiBvbmUgdGVhbSAoQSkgZ2V0cyBhIGdvb2QgYm9hcmQgYWdhaW5zdCBhbm90 aGVyIHRlYW0gKEIpIGFuZCwgYmVjYXVzZSBvZiBhbiBpbmZyYWN0aW9uIG1hZGUgYnkgdGVh bSBCLCB0aGUgYm9hcmQgY2Fubm90IGJlIHBsYXllZCBhdCB0aGUgc2Vjb25kIHRhYmxlLCB0 aGVuIHRoZSBub24tb2ZmZW5kZXJzIGFyZSBlbnRpdGxlZCB0byBhbiBhc3NpZ25lZCBhZGp1 c3RlZCBzY29yZSB1bmRlciBMYXcgMTJBMS4NDUFydC4gMjkuIFRoZSBTZXNzaW9uIElzIE92 ZXINVGhlcmUgaXMgbm90IGZ1bGwgbGlzdCBvZiBkdXRpZXMgYW5kIHJlc3BvbnNpYmlsaXRp ZXMgb2YgQ1REL0RJQyB0aGF0IG91Z2h0IHRvIGJlIGZ1bGZpbGxlZCBhZnRlciBzZXNzaW9u IGlzIG92ZXI6DWVuc3VyaW5nIHRoYXQgdGhlIHNjb3JlcyBhcmUgcHJvcGVybHkgY2FsY3Vs YXRlZCBhbmQgcG9zdGVkOw1wcmVwYXJpbmcgdGhlIGxpc3Qgb2YgcmVzdWx0cyBhbmQgcHVi bGlzaGluZyBwcm92aXNpb25hbCBsaXN0IG9mIHJlc3VsdHM7DW1ha2luZyBhcHBlYWwgZGVj aXNpb24gKHdoZW4gdGhleSBhcmUgdW5kZXIgaGlzIGF1dGhvcml0eSkgb3IgdHJhbnNmZXJy aW5nIGFwcGVhbHMgdG8gQXBwZWFsIENvbW1pdHRlZTsNZW5zdXJpbmcgdGhhdCBhbnkgYXBw ZWFscyBhcmUgaGVhcmQgYXQgYSBwcm9wZXIgdGltZSBhbmQgaW4gYSBwcm9wZXIgcGxhY2Ug YW5kIGluZm9ybWluZyBwbGF5ZXJzIGFib3V0IHRoYXQ7DW1ha2luZyBhbGwgbmVjZXNzYXJ5 IGNvcnJlY3Rpb25zIC0gaW4gYWNjb3JkYW5jZSB3aXRoIHRoZSBMYXdzOw1yZWNlaXZpbmcg ZnJvbSB0aGUgc3RhZmYgYW5kIHB1Ymxpc2hpbmcgdGhlIGZpbmFsIGxpc3Qgb2YgcmVzdWx0 czsNdGhpbmtpbmcgYWhlYWQgdG8gdGhlIG5leHQgc2Vzc2lvbg0NVG93YXJkcyB0aGUgZW5k IG9mIHRoZSB0b3VybmFtZW50IChhZnRlciBsYXN0IHNlc3Npb24gb2YgdGhlIHRvdXJuYW1l bnQpLCBDVEQvRElDIG11c3Qgc3RpbGwgYmUgdGhpbmtpbmcgYWhlYWQgdG8gdGhlIHByaXpl LWdpdmluZyBhbmQgdG8gdGhlIGNsZWFyaW5nIHVwIG9wZXJhdGlvbi4NDENoYXB0ZXIgOC4g VEQncyBEdXRpZXMgYWZ0ZXIgdGhlIEVuZCBvZiB0aGUgQ29udGVzdA0NQXJ0LiAzMC4gVGhl IENvbnRlc3QgSXMgT3Zlcg1UaGVyZSBpcyBub3QgZnVsbCBsaXN0IG9mIGR1dGllcyBhbmQg cmVzcG9uc2liaWxpdGllcyBvZiBDVEQvRElDIHRoYXQgb3VnaHQgdG8gYmUgZnVsZmlsbGVk IGFmdGVyIHRoZSBjb250ZXN0IHdvdWxkIGJlIG92ZXI6DXB1Ymxpc2hpbmcgdGhlIGZpbmFs IGxpc3Qgb2YgcmVzdWx0czsNZW5zdXJpbmcgdGhhdCBwcml6ZS1naXZpbmcgY2VyZW1vbnkg d2lsbCB0YWtlIHBsYWNlIGF0IGEgcHJvcGVyIHRpbWUgYW5kIGluIGEgcHJvcGVyIHBsYWNl IGFuZCBpbmZvcm1pbmcgY29udGVzdGFudHMgYWJvdXQgdGhhdDsNYW5ub3VuY2luZyB3aW5u ZXJzOw1tYWtpbmcgcmVwb3J0IHRvIFNwb25zb3IgT3JnYW5pemF0aW9uIGFib3V0IHJlc3Vs dHMgb2YgdGhlIGNvbnRlc3Q7DShhZnRlciBuYXRpb25hbC9pbnRlcm5hdGlvbmFsIGNvbnRl c3QpIG1ha2luZyByZXBvcnRzIHRvIE5CTyBhYm91dCBldmVyeSBkaXNjaXBsaW5hcnkgY2Fz ZXMgYWdhaW5zdCBpdHMgbWVtYmVyczsNKGFmdGVyIGNvbnRlc3Qgb2YgY2x1YiBsZXZlbCkg bWFraW5nIHJlcG9ydHMgdG8gY2x1YiBvZmZpY2VyIGFib3V0IGV2ZXJ5IGRpc2NpcGxpbmFy eSBjYXNlcyBhZ2FpbnN0IGNsdWIgbWVtYmVycy4NDENoYXB0ZXIgOS4gIERpc2NpcGxpbmFy eSBQb3dlcg0NQXJ0LiAzMS4gQ2x1YiBEaXNjaXBsaW5lDUNsdWIgRGlyZWN0b3Igc2hvdWxk IGRlYWwgcHJvbXB0bHkgYW5kIGZhaXJseSB3aXRoIGFsbCBjYXNlcyBvZiBpbXByb3BlciBj b25kdWN0IHRoYXQgb2NjdXIgZHVyaW5nIGdhbWUgaW4gdGhlIGNsdWIsIGluY2x1ZGluZyBj YXNlcyBvZiB1bmV0aGljYWwgcHJhY3RpY2VzLiBUaGUgRGlyZWN0b3Igc2hvdWxkIGVpdGhl ciBoYW5kbGUgdGhlc2Ugc2l0dWF0aW9ucyBwZXJzb25hbGx5IG9yIGVzdGFibGlzaCBhIHN0 YW5kaW5nIGNvbW1pdHRlZSB0byByZXZpZXcgYWxsIGRpc2NpcGxpbmFyeSBwcm9ibGVtcy4g VGhlIERpcmVjdG9yIGNhbiBoYW5kbGUgbWFueSBiZWhhdmlvciBwcm9ibGVtcyBieSBkaXNj dXNzaW5nIHRoZW0gd2l0aCB0aGUgb2ZmZW5kZXJzLCBieSBpc3N1aW5nIGEgd2FybmluZywg b3IgZGVjbGFyaW5nIGEgcGVyaW9kIG9mIHByb2JhdGlvbi4gSW4gZXh0cmVtZSBjYXNlcyBv ciBjYXNlcyBvZiByZXBlYXQgb2ZmZW5zZXMsIHRoZSBEaXJlY3RvciBjYW4gYmFyIHRoZSBw bGF5ZXIgZnJvbSB0aGUgY2x1YiBnYW1lIGZvciBhIHN0aXB1bGF0ZWQgcGVyaW9kIG9mIHRp bWUsIG9yIHBlcm1hbmVudGx5IC0gYnV0IHN1Y2ggYSBkZWNpc2lvbiBzaG91bGQgYmUgYXBw cm92ZWQgYnkgY2x1YiBtYW5hZ2VtZW50LiANVG8gYmFyIGEgcGxheWVyLCBjbHViIG1hbmFn ZW1lbnQgbXVzdCBub3RpZnkgdGhlIHBsYXllciBpbiB3cml0aW5nIGFuZCBzZW5kIGEgY29w eSBvZiB0aGUgbm90aWZpY2F0aW9uIHRvIHRoZSBjb3JyZXNwb25kZWQgZGVwYXJ0bWVudCBv ZiBOQk8uIFRoZSBub3RpZmljYXRpb24gbXVzdCBpbmNsdWRlIHRoZSBwbGF5ZXIncyBuYW1l IGFuZCB0aGUgcmVhc29uIGZvciB0aGUgYmFycmluZy4gDU5vIG9wZW4gY2x1YiBtYXkgYmFy IGEgcGxheWVyIG9yIHBsYXllcnMgYXMgYSBjbGFzcywgYmFzZWQgdXBvbiB0aGUgcGxheWVy J3MgcmFjZSwgY3JlZWQsIHJlbGlnaW9uLCBwb2xpdGljYWwgYWZmaWxpYXRpb24sIHNleHVh bCBvcmllbnRhdGlvbiwgbmF0aW9uYWwgb3JpZ2luIG9yIG9uIGhpcyBwcm9maWNpZW5jeSBh dCBicmlkZ2UuIA1FeGNlcHQgYXMgZGV0YWlsZWQgaW4gdGhlIHByZXZpb3VzIHBhcmFncmFw aCwgYSBjbHViIG1heSBiYXIgYSBwbGF5ZXIgZm9yIHdoYXRldmVyIHJlYXNvbiBpdCBkZWVt cyBwcm9wZXIgY29uc2lzdGVudCB3aXRoIE5CTyBSdWxlcyBhbmQgUmVndWxhdGlvbnMgYW5k IHRoZSBMYXdzIG9mIER1cGxpY2F0ZSBDb250cmFjdCBCcmlkZ2UuIEFuIG9ibm94aW91cyBv ciBpbmNvbXBhdGlibGUgcGFydG5lcnNoaXAgbWF5IGJlIGJhcnJlZCBhcyBhIHBhaXIsIGJ1 dCBlYWNoIG1heSBiZSBwZXJtaXR0ZWQgdG8gcGxheSB3aXRoIG90aGVyIHBhcnRuZXJzLiAN QSBjbHViIG1heSBleHRlbmQgdGhlIGJhcnJpbmcgb2YgYSBwbGF5ZXIgZnJvbSBhbnkga2lu ZCBvZiBjbHViLCBsb2NhbCwgcmVnaW9uYWwgb3IgbmF0aW9uYWwgY29tcGV0aXRpb25zLj8/ PyBJbiBzdWNoIGNhc2VzLCB0aGUgd3JpdHRlbiBub3RpY2UgdG8gdGhlIHBlcnNvbiBiYXJy ZWQgbXVzdCBpbmNsdWRlIHRoZSBwZXJzb24ncyByaWdodCB0byBhcHBlYWwgdGhlIGFjdGlv biB0byB0aGUgY29ycmVzcG9uZGVudCBkZXBhcnRtZW50IG9mIE5CTy4gVGhlIGNsdWIgbWF5 IG5vdCBpbXBvc2UgcGFydG5lcnNoaXAgcmVzdHJpY3Rpb25zIG9uIHN1Y2ggcGxheWVycyBm b3IgdGhlc2UgZXZlbnRzIHVubGVzcyB0aGUgTkJPIGltcG9zZXMgdGhlbS4NVGFjdCBpcyBu ZWNlc3Nhcnkgd2hlbiBub3RpZnlpbmcgYSBwbGF5ZXIgdGhhdCBoZSBvciBzaGUgaXMgYmFy cmVkIGZyb20gYW4gb3BlbiBnYW1lLiBJdCBpcyBub3QgbmVjZXNzYXJ5IHRoYXQgdGhlIHBs YXllciBiZSBicm91Z2h0IGJlZm9yZSBhIGNvbW1pdHRlZSBvciBiZSBncmFudGVkIGEgcHVi bGljIGhlYXJpbmcuIFRoZSBwbGF5ZXIgc2hvdWxkIGJlIHRvbGQgcHJpdmF0ZWx5IGJ5IHRo ZSBEaXJlY3RvciBhbmQvb3IgY2x1YiBtYW5hZ2VtZW50IGFuZCBzaG91bGQgYmUgZ2l2ZW4g dGhlIHJlYXNvbiBmb3IgdGhlIGV4Y2x1c2lvbi4gDUlmIHRoZSBwbGF5ZXIgZmVlbHMgdGhh dCBoaXMgb3IgaGVyIGJhcnJpbmcgZG9lcyBub3QgY29tcGx5IHdpdGggcmVndWxhdGlvbnMg cHJvaGliaXRpbmcgYmFycmluZyBwbGF5ZXJzIGFzIGEgY2xhc3MsIHRoZWlyIHJlbGlnaW91 cyBvciBwb2xpdGljYWwgYWZmaWxpYXRpb25zLCByYWNlLCBuYXRpb25hbCBvcmlnaW4sIHBo eXNpY2FsIGRpc2FiaWxpdHksIG9yIHRoZWlyIGJyaWRnZSBwcm9maWNpZW5jeSwgaGUgb3Ig c2hlIG1heSBhcHBlYWwgdGhlIGJhcnJpbmcgc2VxdWVudGlhbGx5IHRvIHRoZSBjb3JyZXNw b25kZW50IGRlcGFydG1lbnQgb2YgTkJPLiBVbnRpbCB0aGUgYXBwZWFsIGlzIGxvZGdlZCBh bmQgaGVhcmQsIHRoZSBwbGF5ZXIgcmVtYWlucyBiYXJyZWQgdW5sZXNzIHJlaW5zdGF0ZWQg YnkgdGhlIGNsdWIuIA0NQXJ0LiAzMi4gTkJPIENvbXBldGl0aW9uIFJlZ3VsYXRpb25zIA1X aGVuIGEgcGxheWVyIGVudGVycyBhIGNvbXBldGl0aW9uLCBoZSBhY2NlcHRzIGl0cyBjb25k aXRpb25zIG9mIGNvbnRlc3Q6IHRoYXQgbWVhbnMgaGUgYWdyZWVzIHRvIGFiaWRlIGJ5IHRo ZSBMYXdzIG9mIER1cGxpY2F0ZSBCcmlkZ2UgMTk5NywgdGhlIEJ5ZS1MYXdzLCBSZWd1bGF0 aW9ucyBhbmQgRGlyZWN0aXZlcyBvZiB0aGUgTkJPIGFuZCBTcG9uc29yaW5nIE9yZ2FuaXph dGlvbiwgYW5kIHRoZSBwcm9jZWR1cmVzIHRoYXQgaGF2ZSBiZWVuIGxhaWQgZG93biBmb3Ig dGhlaXIgYXBwbGljYXRpb24uIEFueSBmYWlsdXJlIHRvIGNvbXBseSB3aXRoIGEgcmVndWxh dGlvbiBhdXRob3JpemVkIGJ5IHRoZSBMYXdzIG9mIER1cGxpY2F0ZSBCcmlkZ2UgaXMgYSBm YWlsdXJlIHRvIGNvbmZvcm0gdG8gdGhvc2UgTGF3cyBhbmQgbWF5IGNvbnN0aXR1dGUgbWlz Y29uZHVjdC4NDUFydC4gMzMuIFplcm8gVG9sZXJhbmNlIFBvbGljeQ1UaGUgcHVycG9zZSBv ZiB0aGUgWmVybyBUb2xlcmFuY2UgKFpUKSBwb2xpY3kgaXMgdG8gY3JlYXRlIGEgbXVjaCBt b3JlIHBsZWFzYW50IGF0bW9zcGhlcmUgaW4gYnJpZGdlIGNvbnRlc3RzLiBUaGlzIGlzIGFu IGF0dGVtcHQgdG8gZXJhZGljYXRlIHVuYWNjZXB0YWJsZSBiZWhhdmlvciBpbiBvcmRlciB0 byBtYWtlIHRoZSBnYW1lIG9mIGJyaWRnZSBtb3JlIGVuam95YWJsZSBmb3IgYWxsLiBUaGUg Zm9sbG93aW5nIGFyZSBzb21lIGV4YW1wbGVzIG9mIGNvbW1lbmRhYmxlIGJlaGF2aW9yLCB3 aGljaCwgd2hpbGUgbm90IHJlcXVpcmVkLCB3aWxsIHNpZ25pZmljYW50bHkgY29udHJpYnV0 ZSB0byB0aGUgaW1wcm92ZWQgYXRtb3NwaGVyZTogYmVpbmcgYSBnb29kIGBob3N0JyBvciBg Z3Vlc3QnIGF0IHRoZSB0YWJsZTsgZ3JlZXRpbmcgb3RoZXJzIGluIGEgZnJpZW5kbHkgbWFu bmVyOyBwcmFpc2luZyB0aGUgYmlkZGluZyBhbmQvb3IgcGxheSBvZiB0aGUgb3Bwb25lbnRz OyBhbmQgaGF2aW5nIHR3byBjbGVhcmx5IGNvbXBsZXRlZCBjb252ZW50aW9uIGNhcmRzIHJl YWRpbHkgYXZhaWxhYmxlIHRvIHRoZSBvcHBvbmVudHMgKHJlcXVpcmVkIGJ5IHJlZ3VsYXRp b24pLiANVGhlIGZvbGxvd2luZyBhcmUgc29tZSBleGFtcGxlcyBvZiBiZWhhdmlvciB3aGlj aCB3aWxsIG5vdCBiZSB0b2xlcmF0ZWQ6IGJhZGdlcmluZywgcnVkZW5lc3MsIGluc2ludWF0 aW9ucywgaW50aW1pZGF0aW9uLCBwcm9mYW5pdHksIHRocmVhdHMgb3IgdmlvbGVuY2U7IG5l Z2F0aXZlIGNvbW1lbnRzIGNvbmNlcm5pbmcgb3Bwb25lbnRzJyBvciBwYXJ0bmVyJ3MgcGxh eSBvciBiaWRkaW5nOyBnbG9hdGluZyBvdmVyIGdvb2QgcmVzdWx0czsgY29uc3RhbnQgYW5k IGdyYXR1aXRvdXMgbGVzc29ucyBhbmQgYW5hbHlzZXMgYXQgdGhlIHRhYmxlOyBhbmQgbG91 ZCBhbmQgZGlzcnVwdGl2ZSBhcmd1aW5nIHdpdGggYSBkaXJlY3RvcidzIHJ1bGluZy4gDUl0 IGlzIFNwb25zb3JpbmcgT3JnYW5pemF0aW9uIHdobyBkZWNpZGVzIHRvIGluY2x1ZGUgWlQg cG9saWN5IHRvIGNvbmRpdGlvbnMgb2YgdGhlIGNvbnRlc3QuIElmIHNvIC0gQ1REL0RJQyBz aG91bGQgZGVjbGFyZSBpdCBiZWZvcmUgc3RhcnQgb2YgdGhlIGNvbnRlc3QuIEFuZCB0aGVu LCBkdXJpbmcgdGhlIGNvbnRlc3QsIGlmIGEgcGxheWVyIGF0IHRoZSB0YWJsZSBiZWhhdmVz IGluIGFuIHVuYWNjZXB0YWJsZSBtYW5uZXIsIHRoZSBURCBzaG91bGQgYmUgY2FsbGVkIGlt bWVkaWF0ZWx5LiBMYXcgNzRBIHNwZWNpZmljYWxseSBwcm9oaWJpdHMgYW5ub3lpbmcgYmVo YXZpb3IsIGVtYmFycmFzc2luZyByZW1hcmtzLCBvciBhbnkgb3RoZXIgY29uZHVjdCwgd2hp Y2ggbWlnaHQgaW50ZXJmZXJlIHdpdGggdGhlIGVuam95bWVudCBvZiB0aGUgZ2FtZS4gTGF3 IDkxQSBnaXZlcyB0aGUgVEQgdGhlIGF1dGhvcml0eSB0byBhc3Nlc3MgZGlzY2lwbGluYXJ5 IHBlbmFsdGllcy4gDQ1BcnQuIDM0LiBOQk8gRGlzY2lwbGluYXJ5IENvZGUNMS4gR2VuZXJh bHMNV2hlbiBkaXNjaXBsaW5hcnkgaW5mcmFjdGlvbiBvY2N1cnJlZCwgdGhlIFNwb25zb3Jp bmcgT3JnYW5pemF0aW9uIGhhcyBqdXJpc2RpY3Rpb24uIFNvIHdoZW4gQ1REL0RJQyB1c2Ug aGlzIGRpc2NpcGxpbmFyeSBwb3dlciwgaGUgc2hvdWxkIGZvbGxvdyB0byB0aGUgU3BvbnNv cmluZyBPcmdhbml6YXRpb24gUmVndWxhdGlvbnMuIFdoZW4gQ0RUL0RJQyBpcyBnb2luZyB0 byBwdW5pc2ggYSBjb250ZXN0YW50IG1vcmUgdGhhbiBmb3IgYSBjdXJyZW50IHNlc3Npb24s IGNvcnJlc3BvbmRlbnQgYm9keSBvZiBTcG9uc29yaW5nIE9yZ2FuaXphdGlvbiBzaG91bGQg YXBwcm92ZSBoaXMgZGVjaXNpb24gKHVzdWFsbHkgLSB0aHJvdWdoIGRpc2NpcGxpbmFyeSBo ZWFyaW5nKS4NDTIuIFJvdWdoIERpc2NpcGxpbmFyeSBTYW5jdGlvbiBHdWlkZWxpbmVzDSBU aGUgZm9sbG93aW5nIHJhbmdlIG9mIGRpc2NpcGxpbmUgZm9yIGNvbmR1Y3QgYW5kIGV0aGlj cyB2aW9sYXRpb25zIGlzIHByb3ZpZGVkIGFzIGEgZ3VpZGUgLSBub3QgYSBtYW5kYXRlLiBU aGUgc2FtZSBndWlkZWxpbmVzIHNob3VsZCBiZSB1c2VkIGZvciBjbHViIHRvdXJuYW1lbnRz Lg0gVGhpcyBpcyBub3QgaW50ZW5kZWQgdG8gYmUgYW4gZXhoYXVzdGl2ZSBsaXN0IG9mIGFs bCBwb3NzaWJsZSBpbmZyYWN0aW9ucyBidXQgcmF0aGVyIGlzIG9ubHkgc2V2ZXJhbCBleGFt cGxlcy4gVGhlIENURC9ESUMgaXMgZnJlZSB0byBoYW5kICBvdXQgdG8gYSBndWlsdHkgZGVm ZW5kYW50IHdoYXRldmVyIHB1bmlzaG1lbnQgaXQgZmVlbHMgaXMgYXBwcm9wcmlhdGUuIEhv d2V2ZXIsIENEVC9ESUMgb3IgY29tbWl0dGVlIGdpdmluZyBvdXQgZWl0aGVyIGEgbW9yZSBv ciBsZXNzIHNldmVyZSBzYW5jdGlvbiB0aGFuIGlzIHJlY29tbWVuZGVkIGJ5IHRoZXNlIGd1 aWRlbGluZXMgbXVzdCBleHBsYWluIHdoeSBpdCBjaG9zZSB0byBnbyBvdXRzaWRlIHRoZW0u DQ0gUGFydCBBIG9mIHRoZXNlIGd1aWRlbGluZXMgaXMgaW50ZW5kZWQgdG8gYXBwbHkgdG8g dGhlIHR5cGljYWwgY2FzZSBpbnZvbHZpbmcgYSBzaW5nbGUgaW5jaWRlbnQgYW5kIGEgZGVm ZW5kYW50IHdobyBoYXMgbm8gcHJldmlvdXMgZGlzY2lwbGluYXJ5IGluZnJhY3Rpb24uIElm IHRoaXMgaXMgbm90IHRoZSBjYXNlLCB0aGVuIENURC9ESUMgc2hvdWxkIHJlYWQgcGFydCBC IG9mIHRoZXNlIGd1aWRlbGluZXMgYmVmb3JlIGRlY2lkaW5nIG9uIGFuIGFwcHJvcHJpYXRl IHB1bmlzaG1lbnQuDSANICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICBQYXJ0IEEgLSBDT05EVUNUDSAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICBPZmZlbmNl ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAJUmVjb21tZW5kZWQgRGlzY2lwbGluZQ0gIA0gICAgICBQ b29yIHBlcnNvbmFsIGh5Z2llbmUgb3IgZHJlc3MgICAgICAgICAgCVByaXZhdGUgUmVwcmlt YW5kIHRvIDMwIGRheXMNICAgICAJUHJvYmF0aW9uDSAgDSAgICAgIFJ1ZGVuZXNzIGluIGNv bnZlcnNhdGlvbiwgZ2VzdHVyZSwgICAgCVByaXZhdGUgUmVwcmltYW5kIHRvIDMwIGRheXMN ICAgICBvciBnZW5lcmFsIGJlaGF2aW9yIAkJICAgICAJUHJvYmF0aW9uLCBQUCBmcm9tIHJh bmdlIG9mICJ1c3VhbCINDQ0gICAgIFB1YmxpY2x5IGJlbGl0dGxlIHBhcnRuZXIgb3Igb3Bw b25lbnQgCVByaXZhdGUgUmVwcmltYW5kIHRvIDYwIGRheXMNICAgICBvbiBiaWQgb3IgcGxh eQkJICAgICAJICAgIAlQcm9iYXRpb24sIFBQIGZyb20gcmFuZ2Ugb2YgInVzdWFsIg0NDSAg ICAgIEluZmx1ZW5jZSBvciBhdHRlbXB0IHRvIGluZmx1ZW5jZSBhbiAgCVB1YmxpYyBSZXBy aW1hbmQgdG8gOTAgZGF5cw0gICAgICBlbnRyYW50IHRvIHdpdGhkcmF3IGZyb20gYW4gZXZl bnQgdG8gCVByb2JhdGlvbiwgImV4dHJhLWxvdyIgUFANICAgICAgaW1wcm92ZSBvbmUncyBs aWtlbGlob29kIG9mIHdpbm5pbmcgDSAgICAgIG1vcmUgbWFzdGVycG9pbnRzDQ0gICAgICAg SGFyYXNzIGEgdG91cm5hbWVudCBkaXJlY3RvciBvciAJCVB1YmxpYyBSZXByaW1hbmQgdG8g OTAgZGF5cw0gICAgICAgdG91cm5hbWVudCBvZmZpY2lhbCAJCQlQcm9iYXRpb24gdG8gMzAg ZGF5cyBTdXNwZW5zaW9uLA0JCQkJCQkiZXh0cmEtYXZlcmFnZSIgUFANDSAgICAgICBEZWxp YmVyYXRlbHkgZmFpbCB0byBmb2xsb3cgaW5zdHJ1Y3Rpb25zIAk5MCBkYXlzIFByb2JhdGlv biB0byAzMCBkYXlzDSAgICAgIGdpdmVuIGJ5IGEgdG91cm5hbWVudCBkaXJlY3RvciBvcgkJ U3VzcGVuc2lvbiosICJleHRyYS1hdmVyYWdlIiBQUA0gICAgICBvZmZpY2lhbCANDSAgICAg IA0gICAgICBQdWJsaWNseSBtYWRlIG9ic2NlbmUsIGV0aG5pYywgCQlQdWJsaWMgUmVwcmlt YW5kIHRvIDEyMCBkYXlzDSAgICAgIHNleGlzdCBvciByYWNpYWwgY29tbWVudHMgCQkJUHJv YmF0aW9uLCAiZXh0cmEtYXZlcmFnZSIgUFANDQ0gICAgICBJbnRpbWlkYXRlIG9yIGhhcmFz cyBhbm90aGVyIHBsYXllciAJOTAgZGF5cyBQcm9iYXRpb24gdG8gMzAgZGF5cw0gICAgICBv ciBicmlkZ2Ugb2ZmaWNpYWwJCQkJU3VzcGVuc2lvbiosICJleHRyYS1oaWdoIiBQUA0NDSAg ICAgIFB1YmxpY2x5IGFjY3VzZSBhbm90aGVyIHBsYXllciBvZiAJOTAgZGF5cyBQcm9iYXRp b24gdG8gMTgwIGRheXMNICAgICAgdW5ldGhpY2FsIGJlaGF2aW9yCQkJCVN1c3BlbnNpb24q LCAiZXh0cmEtaGlnaCIgUFANDQ0gICAgICBUaHJlYXQgb2YgYWJ1c2l2ZSBvciB2aW9sZW50 IGNvbnRhY3QgCTkwIGRheXMgUHJvYmF0aW9uIHRvIDE4MCBkYXlzDSAgICAgIHdpdGggYW5v dGhlciBwZXJzb24JCQlTdXNwZW5zaW9uKiwgZGlzcXVhbGlmaWNhdGlvbiBmb3IgY3VycmVu dCBzZXNzaW9uDSAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgDSAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgDSAgICAgIEFidXNpdmUgb3Igdmlv bGVudCBjb250YWN0IHdpdGggCQk5MCBkYXlzIFN1c3BlbnNpb24gdG8gMSB5ZWFyDSAgICAg IGFub3RoZXIgcGVyc29uIAkJCQlTdXNwZW5zaW9uKiwgZGlzcXVhbGlmaWNhdGlvbiBmb3Ig Y3VycmVudCBjb250ZXN0DQ0NICAgICAgS25vd2luZ2x5IHN1Ym1pdCBmYWxzZSBpbmZvcm1h dGlvbiAJOTAgZGF5cyBQcm9iYXRpb24gdG8gMSB5ZWFyDSAgICAgIG9yIGRlbGliZXJhdGVs eSBkaXN0b3J0IGZhY3RzIHRvIGFuIAkJU3VzcGVuc2lvbiosIGRpc3F1YWxpZmljYXRpb24g Zm9yIGN1cnJlbnQgY29udGVzdA0gICAgICBaTy9OQk8gb2ZmaWNpYWwgb3IgY29tbWl0dGVl DSAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgDSAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICBQYXJ0IEIgLSBFVEhJQ1MNICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICBPZmZlbmNlICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgCVJlY29t bWVuZGVkIERpc2NpcGxpbmUNICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIA0gICAgICAgIERlbGliZXJh dGVseSBhc2sgZm9yIG9yIGdpdmUgaW5mb3JtYXRpb24gCVByaXZhdGUgUmVwcmltYW5kIHRv IFB1YmxpYw0gICAgICAgIGFib3V0IGEgYm9hcmQgaW4gcGxheSBhZnRlciBib3RoIHBhcnRp ZXMgCQlSZXByaW1hbmQsIFBQIGZyb20gcmFuZ2Ugb2YgInVzdWFsIg0gICAgICAgIHBsYXll ZCBpdCANDQ0gICAgICAgIERlbGliZXJhdGVseSBhc2sgZm9yIG9yIGdpdmUgaW5mb3JtYXRp b24gCTMwIGRheXMgU3VzcGVuc2lvbiB0byAxIHllYXINICAgICAgICAgYWJvdXQgYSBib2Fy ZCBpbiBwbGF5IHByaW9yIHRvIG9uZSBvcgkJU3VzcGVuc2lvbiosICJleHRyYS1oaWdoIiBQ UCANICAgICAgICAgYm90aCBwYXJ0aWVzIHBsYXlpbmcgdGhlIGJvYXJkIAkJCQ0NICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgIA0gICAgICAgICBVbnNwb3J0c21hbmxpa2UgYW5kIGZyaXZvbG91cyBw c3ljaGluZyAJUHVibGljIFJlcHJpbWFuZCB0byAzMCBkYXlzDVN1c3BlbnNpb24qLCAiZXh0 cmEtYXZlcmFnZSIgUFAgZm9yIGV2ZXJ5IGNhc2UNICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICANDSAgICAg ICAgIFBsYXkgYSBjb252ZW50aW9uLCBzeXN0ZW0sIG9yIHRyZWF0bWVudCAJUHVibGljIFJl cHJpbWFuZCB0byAzMCBkYXlzDSAgICAgICAgIGtub3dpbmcgaXQgaXMgaWxsZWdhbDsgUHVy cG9zZWZ1bGx5IGZhaWwJCVN1c3BlbnNpb24qLCAiZXh0cmEtbG93IiBQUCBmb3IgZXZlcnkN ICAgICAgICAgdG8gZGlzY2xvc2UgcGFydG5lcnNoaXAgYWdyZWVtZW50cyB3aXRoIAlib2Fy ZC9jYXNlDSAgICAgICAgIGludGVudCB0byBkZWNlaXZlLiANDQ0gICAgICAgICBCaWQgb3Ig cGxheSB3aXRoIHRoZSBzcGVjaWZpYyBpbnRlbnQgdG8gCQk5MCBkYXlzIFByb2JhdGlvbiB0 byA5MCBkYXlzDSAgICAgICAgIGFjaGlldmUgYSBwb29yIHJlc3VsdCBvbiB0aGF0IGhhbmQg CQlTdXNwZW5zaW9uKiwgImV4dHJhLWhpZ2giIFBQDQ0NICAgICAgICAgSW50ZW50aW9uYWxs eSBjaGFuZ2UgYSBzY29yZSBvciBhbnkgCQkxODAgZGF5cyBTdXNwZW5zaW9uIHRvIDEgeWVh cg0gICAgICAgICBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiB0aGF0IGNvdWxkIHByb3ZpZGUgYXdhcmRpbmcJU3Vz cGVuc2lvbiosIGRpc3F1YWxpZmljYXRpb24gZm9yDSAgICAgICAgIGluY29ycmVjdCByZXN1 bHRzCQkJCQljdXJyZW50IHNlc3Npb24NDQ0gICAgICAgICBBY2NpZGVudGFsbHkgZ2FpbiBh Y2Nlc3MgdG8gdW5hdXRob3JpemVkIAk5MCBkYXlzIFByb2JhdGlvbiB0byAxODAgZGF5cw0g ICAgICAgICBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiBhbmQgdGhlbiBhY3Qgb24gaXQJCQlTdXNwZW5zaW9uKiwg ImV4dHJhLWF2ZXJhZ2UiIFBQDQkJIA0NICAgICAgICAgSGVzaXRhdGUgd2l0aCBhbiBpbnRl bnQgdG8gZGVjZWl2ZTsgdXNlIAkJMSB5ZWFyIFByb2JhdGlvbiB0byAxODAgZGF5cw0gICAg ICAgICBpbnRvbmF0aW9ucyBhbmQgbWFubmVyaXNtcyB0aGF0IG1heQkJU3VzcGVuc2lvbios ICJleHRyYS1oaWdoIiBQUA0gICAgICAgICBkZWNlaXZlIG9wcG9uZW50cyBvciBoZWxwIHBh cnRuZXIgDSAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIA0gDSAgICAgICAgIERlbGliZXJh dGVseSB0cnkgdG8gc2VlIGZyb20gd2hlcmUgYW4gCQk5MCBkYXlzIFByb2JhdGlvbiB0byA5 MCBkYXlzDSAgICAgICAgIG9wcG9uZW50J3MgcGxheXMgaGlzIGNhcmRzIAkJCVN1c3BlbnNp b24qLCAiZXh0cmEtbG93IiBQUA0NDSAgICAgICAgIEFjdGl2ZWx5IGFuZCBkZWxpYmVyYXRl bHkgdHJ5IHRvIHNlZSBhbiAJCTkwIGRheXMgU3VzcGVuc2lvbiB0byAxIHllYXINICAgICAg ICAgb3Bwb25lbnQncyBjYXJkcyAoYmVpbmcgbm90IGR1bW15KQkJU3VzcGVuc2lvbioNDSAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIA0gICAgICAgICBBY3RpdmVseSBzZWVrIGFkdmFuY2UgaW5mb3Jt YXRpb24gYWJvdXQgCTIteWVhciBTdXNwZW5zaW9uIHRvIEV4cHVsc2lvbioNICAgICAgICAg YSBib2FyZCBpbiBwbGF5DQ0gICAgICAgICBQcmVhcnJhbmdlIGEgZGVhbCBvciBwYXJ0IHRo ZXJlb2YgaW5jbHVkaW5nIAkyLXllYXIgU3VzcGVuc2lvbiB0byBFeHB1bHNpb24qDSAgICAg ICAgIG9uZSBjYXJkIA0NDSAgICAgICAgIEludGVudGlvbmFsbHkgZ2FpbiBhY2Nlc3MgdG8g aGFuZCByZWNvcmRzIAkyLXllYXIgU3VzcGVuc2lvbiB0byBFeHB1bHNpb24qDQ0gICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICANICAgICAgICAgUHJlYXJy YW5nZWQgcGFydG5lcnNoaXAgY29sbHVzaW9uIGJ5IG1lYW5zIAlFeHB1bHNpb24qDSAgICAg ICAgIG9mIHNpZ25hbGluZyB0byBleGNoYW5nZSBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbg0gDSAqSWYgVEQgKGFu ZCB0aGVuIC0gYSBjb21taXR0ZWUpIGltcG9zZXMgYSBzdXNwZW5zaW9uLCB0aGVuIGl0IHNo b3VsZCBhbHNvIGRpc3F1YWxpZnkgdGhlIHBhaXIgKHRlYW0sIGlmIGEgdGVhbSBldmVudCkg ZnJvbSB0aGUgZXZlbnQuIFRoaXMgd2lsbCBtZWFuIHRoZSBwYWlyICh0ZWFtLCBpZiBhIHRl YW0gZXZlbnQpIHdpbGwgbG9zZSBpdHMgcGxhY2UgaW4gdGhlIGV2ZW50LCBhbnkgbWFzdGVy cG9pbnRzIGVhcm5lZCBpbiB0aGUgZXZlbnQgYW5kIGFueSBvdGhlciBiZW5lZml0cyBpdCBt YXkgaGF2ZSBlYXJuZWQgZnJvbSBwbGF5aW5nIGluIHRoZSBldmVudC4NDUNvbW1lbnRzIHRv IHRoaXMgZ3VpZGVsaW5lczogDTEuIFRoZXJlIGFyZSB0aHJlZSBtYWpvciByZWFzb25zIHdo eSB0aGUgc3VnZ2VzdGVkIGd1aWRlbGluZXMgaW4gUGFydCBBIG1pZ2h0IG5vdCBiZSBhcHBy b3ByaWF0ZS4gRmlyc3QsIHRoZSBzaW5nbGUgdmlvbGF0aW9uIG1pZ2h0IGJlIGVpdGhlciBz byBzbGlnaHQgb3Igc2V2ZXJlIGFzIHRvIG1ha2UgdGhlIHN1Z2dlc3RlZCBzYW5jdGlvbiBp bmFwcHJvcHJpYXRlLiBTZWNvbmQsIHRoZSBkZWZlbmRhbnQgbWlnaHQgYmUgY29udmljdGVk IGZvciBzZXZlcmFsIHZpb2xhdGlvbnMgKHN1Y2ggYXMgYSBwYXR0ZXJuIG9mIGJlaGF2aW9y KS4gVGhpcmQsIHRoZSBkZWZlbmRhbnQgbWlnaHQgaGF2ZSBhIHByZXZpb3VzIHJlY29yZC4N DTIuIFdoZW4gdGhlIGRlZmVuZGFudCdzIHNpbmdsZSB2aW9sYXRpb24gaXMgZWl0aGVyIGV4 dHJlbWVseSBzbGlnaHQgb3Igc2V2ZXJlLCB0aGUgVEQgKGFuZCB0aGVuIC0gdGhlIGNvbW1p dHRlZSkgc2hvdWxkIHVzZSBpdHMgc291bmQsIHVuZW1vdGlvbmFsIGp1ZGdtZW50LiBGb3Ig ZXhhbXBsZSwgZWl0aGVyIHRoZSBleHBlcmllbmNlIG9yIG1lbnRhbCBpbnRlbnRpb25zIG9m IHRoZSBkZWZlbmRhbnQgbWlnaHQgYmUgYSByZWFzb24uIE9uZSBzaG91bGQgZXhwbGFpbiB3 aHkgdGhlIHZpb2xhdGlvbiB3YXMgY29uc2lkZXJlZCBhdHlwaWNhbC4NDTMuIFdoZW4gdGhl IGRlZmVuZGFudCBpcyBjb252aWN0ZWQgb2Ygc2V2ZXJhbCB2aW9sYXRpb25zLCBzdWNoIGFz IGEgcGF0dGVybiBvZiBiZWhhdmlvciwgdGhlIFREIChhbmQgdGhlbiAtIHRoZSBjb21taXR0 ZWUpIHNob3VsZCBwdW5pc2ggdGhlIGRlZmVuZGFudCBhcyBpZiBlYWNoIHZpb2xhdGlvbiB3 YXMgYSBzZXBhcmF0ZSBvZmZlbnNlLiBPbmUgc2hvdWxkIHNob3cgdGhlIHNlcGFyYXRlIHZp b2xhdGlvbnMgb3IgZXhwbGFpbiB0aGUgcGF0dGVybi4gDQ00LiBXaGVuIHRoZSBkZWZlbmRh bnQgaGFzIGEgcHJpb3IgcmVjb3JkLCB0aGUgbmF0dXJlIG9mIHRoZSBwcmV2aW91cyBvZmZl bnNlIGlzIG5vdCBwYXJ0aWN1bGFybHkgaW1wb3J0YW50LiBUaGUgbnVtYmVyIG9mIHByaW9y IGNvbnZpY3Rpb25zIGlzIGltcG9ydGFudC4gVGhlIHJlYXNvbiBpcyB0aGF0IHRoZSBkZWZl bmRhbnQgd2FzIGFscmVhZHkgc2FuY3Rpb25lZCBmb3IgdGhlIHNwZWNpZmljIHByaW9yIHZp b2xhdGlvbihzKS4gVGhlIFREIChhbmQgdGhlIGNvbW1pdHRlZSkgc2hvdWxkIHBheSBjbG9z ZSBhdHRlbnRpb24gdG8gaG93IHRoZSBwcmlvciBjb252aWN0aW9uIHJlZmxlY3RzIG9uIHRo ZSBkZWZlbmRhbnQncyBhYmlsaXR5IHRvIGJlaGF2ZSBhY2NvcmRpbmcgdG8gWk8vTkJPIHN0 YW5kYXJkcyBhbmQgZXhwbGFpbiB0aGVpciByZWFzb25zIGZvciB0aGVpciBkZWNpc2lvbi4N DENoYXB0ZXIgMTAuICBQcm9wcmlldGllcw0NQXJ0LiAzNS4gRXRoaWNzDVJlZ2lzdGVyZWQg bWVtYmVycyBvZiB0aGUgTkJPIE9mZmljaWFsIFREIFJlZ2lzdGVyIGFyZSBleHBlY3RlZCB0 byBjb21wbHkgd2l0aCB0aGUgbW9yYWwgcnVsZXMgcHJvdmlkZWQgZm9yIGJ5IHRoZSBOQk8g TGF3cyBhbmQgUmVndWxhdGlvbnMuDUluIHBhcnRpY3VsYXIsIHRoZXkgc2hvdWxkIG1haW50 YWluIGFuIGFwcHJvcHJpYXRlIHN0YW5kYXJkIG9mIGJlaGF2aW9yIGFuZCBzdHJpY3RseSBy ZXNwZWN0IHRoZSBldGhpYyBjcml0ZXJpYSwgd2hpY2ggdW5kZXJsaWUgdGhlIGFjdGl2aXR5 IG9mIFREcyBhbmQgdGhlIGRpcmVjdGlvbiBvZiBicmlkZ2UgY29tcGV0aXRpb25zLiBUaGUg Y29tcGV0aXRpb24gZGlyZWN0aW9uIHNob3VsZCBhbHdheXMgYmUgaW5zcGlyZWQgYnkgdGhl IGZ1bmRhbWVudGFsIGNvbmNlcHRzIG9mIGRpbGlnZW5jZSwgY29tcGV0ZW5jZSBhbmQgdXRt b3N0IHByb2Zlc3Npb25hbGlzbSwgd2hpY2ggYWxzbyB1bmRlcmxpbmUgbWVtYmVyc2hpcCBv ZiB0aGUgY2F0ZWdvcnkgb2YgTkJPIFREcyBpbiByZWxhdGlvbiB0byBjb250ZXN0YW50cywg Y29sbGVhZ3VlcywgdGhlIE5CTyBhbmQgaXRzIEJvZGllcywgcmVwcmVzZW50YXRpdmVzLCBt ZW1iZXJzaGlwIGFuZCB0aGlyZCBwYXJ0aWVzLg1TdXBlcnZpc2lvbiBvZiB0aGUgb2JzZXJ2 YW5jZSBvZiB0aGUgZXRoaWMgcnVsZXMgaXMgdGhlIHJlc3BvbnNpYmlsaXR5IG9mIHRoZSBE aXNjaXBsaW5hcnkgQ29tbWlzc2lvbiBvZiBOQk8uICAgICANSW4gdGhlIG5leHQgQXJ0aWNs ZXMgYSBtb3N0IHJlcXVpcmVtZW50cyBvbiB0aGlzIG1hdHRlciBhcmUgbW9yZSBkZXRhaWxl ZC4NDUFydC4gMzYuICBQcm9wZXIgQXR0aXR1ZGUNMS4JoENvdXJ0ZXN5DVREIHNob3VsZCBt YWludGFpbiBhIGNvdXJ0ZW91cyBhdHRpdHVkZSBhdCBhbGwgdGltZXMuDTIuCaBFdGlxdWV0 dGUgE3hlICJDb25kdWN0OkV0aXF1ZXR0ZSIVb2YgV29yZCBhbmQgQWN0aW9uDVREIHNob3Vs ZCBjYXJlZnVsbHkgYXZvaWQgYW55IHJlbWFyayBvciBhY3Rpb24gdGhhdCBtaWdodCBjYXVz ZSBhbm5veWFuY2Ugb3IgZW1iYXJyYXNzbWVudCB0byBwbGF5ZXIsIGtpYml0emVyIG9yIGFu b3RoZXIgVEQgb3IgbWlnaHQgaW50ZXJmZXJlIHdpdGggdGhlIGVuam95bWVudCBvZiB0aGUg Z2FtZS4NMy4gCU5vIFJlbWFya3MgZm9yIENhbGxpbmcNVEQsIHdoZW4gY2FsbGVkIHRvIHRo ZSB0YWJsZSwgc2hvdWxkIG5vdCBtYWtlIHRvIHBsYXllciBhbnkgcmVtYXJrIChpbiBhbnkg Zm9ybSEpIHRoYXQgaGUgd2FzIGNhbGxlZCB3aXRob3V0IGFueSByZWFzb24uDTQuIAlObyBB ZGRpdGlvbmFsIENyaXRpY3MNSWYgVEQgZGVjaWRlcyB0byBhcHBseSBhIGRpc2NpcGxpbmFy eSBwZW5hbHR5LCB0aGUgcGxheWVycyBzaG91bGQgYmUgaW5mb3JtZWQgaW1tZWRpYXRlbHkg LSBpbiB0aGUgbWFubmVyIGV4Y2x1ZGluZyBhbnkgYWRkaXRpb25hbCBjcml0aWNzIHRvd2Fy ZHMgdGhlIG9mZmVuZGVyLg01LqAJQ29uZm9ybWl0eSB0byB0aGUgVEQncyBDb2RlDUV2ZXJ5 IFREIHNob3VsZCBmdWxmaWxsIGFsbCBkZW1hbmRzIG9mIHRoaXMgQ29kZS4NDUFydC4gMzcu IEV0aXF1ZXR0ZQ1BcyBhIG1hdHRlciBvZiBjb3VydGVzeSBURCBzaG91bGQgcmVmcmFpbiBm cm9tOg0xLglQYXlpbmcgaW5zdWZmaWNpZW50IGF0dGVudGlvbiB0byB0aGUgZ2FtZSBpbiBw bGF5aW5nIGFyZWEgd2hlcmUgaGUgaXMgVEQgaW4gY2hhcmdlICh0aGF0IGluY2x1ZGVzIHN1 Y2ggZG9pbmcgYXMgcmVhZGluZyBkdXJpbmcgdGhlIHNlc3Npb24pOyBkdXJpbmcgdGhlIHNl c3Npb24gVEQgc2hvdWxkIGJlIHByZXNlbnQgaW5zaWRlIHRoZSBhcmVhIG9mIGhpcyByZXNw b25zaWJpbGl0eS4NTWFraW5nIGdyYXR1aXRvdXMgY29tbWVudHMgdG8gcGxheWVycyBkdXJp bmcgdGhlIGF1Y3Rpb24gYW5kIHBsYXkTeGUgIkNvbmR1Y3Q6R3JhdHVpdG91cyBDb21tZW50 cyIVLg1Vbm5lY2Vzc2FyeSBwcm9sb25naW5nIHRpbWUgb2Ygcm91bmQgZm9yIGJlbmVmaXQg b2YgY2VydGFpbiBwbGF5ZXJzDQ1BcnQuIDM4LiBWaW9sYXRpb25zIG9mIFByb2NlZHVyZQ1U aGUgZm9sbG93aW5nIGFyZSBjb25zaWRlcmVkIHZpb2xhdGlvbnMgb2YgcHJvY2VkdXJlOg1M aXN0ZW5pbmcgb25lIHBsYXllcidzIGFyZ3VtZW50cyBpbiBhYnNlbmNlIG9mIG90aGVyIHBs YXllcnM7IHRoZXJlIGFyZSBzb21lIGV4Y2x1c2lvbnMgd2hlbiBzdWNoIGEgZG9pbmcgbWF5 IGdlbmVyYXRlIHVuYXV0aG9yaXplZCBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbjsgb25lIG1vcmUgZXhjbHVzaW9u IC0gd2hlbiBhIHBsYXllciByZXBvcnRzIGhpcyBzdXNwaWNpb24gYWJvdXQgY2hlYXRpbmcs IGJlY2F1c2Ugc3VjaCBhIHN1c3BpY2lvbiBtYXkgYmUgd2l0aG91dCBiYXNpcy4NSW5kaWNh dGluZyBhcHByb3ZhbCBvciBkaXNhcHByb3ZhbCBvZiBhIGNhbGwgb3IgcGxheSB3aGVuIFRE IG9ic2VydmVzIGdhbWUgYXQgYW55IHRhYmxlLg1Db21tZW50aW5nIG9yIGFjdGluZyBkdXJp bmcgdGhlIGF1Y3Rpb24gb3IgcGxheSB3aGVuIFREIG9ic2VydmVzIGdhbWUgYXQgYW55IHRh YmxlLg0NQXJ0LiAzOS4gQ29uZHVjdCBkdXJpbmcgQmlkZGluZyBvciBQbGF5DTEuCaBQZXJz b25hbCBSZWFjdGlvbg1URCBtdXN0IG5vdCBkaXNwbGF5IGFueSByZWFjdGlvbiB0byB0aGUg YmlkZGluZyBvciBwbGF5IHdoaWxlIGEgZGVhbCBpcyBpbiBwcm9ncmVzcy4NMi4JoE1hbm5l cmlzbXMgb3IgUmVtYXJrcw1EdXJpbmcgdGhlIHJvdW5kLCBURCBtdXN0IHJlZnJhaW4gZnJv bSBtYW5uZXJpc21zIG9yIHJlbWFya3Mgb2YgYW55IGtpbmQgKGluY2x1ZGluZyBjb252ZXJz YXRpb24gd2l0aCBhIHBsYXllciAtIGV4Y2VwdCBoZSB3YXMgY2FsbGVkIHRvIG1ha2UgcnVs aW5nKS4NQ29uc2lkZXJhdGlvbiBmb3IgUGxheWVycw1URCBtdXN0IG5vdCBpbiBhbnkgd2F5 IGRpc3R1cmIgYSBwbGF5ZXIgZXhjZXB0IGluIHRoZSBleGVjdXRpb24gb2YgdGhlIFREJ3Mg ZHV0eS4NVEQncxN4ZSAiU3BlY3RhdG9yOlBhcnRpY2lwYXRpb24iFSBQYXJ0aWNpcGF0aW9u DUR1cmluZyB0aGUgcGxheSBvZiB0aGUgYm9hcmQgVEQgbWF5IG5vdCBjYWxsIGF0dGVudGlv biB0byBhbnkgaXJyZWd1bGFyaXR5IG9yIG1pc3Rha2UsIG5vciBzcGVhayBvbiBhbnkgcXVl c3Rpb24gb2YgZmFjdCBvciBsYXcgdW5sZXNzIG9uIHBsYXllcidzIHJlcXVlc3Q7IHRoZSBv bmx5IGV4Y2VwdGlvbiAtIGludGVydmVudGlvbiB3aXRoIGRpc2NpcGxpbmFyeSBwb3dlciBv ciBpbiBwcm9jZWR1cmFsIHF1ZXN0aW9ucyAoQXJ0LiAyNykuDVRoZSBTYW1lIENvdW50cnkN SW4gb2ZmaWNpYWwgaW50ZXJuYXRpb25hbCBjb250ZXN0cyAoem9uYWwsIHdvcmxkKSBURCBt dXN0IG5vdCBvYnNlcnZlIGJpZGRpbmcgb3IgcGxheSBvZiBwbGF5ZXJzIGZyb20gdGhlIHNh bWUgY291bnRyeSBhcyBoaXMuIE1vcmVvdmVyLCBhdCBmaW5hbCBwYXJ0IG9mIHN1Y2ggYSBj b250ZXN0IFREIG11c3Qgbm90IGV2ZW4gYXBwcm9hY2ggdG8gdGhlIHRhYmxlIHdoZXJlIGhp cyBjb3VudHJ5LW1hdGVzIGFyZSBwbGF5aW5nLg0NQXJ0LiA0MC4gV2l0aGRyYXdhbA1JbiBh biBpbnRlcm5hdGlvbmFsIHRvdXJuYW1lbnQgVEQgbWF5IGRlY2lkZSB0byByZWN1c2UgaGlt c2VsZiBiZWNhdXNlIGhlIGZlZWxzIHRvbyBjbG9zZWx5IGludm9sdmVkLCBvciBmZWVscyBo ZSBtYXkgYmUgYmlhc2VkLCBvciBoYXMgZGlzY3Vzc2VkIHRoZSBtYXR0ZXIgd2l0aCBpbnRl cmVzdGVkIHBhcnRpZXMsIG9yIGhhcyBwcmWWZGVjaWRlZCB0aGUgb3V0Y29tZS4gDQxBcHBl bmRpeGVzOiBUZWNobmljYWwgcXVlc3Rpb25zDQ1UaGVyZSBtYXkgYmUgbGlzdGVkIChhbmQg ZXhwbGFpbmVkPykgYSBtb3N0IG9mdGVuIHVzZWQga2luZHMgb2YgY29udGVzdHMsIG1ldGhv ZHMgb2Ygc2NvcmluZyBhbmQgc2NoZW1lcyBvZiBtb3ZlbWVudHMuIEFzIEkgYW0gbm90IGVu b3VnaCBmYW1pbGlhciB3aXRoIHRoZW0gLSBJJ2QgcHJlZmVyIHRvIGxlYXZlIHRoZXNlIHBh cmFncmFwaHMgZW1wdHkuDQ0xLglLaW5kcyBvZiBjb250ZXN0cw0NMi4JTWV0aG9kcyBvZiBz Y29yaW5nDQ0zLglTY2hlbWVzIG9mIG1vdmVtZW50cw0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAgAKEBAJcAnKAF naAFpIIupcZBpvkEp/kEqIkFqW4EqgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADAAAWAwAAJwMAACgDAAApAwAANwMAADgDAABxAwAAAwQAACAE AAC3BAAA6QQAALAFAADZBQAAVAYAAJIGAADqBgAAFwcAAIIIAAC5CAAA2QgAAPsIAACDCQAA nwkAAEsKAABuCgAAsQoAALIKAAC+CgAASQsAAGELAABiCwAAeAsAAOQLAAApDAAABw0AACAN AADKDQAA6g0AAFUOAABZDgAAKA8AACwPAABuDwAAcg8AAIwPAACPDwAApQ8AALIPAAAPEQAA IBEAAHkRAACBEQAA4hEAAP8RAABHEgAAXxIAAGUSAADGEgAAxxIAAMgSAADcEgAA3RIAAAUT AAC3FQAA1hUAAFkbAACEGwAA3CEAAPQhAACjIwAApCMAAL8jAADAIwAA2iMAAHglAACLJQAA /Pfy6eTp4N7g3uDe4N7g3uDe4N7g3uDe4N7X8vzy1c/8z/zP/M/8z/zP/M/8z/zP/M/8z/zP /M/8yvzV8tXF/Pf89/z3/NXy1cH8wQAABl0AAGEJBAAIVYFdAABhCQQACV0CAGEJBGMWAApV gVaBYQkEYxgAAANhCQQNdQFEBAAAAABVgWEJBANhAAQGYQAEYxQAAAhVgWEJBGMUAAAQdQFE BAAAAABVgWEJBGMUAAAIVYFhCQRjIAAACFWBYQkEYxgAAAZhCQRjGABMiyUAALUnAADKJwAA 1iwAANcsAAD7LAAAmDEAAJkxAADAMQAAijcAAI43AAAnPQAAKD0AAFg9AABZPQAAez0AACM/ AABGPwAAFkIAABdCAABrQgAA40UAAORFAAALRgAAtUwAALZMAADcTAAA3UwAABBNAADrTQAA DU4AADxPAABqTwAAklAAAKlQAAAzUgAAWVIAAEhTAABgUwAAL1UAAEhVAACuVgAA4VYAAGdY AACBWAAAtlkAANBZAADQXAAA4FwAALxgAADVYAAAgWIAAI1iAABCZAAAUWQAALRlAADeZQAA K2gAAEFoAABoagAAjWoAAC9rAABIawAAJHAAACVwAAA8cAAA8nUAAPN1AAAudgAAL3YAAFF2 AACBeAAAg3gAAGp6AABsegAARnsAAEl7AAB7ewAAgH8AAIJ/AACsfwAArX8AAMt/AAAdgQAA HoEAADaBAACygwAAs4MAANKDAAD8+Pz2+Pz28fzs/Pbn/Pj8+Pz2+Pz2+Pz25/bx/PH88fzx /PH88fzx/PH88fzx/PH88fzx/PH88fzx/Pj88fzi8fz25/bx/PH88fz2+Pz25/bx/Pbx/N/x AAAFVYFhCQQIYQkEYgZjGAAACFWBYQkEYyAAAAhWgWEJBGMYAAAIVYFhCQRjGAAAA2EJBAZd AABhCQQABmEJBGMYAFjSgwAAAokAAAOJAAAgiQAAe4oAAMOKAAC+jwAA5Y8AAIqRAADPkQAA upUAADaWAACklgAAppYAAL+WAAAJlwAAK5gAAC6YAAAwmAAAM5gAAISZAADImQAAnZsAAMKb AADmnAAA6ZwAAJmdAADXnQAAIp4AAJeeAAApnwAAhZ8AAMegAAAJoQAAgKEAAMOhAAB+pgAA f6YAAJ6mAAC9rQAAwa0AANatAAB7sgAAn7IAAKK2AACmtgAAGrkAAB65AABRvQAAUr0AAHW9 AAB+xwAArMcAAKnIAACqyAAApNAAALrQAADO0wAA1tMAANjTAADZ0wAA/dUAAP7VAADD2AAA xNgAALHZAACy2QAAz9kAAOvcAAAf3QAAIN0AAD3dAACc3wAAnd8AALzfAAC93wAA1t8AAHbp AAB36QAAnekAAFfrAABY6wAAdusAAHfrAABD8QAARPEAAGPxAAD8+fT89Pz0/PT89Pz0/PT8 9Pz0/PT89Pz0/PT89Pz0/PT89Pzy9Pzy9Pz0/O387fzy9Pz0/Oj89Pz0/PT89Pz0/PL0/OP8 9Pzy4/L0/N70/PL08vzy9AAAAAAAAAAAAAAJXQAAYQkEYxgACFWBYQkEYyAAAAhVgWEJBGMc AAAIVoFhCQRjGAAAA2EJBAhVgWEJBGMYAAAFVYFhCQQGYQkEYxgAVmPxAABv8QAA8PIAABrz AADMDwEAzQ8BAOYPAQDnDwEA9w8BAC8TAQAwEwEAShMBAJsTAQCcEwEAshMBALMTAQCRFAEA xRUBABgWAQAqFgEAexcBAHwXAQCcFwEAnRcBAOQXAQAFGAEA8hkBABoaAQCmGwEApxsBAMMb AQDEGwEAxRwBAMwcAQDWHQEA6h0BAMEeAQDCHgEA4h4BAOMeAQCvHwEAxB8BAMUfAQDbHwEA 3B8BAPQfAQAiIAEA+/fy7uzn7OPu7PLu2tXa7tDu8u7a1dru8u7y7trV2u7y7vLu7Ofs7vLu 8u7yzgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACdQEACGEJBGIBYxgAAAhDgWEJBGMYAAAQdQFEBAAAAABD gWEJBGMYAAAGXQAAYQkEAAhVgWEJBGMgAAADYQkEBmEJBGMYAAAIVYFhCQRjGAAABmEJBGMW AAAIVYFhCQRjFgAuAAMAABYDAAAoAwAAQgMAAFsDAABxAwAAmwMAALwDAADpAwAAAwQAACAE AAA8BAAAUQQAAGgEAACOBAAAtwQAAOkEAAANBQAAMQUAAIcFAACwBQAA2QUAAA8GAAAsBgAA VAYAAJIGAAC1BgAA6gYAABcHAAA4BwAAUwcAAHUHAACVBwAAtwcAAM8HAAD1BwAAGggAAEoI AABiCAAAgggAALkIAADZCAAA+wgAAP4AAAAAAAD4AAAAAAAA8gAAAAAAAPIAAAAAAADyAAAA AAAA7AAAAAAAAOwAAAAAAADsAAAAAAAA7AAAAAAAAPIAAAAAAADsAAAAAAAA7AAAAAAAAOwA AAAAAADsAAAAAAAA7AAAAAAAAPIAAAAAAADsAAAAAAAA7AAAAAAAAOwAAAAAAADsAAAAAAAA 8gAAAAAAAOwAAAAAAADsAAAAAAAA7AAAAAAAAPIAAAAAAADsAAAAAAAA7AAAAAAAAPIAAAAA AADsAAAAAAAA7AAAAAAAAOwAAAAAAADsAAAAAAAA7AAAAAAAAOwAAAAAAADsAAAAAAAA7AAA AAAAAOwAAAAAAADsAAAAAAAA7AAAAAAAAPIAAAAAAADsAAAAAAAA8gAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUZ AA8FAAGGJAoAAAUWAA8FAAGGJAoAAAUAAAUDEUALE9ACAAEQACr7CAAAFwkAAD8JAABhCQAA gwkAAJ8JAACyCQAAzwkAAOUJAAAJCgAANAoAAEsKAABuCgAAgwoAAJkKAACxCgAAswoAALUK AAC+CgAASQsAAGELAABiCwAAeAsAAOQLAAApDAAALwwAAK0MAAAHDQAAIA0AAMoNAADqDQAA VQ4AAFkOAAAoDwAALA8AAG4PAAByDwAA+gAAAAAAAPoAAAAAAAD6AAAAAAAA+gAAAAAAAPQA AAAAAAD6AAAAAAAA+gAAAAAAAPoAAAAAAAD6AAAAAAAA+gAAAAAAAPoAAAAAAAD0AAAAAAAA +gAAAAAAAPoAAAAAAAD6AAAAAAAA8QAAAAAAAPEAAAAAAADxAAAAAAAA8QAAAAAAAPEAAAAA AADxAAAAAAAA8QAAAAAAAPEAAAAAAADxAAAAAAAA8QAAAAAAAMsAAAAAAADLAAAAAAAA8QAA AAAAAPEAAAAAAADxAAAAAAAA8QAAAAAAAPEAAAAAAADxAAAAAAAA8QAAAAAAAPEAAAAAAADx AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAJQAABQMNChFoAROY/gw0BAABCAAAAYAAAAEAaAEAAAAAAAApAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA8FAAFoAQAAAAIAAAUDAAUWAA8FAAGGJAoAAAUZ AA8FAAGGJAoAJHIPAACMDwAAjw8AAKUPAACyDwAADxEAACARAAB5EQAAgREAAOIRAAD/EQAA RxIAAF8SAADHEgAA3BIAAN0SAAAFEwAA2hMAAHsUAADKFAAAthUAALcVAADWFQAAqxYAAPsX AACBGQAArRkAAMwZAAAUGgAAZBoAAL0aAABYGwAAWRsAAIQbAABkHAAA2xwAAPIeAABfHwAA 3B8AAKAgAADbIQAA3CEAAPQhAAAZIgAA/QAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAD9AAAAAAAA/QAAAAAAAP0A AAAAAAD9AAAAAAAA/QAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAD9AAAAAAAA/QAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAD9AAAAAAAA +wAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAD9AAAAAAAA+QAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAD9AAAAAAAA/QAAAAAAAP0AAAAA AAD9AAAAAAAA/QAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAD9AAAAAAAA/QAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAD9AAAAAAAA/QAA AAAAAP0AAAAAAAD9AAAAAAAA/QAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAD9AAAAAAAA/QAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAD9 AAAAAAAA/QAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAD9AAAAAAAA/QAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAD9AAAAAAAA/QAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAERAAABAAAAAgAABQMrGSIAAGgiAAAbIwAAoyMAAL8j AADAIwAA2iMAAO4kAAB3JQAAeCUAAIslAAAaJgAALCYAAEkmAABcJgAAkSYAAJ4mAAC+JgAA 1CYAAA4nAAAjJwAASCcAAGMnAAC0JwAAtScAAMonAAC0KgAAiisAAAUsAADWLAAA2gAAAAAA ANoAAAAAAADXAAAAAAAA1wAAAAAAANcAAAAAAADUAAAAAAAA1wAAAAAAANcAAAAAAADXAAAA AAAA1AAAAAAAANcAAAAAAADKAAAAAAAAygAAAAAAAMoAAAAAAADXAAAAAAAApAAAAAAAAMoA AAAAAADKAAAAAAAA1wAAAAAAAMoAAAAAAADKAAAAAAAAygAAAAAAANcAAAAAAADXAAAAAAAA 1AAAAAAAANcAAAAAAADXAAAAAAAA1wAAAAAAANcAAAAAAAAAAAAAACUAAAUDDQoR0AITmP4M NAQAAQgAAAGAAAABANACAAAAAAAAKQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP BQAB0AIAAAAJAAAFAxHQAhOY/g8FAAHQAgAAAAICAAUDAAIAAAUDACUAAAUDDQsRaAETmP4M NP8BAAgAAAGAAAADAGgBAAAAAAAALQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP BQABaAEAAB3WLAAA1ywAAPssAAAXLgAAOC4AAJYuAAA4LwAAMjAAAPMwAACYMQAAmTEAAMAx AAC3MgAAPjMAALgzAADONAAAFDYAANI3AAB3OgAA1TsAACc9AABYPQAAWT0AAHs9AADWPQAA gD4AACM/AAAkPwAARj8AAFg/AADaPwAAIEAAAFlAAAARQQAAMkEAAHFBAACvQQAAFkIAABdC AABrQgAAukIAAP0AAAAAAAD6AAAAAAAA/QAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAADwAAAAAAAA8AAAAAAAAPAA AAAAAADwAAAAAAAA/QAAAAAAAO4AAAAAAADuAAAAAAAA/QAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAD9AAAAAAAA /QAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAD9AAAAAAAA/QAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAD9AAAAAAAA/QAAAAAAAP0AAAAA AAD6AAAAAAAA/QAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAD9AAAAAAAA+gAAAAAAAPoAAAAAAAD9AAAAAAAA8AAA AAAAAPAAAAAAAADwAAAAAAAA8AAAAAAAAPAAAAAAAADwAAAAAAAA8AAAAAAAAPAAAAAAAAD9 AAAAAAAA+gAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEA AAAJAAAFAxHQAhOY/g8FAAHQAgAAAAICAAUDAAIAAAUDKLpCAAAkQwAAt0MAACNEAACORAAA 0EQAAEFFAADjRQAA5EUAAAtGAACTRgAAWEcAADhIAAAaSQAAL0oAAFBLAADQSwAAtUwAANxM AADdTAAAEE0AAOtNAAANTgAA2gAAAAAAANoAAAAAAADaAAAAAAAA1wAAAAAAANoAAAAAAADa AAAAAAAAuAAAAAAAALgAAAAAAACZAAAAAAAAuAAAAAAAALgAAAAAAAC4AAAAAAAAuAAAAAAA ALgAAAAAAAC4AAAAAAAAuAAAAAAAALgAAAAAAAC4AAAAAAAAuAAAAAAAAHsAAAAAAAC4AAAA AAAAuAAAAAAAAB0AAA0MDDQAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAB4CAAUDDQwMNAAAAAAAAAGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHgAABQMNDAw0AAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACAAAFAwAlAAAFAw0LEWgBE5j+DDT/ AQAIAAABgAAAAwBoAQAAAAAAAC0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADwUA AWgBAAAWDU4AADxPAABqTwAAklAAAKlQAAAzUgAAWVIAAEhTAABgUwAAL1UAAEhVAACuVgAA 4VYAAGZYAABnWAAAgVgAALZZAADQWQAA5FoAAF5cAADQXAAA4FwAAJFeAADqXwAAvGAAANVg AACBYgAAjWIAAEJkAABRZAAAPWUAAFRlAABmZQAAd2UAAINlAACWZQAAtGUAAN5lAADNZgAA 4QAAAAAAAOEAAAAAAADhAAAAAAAA4QAAAAAAAOEAAAAAAADhAAAAAAAA4QAAAAAAAOEAAAAA AADhAAAAAAAA4QAAAAAAAOEAAAAAAADhAAAAAAAA4QAAAAAAAOEAAAAAAADhAAAAAAAA4QAA AAAAAOEAAAAAAADhAAAAAAAA4QAAAAAAAOEAAAAAAADhAAAAAAAA4QAAAAAAAOEAAAAAAADh AAAAAAAA4QAAAAAAAOEAAAAAAADhAAAAAAAA4QAAAAAAAOEAAAAAAADhAAAAAAAA4QAAAAAA AOEAAAAAAADhAAAAAAAA4QAAAAAAAOEAAAAAAADhAAAAAAAA4QAAAAAAAOEAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHgAABQMNDAw0AAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACbNZgAAUGcAAIFnAACgZwAAzGcAACto AABBaAAAZ2oAAGhqAACNagAAL2sAAEhrAABYawAAYmwAAD5uAAAIbwAAJXAAADxwAAC5cgAA P3MAAFBzAACZcwAA53MAACt0AABAdAAAgXQAAAJ1AADxdQAA8nUAANoAAAAAAADaAAAAAAAA 2gAAAAAAANoAAAAAAADaAAAAAAAAuwAAAAAAALsAAAAAAAC7AAAAAAAAnAAAAAAAALsAAAAA AAC7AAAAAAAAuwAAAAAAALsAAAAAAAC7AAAAAAAAuwAAAAAAALsAAAAAAAC7AAAAAAAAuwAA AAAAALsAAAAAAAC7AAAAAAAAuwAAAAAAALsAAAAAAAC7AAAAAAAAuwAAAAAAALsAAAAAAAC7 AAAAAAAAuwAAAAAAALsAAAAAAAAeAgAFAw0MDDQAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAB4AAAUDDQwMNAAAAAAAAAGAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAJQAABQMNCxFoAROY/gw0/wEA CAAAAYAAAAMAaAEAAAAAAAAtAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA8FAAFo AQAAHPJ1AAAudgAAL3YAAE92AADCdwAA9HcAAD94AACBeAAAF3kAAGp6AABHewAASHsAAEl7 AAB7ewAACnwAAEp8AABlfAAA2nwAAEB9AAC0fQAA8n0AAC5+AACAfwAAgX8AAKx/AACtfwAA y38AABqAAABdgAAA4QAAAAAAAOEAAAAAAADhAAAAAAAA4QAAAAAAAOEAAAAAAADhAAAAAAAA 4QAAAAAAAOEAAAAAAADhAAAAAAAA4QAAAAAAAOEAAAAAAADhAAAAAAAAwgAAAAAAAOEAAAAA AACcAAAAAAAAnAAAAAAAAJwAAAAAAACcAAAAAAAAnAAAAAAAAJwAAAAAAACcAAAAAAAA4QAA AAAAAOEAAAAAAADhAAAAAAAA4QAAAAAAAOEAAAAAAADhAAAAAAAAnAAAAAAAACUAAAUDDQsR aAETmP4MNP8BAAgAAAGAAAADAGgBAAAAAAAALQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAPBQABaAEAAAAeAgAFAw0MDDQAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAB4AAAUDDQwMNAAAAAAAAAGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAcXYAAAIqAAADCgAAA8oAAAB2BAAAegQAA NoEAAFqBAACCgQAAo4EAANiBAAAZggAAsoMAALODAADSgwAAa4QAAPKGAAACiQAAA4kAACCJ AAB7igAAvo8AAIqRAAC6lQAApJYAAISZAACdmwAAmZ0AACmfAADHoAAAgKEAAH6mAADaAAAA AAAA2gAAAAAAANoAAAAAAADaAAAAAAAAuwAAAAAAALsAAAAAAAC7AAAAAAAA2gAAAAAAANoA AAAAAADaAAAAAAAA2gAAAAAAALsAAAAAAAC7AAAAAAAAuwAAAAAAALsAAAAAAAC7AAAAAAAA uwAAAAAAALsAAAAAAAC7AAAAAAAAuwAAAAAAALsAAAAAAAC7AAAAAAAAuwAAAAAAALsAAAAA AAC7AAAAAAAAuwAAAAAAALsAAAAAAAC7AAAAAAAAuwAAAAAAALsAAAAAAAC7AAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAeAAAFAw0MDDQAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACUAAAUDDQsRaAETmP4MNP8BAAgA AAGAAAADAGgBAAAAAAAALQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPBQABaAEA AB9+pgAAf6YAAJ6mAAC1qQAA5qoAANmsAAC9rQAAvq0AAL+tAADArQAAwa0AANatAAB1rwAA tLAAAHuyAAB8sgAAn7IAAF20AADytQAA+rUAAAy2AAAftgAALLYAADe2AADfAAAAAAAAwAAA AAAAAMAAAAAAAADAAAAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAMAAAAAAAADAAAAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAMAAAAAAAADA AAAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAMAAAAAAAADAAAAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAMAAAAAAAADAAAAAAAAAwAAAAAAA AMAAAAAAAAChAAAAAAAAgQAAAAAAAIEAAAAAAACBAAAAAAAAgQAAAAAAAAAfAAAFAw0MGAEM NAAAAAAAAAGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HgAABQINDAw0AAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAeAAAFAw0MDDQAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACAAAAUDDQwRaAEMNAAAAAAAAAGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAFze2AAA4tgAAObYAAEa2AABbtgAAYbYAAGK2 AABmtgAAm7cAAKG3AACitwAArLcAALe3AADBtwAAwrcAANC3AAD4twAAArgAAAO4AAAQuAAA LLgAAHS4AADDuAAAyrgAAMu4AADVuAAA3bgAAIq5AACQuQAAkbkAAKC5AACnuQAAr7kAALC5 AADgAAAAAAAAzgAAAAAAAOAAAAAAAADgAAAAAAAA4AAAAAAAAM4AAAAAAADgAAAAAAAA4AAA AAAAAOAAAAAAAADOAAAAAAAA4AAAAAAAAOAAAAAAAADgAAAAAAAAzgAAAAAAAOAAAAAAAADg AAAAAAAA4AAAAAAAAM4AAAAAAADgAAAAAAAA4AAAAAAAAOAAAAAAAADgAAAAAAAA4AAAAAAA AM4AAAAAAADgAAAAAAAA4AAAAAAAAOAAAAAAAADgAAAAAAAAzgAAAAAAAOAAAAAAAADgAAAA AAAA4AAAAAAAAM4AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAARAAAYARkBuGwAuwkACQAJAAkACQAJAL4KAAOU/3AIlh47JQAfAAAFAw0MGAEM NAAAAAAAAAGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAh sLkAALG5AAAYugAAGboAAHm6AACBugAAk7oAAKG6AACvugAAvboAAMe6AADVugAA4LoAAOG6 AADuugAA8boAAPW6AAD5ugAA/boAAOEAAAAAAADhAAAAAAAA4QAAAAAAAOEAAAAAAADCAAAA AAAAogAAAAAAAKIAAAAAAACiAAAAAAAAogAAAAAAAKIAAAAAAACiAAAAAAAAogAAAAAAAGkA AAAAAACiAAAAAAAAogAAAAAAAKIAAAAAAACiAAAAAAAAogAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOAAAGAEZ AbhsALvKAgAAygIAAAAAAAC+WAAHlP/2B9UMtBGTFnIbUSAwJQAAAAAAAMkCAAAAAAAAAADJ AgAAAAAAAAAAyQIAAAAAAAAAAMkCAAAAAAAAAADJAgAAAAAAAAAAyQIAAAAAAAAAAMkCAAAA HwAABQMNDBgBDDQAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAB4AAAUCDQwMNAAAAAAAAAGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHgAABQMNDAw0AAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABL9ugAAAbsAAAa7AAAHuwAADLsAAA67AAAQuwAA ErsAABS7AAAXuwAAGrsAABu7AAAluwAAKLsAACy7AAAwuwAANLsAADi7AAA9uwAAPrsAAEy7 AABQuwAAVLsAAFi7AABcuwAAYLsAAGS7AABluwAAdLsAAHa7AAB4uwAAersAAHy7AAB+uwAA gbsAAIK7AADgAAAAAAAA4AAAAAAAAMoAAAAAAADgAAAAAAAA4AAAAAAAAOAAAAAAAADgAAAA AAAA4AAAAAAAAOAAAAAAAADgAAAAAAAAygAAAAAAAOAAAAAAAADgAAAAAAAA4AAAAAAAAOAA AAAAAADgAAAAAAAA4AAAAAAAAOAAAAAAAADKAAAAAAAA4AAAAAAAAOAAAAAAAADgAAAAAAAA 4AAAAAAAAOAAAAAAAADgAAAAAAAA4AAAAAAAAMoAAAAAAADgAAAAAAAA4AAAAAAAAOAAAAAA AADgAAAAAAAA4AAAAAAAAOAAAAAAAADgAAAAAAAAygAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABUA ABgBGQG4bAC7ygIAAMoCAAAAAAAAvhIAB5T/9gfVDLQRkxZyG1EgMCUAHwAABQMNDBgBDDQA AAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAI4K7 AAAHvAAAl7wAAFG9AABSvQAAdb0AAFi+AACMwAAAKMEAADfCAABWxQAAncYAAH7HAAB/xwAA rMcAAKrIAACBywAAaswAAKvNAABBzgAAHc8AAGzPAABtzwAAo9AAAKTQAAC50AAA9NEAAETT AADY0wAA59QAAE/VAAD91QAA8tYAAMPYAADhAAAAAAAA4QAAAAAAAOEAAAAAAADhAAAAAAAA 4QAAAAAAAOEAAAAAAADhAAAAAAAA4QAAAAAAAOEAAAAAAADhAAAAAAAA4QAAAAAAAOEAAAAA AADhAAAAAAAA4QAAAAAAAOEAAAAAAADhAAAAAAAA4QAAAAAAAOEAAAAAAADhAAAAAAAA4QAA AAAAAOEAAAAAAADhAAAAAAAA4QAAAAAAAOEAAAAAAADhAAAAAAAA4QAAAAAAAOEAAAAAAADh AAAAAAAA4QAAAAAAALsAAAAAAAC7AAAAAAAA4QAAAAAAAOEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAJQAABQMN CxFoAROY/gw0/wEACAAAAYAAAAMAaAEAAAAAAAAtAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAA8FAAFoAQAAAB4AAAUDDQwMNAAAAAAAAAGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAhw9gAALHZAACy2QAAz9kAAELaAAB/2gAAydoAADHb AACe2wAA3tsAACHcAABE3AAARdwAAOrcAAAf3QAAIN0AAD3dAAC63QAA4N0AAGHeAAB13gAA ud4AACrfAACc3wAAvN8AAL3fAADW3wAAV+IAADbjAAD34wAAMOUAAKHmAADX5wAAdukAAOEA AAAAAADhAAAAAAAA4QAAAAAAAOEAAAAAAAC7AAAAAAAAuwAAAAAAALsAAAAAAAC7AAAAAAAA uwAAAAAAALsAAAAAAAC7AAAAAAAA4QAAAAAAAOEAAAAAAADhAAAAAAAA4QAAAAAAAOEAAAAA AADhAAAAAAAAuwAAAAAAALsAAAAAAAC7AAAAAAAAuwAAAAAAALsAAAAAAAC7AAAAAAAAuAAA AAAAALgAAAAAAAC4AAAAAAAAuAAAAAAAALgAAAAAAAC4AAAAAAAAuAAAAAAAALgAAAAAAAC4 AAAAAAAAuAAAAAAAAAACAAAFAwAlAAAFAw0LEWgBE5j+DDT/AQAIAAABgAAAAwBoAQAAAAAA AC0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADwUAAWgBAAAAHgAABQMNDAw0AAAA AAAAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACF26QAA d+kAAJ3pAABX6wAAWOsAAHfrAADc7QAATu8AAEPxAABE8QAAY/EAAG/xAADv8gAA8PIAABrz AADA8wAAOfUAADr1AABT9gAAVfYAAI/2AADe9gAA4fYAAC33AAA99wAAQPcAAIr3AADP9wAA 0PcAANH3AAAa+AAAXvgAAF/4AABg+AAAqfgAAO/4AAAa+QAAMvkAADP5AAB4+QAAt/kAAND5 AADR+QAAH/oAAGj6AAD9AAAAAAAA+gAAAAAAAPoAAAAAAAD6AAAAAAAA+gAAAAAAAPoAAAAA AAD6AAAAAAAA+gAAAAAAAPoAAAAAAAD6AAAAAAAA+gAAAAAAAPoAAAAAAAD6AAAAAAAA+gAA AAAAAPoAAAAAAAD6AAAAAAAA+gAAAAAAAPoAAAAAAAD6AAAAAAAA+gAAAAAAAPoAAAAAAAD6 AAAAAAAA+gAAAAAAAPQAAAAAAAD6AAAAAAAA+gAAAAAAAPoAAAAAAAD6AAAAAAAA+gAAAAAA APoAAAAAAAD6AAAAAAAA+gAAAAAAAPoAAAAAAAD6AAAAAAAA+gAAAAAAAPoAAAAAAAD6AAAA AAAA+gAAAAAAAPoAAAAAAAD6AAAAAAAA+gAAAAAAAPoAAAAAAAD6AAAAAAAA+gAAAAAAAAUA AAUDEUALE9ACAAIAAAUDAAIgAAUDLGj6AAB4+gAAefoAAID6AADE+gAABfsAAAb7AAAH+wAA T/sAAIj7AACJ+wAAivsAANH7AAAK/AAAC/wAAAz8AABW/AAApPwAAOb8AAAo/QAAbf0AALj9 AAC5/QAAuv0AAAD+AABe/gAAgf4AAMP+AAAN/wAAav8AAH7/AADM/wAAIwABADYAAQA3AAEA OAABAIcAAQDVAAEAAQEBAAIBAQAWAQEAYwEBAJIBAQCkAQEApQEBAP0AAAAAAAD9AAAAAAAA /QAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAD9AAAAAAAA/QAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAD9AAAAAAAA/QAAAAAAAP0AAAAA AAD9AAAAAAAA/QAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAD9AAAAAAAA/QAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAD9AAAAAAAA/QAA AAAAAP0AAAAAAAD9AAAAAAAA/QAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAD9AAAAAAAA/QAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAD9 AAAAAAAA/QAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAD9AAAAAAAA/QAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAD9AAAAAAAA/QAAAAAA AP0AAAAAAAD9AAAAAAAA/QAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAD9AAAAAAAA/QAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAD9AAAA AAAA+AAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAD9AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAFAxGwEwAAAgAABQMspQEBAPMB AQBMAgEAiQIBAKYCAQCnAgEAqAIBAPgCAQBDAwEARAMBAEUDAQCSAwEA5QMBABQEAQAVBAEA FgQBAGcEAQCxBAEAtQQBALYEAQAGBQEAUQUBAH0FAQDPBQEA0QUBAB8GAQBiBgEAYwYBAGQG AQC0BgEA7QYBAO4GAQABBwEAUwcBAGwHAQBtBwEAwwcBANYHAQDXBwEA2AcBACwIAQAtCAEA kQgBANEIAQD/CAEAAQkBAP0AAAAAAAD9AAAAAAAA/QAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAD9AAAAAAAA/QAA AAAAAP0AAAAAAAD9AAAAAAAA/QAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAD9AAAAAAAA/QAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAD9 AAAAAAAA/QAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAD9AAAAAAAA/QAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAD9AAAAAAAA/QAAAAAA AP0AAAAAAAD9AAAAAAAA/QAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAD9AAAAAAAA/QAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAD9AAAA AAAA/QAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAD9AAAAAAAA/QAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAD9AAAAAAAA/QAAAAAAAP0A AAAAAAD9AAAAAAAA/QAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAD9AAAAAAAA/QAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAD9AAAAAAAA /QAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACAAAFAy0BCQEARAoBAEUKAQBjCgEAygsBAMsLAQACDQEAAw0BAAgO AQAJDgEAzA8BAOYPAQDnDwEA9w8BAIQQAQBxEgEA5BIBAC8TAQAwEwEAShMBAFcTAQCNEwEA xhMBAHYUAQCRFAEAChUBACQVAQDFFQEA5RUBABcWAQAYFgEAKxYBAFsWAQA6FwEAnxcBAOMX AQDkFwEABRgBADsYAQD9AAAAAAAA/QAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAD9AAAAAAAA/QAAAAAAAP0AAAAA AAD9AAAAAAAA/QAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAD9AAAAAAAA/QAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAD6AAAAAAAA/QAA AAAAAP0AAAAAAAD9AAAAAAAA/QAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAD9AAAAAAAA/QAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAD9 AAAAAAAA/QAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAD9AAAAAAAA/QAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAD9AAAAAAAA/QAAAAAA AP0AAAAAAAD9AAAAAAAA/QAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAADUAAAAAAAA1AAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAD9AAAA AAAA/QAAAAAAAAAAJQAABQMNChHBAhM//Qw0AAABCAAAAYAAAAIAwQIAAAAAAAAuAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA8FAAHBAgAAAAICAAUDAAIAAAUDJjsYAQBEGQEA nRkBAPEZAQDyGQEAGhoBADAaAQCFGgEAnxoBADYbAQBQGwEAohsBANMbAQDPHAEA4BwBANUd AQDWHQEA6h0BAMEeAQDiHgEA4x4BAK4fAQCvHwEAxB8BAMUfAQDaAAAAAAAAtAAAAAAAALQA AAAAAACVAAAAAAAAlQAAAAAAAJUAAAAAAACVAAAAAAAAlQAAAAAAAJUAAAAAAAC0AAAAAAAA lQAAAAAAALQAAAAAAACVAAAAAAAAtAAAAAAAAJIAAAAAAACSAAAAAAAAkgAAAAAAAJIAAAAA AACSAAAAAAAAkgAAAAAAAJIAAAAAAACSAAAAAAAAiAAAAAAAAJIAAAAAAAAAAAAACQAABQMR QAsTmP4PBQABQAsAAAACAAAFAwAeAAAFAw0MDDQAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACUAAAUDDQoRwQITP/0MNAAAAQgAAAGAAAAC AMECAAAAAAAALgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPBQABwQIAAAAlAAAF Aw0KEcECEz/9DDQAAAEIAAABgAAAAQDBAgAAAAAAAC4AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAADwUAAcECAAAYxR8BANsfAQDcHwEA9B8BAPYAAAAAAADzAAAAAAAA9gAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAgAABQMACQAABQMRQAsTmP4PBQABQAsAAAMOACQACAABAEsA DwAAAAAAGgAAQPH/AgAaAAZOb3JtYWwAAgAAAAMAYRkEADQAAUABAAIANAAJSGVhZGluZyAx AAAPAAEACAEJARFuBBV4ABZ4AAALAFWBXQIAYQkEYxwAACoAAkABAAIAKgAJSGVhZGluZyAy AAAGAAIABQEIAQsAVYFdAgBhCQhjGAAAKgADQAEAAgAqAAlIZWFkaW5nIDMAAAYAAwAFAQgB CwBVgV0CAGEJCGMWAAAyAARAAQACADIACUhlYWRpbmcgNAAADQAEAAgBEaUGFTwAFjwAAAsA VYFdAgBhCQRjFgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACIAQUDy/6EAIgAWRGVmYXVsdCBQYXJhZ3JhcGggRm9u dAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGgD+T6IA8QAaAAlIeXBlcmxpbmsAAAQAXgFiAiYAPkABAAIBJgAFVGl0 bGUAAAYAEAAFAQkBCwBVgV0CAGEQBGMcAAAkAEpAAQASASQACFN1YnRpdGxlAAQAEQAFAwkA XQIAYRAEYxgAACYAQkABACIBJgAJQm9keSBUZXh0AAAEABIABQMJAF0CAGEJCGMYAAAeAP5P AQAyAR4AClBsYWluIFRleHQAAgATAAMAXQMAADAA/k/x/0IBMAAITm9ybWFsIFIAFAAUAAUD BwEQOQARjQEVKAAWKAAsAQYAYRkEYxYAIgD+TwEAAgAiAAJIMQAKABUACAEVZAAWZAAIAFWB YzAAayQAHAATQAEAAgAcAAVUT0MgMQAAAgAWAAUAVYFjGAAAGgAUQAEAAgAaAAVUT0MgMgAA BQAXABHIAAAAABoAFUABAAIAGgAFVE9DIDMAAAUAGAARkAEAAAAcABZAAQACABwABVRPQyA0 AAAFABkAEVgCAAIAVYEaABdAAQACABoABVRPQyA1AAAFABoAESADAAAAGgAYQAEAAgAaAAVU T0MgNgAABQAbABHoAwAAABoAGUABAAIAGgAFVE9DIDcAAAUAHAARsAQAAAAaABpAAQACABoA BVRPQyA4AAAFAB0AEXgFAAAAGgAbQAEAAgAaAAVUT0MgOQAABQAeABFABgAAABoA/k+iAPEB GgAJSHlwZXJsaW5rAAAEAF4BYgIeAP5PAQACAh4AClBsYWluIFRleHQAAgAgAAMAXQMAACAA H0ABABICIAAGSGVhZGVyAAwAIQAPCAACORByIAECAAAgACBAAQAiAiAABkZvb3RlcgAMACIA DwgAAjkQciABAgAAGAApQKIAMQIYAAtQYWdlIE51bWJlcgAAAAAAAAAA9BwBAAMAACABAAEA /////wADAACLJQAA0oMAAGPxAAAiIAEAkQCSAJMAlAAAAwAA+wgAAHIPAAAZIgAA1iwAALpC AAANTgAAzWYAAPJ1AABdgAAAfqYAADe2AACwuQAA/boAAIK7AADD2AAAdukAAGj6AAClAQEA AQkBADsYAQDFHwEA9B8BAJUAlgCXAJgAmQCaAJsAnACdAJ4AnwCgAKEAogCjAKQApQCmAKcA qACpAKoAKAAAADcAAACxBwAA9BwBABMNlP+VjA8ADF9IbHQxOTk0NDYzMUAAAAD2HAEAAAAA AEEAAAD2HAEA/0BDABUSkAEAAFRpbWVzIE5ldyBSb21hbgAMEJABAgBTeW1ib2wACyKQAQAA QXJpYWwAETGQAQAAQ291cmllciBOZXcAIgAEAAAAgBgA8NACAABoAQAAAAA5g2km04ppRmaE aSYBAAAAAAA4KQAA9uoAAAEAeAAAAAQAgxD1AQAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAEAAAABAAAAAAAAAAAA APAQACEAAAAHSGkgYWxsPwAAAAN1YjUDdWI1AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAAgAAAAMAAAAEAAAABQAAAAYAAAAHAAAACAAAAAkAAAAKAAAA CwAAAAwAAAANAAAADgAAAA8AAAAQAAAAEQAAABIAAAATAAAAFAAAABUAAAAWAAAAFwAAABgA AAAZAAAAGgAAABsAAAAcAAAAHQAAAB4AAAAfAAAAIAAAACEAAAAiAAAAIwAAACQAAAAlAAAA JgAAACcAAAAoAAAAKQAAACoAAAArAAAALAAAAC0AAAAuAAAALwAAADAAAAAxAAAAMgAAADMA AAA0AAAANQAAADYAAAA3AAAAOAAAADkAAAA6AAAAOwAAADwAAAA9AAAAPgAAAD8AAABAAAAA QQAAAEIAAABDAAAARAAAAEUAAABGAAAARwAAAEgAAABJAAAASgAAAEsAAABMAAAATQAAAE4A AABPAAAAUAAAAFEAAABSAAAAUwAAAFQAAABVAAAAVgAAAFcAAABYAAAAWQAAAFoAAABbAAAA XAAAAF0AAABeAAAAXwAAAGAAAABhAAAAYgAAAGMAAABkAAAAZQAAAGYAAABnAAAAaAAAAGkA AABqAAAAawAAAGwAAABtAAAAbgAAAG8AAABwAAAAcQAAAHIAAABzAAAAdAAAAHUAAAB2AAAA dwAAAHgAAAB5AAAAegAAAHsAAAB8AAAAfQAAAH4AAAB/AAAAgAAAAIEAAACCAAAAgwAAAIQA AACFAAAAhgAAAIcAAACIAAAAiQAAAIoAAACLAAAAjAAAAI0AAACOAAAAjwAAAJAAAACRAAAA kgAAAJMAAACUAAAAlQAAAJYAAACXAAAAmAAAAJkAAACaAAAAmwAAAJwAAACdAAAAngAAAJ8A AACgAAAAoQAAAKIAAACjAAAApAAAAKUAAACmAAAApwAAAKgAAACpAAAAqgAAAKsAAACsAAAA rQAAAP7////9/////f///7MAAAD+////uwAAAP7///////////////////////////////// /////////v////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ////////////////UgBvAG8AdAAgAEUAbgB0AHIAeQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABYABQH//////////wEAAAAACQIAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABG AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIGCvkxpewgGyAAAAQAMAAAAAAABXAG8AcgBkAEQAbwBjAHUAbQBlAG4A dAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGgACAQIAAAADAAAA /////wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAB1WwEAAAAAAAEA QwBvAG0AcABPAGIAagAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAASAAIB////////////////AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAGoAAAAAAAAABQBTAHUAbQBtAGEAcgB5AEkAbgBmAG8AcgBtAGEAdABpAG8A bgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACgAAgH/////BAAAAP////8AAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACAAAAsAEAAAAAAAABAAAA/v///wMAAAAEAAAA BQAAAAYAAAAHAAAACAAAAP7///8KAAAACwAAAAwAAAD+//////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// /////////////wEA/v8DCgAA/////wAJAgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYYAAAATWljcm9zb2Z0IFdv cmQgRG9jdW1lbnQACgAAAE1TV29yZERvYwAQAAAAV29yZC5Eb2N1bWVudC42APQ5snEAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/v8AAAQKAgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AQAAAOCFn/L5T2gQq5EIACsns9kwAAAAgAEAABIAAAABAAAAmAAAAAIAAACgAAAAAwAAALAA AAAEAAAAvAAAAAUAAADIAAAABgAAANQAAAAHAAAA4AAAAAgAAADwAAAACQAAAPwAAAASAAAA CAEAAAoAAAAwAQAACwAAADwBAAAMAAAASAEAAA0AAABUAQAADgAAAGABAAAPAAAAaAEAABAA AABwAQAAEwAAAHgBAAACAAAA4wQAAB4AAAAIAAAASGkgYWxsPwAeAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAeAAAA BAAAAHViNQAeAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAeAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAeAAAABwAAAE5vcm1hbAAAHgAAAAQA AAB1YjUAHgAAAAIAAAAxAEEAHgAAAB4AAABNaWNyb3NvZnQgV29yZCBmb3IgV2luZG93cyA5 NQD//0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAAAArO1Fhl3CAUAAAAAA1pUEBQBEAG8AYwB1AG0AZQBuAHQA UwB1AG0AbQBhAHIAeQBJAG4AZgBvAHIAbQBhAHQAaQBvAG4AAAAAAAAAAAAAADgAAgD///// //////////8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAJAAAAxAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP///////////////wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA////////////////AAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAD///////////////8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAABAP7/AwoAAP////8GCQIAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGGAAAAMTu6vPs5e3yIE1pY3Jv c29mdCBXb3JkAAoAAABNU1dvcmREb2MAEAAAAFdvcmQuRG9jdW1lbnQuOAD0ObJxAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAB0AAAAAgAAAOMEAAAeAAAAAgAAACAAQQADAAAA9QEAAAMAAAB4AAAACwAAAAAA AAALAAAAAAAAAAwQAAACAAAAHgAAAAgAAABIaSBhbGw/AAMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAF9dwgFAAAAAAMo+fhpewgEDAAAAAQAAAAMA AAA4KQAAAwAAAPbqAAADAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD+/wAABAoCAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAABAAAAAtXN1ZwuGxCTlwgAKyz5rjAAAACUAAAABwAAAAEAAABAAAAADwAAAEgA AAAFAAAAVAAAAAYAAABcAAAACwAAAGQAAAAQAAAAbAAAAAwAAAB0AAAAAgAAAOMEAAAeAAAA AgAAACAAQQADAAAA9QEAAAMAAAB4AAAACwAAAAAAAAALAAAAAAAAAAwQAAACAAAAHgAAAAgA AABIaSBhbGw/AAMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA --------------70280B0355D87F995DF86370-- From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Sep 17 23:37:30 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 08:37:30 +1000 Subject: [blml] not shuffled Message-ID: A. Kooijman wrote: >Hello all of you after six weeks of silence and even >absence from my side. Montreal, you know? > >No main disaster in the finals pairs this time. But >so many USA pairs playing that they needed four of >the five sessions to play each other. And then one >pair didn't show up, so the first non qualifier >dropped in when play started, being a USA-pair that >now just played USA pairs in the last session. > >We started discussing the laws there, aimed on a new >version in a couple of years. I am planning to use my >contribution to this forum more and more for this task, >interested in opinions concerning the improvement of >the laws. > >In my opinion law 76 B should express that spectators >should not draw attention to an irregularity in such a >way that the players involved in that irregularity >become aware of it during play. > >But there is a 'higher' principle than this one: the >result on a board and a match or event should as much >as possible be based on the legal play of the boards. >No result on a board should be maintained if an >irregularity occurred by which the result has been >influenced. (Of course subject to time limits as >described in the regulations for that event). This >principle even asks a spectator to inform the TD when >an unnoticed irregularity has ocurred. We have discussed >the case of an unnoticed revoke before. A contestant >should not gain from a revoke made by his side. I can >understand the objection that a contestant has to plead >his own case to get redress and I am even willing to >accept that approach. In that case the revoke that went >unnoticed will lead to a score adjustment for the >revoking side and not for the opponents. I have a hobby-horse that L72B3 should be reversed in the next edition of the Laws. Ton's proposal of a split score is an interesting modification of the reversal idea. A. Kooijman continued: >But we can not ask a player to notice an unshuffled >board when he didn't play it before. > >May I humbly ask you to aim your reactions on the next >edition of our law book. So let us not be lost in >details for the moment. > >And yes, I too am quite surprised that the players who >did play the board before didn't become aware of that. > >ton From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Sep 18 00:02:42 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 09:02:42 +1000 Subject: [blml] Wot {sic} happened? Message-ID: David Stevenson wrote: [snip] >>Anyway, I have finally guessed what to do and the >>result seems to be that BLML messages from Richard >>Hills are lying about all over my machine, but all >>other BLML messages are threading. Why is your >>address for posting different, Richard? Henk wrote: [snip] >ps. There is a problem with postings that don't have >blml@rtlfb.org in the To: or Cc: field. Working on >this. Aha! My firewall idiosyncratically puts the non- existent address blml@rtflb.org.gov.au in my To: field, thus ruining David's threading. Hope Henk can fix this. Best wishes Richard PS If Alain or Ton use the "Reply to all" option when responding to one of my postings, I receive their posting but (because of the non-existent address in my To: field) the rest of blml does *not* receive their posting. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Sep 18 00:23:48 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 19:23:48 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] RE: VP scale formulas (was VP scale for 72 boards) Message-ID: <200209172323.TAA27804@cfa183.harvard.edu> > From: Adam Wildavsky > IMP Margin Winner VPs Loser > 0 15.00 15.00 > 28 26.69 3.31 This scale seems to produce smaller spreads than the current scale, but as far as I can tell, it doesn't matter because _all_ spreads will be smaller in proportion. If people care, we can play for 30 or 40 VP instead of 20. Actually, it might be nice if the first IMP was exactly 1 VP, but this is an aesthetic rather than a substantive choice. Or am I missing something? From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Sep 18 00:34:30 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 09:34:30 +1000 Subject: [blml] VP scale for 72 boards. Message-ID: Marv wrote: >Henry Bethe has offered to the ACBL Competitions & >Conventions committee four options concerning the >current 10-10 to 20-0 VP scale that is in use. [big snip] Suggest a fifth option; adopt the WBF 15-15 to 25-0 vp scale. The WBF scale is mathematically equivalent to a 10-10 to 20-0 vp scale with an extension to 20 to -5 vps. (The WBF merely added 5 vps to both sides of the scale to avoid the aesthetic inconvenience of negative numbers.) The idea behind a losing extension (5 vps to 0 vps for the losing side, while the winning side is capped at 25 vps) is to encourage a team which is getting annihilated to continue to "play bridge". "Tradition" may be a great song in Fiddler on the Roof, but does the ACBL have any other reason for using a 20-0 vp scale instead of the WBF vp scale? Best wishes Richard From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Sep 18 00:44:06 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 19:44:06 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] not shuffled Message-ID: <200209172344.TAA27921@cfa183.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > A. Kooijman wrote: I didn't see Ton's original post and in fact haven't seen anything from him since Montreal. If anyone can tell whether it's a list problem or my setup problem, please email me privately. (I am using a generic email program, nothing fancy.) I do see the problem Richard mentions in the To: field. > >version in a couple of years. I am planning to use my > >contribution to this forum more and more for this task, > >interested in opinions concerning the improvement of > >the laws. You may get more opinions than you can imagine. :-) In all seriousness, if you are willing to listen, I am sure we spectators will be willing to state our views. > >In my opinion law 76 B should express that spectators > >should not draw attention to an irregularity in such a > >way that the players involved in that irregularity > >become aware of it during play. OK, here's an opinion. What do you mean by "during play?" If you mean during the round, or perhaps even during the session, you probably can enforce a rule keeping spectators quiet. However, once the session is over, there is bound to be conversation between spectators and players (unless you manage to separate them, which is probably socially unacceptable in most events). You cannot expect to prevent spectators from pointing out irregularities then. Personally, I think that's just fine, but no doubt others will disagree. From David Stevenson Wed Sep 18 01:21:14 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 01:21:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Wot {sic} happened? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) writes >On Tue, 17 Sep 2002, David Stevenson wrote: > >> >> I go away for a few days and return to find my computer littered with >> emails with BLML in the title. The mailing list seems to have gone mad. >> I cannot find any instructions on what to do. > >1. Did you read BLML in digest mode before? No, never. >2. Can you please send me the HEADERS of one of the messages that you > received more than once. This should look something like; I did not say I received them more than once. I have never had a BLML email in my mailboxes before: there is a perfectly good newsstand for them. >3. As far as I can see, you are on the list once. Never suggested otherwise. That does not help in reading them. >> So can I post? Have you read this? > >Yes, I have read this. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Sep 18 04:47:34 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 13:47:34 +1000 Subject: [blml] TD Code Message-ID: Vitold wrote: [big snip] >Art. 21. Approach to the Table > >When the TD approaches a table to make a ruling he is >directly representing the Sponsoring Organization and >displaying his own abilities and knowledge. > >The TD should be aware of the noise level and emotional >content. Many times one can hear a situation >developing and can be in the vicinity even before >called. If one is on top of these incidents it will >keep the event quieter, less tense and moving more >easily. The TD should not get involved talking with >players or friends so that he must be called two >or three times before the players concerned can get >his attention. If this is allowed to happen the players >are probably irritated even before the table is >reached: ill-feeling can be caused. The sooner TD gets >to the table, the less time there will be for an >explosive situation to develop. > >As soon as a call is heard, the TD should locate the >area and acknowledge. This will stop more follow-up >calls and consequent irritation and noise. If he cannot >locate the call, he should ask "Who called?". When they >raise their hand, he should acknowledge and proceed. The >TD should approach the table as smoothly as possible >without disturbing the rest of the players. This may >necessitate taking detours to avoid pushing in the backs >of other players or otherwise disturbing them. Such >consideration helps to avoid annoyance. [big snip] I strongly applaud Vitold for this Art. 21. The current Laws merely mention the TD's *legal* duties and powers. I believe that of equal importance is a TD's manner and approach in dealing with social and psychological issues. For example, I occasionally play in a session directed by a competent but irritating TD - she unfortunately is mostly lacking the "doctor's bedside manner" recommended by Vitold. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Sep 18 05:21:52 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 14:21:52 +1000 Subject: [blml] not shuffled Message-ID: Grattan wrote: >>>+=+ " At any time when a comparison of scores is allowed >>>a non-playing Captain may draw his players' attention to his >>>observation of an infraction but he is bound as a spectator by >>>Law 76B until that time." >>> [WBF General Conditions of Contest] +=+ Ben wrote: >>Continuation: >>In Montreal the NPC and the other spectator remained >>mute and the players realized the unshuffled board before >>play ended. The TD ordered the board redealt. >> >>But in case the NPC draws attention to the unshuffled >>board when the comparison of scores starts, he has to >>stop the comparison in order to give the TD the opportunity >>to apply Law86C. Grattan wrote: >+=+ Too late for 86C - at this stage one or more of the >players *could* know the result without that board. The >board is null - the facts make it null whether the Director >is aware of them or not, he only has to confirm as much >when he learns of it. ~ G ~ +=+ Another issue. Does L72B3 apply to the non-playing captain? That is, can the non-playing captain *remain* mute at comparison of scores if their team is the infracting team? Or, since the non-playing captain cannot telepathically *know* whether the infraction has met the "inadvertent" requirement of L72B3, is the non-playing captain *obliged* to summon the TD at score-up time because of L72A? Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Sep 18 07:05:27 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 16:05:27 +1000 Subject: [blml] L81C6 (was TD Code) Message-ID: Vitold wrote: [big snip] >Art. 27. Irregularity not Noticed by Players > >When called to the table to sort out one problem, a >TD may notice a quite separate one. Though duty-bound >to deal with any irregularity that may arise, a TD >will be unwilling to remedy a damage that was not >claimed and will do so only if it is obvious. Disagree. However, I am not opposed in principle to Vitold's suggestions about the appropriate application of L81C6. I merely believe that a number of Vitold's practical ideas are currently illegal under a literal reading of L81C6. I suspect that Vitold and I would both agree that L81C6 should be amended in the 2007 edition of the Laws. My detailed commentaries on Vitold's practical ideas are attached below. Best wishes Richard >The more complex case - TD notices irregularity but >was not called to the table at all. If such an >irregularity is disciplinary (loud discussion about >played board, start of quarrel or similar) or >procedural (for example, TD has possibility to >realize that a table is playing a wrong board, or >the players at a table are not the players who >should play there, or a table in a teams match >is playing a board with the NS/EW directions >reversed, or even - an experienced player with >inexperienced opponents is ruling on a irregularity >himself), Why not any player with any opponent? >- TD must interfere immediately. But if such an >irregularity has pure bridge character (revoke, or >MI, or LOOT etc.) and players did not notice it - >there should be made several steps: > >1. Before usage of L81C6 TD must be absolutely sure >that there was infraction. Agreed. >Even in such a case TD should not interfere before >board would be finished: Partially disagree. For some irregularities the recommended TD action is to rule "play the board, and call me back if damage has occurred." So for those *particular* irregularities, immediate TD intervention is superfluous. But other irregularities are time-sensitive, a literal reading of L81C6 gives a TD no option but to intervene when a time-sensitive irregularity has occurred. >players should have their chance for notice the >irregularity and call the TD. > >2. In case of not being called TD should consider >two possibilities: (a) NOS had no ability nor >possibility to notice this infraction (they are weak, >non-experience pair Disagree. In my opinion, ability of pairs is irrelevant. *If* an interpretation of L81C6 allows a TD to intervene on behalf of non-experienced pairs in a particular situation, *then* the TD should also use L81C6 to intervene on behalf of experienced pairs in an *identical* particular situation. >or infraction was hidden by OS's action from even >experienced pair) and (b) NOS had ability and >possibility to notice the infraction but failed to do. > >3. In case (a) if there was damage - there should >be restore "equity", and both pairs should be >informed about the decision (for possible appealing). > >4. In case (b) the NOS result should stand and OS >result should be adjust Disagree. In my opinion, L81C6 in and of itself does not permit split scores. (Of course, if L81C6 points to L12C2 or L12C3, then a split score may be awarded; but such a split score would have to be consistent with L12C2 or L12C3 requirements.) >- any benefit (consequent and subsequent) should be >taken off, and again both pair should be >informed about the decision (for possible appealing) > >5. There should be no other penalty for such infraction, >unnoticed by players. Partially disagree. Penalties are possible for certain infractions where the relevant law mentions "could have known", for example L73F2. >For noticing as much irregularities as it is possible >TD should be present inside playing area all the time >during the session and continuously pay his attention >to all happenings (so called - "active TD-ship"). That's >why the playing area (especially in pair contest) should >not exceed 14-16 tables per 1 TD. Agree with caveat. Maximum number of tables varies with competence of TD and competence/ethics of players. Amount of "activity" needed in TD-ship also varies with competence/ethics/speed of players. [big snip] From henk@ripe.net Wed Sep 18 08:14:09 2002 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 09:14:09 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] Wot {sic} happened? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, David Stevenson wrote: > Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) writes > >On Tue, 17 Sep 2002, David Stevenson wrote: > > > >> > >> I go away for a few days and return to find my computer littered with > >> emails with BLML in the title. The mailing list seems to have gone mad. > >> I cannot find any instructions on what to do. > > > >1. Did you read BLML in digest mode before? > > No, never. > > >2. Can you please send me the HEADERS of one of the messages that you > > received more than once. This should look something like; > > I did not say I received them more than once. I have never had a BLML > email in my mailboxes before: there is a perfectly good newsstand for > them. So where did you read them then? > >3. As far as I can see, you are on the list once. > > Never suggested otherwise. That does not help in reading them. > > >> So can I post? Have you read this? > > > >Yes, I have read this. > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) From henk@ripe.net Wed Sep 18 08:16:00 2002 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 09:16:00 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] Wot {sic} happened? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 18 Sep 2002 richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Aha! My firewall idiosyncratically puts the non- existent address > > blml@rtflb.org.gov.au > > in my To: field, thus ruining David's threading. > > Hope Henk can fix this. No, sorry, blml@rtflb.org.gov.au _IS_ a valid address even though it doesn't exist, so it will pass all filters. I think you better fix your firewall. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) From normanscorbie@hotmail.com Wed Sep 18 10:00:03 2002 From: normanscorbie@hotmail.com (Norman Scorbie) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 09:00:03 +0000 Subject: [blml] Wot {sic} happened? Message-ID: > >On Tue, 17 Sep 2002, David Stevenson wrote: > > > >> > >> I go away for a few days and return to find my computer littered with > >> emails with BLML in the title. The mailing list seems to have gone >mad. > >> I cannot find any instructions on what to do. > > > >1. Did you read BLML in digest mode before? > > No, never. > > >2. Can you please send me the HEADERS of one of the messages that you > > received more than once. This should look something like; > > I did not say I received them more than once. I have never had a BLML >email in my mailboxes before: there is a perfectly good newsstand for >them. Is it possible that it's something blindingly obvious? Perhaps your e-mail address has crept into one of the recipient fields. Norman. _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Sep 18 13:06:30 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 08:06:30 -0400 Subject: [blml] Wot {sic} happened? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20020918080237.00b9d530@pop.starpower.net> At 07:02 PM 9/17/02, richard.hills wrote: >PS If Alain or Ton use the "Reply to all" option >when responding to one of my postings, I receive >their posting but (because of the non-existent >address in my To: field) the rest of blml does >*not* receive their posting. Perhaps that explains why the previous message I got from Richard replied to a post of Ton's that I had not received. Perhaps Alain and Ton could repost any messages that may have gone down that particular drain? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Sep 18 16:03:57 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 11:03:57 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] L81C6 (was TD Code) Message-ID: <200209181503.LAA03590@cfa183.harvard.edu> Alas, I haven't had time to read the original yet, so I'm commenting on Richard's excerpt. > Vitold wrote: > >When called to the table to sort out one problem, a > >TD may notice a quite separate one. Though duty-bound > >to deal with any irregularity that may arise, a TD > >will be unwilling to remedy a damage that was not > >claimed and will do so only if it is obvious. I'm not sure whether there's a substantive problem here or just a question about wording. I think we all agree that, for example, when a TD is called for virtually any irregularity, there may well be UI issues to deal with. The classic example is MI, where there is obviously UI as well, and the TD should deal with both. In general, it is the players' duty to make the facts known to the TD but the TD's duty to deal with all legal and bridge judgment issues arising from those facts. (Do we all agree here?) So if "quite separate" refers to facts unrelated to the original irregularity (say dummy has a card pointed the wrong way), the guide is OK, but it shouldn't be understood as saying that players have to know all the laws and point out exactly how damage occurred. On the other hand, are there some facts that the TD should point out? Suppose, ruling on an infraction during play, the TD happens to notice that dummy has a heart mixed in with his diamonds. This will undoubtedly lead to problems later. Is there a case to be made that the TD should point out the infraction? From adam@tameware.com Wed Sep 18 16:06:06 2002 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 11:06:06 -0400 Subject: [blml] VP scale formulas (was VP scale for 72 boards.) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >Marv wrote: > >>Henry Bethe has offered to the ACBL Competitions & >>Conventions committee four options concerning the >>current 10-10 to 20-0 VP scale that is in use. > >[big snip] > >Suggest a fifth option; adopt the WBF 15-15 to >25-0 vp scale. ... >"Tradition" may be a great song in Fiddler on the >Roof, but does the ACBL have any other reason for >using a 20-0 vp scale instead of the WBF vp scale? Henry Bethe addresses this issue without any asymmetry. Henry's proposed formula is intended to be superior to both the ACBL scale and the WBF scale, at least in certain respects. There are at least three major advantages. One is that every IMP counts for something, so there's no such thing as pippage, which tends to randomize results. Another is that the scale falls off consistently, so that each IMP is worth about 5% less than the previous IMP. Another is that there's no arbitrary cutoff at the top of the scale. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From adam@tameware.com Wed Sep 18 16:12:41 2002 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 11:12:41 -0400 Subject: [blml] RE: VP scale formulas In-Reply-To: <200209172323.TAA27804@cfa183.harvard.edu> References: <200209172323.TAA27804@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: At 7:23 PM -0400 9/17/02, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Adam Wildavsky >> IMP Margin Winner VPs Loser >> 0 15.00 15.00 >> 28 26.69 3.31 > >This scale seems to produce smaller spreads than the current scale, but >as far as I can tell, it doesn't matter because _all_ spreads will be >smaller in proportion. Correct. In order to score a full 30-0 win a team would need an infinite number of IMPs. >If people care, we can play for 30 or 40 VP instead of 20. One proposal, currently in favor, is to play for 200 VP, with the VPs rounded to the nearest integer. I prefer a fractional scale, but the 200 VP scale still seems superior to the current scales in use. >Actually, it might be nice if the first IMP was exactly 1 VP, but >this is an aesthetic rather than a substantive choice. I like that! One disadvantage is that the VP average would be different for different match lengths, but that will be true in other methods as well. The 200 VP integral scale, for instance, does not provide enough resolution for long matches -- they'd need to use a 400 or even 2000 VP scale to ensure that every IMP counts. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Sep 18 18:43:44 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 10:43:44 -0700 Subject: [blml] Wot {sic} happened? References: Message-ID: <002801c25f3a$f5c3ffc0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Henk Uijterwaal > Richard Hills wrote: > > > Aha! My firewall idiosyncratically puts the non- existent > > address > > > > blml@rtflb.org.gov.au > > > > in my To: field, thus ruining David's threading. > > > > Hope Henk can fix this. > > No, sorry, blml@rtflb.org.gov.au _IS_ a valid address even though > it doesn't exist, so it will pass all filters. I think you better > fix your firewall. > Please do this, Richard. I use "Reply All" in Outlook Express, deleting all but BLML in the To line. Except for you. For you I must delete everthing and type in the BLML address, which is a nuisance. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Sep 18 18:48:02 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 13:48:02 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Las Vegas Case Thirty-Seven In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020913182419.00accc80@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On 9/13/02, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >System notes act ia the same way : they help you making your case when >confronted with a MI problem. If you don't have any, too bad for you. I suppose it depends what is meant by "too bad for you". Some here seem to think it means, or should mean "no system notes, we rule against you". If, instead, it means that lack of system notes simply means that you have not supplied one bit of evidence that you *could* have supplied, but that *all* evidence available will be considered, well, that's a different story, and I'd have no problem with it then. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Sep 18 19:00:04 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 14:00:04 -0400 Subject: [blml] Lucy. In-Reply-To: <000901c25be0$852cc1a0$fe2127d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: On 9/14/02, David Burn wrote: >it is a good idea to know the rules of a game before you >play it. I have been playing bridge, rubber and duplicate, off and on for some 40 years. One of the reasons I subscribed to this list is that I discovered there's a lot more to the rules of this game than I had thought in reading TFLB. Not to mention the myriad of regulations promulgated by various bodies, some of which I daresay are not available (at least in the ACBL) to the average player. Maybe I should just give up the game. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Sep 18 19:08:03 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 14:08:03 -0400 Subject: [blml] Lucy. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 9/14/02, Gordon Bower wrote: >The other problem is the one that actually DOES arise. Players say the >agree to the CoC assuming they are agreeing to a reasonable, sensible >policy Seems simple enough to me. I walk into a tournament, ask to buy an entry, and the person selling entries hands me a form to sign which says "I agree to the conditions of contest for this tournament." My answer: "where may I find a copy of these conditions?" If the tournament cannot provide them, I will not sign the form. If that refusal results in my not being able to play, so be it - but I will complain to whatever powers may be necessary about the inadequacy of preparation for this tournament by its sponsors, and the waste of my time and effort in attempting to play in it. Ultimately, if this happens again, I am likely to quit playing tournament bridge altogether. I don't think I'm alone in this. From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Sep 18 19:05:57 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 11:05:57 -0700 Subject: [blml] VP scale formulas (was VP scale for 72 boards.) References: Message-ID: <004d01c25f3e$6ceede00$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Adam Wildavsky" > >Marv wrote: > > > >>Henry Bethe has offered to the ACBL Competitions & > >>Conventions committee four options concerning the > >>current 10-10 to 20-0 VP scale that is in use. > > > >[big snip] Richard Hills wrote: > >Suggest a fifth option; adopt the WBF 15-15 to > >25-0 vp scale. > > >"Tradition" may be a great song in Fiddler on the > >Roof, but does the ACBL have any other reason for > >using a 20-0 vp scale instead of the WBF vp scale? > > Henry Bethe addresses this issue without any asymmetry. Henry's > proposed formula is intended to be superior to both the ACBL scale > and the WBF scale, at least in certain respects. There are at least > three major advantages. One is that every IMP counts for something, > so there's no such thing as pippage, which tends to randomize > results. Another is that the scale falls off consistently, so that > each IMP is worth about 5% less than the previous IMP. Another is > that there's no arbitrary cutoff at the top of the scale. Another is that losing contestants get at least a fraction of an IMP, since the formula lets the losers approach, but not reach, zero VPs. Contestants therefore gain VPs in every match, which might be psychologically satisfying. This should take care of Richard's concern. I use a rough form of this approach in party bridge games at home, awarding 19-1 VPs no matter how large the margin of victory. Social players hate to see zeros by their name when they have (usually) scored some points in a match. Awarding 25-5 instead does not appeal to me. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From brian@wellsborocomputing.com Wed Sep 18 19:16:10 2002 From: brian@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 14:16:10 -0400 Subject: [blml] Lucy. In-Reply-To: References: <000901c25be0$852cc1a0$fe2127d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: On Wed, 18 Sep 2002 14:00:04 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: >On 9/14/02, David Burn wrote: > >>it is a good idea to know the rules of a game before you >>play it. > >I have been playing bridge, rubber and duplicate, off and on for some 40 >years. One of the reasons I subscribed to this list is that I discovered >there's a lot more to the rules of this game than I had thought in >reading TFLB. Not to mention the myriad of regulations promulgated by >various bodies, some of which I daresay are not available (at least in >the ACBL) to the average player. > >Maybe I should just give up the game. > Well said, Ed. OK, so I now play at a *very* small (ACBL) bridge club. The majority of the players there barely know how to play the game, let alone have a good understanding of the rules. Their attitude to the Laws is a simple one - if something goes wrong, call the TD and have him fix it. To impose a requirement for knowing the rules on them would (IMHO) reduce the membership by at least two thirds. I suspect the same might well be true of some larger clubs, too. Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Sep 18 19:38:31 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 11:38:31 -0700 Subject: [blml] Lucy. References: Message-ID: <005501c25f42$aa230fe0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Ed Reppert" > David Burn wrote: > > >it is a good idea to know the rules of a game before you > >play it. > > I have been playing bridge, rubber and duplicate, off and on for some 40 > years. One of the reasons I subscribed to this list is that I discovered > there's a lot more to the rules of this game than I had thought in > reading TFLB. Not to mention the myriad of regulations promulgated by > various bodies, some of which I daresay are not available (at least in > the ACBL) to the average player. > For me it's been 56 years, although I didn't buy my first Laws until 1963. I studied those carefully, as well as every new revision that came out. I thought I knew the Laws pretty well, but after subscribing to BLML I realized I didn't know beans. Thanks to all who have furthered my education. Subscribing should be required of the entire ACBL TD organization, the AC, the C&C committee, and the LC. ACBL Directors should be encouraged to subscribe. Time again statements or actions by these people show that they would benefit greatly from a subscription, and yet there are very few subscribers among them. When I suggested to a high-ranking ACBLLC member that he would enjoy BLML, he replied that he couldn't be bothered having his mailbox stuffed with such correspondence. Thank goodness we at least have as subscribers Ton, Grattan, Joan Gerard (sharing with Ron, I presume), and a few others in influential positions. Among the huge number of ACBL AC members, I see only about five or six subscribers. Rich Colker, how can you not subscribe??? (I've invited him to join us several times over the last few years). Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Sep 18 19:50:31 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 11:50:31 -0700 Subject: [blml] Lucy. References: <000901c25be0$852cc1a0$fe2127d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <006001c25f44$cb435e80$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Brian Meadows" < Ed Reppert wrote: > > >, David Burn wrote: > > > >>it is a good idea to know the rules of a game before you > >>play it. > > > >I have been playing bridge, rubber and duplicate, off and on for some 40 > >years. One of the reasons I subscribed to this list is that I discovered > >there's a lot more to the rules of this game than I had thought in > >reading TFLB. Not to mention the myriad of regulations promulgated by > >various bodies, some of which I daresay are not available (at least in > >the ACBL) to the average player. > > > >Maybe I should just give up the game. > > > > Well said, Ed. > > OK, so I now play at a *very* small (ACBL) bridge club. The > majority of the players there barely know how to play the game, > let alone have a good understanding of the rules. Their attitude > to the Laws is a simple one - if something goes wrong, call the > TD and have him fix it. To impose a requirement for knowing the > rules on them would (IMHO) reduce the membership by at least two > thirds. I suspect the same might well be true of some larger > clubs, too. > It is not too much to expect players to know and abide by the proprieties of the game, to know the basic rules (follow suit, etc.), and to call the TD whenever there is an irregularity. We need a simple version of the Laws for players, written in plain language, omitting everything that only a TD need know. The USTA gives such a booklet of rules to every member, while umpires have a huge volume of detailed rules. That is a sensible policy. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Wed Sep 18 19:38:01 2002 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 20:38:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] The European Way? References: <200209171556.LAA27015@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000201c25f47$4676c220$30c8f1c3@LNV> > > I am puzzled by something in Montreal Bulletin 15, page 6 > http://www.bridge.gr/bulletin/02_2%20Montreal/pdf/bul_15.pdf > > Ton wrote: > We did the scoring the European way in Montreal. Which puts a > greater burden on the players to check their results as entered in > the computer. > > What is "the European way?" In European Championships and in the biggest bridge countries in Europe we use travelling score sheets, which are collected at the end of the session or near the end using a sheet with a copy taken off. The scoring room then enters these results in the computer as fast as possible, without checking in detail the scores as written down by the players. This puts more responsibility on the players who should check the scores after publishing those. In the ACBL using pick up slips for each round the TD's apparently do check the results thoroughly which seem to make the players rather lazy, since it doesn't matter what they write down, it will be noticed and changed. A nice example is the following: a result of 3NT minus 3 played by NS for - 300 for NS was entered, NS being vulnerable. The NS pair didn't find its score of + 150 on this board and appealed the score. It appeared that EW had played 3NT and went 3 off being non-vulnerable. So we changed that score and kept the appeal money. Now some ACBL TD's started quarreling with the result room saying that it should have noticed this mistake, therewith telling that the money should be given back. Ridiculous in my opinion. There is another difference worth noticing. With the European way players get some idea of the scores in the field since part of it becomes apparent during the session. Something they like very much in Europe. I even heard that playing a barometer with results shown to the players regularly (in Montreal after each 4 boards) is something the new world doesn't like. Incredible for me, since it is the preferred way of playing bridge in 'my' world. ton From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Sep 18 20:18:17 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 12:18:17 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Las Vegas Case Thirty-Seven References: Message-ID: <006301c25f48$540b35a0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Ed Reppert" > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > >System notes act ia the same way : they help you making your case when > >confronted with a MI problem. If you don't have any, too bad for you. > > I suppose it depends what is meant by "too bad for you". Some here seem > to think it means, or should mean "no system notes, we rule against > you". That's what it means. > If, instead, it means that lack of system notes simply means that > you have not supplied one bit of evidence that you *could* have > supplied, but that *all* evidence available will be considered, well, > that's a different story, and I'd have no problem with it then. Only system notes are accepted, in my experience. St Louis NABC appeal No. 2. Alice made a slow penalty double of a 3D overcall of my 1C opening. Our agreement is in accordance with every authority I can find who wrote after 1932, which is that opener must pull a low-level penalty double with a distributional hand that is short in the opposing suit and weak in high cards. Holding S-AQxx H-xx D-x C-KJ9xxx I had no LA but to bid 3S, as *required* by system. If my red suits had been switched I would have passed, marginally violating system for the sake of my reputation. Since I could produce no system notes, the AC would not believe me. When I offered to produce backup support from the nearby bookstore, I was told "You can find anything in books." The 1932 reference is to Culbertson, who wrote then that a penalty double must be passed regardless. A few years later he had changed his mind, as always adapting his system to accord wtih the prevailing practices among good players. Having taken a multitude of zeros over the years by acting ethically after receiving UI, this one-time-only assertion that I may have taken advantage of it was particularly galling. Well, there was another time many years ago that an opponent suggested the possiblity, to a TD who disliked me intensely. "Marvin?" he said, "Don't be ridiculous," and walked away. I'm still pissed. I'll have my system notes at the Phoenix NABC, you can bet. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Sep 18 20:28:42 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 12:28:42 -0700 Subject: [blml] The European Way? References: <200209171556.LAA27015@cfa183.harvard.edu> <000201c25f47$4676c220$30c8f1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <006701c25f49$9af82440$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Ton Kooijman". > > There is another difference worth noticing. With the European way players > get some idea of the scores in the field since part of it becomes apparent > during the session. Something they like very much in Europe. > I even heard that playing a barometer with results shown to the players > regularly (in Montreal after each 4 boards) is something the new world > doesn't like. Incredible for me, since it is the preferred way of playing > bridge in 'my' world. > Over here many of us feel that estimating how one stands toward the end of a session, with no helpful clues, is an important bridge skill. Our ACBL CCs used to carry a warning "Comparison of Scores is Illegal," and that applied even when both pairs had previously played the board. Pairs who see they are doing badly are likely to produce wild results, which spoils the game for everyone else. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From toddz@worldnet.att.com Wed Sep 18 21:23:15 2002 From: toddz@worldnet.att.com (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 16:23:15 -0400 Subject: [blml] The European Way? In-Reply-To: <006701c25f49$9af82440$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Marvin L. French > Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 3:29 PM > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] The European Way? > > Over here many of us feel that estimating how one > stands toward the end of > a session, with no helpful clues, is an important > bridge skill. Our ACBL > CCs used to carry a warning "Comparison of Scores is > Illegal," and that > applied even when both pairs had previously played the board. > > Pairs who see they are doing badly are likely to > produce wild results, > which spoils the game for everyone else. Especially as my hearing is particularly bad, I hate overhearing from the next table, "Oh, the rest of the field is in 6S off one." There are some pairs that can't seem to help discussing every result on the traveller when they go to enter their own score. Another far more subversive use of the traveller exists more for EW than NS. EW can size up their NS opponents several rounds in advance by paying attention to the traveller. -Todd From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Sep 18 21:26:24 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 16:26:24 -0400 Subject: [blml] Lucy. In-Reply-To: <001301c25c4d$cfc92ba0$871a27d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: On 9/15/02, David Burn wrote: >I don't know about "repealed". Bridge players should not be allowed to >take drugs that will temporarily make them better bridge players. But >someone should find out what these are before implementing this rule. Agree completely with your first and third sentences. Regarding the second, I would add "and then play in, or continue to play in, a bridge tournament". If a bridge player wishes to take such drugs when he is not so playing, that's none of the WBF's (or other SO's) business. >These rumours are codswallop, and are not the WBF's fault. Lynn Deas >did not take a drug test, even though her name was drawn at random for >having to take one, but she is a wheelchair-bound invalid who needs a >lot of the stuff on the IOC banned list to survive. As someone, possibly either Eric or yourself, has already pointed out, that Ms. Deas needs those drugs to survive is irrelevant. If they enhance her ability to play bridge, then she should not be allowed to play, having taken them. The question becomes "why was she given exemption, when Ms. Eythorsdottir was not?" I do not know why, because I do not know all the particulars of the two cases. But I have my suspicions. :-) As for the rumors, either (a) they are not codswallop - they are the simple truth - or (b) "codswallop" does not, as I think it does, mean "nonsense". From toddz@worldnet.att.com Wed Sep 18 21:29:14 2002 From: toddz@worldnet.att.com (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 16:29:14 -0400 Subject: [blml] Sig-separator Message-ID: What happened to it? -Todd From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Sep 18 21:33:20 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 13:33:20 -0700 Subject: [blml] RE: VP scale formulas References: <200209172323.TAA27804@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <008901c25f52$a5294ee0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Adam Wildavsky" > One proposal, currently in favor, is to play for 200 VP, with the VPs > rounded to the nearest integer. I prefer a fractional scale, but the > 200 VP scale still seems superior to the current scales in use. >Steve Willner wrote: > > >Actually, it might be nice if the first IMP was exactly 1 VP, but > >this is an aesthetic rather than a substantive choice. > > I like that! One disadvantage is that the VP average would be > different for different match lengths, but that will be true in other > methods as well. The 200 VP integral scale, for instance, does not > provide enough resolution for long matches -- they'd need to use a > 400 or even 2000 VP scale to ensure that every IMP counts. A good argument for the fractional scale, and against Steve's suggestion. The 200 VP integer scale has the attractive quality of being exactly 10 times the current top (20) and current average (10), perhaps making it more understandable to players than the less-accurate 100 VP scale. Scales are now shown on the scoring side of the CC, but there would scarcely be room for either of these. An approximate fractional scale on the CC would look something like this for 7-board matches: IMP Margin VP Score Added imps worth about 0 10-10 0.50 VP 2 11-9 0.48 VP 4.1 12-8 0.40 VP 6.6 13-7 0.34 VP 9.5 14-6 0.30 VP 12.8 15-5 0.24 VP 17.0 16-4 0.19 VP 22.3 17-3 0.13 VP 29.8 18-2 0.078 VP 42.6 19-1 0.04 VP Of course all imp-margins are integers, but rough interpolation will give a fairly good answer while waiting for the official scores to be posted. Few will bother to do that. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Sep 18 21:56:36 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 16:56:36 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Lucy. Message-ID: <200209182056.QAA03877@cfa183.harvard.edu> > From: "Marvin L. French" > We need a simple version of the Laws for players, written in plain > language, omitting everything that only a TD need know. I once provided a list of which laws should (in my opinion) be included. I might be able to dig it out if there is any interest. I don't expect my list would be perfect, but it might be useful as a starting point for discussion. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Sep 18 22:13:26 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 17:13:26 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] The European Way? Message-ID: <200209182113.RAA03895@cfa183.harvard.edu> > From: "Ton Kooijman" > In European Championships and in the biggest bridge countries in Europe we > use travelling score sheets, ... > The scoring room then > enters these results in the computer as fast as possible, without checking > in detail the scores as written down by the players. Thanks, Ton. Just to head off some possible confusion, it seems to me that there are several different issues here: 1. Use of travellers versus pickup slips. 2. How much checking should the scoring room do? 3. If an error is found, in what circumstances, if any, should there be a cash (or other) penalty for changing the score? People might want to make clear which issue they are addressing. Apropos item 1, I wonder whether travellers are more error-prone than pickup slips. With travellers, it is too easy to put "our" score in the same column as all the other plus scores even when that's wrong or to enter a pair number wrong because of all the entries already present. With pickup slips, you have to make every entry on its own, and both sides have to check it. Thus my sense is that travellers are more error-inducing than pickup slips, but does anyone have information on whether that is true or not? From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Wed Sep 18 22:15:36 2002 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 09:15:36 +1200 Subject: [blml] VP scale formulas (was VP scale for 72 boards.) In-Reply-To: <004d01c25f3e$6ceede00$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <001401c25f58$8bb74600$419737d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Marvin L. French > Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2002 6:06 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] VP scale formulas (was VP scale for 72 boards.) > > I use a rough form of this approach in party bridge games at home, > awarding 19-1 VPs no matter how large the margin of victory. Social > players hate to see zeros by their name when they have (usually) > scored some points in a match. Awarding 25-5 instead does not appeal > to me. Marv you can get 25-0 results on the curtailed (at the top end) scale and 25-1, 25-2 etc Wayne From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Sep 18 22:24:26 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 17:24:26 -0400 Subject: [blml] Lucy. Message-ID: On 9/13/02, David Burn wrote: >Can we please have an end to this line of non-argument? No. I stand by what I said. And you contradict yourself. The WBF *can* do whatever it damn well pleases, subject, presumably, to applicable law. That doesn't mean that sticking their nose into what people ingest is right. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Sep 18 22:24:43 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 17:24:43 -0400 Subject: [blml] Convention card at clubs. Message-ID: On 9/15/02, Steve Willner wrote: >You are the SO, but as a condition of receiving ACBL sanction, you are >required to conform to some but not all ACBL regulations. >Unfortunately, it isn't always clear -- at least to me -- which >regulations are mandatory and which are optional for clubs. I'm in complete agreement with Steve here. I wish I weren't. :-) It would be a lot simpler, IMNSHO, if the ACBL would clearly state (and make available) its regulations for the play of our game. The "General Conditions of Contest" for "All ACBL Events" say, inter alia, that ACBL CCs are required for Sectional events and higher. That implies, to me, that clubs (in other than STAC and similar games) may either specify a different card, or no card. But I wouldn't stake my life on the assumption the ACBL would agree. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Sep 18 22:24:57 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 17:24:57 -0400 Subject: [blml] Pausitis Message-ID: On 9/16/02, Steve Willner wrote: >There is no substitute for being on the spot and knowing the players. >It is entirely proper to call the TD and report the facts, but any >suggestion of unethical conduct (other than privately to the TD or by >other process established by regulatory authorities) must be stamped >out. This brings to mind something that happened at the club last Monday. Partner is a decent player (though he should be better, given his experience). But he has trouble remembering to alert, and when he is asked a leading question (eg, "is that weak?", he usually answers in the affirmative, even when that's the wrong answer. He also has trouble articulating the meaning of alerted calls. During Monday's game, this problem cropped up twice. The first time, after the round, I suggested to him that he should ignore the form of any question, and simply describe the meaning of the call. The second time went like this: Me: 1NT Partner: Alert My LHO: What's the range? Partner: Uh, it's artificial, and... My LHO, insistently: I didn't ask you to alert, I asked you what's the range. Partner: looks confused. Me, to partner: Remember what I told you. (Yeah, yeah, I know.) Opponents: Director! TD arrives, LHO explains that partner won't give the range of my 1NT opening. RHO then says "and he (points at me) said "remember what I told you". To which I respond "what I told him was to ignore the form of the question and describe the meaning of the bid." TD asks partner what the bid means. Partner says "it's artificial and forcing." TD: So it's a strong bid? Partner: Yes. It's either 19-20 balanced, or 19-21 unbalanced. TD: Okay. (To LHO: Does that answer your question?) LHO, grudgingly: Yes. RHO: But he (points at me again) said (repeats what I said). TD ignores her. 1. Yes, I should not have said that. 2. Yes, TD should not have ignored RHO. 3. RHO's tone and attitude said to me "You're cheating." Was *anybody* in the right here? :-) From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Sep 18 22:25:13 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 17:25:13 -0400 Subject: [blml] Wot {sic} happened? Message-ID: On 9/18/02, David Stevenson wrote: > I did not say I received them more than once. I have never had a BLML >email in my mailboxes before: there is a perfectly good newsstand for >them. I'm guessing, because I'm not familiar with the program you're using (Turnpike, is it?) but I suspect that you have some kind of filter set up to send blml mails to that newsstand, and the filter is broken because blml now has a new address. So, look at your filters (or whatever Turnpike calls them). :-) From brian@wellsborocomputing.com Wed Sep 18 22:33:59 2002 From: brian@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 17:33:59 -0400 Subject: [blml] Lucy. In-Reply-To: <006001c25f44$cb435e80$1c981e18@san.rr.com> References: <000901c25be0$852cc1a0$fe2127d9@pbncomputer> <006001c25f44$cb435e80$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 18 Sep 2002 11:50:31 -0700, Marv French wrote: > >It is not too much to expect players to know and abide by the proprieties >of the game, to know the basic rules (follow suit, etc.), and to call the >TD whenever there is an irregularity. > Yes, Marv, they know that much, of course. If that's all that David Burn was intending, then I owe him an apology. I suspect (as did Ed, I assume) that he was setting a rather higher standard. >We need a simple version of the Laws for players, written in plain >language, omitting everything that only a TD need know. The USTA gives >such a booklet of rules to every member, while umpires have a huge volume >of detailed rules. That is a sensible policy. > Agreed - but if you're going to go down that road, why stop there? Recognise the fact that a significant number of TDs direct while playing, and offer a simplified set of rules for basic club play which recognise that fact (the obvious example being the revoke law). Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Sep 18 23:38:32 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 08:38:32 +1000 Subject: [blml] RE: VP scale formulas Message-ID: Steve Willner wrote: [snip] >>Actually, it might be nice if the first IMP was >>exactly 1 VP, but this is an aesthetic rather than >>a substantive choice. Adam Wildavsky replied: >I like that! One disadvantage is that the VP >average would be different for different match >lengths, but that will be true in other methods as >well. The 200 VP integral scale, for instance, does >not provide enough resolution for long matches -- >they'd need to use a 400 or even 2000 VP scale to >ensure that every IMP counts. The ABF uses the WBF vp scale for most of its major events. However, in the double round-robin qualifying of the Australian Interstate Teams Championships, a traditional vp scale is used. For each 24-board match, each imp equals each vp up to a cutoff of +35 or -35 imps. For bigger margins, each imp equals 1/10 of a vp, up to a maximum of +37.5 vps for the winning team, and -40 vps for the losing team. This mostly linear vp scale may be better than the more logarithmic WBF vp scale given the nature of the event; since all teams are state representatives, there is not the usual wide range of ability which appears in the typical multiple teams event. However, the effective differences between the two vp scales are small. I once rescored an ITC double round-robin using the WBF scale. While there were minor differences in relative margins, the relative placings of the teams were unaltered. Best wishes Richard From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Sep 18 23:52:48 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 18:52:48 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] RE: VP scale formulas Message-ID: <200209182252.SAA04082@cfa183.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > However, the effective differences between the > two vp scales are small. I once rescored an > ITC double round-robin using the WBF scale. The WBF scale is pretty close to linear until you get to large IMP differences. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Sep 18 23:54:17 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 08:54:17 +1000 Subject: [blml] VP scale for 72 boards. Message-ID: Herman suggested: [snip] >>Rather divide it into 3 24-board matches. Henk replied: >It depends on how important winning is for the >losing team. > >If total VP's is all that matters, then 3x24 and >1x72 doesn't make a big difference. If winning >the 72 boards is important, then it does: If the >first 2 matches end in 22-8 (35 imp's difference) >in favor of one team, then the third match becomes >irrelevant for winning the 72 board contest. > >OTOH, one can score 70 imp's in 24 boards, tie >the score in imp's and still get 15 VP's each. In the early 70s, a Bermuda Bowl Final was scored in victory pointed segments in the fond hope that a lucky segment for a team would hit a vp cap, thus giving their opponents a chance for recovery. But the final Final segment lacked any competitive interest for the bridgerama audience, as the USA was mathematically certain to win before a card was played. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Sep 19 00:26:09 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 09:26:09 +1000 Subject: [blml] Wot {sic} happened? Message-ID: >From: "Henk Uijterwaal > >> Richard Hills wrote: >> >>> Aha! My firewall idiosyncratically puts the non- existent >>> address >>> >>> blml@rtflb.org.gov.au >>> >>> in my To: field, thus ruining David's threading. >>> >>> Hope Henk can fix this. >> >>No, sorry, blml@rtflb.org.gov.au _IS_ a valid address even though >>it doesn't exist, so it will pass all filters. I think you better >>fix your firewall. >> >Please do this, Richard. I use "Reply All" in Outlook Express, >deleting all but BLML in the To line. Except for you. For you I must >delete everthing and type in the BLML address, which is a >nuisance. > >Marv >Marvin L. French >San Diego, California I have tried a tweak to my addressing mode. If it works, the To: field in this email should be blml@rtflb.org and no longer the non-existent blml@rtflb.org.gov.au This should (hopefully) solve the "Reply All" problems of Marv and Alain, and the threading problems of DWS. Best wishes Richard From toddz@worldnet.att.com Thu Sep 19 00:44:51 2002 From: toddz@worldnet.att.com (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 19:44:51 -0400 Subject: [blml] Sig-separator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > What happened to it? oh, -Todd From toddz@worldnet.att.com Thu Sep 19 00:45:30 2002 From: toddz@worldnet.att.com (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 19:45:30 -0400 Subject: [blml] Sig-separator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > What happened to it? oh, -Todd From canberrabridgeclub@mail.bigpond.com Thu Sep 19 02:13:39 2002 From: canberrabridgeclub@mail.bigpond.com (Canberra Bridge Club) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 11:13:39 +1000 Subject: [blml] The European Way? In-Reply-To: <200209182113.RAA03895@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: In Australia some major events use pickup slips and others use travellers. In my experience (15 years directing these events) the incidence of mistakes is signiicantly higher using pickup slips. Players seem to either take less care using pickup slips or when using travelling scoresheets are prompted by the entries already registered. Sean Mullamphy. _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Sep 19 01:29:03 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 10:29:03 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Las Vegas Case Thirty-Seven Message-ID: Marv wrote: [snip] >Holding S-AQxx H-xx D-x C-KJ9xxx I had no LA but to bid 3S, as >*required* by system. If my red suits had been switched I >would have passed, marginally violating system for the sake of >my reputation. > >Since I could produce no system notes, the AC would not >believe me. When I offered to produce backup support from the >nearby bookstore, I was told "You can find anything in books." [snip] Interesting. Can an AC believe *both* of these propositions? a) For the purposes of determining whether a misbid or a misexplanation has occurred under L75, system notes are desirable but *not* essential. b) For the purposes of determining logical alternatives under L16, system notes from the putative OS are *required*. If an AC does believe both a) and b), what is the Lawful justification for these different standards of proof? Best wishes Richard From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Sep 19 02:41:12 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 18:41:12 -0700 Subject: [blml] VP scale formulas (was VP scale for 72 boards.) References: <001401c25f58$8bb74600$419737d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <00b101c25f7d$d9f8b0e0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Wayne Burrows" > > Marvin French wrote: > > > > I use a rough form of this approach in party bridge games at home, > > awarding 19-1 VPs no matter how large the margin of victory. Social > > players hate to see zeros by their name when they have (usually) > > scored some points in a match. Awarding 25-5 instead does not appeal > > to me. > > Marv you can get 25-0 results on the curtailed (at the top end) scale > and 25-1, 25-2 etc > Maybe you misunderstood me, just as I don't understand what you wrote. My home VP scale goes from 10-10 to 19-1. Not very logical, but no one complains. I could make that a more logical 15-15 to 25-5 scale, as someone suggested, to avoid giving zero to the losers of a match, but that scale does not appeal to me. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Sep 19 05:08:27 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 14:08:27 +1000 Subject: [blml] L81C6 (was TD Code) Message-ID: Steve Willner wrote: [snip] >In general, it is the players' duty to make the >facts known to the TD but the TD's duty to deal >with all legal and bridge judgment issues >arising from those facts. (Do we all agree >here?) No. My position is that L81C6 gives a TD an *additional* way to fact-find an irregularity, other than by being summoned by the players involved. [snip] >On the other hand, are there some facts that >the TD should point out? > >Suppose, ruling on an infraction during play, >the TD happens to notice that dummy has a heart >mixed in with his diamonds. This will >undoubtedly lead to problems later. Even if it did not lead to a later infraction, dummy has already infracted L41D. >Is there a case to be made that the TD should >point out the infraction? I may be missing something, but it seems to me that those who argue that L81C6 has exceptions are those who have not yet made out a case. Best wishes Richard From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Sep 19 05:19:44 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 21:19:44 -0700 Subject: [blml] Convention card at clubs. References: Message-ID: <00be01c25f94$50113a20$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Ed Reppert" > The "General Conditions of Contest" for "All ACBL Events" say, inter > alia, that ACBL CCs are required for Sectional events and higher. That > implies, to me, that clubs (in other than STAC and similar games) may > either specify a different card, or no card. But I wouldn't stake my > life on the assumption the ACBL would agree. Let's look at some of the regulations that clubs may not have to follow: > >From "Duplicate Decisions*, in regard to Alerts: "The use of the ACBL Alert Procedure continues to be optional with club games....Regulations that a club establishes pertaining to club masterpoint games may also be made applicable to club tournaments, club charity tournaments, ACBL-wide events, membership games, and split locals. Differing club regulations may not be used for District-wide, Unit-wide, or Sectional Tournaments at Clubs where several clubs compete for an overall award." The DD says that Skip Bid Warnings (or STOP card) are "discretionary with clubs." It also says that clubs may allow or prohibit any conventions they wish, but that clubs should post a list of approved conventions. Ha-ha. The DD goes on to say that a number of ACBL bidding regulations must be followed (and lists them). Okay, now to the subject. The ACBL Convention Regulations, page 3 of 4, say that the regs apply at "sectional and higher tournaments." Considering all of the above, that certainly means they do not apply to club games. :-)) Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Sep 19 05:36:15 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 21:36:15 -0700 Subject: [blml] Lucy. References: <000901c25be0$852cc1a0$fe2127d9@pbncomputer> <006001c25f44$cb435e80$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <00cd01c25f96$70bc0aa0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Brian Meadows wrote: > Marvin French wrote: > > > >It is not too much to expect players to know and abide by the proprieties > >of the game, to know the basic rules (follow suit, etc.), and to call the > >TD whenever there is an irregularity. > > Yes, Marv, they know that much, of course. If that's all that > David Burn was intending, then I owe him an apology. I suspect > (as did Ed, I assume) that he was setting a rather higher > standard. I can't think what, but maybe so. > > >We need a simple version of the Laws for players, written in plain > >language, omitting everything that only a TD need know. The USTA gives > >such a booklet of rules to every member, while umpires have a huge volume > >of detailed rules. That is a sensible policy. > > > Agreed - but if you're going to go down that road, why stop > there? Recognise the fact that a significant number of TDs direct > while playing, and offer a simplified set of rules for basic club > play which recognise that fact (the obvious example being the > revoke law). Two trick penalty regardless, no TD needed? Yes, and some other Laws could use such an approach also. The Laws give SOs options for some of the laws, and maybe they should have some for club games only. But what is a "club game" in other parts of the world? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Sep 19 05:51:14 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 21:51:14 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Las Vegas Case Thirty-Seven References: Message-ID: <010101c25f98$9bdfd340$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Richard Hills wrote: > > Marv wrote: > > [snip] > > >Holding S-AQxx H-xx D-x C-KJ9xxx I had no LA but to bid 3S, as > >*required* by system. If my red suits had been switched I > >would have passed, marginally violating system for the sake of > >my reputation. > > > >Since I could produce no system notes, the AC would not > >believe me. When I offered to produce backup support from the > >nearby bookstore, I was told "You can find anything in books." > > [snip] > > Interesting. Can an AC believe *both* of these propositions? > > a) For the purposes of determining whether a misbid or a > misexplanation has occurred under L75, system notes are > desirable but *not* essential. > > b) For the purposes of determining logical alternatives under > L16, system notes from the putative OS are *required*. > > If an AC does believe both a) and b), what is the Lawful > justification for these different standards of proof? I guess credibility is easier to measure with a) than with b) We're all liars over here, you know, and must be assumed guilty in the absence of contrary proof. I wonder if I could have produced defemse witnesses had I entertained the possibility of an adverse decision. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Sep 19 06:13:01 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 22:13:01 -0700 Subject: [blml] L81C6 (was TD Code) References: Message-ID: <011701c25f9b$6c601140$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Richard Hills wrote: > > I may be missing something, but it seems to me > that those who argue that L81C6 has exceptions > are those who have not yet made out a case. > While not disagreeing with this interpretation of L81C6, a case can be made for not allowing a TD to act on an infraction that no one at the table has noticed, scoring errors excepted. To do so gives a contestant assistance that is not available to everyone, which doesn't seem right. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From henk@ripe.net Thu Sep 19 06:46:45 2002 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 07:46:45 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] The European Way? In-Reply-To: <200209182113.RAA03895@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Steve Willner wrote: > With pickup slips, you have to make every entry on its own, and both > sides have to check it. With travellers, both sides have to check the entry too. > Thus my sense is that travellers are more error-inducing than pickup > slips, but does anyone have information on whether that is true or not? One often sees that with travellers errors are copied. The first pair enters +600 for 3NT, making 3, NV, the second pair does the same, see +600 and copies that, and before you know it, the whole list reads +600. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Sep 19 07:20:42 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 08:20:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] The European Way? References: <200209171556.LAA27015@cfa183.harvard.edu> <000201c25f47$4676c220$30c8f1c3@LNV> <006701c25f49$9af82440$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <3D896CBA.1040609@skynet.be> Marvin L. French wrote: > From: "Ton Kooijman". > >>There is another difference worth noticing. With the European way >> > players > >>get some idea of the scores in the field since part of it becomes >> > apparent > >>during the session. Something they like very much in Europe. >>I even heard that playing a barometer with results shown to the players >>regularly (in Montreal after each 4 boards) is something the new world >>doesn't like. Incredible for me, since it is the preferred way of >> > playing > >>bridge in 'my' world. >> >> > Over here many of us feel that estimating how one stands toward the end of > a session, with no helpful clues, is an important bridge skill. Our ACBL > CCs used to carry a warning "Comparison of Scores is Illegal," and that > applied even when both pairs had previously played the board. > > Pairs who see they are doing badly are likely to produce wild results, > which spoils the game for everyone else. > Marv, that simply is not true. We are always able to compare scores, and producing wild results is not the outcome. Why do you suggest something is true when you have no experience in the matter ? And yes, I have already produced wild results near the end, and more so if I know I am doing badly. But I don't have to see this to know it. > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Sep 19 07:23:03 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 08:23:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] The European Way? References: <200209182113.RAA03895@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <3D896D47.1070000@skynet.be> Steve Willner wrote: > > Apropos item 1, I wonder whether travellers are more error-prone than > pickup slips. With travellers, it is too easy to put "our" score in > the same column as all the other plus scores even when that's wrong or > to enter a pair number wrong because of all the entries already present. > With pickup slips, you have to make every entry on its own, and both > sides have to check it. Thus my sense is that travellers are more > error-inducing than pickup slips, but does anyone have information on > whether that is true or not? > The reverse is also true. With pick-up slips, any error will be put into the computer without much checking, whereas with travellers the errors (wrong column, wrong vuln) become more apparent. If the Americans combine pick-ups with tough checking, that may be better, but it also takes more time. > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Sep 19 06:34:31 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 15:34:31 +1000 Subject: [blml] Simplified revoke rules (was Lucy) Message-ID: Brian Meadows wrote: [snip] >Agreed - but if you're going to go down that >road, why stop there? Recognise the fact that >a significant number of TDs direct while >playing, and offer a simplified set of rules >for basic club play which recognise that fact >(the obvious example being the revoke law). I support simplified revoke rules. In my opinion, in designing the current revoke rules the WBF LC fell between two stools: a) Provision of equity to the offending side. b) Provision of a mechanical (rather than a judgemental) adjustment to the offending side to minimise the workload of TDs. As a result, the current mechanical revoke rules are (in my opinion) unnecessarily complex, due to a chimerical desire to provide pinpoint equity to the offending side. An unintended consequence is that playing TDs are at a disadvantage when ruling on a revoke on a board that the playing TD has not yet played themself. Under the current complex revoke rules, in order for a playing TD to give an accurate ruling, the playing TD often has to closely examine the play of the cards. The playing TD thus gives themself (in their subsequent player role) UI about the board. My personal preference for revoke rules is reversion to the 1975 revoke rules. These rules were so simple that a playing TD could instruct the players what to do without having to look at the cards (and without the players getting confused by the TD's instructions). Best wishes Richard From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Sep 19 07:54:58 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 23:54:58 -0700 Subject: [blml] The European Way? References: <200209182113.RAA03895@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3D896D47.1070000@skynet.be> Message-ID: <015701c25fa9$81e3d8e0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Herman De Wael" > > If the Americans combine pick-ups with tough checking, that may be better, but it also takes more time. > Tough checking when pickup slips are used seems to be the rule over here, in my experience. Scorers will often come around asking to see a private scorecard in order to check a questionable entry, and of course the ACBLScore program catches any impossible score. Pickup slips present somewhat of a security problem, however. Often I arrive at an empty table (sometimes not empty!) and see a pickup slip for boards I haven't played yet lying there face-up. And then there was the lady in a unit game who destroyed the slip I signed and substituted a better one for herself, forging my initials. I bet she got away with that frequently before I caught her. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Sep 19 08:10:18 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 00:10:18 -0700 Subject: [blml] The European Way? References: <200209171556.LAA27015@cfa183.harvard.edu> <000201c25f47$4676c220$30c8f1c3@LNV> <006701c25f49$9af82440$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <3D896CBA.1040609@skynet.be> Message-ID: <016901c25fab$9eaa4340$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Herman De Wael" > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > Over here many of us feel that estimating how one stands toward the end of > > a session, with no helpful clues, is an important bridge skill. Our ACBL > > CCs used to carry a warning "Comparison of Scores is Illegal," and that > > applied even when both pairs had previously played the board. > > > > Pairs who see they are doing badly are likely to produce wild results, > > which spoils the game for everyone else. > > Marv, > that simply is not true. > We are always able to compare scores, and producing wild results is > not the outcome. > Why do you suggest something is true when you have no experience in > the matter ? Why do you think I have no experience in the matter? We have barometer games here in San Diego, the kind where pairs know where they stand all along, and things do get wild toward the end. I quit playing in them for that reason. > > And yes, I have already produced wild results near the end, and more > so if I know I am doing badly. But I don't have to see this to know it. > I think that contradicts what you just wrote, but anyway the majority of pairs beneath your level are not very good at estimating scores. Moreover, travelers let you see the scores of a rival at the next-higher table, while they can't see yours. If they are doing better than you toward the end of a session, you shoot for tops. If not, you go quietly. That isn't fair. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Sep 19 07:06:11 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 16:06:11 +1000 Subject: [blml] The European Way? Message-ID: Steve Willner asked: [snip] >2. How much checking should the scoring room do? > >3. If an error is found, in what circumstances, if >any, should there be a cash (or other) penalty for >changing the score? > >People might want to make clear which issue they >are addressing. [snip] 2. Appropriate bridge scoring software helps. In Australia the ASE program is popular. ASE prohibits entry of illegal scores, and warns against entry of unusual scores. To answer the wider question, the scoring room should do as much checking as possible; as they are *required* to do so by L81C10. 3. Cash penalties are, in my opinion, almost always inappropriate in a bridge context. In most cases they merely mean one rule for the rich, another for the poor. However, non-cash PPs are sometimes desirable if a player has carelessly infracted L79. For example, in a large event where the official scorers must provide results both quickly and accurately. Best wishes Richard From svenpran@online.no Thu Sep 19 08:21:13 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 09:21:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] The European Way? The Scandinavian way! References: <200209171556.LAA27015@cfa183.harvard.edu> <000201c25f47$4676c220$30c8f1c3@LNV> <006701c25f49$9af82440$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <3D896CBA.1040609@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002a01c25fad$23decc60$70d8fea9@WINXP> The (typical) Scandinavian way is to play barometer, collect the results after each round, enter the contract, declarer and number of tricks into the computer, have the computer calculate the score and compare the calculated score against what was written. (Takes much less time that describing the process, a board result is typically entered with 5 keypresses). The outcome is that we can distribute the results back to each pair in the immediately following round even with as many as 41 tables playing rounds with only two boards (16 minutes) as we do in the Norwegian championship for pairs. At the same time a complete report containing a "picture" of each board with the results from all tables is posted centrally so that everybody can check out what happened. This way we get feedback on possible errors almost immediately. Such errors are then corrected asap, and usually with no "penalty" although pairs that repeatedly cause errors by writing incomplete or erratical result reports could find themselves subject to some procedural penalty. (I don't believe that has ever been applied except for warnings!) And we have to my knowledge no experience of bad attitudes towards the end of a tournament due to everybody knowing their positions on the result list. Sven ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 8:20 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The European Way? > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > From: "Ton Kooijman". > > > >>There is another difference worth noticing. With the European way > >> > > players > > > >>get some idea of the scores in the field since part of it becomes > >> > > apparent > > > >>during the session. Something they like very much in Europe. > >>I even heard that playing a barometer with results shown to the players > >>regularly (in Montreal after each 4 boards) is something the new world > >>doesn't like. Incredible for me, since it is the preferred way of > >> > > playing > > > >>bridge in 'my' world. > >> > >> > > Over here many of us feel that estimating how one stands toward the end of > > a session, with no helpful clues, is an important bridge skill. Our ACBL > > CCs used to carry a warning "Comparison of Scores is Illegal," and that > > applied even when both pairs had previously played the board. > > > > Pairs who see they are doing badly are likely to produce wild results, > > which spoils the game for everyone else. > > > > > > > Marv, > that simply is not true. > We are always able to compare scores, and producing wild results is > not the outcome. > Why do you suggest something is true when you have no experience in > the matter ? > > And yes, I have already produced wild results near the end, and more > so if I know I am doing badly. But I don't have to see this to know it. > > > > Marv > > Marvin L. French > > San Diego, California > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Sep 19 08:23:18 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 09:23:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] The European Way? References: <200209171556.LAA27015@cfa183.harvard.edu> <000201c25f47$4676c220$30c8f1c3@LNV> <006701c25f49$9af82440$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <3D896CBA.1040609@skynet.be> <016901c25fab$9eaa4340$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <3D897B66.4000002@skynet.be> Marvin L. French wrote: >>> >>Marv, >>that simply is not true. >>We are always able to compare scores, and producing wild results is >>not the outcome. >>Why do you suggest something is true when you have no experience in >>the matter ? >> > > Why do you think I have no experience in the matter? We have barometer > games here in San Diego, the kind where pairs know where they stand all > along, and things do get wild toward the end. I quit playing in them for > that reason. > I was not talking of barometer, I was talking of travellers. We have the same experience with barometer and have stopped posting results for those reasons. >>And yes, I have already produced wild results near the end, and more >>so if I know I am doing badly. But I don't have to see this to know it. >> >> > I think that contradicts what you just wrote, but anyway the majority of > pairs beneath your level are not very good at estimating scores. Moreover, What I meant was that I did not need to compare scores to know I was doing badly. > travelers let you see the scores of a rival at the next-higher table, > while they can't see yours. If they are doing better than you toward the > end of a session, you shoot for tops. If not, you go quietly. That isn't > fair. > That is true, but I have never seen anyone actually do this. Not a reason (IMO) to disregard travellers. > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Thu Sep 19 08:41:58 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 09:41:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] Pausitis References: Message-ID: <003e01c25fb0$0ab65700$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Steve Willner" Cc: Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 11:24 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Pausitis > On 9/16/02, Steve Willner wrote: > > >There is no substitute for being on the spot and knowing the players. > >It is entirely proper to call the TD and report the facts, but any > >suggestion of unethical conduct (other than privately to the TD or by > >other process established by regulatory authorities) must be stamped > >out. > > This brings to mind something that happened at the club last Monday. > > Partner is a decent player (though he should be better, given his > experience). But he has trouble remembering to alert, and when he is > asked a leading question (eg, "is that weak?", he usually answers in the > affirmative, even when that's the wrong answer. He also has trouble > articulating the meaning of alerted calls. During Monday's game, this > problem cropped up twice. The first time, after the round, I suggested > to him that he should ignore the form of any question, and simply > describe the meaning of the call. The second time went like this: > > Me: 1NT > Partner: Alert > My LHO: What's the range? > Partner: Uh, it's artificial, and... > My LHO, insistently: I didn't ask you to alert, I asked you what's the > range. > Partner: looks confused. > Me, to partner: Remember what I told you. (Yeah, yeah, I know.) > Opponents: Director! > > TD arrives, LHO explains that partner won't give the range of my 1NT > opening. RHO then says "and he (points at me) said "remember what I told > you". To which I respond "what I told him was to ignore the form of the > question and describe the meaning of the bid." TD asks partner what the > bid means. Partner says "it's artificial and forcing." > TD: So it's a strong bid? > Partner: Yes. It's either 19-20 balanced, or 19-21 unbalanced. > TD: Okay. (To LHO: Does that answer your question?) > LHO, grudgingly: Yes. > RHO: But he (points at me again) said (repeats what I said). TD ignores > her. > > 1. Yes, I should not have said that. > 2. Yes, TD should not have ignored RHO. > 3. RHO's tone and attitude said to me "You're cheating." > > Was *anybody* in the right here? :-) Technically none of you! LHO is entitled to ask for the full explanation of your 1NT bid, not specifically what the range is. This is even more important after your partner alerted, because just asking for the range usually assumes that the 1NT bid is natural as far as distribution goes. (Of course LHO may have a follow up question on the range if needed) Your partner is assumed to give an accurate description of your call, his problem is that he has difficulty expressing himself (a forgiving problem!) You are not allowed to say anything at all. RHO should not repeat her "accusation" after TD had heard and accepted your explanation on what you said. Incidently IMO TD should not have ignored her the last time, he should have stopped her with a warning because that part of the "case" was closed. But forget any implied accusation about "cheating". Sven From svenpran@online.no Thu Sep 19 09:05:15 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 10:05:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] L81C6 (was TD Code) References: Message-ID: <005201c25fb3$4a4425c0$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: To: Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 6:08 AM Subject: Re: [blml] L81C6 (was TD Code) > > Steve Willner wrote: > > [snip] > > >In general, it is the players' duty to make the > >facts known to the TD but the TD's duty to deal > >with all legal and bridge judgment issues > >arising from those facts. (Do we all agree > >here?) > > No. > > My position is that L81C6 gives a TD an > *additional* way to fact-find an irregularity, > other than by being summoned by the players > involved. > > [snip] > > >On the other hand, are there some facts that > >the TD should point out? > > > >Suppose, ruling on an infraction during play, > >the TD happens to notice that dummy has a heart > >mixed in with his diamonds. This will > >undoubtedly lead to problems later. > > Even if it did not lead to a later infraction, > dummy has already infracted L41D. > > >Is there a case to be made that the TD should > >point out the infraction? > > I may be missing something, but it seems to me > that those who argue that L81C6 has exceptions > are those who have not yet made out a case. We discussed Law 81C6 at a recent assembly of Norwegian directors, the result was that the Director should act on any irregularity of which he becomes aware regardless how. However, it is important that he does not react in any way which might jeopardize the rights of any player at the table. For instance: If the Director becomes aware of a revoke he must carefully refrain from any action on this revoke until the players at the table no longer can influence the outcome of that revoke. He must not call attention to the revoke before it is established, and he must not even call attention to the revoke after it is established until the period specified in Laws 64B4 or 64B5 has elapsed. On the example above with dummy having misplaced a heart with his diamonds I would say that the Director must not interfere with the play at all. Frankly I fail to see that there can be any possible consequence at all, there is no penalty for a revoke by Dummy, and what other irregularity might happen? Sven From svenpran@online.no Thu Sep 19 09:09:09 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 10:09:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] The European Way? References: <200209171556.LAA27015@cfa183.harvard.edu> <000201c25f47$4676c220$30c8f1c3@LNV> <006701c25f49$9af82440$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <3D896CBA.1040609@skynet.be> <016901c25fab$9eaa4340$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <3D897B66.4000002@skynet.be> Message-ID: <005a01c25fb3$d5b5a070$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Herman De Wael" > Marvin L. French wrote: > > >>> > >>Marv, > >>that simply is not true. > >>We are always able to compare scores, and producing wild results is > >>not the outcome. > >>Why do you suggest something is true when you have no experience in > >>the matter ? > >> > > > > Why do you think I have no experience in the matter? We have barometer > > games here in San Diego, the kind where pairs know where they stand all > > along, and things do get wild toward the end. I quit playing in them for > > that reason. > > > > > I was not talking of barometer, I was talking of travellers. We have > the same experience with barometer and have stopped posting results > for those reasons. What a difference in experience! Are the players in Norway more ethical? This just isn't any problem here! (Nor do I believe it is any problem in the other Scandinavian countries) Sven .......... From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Thu Sep 19 10:06:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 10:06 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Wot {sic} happened? Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Congratulations Richard. Much better:) Tim From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Sep 19 11:17:17 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 12:17:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] Pausitis In-Reply-To: <003e01c25fb0$0ab65700$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020919121018.00aac050@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:41 19/09/2002 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: >From: "Ed Reppert" >To: "Steve Willner" >Cc: >Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 11:24 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] Pausitis > > > > On 9/16/02, Steve Willner wrote: > > > > >There is no substitute for being on the spot and knowing the players. > > >It is entirely proper to call the TD and report the facts, but any > > >suggestion of unethical conduct (other than privately to the TD or by > > >other process established by regulatory authorities) must be stamped > > >out. > > > > This brings to mind something that happened at the club last Monday. > > > > Partner is a decent player (though he should be better, given his > > experience). But he has trouble remembering to alert, and when he is > > asked a leading question (eg, "is that weak?", he usually answers in the > > affirmative, even when that's the wrong answer. He also has trouble > > articulating the meaning of alerted calls. During Monday's game, this > > problem cropped up twice. The first time, after the round, I suggested > > to him that he should ignore the form of any question, and simply > > describe the meaning of the call. The second time went like this: > > > > Me: 1NT > > Partner: Alert > > My LHO: What's the range? > > Partner: Uh, it's artificial, and... > > My LHO, insistently: I didn't ask you to alert, I asked you what's the > > range. > > Partner: looks confused. > > Me, to partner: Remember what I told you. (Yeah, yeah, I know.) > > Opponents: Director! > > > > TD arrives, LHO explains that partner won't give the range of my 1NT > > opening. RHO then says "and he (points at me) said "remember what I told > > you". To which I respond "what I told him was to ignore the form of the > > question and describe the meaning of the bid." TD asks partner what the > > bid means. Partner says "it's artificial and forcing." > > TD: So it's a strong bid? > > Partner: Yes. It's either 19-20 balanced, or 19-21 unbalanced. > > TD: Okay. (To LHO: Does that answer your question?) > > LHO, grudgingly: Yes. > > RHO: But he (points at me again) said (repeats what I said). TD ignores > > her. > > > > 1. Yes, I should not have said that. > > 2. Yes, TD should not have ignored RHO. > > 3. RHO's tone and attitude said to me "You're cheating." > > > > Was *anybody* in the right here? :-) > >Technically none of you! > >LHO is entitled to ask for the full explanation of your 1NT bid, >not specifically what the range is. AG : I'm often confronted with the same problem, for another reason : many of our bids are not defined in terms of points, but of playing tricks, or ODR. We have the constant attitude of declining answering tot that question, either answering what is relevant (as you suggested to partner) or answering literally (in this case, "19 to 21", and too bad for the remainder of the information). If the opponent insists, no need to call the TD. Just don't answer, and *they* will play the bad guys. Note that such questions often carry inferences, like in this case the fact that the opponent thought 1NTs balanced, and as such are constitutive of the infraction of UI. Best regards, Alain. From svenpran@online.no Thu Sep 19 11:39:16 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 12:39:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] Pausitis References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020919121018.00aac050@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <00eb01c25fc8$cdefadd0$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Alain Gottcheiner" ......... > >LHO is entitled to ask for the full explanation of your 1NT bid, > >not specifically what the range is. > > > AG : I'm often confronted with the same problem, for another reason : many > of our bids are not defined in terms of points, but of playing tricks, or > ODR. We have the constant attitude of declining answering tot that > question, either answering what is relevant (as you suggested to partner) > or answering literally (in this case, "19 to 21", and too bad for the > remainder of the information). > If the opponent insists, no need to call the TD. Just don't answer, and > *they* will play the bad guys. > Note that such questions often carry inferences, like in this case the fact > that the opponent thought 1NTs balanced, and as such are constitutive of > the infraction of UI. You may not refuse to answer, but I would suggest you select among the following possible answers: The strength is undefined Our agreement for this bid doesn't go on the strength in HCP The bid shows xxx playing tricks or anything else relevant that you can think of. regards Sven PS UI is just the reason why you may only ask for a full explanation of opponents auction and why you may not pick a particular call in your request to comply with Law 20F. From gester@lineone.net Thu Sep 19 11:36:24 2002 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 11:36:24 +0100 Subject: Bridge across the Atlantic (was [blml] The European Way?) References: <200209171556.LAA27015@cfa183.harvard.edu> <000201c25f47$4676c220$30c8f1c3@LNV> <006701c25f49$9af82440$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <3D896CBA.1040609@skynet.be> <016901c25fab$9eaa4340$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <3D897B66.4000002@skynet.be> <005a01c25fb3$d5b5a070$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <000501c25fd3$b3c27900$78242850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 9:09 AM > What a difference in experience! > Are the players in Norway more ethical? This just > isn't any problem here! (Nor do I believe it is any problem in the other Scandinavian countries) > > Sven > +=+ Well, Sven, I am unsure what this is all about, but have we suddenly given up our adult membership of a worldwide bridge community in order to exchange chauvinistic two-way 'yah-we-are-better-than-you-are' themes from childhood? ~ G ~ +=+ From nancy@dressing.org Thu Sep 19 16:46:15 2002 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 11:46:15 -0400 Subject: [blml] Lucy. References: Message-ID: <002901c25ff3$aff2c5d0$6401a8c0@hare> Have you ever noticed that when you fill out your entry you sign a waiver that states: " The submission of this entry blank constitutes an agreement binding on all players listed hereon, that this contest is governed by the rule, regulations and procedures of the ACBL and that all players listed hereon waive all rights of legal, or other action against the ACBL and any person, committee or entity acting in an official capacity it the conduct of this contest excepting those challenges, appeals and procedures specified in or sanctions by the rules, regulations, procedures of the ACBL." Most conditions of contest for the NABCs are published in "The Bridge Bulletin" prior to the tournament... Not many people read that entry form that they submit at a tournament.... Nancy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Gordon Bower" Cc: Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 2:08 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Lucy. > On 9/14/02, Gordon Bower wrote: > > >The other problem is the one that actually DOES arise. Players say the > >agree to the CoC assuming they are agreeing to a reasonable, sensible > >policy > > Seems simple enough to me. I walk into a tournament, ask to buy an > entry, and the person selling entries hands me a form to sign which says > "I agree to the conditions of contest for this tournament." My answer: > "where may I find a copy of these conditions?" If the tournament cannot > provide them, I will not sign the form. If that refusal results in my > not being able to play, so be it - but I will complain to whatever > powers may be necessary about the inadequacy of preparation for this > tournament by its sponsors, and the waste of my time and effort in > attempting to play in it. Ultimately, if this happens again, I am likely > to quit playing tournament bridge altogether. I don't think I'm alone in > this. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From cfgcs@eiu.edu Thu Sep 19 17:01:32 2002 From: cfgcs@eiu.edu (Grant Sterling) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 11:01:32 -0500 Subject: [blml] RESCUE the inept director! In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.1.20020916223620.00a7ba10@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.1.20020919110011.00a00310@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Many thanks to all who responded to this. With your help I was able to fix the problem and get the results sent off. Thanks again, Grant From svenpran@online.no Thu Sep 19 17:02:25 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 18:02:25 +0200 Subject: Bridge across the Atlantic (was [blml] The European Way?) References: <200209171556.LAA27015@cfa183.harvard.edu> <000201c25f47$4676c220$30c8f1c3@LNV> <006701c25f49$9af82440$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <3D896CBA.1040609@skynet.be> <016901c25fab$9eaa4340$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <3D897B66.4000002@skynet.be> <005a01c25fb3$d5b5a070$70d8fea9@WINXP> <000501c25fd3$b3c27900$78242850@pacific> Message-ID: <000d01c25ff5$f23dae30$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: To: "Sven Pran" ; "blml" Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 12:36 PM Subject: Bridge across the Atlantic (was [blml] The European Way?) > > Grattan Endicott .......................................................... > "... like the deaf adder that stoppeth > her ear; which will not listen to the voice > of charmers, charm he never so wisely." > ~ Psalm 58. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "blml" > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 9:09 AM > > > What a difference in experience! > > Are the players in Norway more ethical? This just > > isn't any problem here! (Nor do I believe it is any > problem in the other Scandinavian countries) > > > > Sven > > > +=+ Well, Sven, I am unsure what this is all about, but > have we suddenly given up our adult membership of a > worldwide bridge community in order to exchange > chauvinistic two-way 'yah-we-are-better-than-you-are' > themes from childhood? ~ G ~ +=+ > Certainly not, but when people elsewhere in the world claim that barometer tournaments with immediate feedback to all players (on their results and standings) cause what at least I shall characterize as unethical behaviour in their parts of the world, I feel that my remark was justified. I shall be extremely surprised if players in barometer tournaments for instance in the USA really behave as claimed towards the end of such events. regards Sven From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Thu Sep 19 17:29:19 2002 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 12:29:19 -0400 Subject: TR: [blml] Convention card at clubs. Message-ID: -----Message d'origine----- De : Laval Dubreuil [mailto:Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca] Envoyé : 19 septembre, 2002 11:53 À : mfrench1@san.rr.com Objet : RE: [blml] Convention card at clubs. Marvin French wrote: The DD says that Skip Bid Warnings (or STOP card) are "discretionary with clubs." ________________________________________________________________________ Happily.... some of you know what I think of SBW..... Mostly every week in my club (about 30 tables) I have to explain that using a Skip Bid card does not mean you have a weak hand.... I never use the SBW card, even in tournament and I am still waiting for a warning or some remark from the TD.... just curious to see... As I told many times, it would be better to instruct players to always wait after any skip bid. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City PS: I finally got permission from ACBL to publish the English version of the French book I made 7 years ago entitled "Laws of duplicate bridge made easier". It contains the whole Law texts plus 35 flow charts (chapters 4, 5 and 6). I will inform BLML when this book will be on the market. The ACBL intent is to put those charts on its WEB (with links to texts I hope). From ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Thu Sep 19 17:52:47 2002 From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 12:52:47 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] The European Way? Message-ID: <200209191652.g8JGqlc28634@freenet10.carleton.ca> > >Steve Willner wrote: > >> >> Apropos item 1, I wonder whether travellers are more error-prone than >> pickup slips. With travellers, it is too easy to put "our" score in >> the same column as all the other plus scores even when that's wrong or >> to enter a pair number wrong because of all the entries already present. >> With pickup slips, you have to make every entry on its own, and both >> sides have to check it. Thus my sense is that travellers are more >> error-inducing than pickup slips, but does anyone have information on >> whether that is true or not? >> > > >The reverse is also true. >With pick-up slips, any error will be put into the computer without >much checking, whereas with travellers the errors (wrong column, wrong >vuln) become more apparent. > >If the Americans combine pick-ups with tough checking, that may be better, but it also takes more time. > > > >> _______________________________________________ All I can relate is the training I have at regionals (and what we did at Montreal). Also, I use both travellers and pickups at club games. I much prefer pickups. I find there are very few errors (there is an "initial here if you agree with the score" box on the slip). Travellers, on the other hand, are prone to error; wrong line, wrong side of the collumn, wrong column altogether, not scored at all, if it can be messed up, the players will find a way. Travellers also slow the game down as all the players try to dissect the entrails of the chicken. ACBLScore has a function called "view". Scorers are not only trained to enter scores, we are also trained to spot errors. View helps us to catch these errors. For example: scoring only 4 sections, we've just finished scoring the 4th round; type "view", and we see all the results of board 1 across all 4 sections; is there anything odd? No? repeat for board 2, 3, ect... This process helps us catch the (rare) score error, and fouled boards. However, there is also a very strong emphasis on catching scoring errors before they are even put into the computer. First, the caddies make sure that they have all the pickups, in order, with scores and initialed (few people are more valuable than a well trained caddy). These are then brought to the scorer, who double checks, making sure that correct boards were played by the correct pairs, scores are on the correct side, ect.. Then the scores are entered, and then checked again, to make sure they were entered correctly. Does this take a lot of time? While a director gets paid to do a good job, not a fast job, there is a leader board up within minutes after the end of the second last round, and the results are posted within minutes after we get the final result. There is still the odd error, but it is the exception rather than the rule. We thought Henry Cukoff (sp?), DIC of the CanAm part of the World's in Montreal, was joking when he told us how The Other Side were doing the scoring. We all laughed, and it was suggested that the powers that be would be better off running the event, but hiring us to do the scoring... :-) Tony (aka ac342) From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Sep 19 19:28:14 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 19:28:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] L81C6 (was TD Code) References: <011701c25f9b$6c601140$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <001901c2600a$6f3f8b10$e22fe150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 6:13 AM Subject: Re: [blml] L81C6 (was TD Code) > Richard Hills wrote: > > > > I may be missing something, but it seems to me > > that those who argue that L81C6 has exceptions > > are those who have not yet made out a case. > > > While not disagreeing with this interpretation of > L81C6, a case can be made for not allowing a TD > to act on an infraction that no one at the table has > noticed, scoring errors excepted. To do so gives a > contestant assistance that is not available to > everyone, which doesn't seem right. > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > +=+ Yes, Marv, that argument can certainly be made. It belongs with the suggestions for changing the laws. The current law is plainly stated; the words "in any manner" allow of no exceptions. But note also the word "rectify". This covers returning the position to normality, restoration of equity, but it does not necessarily require that any penalty provision of a law be imposed. A Director often has room for manoeuvre in this respect: time limits intervene, there are such provisions as those in Law 11B, and so on. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From brian@wellsborocomputing.com Thu Sep 19 19:36:58 2002 From: brian@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 14:36:58 -0400 Subject: Bridge across the Atlantic (was [blml] The European Way?) In-Reply-To: <000d01c25ff5$f23dae30$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <200209171556.LAA27015@cfa183.harvard.edu> <000201c25f47$4676c220$30c8f1c3@LNV> <006701c25f49$9af82440$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <3D896CBA.1040609@skynet.be> <016901c25fab$9eaa4340$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <3D897B66.4000002@skynet.be> <005a01c25fb3$d5b5a070$70d8fea9@WINXP> <000501c25fd3$b3c27900$78242850@pacific> <000d01c25ff5$f23dae30$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: On Thu, 19 Sep 2002 18:02:25 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: Sven, if there's ever a poll for BLML sainthood, you've just won my vote for this reply. Brian. > >Certainly not, but when people elsewhere in the world >claim that barometer tournaments with immediate >feedback to all players (on their results and standings) >cause what at least I shall characterize as unethical >behaviour in their parts of the world, I feel that my >remark was justified. > >I shall be extremely surprised if players in barometer >tournaments for instance in the USA really behave as >claimed towards the end of such events. > >regards Sven > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Sep 19 20:11:53 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 12:11:53 -0700 Subject: [blml] L81C6 (was TD Code) References: <011701c25f9b$6c601140$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <001901c2600a$6f3f8b10$e22fe150@endicott> Message-ID: <001701c26010$6c78e240$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Grattan Endicott" > From: "Marvin L. French" > > While not disagreeing with this interpretation of > > L81C6, a case can be made for not allowing a TD > > to act on an infraction that no one at the table has > > noticed, scoring errors excepted. To do so gives a > > contestant assistance that is not available to > > everyone, which doesn't seem right. > > > > > +=+ Yes, Marv, that argument can certainly be > made. It belongs with the suggestions for changing > the laws. The current law is plainly stated; the words > "in any manner" allow of no exceptions. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. It is quite plain. > But note also the word "rectify". This covers > returning the position to normality, restoration of > equity, but it does not necessarily require that any > penalty provision of a law be imposed. A Director > often has room for manoeuvre in this respect: time > limits intervene, there are such provisions as those > in Law 11B, and so on. Interesting. So a TD, spotting an irregularity while passing by a table can stop and rectify it. Now I learn for the first time that "rectify" does not necessarily mean treating the irregularity in normal fashion. Spotting a revoke, the TD can merely restore equity by telling the offender to correct his play, without waiting for the opponents to discover it or waiting until the revoke is established. A penalty card, perhaps, nothing more. Learn something every day. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Thu Sep 19 20:33:43 2002 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 11:33:43 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] VP scale for 72 boards. In-Reply-To: <001701c25e70$3d179920$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marv French has optimistically predicted the adoption of a new VP formula later this year by the ACBL. I share neither his optimism, nor his belief that a change is currently needed. We are trying to balance two conflicting ideals: making every imp count, and making a team that is losing badly feel like it still has a chance to catch up later. The two goals are mutually exclusive, really, and whatever scale you pick comes down to a matter of personal taste as to which ideal you believe is more important. The ACBL currently has a 20-point VP scale which, in my experience, does an excellent job at making every score from 0 to 20 approximately equally likely in a Swiss. 20-0s are more common than 19-1s, but they are by no means common: between 5 and 10% of matches, based on the regionals I have been to. It also has a 30-point VP scale which is 'slightly diluted win-loss scoring': the first imp makes the score 18-12, and wins by more than 10 imps or so are effectively "winner gets almost everything, loser gets one, two, or three pats on the head." Neither current ACBL scales is particularly appropriate for, or commonly used in, matches that are much longer than the usual 6- to 9-board Swiss match. Between the current 20-point and 30-point VP scales, public opinion, at least in District 19, is overwhelmingly -- and I do mean overwhelmingly: a margin of 10:1 when people were polled about it at a recent regional -- in preference of the 20-point scale. My sense is that people like having every imp count, and that having imps in a close-to-even match count for more than in a big-spread match is just a necessary (?) evil. Given that blitzes are not overly common at present, reducing their frequency, at the expense of making (say) the fifth imp in a match less important, doesn't seem like a high priority. Both 'C' and 'D' are much too complicated to expect the rank and file to understand -- until recently, Flight B swisses were scored with win-loss scoring instead of VPs because they were "scared of confusing the beginners" with the extra level of complexity. Adoption of 'B' hinges on getting everyone to accept that "the current scale overvalues large margins." I don't know how widespread that view is. I, personally, wouldn't mind seeing team games scored simply by total IMPs. The non-zero-sum nature of the WBF scale is a major obstacle to my supporting its use. I also don't know if others feel that way or not. So, my prediction for what the board of directors will do: "We don't see a problem, so no change." What is lacking is a motivation for a change. We don't have many events in the ACBL that require VPing long matches. (The international team trials, maybe; I can't think of a single other event all year. And those we should score by the WBF method simply because whoever wins is going to be playing in a WBF competition.) GRB From HarrisR@missouri.edu Thu Sep 19 21:01:33 2002 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 15:01:33 -0500 Subject: [blml] The European Way? In-Reply-To: <015701c25fa9$81e3d8e0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> References: <200209182113.RAA03895@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3D896D47.1070000@skynet.be> Message-ID: >From: "Herman De Wael" >> >> If the Americans combine pick-ups with tough checking, that may be >better, but it also takes more time. >> >Tough checking when pickup slips are used seems to be the rule over here, >in my experience. Scorers will often come around asking to see a private >scorecard in order to check a questionable entry, and of course the >ACBLScore program catches any impossible score. > >Pickup slips present somewhat of a security problem, however. Often I >arrive at an empty table (sometimes not empty!) and see a pickup slip for >boards I haven't played yet lying there face-up. And then there was the >lady in a unit game who destroyed the slip I signed and substituted a >better one for herself, forging my initials. I bet she got away with that >frequently before I caught her. > >Marv >Marvin L. French >San Diego, California > Several years ago at the nationals in St. Louis we got +1100 for seting a doubled low level contract. (We were using low level penalty doubles.) I was surprised to find the next day that it had changed to -1100. It was correctly entered on the pick up slip. So much for careful checking. REH Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Sep 19 20:47:26 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 12:47:26 -0700 Subject: Bridge across the Atlantic (was [blml] The European Way?) References: <200209171556.LAA27015@cfa183.harvard.edu> <000201c25f47$4676c220$30c8f1c3@LNV> <006701c25f49$9af82440$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <3D896CBA.1040609@skynet.be> <016901c25fab$9eaa4340$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <3D897B66.4000002@skynet.be> <005a01c25fb3$d5b5a070$70d8fea9@WINXP> <000501c25fd3$b3c27900$78242850@pacific> <000d01c25ff5$f23dae30$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <003201c26016$0dc5a980$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Brian Meadows" > > Sven, if there's ever a poll for BLML sainthood, you've just won > my vote for this reply. > Is this a joke? Sven wrote: > >Certainly not, but when people elsewhere in the world > >claim that barometer tournaments with immediate > >feedback to all players (on their results and standings) > >cause what at least I shall characterize as unethical > >behaviour in their parts of the world, I feel that my > >remark was justified. > > Sven characterizes this as unethical behavior in my part of the world, which it is not, and then criticizes me (I presume) for claiming that? This is *petitio principii*, begging the question, as I claimed no such thing. I don't like pros who bid crazily with weak clients in order to create swings, but that doesn't mean I think crazy bidding is unethical. It just spoils the enjoyment of the game for its victims and gives undeserved windfalls to its beneficiaries. I consider it unsportsmanlike, but the Laws do not require sportsmanlike behavior. > >I shall be extremely surprised if players in barometer > >tournaments for instance in the USA really behave as > >claimed towards the end of such events. It is quite natural to behave that way if it provides the only chance for a high ranking. Not at all unethical, it's just the normal outcome of the conditions of contest. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California . Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Sep 19 20:58:13 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 12:58:13 -0700 Subject: [blml] The European Way? References: <200209182113.RAA03895@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3D896D47.1070000@skynet.be> Message-ID: <003701c26017$77d29940$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Robert E. Harris" > Several years ago at the nationals in St. Louis we got +1100 for seting a > doubled low level contract. (We were using low level penalty doubles.) I > was surprised to find the next day that it had changed to -1100. It was > correctly entered on the pick up slip. So much for careful checking. > Mistakes do slip through, unfortunately. I notice that scorers routinely (?) thumb through the pickup slips whose results they have just entered, checking each entry for agreement. Looks like someone didn't do that. It is easy, however, for players to check their scores at an NABC, since they are posted in the section area rather quickly. If I'm in a hurry, I just look for poor scores and compare them with my estimates. Understandably, the TDs don't like it when players are tardy in reporting a scoring error. Just as they owe us accurate recording, we owe them timely checking. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu Sep 19 21:16:55 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 16:16:55 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] L81C6 (was TD Code) Message-ID: <200209192016.QAA10112@cfa183.harvard.edu> > From: "Grattan Endicott" > The current law is plainly stated; the words > "in any manner" allow of no exceptions. In my case, it was the word 'duties' at the beginning of L81C that I had missed. This word gives not only gives authority to correct irregularities but the positive obligation to do so. I'm sure Grattan is well aware of this and thinks it's too obvious to mention, but maybe some other readers are as ignorant as I was. Now that I look, though, there is that pesky word "normally." Does this mean that an SO can restrict the Director's powers? From svenpran@online.no Thu Sep 19 21:28:05 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 22:28:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] L81C6 (was TD Code) References: <011701c25f9b$6c601140$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <001901c2600a$6f3f8b10$e22fe150@endicott> <001701c26010$6c78e240$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <008601c2601b$0f669600$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Marvin L. French" > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > > From: "Marvin L. French" > > > > While not disagreeing with this interpretation of > > > L81C6, a case can be made for not allowing a TD > > > to act on an infraction that no one at the table has > > > noticed, scoring errors excepted. To do so gives a > > > contestant assistance that is not available to > > > everyone, which doesn't seem right. > > > > > > > > +=+ Yes, Marv, that argument can certainly be > > made. It belongs with the suggestions for changing > > the laws. The current law is plainly stated; the words > > "in any manner" allow of no exceptions. > > I didn't mean to imply otherwise. It is quite plain. > > > But note also the word "rectify". This covers > > returning the position to normality, restoration of > > equity, but it does not necessarily require that any > > penalty provision of a law be imposed. A Director > > often has room for manoeuvre in this respect: time > > limits intervene, there are such provisions as those > > in Law 11B, and so on. > > Interesting. So a TD, spotting an irregularity while passing by a table > can stop and rectify it. Now I learn for the first time that "rectify" > does not necessarily mean treating the irregularity in normal fashion. > Spotting a revoke, the TD can merely restore equity by telling the > offender to correct his play, without waiting for the opponents to > discover it or waiting until the revoke is established. A penalty card, > perhaps, nothing more. > > Learn something every day. The Director most certainly must not! (at that time) If he does he deprieves NOS of their rights in case the revoke would become established. But the Director must take action under Law 81C6 and Law 64C after the time specified in Law 64B4 or 5 as applicable has expired with no player calling attention to the irregularity. Sven From svenpran@online.no Thu Sep 19 21:46:51 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 22:46:51 +0200 Subject: Bridge across the Atlantic (was [blml] The European Way?) References: <200209171556.LAA27015@cfa183.harvard.edu> <000201c25f47$4676c220$30c8f1c3@LNV> <006701c25f49$9af82440$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <3D896CBA.1040609@skynet.be> <016901c25fab$9eaa4340$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <3D897B66.4000002@skynet.be> <005a01c25fb3$d5b5a070$70d8fea9@WINXP> <000501c25fd3$b3c27900$78242850@pacific> <000d01c25ff5$f23dae30$70d8fea9@WINXP> <003201c26016$0dc5a980$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <008e01c2601d$aec688c0$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Marvin L. French" ......... > Sven characterizes this as unethical behavior in my part of the world, > which it is not, and then criticizes me (I presume) for claiming that? > > This is *petitio principii*, begging the question, as I claimed no such > thing. > > I don't like pros who bid crazily with weak clients in order to create > swings, but that doesn't mean I think crazy bidding is unethical. It just > spoils the enjoyment of the game for its victims and gives undeserved > windfalls to its beneficiaries. I consider it unsportsmanlike, but the > Laws do not require sportsmanlike behavior. Haven't you just described a violation of Laws 74A2 and 74B1, and is that not exactly what we generally include in the term "unethical behaviour"? I do. > > > >I shall be extremely surprised if players in barometer > > >tournaments for instance in the USA really behave as > > >claimed towards the end of such events. > > It is quite natural to behave that way if it provides the only chance for > a high ranking. Not at all unethical, it's just the normal outcome of the > conditions of contest. Same comment as above. And a little tale: Before 1985 there was no explicit law that a player must inspect his cards before making any call (now in Law 7B1) A common quiz for TD candidates was how to handle the player who towards the end of a tournament in which he had lost every possibility of any prize and without so much as looking at his cards just bid 7NT? The correct answer? He had made a psyche (perfectly OK) but he had at the same time informed his partner that his call was a psyche! Ruling: He should be disqualified from the tournament for contempt of the game and the tournament. Need I comment any further? Sven From adam@irvine.com Thu Sep 19 21:54:28 2002 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 13:54:28 -0700 Subject: Bridge across the Atlantic (was [blml] The European Way?) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 19 Sep 2002 22:46:51 +0200." <008e01c2601d$aec688c0$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <200209192054.NAA00130@mailhub.irvine.com> Sven Pran wrote: > From: "Marvin L. French" > ......... > > Sven characterizes this as unethical behavior in my part of the world, > > which it is not, and then criticizes me (I presume) for claiming that? > > > > This is *petitio principii*, begging the question, as I claimed no such > > thing. > > > > I don't like pros who bid crazily with weak clients in order to create > > swings, but that doesn't mean I think crazy bidding is unethical. It just > > spoils the enjoyment of the game for its victims and gives undeserved > > windfalls to its beneficiaries. I consider it unsportsmanlike, but the > > Laws do not require sportsmanlike behavior. > > Haven't you just described a violation of Laws 74A2 and 74B1, > and is that not exactly what we generally include in the term "unethical > behaviour"? Ummm, I don't think Law 74A2 is talking about bridge actions. Otherwise, any time an opponent preempts it would be a violation of L74A2 because preempts annoy me. (Come to think of it, a lot of my partner's bids would be violations of L74A2.) -- Adam From svenpran@online.no Thu Sep 19 22:18:48 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 23:18:48 +0200 Subject: Bridge across the Atlantic (was [blml] The European Way?) References: <200209192054.NAA00130@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <00a901c26022$253107c0$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Adam Beneschan" > > Sven Pran wrote: > > > From: "Marvin L. French" > > ......... > > > Sven characterizes this as unethical behavior in my part of the world, > > > which it is not, and then criticizes me (I presume) for claiming that? > > > > > > This is *petitio principii*, begging the question, as I claimed no such > > > thing. > > > > > > I don't like pros who bid crazily with weak clients in order to create > > > swings, but that doesn't mean I think crazy bidding is unethical. It just > > > spoils the enjoyment of the game for its victims and gives undeserved > > > windfalls to its beneficiaries. I consider it unsportsmanlike, but the > > > Laws do not require sportsmanlike behavior. > > > > Haven't you just described a violation of Laws 74A2 and 74B1, > > and is that not exactly what we generally include in the term "unethical > > behaviour"? > > Ummm, I don't think Law 74A2 is talking about bridge actions. > Otherwise, any time an opponent preempts it would be a violation of > L74A2 because preempts annoy me. (Come to think of it, a lot of my > partner's bids would be violations of L74A2.) Coping with a preempt is part of the game. Coping with a crazy bidding made for no "bridge reason" is not. Law 74A is a general, uncompromizing law. It makes no distinction between "bridge actions" and "other actions". It simply defines the fundamental principles on how we are supposed to behave at the bridge table. It is not without reason that quite a few of us consider Law 74 the most important law in the book, and I personally know directors who regularly read that law out loud at the start of tournaments they conduct. (Those who have access to "Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge 1987" might care to look up there on Law 74) Sven From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Sep 19 23:26:03 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 18:26:03 -0400 Subject: Bridge across the Atlantic (was [blml] The European Way?) In-Reply-To: <000d01c25ff5$f23dae30$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <200209171556.LAA27015@cfa183.harvard.edu> <000201c25f47$4676c220$30c8f1c3@LNV> <006701c25f49$9af82440$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <3D896CBA.1040609@skynet.be> <016901c25fab$9eaa4340$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <3D897B66.4000002@skynet.be> <005a01c25fb3$d5b5a070$70d8fea9@WINXP> <000501c25fd3$b3c27900$78242850@pacific> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20020919181823.00ac5880@pop.starpower.net> At 12:02 PM 9/19/02, Sven wrote: >Certainly not, but when people elsewhere in the world >claim that barometer tournaments with immediate >feedback to all players (on their results and standings) >cause what at least I shall characterize as unethical >behaviour in their parts of the world, I feel that my >remark was justified. > >I shall be extremely surprised if players in barometer >tournaments for instance in the USA really behave as >claimed towards the end of such events. Sure they do. On this side of the Atlantic, it's not considered unethical at all. Marv wasn't talking about players hopelessly out of contention randomizing the contest for fun, which would be unethical anywhere; he was talking about players in marginal contention who need a "miracle finish" to win the event and choose to go for it. They rarely succeed, of course, and it does have the effect of somewhat randomizing the contest for others, but nobody begrudges their trying, and it's a big deal (in a positive way) when on rare occasion they succeed. I too, like Marv, am a bit surprised to learn that this might be considered unethical in other parts of the world. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Sep 19 23:41:10 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 23:41:10 +0100 Subject: Bridge across the Atlantic (was [blml] The European Way?) References: <200209171556.LAA27015@cfa183.harvard.edu> <000201c25f47$4676c220$30c8f1c3@LNV> <006701c25f49$9af82440$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <3D896CBA.1040609@skynet.be> <016901c25fab$9eaa4340$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <3D897B66.4000002@skynet.be> <005a01c25fb3$d5b5a070$70d8fea9@WINXP> <000501c25fd3$b3c27900$78242850@pacific> <000d01c25ff5$f23dae30$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <006b01c2602e$95283ec0$7c05e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: ; "blml" Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 5:02 PM Subject: Re: Bridge across the Atlantic (was [blml] The European Way?) > > I shall be extremely surprised if players in barometer > tournaments for instance in the USA really behave as > claimed towards the end of such events. > > regards Sven > +=+ And, let us suppose they do? Are they breaking some law or regulation by seeking to advantage themselves tactically from authorized and published information? Or could it be inherent in the modus operandi that such tactical ploys are permissible? We seem to be discussing (in loud voices) the likes and dislikes, the perceptions, of bridge communities with differing tastes in different environments. Is our world too small, then, to accommodate all of these? And could not our colleagues in the South Pacific, Africa, China, Pakistan and India, Central and South America, and more, all have opinions of equal weight to those that have already ceased to claim their attention? In my view this thread has descended from the low level at which it began - progress for which you cannot be held responsible. Cheers, ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From mfrench1@san.rr.com Fri Sep 20 01:14:50 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 17:14:50 -0700 Subject: [blml] VP scale for 72 boards. References: Message-ID: <003b01c2603a$bf1095a0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Gordon Bower wrote: > > Marv French has optimistically predicted the adoption of a new VP formula > later this year by the ACBL. I share neither his optimism, I don't think "optimistic," which implies the involvement of personal wishes, is the right word. "Confidence" might be about right, which I base only on Bethe's prestige and the lack of any strong criticism when he first broached his idea. Discussions seemed aimed more at how to implement his approach rather than whether it was a desirable one. > nor his belief > that a change is currently needed. I do think Bethe's suggestion is better than the current scale, but I like straight win-loss myself. As a usual underdog, I prefer win-win-loss to 11 +11 + 0 = 22 with 30 average. Strong players, who have the most influence, prefer the latter of course. Win-loss is therefore dead. > > We are trying to balance two conflicting ideals: making every imp count, > and making a team that is losing badly feel like it still has a chance to > catch up later. The two goals are mutually exclusive, really, and whatever > scale you pick comes down to a matter of personal taste as to which ideal > you believe is more important. The first goal is to reduce the effect of large swings, surely good in short matches. Yes, it's a matter of taste, but some people's tastes have more influence than those of others. > My sense is that people like having every imp count, and that having imps > in a close-to-even match count for more than in a big-spread match is just > a necessary (?) evil. People do like having every imp count on a VP scale, which is not true now. In a close match, a second imp counts nothing, nor does a fourth imp. Bethe's method gives every imp a VP value. Each time you make a tough overtrick it counts for something. >Given that blitzes are not overly common at present, > reducing their frequency, at the expense of making (say) the fifth imp in > a match less important, doesn't seem like a high priority. Not understood, sorry. > > Both 'C' and 'D' are much too complicated to expect the rank and file to > understand -- until recently, Flight B swisses were scored with win-loss > scoring instead of VPs because they were "scared of confusing the > beginners" with the extra level of complexity. Maybe the beginners are used to other games, most of which give no weight to the margin of victory in a contest. Naturally a whole new concept like VPs is confusing. > > Adoption of 'B' hinges on getting everyone to accept that "the current > scale overvalues large margins." I don't know how widespread that view > is. I, personally, wouldn't mind seeing team games scored simply by total > IMPs. Going in the opposite direction , a matter of taste, but not a popular direction. > > So, my prediction for what the board of directors will do: "We don't see a > problem, so no change." What is lacking is a motivation for a change. We > don't have many events in the ACBL that require VPing long matches. (The > international team trials, maybe; I can't think of a single other event > all year. Long matches don't need VPs, just as *very* long matches don't need imps. > And those we should score by the WBF method simply because > whoever wins is going to be playing in a WBF competition.) I don't see how use of the WBF method would have any affect on bidding or play. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Fri Sep 20 01:23:53 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 17:23:53 -0700 Subject: Bridge across the Atlantic (was [blml] The European Way?) References: <200209171556.LAA27015@cfa183.harvard.edu> <000201c25f47$4676c220$30c8f1c3@LNV> <006701c25f49$9af82440$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <3D896CBA.1040609@skynet.be> <016901c25fab$9eaa4340$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <3D897B66.4000002@skynet.be> <005a01c25fb3$d5b5a070$70d8fea9@WINXP> <000501c25fd3$b3c27900$78242850@pacific> <000d01c25ff5$f23dae30$70d8fea9@WINXP> <003201c26016$0dc5a980$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <008e01c2601d$aec688c0$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <005701c2603c$2d12b460$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Sven Pran" > From: "Marvin L. French" > ......... > > Sven characterizes this as unethical behavior in my part of the world, > > which it is not, and then criticizes me (I presume) for claiming that? > > > > This is *petitio principii*, begging the question, as I claimed no such > > thing. > > > > I don't like pros who bid crazily with weak clients in order to create > > swings, but that doesn't mean I think crazy bidding is unethical. It just > > spoils the enjoyment of the game for its victims and gives undeserved > > windfalls to its beneficiaries. I consider it unsportsmanlike, but the > > Laws do not require sportsmanlike behavior. > > Haven't you just described a violation of Laws 74A2 and 74B1, > and is that not exactly what we generally include in the term "unethical > behaviour"? > > I do. > ACBL TDs don't. I think that's a stretch, Sven, certainly not one made by me. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Sep 20 01:26:00 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 10:26:00 +1000 Subject: [blml] Logical alternatives in a non-logical auction Message-ID: Matchpoint pairs Dlr: South Vul: NS You, South, hold: KQ KQ10 Q7543 764 The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1NT(1) 2C(2) Dble(3) Pass Pass(4) 2H(5) 6C Pass ? (1) 12-14 (2) Natural (3) Undiscussed. 50% of comparable partners play this as penalties, and 50% of comparable partners play this as takeout. (4) After flipping a mental coin. (5) Also natural. What are your logical alternatives? Best wishes Richard From dkent@sujja.com Fri Sep 20 02:11:25 2002 From: dkent@sujja.com (David Kent) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 21:11:25 -0400 Subject: [blml] Logical alternatives in a non-logical auction In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 8:26 PM > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Logical alternatives in a non-logical auction > > > > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: South > Vul: NS > > You, South, hold: > > KQ > KQ10 > Q7543 > 764 > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1NT(1) > 2C(2) Dble(3) Pass Pass(4) > 2H(5) 6C Pass ? > > (1) 12-14 > > (2) Natural > > (3) Undiscussed. 50% of comparable > partners play this as penalties, > and 50% of comparable partners > play this as takeout. > > (4) After flipping a mental coin. > > (5) Also natural. > > What are your logical alternatives? > What am I missing? Partner thought he could make 12 tricks in C. He doubled 2C, expecting it to go off 7 for +1700. That option no longer exists, so he expects to make +1370 by declaring. I guess I could bid bid something, but why turn a sure plus into a minus? If he wanted to play elsewhere, he had cue-bids available to him. (or she/her as the case may be) Regardless of the amount of time partner took to bid 6C (which I assume is the problem), I cannot imagine any other call than Pass. -- Dave Kent From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Sep 20 03:03:07 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 12:03:07 +1000 Subject: [blml] L74A2 (was A Transatlantic Bridge) Message-ID: Adam Beneschan wrote: >>Ummm, I don't think Law 74A2 is talking about bridge >>actions. Otherwise, any time an opponent preempts it >>would be a violation of L74A2 because preempts annoy >>me. (Come to think of it, a lot of my partner's >>bids would be violations of L74A2.) Sven Pran replied: >Coping with a preempt is part of the game. >Coping with a crazy bidding made for no "bridge reason" >is not. > >Law 74A is a general, uncompromizing law. It makes no >distinction between "bridge actions" and "other >actions". > >It simply defines the fundamental principles on how we >are supposed to behave at the bridge table. It is not >without reason that quite a few of us consider Law 74 >the most important law in the book, [snip] I, too, believe that L74A is of fundamental importance. But my support for L74A is based on the old-fashioned notion of courtesy and friendliness at the table. (Unfortunately, significant numbers of so-called bridge players believe that the purpose of the game is to yell at partner.) Like Adam, I do not believe that L74A2 outlaws inferior bridge actions, since I believe that L74A is targeted at personal deportment (my interpretation of L74A's title, "Proper Attitude"). If a TD rules on *bridge* errors, such as crazy bidding made for no bridge reason, I believe that more relevant Laws for the TD to apply are L40B and L74C6. Best wishes Richard From Walt.Flory@fscv.net Fri Sep 20 03:33:44 2002 From: Walt.Flory@fscv.net (Walt.Flory@fscv.net) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 22:33:44 -0400 Subject: [blml] Lucy. In-Reply-To: <002901c25ff3$aff2c5d0$6401a8c0@hare> References: Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20020919223113.027f21f0@mail.fscv.net> No, I hadn't really noticed it, but it sounds like what the ACBL decided to do after ... wasn't it Katz and/or Cohen that sued them? Walt At 11:46 AM 19/09/2002 -0400, Nancy T Dressing wrote: >Have you ever noticed that when you fill out your entry you sign a waiver >that states: >" The submission of this entry blank constitutes an agreement binding on all >players listed hereon, that this contest is governed by the rule, >regulations and procedures of the ACBL and that all players listed hereon >waive all rights of legal, or other action against the ACBL and any person, >committee or entity acting in an official capacity it the conduct of this >contest excepting those challenges, appeals and procedures specified in or >sanctions by the rules, regulations, procedures of the ACBL." >Most conditions of contest for the NABCs are published in "The Bridge >Bulletin" prior to the tournament... >Not many people read that entry form that they submit at a tournament.... >Nancy > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Ed Reppert" >To: "Gordon Bower" >Cc: >Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 2:08 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] Lucy. > > > > On 9/14/02, Gordon Bower wrote: > > > > >The other problem is the one that actually DOES arise. Players say the > > >agree to the CoC assuming they are agreeing to a reasonable, sensible > > >policy > > > > Seems simple enough to me. I walk into a tournament, ask to buy an > > entry, and the person selling entries hands me a form to sign which says > > "I agree to the conditions of contest for this tournament." My answer: > > "where may I find a copy of these conditions?" If the tournament cannot > > provide them, I will not sign the form. If that refusal results in my > > not being able to play, so be it - but I will complain to whatever > > powers may be necessary about the inadequacy of preparation for this > > tournament by its sponsors, and the waste of my time and effort in > > attempting to play in it. Ultimately, if this happens again, I am likely > > to quit playing tournament bridge altogether. I don't think I'm alone in > > this. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Walt.Flory@fscv.net Fri Sep 20 03:37:32 2002 From: Walt.Flory@fscv.net (Walt.Flory@fscv.net) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 22:37:32 -0400 Subject: Bridge across the Atlantic (was [blml] The European Way?) In-Reply-To: <000d01c25ff5$f23dae30$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <200209171556.LAA27015@cfa183.harvard.edu> <000201c25f47$4676c220$30c8f1c3@LNV> <006701c25f49$9af82440$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <3D896CBA.1040609@skynet.be> <016901c25fab$9eaa4340$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <3D897B66.4000002@skynet.be> <005a01c25fb3$d5b5a070$70d8fea9@WINXP> <000501c25fd3$b3c27900$78242850@pacific> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20020919223554.027b8800@mail.fscv.net> >Certainly not, but when people elsewhere in the world >claim that barometer tournaments with immediate >feedback to all players (on their results and standings) >cause what at least I shall characterize as unethical >behaviour in their parts of the world, I feel that my >remark was justified. > >I shall be extremely surprised if players in barometer >tournaments for instance in the USA really behave as >claimed towards the end of such events. > >regards Sven What is unethical about playing tops and bottom bridge in an effort to win or place? Walt From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Sep 20 04:26:20 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 13:26:20 +1000 Subject: [blml] Lucy. Message-ID: Nancy Dressing wrote: >>Have you ever noticed that when you fill out your entry >>you sign a waiver that states: >> >>"The submission of this entry blank constitutes an >>agreement binding on all players listed hereon, that >>this contest is governed by the rule, regulations and >>procedures of the ACBL and that all players listed >>hereon waive all rights of legal, or other action >>against the ACBL [snip] Walt Flory replied: >No, I hadn't really noticed it, but it sounds like what >the ACBL decided to do after ... wasn't it Katz and/or >Cohen that sued them? Due to the more restrictive nature of Australian libel laws vis-a-vis American libel laws, the ABF finesses the other way. ABF entry forms state: "The ABF, under its Tournament Regulations, reserves the right, in its absolute discretion and without assigning any reason, to reject entries to any event conducted by it." This clause allows the ABF to sidestep ACBL-style public controversies about (alleged) lack of due process provided to (alleged) cheats. An interesting question is whether the ABF reg would stand up in court. *If* an Australian pro's entry to an ABF event was *arbitrarily* rejected by the ABF, then the pro might sue for unjust deprivation of earnings. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Sep 20 05:08:37 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 14:08:37 +1000 Subject: [blml] VP scale for 72 boards. Message-ID: Gordon Bower wrote: [snip] >The ACBL currently has a 20-point VP scale which, in my >experience, does an excellent job at making every score >from 0 to 20 approximately equally likely in a Swiss. >20-0s are more common than 19-1s, but they are by no >means common: between 5 and 10% of matches, based on the >regionals I have been to. It also has a 30-point VP scale >which is 'slightly diluted win-loss scoring': the first >imp makes the score 18-12, and wins by more than 10 imps >or so are effectively "winner gets almost everything, >loser gets one, two, or three pats on the head." Neither >current ACBL scales is particularly appropriate for, or >commonly used in, matches that are much longer than the >usual 6- to 9-board Swiss match. Australia and America have different cultural preferences for important multiple-teams events, with the American tradition being Knockout. From what Gordon writes, it seems that the ACBL has a solitary 10-10 scale tailored for 6- to 9-board matches. Meanwhile, Australia uses one of the multiple WBF 15-15 scales, depending on whether the match is 8-, 10-, 12-, 14-, 16- or 20-boards in length (all common length matches in typical Aussie teams events). >Between the current 20-point and 30-point VP scales, >public opinion, at least in District 19, is overwhelmingly >-- and I do mean overwhelmingly: a margin of 10:1 when >people were polled about it at a recent regional -- in >preference of the 20-point scale. Gordon states that ACBL surveys strongly support the ACBL 10-10 scale over the ACBL 18-12 scale; that is an argument in favour of the WBF 15-15 scales. The WBF 15-15 scales are much closer conceptually to the ACBL 10-10 scale than the ACBL 10-10 scale is to the ACBL 18-12 scale. [snip] >The non-zero-sum nature of the WBF scale is a major >obstacle to my supporting its use. I also don't know if >others feel that way or not. [snip] Different strokes for different folks. The non-zero-sum nature of the WBF 15-15 scales is the primary reason I support them in preference to the ACBL 10-10 scale. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Sep 20 05:31:54 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 14:31:54 +1000 Subject: TR: [blml] Convention card at clubs. Message-ID: Laval wrote: >Mostly every week in my club (about 30 tables) I >have to explain that using a Skip Bid card does >not mean you have a weak hand.... > >I never use the SBW card, even in tournament and >I am still waiting for a warning or some remark >from the TD.... just curious to see... [snip] The ABF has refused to adopt a Skip Bid reg. But I am frequently using the Stop! card. My local club adopted bidding boxes a year or so ago. Due to the popularity of wacky conventions in Canberra, the Alert cards got extensive use. After use, players often forgot to return the Alert cards to the bidding boxes, so the non- bridge-playing cleaners recycled the Alert cards. This perplexed me, as I play more wacky conventions than most Canberrans. However, I have since found that the bright red Stop! card is noticed by more opponents than the pale blue Alert card had ever been. :-) Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Sep 20 05:48:38 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 14:48:38 +1000 Subject: [blml] L81C6 (was TD Code) Message-ID: Sven wrote: >We discussed Law 81C6 at a recent assembly of >Norwegian directors, the result was that the Director >should act on any irregularity of which he becomes >aware regardless how. [snip] >On the example above with dummy having misplaced >a heart with his diamonds I would say that the >Director must not interfere with the play at all. Inconsistency between this paragraph and the first paragraph. The TD knows that dummy has violated L41D. The TD is therefore required by L81C6 to rectify the violation of L41D by restoring the misplaced heart card back to dummy's heart display. >Frankly I fail to see that there can be any possible >consequence at all, there is no penalty for a revoke >by Dummy, and what other irregularity might happen? Whether or not dummy's violation of L41D is likely to cause another, subsequent, Law violation is irrelevant. Best wishes Richard From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Sep 20 06:11:46 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 01:11:46 -0400 Subject: TR: [blml] Convention card at clubs. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 9/19/02, Laval Dubreuil wrote: >I finally got permission from ACBL to publish the English version >of the French book I made 7 years ago entitled "Laws of duplicate >bridge made easier". It contains the whole Law texts plus 35 flow >charts (chapters 4, 5 and 6). I will inform BLML when this book >will be on the market. The ACBL intent is to put those charts on its >WEB (with links to texts I hope). Excellent, Laval! I look forward to seeing it. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Sep 20 06:30:15 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 15:30:15 +1000 Subject: [blml] TD Code Message-ID: Vitold wrote: [big snip] >>If one team (A) gets a good board against another >>team (B) and, because of an infraction made by >>team B, the board cannot be played at the second >>table, then the non-offenders are entitled to an >>assigned adjusted score under Law 12A1. [big snip] This is an attractive idea. In another thread, David Stevenson supported a similar idea that (in some circumstances) it was appropriate to give one side an assigned adjusted score and the other side an artificial adjusted score. However, both Vitold's idea and David's idea seem to be contrary to the Chapter One definitions of the two types of adjusted score: >1. An artificial adjusted score is one awarded >in lieu of a result because no result can be >obtained or estimated for a particular deal [snip] >2. An assigned adjusted score is awarded [snip] >in place of the result actually obtained after >an irregularity. That is, it seems to me that Vitold's idea of giving an AssAS for an unplayed board is contrary to the requirement of a "result actually obtained". Likewise, David's idea of a split ArtAS and AssAS, is predicated on the assumption that a result was simultaneously "obtained" and also "not obtained". Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Sep 20 07:46:46 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 16:46:46 +1000 Subject: [blml] Reveley reveille Message-ID: There was a panel discussion about this deal in the February 2002 Australian Directors' Bulletin. Best wishes Richard South-West Pacific Teams - both teams are seeded. Bd. 10 / E / All AQ854 AJ 73 KQ95 J96 K1032 3 K10876542 J1054 9 J10732 --- 7 Q9 AKQ862 A864 West North East South 4H(1) Pass(2) Pass 4S(3) Pass 5D Pass Pass Pass (1) Weaker than an Acol two or a Namyats 4C. (2) Agreed hesitation. (3) Before he called, North acknowledged South's hesitation. Result: N/S + 600 At the conclusion of play, E/W voice their concerns regarding North's initial 4S action and his subsequent decision to pass 5D. North acknowledges that he was in receipt of unauthorised information, but argues that he has an actionable hand. He also suggests that while a flexible action (such as a double), might be precluded by the hesitation, a unilateral overcall is not. Panellist David Stevenson wrote: >No one is bidding on with the North hand over 5D, >whatever E/W claim, so we can ignore that part of >the argument. As for North's interesting argument >about what is and is not permitted, it sounds >cool, but not something to get worked up about: >actually the opposite argument has some merit! I >presume this was played in Australia without the >protection of a Skip Bid warning. This is the sort >of hand where such things work best. > >When we clear all the flim-flam away, we have a >simple UI case. Was there UI? Yes. Were there >LAs (logical alternatives) to the action chosen? >Double, perhaps, but what about pass? I think it >very close, but I think a number of people would >pass. Does the UI suggest the chosen action would >be more successful than one of the LAs? Yes, the >UI suggests North should not pass. As to bidding >4S rather than double, possibly so: double tends to >be safer than an overcall, and thus less suggested >when partner shows values. Theoretical disagreement; in my opinion Double is more suggested than 4S because the tempo-break may have been based on a trap pass over 4H, hoping to convert a penalty double. It is irrelevant that on this actual hand South does not have the trump stack that is suggested by South's UI to North. >My initial idea (assuming Law 12C3) was to adjust >to a weighted score, assuming North would double >part of the time, and pass part of the time. Over >double, South would normally bid 6D and a >percentage of 6D-1 seems reasonable. David's initial thought is a Reveley ruling, which shows how easy it is for even the most experienced TDs to fall into its insidious trap. However, David immediately writes a reveille to Reveley: >But there is a problem! Suppose North had doubled, >South had bid 6D and it had made - would we not >adjust? Yes, because while 4S may be suggested >over double by the UI, double is suggested over >pass as well. We cannot include disallowed calls >in our evaluation. > >So we must adjust to what happens if North passes. >Maybe 4H-2, or a weighting between various >numbers of tricks? From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Fri Sep 20 08:56:15 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 09:56:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] The European Way? Message-ID: In Australia some major events use pickup slips and others use travellers. In my experience (15 years directing these events) the incidence of mistakes is signiicantly higher using pickup slips. Players seem to either take less care using pickup slips or when using travelling scoresheets are prompted by the entries already registered. Sean Mullamphy. Back from Montreal with some detours mostly outside Montreal I have tried two new messages without getting them through to you. One will come seperate again, the other was related to the question from Steve Willner: what is 'the European way'? Yes the difference is the travelling score sheet compared with the pick up slip. And Sean's experience is mine: more mistakes are made with the pick up slip. But in ACBL-land less mistakes are made in the published scores. Strange isn't it? The explanation is that ACBL TD's are doing the scoring themselves and do check every result before entering it. In that way they catch many of those mistakes, while in Europe (I am mainly talking about European championships and the biggest bridge countries, my experience doesn't include a lot of smaller NBO's)scores are entered very fast, only catching apparent mistakes. In the mixed pairs in Montreal an ACBL pair had entered 3NT played by north for minus 3: 300 for EW. After publishing the results they complained that they couldn't find their score of +150. It appeared that EW had played 3NT and went 3 off. (NS vulnerable). We changed that score but kept the appeal money. Now some ACBL TD's started quarreling with me that we shouldn't keep that money since it was the scoring room's duty to check such results. Ridiculous in my opinion. And I was supported by the lady player of this pair. They came in somewhat later asking whether the change had been made and she said that the money should of course be kept since her partner had acted stupidly. There is another aspect which is interesting and which appeared in the most recent IBPA-news. 'Lucky' as we always are the numbers 1 and 2 in the ranking were playing in the same group ( according to IBPA, I wasn'aware of it; there were 12 such groups) which makes it possible to take into account the results of the other pair and depending on the position within the group this could be much more advantageous for one pair than for the other (always in theory, I am not so sure that the information will really influence anything). A similar discussion arose about the barometer. In many countries this way of playing bridge is considered the best. Duplicated boards and results presented regularly. But in Montreal some ACBL players told me that they preferred not to receive the scores during play. Amazing. And yes, the number of scoring mistakes from a group of players, especially in the open finals, was frustratingly high. Using this way of scoring easy to handle, but still inacceptable in my opinion. Shouldn't we ask some responsibility from players when running an event? ton From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Fri Sep 20 09:00:34 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 10:00:34 +0200 Subject: FW: [blml] not shuffled Message-ID: Something went wrong with the address, so another try. -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: Kooijman, A. Verzonden: dinsdag 17 september 2002 09:52 Aan: 'richard.hills@immi.gov.au'; blml@rtflb.org.gov.au Onderwerp: RE: [blml] not shuffled Hello all of you after six weeks of silence and even absence from my side. Montreal, you know? No main disaster in the finals pairs this time. But so many USA pairs playing that they needed four of the five sessions to play each other. And then one pair didn't show up, so the first non qualifier dropped in when play started, being a USA-pair that now just played USA pairs in the last session. We started discussing the laws there, aimed on a new version in a couple of years. I am planning to use my contribution to this forum more and more for this task, interested in opinions concerning the improvement of the laws. In my opinion law 76 B should express that spectators should not draw attention to an irregularity in such a way that the players involved in that irregularity become aware of it during play. But there is a 'higher' principle than this one: the result on a board and a match or event should as much as possible be based on the legal play of the boards. No result on a board should be maintained if an irregularity occurred by which the result has been influenced. (Of course subject to time limits as described in the regulations for that event). This principle even asks a spectator to inform the TD when an unnoticed irregularity has ocurred. We have discussed the case of an unnoticed revoke before. A contestant should not gain from a revoke made by his side. I can understand the objection that a contestant has to plead his own case to get redress and I am even willing to accept that approach. In that case the revoke that went unnoticed will lead to a score adjustment for the revoking side and not for the opponents. But we can not ask a player to notice an unshuffled board when he didn't play it before. May I humbly ask you to aim your reactions on the next edition of our law book. So let us not be lost in details for the moment. And yes, I too am quite surprised that the players who did play the board before didn't become aware of that. ton Ben Schelen wrote: >>In Montreal the packs has to be shuffled by the >>players before each team contest. One board was >>ignored. Two spectators, one of them was NPC of >>the playing team, followed the achievements of >>that team and so recognized the deal of the >>former contest. It was strange that the playing >>pair did not. Both spectators discussed it and >>were sure of the situation. What should be done?. Henk Uijterwaal replied: >I don't think that there is anything that can be >done other than cancel the board. Law 6 doesn't >say that the players have to notice that the >board has been played before. Not so. In this case, L76B takes precedence over L6, so the board cannot yet be cancelled. Unless specifically requested by the TD, spectators must remain mute. (If the *actual players* later realise that the board was unshuffled before expiry of the correction period, then the TD can still cancel the board.) Best wishes Richard _ From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Fri Sep 20 09:14:03 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 10:14:03 +0200 Subject: Bridge across the Atlantic (was [blml] The European Way?) Message-ID: > What a difference in experience! > > Are the players in Norway more ethical? This just > > isn't any problem here! (Nor do I believe it is any > problem in the other Scandinavian countries) > > > > Sven > > > +=+ Well, Sven, I am unsure what this is all about, but > have we suddenly given up our adult membership of a > worldwide bridge community in order to exchange > chauvinistic two-way 'yah-we-are-better-than-you-are' > themes from childhood? ~ G ~ +=+ > Certainly not, but when people elsewhere in the world claim that barometer tournaments with immediate feedback to all players (on their results and standings) cause what at least I shall characterize as unethical behaviour in their parts of the world, I feel that my remark was justified. I shall be extremely surprised if players in barometer tournaments for instance in the USA really behave as claimed towards the end of such events. **** I just sent another posting regarding this issue but I missed the example of unethical behaviour. Of course results from other players might influence the strategy of play, but is that unethical? And I have experiences of giving away tops in non-barometer events. To be honest: my feeling is that 'it should be done our way' is more important for opinions in this respect than rationality is. We always have stopped informing the players about their results during the second half of the last round. Complaints in Montreal led to not giving information during the whole last session. Which I found a pity. ton From svenpran@online.no Fri Sep 20 09:21:28 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 10:21:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] not shuffled References: Message-ID: <001701c2607e$b83df850$70d8fea9@WINXP> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kooijman, A." ................ > Henk Uijterwaal replied: > > >I don't think that there is anything that can be > >done other than cancel the board. Law 6 doesn't > >say that the players have to notice that the > >board has been played before. > > Not so. In this case, L76B takes precedence over > L6, so the board cannot yet be cancelled. I would like to hear you elaborate on why Law 76B takes precedence over Law 6D2? IMO the way Law 6 is written it must be the other way round. Law 6D2 simply states some conditions for when no result on a board may stand; there is no question on how this fact is established and there is not even a condition for cancelling the board that any of the involved players has seen that board before. Sven From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Sep 20 10:05:33 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 20 Sep 2002 02:05:33 -0700 Subject: [blml] not shuffled Message-ID: <200902263.7534@webbox.com> Sven wrote: >> >I don't think that there is anything that can be >> >done other than cancel the board. Law 6 doesn't >> >say that the players have to notice that the >> >board has been played before. >> Not so. In this case, L76B takes precedence over >> L6, so the board cannot yet be cancelled. > >I would like to hear you elaborate on why Law 76B >takes precedence over Law 6D2? I would like to know what the penalty is for a breach of Law 76B. What is the standard amount a spectator should be fined? David Burn London, England From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 20 10:30:50 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 11:30:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] Logical alternatives in a non-logical auction In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020920111748.00a95250@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:26 20/09/2002 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Matchpoint pairs >Dlr: South >Vul: NS > >You, South, hold: > >KQ >KQ10 >Q7543 >764 > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1NT(1) >2C(2) Dble(3) Pass Pass(4) >2H(5) 6C Pass ? > >(1) 12-14 > >(2) Natural > >(3) Undiscussed. 50% of comparable > partners play this as penalties, > and 50% of comparable partners > play this as takeout. > >(4) After flipping a mental coin. > >(5) Also natural. > >What are your logical alternatives? AG : I must admit being lost here. a. LA questions are usually consequences of UI. There isn't any here. You didn't alert, the coin has landed well you didn't pass any UI. Neither did he. b. Partner's bid is strange, to be sure, but there is nothing to make anybody suspect that he wants to play anything else than 6C. c. More strange, you have quite a lot. Perhaps RHO psyched a weak hand with about 4360, and partner has something like Axx / Axx / - AKJ109xx. No, it doesn't hold : how would he expect to make 6 ? And how would LHO let his partner down in 2C ? Could it be possible that *both* of them are psyching ? Apart from passing, I haven't any idea. One possible explanation would be that partner made a X-heavy TO double, saw me let it in, and is bidding on the strength of my club 'suit'. It isn't more probable than anything else, because I have too much in the other suits, and because such passes may be made on a virtual Yarboorough with a 6-card suit. What the heck, I pass. Nobody asked for my opinion. Best regards, alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 20 10:38:21 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 11:38:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] Reveley reveille In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020920113139.00a8d140@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:46 20/09/2002 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >There was a panel discussion about this deal >in the February 2002 Australian Directors' >Bulletin. > >Best wishes > >Richard > >South-West Pacific Teams - both teams are >seeded. > >Bd. 10 / E / All > AQ854 > AJ > 73 > KQ95 >J96 K1032 >3 K10876542 >J1054 9 >J10732 --- > 7 > Q9 > AKQ862 > A864 > >West North East South > 4H(1) Pass(2) >Pass 4S(3) Pass 5D >Pass Pass Pass > >(1) Weaker than an Acol two or a Namyats 4C. >(2) Agreed hesitation. >(3) Before he called, North acknowledged South's > hesitation. > >Result: N/S + 600 > >At the conclusion of play, E/W voice their concerns >regarding North's initial 4S action and his >subsequent decision to pass 5D. North acknowledges >that he was in receipt of unauthorised information, >but argues that he has an actionable hand. He also >suggests that while a flexible action (such as a >double), might be precluded by the hesitation, a >unilateral overcall is not. AG : this is the easiest case I've seen on blml for a long time. North has three possible options : pass, double, and 4S. a) South's tempo was normal after a high level bid (say, 8-15 sec) : nothing happened b) South's break of tempo was much too long : bidding or doubling is suggested by partner's tempo, so North should pass (the less attractive option facing the tempo). Full stop. As for the score in case b), +100 seems reasonable. EW won't often escape for -1. From gester@lineone.net Fri Sep 20 13:26:53 2002 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 13:26:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] A plague o' both your houses. References: Message-ID: <002401c260a2$0d2e45e0$562a2850@pacific> Grattan Endicott Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 8:56 AM Subject: RE: [blml] The European Way? > > Amazing. > And yes, the number of scoring mistakes from a > group of players, especially in the open finals, was > frustratingly high. Using this way of scoring easy > to handle, but still inacceptable in my opinion. > Shouldn't we ask some responsibility from players > when running an event? > +=+ What I find amazing is the insensitivity with which, on all sides, I hear this subject discussed. It is clear there was dissatisfaction, amongst players, amongst staff, and I would surmise at the top, concerning the manner in which the scoring system operated. What is clear is that the expectations of many players were one thing, the expectations of those doing the scoring another; there must be lessons to be learnt, but I am not sure I hear the sound of students at their studies - it sounds more like futile recrimination to me. If I were to be asked what the answer to ton's question should be, I would reply "yes, but to the minimum extent possible"; I would add that the responsibility of the operatives in the scoring room should be reduced to the minimum possible also. That leads me to the thought that the world is full of marvellous technology and Bill Gates. We have the skills West and East of the Atlantic, North and South and East and West of the Pacific, to devise the equipment by which scores can be scanned into the system, calculated and tabulated electronically, with the system throwing out its own lists of scores that require verification. Presumably no-one has embarked upon such a project because there is no money in it or for it; yet if we seek to lead we should be going where no-one has gone before. I do not doubt that the ACBL is nearer to Valhalla in this than anyone else, but it is unpersuasive for any of us to argue our own perfection. Neither do I doubt that my vision is over the rainbow, so until we have our crock of gold, could there be advantage if all get together and work jointly forward in harness towards the ultimate ideal (and for the benefit of the game and its players), without this illumination, peu avenant, of the cobwebbed corners of our dusty mansion? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gester@lineone.net Fri Sep 20 13:38:02 2002 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 13:38:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] not shuffled References: <200902263.7534@webbox.com> Message-ID: <003901c260a4$6ecb1060$562a2850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 10:05 AM Subject: Re: [blml] not shuffled > > I would like to know what the penalty is for a > breach of Law 76B. What is the standard amount > a spectator should be fined? > +=+ Two beers; thee and me. ~ G ~ +=+ From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Fri Sep 20 13:58:04 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 14:58:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] RE: A plague o' both your houses. Message-ID: > be lessons to be learnt, but I am not sure I hear the sound of students at their studies **** that is right and the reason is easy to understand, we were not students there. it sounds more like futile recrimination to me. **** why futile, may be you should listen better? If I were to be asked what the answer to ton's question should be, I would reply "yes, but to the minimum extent possible"; I would add that the responsibility of the operatives in the scoring room should be reduced to the minimum possible also. That leads me to the thought that the world is full of marvellous technology and Bill Gates. We have the skills West and East of the Atlantic, North and South and East and West of the Pacific, to devise the equipment by which scores can be scanned into the system, calculated and tabulated electronically, with the system throwing out its own lists of scores that require verification. Presumably no-one has embarked upon such a project because there is no money in it or for it; *****Such equipment has been developed already, and an example of it was used more than a decade ago in a similar WBF event. It appeared to be a disaster, mainly because the players didn't care and destroyed most of the score forms. Not being familiar with the use of it, to mention a friendly reason. The problem does't lie there. There are little electronic boxes now which can be used to enter results. But still there is the need to enter a result at least remotely related to the reality at the table. Call it futile if you want, but I call it essential. ton yet if we seek to lead we should be going where no-one has gone before. I do not doubt that the ACBL is nearer to Valhalla in this than anyone else, but it is unpersuasive for any of us to argue our own perfection. Neither do I doubt that my vision **** it is not a vision anymore as I explained above. is over the rainbow, so until we have our crock of gold, could there be advantage if all get together and work jointly forward in harness towards the ultimate ideal (and for the benefit of the game and its players), without this illumination, peu avenant, of the cobwebbed corners of our dusty mansion? **** should I understand this? **** ton ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran@online.no Fri Sep 20 14:22:23 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 15:22:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] A plague o' both your houses. References: <002401c260a2$0d2e45e0$562a2850@pacific> Message-ID: <000d01c260a8$c2098050$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: Grattan Endicott > From: "Kooijman, A > > Amazing. > > And yes, the number of scoring mistakes from a > > group of players, especially in the open finals, was > > frustratingly high. Using this way of scoring easy > > to handle, but still inacceptable in my opinion. > > Shouldn't we ask some responsibility from players > > when running an event? > > > +=+ What I find amazing is the insensitivity with which, > on all sides, I hear this subject discussed. It is clear there > was dissatisfaction, amongst players, amongst staff, and > I would surmise at the top, concerning the manner in which > the scoring system operated. What is clear is that the > expectations of many players were one thing, the > expectations of those doing the scoring another; there must > be lessons to be learnt, but I am not sure I hear the sound > of students at their studies - it sounds more like futile > recrimination to me. > If I were to be asked what the answer to ton's > question should be, I would reply "yes, but to the minimum > extent possible"; I would add that the responsibility of the > operatives in the scoring room should be reduced to the > minimum possible also. That leads me to the thought > that the world is full of marvellous technology and Bill Gates. > We have the skills West and East of the Atlantic, North > and South and East and West of the Pacific, to devise the > equipment by which scores can be scanned into the system, > calculated and tabulated electronically, with the system > throwing out its own lists of scores that require verification. > Presumably no-one has embarked upon such a project > because there is no money in it or for it; yet if we seek to > lead we should be going where no-one has gone before. > I do not doubt that the ACBL is nearer to Valhalla in this > than anyone else, but it is unpersuasive for any of us to > argue our own perfection. > Neither do I doubt that my vision is over the rainbow, > so until we have our crock of gold, could there be advantage > if all get together and work jointly forward in harness towards > the ultimate ideal (and for the benefit of the game and its > players), without this illumination, peu avenant, of the > cobwebbed corners of our dusty mansion? As I said in a previous post: What a difference in experience. Maybe one reason why "pickups" work almost without any problem in this part of the world is that during the 10 or 15 years we have been doing computerized barometer scoring with immediate feedback to all players they have learned to appreciate the results of writing legible and accurate entries in their reports. As for the future: I have great doubts that we shall ever deploy scanners to read the reports from the players, that would probably be a slower process than manually typing in the results like we do today. (Based on experience!) But maybe one day we shall see a network of computer terminals connecting all tables to a central machine? This would probably be no big deal to accomplish, the main question being whether it will result in any real improvement over todays routines or just be another fancy gadget? Sven From wrgptfan@fastmail.fm Fri Sep 20 15:58:18 2002 From: wrgptfan@fastmail.fm (David Kent) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 14:58:18 UT Subject: [blml] The European Way? Message-ID: <20020920145818.2DC0C2FD51@server3.fastmail.fm> On Fri, 20 Sep 2002 09:56:15 +0200, "Kooijman, A." said: > In the mixed pairs in Montreal an ACBL pair had entered 3NT played by > north > for minus 3: 300 for EW. After publishing the results they complained > that > they couldn't find their score of +150. It appeared that EW had played > 3NT > and went 3 off. (NS vulnerable). We changed that score but kept the > appeal > money. Now some ACBL TD's started quarreling with me that we shouldn't > keep > that money since it was the scoring room's duty to check such results. > Ridiculous in my opinion. And I was supported by the lady player of > this > pair. They came in somewhat later asking whether the change had been > made > and she said that the money should of course be kept since her partner > had > acted stupidly. > In the round robin of the Rosenblum our team won a match rather handily (lets say 22-8 VPs). Our team's captain scored it as our opponents winning by 22-8. We did not notice the mis-score until the end of the next round. We were in no danger to qualify for the KO stage of the event (this was about round 6 or 7 of 9). It cost us $20 to have the score corrected. I am not sure if it was possible (probable) that our opps could qualify, but I am sure that a swing of -14 VPs hurt their chances. We could have left the score as it was originally scored and saved $20 (so we come in 9th instead of 8th in our group - big deal). To me, this seemd to be a penny-pinching move by the WBF which could have (and may have in other groups) led to the incorrect team qualifying for the KO round. I was a little pissed-off with the WBF for this (and not because of the $5). -- Dave Kent -- http://fastmail.fm/ - Access your email from home and the web From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Fri Sep 20 17:57:13 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 12:57:13 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] A plague o' both your houses. Message-ID: <200209201657.MAA20038@cfa183.harvard.edu> > From: "Sven Pran" > But maybe one day we shall see a network of computer > terminals connecting all tables to a central machine? Wireless-enabled PDA's. Give one to each pair or maybe to each player. Both sides separately enter the result of every board. Any disagreement will be caught and corrected at once. Of course the communications with each PDA have to be encrypted. At the end of the session (or immediately, in a barometer event), your PDA gives you your personal scoresheet complete with hand records. And who knows, double-dummy analysis, too, some day. > This > would probably be no big deal to accomplish, the main > question being whether it will result in any real improvement > over todays routines or just be another fancy gadget? Yep. The human element is much harder to fix than the technology. Ask the Florida election authorities. (In case it hasn't made the news overseas, we have just witnessed yet another contretemps in the recent election there.) From svenpran@online.no Fri Sep 20 18:14:52 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 19:14:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] A plague o' both your houses. References: <200209201657.MAA20038@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000d01c260c9$3c4f7b10$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 6:57 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A plague o' both your houses. > > From: "Sven Pran" > > But maybe one day we shall see a network of computer > > terminals connecting all tables to a central machine? > > Wireless-enabled PDA's. Give one to each pair or maybe to each > player. Both sides separately enter the result of every board. I see a big human problem here. No problem for me, nor for you (I suppose), but on the average for at least 50% of the players who will fumble with their terminals and make all sorts of errors. > Any disagreement will be caught and corrected at once. Of course > the communications with each PDA have to be encrypted. No problem > > At the end of the session (or immediately, in a barometer event), > your PDA gives you your personal scoresheet complete with hand > records. And who knows, double-dummy analysis, too, some day. Sure, we have that today as outcome of our computer programs. (If we mean the same thing? - A full description of all boards with all results tabulated) > > > This > > would probably be no big deal to accomplish, the main > > question being whether it will result in any real improvement > > over todays routines or just be another fancy gadget? > > Yep. The human element is much harder to fix than the technology. > Ask the Florida election authorities. (In case it hasn't made the > news overseas, we have just witnessed yet another contretemps in > the recent election there.) Don't we know about the (multiple) Florida experiences? HAH! I even received the new state slogan for Florida: "We do it twice!" regards Sven From mfrench1@san.rr.com Fri Sep 20 18:41:11 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 10:41:11 -0700 Subject: [blml] The European Way? References: Message-ID: <001301c260cd$0d12e720$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Kooijman, A." > > But in ACBL-land less mistakes are made in the published scores. > Strange isn't it? The explanation is that ACBL TD's > are doing the scoring themselves and do check every result before entering And they check after entering too, reviewing the pickup slips one by one looking for typos. When any result is egregious (original sense of the word), they go out on the floor and check private scorecards if the hand record doesn't explain it. And, of course, ACBLScore catches some types of error. In the business and engineering worlds data entry is a job for lower-level employees, who get very good at what they do. I've often wondered whether local well-trained teenagers could do data entry for tournaments at 1/4 the cost of an ACBL TD. One-meal per diem, no hotel room. Or, could not local TDs be used at 1/3 the cost? They could consult an ACBL TD when necessary. On the other hand, restricting some ACBL TDs to doing data entry is perhaps a good idea. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California . From mfrench1@san.rr.com Fri Sep 20 19:54:31 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 11:54:31 -0700 Subject: [blml] not shuffled References: Message-ID: <000b01c260d7$951f8060$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Kooijman, A." > In my opinion law 76 B should express that spectators should not draw > attention to an irregularity in such a way that the players involved in that > irregularity become aware of it during play. > But there is a 'higher' principle than this one: the result on a board and a > match or event should as much as possible be based on the legal play of the > boards. No result on a board should be maintained if an irregularity > occurred by which the result has been influenced. (Of course subject to time > limits as described in the regulations for that event). This principle even > asks a spectator to inform the TD when an unnoticed irregularity has > ocurred. Well good, maybe I can make some expense money by hiring myself out to an inexperienced pair as a kibitzer. I'm sure I could spot many irregularties they would miss, at $5 a pop. With UI and MI currently abounding, I could do very well. That's a facetious way of saying that I oppose the idea that a kibitzer should report or even comment on an irregularity that is unnoticed by the pairs at the table. I guess I'm alone in saying that TDs should not "rectify" unnoticed irregularities either, and L81C6 should be changed accordingly. A rubber bridge kibitzer who comments on an unnoticed irregularity regarding the bidding or play is probably shown the door. The rubber bridge laws include this one under Proprieties:: 5. A spectator...may not call attention to any irregularity or mistake, nor speak on any question of fact or law except by request of the players. I fail to see why this traditional treatment of kibitzers should be different for duplicate bridge. I thought "protecting the field" has long been a rejected principle, but it seems to creep in here and there, disguised as "doing equity." Scoring errors excepted. Scoring is not what we usually consider a bridge skill, while the ability to spot opponents' irregularities is one. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From ljtrent@adelphia.net Fri Sep 20 22:20:53 2002 From: ljtrent@adelphia.net (Linda Trent) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 14:20:53 -0700 Subject: [blml] The European Way? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ton said: >>Yes the difference is the travelling score sheet compared >>with the pick up >>slip. And Sean's experience is mine: more mistakes are made >>with the pick up >>slip. But in ACBL-land less mistakes are made in the >>published scores. Many clubs here use both pickup slips and travellers - pick ups so the results are out in as long as it takes to print a page when the last table finishes, and travellers because the players like to see what everyone has done. And what would you have done if a couple of those travellers "left the building" so to speak - especially after the third session in the Mixed when the Finals was starting a couple hours later - (that was a whole different adventure by the way) >>Strange isn't it? The explanation is that ACBL TD's >>are doing the scoring themselves and do check every result >>before entering >>it. In that way they catch many of those mistakes, while in >>Europe (I am >>mainly talking about European championships and the biggest bridge >>countries, my experience doesn't include a lot of smaller >>NBO's)scores are >>entered very fast, only catching apparent mistakes. And I still bet at our ACBL NABCs that the scores for 20+ 15 table section events the recap sheets are available to the players a lot faster >> >>In the mixed pairs in Montreal an ACBL pair had entered 3NT >>played by north >>for minus 3: 300 for EW. After publishing the results they >>complained that >>they couldn't find their score of +150. It appeared that EW >>had played 3NT >>and went 3 off. (NS vulnerable). We changed that score but >>kept the appeal >>money. Now some ACBL TD's started quarreling with me that >>we shouldn't keep >>that money since it was the scoring room's duty to check >>such results. >>Ridiculous in my opinion. And I was supported by the lady >>player of this >>pair. They came in somewhat later asking whether the change >>had been made >>and she said that the money should of course be kept since >>her partner had >>acted stupidly. I agree up to a point - I think players should only be responsible for entering a contract and the number of tricks taken by the declarer. The ability to correctly calculate the score for say 2D redoubled with four overtricks should have no effect on who wins the bridge event (showing the extrmeme example to make my point), however knowing that the contract was 2D redoubled and declarer took 12 tricks should be required. I would even like to go as far as to require players to check their "contracts" and DQ players who decide not to bother and have made an error but I know that will never happen. It is just a matter of time before a mis-score has an impact on the winners of a major event if we continue to do things the way we do now. It sort of already did in Geneva. >> >>A similar discussion arose about the barometer. In many >>countries this way >>of playing bridge is considered the best. Duplicated boards >>and results >>presented regularly. I thought that was great. I really liked that and would like to run an event that way at our bridge club. But in Montreal some ACBL players told >>me that they >>preferred not to receive the scores during play. Amazing. But I was also glad that in the fifth session of the finals we didn't get the results every round. As the last place pair, (getting to the finals was a miracle - my goal was not to be last in any round and we weren't - lol) I am really glad I didn't know what effect our pair was having on the top pairs. We ended up playing the French pair that was second the last round and I am sure glad I didn't know it at the time. Linda From cyaxares@lineone.net Fri Sep 20 22:24:55 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 22:24:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] RE: A plague o' both your houses. References: Message-ID: <001501c260f7$7298a470$6844e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: ; "Kooijman, A." ; "'Canberra Bridge Club'" ; "Steve Willner" ; Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 1:58 PM Subject: [blml] RE: A plague o' both your houses. > > > be lessons to be learnt, but I am not sure I hear the sound > of students at their studies > > **** that is right and the reason is easy to understand, > we were not students there. > +=+ No, indeed so it seems. But given the dissatisfaction on all sides those who will have the same questions to answer for future tournaments need to be students now+=+ . > it sounds more like futile > recrimination to me. > > **** why futile, may be you should listen better? > +=+ My listening will not help. The problem will not be mine to solve. But there is a problem and the solution does not lie in each telling the other what was wrong with what the other did. As I said anyone who gives evidence of his own perfection will fail to persuade the jury. +=+ > > so until we have our crock of gold, could there be advantage > if all get together and work jointly forward in harness towards > the ultimate ideal (and for the benefit of the game and its > players), without this illumination, peu avenant, of the > cobwebbed corners of our dusty mansion? > > **** should I understand this? > +=+ Probably not; it merely suggests all is not right and this is not the most perfect of worlds (and that people should work together to improve it). I am rather surprised you have joined in this debate which is only serving to reveal the extent to which subscribers lack an understanding of each other's opinions and experience. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Fri Sep 20 22:12:47 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 22:12:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] A plague o' both your houses. References: <002401c260a2$0d2e45e0$562a2850@pacific> <000d01c260a8$c2098050$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <001401c260f7$70d60ce0$6844e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 2:22 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A plague o' both your houses. > > As for the future: I have great doubts that we shall ever > deploy scanners to read the reports from the players, that > would probably be a slower process than manually typing > in the results like we do today. (Based on experience!) > +=+ Well, way back in the 1970's my employer was scanning manually entered paper documents some 12cms x 20 cms and tabulating the results. The speed for one machine was a targeted maximum 15,000+ docs an hour, optimum operating rate 12,000 an hour. We had the results from 11 million or so documents in a couple of hours using a bank of machines. The percentage of documents rejected by a machine was low. One scrutineer per machine more than enough. We were never invited to demonstrate our capabilitites in Florida, where in search of improvement they probably do not see much beyond their own front door either. (No, not you Kojak, sit down.) ~ G ~ +=+ From brian@wellsborocomputing.com Sat Sep 21 00:06:11 2002 From: brian@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 19:06:11 -0400 Subject: [blml] Lucy. In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20020919223113.027f21f0@mail.fscv.net> References: <002901c25ff3$aff2c5d0$6401a8c0@hare> <5.1.1.6.0.20020919223113.027f21f0@mail.fscv.net> Message-ID: <0aanou4mb6p9adsd7clo1at926mqvmav9d@4ax.com> On Thu, 19 Sep 2002 22:33:44 -0400, you wrote: >No, I hadn't really noticed it, but it sounds like what the ACBL decided to >do after ... wasn't it Katz and/or Cohen that sued them? > Whatever their reasoning, it didn't save them a court case against John Blubaugh - or did that all blow up before this wording was introduced? Brian. >Walt > > >At 11:46 AM 19/09/2002 -0400, Nancy T Dressing wrote: >>Have you ever noticed that when you fill out your entry you sign a waiver >>that states: >>" The submission of this entry blank constitutes an agreement binding on all >>players listed hereon, that this contest is governed by the rule, >>regulations and procedures of the ACBL and that all players listed hereon >>waive all rights of legal, or other action against the ACBL and any person, >>committee or entity acting in an official capacity it the conduct of this >>contest excepting those challenges, appeals and procedures specified in or >>sanctions by the rules, regulations, procedures of the ACBL." >>Most conditions of contest for the NABCs are published in "The Bridge >>Bulletin" prior to the tournament... >>Not many people read that entry form that they submit at a tournament.... >>Nancy >> >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: "Ed Reppert" >>To: "Gordon Bower" >>Cc: >>Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 2:08 PM >>Subject: Re: [blml] Lucy. >> >> >> > On 9/14/02, Gordon Bower wrote: >> > >> > >The other problem is the one that actually DOES arise. Players say the >> > >agree to the CoC assuming they are agreeing to a reasonable, sensible >> > >policy >> > >> > Seems simple enough to me. I walk into a tournament, ask to buy an >> > entry, and the person selling entries hands me a form to sign which says >> > "I agree to the conditions of contest for this tournament." My answer: >> > "where may I find a copy of these conditions?" If the tournament cannot >> > provide them, I will not sign the form. If that refusal results in my >> > not being able to play, so be it - but I will complain to whatever >> > powers may be necessary about the inadequacy of preparation for this >> > tournament by its sponsors, and the waste of my time and effort in >> > attempting to play in it. Ultimately, if this happens again, I am likely >> > to quit playing tournament bridge altogether. I don't think I'm alone in >> > this. >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > blml mailing list >> > blml@rtflb.org >> > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>blml mailing list >>blml@rtflb.org >>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com From brian@wellsborocomputing.com Sat Sep 21 00:28:49 2002 From: brian@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 19:28:49 -0400 Subject: [blml] A plague o' both your houses. In-Reply-To: <200209201657.MAA20038@cfa183.harvard.edu> References: <200209201657.MAA20038@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: On Fri, 20 Sep 2002 12:57:13 -0400 (EDT), Steve Willner wrote: >> From: "Sven Pran" >> But maybe one day we shall see a network of computer >> terminals connecting all tables to a central machine? > >Wireless-enabled PDA's. Give one to each pair or maybe to each >player. Both sides separately enter the result of every board. >Any disagreement will be caught and corrected at once. Of course >the communications with each PDA have to be encrypted. > If you don't want the results returned to the PDA, it could be even easier (and cheaper!) than that. One numeric keypad per pair, or even per player, with a single line output for verification. One central computer could poll the results from a whole bunch of tables, giving the go-ahead to continue on to the next board only when consistent (and valid!) input had been obtained from all pairs. If you don't like the idea of overloading the numeric keys, the keypads can have five extra keys for the suits and NT. Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com From nancy@dressing.org Sat Sep 21 01:08:39 2002 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 20:08:39 -0400 Subject: [blml] Lucy. References: <002901c25ff3$aff2c5d0$6401a8c0@hare> <5.1.1.6.0.20020919223113.027f21f0@mail.fscv.net> <0aanou4mb6p9adsd7clo1at926mqvmav9d@4ax.com> Message-ID: <000701c26103$0ae2d830$6401a8c0@hare> This wording has been on the tournament entry for more than 6 years......Nancy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Meadows" To: Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 7:06 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Lucy. > On Thu, 19 Sep 2002 22:33:44 -0400, you wrote: > > >No, I hadn't really noticed it, but it sounds like what the ACBL decided to > >do after ... wasn't it Katz and/or Cohen that sued them? > > > > Whatever their reasoning, it didn't save them a court case > against John Blubaugh - or did that all blow up before this > wording was introduced? > > > Brian. > > >Walt > > > > > >At 11:46 AM 19/09/2002 -0400, Nancy T Dressing wrote: > >>Have you ever noticed that when you fill out your entry you sign a waiver > >>that states: > >>" The submission of this entry blank constitutes an agreement binding on all > >>players listed hereon, that this contest is governed by the rule, > >>regulations and procedures of the ACBL and that all players listed hereon > >>waive all rights of legal, or other action against the ACBL and any person, > >>committee or entity acting in an official capacity it the conduct of this > >>contest excepting those challenges, appeals and procedures specified in or > >>sanctions by the rules, regulations, procedures of the ACBL." > >>Most conditions of contest for the NABCs are published in "The Bridge > >>Bulletin" prior to the tournament... > >>Not many people read that entry form that they submit at a tournament.... > >>Nancy > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > >>From: "Ed Reppert" > >>To: "Gordon Bower" > >>Cc: > >>Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 2:08 PM > >>Subject: Re: [blml] Lucy. > >> > >> > >> > On 9/14/02, Gordon Bower wrote: > >> > > >> > >The other problem is the one that actually DOES arise. Players say the > >> > >agree to the CoC assuming they are agreeing to a reasonable, sensible > >> > >policy > >> > > >> > Seems simple enough to me. I walk into a tournament, ask to buy an > >> > entry, and the person selling entries hands me a form to sign which says > >> > "I agree to the conditions of contest for this tournament." My answer: > >> > "where may I find a copy of these conditions?" If the tournament cannot > >> > provide them, I will not sign the form. If that refusal results in my > >> > not being able to play, so be it - but I will complain to whatever > >> > powers may be necessary about the inadequacy of preparation for this > >> > tournament by its sponsors, and the waste of my time and effort in > >> > attempting to play in it. Ultimately, if this happens again, I am likely > >> > to quit playing tournament bridge altogether. I don't think I'm alone in > >> > this. > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > blml mailing list > >> > blml@rtflb.org > >> > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >>_______________________________________________ > >>blml mailing list > >>blml@rtflb.org > >>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >blml mailing list > >blml@rtflb.org > >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- > Software development and computer consulting > Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 > Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 > RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 > http://www.wellsborocomputing.com > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Sat Sep 21 01:28:05 2002 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 16:28:05 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] The European Way? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Forgive me for some strong wording in this post. The following incident was related on BLML: "In the mixed pairs in Montreal an ACBL pair had entered 3NT played by north for minus 3: 300 for EW. After publishing the results they complained that they couldn't find their score of +150. It appeared that EW had played 3NT and went 3 off. (NS vulnerable). We changed that score but kept the appeal money. Now some ACBL TD's started quarreling with me that we shouldn't keep that money since it was the scoring room's duty to check such results. Ridiculous in my opinion. And I was supported by the lady player of this pair. They came in somewhat later asking whether the change had been made and she said that the money should of course be kept since her partner had acted stupidly." First, two quotations from the laws: L72A2: A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick that his side did not win or the concession of a trick his opponents could not lose. L79C: An error in computing or tabulating the agreed-upon score, whether made by a player or scorer, may be corrected until the expiration of the period specified by the SO. You can split hairs about L72A2 not applying, since NS are asking for a score increase and EW might not be aware of the error until someone (director, NS, kibitzer, friend, whatever) asks them how they got their +300. Given that the score WAS in fact changed, I infer the correction period had not expired. So, I have two questions for those who were there and know the facts better than I do: 1. How did the notion of "an appeal" get mixed into a simple score correction? 2. How DARE you *punish* someone for doing something explicitly permitted (and by one reasonable reading, required!) by the laws? I find the situation abundantly clear: someone is owed an apology and a refund; the directors who think this is ridiculous need lined up against the nearest wall and shot; there may be a regulation contrary to the laws lurking somewhere that needs stricken. Law 81C6 has already been mentioned by others. --- I can imagine - just barely imagine - where a real hardnose might try to claim that 72A2 or 79A was violated by the players who wrote out and signed the incorrect pickup slip. I'd be more than a little surprised by the existence of a regulation stating such violations were subject to a monetary fine. I cannot conceive of a basis for refusing to obey 79C once the error is brought to light. A lot of posting errors could be caught, incidentally, if the scoring software required entry of the contract and number of tricks won, instead of (or in addition to!) the raw score. This would also make the recap sheets much more informative, indicating which contracts people played [is that stray 400 among the 430s from misplaying 3NT, or from getting to a shaky 5C and playing brilliantly?]. Whether the scores are entered from travellers or from pickup slips, I was certainly taught from my earliest days that it was part of the director's job to track down the cause of whatever inconsistencies he found on the travellers. Sure, I yell at the players to be careful when I have to track down a bunch of errors; but it IS part of the job. I am happy to chalk up the barometer-vs-"estimating is part of the game" discussion to a matter of taste. GRB From Schoderb@aol.com Sat Sep 21 02:09:37 2002 From: Schoderb@aol.com (Schoderb@aol.com) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 21:09:37 EDT Subject: [blml] The European Way? Message-ID: <11a.171b0f40.2abd20d1@aol.com> --part1_11a.171b0f40.2abd20d1_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/20/2002 8:34:14 PM Eastern Standard Time, siegmund@mosquitonet.com writes: > the directors who think this is ridiculous need lined up against > the nearest wall and shot; Couldn't stop myself from correcting this. It was NO DIRECTOR who thought that way. "Ridiculous" is not in our lexicon since we know what it means. Kojak --part1_11a.171b0f40.2abd20d1_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/20/2002 8:34:14 PM Eastern Standard Time, siegmund@mosquitonet.com writes:


the directors who think this is ridiculous need lined up against
the nearest wall and shot;


Couldn't stop myself from correcting this.  It was NO DIRECTOR  who thought that way.  "Ridiculous" is not in our lexicon since we know what it means.

Kojak --part1_11a.171b0f40.2abd20d1_boundary-- From toddz@worldnet.att.com Sat Sep 21 04:12:22 2002 From: toddz@worldnet.att.com (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 23:12:22 -0400 Subject: [blml] The European Way? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Gordon Bower > Subject: RE: [blml] The European Way? > > A lot of posting errors could be caught, incidentally, > if the scoring > software required entry of the contract and number of > tricks won, instead > of (or in addition to!) the raw score. The benefits of this aside, a little history tells the tale of the ACBL going with the software program with the fastest data input, which is simply the raw scores. An early competitor to ACBLScore did input contract, direction, and tricks. The state of ACBLScore at the moment is that software updates are arduous. It's written in a language few people know. It should be scrapped and replaced outright, but the ACBL is not interested in "helping develop a competing product" as I found when initially asking for some information from them. Other parts of the world should not encounter this problem. -Todd From jimfox00@cox.net Sat Sep 21 05:21:09 2002 From: jimfox00@cox.net (Jim Fox) Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 00:21:09 -0400 Subject: [blml] The European Way? References: Message-ID: <00f701c26126$506f05e0$73e86944@hr.cox.net> > The state of ACBLScore at the moment is that software updates are > arduous. It's written in a language few people know. It should > be scrapped and replaced outright, but the ACBL is not interested > in "helping develop a competing product" as I found when initially > asking for some information from them. What language is that? Are they seeking contractors for maintenance of the existing product? Mmbridge Virginia Beach, USA From adam@tameware.com Sat Sep 21 05:41:45 2002 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 00:41:45 -0400 Subject: [blml] WBF CoC comments solicited Message-ID: Karen McCallum has sent the following message to all and sundry on behalf of David Sokolow. I'm sure she and David would be delighted to hear from BLML members as well. I know I have a long list to send. - Adam W. _____________________ fellow bridge players, if you have any comments you'd like to make about conditions of contest (or anything else) in montreal, or other WBF events, would you please forward them to david sokolow at dss26@po.cwru.edu. or, just reply to this email and i will forward your messages to him. (would you please do so as soon as possible?) david is preparing a letter to the WBF on behalf of the players and would, of course, like it to be truly representative of our various concerns and opinions. if you would prefer not to be quoted, please say so. apologies if you receive this letter more than once. i'm using several lists and there are bound to be duplicates. thanks in advance for your help, karen mccallum -- From cyaxares@lineone.net Sat Sep 21 07:14:24 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 07:14:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] The European Way? References: <11a.171b0f40.2abd20d1@aol.com> Message-ID: <004e01c26136$5a21d490$3127e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: ; Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 2:09 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The European Way? > In a message dated 9/20/2002 8:34:14 PM Eastern Standard > Time, > siegmund@mosquitonet.com writes: > > > > the directors who think this is ridiculous need (to be) lined up > > against the nearest wall and shot; > > Couldn't stop myself from correcting this. It was NO DIRECTOR > who thought that way. "Ridiculous" is not in our lexicon since we > know what it means. > > Kojak > +=+ Well, now, Kojak ..... I wondered why you had not put in a couple of dollars' worth! Actually, you are right of course, the internet is full of people talking and desperately short of people who are listening, and while blml is sometimes an interesting exercise of working out amongst knowledgeable people (with a major flaw in that we do not have contributions from the ordinary folk who do not have a special position on the subjects discussed, and who at the end of the day are the people above all that we are here to serve), in this case we have managed to introduce 'European' and 'ACBL' as a chauvinistic element. So we have entrenched defensive positions all around us and no-one has yet said much about what they might actually do differently next time. So no progress. One question lurks in my head - there seems to have been an instance in which a monetary penalty was applied in circumstances when, superficially at least, it appears to have been , er, insensitive - even b****y stupid - and I am asking myself whether anyone thought of exercising the right under the CoCs to appeal a regulation? - which would have brought the whole of the Executive and the R&R Committee to bear on what may have been an injustice. For example, did the CTD know about it, and did he consider using his power under Law 81C9, either by adjusting the dispute and overriding the scoring room, or by referring the subject to appeal? Or have I got it wrong and did we do the sensible thing in the end? Or was Law 81C9 suspended for the tournament? I think that in some parts of Europe most players feeling the sense of injustice the pair in question are said to have felt, would have been less docile about foregoing their right to appeal the forfeiture. I am just departing for a weekend as referee at stage 1B of our national team trials; I promise to bear the lessons of this experience with me. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sat Sep 21 07:27:27 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 23:27:27 -0700 Subject: [blml] WBF CoC comments solicited References: Message-ID: <009e01c26138$26202960$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Adam Wildavsky" > Karen McCallum has sent the following message to all and sundry on > behalf of David Sokolow. I'm sure she and David would be delighted to > hear from BLML members as well. I know I have a long list to send. > I hope BLML subscribers will Cc to BLML anything they send to Mr. Sokolow. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Sat Sep 21 12:57:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 12:57 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] not shuffled Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <000b01c260d7$951f8060$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Marv wrote: > A rubber bridge kibitzer who comments on an unnoticed irregularity > regarding the bidding or play is probably shown the door. The rubber > bridge laws include this one under Proprieties:: > > 5. A spectator...may not call attention to any irregularity or mistake, > nor speak on any question of fact or law except by request of the > players. IME this largely applies before the hand is scored. Comments such as "It might have better if South had opened as he was supposed to." or "It's always tough avoiding a squeeze when you only have 12 cards" are fair kibbitzer game. No score adjustments though. If the comment is premature the kibbitzer will probably have to make up the monetary difference between non-balancing results (this is very rare - unsurprisingly). A kibbitzer would also report to the management if he suspected deliberate concealment of a revoke or other forms of cheating. Again no score adjustments but management will be alert in future. These principles would seem equally appropriate to duplicate. There is one area, not applicable to rubber, that seems different. That is misboarding/misduplication type errors. IMO these should be reported to the TD immediately if noticed by anyone. Tim From Schoderb@aol.com Sat Sep 21 15:44:13 2002 From: Schoderb@aol.com (Schoderb@aol.com) Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 10:44:13 EDT Subject: [blml] The European Way? Message-ID: <104.1bd21534.2abddfbd@aol.com> --part1_104.1bd21534.2abddfbd_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/21/2002 2:16:56 AM Eastern Standard Time, cyaxares@lineone.net writes: > One question lurks in my head - there seems to have > been an instance in which a monetary penalty was applied in > circumstances when, superficially at least, it appears to have > been , er, insensitive - even b****y stupid - and I am asking > myself whether anyone thought of exercising the right under > the CoCs to appeal a regulation? - which would have brought > the whole of the Executive and the R&R Committee to bear > on what may have been an injustice. For example, did the > CTD know about it, and did he consider using his power > under Law 81C9, either by adjusting the dispute and > overriding the scoring room, or by referring the subject to > appeal? Or have I got it wrong and did we do the sensible > thing in the end? Or was Law 81C9 suspended for the > tournament? > I did adjust some disputes and accepted some corrections (which took away sizeable scores from the players asking for correction) without the deposit. I am not aware of a player accepting a forfeiture because her partner made a dumb mistake, as I seem to have read somewhere. I'm intentionally staying low profile on this thread, since it has clearly gotten out of hand, and there is little substance in the heat generated. As a WBF "purple suiter" (ask any US military what that means), I see little benefit to be derived from chauvinistic posturing. However, I don't agree that with years of experience, inputs from players, studied comparisons of various scoring methods including costs, personnel, equipment, speed, accuracy, ease of use, etc., that we can't arrive at what is currently -- for lack of a better word -- the "best" in providing service to the bridge playing public on the World stage. Sure, there are great expectations and as yet unkown methods on the horizon, but when it comes to TODAY, and what is needed to do the job NOW I have little doubt that ACBLSCOR, combined with the WBF system of video displays of results, assignments, rankings, etc., works best for the nonce. I believe that the players' right to expect quick and accurate service is inherent in the price of their entry. My opinion is that TDs trained to post scores is best. They work both "on the floor" and in the "scoring room" on a rotational basis. To my mind (and by the Laws) scoring is an integral part of a TD's job. Most TDs on the floor (surely those who would like to continue working for me) would not let a set of tickets go to their compatriots in the scoring room that were not complete, in order, and time permitting also checked for accuracy. I know this goes against the grain of those who wish to do things as cheaply as possible, but my experiences with using "Kelly girls" and/or less than fully qualified TDs is that it produces poorer results and is really not much less costly in the long run. This doesn't in any way mean that the Dutch TDs in Montreal didn't do a monumental job of trying to manage their system -- they deserve applause. As to the player's responsibilities, I find that when treated with respect, courtesy, evident professionalism, and a readily apparent willingness to provide them a pleasant experience, they frequently respond with greater attention and accuracy on their part (not to forget, reduced numbers of appeals). And, none of the above is to say that in differing locations and playing conditions all over the world the TDs and responsible individuals are not doing exactly that. I'm talking only from my "purple suit" view about WBF. 'nuf said, =Kojak= --part1_104.1bd21534.2abddfbd_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/21/2002 2:16:56 AM Eastern Standard Time, cyaxares@lineone.net writes:


One question lurks in my head - there seems to have
been an instance in which a monetary penalty was applied in
circumstances when, superficially at least, it appears to have
been , er, insensitive - even b****y stupid - and I am asking
myself whether anyone thought of exercising the right under
the CoCs to appeal a regulation? - which would have brought
the whole of the Executive and the R&R Committee to bear
on what may have been an injustice. For example, did the
CTD know about it, and did he consider using his power
under Law 81C9, either by adjusting the dispute and
overriding the scoring room, or by referring the subject to
appeal? Or have I got it wrong and did we do the sensible
thing in the end? Or was Law 81C9 suspended for the
tournament?


I did adjust some disputes and accepted some corrections (which took away sizeable scores from the players asking for correction) without the deposit. I am not aware of a player accepting a forfeiture because her partner made a dumb mistake, as I seem to have read somewhere.  I'm  intentionally staying low profile on this thread, since it has clearly gotten out of hand, and there is little substance in the heat generated.

As a WBF "purple suiter" (ask any US military what that means), I see little benefit to be derived from chauvinistic posturing. However, I don't agree that with years of experience, inputs from players, studied comparisons of various scoring methods including costs, personnel, equipment, speed, accuracy, ease of use, etc., that we can't arrive at what is currently -- for lack of a better word -- the  "best" in providing service to the bridge playing public on the World stage.

Sure, there are great expectations and as yet unkown methods on the horizon, but when it comes to TODAY, and what is needed to do the job NOW I have little doubt that ACBLSCOR, combined with the WBF system of video displays of results, assignments, rankings, etc., works best for the nonce. I  believe that the players' right to expect quick and accurate service is inherent in the price of their entry.

My opinion is that TDs trained to post scores is best.  They work both "on the floor" and  in the "scoring room"  on a rotational basis. To my mind  (and by the Laws) scoring is an integral part of a TD's job. Most TDs on the floor (surely those who would like to continue working for me) would not let a set of tickets go to their compatriots in the scoring room that were not complete, in order, and time permitting also checked for accuracy. I know this goes against the grain of those who wish to do things as cheaply as possible, but my experiences with using "Kelly girls"  and/or less than fully qualified TDs is that it produces poorer results and is really not much less costly in the long run. This doesn't in any way mean that the Dutch TDs in Montreal didn't do a monumental job of trying to manage their system -- they deserve applause.

As to the player's responsibilities, I find that when treated with respect,  courtesy, evident professionalism, and a readily apparent willingness to provide them a pleasant experience, they frequently respond with greater attention and accuracy on their part (not to forget, reduced numbers of appeals).

And, none of the above is to say that in differing locations and playing conditions all over the world the TDs and responsible individuals are not doing exactly that.  I'm talking only from my "purple suit" view about WBF.

'nuf said,

=Kojak= --part1_104.1bd21534.2abddfbd_boundary-- From svenpran@online.no Sat Sep 21 16:07:06 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 17:07:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] not shuffled References: Message-ID: <000901c26180$8d4c4810$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Tim West-meads" > Marv wrote: > > > A rubber bridge kibitzer who comments on an unnoticed irregularity > > regarding the bidding or play is probably shown the door. The rubber > > bridge laws include this one under Proprieties:: > > > > 5. A spectator...may not call attention to any irregularity or mistake, > > nor speak on any question of fact or law except by request of the > > players. > > IME this largely applies before the hand is scored. Comments such as "It > might have better if South had opened as he was supposed to." or "It's > always tough avoiding a squeeze when you only have 12 cards" are fair > kibbitzer game. No score adjustments though. If the comment is premature > the kibbitzer will probably have to make up the monetary difference > between non-balancing results (this is very rare - unsurprisingly). > > A kibbitzer would also report to the management if he suspected deliberate > concealment of a revoke or other forms of cheating. Again no score > adjustments but management will be alert in future. > > These principles would seem equally appropriate to duplicate. There is > one area, not applicable to rubber, that seems different. That is > misboarding/misduplication type errors. IMO these should be reported to > the TD immediately if noticed by anyone. There is a major difference between rubber and duplicate: In rubber there is no such thing as a result on a board being unobtainable because the board is not equivalent to the "same" board as played at other tables and/or in other rounds. Obviously we need some differences between the laws for duplicate and the laws for rubber bridge. I do not know if rubber has a law that makes a board void if it has already been played in a previous session like we have in duplicate Law 6D2, but as to the application of this law, the moment it is shown that a board is void it has to be cancelled. I see no way it can matter how such knowledge came to light. But it would of course be highly improper for a spectator to raise the alarm except by quietly informing the Director of his suspicion and then leave the matter to him. Sven From hermandw@skynet.be Sat Sep 21 16:39:07 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 17:39:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] The European Way? References: <104.1bd21534.2abddfbd@aol.com> Message-ID: <3D8C929B.7050801@skynet.be> Schoderb@aol.com wrote: > > I did adjust some disputes and accepted some corrections (which took > away sizeable scores from the players asking for correction) without the > deposit. I am not aware of a player accepting a forfeiture because her > partner made a dumb mistake, as I seem to have read somewhere. I'm > intentionally staying low profile on this thread, since it has clearly > gotten out of hand, and there is little substance in the heat generated. > > As a WBF "purple suiter" (ask any US military what that means), I see > little benefit to be derived from chauvinistic posturing. However, I > don't agree that with years of experience, inputs from players, studied > comparisons of various scoring methods including costs, personnel, > equipment, speed, accuracy, ease of use, etc., that we can't arrive at > what is currently -- for lack of a better word -- the "best" in > providing service to the bridge playing public on the World stage. > I don't think there can be a "best" way. I believe that it is wrong to assume that the "best" way could even be better than the one a particular set of players and a particular set of calculaters and helpers is used to. I wouldn't want to organize a large tournament with English players, Dutch organizers and a Belgian scoring program. But neither would I accept that an American program, even if it is the best in the world be used to score a program in Belgium, with Belgian players and a Belgian staff. > Sure, there are great expectations and as yet unkown methods on the > horizon, but when it comes to TODAY, and what is needed to do the job > NOW I have little doubt that ACBLSCOR, combined with the WBF system of > video displays of results, assignments, rankings, etc., works best for > the nonce. I believe that the players' right to expect quick and > accurate service is inherent in the price of their entry. > > My opinion is that TDs trained to post scores is best. They work both > "on the floor" and in the "scoring room" on a rotational basis. To my > mind (and by the Laws) scoring is an integral part of a TD's job. Most > TDs on the floor (surely those who would like to continue working for > me) would not let a set of tickets go to their compatriots in the > scoring room that were not complete, in order, and time permitting also > checked for accuracy. I know this goes against the grain of those who > wish to do things as cheaply as possible, but my experiences with using > "Kelly girls" and/or less than fully qualified TDs is that it produces > poorer results and is really not much less costly in the long run. This > doesn't in any way mean that the Dutch TDs in Montreal didn't do a > monumental job of trying to manage their system -- they deserve applause. > In my experience, it is quite alright to use young girls to type in scores. Experiences differ - that's the important bit. And that is what makes a world championship quite difficult to organize. > As to the player's responsibilities, I find that when treated with > respect, courtesy, evident professionalism, and a readily apparent > willingness to provide them a pleasant experience, they frequently > respond with greater attention and accuracy on their part (not to > forget, reduced numbers of appeals). > > And, none of the above is to say that in differing locations and playing > conditions all over the world the TDs and responsible individuals are > not doing exactly that. I'm talking only from my "purple suit" view > about WBF. > > 'nuf said, > > =Kojak= -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From Schoderb@aol.com Sat Sep 21 17:08:30 2002 From: Schoderb@aol.com (Schoderb@aol.com) Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 12:08:30 EDT Subject: [blml] The European Way? Message-ID: <123.16fa138c.2abdf37e@aol.com> --part1_123.16fa138c.2abdf37e_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/21/2002 11:39:51 AM Eastern Standard Time, hermandw@skynet.be writes: > I don't think there can be a "best" way. > I believe that it is wrong to assume that the "best" way could even be > better than the one a particular set of players and a particular set > of calculaters and helpers is used to. > I wouldn't want to organize a large tournament with English players, > Dutch organizers and a Belgian scoring program. > But neither would I accept that an American program, even if it is the > best in the world be used to score a program in Belgium, with Belgian > players and a Belgian staff. > Herman, you have a knack for saying the same thing I just did in different words. Read my scribblings again and you will find that I'm talking only of the problem of WBF, and have given full measure and agreement to what you say. =Kojak= --part1_123.16fa138c.2abdf37e_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/21/2002 11:39:51 AM Eastern Standard Time, hermandw@skynet.be writes:


I don't think there can be a "best" way.
I believe that it is wrong to assume that the "best" way could even be
better than the one a particular set of players and a particular set
of calculaters and helpers is used to.
I wouldn't want to organize a large tournament with English players,
Dutch organizers and a Belgian scoring program.
But neither would I accept that an American program, even if it is the
best in the world be used to score a program in Belgium, with Belgian
players and a Belgian staff.


Herman, you have a knack for saying the same thing I just did in different words.  Read my scribblings again and you will find that I'm talking only of the problem of WBF, and have given full measure and agreement to what you say.

=Kojak= --part1_123.16fa138c.2abdf37e_boundary-- From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sat Sep 21 17:21:39 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 09:21:39 -0700 Subject: [blml] not shuffled References: Message-ID: <001a01c2618a$f8f3bee0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Tim West-meads" > Marv wrote: > > > A rubber bridge kibitzer who comments on an unnoticed irregularity > > regarding the bidding or play is probably shown the door. The rubber > > bridge laws include this one under Proprieties:: My mistake, as I should have included the phrase "before the score is entered. Thanks for noting this, Tim. > > > > 5. A spectator...may not call attention to any irregularity or > > mistake, nor speak on any question of fact or law except by request > > of the players. > > IME this largely applies before the hand is scored. Comments such as > "It might have better if South had opened as he was supposed to." or "It's > always tough avoiding a squeeze when you only have 12 cards" are fair > kibbitzer game. No score adjustments though. If the comment is > premature the kibbitzer will probably have to make up the monetary > difference between non-balancing results (this is very rare - unsurprisingly). No score adjustments. Yes, anything goes after the has been entered, although in our club a scoring mistake can be noted by a kibitzer, and that is the only justification for changing a score. Is that okay by you? Often overlooked in the Laws of rubber bridge are the Alternative Club Laws, which can be used when there is an Arbiter to control the game in TD-like fashion. There is no provision for the Arbiter to "rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner." (Duplicate's 81C6). Correction of a scoring error, yes, but any other score adjustment must come from an irregularity noted at the table, not one observed only by the Arbiter (or any other non-player). Nor is there any Procedural Penalties law analogous to duplicate's L90 for penalizing a pair that has committed an irregularity, damage or no-damage. Of course, there isn't, as rubber bridge does not include the sort of "procedures" for which L90 was plainly designed. An Arbiter, perhaps a BLML subscriber or NABC casebook reader, would get a harsh response for trying to impose a PP. Just imagine: "Your misinformation did no damage, but I'm taking 100 points off your score to teach you a lesson." I deplore unnecessary deviations from the rubber bridge laws. Rubber bridge is "real bridge," and its laws should dominate the rules for other forms of the game to the greatest degree possible. > > A kibbitzer would also report to the management if he suspected > deliberate > concealment of a revoke or other forms of cheating. Again no score > adjustments but management will be alert in future. > > These principles would seem equally appropriate to duplicate. I fully agree with that. Cheating or merely unethical behavior not coming under L91 should be handled outside the game, not on the score sheet. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From rwilley@mit.edu Sat Sep 21 22:27:23 2002 From: rwilley@mit.edu (rwilley@mit.edu) Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 17:27:23 -0400 Subject: [blml] WBF CoC comments solicited Message-ID: <1032643643.3d8ce43ba6d26@webmail.mit.edu> Karen and David I wanted to start this letter by thanking you for taking the time an= d=20 effort to coordinate this effort to poll the bridge playing public regard= ing=20 the new Conditions of Contest. I think that it is very important for pla= yer to=20 be able to provide the administrators with their opinion on these types o= f=20 issues. With this said and done =85 It is my belief that the decision to implement mandatory drug testin= g for=20 high level bridge competition was badly flawed. This decision is imposin= g=20 undue costs and burdens on competitors while yielding little to no direct= =20 benefits to the bridge playing community. In the absence of any well=20 considered policy to define a set of drugs that enhance a player=92s abil= ity to=20 play bridge, the entire drug testing regime become farcical. Before=20 implementing any kind of drug testing policy, the WBF needs to carefully = a wide=20 number of issues. Most notably, there are a wide variety of chemical com= pounds=20 including caffeine, nicotine, and glucose which are widely used by bridge= =20 players and are believed to enhance cognitive processes. Implementing a = system=20 that allows these performance enhancing drugs because they are =93popular= =94 while=20 banning other drugs with no known effects on bridge playing ability is si= mply=20 going to expose the WBF to further ridicule and eventually to a costly se= ries=20 of lawsuits. Having decided to implement such a policy, I am flabbergast at the w= ay in=20 which it was administered. First, it is unconscionable for the WBF to ex= hibit=20 preferential treatment in deciding whom to test. The need to provide a =93= bye=94=20 to Lynn Deas when she was randomly selected because she would have failed= the=20 drug test and needed to be stripped of her medal should have been a clear= =20 indicator that the WBF=92s drug policy is inherently flawed. The WBF sho= uld have=20 used this opportunity to reconsider its policies. The decision to go for= ward,=20 order another player tested, and then strip her of her medal for refusing= to be=20 tested is unconscionable. Further compounding the insanity, the WBF decided to simply strip on= e=20 member of the US team of her medal while allowing the rest of the players= to=20 retain their second placed position. I had always assumed that the funda= mental=20 unit competing in bridge events was either a pair or a team. If one memb= er=20 chooses to engage in an illegal act that might confer an unfair advantage= , the=20 entire team reaps the benefits. In choosing to only strip a single membe= r of=20 the team of her medal, the WBF is making a very effective statement that=20 cheating is fine, so long as it is isolated to a small number of players = on=20 ones team. Of course, there is the alternative interpretation that state= s that=20 the WBF is too worried about lawsuits from well heeled sponsors to impose= =20 regulations that would affect a sponsor adversely. Hard to say which of = these=20 is more disturbing. In closing, I hope that the WBF takes advantage of the opportunity t= hat=20 was granted when the IOC rejected the WBF lobbying campaign for recogniti= on as=20 an Olympic sport. Absent this possibility, I hope that the WBF chooses t= o=20 reconsider its position on drug testing. Ideally, the WBF should back aw= ay=20 from this ill conceived policy altogether. If the WBF is going to implem= ent a=20 drug testing policy, then they have a obligation to implement it in a fai= r and=20 even handed manner. Richard Willey rwilley@mit.edu Boston, MA From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Sun Sep 22 02:26:59 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 21:26:59 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] not shuffled Message-ID: <200209220126.VAA11213@moiliili.harvard.edu> > From: "Marvin L. French" > Well good, maybe I can make some expense money by hiring myself out to an > inexperienced pair as a kibitzer. I'm sure I could spot many irregularties > they would miss, at $5 a pop. With UI and MI currently abounding, I could > do very well. What stops you from doing it now, besides your honesty? If someone else wanted to do it, all they have to do is pass the information privately before the end of the correction period. An inexperienced pair has an easy answer when the TD asks "Why did you not mention this before?" They just say, "I thought he had no logical alternatives, but now that I see the hand record, I've changed my mind." What happens at rubber bridge if a kibitzer (after the hand) asks something like "Did that penalty double you pulled seem a little slow?" From ljtrent@adelphia.net Sun Sep 22 07:09:47 2002 From: ljtrent@adelphia.net (Linda Trent) Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 23:09:47 -0700 Subject: [blml] Mechanics of a Barometer event (sorta off topic) Message-ID: I must say that I really enjoyed the Finals of the pairs when we got the results of the previous round during the round we were playing and I think players in our Club would really like it. Now I have a bunch of questions on how to get this done. (and will probably have more questions as I gather information) Here are the ones I can think of right now: It would seem I need a full set of boards for each table. What is the best duplicating machine to get? Did the machine software create the hand records that were on each sheet and then the scooring software added the frequencies? How did that get done? Does the duplicating machine software actually create the random sets of hands? How long does it actually take to duplicate a set of boards? Does ACBL provide a file that would be usable by a duplicating machine for the various nation-wide events they run? Thanks- Linda From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sun Sep 22 07:38:45 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 23:38:45 -0700 Subject: [blml] not shuffled References: <200209220126.VAA11213@moiliili.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <004401c26202$b61b6320$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Steve Willner wrote: > > From: "Marvin L. French" > > Well good, maybe I can make some expense money by hiring myself out to an > > inexperienced pair as a kibitzer. I'm sure I could spot many irregularties > > they would miss, at $5 a pop. With UI and MI currently abounding, I could > > do very well. > > What stops you from doing it now, besides your honesty? My dislike of L81C6. Nothing dishonest about it, is there? L81C6 permits it, we are told." > If someone else > wanted to do it, all they have to do is pass the information privately > before the end of the correction period. An inexperienced pair has an > easy answer when the TD asks "Why did you not mention this before?" > They just say, "I thought he had no logical alternatives, but now that I > see the hand record, I've changed my mind." As of now they evidently can just say, "Someone pointed it out to me," and the TD must rectify per L81C6. At an NABC some years ago I noted that a nearby table was having a big argument about a possible revoke. Hailing a passing TD, I said, "It's none of my business, but I think they need your help over there." "You're right," she said, "it is none of your business," and walked away. Evidently she believed that no one but players at the table may initiate a call to the TD. At that time I didn't know about L81C6, but was surprised by her reaction anyway. Perhaps she would say the situation is an exception to L81C6, allowed by the word "normally" in the first paragraph of L81. > What happens at rubber bridge if a kibitzer (after the hand) asks > something like "Did that penalty double you pulled seem a little slow?" > After it's scored? Whatever happens, it won't affect the score. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From =?Windows-1252?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?= Sun Sep 22 07:54:47 2002 From: =?Windows-1252?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?= (=?Windows-1252?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?=) Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 08:54:47 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Mechanics of a Barometer event (sorta off topic) References: Message-ID: <001b01c26204$f1e98740$864865d5@swipnet.se> Dear Linda, I shall try to reply to your questions. No, you can do some sharing and need caddies or the players can share = the boards themselves. With two boards per round you distribute odd = boards on odd tables and even boards on even tables. The surplus is = placed in the middle and players can give and take. You need about 20 = percent more boards than number of tables. Curt Engvall, Sweden, is making the best machines. You can make the random deals seperately or by the machine and the = machine and soft ware takes care of the rest. You can duplicate about 300 boards an hour. I don=B4t know what ACBL can do. Yours etc Hans-Olof Hall=E9n ----- Ursprungligt meddelande -----=20 Fr=E5n: "Linda Trent" Till: "Bridge Laws" Skickat: den 22 september 2002 08:09 =C4mne: [blml] Mechanics of a Barometer event (sorta off topic) > I must say that I really enjoyed the Finals of the pairs when we got > the results of the previous round during the round we were playing and > I think players in our Club would really like it. >=20 > Now I have a bunch of questions on how to get this done. (and will > probably have more questions as I gather information) >=20 > Here are the ones I can think of right now: >=20 > It would seem I need a full set of boards for each table. >=20 > What is the best duplicating machine to get? >=20 > Did the machine software create the hand records that were on each > sheet and then the scooring software added the frequencies? How did > that get done? >=20 > Does the duplicating machine software actually create the random sets > of hands? >=20 > How long does it actually take to duplicate a set of boards? >=20 > Does ACBL provide a file that would be usable by a duplicating machine > for the various nation-wide events they run? >=20 > Thanks- > Linda >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From toddz@worldnet.att.com Sun Sep 22 13:20:32 2002 From: toddz@worldnet.att.com (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 08:20:32 -0400 Subject: [blml] not shuffled In-Reply-To: <004401c26202$b61b6320$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Marvin L. French > Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2002 2:39 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] not shuffled > > At an NABC some years ago I noted that a nearby table > was having a big > argument about a possible revoke. Hailing a passing TD, > I said, "It's none of > my business, but I think they need your help over there." > > "You're right," she said, "it is none of your > business," and walked away. > > Evidently she believed that no one but players at the > table may initiate a call to the TD. I word this as a problem at my table. "The next table is being very disruptive and we're having difficulties concentrating." If their discussion in loud enough that you know details about the hand they're arguing, then it should be made your business to see they stop. -Todd From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Sun Sep 22 12:40:39 2002 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 13:40:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] RE: A plague o' both your houses. References: <001501c260f7$7298a470$6844e150@endicott> Message-ID: <00fc01c26234$049cedd0$0100007f@LNV> > > > +=+ No, indeed so it seems. But given the dissatisfaction > on all sides those who will have the same questions to answer > for future tournaments need to be students now+=+ > . > > it sounds more like futile > > recrimination to me. > > > > **** why futile, may be you should listen better? > > > +=+ My listening will not help. The problem will not be > mine to solve. But there is a problem and the solution > does not lie in each telling the other what was wrong > with what the other did. If my contribution sounded like that I am sorry, that was not my intention. When you say 'but there was a problem' I can't disagree. But still the question is what kind of problem? The procedure as followed was not different from that used in EBL pairs championships and we don't receive complaints there. And before being able to solve problems one needs to be able to understand that problem and to give it a weight. Quite often a remark from one individual gets the weight of a suffering world. I discovered that habits and bridge culture seems to be so different between some zones that accepting the methods from the other side is not easy. And too easily a completely accepted method at one side is described as ridiculous or unjust at the other. I have too many examples of this phenomenon collected in Montreal. So dear Grattan, I am trying to learn, to collect information and to analyse. But I am not asking for this kind of moral and educational remarks. ton As I said anyone who gives > evidence of his own perfection will fail to persuade the > jury. +=+ > > > > so until we have our crock of gold, could there be advantage > > if all get together and work jointly forward in harness towards > > the ultimate ideal (and for the benefit of the game and its > > players), without this illumination, peu avenant, of the > > cobwebbed corners of our dusty mansion? > > > > **** should I understand this? > > > +=+ Probably not; it merely suggests all is not > right and this is not the most perfect of worlds > (and that people should work together to improve > it). I am rather surprised you have joined in this > debate which is only serving to reveal the extent > to which subscribers lack an understanding of > each other's opinions and experience. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Sun Sep 22 11:36:00 2002 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 12:36:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] Mechanics of a Barometer event (sorta off topic) References: <001b01c26204$f1e98740$864865d5@swipnet.se> Message-ID: <00fb01c26234$03f05a20$0100007f@LNV> Dear Linda and Hans-Olof, Just a couple of complementary remarks to both the questions and the answers, which you find below. Dear Linda, I shall try to reply to your questions. No, you can do some sharing and need caddies or the players can share the boards themselves. With two boards per round you distribute odd boards on odd tables and even boards on even tables. The surplus is placed in the middle and players can give and take. You need about 20 percent more boards than number of tables. Curt Engvall, Sweden, is making the best machines. You can make the random deals seperately or by the machine and the machine and soft ware takes care of the rest. You can duplicate about 300 boards an hour. I don´t know what ACBL can do. Yours etc Hans-Olof Hallén > I must say that I really enjoyed the Finals of the pairs when we got > the results of the previous round during the round we were playing and > I think players in our Club would really like it. Hurray, I really started thinking that bridge was played in two disjunct worlds. > > Now I have a bunch of questions on how to get this done. (and will > probably have more questions as I gather information) > > Here are the ones I can think of right now: > > It would seem I need a full set of boards for each table. That is the easiest way once playing starts. I don't like players walking around to get the second board where half the field is playing that board at that moment. Sharing boards is easier when you play more boards in a round. We just played a barometer in our national championships with 4 boards in each round and then one set of boards per two tables is sufficient, using a boardmover. With a complete set per table you need a lot of boards. For the combined three finals in Montreal (open, women and seniors) we duplicated more than 9000 boards. And another 1500 when we discovered that a computer was stolen out of the duplication room the night before the last session and decided not to play the sets as prepared. > > What is the best duplicating machine to get? > > Did the machine software create the hand records that were on each > sheet and then the scooring software added the frequencies? How did > that get done? Yes that is a fast computer manipulated job combining the computer dealt hands with the frequencies, the results of the rounds concerned and the total ranking. You should try to get it all on one doublesided sheet, the huge amount of papers create a mess anyway. > > Does the duplicating machine software actually create the random sets > of hands? That is possible and Jannersten, the main supplier of the duplication machines, puts a lot of effort to have random deals with high security of originality. But we used another software programme in Montreal, called Big Deal. Such a progamme needs to create a data set which can be used for the duplication machine. > > How long does it actually take to duplicate a set of boards? This answer from Hans-Olof is not a serious one. There is a logical limit to the number since it takes time to let the duplimate distribute the 52 cards in the 4 pockets. Let us say that takes 12 seconds (it might be 10 with the new machines). Taking out a board and putting an empty board in costs another 2 seconds. So 4 or 5 boards per minute is the limit, which adds up to 250 to 300 boards per hour as a theoretical maximum. But you will never get there. Hans-Olof himself probably is world record holder and I doubt whether he ever really produced 300 boards in a hour. You should be satisfied with 200 boards for an experienced duplicater. I have to say that the new under Windows operated duplimates are really wonderful machines, working without the regular problems we had bfore. > > Does ACBL provide a file that would be usable by a duplicating machine > for the various nation-wide events they run? The ACBL had duplimates before Albuquerque and we had an ACBL operator working there. I assume there will be expertise around over there. ton > > Thanks- > Linda > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From japfel@bellatlantic.net Sun Sep 22 14:01:08 2002 From: japfel@bellatlantic.net (Jay Apfelbaum) Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 09:01:08 -0400 Subject: [blml] Mechanics of a Barometer event (sorta off topic) References: Message-ID: <002301c26238$20348a40$017cfea9@jayapfelbaum> On September 22, Linda Trent wrote: (less snipping) > It would seem I need a full set of boards for each table. That is best, but tables may share boards. So, the minimun would be one set of boards for two tables (two board round) or one set of boards for three tables (three board round). > What is the best duplicating machine to get? I do not know what is the best, but an Australian firm makes two versions. One requires bar codes and the other does not. If memory serves, price is about $2800 for the bar code machine and $3200 ($3400?) for the other. Both can use a specially made set of boards and put the duplicated hands in each slot. I have seen the boards, and they are reasonable. > Did the machine software create the hand records that were on each > sheet and then the scooring software added the frequencies? How did > that get done? The machine comes with software to creat the hands. For tournaments, however, sponsors have to use ACBL hands, and it provides the software to have the machine duplicate the hands. ACBLScore does the frequency charts. The command is "freq". > Does the duplicating machine software actually create the random sets > of hands? Yes > How long does it actually take to duplicate a set of boards? My estimate is about 5-10 seconds per board. > Does ACBL provide a file that would be usable by a duplicating machine > for the various nation-wide events they run? No answer for this one. Best would be to call ACBL and ask. From svenpran@online.no Sun Sep 22 14:23:52 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 15:23:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] Mechanics of a Barometer event (sorta off topic) References: <001b01c26204$f1e98740$864865d5@swipnet.se> <00fb01c26234$03f05a20$0100007f@LNV> Message-ID: <008401c2623b$4bdfb5e0$70d8fea9@WINXP> Being biased for Curt Engvall after using his machines since 1991 and now cooperating with him on software I had not intended to present my comments, but when "Ton Kooijman" made his last post I found I had to: Hans Olof had written > Dear Linda, > I shall try to reply to your questions. > No, you can do some sharing and need caddies or the players can share the > boards themselves. With two boards per round you distribute odd boards on > odd tables and even boards on even tables. The surplus is placed in the > middle and players can give and take. You need about 20 percent more boards > than number of tables. > Curt Engvall, Sweden, is making the best machines. > You can make the random deals seperately or by the machine and the machine > and soft ware takes care of the rest. > You can duplicate about 300 boards an hour. > I don´t know what ACBL can do. > Yours etc Hans-Olof Hallén in reply to Linda: > > Now I have a bunch of questions on how to get this done. (and will > > probably have more questions as I gather information) > > > > Here are the ones I can think of right now: > > > > It would seem I need a full set of boards for each table. > > That is the easiest way once playing starts. I don't like players walking > around to get the second board where half the field is playing that board at > that moment. > Sharing boards is easier when you play more boards in a round. We just > played a barometer in our national championships with 4 boards in each round > and then one set of boards per two tables is sufficient, using a boardmover. > > With a complete set per table you need a lot of boards. For the combined > three finals in Montreal (open, women and seniors) we duplicated more than > 9000 boards. And another 1500 when we discovered that a computer was stolen > out of the duplication room the night before the last session and decided > not to play the sets as prepared. Our experience in Norway is that when only two boards are played in each round we provide a complete set of boards to each table. The extra cost is marginal and the increased pleasure for the players avoiding any need for swapping boards has proven invaluable. During the national championships last summer we even provided complete sets also for tournaments where three or four boards were played in each round. (With teams of four we provided complete sets per match, sharing boards between the open and the closed rooms. The purpose of this was mainly to remove the last possibility of unequal boards being played in the two rooms). This principle resulted in a total of approximately 50.000 boards being provided for during the nine days we were playing bridge. > > > > > > What is the best duplicating machine to get? > > > > Did the machine software create the hand records that were on each > > sheet and then the scooring software added the frequencies? How did > > that get done? > > Yes that is a fast computer manipulated job combining the computer dealt > hands with the frequencies, the results of the rounds concerned and the > total ranking. You should try to get it all on one doublesided sheet, the > huge amount of papers create a mess anyway. > > > > > > Does the duplicating machine software actually create the random sets > > of hands? > > That is possible and Jannersten, the main supplier of the duplication > machines, puts a lot of effort to have random deals with high security of > originality. But we used another software programme in Montreal, called Big > Deal. Such a progamme needs to create a data set which can be used for the > duplication machine. I have yet to see software provided by the manufacturers of duplicating machines that satisfactorily meets statistical tests for card dealing. This is one of the reasons I have joined Curt Engvall and provide software to control his machines (under Windows 9x) and at the same time do the computerized card dealing. And YES, the software from Jannersten is among those I have tested. It will bring us too far astray trying to go into details on what tests should be used, but one of the easy rules to remember is that a random generator based upon 16 bit arguments (like most VBA and Excel generators) are unsuitable for generating sets of more than 12 deals. > > > > How long does it actually take to duplicate a set of boards? > > This answer from Hans-Olof is not a serious one. There is a logical limit to > the number since it takes time to let the duplimate distribute the 52 cards > in the > 4 pockets. Let us say that takes 12 seconds (it might be 10 with the new > machines). Taking out a board and putting an empty board in costs another 2 > seconds. So 4 or 5 boards per minute is the limit, which adds up to 250 to > 300 boards per hour as a theoretical maximum. But you will never get there. > Hans-Olof himself probably is world record holder and I doubt whether he > ever really produced 300 boards in a hour. You should be satisfied with 200 > boards for an experienced duplicater. This appears to reveal a surprising ignorance of facts or lacking knowledge on card dealing machines. It is true that when planning I calculate for something between 200 and 240 boards in an hour. This includes extra time for contingency, and personally I am not satisfied unless I do an average of close to 300 boards an hour for at least one solid hour. That includes the time needed for unpacking and packing boards in containers each accomodcating 120 boards. Jobs requiring more than an hour or so ususally end up at a total average of 260 - 280 boards per hour, all inclusive. (My personal short-time record is around 55 boards in ten minutes.) Sven From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Sun Sep 22 17:08:08 2002 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 18:08:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] Mechanics of a Barometer event (sorta off topic) References: <001b01c26204$f1e98740$864865d5@swipnet.se> <00fb01c26234$03f05a20$0100007f@LNV> <008401c2623b$4bdfb5e0$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <015601c26252$42057750$0100007f@LNV> > > > How long does it actually take to duplicate a set of boards? > > > > This answer from Hans-Olof is not a serious one. There is a logical limit > to > > the number since it takes time to let the duplimate distribute the 52 > cards > > in the > > 4 pockets. Let us say that takes 12 seconds (it might be 10 with the new > > machines). Taking out a board and putting an empty board in costs another > 2 > > seconds. So 4 or 5 boards per minute is the limit, which adds up to 250 to > > 300 boards per hour as a theoretical maximum. But you will never get > there. > > Hans-Olof himself probably is world record holder and I doubt whether he > > ever really produced 300 boards in a hour. You should be satisfied with > 200 > > boards for an experienced duplicater. > > This appears to reveal a surprising ignorance of facts or lacking knowledge > on card dealing machines. > Are you upset that I didn't mention the possibility that you are the record holder yourself? What is so surprisingly ignorant in my answer? I don't think one gives a fair idea about the possibilities of such machines by telling that it deals 300 boards per hour. If you don't agree then I prefer to stay ignorant. I see what happens in European and world championships for 15 years now and I know the production in our national office, and we do not produce 260 - 280 boards per hour, though I call that staff experienced. Another issue were we don't seem to be able to keep up a polite conversation. Goodness. ton > It is true that when planning I calculate for something between 200 and 240 > boards in an hour. This includes extra time for contingency, and personally > I > am not satisfied unless I do an average of close to 300 boards an hour for > at > least one solid hour. That includes the time needed for unpacking and > packing > boards in containers each accomodcating 120 boards. > > Jobs requiring more than an hour or so ususally end up at a total average of > 260 - 280 boards per hour, all inclusive. > (My personal short-time record is around 55 boards in ten minutes.) > > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Sun Sep 22 17:29:18 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 18:29:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] Mechanics of a Barometer event (sorta off topic) References: <001b01c26204$f1e98740$864865d5@swipnet.se> <00fb01c26234$03f05a20$0100007f@LNV> <008401c2623b$4bdfb5e0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <015601c26252$42057750$0100007f@LNV> Message-ID: <00e801c26255$331f0b90$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Ton Kooijman" ......... > Are you upset that I didn't mention the possibility that you are the record > holder yourself? Absolutely not, and nor I don't think I am the fastest one. I just mentioned my best timeing to show that even more than 300 per hour is not "unrealistic". I know about a guy in Trondheim who has processed 304 boards per hour over a lengthy period. > What is so surprisingly ignorant in my answer? > I don't think one gives a fair idea about the possibilities of such machines > by telling that it deals 300 boards per hour. If you don't agree then I > prefer to stay ignorant. I see what happens in European and world > championships for 15 years now and I know the production in our national > office, and we do not produce 260 - 280 boards per hour, though I call that > staff experienced. Surprisingly ignorant was IMO the way you flatly accused Hans-Olov of being completely unrealistic when he stated 300 deals per hour as possible. I do not know from which machines you have your experience, mine (as you probably understood) is with the machines from Curt. His machines process a deck of cards in 7 seconds and I have timed both myself and other experienced operators to have about 3 seconds "idle" time from the machine stops until we can press the "run" button again. If we were able to do so continuously we would process 360 boards per hour, but of course there will always be some "lost" time for a variety of reasons. > > Another issue were we don't seem to be able to keep up a polite > conversation. Goodness. I second that, trying to stay both calm and polite myself. Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Sep 22 22:41:06 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 07:41:06 +1000 Subject: [blml] A plague o' both your houses. Message-ID: <4A256C3C.0075E307.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Steve Willner wrote: >Wireless-enabled PDA's. Give one to each pair or >maybe to each player. Both sides separately enter >the result of every board. Any disagreement will >be caught and corrected at once. Of course the >communications with each PDA have to be encrypted. > >At the end of the session (or immediately, in a >barometer event), your PDA gives you your personal >scoresheet complete with hand records. And who >knows, double-dummy analysis, too, some day. Some day is today in Australia. In one of Australia's largest Swiss Pairs events, wireless terminals on each table were once used to speed up data entry. In many Australian events, double-dummy analysis of the number of tricks that each direction can make in each of the five possible denominations is printed on the hand records. Best wishes Richard From rui.mlmarques@netvisao.pt Sun Sep 22 23:16:37 2002 From: rui.mlmarques@netvisao.pt (Rui Marques) Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 23:16:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mechanics of a Barometer event - Dealing speed In-Reply-To: <00fb01c26234$03f05a20$0100007f@LNV> Message-ID: <000a01c26285$b81ee4c0$523f81d9@netvisao.pt> > > How long does it actually take to duplicate a set of boards? This answer from Hans-Olof is not a serious one. There is a logical limit to the number since it takes time to let the duplimate distribute the 52 cards in the 4 pockets. Let us say that takes 12 seconds (it might be 10 with the new machines). Taking out a board and putting an empty board in costs another 2 seconds. So 4 or 5 boards per minute is the limit, which adds up to 250 to 300 boards per hour as a theoretical maximum. But you will never get there. Hans-Olof himself probably is world record holder and I doubt whether he ever really produced 300 boards in a hour. You should be satisfied with 200 boards for an experienced duplicater. I have to say that the new under Windows operated duplimates are really wonderful machines, working without the regular problems we had bfore. .................................. On the old Jannersten Mark II and III, normal boards, I usually go up to 185-195/hour, and you can deal about 10-20/hour only, due to the physical constraints. The MarkIV (the Windows ones), with the boards that go under the machine and the cards are fed directly into the boards: I duplicated with those in one tournament in Madrid, and went up to 245-250/hour. Here, too, I think it is possible to clock something like 280/hour, but bear in mind reasonable values of 150-200/hour with the old machines (depends somewhat on the type of boards,the mechanical conditioning of the machine and the condition of the decks) and 250/hour with the new ones. From rui.mlmarques@netvisao.pt Sun Sep 22 23:20:51 2002 From: rui.mlmarques@netvisao.pt (Rui Marques) Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 23:20:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mechanics of a Barometer event - Dealing speed In-Reply-To: <015601c26252$42057750$0100007f@LNV> Message-ID: <000b01c26286$4fd39040$523f81d9@netvisao.pt> One more thing to add: Dealing "full speed" no checks, ideal conditions is one thing, dealing in the real world is another, and unless = "Curt"=B4s machines are much faster than Jannersten=B4s, Ton=B4s boundaries are realistic. You cannot simply go to the theoretical limits of the set machine/decks/boards without a lot of practice and mechanisation. From blml@dybdal.dk Sun Sep 22 23:30:13 2002 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 00:30:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] RE: A plague o' both your houses. In-Reply-To: <001501c260f7$7298a470$6844e150@endicott> References: <001501c260f7$7298a470$6844e150@endicott> Message-ID: On Fri, 20 Sep 2002 22:24:55 +0100, "Grattan Endicott" wrote: >I am rather surprised you have joined in this=20 >debate which is only serving to reveal the extent=20 >to which subscribers lack an understanding of=20 >each other's opinions and experience. It seems to me that it also serves the positive purpose of helping to remedy that lack of understanding by informing all of us about cultural differences of which we were possibly unaware. I do agree that some postings might have been worded less agressively. But when judging the wording of messages here, it should always be remembered that many of them are written by people for whom English is a second (or third) language. I find the actual information in discussions of cultural differences very interesting. Until this thread (or rather the one it was spawned from), I had no idea that there are places in the world where barometer events are considered bad because of the tactics they generate near the end of the event. In Denmark, everybody likes barometers. It can only help my understanding = of future discussions to know that different opinions exist elsewhere. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Sep 22 23:30:45 2002 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 23:30:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] RE: A plague o' both your houses. References: <001501c260f7$7298a470$6844e150@endicott> <00fc01c26234$049cedd0$0100007f@LNV> Message-ID: <003901c26287$e60b4340$485d87d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "Grattan Endicott" ; "Kooijman, A." ; "Grattan Endicott" ; "'Canberra Bridge Club'" ; "Steve Willner" ; "bridge laws mailing list" Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2002 12:40 PM Subject: Re: [blml] RE: A plague o' both your houses. > > > > > So dear Grattan, I am trying to learn, to collect information and to > analyse. But I am not asking for this kind of moral and educational remarks. > > ton > +=+ I wish it had come across from your earlier emails to blml that you are trying to absorb what may be gained from this thread. Until this message I have not seen anything to suggest that in any quarter there were listeners at the party. The speeches have been going over everyone's head. My intervention was aimed at the room, since everyone has been sounding off and showing no sign of understanding in the least the experience, practices and expectations other than their own. I shall be very interested to see how we build on the education that Montreal has afforded. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Sep 23 01:43:24 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 10:43:24 +1000 Subject: [blml] not shuffled Message-ID: <4A256C3D.0002BD75.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> I wrote: >>Not so. In this case, L76B takes precedence over >>L6, so the board cannot yet be cancelled. Sven replied: >I would like to hear you elaborate on why Law 76B >takes precedence over Law 6D2? > >IMO the way Law 6 is written it must be the other >way round. Law 6D2 simply states some conditions >for when no result on a board may stand; there is no >question on how this fact is established and there is >not even a condition for cancelling the board that any >of the involved players has seen that board before. L81C6 is subject to the correction period of L79C. Therefore, if it is determined that a board was unshuffled *after* the correction period, then the result on that board will still stand. In that case, L6D2 can no longer be enforced by L81C6. That is, L6D2's operation requires timely recognition. L76B prevents a spectator informing the players involved in a timely way. In that sense, L76B takes precedence over L6D2. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Sep 23 01:53:00 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 10:53:00 +1000 Subject: [blml] Reveley reveille Message-ID: <4A256C3D.00039E75.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> >>There was a panel discussion about this deal >>in the February 2002 Australian Directors' >>Bulletin. >> >>Best wishes >> >>Richard >> >>South-West Pacific Teams - both teams are >>seeded. >> >>Bd. 10 / E / All >> AQ854 >> AJ >> 73 >> KQ95 >>J96 K1032 >>3 K10876542 >>J1054 9 >>J10732 --- >> 7 >> Q9 >> AKQ862 >> A864 >> >>West North East South >> 4H(1) Pass(2) >>Pass 4S(3) Pass 5D >>Pass Pass Pass >> >>(1) Weaker than an Acol two or a Namyats 4C. >>(2) Agreed hesitation. >>(3) Before he called, North acknowledged South's >> hesitation. >> >>Result: N/S + 600 >> >>At the conclusion of play, E/W voice their concerns >>regarding North's initial 4S action and his >>subsequent decision to pass 5D. North acknowledges >>that he was in receipt of unauthorised information, >>but argues that he has an actionable hand. He also >>suggests that while a flexible action (such as a >>double), might be precluded by the hesitation, a >>unilateral overcall is not. Alain Gottcheiner replied: >AG : this is the easiest case I've seen on blml for a >long time. North has three possible options : pass, >double, and 4S. [snip] The original TD, the original AC, and a majority of the bulletin's panel ruled that Pass was *not* an LA. If 4S and Double are the only LAs, which of these two calls (if any) is demonstrably suggested by the UI? Best wishes Richard From adam@tameware.com Mon Sep 23 02:27:19 2002 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 21:27:19 -0400 Subject: [blml] The European Way? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 9:56 AM +0200 9/20/02, Ton wrote: >There is another aspect which is interesting and which appeared in the most >recent IBPA-news. 'Lucky' as we always are the numbers 1 and 2 in the >ranking were playing in the same group ( according to IBPA, I wasn'aware of >it; there were 12 such groups) which makes it possible to take into account >the results of the other pair and depending on the position within the group >this could be much more advantageous for one pair than for the other (always >in theory, I am not so sure that the information will really influence >anything). In case this isn't clear, here's the text of the IBPA note: "... the many administrative and technical glitches ... such as ... having the second-placed pair going into the final session of the Mixed Pairs being able to see the results of the first-placed pair for the whole session (travelling score slips were used for all pairs events)." In effect one of these pairs was playing a barometer while the other was not -- that can't be fair, whether or not it affected the result. I had been told that travellers would not be used for the finals of the Open Pairs. Having sadly failed to reach the finals I never found out -- can anyone enlighten me? -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Sep 23 02:42:18 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 11:42:18 +1000 Subject: [blml] Logical alternatives in a non-logical auction Message-ID: <4A256C3D.00082280.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> >>Matchpoint pairs >>Dlr: South >>Vul: NS >> >>You, South, hold: >> >>KQ >>KQ10 >>Q7543 >>764 >> >>The bidding has gone: >> >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> 1NT(1) >>2C(2) Dble(3) Pass Pass(4) >>2H(5) 6C Pass ? >> >>(1) 12-14 >> >>(2) Natural >> >>(3) Undiscussed. 50% of comparable >> partners play this as penalties, >> and 50% of comparable partners >> play this as takeout. >> >>(4) After flipping a mental coin. >> >>(5) Also natural. >> >>What are your logical alternatives? * * * David Kent replied: >What am I missing? Partner thought he >could make 12 tricks in C. He doubled >2C, expecting it to go off 7 for +1700. >That option no longer exists, so he >expects to make +1370 by declaring. I >guess I could bid something, but why >turn a sure plus into a minus? If he >wanted to play elsewhere, he had cue- >bids available to him. (or she/her as >the case may be) > >Regardless of the amount of time partner >took to bid 6C (which I assume is the >problem), I cannot imagine any other >call than Pass. Alain Gottcheiner replied: >AG : I must admit being lost here. >a. LA questions are usually consequences >of UI. There isn't any here. You didn't >alert, the coin has landed well you didn't >pass any UI. Neither did he. >b. Partner's bid is strange, to be sure, >but there is nothing to make anybody >suspect that he wants to play anything >else than 6C. >c. More strange, you have quite a lot. >Perhaps RHO psyched a weak hand with >about 4360, and partner has something like >Axx / Axx / - AKJ109xx. No, it doesn't hold: >how would he expect to make 6? And how would >LHO let his partner down in 2C ? Could it be >possible that *both* of them are psyching? > >Apart from passing, I haven't any idea. > >One possible explanation would be that >partner made a X-heavy TO double, [snip] Steve Willner replied: >Pass certainly is a LA. In the ACBL, I >think 7C is one as well, but elsewhere ("25% >rule") it's a close question. Probably is, >but I could be persuaded otherwise. I'm not >sure what rule you follow in Australia. > >I haven't read other answers yet, so perhaps >I'll change my mind. * * * Okay, now for the complete details of the deal. Matchpoints AJ76 Dlr: S --- Vul: NS 962 AKQ1092 82 109543 A97532 J864 AJ10 K8 J5 83 KQ KQ10 Q7543 764 The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1NT(1) 2C(2) Dble(3) Pass Pass(4) 2H(5) 6C Pass 6D(6) Pass Pass Pass (1) 12-14 (2) No explanation on the EW system card. Enquiry by North. Correctly explained by East as natural. (3) Undiscussed. 50% of comparable partners play this as penalties, and 50% of comparable partners play this as takeout. (4) After flipping a mental coin. (5) Further enquiry by North, specifically asking whether East wished to modify the explanation of the 2C call. East correctly explained as natural, showing both clubs and hearts. East did not mention the possibly relevant fact that over a strong 1NT opening, a 2C overcall would be artificial, showing any one-suited hand. (6) Misinterpreting the UI from North and the AI (possibly MI) from East to deduce that North had started the bidding with an offbeat takeout double followed by a flashy slam-level cuebid, holding something like: AJxxxx x AKJxxx --- The "flashy" part was a reasonable assumption, since I was the guilty UI-transmitter sitting North. :-) *If* EW have given MI, was my 6C call "wild or gambling", denying my pair redress? When determining whether my 6C call was "wild or gambling", was it irrelevant that, as the cards lie, the 6C contract would have made on a normal heart lead? Was South's 6D call "wild or gambling", denying us redress, given that not one blmler mentioned 6D as a logical alternative? Best wishes Richard From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Sep 23 05:34:33 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 21:34:33 -0700 Subject: [blml] Mechanics of a Barometer event (sorta off topic) References: <002301c26238$20348a40$017cfea9@jayapfelbaum> Message-ID: <004101c262bb$28a05dc0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Jay Apfelbaum" > Linda Trent wrote: > > What is the best duplicating machine to get? > > I do not know what is the best, but an Australian firm makes two versions. > One requires bar codes and the other does not. If memory serves, price is > about $2800 for the bar code machine and $3200 ($3400?) for the other. Both > can use a specially made set of boards and put the duplicated hands in each > slot. I have seen the boards, and they are reasonable. > Did I read correctly somewhere that the more expensive machine requires that the pack of cards be inserted in strict denomination & rank order? If so, I'd settle for the bar-coded decks and the cheaper machine. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From ljtrent@adelphia.net Mon Sep 23 06:22:28 2002 From: ljtrent@adelphia.net (Linda Trent) Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 22:22:28 -0700 Subject: [blml] The European Way? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >>-----Original Message----- >>From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of >>Adam Wildavsky >>Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2002 6:27 PM >>To: blml@rtflb.org >>Subject: RE: [blml] The European Way? >> snip >>I had been told that travellers would not be used for the finals of >>the Open Pairs. Having sadly failed to reach the finals I >>never found >>out -- can anyone enlighten me? Well, they were in the Finals of the Women's pairs But that probably doesn't count, given that not one single board of the Women's anything made it to VuGraph Linda >> >>-- >>Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC >>adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com >> >>_______________________________________________ >>blml mailing list >>blml@rtflb.org >>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From canberrabridgeclub@mail.bigpond.com Mon Sep 23 06:44:37 2002 From: canberrabridgeclub@mail.bigpond.com (Canberra Bridge Club) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 15:44:37 +1000 Subject: [blml] Mechanics of a Barometer event (sorta off topic) In-Reply-To: <004101c262bb$28a05dc0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Hi Marv I have used the machine which does not require barcoded cards and it does not require the cards to be ordered. It reads the characters. I cant be sure that it reads all character sets. If you want to know, the person to contact is Martin Wilcox. His address is rissole@bigpond.com Cheers Sean Mullamphy. -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of Marvin L. French Sent: Monday, 23 September 2002 2:35 PM To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [blml] Mechanics of a Barometer event (sorta off topic) From: "Jay Apfelbaum" > Linda Trent wrote: > > What is the best duplicating machine to get? > > I do not know what is the best, but an Australian firm makes two versions. > One requires bar codes and the other does not. If memory serves, price is > about $2800 for the bar code machine and $3200 ($3400?) for the other. Both > can use a specially made set of boards and put the duplicated hands in each > slot. I have seen the boards, and they are reasonable. > Did I read correctly somewhere that the more expensive machine requires that the pack of cards be inserted in strict denomination & rank order? If so, I'd settle for the bar-coded decks and the cheaper machine. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Mon Sep 23 07:28:28 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 08:28:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] Mechanics of a Barometer event - Dealing speed References: <000b01c26286$4fd39040$523f81d9@netvisao.pt> Message-ID: <000b01c262ca$6ddb7550$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Rui Marques" One more thing to add: Dealing "full speed" no checks, ideal conditions is one thing, dealing in the real world is another, and unless "Curt"´s machines are much faster than Jannersten´s, Ton´s boundaries are realistic. You cannot simply go to the theoretical limits of the set machine/decks/boards without a lot of practice and mechanisation. For the record: Curt's machines have detectors, giving alarm if not exactly 13 cards are physically selected to each pocket. The software verifies that exactly one each of the 52 different cards (53 when the joker is used as a stop card) are detected and processed. I cannot remember last time I had an undetected mis-deal. Sven From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Sep 23 07:57:57 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 07:57:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] RE: A plague o' both your houses. References: <001501c260f7$7298a470$6844e150@endicott> Message-ID: <002d01c262ce$ab49a2f0$0501e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws List" Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2002 11:30 PM Subject: Re: [blml] RE: A plague o' both your houses. It seems to me that it also serves the positive purpose of helping to remedy that lack of understanding by informing all of us about cultural differences of which we were possibly unaware. I do agree that some postings might have been worded less agressively.But when judging the wording of messages here, it should always be remembered that many of them are written by people for whom English is a second (or third) language. I find the actual information in discussions of cultural differences very interesting. +=+ Yes, JD, you have a point. My frustration has been partly about the aggressive/defensive tones of some messages, but very much about the failure to come down to ground level and discuss possible solutions. We are here in a world organization. We are a multinational group with differing backgrounds, experiences, understandings and expectations of the game, and with our personal preferences conditioned by what we are used to. We have to look for common ground, for compromise where cultures collide. So I find it futile merely to throw around images of what we are, futile and very off-putting when there is a tendency to express a chauvinistic belief in the superiority of one zonal or national position above another. In the area of laws I find strangely that we recognize the differences amongst us and we have shown tolerance of these by allowing options. Not everyone thinks this is a better solution than imposing a single unalterable law, and we are under pressure to reduce the options; but the compromise is pragmatic and it has worked. In the area of appeals, the second area in which I work, there is no doubt that we have differences in the approach from Europe and that from the North America; we tend to work it out at WBF level by seeking to balance opinions in committees and to ensure as far as possible the influence of personalities from outside of these areas. It is complicated somewhat by the fact that amongst the Europeans there are wide differences between one nationality and another - although the fact is that all the various groups of people concerned have the single aim of doing what is good for the game. It is the route to that goal that has to be negotiated. I think we have done some good by introducing greater transparency; but the most useful reaction to reports adopts a reflective approach rather than a right/wrong one. So my belief is that when we are discussing Montreal we need to stop shouting and sit down together to explore quietly what might be a way forward. To this end I welcome your email - and wonder if you have any thoughts about what might improve performance, and be amenable to players at large from all over the world? Regards, ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From =?Windows-1252?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?= Mon Sep 23 08:06:41 2002 From: =?Windows-1252?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?= (=?Windows-1252?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?=) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 09:06:41 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Mechanics of a Barometer event (sorta off topic) References: <001b01c26204$f1e98740$864865d5@swipnet.se> <00fb01c26234$03f05a20$0100007f@LNV> Message-ID: <004501c262cf$c55c2d60$6a4a65d5@swipnet.se> Dear Linda, Ton, Sven and others, Thanks for your nice replies. Curt Engvall=B4s address is fax/tel 46 - 8 773 10 70. One more comment. Working with two people at the machine, one for = putting the cards in the pockets (any order) and one taking them out has = a record of 350 boards an hour. One board takes, as Sven says, between 7 = and 8 seconds to duplicate. Yours etc Hans-Olof ----- Ursprungligt meddelande -----=20 Fr=E5n: "Ton Kooijman" Till: "Hans-Olof Hall=E9n" ; = ; "Bridge Laws" Skickat: den 22 september 2002 12:36 =C4mne: Re: [blml] Mechanics of a Barometer event (sorta off topic) > Dear Linda and Hans-Olof, >=20 > Just a couple of complementary remarks to both the questions and the > answers, which you find below. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Dear Linda, > I shall try to reply to your questions. > No, you can do some sharing and need caddies or the players can share = the > boards themselves. With two boards per round you distribute odd boards = on > odd tables and even boards on even tables. The surplus is placed in = the > middle and players can give and take. You need about 20 percent more = boards > than number of tables. > Curt Engvall, Sweden, is making the best machines. > You can make the random deals seperately or by the machine and the = machine > and soft ware takes care of the rest. > You can duplicate about 300 boards an hour. > I don=B4t know what ACBL can do. > Yours etc Hans-Olof Hall=E9n >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > > I must say that I really enjoyed the Finals of the pairs when we got > > the results of the previous round during the round we were playing = and > > I think players in our Club would really like it. >=20 > Hurray, I really started thinking that bridge was played in two = disjunct > worlds. >=20 >=20 >=20 > > > > Now I have a bunch of questions on how to get this done. (and will > > probably have more questions as I gather information) > > > > Here are the ones I can think of right now: > > > > It would seem I need a full set of boards for each table. >=20 > That is the easiest way once playing starts. I don't like players = walking > around to get the second board where half the field is playing that = board at > that moment. > Sharing boards is easier when you play more boards in a round. We just > played a barometer in our national championships with 4 boards in each = round > and then one set of boards per two tables is sufficient, using a = boardmover. >=20 > With a complete set per table you need a lot of boards. For the = combined > three finals in Montreal (open, women and seniors) we duplicated more = than > 9000 boards. And another 1500 when we discovered that a computer was = stolen > out of the duplication room the night before the last session and = decided > not to play the sets as prepared. >=20 >=20 > > > > What is the best duplicating machine to get? > > > > Did the machine software create the hand records that were on each > > sheet and then the scooring software added the frequencies? How did > > that get done? >=20 > Yes that is a fast computer manipulated job combining the computer = dealt > hands with the frequencies, the results of the rounds concerned and = the > total ranking. You should try to get it all on one doublesided sheet, = the > huge amount of papers create a mess anyway. >=20 >=20 > > > > Does the duplicating machine software actually create the random = sets > > of hands? >=20 > That is possible and Jannersten, the main supplier of the duplication > machines, puts a lot of effort to have random deals with high security = of > originality. But we used another software programme in Montreal, = called Big > Deal. Such a progamme needs to create a data set which can be used for = the > duplication machine. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > > > > How long does it actually take to duplicate a set of boards? >=20 > This answer from Hans-Olof is not a serious one. There is a logical = limit to > the number since it takes time to let the duplimate distribute the 52 = cards > in the > 4 pockets. Let us say that takes 12 seconds (it might be 10 with the = new > machines). Taking out a board and putting an empty board in costs = another 2 > seconds. So 4 or 5 boards per minute is the limit, which adds up to = 250 to > 300 boards per hour as a theoretical maximum. But you will never get = there. > Hans-Olof himself probably is world record holder and I doubt whether = he > ever really produced 300 boards in a hour. You should be satisfied = with 200 > boards for an experienced duplicater. >=20 > I have to say that the new under Windows operated duplimates are = really > wonderful machines, working without the regular problems we had bfore. >=20 > > > > Does ACBL provide a file that would be usable by a duplicating = machine > > for the various nation-wide events they run? >=20 > The ACBL had duplimates before Albuquerque and we had an ACBL operator > working there. I assume there will be expertise around over there. >=20 > ton >=20 >=20 > > > > Thanks- > > Linda > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 23 09:33:25 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 10:33:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] Reveley reveille In-Reply-To: <4A256C3D.00039E75.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020923102935.00aa11d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:53 23/09/2002 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >> AQ854 >> AJ >> 73 >> KQ95 >>J96 K1032 >>3 K10876542 >>J1054 9 >>J10732 --- >> 7 >> Q9 >> AKQ862 >> A864 >> >>West North East South >> 4H(1) Pass(2) >>Pass 4S(3) Pass 5D >>Pass Pass Pass >> >>(1) Weaker than an Acol two or a Namyats 4C. >>(2) Agreed hesitation. >>(3) Before he called, North acknowledged South's >> hesitation. >> >If 4S and Double are the only LAs, which of these two >calls (if any) is demonstrably suggested by the UI? AG : did you hear about 'ex falso' quodlibet' ? For those who didn't, when the first part of a logical imlpication is wrong, the implication is always true. Thus it is perfectly correct to say : - If 4S and double are the only LAs, the player must lead out of turn. The committee who decided that pass was not a LA forgot to as around them. In my usual panel, 4 players out of 9 thought of passing : one did it. When the first part of the decision is wrong, do no expect the AC to get the rest right - they can't. Best ragerds, Alain. From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Mon Sep 23 09:15:45 2002 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 10:15:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] The European Way? References: Message-ID: <005a01c262db$86c1e890$a13ef0c3@LNV> > >>Adam Wildavsky: > >>I had been told that travellers would not be used for the finals of > >>the Open Pairs. Having sadly failed to reach the finals I > >>never found > >>out -- can anyone enlighten me? > > Well, they were in the Finals of the Women's pairs > But that probably doesn't count, given that not > one single board of the Women's anything made it > to VuGraph > > Linda Are you sure? Unless I am surprisingly (or worse: not surprisingly) ignorant again we did not use travellers in the finals. As far as I know it is rather difficult to use travellers in a barometer event. Which also means that I don't understand Adam's question. What are we talking about? ton From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Mon Sep 23 10:58:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 10:58 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Reveley reveille Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020923102935.00aa11d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Alain wrote: > >If 4S and Double are the only LAs, which of these two > >calls (if any) is demonstrably suggested by the UI? > > AG : did you hear about 'ex falso' quodlibet' ? > For those who didn't, when the first part of a logical imlpication is > wrong, the implication is always true. Thus it is perfectly correct to > say : > - If 4S and double are the only LAs, the player must lead out of turn. > > The committee who decided that pass was not a LA forgot to as around > them. In my usual panel, 4 players out of 9 thought of passing : one > did it. In the UK, at least, such panel feedback would lend itself to saying that pass *wasn't* an LA (while it would clearly be deemed such in the ACBL). I can't recall the guidelines for Aus/Be but since at least one jurisdiction exists where pass is not an LA Richard's question is perfectly logical. Personally I would consider passing on the given hand but reject it as "losing bridge". IME double, due to it's flexibility/second bite of the cherry nature, is almost always suggested over a bid in such auctions. Tim From wrgptfan@fastmail.fm Mon Sep 23 14:21:20 2002 From: wrgptfan@fastmail.fm (David Kent) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 13:21:20 UT Subject: [blml] Reveley reveille Message-ID: <20020923132120.888102FD1B@server3.fastmail.fm> On Mon, 23 Sep 2002 10:33:25 +0200, "Alain Gottcheiner" said: > At 10:53 23/09/2002 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > >> AQ854 > >> AJ > >> 73 > >> KQ95 > >>J96 K1032 > >>3 K10876542 > >>J1054 9 > >>J10732 --- > >> 7 > >> Q9 > >> AKQ862 > >> A864 > >> > >>West North East South > >> 4H(1) Pass(2) > >>Pass 4S(3) Pass 5D > >>Pass Pass Pass > >> > >>(1) Weaker than an Acol two or a Namyats 4C. > >>(2) Agreed hesitation. > >>(3) Before he called, North acknowledged South's > >> hesitation. > >> > > > > > >If 4S and Double are the only LAs, which of these two > >calls (if any) is demonstrably suggested by the UI? > > AG : did you hear about 'ex falso' quodlibet' ? > For those who didn't, when the first part of a logical imlpication is > wrong, the implication is always true. Thus it is perfectly correct to > say : > - If 4S and double are the only LAs, the player must lead out of > turn. > > The committee who decided that pass was not a LA forgot to as around > them. > In my usual panel, 4 players out of 9 thought of passing : one did it. > > When the first part of the decision is wrong, do no expect the AC to > get > the rest right - they can't. > > Best ragerds, > > Alain. I do not believe that pass is an LA with a hand which opposite a mildly unbalanced Yarborough has a reasonable play for game (e.g. xxxxx x xxxx xxx or even xxxx x xxxx xxxx). Of course this depends upon the expertise of the player in question, but if the committee has decided that pass is not an LA for this North player, who are we to argue? -- Dave Kent -- http://fastmail.fm/ - Access your email with Outlook or over the web From B.Schelen@IAE.NL Mon Sep 23 14:18:51 2002 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 15:18:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] not shuffled References: <200209220126.VAA11213@moiliili.harvard.edu> <004401c26202$b61b6320$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <00b501c2630d$745753c0$e2053dd4@b0e7g1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin L. French" To: Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2002 8:38 AM Subject: Re: [blml] not shuffled > > Steve Willner wrote: > > > > > From: "Marvin L. French" > > > > Well good, maybe I can make some expense money by hiring myself out to an > > > inexperienced pair as a kibitzer. I'm sure I could spot many irregularties > > > they would miss, at $5 a pop. With UI and MI currently abounding, I could > > > do very well. > > > > What stops you from doing it now, besides your honesty? > > My dislike of L81C6. Nothing dishonest about it, is there? L81C6 permits it, > we are told." > > > If someone else > > wanted to do it, all they have to do is pass the information privately > > before the end of the correction period. An inexperienced pair has an > > easy answer when the TD asks "Why did you not mention this before?" > > They just say, "I thought he had no logical alternatives, but now that I > > see the hand record, I've changed my mind." > > As of now they evidently can just say, "Someone pointed it out to me," and the > TD must rectify per L81C6. > > At an NABC some years ago I noted that a nearby table was having a big > argument about a possible revoke. Hailing a passing TD, I said, "It's none of > my business, but I think they need your help over there." > > "You're right," she said, "it is none of your business," and walked away. > > Evidently she believed that no one but players at the table may initiate a > call to the TD. At that time I didn't know about L81C6, but was surprised by > her reaction anyway. Perhaps she would say the situation is an exception to > L81C6, allowed by the word "normally" in the first paragraph of L81. > Ben: If there is a big argument about a possible revoke, attention is drawn to a possible irregularity and the four players have to summon the director at once: Law9B1 If this is not done, it is another irregularity for sure. If you noticed it, she could notice the argument as well: so it was her business. From B.Schelen@IAE.NL Mon Sep 23 15:22:07 2002 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 16:22:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] stacked boards Message-ID: <00b901c2630d$76799780$e2053dd4@b0e7g1> Player south arrives at the table with two stacked boards: boards 1 and 2 with the 2 on top. Question 1: Are stacked boards allowed on a small table when there are BB, CC and beer in the table? Gives Law7A any restriction? South takes his hand from board 2 and inspects the face of his cards. Question 2: Is it allowed that south starts with board 2? Another player places board 1 on top which is not noticed by south. The hands are taken.and the auction begins. West north east south pass pass 1H 1NT At that moment it is detected that there is still a hand in the board and that south has bid with a hand of board 2. The director is summoned and he gives an A.A.S. Both pairs 50% I believe. Question 3: Is it possible that board 2 is still to be played? Maybe east is so kind to pass sothat south can bid 1H or has south a BOOT? From adam@tameware.com Mon Sep 23 15:46:47 2002 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 10:46:47 -0400 Subject: [blml] The European Way? In-Reply-To: <005a01c262db$86c1e890$a13ef0c3@LNV> References: <005a01c262db$86c1e890$a13ef0c3@LNV> Message-ID: At 10:15 AM +0200 9/23/02, Ton Kooijman wrote: >Are you sure? Unless I am surprisingly (or worse: not surprisingly) ignorant >again we did not use travellers in the finals. As far as I know it is rather >difficult to use travellers in a barometer event. Which also means that I >don't understand Adam's question. What are we talking about? I realized after posting my question that the finals of the Open Pairs were run barometer style, as they were in Lille, so travelers could not have been used. Linda says that travelers were used in the finals of the women's pairs, and since she played in the finals she ought to know. Were the women's finals scored barometer style? That I do not know. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Mon Sep 23 15:57:01 2002 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 10:57:01 -0400 Subject: [blml] Misbid and mis-explanation Message-ID: Hi BLMLrs, Dealer W, Vl none. North A J 10 4 5 3 2 J 9 K Q 6 4 K 7 2 Q 8 5 3 A 9 8 7 Q 10 Q 8 4 3 A K 10 6 2 9 7 5 3 9 6 K J 6 4 7 5 A J 10 8 2 W N E S P 1NT* 2D X (then ask about 2D and call TD) 1NT was alerted (announced) as 12-14 as required in ACBL land. When asked, W told 2D shows H (4+) and an other suit (5+). The pair just begin to play Astro-Landy: 2D is 4+ S and an other suit. W forgot the alert (and the convention...). When called the TD allows S to change his call (because of the failure to alert). W N E S P 1NT* 2D P 2H P 3D 3NT (all P) Result: 3NT down 1 = 100 for E-W. South then called the TD again and asked for a score adjustment. I have no more information but he got an incredible A+ (A- for E-W)..... I just know S based his request on the mis-explanation by W (2D = H + ). 1) May S call (X), then ask about the 2D bid and get a call change ? 2) If E forgot 2D is a convention (yes he did...), can he then use information arising form S's question (not the false explanation but the fact that 2D is conventional)? At table, E then realised he forgot Astro but said to himself: happily I have S + and other suit (as required by the convention) and I continue to bid as the agreement requires (3D). Nobody can know I first bid 2D "by accident". 3) Does the fact he did not alert 2H (the agreement is that 2H is artificial and ask E to bid 2S with 5 cards or show the other suit) change something ? 4) Your final ruling as TD if you know that E forgot Astro when bidding 2D. 5) Your final ruling if you dont know that fact. As you can easily see, -100 was not a bad score for N-S. 3D by E-W is a playable contract.... Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Mon Sep 23 15:57:44 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 16:57:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] The European Way? Message-ID: At 10:15 AM +0200 9/23/02, Ton Kooijman wrote: >Are you sure? Unless I am surprisingly (or worse: not surprisingly) ignorant >again we did not use travellers in the finals. As far as I know it is rather >difficult to use travellers in a barometer event. Which also means that I >don't understand Adam's question. What are we talking about? I realized after posting my question that the finals of the Open Pairs were run barometer style, as they were in Lille, so travelers could not have been used. Linda says that travelers were used in the finals of the women's pairs, and since she played in the finals she ought to know. Were the women's finals scored barometer style? That I do not know. ******yes, they were. Linda probably wanted to say that results came out regularly during the session, which we do not call travelers. ton -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From Martin@SPASE.NL Mon Sep 23 16:06:40 2002 From: Martin@SPASE.NL (Martin Sinot) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 17:06:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] stacked boards Message-ID: <90A058367F88D6119867005004546915A608@obelix.spase.nl.206.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> > -----Original Message----- > From: Ben Schelen [mailto:B.Schelen@IAE.NL] > Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 16:22 > To: BLML > Subject: [blml] stacked boards > > > Player south arrives at the table with two stacked boards: > boards 1 and 2 > with the 2 on top. > > Question 1: Are stacked boards allowed on a small table when > there are BB, > CC and beer in the table? > Gives Law7A any restriction? L7A states that when a board is to be played, it is placed in the centre of the table until play is completed. It doesn't say anything about boards not to be played. > South takes his hand from board 2 and inspects the face of his cards. > > Question 2: Is it allowed that south starts with board 2? Why not? The book does not prescribe any order of deals to play. > Another player places board 1 on top which is not noticed by > south. The > hands are taken.and the auction begins. > > West north east south > pass pass 1H > 1NT > > At that moment it is detected that there is still a hand in > the board and > that south has bid with a hand of board 2. > The director is summoned and he gives an A.A.S. Both pairs > 50% I believe. > > Question 3: Is it possible that board 2 is still to be played? > Maybe east is so kind to pass sothat south can bid 1H or has > south a BOOT? L17D applies to this case. Concerning board 1, 1H and 1NT must be cancelled; South takes the correct hand and makes a new call; is that 1H, then West repeats 1NT and play continues normally; else an AAS is given. Concerning board 2, if East passes and South bids 1H, then play probably can continue (although you could argue that there is a difference between a vulnerable second-hand opening and a nonvulnerable third-hand opening); if East bids 1C/D, then Souths 1H would mean something different and the board has to be cancelled. From Martin@SPASE.NL Mon Sep 23 16:08:44 2002 From: Martin@SPASE.NL (Martin Sinot) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 17:08:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] stacked boards Message-ID: <90A058367F88D6119867005004546915A609@obelix.spase.nl.206.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> oops, hit the wrong button > -----Original Message----- > From: Ben Schelen [mailto:B.Schelen@IAE.NL] > Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 16:22 > To: BLML > Subject: [blml] stacked boards > > > Player south arrives at the table with two stacked boards: > boards 1 and 2 > with the 2 on top. > > Question 1: Are stacked boards allowed on a small table when > there are BB, > CC and beer in the table? > Gives Law7A any restriction? L7A states that when a board is to be played, it is placed in the centre of the table until play is completed. It doesn't say anything about boards not to be played. > South takes his hand from board 2 and inspects the face of his cards. > > Question 2: Is it allowed that south starts with board 2? Why not? The book does not prescribe any order of deals to play. > Another player places board 1 on top which is not noticed by > south. The > hands are taken.and the auction begins. > > West north east south > pass pass 1H > 1NT > > At that moment it is detected that there is still a hand in > the board and > that south has bid with a hand of board 2. > The director is summoned and he gives an A.A.S. Both pairs > 50% I believe. > > Question 3: Is it possible that board 2 is still to be played? > Maybe east is so kind to pass sothat south can bid 1H or has > south a BOOT? L17D applies to this case. Concerning board 1, 1H and 1NT must be cancelled; South takes the correct hand and makes a new call; is that 1H, then West repeats 1NT and play continues normally; else an AAS is given. Concerning board 2, if East passes and South bids 1H, then play probably can continue (although you could argue that there is a difference between a vulnerable second-hand opening and a nonvulnerable third-hand opening); if East bids 1C/D, then Souths 1H would mean something different and the board has to be cancelled. Regards -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 23 16:30:56 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 17:30:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] Misbid and mis-explanation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020923172200.00a99d00@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:57 23/09/2002 -0400, Laval Dubreuil wrote: >Hi BLMLrs, > >Dealer W, Vl none. > > North > A J 10 4 > 5 3 2 > J 9 > K Q 6 4 > >K 7 2 Q 8 5 3 >A 9 8 7 Q 10 >Q 8 4 3 A K 10 6 2 >9 7 5 3 > > 9 6 > K J 6 4 > 7 5 > A J 10 8 2 > > W N E S > P 1NT* 2D X (then ask about 2D and call TD) > >1NT was alerted (announced) as 12-14 as required in ACBL land. >When asked, W told 2D shows H (4+) and an other suit (5+). >The pair just begin to play Astro-Landy: 2D is 4+ S and an other suit. >W forgot the alert (and the convention...). > >When called the TD allows S to change his call (because of the failure >to alert). > > W N E S > P 1NT* 2D P > 2H P 3D 3NT (all P) > >Result: 3NT down 1 = 100 for E-W. > >South then called the TD again and asked for a score adjustment. I have no >more information but he got an incredible A+ (A- for E-W)..... >I just know S based his request on the mis-explanation by W (2D = H + ). > >1) May S call (X), then ask about the 2D bid and get a call change ? AG : L21B1 doesn't limit the ways by which the NOS learns there was MI. Perhaps he called, then remembered EW (which he knew) were playing something special ? >2) If E forgot 2D is a convention (yes he did...), can he then > use information arising form S's question (not the false explanation > but the fact that 2D is conventional)? At table, E then realised he > forgot Astro but said to himself: happily I have S + and other suit > (as required by the convention) and I continue to bid as the agreement > requires (3D). Nobody can know I first bid 2D "by accident". AG : he may not. It is as if West had alerted lately, between the moment when S bid and his own bid. South only remembered West he shuold have alerted; Of course, South's timing for the question may not be totally proper, but I don't see it as causing any part of the mess here. >3) Does the fact he did not alert 2H (the agreement is that 2H is artificial > and ask E to bid 2S with 5 cards or show the other suit) change something >? AG : I don't see why. If East did not still remember about his agreements, how could he alert ? (shades of DwS here) >4) Your final ruling as TD if you know that E forgot Astro when bidding 2D. AG : East used UI from his partner. I correct to the most NOS-oriented result in what would have been the final contract without this use, ie 2H. Probably 5 tricks. >5) Your final ruling if you dont know that fact. AG : no difference. Best regards, Alain. From adam@tameware.com Mon Sep 23 16:26:16 2002 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 11:26:16 -0400 Subject: [blml] WBF CoC comments solicited In-Reply-To: <1032643643.3d8ce43ba6d26@webmail.mit.edu> References: <1032643643.3d8ce43ba6d26@webmail.mit.edu> Message-ID: Dear Karen and David, Thank you for undertaking this effort. I took the liberty of copying your message to the Bridge Laws Mailing List, and per a request from Marvin French I am copying this message to the list. I was disappointed with many aspects of the tournament in Montreal. I described some of the failings I perceived in Lille four years ago in an article in Bridge Today magazine. Larry Cohen did the same in The Bridge World. Unfortunately things do not seem to have improved -- in many ways they have worsened. Here's what I wrote about Lille: >I had grumbled about the conditions, as had many - assignments were >difficult to find, results were not posted until long after the end >of the session, and matchpoints were never posted - the players had >to look up their matchpoints for each board individually! Early on >someone explained to me that "It's not a player-friendly >tournament." Once I understood it in that light I concluded that my >best option was to grin and bear it. Here's a list of problems I encountered in Montreal. I hope you won't find its length overwhelming. Please feel free to quote me by name. o Scores for pair games were not available until long after the end of the session. o Pairs' matchpoints were never available -- one had to look up the matchpoints board by board. o After the first day of the Open Pairs the scores for each board (for checking results) were not available even at 8:30 the next morning. o Early in the tournament game time changed from day to day, and was seldom as published. o When scores and assignments were published they were seldom in a useful order. Results for the mixed pairs were sorted by score, so to find out how one did one had to look at several hundred scores. No section results were posted, so several hundred pairs had to jostle past one another to pore through the one or two sets of posted results to find their score. o The directors were not always prepared for the conditions of contest. In the Rosenblum RR no playbacks were allowed. That meant one team had to change seats for the second half. Which team had the right to sit as they were? Initially the directors did not know. o Travelers -- I can't say enough bad things about them They slow down the game by encouraging postmortems. The give pairs information to which they are not entitled. They give different information to different pairs. They slow down the scoring. They introduce the possibility of unauthorized information if a player opens the wrong traveler. o There were two playing sites -- that's one too many. Often one didn't know which hotel to play in until game time, and some pairs were moved from one hotel to another at the list minute. o Rude behavior by the players was not addressed by the directors. Here's just one example. In the open pairs my opponents were conversing in French while one was on lead. I was certain they were arguing about the previous board, but even so I called the director as I should. When I described the problem he explained that the official language for the tournament was English. I had understood that the official language for the defenders was silence! o The carryover formula for the Mixed pairs was changed from the one in the conditions of contest, apparently sometime after the end of the second session. No reason for the change was published in the daily bulletin. I doubt the change was due to any malfeasance, but the officials involved seem not to understand that this gives the appearance of impropriety. o Team rosters were not listed in the daily bulletin, even for those finishing as high as 4th in the Rosenblum teams. o Pairs were told they needed to pay for their entry the first Friday between 2 and 8PM, but the entry desk was not open for all of that span. o The scorecards were printed on laminated paper and in full color. This must be more expensive than the sort we use in the ACBL, and it's more difficult to write on besides. Before each session the caddies put two scorecards on each table -- four would have been more useful. o All the events seem in practice to have been open to trans-national pairs and teams. Since no announcement was made about this it looked like only those with "pull" could play with someone from another country. I heard about the change in time to take advantage of it for the pairs, but not for the teams, and many did not have even that opportunity. This caused a great deal of ill feeling -- many players would have chosen different partners or teammates had they known the true conditions in advance. o My team played against a team with a sponsor in the Rosenblum round of 64. The sponsor played only one quarter, and apparently this is permitted by the conditions of contest. o So far as I could the Rosenblum sponsor, "Power", was never identified. I still don't know who they are! o Many players seemed ignorant of the alerting policy. This is not surprising - it could be found only on page 34 of the WBF General Conditions of Contest. Granted, we all were provided with a copy of that, but as one would expect few read it. The daily bulletin published an excerpt of the policy. The policy is admirably short, and I thought the daily bulletin ought to have published it in its entirety. o The directors wanted a $20 deposit before taking a score correction. I refused to pay, since the correction I submitted would have reduced my score. I still have no idea whether or not the correction was applied. o My partner and I sat EW for three out of four sessions in the Open Pairs qualifier. I saw no reason that every pair should not play two sessions as NS and two as EW. o Announcements were made during each session that we could leave the table for other reasons but not to smoke, even if the playing site permitted smoking. I'm not a smoker but I saw no cause for this -- it seems like Puritanism. Are there any advantages to playing in the WBF? Certainly -- I can think of at least three: o I much prefer the 10 AM start time (when it was not changed) to the ACBL's 1 PM. The games finish by 8, and one has time for a nice dinner. o The hand records were usually plentiful and were easy to read. o The WBF's Stop Card regulation is much superior to the ACBL's. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From schuster@eduhi.at Mon Sep 23 19:00:24 2002 From: schuster@eduhi.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 20:00:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] Misbid and mis-explanation In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020923172200.00a99d00@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: 23.09.2002 17:30:56, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >At 10:57 23/09/2002 -0400, Laval Dubreuil wrote: >>Hi BLMLrs, >> >>Dealer W, Vl none. >> >> North >> A J 10 4 >> 5 3 2 >> J 9 >> K Q 6 4 >> >>K 7 2 Q 8 5 3 >>A 9 8 7 Q 10 >>Q 8 4 3 A K 10 6 2 >>9 7 5 3 >> >> 9 6 >> K J 6 4 >> 7 5 >> A J 10 8 2 >> >> W N E S >> P 1NT* 2D X (then ask about 2D and call TD) >> >>1NT was alerted (announced) as 12-14 as required in ACBL land. >>When asked, W told 2D shows H (4+) and an other suit (5+). >>The pair just begin to play Astro-Landy: 2D is 4+ S and an other suit. >>W forgot the alert (and the convention...). >> >>When called the TD allows S to change his call (because of the failure >>to alert). >> >> W N E S >> P 1NT* 2D P >> 2H P 3D 3NT (all P) >> >>Result: 3NT down 1 = 100 for E-W. >> >>South then called the TD again and asked for a score adjustment. I have no >>more information but he got an incredible A+ (A- for E- W)..... >>I just know S based his request on the mis-explanation by W (2D = H + ). >> >>1) May S call (X), then ask about the 2D bid and get a call change ? > >AG : L21B1 doesn't limit the ways by which the NOS learns there was MI. >Perhaps he called, then remembered EW (which he knew) were playing >something special ? But note that S may only ask at *his turn to call* (L20F1). His question is an infraction but he may of course still get his change of call. Regards, Petrus From ljtrent@adelphia.net Mon Sep 23 21:20:49 2002 From: ljtrent@adelphia.net (Linda Trent) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 13:20:49 -0700 Subject: [blml] The European Way? In-Reply-To: <005a01c262db$86c1e890$a13ef0c3@LNV> Message-ID: >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Ton Kooijman [mailto:t.kooyman@worldonline.nl] >>Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 1:16 AM >>To: Linda Trent; blml@rtflb.org >>Subject: Re: [blml] The European Way? >> >> >>> >>Adam Wildavsky: >> >>> >>I had been told that travellers would not be used for >>the finals of >>> >>the Open Pairs. Having sadly failed to reach the finals I >>> >>never found >>> >>out -- can anyone enlighten me? >>> >>> Well, they were in the Finals of the Women's pairs >>> But that probably doesn't count, given that not >>> one single board of the Women's anything made it >>> to VuGraph >>> >>> Linda >> >> >> >>Are you sure? Unless I am surprisingly (or worse: not >>surprisingly) ignorant >>again we did not use travellers in the finals. As far as I >>know it is rather >>difficult to use travellers in a barometer event. Which >>also means that I >>don't understand Adam's question. What are we talking about? >> >>ton no, now that you mention it I'm not sure - my parther sat North, I was probably thinking of the Semi-Finals. I vaguely remember a white sheet that had all four results on it that was turned in. Sorry 'bout that Linda From blml@dybdal.dk Mon Sep 23 21:34:01 2002 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 22:34:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] RE: A plague o' both your houses. In-Reply-To: <002d01c262ce$ab49a2f0$0501e150@endicott> References: <001501c260f7$7298a470$6844e150@endicott> <002d01c262ce$ab49a2f0$0501e150@endicott> Message-ID: On Mon, 23 Sep 2002 07:57:57 +0100, "Grattan Endicott" wrote: >Grattan Endicott+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >"Of all the things I've done, the most vital >is coordinating the talents of those who >work for us, and pointing them towards a >certain goal." ~ Walt Disney. >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Jesper Dybdal" >To: "Bridge Laws List" >Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2002 11:30 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] RE: A plague o' both your houses. > > >It seems to me that it also serves the positive purpose of helping >to remedy that lack of understanding by informing all of us about >cultural differences of which we were possibly unaware. > >I do agree that some postings might have been worded less >agressively.But when judging the wording of messages here, it >should always be remembered that many of them are written >by people for whom English is a second (or third) language. > >I find the actual information in discussions of cultural differences >very interesting. > >+=3D+ Yes, JD, you have a point. My frustration has been partly >about the aggressive/defensive tones of some messages, but >very much about the failure to come down to ground level and >discuss possible solutions. > We are here in a world organization. We are a >multinational group with differing backgrounds, experiences, >understandings and expectations of the game, and with our >personal preferences conditioned by what we are used to. >We have to look for common ground, for compromise where >cultures collide. So I find it futile merely to throw around >images of what we are, futile and very off-putting when there >is a tendency to express a chauvinistic belief in the superiority >of one zonal or national position above another. > In the area of laws I find strangely that we recognize the >differences amongst us and we have shown tolerance of these >by allowing options. Not everyone thinks this is a better >solution than imposing a single unalterable law, and we are >under pressure to reduce the options; but the compromise >is pragmatic and it has worked. In the area of appeals, the >second area in which I work, there is no doubt that we have >differences in the approach from Europe and that from the >North America; we tend to work it out at WBF level by >seeking to balance opinions in committees and to ensure >as far as possible the influence of personalities from outside >of these areas. It is complicated somewhat by the fact that >amongst the Europeans there are wide differences between >one nationality and another - although the fact is that all the >various groups of people concerned have the single aim of >doing what is good for the game. It is the route to that goal >that has to be negotiated. I think we have done some good >by introducing greater transparency; but the most useful >reaction to reports adopts a reflective approach rather >than a right/wrong one. > So my belief is that when we are discussing Montreal >we need to stop shouting and sit down together to explore >quietly what might be a way forward. To this end I welcome >your email - and wonder if you have any thoughts about >what might improve performance, and be amenable to >players at large from all over the world? > Regards, ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Sep 23 21:33:07 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 13:33:07 -0700 Subject: [blml] WBF CoC comments solicited References: <1032643643.3d8ce43ba6d26@webmail.mit.edu> Message-ID: <007e01c26340$f3cc3b60$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Adam Wildavsky" (many thanks, Adam) A number of items that give me reenforced admiration at how the ACBL runs NABC+ events. (Big snip) > > o My partner and I sat EW for three out of four sessions in the Open > Pairs qualifier. I saw no reason that every pair should not play two > sessions as NS and two as EW. It may have something to do with the comparisons. In an ACBL Open Pairs switches each session, but that's no good because it means that there are two separate comparison fields. If there are just two sessions, half the pairs must play in the same direction for both sessions in order to mix comparison fields. I don't know why the ACBL doesn't do this. It is done with for a single section playing two sessions, but not for multiple sections. But this was four sessions. Perhaps someone with the time could see whether 50-50 N/S-E/W is possible for four sessions while still having lines compare with other lines an equal number of times. If not, does 1/3-2/3 provide a way to improve the comparisons? John Probst, are you there? By the way, was arrow-switching used? > o I much prefer the 10 AM start time (when it was not changed) to the > ACBL's 1 PM. The games finish by 8, and one has time for a nice > dinner. I like that too, but doesn't it interfere with the popular morning Knockouts? Or could those just be moved to the late evening? > > o The hand records were usually plentiful and were easy to read. > > o The WBF's Stop Card regulation is much superior to the ACBL's. > Would you quote that for us, please? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From blml@dybdal.dk Mon Sep 23 21:59:33 2002 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 22:59:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] RE: A plague o' both your houses. In-Reply-To: <002d01c262ce$ab49a2f0$0501e150@endicott> References: <001501c260f7$7298a470$6844e150@endicott> <002d01c262ce$ab49a2f0$0501e150@endicott> Message-ID: [Sorry for my previous content-less posting - I hit the "send" button by mistake.] On Mon, 23 Sep 2002 07:57:57 +0100, "Grattan Endicott" wrote: > So my belief is that when we are discussing Montreal >we need to stop shouting and sit down together to explore >quietly what might be a way forward. Yes. >To this end I welcome >your email - and wonder if you have any thoughts about >what might improve performance, and be amenable to >players at large from all over the world? That is the more difficult part :-) The specific case that has been discussed seems to be: * Some people find it a bad idea that players know how they're doing while playing, so they do not like barometers. This attitude seems to be common in North America. * Other people find it a good idea for players to know how they're doing, so they like barometers. This attitude seems to be common in many parts of Europe. It seems to me that there is no way a single event can be organized that will make all of these people really happy. But I don't see anything wrong in different cultures having different tastes in things like this. I don't think an attempt to make all bridge players in the world prefer the same type of event will have much chance of success. So I think that the WBF should probably just accept that there are different cultures, that in many cases it will be a bad idea for the WBF to pronounce one such culture as the "correct" one, and that some corresponding (minor) variation in the way WBF events are run might therefore be a good idea. One possibility could be to let the habits of the host country have an influence on such matters. So a WBF event in Canada would not just be a WBF event that happened to be placed in Canada, it would be an event where the guests from the rest of the world would to some degree be invited to play a tournament organized in the way that tournaments are typically organized in Canada. It probably shouldn't go to far, though. Things like system policies and alert rules, which require preparation beforehand, should probably be the same in every WBF event - which means that I do not have any solution to the general problem. But small matters like "barometer or not" or "travellers or not" does not require that the players prepare it beforehand, so it could easily change from event to event. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From Walt.Flory@fscv.net Mon Sep 23 22:11:21 2002 From: Walt.Flory@fscv.net (Walt.Flory@fscv.net) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 17:11:21 -0400 Subject: [blml] Direction switches in the ACBL In-Reply-To: <007e01c26340$f3cc3b60$1c981e18@san.rr.com> References: <1032643643.3d8ce43ba6d26@webmail.mit.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20020923165954.02a7b300@mail.fscv.net> I'm sure I saw half the N-S field pivot and the other half remain stationery in two session open pair events at the recent Hunt Valley Regional tournament. The same DIC and many of the same directors run the sectionals here also. I am very surprised to hear anyone say that "the ACBL switches [direction] each session". Have I misinterpreted what I saw? Some single session entries were sold for the same sections. Do the switches depend on who the DIC is? That sounds unlikely. Comments, please. Walt At 01:33 PM 23/09/2002 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: >From: "Adam Wildavsky" (many thanks, Adam) > >A number of items that give me reenforced admiration at how the ACBL runs >NABC+ events. > >(Big snip) > > > > o My partner and I sat EW for three out of four sessions in the Open > > Pairs qualifier. I saw no reason that every pair should not play two > > sessions as NS and two as EW. > >It may have something to do with the comparisons. > >In an ACBL Open Pairs switches each session, but that's no good because it >means that there are two separate comparison fields. > >If there are just two sessions, half the pairs must play in the same direction >for both sessions in order to mix comparison fields. I don't know why the ACBL >doesn't do this. It is done with for a single section playing two sessions, >but not for multiple sections. > >But this was four sessions. Perhaps someone with the time could see whether >50-50 N/S-E/W is possible for four sessions while still having lines compare >with other lines an equal number of times. If not, does 1/3-2/3 provide a way >to improve the comparisons? > >John Probst, are you there? > >By the way, was arrow-switching used? > > > o I much prefer the 10 AM start time (when it was not changed) to the > > ACBL's 1 PM. The games finish by 8, and one has time for a nice > > dinner. > >I like that too, but doesn't it interfere with the popular morning Knockouts? >Or could those just be moved to the late evening? > > > > o The hand records were usually plentiful and were easy to read. > > > > o The WBF's Stop Card regulation is much superior to the ACBL's. > > >Would you quote that for us, please? > >Marv >Marvin L. French >San Diego, California > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Sep 23 22:47:54 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 14:47:54 -0700 Subject: [blml] Direction switches in the ACBL References: <1032643643.3d8ce43ba6d26@webmail.mit.edu> <5.1.1.6.0.20020923165954.02a7b300@mail.fscv.net> Message-ID: <008a01c2634a$e363e660$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Walt Flory wrote: > > I'm sure I saw half the N-S field pivot and the other half remain > stationery in two session open pair events at the recent Hunt Valley > Regional tournament. That is the correct thing to do when ranking overall. Adding arrow-switches would be even better. It is routine in single-section two-session events, but I have never seen it done in a multiple-section game, even at NABCs, and I don't know why this is so. However, things can get complicated if there are more than two sections so perhaps that is why. It took me quite a while to work out the movement for three sections, with six lines. N/S A and E/W C remain where they are. N/S B & C move down one section and play E/W. E/W A & B move up one section and sit N/S Each line plays against, or compares with, every other line but one, and that is the best you can do. Or is it? Four of the six lines compare twice with the same line, while two do not. You compare twice with the same line only (of course) if you haven't played against it (but not vice-versa). > > The same DIC and many of the same directors run the sectionals here also. I > am very surprised to hear anyone say that "the ACBL switches [direction] > each session". But in general, they do, except for those who must be stationary, and for those of us who volunteer to sit E-W twice to accommodate that. > > Have I misinterpreted what I saw? Some single session entries were sold for > the same sections. Do the switches depend on who the DIC is? That sounds > unlikely. The switches are up to the sponsoring organization, and are supposedly specified in the Conditions of Contest. In practice it is up to the DIC. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From vitold@elnet.msk.ru Mon Sep 23 23:31:15 2002 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru (vitold) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 02:31:15 +0400 Subject: [blml] WBF CoC comments solicited References: <1032643643.3d8ce43ba6d26@webmail.mit.edu> Message-ID: <3D8F9632.E914BB2B@elnet.msk.ru> Hi all:) Hi, Karen and David:) Montreal incident and next discussion (so in mass-media as in blml) enlightened two main groups of problems (for my opinion): First group - duties, rights and limits of: 1. authority bodies of some society; 2. members of that society. Second group - our estimations of what: 1. was done by authority body before, during and after this very incident; 2. was done by these very members before, during and after this very incident; 3. should be done in future. I hope that almost all of us have almost the same position in problems from the first group: 1. Democratically elected authority bodies of some society have duties to do their best in interest of this society, have rights to take any decisions that are limited by (and in accordance with) By-Laws of this society and some unwritten (but commonly respected) rules (yeah, the Legend:)). 2. All members of this society are obliged to execute every decision of authority bodies that are considered as described above. Every member of this society has rights to have opinion (so positive as negative) in any question of this society - including to publish and discuss this opinion, and to try to influent on these bodies for changing their decision (including to elect another persons to these bodies). Their doings are also limited by By-Laws of this society and some unwritten (but commonly respected) rules. So: after decision was made and till it is not changed all of us (champions included) should follow it. Usually possible penalties for breaking decision are part of the same decision. That's why from point of view of the first group of problems: nothing happened in Montreal - because one side did inside their rights and limits while another side (apparently - fighting for its rights) crossed its limits. In this part of the theme (and only in this) I fully agree with Herman De Wael and David Burn. The possible conclusions from the Legend I'll introduce below. And now we have estimation problems. Let's consider them as they appeared: 1. The WBF decided to implement drug test - in accordance with IOC regulations. This decision was made when there was hope for positive decision about including bridge in schedule of Winter Games. Lack of time provides that the decision was not carefully prepared (technically, informatively etc.). But who of us would not be happy if the bridge would be included in Olympic Games? So - I think that leadership of WBF tried to serve in interest of bridge society. No mistakes made only non-working organization. And now these mistakes should be corrected. 3. IMO that this leadership consists on people that are rather reasonable - so I cannot imagine that there may be such thing as non-equal treating of players, especially - at world contest of the highest level. That's why I think that not all facts are known. It was said that one (and only one) player during the tournament refused to be tested. Nobody said anything similar about another person. (By the way - it was said that among all tested there were two players with positive results. There were no known disciplinary actions against them.) A lot of conclusions may be done on this basis - my hypothesis is that it was refusal that born this incident. It seems to me like TD ordered to move - and player refused or TD ordered to stop talking - and player refused. It became one-way-ticket... and suddenly it happened that WBF had no choice. It became (self-made?) trap. 4. IOC decided negatively. Happened incident drew attention to the problem of doping in bridge. What may/should be done? - WBF should have its own doping policy, absolutely differ from IOC policy cause first of all there should be elaborated list of drugs for strengthening mental possibilities. - Such a elaboration may be done by special research institution, that are learning brain activity etc.; they may do it even for publicity aim (that means - without WBF expences)... - WBF may try to do it in co-operation with another intellectual federation (chess?). - There is no room for intellectual games neither in Summer nor in Winter Games. OK - may be one should consider that it is high time to create third kind of Olympic Games: Intellectual? There are chess, bridge, go, randzju, checkers, lot of computer games: there are world federations, world championships. Common problems, common solutions - and it may provide to more interest to bridge - so from social surrounding as from IOC or from sponsors... For my opinion - the latter is more important. 5. Several words about possible future WBF doping policy. Bridge was created as social intellectual game. Very quickly it became popular social timesharing - where anybody may enjoy without limits in age, disability etc. Moreover, for lot of human being with disability bridge became the way to prove their unity with people. Bridge developed, they said that it became a kind of sport (not my opinion) - and now people with disabilities may prove their priority not only in clubs: they may become World champions, beating players without physical disabilities. May I dare to remind that tens years ago one of the best American player won his last ACBL title suffering for last stage of cancer? That years ago another American world-known player played almost up to his death (also for cancer) in official ACBL championships? I guess they would never pass doping-test because there were a lot of banned drugs in their bodies. Do we really want to play game according to the position: "The WBF should outlaw anything that can be shown to enhance performance at bridge, whether or not it causes irreperable brain damage or cures cancer."? Not me! I was extremely surprised to read this in message from reasonable and respected blmlist... I was taught by my teachers that the Legend demands not to bar players as a class, based upon the player's race, religion, political position, sex, nationality or his physical ability. I was taught that bridge differs from physical kinds of sports because human ethics is integral part and even basement of the game. And I'd like to play the game without any kind of segregation. That's why my opinion is that future doping policy in bridge (and in other intellectual games) should allow usage drug for medical reason. Regards, Vitold From Schoderb@aol.com Tue Sep 24 01:00:22 2002 From: Schoderb@aol.com (Schoderb@aol.com) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 20:00:22 EDT Subject: [blml] RE: A plague o' both your houses. Message-ID: <176.f0f46ff.2ac10516@aol.com> --part1_176.f0f46ff.2ac10516_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit a voice int he wilderness!!! =K= --part1_176.f0f46ff.2ac10516_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit a voice int he wilderness!!!

=K= --part1_176.f0f46ff.2ac10516_boundary-- From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Sep 24 01:28:16 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 10:28:16 +1000 Subject: [blml] WBF CoC comments solicited Message-ID: <4A256C3E.00015AFA.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Adam Wildavsky wrote: [snip] >I was disappointed with many aspects of the tournament in Montreal. I >described some of the failings I perceived in Lille four years ago in >an article in Bridge Today magazine. Larry Cohen did the same in The >Bridge World. Unfortunately things do not seem to have improved -- in >many ways they have worsened. Here's what I wrote about Lille: > >>I had grumbled about the conditions, as had many - assignments were >>difficult to find, results were not posted until long after the end >>of the session, and matchpoints were never posted - the players had >>to look up their matchpoints for each board individually! Early on >>someone explained to me that "It's not a player-friendly >>tournament." Once I understood it in that light I concluded that my >>best option was to grin and bear it. The Australian Summer Festival of Bridge, held every year in Canberra at the end of January, is one of the largest bridge tournaments in the world. However, despite its size, the Summer Festival is definitely a player-friendly tournament. >Here's a list of problems I encountered in Montreal. I hope you won't >find its length overwhelming. Please feel free to quote me by name. > >o Scores for pair games were not available until long after the end >of the session. > >o Pairs' matchpoints were never available -- one had to look up the >matchpoints board by board. > >o After the first day of the Open Pairs the scores for each board >(for checking results) were not available even at 8:30 the next >morning. Rapid and detailed scoring for pair games applies at the Summer Festival. However, the number, length and size of pair games at the Summer Festival is much reduced at the Summer Festival than at non-Australian major bridge tournaments, due to the Aussie predilection for imps. Therefore, scorers of pairs events are not placed under the same volume of data-entry work in the Summer Festival as they are at non-Australian major bridge tournaments. The most popular pair game at the Summer Festival is an imp-scored Swiss Pairs, which the ABF has scheduled for a larger venue in 2003 to avoid crowding. >o Early in the tournament game time changed from day to day, and was >seldom as published. At the start of each event in the Summer Festival, entrants are given a customised scorebook with the session times on the cover. >o When scores and assignments were published they were seldom in a >useful order. Results for the mixed pairs were sorted by score, so to >find out how one did one had to look at several hundred scores. No >section results were posted, so several hundred pairs had to jostle >past one another to pore through the one or two sets of posted >results to find their score. Summer Festival results for your pair or team are posted on big wall charts, sorted by initial seeding order. (That is, always in the same place.) For the popular Swiss Pairs, two wall charts were set up at opposite ends of the room to avoid crowding (top seeds charted at one end, bottom seeds charted at the other). >o The directors were not always prepared for the conditions of contest. In the Summer Festival, even players can be prepared for the conditions of contest, as they are prominently displayed on a noticeboard in the playing area. ABF System Regulations are also printed in the entry form. [snip] >o There were two playing sites -- that's one too many. Often one >didn't know which hotel to play in until game time, and some pairs >were moved from one hotel to another at the list minute. The Summer Festival has two playing sites, but location of events is printed in the entry form, and the ABF provides a free shuttle bus between the two venues. >o Rude behavior by the players was not addressed by the directors. Summer Festival directors are firm but fair. Also, the existence of the two official ABF Recorders was announced at the commencement of each event. [big snip] >o Many players seemed ignorant of the alerting policy. This is not >surprising - it could be found only on page 34 of the WBF General >Conditions of Contest. Granted, we all were provided with a copy of >that, but as one would expect few read it. The daily bulletin >published an excerpt of the policy. The policy is admirably short, >and I thought the daily bulletin ought to have published it in its >entirety. At the Summer Festival, the Welcome issue of the daily bulletin publishes the alerting policy. Even more important, the article gives the *reasons* for the alerting and self-alerting rules of ABF events. [snip] >Are there any advantages to playing in the WBF? Certainly -- I can >think of at least three: > >o I much prefer the 10 AM start time (when it was not changed) to the >ACBL's 1 PM. The games finish by 8, and one has time for a nice >dinner. At the 2002 Summer Festival, session times were modified to lengthen the dinner break. (Some other ABF tournaments are experimenting with zero evening session times.) >o The hand records were usually plentiful and were easy to read. At the Summer Festival, the hand records are also colour-coded by session. >o The WBF's Stop Card regulation is much superior to the ACBL's. The ABF's Stop Card regulation is better still; the ABF does not have one. :-) Best wishes Richard From nancy@dressing.org Tue Sep 24 01:50:45 2002 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 20:50:45 -0400 Subject: [blml] Direction switches in the ACBL References: <1032643643.3d8ce43ba6d26@webmail.mit.edu> <5.1.1.6.0.20020923165954.02a7b300@mail.fscv.net> Message-ID: <000701c26364$6ab71ce0$6401a8c0@hare> Any of the tournaments, at all levels, that I have played in or been involved with that have 2 session events always have you change directions for the second session. Usually you can ask for N/S or E/W in the afternoon but you will play the opposite direction in the evening. If people need a stationary table, then that is handled but usually all players (if possible) change directions in the second session. Have never noted that 50% remain in the same direction nor can it be related to particular directors. Nancy ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 5:11 PM Subject: [blml] Direction switches in the ACBL > > I'm sure I saw half the N-S field pivot and the other half remain > stationery in two session open pair events at the recent Hunt Valley > Regional tournament. > > The same DIC and many of the same directors run the sectionals here also. I > am very surprised to hear anyone say that "the ACBL switches [direction] > each session". > > Have I misinterpreted what I saw? Some single session entries were sold for > the same sections. Do the switches depend on who the DIC is? That sounds > unlikely. > > Comments, please. > > Walt > > > At 01:33 PM 23/09/2002 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: > > >From: "Adam Wildavsky" (many thanks, Adam) > > > >A number of items that give me reenforced admiration at how the ACBL runs > >NABC+ events. > > > >(Big snip) > > > > > > o My partner and I sat EW for three out of four sessions in the Open > > > Pairs qualifier. I saw no reason that every pair should not play two > > > sessions as NS and two as EW. > > > >It may have something to do with the comparisons. > > > >In an ACBL Open Pairs switches each session, but that's no good because it > >means that there are two separate comparison fields. > > > >If there are just two sessions, half the pairs must play in the same direction > >for both sessions in order to mix comparison fields. I don't know why the ACBL > >doesn't do this. It is done with for a single section playing two sessions, > >but not for multiple sections. > > > >But this was four sessions. Perhaps someone with the time could see whether > >50-50 N/S-E/W is possible for four sessions while still having lines compare > >with other lines an equal number of times. If not, does 1/3-2/3 provide a way > >to improve the comparisons? > > > >John Probst, are you there? > > > >By the way, was arrow-switching used? > > > > > o I much prefer the 10 AM start time (when it was not changed) to the > > > ACBL's 1 PM. The games finish by 8, and one has time for a nice > > > dinner. > > > >I like that too, but doesn't it interfere with the popular morning Knockouts? > >Or could those just be moved to the late evening? > > > > > > o The hand records were usually plentiful and were easy to read. > > > > > > o The WBF's Stop Card regulation is much superior to the ACBL's. > > > > >Would you quote that for us, please? > > > >Marv > >Marvin L. French > >San Diego, California > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >blml mailing list > >blml@rtflb.org > >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Tue Sep 24 05:32:53 2002 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 00:32:53 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 17D Message-ID: Law 17D (Cards from the Wrong Board) is not really at the good place in TFLB (somebody already noted) and could be written in a simpler manner (I am not the first to tell). Reading it again, I noted a new flaw. This Law reads: If a player inadvertently picked up the cards from the wrong board makes A call... If offender subsequently repeats THE cancelled call... Why a single call and not many ???? N E S W P 1C P 1S P 1NT Then N realizes he called twice with the wrong cards. How this Law then applies ? Can N be allowed to pick the right cards and director allows a second auction ? If N repeats both Ps, does the board is normally played? Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Sep 24 06:28:42 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 22:28:42 -0700 Subject: [blml] Direction switches in the ACBL References: <1032643643.3d8ce43ba6d26@webmail.mit.edu> <5.1.1.6.0.20020923165954.02a7b300@mail.fscv.net> <000701c26364$6ab71ce0$6401a8c0@hare> Message-ID: <009d01c2638b$42f435e0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Nancy T Dressing" > Any of the tournaments, at all levels, that I have played in or been > involved with that have 2 session events always have you change directions > for the second session. Usually you can ask for N/S or E/W in the afternoon > but you will play the opposite direction in the evening. If people need a > stationary table, then that is handled but usually all players (if possible) > change directions in the second session. Have never noted that 50% remain > in the same direction nor can it be related to particular directors. > My experience also, although I have never noted a two-session single-section championship that had everyone switching direction in the second session. The reason given is not concerned with comparisons (a legitimate concern), but with a desire to minimize repeat face-to-face meetings. It is perhaps interesting that you meet 3/4 of the pairs, 1/4 of them twice. You compare twice with 1/4 of them and just once with half. Such games are rare these days, which is probably why you haven't noted one. The policy of switching everyone creates what is actually a two-winner game. Each of two fields has played entirely different hands, has met entirely different opponents, and has compared only within its field. That's two separate games, not one. This seems to be recognized in the least likely place, the lowly non-championship club game with a straight Mitchell movement, which has a North-South winner and an East-West winner. Ranking such games overall is comparing apples and oranges, but that is what we have even at the highest level of NABC+ championships. (Although qualifying sessions properly rank the two fields separately). In the LM Pairs a few years ago, 130 pairs met in the finals in five 13-table sections, everyone switching direction for the second session. I looked to see if the first and second place winners had compared with each other on any boards, and they hadn't, because they sat in opposite directions. Nor had they met face to face , not unusual when finalists meet only 40% of the other field. What kind of a championship final is that? At the very least they should mix the two fields for the second session, which means half the pairs sit in the same direction twice. I suppose switching the arrow for a couple of rounds, a desirable second step, would be asking too much. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Sep 24 06:32:18 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 15:32:18 +1000 Subject: [blml] WBF CoC comments solicited Message-ID: <4A256C3E.001D2F7C.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Vitold wrote: [big snip] >Bridge was created as social intellectual game. Very >quickly it became popular social timesharing - where >anybody may enjoy without limits in age, disability >etc. Moreover, for lot of human being with disability >bridge became the way to prove their unity with people. > >Bridge developed, they said that it became a kind of >sport (not my opinion) - and now people with >disabilities may prove their priority not only in >clubs: they may become World champions, beating players >without physical disabilities. May I dare to remind that >tens years ago one of the best American player won his >last ACBL title suffering for last stage of cancer? That >years ago another American world-known player played >almost up to his death (also for cancer) in official ACBL >championships? I guess they would never pass doping-test >because there were a lot of banned drugs in their bodies. > >Do we really want to play game according to the position: >"The WBF should outlaw anything that can be shown to >enhance performance at bridge, whether or not it causes >irreparable brain damage or cures cancer."? Not me! I was >extremely surprised to read this in message from >reasonable and respected blmlist... [snip] The Olympic Games may be the glorious event by which the WBF sought to enhance the image of bridge. But the less publicised Paralympic Games for disabled athletes seems to have greater commonality with the nature of bridge. Canberra will soon host the Australian Masters Games, which is restricted to geriatric (over 30) athletes. Due to its great commonality with the nature of bridge, the Australian Masters Games has included bridge as one of its official sports. Best wishes Richard From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Tue Sep 24 08:16:22 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 09:16:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] Direction switches in the ACBL Message-ID: > >A number of items that give me reenforced admiration at how the ACBL runs >NABC+ events. > >(Big snip) > > > > o My partner and I sat EW for three out of four sessions in the Open > > Pairs qualifier. I saw no reason that every pair should not play two > > sessions as NS and two as EW. > >It may have something to do with the comparisons. > >In an ACBL Open Pairs switches each session, but that's no good because it >means that there are two separate comparison fields. May I suggest to you to do some homework. Take 8 sections and 4 sessions and try to change directions in such a way that every group (A NS up to H EW) is compared with every other group as balanced as possible. You will see that some groups have to stay NS and EW all the time to get the best solution. This is a nice example of how easy it is to draw wrong conclusions. On a group scale it might look very well organized when there is a switch in every session, while for the whole event this is useless, since every pair is compared with the same pairs all the time. Those changes are not made to reach a balanced way of having pairs walking around! And yes we have seen such things in big and important events. Another question is whether these changes make much sense in a big field. Probably not. The less so the better the seeding is done. And we put a lot of energy in the seeding in Montreal, also trying to avoid late play between countrymen. But the result was partly destroyed by late entries. (this is no complaint towards one or some countries, dear Grattan, but describing a fact of everywhere's life) ton From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Tue Sep 24 09:19:27 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 10:19:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] WBF CoC comments solicited Message-ID: let me try to give some comments, aiming to explain a couple of things and to improve procedures for the future. see below. ton Adam Wildavsky wrote: [snip] >I was disappointed with many aspects of the tournament in Montreal. I >described some of the failings I perceived in Lille four years ago in >an article in Bridge Today magazine. Larry Cohen did the same in The >Bridge World. Unfortunately things do not seem to have improved -- in >many ways they have worsened. Here's what I wrote about Lille: > >>I had grumbled about the conditions, as had many - assignments were >>difficult to find, results were not posted until long after the end >>of the session, and matchpoints were never posted - the players had >>to look up their matchpoints for each board individually! Early on >>someone explained to me that "It's not a player-friendly >>tournament." Once I understood it in that light I concluded that my >>best option was to grin and bear it. The Australian Summer Festival of Bridge, held every year in Canberra at the end of January, is one of the largest bridge tournaments in the world. However, despite its size, the Summer Festival is definitely a player-friendly tournament. >Here's a list of problems I encountered in Montreal. I hope you won't >find its length overwhelming. Please feel free to quote me by name. > >o Scores for pair games were not available until long after the end >of the session. **** It depends on what we consider to be 'long after'. It certainly was true for the mixed pairs with as main reason that it was played in two hotels. Communication becomes harder and when something appeared to have gone wrong in the other hotel things became almost unsolvable. One thing the software we used is not good in is to have pairs changed from one section (group) to another all the time. And that happened quite often, especially in the mixed pairs. I tried to keep the section size as close as possible to the number of boards to be played, meaning that I tried 14 table sections with 26 boards to be played. That is a vulnerable situation, with three pairs dropping out in a section play becomes complicated. And this happened too often. As far as I know during the other pair events the time between finishing the session and the results posted was not more than 30 - 40 minutes. With one exception: In the open pairs, also played in two hotels, we used internet to get the results. But the connection collapsed once. > >o Pairs' matchpoints were never available -- one had to look up the >matchpoints board by board. **** That is true: we produced the total ranking with session results, the frequencies and the recaps with all the scores of all the pairs within the section they played in. > >o After the first day of the Open Pairs the scores for each board >(for checking results) were not available even at 8:30 the next >morning. **** That is possible, and then a mistake I wasn't aware of. Rapid and detailed scoring for pair games applies at the Summer Festival. However, the number, length and size of pair games at the Summer Festival is much reduced at the Summer Festival than at non-Australian major bridge tournaments, due to the Aussie predilection for imps. Therefore, scorers of pairs events are not placed under the same volume of data-entry work in the Summer Festival as they are at non-Australian major bridge tournaments. The most popular pair game at the Summer Festival is an imp-scored Swiss Pairs, which the ABF has scheduled for a larger venue in 2003 to avoid crowding. >o Early in the tournament game time changed from day to day, and was >seldom as published. **** This suggests that there was no consistency at all (but the consistent change). That was not the case. The deviation was from the starting times as published in the program book, which we did to make things more consistent. The daily news gave the right times and the unexpected changes were announced in the playing area quite often and posted in the halls. I didn't notice any real problem for the players. At the start of each event in the Summer Festival, entrants are given a customised scorebook with the session times on the cover. >o When scores and assignments were published they were seldom in a >useful order. Results for the mixed pairs were sorted by score, so to >find out how one did one had to look at several hundred scores. **** You are joking. Yes we posted the results ranked over the field. But estimating your score in advance 2 or 3 sheets should have been sufficient. And you know that we published more than one complete list, three to be exact plus one in the other hotel. No >section results were posted, so several hundred pairs had to jostle >past one another to pore through the one or two sets of posted >results to find their score. Summer Festival results for your pair or team are posted on big wall charts, sorted by initial seeding order. (That is, always in the same place.) For the popular Swiss Pairs, two wall charts were set up at opposite ends of the room to avoid crowding (top seeds charted at one end, bottom seeds charted at the other). >o The directors were not always prepared for the conditions of contest. In the Summer Festival, even players can be prepared for the conditions of contest, as they are prominently displayed on a noticeboard in the playing area. **** There were enough booklets with the conditions of contest to provide every player plus the directors at least one. We had problems with the champions bag, but as far as I know these conditions were available from the beginning. ABF System Regulations are also printed in the entry form. [snip] >o There were two playing sites -- that's one too many. Often one >didn't know which hotel to play in until game time, and some pairs >were moved from one hotel to another at the list minute. **** That is easy to say. I would have prefered one hotel even more than you do. And it is simply not true that pairs had to wait till game time before knowing were to go. Yes some were moved (and some moved themselves without noticing anybody!!), to make the event in the other hotel playable (see above). Enough from my side. Things were not perfect, and conditions were not easy. Evaluation is necessary, but let us try to get the facts right. ton **** The Summer Festival has two playing sites, but location of events is printed in the entry form, and the ABF provides a free shuttle bus between the two venues. >o Rude behavior by the players was not addressed by the directors. Summer Festival directors are firm but fair. Also, the existence of the two official ABF Recorders was announced at the commencement of each event. [big snip] >o Many players seemed ignorant of the alerting policy. This is not >surprising - it could be found only on page 34 of the WBF General >Conditions of Contest. Granted, we all were provided with a copy of >that, but as one would expect few read it. The daily bulletin >published an excerpt of the policy. The policy is admirably short, >and I thought the daily bulletin ought to have published it in its >entirety. At the Summer Festival, the Welcome issue of the daily bulletin publishes the alerting policy. Even more important, the article gives the *reasons* for the alerting and self-alerting rules of ABF events. [snip] >Are there any advantages to playing in the WBF? Certainly -- I can >think of at least three: > >o I much prefer the 10 AM start time (when it was not changed) to the >ACBL's 1 PM. The games finish by 8, and one has time for a nice >dinner. At the 2002 Summer Festival, session times were modified to lengthen the dinner break. (Some other ABF tournaments are experimenting with zero evening session times.) >o The hand records were usually plentiful and were easy to read. At the Summer Festival, the hand records are also colour-coded by session. >o The WBF's Stop Card regulation is much superior to the ACBL's. The ABF's Stop Card regulation is better still; the ABF does not have one. :-) Best wishes Richard _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gester@lineone.net Tue Sep 24 10:32:18 2002 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 10:32:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] RE: A plague o' both your houses. References: <176.f0f46ff.2ac10516@aol.com> Message-ID: <001401c263b0$7d97f5e0$5d182850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: ; Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 1:00 AM Subject: Re: [blml] RE: A plague o' both your houses. > a voice int he wilderness!!! > > =K= > +=+ Oh, c'mon K: Jesper is trying ..... give the lad his due ..... you know, if we could join my innocent, youthful drive and enthusiasm with ton's rigorous efficiency and your cynical experience, we might change the world yet..... ~ G ~ +=+ From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Tue Sep 24 11:24:27 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 12:24:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] RE: A plague o' both your houses. Message-ID: > a voice int he wilderness!!! > > =K= > +=+ Oh, c'mon K: Jesper is trying ..... give the lad his due ..... you know, if we could join my innocent, youthful drive and enthusiasm with ton's rigorous efficiency and your cynical experience, we might change the world yet..... ~ G ~ +=+ All three of us where present in Montreal, if I remember well. ton From B.Schelen@IAE.NL Tue Sep 24 11:25:24 2002 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 12:25:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] not shuffled References: Message-ID: <004e01c263b5$b9ead300$65053dd4@b0e7g1> Ed, It is time that we get an agreement on the interpretation and application of Law81C6. I learnt years ago that the only situation that dummy may act is when there is an infringement of the proprieties. Maybe that is another interpretation of the Laws. Ben ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed" To: "Ben Schelen" Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 7:54 AM Subject: Re: [blml] not shuffled > On 9/23/02, Ben Schelen wrote: > > >Ben: If there is a big argument about a possible revoke, attention is > >drawn to a possible irregularity and the four players have to summon > >the director at once: Law9B1 If this is not done, it is another > >irregularity for sure. If you noticed it, she could notice the > >argument as well: so it was her business. > > Heh. I once, as dummy, in a club game, called the director because one > of the opponents was harrassing my partner about something or other - I > don't remember the details. The director said to me "you're dummy, > you're not allowed to call the director" and walked away. I came very > close to abandoning the game that day. :-( From svenpran@online.no Tue Sep 24 11:48:10 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 12:48:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] not shuffled References: <004e01c263b5$b9ead300$65053dd4@b0e7g1> Message-ID: <009501c263b7$e03c5310$70d8fea9@WINXP> Dummy may always after play of the hand is concluded call attention to any irregularity of which he has become aware. Law 9A2(b)(1) Sven ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ben Schelen" To: "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 12:25 PM Subject: Re: [blml] not shuffled > Ed, > > It is time that we get an agreement on the interpretation and application of > Law81C6. > I learnt years ago that the only situation that dummy may act is when there > is an infringement of the proprieties. Maybe that is another interpretation > of the Laws. > > Ben > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ed" > To: "Ben Schelen" > Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 7:54 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] not shuffled > > > > On 9/23/02, Ben Schelen wrote: > > > > >Ben: If there is a big argument about a possible revoke, attention is > > >drawn to a possible irregularity and the four players have to summon > > >the director at once: Law9B1 If this is not done, it is another > > >irregularity for sure. If you noticed it, she could notice the > > >argument as well: so it was her business. > > > > Heh. I once, as dummy, in a club game, called the director because one > > of the opponents was harrassing my partner about something or other - I > > don't remember the details. The director said to me "you're dummy, > > you're not allowed to call the director" and walked away. I came very > > close to abandoning the game that day. :-( > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Tue Sep 24 11:54:32 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 12:54:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] not shuffled Message-ID: > On 9/23/02, Ben Schelen wrote: > > >Ben: If there is a big argument about a possible revoke, attention is > >drawn to a possible irregularity and the four players have to summon > >the director at once: Law9B1 If this is not done, it is another > >irregularity for sure. If you noticed it, she could notice the > >argument as well: so it was her business. > > Heh. I once, as dummy, in a club game, called the director because one > of the opponents was harrassing my partner about something or other - I > don't remember the details. The director said to me "you're dummy, > you're not allowed to call the director" and walked away. That remark is wrong for sure. Dummy shouldn't call the TD on his own initiative. I would have sympathy with dummy telling me that the opponent harrassing declarer took the initiative. ton I came very > close to abandoning the game that day. :-( _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Schoderb@aol.com Tue Sep 24 12:27:21 2002 From: Schoderb@aol.com (Schoderb@aol.com) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 07:27:21 EDT Subject: [blml] RE: A plague o' both your houses. Message-ID: <182.ee39ecd.2ac1a619@aol.com> --part1_182.ee39ecd.2ac1a619_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Com'on Grattan. I was PRAISING Jesper! Guess I used an American idiom not clearly uinderstood. =Kojak= --part1_182.ee39ecd.2ac1a619_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Com'on Grattan. I was PRAISING Jesper! Guess I used an American idiom not clearly uinderstood.
=Kojak= --part1_182.ee39ecd.2ac1a619_boundary-- From gester@lineone.net Tue Sep 24 11:44:25 2002 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 11:44:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 17D References: Message-ID: <003601c263ca$84e2e0c0$1d1e2850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 5:32 AM Subject: [blml] Law 17D > Law 17D (Cards from the Wrong Board) is not really at the > good place in TFLB (somebody already noted) and could be > written in a simpler manner (I am not the first to tell). > Reading it again, I noted a new flaw. This Law reads: > > If a player inadvertently picked up the cards from the wrong > board makes A call... > If offender subsequently repeats THE cancelled call... > > Why a single call and not many ???? > +=+ Noted. Readers will understand that, with the Laws Revision Subcommittee now active, I am restricted as to comment on anything suggesting a change in the law. The most I should do at this stage is simply to say "noted" - meaning that I have added a reference to my file of points for attention when next my colleagues are discussing relevant law. If I miss something (i.e. you do not observe a 'noted' signal), put it to me away from blml in an email. My email addresses are: cyaxares@lineone.net and grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk and gester@lineone.net ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From David Stevenson Tue Sep 24 12:08:34 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 12:08:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Round Robin/Swiss Message-ID: <1aPcHQByeEk9Ewrh@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Nancy T Dressing writes > I directed a Round Robin/Swiss Team game this afternoon. It took me some thought to realise you just meant Round Robin and not Swiss!!!!!!!!!! :) >  Small > game, 5 tables, NLM, 6 boards a round, 4 rounds.  Movement was E/W > up 2, then down 2, UP 1 then down 1. (no clock) At the end of the > 1st round, every table finished but 1 which had 1 full board to > play.  I cancelled the board for that team and called the round.  > Next round, all is fine, everyone finished on time .  Round 3 the > same pair was late, everyone else finished and they had 1 1/4 > boards still to play.  I told them not to start another board and > called the move when they finished their fifth board.  Same N/S as > in Round 1.   On the comparison they imped 5 boards in the "late" > rounds. The last round they finished with the field. The N/S Pair > was furious that they had lost two boards and could not or would > not understand that I could not hold up 16 players while they > played their late board in those  rounds.  I might have erred in > not asking which pair would take responsibility for the slow play > but I was sure I knew which pair it was. (the N/S pair is > notoriously slow).  Should I have handled this differently? Not at all. Players are required to play within a period of time set by the TD. That is an implicit rule, ie it exists even if not stated. however, it would be better if it was explicit, so the only difference is that in future I advise you to tell everyone in advance how long the rounds last. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Tue Sep 24 11:49:17 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 11:49:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Wot {sic} happened? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4qYf7tAtMEk9Ewpx@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) writes >On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, David Stevenson wrote: > >> Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) writes >> >On Tue, 17 Sep 2002, David Stevenson wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> I go away for a few days and return to find my computer littered with >> >> emails with BLML in the title. The mailing list seems to have gone mad. >> >> I cannot find any instructions on what to do. >> > >> >1. Did you read BLML in digest mode before? >> >> No, never. >> >> >2. Can you please send me the HEADERS of one of the messages that you >> > received more than once. This should look something like; >> >> I did not say I received them more than once. I have never had a BLML >> email in my mailboxes before: there is a perfectly good newsstand for >> them. > >So where did you read them then? In the newsstand. With good software, newsgroups are threaded into somewhere that treats each newsgroup separately. So when I want to read rec.pets.cats.anecdotes I go to the part of my software set aside for rec.pets.cats.anecdotes and read the articles. All the articles under the title 'How my cat Billy snared a goldfish' are together, in order so that replies follow immediately - that's threading. My software also treats mailing lists as newsgroups, so I have always read BLML as though it was a newsgroup. Anyone who does not have such software does not know what they are missing. When I am away from home and have looked at BLML on a friend's machine it is just unreadable. It is ludicrously difficult to gather what people are talking about if it is not threaded! So suddenly BLML is all over my machine and not in the newsstand designed for it. However, I seem to have finally got it back onto the newsstand, except for Richard Hills' articles. If there is no other solution for Richard's articles I shall have to bin them unread since it disturbs the flow too much too read them as emails which I do at a different time. Hopefully we will manage a better solution. With majordomo [the original list] the headers are such that all articles get picked up. Despite Richard saying his company's software is adding something, why is the new host not making it correct? I have found no warnings in the original articles. Perhaps I have missed them, but please be aware of the fact that some people have good software, and hopefully in time more people will, so any future changes should please be given adequate warning: just taking the list of people and sending them emails is not good enough!!! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Tue Sep 24 11:38:22 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 11:38:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 81C6 [was Wish List] Message-ID: <1aEc3iAeCEk9Ewrp@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Ben Schelen writes >> Ben Schelen writes >> >From: "David Stevenson" >> >> > (2) I once called the TD against a pair whose nonstandard card >> >made >> >> > no mention of leads, signals, or discards. The harassed TD >> >> > accepted their explanation that they had no such agreements. >> >> > Opponents messed up the defence and as I left the table, >> >> > I heard "Why didn't you switch to hearts, when I asked you." >> >> The TD cannot rule on evidence he isn't given. If you had recalled >me >> >> at such a time I would have hit them with a very sizeable penalty for >> >> lying [a] to opponents and [b] to the TD. >> >> >> >> Of course, not all TDs are the same standard, but good TDs are *very* >> >> loth to take no agreement as an argument for carding. In fact, if they >> >> did convince me I would probably remain at the table to watch a couple >> >> of hands. >> >Ben: What to do in case you observes a system in carding? Law81C6? >> Certainly. That is my purpose in remaining at the table. >> >> What action I would take depends on what I believe to have happened. >> People rarely tell lies [except in situations where they deceive >> themselves as well, like whether they have hesitated] but they do get >> some strange ideas. But a further investigation would be necessary. >> >> Of course if I finally decided they had deliberately lied then it >> would become very serious. But more likely is stupidity. >O.K. Up to now the other BLML'ers did not react, so I take it they agreed. >Next questions: >Two boards is not sufficient for detecting carding agreements. I am not sure I agree with this. I think that you can get quite an idea if they defend on both boards. Do they seem to lead any card except the bottom one? Peter? >Do you follow that pair to the next table? There are no other rulings to do. If I have any doubts, then yes. >Suppose you now detect carding agreements, but their Ops do not summon you >because for them two boards is not sufficient as well. >Do you apply Law81C6? Certainly. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Tue Sep 24 11:52:07 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 11:52:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Wot {sic} happened? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <+K2eT6AXPEk9EwKG@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Ed Reppert writes >On 9/18/02, David Stevenson wrote: > >> I did not say I received them more than once. I have never had a BLML >>email in my mailboxes before: there is a perfectly good newsstand for >>them. > >I'm guessing, because I'm not familiar with the program you're using >(Turnpike, is it?) but I suspect that you have some kind of filter set >up to send blml mails to that newsstand, and the filter is broken >because blml now has a new address. So, look at your filters (or >whatever Turnpike calls them). :-) Sure. But as I have explained elsewhere, for people with good software we need warnings of changes in mailing lists. When my cats mailing list changed from egroups to yahooproups they gave us two weeks warning and the changeover was smooth. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Tue Sep 24 12:36:13 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 12:36:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lucy. In-Reply-To: <200209152328.TAA06258@cfa183.harvard.edu> References: <200209152328.TAA06258@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Eric Landau wrote: >At 03:42 PM 9/13/02, David wrote: >>(1a) The regulation is a violation of some human right; >It is. Human beings have a fundamental right not to have their >personal freedoms impinged upon for no reason. I do not actually think so. They may hope this is the case, and some countries grandly tell their subjects it is the case, but in fact no-one has complete personal freedom. Of course, a different way of saying the same thing is that what you say is true but never relevant. If your personal freedom is impinged because someone else decides it should be he no doubt has a reason, eg megalomania. ------------------ Brian Meadows writes >OK, so I now play at a *very* small (ACBL) bridge club. The >majority of the players there barely know how to play the game, >let alone have a good understanding of the rules. Their attitude >to the Laws is a simple one - if something goes wrong, call the >TD and have him fix it. My goodness, what a novel and sensible idea. :) -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Tue Sep 24 12:48:11 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 12:48:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Illegal convention Message-ID: Richard Hills wrote >Richard Colker wrote >> David Stevensons wrote >In commenting on Las Vegas case forty-two, >David Stevenson and Rich Colker had slight >differences on the preferred method of >adjusting scores after use of an illegal >convention. > >Can blmlers offer further nuances? >>>any result that allows E/W to get a good score >>>from an illegal convention suggests that it is >>>time the ACBL had a new look at what to do >>>when an illegal convention is used. No one >>>knows what would have happened if it had not >>>been used because no one knows what system E/W >>>would have used if they had realized they were >>>not allowed to play their 1NT response. >>>Perhaps they would have played Precision or >>>EHAA [a system whose name aptly describes its >>>philosophy: the acronym stands for Every Hand >>>An Adventure. - Ed.] >>> >>>Law 12C2 does not really work when the whole >>>auction is poisoned, as often happens with an >>>illegal convention. Working out what would >>>have happened is just not practical, so I >>>suggest an English idea: When an illegal >>>convention is used Law 12A2 is applied - i.e., >>>it is ruled that "no rectification can be made >>>that will permit normal play of the board." >>>Then an artificial score is applied such as >>>Average-Plus/Average-Minus in favor of the >>>non-offenders. >>> >>>If this was decided it should be made a >>>regulation, so that it would be applied >>>consistently. Here are a couple of further >>>thoughts: The hand should always be played >>>out, and if the non-offenders get more than >>>Average-Plus then there is no damage, so no >>>adjustment. Also, to follow ACBL ideas, the >>>non-offenders can be expected to play bridge >>>and keep their bad score if they make an >>>egregious error. Here, for example, E/W >>>would get an Average-Minus but N/S would keep >>>their bad score which they earned. >>> >>>One last thought. Sometimes an artificial bid >>>is made which has various possibilities, some >>>illegal. The result should still be canceled >>>even if the bit used was not the illegal bit. >>>It is still not known what would have happened >>>if they had played a legal bid. >>As for dealing with illegal conventions, it is >>normal to allow the hand to be played out (if >>possible) and the result to stand if the non- >>offenders are not damaged. In general, a pair >>is not allowed to obtain a good score from an >>illegal convention unless the illegal bid is >>judged not to have disadvantaged the opponents >>(as here, where N/S actually ended up having >>more useful information because of the illegal >>bid than they would have otherwise). In the >>present case I can see no good reason for >>adjusting the score. (Call this the "No harm, >>no foul" principle.) This is completely wrong. Richard has no idea whether the opposition would have got a better score if they had not used an illegal convention so he has no idea whether there is harm or not. One of the problems with the case-books is that Richard gets the final word with no come-backs. I believe he uses it too often, especially, as he is sometimes completely wrong as in this case. Of course it is also made worse that I have not had a copy of the Las Vegas case-book yet. --------- Marvin L. French wrote >However, David does not go far enough. The OS should be told in harsh language >not to use the illegal convention in the future. They should also be given, not >just an avg- on the board, but a huge PP. Come off it, Marvin, people make mistakes in this world of ours. You are assuming they did so deliberately. There is no case for this heavy handed approach in a normal case. >And what about pairs previously played by the OS against whom the illegal >convention may have obtained a good result? A TD should investigate whether that >has occurred during the session and if so adjust scores appropriately. Absolutely not. It is not acceptable to do this sort of witch-hunt. Just stop the pair and deal with them in the case you know about. Apply L81C6, not a further Law as yet unwritten. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Tue Sep 24 12:50:06 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 12:50:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Wot {sic} happened? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: David Stevenson writes > > I go away for a few days and return to find my computer littered with >emails with BLML in the title. The mailing list seems to have gone mad. >I cannot find any instructions on what to do. As you will realise I seem to be back on the mailing list. You will find I have tried to read messages some way back and put them in the correct mailing list. I am afraid it will all be a bit random. For those of you with threading software my articles will often not thread properly over the next few days - sorry. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Tue Sep 24 13:18:18 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 13:18:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Pausitis In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ed Reppert writes >This brings to mind something that happened at the club last Monday. Pausitis? >Partner is a decent player (though he should be better, given his >experience). But he has trouble remembering to alert, and when he is >asked a leading question (eg, "is that weak?", he usually answers in the >affirmative, even when that's the wrong answer. He also has trouble >articulating the meaning of alerted calls. During Monday's game, this >problem cropped up twice. The first time, after the round, I suggested >to him that he should ignore the form of any question, and simply >describe the meaning of the call. The second time went like this: > >Me: 1NT >Partner: Alert >My LHO: What's the range? >Partner: Uh, it's artificial, and... >My LHO, insistently: I didn't ask you to alert, I asked you what's the >range. >Partner: looks confused. >Me, to partner: Remember what I told you. (Yeah, yeah, I know.) >Opponents: Director! > >TD arrives, LHO explains that partner won't give the range of my 1NT >opening. RHO then says "and he (points at me) said "remember what I told >you". To which I respond "what I told him was to ignore the form of the >question and describe the meaning of the bid." TD asks partner what the >bid means. Partner says "it's artificial and forcing." >TD: So it's a strong bid? >Partner: Yes. It's either 19-20 balanced, or 19-21 unbalanced. >TD: Okay. (To LHO: Does that answer your question?) >LHO, grudgingly: Yes. >RHO: But he (points at me again) said (repeats what I said). TD ignores >her. > >1. Yes, I should not have said that. >2. Yes, TD should not have ignored RHO. >3. RHO's tone and attitude said to me "You're cheating." > >Was *anybody* in the right here? :-) Probably your instructions to pd were correct. There is an ACBL reg that says the answer to a question is not linked to the actual form of the question - so you are OK in the ACBL. ----------- Alain Gottcheiner writes >AG : I'm often confronted with the same problem, for another reason : many >of our bids are not defined in terms of points, but of playing tricks, or >ODR. We have the constant attitude of declining answering tot that >question, either answering what is relevant (as you suggested to partner) >or answering literally (in this case, "19 to 21", and too bad for the >remainder of the information). Tell the opponent the problem. That's easy. >If the opponent insists, no need to call the TD. Just don't answer, and >*they* will play the bad guys. Not necessarily - refusing to answer questions is not a particularly acceptable thing under the Proprieties. >Note that such questions often carry inferences, like in this case the fact >that the opponent thought 1NTs balanced, and as such are constitutive of >the infraction of UI. Sure - but two wrongs do not make a right. You are still required to answer fully and fairly even when the question is poor - never forget L75A. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Tue Sep 24 13:18:25 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 13:18:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Pausitis In-Reply-To: <3d85e0e3.6bcd.0@esatclear.ie> References: <3d85e0e3.6bcd.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: Karel wrote Aha - an easy one. Please try to set a right margin of 72 characters - your article was very difficult to read. I have taken a few minutes reformatting it. > Hi all - the summer is over and the bridge season restarts (big > cheer). Needless to say Blm will be getting more queries from now on. > Our first event is of course the classic 2 week mixed pairs and what > do ya know but this beauty came up. > >Pairs Dealer W N/S vul > > S AQxx bidding > H AQ8x N E S W > D Q9x P > C Jx 1NT P 2C Dbl > 2H P 4H all pass >S JT9x S Kxxx >H Kx H Txx >D Kx D xxxx >C A98x2 C Tx > > S x > H J97x > D AJTx > C KQxx > > N/S would be considered a good mixed partnership. North is probably > one of the top 5 lady players in Ireland. Opening lead CT. > > E S W N >Trick 1 CT Cx CA Cx >Trick 2 Cx Cx C2 CJ > > At this stage North went into her box - the estimate was 17-22 > seconds. She had of course just realised that not overtaking the CJ > was a serious mistake especially when the C2 clearly indicated the > diamond finesse was not working. > >Anyway ... > >Trick 3 Sx Sx Sx SA >Trick 4 Sx Hx Sx Sx > >East at his turn placed a spade face down on the table paused for 4-5 > seconds and turned it over. When asked was he ok he said he was > thinking. > >Trick 5 Hx H7 Hx HQ > > East before playing the Hx paused 6-8 seconds (agreed). North at > this stage assumed the hearts were 4/1 with east (otherwise why the > long pause) and played a heart toward the J. The club ruff then put > the contract down 1. > > > N/S called the director and stated that East's pause was completely > unethical. A DP for N/S is automatic. Anything between a severe warning if it was said by South and South is inexperienced up to double the standard penalty. Perhaps 20% of a top. > and that without the pause N would cash the HA and make 4H+1 (losing > 1C & 1D - spades away on the clubs after a heart to the J). So she might - adjust for her. ------------- Karel writes > See original post for the hand and circumstances - but basically > declarer finesses and LHO pauses with Txx leading declarer to believe > the trumps are KTxx offside. > > >[snip] >>First, NS get a serious DP for this accusation. At least double the >>standard penalty seems about right, but perhaps a full board could >>be justified. A lot depends on North's exact words and tone. > >[Karel - the "unethical" statement was never actually said at the table though >the implications after the TD call etc were self evident. Now Karel, you should know better than that!!!!! The TD call itself makes ***NO ACCUSATION AT ALL*** that the player has acted unethically. It means he has done something wrong, but not unethical. There is a world of difference between saying that someone paused inappropriately which is against the Laws and leads to adjustments and that someone has acted unethically, ie paused deliberately to mislead which is subject to severe penalty. > I think something >along the lines of "you can't do that ... or you're not allowed to pause like >that ..." may have been used followed immediately by calling the TD. ] Fine - that is *not* an accusation of being unethical. >[Karel - The TD ruled results stands and PP to E/W. The TD felt that 4H could >only make on a 3/2 heart split and north's experience was such that a small >heart to the J was a sufficiently poor play to not have the score adjusted. This means that he believed North's play was "irrational, wild or gambling". Was it really that bad? Perhaps in Ireland they use the North American standard of an egregious error and the requirement to play bridge. Even so the TD's ruling seems harsh. Furthermore, the PP is wrong: he should have adjusted for the offending side even if not for the NOS. >I'm not a TD, but I have read cases where the expertise of the player(s) was >such that their subsequent play/defence was deemed to be so poor as to forfeit >their right to an adjustment. In this case had the scoring been teams I think >the TD's ruling has more going for it because now making the contract is >paramount >and -1 or -2 is irrelevant. Imps regardless of ANY other factors the HA is >correct and north's lvl of expertise would make a low heart to the J an >extremely >poor play. But even then would it be sufficient to lose her an adjusted score >under L73F2 ?? > >At pairs though, 4H-1 is equally as likely to be a good or average score as >4H making or +1 especially if a competent declarer believes the cards are lying >badly and plays accordingly. In the actual case I feel L73F2 was pretty clear >cut and the result should have been restored to 4H+1. Others suggested that >the play of her peers at this stage could effect the ruling ?? I think your TD was too harsh. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Tue Sep 24 13:28:25 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 13:28:25 +0100 Subject: Fwd: [blml] Harrison Bergeron [WAS Lucy]. In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020916162129.00a88f00@pop.starpower.net> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020916162129.00a88f00@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Richard Hills wrote >Last Sunday, a six-round Swiss teams in Canberra was >organised in a Harrison Bergeron style. > >Of the 24 teams entered, eight were classified as >restricted due to minimal team masterpoints. > >For the first half of the event, forced pairings of >teams were used, so that the 8 restricted teams played >only amongst themselves. > >Therefore, the half-time leader on 69 vps was a >restricted team. > >For the final three matches, the non-restricted and >restricted fields were merged. > >In round four, therefore, two lucky non-restricted >contending teams played the two leading restricted teams >and duly each scored a 25 vp blitz. Thanks to these >bonus vps, these two non-restricted contending teams >eventually finished first and second. > >Meanwhile, the remaining non-restricted contending teams >played against each other in round four, therefore >finishing unplaced. So two teams got an unfair advantage from the 'infamous' Harrison Bergeron method. Let us see what would have happened in a Swiss Teams in Europe. There would have been a random draw, the restricted teams would have tended to lose their first couple of matches, and then the restricted teams would be at the bottom of the field playing each other. So the effect of playing each other would have been the same as with Harrison Bergeron without the necessity of fouling the event for the better teams. Funny - it is called the Swiss principle and is why Swiss events are entirely suitable for poor contestants to play in. I *still* do not understand why Australia does not like playing pure unsullied Swiss events! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sat Sep 21 22:56:28 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 22:56:28 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Las Vegas Case Thirty-Seven References: <010101c25f98$9bdfd340$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <000101c261be$aba6a1a0$a59868d5@default> Mr OS takes a strange but successful action, seemingly suggested by UI. His opponent Mrs NOS calls the TD and Mr OS justifies his action by reference to undocumented "system". IMO the TD should give all benefit of doubt to NOS and that does not imply that OS is a liar or a cheat. "Of course, Mr OS, there is no imputation of misbehaviour on your part; we accept that you are purer than fresh fallen snow; but I have to rule against you because otherwise it would be hard to rule against a known cheat, who persisted in actions like yours with nefarious intent. At best he would complain of bias. At worst, he could sue for slander. Anyway, we can hardly enforce a harsher law for novices & strangers than for friends & known experts". From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sat Sep 21 22:56:28 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 22:56:28 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Las Vegas Case Thirty-Seven References: <010101c25f98$9bdfd340$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <000001c2624a$56b80e40$e19468d5@default> Mr OS takes a strange but successful action, seemingly suggested by UI. His opponent Mrs NOS calls the TD and Mr OS justifies his action by reference to undocumented "system". IMO the TD should give all benefit of doubt to NOS and that does not imply that OS is a liar or a cheat. "Of course, Mr OS, there is no imputation of misbehaviour on your part; we accept that you are purer than fresh fallen snow; but I have to rule against you because otherwise it would be hard to rule against a known cheat, who persisted in actions like yours with nefarious intent. At best he would complain of bias. At worst, he could sue for slander. Anyway, we can hardly enforce a harsher law for novices & strangers than for friends & known experts". From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sat Sep 21 22:56:28 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 22:56:28 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Las Vegas Case Thirty-Seven References: <010101c25f98$9bdfd340$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <000101c261be$aba6a1a0$a59868d5@default> Mr OS takes a strange but successful action, seemingly suggested by UI. His opponent Mrs NOS calls the TD and Mr OS justifies his action by reference to undocumented "system". IMO the TD should give all benefit of doubt to NOS and that does not imply that OS is a liar or a cheat. "Of course, Mr OS, there is no imputation of misbehaviour on your part; we accept that you are purer than fresh fallen snow; but I have to rule against you because otherwise it would be hard to rule against a known cheat, who persisted in actions like yours with nefarious intent. At best he would complain of bias. At worst, he could sue for slander. Anyway, we can hardly enforce a harsher law for novices & strangers than for friends & known experts". From henk@ripe.net Tue Sep 24 14:21:22 2002 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 15:21:22 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] Wot {sic} happened? In-Reply-To: <4qYf7tAtMEk9Ewpx@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: Hi David, > With majordomo [the original list] the headers are such that all > articles get picked up. I use the header: List-Id: Bridge Laws Mailing List to file blml mails. > Despite Richard saying his company's software > is adding something, why is the new host not making it correct? That is impossible. Richard's firewall changes the address but the changed address is still a valid (though non-exisiting) address. This is something that has to be fixed at the sending side. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Sep 24 14:48:17 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 24 Sep 2002 06:48:17 -0700 Subject: [blml] Wot {sic} happened? Message-ID: <240902267.24498@webbox.com> > Sure. But as I have explained elsewhere, for people with good software we need warnings of changes in mailing lists. You may have "explained" it, but that does not make it so. Software that is actually any good at all reacts to changes without the user having to do anything. Unfortunately, not much software is any good at all, and neither are many users. David Burn London, England From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Sep 24 15:05:54 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 24 Sep 2002 07:05:54 -0700 Subject: [blml] Wot {sic} happened? Message-ID: <240902267.25554@webbox.com> DWS wrote: >I have found no warnings in the original articles. Perhaps I have missed them, but please be aware of the fact that some people have good software, and hopefully in time more people will, so any future changes should please be given adequate warning: just taking the list of people and sending them emails is not good enough! Please be aware that Henk, and Marcus before him, are providing a home for BLML at no cost, out of the goodness of their hearts. I do not think that in the circumstances, any of us should presume to say what is and what is not "good enough"; we should be thankful that we have anything at all. Some people are actually capable of remembering things from one minute to the next, and can therefore read and understand several messages without requiring them to be in any particular order; the "good software" about which you keep boasting is, in truth, a not terribly good substitute for some not terribly good thinking. If your software really was any good, you would not be having all these problems with it when a trivial thing such as a change of address occurs. Most of us were not remotely inconvenienced by the move - but then, we have only the software between our ears on which to rely. David Burn London, England From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Tue Sep 24 16:10:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 16:10 +0100 (BST) Subject: [BLML] Las Vegas Case Thirty-Seven Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <000101c261be$aba6a1a0$a59868d5@default> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > Mr OS takes a strange but successful action, > seemingly suggested by UI. His opponent Mrs > NOS calls the TD and Mr OS justifies his > action by reference to undocumented "system". > > IMO the TD should give all benefit of doubt > to NOS and that does not imply that OS is a > liar or a cheat. Benefit of doubt - yes. Adjust without establishing if there really is any doubt - no. The TD might investigate the documented parts of the system and decide that there is no real doubt that the "undocumented" part is inherent within it. Or he might be told "Tim tends to overbid rather than underbid" - he could establish the truth of that by asking anyone who has played against me. The TD's first duty is to investigate the facts - only after so doing should he consider any adjustments. Tim From adam@tameware.com Tue Sep 24 06:24:12 2002 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 01:24:12 -0400 Subject: [blml] Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited) In-Reply-To: <007e01c26340$f3cc3b60$1c981e18@san.rr.com> References: <1032643643.3d8ce43ba6d26@webmail.mit.edu> <007e01c26340$f3cc3b60$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: At 1:33 PM -0700 9/23/02, Marvin L. French wrote: >From: "Adam Wildavsky" > > o The WBF's Stop Card regulation is much superior to the ACBL's. > >Would you quote that for us, please? From the WBF General Conditions of Contest: Playing without screens a player "announces" a skip bid by placing the Stop card in front of him, then placing his bid card as usual, and eventually removing the Stop card. His LHO should not call until the Stop card has been removed. (If the Stop card has been removed hastily or has not been used, an opponent may pause as though the Stop card has been used correctly.) The ACBL rules can be found at http://www.acbl.org/details.asp?id=1834&PID=9689&RID=9687 -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From blml@dybdal.dk Tue Sep 24 16:46:31 2002 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 17:46:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 17D In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0j11puon2rp3bedc20cebfh5tehogg1km6@heimdal.i.softco.dk> On Tue, 24 Sep 2002 00:32:53 -0400, "Laval Dubreuil" wrote: >Law 17D (Cards from the Wrong Board) is not really at the >good place in TFLB (somebody already noted) and could be >written in a simpler manner (I am not the first to tell). >Reading it again, I noted a new flaw. This Law reads: > >If a player inadvertently picked up the cards from the wrong >board makes A call... >If offender subsequently repeats THE cancelled call... > >Why a single call and not many ???? My suspicion is that the original author of this law intended that if the auction had got further than one call from the offender, then an = artificial adjusted score should be given. Unfortunately, L17D neglects to actually= say so. The wording of the law ignores all the problems that are present = when the auction has proceeded further (such as offender having seen his partner's= later call). The DBF's suggestions for the new laws include a suggestion that the = board should be cancelled if the offender's partner has called after the = offender (http://www.bridge.dk/lov/ak/udg/rfc-dbf-02.htm#L17D). --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From david-martin@talk21.com Tue Sep 24 17:04:10 2002 From: david-martin@talk21.com (David Martin) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 17:04:10 +0100 Subject: Fw: [blml] Direction switches in the ACBL Message-ID: <00e101c263e7$122b0680$72497bd5@davicaltd> Ton wrote: > > May I suggest to you to do some homework. Take 8 sections and 4 sessions and > try to change directions in such a way that every group (A NS up to H EW) is > compared with every other group as balanced as possible. You will see that > some groups have to stay NS and EW all the time to get the best solution. > > This is a nice example of how easy it is to draw wrong conclusions. On a > group scale it might look very well organized when there is a switch in > every session, while for the whole event this is useless, since every pair > is compared with the same pairs all the time. Those changes are not made to > reach a balanced way of having pairs walking around! And yes we have seen > such things in big and important events. > > Another question is whether these changes make much sense in a big field. > Probably not. The less so the better the seeding is done. And we put a lot > of energy in the seeding in Montreal, also trying to avoid late play between > countrymen. But the result was partly destroyed by late entries. (this is no > complaint towards one or some countries, dear Grattan, but describing a fact > of everywhere's life) > ### I am afraid that what Ton says above is not correct, at least if you believe in competition as defined in John Manning's paper on arrow-switching or if you believe in comparisons as defined in the Swedish Book 'Movements - A Fair Approach'. It is perfectly possible to ensure that everyone plays NS and EW exactly half the time, give or take one board, if you so wish. What people are probably more concerned about is whether they can be stationary for half of the sessions and, again, this can be achieved provided that there are an even number of sessions and no sitters, ie. people who need to remain stationary for the whole event. If there are sitters and they are all in one section then anyone who plays against them will have to move for an extra session. The best competition balance in multi-session events will be obtained if the original NS and EW lines in the first session always remain the same relative orientation irrespective of which way round they are playing and 1/8 of the boards are switched in each session. This will give the lowest spread of competition error (ie. RMS deviations) and will be closest to perfection when the number of sessions is equal to the number of sections. If you wish to balance comparisons rather than competition, as advocated by the Swedes, then everything in the above paragraph remains true except that you need to arrow-switch more than 1/8 of the boards and the exact number depends on the size of each section and the number of sections. To save time, I have developed a spreadsheet to calculate this. David Martin ### From axman22@hotmail.com Tue Sep 24 17:40:50 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 11:40:50 -0500 Subject: [blml] Illegal convention References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 6:48 AM Subject: [blml] Illegal convention > Richard Hills wrote > >Richard Colker wrote > >> David Stevensons wrote > > >In commenting on Las Vegas case forty-two, > >David Stevenson and Rich Colker had slight > >differences on the preferred method of > >adjusting scores after use of an illegal > >convention. > > > >Can blmlers offer further nuances? > > >>>any result that allows E/W to get a good score > >>>from an illegal convention suggests that it is > >>>time the ACBL had a new look at what to do > >>>when an illegal convention is used. No one > >>>knows what would have happened if it had not > >>>been used because no one knows what system E/W > >>>would have used if they had realized they were > >>>not allowed to play their 1NT response. > >>>Perhaps they would have played Precision or > >>>EHAA [a system whose name aptly describes its > >>>philosophy: the acronym stands for Every Hand > >>>An Adventure. - Ed.] > >>> > >>>Law 12C2 does not really work when the whole > >>>auction is poisoned, as often happens with an > >>>illegal convention. Working out what would > >>>have happened is just not practical, so I > >>>suggest an English idea: When an illegal > >>>convention is used Law 12A2 is applied - i.e., > >>>it is ruled that "no rectification can be made > >>>that will permit normal play of the board." > >>>Then an artificial score is applied such as > >>>Average-Plus/Average-Minus in favor of the > >>>non-offenders. > >>> > >>>If this was decided it should be made a > >>>regulation, so that it would be applied > >>>consistently. Here are a couple of further > >>>thoughts: The hand should always be played > >>>out, and if the non-offenders get more than > >>>Average-Plus then there is no damage, so no > >>>adjustment. Also, to follow ACBL ideas, the > >>>non-offenders can be expected to play bridge > >>>and keep their bad score if they make an > >>>egregious error. Here, for example, E/W > >>>would get an Average-Minus but N/S would keep > >>>their bad score which they earned. > >>> > >>>One last thought. Sometimes an artificial bid > >>>is made which has various possibilities, some > >>>illegal. The result should still be canceled > >>>even if the bit used was not the illegal bit. > >>>It is still not known what would have happened > >>>if they had played a legal bid. > > >>As for dealing with illegal conventions, it is > >>normal to allow the hand to be played out (if > >>possible) and the result to stand if the non- > >>offenders are not damaged. In general, a pair > >>is not allowed to obtain a good score from an > >>illegal convention unless the illegal bid is > >>judged not to have disadvantaged the opponents > >>(as here, where N/S actually ended up having > >>more useful information because of the illegal > >>bid than they would have otherwise). In the > >>present case I can see no good reason for > >>adjusting the score. (Call this the "No harm, > >>no foul" principle.) > > This is completely wrong. Richard has no idea whether the opposition > would have got a better score if they had not used an illegal convention > so he has no idea whether there is harm or not. I think that it is much more sensible that when harm is not readily apparent then it is reasonable to not adjust the score. Players are told that it is too difficult to defend themselves against opponents that have illegal conventions. It sounds plausible so it is believed. And because illegal conventions are not allowed players do not have experience that tells them what is in their interests to do when 'an illegal convention' is employed. So all a player knows is to believe that 'illegal conventions' are bad. Now here are the facts. There are over one half trillion hands that might be dealt and we are given the challenge of bidding them using at most fifteen words [at least that what the objective is, in some parts of the world the allowed vocabulary is closer to a hundred words]. This means that there are practical things that can be done within the bidding space as well as impractical things. But to restrict the creativity in what conventions might be employed is to deprive players of the chance to do well on a particular hand when they could have had a method suited to the cards. Why should one convention be labeled fair but another is not? Now my opinion about what is the problem with 'illegal conventions' is very likely to be quite different from what players are told is the problem. Players are told that it is too much to expect them to be able to contend with such methods. This is flummery. A call conveys information, whatever it is. And that information must be dealt with for the rest of the auction within the remaining bidding space. The more skillful player merely will have devoted the effort more likely to give him better judgement to contend with something he is not so familiar with. And there is hardly anything inequitable or unfair about a player doing the best he can. And ostensibly, is not the function of a contest to conjure the players that do the best with the hands that make up the contest. So, if the problem with illegal conventions is not that they are difficult for opponents to contend with, what is the problem? The problem is that many practitioners lack confidence in their system and/or are unable to be satisfied with the information that the convention conveys- their tempo and mannerisms convey more information about their hand than the convention does. But this is true about most conventions- a fast Multi is just as informative as a tortured Multi or a thoughtful one- it is the inference available that is different. And it is this kind of an edge that is unfair. Now, that is not true of all players. There are many that select their agreements so that they can manage fairly. And why should a player be prohibited to sending a particular message so long as he sends it fairly? In other words, it is hardly equitable to say one convention is illegal and another legal when either are often employed unfairly. For one pair a legal convention might be used unfairly while the same pair might use an 'illegal convention' fairly. iow, making a large number of a half trillion hands unmanageable by forbidding certain conventions on the grounds that opponents may not know how to handle them is not good for the game. After all, the contest is about how players deal with the hands given the limited vocabulary of fifteen words and it is insincere to take some of them away from those who are able to be fair in their use. Another way to put things is that if the emphasis were placed on all players having a duty to communicate solely by bids and plays [using conventions in good tempo] then players will tend to be more careful in choosing system. regards roger pewick > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Sep 24 20:34:07 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 12:34:07 -0700 Subject: [blml] Direction switches in the ACBL References: Message-ID: <001101c26401$6934ad40$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Kooijman, A." > > > >A number of items that give me reenforced admiration at how the ACBL runs > >NABC+ events. > > > >(Big snip) > > > > > > o My partner and I sat EW for three out of four sessions in the Open > > > Pairs qualifier. I saw no reason that every pair should not play two > > > sessions as NS and two as EW. > > > >It may have something to do with the comparisons. > > > >In an ACBL Open Pairs switches each session, but that's no good because it > >means that there are two separate comparison fields. Did you read that, Ton??> > > May I suggest to you to do some homework. Take 8 sections and 4 sessions and > try to change directions in such a way that every group (A NS up to H EW) is > compared with every other group as balanced as possible. You will see that > some groups have to stay NS and EW all the time to get the best solution. So I was right, it did have something to do with the comparisons, and all-switching is "no good.". The goal is to compare with as many pairs as possible among those not encountered at the table, so you can't switch everybody. >This is is a nice example of how easy it is to draw wrong conclusions. What "wrong conclusion" was that, please? My conclusion was right, but "maybe" should have been "probably." Not "certainly," because it could be that a N/S line or two was reserved for those who have to remain stationary. I wasn't there, hence the reluctance to make a positive statement. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Sep 24 20:38:14 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 12:38:14 -0700 Subject: [blml] Pausitis References: Message-ID: <002b01c26402$1d00d060$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "David Stevenson" <> >.You are still required to > answer fully and fairly even when the question is poor - never forget > L75A. > Or the exception to that permitted by L75C. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Sep 24 20:57:10 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 12:57:10 -0700 Subject: [blml] Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited) References: <1032643643.3d8ce43ba6d26@webmail.mit.edu> <007e01c26340$f3cc3b60$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <005b01c26404$f0a531c0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Adam Wildavsky" > Marvin L. French wrote: > >From: "Adam Wildavsky" > > > o The WBF's Stop Card regulation is much superior to the ACBL's. > > > >Would you quote that for us, please? > > From the WBF General Conditions of Contest: > > Playing without screens a player "announces" a skip bid by placing the Stop > card in front of him, then placing his bid card as usual, and eventually > removing the Stop card. His LHO should not call until the Stop card has been > removed. (If the Stop card has been removed hastily or has not been used, an > opponent may pause as though the Stop card has been used correctly.) ] "Must pause" would be much better. > > The ACBL rules can be found at > > http://www.acbl.org/details.asp?id=1834&PID=9689&RID=9687 > which says: "When using bidding boxes, by placing the stop card so that LHO sees it (the skip bidder is responsible for gaining LHO's attention). The skip bid is made. The stop card is replaced in the bidding box." Followed by: "The player following the skip bidder must wait for a suitable interval (about 10 seconds). In waiting the player's manner must be one that suggests he is an active participant in the auction (the hand should be studied during the pause). Any obvious display of disinterest is most improper." I don't see why the WBF procedure is superior. Many in ACBL-land think that the WBF procedure is in place over here. Rather than study their hands, they stare at the STOP card, waiting for it to be picked up. That is just as bad as not following the ACBL regulation. Either procedure works if players will just study their hands for awhile, as if having a problem. It then makes no difference when the STOP card is picked up. The one thing I don't like about the ACBL regulation is that it's optional, a "should." Provided a player doesn't use the STOP card selectively, he need not use it at all! And yet LHO must hesitate anyway, just as if the STOP card had been put out. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Tue Sep 24 22:39:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 22:39 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited) Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <005b01c26404$f0a531c0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Marv quoted the ACBL regulation > "The player following the skip bidder must wait for a suitable interval > (about 10 seconds). In waiting the player's manner must be one that > suggests he is an active participant in the auction (the hand should be > studied during the pause). Any obvious display of disinterest is most > improper." We have something similar in the EBU. A slightly counterintuitive requirement to deliberately mislead opponents by mannerism. I try do this and have had opponents complain a few times because "He made it look like he had something to think about". Oh well, it amused me at the time. Tim From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Sep 24 19:24:23 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 19:24:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Wot {sic} happened? References: <240902267.25554@webbox.com> Message-ID: <000601c26413$b9eedaf0$cb57e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 3:05 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Wot {sic} happened? > we have only the software between our > ears on which to rely. > > David Burn > London, England > +=+ Soft, as in 'blurred, hazy, vague' ? +=+ From adam@tameware.com Tue Sep 24 23:14:03 2002 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 18:14:03 -0400 Subject: [blml] Stop Card In-Reply-To: <005b01c26404$f0a531c0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> References: <1032643643.3d8ce43ba6d26@webmail.mit.edu> <007e01c26340$f3cc3b60$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <005b01c26404$f0a531c0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: At 12:57 PM -0700 9/24/02, Marvin L. French wrote: >I don't see why the WBF procedure is superior. Many in ACBL-land think that >the WBF procedure is in place over here. Rather than study their hands, they >stare at the STOP card, waiting for it to be picked up. That is just as bad as >not following the ACBL regulation. That is actionable and I've been able to obtain redress for it where warranted. >Either procedure works if players will just study their hands for awhile, as >if having a problem. It then makes no difference when the STOP card is picked >up. If compliance were universal either method would suffice. Alas we know it is not. There are two advantages to the WBF approach. First, the time is measured by the player who just made a call and has nothing else to do. LHO need not both figure out a call to make and measure elapsed time. Second, the judgement of whether a pass is too fast is changed from subjective to objective. In the ACBL a director who is called regarding a fast pass after a skip bid must question everyone and the resolution is seldom satisfactory to anyone. In the WBF the director need only observe whether the Stop Card is still on the table. In fact compliance is so easy and flaunting the regulation so obvious that one almost never has to call. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Sep 24 23:24:37 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 15:24:37 -0700 Subject: [blml] Direction switches in the ACBL References: <00e101c263e7$122b0680$72497bd5@davicaltd> Message-ID: <009101c26419$4dc4d360$1c981e18@san.rr.com> David Martin wrote: > Ton wrote: > (snip of snippy remark) > > Take 8 sections and 4 sessions and try to change directions in such a way > > that every group (A NS up to H EW) > > is compared with every other group as balanced as possible. You will see that > > some groups have to stay NS and EW all the time to get the best solution. > > > ### I am afraid that what Ton says above is not correct, at least if you > believe in competition as defined in John Manning's paper on arrow-switching > or if you believe in comparisons as defined in the Swedish Book 'Movements - > A Fair Approach'. > > It is perfectly possible to ensure that everyone plays NS and EW exactly > half the time, give or take one board, if you so wish. What people are > probably more concerned about is whether they can be stationary for half of > the sessions and, again, this can be achieved provided that there are an > even number of sessions and no sitters, ie. people who need to remain > stationary for the whole event. If there are sitters and they are all in > one section then anyone who plays against them will have to move for an > extra session. > > The best competition balance in multi-session events will be obtained if the > original NS and EW lines in the first session always remain the same > relative orientation irrespective of which way round they are playing and > 1/8 of the boards are switched in each session. This will give the lowest > spread of competition error (ie. RMS deviations) and will be closest to > perfection when the number of sessions is equal to the number of sections. This seems to be the best way to balance the strength of uneven competing lines, provided (John Probst tells me) that seeds (if any) do not have the same table position in every section. Would not careful seeding go far enough toward accomplishing the goal of balanced strength? There is a movement afoot over here to seed not just the strongest pairs, but to balance the distribution of others also, going by the admittedly weak criterion of masterpoints held by each pair. Nothing sophisticated, just something similar to our stratified games, in which A, B, and C-level players are distributed evenly. > > If you wish to balance comparisons rather than competition, as advocated by > the Swedes, then everything in the above paragraph remains true except that > you need to arrow-switch more than 1/8 of the boards and the exact number > depends on the size of each section and the number of sections. To save > time, I have developed a spreadsheet to calculate this. Does it require switches on a particular set of round, and is the positioning of seeds no longer a consideration? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Sep 25 00:29:13 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 09:29:13 +1000 Subject: [blml] Illegal convention Message-ID: <4A256C3E.007FC8DC.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Richard Colker wrote: >>As for dealing with illegal conventions, it is >>normal to allow the hand to be played out (if >>possible) and the result to stand if the non- >>offenders are not damaged. In general, a pair >>is not allowed to obtain a good score from an >>illegal convention unless the illegal bid is >>judged not to have disadvantaged the opponents >>(as here, where N/S actually ended up having >>more useful information because of the illegal >>bid than they would have otherwise). In the >>present case I can see no good reason for >>adjusting the score. (Call this the "No harm, >>no foul" principle.) David Stevenson replied: > This is completely wrong. Richard has no >idea whether the opposition would have got a >better score if they had not used an illegal >convention so he has no idea whether there is >harm or not. > > One of the problems with the case-books is >that Richard gets the final word with no come- >backs. I believe he uses it too often, >especially, as he is sometimes completely wrong >as in this case. [snip] In L75 MI cases, do TDs have "no idea whether the opposition would have got a better score" if the opponents had been given correct information? In L75 MI cases, TDs have to evaluate one or more hypothetical auctions and/or cardplay. After use of an illegal convention, TDs can also use the same hypotheticals evaluation skills. Therefore, if Richard Colker's idea was the basis for a regulation, in my opinion such a regulation would not be contrary to Law. Best wishes Richard Hills From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Wed Sep 25 01:30:35 2002 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 20:30:35 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 17D In-Reply-To: <005801c263a4$fbacfe00$dde2f9c1@olivier> Message-ID: > Law 17D (Cards from the Wrong Board) is not really at the > good place in TFLB (somebody already noted) and could be > written in a simpler manner (I am not the first to tell). > Reading it again, I noted a new flaw. This Law reads: > > If a player inadvertently picked up the cards from the wrong > board makes A call... > If offender subsequently repeats THE cancelled call... > > Why a single call and not many ???? > > N E S W > P 1C P 1S > P 1NT > > Then N realizes he called twice with the wrong cards. > How this Law then applies ? > Can N be allowed to pick the right cards and > director allows a second auction ? > If N repeats both Ps, does the board is normally played? ___________________________________________________________________________ Olivier Beauvillain wrote: Suppose N get a 15 count with 5S 5H He will "probably" just repeat his passes because he knows opponents bids! Good bridge - table ... Doesn't that worrying you? For me it's not "normally played" _________________________________________________________________________ Right, but this is not the real problem. As written, Law 17 does not allow TD to let board be played after more than 1 call with wrong cards (no place for judgment). In the above example, I would like, as TD, to let this board be "normally played" (instead of an artificial score) if N has such a hand (with right cards) that he will ever P. If not, the board is cancelled. I hate articial scores and enjoy TD judgment.... Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Sep 25 01:42:22 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 10:42:22 +1000 Subject: [blml] Scoring and Kelly girls Message-ID: <4A256C3F.0002A43F.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> In The European Way?, Kojak wrote: [snip] >Most TDs on the floor (surely those who would like to >continue working for me) would not let a set of tickets >go to their compatriots in the scoring room that were >not complete, in order, and time permitting also checked >for accuracy. I know this goes against the grain of >those who wish to do things as cheaply as possible, but >my experiences with using "Kelly girls" and/or less than >fully qualified TDs is that it produces poorer results >and is really not much less costly in the long run. [snip] In the ABF Summer Festival, a particular senior TD who helped design the ABF scoring software is in charge of the scoring room. His data-entry assistant, despite being a teenager, cannot be called a "Kelly girl" for two reasons. Firstly, the assistant is an Australian Junior International player, so can therefore easily identify scoring anomalies. Secondly, the assistant is male. Caddies at the Summer Festival are teenagers of both genders, drawn from a pool of descendants of participants. The relative complexity of tasks given to caddies is carefully matched to their relative understanding of bridge. Training is provided to new caddies (but many teenagers have caddied repeatedly each January, therefore providing an experienced and professional service). Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Sep 25 02:13:53 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 11:13:53 +1000 Subject: [blml] Illegal convention Message-ID: <4A256C3F.00058676.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Roger Pewick wrote: [snip] >Now here are the facts. There are over one half >trillion hands that might be dealt and we are given >the challenge of bidding them using at most fifteen >words [at least that what the objective is, in some >parts of the world the allowed vocabulary is closer >to a hundred words]. > >This means that there are practical things that can >be done within the bidding space as well as >impractical things. But to restrict the creativity >in what conventions might be employed is to deprive >players of the chance to do well on a particular >hand when they could have had a method suited to the >cards. Why should one convention be labeled fair but >another is not? [big snip] The Lawful basis for declaring a particular convention illegal in a particular kind of event is, of course, L40D. The *rationale* for declaring a particular convention legal or illegal, alias fair or unfair, is partially based on the familiarity the opponents have in coping with that convention. This is an extension of the principle of full advance disclosure. In ACBL events, many players have familiarity defending against the 2D Flannery convention, so that this convention is legal is most ACBL events. The 2H Flannery convention is a more "natural" convention, in that one of the two promised majors is specifically named. However, because the 2H Flannery convention is an unfamiliar variant of the original 2D Flannery convention, this variant is illegal in some ACBL events in which the original is legal. A parallel situation arises in Australia. The ABF classifies conventions into Green (simplest), Blue, Red and Yellow (HUM) categories. Most opening two-bids which do not specify an anchor suit are Red conventions. However, due to its popularity, the Multi-2D is classified as a lesser Blue convention. Best wishes Richard From adam@irvine.com Wed Sep 25 02:25:27 2002 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 18:25:27 -0700 Subject: [blml] Illegal convention In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 25 Sep 2002 11:13:53 +1000." <4A256C3F.00058676.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <200209250125.SAA19885@mailhub.irvine.com> Richard Hills wrote: > The Lawful basis for declaring a particular convention > illegal in a particular kind of event is, of course, > L40D. > > The *rationale* for declaring a particular convention > legal or illegal, alias fair or unfair, is partially > based on the familiarity the opponents have in coping > with that convention. This is an extension of the > principle of full advance disclosure. > > In ACBL events, many players have familiarity > defending against the 2D Flannery convention, so that > this convention is legal is most ACBL events. > > The 2H Flannery convention is a more "natural" > convention, in that one of the two promised majors is > specifically named. However, because the 2H Flannery > convention is an unfamiliar variant of the original > 2D Flannery convention, this variant is illegal in > some ACBL events in which the original is legal. Right on principle; wrong on the details, I think. Both 2D and 2H Flannery are permitted on the ACBL General Convention Chart. Neither convention is permitted on the Limited Convention Chart. The result is that there are no events in which 2D Flannery is legal and 2H Flannery is illegal, unless the tournament sponsors decide to specifically allow 2D Flannery in a Limited event. Maybe that's happened, but I've never heard of it. If this has actually happened, though, my apologies. (I believe in the old days before the GCC, 2D Flannery used to be a Class B convention and 2H Flannery was Class C---or maybe it was C and D. That would mean that, in theory, an event could allowed 2D Flannery but not 2H, although the only events ever held around Southern California were either Class A only [novice events] or allowed all Class A through D conventions. Anyway, that's been irrelevant since 1994.) -- Adam From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Sep 25 04:47:44 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 04:47:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Illegal convention References: <200209250125.SAA19885@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <009a01c26446$5aa44ac0$159868d5@default> Richard Pewick's arguments are sound. We should permit any convention except in "No Fear" events. IMO Licensing rules should be the same everywhere. Currently, countries with liberal licensing enjoy an advantage in International Competition. My Bridge Club (Reading UK) allows all conventions. Proponents of unusual methods like "forcing pass" are expected to provide written defences, in case they are unfamiliar to new members. Beginners love trying out systems and conventions although I confess that some old fogies, like me, have an initial problem adjusting to them. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Sep 25 05:41:24 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 00:41:24 -0400 Subject: [blml] Lucy. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 9/24/02, David Stevenson wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: [snip] >>It is. Human beings have a fundamental right not to have their >>personal freedoms impinged upon for no reason. > >I do not actually think so. They may hope this is the case, and some >countries grandly tell their subjects it is the case, but in fact >no-one has complete personal freedom. We could get into a long discussion of the difference between rights, privileges, and powers, of the origin of rights, and the difference between liberty and license, but let's not. :-) Suffice it to say that I agree with Eric, and disagree with you. Sorry, David. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Sep 25 05:32:02 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 00:32:02 -0400 Subject: [blml] not shuffled In-Reply-To: <009501c263b7$e03c5310$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: On 9/24/02, Sven Pran wrote: >Dummy may always after play of the hand is concluded call >attention to any irregularity of which he has become aware. >Law 9A2(b)(1) IMO, the time to stop a player from harassing another player, especially one who becomes flustered and confused by that harassment, is when it happens, *not* after the play is concluded. If the law does not permit that, then the law is wrong. From gester@lineone.net Wed Sep 25 11:02:23 2002 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 11:02:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] RE: A plague o' both your houses. References: <182.ee39ecd.2ac1a619@aol.com> Message-ID: <001001c2647a$d68abf00$63182850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: ; ; Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 12:27 PM Subject: Re: [blml] RE: A plague o' both your houses. > Com'on Grattan. I was PRAISING Jesper! Guess I > used an American idiom not clearly uinderstood. > =Kojak= > +=+ I can't think why you imagine I did not pick up your ball and run with it. ~ G ~ +=+ From David Stevenson Wed Sep 25 02:37:23 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 02:37:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Wot {sic} happened? In-Reply-To: References: <4qYf7tAtMEk9Ewpx@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) writes >Hi David, > >> With majordomo [the original list] the headers are such that all >> articles get picked up. > >I use the header: > > List-Id: Bridge Laws Mailing List > >to file blml mails. Maybe so. But having software do it for you seems better. >> Despite Richard saying his company's software >> is adding something, why is the new host not making it correct? > >That is impossible. Richard's firewall changes the address but the >changed address is still a valid (though non-exisiting) address. This is >something that has to be fixed at the sending side. This makes no sense to me. I understood that a mailing list is basically a remailer that gets posts and sends them out again to eddresses on a list. So the remailer could put in its own headers. If not then the email that I receive should be from the remailer rather than the original. If neither of these occur then why is the remailer sending on emails which do not have the proper remailer eddress on? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Wed Sep 25 02:31:51 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 02:31:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Pausitis In-Reply-To: <002b01c26402$1d00d060$1c981e18@san.rr.com> References: <002b01c26402$1d00d060$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marvin L. French writes > >From: "David Stevenson" <> > >>.You are still required to >> answer fully and fairly even when the question is poor - never forget >> L75A. >> >Or the exception to that permitted by L75C. There is no exception. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Wed Sep 25 02:52:59 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 02:52:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Illegal convention In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Roger Pewick writes >From: "David Stevenson" >> This is completely wrong. Richard has no idea whether the >opposition >> would have got a better score if they had not used an illegal >convention >> so he has no idea whether there is harm or not. > >I think that it is much more sensible that when harm is not readily >apparent then it is reasonable to not adjust the score. > >Players are told that it is too difficult to defend themselves against >opponents that have illegal conventions. It sounds plausible so it is >believed. And because illegal conventions are not allowed players do >not have experience that tells them what is in their interests to do >when 'an illegal convention' is employed. So all a player knows is to >believe that 'illegal conventions' are bad. > >Now here are the facts. There are over one half trillion hands that >might be dealt and we are given the challenge of bidding them using at >most fifteen words [at least that what the objective is, in some parts >of the world the allowed vocabulary is closer to a hundred words]. >This means that there are practical things that can be done within the >bidding space as well as impractical things. But to restrict the >creativity in what conventions might be employed is to deprive players >of the chance to do well on a particular hand when they could have had >a method suited to the cards. Why should one convention be labeled >fair but another is not? It does not matter why: if it is not legal to use one then the opposition should not be subjected to one. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Wed Sep 25 12:02:59 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 12:02:59 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Las Vegas Case Thirty-Seven In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020913182419.00accc80@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Ed Reppert writes >On 9/13/02, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>System notes act ia the same way : they help you making your case when >>confronted with a MI problem. If you don't have any, too bad for you. >I suppose it depends what is meant by "too bad for you". Some here seem >to think it means, or should mean "no system notes, we rule against >you". If, instead, it means that lack of system notes simply means that >you have not supplied one bit of evidence that you *could* have >supplied, but that *all* evidence available will be considered, well, >that's a different story, and I'd have no problem with it then. We are expected to apply the Law as written, which includes penalising players for breach of regulation. But you do not penalise players for a breach of regulation when none exists. I am in favour of system notes in certain top level tournaments as a reg - I could live with it, or without it. But in events which have no such reg then you do not penalise for not having them. This idea of automatically ruling against a pair *just* because they have no system notes is inequitable and illegal. ------------ Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >AG : what evidence do we have ? We have South's hand. It is obvious >evidence that South didn't intend his bid as natural (ie about strong NT >values with spread honors). We then have to choose between MI and MB by >South. Barring evidence to the contrary, we must decide MI. Convention >disruption has nothing to do with this : the only thing we do use is the >principle that "without due evdence of the contrary, one assumes MI, not >MB". To adjust the score is, IMOBO, absolutely right, unless NS can produce >notes to testify for the meaning of South's bid. Those who don't want to >adjust the scores are pretending that the 3NT bid must be natural, because >nothing else makes sense. This goes beyond what one is allowed to assume. >Just look at South's hand. It always saddens me that people assume that anything not written is not evidence. Tell me, if you are a TD or an AC member, do you ask questions of players in these cases? Why? If you intend to ignore the answers what is the point of the procedure at all? In this case the player provided verbal evidence that there was no MI. The AC may have been wrong, of course, but to say that they should always adjust in the absence of written evidence is not fair, it is not due process, and it demeans the methodology. -------- Eric Landau wrote: >At 10:04 AM 9/11/02, Alain wrote: >>AG : what evidence do we have ? We have South's hand. >On the other side, we have North's testimony, that 3NT was natural by >partnership agreement, and that he would have passed it with a balanced >hand. >>It is obvious evidence that South didn't intend his bid as natural (ie >>about strong NT values with spread honors). >The fact that Alain, or Mr. Wolff, or Mr, Polisner would never bid a >natural 3NT with that hand is not "obvious evidence" that South agrees >with them and therefore must be committing some kind of infraction. It >could just as easily be taken as evidence that South forgot his actual >agreement, thought he desperately needed an aberrant top to win the >event, or was just trying to "mix it up" against these particular >opponents hoping something good would happen. >>We then have to choose between MI and MB by South. Barring evidence to >>the contrary, we must decide MI. >Sure, but we have evidence to the contrary: North's testimony. As >David S. keeps reminding us, the fact that it is self-serving testimony >means that we must examine it with greater care than we otherwise >might, but doesn't mean that it doesn't exist or that we must ignore it >entirely. If we accepted only testimony which had no "self-serving" >component to it, we would have no testimonial evidence available ever. I consider this a great example because I was on the Committee and i was one of the people present. Now, some people remind us that we assume ME in the absence of evidence to the contrary: there was evidence to the contrary. Some people remind us that the evidence was self- serving: so it was. But this does not prove we were wrong. [s] >>AG : the committee really believed South had psyched his natural 3NT >>bid ? This must be a nightmare. > >The committee's finding was that the evidence "pointed to South's >having taken an unusual action rather than his having made a systemic >conventional bid of some type". That is all that is required to refuse >redress to E-W. It makes no difference at all whether he took that >unusual action as a deliberate psych or as an accidental misbid. In >either case, it was not a "systemic conventional bid" if it wasn't part >of N-S's system. I do not believe that 3NT was either a psyche or a misbid. I believe it was a punt. 3NT did not show a balanced hand [as it rarely does after the first round of bidding] but an offer to play there. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Wed Sep 25 11:40:49 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 11:40:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Wot {sic} happened? In-Reply-To: <240902267.25554@webbox.com> References: <240902267.25554@webbox.com> Message-ID: David Burn writes > >DWS wrote: > >>I have found no warnings in the original articles. Perhaps >I have missed them, but please be aware of the fact that some >people have good software, and hopefully in time more people >will, so any future changes should please be given adequate warning: >just taking the list of people and sending them emails is not >good enough! > >Please be aware that Henk, and Marcus before him, are providing >a home for BLML at no cost, out of the goodness of their hearts. >I do not think that in the circumstances, any of us should presume >to say what is and what is not "good enough"; we should be thankful >that we have anything at all. If you say so, though it is not entirely clear who appointed you God. Personally I have found that when doing work voluntarily it is still important to do things right and to take note of suggestions. >Some people are actually capable of remembering things from one >minute to the next, and can therefore read and understand several >messages without requiring them to be in any particular order; >the "good software" about which you keep boasting is, in truth, >a not terribly good substitute for some not terribly good thinking. >If your software really was any good, you would not be having >all these problems with it when a trivial thing such as a change >of address occurs. Most of us were not remotely inconvenienced >by the move - but then, we have only the software between our >ears on which to rely. Do you really think that the offensive approach is a great help? Or is it just that you like to upset people from time to time? OK, God, I am sorry I am not as clever as you, and I find it easier to have some software to help me. True, it could be better still, and I would prefer that it was. Anyway, congratulations that your offensive attitude has once again seriously upset me. No doubt you will award yourself a brownie point for oyur success. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Wed Sep 25 12:09:28 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 12:09:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] VP scale formulas (was VP scale for 72 boards.) In-Reply-To: <00b101c25f7d$d9f8b0e0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> References: <001401c25f58$8bb74600$419737d2@Desktop> <00b101c25f7d$d9f8b0e0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marvin L. French writes >From: "Wayne Burrows" >> Marvin French wrote: >> > >> > I use a rough form of this approach in party bridge games at home, >> > awarding 19-1 VPs no matter how large the margin of victory. Social >> > players hate to see zeros by their name when they have (usually) >> > scored some points in a match. Awarding 25-5 instead does not appeal >> > to me. >> >> Marv you can get 25-0 results on the curtailed (at the top end) scale >> and 25-1, 25-2 etc >> >Maybe you misunderstood me, just as I don't understand what you wrote. My >home VP scale goes from 10-10 to 19-1. Not very logical, but no one >complains. I could make that a more logical 15-15 to 25-5 scale, as >someone suggested, to avoid giving zero to the losers of a match, but that >scale does not appeal to me. That is not what they were suggesting. The scale goes from 15 to 15 to 25 to 5, and then goes on to 25 to 0. To stop players from not bothering to play bridge any more the scale continues moving for the losers only. It was originally designed as a 10 to 10 to 20 to 0 scale, progressing to 20 to -5, then someone decided to add 5 VPs to each score. A perfectly logical scale would be to add another 5 VPs to it, making a draw 20 to 20, and a big win 30 to 10, then progressing to 30 to 5. No zero scores! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Wed Sep 25 02:52:59 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 02:52:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Illegal convention In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Roger Pewick writes >From: "David Stevenson" >> This is completely wrong. Richard has no idea whether the >opposition >> would have got a better score if they had not used an illegal >convention >> so he has no idea whether there is harm or not. > >I think that it is much more sensible that when harm is not readily >apparent then it is reasonable to not adjust the score. > >Players are told that it is too difficult to defend themselves against >opponents that have illegal conventions. It sounds plausible so it is >believed. And because illegal conventions are not allowed players do >not have experience that tells them what is in their interests to do >when 'an illegal convention' is employed. So all a player knows is to >believe that 'illegal conventions' are bad. > >Now here are the facts. There are over one half trillion hands that >might be dealt and we are given the challenge of bidding them using at >most fifteen words [at least that what the objective is, in some parts >of the world the allowed vocabulary is closer to a hundred words]. >This means that there are practical things that can be done within the >bidding space as well as impractical things. But to restrict the >creativity in what conventions might be employed is to deprive players >of the chance to do well on a particular hand when they could have had >a method suited to the cards. Why should one convention be labeled >fair but another is not? It does not matter why: if it is not legal to use one then the opposition should not be subjected to one. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From olivier.beauvillain@wanadoo.fr Tue Sep 24 14:11:30 2002 From: olivier.beauvillain@wanadoo.fr (Olivier Beauvillain) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 15:11:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 17D Message-ID: <003c01c263cb$e5ecaf80$271afac1@olivier> > > > > > Law 17D (Cards from the Wrong Board) is not really at the > > good place in TFLB (somebody already noted) and could be > > written in a simpler manner (I am not the first to tell). > > Reading it again, I noted a new flaw. This Law reads: > > > > If a player inadvertently picked up the cards from the wrong > > board makes A call... > > If offender subsequently repeats THE cancelled call... > > > > Why a single call and not many ???? > > > > N E S W > > P 1C P 1S > > P 1NT > > > > Then N realizes he called twice with the wrong cards. > > How this Law then applies ? > > Can N be allowed to pick the right cards and > > director allows a second auction ? > > If N repeats both Ps, does the board is normally played? > Suppose N get a 15 count with 5S 5H > He will "probably" just repeat his passes because he knows opponents bi= ds! > Good bridge - table ... > Doesn't that worrying you? For me it's not "normally played" > > Simultan=E9 Bretagne Anjou Clubs_sympathiques Jeudi 3 octobre soir > Liste des clubs participants : > http://www.bretagnebridgecomite.com/fichiers/Simliste.htm > Consultez la dotation : > http://www.bretagnebridgecomite.com/fichiers/AffbretDot.htm > Kenavo A+ Olivier Beauvillain > > > > > Laval Du Breuil > > Quebec City > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From olivier.beauvillain@wanadoo.fr Tue Sep 24 18:29:48 2002 From: olivier.beauvillain@wanadoo.fr (Olivier Beauvillain) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 19:29:48 +0200 Subject: Fw: [blml] Law 17D Message-ID: <004801c263ef$fb9d0360$f4e3f9c1@olivier> My response was rejected by the mailer, so i re-post it, cheers, Olivier > > > Law 17D (Cards from the Wrong Board) is not really at the > > good place in TFLB (somebody already noted) and could be > > written in a simpler manner (I am not the first to tell). > > Reading it again, I noted a new flaw. This Law reads: > > > > If a player inadvertently picked up the cards from the wrong > > board makes A call... > > If offender subsequently repeats THE cancelled call... > > > > Why a single call and not many ???? > > > > N E S W > > P 1C P 1S > > P 1NT > > > > Then N realizes he called twice with the wrong cards. > > How this Law then applies ? > > Can N be allowed to pick the right cards and > > director allows a second auction ? > > If N repeats both Ps, does the board is normally played? > Suppose N get a 15 count with 5S 5H > He will "probably" just repeat his passes because he knows opponents bi= ds! > Good bridge - table ... > Doesn't that worrying you? For me it's not "normally played" > > Simultan=E9 Bretagne Anjou Clubs_sympathiques Jeudi 3 octobre soir > Liste des clubs participants : > http://www.bretagnebridgecomite.com/fichiers/Simliste.htm > Consultez la dotation : > http://www.bretagnebridgecomite.com/fichiers/AffbretDot.htm > Kenavo A+ Olivier Beauvillain > > > > > Laval Du Breuil > > Quebec City > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From henk@toybox.amsterdamned.org Wed Sep 25 12:33:30 2002 From: henk@toybox.amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 13:33:30 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] Direction switches in the ACBL (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 01:00:29 +0200 From: "[iso-8859-1] J=FCrgen Rennenkampff" To: BLML Subject: RE: [blml] Direction switches in the ACBL The best competition and the least random scores result if you put the strongest pairs in section 1, the next strongest in section 2 etc - and leave them there. Also good is a Swissification: After each session move the lower 1/2 (1/3 i= s probably better) into the next lower section, the higher 1/2 into the next higher section. - This also has the virtue of forcing you to think what the scores really mean. Of course, as long as sensible rating systems are anathema this can't be done. J=FCrgen > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of > Marvin L. French > Sent: Mittwoch, 25. September 2002 00:25 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blml] Direction switches in the ACBL > > > > David Martin wrote: > > > > Ton wrote: > > > > (snip of snippy remark) > > > > Take 8 sections and 4 sessions and try to change directions > in such a way > > > that every group (A NS up to H EW) > > > is compared with every other group as balanced as possible. > You will see > that > > > some groups have to stay NS and EW all the time to get the > best solution. > > > > > ### I am afraid that what Ton says above is not correct, at > least if you > > believe in competition as defined in John Manning's paper on > arrow-switching > > or if you believe in comparisons as defined in the Swedish Book > 'Movements - > > A Fair Approach'. > > > > It is perfectly possible to ensure that everyone plays NS and EW exactl= y > > half the time, give or take one board, if you so wish. What people are > > probably more concerned about is whether they can be stationary > for half of > > the sessions and, again, this can be achieved provided that there are a= n > > even number of sessions and no sitters, ie. people who need to remain > > stationary for the whole event. If there are sitters and they > are all in > > one section then anyone who plays against them will have to move for an > > extra session. > > > > The best competition balance in multi-session events will be > obtained if the > > original NS and EW lines in the first session always remain the same > > relative orientation irrespective of which way round they are > playing and > > 1/8 of the boards are switched in each session. This will give > the lowest > > spread of competition error (ie. RMS deviations) and will be closest to > > perfection when the number of sessions is equal to the number > of sections. > > This seems to be the best way to balance the strength of uneven competing > lines, provided (John Probst tells me) that seeds (if any) do not have th= e > same table position in every section. > > Would not careful seeding go far enough toward accomplishing the goal of > balanced strength? There is a movement afoot over here to seed > not just the > strongest pairs, but to balance the distribution of others also, > going by the > admittedly weak criterion of masterpoints held by each pair. Nothing > sophisticated, just something similar to our stratified games, in > which A, B, > and C-level players are distributed evenly. > > > > If you wish to balance comparisons rather than competition, as > advocated by > > the Swedes, then everything in the above paragraph remains true > except that > > you need to arrow-switch more than 1/8 of the boards and the > exact number > > depends on the size of each section and the number of sections. To sav= e > > time, I have developed a spreadsheet to calculate this. > > Does it require switches on a particular set of round, and is the > positioning > of seeds no longer a consideration? > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From henk@toybox.amsterdamned.org Wed Sep 25 12:34:26 2002 From: henk@toybox.amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 13:34:26 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] Lucy. (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 05:45:57 -0400 From: Brian Meadows To: blbl@rtflb.org Subject: Re: [blml] Lucy. On Wed, 18 Sep 2002 21:36:15 -0700, Marv French wrote: > >Two trick penalty regardless, no TD needed? Yes, and some other Laws could >use such an approach also. The Laws give SOs options for some of the laws, >and maybe they should have some for club games only. But what is a "club >game" in other parts of the world? > That's up to the people playing the game, Marv. My suggestion is simply to provide two sets of Laws - one the full thing, the other with some simple treatments for playing TDs - and then leave it up to the individual club/TD/organizer/whatever to decide which Laws are to be used for a specific game. It's not difficult to envisage those clubs which have multiple levels of game preferring to use the simple Laws for the novice game. Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com From henk@ripe.net Wed Sep 25 12:30:18 2002 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 13:30:18 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Fw: [blml] Law 17D In-Reply-To: <004801c263ef$fb9d0360$f4e3f9c1@olivier> Message-ID: On Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Olivier Beauvillain wrote: > My response was rejected by the mailer, so i re-post it, > cheers, > Olivier No, it wasn't, it was sent to To: Laws (the old address). These postings are not always (and I don't fully understand why) automatically accepted by the new list, then end up the manual acceptance queue, meaning that I have to click a button before the posting makes it to the list. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Sep 25 12:53:54 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 13:53:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] weak overcall, was : Pausitis In-Reply-To: <002b01c26402$1d00d060$1c981e18@san.rr.com> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020925134140.00aaa470@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 12:38 24/09/2002 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: >From: "David Stevenson" <> > > >.You are still required to > > answer fully and fairly even when the question is poor - never forget > > L75A. > > >Or the exception to that permitted by L75C. AG : one question that arised last night. The bidding goes : S E N pass 1C 2Ha On enquiry, 2H is explained as "natural, preemptive and undisciplined". Would-be resopnder then enquires as to the range, which is answered with "0-12" and a shrug. It happened that preemptor's bid was : xx - AK10xx - J10x - xxx, which is "classical' for this pair. EW complained that a preemptive jump at the 2-level classically promises a 6-card, so that one should volunteer the explanation that the suit will quite often be 5-card long. South said that partner's explanation didn't say anything about a classical weak two, and that the wording should hint at possible distortions. All four players at the table are fairly experienced and system freaks. Do you think the explanation was sufficient, given that a 5-card suit is absolutely no surprise in NS's style at that vulnerability ? EW reached a perfectly normal contract, so the TD was not called ; it is only a matter of selling the ensuing dispute. Best regards, Alain. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed Sep 25 12:47:55 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 25 Sep 2002 04:47:55 -0700 Subject: [blml] Wot {sic} happened? Message-ID: <250902268.17276@webbox.com> DWS wrote, in his usual cheerful vein: >If you say so, though it is not entirely clear who appointed you God. Personally I have found that when doing work voluntarily it is still important to do things right and to take note of suggestions. There is in English a difference in meaning between the word "right" and the phrase "so that David Stevenson's software can handle it". If you assert that there is not - well, it is not in fact I who claims any particular over-riding authority. But the main point is this: we have here a list for the discussion of the laws of bridge. It is not a list for the discussion of email and news-reading software, nor is it a help desk for people who cannot configure Turnpike so that it does what Outlook Express and other clients do with no intervention required on the part of the user at all. If you want to know how mailing lists and remailing actually work, I or anyone else who knows will quite happily tell you. If you want to talk about the laws of bridge on this list, I will happily listen. David Burn London, England From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Sep 25 12:58:17 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 13:58:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] Stop Card In-Reply-To: References: <005b01c26404$f0a531c0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <1032643643.3d8ce43ba6d26@webmail.mit.edu> <007e01c26340$f3cc3b60$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <005b01c26404$f0a531c0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020925135508.00a94660@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 18:14 24/09/2002 -0400, Adam Wildavsky wrote: >At 12:57 PM -0700 9/24/02, Marvin L. French wrote: >>I don't see why the WBF procedure is superior. Many in ACBL-land think that >>the WBF procedure is in place over here. Rather than study their hands, they >>stare at the STOP card, waiting for it to be picked up. That is just as >>bad as >>not following the ACBL regulation. > >That is actionable and I've been able to obtain redress for it where >warranted. > >>Either procedure works if players will just study their hands for awhile, as >>if having a problem. It then makes no difference when the STOP card is picked >>up. > >If compliance were universal either method would suffice. Alas we know it >is not. > >There are two advantages to the WBF approach. > >First, the time is measured by the player who just made a call and has >nothing else to do. LHO need not both figure out a call to make and >measure elapsed time. > >Second, the judgement of whether a pass is too fast is changed from >subjective to objective. In the ACBL a director who is called regarding a >fast pass after a skip bid must question everyone and the resolution is >seldom satisfactory to anyone. In the WBF the director need only observe >whether the Stop Card is still on the table. In fact compliance is so easy >and flaunting the regulation so obvious that one almost never has to call. AG : apart of course that the timing of the Stop card may involuntary vary, causing all sorts of undesired effects (like, I need more time after a 3-second timing). From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Sep 25 13:01:00 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 14:01:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] Illegal convention In-Reply-To: <4A256C3F.00058676.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020925135921.00a95c30@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:13 25/09/2002 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >The 2H Flannery convention is a more "natural" >convention, in that one of the two promised majors is >specifically named. However, because the 2H Flannery >convention is an unfamiliar variant of the original >2D Flannery convention, this variant is illegal in >some ACBL events in which the original is legal. > >A parallel situation arises in Australia. The ABF >classifies conventions into Green (simplest), Blue, >Red and Yellow (HUM) categories. > >Most opening two-bids which do not specify an >anchor suit are Red conventions. However, due to its >popularity, the Multi-2D is classified as a lesser >Blue convention. AG : same in Belgium (except that color codes aren't the same : Green - Red - Brown - Yellow). Also, the 2D overcall of 1NT (showing length in either major) recieved 2nd-level classification, due to its great popularity in our land, as did 3S (Transfer to Gambling 3NT). >Best wishes > >Richard > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john@asimere.com Wed Sep 25 13:21:03 2002 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 13:21:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] weak overcall, was : Pausitis In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020925134140.00aaa470@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <002b01c26402$1d00d060$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20020925134140.00aaa470@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <6Xj$pIAvoak9EwLC@asimere.com> In article <5.1.0.14.0.20020925134140.00aaa470@pop.ulb.ac.be>, Alain Gottcheiner writes >At 12:38 24/09/2002 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: > >>From: "David Stevenson" <> >> >> >.You are still required to >> > answer fully and fairly even when the question is poor - never forget >> > L75A. >> > >>Or the exception to that permitted by L75C. > >AG : one question that arised last night. The bidding goes : > >S E N > >pass 1C 2Ha > >On enquiry, 2H is explained as "natural, preemptive and undisciplined". >Would-be resopnder then enquires as to the range, which is answered with >"0-12" and a shrug. > "as many as 5 cards then?" is implied after that exchange, and if the players are competent. I had Chris Jagger asking TimWM "How many?" as opposed to "How strong?" after one of my weak 2's, and Tim replied "He hasn't yet done it on four at red". Everyone at the table knew it would be a complete waste of time to ask "How strong?" Nah, if the oppo are playing 0-12, they're also playing 0-1, 5-7 cards as well, and you darn well know it. -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk From axman22@hotmail.com Wed Sep 25 15:18:48 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 09:18:48 -0500 Subject: [blml] Illegal convention References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 20:52 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Illegal convention > Roger Pewick writes > >From: "David Stevenson" > > >> This is completely wrong. Richard has no idea whether the > >opposition > >> would have got a better score if they had not used an illegal > >convention > >> so he has no idea whether there is harm or not. > > > >I think that it is much more sensible that when harm is not readily > >apparent then it is reasonable to not adjust the score. > > > >Players are told that it is too difficult to defend themselves against > >opponents that have illegal conventions. It sounds plausible so it is > >believed. And because illegal conventions are not allowed players do > >not have experience that tells them what is in their interests to do > >when 'an illegal convention' is employed. So all a player knows is to > >believe that 'illegal conventions' are bad. > > > >Now here are the facts. There are over one half trillion hands that > >might be dealt and we are given the challenge of bidding them using at > >most fifteen words [at least that what the objective is, in some parts > >of the world the allowed vocabulary is closer to a hundred words]. > >This means that there are practical things that can be done within the > >bidding space as well as impractical things. But to restrict the > >creativity in what conventions might be employed is to deprive players > >of the chance to do well on a particular hand when they could have had > >a method suited to the cards. Why should one convention be labeled > >fair but another is not? > > It does not matter why: if it is not legal to use one then the > opposition should not be subjected to one. > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ David, You have it a bit backwards. It is the banning of conventions that deprive players from the freedom to select a coherent system, or more to the point, prevent the creation of systems that may prove to be better able to deal with the half trillion hands than the systems that are permitted. And what the banning of conventions does is to protect the flaws in the preferred systems of experts. To ban conventions is to prevent the accumulation of evidence that supports the validity of the system or its failing- which after all is what bridge players do. That is not to say that conventions should not be regulated, but the question is how. The problem with conventions is that many players are unable to restrict their communication to the use of conventions as body English, variations in tempo and manner lend themselves to adding a little [or a lot] extra information. Pairs that bite off more than they can chew fairly should be the ones that are disallowed from artificial conventions. That's right, individuals should have first option to regulate themselves, after all, they know best themselves what they can do fairly. regards roger pewick From toddz@worldnet.att.com Wed Sep 25 15:37:10 2002 From: toddz@worldnet.att.com (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 10:37:10 -0400 Subject: [blml] Wot {sic} happened? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: David Stevenson > Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 9:37 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Wot {sic} happened? > > Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) writes > >I use the header: > > > > List-Id: Bridge Laws Mailing List > > > >to file blml mails. > > Maybe so. But having software do it for you seems better. The suggesion here is to have your software sort BLML items from non-BLML items based on this line of text appearing in the header. If your software can only sort based on to: or from: fields, it is deficient. -Todd From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Sep 25 16:01:02 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 11:01:02 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] weak overcall, Message-ID: <200209251501.LAA15237@cfa183.harvard.edu> > From: Alain Gottcheiner > On enquiry, 2H is explained as "natural, preemptive and undisciplined". > Would-be resopnder then enquires as to the range, which is answered with > "0-12" and a shrug. In my view, expected suit length is part of the full explanation required by L75C. I also wonder whether 0-12 is really correct at the specific vulnerability. Is 0 really possible if vulnerable? Is 12 really possible if not vulnerable? The explanation should reflect the conditions of the specific deal, not what could happen on some other deal where the conditions are different. > All four players at the table are fairly experienced and system freaks. > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > Nah, if the oppo are playing 0-12, they're also playing 0-1, 5-7 cards > as well, and you darn well know it. Yes, experienced players should not normally be damaged by the MI, but MI it still is. > Tim replied "He hasn't yet done it on four at red". This, on the other hand, is an excellent example of a proper explanation, at least to experienced players. From David Stevenson Wed Sep 25 16:16:55 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 16:16:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Illegal convention In-Reply-To: <4A256C3E.007FC8DC.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> References: <4A256C3E.007FC8DC.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <3Qq8VVMnNdk9EwaF@blakjak.demon.co.uk> writes > > >Richard Colker wrote: > >>>As for dealing with illegal conventions, it is >>>normal to allow the hand to be played out (if >>>possible) and the result to stand if the non- >>>offenders are not damaged. In general, a pair >>>is not allowed to obtain a good score from an >>>illegal convention unless the illegal bid is >>>judged not to have disadvantaged the opponents >>>(as here, where N/S actually ended up having >>>more useful information because of the illegal >>>bid than they would have otherwise). In the >>>present case I can see no good reason for >>>adjusting the score. (Call this the "No harm, >>>no foul" principle.) > >David Stevenson replied: > >> This is completely wrong. Richard has no >>idea whether the opposition would have got a >>better score if they had not used an illegal >>convention so he has no idea whether there is >>harm or not. >> >> One of the problems with the case-books is >>that Richard gets the final word with no come- >>backs. I believe he uses it too often, >>especially, as he is sometimes completely wrong >>as in this case. > >[snip] > >In L75 MI cases, do TDs have "no idea whether >the opposition would have got a better score" if >the opponents had been given correct information? > >In L75 MI cases, TDs have to evaluate one or more >hypothetical auctions and/or cardplay. After use >of an illegal convention, TDs can also use the >same hypotheticals evaluation skills. Let us say players use an illegal 1C opening that shows something or other. If they had not played it what would have happened? How is a TD to evaluate whether they would have played Acol, or Precision, or SA? What basis can he evaluate on? He has no idea what would have happened without it because there is no sensible basis to say what system the player would have played. You cannot use the peer system. It may work for choice of call, but do you really believe it works for change of system? -------- I am pleased that I have received a post from Richard via BLML. No doubt David will be along shortly to tell me it was all my own fault. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Sep 25 17:05:53 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 18:05:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] weak overcall, In-Reply-To: <200209251501.LAA15237@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020925180427.00aa2d90@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:01 25/09/2002 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Alain Gottcheiner > > On enquiry, 2H is explained as "natural, preemptive and undisciplined". > > Would-be resopnder then enquires as to the range, which is answered with > > "0-12" and a shrug. > >In my view, expected suit length is part of the full explanation >required by L75C. I also wonder whether 0-12 is really correct at the >specific vulnerability. Is 0 really possible if vulnerable? Is 12 >really possible if not vulnerable? AG : the range explained was the range at the prevailing vulnerability, ie green. >The explanation should reflect >the conditions of the specific deal, not what could happen on some >other deal where the conditions are different. AG : indeed. That was the case. When vul, this pair plays 11-14. From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Sep 25 19:02:51 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 11:02:51 -0700 Subject: [blml] Direction switches in the ACBL (fwd) References: Message-ID: <001b01c264bd$e0e9a400$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Henk Uijterwaal" >The best competition and the least random scores result if you put the >strongest pairs in section 1, the next strongest in section 2 etc - and >leave them there. And matchpoint how?? >Also good is a Swissification: After each session move the lower 1/2 (1/3 is >probably better) into the next lower section, the higher 1/2 into the next >higher section. - This also has the virtue of forcing you to think what the >scores really mean. >Of course, as long as sensible rating systems are anathema this can't be >done. I have just submitted a proposal for a new 6-session NABC+ pair event that should provide "the best competition and the least random scores." It's name is Knockout Pairs and it goes like this: Divide entrants into two fields of balanced strength as best you can. ACBL seeders are very good at what they do, so this is practical. The two fields will not be mixed throughout the four qualifying sessions. Each of the four qual sessions ends with a number of pairs from each field being knocked out. How many depends on the number of original entries, because the finals will comprise just 26 tables in two sections. Since each qual field has played the same hands, faced the same opponents, and have compared only within the field, carryovers are logical going into sessions 2, 3, and 4. However, the qualifying pairs will be competing against each other in the finals. Coming from what is really two separate games (different hands, different opponents, different comparisons), carrying over matchpoints from the quals is illogical. Instead, recognize qualification achievement by giving matchpoints for the finals to pairs in accordance with their qualifying rank, not their matchpoint score. Now, here's the sort of final that will provide "the best competition and least random scores." Danny Kleinman has given me a name for it, which is a Tiered Mitchell. Take the top 13 qualifiers a "subfield" from each qual field and sit them N/S in the finals as "First Tier.". Take the next 13 from each qual field and sit them E/W. as "Second Tier." Pairs in each tier start off with four matchpoints for every pair qualifying below them in their subfield of 13. That's 48 matchpoints to the top two in each tier, 0 to the bottom two, a reasonable spread of about four boards (25 top). For the second session First Tier sits N/S in the same section, and Second Tier sits E/W in the other section. First Tier is playing for rankings 1-26, Second Tier for rankings 27-52. With Second Tier not significantly weaker than First Tier, you have a competition in which each pair has: -- played the same set of 52 hands as their rivals. -- faced the same 52 opponents, all fairly strong -- compared with every rival (all 25) on each of the 52 boards. Can a better pair competition be imagined? There will be arguments that run like this: -- Pairs will not stand for playing in the Second Tier, out of contention for a high ranking. Reply: The same thing happens in Swiss Teams, but teams still play on to maximize their rankings. -- Rival pairs do not face each other at the table. Reply: A minority do so in our large finals. Anyway, it is better to compare with the competition on every board than to meet them on just two boards and compare on only half (or none). -- Pairs will not stand for being eliminated after only one session. Reply: It happens in KO Teams, and players accept that. Besides, fewer than 50% will be knocked out each session. -- Pairs will not stand for the denial of carryover matchpoints into the finals. Reply: Tough. The principle of considering only previous rank, not scores, when positioning finalists is near-universal, nothing new. Indianapolis 500 drivers are given pole positions based on their qualification standings, but they are not spaced according to the speeds with which they qualified. Tennis players get seeding rights, football and baseball teams get home field advantage, basketball teams get home court advantage, track and field finalists get nothing. No one gets points. A companion proposal is for a 5-session Swiss Pair competition for those knocked out. It begins with the first pairs eliminated, along with any outside pairs who care to enter. Later eliminees wanting to enter are assigned Swiss VPs in accordance with their achievements in the KO Pairs. The final two sessions are concurrent with the KOs. The NABCs have no Swiss Pair event and it is time they did. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Sep 25 19:10:52 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 11:10:52 -0700 Subject: [blml] Direction switches in the ACBL (fwd) Message-ID: <002b01c264be$e85bf660$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" \> > Take the top 13 qualifiers a "subfield" from each qual field and sit > them N/S in the finals as "First Tier.". Take the next 13 from each > qual field and sit them E/W as "Second Tier." For the second > session First Tier sits N/S in the same section, and Second Tier > sits E/W in the other section. Slip of the mind. Of course both tiers would switch direction for the second session, with the Second Tier switching section Marv From David Stevenson Wed Sep 25 16:36:45 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 16:36:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] 1NT with a singleton Message-ID: In the new updates to the EBU Orange book which apply from 1st September it says at Level 3: "You may open 1NT as either natural (see 12.5.3) or artificial. In addition an otherwise natural 1NT may be played to include hands with 4-4-4-1 distribution (with a singleton of any rank) or 5-4-3-1 distribution with a singleton honour, provided that the point count is strictly within the agreed range for a natural 1NT. More restrictive constraints, e.g. relating to the rank of the singleton or the length of specific suits, are permitted. Note – players who wish to play that a natural 1NT opening may include hands with 4-4-4-1 or 5-4-3-1 distribution must prominently disclose this fact (specifically on the front of the card where an EBU 20A convention card is in use), and must be careful to provide full disclosure of all agreements as to the use of a 1NT opening, stating when a singleton may be expected, and what rank of singleton may be expected. In addition, such 1NT openings must be alerted." Wowie! Whatever next? I have also posted this to RGB. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Wed Sep 25 16:41:01 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 16:41:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Wot {sic} happened? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Todd Zimnoch writes >> -----Original Message----- >> From: David Stevenson >> Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 9:37 PM >> Subject: Re: [blml] Wot {sic} happened? >> >> Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) writes >> >I use the header: >> > >> > List-Id: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> > >> >to file blml mails. >> >> Maybe so. But having software do it for you seems better. > > The suggesion here is to have your software sort BLML items from >non-BLML items based on this line of text appearing in the header. >If your software can only sort based on to: or from: fields, it is >deficient. OK, it is deficient. Thank-you. It is specifically designed to treat mailing lists as newsgroups. I have no idea how and I really am surprised that good software would be software where I have to understand how it works. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Wed Sep 25 16:44:33 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 16:44:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Illegal convention In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Roger Pewick writes >From: "David Stevenson" >> It does not matter why: if it is not legal to use one then the >> opposition should not be subjected to one. >You have it a bit backwards. It is the banning of conventions that >deprive players from the freedom to select a coherent system, or more >to the point, prevent the creation of systems that may prove to be >better able to deal with the half trillion hands than the systems that >are permitted. And what the banning of conventions does is to protect >the flaws in the preferred systems of experts. No, it is you that has it a bit backwards. We are discussing what happens when a player uses an illegal convention. Whether it should be illegal is a totally separate question, and does not affect what happens when he uses one. >To ban conventions is to prevent the accumulation of evidence that >supports the validity of the system or its failing- which after all is >what bridge players do. > >That is not to say that conventions should not be regulated, but the >question is how. True, but so what? We have rules, and we follow them. If you do not like the rules, get them changed! > The problem with conventions is that many players >are unable to restrict their communication to the use of conventions >as body English, variations in tempo and manner lend themselves to >adding a little [or a lot] extra information. Pairs that bite off >more than they can chew fairly should be the ones that are disallowed >from artificial conventions. That's right, individuals should have >first option to regulate themselves, after all, they know best >themselves what they can do fairly. There are far more reasons than this as to why some conventions are banned. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Wed Sep 25 16:39:09 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 16:39:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] weak overcall, was : Pausitis In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020925134140.00aaa470@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <002b01c26402$1d00d060$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20020925134140.00aaa470@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner writes >At 12:38 24/09/2002 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: > >>From: "David Stevenson" <> >> >> >.You are still required to >> > answer fully and fairly even when the question is poor - never forget >> > L75A. >> > >>Or the exception to that permitted by L75C. > >AG : one question that arised last night. The bidding goes : > >S E N > >pass 1C 2Ha > >On enquiry, 2H is explained as "natural, preemptive and undisciplined". >Would-be resopnder then enquires as to the range, which is answered with >"0-12" and a shrug. > >It happened that preemptor's bid was : xx - AK10xx - J10x - xxx, which is >"classical' for this pair. > >EW complained that a preemptive jump at the 2-level classically promises a >6-card, so that one should volunteer the explanation that the suit will >quite often be 5-card long. South said that partner's explanation didn't >say anything about a classical weak two, and that the wording should hint >at possible distortions. > >All four players at the table are fairly experienced and system freaks. > >Do you think the explanation was sufficient, given that a 5-card suit is >absolutely no surprise in NS's style at that vulnerability ? It is a fairly good explanation, since equating 6-cards and undisciplined seems incorrect. Nevertheless, since it is known to be at least five cards why not include that in the description? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Wed Sep 25 22:23:29 2002 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 13:23:29 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] 1NT with a singleton In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Wonders will never cease! Maybe in the NEXT revision, they'll come round to the notion of allowing natural bidding at level 2, too. One can always dream. It is very long-winded, but compared to some of the other 1NT-with-a-singleton regulations we've seen on this list (e.g., "anyone caught doing it will get 30% and ten lashes") it seems to actually serve the intended purpose well, permitting deviations but leaving "exotic" 1NT openings solidly in the realm of regulated conventions. GRB From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Sep 26 01:13:23 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 01:13:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Illegal convention References: Message-ID: <006101c264f2$3b5e6360$649468d5@default> David Stevenson: True, but so what? We have rules, and we follow them. If you do not like the rules, get them changed! Chorus of players: Would we could. From bigfoot@dc.rr.com Thu Sep 26 02:51:24 2002 From: bigfoot@dc.rr.com (Irv Kostal) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 18:51:24 -0700 Subject: [blml] Illegal convention References: <006101c264f2$3b5e6360$649468d5@default> Message-ID: <001101c264ff$38d4bf60$6501a8c0@irv> Amen!!!! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 5:13 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Illegal convention > David Stevenson: True, but so what? > We have rules, and we follow them. > If you do not like the rules, > get them changed! > > Chorus of players: Would we could. > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Sep 26 04:27:38 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 04:27:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Wot {sic} happened? References: Message-ID: <004101c2650c$aa706220$4a9c27d9@pbncomputer> DWS wrote: > OK, it is deficient. Thank-you. It is specifically designed to treat > mailing lists as newsgroups. I have no idea how and I really am > surprised that good software would be software where I have to > understand how it works. Life is full of surprises. But it was you who told us, and indeed kept telling us, that this software was "good", and that Henk had been remiss in not tailoring the way in which his server works in order to cater for the (mal)functioning of your splendid software. There are a number of good tin-openers on the market, but none yet that is based on the assumption that its user does not know what a tin is. Can we please have and end to this? David Burn London, England From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Sep 25 21:13:25 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 13:13:25 -0700 Subject: [blml] Pausitis References: <002b01c26402$1d00d060$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <00a401c26518$24a4dd40$1c981e18@san.rr.com> David Stevenson writes: > Marvin L. French writes > > > >From: "David Stevenson" <> > > > >>.You are still required to > >> answer fully and fairly even when the question is poor - never forget > >> L75A. > >> > >Or the exception to that permitted by L75C. > > There is no exception. > True, but only if you consider "Inferences from that call [play] are drawn from my general knowledge and experience, and include no special information conveyed to me through special partnership agreement or partnership experience" as a full and fair answer per L75C. I'll have nothing more to say on this subject. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Sep 26 07:54:46 2002 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 07:54:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Pausitis References: <002b01c26402$1d00d060$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <001d01c26529$b77ecc00$db5587d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 2:31 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Pausitis > Marvin L. French writes > > > >From: "David Stevenson" <> > > > >>.You are still required to > >> answer fully and fairly even when the question is poor - never forget > >> L75A. > >> > >Or the exception to that permitted by L75C. > > There is no exception. > +=+ Next week, in my discussion under the title 'Ethics' at the EBL Seminar for Presidents and Officers of NBOs, one of the points I shall be making is that so-say 'inferences' become special understandings when they are part of the system file - be this on paper or conceptual in the heads of partners. ~ G ~ +=+ From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Thu Sep 26 08:08:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 08:08 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] 1NT with a singleton Message-ID: In-Reply-To: DWS wrote: > In the new updates to the EBU Orange book which apply from 1st > September it says at Level 3: > > "You may open 1NT as either natural (see 12.5.3) or artificial. In > addition an otherwise natural 1NT may be played to include hands with > 4-4-4-1 distribution (with a singleton of any rank) or 5-4-3-1 > distribution with a singleton honour, provided that the point count is > strictly within the agreed range for a natural 1NT. Note players who > wish to play that a natural 1NT opening may include hands with 4-4-4-1 > or 5-4-3-1 distribution must prominently disclose this fact > (specifically on the front of the card where an EBU 20A convention card > is in use) My congratulations to the EBU - well done. I have now put in bold the word singleton on the front of my EBU20A. I'll cross the bridge of how we decide whether an 11 point hand is strictly within my agreed range of "About 11.5 to 14" when we come to it:). Tim From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Thu Sep 26 08:10:47 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 09:10:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] Direction switches in the ACBL Message-ID: Ton wrote: > > May I suggest to you to do some homework. Take 8 sections and 4 sessions and > try to change directions in such a way that every group (A NS up to H EW) is > compared with every other group as balanced as possible. You will see that > some groups have to stay NS and EW all the time to get the best solution. > > This is a nice example of how easy it is to draw wrong conclusions. On a > group scale it might look very well organized when there is a switch in > every session, while for the whole event this is useless, since every pair > is compared with the same pairs all the time. Those changes are not made to > reach a balanced way of having pairs walking around! And yes we have seen > such things in big and important events. > > Another question is whether these changes make much sense in a big field. > Probably not. The less so the better the seeding is done. And we put a lot > of energy in the seeding in Montreal, also trying to avoid late play between > countrymen. But the result was partly destroyed by late entries. (this is no > complaint towards one or some countries, dear Grattan, but describing a fact > of everywhere's life) > ### I am afraid that what Ton says above is not correct, **** I said a couple of things above, so please be more specific in telling me what was not correct. Of course things can be improved with arrow switches. Improved looking at the balance within the movement, not improved looking at the complexity of it. Experience tells us that with players not familiar with such switches things can easily go wrong. And your statement that 'it is perfectly possible to ensure that everyone plays NS and EW exactly half of the time' is true of course but has nothing to do with our aim to balance the movement. The aim is to be compared with each other pair half of the time and that, believe me, is not easy to do. In fact in some movements and with certain number of pairs it is impossible to do. And not everybody understands that problem. if the strongest pairs are seeded at table 1 in each group for example using arrow switches means that they are still compared with each other all the time. ton at least if you believe in competition as defined in John Manning's paper on arrow-switching or if you believe in comparisons as defined in the Swedish Book 'Movements - A Fair Approach'. It is perfectly possible to ensure that everyone plays NS and EW exactly half the time, give or take one board, if you so wish. What people are probably more concerned about is whether they can be stationary for half of the sessions and, again, this can be achieved provided that there are an even number of sessions and no sitters, ie. people who need to remain stationary for the whole event. If there are sitters and they are all in one section then anyone who plays against them will have to move for an extra session. The best competition balance in multi-session events will be obtained if the original NS and EW lines in the first session always remain the same relative orientation irrespective of which way round they are playing and 1/8 of the boards are switched in each session. This will give the lowest spread of competition error (ie. RMS deviations) and will be closest to perfection when the number of sessions is equal to the number of sections. If you wish to balance comparisons rather than competition, as advocated by the Swedes, then everything in the above paragraph remains true except that you need to arrow-switch more than 1/8 of the boards and the exact number depends on the size of each section and the number of sections. To save time, I have developed a spreadsheet to calculate this. David Martin ### _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Thu Sep 26 08:29:43 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 09:29:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] Direction switches in the ACBL Message-ID: From: "Kooijman, A." > > > >A number of items that give me reenforced admiration at how the ACBL runs > >NABC+ events. > > > >(Big snip) > > > > > > o My partner and I sat EW for three out of four sessions in the Open > > > Pairs qualifier. I saw no reason that every pair should not play two > > > sessions as NS and two as EW. > > > >It may have something to do with the comparisons. > > > >In an ACBL Open Pairs switches each session, but that's no good because it > >means that there are two separate comparison fields. Did you read that, Ton??> **** yes I did, but some people try to tell me that giving an opinion about what happens by zones or NBO's should be softly brought (being left alone I tend to use strong expressions, you noticed?) So implicitly you could have read that I do not amire that movement, unless you really have two different events going on and want everybody sharing in the walking exercises. But then in the ACBL you don't score over the field either, so with this movement there are many completely different events played. And players seem to like that, receiving masterpoints being the main issue, I guess? ton > > May I suggest to you to do some homework. Take 8 sections and 4 sessions and > try to change directions in such a way that every group (A NS up to H EW) is > compared with every other group as balanced as possible. You will see that > some groups have to stay NS and EW all the time to get the best solution. So I was right, it did have something to do with the comparisons, and all-switching is "no good.". The goal is to compare with as many pairs as possible among those not encountered at the table, so you can't switch everybody. >This is is a nice example of how easy it is to draw wrong conclusions. What "wrong conclusion" was that, please? **** the idea that once a group switches all the time the organizers have done their home work. I didn't want to say this was your conclusion, but it might be a commonly drawn conclusion. ton My conclusion was right, but "maybe" should have been "probably." Not "certainly," because it could be that a N/S line or two was reserved for those who have to remain stationary. I wasn't there, hence the reluctance to make a positive statement. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Thu Sep 26 08:41:30 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 09:41:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] not shuffled Message-ID: On 9/24/02, Sven Pran wrote: >Dummy may always after play of the hand is concluded call >attention to any irregularity of which he has become aware. >Law 9A2(b)(1) IMO, the time to stop a player from harassing another player, especially one who becomes flustered and confused by that harassment, is when it happens, *not* after the play is concluded. If the law does not permit that, then the law is wrong. ****I tried to say something similar some messages ago, meaning that I agree with this statement. The 'quality' of being dummy should be related to the board played, not being allowed to interfer in that play. I hope to get a 'noted' from Grattan. ton From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Thu Sep 26 08:52:18 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 09:52:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] 1NT with a singleton Message-ID: In the new updates to the EBU Orange book which apply from 1st September it says at Level 3: "You may open 1NT as either natural (see 12.5.3) or artificial. In addition an otherwise natural 1NT may be played to include hands with 4-4-4-1 distribution (with a singleton of any rank) or 5-4-3-1 distribution with a singleton honour, provided that the point count is strictly within the agreed range for a natural 1NT. More restrictive constraints, e.g. relating to the rank of the singleton or the length = of specific suits, are permitted. Note =E2=80=93 players who wish to play = that a natural 1NT opening may include hands with 4-4-4-1 or 5-4-3-1 distribution must prominently disclose this fact (specifically on the front of the card where an EBU 20A convention card is in use), and must be careful to provide full disclosure of all agreements as to the use = of a 1NT opening, stating when a singleton may be expected, and what rank of singleton may be expected. In addition, such 1NT openings must be alerted."=20 Wowie! Whatever next? **** Good question. I am sure they will find something. A week ago I = bid 3NT with the bare queen (this hopefully doesn't have any ugly meaning?) = when asked by my partner whether I had a spade stopper. It worked fine so = could that be the next issue?=20 ton =20 From gester@lineone.net Thu Sep 26 12:27:28 2002 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 12:27:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] not shuffled References: Message-ID: <008e01c26553$21d085c0$b1242850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "'Ed Reppert'" ; "Sven Pran" Cc: "blml" Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 8:41 AM Subject: RE: [blml] not shuffled > > ****I tried to say something similar some messages ago, meaning that I agree > with this statement. The 'quality' of being dummy should be related to > the board played, not being allowed to interfer in that play. I hope to > get a 'noted' from Grattan. > > ton > +=+ Noted, Sir. I try to leave TD practice to the Bavins of this world, but it seems to me there are a couple of reasons why a TD would be wrong to walk away as earlier alleged - Law 81C4 and, in respect of any breach of Law 74A1, his duty under Law 81C6. However, we can strengthen the text of the laws in this regard - if our colleagues are tractable. I shall attend to the matter of the words. ~ G ~ +=+ From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Thu Sep 26 12:54:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 12:54 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] weak overcall, Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <200209251501.LAA15237@cfa183.harvard.edu> Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Alain Gottcheiner > > On enquiry, 2H is explained as "natural, preemptive and > > undisciplined". Would-be resopnder then enquires as to the range, > > which is answered with "0-12" and a shrug. > > In my view, expected suit length is part of the full explanation > required by L75C. I agree. That said I would tend to interpret "undisciplined" as 4-8, normally 5 or 6. It is also, again IMO, a key word. It indicates that I can ask for further clarification if desired without making UI available to partner. > > All four players at the table are fairly experienced and system > > freaks. > > > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > > Nah, if the oppo are playing 0-12, they're also playing 0-1, 5-7 cards > > as well, and you darn well know it. > > Yes, experienced players should not normally be damaged by the MI, but > MI it still is. > > > Tim replied "He hasn't yet done it on four at red". > > This, on the other hand, is an excellent example of a proper > explanation, at least to experienced players. Thank you. Obviously inadequate against poor players (these were not). It works because of a certain degree of linguistic commonality between the players such that a) Opponents don't expect it to guarantee 6, b) They know that 4 is a vague possibility, c) they are sufficiently familiar with John to know that he seldom counts his points in these situations (even though he would hardly ever run out of fingers if he tried) d) it implies that the situation may be different on the next hand* (e.g. at a different vul). At the table none of the above considerations went through my forebrain, I was mainly trying to get a laugh (it worked). *Actually I believe that where the vul influences the meaning that info should always form part of the explanation - otherwise opps may think they don't need to ask the next time a similar auction occurs. Going back to "undisciplined" then - I think that it *would* be considered a sufficient explanation amongst good players in London. However the post was originally from Alain (in Belgium) and may therefore have involved players with different first languages, and I would guess that he actually translated the explanation for our benefit. It is entirely possible that the original word doesn't have quite the same connotations as his translation (or that in his locale it would generally be taken to mean 7,perhaps 6). Tim From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Sep 26 13:24:20 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 14:24:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] 1NT with a singleton In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020926141802.00aaa160@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:52 26/09/2002 +0200, Kooijman, A. wrote: > In the new updates to the EBU Orange book which apply from 1st >September it says at Level 3: > >"You may open 1NT as either natural (see 12.5.3) or artificial. In >addition an otherwise natural 1NT may be played to include hands with >4-4-4-1 distribution (with a singleton of any rank) or 5-4-3-1 >distribution with a singleton honour, provided that the point count is >strictly within the agreed range for a natural 1NT. More restrictive >constraints, e.g. relating to the rank of the singleton or the length of >specific suits, are permitted. Note =E2=80=93 players who wish to play that= a >natural 1NT opening may include hands with 4-4-4-1 or 5-4-3-1 >distribution must prominently disclose this fact (specifically on the >front of the card where an EBU 20A convention card is in use), and must >be careful to provide full disclosure of all agreements as to the use of >a 1NT opening, stating when a singleton may be expected, and what rank >of singleton may be expected. In addition, such 1NT openings must be >alerted." > > Wowie! Whatever next? > > >**** Good question. I am sure they will find something. A week ago I bid= 3NT >with the bare queen (this hopefully doesn't have any ugly meaning?) when >asked by my partner whether I had a spade stopper. It worked fine so could >that be the next issue? AG : it is well known that "a bare or doubleton queen is a stopper when you= =20 have faith in it". This matter is covered by L40A : you have any right to respond by the=20 affirmative with the bare queen. However, next time partner is asked what=20 is the minimum for a positive aswer is, he will have to mention this=20 possibility (L40A again). I've overcalled more than once 1NT over 1M (5-card minor, opening values=20 and stopper) with only half a stopper, which means that we now have to=20 explain it as 'stopper or perhaps half stopper'. Best regards, Alain. From axman22@hotmail.com Thu Sep 26 14:08:01 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 08:08:01 -0500 Subject: [blml] Pausitis References: <002b01c26402$1d00d060$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <001d01c26529$b77ecc00$db5587d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "grandeval" To: Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 1:54 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Pausitis > > Grattan Endicott ====================================== > "I think it would be a good idea" > [Mahatma Gandhi , on Western civilization] > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Stevenson" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 2:31 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Pausitis > > > > Marvin L. French writes > > > > > >From: "David Stevenson" <> > > > > > >>.You are still required to > > >> answer fully and fairly even when the question is poor - never forget > > >> L75A. > > >> > > >Or the exception to that permitted by L75C. > > > > There is no exception. > > > +=+ Next week, in my discussion under the title 'Ethics' at the EBL > Seminar for Presidents and Officers of NBOs, one of the points I > shall be making is that so-say 'inferences' become special > understandings when they are part of the system file - be this on > paper or conceptual in the heads of partners. ~ G ~ +=+ It is my understanding that inferences are a matter of judgement. And at bridge, judgment is a matter of skill. To legislate the explaining of judgment is for a player to do his opponents' work for them. I have better things to do. Further, the exercise of judgment calls upon one to assimilate facts. For a bridge player he has the facts that come from his partner and the opponents, and, he has the facts that he sees in from of him. Can it be right to call upon him to name by inference the cards in his hand because it is what is needed to explain judgement? Well, I have seen equally daff things required of players so I am not sure. To retort back that no, we are talking about only inferences that are from the action is kaka. How is one to separate the inferences solely from 'AI' and the inferences swirling around his head from combining the 'AI' with the hand in front of him? -except by tremendous and lengthy brain work that ought to be applied to playing the hand. Is it really ethical to call upon players to bear the burden of explaining judgment? regards roger pewick From axman22@hotmail.com Thu Sep 26 15:20:22 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 09:20:22 -0500 Subject: [blml] Illegal convention References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 10:44 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Illegal convention > Roger Pewick writes > >From: "David Stevenson" > > >> It does not matter why: if it is not legal to use one then the > >> opposition should not be subjected to one. > > >You have it a bit backwards. It is the banning of conventions that > >deprive players from the freedom to select a coherent system, or more > >to the point, prevent the creation of systems that may prove to be > >better able to deal with the half trillion hands than the systems that > >are permitted. And what the banning of conventions does is to protect > >the flaws in the preferred systems of experts. > > No, it is you that has it a bit backwards. We are discussing what > happens when a player uses an illegal convention. Whether it should be > illegal is a totally separate question, and does not affect what happens > when he uses one. > > >To ban conventions is to prevent the accumulation of evidence that > >supports the validity of the system or its failing- which after all is > >what bridge players do. > > > >That is not to say that conventions should not be regulated, but the > >question is how. > > True, but so what? We have rules, and we follow them. If you do not > like the rules, get them changed! > > > The problem with conventions is that many players > >are unable to restrict their communication to the use of conventions > >as body English, variations in tempo and manner lend themselves to > >adding a little [or a lot] extra information. Pairs that bite off > >more than they can chew fairly should be the ones that are disallowed > >from artificial conventions. That's right, individuals should have > >first option to regulate themselves, after all, they know best > >themselves what they can do fairly. > > There are far more reasons than this as to why some conventions are > banned. > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ What is done when 'illegal conventions' are used has been talked about before. Comments were requested. So I made them, one of them was that it is not often good to ban conventions. I guess I have had two experiences with illegal conventions. The first occured when the opponents had a tortured hesitation auction that was quite successful where the unusual 2N was employed holding spades and diamonds and responder curiously did not first opt for clubs. The director found out that 2NT for any unbid suit was the agreement which was illegal. He spent the next 5 minutes going ballistic. The score stood. From that point on it was one disaster after another. The other was this auction: 1S- P- P- 2N P- 3N-P- P X*- 4C-P-4D PPP *= Nearly a two minute huddle with considerable body language. Opener was a pro and he asked the meaning of 2N nine times [with the increasing inference that the response was a lie] receiving the same reply, 'lower unbid'. You see he figured out from the auction and his hand that overcaller in fact did not have clubs and diamonds but hearts and another suit and he wanted to make sure that his partner was aware of that fact that he did not have hearts. Well, we did not have an illegal agreement, but wasn't it an illegal misbid? When dummy appeared he for all intents and purposes accused me of cheating as I had not gone on to 5C. These are my personal experiences of what making conventions illegal brings on. So, another reason to ban conventions is to manufacture more hoops through which players must jump. As if it is not enough of a challenge to tackle a half trillion hands with a vocabulary of fifteen words. regards roger pewick From john@asimere.com Thu Sep 26 15:26:00 2002 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 15:26:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Wot {sic} happened? In-Reply-To: <004101c2650c$aa706220$4a9c27d9@pbncomputer> References: <004101c2650c$aa706220$4a9c27d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <9MWO$5A4jxk9Ewbe@asimere.com> In article <004101c2650c$aa706220$4a9c27d9@pbncomputer>, David Burn writes >DWS wrote: > >> OK, it is deficient. Thank-you. It is specifically designed to >treat >> mailing lists as newsgroups. I have no idea how and I really am >> surprised that good software would be software where I have to >> understand how it works. > >Life is full of surprises. But it was you who told us, and indeed kept >telling us, that this software was "good", and that Henk had been remiss >in not tailoring the way in which his server works in order to cater for >the (mal)functioning of your splendid software. There are a number of >good tin-openers on the market, but none yet that is based on the >assumption that its user does not know what a tin is. Can we please have >and end to this? > My copy of Turnpike is threading blml beautifully >David Burn >London, England > > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk From john@asimere.com Thu Sep 26 15:32:58 2002 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 15:32:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] not shuffled In-Reply-To: <008e01c26553$21d085c0$b1242850@pacific> References: <008e01c26553$21d085c0$b1242850@pacific> Message-ID: In article <008e01c26553$21d085c0$b1242850@pacific>, gester@lineone.net writes > >Grattan Endicott.......................................................... >"Behold I make all things new" > ~ Revelation of St. John >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Kooijman, A." >To: "'Ed Reppert'" ; "Sven Pran" > >Cc: "blml" >Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 8:41 AM >Subject: RE: [blml] not shuffled > > >> >> ****I tried to say something similar some messages ago, meaning that I >agree >> with this statement. The 'quality' of being dummy should be related to >> the board played, not being allowed to interfer in that play. I hope to >> get a 'noted' from Grattan. >> >> ton >> >+=+ Noted, Sir. > I try to leave TD practice to the Bavins of this world, >but it seems to me there are a couple of reasons why a TD >would be wrong to walk away as earlier alleged - > Law 81C4 and, in respect of any breach of Law 74A1, >his duty under Law 81C6. > However, we can strengthen the text of the laws in this >regard - if our colleagues are tractable. I shall attend to the >matter of the words. ~ G ~ +=+ > I'm delighted to hear this. I have just one small request. Can we have it in English please Grattan. No sentences of more that 22 syllables. No commas. No brackets. No footnotes. John > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk From gester@lineone.net Thu Sep 26 16:06:25 2002 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 16:06:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Pausitis References: <002b01c26402$1d00d060$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <001d01c26529$b77ecc00$db5587d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <002901c2656e$708d1fa0$c3242850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 2:08 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Pausitis > > > > > +=+ Next week, in my discussion under the title 'Ethics' at the EBL > > Seminar for Presidents and Officers of NBOs, one of the points I > > shall be making is that so-say 'inferences' become special > > understandings when they are part of the system file - be this on > > paper or conceptual in the heads of partners. ~ G ~ +=+ > > > It is my understanding that inferences are a matter of > judgement. And at bridge, judgment is a matter of skill. > To legislate the explaining of judgment is for a player to > do his opponents' work for them. I have better things to > do. > +=+ When an inference has become a matter of agreement between partners it is a partnership understanding. So it must be disclosed. When it is entered into a system file the fact of recording indicates the matter is not presumptive. The understanding is thus 'special'. Inferences are matters of logic and deduction from specific premises. And when the partnership experience suffices for them to be an established practice, not freshly inferred on each single occasion, they are system. Failure to announce a relevant practice when asked a question is a failure in one's duty to opponents. Roger, you should think again. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Sep 26 16:52:32 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 17:52:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] Pausitis In-Reply-To: <002901c2656e$708d1fa0$c3242850@pacific> References: <002b01c26402$1d00d060$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <001d01c26529$b77ecc00$db5587d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020926174413.00ab3880@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:06 26/09/2002 +0100, gester@lineone.net wrote: >+=+ When an inference has become a matter of agreement >between partners it is a partnership understanding. So it must >be disclosed. When it is entered into a system file the fact >of recording indicates the matter is not presumptive. The >understanding is thus 'special'. > Inferences are matters of logic and deduction from >specific premises. And when the partnership experience >suffices for them to be an established practice, not freshly >inferred on each single occasion, they are system. Failure >to announce a relevant practice when asked a question is >a failure in one's duty to opponents. > Roger, you should think again. AG : the bidding : 2Da 2Ha pass 2D : explained as classical Multi, weak 2H/S or strong NT or strong 4441 2H : explained as to play facing hearts (would you expect anything else ?) Do you really mean we have to alert and explain the pass ? (BTW, it is so obvious that it is probably not in the system notes) If we have to alert every inference, then we have to alert the pass. I hope it is not the case. Also, if one has to alert any bid that has some inference, we simply have to alert everything. And if we have to explain every inference (how do you make sure we do ?), then the bidding phase will last about 10 minutes every deal (not to mention that partner might have choosen to conceal something about his hand). The aim is to be practical : every inference that can be relevant to the opponents as the bidding happens must be exlpained. Playing Flannery, I would not alert 1H to say that partner may not have 4 spades in a non-max hand. It is hardly conceivable that it would be important, at this stage, to know it. Another example : 1NT 2C 2H 2NT Requesting that 2C be alerted because one will not always have some major isn't clever ; how can this influence the ensuing bidding ? However, when the 2NT rebid is made, I know that partner will quite often have no major, and it may affect the lead against what will nearly always be a 2NT or 3NT contract. Be practical. Best regards, Alain. From david-martin@talk21.com Thu Sep 26 16:56:35 2002 From: david-martin@talk21.com (David Martin) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 16:56:35 +0100 Subject: Fw: [blml] Direction switches in the ACBL Message-ID: <009201c26578$883ee7a0$b246073e@davicaltd> SNIP Marvin wrote: > Would not careful seeding go far enough toward accomplishing the goal of > balanced strength? There is a movement afoot over here to seed not just the > strongest pairs, but to balance the distribution of others also, going by the > admittedly weak criterion of masterpoints held by each pair. Nothing > sophisticated, just something similar to our stratified games, in which A, B, > and C-level players are distributed evenly. ### What seeding would achieve is balanced *strength of opposition* rather than balanced *competition*, that is, everyone would find the field equally strong but would not have equal influence on all of their opponents' scores. ### > > > > If you wish to balance comparisons rather than competition, as advocated by > > the Swedes, then everything in the above paragraph remains true except that > > you need to arrow-switch more than 1/8 of the boards and the exact number > > depends on the size of each section and the number of sections. To save > > time, I have developed a spreadsheet to calculate this. > > Does it require switches on a particular set of round, and is the positioning > of seeds no longer a consideration? ### For any given degree of arrow-switching, there is a preferential set of rounds to switch that will give optimum balance because this will minimise the degree to which later arrow-switches will cancel out the effects of earlier ones. In practice, arrow-switching rounds in a complex way may give the optimum solution but may give rise to other problems, eg. if players move before they should, don't hear the instruction to switch because they are not paying attention or are in the bar, etc. Quite often the error introduced by simply switching the last X rounds is not huge and can be safely ignored. The effect that I have previously referred to as 'movement dynamics' still exists even when arrow-switches are adopted. Thus, to ensure fair competition, it is still necessary to ensure that the strongest and weakest players are evenly distributed throughout all lines and sections and, furthermore, that they are evenly distributed amongst the tables in a section and not all at table 1 etc. ### From david-martin@talk21.com Thu Sep 26 17:18:56 2002 From: david-martin@talk21.com (David Martin) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 17:18:56 +0100 Subject: Fw: [blml] Direction switches in the ACBL Message-ID: <009401c26578$9192e7c0$b246073e@davicaltd> SNIP Ton wrote: > > **** I said a couple of things above, so please be more specific in telling > me what was not correct. Of course things can be improved with arrow > switches. Improved looking at the balance within the movement, not improved > looking at the complexity of it. Experience tells us that with players not > familiar with such switches things can easily go wrong. And your statement > that 'it is perfectly possible to ensure that everyone plays NS and EW > exactly half of the time' is true of course but has nothing to do with our > aim to balance the movement. The aim is to be compared with each other pair > half of the time and that, believe me, is not easy to do. In fact in some > movements and with certain number of pairs it is impossible to do. And not > everybody understands that problem. if the strongest pairs are seeded at > table 1 in each group for example using arrow switches means that they are > still compared with each other all the time. ### It is disputable whether the aim is to be compared with each other pair exactly half of time as opposed to having equal competition with all pairs. This is the fundamental basis of the disagreement between John Manning's English school of arrow-switching and the Swedish approach. However, if you wish to adopt the Swedish approach then it always trivially easy using arrow-switches to get fairly close to perfection. You can certainly always get much closer to perfection with appropriate arrow-switches than you can by switching entire lines after each session. Also, if the odd player forgets to arrow-switch now and again then the error that is introduced is relatively small provided that the majority get it right most of the time. As to your final point regarding the strong pairs at table 1, I have just recently indicated in an earlier post on this thread that because 'movement dynamics' is not affected by arrow-switching, it is still necessary to spread the strongest *and weakest* players evenly throughout all lines and sections and, also, throughout all tables and not just stick them all on table 1 or 13 etc. ### From david-martin@talk21.com Thu Sep 26 17:00:49 2002 From: david-martin@talk21.com (David Martin) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 17:00:49 +0100 Subject: Fw: [blml] Direction switches in the ACBL (fwd) Message-ID: <009301c26578$8cccad20$b246073e@davicaltd> Jürgen Rennenkampff wrote: The best competition and the least random scores result if you put the strongest pairs in section 1, the next strongest in section 2 etc - and leave them there. ### By "best", I take it that you don't mean most balanced in a mathematical sense as that clearly cannot be true. ### From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Thu Sep 26 18:15:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 18:15 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Pausitis Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020926174413.00ab3880@pop.ulb.ac.be> Alain wrote: > >+=+ When an inference has become a matter of agreement > >between partners it is a partnership understanding. So it must > >be disclosed. When it is entered into a system file the fact > >of recording indicates the matter is not presumptive. The > >understanding is thus 'special'. > > Inferences are matters of logic and deduction from > >specific premises. And when the partnership experience > >suffices for them to be an established practice, not freshly > >inferred on each single occasion, they are system. Failure > >to announce a relevant practice when asked a question is > >a failure in one's duty to opponents. > > Roger, you should think again. > > AG : the bidding : > > 2Da 2Ha > pass > > 2D : explained as classical Multi, weak 2H/S or strong NT or strong 4441 > 2H : explained as to play facing hearts (would you expect anything else > ?) Yes. I expect you tell those who are unfamiliar with the Multi that it denies 4 (or 5) hearts. This is an inference available to you from the failure to bid 2S. > Do you really mean we have to alert and explain the pass ? > (BTW, it is so obvious that it is probably not in the system notes) > If we have to alert every inference, then we have to alert the pass. I > hope it is not the case. That is not what Grattan said. He stated that you needed to explain the inferences when asked. And yes that includes explaining the pass - sure the meaning is obvious to us - but it obviously isn't to the person asking. Tim From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Sep 26 18:25:47 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 10:25:47 -0700 Subject: [blml] Direction switches in the ACBL References: Message-ID: <004701c26581$c357e860$1c981e18@san.rr.com> > > From: "Kooijman, A." > > > > > **** yes I did, but some people try to tell me that giving an opinion about > what happens by zones or NBO's should be softly brought (being left alone I > tend to use strong expressions, you noticed?) So implicitly you could have > read that I do not amire that movement, unless you really have two different > events going on and want everybody sharing in the walking exercises. > But then in the ACBL you don't score over the field either, so with this > movement there are many completely different events played. And players seem > to like that, receiving masterpoints being the main issue, I guess? Important events are matchpointed across the field (ATF) to the extent that is practicable. In quals that may mean across 3 or 4 sections in a huge game, but the finals are always matchpointed all the way across, which in a recent event was across five sections. But you are right about there being two events in one. A straight Mitchell such as that used in our finals is a two-winner game, not a one-winner game, a fact appreciated only in our lowly non-championship club games, in which we have separate rankings N/S and E/W. You should not have to temper your language when the matter is so clear as to be non-arguable, but I guess your position calls for that. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Sep 26 18:37:57 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 10:37:57 -0700 Subject: [blml] Direction switches in the ACBL References: <009201c26578$883ee7a0$b246073e@davicaltd> Message-ID: <005301c26583$7aea6ce0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> David Martin wrote: > SNIP > > Marvin wrote: > > > Would not careful seeding go far enough toward accomplishing the goal of > > balanced strength? There is a movement afoot over here to seed not just > > the strongest pairs, but to balance the distribution of others also, going by > > the admittedly weak criterion of masterpoints held by each pair. Nothing > > sophisticated, just something similar to our stratified games, in which A, > > B, and C-level players are distributed evenly. > > ### What seeding would achieve is balanced *strength of opposition* rather > than balanced *competition*, that is, everyone would find the field equally > strong but would not have equal influence on all of their opponents' scores. > ### > What I meant to imply was that arrow-switching for comparisons may much superior when arrow switching for balancing strength is not needed It is common, I'm told, for games in at least one European country to be unseeded, making arrow switching for balancing strength perhaps the better method. > ### For any given degree of arrow-switching, there is a preferential set of > rounds to switch that will give optimum balance because this will minimise > the degree to which later arrow-switches will cancel out the effects of > earlier ones. In practice, arrow-switching rounds in a complex way may give > the optimum solution but may give rise to other problems, eg. if players > move before they should, don't hear the instruction to switch because they > are not paying attention or are in the bar, etc. Quite often the error > introduced by simply switching the last X rounds is not huge and can be > safely ignored. That seems sensible, but how do you get the value for X? > > The effect that I have previously referred to as 'movement dynamics' still > exists even when arrow-switches are adopted. Thus, to ensure fair > competition, it is still necessary to ensure that the strongest and weakest > players are evenly distributed throughout all lines and sections and, > furthermore, that they are evenly distributed amongst the tables in a > section and not all at table 1 etc. ### > Yes, so the ACBL practice of putting seeds at tables 3, 6, 9, and sometimes 12 in all sections should be modified how with arrow switches? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Sep 26 19:10:51 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 20:10:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] Pausitis References: <002b01c26402$1d00d060$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <001d01c26529$b77ecc00$db5587d9@4nrw70j> <002901c2656e$708d1fa0$c3242850@pacific> Message-ID: <3D934DAB.5090708@skynet.be> gester@lineone.net wrote: > From: "Roger Pewick" >> >>It is my understanding that inferences are a matter of >>judgement. And at bridge, judgment is a matter of skill. >>To legislate the explaining of judgment is for a player to >>do his opponents' work for them. I have better things to >>do. >> >> > +=+ When an inference has become a matter of agreement > between partners it is a partnership understanding. So it must > be disclosed. When it is entered into a system file the fact > of recording indicates the matter is not presumptive. The > understanding is thus 'special'. > Inferences are matters of logic and deduction from > specific premises. And when the partnership experience > suffices for them to be an established practice, not freshly > inferred on each single occasion, they are system. Failure > to announce a relevant practice when asked a question is > a failure in one's duty to opponents. > Roger, you should think again. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Look at it this way, Roger. If you have, after a quarter of an hour of system discussion with partner, concluded that a particular auction can, by inference, mean only one thing, then that is a partnership understanding, even if it is also an inference. You should not hide behind "inference" when the inference process takes a quarter of an hour. The meaning of the exception is just to say that you cannot be obliged to say obvious things - not that you can hide things from opponents because they are simply "inferences". I think that Grattan's saying is not even harsh enough. If something is discussed, it becomes "partnership agreement", not just when it is written down. But of course if it IS written down, it's certainly agreement. And it can't very well be obvious if it needs to be written down, can it ? > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From axman22@hotmail.com Thu Sep 26 19:58:19 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 13:58:19 -0500 Subject: [blml] Pausitis References: <002b01c26402$1d00d060$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <001d01c26529$b77ecc00$db5587d9@4nrw70j> <002901c2656e$708d1fa0$c3242850@pacific> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Roger Pewick" ; Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 10:06 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Pausitis > > Grattan Endicott .......................................................... > "Behold I make all things new" > ~ Revelation of St. John > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Roger Pewick" > To: > Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 2:08 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Pausitis > > > > > > > > > +=+ Next week, in my discussion under the title 'Ethics' at the EBL > > > Seminar for Presidents and Officers of NBOs, one of the points I > > > shall be making is that so-say 'inferences' become special > > > understandings when they are part of the system file - be this on > > > paper or conceptual in the heads of partners. ~ G ~ +=+ > > > > > > It is my understanding that inferences are a matter of > > judgement. And at bridge, judgment is a matter of skill. > > To legislate the explaining of judgment is for a player to > > do his opponents' work for them. I have better things to > > do. > > > +=+ When an inference has become a matter of agreement > between partners it is a partnership understanding. So it must > be disclosed. When it is entered into a system file the fact > of recording indicates the matter is not presumptive. The > understanding is thus 'special'. > Inferences are matters of logic and deduction from > specific premises. And when the partnership experience > suffices for them to be an established practice, not freshly > inferred on each single occasion, they are system. Failure > to announce a relevant practice when asked a question is > a failure in one's duty to opponents. > Roger, you should think again. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ At present, if you are to be assumed correct that I ought rethink, then I must suggest that you have chosen a word ill suited for the purpose you intended. Inferences are an outcome of deduction from information. In the bridge context, information is gleaned from agreements to actions as well as extraneous occurences. It not only is unreasonable but lacks sensibility to have people explain [or otherwise] judgment. I will go so far as to suggest that what the opponents are entitled to is what an unknown third party who has not seen the hands would say if he had a copy of the system in front of him and thus told what he knew from the auction. And what he would say has about the chance of even money to closely reflecting the contents of the hands- and it is general bridge knowledge [GBK] that that is the way it is. I shall tell a story which is probably exactly about what you are addressing. It was decided that it must be made clear to opponents that all opening bids are passable even though when my partnership opened the bidding one of a suit that the hand could be very strong. Such a strong hand would be QJ-AKQJxx-AK-AQJ which I once opened 1H without pause for thought. During the session the auction went 1S-PPP and after the play the opponents proceeded to bicker incessantly about why fourth hand did not reopen when it turned out that I had a run of the mill hand. Of course fourth hand asserted it was because to do so would give me the chance to rebid game or pulverize them. The explanation of judgment is a recipe for misleading others. I have had opponents 'explain' inferences which caused partner to do stupid things. In fact, partner mostly did stupid things after these special explanations and rarely did smart things. As a player I'll tell you what I want. I want to know what is promised in the way of length, honor strength, particular cards, interrogations and responses thereto, and instructions. What I don't want is to be told that such and such player is capable of this or that he did so and so on one or two singular occasions- because such things are out of the ordinary and is GBK that all players are capable of doing things out of the ordinary. Nor do I want to be told that X never deviates because invariably he will take the license to pull a fast one on me unawares. If you want disclosure that works you want fair disclosure, which is not necessarily full disclosure. Full disclosure is dumping ten cartons of paper on someone irrespective of when a well worded sentence would do. Way too often the player picks out the wrong information to base his action upon. regards roger pewick From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu Sep 26 20:11:05 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 15:11:05 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Fw: [blml] Direction switches in the ACBL Message-ID: <200209261911.PAA22286@cfa183.harvard.edu> > From: "David Martin" > In practice, arrow-switching rounds in a complex way may give > the optimum solution but may give rise to other problems, eg. if players > move before they should, don't hear the instruction to switch because they > are not paying attention or are in the bar, etc. Quite often the error > introduced by simply switching the last X rounds is not huge and can be > safely ignored. As readers may know, arrow-switches are unheard of in ACBL events. >From my position of ignorance, though, it strikes me that switching the _first_ round (or maybe two) might be best from a compliance perspective. People need to listen to the TD's instructions for starting the movement, and then after the first round (or second), the arrow goes back to its normal direction and everything proceeds as usual. Is arrow switching the first round OK, or does it have problems, either theoretical or practical? From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Sep 26 21:04:41 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 13:04:41 -0700 Subject: Fw: [blml] Direction switches in the ACBL References: <200209261911.PAA22286@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <008801c26598$ac617e20$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Steve Willner wrote: > > From: "David Martin" > > In practice, arrow-switching rounds in a complex way may give > > the optimum solution but may give rise to other problems, eg. if players > > move before they should, don't hear the instruction to switch because they > > are not paying attention or are in the bar, etc. Quite often the error > > introduced by simply switching the last X rounds is not huge and can be > > safely ignored. > > As readers may know, arrow-switches are unheard of in ACBL events. Curent ACBL events, you mean. They were routine in the 50s and 60s, along with other one-winner movements. Sets of personal guidecards were on hand at all times, for use in" Scrambled Mitchells." TDs in this area (California) would switch the arrow permanently at the halfway point, very bad. Candidates for the cause of their disappearance: -- TDs didn't like them, too much trouble. -- Players didn't care for the trouble either, not understanding the reason for them, and -- Players became generally less interested in scoring fairness over the years (they were very much so in the 50s) -- The influential Lew Mathe did not like one-winner movements, fearing to play boards "the wrong way." > From my position of ignorance, though, it strikes me that switching the > _first_ round (or maybe two) might be best from a compliance > perspective. People need to listen to the TD's instructions for > starting the movement, and then after the first round (or second), the > arrow goes back to its normal direction and everything proceeds as > usual. > > Is arrow switching the first round OK, or does it have problems, either > theoretical or practical? It is customary for "announcements" to be made toward the end of a game, which may be a better time for an arrow-switch instruction. At the YC I seem to remember that players automatically switched the arrow toward the end, no instruction necessary. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From wrgptfan@fastmail.fm Thu Sep 26 21:17:13 2002 From: wrgptfan@fastmail.fm (David Kent) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 20:17:13 UT Subject: Fw: [blml] Direction switches in the ACBL Message-ID: <20020926201713.E378E2FD4D@server3.fastmail.fm> On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 15:11:05 -0400 (EDT), "Steve Willner" said: > > From: "David Martin" > > In practice, arrow-switching rounds in a complex way may give > > the optimum solution but may give rise to other problems, eg. if players > > move before they should, don't hear the instruction to switch because they > > are not paying attention or are in the bar, etc. Quite often the error > > introduced by simply switching the last X rounds is not huge and can be > > safely ignored. > > As readers may know, arrow-switches are unheard of in ACBL events. IIRC, in the final of the GNP (Grand National Pairs), there are arrow switches. I could be wrong, but I seem to remember that happening. That being said, I do not remember it happening at any other ACBL run event. -- David Kent -- http://fastmail.fm/ - The professional email service From axman22@hotmail.com Thu Sep 26 22:27:55 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 16:27:55 -0500 Subject: [blml] Pausitis References: <002b01c26402$1d00d060$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <001d01c26529$b77ecc00$db5587d9@4nrw70j> <002901c2656e$708d1fa0$c3242850@pacific> <3D934DAB.5090708@skynet.be> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 13:10 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Pausitis > gester@lineone.net wrote: > > > From: "Roger Pewick" > >> > >>It is my understanding that inferences are a matter of > >>judgement. And at bridge, judgment is a matter of skill. > >>To legislate the explaining of judgment is for a player to > >>do his opponents' work for them. I have better things to > >>do. > >> > >> > > +=+ When an inference has become a matter of agreement > > between partners it is a partnership understanding. So it must > > be disclosed. When it is entered into a system file the fact > > of recording indicates the matter is not presumptive. The > > understanding is thus 'special'. > > Inferences are matters of logic and deduction from > > specific premises. And when the partnership experience > > suffices for them to be an established practice, not freshly > > inferred on each single occasion, they are system. Failure > > to announce a relevant practice when asked a question is > > a failure in one's duty to opponents. > > Roger, you should think again. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > Look at it this way, Roger. > If you have, after a quarter of an hour of system discussion with > partner, concluded that a particular auction can, by inference, mean > only one thing, then that is a partnership understanding, even if it > is also an inference. You should not hide behind "inference" when the > inference process takes a quarter of an hour. In order to communicate effectively a couple examples that demonstrate the principle involved would go a long way. regards roger pewick > The meaning of the exception is just to say that you cannot be obliged > to say obvious things - not that you can hide things from opponents > because they are simply "inferences". > > I think that Grattan's saying is not even harsh enough. If something > is discussed, it becomes "partnership agreement", not just when it is > written down. But of course if it IS written down, it's certainly > agreement. And it can't very well be obvious if it needs to be > written down, can it ? > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From steve_wright@wrightnet.demon.co.uk Thu Sep 26 18:50:02 2002 From: steve_wright@wrightnet.demon.co.uk (Steve Wright) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 18:50:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] 1NT with a singleton In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020926141802.00aaa160@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020926141802.00aaa160@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <7S9lz5VKj0k9EwL3@wrightnet.demon.co.uk> In message <5.1.0.14.0.20020926141802.00aaa160@pop.ulb.ac.be>, Alain Gottcheiner writes >I've overcalled more than once 1NT over 1M (5-card minor, opening >values and stopper) with only half a stopper, which means that we now >have to explain it as 'stopper or perhaps half stopper'. I was asked once, "how many stops does that promise". My flippant reply was, "I don't care. Whatever makes him feel comfortable. He's got to play it" -- Steve Wright From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Sep 27 03:48:28 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 12:48:28 +1000 Subject: [blml] not shuffled Message-ID: <4A256C41.000E2CE5.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Ton wrote: >>****I tried to say something similar some messages ago, >>meaning that I agree with this statement. The 'quality' >>of being dummy should be related to the board played, >>not being allowed to interfere in that play. I hope to >>get a 'noted' from Grattan. >> >>ton Grattan replied: >+=+ Noted, Sir. > I try to leave TD practice to the Bavins of this world, >but it seems to me there are a couple of reasons why a TD >would be wrong to walk away as earlier alleged - > Law 81C4 and, in respect of any breach of Law 74A1, >his duty under Law 81C6. > However, we can strengthen the text of the laws in this >regard - if our colleagues are tractable. I shall attend to the >matter of the words. ~ G ~ +=+ I agree with the suggested strengthening of L81C4 and L81C6. However, I also hope to get a *noted* to the suggestion that L42 should have inserted an additional dummy's right in the 2005 Laws: "Dummy may draw the director's attention to an irregularity, if and only if the irregularity is a breach of L74." Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Sep 27 03:57:56 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 12:57:56 +1000 Subject: [blml] Illegal convention Message-ID: <4A256C41.000F0B37.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Nigel Guthrie wrote: >Richard Pewick's arguments are sound. We should >permit any convention except in "No Fear" events. I agree, subject to a much broader definition of "No Fear" events, and a much greater availability of "No Fear" events. For example, in some major Australian Swiss Teams events, Yellow (HUM) systems are not permitted in the first two rounds. Subsequently, Yellow systems are permitted only in matches between teams in the top third of the field. >IMO Licensing rules should be the same everywhere. >Currently, countries with liberal licensing >enjoy an advantage in International Competition. Yes and no. In some cases over the past few decades, the WBF disclosure-in-advance rules have proved wanting in practice. And in some cases, the "sheltered workshop" nature of ACBL-land has meant that lazy American experts have been lulled into lack of preparation for international events. >My Bridge Club (Reading UK) allows all conventions. >Proponents of unusual methods like "forcing pass" >are expected to provide written defences, in case >they are unfamiliar to new members. Unfortunately, proponents of unusual systems tend to be blind to their flaws. Therefore, any written defences provided by proponents will tend to avoid the Achilles heels of the proponents unusual systems, thus giving the proponents an unfair advantage vis-a- vis more normal systems, which have well-publicised Achilles heels. >Beginners love trying out systems and conventions >although I confess that some old fogies, like me, >have an initial problem adjusting to them. Some bridge players, beginners or otherwise, are gadget freaks. But there should be events and regulations designed for that proportion of bridge players who are instinctively unadventurous. Best wishes Richard From cyaxares@lineone.net Fri Sep 27 01:41:54 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 01:41:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Pausitis References: <002b01c26402$1d00d060$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <001d01c26529$b77ecc00$db5587d9@4nrw70j> <002901c2656e$708d1fa0$c3242850@pacific> <3D934DAB.5090708@skynet.be> Message-ID: <003801c265ef$c94497a0$bf15e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 7:10 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Pausitis > > I think that Grattan's saying is not even harsh enough. > If something is discussed, it becomes "partnership agreement", > not just when it is written down. But of course if it IS written > down, it's certainly agreement. And it can't very well be > obvious if it needs to be written down, can it ? > +=+ Aye, Herman..... my first comment on this did observe that the 'system file' could be conceptual, in the head, and not on paper or disk. If a partnership discusses the inferences of a specific situation in their bidding, takes 10, 20, 30 minutes to do so, they should recognize that it is nothing less than unfair to opponents to expect them to work out the inferences in the course of a round of the auction when the partnership has them already worked out and mutually agreed. Obviously it is any inference that can affect the particular auction (or the subsequent play of the cards) that is important information for the opponents to have. ~ G ~ +=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Sep 27 07:42:16 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 16:42:16 +1000 Subject: [blml] Pausitis Message-ID: <4A256C41.0023951B.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Roger Pewick wrote: [big snip] >If you want disclosure that works you want fair >disclosure, which is not necessarily full >disclosure. Full disclosure is dumping ten >cartons of paper on someone irrespective of when >a well worded sentence would do. Way too often >the player picks out the wrong information to >base his action upon. One SO solved the "cartons of paper" problem for a particular event, by issuing a CoC which prohibited conventions that "could not be explained in ten seconds". However, in my opinion, that SO had technically prohibited *all* conventions. In my opinion, all conventions - no matter how notionally straightforward - have positive and negative connotations that would take longer than ten seconds to explain. Therefore, I sort-of-agree with Roger. In my opinion, players should take all "reasonable" steps towards full disclosure. In borderline cases between insufficient disclosure and cartons of paper disclosure, players should tilt towards the dumping of a small carton. Best wishes Richard From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Sep 27 10:21:33 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 11:21:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] Pausitis References: <002b01c26402$1d00d060$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <001d01c26529$b77ecc00$db5587d9@4nrw70j> <002901c2656e$708d1fa0$c3242850@pacific> <3D934DAB.5090708@skynet.be> Message-ID: <3D94231D.9000806@skynet.be> Roger Pewick wrote: >>partner, concluded that a particular auction can, by inference, mean >>only one thing, then that is a partnership understanding, even if it >>is also an inference. You should not hide behind "inference" when >> > the > >>inference process takes a quarter of an hour. >> > > In order to communicate effectively a couple examples that demonstrate > the principle involved would go a long way. > OK, try this. My 2Cl opening is either weak with diamonds, or the equivalent of a strong Acol-two (8 tricks) or a NT 22-23. Over this, the answer 2Di promises nothing, and our CC shows that 2He and 2Sp are 0-3 with a 5-card suit. If the bidding proceeds : 2Cl - 2Di 2NT - 3Di this is transfer, but I also know that partner will not pass on 3He, or he would have bid 2He on the first round. While of course I alert to say that 2Di is transfer hearts, I must also tell them the second part; although it is an inference, I cannot expect my opponents to make the inference from the absense of 2He. The same would be true if I have explained (as I usually do when asked) 2Di as "less than 14, and not 0-3 with a 5-card major". Yes it is an inference, not even a terribly hard one, but still I should tell opponents and not hide behind the phrase "general bridge knowledge". > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From normanscorbie@hotmail.com Fri Sep 27 11:15:20 2002 From: normanscorbie@hotmail.com (Norman Scorbie) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 10:15:20 +0000 Subject: [blml] For God's sake!: Attn J. Probst. Message-ID: >From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >To: blml@rtflb.org >Subject: Re: [blml] not shuffled Can John Probst possibly take a couple of moments out from his doubtless busy schedule to snip his posts? The one that I'm replying to is fairly modest by his standard - merely a page's worth of quoting followed by the inevitable four word posting, normally "I agree with Grattan" or "Fined half a top". It's lazy, it's tedious, and it's inconsiderate. For those who have to pay to download messages it's expensive, as well. Other subscribers manage to cut to the quick of a mailing to which they are responding, why on earth can't you? If this were a one-off one would obviously ignore it, but it's not. It's been going on for months, if not years, and I've finally snapped! I'm sure the fact that your on the verge of going into my 'blocked senders' file is of no interest to you (to be fair, why should it?), but you are. And you'll be the only BLML contributor in there. Norman. _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx From gester@lineone.net Fri Sep 27 11:29:35 2002 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 11:29:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] not shuffled References: <4A256C41.000E2CE5.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <000f01c2661b$5664ec40$501e2850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 3:48 AM Subject: Re: [blml] not shuffled > > However, I also hope to get a *noted* to the suggestion that L42 > should have inserted an additional dummy's right in the 2005 Laws: > > "Dummy may draw the director's attention to an irregularity, if > and only if the irregularity is a breach of L74." > +=+ Noted! But I think not all of 74. My jotter has on it this pencilled aide memoire: "Allow dummy (and any player) to call the Director to deal with provocative behaviour that disturbs any player at his table."+=+ From David Stevenson Thu Sep 26 17:19:18 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 17:19:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Wot {sic} happened? In-Reply-To: <004101c2650c$aa706220$4a9c27d9@pbncomputer> References: <004101c2650c$aa706220$4a9c27d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <1IqzSEBGOzk9Ewb4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> David Burn writes >DWS wrote: > >> OK, it is deficient. Thank-you. It is specifically designed to >treat >> mailing lists as newsgroups. I have no idea how and I really am >> surprised that good software would be software where I have to >> understand how it works. > >Life is full of surprises. But it was you who told us, and indeed kept >telling us, that this software was "good", and that Henk had been remiss >in not tailoring the way in which his server works in order to cater for >the (mal)functioning of your splendid software. There are a number of >good tin-openers on the market, but none yet that is based on the >assumption that its user does not know what a tin is. Can we please have >and end to this? OK, you consider it poor, you consider my methodology flawed, and you consider me deficient in every way. No doubt you are perfection. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From axman22@hotmail.com Fri Sep 27 13:24:04 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 07:24:04 -0500 Subject: [blml] Pausitis References: <002b01c26402$1d00d060$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <001d01c26529$b77ecc00$db5587d9@4nrw70j> <002901c2656e$708d1fa0$c3242850@pacific> <3D934DAB.5090708@skynet.be> <3D94231D.9000806@skynet.be> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 4:21 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Pausitis > Roger Pewick wrote: > > >>partner, concluded that a particular auction can, by inference, mean > >>only one thing, then that is a partnership understanding, even if it > >>is also an inference. You should not hide behind "inference" when > >> > > the > > > >>inference process takes a quarter of an hour. > >> > > > > In order to communicate effectively a couple examples that demonstrate > > the principle involved would go a long way. > > > > > OK, try this. > > My 2Cl opening is either weak with diamonds, or the equivalent of a > strong Acol-two (8 tricks) or a NT 22-23. > Over this, the answer 2Di promises nothing, and our CC shows that 2He > and 2Sp are 0-3 with a 5-card suit. > > If the bidding proceeds : > > 2Cl - 2Di > 2NT - 3Di > > this is transfer, but I also know that partner will not pass on 3He, > or he would have bid 2He on the first round. While of course I alert > to say that 2Di is transfer hearts, I must also tell them the second > part; although it is an inference, I cannot expect my opponents to > make the inference from the absense of 2He. in this example 2D is 0+ any shape 2H is 0-3 with an unknown 5 card suit 2S is 0-3 with an unknown 5 card suit Either that is the truth or it is not the truth. For the auction 2C-2D-2N-3D opener expects responder to bid over 3H because responder has promised 0+ hcp and, after the 3D call, 5 hearts and opener has promised 22-23[?] and responder did not bid 2H [which would promise an unknown 5 card suit]. Certainly, if opener and responder expect responder to take a further call then it is an agreement to be made available to the opponents. [-Herman- your English is normally superior, but it took a dozen readings and 40 minutes to untangle, as poorly as I have done, antecedendents, my apologies for miscues]. So far the only inference I can draw is that use of this convention is likely to result in penalties for slow play and infracting L16 and unfavorable L16 adjustments. > The same would be true if I have explained (as I usually do when > asked) 2Di as "less than 14, and not 0-3 with a 5-card major". > Yes it is an inference, not even a terribly hard one, but still I > should tell opponents and not hide behind the phrase "general bridge > knowledge". And I am only guessing, but you probably meant to write 2D is artificial, <14hcp but if a 5-cd major is held, then 4-13hcp. And this is in no way equivalent to what was described above. regards roger pewick > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From normanscorbie@hotmail.com Fri Sep 27 13:34:51 2002 From: normanscorbie@hotmail.com (Norman Scorbie) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 12:34:51 +0000 Subject: [blml] Wot {sic} happened? Message-ID: From: David Stevenson : OK, you [David Burn] consider it poor, you consider my methodology flawed, and you >consider me deficient in every way. No doubt you are perfection. ++++Mr Burn has never claimed to be perfect, but neither has he wasted vast amounts of bandwidth telling everybody both that his mailing list software is wonderful and that it doesn't work. _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com From axman22@hotmail.com Fri Sep 27 16:25:56 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 10:25:56 -0500 Subject: [blml] Illegal convention References: <4A256C41.000F0B37.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 21:57 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Illegal convention > > > Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > >Richard Pewick's arguments are sound. We should > >permit any convention except in "No Fear" events. 392 spellings- and counting? Sounds sensible. Perhaps what I want to be most clear about is that it ought to be a primary aspect of the bridge league's service to engender the attitude in players that devising methods is an inherent part of the game. That in bidding, a convention can be thought of as a meaning, and because making those meanings available to the opponents is done during the game, the opponents may make use of the information, but are not compelled to. The game provides a limited amount of bidding space but it does not guarantee each side an unobstructed use of that space. And if an opponent's method proves difficult to contend with it, it is not a valid reason to prevent use of the method, but is a valid reason to discover how to overcome the difficulty if he desires. After all, that is how the skill of one player is differentiated from another's. Again, that is not to assert that conventions de facto can not be used unfairly. Because they can. But it is not that the convention itself is unfair, but the individual'[s] behavior in its use that may be unfair. And as such, it is the player's unfair behavior that calls for regulation- not the convention. If players come to know this, the mechanisms to regulate unfair use are easy to devise. regards roger pewick > I agree, subject to a much broader definition of > "No Fear" events, and a much greater availability > of "No Fear" events. > Best wishes > > Richard From ktm3@attbi.com Fri Sep 27 16:50:22 2002 From: ktm3@attbi.com (Karen Thomas McCallum) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 11:50:22 -0400 Subject: [blml] WBF CoC comments solicited In-Reply-To: <4A256C3E.00015AFA.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020927114759.00b31230@mail.attbi.com> --=====================_84215724==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed thanks for your comments - have forwarded them to David Sokolow. BTW, being a big fan of Australia, and Australians, and Australian Bridge... I agree with most everything you say wholeheartedly (except for the non-existent stop card regulation which I recall I found to be a problem for me when I played in Australia some years ago). all the best, k. At 10:28 AM 9/24/2002 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Adam Wildavsky wrote: > >[snip] > > >I was disappointed with many aspects of the tournament in Montreal. I > >described some of the failings I perceived in Lille four years ago in > >an article in Bridge Today magazine. Larry Cohen did the same in The > >Bridge World. Unfortunately things do not seem to have improved -- in > >many ways they have worsened. Here's what I wrote about Lille: > > > >>I had grumbled about the conditions, as had many - assignments were > >>difficult to find, results were not posted until long after the end > >>of the session, and matchpoints were never posted - the players had > >>to look up their matchpoints for each board individually! Early on > >>someone explained to me that "It's not a player-friendly > >>tournament." Once I understood it in that light I concluded that my > >>best option was to grin and bear it. > >The Australian Summer Festival of Bridge, held every year in >Canberra at the end of January, is one of the largest bridge >tournaments in the world. However, despite its size, the >Summer Festival is definitely a player-friendly tournament. > > >Here's a list of problems I encountered in Montreal. I hope you won't > >find its length overwhelming. Please feel free to quote me by name. > > > >o Scores for pair games were not available until long after the end > >of the session. > > > >o Pairs' matchpoints were never available -- one had to look up the > >matchpoints board by board. > > > >o After the first day of the Open Pairs the scores for each board > >(for checking results) were not available even at 8:30 the next > >morning. > >Rapid and detailed scoring for pair games applies at the >Summer Festival. However, the number, length and size of >pair games at the Summer Festival is much reduced at the >Summer Festival than at non-Australian major bridge >tournaments, due to the Aussie predilection for imps. >Therefore, scorers of pairs events are not placed under >the same volume of data-entry work in the Summer Festival >as they are at non-Australian major bridge tournaments. > >The most popular pair game at the Summer Festival is an >imp-scored Swiss Pairs, which the ABF has scheduled for a >larger venue in 2003 to avoid crowding. > > >o Early in the tournament game time changed from day to day, and was > >seldom as published. > >At the start of each event in the Summer Festival, entrants >are given a customised scorebook with the session times on >the cover. > > >o When scores and assignments were published they were seldom in a > >useful order. Results for the mixed pairs were sorted by score, so to > >find out how one did one had to look at several hundred scores. No > >section results were posted, so several hundred pairs had to jostle > >past one another to pore through the one or two sets of posted > >results to find their score. > >Summer Festival results for your pair or team are posted >on big wall charts, sorted by initial seeding order. (That >is, always in the same place.) For the popular Swiss Pairs, >two wall charts were set up at opposite ends of the room to >avoid crowding (top seeds charted at one end, bottom seeds >charted at the other). > > >o The directors were not always prepared for the conditions of contest. > >In the Summer Festival, even players can be prepared for >the conditions of contest, as they are prominently >displayed on a noticeboard in the playing area. > >ABF System Regulations are also printed in the entry form. > >[snip] > > >o There were two playing sites -- that's one too many. Often one > >didn't know which hotel to play in until game time, and some pairs > >were moved from one hotel to another at the list minute. > >The Summer Festival has two playing sites, but location >of events is printed in the entry form, and the ABF >provides a free shuttle bus between the two venues. > > >o Rude behavior by the players was not addressed by the directors. > >Summer Festival directors are firm but fair. Also, the >existence of the two official ABF Recorders was announced >at the commencement of each event. > >[big snip] > > >o Many players seemed ignorant of the alerting policy. This is not > >surprising - it could be found only on page 34 of the WBF General > >Conditions of Contest. Granted, we all were provided with a copy of > >that, but as one would expect few read it. The daily bulletin > >published an excerpt of the policy. The policy is admirably short, > >and I thought the daily bulletin ought to have published it in its > >entirety. > >At the Summer Festival, the Welcome issue of the daily >bulletin publishes the alerting policy. Even more >important, the article gives the *reasons* for the >alerting and self-alerting rules of ABF events. > >[snip] > > >Are there any advantages to playing in the WBF? Certainly -- I can > >think of at least three: > > > >o I much prefer the 10 AM start time (when it was not changed) to the > >ACBL's 1 PM. The games finish by 8, and one has time for a nice > >dinner. > >At the 2002 Summer Festival, session times were >modified to lengthen the dinner break. (Some >other ABF tournaments are experimenting with zero >evening session times.) > > >o The hand records were usually plentiful and were easy to read. > >At the Summer Festival, the hand records are also colour-coded by >session. > > >o The WBF's Stop Card regulation is much superior to the ACBL's. > >The ABF's Stop Card regulation is better still; >the ABF does not have one. :-) > >Best wishes > >Richard ____________________________________________________________________ Karen Thomas McCallum Editor, The Copperfield Press Checklists/Directories of Mysteries for Readers and Collectors _____________________________________________________________________ "If I know of someone who needs some help and I do not help him, I lose something of myself. It is the Turkish way." --- Sinan Tatlicioglu ______________________________________________________________________ --=====================_84215724==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" thanks for your comments - have forwarded them to David Sokolow.  BTW, being a big fan of Australia, and Australians, and Australian Bridge...  I agree with most everything you say wholeheartedly (except for the non-existent stop card regulation which I recall I found to be a problem for me when I played in Australia some years ago).

all the best, k.


At 10:28 AM 9/24/2002 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote:


Adam Wildavsky wrote:

[snip]

>I was disappointed with many aspects of the tournament in Montreal. I
>described some of the failings I perceived in Lille four years ago in
>an article in Bridge Today magazine. Larry Cohen did the same in The
>Bridge World. Unfortunately things do not seem to have improved -- in
>many ways they have worsened. Here's what I wrote about Lille:
>
>>I had grumbled about the conditions, as had many - assignments were
>>difficult to find, results were not posted until long after the end
>>of the session, and matchpoints were never posted - the players had
>>to look up their matchpoints for each board individually! Early on
>>someone explained to me that "It's not a player-friendly
>>tournament." Once I understood it in that light I concluded that my
>>best option was to grin and bear it.

The Australian Summer Festival of Bridge, held every year in
Canberra at the end of January, is one of the largest bridge
tournaments in the world.  However, despite its size, the
Summer Festival is definitely a player-friendly tournament.

>Here's a list of problems I encountered in Montreal. I hope you won't
>find its length overwhelming. Please feel free to quote me by name.
>
>o Scores for pair games were not available until long after the end
>of the session.
>
>o Pairs' matchpoints were never available -- one had to look up the
>matchpoints board by board.
>
>o After the first day of the Open Pairs the scores for each board
>(for checking results) were not available even at 8:30 the next
>morning.

Rapid and detailed scoring for pair games applies at the
Summer Festival.  However, the number, length and size of
pair games at the Summer Festival is much reduced at the
Summer Festival than at non-Australian major bridge
tournaments, due to the Aussie predilection for imps.
Therefore, scorers of pairs events are not placed under
the same volume of data-entry work in the Summer Festival
as they are at non-Australian major bridge tournaments.

The most popular pair game at the Summer Festival is an
imp-scored Swiss Pairs, which the ABF has scheduled for a
larger venue in 2003 to avoid crowding.

>o Early in the tournament game time changed from day to day, and was
>seldom as published.

At the start of each event in the Summer Festival, entrants
are given a customised scorebook with the session times on
the cover.

>o When scores and assignments were published they were seldom in a
>useful order. Results for the mixed pairs were sorted by score, so to
>find out how one did one had to look at several hundred scores. No
>section results were posted, so several hundred pairs had to jostle
>past one another to pore through the one or two sets of posted
>results to find their score.

Summer Festival results for your pair or team are posted
on big wall charts, sorted by initial seeding order. (That
is, always in the same place.)  For the popular Swiss Pairs,
two wall charts were set up at opposite ends of the room to
avoid crowding (top seeds charted at one end, bottom seeds
charted at the other).

>o The directors were not always prepared for the conditions of contest.

In the Summer Festival, even players can be prepared for
the conditions of contest, as they are prominently
displayed on a noticeboard in the playing area.

ABF System Regulations are also printed in the entry form.

[snip]

>o There were two playing sites -- that's one too many. Often one
>didn't know which hotel to play in until game time, and some pairs
>were moved from one hotel to another at the list minute.

The Summer Festival has two playing sites, but location
of events is printed in the entry form, and the ABF
provides a free shuttle bus between the two venues.

>o Rude behavior by the players was not addressed by the directors.

Summer Festival directors are firm but fair.  Also, the
existence of the two official ABF Recorders was announced
at the commencement of each event.

[big snip]

>o Many players seemed ignorant of the alerting policy. This is not
>surprising - it could be found only on page 34 of the WBF General
>Conditions of Contest. Granted, we all were provided with a copy of
>that, but as one would expect few read it. The daily bulletin
>published an excerpt of the policy. The policy is admirably short,
>and I thought the daily bulletin ought to have published it in its
>entirety.

At the Summer Festival, the Welcome issue of the daily
bulletin publishes the alerting policy.  Even more
important, the article gives the *reasons* for the
alerting and self-alerting rules of ABF events.

[snip]

>Are there any advantages to playing in the WBF? Certainly -- I can
>think of at least three:
>
>o I much prefer the 10 AM start time (when it was not changed) to the
>ACBL's 1 PM. The games finish by 8, and one has time for a nice
>dinner.

At the 2002 Summer Festival, session times were
modified to lengthen the dinner break.  (Some
other ABF tournaments are experimenting with zero
evening session times.)

>o The hand records were usually plentiful and were easy to read.

At the Summer Festival, the hand records are also colour-coded by
session.

>o The WBF's Stop Card regulation is much superior to the ACBL's.

The ABF's Stop Card regulation is better still;
the ABF does not have one.  :-)

Best wishes

Richard



____________________________________________________________________

Karen Thomas McCallum
Editor, The Copperfield Press
Checklists/Directories of Mysteries for Readers and Collectors
_____________________________________________________________________


"If I know of someone who needs some help and I do not help him, I lose something
        of myself.  It is the Turkish way."

                        ---  Sinan Tatlicioglu

______________________________________________________________________ --=====================_84215724==_.ALT-- From john@asimere.com Fri Sep 27 16:49:08 2002 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 16:49:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] For God's sake!: Attn J. Probst. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , Norman Scorbie writes > > > >Can John Probst possibly take a couple of moments out from his doubtless >busy schedule to snip his posts? The one that I'm replying to is fairly >modest by his standard - merely a page's worth of quoting followed by the >inevitable four word posting, normally "I agree with Grattan" or "Fined half >a top". > >It's lazy, it's tedious, and it's inconsiderate. For those who have to pay >to download messages it's expensive, as well. > Point noted. I always try to ensure that my replies exist in the first 20 or so lines of the post, and frequently snip heavily to ensure that. I almost certainly am at fault for not then hacking out most of the stuff below it. My own preference is for more rather than less, but I'm quite happy to provide less. Of course, and this is a gripe I have with some posters, this post does not contain sufficient detail that I can be sure what post is the problem to which Norman is referring. As for putting people on a blocked list, well that's just not my style. I do read all of the three hundred or so postings I receive each day. Norman's are as valuable as anyones' in that respect. Why should I block him for flaming me? -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Fri Sep 27 19:10:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 19:10 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Illegal convention Message-ID: In-Reply-To: "Roger Pewick" wrote: > Perhaps what I want to be most clear about is that it ought to be a > primary aspect of the bridge league's service to engender the attitude > in players that devising methods is an inherent part of the game. Perhaps. But if I want to devise methods to do well in a major tournament they don't need to be particularly good methods. Providing they are confusing enough to make defending against them difficult for the typical pair I will get enough 80+% scores to make up for 40% ones I get against the decent pairs. Nobody would use a Multi 2D based on the inherent merits - it just happens to score well if opps have no prepared defence. Is encouraging people to develop "Bunny-Killer" systems really what you had in mind? Tim From David Stevenson Fri Sep 27 20:53:22 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 20:53:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Logical alternatives in a non-logical auction In-Reply-To: <4A256C3D.00082280.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> References: <4A256C3D.00082280.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard writes >Okay, now for the complete details of the deal. > >Matchpoints AJ76 >Dlr: S --- >Vul: NS 962 > AKQ1092 >82 109543 >A97532 J864 >AJ10 K8 >J5 83 > KQ > KQ10 > Q7543 > 764 > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1NT(1) >2C(2) Dble(3) Pass Pass(4) >2H(5) 6C Pass 6D(6) >Pass Pass Pass > >(1) 12-14 > >(2) No explanation on the EW system > card. Enquiry by North. > Correctly explained by East as > natural. > >(3) Undiscussed. 50% of comparable > partners play this as penalties, > and 50% of comparable partners > play this as takeout. > >(4) After flipping a mental coin. > >(5) Further enquiry by North, > specifically asking whether East > wished to modify the explanation > of the 2C call. East correctly > explained as natural, showing > both clubs and hearts. East did > not mention the possibly relevant > fact that over a strong 1NT > opening, a 2C overcall would be > artificial, showing any one-suited > hand. > >(6) Misinterpreting the UI from North > and the AI (possibly MI) from > East to deduce that North had > started the bidding with an offbeat > takeout double followed by a flashy > slam-level cuebid, holding something > like: > > AJxxxx > x > AKJxxx > --- > > The "flashy" part was a reasonable > assumption, since I was the guilty > UI-transmitter sitting North. :-) > >*If* EW have given MI, was my 6C call >"wild or gambling", denying my pair >redress? No. 6C seems a reasonable punt. Bit optimistic, perhaps, but that is a long way from IWoG. >When determining whether my 6C call was >"wild or gambling", was it irrelevant >that, as the cards lie, the 6C contract >would have made on a normal heart lead? It does add weight to the view that it was not IWoG. >Was South's 6D call "wild or gambling", >denying us redress, given that not one >blmler mentioned 6D as a logical >alternative? Totally crazy, I would have said. Yes, I think it is wild, and irrational, not gambling in the way I understand it. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Fri Sep 27 21:44:09 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 21:44:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Reveley reveille In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Richard writes >At the conclusion of play, E/W voice their concerns >regarding North's initial 4S action and his >subsequent decision to pass 5D. North acknowledges >that he was in receipt of unauthorised information, >but argues that he has an actionable hand. He also >suggests that while a flexible action (such as a >double), might be precluded by the hesitation, a >unilateral overcall is not. > >Panellist David Stevenson wrote: > >>No one is bidding on with the North hand over 5D, >>whatever E/W claim, so we can ignore that part of >>the argument. As for North's interesting argument >>about what is and is not permitted, it sounds >>cool, but not something to get worked up about: >>actually the opposite argument has some merit! I >>presume this was played in Australia without the >>protection of a Skip Bid warning. This is the sort >>of hand where such things work best. >> >>When we clear all the flim-flam away, we have a >>simple UI case. Was there UI? Yes. Were there >>LAs (logical alternatives) to the action chosen? >>Double, perhaps, but what about pass? I think it >>very close, but I think a number of people would >>pass. Does the UI suggest the chosen action would >>be more successful than one of the LAs? Yes, the >>UI suggests North should not pass. As to bidding >>4S rather than double, possibly so: double tends to >>be safer than an overcall, and thus less suggested >>when partner shows values. > >Theoretical disagreement; in my opinion Double is >more suggested than 4S because the tempo-break may >have been based on a trap pass over 4H, hoping to >convert a penalty double. > >It is irrelevant that on this actual hand South >does not have the trump stack that is suggested >by South's UI to North. > >>My initial idea (assuming Law 12C3) was to adjust >>to a weighted score, assuming North would double >>part of the time, and pass part of the time. Over >>double, South would normally bid 6D and a >>percentage of 6D-1 seems reasonable. > >David's initial thought is a Reveley ruling, which >shows how easy it is for even the most experienced >TDs to fall into its insidious trap. I was disallowing 4S, so a percentage of Pass and double is not a Reveley ruling, since it does not include any of the disallowed action. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Fri Sep 27 22:04:52 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 22:04:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mechanics of a Barometer event (sorta off topic) In-Reply-To: <008401c2623b$4bdfb5e0$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <001b01c26204$f1e98740$864865d5@swipnet.se> <00fb01c26234$03f05a20$0100007f@LNV> <008401c2623b$4bdfb5e0$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran writes >Hans Olof had written >> That is possible and Jannersten, the main supplier of the duplication >> machines, puts a lot of effort to have random deals with high security of >> originality. But we used another software programme in Montreal, called >Big >> Deal. Such a progamme needs to create a data set which can be used for the >> duplication machine. >I have yet to see software provided by the manufacturers of duplicating >machines that satisfactorily meets statistical tests for card dealing. This >is >one of the reasons I have joined Curt Engvall and provide software to >control his machines (under Windows 9x) and at the same time do the >computerized card dealing. And YES, the software from Jannersten is >among those I have tested. The EBU uses Jannersten machines, but not his dealing software. They have refined their dealing software over many years so that when they started using dealing machines for most events [only about three years ago] they carried on with their own dealing software. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From dalburn@btopenworld.com Sat Sep 28 00:52:42 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 00:52:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mechanics of a Barometer event (sorta off topic) References: <001b01c26204$f1e98740$864865d5@swipnet.se> <00fb01c26234$03f05a20$0100007f@LNV> <008401c2623b$4bdfb5e0$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <001c01c26680$f8a4eb80$55a927d9@pbncomputer> DWS wrote: > The EBU uses Jannersten machines, but not his dealing software. They > have refined their dealing software over many years so that when they > started using dealing machines for most events [only about three years > ago] they carried on with their own dealing software. Big Deal is the work of Hans van Staveren, who some time ago realised that there was no point in expecting a random number generator with 2^32 (2 to the power of 32, or 4,294,967,296 for the benefit of any laymen who may have wandered in) possible seeds to produce any one of around 2^96 possible bridge deals with equal probability, since most of them would occur with probability 0. (For the benefit of Alain Gottcheiner and any other non-laymen who may have wandered in, I realise that the above contains a vast over-simplification, but it is close enough for government work.) It is to the great credit of Stephen Brown, who wrote the dealing algorithms used by the EBU, that he recognised this difficulty at a very early stage; by dint of considerable ingenuity, he (in effect) overcame the problem as far as was possible in the language in which he was writing, which was a close cousin of COBOL. He did not - for he could not - extend his work as far as van Staveren has done, since there were not available to him the same range of techniques for "collecting entropy" from the environment. But he did what he could, and he did it very well. See http://www.xs4all.nl/~sater/ if you are at all interested in the topic. David Burn London, England From cyaxares@lineone.net Sat Sep 28 01:04:18 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 01:04:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] not shuffled References: <008e01c26553$21d085c0$b1242850@pacific> Message-ID: <002201c26682$b0b29370$6c1ae150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 3:32 PM Subject: Re: [blml] not shuffled >Grattan Endicott >"Behold I make all things new" > > ~ Revelation of St. John > >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > > I have just one small request. Can we have > > it in English please Grattan. No sentences of > > more that 22 syllables. No commas. No brackets. > > No footnotes. John > > +=+ Dear Very Big Smiley, G*d knows. Not that I am complaining, but the workspace is congested with opinions. I breach no confidence in telling you that in Montreal I received clear notice, in the presence of the WBF Executive, that the new laws must be in words that do not brook alternative interpretations. At the same time I was also given advice that 'options' for SOs and Zones should be few, or even fewer. I shall do my best. Simple statements, positive staccato style, easy presentation, all these things have been to the forefront of my mind from the start. When searching for expression I am not reluctant to engage the talents of others - Burn for example has abundant skills. However, when colleagues cling to an old familiar torturous tortuosity, as occasionally happens, the problem is one of resetting words in words that fit the new music, and that also respond to the watchword of the night : "Unzweideutig". ~ G ~ +=+ From brian@wellsborocomputing.com Sat Sep 28 02:59:05 2002 From: brian@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 21:59:05 -0400 Subject: [blml] Illegal convention In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 27 Sep 2002 19:10 +0100 (BST), Tim West-Meads wrote: >In-Reply-To: >"Roger Pewick" wrote: > >> Perhaps what I want to be most clear about is that it ought to be a >> primary aspect of the bridge league's service to engender the attitude >> in players that devising methods is an inherent part of the game. > >Perhaps. But if I want to devise methods to do well in a major tournament >they don't need to be particularly good methods. Providing they are >confusing enough to make defending against them difficult for the typical >pair I will get enough 80+% scores to make up for 40% ones I get against >the decent pairs. Nobody would use a Multi 2D based on the inherent >merits - it just happens to score well if opps have no prepared defence. Well, I'm painfully aware of my limitations as a bridge player (just a decent club player, no pretensions to being an expert) but I'll admit to playing the multi 2D on its merits - no, *not* the merits of the 2D bid itself, but the merits of the effects that the 2D bid has on the rest of the system, freeing up other bids for other uses, and taking some of the more awkward hands to bid out of the normal 1-level openers. Stating the obvious, you can't consider the merits of any reasonable bid in isolation (the "reasonable' is in there to pre-empt the pedants who would tell me that opening 7NT to show 0-3 HCP balanced is unlikely to be a success, no matter what the rest of your system might be). >Is encouraging people to develop "Bunny-Killer" systems really what you >had in mind? > This is a common argument against the systems geeks of the world. I think it's a load of hooey. Bidding systems have held my interest since shortly after I learned to play the game in the early 70s - the fact that the bidding system on which I learned to play the game was Reese's write-up of the Blue Team version of Precision may have had something to do with it. Over nearly 30 years, I've devised a number of systems and conventions, as well as having had extensive discussions with a number of other systems geeks of like persuasion. Not once, **NOT ONCE**, have I heard a single one of them explain their use of a particular bid by saying that it would score well because weak opponents will not know how to defend against it. Systems geeks try to devise systems which they think will help them bid better, Tim. Yes, they can be difficult to defend against because the bids can be so different to what opponents are used to - but isn't that inherent in what we are trying to achieve? If you invent a system where all opening bids at the 1 and 2 levels are natural, for example, then you're hardly likely to have come up with anything too novel, are you? I'm not going to say that you know nothing about devising bidding systems, Tim - but I certainly think that you know very little about the sort of people who spend their time devising bidding systems, and I think you have *no clue whatsoever* about what motivates them. Speaking for myself, whenever I get the chance to play one of my own systems or gadgets on OKBridge, I'm always happy to take on opponents who are stronger card players than myself (not difficult to find) and I do my best to encourage them to discuss defences openly as and when the need arises (for the benefit of any Lehman freaks who may have wandered in, I only play NC). In common with the overwhelming majority of other systems geeks, I realise only too well that playing against weak opponents who are unable to defend against the gadgets will tell me nothing new. Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com From axman22@hotmail.com Sat Sep 28 08:01:08 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 02:01:08 -0500 Subject: [blml] Illegal convention References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Meadows" To: Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 20:59 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Illegal convention > On Fri, 27 Sep 2002 19:10 +0100 (BST), Tim West-Meads wrote: > > >In-Reply-To: > >"Roger Pewick" wrote: > > > >> Perhaps what I want to be most clear about is that it ought to be a > >> primary aspect of the bridge league's service to engender the attitude > >> in players that devising methods is an inherent part of the game. > > > >Perhaps. But if I want to devise methods to do well in a major tournament > >they don't need to be particularly good methods. Providing they are > >confusing enough to make defending against them difficult for the typical > >pair I will get enough 80+% scores to make up for 40% ones I get against > >the decent pairs. Nobody would use a Multi 2D based on the inherent > >merits - it just happens to score well if opps have no prepared defence. > > Well, I'm painfully aware of my limitations as a bridge player > (just a decent club player, no pretensions to being an expert) > but I'll admit to playing the multi 2D on its merits - no, *not* > the merits of the 2D bid itself, but the merits of the effects > that the 2D bid has on the rest of the system, freeing up other > bids for other uses, and taking some of the more awkward hands to > bid out of the normal 1-level openers. Stating the obvious, you > can't consider the merits of any reasonable bid in isolation (the > "reasonable' is in there to pre-empt the pedants who would tell > me that opening 7NT to show 0-3 HCP balanced is unlikely to be a > success, no matter what the rest of your system might be). > > >Is encouraging people to develop "Bunny-Killer" systems really what you > >had in mind? > > > > This is a common argument against the systems geeks of the world. > I think it's a load of hooey. Isn't the primary component of bunny-killing convincing players that 'bunny-killer systems' are bad for them, as well as keeping them ignorant of how to fend for themselves by preventing, er, I mean placing roadblocks to the gaining of experience? Anyway, not that he forsaw it, but Harold Vanderbilt is largely the progenitor of so called 'bunny-killer systems'. regards roger pewick > Brian. From blml@dybdal.dk Sat Sep 28 15:57:26 2002 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 16:57:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] Illegal convention In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 27 Sep 2002 19:10 +0100 (BST), twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) wrote: >Nobody would use a Multi 2D based on the inherent=20 >merits - it just happens to score well if opps have no prepared defence.= =20 This is not correct. This may be a cultural difference between England and Denmark. In Denmark, just about everybody plays Multi - or did until they began using Ekren or something similar. You cannot expect any Danish opponent past the novice stage to not have a prepared defence against Multi. In the club where I play, about 75% of the pairs play Multi. Since we mainly play against each other, our reason for playing Multi is obviously not that we expect our opponents to not be prepared for it. I play Multi myself because it gives most of the advantages of weak 2M openings combined with the advantages of the good old Acol 2M opening. Some play it for other reasons, such as combining the advantages of a normal weak 2M with the advantages of an extremely weak 2M. The popularity of Multi in Denmark, and its legality in all events, of course has to do with the fact that it succeeded in becoming popular at a time when there were very few (if any) restrictions on systems in Denmark. It would be much more difficult for a new convention with a similar degree of artificiality to become common now, since such a convention would nowadays be a brown sticker convention, forbidden in normal pairs events. That is IMO the main disadvantage of systems limitations: they make it impossible for new conventions to become popular among players other than those few who are willing to play different systems in different events. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Sat Sep 28 16:01:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 16:01 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Illegal convention Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Brian Meadows > On Fri, 27 Sep 2002 19:10 +0100 (BST), Tim West-Meads wrote: > > >In-Reply-To: > >"Roger Pewick" wrote: > > > >> Perhaps what I want to be most clear about is that it ought to be a > >> primary aspect of the bridge league's service to engender the > > attitude > >> in players that devising methods is an inherent part of the game. > > > >Perhaps. But if I want to devise methods to do well in a major > tournament >they don't need to be particularly good methods. Providing > they are >confusing enough to make defending against them difficult for > the typical >pair I will get enough 80+% scores to make up for 40% ones > I get against >the decent pairs. Nobody would use a Multi 2D based on > the inherent >merits - it just happens to score well if opps have no > prepared defence. > > Well, I'm painfully aware of my limitations as a bridge player > (just a decent club player, no pretensions to being an expert) > but I'll admit to playing the multi 2D on its merits - no, *not* > the merits of the 2D bid itself, but the merits of the effects > that the 2D bid has on the rest of the system. That is a benefit to be sure. My belief is that the downside of playing it against well prepared defences outweighs that benefit on balance and that a natural weak 2D is generally a better use for the bid. The downside however is seldom exposed at club level. > >Is encouraging people to develop "Bunny-Killer" systems really what > you >had in mind? > I'm not going to say that you know nothing about devising bidding > systems, Tim - but I certainly think that you know very little > about the sort of people who spend their time devising bidding > systems, and I think you have *no clue whatsoever* about what > motivates them. I wasn't talking about the sort of people who *currently* spend time developing bidding systems (the vast majority of whom I believe focus on making their bidding better, rather than trying to blow away opponents). I was talking about those people who are motivated by winning (like me) who would, in a free-for-all approach, adopt bunny-killers because they became *necessary* to do well. "System geeks" are not the problem, they are a small minority and Probst and I will welcome them at our table. The problem is that I believe a free-for all approach would radically change the character of competitive bridge and soon drive a large number of people away from the game. While I might disagree with the detail of existing policies I think there remains a need for balance. System restrictions should probably be unnecessary in premium events (eg Life Master pairs) and there are way to few events where this currently applies. Tim From axman22@hotmail.com Sat Sep 28 17:28:06 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 11:28:06 -0500 Subject: [blml] Illegal convention References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-meads" To: Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2002 10:01 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Illegal convention > In-Reply-To: > Brian Meadows > > > On Fri, 27 Sep 2002 19:10 +0100 (BST), Tim West-Meads wrote: > > > > >In-Reply-To: > > >"Roger Pewick" wrote: > > > > > >> Perhaps what I want to be most clear about is that it ought to be a > > >> primary aspect of the bridge league's service to engender the > > > attitude > > >> in players that devising methods is an inherent part of the game. > > > > > >Perhaps. But if I want to devise methods to do well in a major > > tournament >they don't need to be particularly good methods. Providing > > they are >confusing enough to make defending against them difficult for > > the typical >pair I will get enough 80+% scores to make up for 40% ones > > I get against >the decent pairs. Nobody would use a Multi 2D based on > > the inherent >merits - it just happens to score well if opps have no > > prepared defence. > > >Is encouraging people to develop "Bunny-Killer" systems really what > > you >had in mind? > > > I'm not going to say that you know nothing about devising bidding > > systems, Tim - but I certainly think that you know very little > > about the sort of people who spend their time devising bidding > > systems, and I think you have *no clue whatsoever* about what > > motivates them. > > I wasn't talking about the sort of people who *currently* spend time > developing bidding systems (the vast majority of whom I believe focus on > making their bidding better, rather than trying to blow away opponents). > I was talking about those people who are motivated by winning (like me) > who would, in a free-for-all approach, adopt bunny-killers because they > became *necessary* to do well. This belief is a myth propagated to engage players such as yourself to overreach your mental capacities, and being in such a state then prone to mistakes of higher proportions. Mr. Mollo, for whatever his credibility is worth, asserted as much over four decades ago. Adopt methods with a minimum of exploitable flaws and 'bunny-killer systems' will thwart their practioners. regards roger pewick > Tim From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Sat Sep 28 21:02:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 21:02 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Illegal convention Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Jesper Dybdal wrote: > >Nobody would use a Multi 2D based on the inherent > >merits - it just happens to score well if opps have no prepared > defence. > > This is not correct. This may be a cultural difference between > England and Denmark. Apologies. I was indeed thinking UK where the multi is mostly used with Acol 2H/S. I recommend that you use at least one of those calls for something other than a strong hand (2H can be 8 playing tricks in a major for instance). > In Denmark, just about everybody plays Multi - or did until they > began using Ekren or something similar. You cannot expect any > Danish opponent past the novice stage to not have a prepared > defence against Multi. Which is, perhaps, why forward thinking players have moved on to Ekrens etc. The use of the 2D opener is, alongside 1 and 2C, one of the most interesting areas of system theory and I didn't wish to disparage the multi approach per se. I would venture, however, that one reason it established initial popularity was because it was proving successful for those that used it - partially based on oppo unfamiliarity. Benji Acol has achieved near-universal bunny popularity in the UK despite, again in IMO, not being worth the sacrifice of the weak 2D opener. >From what you say of the Danish experience it may be that I do bunnies an injustice. Although I have to say that the reaction I get (often frosty) from playing a system with almost entirely natural openers that just happens to lack a forcing opener below the level of 4NT has coloured my views. Tim From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Sat Sep 28 21:02:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 21:02 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Illegal convention Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Axeman wrote: > This belief is a myth propagated to engage players such as yourself to > overreach your mental capacities, and being in such a state then prone > to mistakes of higher proportions. Mr. Mollo, for whatever his > credibility is worth, asserted as much over four decades ago. Adopt > methods with a minimum of exploitable flaws and 'bunny-killer systems' > will thwart their practioners. I don't understand this. I don't care what systems people play at *my* table. Nor would I choose to play bunny-killer against an obviously competent and well-prepared pair. But I will play it against the majority of pairs in any given event (the ones you need to average 70%+ against). My belief is that when enough players start doing this the bunnies will run away rather than evolve. This is likely to lead to smaller, more elitist, tournaments. That may be the right way for bridge to go, I don't know, but I'm pretty sure it would be the price of total bidding freedom. Tim From schuster@eduhi.at Sat Sep 28 22:13:38 2002 From: schuster@eduhi.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 23:13:38 +0200 Subject: [BLML] flaw in L70? Message-ID: I was called to adjudicate the following claim: S is declarer in a D contract, W is on lead. - KJ 7 - Qx immaterial - 9 - - T K4 - S, who is not very experienced, claims the rest. W objects: If he leads a spade and declarer ruffs in dummy, he will get a trump trick. All players agree that South was aware that West had one trump left. As East had already shown out in spades declarer could have a complete count of the hand and said something like "You can't assume I would get that wrong." I said I could and was inclined to rule a ruff in dummy "careless but not irrational" BUT: As declarer was aware that a trump was outstanding, the condition of L70C2 was not met, so I could not award a trick to the outstanding trump. IMO, whoever drafted this law was thinking of situations where the claimer is on lead. The new edition should also cater for the situation I had. --- Regards, Petrus From schuster@eduhi.at Sat Sep 28 22:23:45 2002 From: schuster@eduhi.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 23:23:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] violation of L16B? Message-ID: <83D8VQUTPJOL2VZ1U3Z2YCAA7ZWC7EB.3d961de1@pp-xp> An expert player held T9876 AQ8 AJ5 A7 and opened in second seat (N/VUL vs VUL, opponents passing throughout) 1NT (15-17) - 2C (Stayman) - 2D (!) - 3NT, making. Partner has a 4423-hand. 4 spades goes down on a 4-0 trump break. Would you consider adjusting the score under L16B - extaneous information from other sources - on the evidence of the 2D response to Stayman? I only know the hand from the TD and one opponent; I don't think anybody asked the player why he had bid the hand like this. --- Regards, Petrus From blml@dybdal.dk Sat Sep 28 23:16:15 2002 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 00:16:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] Illegal convention In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, 28 Sep 2002 21:02 +0100 (BST), twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) wrote: >Apologies. I was indeed thinking UK where the multi is mostly used with= =20 >Acol 2H/S. I recommend that you use at least one of those calls for=20 >something other than a strong hand (2H can be 8 playing tricks in a = major=20 >for instance). I have no doubt that you are right that using both 2M openings for strong hands is not optimal. I do it anyway, but that is primarily because I am used to it and too lazy to work out and get used to something better (I take my play less seriously than my directing). >I would venture, however, that one reason it=20 >established initial popularity was because it was proving successful for= =20 >those that used it - partially based on oppo unfamiliarity. That may very well be correct. There is no doubt that players of a new convention get an advantage from their opponents' lack of familiarity with it - partly because of a lack of prepared defense, and, at lower levels, partly because it confuses the opponents. It particularly irritates me to see players being pleased with the points they score because of the opponents' confusion. The problem is of course that if we ban conventions that give those advantages, then good conventions will never get a chance to prove their worth. I don't think there is a good solution to that problem, and the least bad solution obviously differs much between different parts of the world, and even between different clubs in the same part of the world. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From svenpran@online.no Sat Sep 28 23:25:00 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 00:25:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] not shuffled References: <4A256C41.000E2CE5.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <000f01c2661b$5664ec40$501e2850@pacific> Message-ID: <005801c2673d$e2879ec0$70d8fea9@WINXP> I do agree with the postings, but I think under the current laws we can achieve the same effect (technically) through Law 42B2: A break of law 74 is obviously an irregularity which should immediately be apparent to all players at the table. Therefore it is an irregularity by declarer (for one) if he does not summon the Director, and it is the unconditional privilege of dummy to try to prevent such an irregularity! But Grattan might also do me a favour by going back to before 1987 when the proprieties was a separate section not technically part of the laws themselves. If I remember right dummy had under those laws the privilege to call attention at any time to violations of proprieties, this privilege I believe disappeared when proprieties became part of the laws? I cannot help wondering if this particular change was intentional or unintentional? regards Sven ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 12:29 PM Subject: Re: [blml] not shuffled > > Grattan Endicott .......................................................... > "Behold I make all things new" > ~ Revelation of St. John > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 3:48 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] not shuffled > > > > > > However, I also hope to get a *noted* to the suggestion that L42 > > should have inserted an additional dummy's right in the 2005 Laws: > > > > "Dummy may draw the director's attention to an irregularity, if > > and only if the irregularity is a breach of L74." > > > +=+ Noted! But I think not all of 74. My jotter has > on it this pencilled aide memoire: "Allow dummy (and any > player) to call the Director to deal with provocative > behaviour that disturbs any player at his table."+=+ > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Sun Sep 29 08:45:27 2002 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 19:45:27 +1200 Subject: [BLML] violation of L16B? In-Reply-To: <83D8VQUTPJOL2VZ1U3Z2YCAA7ZWC7EB.3d961de1@pp-xp> Message-ID: <002701c2678c$3128e040$bd2e56d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Petrus Schuster OSB > Sent: Sunday, 29 September 2002 9:24 a.m. > To: BLML > Subject: [BLML] violation of L16B? > > > An expert player held > > T9876 > AQ8 > AJ5 > A7 > > and opened in second seat (N/VUL vs VUL, opponents passing > throughout) 1NT (15-17) - 2C (Stayman) - 2D (!) - 3NT, > making. Partner has a 4423-hand. 4 spades goes down on a 4-0 > trump break. > > Would you consider adjusting the score under L16B - > extaneous information from other sources - on the evidence > of the 2D response to Stayman? > I only know the hand from the TD and one opponent; I don't > think anybody asked the player why he had bid the hand like > this. > Absolutely not unless there was other strong evidence. A player can make any bid that that player chooses. Wayne From moranl@netvision.net.il Sun Sep 29 10:51:42 2002 From: moranl@netvision.net.il (Eitan Levy) Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 11:51:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] not shuffled In-Reply-To: <005801c2673d$e2879ec0$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <4A256C41.000E2CE5.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <000f01c2661b$5664ec40$501e2850@pacific> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.1.20020929114114.00a123c0@mail.netvision.net.il> At 00:25 29/09/02 +0200, you (Sven) wrote: >I do agree with the postings, but I think under >the current laws we can achieve the same effect >(technically) through Law 42B2: > >A break of law 74 is obviously an irregularity >which should immediately be apparent to all >players at the table. Therefore it is an irregularity >by declarer (for one) if he does not summon the >Director, and it is the unconditional privilege of >dummy to try to prevent such an irregularity! > >But Grattan might also do me a favour by going >back to before 1987 when the proprieties was a >separate section not technically part of the laws >themselves. If I remember right dummy had >under those laws the privilege to call attention at >any time to violations of proprieties, this privilege >I believe disappeared when proprieties became >part of the laws? I cannot help wondering if this >particular change was intentional or unintentional? I glanced through the 1975 laws and found nothing that suggests dummy could call the director for violations of proprieties. I think that the 1975 laws added the proviso that dummy could call attention only after play of the hand was concluded. Prior to that (I think!!) he could call attention to an (any) irregularity at any time, and perhaps this is what Sven is referring to. Eitan Levy >regards Sven > From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Sun Sep 29 10:29:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 10:29 +0100 (BST) Subject: [BLML] violation of L16B? Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <83D8VQUTPJOL2VZ1U3Z2YCAA7ZWC7EB.3d961de1@pp-xp> > An expert player held > > T9876 > AQ8 > AJ5 > A7 > > and opened in second seat (N/VUL vs VUL, opponents passing > throughout) 1NT (15-17) - 2C (Stayman) - 2D (!) - 3NT, > making. Partner has a 4423-hand. 4 spades goes down on a 4-0 > trump break. > > Would you consider adjusting the score under L16B - Absolutely not. This is not a L16b situation because the player in question did not summon the director in advance. Two possibilities. a) Player was exercising judgement (maybe had S6 in with C), no problem, no adjustment. b) Player with inside info failed to summon director *and* deliberately took advantage. This is flagrant cheating and requires a much tougher punishment than an adjusted score. Tim From svenpran@online.no Sun Sep 29 10:50:12 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 11:50:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] not shuffled References: <4A256C41.000E2CE5.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <000f01c2661b$5664ec40$501e2850@pacific> <5.1.1.6.1.20020929114114.00a123c0@mail.netvision.net.il> Message-ID: <000b01c2679d$9b414e70$70d8fea9@WINXP> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eitan Levy" To: Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 11:51 AM Subject: Re: [blml] not shuffled > At 00:25 29/09/02 +0200, you (Sven) wrote: ....... > >But Grattan might also do me a favour by going > >back to before 1987 when the proprieties was a > >separate section not technically part of the laws > >themselves. If I remember right dummy had > >under those laws the privilege to call attention at > >any time to violations of proprieties, this privilege > >I believe disappeared when proprieties became > >part of the laws? I cannot help wondering if this > >particular change was intentional or unintentional? > > I glanced through the 1975 laws and found nothing that suggests dummy could > call the director for violations of proprieties. > I think that the 1975 laws added the proviso that dummy could call > attention only after play of the hand was concluded. Prior to that (I > think!!) he could call attention to an (any) irregularity at any time, and > perhaps this is what Sven is referring to. Thank you for looking it up, but no - that was not what I was referring to. Now I looked up my Danish translation of the 1975 edition (The Bridge Laws commented - issued in 1981) and found in Law 43A1a the text (probably) translated from approximately: The dummy may not during the play summon the Director (except in connection with proprieties section IIIA) Proprieties section III was titled "Conduct and ethics", and subsection A was titled "Correct behaviour" (or words to that effect) regards Sven From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Sep 29 11:21:02 2002 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 11:21:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] not shuffled References: <4A256C41.000E2CE5.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <000f01c2661b$5664ec40$501e2850@pacific> <5.1.1.6.1.20020929114114.00a123c0@mail.netvision.net.il> <000b01c2679d$9b414e70$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <001401c267a2$0f0d7be0$9ca4193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 10:50 AM Subject: Re: [blml] not shuffled > > Thank you for looking it up, but no - that was not what I was referring to. > Now I looked up my Danish translation of the 1975 edition (The > Bridge Laws commented - issued in 1981) and found in > Law 43A1a the text (probably) translated from approximately: > > The dummy may not during the play summon the Director (except in > connection with proprieties section IIIA) > > Proprieties section III was titled "Conduct and ethics", and subsection > A was titled "Correct behaviour" (or words to that effect) > +=+ In English the 1975 Law said: "Dummy is not entitled to call the Director during the play (except as provided in Proprieties III para 1.)" In Proprieties III the first para said nothing about calling the Director but its subject matter covered courteous attitude to partner and opponents, remark or action that might cause embarrassment or annoyance to another player, interference with the enjoyment of the game, and departure from correct standards in calling and playing which might interrupt orderly progress. The paragraphs were not actually numbered. ~ G ~ +=+ From svenpran@online.no Sun Sep 29 11:36:51 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 12:36:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] not shuffled References: <4A256C41.000E2CE5.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <000f01c2661b$5664ec40$501e2850@pacific> <5.1.1.6.1.20020929114114.00a123c0@mail.netvision.net.il> <000b01c2679d$9b414e70$70d8fea9@WINXP> <001401c267a2$0f0d7be0$9ca4193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <002701c267a4$1f0b0ab0$70d8fea9@WINXP> ----- Original Message ----- From: "grandeval" To: "Sven Pran" ; "blml" Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 12:21 PM Subject: Re: [blml] not shuffled > +=+ In English the 1975 Law said: "Dummy is not entitled to call the > Director during the play (except as provided in Proprieties III para 1.)" > > In Proprieties III the first para said nothing about calling the Director > but its subject matter covered courteous attitude to partner and > opponents, remark or action that might cause embarrassment or > annoyance to another player, interference with the enjoyment of the > game, and departure from correct standards in calling and playing > which might interrupt orderly progress. The paragraphs were not > actually numbered. ~ G ~ +=+ > Thank you for the clarification, and I suppose the interest of most posts under this thread is to have that exception in Law 43A1(a) and/or (b) reinstated with proper references to the relevant parts of Law 74? I assume this is "noted"? (Was the removal of this exception in 1987 intentional or accidental?) regards Sven From moranl@netvision.net.il Sun Sep 29 13:44:57 2002 From: moranl@netvision.net.il (Eitan Levy) Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 14:44:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] not shuffled In-Reply-To: <000b01c2679d$9b414e70$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <4A256C41.000E2CE5.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <000f01c2661b$5664ec40$501e2850@pacific> <5.1.1.6.1.20020929114114.00a123c0@mail.netvision.net.il> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.1.20020929142606.00a15800@mail.netvision.net.il> At 11:50 29/09/02 +0200, you wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Eitan Levy" >To: >Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 11:51 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] not shuffled > > > > At 00:25 29/09/02 +0200, you (Sven) wrote: > >....... > > >But Grattan might also do me a favour by going > > >back to before 1987 when the proprieties was a > > >separate section not technically part of the laws > > >themselves. If I remember right dummy had > > >under those laws the privilege to call attention at > > >any time to violations of proprieties, this privilege > > >I believe disappeared when proprieties became > > >part of the laws? I cannot help wondering if this > > >particular change was intentional or unintentional? > > > > I glanced through the 1975 laws and found nothing that suggests dummy >could > > call the director for violations of proprieties. > > I think that the 1975 laws added the proviso that dummy could call > > attention only after play of the hand was concluded. Prior to that (I > > think!!) he could call attention to an (any) irregularity at any time, and > > perhaps this is what Sven is referring to. > >Thank you for looking it up, but no - that was not what I was referring to. >Now I looked up my Danish translation of the 1975 edition (The >Bridge Laws commented - issued in 1981) and found in >Law 43A1a the text (probably) translated from approximately: > >The dummy may not during the play summon the Director (except in >connection with proprieties section IIIA) > >Proprieties section III was titled "Conduct and ethics", and subsection >A was titled "Correct behaviour" (or words to that effect) > > >regards Sven Today's Law 74A is virtually identical with 1975's Proprieties III A. I have a copy of the American edition of the Laws of 1975: Law 41 A1 (a) Calling the Director Dummy should not call the director during play. That's it. Nothing about "except proprieties." Maybe there were different versions of the 1975 laws or maybe the Danish translator added a comment. At any rate, I vote for the Danish version, suitably updated as per Grattan >Grattan wrote: > +=+ Noted! But I think not all of 74. My jotter has > on it this pencilled aide memoire: "Allow dummy (and any > player) to call the Director to deal with provocative > behaviour that disturbs any player at his table."+=+ > Eitan From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Sep 29 12:07:13 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 12:07:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] not shuffled References: <4A256C41.000E2CE5.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <000f01c2661b$5664ec40$501e2850@pacific> <5.1.1.6.1.20020929114114.00a123c0@mail.netvision.net.il> <000b01c2679d$9b414e70$70d8fea9@WINXP> <001401c267a2$0f0d7be0$9ca4193e@4nrw70j> <002701c267a4$1f0b0ab0$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <000601c267ae$9de55ca0$450de150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 11:36 AM Subject: Re: [blml] not shuffled > I assume this is "noted"? > +=+ Difficult to miss +=+ > > (Was the removal of this exception in 1987 intentional > or accidental?) > +=+ Oh, nothing was accidental - but I do not recall whether EK drew our attention to it at the time. :-) +=+ From adam@tameware.com Sat Sep 28 16:12:48 2002 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 11:12:48 -0400 Subject: [blml] Arrow switching in Montreal (was WBF comments) In-Reply-To: <007e01c26340$f3cc3b60$1c981e18@san.rr.com> References: <1032643643.3d8ce43ba6d26@webmail.mit.edu> <007e01c26340$f3cc3b60$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: At 1:33 PM -0700 9/23/02, Marvin L. French wrote: >By the way, was arrow-switching used? As far as I know there was no arrow switching in the Mitchell movements used in Montreal. The finals of the Open and Women's pairs, though, used a different movement which seems as though it should lead to balanced comparisons. Each pair plays every other over the course of five sessions, and pairs switch directions every few rounds. I know this movement well because I investigated the foul-up that occurred in Lille. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From adam@tameware.com Sat Sep 28 16:37:28 2002 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 11:37:28 -0400 Subject: [blml] WBF CoC comments solicited In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020927114759.00b31230@mail.attbi.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020927114759.00b31230@mail.attbi.com> Message-ID: Here's one I had forgotten. New "symmetrical" playing cards were in use. From reading BLML I now understand their advantages, but they have the unfortunate effect of making some heart cards look like diamonds. I suggest that the design be modified -- I understand it has been once already. This brings up a general problem -- the WBF seems to do a poor job of communicating with the players. In a missive in the daily bulletin Jose Damiani mentioned the use of symmetric playing cards, and how he hoped all NCBOs would start using them. He seemed to assume, though, that we knew what they were and why they are beneficial. At the time I had no idea what he was referring to, nor I expect did many of the players. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From axman22@hotmail.com Sun Sep 29 14:07:09 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 08:07:09 -0500 Subject: [BLML] flaw in L70? References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Petrus Schuster OSB" To: "BLML" Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2002 16:13 PM Subject: [BLML] flaw in L70? > I was called to adjudicate the following claim: > S is declarer in a D contract, W is on lead. > > - > KJ > 7 > - > > Qx immaterial > - > 9 > - > > - > T > K4 > - > > S, who is not very experienced, claims the rest. W objects: > If he leads a spade and declarer ruffs in dummy, he will get > a trump trick. > All players agree that South was aware that West had one > trump left. > As East had already shown out in spades declarer could have > a complete count of the hand and said something like "You > can't assume I would get that wrong." > > I said I could and was inclined to rule a ruff in dummy > "careless but not irrational" BUT: > As declarer was aware that a trump was outstanding, the > condition of L70C2 was not met, so I could not award a trick > to the outstanding trump. > > IMO, whoever drafted this law was thinking of situations > where the claimer is on lead. The new edition should also > cater for the situation I had. > > --- > Regards, > Petrus As I read L70C, I get the inference that the automatic loss of trump trick[s] occurs when ALL conditions are met. But this does not mean on occasions when all conditions are not met that unstated lines of play pertaining to unmentioned trump are to not be deal with. I know I am missing something material here but I am thinking about other things at the moment. regards roger pewick From axman22@hotmail.com Sun Sep 29 16:09:02 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 10:09:02 -0500 Subject: [blml] Illegal convention References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-meads" To: Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2002 15:02 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Illegal convention > In-Reply-To: > Axeman wrote: > > This belief is a myth propagated to engage players such as yourself to > > overreach your mental capacities, and being in such a state then prone > > to mistakes of higher proportions. Mr. Mollo, for whatever his > > credibility is worth, asserted as much over four decades ago. Adopt > > methods with a minimum of exploitable flaws and 'bunny-killer systems' > > will thwart their practioners. > I don't understand this. I don't care what systems people play at *my* > table. That is my point- that players should be taught that it does not matter what the opponent's system is. The most dominate part of the 'problem' is [a] in the way bridge bidding is taught and [b] players must adopt the practices of the experts if they hope to win. Players learn that there is only one right way to bid. And as a result most take decades, if ever, to learn to think. What players need to learn is to separate the bid from its meaning, decide if the values held justify action but use the meaning to decide if the action makes sense within the system. If players learn that, then it will not matter to them what crazy, or sane, meaning the opponents attach to bids. > Nor would I choose to play bunny-killer against an obviously > competent and well-prepared pair. But I will play it against the majority > of pairs in any given event (the ones you need to average 70%+ against). > My belief is that when enough players start doing this the bunnies will > run away rather than evolve. How many decades has it been since bunnies have had a fighting chance to evolve? they have been afforded no opportunity to practice 'survival' in a free market. The longer that day is put off, the sooner the game dies. Granted, either way, big time pain will be felt. > This is likely to lead to smaller, more > elitist, tournaments. That may be the right way for bridge to go, I don't > know, Who knows. My opinion is that bridge players tend to be made of sturdy stuff and have an unpredictable strreak. > but I'm pretty sure it would be the price of total bidding freedom. Now, I have suggested that players ought to have a self interest need to regulate themselves to conduct their partnerships fairly. your use of the term TBF suggests that your scenario is based on the premise of no such self regulation. regards roger pewick > Tim From schuster@eduhi.at Sun Sep 29 19:25:04 2002 From: schuster@eduhi.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 20:25:04 +0200 Subject: [BLML] violation of L16B? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 29.09.2002 11:29:00, twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West- meads) wrote: >In-Reply-To: <83D8VQUTPJOL2VZ1U3Z2YCAA7ZWC7EB.3d961de1@pp- xp> >> An expert player held >> >> T9876 >> AQ8 >> AJ5 >> A7 >> >> and opened in second seat (N/VUL vs VUL, opponents passing >> throughout) 1NT (15-17) - 2C (Stayman) - 2D (!) - 3NT, >> making. Partner has a 4423-hand. 4 spades goes down on a 4-0 >> trump break. >> >> Would you consider adjusting the score under L16B - > >Absolutely not. This is not a L16b situation because the player in >question did not summon the director in advance. > It may be yet: If he had accidental UI, L16B applies, and the player has failed in his duty to inform the TD. >Two possibilities. >a) Player was exercising judgement (maybe had S6 in with C), no problem, >no adjustment. >b) Player with inside info failed to summon director *and* deliberately >took advantage. This is flagrant cheating and requires a much tougher >punishment than an adjusted score. Probably. But that still leaves the score to be adjusted (e.g. to 60:0). So what amount of evidence do you think is required for a TD/AC to assume a violation of L16B? --- Regards, Petrus From schuster@eduhi.at Sun Sep 29 19:27:39 2002 From: schuster@eduhi.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 20:27:39 +0200 Subject: [BLML] violation of L16B? In-Reply-To: <002701c2678c$3128e040$bd2e56d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <3VOK2W2W06C0LGMGCFBWVFEZXSONLO.3d97461b@pp-xp> 29.09.2002 09:45:27, "Wayne Burrows" wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On >> Behalf Of Petrus Schuster OSB >> Sent: Sunday, 29 September 2002 9:24 a.m. >> To: BLML >> Subject: [BLML] violation of L16B? >> >> >> An expert player held >> >> T9876 >> AQ8 >> AJ5 >> A7 >> >> and opened in second seat (N/VUL vs VUL, opponents passing >> throughout) 1NT (15-17) - 2C (Stayman) - 2D (!) - 3NT, >> making. Partner has a 4423-hand. 4 spades goes down on a 4-0 >> trump break. >> >> Would you consider adjusting the score under L16B - >> extaneous information from other sources - on the evidence >> of the 2D response to Stayman? >> I only know the hand from the TD and one opponent; I don't >> think anybody asked the player why he had bid the hand like >> this. >> > >Absolutely not unless there was other strong evidence. > >A player can make any bid that that player chooses. > He can, but it may be illegal for a number of reasons: e.g. having failed to act as prescribed in L16B when he has had accidental UI. Regards, Petrus From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Sun Sep 29 20:57:21 2002 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 07:57:21 +1200 Subject: [BLML] violation of L16B? In-Reply-To: <3VOK2W2W06C0LGMGCFBWVFEZXSONLO.3d97461b@pp-xp> Message-ID: <001d01c267f2$6fcb3490$942d37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Petrus Schuster OSB > Sent: Monday, 30 September 2002 6:28 a.m. > To: 'BLML' > Subject: RE: [BLML] violation of L16B? > > > 29.09.2002 09:45:27, "Wayne Burrows" > wrote: > > > > >Absolutely not unless there was other strong evidence. > > > >A player can make any bid that that player chooses. > > > He can, but it may be illegal for a number of reasons: e.g. > having failed to act as prescribed in L16B when he has had > accidental UI. What you say is true but you need evidence to act not merely supposition. Wayne From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Sun Sep 29 23:42:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 23:42 +0100 (BST) Subject: [BLML] violation of L16B? Message-ID: In-Reply-To: > >b) Player with inside info failed to summon director *and* > deliberately took advantage. This is flagrant cheating and requires a > much tougher punishment than an adjusted score. > > Probably. But that still leaves the score to be adjusted > (e.g. to 60:0). Sorry, I assumed that when a player was disqualified (or summarily shot if club laws permit) for cheating all hands played were null and void. I could be wrong. > So what amount of evidence do you think is required for a > TD/AC to assume a violation of L16B? I can't imagine assuming it on the bidding of a single hand in isolation. Question the player, find out if he has prior aversions to showing bad majors, review the room layout and see where he is likely to have heard - talk to the players there at the time and find out what they said - investigate. Tim From David Stevenson Sun Sep 29 21:53:55 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 21:53:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] The European Way? In-Reply-To: <006701c25f49$9af82440$1c981e18@san.rr.com> References: <200209171556.LAA27015@cfa183.harvard.edu> <000201c25f47$4676c220$30c8f1c3@LNV> <006701c25f49$9af82440$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marvin L. French writes >Over here many of us feel that estimating how one stands toward the end of >a session, with no helpful clues, is an important bridge skill. Our ACBL >CCs used to carry a warning "Comparison of Scores is Illegal," and that >applied even when both pairs had previously played the board. > >Pairs who see they are doing badly are likely to produce wild results, >which spoils the game for everyone else. Surely that is only pairs who are doing very badly? And surely such pairs know they are doing very badly with or without seeing some scores? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Sun Sep 29 21:58:31 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 21:58:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] The European Way? In-Reply-To: <200209182113.RAA03895@cfa183.harvard.edu> References: <200209182113.RAA03895@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Steve Willner writes >Just to head off some possible confusion, it seems to me that there >are several different issues here: > >1. Use of travellers versus pickup slips. > >2. How much checking should the scoring room do? > >3. If an error is found, in what circumstances, if any, should there be >a cash (or other) penalty for changing the score? > >People might want to make clear which issue they are addressing. > >Apropos item 1, I wonder whether travellers are more error-prone than >pickup slips. With travellers, it is too easy to put "our" score in >the same column as all the other plus scores even when that's wrong or >to enter a pair number wrong because of all the entries already present. >With pickup slips, you have to make every entry on its own, and both >sides have to check it. Thus my sense is that travellers are more >error-inducing than pickup slips, but does anyone have information on >whether that is true or not? I think your argument can be easily reversed. If a player is about to write 620 in the wrong column he is more likely to carry on if using a pickup slip than on a traveller where he might notice all the other 620s in the other column! I think both forms are subject to error, just different errors. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Sun Sep 29 22:27:59 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 22:27:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Tim West-meads writes >In-Reply-To: <005b01c26404$f0a531c0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> >Marv quoted the ACBL regulation > >> "The player following the skip bidder must wait for a suitable interval >> (about 10 seconds). In waiting the player's manner must be one that >> suggests he is an active participant in the auction (the hand should be >> studied during the pause). Any obvious display of disinterest is most >> improper." > >We have something similar in the EBU. A slightly counterintuitive >requirement to deliberately mislead opponents by mannerism. I try do this >and have had opponents complain a few times because "He made it look like >he had something to think about". > >Oh well, it amused me at the time. A rather good and extremely ethical player believes in asking questions when the Stop card is displayed so that it is not obvious whether he had anything to think about, and suggested it as a policy. This came ot the fore when an AC had to consider whether his questions conveyed UI to partner. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Sun Sep 29 22:28:08 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 22:28:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] WBF CoC comments solicited In-Reply-To: <4A256C3E.00015AFA.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> References: <4A256C3E.00015AFA.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: RH writes >In the Summer Festival, even players can be prepared for >the conditions of contest, as they are prominently >displayed on a noticeboard in the playing area. > >ABF System Regulations are also printed in the entry form. In full? When I was there I explained to a well-known player at Surfer's Paradise that what he was playing was illegal. After explaining to him politely that yes, I could read regulations despite not being Australian, we sorted out our differences. Apparently *I* was using the official ABF regulations and *he* was using the summary he had been given in Canberra. While it was not wrong, it was ambiguous. Don't worry, he got his own back, by telling me that what his last four opponents were playing was illegal, and giving me a merry hour checking up. Actually, he was right in one case! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Sun Sep 29 22:36:03 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 22:36:03 +0100 Subject: Fw: [blml] Direction switches in the ACBL In-Reply-To: <200209261911.PAA22286@cfa183.harvard.edu> References: <200209261911.PAA22286@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Steve Willner writes >As readers may know, arrow-switches are unheard of in ACBL events. >From my position of ignorance, though, it strikes me that switching the >_first_ round (or maybe two) might be best from a compliance >perspective. People need to listen to the TD's instructions for >starting the movement, and then after the first round (or second), the >arrow goes back to its normal direction and everything proceeds as >usual. > >Is arrow switching the first round OK, or does it have problems, either >theoretical or practical? The problem with relying on early announcements that it is a belief amongst top English TDs that the players will take in no more than three items at the start, so there is no point telling them four or five things. There usually enough important things to tell them that the three most important things would not include arrow-switches. Later in the event, if you are very persistent, as many as 60% of players will take some notice of an announcement, which gives you a fair chance of enough tables arrow-switching, plus TDs scurrying around checking, to make the whole thing work. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Sun Sep 29 22:36:08 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 22:36:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] A plague o' both your houses. In-Reply-To: <000d01c260c9$3c4f7b10$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <200209201657.MAA20038@cfa183.harvard.edu> <000d01c260c9$3c4f7b10$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran writes >From: "Steve Willner" >> > From: "Sven Pran" >> > But maybe one day we shall see a network of computer >> > terminals connecting all tables to a central machine? >> Wireless-enabled PDA's. Give one to each pair or maybe to each >> player. Both sides separately enter the result of every board. >I see a big human problem here. No problem for me, nor for you >(I suppose), but on the average for at least 50% of the players >who will fumble with their terminals and make all sorts of errors. I think that is merely teething problems. With the world becoming computer-oriented I think input via some form of system using a keyboard will work. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Sun Sep 29 22:36:10 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 22:36:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] The European Way? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Linda Trent writes >Many clubs here use both pickup slips and travellers - >pick ups so the results are out in as long as it takes >to print a page when the last table finishes, and >travellers because the players like to see what everyone >has done. This presumably means that two different forms have to be completed. Many European events use travellers with a carbonised top sheet [or two] that may be torn off so that the data entry continues while the traveller can still be seen. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Sun Sep 29 22:36:13 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 22:36:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] The European Way? In-Reply-To: <004e01c26136$5a21d490$3127e150@endicott> References: <11a.171b0f40.2abd20d1@aol.com> <004e01c26136$5a21d490$3127e150@endicott> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott writes >Actually, you are right of course, the >internet is full of people talking and desperately short of people >who are listening, and while blml is sometimes an interesting >exercise of working out amongst knowledgeable people (with a >major flaw in that we do not have contributions from the >ordinary folk who do not have a special position on the subjects >discussed, and who at the end of the day are the people above >all that we are here to serve)........ Grattan, how on earth can you expect to have more people listening and fewer talking and then complain you do not hear from the listeners? Anyway, I find this whole argument fascinating! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From ktm3@attbi.com Mon Sep 30 00:34:20 2002 From: ktm3@attbi.com (Karen Thomas McCallum) Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 19:34:20 -0400 Subject: [blml] WBF CoC comments solicited In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020927114759.00b31230@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20020927114759.00b31230@mail.attbi.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020929193327.035f3350@mail.attbi.com> --=====================_117557434==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed thanks adam - i forgot all about the symmetrical cards problem, but you are absolutely right on both counts. k. At 11:37 AM 9/28/2002 -0400, Adam Wildavsky wrote: >Here's one I had forgotten. New "symmetrical" playing cards were in use. > From reading BLML I now understand their advantages, but they have the >unfortunate effect of making some heart cards look like diamonds. I >suggest that the design be modified -- I understand it has been once already. > >This brings up a general problem -- the WBF seems to do a poor job of >communicating with the players. In a missive in the daily bulletin Jose >Damiani mentioned the use of symmetric playing cards, and how he hoped all >NCBOs would start using them. He seemed to assume, though, that we knew >what they were and why they are beneficial. At the time I had no idea what >he was referring to, nor I expect did many of the players. > >-- >Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC >adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com ____________________________________________________________________ Karen Thomas McCallum Editor, The Copperfield Press Checklists/Directories of Mysteries for Readers and Collectors _____________________________________________________________________ "If I know of someone who needs some help and I do not help him, I lose something of myself. It is the Turkish way." --- Sinan Tatlicioglu ______________________________________________________________________ --=====================_117557434==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" thanks adam - i forgot all about the symmetrical cards problem, but you are absolutely right on both counts.

k.

At 11:37 AM 9/28/2002 -0400, Adam Wildavsky wrote:
Here's one I had forgotten. New "symmetrical" playing cards were in use. From reading BLML I now understand their advantages, but they have the unfortunate effect of making some heart cards look like diamonds. I suggest that the design be modified -- I understand it has been once already.

This brings up a general problem -- the WBF seems to do a poor job of communicating with the players. In a missive in the daily bulletin Jose Damiani mentioned the use of symmetric playing cards, and how he hoped all NCBOs would start using them. He seemed to assume, though, that we knew what they were and why they are beneficial. At the time I had no idea what he was referring to, nor I expect did many of the players.

--
Adam Wildavsky  Extreme Programmer  Tameware, LLC
adam@tameware.com         http://www.tameware.com



____________________________________________________________________

Karen Thomas McCallum
Editor, The Copperfield Press
Checklists/Directories of Mysteries for Readers and Collectors
_____________________________________________________________________


"If I know of someone who needs some help and I do not help him, I lose something
        of myself.  It is the Turkish way."

                        ---  Sinan Tatlicioglu

______________________________________________________________________ --=====================_117557434==_.ALT-- From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Sep 30 00:37:54 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 00:37:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Wot {sic} happened? References: <004101c2650c$aa706220$4a9c27d9@pbncomputer> <1IqzSEBGOzk9Ewb4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <007901c26811$43a03220$409868d5@default> David Stevenson: You [David Burn] consider me deficient in every way. Stop. You are both brilliant. But much more fun when putting us right about the laws of bridge then arguing about faults in mailers. Regards Nigel From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Sep 30 01:21:14 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 10:21:14 +1000 Subject: [blml] Illegal convention Message-ID: <4A256C44.0000AFCB.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Brian Meadows wrote: [snip] >Over nearly 30 years, I've devised a number of >systems and conventions, as well as having had >extensive discussions with a number of other >systems geeks of like persuasion. Not once, >**NOT ONCE**, have I heard a single one of them >explain their use of a particular bid by saying >that it would score well because weak opponents >will not know how to defend against it. [snip] The Australian rabbit plague was initially stemmed by the release of the myxomatosis virus. However, rabbits have again started multiplying after building up an immunity to the myxomatosis virus. Likewise, an Australian system geek devised a set of conventions with the self-incriminating name of "Myxomatosis Twos", so as to score well against defenceless Australian bridge bunnies. But the Australian bridge bunnies built up an immunity after repeated exposure to Myxo Twos, by adopting the conventions themselves. Now even Australian experts can be confused by the bunny methods, with the experts therefore reaching ridiculous contracts. In the intermediate period, before the bunnies gained immunity, experts using Myxo Twos had an edge over experts using vanilla methods. The question SOs have to consider, when the SOs draw up their L40D regulations: Is such a temporary edge fair or unfair? Best wishes Richard From Chris@Pisarra.com Mon Sep 30 01:39:47 2002 From: Chris@Pisarra.com (Chris Pisarra) Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 17:39:47 -0700 Subject: [blml] The European Way? References: <200209171556.LAA27015@cfa183.harvard.edu> <000201c25f47$4676c220$30c8f1c3@LNV> <006701c25f49$9af82440$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <004201c26819$e12eb180$6401a8c0@attbi.com> DWS writes: > Surely that is only pairs who are doing very badly? And surely such > pairs know they are doing very badly with or without seeing some scores? The pairs most likely to swing in a barometer type event are the ones "on the bubble", close enough that a couple of tops can do them some good, not so far out that placing is impossible. It's hard to estimate whether you have a 52% game or a 53.5% game, and impossible to estimate how the field is spread out, without barometer scoring. Chris From David Stevenson Mon Sep 30 01:10:09 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 01:10:09 +0100 Subject: [BLML] violation of L16B? In-Reply-To: <83D8VQUTPJOL2VZ1U3Z2YCAA7ZWC7EB.3d961de1@pp-xp> References: <83D8VQUTPJOL2VZ1U3Z2YCAA7ZWC7EB.3d961de1@pp-xp> Message-ID: Petrus Schuster OSB writes >An expert player held > >T9876 >AQ8 >AJ5 >A7 > >and opened in second seat (N/VUL vs VUL, opponents passing >throughout) 1NT (15-17) - 2C (Stayman) - 2D (!) - 3NT, >making. Partner has a 4423-hand. 4 spades goes down on a 4-0 >trump break. > >Would you consider adjusting the score under L16B - >extaneous information from other sources - on the evidence >of the 2D response to Stayman? >I only know the hand from the TD and one opponent; I don't >think anybody asked the player why he had bid the hand like >this. On the evidence given you have no reason to adjust. If you adjust on this hand what about all the other 1,000,000 very strange bridge actions taken each day? What about the 5% or so that work? However, I do not see any objection to a little investigation, starting with asking the player why he bid 2D. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Mon Sep 30 01:12:39 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 01:12:39 +0100 Subject: [BLML] violation of L16B? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Petrus Schuster OSB writes >29.09.2002 11:29:00, twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West- >meads) wrote: > >>In-Reply-To: <83D8VQUTPJOL2VZ1U3Z2YCAA7ZWC7EB.3d961de1@pp- >xp> >>> An expert player held >>> >>> T9876 >>> AQ8 >>> AJ5 >>> A7 >>> >>> and opened in second seat (N/VUL vs VUL, opponents >passing >>> throughout) 1NT (15-17) - 2C (Stayman) - 2D (!) - 3NT, >>> making. Partner has a 4423-hand. 4 spades goes down on a >4-0 >>> trump break. >>> >>> Would you consider adjusting the score under L16B - >> >>Absolutely not. This is not a L16b situation because the >player in >>question did not summon the director in advance. >> >It may be yet: If he had accidental UI, L16B applies, and >the player has failed in his duty to inform the TD. > > >>Two possibilities. >>a) Player was exercising judgement (maybe had S6 in with >C), no problem, >>no adjustment. >>b) Player with inside info failed to summon director *and* >deliberately >>took advantage. This is flagrant cheating and requires a >much tougher >>punishment than an adjusted score. > >Probably. But that still leaves the score to be adjusted >(e.g. to 60:0). >So what amount of evidence do you think is required for a >TD/AC to assume a violation of L16B? More than one bidding sequence certainly. Are you going to adjust the next time some clever clogs leads a singleton against 3NT - and it works? Are you going to adjust the next time someone opens 1S 1st in hand on 7 HCP and a doubleton spade - and hits LHO with 26 HCP and six spades? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Mon Sep 30 01:07:04 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 01:07:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] flaw in L70? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Petrus Schuster OSB writes >I was called to adjudicate the following claim: >S is declarer in a D contract, W is on lead. > > - > KJ > 7 > - > > Qx immaterial > - > 9 > - > > - > T > K4 > - > >S, who is not very experienced, claims the rest. W objects: >If he leads a spade and declarer ruffs in dummy, he will get >a trump trick. >All players agree that South was aware that West had one >trump left. >As East had already shown out in spades declarer could have >a complete count of the hand and said something like "You >can't assume I would get that wrong." > >I said I could and was inclined to rule a ruff in dummy >"careless but not irrational" BUT: >As declarer was aware that a trump was outstanding, the >condition of L70C2 was not met, so I could not award a trick >to the outstanding trump. > >IMO, whoever drafted this law was thinking of situations >where the claimer is on lead. The new edition should also >cater for the situation I had. All you are saying is that this is not a L70C case, which is a specific common situation. But that does not stop you making a ruling under L70D. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Sep 30 03:11:19 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 12:11:19 +1000 Subject: [blml] Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited) Message-ID: <4A256C44.000AC3CC.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> >A rather good and extremely ethical player >believes in asking questions when the Stop >card is displayed so that it is not obvious >whether he had anything to think about, and >suggested it as a policy. > >This came to the fore when an AC had to >consider whether his questions conveyed UI >to partner. > >-- >David Stevenson This style removes UI from the *act* of asking a question. However, the *type* of question asked is still a hurdle that needs to be negotiated before this style can become official policy. Many SOs deprecate a professional asking a question to which the professional already knows the answer, so that the pro's sponsor partner is therefore enlightened. If an ethical player *always* asks questions, so as to prevent UI from being transmitted by the *act* of asking questions; then it is almost certain that at least some of those questions will be of the "pro question" *type*. [My personal solution to this dilemma is to adopt the reverse strategy. For borderline decisions as to whether or not I should ask a question, I opt to stay mum until the end of the auction.] Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Sep 30 07:19:27 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 16:19:27 +1000 Subject: [blml] Framed thy fearful symmetry? Message-ID: <4A256C44.00217B6A.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> In the thread "WBF CoC comments solicited", Adam Wildavsky wrote: >New "symmetrical" playing cards were in >use. From reading BLML I now understand >their advantages, but they have the >unfortunate effect of making some heart >cards look like diamonds. I suggest that >the design be modified -- I understand it >has been once already. [snip] >In a missive in the daily bulletin Jose >Damiani mentioned the use of symmetric >playing cards, and how he hoped all NCBOs >would start using them. [snip] I am of the opinion that, no matter how the design of symmetric cards is modified, the number of revokes by players using symmetric cards will be proportionally greater than the number of revokes with traditional cards. The *only* advantage of symmetrical cards is to prevent a certain type of deliberate cheating. If screens are not in use, there are many options villains can use for deliberate cheating. Therefore, if screens are not in use, are increased revokes worthwhile for little compensating value? So, I strongly believe that *if* the new symmetrical cards are to be used in *all* NCBOs, they should be restricted to occasions where screens are used. Best wishes Richard From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Mon Sep 30 08:32:07 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 09:32:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] The European Way? Message-ID: Steve Willner writes > >Apropos item 1, I wonder whether travellers are more error-prone than >pickup slips. With travellers, it is too easy to put "our" score in >the same column as all the other plus scores even when that's wrong or >to enter a pair number wrong because of all the entries already present. >With pickup slips, you have to make every entry on its own, and both >sides have to check it. Thus my sense is that travellers are more >error-inducing than pickup slips, but does anyone have information on >whether that is true or not? I think your argument can be easily reversed. If a player is about to write 620 in the wrong column he is more likely to carry on if using a pickup slip than on a traveller where he might notice all the other 620s in the other column! I think both forms are subject to error, just different errors. **** My experience is that more mistakes are made with pick up slips than with travellers. Though even when the traveller shows a whole list of just + 650 players are quite capable of adding a + 450. The big advantage of using pick up slips in my opinion is the extra time available to check the results. That might well mean that the mistakes shown on the published sheets are less with pick up slips. ton From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Mon Sep 30 08:21:32 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 09:21:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] Arrow switching in Montreal (was WBF comments) Message-ID: At 1:33 PM -0700 9/23/02, Marvin L. French wrote: >By the way, was arrow-switching used? As far as I know there was no arrow switching in the Mitchell movements used in Montreal. **** that is true, the trouble is probably bigger than the advantage in such big fields. The finals of the Open and Women's pairs, though, used a different movement which seems as though it should lead to balanced comparisons. **** these movements are aimed to get as much balance as possible. And there too we try to find the best combination between complexity and fairness of the movement. It also depends on the number of pairs playing. ton Each pair plays every other over the course of five sessions, and pairs switch directions every few rounds. I know this movement well because I investigated the foul-up that occurred in Lille. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Mon Sep 30 10:07:56 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 11:07:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] The European Way? References: Message-ID: <010701c26860$de529b60$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Kooijman, A." > Steve Willner writes > > > > >Apropos item 1, I wonder whether travellers are more error-prone than > >pickup slips. With travellers, it is too easy to put "our" score in > >the same column as all the other plus scores even when that's wrong or > >to enter a pair number wrong because of all the entries already present. > >With pickup slips, you have to make every entry on its own, and both > >sides have to check it. Thus my sense is that travellers are more > >error-inducing than pickup slips, but does anyone have information on > >whether that is true or not? > > I think your argument can be easily reversed. If a player is about to > write 620 in the wrong column he is more likely to carry on if using a > pickup slip than on a traveller where he might notice all the other 620s > in the other column! > > I think both forms are subject to error, just different errors. > > **** My experience is that more mistakes are made with pick up slips than > with travellers. Though even when the traveller shows a whole list of just + > 650 players are quite capable of adding a + 450. > > The big advantage of using pick up slips in my opinion is the extra time > available to check the results. That might well mean that the mistakes shown > on the published sheets are less with pick up slips. I am rather surprised how much people "think" and "believe" on these matters. Having practical experience with both travellers and pickups for more than 30 years let me assure everybody that errors do occur frequently with both. Errors with pickups are captured, if not by the scorer then almost always by the affected players simply because they have immediate feedbacks on their results. (And BTW it would be considered outrageous in Norway being requested to pay a deposit with a claim that there must be a scoring error!) Errors with travellers are sometimes captured, but it seems more common that because travellers are (normally) not processed until after the session is ended such errors go unnoticed unless captured by the scorer. So the main difference is the feedback to the players while their memories are still fresh. Sven From brian@wellsborocomputing.com Mon Sep 30 10:08:14 2002 From: brian@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 05:08:14 -0400 Subject: [blml] Illegal convention In-Reply-To: <4A256C44.0000AFCB.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> References: <4A256C44.0000AFCB.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: On Mon, 30 Sep 2002 10:21:14 +1000, Richard Hills wrote: > > >Brian Meadows wrote: > >[snip] > >>Over nearly 30 years, I've devised a number of >>systems and conventions, as well as having had >>extensive discussions with a number of other >>systems geeks of like persuasion. Not once, >>**NOT ONCE**, have I heard a single one of them >>explain their use of a particular bid by saying >>that it would score well because weak opponents >>will not know how to defend against it. > >[snip] > >Likewise, an Australian system geek devised a set >of conventions with the self-incriminating name of >"Myxomatosis Twos", so as to score well against >defenceless Australian bridge bunnies. > Yes, I'm familiar with Myxo Twos.... > >In the intermediate period, before the bunnies >gained immunity, experts using Myxo Twos had an >edge over experts using vanilla methods. The >question SOs have to consider, when the SOs >draw up their L40D regulations: > > Is such a temporary edge fair or unfair? > I would say that it's fair, for a couple of reasons. The first is the theoretical one, that if someone is prepared to put some work into their system, then they should be able to reap the benefits, and as regards the results side of things, I don't see the difference between someone designing a bidding system that they think will give them better results and someone sitting down to study a book of squeeze templates. Bunnies will not understand either of them, and I actually think they will learn to cope with the unfamiliar bids a damned sight more quickly than they will learn to cope with breaking up squeezes. The second reason is the practical one - without advancement, we would all still be playing Culbertson, or something similar. Given time, people will adapt to unfamiliar systems, you have only to take Tim's example and look at the experience with the multi 2D in the UK to see an example of that. This is *not* an argument for total open systems policy - I don't think that raw beginners should have to come up against complex systems while they're still learning the game. The answer to this is to have events graded by system - but for this to work, NCBOs must be *compelled*, if necessary, to provide adequate opportunity for all. Simple system events are fine, but there should be an equal number of *open* system events (assuming the demand is there, of course). I admit that my views on this are coloured by having played most of my face-to-face bridge under EBU regulations. The EBU had a category of experimental licence, more or less corresponding to the present level 5, which was basically a ban without using the word - you could play an experimental system in the final few rounds of the EBU's premier competitions, and that was about it. I don't think the EBU's approach was wrong *in principle*, I think it was just FAR too heavily weighted towards the beginners. If bunnies are going to step up into tournaments, then they must expect to run into unfamiliar systems. Clubs can take a similar approach - the last UK club I played at designated two nights a week as "anything goes", two nights a week as "beginner nights" (simple Acol only) and the remaining two were general licence. Equal opportunities for all, and everyone was happy (plus all the nights were well attended!) One approach that's interesting is OKBridge's approach in their tournaments. It's open systems, but any pair that comes up against a pair playing something weird can ask the TD for a sit-out for that round. I don't know how many players take advantage of the chance to sit out under those circumstances, I'll see whether I can find out. Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com From David Stevenson Mon Sep 30 02:05:06 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 02:05:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] The European Way? In-Reply-To: <004201c26819$e12eb180$6401a8c0@attbi.com> References: <200209171556.LAA27015@cfa183.harvard.edu> <000201c25f47$4676c220$30c8f1c3@LNV> <006701c25f49$9af82440$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <004201c26819$e12eb180$6401a8c0@attbi.com> Message-ID: Chris Pisarra writes >DWS writes: >> Surely that is only pairs who are doing very badly? And surely such >> pairs know they are doing very badly with or without seeing some scores? > The pairs most likely to swing in a barometer type event are the >ones "on the bubble", close enough that a couple of tops can do them some >good, not so far out that placing is impossible. It's hard to estimate >whether you have a 52% game or a 53.5% game, and impossible to estimate how >the field is spread out, without barometer scoring. The post I was replying to was about travellers, surely? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 30 11:36:33 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 12:36:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] Pausitis In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020930123134.00ab4ab0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 18:15 26/09/2002 +0100, Tim West-meads wrote: >In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020926174413.00ab3880@pop.ulb.ac.be> >Alain wrote: > > > >+=+ When an inference has become a matter of agreement > > >between partners it is a partnership understanding. So it must > > >be disclosed. When it is entered into a system file the fact > > >of recording indicates the matter is not presumptive. The > > >understanding is thus 'special'. > > > Inferences are matters of logic and deduction from > > >specific premises. And when the partnership experience > > >suffices for them to be an established practice, not freshly > > >inferred on each single occasion, they are system. Failure > > >to announce a relevant practice when asked a question is > > >a failure in one's duty to opponents. > > > Roger, you should think again. > > > > AG : the bidding : > > > > 2Da 2Ha > > pass > > > > 2D : explained as classical Multi, weak 2H/S or strong NT or strong 4441 > > 2H : explained as to play facing hearts (would you expect anything else > > ?) > >Yes. I expect you tell those who are unfamiliar with the Multi that it >denies 4 (or 5) hearts. This is an inference available to you from the >failure to bid 2S. > AG : wrong. I've done it before, with any number of hearts. It only means "for the time being, I'd like to play 2H facing a weak 2-bid in hearts'. For example, last tuesday, partner held about Kxxx / xxxxx / x / Qxx and deduced (partly from opps' bored look) that I held a strong type. He thus bid 2H, because there was no reason to preempt me with a 3H bid (or is it 3S ?). I know he might hold 4/5 hearts, and you expect me to lie by telling he might not ? From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 30 12:25:05 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 13:25:05 +0200 Subject: [BLML] flaw in L70? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020930131930.00a98820@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 23:13 28/09/2002 +0200, Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: >I was called to adjudicate the following claim: >S is declarer in a D contract, W is on lead. > > - > KJ > 7 > - > > Qx immaterial > - > 9 > - > > - > T > K4 > - > >S, who is not very experienced, claims the rest. W objects: >If he leads a spade and declarer ruffs in dummy, he will get >a trump trick. >All players agree that South was aware that West had one >trump left. >As East had already shown out in spades declarer could have >a complete count of the hand and said something like "You >can't assume I would get that wrong." > >I said I could and was inclined to rule a ruff in dummy >"careless but not irrational" BUT: >As declarer was aware that a trump was outstanding, the >condition of L70C2 was not met, so I could not award a trick >to the outstanding trump. AG : the conditions of use for the very specific L70C are not met; However, the conditions of use for the very general L70B and 70D say that you are allowed to decide that the spade could have been ruffed in dummy. If you decide this would be only careless, as opposed to abaurd (and IMHO you'd be right if South doesn't spontaneously state he ruffs in hand), you are by all means allowed to award the defense one trick. Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 30 12:34:25 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 13:34:25 +0200 Subject: [BLML] violation of L16B? In-Reply-To: <83D8VQUTPJOL2VZ1U3Z2YCAA7ZWC7EB.3d961de1@pp-xp> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020930132553.00ab46e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 23:23 28/09/2002 +0200, Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: >An expert player held > >T9876 >AQ8 >AJ5 >A7 > >and opened in second seat (N/VUL vs VUL, opponents passing >throughout) 1NT (15-17) - 2C (Stayman) - 2D (!) - 3NT, >making. Partner has a 4423-hand. 4 spades goes down on a 4-0 >trump break. > >Would you consider adjusting the score under L16B - >extaneous information from other sources - on the evidence >of the 2D response to Stayman? AG : do you mean the player cheated ? That's a deep position indeed from only this case. In Saturday's match, I declined to Puppet-Stayman on a 4225 hand. Do you mean you will disallow me to take the right decision ? (4S = , 3NT +2) >I only know the hand from the TD and one opponent; I don't >think anybody asked the player why he had bid the hand like >this. AG : that's wrong, of course. However, you should know that the small amount of cheats always have a good reason to invoke, so asking would probably not help you. If somebody (the opponent or the TD) has good reason to think the player knew something because he peeked at the hands, or because he heard what happened at some other table, then have him followed. But to decide he did indeed use extraneous information seems more like the complaint of somebody who thinks he doesn't deserve his bottom. Give him a lecture on what happens when you say in the open that somebody cheats. The Lord knows, if declarer was YT, I could as well have misplaced two spades with my clubs. Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 30 12:41:27 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 13:41:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] violation of L16B? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020930133729.00aa1bc0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 23:42 29/09/2002 +0100, Tim West-meads wrote: >I can't imagine assuming it on the bidding of a single hand in isolation. >Question the player, find out if he has prior aversions to showing bad >majors AG : yes, it could be more of a 75B/75C violation : responder didn't mention that partner is prone to disregard a weak suit. Which doesn't lead to score adjustment unless opps made some bid or play based on the curtailed info. >, review the room layout and see where he is likely to have heard - >talk to the players there at the time and find out what they said - >investigate. From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 30 12:49:23 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 13:49:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] Framed thy fearful symmetry? In-Reply-To: <4A256C44.00217B6A.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020930134202.00a97430@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:19 30/09/2002 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >In the thread "WBF CoC comments solicited", >Adam Wildavsky wrote: > > >New "symmetrical" playing cards were in > >use. From reading BLML I now understand > >their advantages, but they have the > >unfortunate effect of making some heart > >cards look like diamonds. I suggest that > >the design be modified -- I understand it > >has been once already. > >[snip] > > >In a missive in the daily bulletin Jose > >Damiani mentioned the use of symmetric > >playing cards, and how he hoped all NCBOs > >would start using them. > >[snip] > >I am of the opinion that, no matter how the >design of symmetric cards is modified, the >number of revokes by players using symmetric >cards will be proportionally greater than >the number of revokes with traditional cards. AG : I really don't know. Astigmatic or long-sighted persons could mistake classical D for H and the other way round. They will not have the same problems with symmetrical cards, because they are color-coded ; BTA colorblind people will have more problems with the new, ambiguous, designs. Which is the bigger population ? >The *only* advantage of symmetrical cards >is to prevent a certain type of deliberate >cheating. AG : nope. See above. Also, any gadget that is invented to avoid cheating also avoid numerous accusations or imlpications of cheating. Not bad. This wat Mr. Feline's position when he devised the screens. Best regards, Alain. From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Sep 30 13:26:35 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 08:26:35 -0400 Subject: [blml] Illegal convention In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20020930081116.00aa9100@pop.starpower.net> At 02:10 PM 9/27/02, twm wrote: >In-Reply-To: >"Roger Pewick" wrote: > > > Perhaps what I want to be most clear about is that it ought to be a > > primary aspect of the bridge league's service to engender the attitude > > in players that devising methods is an inherent part of the game. > >Perhaps. But if I want to devise methods to do well in a major >tournament >they don't need to be particularly good methods. Providing they are >confusing enough to make defending against them difficult for the typical >pair I will get enough 80+% scores to make up for 40% ones I get against >the decent pairs. Nobody would use a Multi 2D based on the inherent >merits - it just happens to score well if opps have no prepared defence. >Is encouraging people to develop "Bunny-Killer" systems really what you >had in mind? I think just about everyone who uses Multi 2D does so based on its inherent merits. Its merits may not be on display when you bid 2D, but the principal "inherent merit" of the Multi is to free up 2H and 2S for uses other than weak 2s. If you want to devise a superior method, one that will do well in major tournaments based on its merits rather than its unfamiliarity, you've got to be able to try it out. You can't expect everyone who does this to come up with "particularly good methods" every time. That's no reason not to let them try. Just because it's unfamiliar doesn't make it a "'bunny-killer' system". Big club systems were "bunny-killers" in the ACBL in the 60s and early 70s precisely because ACBL players had been discouraged by regulation and policy from trying them out, hence making them unfamiliar to most players perforce. If you can't experiment with the unfamiliar, it will remain unfamiliar forever. In any sport or game other than bridge, someone who comes up with a valid, legal tactic that produces a win against an opponent by virtue of its novelty or unfamiliarity is considered a tactical genius. The ability to do this is a valid and highly prized skill in any other game; why should bridge be so different? And what, for that matter, is wrong with devising something deliberately designed to be a "'bunny-killer' system" if you believe you're about to play against a field of bunnies? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Sep 30 13:54:35 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 08:54:35 -0400 Subject: [blml] Illegal convention In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20020930084201.00aa9780@pop.starpower.net> At 11:01 AM 9/28/02, twm wrote: >In-Reply-To: >Brian Meadows > > > On Fri, 27 Sep 2002 19:10 +0100 (BST), Tim West-Meads wrote: > > > > >Perhaps. But if I want to devise methods to do well in a major > > tournament >they don't need to be particularly good > methods. Providing > > they are >confusing enough to make defending against them difficult > for > > the typical >pair I will get enough 80+% scores to make up for 40% > ones > > I get against >the decent pairs. Nobody would use a Multi 2D based on > > the inherent >merits - it just happens to score well if opps have no > > prepared defence. > > > > Well, I'm painfully aware of my limitations as a bridge player > > (just a decent club player, no pretensions to being an expert) > > but I'll admit to playing the multi 2D on its merits - no, *not* > > the merits of the 2D bid itself, but the merits of the effects > > that the 2D bid has on the rest of the system. > >That is a benefit to be sure. My belief is that the downside of playing >it against well prepared defences outweighs that benefit on balance and >that a natural weak 2D is generally a better use for the bid. The >downside however is seldom exposed at club level. > > > >Is encouraging people to develop "Bunny-Killer" systems really what > > you >had in mind? > > > I'm not going to say that you know nothing about devising bidding > > systems, Tim - but I certainly think that you know very little > > about the sort of people who spend their time devising bidding > > systems, and I think you have *no clue whatsoever* about what > > motivates them. > >I wasn't talking about the sort of people who *currently* spend time >developing bidding systems (the vast majority of whom I believe focus on >making their bidding better, rather than trying to blow away opponents). >I was talking about those people who are motivated by winning (like me) >who would, in a free-for-all approach, adopt bunny-killers because they >became *necessary* to do well. "System geeks" are not the problem, they >are a small minority and Probst and I will welcome them at our >table. The >problem is that I believe a free-for all approach would radically change >the character of competitive bridge and soon drive a large number of >people away from the game. > >While I might disagree with the detail of existing policies I think there >remains a need for balance. System restrictions should probably be >unnecessary in premium events (eg Life Master pairs) and there are way to >few events where this currently applies. That misses the point entirely. Even the world's best player, thinking he has newly devised the world's best system, is not going to be willing to trot it out for the very first time in the Life Master Pairs. When someone comes up with the cure for cancer, you can be sure it will be tested on (literal) bunnies before it finds its way into "premium" cancer wards (where we can only hope for our own sakes that it will not prove to be performance-enhancing for bridge). Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Sep 30 14:13:15 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 09:13:15 -0400 Subject: [BLML] violation of L16B? In-Reply-To: <83D8VQUTPJOL2VZ1U3Z2YCAA7ZWC7EB.3d961de1@pp-xp> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20020930085858.00b06640@pop.starpower.net> At 05:23 PM 9/28/02, Petrus wrote: >An expert player held > >T9876 >AQ8 >AJ5 >A7 > >and opened in second seat (N/VUL vs VUL, opponents passing >throughout) 1NT (15-17) - 2C (Stayman) - 2D (!) - 3NT, >making. Partner has a 4423-hand. 4 spades goes down on a 4-0 >trump break. > >Would you consider adjusting the score under L16B - >extaneous information from other sources - on the evidence >of the 2D response to Stayman? >I only know the hand from the TD and one opponent; I don't >think anybody asked the player why he had bid the hand like >this. I don't see how it is possible to justify an adjustment under L16B based strictly on a system violation that happened to work out well without any evidence whatsoever that the player in question might actually have had some extraneous information. That does not mean, however, that such a fortuitous coincidence wouldn't send me looking for such evidence. Of course, the first thing I (or, I would imagine, any of us) would have done would have been to ask the player why he bid like that, the obvious first step in the evidence-gathering process. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Sep 30 14:20:34 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 09:20:34 -0400 Subject: [blml] Illegal convention In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20020930091455.00b05610@pop.starpower.net> At 06:16 PM 9/28/02, Jesper wrote: >On Sat, 28 Sep 2002 21:02 +0100 (BST), twm@cix.compulink.co.uk >(Tim West-meads) wrote: > > >Apologies. I was indeed thinking UK where the multi is mostly used > with > >Acol 2H/S. I recommend that you use at least one of those calls for > >something other than a strong hand (2H can be 8 playing tricks in a > major > >for instance). > >I have no doubt that you are right that using both 2M openings >for strong hands is not optimal. I do it anyway, but that is >primarily because I am used to it and too lazy to work out and >get used to something better (I take my play less seriously than >my directing). In the broader context of the legitimacy of experimenting with unfamiliar methods, the only thing that matters is that the player using Multi believes it to be a superior method, not whether or not it actually is. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Sep 30 14:31:49 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 09:31:49 -0400 Subject: [blml] not shuffled In-Reply-To: <000b01c2679d$9b414e70$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <4A256C41.000E2CE5.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <000f01c2661b$5664ec40$501e2850@pacific> <5.1.1.6.1.20020929114114.00a123c0@mail.netvision.net.il> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20020930092842.00b06be0@pop.starpower.net> At 05:50 AM 9/29/02, Sven wrote: >Thank you for looking it up, but no - that was not what I was >referring to. >Now I looked up my Danish translation of the 1975 edition (The >Bridge Laws commented - issued in 1981) and found in >Law 43A1a the text (probably) translated from approximately: > >The dummy may not during the play summon the Director (except in >connection with proprieties section IIIA) The edition of the 1975 laws published by the ACBL (in 1975) contains no such parenthetical; L43A1(a) reads, in its entirety, "Dummy should not call the Director during play." Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From svenpran@online.no Mon Sep 30 15:05:22 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 16:05:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] not shuffled References: <4A256C41.000E2CE5.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <000f01c2661b$5664ec40$501e2850@pacific> <5.1.1.6.1.20020929114114.00a123c0@mail.netvision.net.il> <4.3.2.7.0.20020930092842.00b06be0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <001b01c2688a$6ac5d200$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 3:31 PM Subject: Re: [blml] not shuffled > At 05:50 AM 9/29/02, Sven wrote: > > >Thank you for looking it up, but no - that was not what I was > >referring to. > >Now I looked up my Danish translation of the 1975 edition (The > >Bridge Laws commented - issued in 1981) and found in > >Law 43A1a the text (probably) translated from approximately: > > > >The dummy may not during the play summon the Director (except in > >connection with proprieties section IIIA) > > The edition of the 1975 laws published by the ACBL (in 1975) contains > no such parenthetical; L43A1(a) reads, in its entirety, "Dummy should > not call the Director during play." > > > Eric Landau Grattan looked it up and found the exception in the WBF version. Apparently there was a (surprising) discrepancy between the ACBL and the WBF versions of this law? Sven From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 30 15:39:20 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 16:39:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] Illegal convention In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020930081116.00aa9100@pop.starpower.net> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020930163313.00aa27c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 08:26 30/09/2002 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >At 02:10 PM 9/27/02, twm wrote: > >>In-Reply-To: >>"Roger Pewick" wrote: >> >> > Perhaps what I want to be most clear about is that it ought to be a >> > primary aspect of the bridge league's service to engender the attitude >> > in players that devising methods is an inherent part of the game. >> >>Perhaps. But if I want to devise methods to do well in a major tournament >>they don't need to be particularly good methods. Providing they are >>confusing enough to make defending against them difficult for the typical >>pair I will get enough 80+% scores to make up for 40% ones I get against >>the decent pairs. Nobody would use a Multi 2D based on the inherent >>merits - it just happens to score well if opps have no prepared defence. >>Is encouraging people to develop "Bunny-Killer" systems really what you >>had in mind? > >I think just about everyone who uses Multi 2D does so based on its >inherent merits. Its merits may not be on display when you bid 2D, but >the principal "inherent merit" of the Multi is to free up 2H and 2S for >uses other than weak 2s. > >If you want to devise a superior method, one that will do well in major >tournaments based on its merits rather than its unfamiliarity, you've got >to be able to try it out. You can't expect everyone who does this to come >up with "particularly good methods" every time. That's no reason not to >let them try. Just because it's unfamiliar doesn't make it a >"'bunny-killer' system". AG : unfamiliarity is not the main concern, but uncertainty might be. If you include in your strong 2C opening some weak meaning -even if well defined and without technical problems to the opponents-, you will avoid purely preemptive overcalls or psyches : why preempt over a (possible) preempt ? >In any sport or game other than bridge, someone who comes up with a valid, >legal tactic that produces a win against an opponent by virtue of its >novelty or unfamiliarity is considered a tactical genius. The ability to >do this is a valid and highly prized skill in any other game; why should >bridge be so different? AG : you may quote me on that too. >And what, for that matter, is wrong with devising something deliberately >designed to be a "'bunny-killer' system" if you believe you're about to >play against a field of bunnies? AG: perhaps -only perhaps- because in a field of genuine bunnies you don't need complex methods; playing well wil be enough, and less risky. Disruptive methods are at their best when playing against a well-fitted pair : they're less fitted in uncharted waters. Different methods are also a way to provide extra variance in the results - a good thing if, and only if, you are the underdog. Best regards, Alain. From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Sep 30 16:16:00 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 11:16:00 -0400 Subject: [blml] Illegal convention In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020930163313.00aa27c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020930081116.00aa9100@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20020930110013.00b0fd50@pop.starpower.net> At 10:39 AM 9/30/02, Alain wrote: >AG : unfamiliarity is not the main concern, but uncertainty might be. >If you include in your strong 2C opening some weak meaning -even if >well defined and without technical problems to the opponents-, you >will avoid purely preemptive overcalls or psyches : why preempt over a >(possible) preempt ? Uncertainty is a legitimate factor, and not uncommon in choosing methods. Such a 2C opening would be no different from an ordinary Multi 2D -- usually a weak two, but sometimes a strong balanced hand. To take a more obvious example, in my preferred methods I describe partner's 4S bid in the auction 2S-P-4S along the lines of, "She hopes to buy the contract at 4S; she may expect to make it, or she may be preempting." Surely such agreements are quite common and perfectly reasonable. >AG: perhaps -only perhaps- because in a field of genuine bunnies you >don't need complex methods; playing well wil be enough, and less >risky. Disruptive methods are at their best when playing against a >well-fitted pair : they're less fitted in uncharted waters. I happen to agree, but that doesn't make either of us necessarily right. There are those who will disagree with us, and they are just as entitled to back their opinions by their actions at the table as we are. >Different methods are also a way to provide extra variance in the >results - a good thing if, and only if, you are the underdog. Again, I agree with Alain. This is a somewhat different issue, however, and there are those out there who believe it is improper, unsportsmanlike, or whatever, to adopt a strategy that fails to maximize your expected score, even for the (IMO) perfectly legitimate purpose of maximizing your chances to win or place. Unquestionably, as Alain suggests, those strategies will be different if you're a significant underdog. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From axman22@hotmail.com Mon Sep 30 16:25:18 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 10:25:18 -0500 Subject: [blml] Framed thy fearful symmetry? References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020930134202.00a97430@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: ; Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 6:49 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Framed thy fearful symmetry? > At 16:19 30/09/2002 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > >In the thread "WBF CoC comments solicited", > >Adam Wildavsky wrote: > >[snip] > > > >I am of the opinion that, no matter how the > >design of symmetric cards is modified, the > >number of revokes by players using symmetric > >cards will be proportionally greater than > >the number of revokes with traditional cards. > Best regards, > > Alain. If I understand the issues at work, the one most compelling is the recognition factor for the suit symbols. I for one am endeared to the CDHS. However, if you are to make CDHS 'symetrical' it would irritate me constantly. Certainly, the chosen shapes ought to be symmetrical as compared to bastardized CDHS. If that should mean the familiar CDHS symbols disappear from the landscape then what of it? It is recognition that there are not enough trustworthy men in the world and a sensible way of dealing with it is devised. regards roger pewick From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Mon Sep 30 17:36:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 17:36 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Illegal convention Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020930081116.00aa9100@pop.starpower.net> Eric wrote: > And what, for that matter, is wrong with devising something > deliberately designed to be a "'bunny-killer' system" if you believe > you're about to play against a field of bunnies? Absolutely nothing - if that is what the system regulations permit. The point I obviously failed to make is that removing all system regulation encourages: Innovative approaches which lead to long term enhancements in general bidding theory. Pro-client systems (one sided transfers etc). Bunny-Killers which work through confusion, unfamiliarity and getting opps to reveal AI (to you)/UI (to their partners) with adjustments . Bunny-Killers which work through aggression aggression and general style. High variance (Pro-killer) systems to kick in when non-bunny opps arrive at the table. Experimental systems which the developers will explain clearly and concisely at the table. Experimental systems which the developers will explain less well and thus gain some of the BK benefits despite that not being their intent. I do not believe that the above are universally considered "good things". Tim From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Sep 30 18:20:38 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 10:20:38 -0700 Subject: [blml] not shuffled References: <4A256C41.000E2CE5.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <000f01c2661b$5664ec40$501e2850@pacific> <005801c2673d$e2879ec0$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <001e01c268a5$ccde2bc0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Sven Pran" > But Grattan might also do me a favour by going > back to before 1987 when the proprieties was a > separate section not technically part of the laws > themselves. If I remember right dummy had > under those laws the privilege to call attention at > any time to violations of proprieties, this privilege > I believe disappeared when proprieties became > part of the laws? I cannot help wondering if this > particular change was intentional or unintentional? > The proprieties were part of the laws in 1963. However, dummy had extended rights then. He could (a) question anyone at the table about a possible revoke (b) draw attention to an irregularity, or try to prevent one (c) notify the Director of any matter that may affect the legal rights of his side (d) keep count of the tricks won and lost by each side, and draw attention to the fact that another player's card played to a preceding trick has been pointed in the wrong direction (e) play the cards of dummy as declarer's agent and as directed by him He could not "on his own initiative, participate in the play, or make any comment on the bidding or play of the current deal." In 1975 many of these rights were taken away, but dummy could still prevent an irregularity by anyone and could question any player regarding a possible revoke. As of 1987 dummy could do those things only for declarer, not for the defenders. My ACBL versions of the 1975 & 1987 Laws make no provision for dummy to take action in regard to a Proprieties violation. Grattan wrote: +=+ In English the 1975 Law said: "Dummy is not entitled to call the Director during the play (except as provided in Proprieties III para 1.)" My ACBL June 1975 edition omits the parenthetical part. +=+ In Proprieties III the first para said nothing about calling the Director but its subject matter covered courteous attitude to partner and opponents, remark or action that might cause embarrassment or annoyance to another player, interference with the enjoyment of the game, and departure from correct standards in calling and playing which might interrupt orderly progress. The paragraphs were not actually numbered. ~ G ~ +=+ While not permitting dummy to call the TD. They are numbered in my copy. Evidently the baby has been thrown out with the bath somewhere along the line, as dummy should certainly have the right to call the TD for a violation of the Properties by anyone. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Sep 30 18:29:25 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 10:29:25 -0700 Subject: [blml] Arrow switching in Montreal (was WBF comments) References: Message-ID: <003b01c268a6$f1e87b40$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Kooijman, A." > Adam Wildavsky wrote: > <> The finals of the Open and Women's pairs, >> though, used a different movement which seems as though it should >> lead to balanced comparisons. > > Each pair plays every other over the >> course of five sessions, and pairs switch directions every few >> rounds. I know this movement well because I investigated the foul-up >> that occurred in Lille. > > **** these movements are aimed to get as much balance as possible. And there > too we try to find the best combination between complexity and fairness of > the movement. It also depends on the number of pairs playing. Is it possible to describe how this is done? I'd like to recommend the same sort of thing to the ACBL Competition and Conventions committee, but don't have the know-how to do so. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Sep 30 19:30:59 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 14:30:59 -0400 Subject: [blml] Illegal convention In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 9/30/02, Brian Meadows wrote: >One approach that's interesting is OKBridge's approach in their >tournaments. It's open systems, but any pair that comes up >against a pair playing something weird can ask the TD for a >sit-out for that round. I don't know how many players take >advantage of the chance to sit out under those circumstances, >I'll see whether I can find out. This seems... odd. It may be unfair. The pair which requests the sitout presumably does so because they fear getting a bottom, this way they avoid that. However, they also deprive their opponents of the opportunity to get a top. When I sit down to play against a pair because the movement has me scheduled to play that pair, I expect to play them, not have them take a look at us, or our card, and say "oh, no, this is too hard for us, we're gonna opt out." Or does OKB have some method of scoring which eliminates this problem? From David Stevenson Mon Sep 30 11:07:00 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 11:07:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Framed thy fearful symmetry? In-Reply-To: <4A256C44.00217B6A.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> References: <4A256C44.00217B6A.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: RH writes > > >In the thread "WBF CoC comments solicited", >Adam Wildavsky wrote: > >>New "symmetrical" playing cards were in >>use. From reading BLML I now understand >>their advantages, but they have the >>unfortunate effect of making some heart >>cards look like diamonds. I suggest that >>the design be modified -- I understand it >>has been once already. > >[snip] > >>In a missive in the daily bulletin Jose >>Damiani mentioned the use of symmetric >>playing cards, and how he hoped all NCBOs >>would start using them. > >[snip] > >I am of the opinion that, no matter how the >design of symmetric cards is modified, the >number of revokes by players using symmetric >cards will be proportionally greater than >the number of revokes with traditional cards. This puzzles me, since I have now played with symmetric cards. The chance of revoking is considerably reduced, not because the cards are symmetric which makes no difference that I can see, but because the suits are different colours, red, pink, black and grey. What am I missing? >The *only* advantage of symmetrical cards >is to prevent a certain type of deliberate >cheating. Well, you could say that, but you make it sound so life-threateningly important. after all, the only advantage in not allowing people to write little notes to partner is to stop a certain type of deliberate cheating! >If screens are not in use, there are many >options villains can use for deliberate >cheating. Therefore, if screens are not in >use, are increased revokes worthwhile for >little compensating value? It depends whether there is a downside. We do lots of things for little compensating value, eg massive security on airlines. >So, I strongly believe that *if* the new >symmetrical cards are to be used in *all* >NCBOs, they should be restricted to >occasions where screens are used. Seem fine to me in ordinary EBU events. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Sep 30 19:39:17 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 14:39:17 -0400 Subject: Fw: [blml] Direction switches in the ACBL In-Reply-To: <008801c26598$ac617e20$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: On 9/26/02, Marvin L. French wrote: >It is customary for "announcements" to be made toward the end of a game Not around here, it isn't. At least, not in clubs. Here, the custom is to interrupt the game sometime in either the first or second round with "now that it's quiet", followed by one or several announcements that impart little useful information, and do much, IMNSHO, to interrupt one's train of thought. Complaints have been politely heard - and ignored. From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Sep 30 20:32:16 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 12:32:16 -0700 Subject: Fw: [blml] Direction switches in the ACBL References: Message-ID: <00c601c268b8$5ebe5bc0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Ed Reppert" > Marvin L. French wrote: > > >It is customary for "announcements" to be made toward the end of a game > > Not around here, it isn't. At least, not in clubs. Here, the custom is > to interrupt the game sometime in either the first or second round with > "now that it's quiet", followed by one or several announcements that > impart little useful information, and do much, IMNSHO, to interrupt > one's train of thought. Complaints have been politely heard - and > ignored. Strange. Our announcements in this area come just before the last round. With players knowing that they can take their time on an unfinished hand, the interruption isn't nearly so bothersome as it would be at an earlier time. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From brian@wellsborocomputing.com Mon Sep 30 21:42:02 2002 From: brian@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 16:42:02 -0400 Subject: [blml] Illegal convention In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1hdhpucblh3q7do4prs23hmodo077t1pq7@4ax.com> On Mon, 30 Sep 2002 14:30:59 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: >On 9/30/02, Brian Meadows wrote: > >>One approach that's interesting is OKBridge's approach in their >>tournaments. It's open systems, but any pair that comes up >>against a pair playing something weird can ask the TD for a >>sit-out for that round. I don't know how many players take >>advantage of the chance to sit out under those circumstances, >>I'll see whether I can find out. > >This seems... odd. It may be unfair. The pair which requests the sitout >presumably does so because they fear getting a bottom, this way they >avoid that. However, they also deprive their opponents of the >opportunity to get a top. When I sit down to play against a pair because >the movement has me scheduled to play that pair, I expect to play them, >not have them take a look at us, or our card, and say "oh, no, this is >too hard for us, we're gonna opt out." > >Or does OKB have some method of scoring which eliminates this problem? I don't know, Ed. Not being a tourney member of OKBridge, I have very little knowledge of the workings of same, I just know the policy exists, or used to. I guess OKB's response would be that players who play something totally off the wall have the answer under their own control if they don't want their opps to opt out (I suspect the rule would be invoked for forcing pass systems or similar). Anyway, I've written to Tony Reus, OKB's tourney manager, to ask him whether the policy is still in place, and if so, roughly how often he estimates that it's invoked. I'll pass the information on when I get it. Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com From brian@wellsborocomputing.com Mon Sep 30 22:49:27 2002 From: brian@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 17:49:27 -0400 Subject: [blml] Illegal convention In-Reply-To: <1hdhpucblh3q7do4prs23hmodo077t1pq7@4ax.com> References: <1hdhpucblh3q7do4prs23hmodo077t1pq7@4ax.com> Message-ID: <00hhpuo8ld385h84ritnfb2jt0763ajmd4@4ax.com> On Mon, 30 Sep 2002 16:42:02 -0400, I wrote: >On Mon, 30 Sep 2002 14:30:59 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: > >>This seems... odd. It may be unfair. The pair which requests the sitout >>presumably does so because they fear getting a bottom, this way they >>avoid that. However, they also deprive their opponents of the >>opportunity to get a top. When I sit down to play against a pair because >>the movement has me scheduled to play that pair, I expect to play them, >>not have them take a look at us, or our card, and say "oh, no, this is >>too hard for us, we're gonna opt out." >> >>Or does OKB have some method of scoring which eliminates this problem? > >I don't know, Ed. Not being a tourney member of OKBridge, I have >very little knowledge of the workings of same, I just know the >policy exists, or used to. > >I guess OKB's response would be that players who play something >totally off the wall have the answer under their own control if >they don't want their opps to opt out (I suspect the rule would >be invoked for forcing pass systems or similar). > >Anyway, I've written to Tony Reus, OKB's tourney manager, to ask >him whether the policy is still in place, and if so, roughly how >often he estimates that it's invoked. I'll pass the information >on when I get it. > Well, I have his response. In full, it read "What color is the moon"? Whether this means he doesn't know the answer, or whether it means nobody asks to sit out, I have absolutely no idea. Anyone into obscure Canadian terminology? Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Sep 30 23:26:30 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 08:26:30 +1000 Subject: [blml] Arrow switching in Montreal (was WBF comments) Message-ID: <4A256C44.007A039E.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Adam Wildavsky wrote: >>>The finals of the Open and Women's pairs, >>>though, used a different movement which >>>seems as though it should lead to balanced >>>comparisons. >>> >>>Each pair plays every other over the >>>course of five sessions, and pairs switch >>>directions every few rounds. I know this >>>movement well because I investigated the >>>foul-up that occurred in Lille. Ton replied: >>**** these movements are aimed to get as >>much balance as possible. And there too we >>try to find the best combination between >>complexity and fairness of the movement. It >>also depends on the number of pairs playing. Marv asked: >Is it possible to describe how this is done? >I'd like to recommend the same sort of thing >to the ACBL Competition and Conventions >committee, but don't have the know-how to do >so. In Australia's premier matchpoint pairs final, each pair plays each other over the course of three sessions. (28 pairs, 3-board rounds.) Since the final is barometer-scored, a Flower Howell movement is used. This allows human traffic to be minimised, as each round a pair moves to an *adjacent* table. Best wishes Richard From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sat Sep 21 22:56:28 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 22:56:28 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Las Vegas Case Thirty-Seven References: <010101c25f98$9bdfd340$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <000101c261be$aba6a1a0$a59868d5@default> Mr OS takes a strange but successful action, seemingly suggested by UI. His opponent Mrs NOS calls the TD and Mr OS justifies his action by reference to undocumented "system". IMO the TD should give all benefit of doubt to NOS and that does not imply that OS is a liar or a cheat. "Of course, Mr OS, there is no imputation of misbehaviour on your part; we accept that you are purer than fresh fallen snow; but I have to rule against you because otherwise it would be hard to rule against a known cheat, who persisted in actions like yours with nefarious intent. At best he would complain of bias. At worst, he could sue for slander. Anyway, we can hardly enforce a harsher law for novices & strangers than for friends & known experts".