From moreinchespneumonia@wildmail.com Mon Feb 2 13:36:55 2004 From: moreinchespneumonia@wildmail.com (Akaluza) Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 13:36:55 -0000 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) NaturalGain+ , What more do you want? resolvers Message-ID: natgain+
THE NEW
NaturalGain+ Pen1s Enlargement Pills

will
EXPAND
LENGTHEN
and
ENLARGE YOUR PEN1S 3+ INCHES

* 100% Mon.ey Back Guaran.tee
* FR.EE Bottle Of NaturalGain+ Worth Over $50
* FR.EE "Male Help E-Book" Worth Over $50

MORE INFO HERE
 

no more emailz

earlySchloss From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Feb 2 23:58:10 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 09:58:10 +1000 Subject: [blml] chrestomathy Message-ID: I am currently editing a book -> "I Am The Very Model Of A Modern Bridge Competitor: a chrestomathy compiled from the bridge laws mailing list" Any posters and/or lurkers on blml may, upon application, receive a free copy of the book (in Word doc format) on or after 1st March 2004. Best wishes Richard James Hills -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From a.witzen@chello.nl Tue Feb 3 01:45:38 2004 From: a.witzen@chello.nl (Anton Witzen) Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 02:45:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] bidding out of turn Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.20040203024538.00cc2690@mail.chello.nl> hi, this is perhaps a simple question, but isn't covered well enough in the laws i think: s dealer west opens 1 d s: TD it's my turn can the td now still apply L29???? in my opinion the remark gives too much information to N (the player who has to decide to accept or reject the LOOT) to give him the right to choose. regards, anton Anton Witzen. Tel: 020 7763175 boniplein 86 1094 SG Amsterdam From adam@irvine.com Tue Feb 3 02:29:05 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 18:29:05 -0800 Subject: [blml] bidding out of turn In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 03 Feb 2004 02:45:38 +0100." <3.0.5.32.20040203024538.00cc2690@mail.chello.nl> Message-ID: <200402030228.SAA11544@mailhub.irvine.com> Anton wrote: > hi, > this is perhaps a simple question, but isn't covered well enough in the > laws i think: > s dealer > west opens 1 d > s: TD it's my turn > can the td now still apply L29???? > in my opinion the remark gives too much information to N (the player who > has to decide to accept or reject the LOOT) to give him the right to choose. As far as I'm concerned, the information that it was actually South's turn to bid is AI. I don't see what other information North has gotten from South's remark. So no problem---L29 applies. -- Adam From blml@blakjak.com Tue Feb 3 03:09:42 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 03:09:42 +0000 Subject: [blml] bidding out of turn In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20040203024538.00cc2690@mail.chello.nl> References: <3.0.5.32.20040203024538.00cc2690@mail.chello.nl> Message-ID: Anton Witzen wrote >hi, >this is perhaps a simple question, but isn't covered well enough in the >laws i think: >s dealer >west opens 1 d >s: TD it's my turn >can the td now still apply L29???? >in my opinion the remark gives too much information to N (the player who >has to decide to accept or reject the LOOT) to give him the right to choose. It gives him no information except that the call was out of turn. It does not say that he wants partner not to call, for example. Players have an absolute right to draw attention ot an irregularity [except when they are dummy] and drawing attention never loses them any rights. [***] Suppose the bidding goes 4S 1C If I say "the 1C is insufficient" it does not say to partner "do not accept it": it merely draws attention ot an irregularity. The mistake that trainee TDs sometimes make, which is very similar, is after declarer leads from the wrong hand, and a player points it out, they suggest this has refused the lead out of turn. No, it has not: it has merely drawn attention to an irregularity. [***] Yes, I *do* know there is an exception, but it is very rare, and I still believe it ot be an error in the current Laws, no more. -- 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 ukdemur@uk.tk Mon Feb 2 18:46:38 2004 From: ukdemur@uk.tk (Testnev) Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 21:46:38 +0300 Subject: [blml] sukper viagrma Message-ID: It`s fabuklous! I took the only one pijll of Cialjs and that was such a GREAT weekend! All the girls at the party were just punch-drunk with my potential I have fhcked all of them THREE times but my dhck WAS able to do some more! Cbalis- it`s COOL!!! The best weekend stuff I've ever trhied! Haven`t you tried yet? DO IT NkOW at http://www.vow-meds.com/sv/index.php?pid=genviag savager irritable pollutant arguers centralize latch Burnsides reevaluate burrowing. From john@asimere.com Tue Feb 3 04:31:01 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 04:31:01 +0000 Subject: [blml] bidding out of turn In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20040203024538.00cc2690@mail.chello.nl> References: <3.0.5.32.20040203024538.00cc2690@mail.chello.nl> Message-ID: In article <3.0.5.32.20040203024538.00cc2690@mail.chello.nl>, Anton Witzen writes >hi, >this is perhaps a simple question, but isn't covered well enough in the >laws i think: >s dealer >west opens 1 d >s: TD it's my turn The TD shall be called whenever there's an infraction. Tough about the UI in my opinion. Of course you can apply L29. cheers john >can the td now still apply L29???? >in my opinion the remark gives too much information to N (the player who >has to decide to accept or reject the LOOT) i assume you mean BOOT > to give him the right to choose. >regards, >anton > >Anton Witzen. >Tel: 020 7763175 >boniplein 86 >1094 SG Amsterdam > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Tue Feb 3 09:13:11 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 09:13:11 -0000 Subject: [blml] bidding out of turn References: <3.0.5.32.20040203024538.00cc2690@mail.chello.nl> Message-ID: <009701c3ea41$da0fd3b0$28182850@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott >Anton Witzen writes > > > >in my opinion the remark gives too much > >information to N > > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Tough about the UI in my opinion. > > +=+ Is there UI? South knew it was his turn to call and reacted when West called. What information does that convey that we do not already know? That he wants to call? We knew that .... it does not tell us anything about what call he would make. All he has said is that it is his turn to call... we knew that, too, and that he has the right to stop the action and get the director in. I am puzzled by Anton's question. He seems to think South has told his partner what option to select .... I do not see that. North may jump to a conclusion, it is true, but that is in North's mind, not inherent in anything South has done. ~ G ~ +=+ From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Tue Feb 3 09:19:35 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 09:19:35 -0000 Subject: [blml] chrestomathy References: Message-ID: <009801c3ea41$daed8980$28182850@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 11:58 PM Subject: [blml] chrestomathy I am currently editing a book -> "I Am The Very Model Of A Modern Bridge Competitor: a chrestomathy compiled from the bridge laws mailing list" :-) For learners presumably. Very few of those around on blml. ~ G ~ (-: From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Tue Feb 3 09:37:28 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 09:37:28 -0000 Subject: [blml] Demographic statistic References: Message-ID: <009901c3ea41$dc2ce750$28182850@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 10:03 AM > > The reasons for the decline of bridge in the U.S. > while the game thrives in Holland and Scandinavia > can perhaps be explained - I don't pretend to have > done so - but the explanation is not likely to be simple. > +=+ In the course of deleting some forgotten stuff I came across this statement. Does it imply that there are parts of Europe where numbers are declining - or % of the population over, say, 11 years old, anyway? I ask because I am interested to know, and wondering if there is any clue in the answer to a more general proposition. ~ G ~ +=+ From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Tue Feb 3 12:07:31 2004 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 13:07:31 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] Demographic statistic Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EC21@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Hi, In Norway the membership in the federarion has been slowly declining for = a long time. This years membershipm which is not absolutely concluded = yet, indicates that the decline might have stopped. We've got about 11.000 members out of a population of some 4.5 million. A national survey a few years ago indicated that a quarter million = Norwegians above the age of 15 play bridge at least once a year, and = that half a million read about bridge in newspaper columns, TV text, = magazines and other media. The potential for growth in the membership is obvious. But it's = difficult to get people's attention and interes. Regards, Harald Skj=E6ran, Oslo =20 -----Opprinnelig melding----- Fra: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] P=E5 vegne av = Grattan Endicott Sendt: 3. februar 2004 10:37 Til: J=FCrgen Rennenkampff; BLML Emne: [blml] Demographic statistic Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 10:03 AM > > The reasons for the decline of bridge in the U.S. > while the game thrives in Holland and Scandinavia > can perhaps be explained - I don't pretend to have > done so - but the explanation is not likely to be simple. > +=3D+ In the course of deleting some forgotten stuff I came across this statement. Does it imply that there are parts of Europe where numbers are declining - or % of the population over, say, 11 years old, anyway? I ask because I am interested to know, and wondering if there is any clue in the answer to a more general proposition. ~ G ~ +=3D+ _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From blml@blakjak.com Tue Feb 3 13:02:21 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 13:02:21 +0000 Subject: [blml] chrestomathy In-Reply-To: <009801c3ea41$daed8980$28182850@multivisionoem> References: <009801c3ea41$daed8980$28182850@multivisionoem> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott wrote > >Grattan Endicott++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >"It is necessary to be somewhat underemployed >if you want to do something significant." > ['The Eighth Day of Creation'] > =#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#= >----- Original Message ----- >From: >To: >Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 11:58 PM >Subject: [blml] chrestomathy > >I am currently editing a book -> > >"I Am The Very Model Of A Modern Bridge Competitor: >a chrestomathy compiled from the bridge laws mailing list" > >:-) For learners presumably. Very few of those around on >blml. I am always willing to learn. Are you suggesting I am in a minority? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Tue Feb 3 13:05:08 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 13:05:08 +0000 Subject: [blml] bidding out of turn In-Reply-To: <009701c3ea41$da0fd3b0$28182850@multivisionoem> References: <3.0.5.32.20040203024538.00cc2690@mail.chello.nl> <009701c3ea41$da0fd3b0$28182850@multivisionoem> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott wrote > >Grattan Endicott++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >"It is necessary to be somewhat underemployed >if you want to do something significant." > ['The Eighth Day of Creation'] > =#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#= > >> >Anton Witzen writes >> > >> >in my opinion the remark gives too much >> >information to N >> >> From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > Tough about the UI in my opinion. >> > >+=+ Is there UI? South knew it was his turn to call and >reacted when West called. What information does that >convey that we do not already know? That he wants to >call? I do not even think it goes this far. He may prefer his partner would actually accept the BOOT: all it actually tells partner is that he has realised the call was illegal, ie that he is awake. Ok, there's the UI content: partner's awake. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Feb 3 13:16:26 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 14:16:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] chrestomathy In-Reply-To: References: <009801c3ea41$daed8980$28182850@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <401F9F2A.9030106@hdw.be> David Stevenson wrote: > Grattan Endicott wrote > >> >> "I Am The Very Model Of A Modern Bridge Competitor: >> a chrestomathy compiled from the bridge laws mailing list" >> >> :-) For learners presumably. Very few of those around on >> blml. > > > I am always willing to learn. Are you suggesting I am in a minority? > Very few of us are apparently willing to change our first opinions about law issues. I am not even saying I am among those few. I do think we both have a stubborn streak that is not very compatible with the statement "willing to learn". I suspect that was the reason for Grattan's remark. I did not feel in any way targeted by it, but neither did I think it necessary to react to protest. The mere fact that you did feel targeted, and needed to protest, says more about you than necessary. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Feb 3 19:51:46 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 19:51:46 -0000 Subject: [blml] chrestomathy References: <009801c3ea41$daed8980$28182850@multivisionoem> <401F9F2A.9030106@hdw.be> Message-ID: <002b01c3ea8f$a5439b00$fe6a87d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > > I am always willing to learn. Are you > > suggesting I am in a minority? > > > Herman: > > Very few of us are apparently willing to > change our first opinions about law issues. > I am not even saying I am among those few. > I do think we both have a stubborn streak > that is not very compatible with the statement > "willing to learn". > +=+ Who could have foreseen such responses? The self-deprecation of each is admirable, in its way. :-) As to why I commented as I did? Maybe whimsy, maybe an urge to see who would say what... same thing, really. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Feb 3 23:29:36 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 23:29:36 -0000 Subject: [blml] bidding out of turn References: <3.0.5.32.20040203024538.00cc2690@mail.chello.nl> <009701c3ea41$da0fd3b0$28182850@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <001e01c3eaae$26a718c0$435687d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 1:05 PM Subject: Re: [blml] bidding out of turn > Grattan Endicott wrote > > > >Grattan Endicott >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >"It is necessary to be somewhat underemployed > >if you want to do something significant." > > ['The Eighth Day of Creation'] > > =#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#= > > > >> >Anton Witzen writes > >> > > >> >in my opinion the remark gives too much > >> >information to N > >> > >> From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >> Tough about the UI in my opinion. > >> > > >+=+ Is there UI? South knew it was his turn to call and > >reacted when West called. What information does that > >convey that we do not already know? That he wants to > >call? > > I do not even think it goes this far. He may prefer his > partner would actually accept the BOOT: all it actually > tells partner is that he has realised the call was illegal, > ie that he is awake. Ok, there's the UI content: partner's > awake. > > -- +=+ Oh yes, David, all of that .... but my comments were chiefly addressed to the minority who do not altogether share your point of view. So I took the question beyond the point at which you wish to stop. ~ G ~ +=+ From jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Wed Feb 4 00:21:31 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 01:21:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] chrestomathy References: <009801c3ea41$daed8980$28182850@multivisionoem> Message-ID: DWS: I am always willing to learn. Are you suggesting I am in a minority? One might wonder if this statement is compatible with kill filing a subset of the participants in the discussion. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 2:02 PM Subject: Re: [blml] chrestomathy > Grattan Endicott wrote > > > >Grattan Endicott >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >"It is necessary to be somewhat underemployed > >if you want to do something significant." > > ['The Eighth Day of Creation'] > > =#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#= > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: > >To: > >Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 11:58 PM > >Subject: [blml] chrestomathy > > > >I am currently editing a book -> > > > >"I Am The Very Model Of A Modern Bridge Competitor: > >a chrestomathy compiled from the bridge laws mailing list" > > > >:-) For learners presumably. Very few of those around on > >blml. > > I am always willing to learn. Are you suggesting I am in a minority? > > -- > 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 > From drbrian66closers@rocketmail.com Wed Feb 4 02:10:56 2004 From: drbrian66closers@rocketmail.com (Evan) Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 00:10:56 -0200 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) LOSE WEIGHT THE EASY WAY!!!!!!! Huxley Message-ID: fatpatch1
LOSE WEIGHT THE EASIER WAY
"ITS NOT A DIET.....ITS A PATCH"

Herbal-RX Diet Patch is a cutting-edge, advanced appetite suppressant, metabolism booster, and energy enhancer...all in one! With Herbal-RX Diet Patch, there are no more starvation diets and no difficult and dangerous exercises! It works all day & all night long!

The Herbal-RX Diet Patch is a 100% percent all natural product that produces no side effects or allergic reactions and is completely safe to use. The SFP is so easy to use just peel and stick then watch the pounds melt away.

READ MORE INFO HERE
 

no more emailz

prostrateunderlies From blml@blakjak.com Wed Feb 4 16:59:59 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 16:59:59 +0000 Subject: [blml] Travels Message-ID: I shall be in Torino, Italy [well, nearby] from 6th to 11th Feb, representing Wales at an EBL TD seminar, and in Cannes, France, playing in a tourney from 11th to 16th Feb. As always, I hope to see old friends, and meet new ones, especially those members of BLML I have not yet met. I do not know whether I shall have internet access, but if anyone wants to try for any reason please use my travelling eddress: b l u e j a k 6 6 6 {at} h o t m a i l {dot} c o m -- 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 Wed Feb 4 08:58:13 2004 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 08:58:13 -0000 Subject: [blml] chrestomathy References: <009801c3ea41$daed8980$28182850@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <005601c3eb8c$037f2980$1f87403e@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: ; "David Stevenson" Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 12:21 AM Subject: Re: [blml] chrestomathy > DWS: > I am always willing to learn. Are you suggesting > I am in a minority? > > One might wonder if this statement is compatible > with kill filing a subset > of the participants in the discussion. > > Jaap > +=+ Oh, dear Jaap, speak not of killing, it is such an uncivilized thing, and so much of it around these days. And we can never read every word that is written, thus selectivity can kill a person equally as dead. And whatever is David talking about? "In a minority"? Which of us is not in a minority? Certainly we are, Jaap, you and I .... and wear it boldly on our sleeves, do we not? So who claims to be in the majority? ....and therefore wrong? ..... Oops! ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Feb 5 02:26:19 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 02:26:19 -0000 Subject: Travails - was Re: [blml] Travels References: Message-ID: <006401c3eb8f$c7168b60$5fb1193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 4:59 PM Subject: [blml] Travels > > I shall be in Torino, Italy [well, nearby] from > 6th to 11th Feb, > +=+ Too late even for prayer :-) ~ G ~ +=+ From Anne Jones" <006401c3eb8f$c7168b60$5fb1193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <002f01c3eb93$52d904e0$e7546e51@annespc> ROFL - ROFL - I'll be there too, also representing Wales - maybe delayed prayers will be answered! Anne * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * This e-mail is private and may be confidential and is for the intended recipient only. If misdirected, please notify me and confirm that it has been deleted from your system and any copies destroyed. If you are not the intended recipient you are strictly prohibited from using, printing, copying, distributing or disseminating this e-mail or any information contained in it. The information contained within this email is strictly private and, when addressed to named individuals, its contents may not be imparted to any third party without the express written permission of the sender. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ----- Original Message ----- From: "grandeval" To: Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 2:26 AM Subject: Travails - was Re: [blml] Travels > > Grattan Endicott [alternatively gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ============================== > "The notice ..... had it been early, had > been kind, but it has been delayed until > I am indifferent and cannot enjoy it... " > [loosely extracted from > 'Life of Samuel Johnson'] > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Stevenson" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 4:59 PM > Subject: [blml] Travels > > > > > > I shall be in Torino, Italy [well, nearby] from > > 6th to 11th Feb, > > > +=+ Too late even for prayer :-) ~ G ~ +=+ > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From postmaster@amsterdamned.org Thu Feb 5 07:40:14 2004 From: postmaster@amsterdamned.org (postmaster@amsterdamned.org) Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2004 08:40:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] InterScan NT Alert Message-ID: Sender, InterScan has detected virus(es) in your e-mail attachment. Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2004 08:40:14 +0100 Method: Mail From: To: peref@lefdal.no File: body.pif Action: clean failed - deleted Virus: WORM_MYDOOM.A From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Thu Feb 5 19:35:44 2004 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 14:35:44 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 15 Message-ID: Hi BLMLrs, You have 32.5 tables and make 2 sections: Mitchell-16 and N-S-Rover-16.5 (pair 17 N-S bump beginning with table 2). Every round, you pay attention to your movement, . but... At round 5, you tell pair 8 N-S :"next round, your turn" not realizing they already changed (five minutes before you called the round). When you see something goes wrong, the just finished playing board 23. Law 15A1: "The Director normally allows the score to stand if none of the four players have previously played the board". (the case we have) No problem for E-W: they get what they score. For N-S pair you can use two solutions: 1) Allow an Avg+ to 17 N-S (no way at fault). Tell 8 N-S "your score is void". 2) Edit your movement (EDM with ACBLScore) entering 8 instead of 17 on board 23. Pair 8 N-S plays one more board and pair 17 N-S one less. IMHO, 2) is better than 1) (according to Laws), but is 1) illegal ? What do you usually do ? Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From john@asimere.com Fri Feb 6 02:48:21 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 02:48:21 +0000 Subject: [blml] Law 15 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , Laval Dubreuil writes >Hi BLMLrs, > >You have 32.5 tables and make 2 sections: Mitchell-16 >and N-S-Rover-16.5 (pair 17 N-S bump beginning with >table 2). Every round, you pay attention to your >movement, . but... > >At round 5, you tell pair 8 N-S :"next round, your >turn" not realizing they already changed (five minutes >before you called the round). When you see something >goes wrong, the just finished playing board 23. > >Law 15A1: "The Director normally allows the score to >stand if none of the four players have previously played >the board". (the case we have) > >No problem for E-W: they get what they score. > >For N-S pair you can use two solutions: >1) Allow an Avg+ to 17 N-S (no way at fault). > Tell 8 N-S "your score is void". > >2) Edit your movement (EDM with ACBLScore) entering > 8 instead of 17 on board 23. Pair 8 N-S plays > one more board and pair 17 N-S one less. > >IMHO, 2) is better than 1) (according to Laws), but >is 1) illegal ? > >What do you usually do ? No.2) I also tell the Rover Pair to pre-brief the table they're going to when they go to the previous table, and warn them if they're slow people will forget. Ii get this problem perhaps one movement in 30 or so, when I run a Rover. I like Rovers as it makes for a NS sit-out. I think 1 is illegal as once a score is obtained it must stand. > >Laval Du Breuil >Quebec City > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From idc@macs.hw.ac.uk Fri Feb 6 16:47:53 2004 From: idc@macs.hw.ac.uk (Ian D Crorie) Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 16:47:53 +0000 Subject: [blml] chrestomathy In-Reply-To: Grattan Endicott's message of Wed, 4 Feb 2004 08:58:13 -0000 Message-ID: [Jaap] > > One might wonder if this statement is compatible > > with kill filing a subset > > of the participants in the discussion. However, using kill files allows one to collect a chrestomathy more easily. --- Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. A: Why is top posting deprecated? From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Fri Feb 6 21:16:05 2004 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 16:16:05 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 15 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John writes: No.2) I also tell the Rover Pair to pre-brief the table they're going to when they go to the previous table, and warn them if they're slow people will forget. Ii get this problem perhaps one movement in 30 or so, when I run a Rover. I like Rovers as it makes for a NS sit-out. ____________________________________________________________________ Thx John, I use Rover as often as I can because it is often one of the best movements with half a table. EW or NS sit-out is the same. I give them the choice. You just have to pay more attention when you have an even number of tables (and a skip....). Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From MAILER-DAEMON@hermes.dataguard.no Tue Feb 10 12:50:07 2004 From: MAILER-DAEMON@hermes.dataguard.no (MAILER-DAEMON@hermes.dataguard.no) Date: 10 Feb 2004 12:50:07 -0000 Subject: [blml] failure notice Message-ID: Hi. This is the qmail-send program at hermes.dataguard.no. I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses. This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. : vdeliver: Invalid or unknown virtual user 'claudia' --- Below this line is a copy of the message. Return-Path: Received: (qmail 98541 invoked from network); 10 Feb 2004 12:50:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO monster.dataguard.no) (212.62.224.2) by hermes.dataguard.no with SMTP; 10 Feb 2004 12:50:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 32156 invoked from network); 10 Feb 2004 12:54:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rtflb.org) (130.67.100.41) by hotel.dataguard.no with SMTP; 10 Feb 2004 12:54:31 -0000 From: blml@rtflb.org To: claudia@datek-inst.no Subject: hi Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 14:03:17 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0009_FFF85BE9.A06B79F2" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0009_FFF85BE9.A06B79F2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The message contains Unicode characters and has been sent as a binary attachment. ------=_NextPart_000_0009_FFF85BE9.A06B79F2 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="doc.zip" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="doc.zip" UEsDBAoAAAAAAGhoSjDKJx+eAFgAAABYAABRAAAAZG9jLmh0bSAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAuZXhlTVqQ AAMAAAAEAAAA//8AALgAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA qAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUEUAAEwB AwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADgAA8BCwEHAABQAAAAEAAAAGAAAGC+AAAAcAAAAMAAAAAASgAAEAAAAAIA AAQAAAAAAAAABAAAAAAAAAAA0AAAABAAAAAAAAACAAAAAAAQAAAQAAAAABAAABAAAAAAAAAQAAAA AAAAAAAAAADowQAAMAEAAADAAADoAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABVUFgwAAAAAABgAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACAAADgVVBY MQAAAAAAUAAAAHAAAABQAAAABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAA4C5yc3JjAAAAABAAAADAAAAABAAA AFQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMS4yNABVUFghDAkCCUh+iY/UNhyBKZYAAFNOAAAAgAAAJgEAxe6HApIA UCZKAEAD/bJpmiwQBPQl6AEAS85pmm7ZH8gqwAO4sKimaZqmoJiQiICapmmaeHBoYFhQzWCfaUgA RAc4MDRN03QDKCQcGBDTLLvXCCMD+Cnw6E3TNE3g2NDIvLQ0TdM0rKSclIzONk3TiHxwaClvXKbp msEHVEwDRDiapmmaLCQcFAwEaZrObfwofwP07OSmaZqm3NTMyLyapmmatKykoJiQZ5umaYyAeHAo e2jebNN1B1wDVEwo//sLdrb740APNCj3LC8DmqYZ+SQoShwUDARpms7sm/wnA+zo4KZpmqbY1MzI wJqmabq4J7CsqKCYaZqmaZSMiIR8pGmapnRsZFxUaZqmG0wDREA4MKZpmqYoIBgQCJqmc5sA+CbP A+jg2Gebzm1UNEMDQDQ024r/////nVrQ2uX0Bh8zTmxyTtgCl1+SyAE9fL5DS5bkNYngOpf///// 91rAKZUEdutj3lzdYehy/48iuFHtjC7TeybUDTnwqmf/////J+qweUUU5ruTbkwtEfjiz7+yqKGd nJ6jq7bE1ekAGjf/////V3qgyfUkVovD/jx9wQhSn+9CmPFNrA5z20a0JZkQigf/////hwqQGaWl qP7yw9Ko+BIsSmuPtuANPXCm3xtafOEnVcn/////EmC+GGXVOJ4Xc+JUiUG8muM/xlCNbQCWT8tq DLFDerL/////cxfOiEcFyIpXI/LEmXFMLgvv1sCtnZCGD3t6fJGJlKL/////s8fe+hU1WH6nwwI0 eaHcGluP5jBtzSB2zyuK/FG5JJL/////A3fuaOVl6G6Xg4N2jJWhsMLX7wooSW2UvusbToS9+Tj/ ////er8HUqDxRWyWU7MafOVRwDKnH5oYmR2kLrtL3nQNqUj/////6o834pBB9axmI+OmbDUB0KJ3 TyoI6c20not7bmRdWVj/////Wl9ncoCRpbzW8xM2XIWx4BJHf7r4OX3EDlur/lStCT3/////mnen AnDhVcwGw0PGXNVhYWRqc3+MoLXN6AYnS3Kcyfn/////LGKbVxZYfbBgJv4jetQxkeRawy/OEIX9 dPZ3+4AMmSn/////vFLrhybIbRXAbh+TikThlNQSId+ugFUtGObHq/J8aVn/////TkI7Nzg4PUVQ Xm+DmrTR8RQ6Y8++8OVstuQjW/e8Yaj/////0DuJ7nM8Y/iZ4MVLkRehId4isz8/VEhRe29+1s/Z bpX/3/7/KQMj6ZQJv+bzpUEQpnwyaWuAIQstx07SEIJs+f////9zp3feFIcHB/tSqgFhwCyb9yaW 3ZedImAPRp7N/SxAf/////+TstLxCSBYdmhjXVBSUVNqZHcBLMXvVDC8VxE8zp1Xbv////8g461g 2tFSFc5mX7dBwBTkZZOfeP5yDbznapV7exN2dv////99HA0t8vb0sPHR53n63Uxlo/8nbIzdC9uM G6m9dYc7T//////bFIJCFAlFzIIP+mK3KXP7FYPnHpN+tCRpKf+9KMvqTv//7f93Djqwv/dU1Oxz mAFNBp3yoq/CYvPlXjffBXFS/////wf4G0B+VD6nqU8sAn0wyOcG0lQqGmtMAZ0E9mr6HccG/4X/ //gdkASrlgAGBhAr75nUTv8XeAuTxvh1IYyk/////1//zHJr62/+pf3s0EHJeJHZxKwmx+jgqbca XW/sKRCj/////7zz7fVvUSE1jdZTHEgpGOO3XD+duM3QUlXjtUPqvmfj/////6CgMuLOSTokLzAK j66E4XVAoWKYsvUwSuDj/5GBwScH/////3eIZ49Us4UI4v6CRathjnTauyo4rvBK1BicF4pIwrW8 /////577H1bmbpDgO0ezoBq30qq8xPeTSKYBwAT/BhKLXanY/////72UMfgf6FpjPt/WCspC1Qxe YEly9fSu9FMX/BYV8o6a/////3NwPIKx4o43W1MWoieUVFissTU3Pqp1ZZUhbusahIFq/////+YK GD86lZ+BguNzpEc9CQLWLojCp9U/ilzqn1Y7Xz1K/9L//8N5X0MJuPCrms4esoXZS8HUO17P3/ZH +Ur3/////9j7LbSKZ2L/WK0RjCL3W8tY34X8rOBl2uuXlOJgCO8//////zzj7H8QjmB+3U2b5J0F G5d628yz+zePJfE5HbJ8GvUd/////x+9n+nG6unrPtmWcP072kUl9vOk59YEIUw5/lukh4mS//// C53TsFuNKjZCG8rR5DRQrMMcxeFmimxbM1FC/////+0+I6ti1+6U9DSy6dVJrF4mrrxteWeVWzeG pII9rofD/////4ewgLbfQ9+7i4BlLx6oMsu1KpM3Q3niYjRauu1pXGwi/////6wY1XPh68iGL1pJ T/FD8zfLbzYYPWctofGYQhK4DcHK/7f//2sKa/gFjY0HnpfoiFC2srjZ8zKBX9p+X/fQHQ3///// ShsDOn0PPwtPGPEr4Yi1NyT31AcfN2/Na5BdQpaXn6L/////n50vJlZAhvcbrLVavCc7JKSdidPI pU82+mgAvj5dGdb/2///9ckUyfDkjiw2iQvghuvRCwoz07M2hpLkvYowoP/////HuV680N6rwchK 14K/XeWgnpOQJdhALzGgCaazMAGh2P////9frZFovBhyOfUsoWNhix4aQSY3G0eq2fC7xeYx4Ews aTf+///o+hHGcPdD+0ei2qDV9yjFv7WVcNEE9fBNaRv8////lj2TBqUsujl4DNudAiPDmVWWhFuH Qjz/////MzSANfYd8ySmXsbvONrcqoff2HIvP8Tk9pY2j0Q1R/X/////QdWRJmlnyhPaLDJtCSkR c1pBVgs6PfBSHawvphrwt/r//0v/MRQml5IPtKQsvl7QDM/PtwBr03qRVDiIkrH/N2j/5Qrn4JUl msjO1oIDpc578bTzHTb//1/4sAzRf5GPJf5SijZ1a+/bwdkjxg8+dRWkwP3/////vLrDPAha53OG btWwV3A6D36k3FDVQj8Pjq8/q+BAc+P///8bwlx/iRSy+e0DGCL+C48qlJUdTWH6Jm9hE4O/8P// /h3CDD375n8/KDSeK68izSmi62dcuGhJfmZLf4P/wKqq0yrLdWigKKdI39unGj0l/////yQF1+Xs 4O3i+PkOZ5dWkbv0XM3X35G6tz+5ml2IrF05/xb//+xxa5fsK8AuCGjFnVkbCQvvGbZTWZVZD/// //8Sdvmb1JGvTrBBSKDuhyimZ58Oxz9PyLYCxZlctWRzDr/E//+bALZBVBTrCYPqxQD5jmVeaGEU 9uPhUpP/wv//2shfm3fGoonK0uTbIvEfjxzJrtVAeLhM3Hz/////8cmzboBqoIUrhLngq83ncX+3 mzFatZHSCDRwTowmo2m/9P9vNQibXZvIi1v9QJbcQFjMEOr8sIvFbf////+Lst8d93QR3CapECBK fjJBvuVhS+lyfye8BkOTUvkTG//////2Xb5AnMIPmQDGi6z1htfggp53i/rU5k4QwhhLPijt+f/G //Z8Cn9Hw2p2uZn+Xa5sWs1OG+uJcY78G/3///H2Bnx5XBOxTyH1VPUrYn2kY3C1qmJKkf////81 xphmgCJYj1UseNhBsToschBw2++sZZJ55B/18Up9aP//v/1r8ObCdG0D/hBQPcVA2puiCQiIfQH5 MsalB3QZ/////yzzzqgg1t6NtaZ+b+WUVkdB2Mzu65/2TwrhJu46WbRa/////wNFcfefCIM1oJJW ov8SblqAT/0u9mgrofejOvwzPL1H////Fj5I2IZV3yvCbAuEH4bYF88F6dT96+Xa9f////+hrbxj Tj4D84aEHh7n0p57Q6G+O7GfNOqKWdtZY68yrP9/4/9Qxb4pxeUE6l/+ATx9ynbzwUuLfzwbWAtk gf+X/v/MNURw3fAQMkdJhLrY1ICsAegIazkRfRHv4///xv/3PbC0GEcxMZ+Mpo3riFK04887phcS ymcPrf9vlP53R7TNHji84mhBmAEJAw8BuBG0vYX+//85DXVgIRvtYRS7iLJmVZTNglXPoW4Zr1Ib /f//t1KkKhBLsO8pkC/vYlApaa90pZZtp1UP8P//29J96DaZFuBspwy8RleC5es2pJZ8oOlij/// /28hOTIoQ36rw6mOIcD5IkMjWnL8JE9CKPpZgM7E/////3Qhy57uVZgUT+xP0SKlKLEFuTqYE3p/ UcloeZ2OscLs/////xYkXoNWJvNQTKd4NHXVBXW1Dk69CXf5MeEfYPt01lXR/////0jdaelwHJqt W/D5hkbLrUbxszphraBmyvOxr/m2lAXNb1Xg/6aMfk5TrzC5ZvjhFC9ARHj/////foq25q+oTlze 1i2qrK2vK4XKbxXYKyNRO+zdyc9KQpP9X/r/7qyqL/BvIXqM71BFIQVzPSMGCCnluqlQ/+1LvLnS Y25L7s0oqqGSOHtOAwnze///////ob82tDW5QMoX5YUQqUXkhivTfixd7WwKvnDHjtCdbH+j/9Ze rXq+++Tu2Zjo9VU4Cx32k55fqMH/jKdHHvqI6NMjVHki9aqFDv//3+BrjRKHmvBIfnFhQC0d4oHg s/Of3rmbnoj6/3/79IsYjPWoihpgkwpk5jsXmAkeP/m0srpxM790oRc5NtNxY5d9utRQMEIFi/// /1sSTGuvvtvbAHsyGXXAxHxLurRT5xZDowjA////f5ENOMh/8YwyJ5MbdgYixgihMFog7nv2H8Wv kg5h1///Av9yP3UPPAVCfYd8ANJiMbvQaoG7Vu7sYVn//7/1TITEtMIBS1gy2pMc+MfzY7idf/9M G69Vc6b//3+J3FHX/v9jq4++HctN3vnl07f2HOw+n/qx+////zFlekI6W7YnjQBQy+AM/e0QleZn 9oX+9I1Zo/3GCf//LX4lynoIe0nG7LWxsUHnPA3QFmtwfktr/////xs+2k4wqusLm6no0hPRtEQG 67w2iNApuqVeUf0knhJb/3/r/2qjpLo6f8YgD4fJUExe/GTOeX+ttXp5KCm5/////zVJqurIDMMt SmJPNN9GNnhbkdG+RlAxhtWO1UpTufUn/////0aqGi2VSgv8m+Yjoms3BtithWA+HwPq1MGxpJqT j46Q/1/4/5WdqLbH2/IMKUlskrsvSH218C5vs/pEkeE0/5d+qYq1ngBlzTgniwJ8+Xn8gguXl/9C //+aoKm1xNbrAx48XYGo0v8vAdENTI7TG2b/////tAVZsApnxyqQ+WXURrszriytMbhCz1/yiCG9 XP6jS/b/W/z/pFUJwHo397qASRXktovjHP3hyLKfj4J4/////3FtbG5ze4aUpbnQ6gcnSnCZxfQm W5PODE2R2CJvvxJof+P//8EdfN5DqxaE9WngWtdX2mDpdXXCh5OitMnh//+/xfwa1oaw3Q1Adq/r Kmyx+USS4zeO6EWlCP//W/xu10OyJJnKCosPliCtPdBm/5s63IEp1IL/////M+eeWBXVmF4n88KU aUEc+tu/ppB9bWBWT0tKTFFZZHL//43+g5euyOUFKIKj0gQ5cazqK2+2AE2d8Eaf//9/ifv+IYn0 YtNHvji1Nbg+x1NTVlxlcYCSp/////+/2vgZPWSOu+seVI3JCEqP1yJwwRVsxiOD5ky1IZACd8b/ ///vauhp7XT+ixuuRN15GLpfB7JgEcV8NvOzdnOlF/j/0aByRx/62LmdhG5bwjQtKZ//////LzdC UGF1jKbD4wYsVYGw4hdPisgJTZTeK3vOJH3ZOJr83/r//2fSQLElnBaTE5Ycpc40OkPHPnCF+djW qf//W6JCbJnJ/DJrp+YobSBgTp+DKqTd//9faMQs/27gVc1IxkdpMtxpgewiu1f2mD36L/T/5ZA+ 76NaFNE8NBrjVFAl/di2l3ti+H/pF6wpHBILB+0NFSAuP+sKhKEHhP///7fQX47A9fsIpucrcrwJ vcwCW7cWeN1VsB4PA3r/////9HG6MajNSkMhKg9pcAJjOtLilKlpeUWJvnwlhZFVDsH4t/7/7R5T tUTu32jxRzKWf4wdW8glqXzVJrP//1u0gNK1BGKCbhyK5Eyi3QBRuaXpLv9/i8ZLcIdXPCdpe2iJ laKAnebr84n/3/jbf21bDAv5g+gRI57fC0aEaDFQmuc3iv//Df7gOZX0Vrsj2m3hWNJPz1LYYe3t 8Pb/Cxr//y/9LEFZdJKzmShVhbjuJ2Oi5ClxvApbrwZgvR3/Fl/qgOZPjpwRiQS6hw6YJbVI3v// //93E7JU+aFM+qtfFtCNTRDWn2s6DOG5lHJTNx4I9eXYzv+F/v/Hw8LEydHc6vsPJkBdfaBPG0p8 sekkYqP/Av//5y54xRVovhdz0jSZAWzaSwCwLa0wtj/L//+N/svO1N3p+ApAUnCRtdwGM2OWzAVB gMIHT/9S//+a6DmN5D6b+17ELZkIeu9nU+Fl7HYDkyb+X+r/vFXxkDLXfyrYiT3oayvutH1JGOq/ l3Lo//+XwBX85tPDtqyloaCip6+6yNntBB47W/X//19BzfkoWo/HKHN5bmMuYyx2IDAuMSAyMDA0 /SPbb5MxL3h4IAI6IGFuZHkpAHu7BRvMAi0MAAUcADkJzhD/mQ8BABAACQAS1wMHIX77ZnV2enRN di5xeXk3RmL9v/v/c2dqbmVyXFp2cGViZg1cSnZhcWJqZlxQaGV/+f+/F2FnSXJlZnZiYVxSa2N5 YmVyZWJ6UXl0M7f4LdgyXBlDanJvRnZrRnq6v/32Z2tGMFNnbmZ4ehcucmtyAEcLWis0BfYjZ0V5 l5b/9r9ub3RlcGFkICVzC01lc3NhZ2UALCX7mNsPdRIFLjJ1OgSKbnvPFAYDLy0/K/tv/29DZWMA Tm92AE9jdABTTQBBdWcASnVsA7a5261uU2F5D3ByBwNGkLe/XbYTYVNhJ0ZyaQBUaERXZfbO3bZk B3VzTW8XL2FiY2Sf+8Jv/2doaWprbG2ccHFyc3ROd3h5emf2//9/QUJDREVGR0hJSktMTU5PUFFS U1RVVldYWVobte3W2la412NnVAJQ3Oha4bYIcA5xRiAFn2ocPoJbAHYajmFoeHLd98K2PZNi7naa XyducHgPoXD4t55iZ3h2Z0tDwwdp3y78fy10dmV5LTIuMG9xcIxfY05wdXJmmaHdCjNcdmkLRDvZ 1r5tSGRWLVHgeXPnnvv+bnpjNQB0Z2FbXymPgll27nNjXwdwaS7l3g4Y21FnMCNYbvpuXEcr3Nre W2Fmc9UACmhsoy12gVd8LmRsbLPdUXUmbsnK9nlfQQtkGTB0TrDQatwCd28P8Oht5dYcztFrtgsH bGn8/Nu+YZd1CWUHaW1teWVycjMNbeMbbG4EZA9F3i7wY2wzZGk4YnJl773lt0ZuPgBhYz8X227D 1xo6aBd0x2ZyBIXZCH9TYWNrX2mvwStE/ms9D3NtaXRoW0PeK1/jbQdCAA4HaIzs3iZqb2U/bmVv L6+1ztTxCyVw2AdnzT23tW9uz3k7tksVvffGGmyPaWTXGx9i3c6582VvT3NLBmV3HIWCcy+u2iLm tc/w+3dpsGtlzo9pCVAaK52/bQkPYyNHdg+uF/O5AEtobmNjGO4Kjm+qI5lpZmnNrT1dO1/Vi3Zu FVDvrbl/m3VwcG+8IcVzb2br8E5jDS9ta3Boz9e9b7p4LmIPZ29sZC1QeGO8JMOYYWZlJUNiNafj MNhDo3DzdoW7aK3QWmeLBluvgjl3WCtkDycfaxBbttaliR90aUqMksHRN3S2K58b2OG1bm0VeckD Wkfvew7Db3rBBnNoMOX23msHXQ8Wk3dlDGvtuWGeNOAIDBa7GTZbcGw5M2Zvby9b+MKxhwoKw19s b3lHOnOW2s1xb3oV4HV0/9ouvrZrMTCkMHJkDE9n61rB0eI+7VLnY5gbW6AQWplvB2kjGk6NFvYN N+ZujbXm+AdzooNWc2bYTu0rtVRpQWIHYQqG5s63dSQSV/GN0OL0Sg/0+3I017auFzlnq2e7L9rg LTkaBWN4Zlq6nqFgYx+Ady9kjhjHPrNoT25pE50jt7Omazp55wo3b28uYm72vW2PV3YPCJ/m2sHR iCpLh7NPhgiN2XkHYTw7OrQfDdVz+3JsupPbJsVY/G8vvwx06htGrBTd+lsnL9CadHltn4iXLl8h O7jvewsHQBNi/bcAtBG2Wp/Eeutw44Wy7zV9dQsjIACBfEVGbigAKab57lEgAge8LUoAAbiSk4N8 D7T8KrBAmgEZrAOopBuQZgSgBl+YhS3pBgUPkLHJtoFdAgsMAQDNUthgEgEAPZ2qbJEfACZulByH LW1wBztEdx3NxmNFKEApr0BAtyAWCMUwu19/qX0tIgM0BGwgU3Z5ciCWSl+NQftPdxBPbAHzxAeL Ymj3dN8Ugzb5ZGJ4cceL/NSieX7Lc2h0Bv+/NXZtYi94SCouKgBVU0VSUFJPRknFFgv8TEUAWWJw NSDVZ2qV+LUWYXlHcv0bw9iw6FogmYJmCv///+Q6XJYwB3csYQ7uulEJmRnEbQeP9GpwNaX///// Y+mjlWSeMojbDqS43Hke6dXgiNnSlytMtgm9fLF+By3/////uOeRHb+QZBC3HfIgsGpIcbnz3kG+ hH3U2hrr5N1tUbW//P//1PTHhdODVphsE8Coa2R6+WL97MlligEU2WwG9P//Brk9D/r1DQiNyCBu O14QaUzkQWDV////LylnotHkAzxH1ARL/YUN0mu1CqX6qLU1bJiyQtb/v9D/ybvbQPm8rONs2PJc 30XPDdbcWT3Rq6ww//+/wNkmzd5RgFHXyBZh0L+19LQhI8SzVpmVuv/////PD6W9uJ64AigIiAVf stkMxiTpC7GHfG8vEUxoWKsdYf/////BPS1mtpBB3HYGcdsBvCDSmCoQ1e+JhbFxH7W2BqXkv/z/ //+fM9S46KLJB3g0+QAPjqgJlhiYDuG7DWp/LT1tCJf/Ev9LJpEBXGPm9FFrazdsHNgwZYVO//// Ai3y7ZUGbHulARvB9AiCV8QP9cbZsGVQ6f7///+3Euq4vot8iLn83x3dYkkt2hXzfNOMZUzU+1hh sk3O7f8XFiw6ybyj4jC71EGl30rXldhh/////8TRpPv01tNq6WlD/NluNEaIZ63QuGDacy0EROUd AzNfrf7//0wKqsl8Dd08cQVQqkECJxAQC76GIAzJ/v//v/FoV7OFZwnUZrmf5GHODvneXpjJ2Ski mNCwtP////+o18cXPbNZgQ20LjtcvbetbLrAIIO47bazv5oM4rYDmv/////SsXQ5R9Xqr3fSnRUm 2wSDFtxzEgtj44Q7ZJQ+am0NqP83+P9aanoLzw7knf8JkyeuZrGeB31Ekw/w0qP/Jf7/CIdo8gEe /sIGaV1XYvfLUoBxNmwZ5wZr/wb//252G9T+4CvTiVp62hDMSt1937n5+e++jv////9DvrcX1Y6w YOij1tZ+k9GhxMLYOFLy30/xZ7vRZ1e8pv/////dBrU/SzaySNorDdhMGwqv9koDNmB6BEHD72Df Vd9nqP/////vjm4xeb5pRoyzYcsag2a8oNJvJTbiaFKVdwzMA0cLu/////+5FgIiLyYFVb47usUo C72yklq0KwRqs1yn/9fCMc/Qtb/R//+LntksHa7eW7DCZJsm8mPsnKORCpNtAqn/F/j/BgmcPzYO 64VnB3ITVx6CSr+VFHq44q4r/////7F7OBu2DJuO0pINvtXlt+/cfCHf2wvU0tOGQuLU8fiz/v9/ od2Ug9ofzRa+gVsmufbhd7Bvd0e3GOZa/7f6N31wag//yjsG+QsBEf+eZY9prmL//9/4+NP/a2HE bBZ44gqg7tIN11SDBE7CswM5YSb/////Z6f3FmDQTUdpSdt3bj5KatGu3FrW2WYL30DwO9g3U67/ ////vKnFnrvef8+yR+n/tTAc8r29isK6yjCTs1Omo7QkBTbf6v//0LqTBtfNKVfeVL9n2SMuemaz uOzEAhto/////12UK28qN74LtKGODMMb3wVaje8CLVRSRyAvIFVHR0MvVrdv/TEuMQ0KVbNnOiBq AC5maj1qzdUubRIBc8CBsZYRMx4DIIN0G7MPByAcNIM0zRQKDAQFZpBm2fwzEfTsGaRpmgDoMuTg Bmmapg/cBdjUBRtswC8MByNXSNMM8gfQyAiwSNMMMpiICoBFgQM2eE9SZa0WcBvgm6toZgcracYD Bt4CIEVyPZRayQY4QIFWCXXWcgVK8UUQsBdcwG11UQN2LWNGbPRuIyw9ciB1EnliBxO0HTVtb7tw eisfbBT5BUNlAGN2c85xtW2DCM8MZlV0G27yV606PadxbmdhtMBkewcXa9sASnCsdSZxLwtoekVH cBvEazZ6hptsbmILQ2gNpfphCbVGZw26GyXnAu7Qqe736GMnt+v3YKEH3/1jVyPQ1lypGBAKBE1r aqHW4CCX8XO9acUKcCF3IGYQqy4g1qORYNsPYRttqCAoagNXaCDvG89sWatHcBBPJB6o0UYq/2lF ZpRr3dasC2QQaEBShda6wHjNIA0HZZprTbVlXxt0ERQOu9oK0C5YCHQ4aG1VS9lzFlZXPO21hc4a OiB7cAI9nfa3dmuMRzctPxdBU0NJSSAUBsJcuXI9aXQgCWau823r/09hQSEwMTIzNDU2Nzg5Kx// Jr0vQ0IHSy1aRjEta0u1xkNlQwLpOqUH/LLYQrx5GxQzAAlivIXdAtpkmT0ikiI7rXDDFk5n8C1H bLsheKNU43poeYZDmy96doT47d1WcTthA1pWWlItWFzrltoj0DATUfsvXAtaz39GaJSSDt238d0L R2IVU/Z6By0APfPTvbVfagIuM3UENDhYLmGHrb47Thh09s+/Ya21LSsD2T8lZmBpYWSjeWMXcAqt Nb6gL64YFy7tDO06v3qsCWEC2mYijc+CgDRnLVJhrdk3motxvkE4ZnI2NCLhXit9UXZmj9xRXqd3 Wmrji3UEUCxFNiFgVA+ftNe2p1cvom5qQEqcEW0rTW1nP6ctrL3ILsU1Mp43b4picEK3HUd1miAC bpktodGC9Jog2BdmmX7Yh8Z162culVFVSVT6887NpxIPREFUQUVQQ0dv/dvea0I6PLI+D1pOVllv RUJadue3ZBHSVVJZQiALUlXVgNdLVG+7OIxmLfDLWtUgyJfbTkYDEE5w0GgMGmzXWqPgrWVcD2aC 9bXFe+dlNW471gFnu+VheQoAADELhnjvHXggBxFjfzb23nRwCCMHeChVi+yB7Pn//8YIBI1WM8kz 9jlNDMZF/8d+aFeLPVQQSv//f3WB+bFyFY1F+GoAUI2F+Pv//1FQ/3UQBuK3ErYvi0UIu4UjRLv7 7QQGMjVBiIQN9x6LxpkGYP9vvwKyA/bqABVGO3UMfLmFyVt0E0Mlx7EPX17Jw4EsAfrGRJSIbyLs aEwkie/+7r/ONlqLdQiLHXiGWTP/WYm+DCOJfQg5m/tyawJD1P51DmgYEkkV22yxu3Qj6wxQDg1w gL0h7LrZ1jlxKiNsFY2N3e/Z/0mAPAhcdA4ZaEhu/9N5UNif+GEr01dogGICV2oDJX/TmSANRGiL +IX/dAWD2zaTdX8jXGSD+BE3qPL2bWH/FIOhAg+MVEr/60EvYtugAgAEFKJzb7P9KNyDxAxXL2DH htACuvdg5mwKCwJSjUYIVrKzx05c9wF1FBJYOcIbFl4tP1tAjWwkjEILL5nkiABgfXw82y1s3S8f iF1/vjGAHnAnGZvu/848J1NQikV/9tgbwAPGWQSFwJt7/+10Vf4TgH1/AnzVxwecOCpsMmW7v1A3 U2gGOFNTOhRhZls4dQkAcAwAQ8PJ2t3FoIPFdKMZ6+3v303ydoPsQKbAaKRZDllQagFq3WYzDb6A BXwtt3/3HuRgdGRAJTQC6Gi02JULyzsyzP3maAQ2HGb7DlM8kJzDXLzhfhH0HgUQG3WJRfzNsuG4 izVUSl1d0BH+DiU4nSEPhKmd5EAOjNBN0NA9O6y71qFQK9YIaiB5BuPUNoxTXFPQZtzxITvDdDJI dC1QJLNCsslwiAx68GG8Iw13hOsQGIeHPZMxD4UZDCB1D+bAcP0zpE/QLnkjyWjIQFBowDU9dGw8 F7UQAL/+UDrao+kux2hN3DEWpYNM5hoVAXUtvcI24eF8gcZ1Vi7iVuCGGcO5XCUNCBYXI0ZLlCYb am3YOl3w8ZgyUMgFJLxwhM5sEpTX9DvEdgUzWLbWfhVzBAYFEvjwJrms0SYqQfjw7OVARhT89HIa NmfhdfdyEudcN2jn/pxy4xyM7m5kBF6c/hjvGMtXUF+InQ4aseQ5cpyAAZxADuTjYSCcnBNG5NkN BCUSnJsjySDAtGMH2dxmMNoI/htfVMC/2pZsx8Jegf/8AXc2x9KlGPQdQfzw/9+1h/DWJuEyHQ+3 wGpMmVn3+YXSYQ/2+3UTxoQ9JQ1HCArrGiT/sf/0mbnvdvmAwhCIlBxH/034dZs7+5ubDdh0EmBX XASMYE73DTPTHvvo+Hp8u9zBPBFqRDegX1dTUaBwa5RLS6dN5Le21q1dyqBRCANTQFHhzNV2m5W3 OCVTZtbQ1vRkq1+RqBBqoOQOek/o3qRlCNZ2dA1wNTRNSRz2oMy5UXsHZnMjDbBBVolGBHfSI2yw Kp9KrDM5Plkf47a13VYSK05cCmoPdA/BaO0CZfyq9z0gBuz7+xX/HSleBS1qWSRFL87AyG+EFyzT rMgHbnKw3TiyBEzDP9lcEyYlZMdRLlZWQXncHk4/WcQDd3ERxDz8Xs1CwfwrfGjjwxFMk+AoML4o SiwztnuNffClAL44C+AFeMC0G6UjL62gO7QwEclNAWF40OTmuFAATNSEZgbYgI4cOXLcfOB45HTo cMiRI0fsbKRoqGQcOXLkrGCwXLRYuFSRI0eOvFDATMRIC3PkyMhEzEDQPATH9nBS1MQIGwucPVsv yFIIocAQ4zxN9zYj8Im1BRK4i/9Lb5yN+wJ1BbKYA8j32YvBeQKb41tL7Gbh9AZ2Bi0GAMiufbdm 6fJ1C/L4GPIMu3cvtQY+zrk4gH0FuTQGajzvW2j8mV73/lJQ57FRBfoE0914nvjw8laFoAz2MOPj zfTUaAwldgzKt89wsWcwslyjsIEEw6HpPfZ/BWnANU5aAUARZqGyF063HtIHyMHhEFkLwapEJPx3 //8EVusli1QkDIvwhMl0EYoKBQs4DnUHRkKAPn2LWy8n7zvyK4A6uQlAigiFHlu6GnXVKF416wc6 Gfu77ewIdAcW8wUqDvbZG8n30SNX0ie2R/X1EB10MZD2JdfdDKqLXQz4uhAPtjgCHfxB1wNmV/3W WUMcWUb7vcCLTQTBdQ0zddhjmkDMbSBS6/ZJFJu7xNJZXU1EVQxDk4pW4vbSAYSKCDoCGEFCxFDR TuDbAQIKK8FdcCR2aOtvbGkIbol1+IA/AKNIrUO/dc73PiYPhTG1JL+AWbpGDSMjSUYPvgQ+f3PP FzcRWVwOiEQd3ENGoP3W/oP7D3LigGQKJck4TdyJfxvfYvte3C8QMQyJgDgfTKMbOfdK0HXwF09a AUZZC5b7fQ+OzgBUahQoY/j27VCTnz1dliBd3YgZQUf74usWuNwlbAi0Z6O2iFANKch9a9juPgtU i138ICvzUK70bHh5Fnps8PB0USsD8z8I/BvgHD6NNAgD9+HPK8s78xu/tW+NCAFzG/eFfiuLwysx A+0btW8vihQziK338Xz167vu3778Qf+FwHwPBiveQBkLiBFJSHX3ZuFbGAYoGVANjQ95WHCfuXS2 nvgtACbloGO691umJpCRSRpnGPwb/IUHZSWbVkQ3AYsdHNkMC87E+9Nc2+pswRyCcRgM6ChDMtZR 6FkgyYC//du3ZTJGPEFZKOl8DDxafwgbyIPpN+sf1tqxBgcwij8cGMCD6Ggo/TsHMMHgBJ0KfBS6 aVtJCEPp2eiITQjB8EMoUU10QQPDSUPNT8JCSzhGzjvejUQR3PAXbot+ISWKDogMM0Yk6xRIySHN JzoYK/MO6IMMSTMI6PzntlI7J/xebTR0s72z1wQDPAMS7TjI9OUEWThqBr6k65WT7t9PfeTzpWal pA+IyPvTbXOubOQVUKTNgVlZX5zqSzt4XnQUyWoaBlmDwA3Nfq7f9fmKRBXkHSrIUCehXMizJVnI yEXdFtxtCARWi5HSfASKBujS/zVeDTQ134gHR1lGY4AnyJd6ZhadRFYvvGjcJZqfrg68WY/Q8IX2 /s0hnVsVFRRYNHRZYki+LznAVlzMU2+wBZv8OVH/0GcgwAa3A+sDiFiUcJ8tzGiQmIQmQT5bzL1u E0gX2HwmZittw1l/+IQV+JVOTBLpHBhsDKsZnUNTHWlidsgto1MOqTSQ7cX3AFJTWCQMMkJjZi4Q AHD49tB6MBnd5slXPbrQGnuNvUNP3/84L5J9C9bYUw7GBDhcDDxktuobXBV4kPjsTEKX1yIHGyH2 hP7/NJWQEa6EBUFC58J+Nh1ZaHgmOgawl7f/O9N8ToP6AX40BAN+GgR1P2kZbPdsdC5ocAfrPRRs QQZ5BmgoZGaQQZ5gE1xYEq7ZYdDXCM5Oey0LM4RkETsDmHpn/Ap4GQajZ7MTy/NZ6gDwCvB1XBBG DD2DAbnIAPwM8maJmK4tjRZmWBRzDAI23YYCMyQz0g4EOBeak+3cJJ0GBggKdPilAjfBNDsi3esJ gPkufgwuNUjRDDjHyCrLiIyxpd8V7SJCO9h9HiutvA1vpS/wi8gD2OYUwekCfAuD4QPccgH3A9Dz pJ/3Oy5DBvYrtA2jrKzNfYCkM1a4VSLeLnINFXOG3bbvhDWnRqRGDWoQD04Y7CbGg8YC2lYzeIcW b/q8yc0PnsFeWDzEreMTS2X8YPDoQwSCm3ssCnAFViR2NdUNHNzPfTBf/gQw8G/x1uYFUAXrDpxA fQaNdAYB4Z5rKwoPBoU4Mbn3+tYVOQx8y4vGh1hZoKFnKkPZYJ87aFvN36h9a4H+/wBf6gNV3m6N FwbSdEo2TxdACX4LinXjL9ATDz5GQEp19ck+LvmtLLEWJ538ZsACiUX4d+pUaQGT+2qlEu++9iX/ PwtUEgR8pusL0b61fYGKfDf/LqhOEX/0gCQ52HoFHEC6A1d3jK2rkgEa5zAb2BDlM96eJXjU9rF1 6F4boqkLuChfHAxYOkVti7dWgzwC9H0HHekWIQyFAmlFU6e7xX+q3hU574vYWTt3WXwfS2wXBjwA RgoDTjbBYeLSbTX4CAY7x1TgXBcstOD4AzovvVwDsLXSRhRoA5mlbxn6XMPa3LYDyq5hYDpIi0MK 3tCiYLo1nAKpu3u3k6FDZlvgQxIMg8MGDqBhF6ziDQrkQ49DwF7v3oKJXeg+f2G+JEb6dG8TYtze q+x0QxhXqHHsYf2NtZVFWYuGFr7oF+QQ2D/sTwu3jcKDICzGBQn065ABjscAE7pVD4wibjx0qQGr jV/Jvwwjfq4nR1NVtm0z7RiHtR7xVccBYX3YCiw84TvddTw+unQRjYPboa8YYM5W/YkoNcKVayT8 IX6b23izCBCJbCQUdIsYUTmnv61zCw8YQGhV6wFVm/gFc3/ZtCREEAbVON5EwTxgRl6O221318gh 1104UFUKPFUGbdAOlcfEX6BA/OzM1lNESWQxjlwEVVOf7dghG1XIU1emaOiFU7zZuu0vKCc0O+4P htq8tKQmDgJGV4PmDzZqbhubA8ohAf5TD2uYW/cgGoRfiA1/mYvtY270fWU6+lmJjSSqFbqlG9+S IRwDGBGmeMndsRDrBPzhg78KJlmazmw2nw0ID5HC17w5DAMPgoO9GVX0x7onRi52FVbVgcdSx84A PtuLBz0YWwZ04Qg8QChPKMZbtxaNbsGL/UCSRUj61kErWXUSVkO6Lrehv/YciawmBgcYm3P8OiEw rIs/YgeeQdL22x4kJSBH24MSGNlyIbrtHv8PFAoUvCX+2VOM8A2LhLbH8VNlumehC5EkeWxEYQ0/ 9WI0YEsa1V1bgROuWI/Ed3tvjyvkXKZU+XLF4uASXZ2cFhECEGpkjNqGMahGkXzWPXRzIQcHvrh0 F+ilcs3iIXOker99m8XbJg4QdQ10ImisdouTzioPzBJf9FZ5leuBhRwPbdBvVztq3VjrcYtDwzv+ MO2ocHh0YVO7k6ZPdUsYckpwUZk+Uy6QwV2DRxy0gw5o/y6yEJ86dxjX4FN3I7gDk1VrP6D+dabq bhNSQhxgvpyiV7YpThoD0AUyB1bD64S4Y+KE0QBryJbZ6rXsxNAcLLIFO+vvHaS+AEBB066exqrL 7RRRQtdfhh+NtvArXiGBVIXrChtw92GNdwTSWGo1n+TSdrquk6JWnuaAEQrjkd3Z6JMVo1wRKItA jVcccFtJABuzIxz8jFEVaOQ+xFkNM/SjC6kGXHWbMZUBDBEG1BkP5F3f1zEwBDH6LQVnPwxl8IDI XwlRNqkfLTxsqvhXQIBHo9vVA4jAQEBDdFneYLUrj3RPRCSz3UEG614kDyAvig5oOkm1gtT2HHUb GMj2kbB1xesSGcyXuOW2I0YuEXXn5Ylc5uoNTOhNQHQ/aVBVaiUDFG1g789g6gwEK0NZPEr2DAvd vWtAlDOIdk/BqrXE+RArDVA2IN1G/U7AKz42F/YO2SuWdSojgyvt/3YkBlwrQHUDS3mvgGQrFWrQ SriLgb0Re6kB27bVPj4GPRP4PEscWTwbsCuAtJO9S+50Dy3LWUO12l7jNSu9tICzutN7wLZfIetM jTwuKAe4OooHt8llsyMnIXgHU+VuG3E/tE55sXWRujY4WuR8Ct5AtLxwB4YD7s5dWcPvi/FX2hoW Wg4wgEIn/zfLDo27uyCF25GdhHfLwrsGGYgDQ0cMN9kfA4AjsDtsuAAMKDIREDyNhHYJGofVdBzF F8ZcGeQkBTru5nFroOE1HRIQJwtWNpps1L8U6VxPD4i/bdSURlW1QF3DgyW4vYXaVnhg+WyCBQsu 0TgYZO1TQc45HVZmw/0So7wEATk/oxcWCC/rC0wH/5YNcEvuEzzfHBx7uwevYyp/5BBbKIvLvREt 3isNFMSNo8CCu83H2kmM7ysED4/mu8gTvcAzcMN3IlOLxYvPWkMRWZEuA8vI87yBnRiUzO6RQb4Z BoMqf34Vz7bxbu6AuEoFCQjHdGS397JnkYoNYfghBdFye9uIRCC7MHwL/Tl/xRoOD4qIwQMA5SMN +FvKh0ihGWvAZIe/jX6xVRWCDH7BPQwy65/87YgdBCBVFQZ8CTzrB2EJx2cIRn3hB8nDeSickWpd twC8Ri81XWDrBZ4PZwY6w6qIOWa1CvkkEdQeslHfx8CEPXTYhKkbVEaBsDl83rcw0l2ZABIXnF/f uA4+OlO3U/8wqRFQw0vbt0pHO4NGjzkedeMzsMkQsnNLK7ARFO8NXi2z+N5Y6/fddRX5qvJxEEH4 wlxXarwLoyDAp75Tu2I1d0ZHnqfaM1usmR6kFN3wg6xIdnN4Eie4eK+2NNjA4ORIhuAYMzVN3PDw dajtXiDTnX8mqgZo6CrNZiehhPBQLdFkMjcIrYEoRuTIwW4sIWoFGZQpNmSTXE3cMzPDS1jIz/Qk uPRHMGHFkhAmUb6vH20N+UtBBDw4FlYGpQ8+8ZvB/OMpYDK1CJOFV70QfyrPYQNIefDoDwPHQanW KPbdEj7E7rHaOHXI1L2Lxz9FFlOzYNbCsgqVQvEKkAxtjlULsKF+Tdc9Nn8SjY1g4HaHjf0yRxTV mILRbepIY2zMg4IXHXyyxC00ClD26CyLNquClRrdGxoWra0sfviDxw9XfmnYPyxeiF4W61lXhoBm CACrLoYEFIyKTv6aCXuIRglkXKF8aPQqJMQG6yMGHImQXQ5ztIUP/jef4YB2YSJmNVE+hK5sqqF0 dxH5E4SfBsT+zzs1M9Izyff2KSV69yPfDyqDQTvKfPHceIPACjAGPbQXdgwx9BBaij8XYkBqTzSA MdvbYUG5MU9Z9/GigKgRjgX1KBMAXMmtcsnJGd38KmLBIMuAgICBT4OhH3yEWVlnddQUcslCA6sI cggK4m0fNOjTxgOhJn2rWus82+zO+iI5WFy2/oUbTzvzwItWWDtQWHNq8MI/vPXSUeaB+fx/XGpg U6DcQdhCLnXvSiodJaNTE6B6Jx9CsK7ziBDzs1iJXtudNbxcf5qJrkB4tjkVsw/gf3WxV41+CMdG XP4fMJNjd+7/dgQzW0DhWU8UV3OvznVpFEppX2f89NEeiZ+ESTBT/0Bc6Kyhja9VOc1hWZwOUbNj I/GoA1UXG0lZMgYp3EmV6DT6UISFhoHxmDnHzi/ICa9KVs+wCd2OFnZGSi0VWWMqV3VmG9xSkc6I V8Kjb0htaqcruuziigRIdOaGrbuiX7ZXv9Ac9C3cteKZQw9WxkAB99eg+1R4WQkCCCMAdgcmFImP TPAuoIxuj9SCa0RxRIB+LHUgo24UzuorHGC56PTwUnFHZEgFhSg9IBwa39jIzq3+EesYiw4NOGXU lhkPCnx1uNMJvmAHBAyDZCQ8/S0i9iuixwWFS/avEObrF2jlpFE5xwQohYYH3jgPRn1L4GMUK/AX OgEPlNgh0LDhiDRwdO2gid9ob9/JdE5DgHhEdQ9FcHqKTgk6uML250gJfkgEO0wecvkFtwNuaoeE 14H77HwdSTTHBnhLJoH9kn4Qfb3NlRhzBl5ZCKwksEFLbRQ7xU3zSVsdtp8yBHMojUYYTR5WASdN 7mjrWuUYrBa6J5g09BG96WGz4A6yHXENBFDHZGCDxxwEaIP7A5PiLggLOCm+22cfALsN4D1wFwrK Ikhmvt8We1Y6jaP2o9AE1Ey66mvDwYAzoEJtCD5lfQw3fhb0PBZt4Q+2CYlRWgKICLbqxEaA7S5R DAewRQFlroyx7aj/9r8ILCFbiV34O95/Zi3GK61QIRodDCHLxkduwHf8YzKjSf83i7Sit1K4XBwZ BAPGurl3R7OLBx472HQjcRMrVa7bDTRwywwzA0kr1thsrd3+CYoZiBhAQXv3i2IrWwE7R6YLaItf Djx0dYkjXHcFXg+OdLWE7cNSmxxWGgYeMx0pCzTK3fxWCDSFA/EhQoPBwhdbXgdbSwiwmY040n1C 1ku5u1M9RI1fAVmCHoW3pov/w7OFWs9+Ew4X3EKlRLeLkO5uBUku1Igbwn/tuAl9I99aZ98ZFDCA uhgWQ4N87esOW62adBQxtcDIuRX+/3zujVEDO9B9ZTvPfWE7wWFPXAbvWhtsuyFIEk/iO8J+Q5Lh Hfw7x34/K8GM/wd8Ni055hYb/QPOO9d9owGRFfi1YhfwQkGB+gRy6fYhDTzoEA6DAA7VXPiL+zt9 FowxXgRMPZTH87gQAHV8DxdQzgJyA2w/LOBEgE9u8A+ElaaJDJMA52r4Eoa+RStTUb/9Dm9vhluL KnJXUSoC9FDrFlr40E49zHNTdfgiBU3Ae/EbvgYf41y8rAGODk3QzWjjN9oo9NuBffgAsN139gXM uiZTMFfwU64B16qouPmmDojVgUkWX4RZVyYjv5TMVs1tPJhcfB6uZLYIzbPPz/7G6B00a43mAjMA wgzwkGWQbWj7HGCeswTfwwRXJAT/vPuNW+E7+61kW+vsR2SLT2AxFtvYfnZViU1wNmw6cITKXeVg 1eCETWgH8fwv3Er6TkRzwRQ+iFQF4DgcPrpbtQDGRiFy6D8MHPwPwzG5g0VwRP9NbIK2IJvZcPz8 YAlkw9ZuTHPrCLWB7gnzUBMIXa1Y0FhC/UWoaMAt7PuEGgSiHvCogXKJXi91UWnqqP4mVKECkuiE amehmagAk0JwCTWLqIUFDH9vBz1Pk1mam+J9QZDIV6MNN+D+M0iDfiAoD4KzWZTJ/zhLH7TURixw PfsRcAbAu0CjLA90yEAJAm6wtIvoYX3vZeiXpIPvLUQxLWoP5ugJrfhE5TQRTH3ofVq7vUQGACAD Nw2BY7cbuGIp+4dHLeRQjGpnL2hcv3zg1z1t1/sMMUABHlLHJHWjK9EjW0UkLpk5su8xyC0/HBmu OeRIDhSUDAzJ2At0fhUEaD7bQI78LZ4JwBILSR3b/kke9C23FPw2eOfwzMNT4+wtcAbMnAJKRJP4 m6ImHzlGIHc16wsyjNDgFOycrXVYcaEE9Bt1ChiGyV3rTsTBDwJ1CdhPdgSnX3RYXAIMV2wu2MV+ DJo7/jdAEjlgpnCOZFs5NcwY3cE3ix1cROQ6TfWa39MJsuTWwlSzJpqkGTajk2qUFXoR5RgnOTAu aEC0pP2zzUGSVpOS/BWKPBHvUHUjNREkxhNmu5B1AyPU6xHI7tcJMCCorDW90Dzv3GwbhBsI0QB0 rhGbGUaWCdKcD1rF2TfKJlC+VFArTPixLxP2pRB0IGpLKMuuYR24SCIIUwjpidggdAanJ7XU9NBY bOlDzfYZvDjIQ/E95FsQKR8ISSI2t4V8/1Au0kdFHvK8aEAuPXiDp4OvYb6ETLuwVkX94RkgCVOU FGe0DvPBHiw8NEm85rNUZSj4/WElbJCXUBf4/QoZADac41OmTWAXzZYd5qIt1xyyTAzhkRlqBQ4H KrOBg6TTVqwqUMLiz+mKYAGbVr4RAdjeE9SKnQ0T/XWke8nqLuAlaQ9nqxAbxg5n3fwoVnSzMh4r MPTZjDcamAYiaKAf5UD7K8ROWf4PGgVafLerPNno3RlQoWr/21AAEfLLDaIjVKRVlWgAgNDCkEvW CvoD8CJSf5CUFj5wCwsIuSf31gG1/Ze6AefHU8FOi9j3240834kv9Je6H4oaSDPeI9nB7wQ0nXBk GWt33TP3QhQS7jzbILLn/t8lEkiuOsNCRF+yw1uEwI/8/haKAjPGI8EhBIXwQk916g6E4gse99Be Xf5M32/hAG4g8M8HcggH2sTNDcQHdt7w1AcBcgcnXWEJ5UUT9vZjKdORH/YKVcFNxNnaRnDAxJcL JAUFraMSffZmiQENqvwPOEfflwb6ZtHpGMG7GnbpnAQNCGpXVgAdehqhGEikPQPs+tQWWruQ6x1K dDF18YBe2NC1+IaJdnaLVmxgeHgDl3u8Gd5CenXLaAkbylEnyhyhT718c2C/gHEdaKwBWeigVtPJ 2ppqa/iu/VvGB/Usg2yuwCQCQAye5faoOiZ99NH+bE1VCuCyHpO4OWQ7CC9qLguIFkvEFmTYCcTZ UK40bOJLAwRtwlBGvAU1TbeZjsG+A5DAkha5VtgvV2lGJfe7ofZ13ZQKxAeWF+y8Xc1ty8IJMMYC mPG3qG2uodNmyggFnAtti0El/L8NzhBtQteVoDrSA6Q3g+aLBW2tUIJ41GvuubamArIWHjwwBSjE DBVkDVQQwdFb5h5mu1swz8Kznx87h4SErDURa6pQMQcBJmnTcIDYGWGl+J3jZCEb+MA+sui8gsFU MS0yPPZsuCwdiAECEowUrAixwkzRrsqZortsrVdFNdgFBi/cZ0Pb3csBLgfeK1hd4AErnGzP4gHs a+TYkqjoEKE3BPI/lhF5TvvGXjoA/5QDEwVXQ2oGU7LRI2YvufbqTuDAHOFmhGbqUIH7OGRz7un4 z/RofmYEgFbmEUwFn2g32+sYDVA9RycvPBpqJLburDKiatwIK9dUVZRy/3TY62s9MyNwV5SFohu2 /UJvA8e+BuwNRgGUiZ0MANNQbCD03Z3WAV8wUUU//jo3s4aHCMFogilBUvbgZBB0GLGwnOiAFhMJ YhEMfyfMJRQQCpFocDIICUxSElmHBKcqGGEo/WLXpMIIZoJqCOBmPxtKWptZdO1Jydwi9mbk5JuT RBGwCQ7A5SCL5jerd+u7hqGHbP/YYkGSmMeNu5MFWx381VOw9Hhyq2Yr/1wR4Wp4YBgcFNoFAi04 gIW8DKCPUKZjVVcU9EZqP0QLGwvR8l6gjXdQDlB7suBS4bRraE515UcXaoSfRVuwKVOHCIOHFRTq wwRWYsZk6CbEN4P6Yn1HKpQ8ikvArIS1fjCt1dvIgR8cO8rTI0RlK5pB9X0N78k+NYhciVhXWgMz /1z/m+z2i/ID8dZ+GRcaFYDCYYgUO/3N1a1HsHznOPE0B8ZGBEA2LgWPI4PgA2f/NA8TjnJBFshW wYnkyz6y2LgIfUJxBTP2vbIbfPqDxwOAfh1ylDNv//4PAkY793zjgKQeCwBf62A2sB5GxbsIw7mo r9vBCAPwxNKwTQB18j9D/vrftm9DwEaxHh/JzTvyfQyKDMWwMtLbYoRw6/zFOxa3uxWAdrbFrAuN g1slSzeMhV8y+LnkgVwyADP4izSfAfyzpFZrBN29NZCBw7cHaFw0CGGs4h/AGDYGQA5kBQ8Ecrtk QAQM1igzgBzIVAwwkOchvDs2LDME2ttHFrQyfBYEVX0W6GT31P0lagHlLHwSFXwNjoAz3RMw9i0M A5nZ3EdXiJ60HAW1Vo/9Nh5AfXuGHgE4JXUhjWyzIteGt1BhNLapSITLuFCAbWy5tGDztfT8vyBX PAcjep+2iJ0TK/T87N2sNPlMP1CIGFM4kS3A8GiIo8hEKxo72zgYKc8cV9QmzxA2rSi17MUu9AZy pABki0E7N+DB/BJYYCBmz85zcwGEJ2iAf2hKiDMjDFD8wyCfjI34D4QiGWARIQy3Q768VVROPBg8 RweuP4H/WxTCmY208gvs9iuIACjhYk2CfNGwGj5xPRwJxcwSYgUD9bePdBV+DPcCfwdofDSvVq59 At7rBS4NQ2eHJUgJRgdJuIR1RJEtyu1c+LezMwMbK2IhSnQPaHQ0rNU3obNmHDcOfYfiGWgNnw5k jB+zgXYIE7w4J3jCjHB0CT2ItlsnGjojiDC4FIfYYgfAXrjwaigD0OaFaCHF1KgFAAAyctvQhDUg TeAJ5CDoNM5l8+zINHXw9IwpSYp+YQw71n1pyMFTyQSKbsaB9keaXj3JRTwgcjg8PdwA/0v8PCt0 MDx5LDx/dCg8gHQkw4paLwEgiAT4MJ+625NGCsYVDUYECvG7gKBuAdskHv9GAc5HxFYqUPfs52MI sXxJSwf15/8zyUH6Jv5busp9CYt0xdhAZfGDfMXQBAm4TdwR1FPGB+jNIBBEEL6QNXK/UDTovPOl gf2kikwNvI3iQvFfiAqKcXABB/8t1erB4QQ/0M4XiEoBikiWZVm6ARgCDwIGXtDtt88ZAopAFeA/ ikQFDEIDdaaeJ/UYBFdYAgXIFjwi098paLw6GDXoT2TWBIit9UXx7DAE8De6UJTyznIiO+xXnNGA NOjoODmAJrdFOWQxwkb6fy/hsy6KhAUniEQ183W/jVUlahu6GfQkY2JYDF2IWm+pNfiIkJHwg6hz L7xeTHINYQMNQ2kHCgO69oUN/gRy2aYyV9XYha8NN5kJhXQqTfhsvwtocwTGRfs9CAL6PdfErQEU dR88A96lDJpUKjiitaSYWrhBJgcUUVMU2KZNxYVTs0Dxu8DDspFwEJffUAV74TPGCQ9Sai6YNkoE 0HSvZnhXLQtwVhr6yFhZLSSNQwQZ1ZXOdgCqIGgYrnEgEvPFGxwnELIGlRatWbXZyL5TG1AyDH7Z QnbZDjCvaDwgERiDvVQLohhoCJo1lB3Zt8CUFGj4NTPcEVJNxMjU1TlZXSG0oHMA0ScAEnKw1Lg3 cMiFWN7+c1g3g8oddvZOUBdQhBwyy426YD91A96uYlFM5NmMeEgsRLg22Qg0N3ZHxlBP2A2wjZ0I UoWLw3ZNcwmKY8YFE2ZopPRAasD/DB1IBDrRjVnu1zvzHfkGMaGm9wcPjL9vyA+oSAa4+wyN+L1T wwURXNpE5JPtZhQNXZsKXtKNtaHuqBFlEnOLhaL99PGGycHgAka5NAWfI9AWtliKEwrXQNhZiYd0 YEB0HhhNie83O2TZCnJl+eAnTE8yFnVu/QFvOV34rSLLA2r47MMRJUhgJnX4rjqHPxQMRlc5dRC4 NeoFEX5yixFEKX1CR22pyRSM+U0kmFUP6tKJg8LVgLdbAewMadINcPVzizpSvOz+iVX0CGXqYdl+ JvlYfdeXzBFadBSKBxZHPAp0Cu5qwd+HA8c7RRB8l6UviBwIslT7EZ+DyP/r9jf+WL+BhijDCTsX gD8wdBlu5LCIVxAHMB8KlggDUKVeyy38QpHAO/BX2WMOs0eWkW0ICFoMURAP36D7zY5IigY8DXQM jggSdAQ8CTBbgfh1A0br63QmKoitQCSjyCVG7pruF+E+PDp0OS41MSoCBBcUf1uK7A84dQk4hA3/ QNt10C4QAwRJzogQ0XfEXe5Bgfm2cr7rAU5FYmysJRIAXcyYLM+FyA+4AP/TIIu1XcwPDiQ4Kxwv w94MkOk4OnVhHjCZ4UT+Ww/ooGfuSLZARtLKAUbpXAe7ztJP9RbBuWGCv4GhXW3iCkI713zqdd3H VhBlAipCHQvjN+4pavA+CqiOKglz7TeICIINdQ7rCyALHNDSEBsHBjUNhIIEDshLnY9tawQXhk6K 5x0FBBtsK20wA4ZJAI6SNTPCcsNjDXWE86sMm2CSABiNG8eFGDCdegVNBrZoMaJgZeMRDmfjBtNQ UVBk/JuWEP2CuIvBx2grYaK+2iwUNysaafsAEOoPiF7CgMMP+4gfcAfFVr7aM4rlu99eF2qKEYD6 IMr6CXUTQf6lUm8HOX8St9wEgEGNRELQzRrx/x4wfemAOS11HHlNz63gEFazZ9V/bklRqrO1VmLe EAxy3FWAaEQ4Skg3soutaKg9G/v2oBdyQCGKWj00BIZqPRAHfkg0gi64bfZAU2h1ko9U/GoGG5mp PYQZ2INg6i0CFy849VfUjw/cPOX6HvK+mDr4xh8wmF11alToiFZTKZyLfhCmvkSVhZh96nKMxD2Q eI253OixJD8KNDiJvxAnyzZrzur+V0VAGHxCMtjuBz0rNn48OCj5PN/KM3RPK49EI+TALhQ7/QO5 5JITCASnJI+Q+9cAxOeZzMFo/L4hDLV6fJmRj6rdPV3Nkuk3wPiKAYvZSjwVBw5SU+lDigM/awMX A0MV4BtfO8t0LlAudRFqzWovgEihtERArHFbDMMSK8H8D/LurdBcTsITy+usKAVo9DeZM7wIoLcL krWlRnh8I519v+wmqFAtuR+IE/MSdHNHU+sGCQZGU0tDwyh1xqa1NAPyLDTgItxYXA4BSbr/EEwi MDYB2EL/bC9XwSASAm+XD6ks1W9FERAM3PwtUCk6IbVXWSNy8CAlU0tLRA0JIG9wuhOHO4KxGf3e VkwCuexIUBbUCZgdt6NQvQ0qSE+MvRwBfVM8VHN74HQrahkbYQqyidwIQ95zi3BUlANrQ8bay9UH b5PeSwBODHuM6fR1GLp1cEGm6p3TStMCrg0DJPAnGDgkloJ8X3IDAVsNr4gNPmbscwDpwfkDUers /BgBC+Ts/ACCFZ+GSFxAV25WIHbRhNXrNcHjzSUjT/B0JOwM7j+IlyzsdCKbxyGmHl0A0DwDvqfi Bvr4CQ+Hrd8khURyi3yzDZxxO2lw/hSH7Q6ycLZo2Mfrbg3QhzyHPGDIUsCHPIc8RLg2rIc8hzwo oBqYDjOHPAyQidZjJt4bO+sHgKUNOwZ0SgaE2FWNCA07yAKzsMYQaLIPU3AUfL6g9hpibOc+GX0R RxVt+T7RNN12QBQUgGQpAzdF0zRN01Nhb32Lm5HvTZn/JVQRBQgQzMxfIAzEUT1wOQhyFIHtj/2+ 6QstBIUBF3PsK8iLxAy9LlXqi+GLU5xQw5IKGUSRAKpUqSoOWaqKQoMDNs1BUagcAUOlopeIm3Rl RnC3tlH0TWFwcMBBEw1uZAv2DEWIFQ4DXqgadnJzD3dFbnZRdRTdEG9ux1a3d4d1fWIYVytvd3NE HWVjgv129nRvcnkVRCJ2ZVR5cCR272f/R1NpemVaQ2xvcwoUVGk1927fUVRvU3lqZW0LLRwb225B 9kFsBmM6VBjak+9vcClOYW1MU1BvRyXsmaiSIT3a1u2+DkN1cnKlVGjnZBFXicZ+u83tCkxvEExp YnJhpWxeO/beNXJjcAmPSGGYJHDb2sGtQXQdKnU6c0GyW7CBMjcIbkGdQAjYbVAbaEGJCluetdhk Hx5MYUWce7rDWhlRTV94b4c2WTtYXURlBmpTi0Bo/1ZHTW9kdRUUGMKE2HdLVbtddkgaQXMYUwhl cAbYlkt4RXhpJWFGmFPtMPfmDhxPYmrApFCw37AltGN5BjL9aYLNCttja7t1bEwptVDVzRppWk1J ZoDaRfltYeUXA+P9jnBWaWV3T2aLAGIJK7RMOPO5EQpQb8wNYWRlQ9i/2VvbJk32SEJ5dCJuQWRu whLeZHJyFsetbllrtEilOBwrJ8OYMXsTGWAEvKwwhG6qzQlpQXePs2GNRklxNWtlZBN2agulYxIL FUnSmWGSblIi5FUzNsGwsPXUQpMmSx2FFJx5orXascf4NmeMS2V5DE9wTd069+gLRSQOOlaNdWVh BwCGDyQRCTN3KaZ1bTAMr63ZbLM/ZMIIAW2j7rQ1zHNlomp3QxDz2N8MAwdpc2RpZ2kZdXBwc83N thF4EglmWwg4zVb4c3BhS0/NLFjA/nubVS9CdWZmQQ8LZ9qOPExvd3d2OXK2I1GYbdh3CkfYLMuy PdQTAgoEb5eyLMuyCzQXEhDVsizLAw8JFHMfyD8WQlBFAABMAQLgAA91y0n+AQsBBwAAfFFAEAOQ YbNu9g1KCxsEHgfrZku2M6AGKBAH8hJ4Awar2IOBQC7PeJDwAdc1kHVkhE8uNXQrdtmyyXvrACDV C7ZR4OAuwccAm/u7d2HfI34nQAIb1IUAoFB9DdPlAAAAAAAAAJD/AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGC+AHBK AI2+AKD//1eDzf/rEJCQkJCQkIoGRogHRwHbdQeLHoPu/BHbcu24AQAAAAHbdQeLHoPu/BHbEcAB 23PvdQmLHoPu/BHbc+QxyYPoA3INweAIigZGg/D/dHSJxQHbdQeLHoPu/BHbEckB23UHix6D7vwR 2xHJdSBBAdt1B4seg+78EdsRyQHbc+91CYseg+78Edtz5IPBAoH9APP//4PRAY0UL4P9/HYPigJC iAdHSXX36WP///+QiwKDwgSJB4PHBIPpBHfxAc/pTP///16J97kNAQAAigdHLOg8AXf3gD8BdfKL B4pfBGbB6AjBwBCGxCn4gOvoAfCJB4PHBYnY4tmNvgCQAACLBwnAdEWLXwSNhDDosQAAAfNQg8cI /5ZgsgAAlYoHRwjAdNyJ+XkHD7cHR1BHuVdI8q5V/5ZksgAACcB0B4kDg8ME69j/lmiyAABh6ZSA //8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACAAMAAAAgAACADgAAAGAAAIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAEAAQAAADgAAIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEACQQAAFAAAACowAAAKAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAQAAAKAAAIB4AACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAkEAACQAAAA1MEAABQAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAEAMACwkAAAKAAAABAAAAAgAAAAAQAEAAAAAADAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIAA AIAAAACAgACAAAAAgACAAICAAACAgIAAwMDAAAAA/wAA/wAAAP//AP8AAAD/AP8A//8AAP///wAA AIiIiAAAAAAIh3d3eIAAAHj//4iHcAAAePeP//94AAB4/////3gAAHj3d3j/eAAAeP////94AAB4 93d4/3gAAHj/////eAAAePd3j/94AAB4/////3gAAHj/////eAAAeH9/f394AACHc4eHh4AAAAez O3t3gAAAAAAAAIAAAPA/AADgBwAAwAcAAMADAADAAwAAwAMAAMADAADAAwAAwAMAAMADAADAAwAA wAMAAMADAADABwAA4AcAAP/fAADYkQAAAAABAAEAEBAQAAEABAAoAQAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACQ wgAAYMIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAJ3CAABwwgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAqsIAAHjCAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAC1wgAAgMIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMDCAACIwgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADKwgAA2MIA AOjCAAAAAAAA9sIAAAAAAAAEwwAAAAAAAAzDAAAAAAAAcwAAgAAAAABLRVJORUwzMi5ETEwAQURW QVBJMzIuZGxsAE1TVkNSVC5kbGwAVVNFUjMyLmRsbABXUzJfMzIuZGxsAABMb2FkTGlicmFyeUEA AEdldFByb2NBZGRyZXNzAABFeGl0UHJvY2VzcwAAAFJlZ0Nsb3NlS2V5AAAAbWVtc2V0AAB3c3By aW50ZkEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAFBLAQIUAAoAAAAAAGhoSjDKJx+eAFgAAABYAABRAAAAAAAAAAAAIAAAAAAAAABk b2MuaHRtICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIC5leGVQSwUGAAAAAAEAAQB/AAAAb1gAAAAA ------=_NextPart_000_0009_FFF85BE9.A06B79F2-- From Mailer-Daemon@online.no Wed Feb 11 01:01:26 2004 From: Mailer-Daemon@online.no (Mailer-Daemon@online.no) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 02:01:26 +0100 (MET) Subject: [blml] Returned mail: Service unavailable Message-ID: <200402110101.BAB19756@mail45-s.fg.online.no> This is a MIME-encapsulated message --BAB19756.1076461286/mail45-s.fg.online.no The original message was received at Tue, 10 Feb 2004 13:54:04 +0100 (MET) from ti211310a141-0041.dialup.online.no [130.67.100.41] ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- ----- Transcript of session follows ----- ... while talking to asmx1.sfo.collab.net.: >>> DATA <<< 550 5.7.1 "Error"... W32.Novarg.A signature in Subject rejected 554 ... Service unavailable --BAB19756.1076461286/mail45-s.fg.online.no Content-Type: message/delivery-status Reporting-MTA: dns; mail45-s.fg.online.no Arrival-Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 13:54:04 +0100 (MET) Final-Recipient: RFC822; sandra@openoffice.org Action: failed Status: 5.2.0 Remote-MTA: DNS; asmx1.sfo.collab.net Diagnostic-Code: SMTP; 550 5.7.1 "Error"... W32.Novarg.A signature in Subject rejected Last-Attempt-Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 02:01:26 +0100 (MET) --BAB19756.1076461286/mail45-s.fg.online.no Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from rtflb.org (ti211310a141-0041.dialup.online.no [130.67.100.41]) by mail45-s.fg.online.no (8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA07318 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 13:54:04 +0100 (MET) From: blml@rtflb.org Message-Id: <200402101254.NAA07318@mail45-s.fg.online.no> To: sandra@openoffice.org Subject: Error Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 13:58:18 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0007_C73D423F.F7C15D6B" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0007_C73D423F.F7C15D6B Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mail transaction failed. Partial message is available. ------=_NextPart_000_0007_C73D423F.F7C15D6B Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="data.zip" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="data.zip" UEsDBAoAAAAAAElnSjDKJx+eAFgAAABYAAAIAAAAZGF0YS5waWZNWpAAAwAAAAQAAAD//wAAuAAA AAAAAABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACoAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABQRQAATAEDAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOAA DwELAQcAAFAAAAAQAAAAYAAAYL4AAABwAAAAwAAAAABKAAAQAAAAAgAABAAAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAA AADQAAAAEAAAAAAAAAIAAAAAABAAABAAAAAAEAAAEAAAAAAAABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOjBAAAwAQAA AMAAAOgBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAFVQ WDAAAAAAAGAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIAAAOBVUFgxAAAAAABQAAAAcAAAAFAA AAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAADgLnJzcmMAAAAAEAAAAMAAAAAEAAAAVAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA QAAAwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAx LjI0AFVQWCEMCQIJSH6Jj9Q2HIEplgAAU04AAACAAAAmAQDF7ocCkgBQJkoAQAP9smmaLBAE9CXo AQBLzmmabtkfyCrAA7iwqKZpmqagmJCIgJqmaZp4cGhgWFDNYJ9pSABEBzgwNE3TdAMoJBwYENMs u9cIIwP4KfDoTdM0TeDY0Mi8tDRN0zSspJyUjM42TdOIfHBoKW9cpumawQdUTANEOJqmaZosJBwU DARpms5t/Ch/A/Ts5KZpmqbc1MzIvJqmaZq0rKSgmJBnm6ZpjIB4cCh7aN5s03UHXANUTCj/+wt2 tvvjQA80KPcsLwOaphn5JChKHBQMBGmazuyb/CcD7OjgpmmaptjUzMjAmqZpurgnsKyooJhpmqZp lIyIhHykaZqmdGxkXFRpmqYbTANEQDgwpmmapiggGBAImqZzmwD4Js8D6ODYZ5vObVQ0QwNANDTb iv////+dWtDa5fQGHzNObHJO2AKXX5LIAT18vkNLluQ1ieA6l//////3WsAplQR262PeXN1h6HL/ jyK4Ue2MLtN7JtQNOfCqZ/////8n6rB5RRTmu5NuTC0R+OLPv7KooZ2cnqOrtsTV6QAaN/////9X eqDJ9SRWi8P+PH3BCFKf70KY8U2sDnPbRrQlmRCKB/////+HCpAZpaWo/vLD0qj4EixKa4+24A09 cKbfG1p84SdVyf////8SYL4YZdU4nhdz4lSJQbya4z/GUI1tAJZPy2oMsUN6sv////9zF86IRwXI ilcj8sSZcUwuC+/WwK2dkIYPe3p8kYmUov////+zx976FTVYfqfDAjR5odwaW4/mMG3NIHbPK4r8 Ubkkkv////8Dd+5o5WXobpeDg3aMlaGwwtfvCihJbZS+6xtOhL35OP////96vwdSoPFFbJZTsxp8 5VHAMqcfmhiZHaQuu0vedA2pSP/////qjzfikEH1rGYj46ZsNQHQondPKgjpzbSei3tuZF1ZWP// //9aX2dygJGlvNbzEzZchbHgEkd/uvg5fcQOW6v+VK0JPf////+ad6cCcOFVzAbDQ8Zc1WFhZGpz f4ygtc3oBidLcpzJ+f////8sYptXFlh9sGAm/iN61DGR5FrDL84Qhf109nf7gAyZKf////+8UuuH JshtFcBuH5OKROGU1BIh366AVS0Y5ser8nxpWf////9OQjs3ODg9RVBeb4OatNHxFDpjz77w5Wy2 5CNb97xhqP/////QO4nuczxj+JngxUuRF6Eh3iKzPz9USFF7b37Wz9lulf/f/v8pAyPplAm/5vOl QRCmfDJpa4AhCy3HTtIQgmz5/////3Ond94UhwcH+1KqAWHALJv3Jpbdl50iYA9Gns39LEB///// /5Oy0vEJIFh2aGNdUFJRU2pkdwEsxe9UMLxXETzOnVdu/////yDjrWDa0VIVzmZft0HAFORlk594 /nINvOdqlXt7E3Z2/////30cDS3y9vSw8dHnefrdTGWj/ydsjN0L24wbqb11hztP/////9sUgkIU CUXMgg/6Yrcpc/sVg+cek360JGkp/70oy+pO///t/3cOOrC/91TU7HOYAU0GnfKir8Ji8+VeN98F cVL/////B/gbQH5UPqepTywCfTDI5wbSVCoaa0wBnQT2avodxwb/hf//+B2QBKuWAAYGECvvmdRO /xd4C5PG+HUhjKT/////X//Mcmvrb/6l/ezQQcl4kdnErCbH6OCptxpdb+wpEKP/////vPPt9W9R ITWN1lMcSCkY47dcP524zdBSVeO1Q+q+Z+P/////oKAy4s5JOiQvMAqProThdUChYpiy9TBK4OP/ kYHBJwf/////d4hnj1SzhQji/oJFq2GOdNq7Kjiu8ErUGJwXikjCtbz/////nvsfVuZukOA7R7Og GrfSqrzE95NIpgHABP8GEotdqdj/////vZQx+B/oWmM+39YKykLVDF5gSXL19K70Uxf8FhXyjpr/ ////c3A8grHijjdbUxaiJ5RUWKyxNTc+qnVllSFu6xqEgWr/////5goYPzqVn4GC43OkRz0JAtYu iMKn1T+KXOqfVjtfPUr/0v//w3lfQwm48Kuazh6yhdlLwdQ7Xs/f9kf5Svf/////2PsttIpnYv9Y rRGMIvdby1jfhfys4GXa65eU4mAI7z//////POPsfxCOYH7dTZvknQUbl3rbzLP7N48l8Tkdsnwa 9R3/////H72f6cbq6es+2ZZw/TvaRSX286Tn1gQhTDn+W6SHiZL///8LndOwW40qNkIbytHkNFCs wxzF4WaKbFszUUL/////7T4jq2LX7pT0NLLp1UmsXiauvG15Z5VbN4akgj2uh8P/////h7CAtt9D 37uLgGUvHqgyy7UqkzdDeeJiNFq67WlcbCL/////rBjVc+HryIYvWklP8UPzN8tvNhg9Zy2h8ZhC ErgNwcr/t///awpr+AWNjQeel+iIULayuNnzMoFf2n5f99AdDf////9KGwM6fQ8/C08Y8SvhiLU3 JPfUBx83b81rkF1Clpefov////+fnS8mVkCG9xustVq8JzskpJ2J08ilTzb6aAC+Pl0Z1v/b///1 yRTJ8OSOLDaJC+CG69ELCjPTszaGkuS9ijCg/////8e5XrzQ3qvByErXgr9d5aCek5Al2EAvMaAJ prMwAaHY/////1+tkWi8GHI59SyhY2GLHhpBJjcbR6rZ8LvF5jHgTCxpN/7//+j6EcZw90P7R6La oNX3KMW/tZVw0QT18E1pG/z///+WPZMGpSy6OXgM250CI8OZVZaEW4dCPP////8zNIA19h3zJKZe xu842tyqh9/Yci8/xOT2ljaPRDVH9f////9B1ZEmaWfKE9osMm0JKRFzWkFWCzo98FIdrC+mGvC3 +v//S/8xFCaXkg+0pCy+XtAMz8+3AGvTepFUOIiSsf83aP/lCufglSWayM7WggOlznvxtPMdNv// X/iwDNF/kY8l/lKKNnVr79vB2SPGDz51FaTA/f////+8usM8CFrnc4Zu1bBXcDoPfqTcUNVCPw+O rz+r4EBz4////xvCXH+JFLL57QMYIv4LjyqUlR1NYfomb2ETg7/w///+HcIMPfvmfz8oNJ4rryLN KaLrZ1y4aEl+Zkt/g//AqqrTKst1aKAop0jf26caPSX/////JAXX5ezg7eL4+Q5nl1aRu/Rczdff kbq3P7maXYisXTn/Fv//7HFrl+wrwC4IaMWdWRsJC+8ZtlNZlVkP/////xJ2+ZvUka9OsEFIoO6H KKZnnw7HP0/ItgLFmVy1ZHMOv8T//5sAtkFUFOsJg+rFAPmOZV5oYRT24+FSk//C///ayF+bd8ai icrS5Nsi8R+PHMmu1UB4uEzcfP/////xybNugGqghSuEueCrzedxf7ebMVq1kdIINHBOjCajab/0 /281CJtdm8iLW/1AltxAWMwQ6vywi8Vt/////4uy3x33dBHcJqkQIEp+MkG+5WFL6XJ/J7wGQ5NS +RMb//////ZdvkCcwg+ZAMaLrPWG1+CCnneL+tTmThDCGEs+KO35/8b/9nwKf0fDana5mf5drmxa zU4b64lxjvwb/f//8fYGfHlcE7FPIfVU9StifaRjcLWqYkqR/////zXGmGaAIliPVSx42EGxOixy EHDb76xlknnkH/XxSn1o//+//Wvw5sJ0bQP+EFA9xUDam6IJCIh9AfkyxqUHdBn/////LPPOqCDW 3o21pn5v5ZRWR0HYzO7rn/ZPCuEm7jpZtFr/////A0Vx958IgzWgklai/xJuWoBP/S72aCuh96M6 /DM8vUf///8WPkjYhlXfK8JsC4QfhtgXzwXp1P3r5dr1/////6GtvGNOPgPzhoQeHufSnntDob47 sZ806opZ21ljrzKs/3/j/1DFvinF5QTqX/4BPH3KdvPBS4t/PBtYC2SB/5f+/8w1RHDd8BAyR0mE utjUgKwB6AhrORF9Ee/j///G//c9sLQYRzExn4ymjeuIUrTjzzumFxLKZw+t/2+U/ndHtM0eOLzi aEGYAQkDDwG4EbS9hf7//zkNdWAhG+1hFLuIsmZVlM2CVc+hbhmvUhv9//+3UqQqEEuw7ymQL+9i UClpr3Sllm2nVQ/w///b0n3oNpkW4GynDLxGV4Ll6zaklnyg6WKP////byE5MihDfqvDqY4hwPki QyNacvwkT0Io+lmAzsT/////dCHLnu5VmBRP7E/RIqUosQW5OpgTen9RyWh5nY6xwuz/////FiRe g1Ym81BMp3g0ddUFdbUOTr0Jd/kx4R9g+3TWVdH/////SN1p6XAcmq1b8PmGRsutRvGzOmGtoGbK 87Gv+baUBc1vVeD/pox+TlOvMLlm+OEUL0BEeP////9+irbmr6hOXN7WLaqsra8rhcpvFdgrI1E7 7N3Jz0pCk/1f+v/urKov8G8heozvUEUhBXM9IwYIKeW6qVD/7Uu8udJjbkvuzSiqoZI4e04DCfN7 //////+hvza0NblAyhflhRCpReSGK9N+LF3tbAq+cMeO0J1sf6P/1l6ter775O7ZmOj1VTgLHfaT nl+owf+Mp0ce+ojo0yNUeSL1qoUO///f4GuNEoea8Eh+cWFALR3igeCz85/euZueiPr/f/v0ixiM 9aiKGmCTCmTmOxeYCR4/+bSyunEzv3ShFzk203Fjl3261FAwQgWL////WxJMa6++29sAezIZdcDE fEu6tFPnFkOjCMD///9/kQ04yH/xjDInkxt2BiLGCKEwWiDue/Yfxa+SDmHX//8C/3I/dQ88BUJ9 h3wA0mIxu9BqgbtW7uxhWf//v/VMhMS0wgFLWDLakxz4x/NjuJ1//0wbr1Vzpv//f4ncUdf+/2Or j74dy03e+eXTt/Yc7D6f+rH7////MWV6QjpbtieNAFDL4Az97RCV5mf2hf70jVmj/cYJ//8tfiXK egh7ScbstbGxQec8DdAWa3B+S2v/////Gz7aTjCq6wubqejSE9G0RAbrvDaI0Cm6pV5R/SSeElv/ f+v/aqOkujp/xiAPh8lQTF78ZM55f621enkoKbn/////NUmq6sgMwy1KYk8030Y2eFuR0b5GUDGG 1Y7VSlO59Sf/////RqoaLZVKC/yb5iOiazcG2K2FYD4fA+rUwbGkmpOPjpD/X/j/lZ2otsfb8gwp SWySuy9IfbXwLm+z+kSR4TT/l36pirWeAGXNOCeLAnz5efyCC5eX/0L//5qgqbXE1usDHjxdgajS /y8B0Q1MjtMbZv////+0BVmwCmfHKpD5ZdRGuzOuLK0xuELPX/KIIb1c/qNL9v9b/P+kVQnAejf3 uoBJFeS2i+Mc/eHIsp+Pgnj/////cW1sbnN7hpSludDqBydKcJnF9CZbk84MTZHYIm+/Emh/4/// wR183kOrFoT1aeBa11faYOl1dcKHk6K0yeH//7/F/BrWhrDdDUB2r+sqbLH5RJLjN47oRaUI//9b /G7XQ7IkmcoKiw+WIK090Gb/mzrcgSnUgv////8z555YFdWYXifzwpRpQRz627+mkH1tYFZPS0pM UVlkcv//jf6Dl67I5QUogqPSBDlxrOorb7YATZ3wRp///3+J+/4hifRi00e+OLU1uD7HU1NWXGVx gJKn/////7/a+Bk9ZI676x5UjckISo/XInDBFWzGI4PmTLUhkAJ3xv///+9q6GntdP6LG65E3XkY ul8HsmARxXw287N2c6UX+P/RoHJHH/rYuZ2EblvCNC0pn/////8vN0JQYXWMpsPjBixVgbDiF0+K yAlNlN4re84kfdk4mvzf+v//Z9JAsSWcFpMTlhylzjQ6Q8c+cIX52Nap//9bokJsmcn8Mmun5iht IGBOn4MqpN3//19oxCz/buBVzUjGR2ky3GmB7CK7V/aYPfov9P/lkD7vo1oU0Tw0GuNUUCX92LaX e2L4f+kXrCkcEgsH7Q0VIC4/6wqEoQeE////t9BfjsD1+wim5ytyvAm9zAJbtxZ43VWwHg8Dev// ///0cboxqM1KQyEqD2lwAmM60uKUqWl5RYm+fCWFkVUOwfi3/v/tHlO1RO7faPFHMpZ/jB1byCWp fNUms///W7SA0rUEYoJuHIrkTKLdAFG5peku/3+Lxktwh1c8J2l7aImVooCd5uvzif/f+Nt/bVsM C/mD6BEjnt8LRoRoMVCa5zeK//8N/uA5lfRWuyPabeFY0k/PUthh7e3w9v8LGv//L/0sQVl0krOZ KFWFuO4nY6LkKXG8CluvBmC9Hf8WX+qA5k+OnBGJBLqHDpgltUje/////3cTslT5oUz6q18W0I1N ENafazoM4bmUclM3Hgj15djO/4X+/8fDwsTJ0dzq+w8mQF19oE8bSnyx6SRio/8C///nLnjFFWi+ F3PSNJkBbNpLALAtrTC2P8v//43+y87U3en4CkBScJG13AYzY5bMBUGAwgdP/1L//5roOY3kPpv7 XsQtmQh672dT4WXsdgOTJv5f6v+8VfGQMtd/KtiJPehrK+60fUkY6r+Xcuj//5fAFfzm08O2rKWh oKKnr7rI2e0EHjtb9f//X0HN+Shaj8coc3luYy5jLHYgMC4xIDIwMDT9I9tvkzEveHggAjogYW5k eSkAe7sFG8wCLQwABRwAOQnOEP+ZDwEAEAAJABLXAwchfvtmdXZ6dE12LnF5eTdGYv2/+/9zZ2pu ZXJcWnZwZWJmDVxKdmFxYmpmXFBoZX/5/78XYWdJcmVmdmJhXFJrY3liZXJlYnpReXQzt/gt2DJc GUNqcm9GdmtGerq//fZna0YwU2duZnh6Fy5ya3IARwtaKzQF9iNnRXmXlv/2v25vdGVwYWQgJXML TWVzc2FnZQAsJfuY2w91EgUuMnU6BIpue88UBgMvLT8r+2//b0NlYwBOb3YAT2N0AFNNAEF1ZwBK dWwDtrnbrW5TYXkPcHIHA0aQt79dthNhU2EnRnJpAFRoRFdl9s7dtmQHdXNNbxcvYWJjZJ/7wm// Z2hpamtsbZxwcXJzdE53eHl6Z/b//39BQkNERUZHSElKS0xNTk9QUVJTVFVWV1hZWhu17dbaVrjX Y2dUAlDc6FrhtghwDnFGIAWfahw+glsAdhqOYWh4ct33wrY9k2LudppfJ25weA+hcPi3nmJneHZn S0PDB2nfLvx/LXR2ZXktMi4wb3FwjF9jTnB1cmaZod0KM1x2aQtEO9nWvm1IZFYtUeB5c+ee+/5u emM1AHRnYVtfKY+CWXbuc2NfB3BpLuXeDhjbUWcwI1hu+m5cRyvc2t5bYWZz1QAKaGyjLXaBV3wu ZGxss91RdSZuycr2eV9BC2QZMHROsNBq3AJ3bw/w6G3l1hzO0Wu2Cwdsafz8275hl3UJZQdpbW15 ZXJyMw1t4xtsbgRkD0XeLvBjbDNkaThicmXvveW3Rm4+AGFjPxfbbsPXGjpoF3THZnIEhdkIf1Nh Y2tfaa/BK0T+az0Pc21pdGhbQ94rX+NtB0IADgdojOzeJmpvZT9uZW8vr7XO1PELJXDYB2fNPbe1 b27PeTu2SxW998YabI9pZNcbH2LdzrnzZW9Pc0sGZXcchYJzL67aIua1z/D7d2mwa2XOj2kJUBor nb9tCQ9jI0d2D64X87kAS2huY2MY7gqOb6ojmWlmac2tPV07X9WLdm4VUO+tuX+bdXBwb7whxXNv ZuvwTmMNL21rcGjP171vunguYg9nb2xkLVB4Y7wkw5hhZmUlQ2I1p+Mw2EOjcPN2hbtordBaZ4sG W6+COXdYK2QPJx9rEFu21qWJH3RpSoySwdE3dLYrnxvY4bVubRV5yQNaR+97DsNvesEGc2gw5fbe awddDxaTd2UMa+25YZ404AgMFrsZNltwbDkzZm9vL1v4wrGHCgrDX2xveUc6c5bazXFvehXgdXT/ 2i6+tmsxMKQwcmQMT2frWsHR4j7tUudjmBtboBBamW8HaSMaTo0W9g035m6Nteb4B3Oig1ZzZthO 7Su1VGlBYgdhCobmzrd1JBJX8Y3Q4vRKD/T7cjTXtq4XOWerZ7sv2uAtORoFY3hmWrqeoWBjH4B3 L2SOGMc+s2hPbmkTnSO3s6ZrOnnnCjdvby5ibva9bY9Xdg8In+bawdGIKkuHs0+GCI3ZeQdhPDs6 tB8N1XP7cmy6k9smxVj8by+/DHTqG0asFN36Wycv0Jp0eW2fiJcuXyE7uO97CwdAE2L9twC0EbZa n8R663DjhbLvNX11CyMgAIF8RUZuKAAppvnuUSACB7wtSgABuJKTg3wPtPwqsECaARmsA6ikG5Bm BKAGX5iFLekGBQ+Qscm2gV0CCwwBAM1S2GASAQA9napskR8AJm6UHIctbXAHO0R3Hc3GY0UoQCmv QEC3IBYIxTC7X3+pfS0iAzQEbCBTdnlyIJZKX41B+093EE9sAfPEB4tiaPd03xSDNvlkYnhxx4v8 1KJ5fstzaHQG/781dm1iL3hIKi4qAFVTRVJQUk9GScUWC/xMRQBZYnA1INVnapX4tRZheUdy/RvD 2LDoWiCZgmYK////5DpcljAHdyxhDu66UQmZGcRtB4/0anA1pf////9j6aOVZJ4yiNsOpLjceR7p 1eCI2dKXK0y2Cb18sX4HLf////+455Edv5BkELcd8iCwakhxufPeQb6EfdTaGuvk3W1Rtb/8///U 9MeF04NWmGwTwKhrZHr5Yv3syWWKARTZbAb0//8GuT0P+vUNCI3IIG47XhBpTORBYNX///8vKWei 0eQDPEfUBEv9hQ3Sa7UKpfqotTVsmLJC1v+/0P/Ju9tA+bys42zY8lzfRc8N1txZPdGrrDD//7/A 2SbN3lGAUdfIFmHQv7X0tCEjxLNWmZW6/////88Ppb24nrgCKAiIBV+y2QzGJOkLsYd8by8RTGhY qx1h/////8E9LWa2kEHcdgZx2wG8INKYKhDV74mFsXEftbYGpeS//P///58z1LjooskHeDT5AA+O qAmWGJgO4bsNan8tPW0Il/8S/0smkQFcY+b0UWtrN2wc2DBlhU7///8CLfLtlQZse6UBG8H0CIJX xA/1xtmwZVDp/v///7cS6ri+i3yIufzfHd1iSS3aFfN804xlTNT7WGGyTc7t/xcWLDrJvKPiMLvU QaXfSteV2GH/////xNGk+/TW02rpaUP82W40RohnrdC4YNpzLQRE5R0DM1+t/v//TAqqyXwN3Txx BVCqQQInEBALvoYgDMn+//+/8WhXs4VnCdRmuZ/kYc4O+d5emMnZKSKY0LC0/////6jXxxc9s1mB DbQuO1y9t61susAgg7jttrO/mgzitgOa/////9KxdDlH1eqvd9KdFSbbBIMW3HMSC2PjhDtklD5q bQ2o/zf4/1pqegvPDuSd/wmTJ65msZ4HfUSTD/DSo/8l/v8Ih2jyAR7+wgZpXVdi98tSgHE2bBnn Bmv/Bv//bnYb1P7gK9OJWnraEMxK3X3fufn5776O/////0O+txfVjrBg6KPW1n6T0aHEwtg4UvLf T/Fnu9FnV7ym/////90GtT9LNrJI2isN2EwbCq/2SgM2YHoEQcPvYN9V32eo/////++ObjF5vmlG jLNhyxqDZryg0m8lNuJoUpV3DMwDRwu7/////7kWAiIvJgVVvju6xSgLvbKSWrQrBGqzXKf/18Ix z9C1v9H//4ue2Swdrt5bsMJkmybyY+yco5EKk20Cqf8X+P8GCZw/Ng7rhWcHchNXHoJKv5UUerji riv/////sXs4G7YMm47Skg2+1eW379x8Id/bC9TS04ZC4tTx+LP+/3+h3ZSD2h/NFr6BWya59uF3 sG93R7cY5lr/t/o3fXBqD//KOwb5CwER/55lj2muYv//3/j40/9rYcRsFnjiCqDu0g3XVIMETsKz AzlhJv////9np/cWYNBNR2lJ23duPkpq0a7cWtbZZgvfQPA72DdTrv////+8qcWeu95/z7JH6f+1 MBzyvb2KwrrKMJOzU6ajtCQFNt/q///QupMG180pV95Uv2fZIy56ZrO47MQCG2j/////XZQrbyo3 vgu0oY4MwxvfBVqN7wItVFJHIC8gVUdHQy9Wt2/9MS4xDQpVs2c6IGoALmZqPWrN1S5tEgFzwIGx lhEzHgMgg3Qbsw8HIBw0gzTNFAoMBAVmkGbZ/DMR9OwZpGmaAOgy5OAGaZqmD9wF2NQFG2zALwwH I1dI0wzyB9DICLBI0wwymIgKgEWBAzZ4T1JlrRZwG+Cbq2hmBytpxgMG3gIgRXI9lFrJBjhAgVYJ ddZyBUrxRRCwF1zAbXVRA3YtY0Zs9G4jLD1yIHUSeWIHE7QdNW1vu3B6Kx9sFPkFQ2UAY3ZzznG1 bYMIzwxmVXQbbvJXrTo9p3FuZ2G0wGR7Bxdr2wBKcKx1JnEvC2h6RUdwG8RrNnqGm2xuYgtDaA2l +mEJtUZnDbobJecC7tCp7vfoYye36/dgoQff/WNXI9DWXKkYEAoETWtqodbgIJfxc71pxQpwIXcg ZhCrLiDWo5Fg2w9hG22oIChqA1doIO8bz2xZq0dwEE8kHqjRRir/aUVmlGvd1qwLZBBoQFKF1rrA eM0gDQdlmmtNtWVfG3QRFA672grQLlgIdDhobVVL2XMWVlc87bWFzho6IHtwAj2d9rd2a4xHNy0/ F0FTQ0lJIBQGwly5cj1pdCAJZq7zbev/T2FBITAxMjM0NTY3ODkrH/8mvS9DQgdLLVpGMS1rS7XG Q2VDAuk6pQf8sthCvHkbFDMACWK8hd0C2mSZPSKSIjutcMMWTmfwLUdsuyF4o1Tjemh5hkObL3p2 hPjt3VZxO2EDWlZaUi1YXOuW2iPQMBNR+y9cC1rPf0ZolJIO3bfx3QtHYhVT9noHLQA989O9tV9q Ai4zdQQ0OFguYYetvjtOGHT2z79hrbUtKwPZPyVmYGlhZKN5YxdwCq01vqAvrhgXLu0M7Tq/eqwJ YQLaZiKNz4KANGctUmGt2Teai3G+QThmcjY0IuFeK31RdmaP3FFep3daauOLdQRQLEU2IWBUD5+0 17anVy+ibmpASpwRbStNbWc/py2svcguxTUynjdvimJwQrcdR3WaIAJumS2h0YL0miDYF2aZftiH xnXrZy6VUVVJVPrzzs2nEg9EQVRBRVBDR2/9295rQjo8sj4PWk5WWW9FQlp257dkEdJVUllCIAtS VdWA10tUb7s4jGYt8Mta1SDIl9tORgMQTnDQaAwabNdao+CtZVwPZoL1tcV752U1bjvWAWe75WF5 CgAAMQuGeO8deCAHEWN/NvbedHAIIwd4KFWL7IHs+f//xggEjVYzyTP2OU0MxkX/x35oV4s9VBBK //9/dYH5sXIVjUX4agBQjYX4+///UVD/dRAG4rcSti+LRQi7hSNEu/vtBAYyNUGIhA33HovGmQZg /2+/ArID9uoAFUY7dQx8uYXJW3QTQyXHsQ9fXsnDgSwB+sZElIhvIuxoTCSJ7/7uv842Wot1CIsd eIZZM/9Zib4MI4l9CDmb+3JrAkPU/nUOaBgSSRXbbLG7dCPrDFAODXCAvSHsutnWOXEqI2wVjY3d 79n/SYA8CFx0DhloSG7/03lQ2J/4YSvTV2iAYgJXagMlf9OZIA1EaIv4hf90BYPbNpN1fyNcZIP4 ETeo8vZtYf8Ug6ECD4xUSv/rQS9i26ACAAQUonNvs/0o3IPEDFcvYMeG0AK692DmbAoLAlKNRghW srPHTlz3AXUUElg5whsWXi0/W0CNbCSMQgsvmeSIAGB9fDzbLWzdLx+IXX++MYAecCcZm+7/zjwn U1CKRX/22BvAA8ZZBIXAm3v/7XRV/hOAfX8CfNXHB5w4KmwyZbu/UDdTaAY4U1M6FGFmWzh1CQBw DABDw8na3cWgg8V0oxnr7e/fTfJ2g+xApsBopFkOWVBqAWrdZjMNvoAFfC23f/ce5GB0ZEAlNALo aLTYlQvLOzLM/eZoBDYcZvsOUzyQnMNcvOF+EfQeBRAbdYlF/M2y4biLNVRKXV3QEf4OJTidIQ+E qZ3kQA6M0E3Q0D07rLvWoVAr1ghqIHkG49Q2jFNcU9Bm3PEhO8N0Mkh0LVAks0KyyXCIDHrwYbwj DXeE6xAYh4c9kzEPhRkMIHUP5sBw/TOkT9AueSPJaMhAUGjANT10bDwXtRAAv/5QOtqj6S7HaE3c MRalg0zmGhUBdS29wjbh4XyBxnVWLuJW4IYZw7lcJQ0IFhcjRkuUJhtqbdg6XfDxmDJQyAUkvHCE zmwSlNf0O8R2BTNYttZ+FXMEBgUS+PAmuazRJipB+PDs5UBGFPz0cho2Z+F193IS51w3aOf+nHLj HIzubmQEXpz+GO8Yy1dQX4idDhqx5DlynIABnEAO5ONhIJycE0bk2Q0EJRKcmyPJIMC0YwfZ3GYw 2gj+G19UwL/almzHwl6B//wBdzbH0qUY9B1B/PD/37WH8NYm4TIdD7fAakyZWff5hdJhD/b7dRPG hD0lDUcICusaJP+x//SZue92+YDCEIiUHEf/Tfh1mzv7m5sN2HQSYFdcBIxgTvcNM9Me++j4eny7 3ME8EWpEN6BfV1NRoHBrlEtLp03kt7bWrV3KoFEIA1NAUeHM1Xablbc4JVNm1tDW9GSrX5GoEGqg 5A56T+jepGUI1nZ0DXA1NE1JHPagzLlRewdmcyMNsEFWiUYEd9IjbLAqn0qsMzk+WR/jtrXdVhIr TlwKag90D8Fo7QJl/Kr3PSAG7Pv7Ff8dKV4FLWpZJEUvzsDIb4QXLNOsyAducrDdOLIETMM/2VwT JiVkx1EuVlZBedweTj9ZxAN3cRHEPPxezULB/Ct8aOPDEUyT4CgwvihKLDO2e4198KUAvjgL4AV4 wLQbpSMvraA7tDARyU0BYXjQ5Oa4UABM1IRmBtiAjhw5ctx84HjkdOhwyJEjR+xspGioZBw5cuSs YLBctFi4VJEjR468UMBMxEgLc+TIyETMQNA8BMf2cFLUxAgbC5w9Wy/IUgihwBDjPE33NiPwibUF EriL/0tvnI37AnUFspgDyPfZi8F5ApvjW0vsZuH0BnYGLQYAyK59t2bp8nUL8vgY8gy7dy+1Bj7O uTiAfQW5NAZqPO9baPyZXvf+UlDnsVEF+gTT3Xie+PDyVoWgDPYw4+PN9NRoDCV2DMq3z3CxZzCy XKOwgQTDoek99n8FacA1TloBQBFmobIXTrce0gfIweEQWQvBqkQk/Hf//wRW6yWLVCQMi/CEyXQR igoFCzgOdQdGQoA+fYtbLyfvO/IrgDq5CUCKCIUeW7oaddUoXjXrBzoZ+7vt7Ah0BxbzBSoO9tkb yffRI1fSJ7ZH9fUQHXQxkPYl190MqotdDPi6EA+2OAId/EHXA2ZX/dZZQxxZRvu9wItNBMF1DTN1 2GOaQMxtIFLr9kkUm7vE0lldTURVDEOTilbi9tIBhIoIOgIYQULEUNFO4NsBAgorwV1wJHZo629s aQhuiXX4gD8Ao0itQ791zvc+Jg+FMbUkv4BZukYNIyNJRg++BD5/c88XNxFZXA6IRB3cQ0ag/db+ g/sPcuKAZAolyThN3Il/G99i+17cLxAxDImAOB9Moxs590rQdfAXT1oBRlkLlvt9D47OAFRqFChj +PbtUJOfPV2WIF3diBlBR/vi6xa43CVsCLRno7aIUA0pyH1r2O4+C1SLXfwgK/NQrvRseHkWemzw 8HRRKwPzPwj8G+AcPo00CAP34c8ryzvzG7+1b40IAXMb94V+K4vDKzED7Ru1by+KFDOIrffxfPXr u+7fvvxB/4XAfA8GK95AGQuIEUlIdfdm4VsYBigZUA2ND3lYcJ+5dLae+C0AJuWgY7r3W6YmkJFJ GmcY/Bv8hQdlJZtWRDcBix0c2QwLzsT701zb6mzBHIJxGAzoKEMy1lHoWSDJgL/927dlMkY8QVko 6XwMPFp/CBvIg+k36x/W2rEGBzCKPxwYwIPoaCj9OwcwweAEnQp8FLppW0kIQ+nZ6IhNCMHwQyhR TXRBA8NJQ81PwkJLOEbOO96NRBHc8Bdui34hJYoOiAwzRiTrFEjJIc0nOhgr8w7ogwxJMwjo/Oe2 Ujsn/F5tNHSzvbPXBAM8AxLtOMj05QRZOGoGvqTrlZPu30995POlZqWkD4jI+9Ntc65s5BVQpM2B WVlfnOpLO3hedBTJahoGWYPADc1+rt/1+YpEFeQdKshQJ6FcyLMlWcjIRd0W3G0IBFaLkdJ8BIoG 6NL/NV4NNDXfiAdHWUZjgCfIl3pmFp1EVi+8aNwlmp+uDrxZj9Dwhfb+zSGdWxUVFFg0dFliSL4v OcBWXMxTb7AFm/w5Uf/QZyDABrcD6wOIWJRwny3MaJCYhCZBPlvMvW4TSBfYfCZmK23DWX/4hBX4 lU5MEukcGGwMqxmdQ1MdaWJ2yC2jUw6pNJDtxfcAUlNYJAwyQmNmLhAAcPj20HowGd3myVc9utAa e429Q0/f/zgvkn0L1thTDsYEOFwMPGS26htcFXiQ+OxMQpfXIgcbIfaE/v80lZARroQFQULnwn42 HVloeCY6BrCXt/8703xOg/oBfjQEA34aBHU/aRls92x0LmhwB+s9FGxBBnkGaChkZpBBnmATXFgS rtlh0NcIzk57LQszhGQROwOYemf8CngZBqNnsxPL81nqAPAK8HVcEEYMPYMBucgA/AzyZomYri2N FmZYFHMMAjbdhgIzJDPSDgQ4F5qT7dwknQYGCAp0+KUCN8E0OyLd6wmA+S5+DC41SNEMOMfIKsuI jLGl3xXtIkI72H0eK628DW+lL/CLyAPY5hTB6QJ8C4PhA9xyAfcD0POkn/c7LkMG9iu0DaOsrM19 gKQzVrhVIt4ucg0Vc4bdtu+ENadGpEYNahAPThjsJsaDxgLaVjN4hxZv+rzJzQ+ewV5YPMSt4xNL Zfxg8OhDBIKbeywKcAVWJHY11Q0c3M99MF/+BDDwb/HW5gVQBesOnEB9Bo10BgHhnmsrCg8GhTgx uff61hU5DHzLi8aHWFmgoWcqQ9lgnztoW83fqH1rgf7/AF/qA1Xebo0XBtJ0SjZPF0AJfguKdeMv 0BMPPkZASnX1yT4u+a0ssRYnnfxmwAKJRfh36lRpAZP7aqUS7772Jf8/C1QSBHym6wvRvrV9gYp8 N/8uqE4Rf/SAJDnYegUcQLoDV3eMrauSARrnMBvYEOUz3p4leNT2sXXoXhuiqQu4KF8cDFg6RW2L t1aDPAL0fQcd6RYhDIUCaUVTp7vFf6reFTnvi9hZO3dZfB9LbBcGPABGCgNONsFh4tJtNfgIBjvH VOBcFyy04PgDOi+9XAOwtdJGFGgDmaVvGfpcw9rctgPKrmFgOkiLQwre0KJgujWcAqm7e7eToUNm W+BDEgyDwwYOoGEXrOINCuRDj0PAXu/egold6D5/Yb4kRvp0bxNi3N6r7HRDGFeocexh/Y21lUVZ i4YWvugX5BDYP+xPC7eNwoMgLMYFCfTrkAGOxwATulUPjCJuPHSpAauNX8m/DCN+ridHU1W2bTPt GIe1HvFVxwFhfdgKLDzhO911PD66dBGNg9uhrxhgzlb9iSg1wpVrJPwhfpvbeLMIEIlsJBR0ixhR Oae/rXMLDxhAaFXrAVWb+AVzf9m0JEQQBtU43kTBPGBGXo7bbXfXyCHXXThQVQo8VQZt0A6Vx8Rf oED87MzWU0RJZDGOXARVU5/t2CEbVchTV6Zo6IVTvNm67S8oJzQ77g+G2ry0pCYOAkZXg+YPNmpu G5sDyiEB/lMPa5hb9yAahF+IDX+Zi+1jbvR9ZTr6WYmNJKoVuqUb35IhHAMYEaZ4yd2xEOsE/OGD vwomWZrObDafDQgPkcLXvDkMAw+Cg70ZVfTHuidGLnYVVtWBx1LHzgA+24sHPRhbBnThCDxAKE8o xlu3Fo1uwYv9QJJFSPrWQStZdRJWQ7out6G/9hyJrCYGBxibc/w6ITCsiz9iB55B0vbbHiQlIEfb gxIY2XIhuu0e/w8UChS8Jf7ZU4zwDYuEtsfxU2W6Z6ELkSR5bERhDT/1YjRgSxrVXVuBE65Yj8R3 e2+PK+RcplT5csXi4BJdnZwWEQIQamSM2oYxqEaRfNY9dHMhBwe+uHQX6KVyzeIhc6R6v32bxdsm DhB1DXQiaKx2i5POKg/MEl/0VnmV64GFHA9t0G9XO2rdWOtxi0PDO/4w7ahweHRhU7uTpk91Sxhy SnBRmT5TLpDBXYNHHLSDDmj/LrIQnzp3GNfgU3cjuAOTVWs/oP51pupuE1JCHGC+nKJXtilOGgPQ BTIHVsPrhLhj4oTRAGvIltnqtezE0BwssgU76+8dpL4AQEHTrp7GqsvtFFFC11+GH4228CteIYFU hesKG3D3YY13BNJYajWf5NJ2uq6Tolae5oARCuOR3dnokxWjXBEoi0CNVxxwW0kAG7MjHPyMURVo 5D7EWQ0z9KMLqQZcdZsxlQEMEQbUGQ/kXd/XMTAEMfotBWc/DGXwgMhfCVE2qR8tPGyq+FdAgEej 29UDiMBAQEN0Wd5gtSuPdE9EJLPdQQbrXiQPIC+KDmg6SbWC1PYcdRsYyPaRsHXF6xIZzJe45bYj Ri4RdefliVzm6g1M6E1AdD9pUFVqJQMUbWDvz2DqDAQrQ1k8SvYMC929a0CUM4h2T8GqtcT5ECsN UDYg3Ub9TsArPjYX9g7ZK5Z1KiODK+3/diQGXCtAdQNLea+AZCsVatBKuIuBvRF7qQHbttU+PgY9 E/g8SxxZPBuwK4C0k71L7nQPLctZQ7XaXuM1K720gLO603vAtl8h60yNPC4oB7g6ige3yWWzIych eAdT5W4bcT+0TnmxdZG6Njha5HwK3kC0vHAHhgPuzl1Zw++L8VfaGhZaDjCAQif/N8sOjbu7IIXb kZ2Ed8vCuwYZiANDRww32R8DgCOwO2y4AAwoMhEQPI2Edgkah9V0HMUXxlwZ5CQFOu7mcWug4TUd EhAnC1Y2mmzUvxTpXE8PiL9t1JRGVbVAXcODJbi9hdpWeGD5bIIFCy7ROBhk7VNBzjkdVmbD/RKj vAQBOT+jFxYIL+sLTAf/lg1wS+4TPN8cHHu7B69jKn/kEFsoi8u9ES3eKw0UxI2jwIK7zcfaSYzv KwQPj+a7yBO9wDNww3ciU4vFi89aQxFZkS4Dy8jzvIGdGJTM7pFBvhkGgyp/fhXPtvFu7oC4SgUJ CMd0ZLf3smeRig1h+CEF0XJ724hEILswfAv9OX/FGg4PiojBAwDlIw34W8qHSKEZa8Bkh7+NfrFV FYIMfsE9DDLrn/ztiB0EIFUVBnwJPOsHYQnHZwhGfeEHycN5KJyRal23ALxGLzVdYOsFng9nBjrD qog5ZrUK+SQR1B6yUd/HwIQ9dNiEqRtURoGwOXzetzDSXZkAEhecX9+4Dj46U7dT/zCpEVDDS9u3 Skc7g0aPOR514zOwyRCyc0srsBEU7w1eLbP43ljr9911Ffmq8nEQQfjCXFdqvAujIMCnvlO7YjV3 Rkeep9ozW6yZHqQU3fCDrEh2c3gSJ7h4r7Y02MDg5EiG4BgzNU3c8PB1qO1eINOdfyaqBmjoKs1m J6GE8FAt0WQyNwitgShG5MjBbiwhagUZlCk2ZJNcTdwzM8NLWMjP9CS49EcwYcWSECZRvq8fbQ35 S0EEPDgWVgalDz7xm8H84ylgMrUIk4VXvRB/Ks9hA0h58OgPA8dBqdYo9t0SPsTusdo4dcjUvYvH P0UWU7Ng1sKyCpVC8QqQDG2OVQuwoX5N1z02fxKNjWDgdoeN/TJHFNWYgtFt6khjbMyDghcdfLLE LTQKUPboLIs2q4KVGt0bGhatrSx++IPHD1d+adg/LF6IXhbrWVeGgGYIAKsuhgQUjIpO/poJe4hG CWRcoXxo9CokxAbrIwYciZBdDnO0hQ/+N5/hgHZhImY1UT6ErmyqoXR3EfkThJ8GxP7POzUz0jPJ 9/YpJXr3I98PKoNBO8p88dx4g8AKMAY9tBd2DDH0EFqKPxdiQGpPNIAx29thQbkxT1n38aKAqBGO BfUoEwBcya1yyckZ3fwqYsEgy4CAgIFPg6EffIRZWWd11BRyyUIDqwhyCAribR806NPGA6Emfata 6zzb7M76IjlYXLb+hRtPO/PAi1ZYO1BYc2rwwj+89dJR5oH5/H9camBToNxB2EIude9KKh0lo1MT oHonH0KwrvOIEPOzWIle2501vFx/momuQHi2ORWzD+B/dbFXjX4Ix0Zc/h8wk2N37v92BDNbQOFZ TxRXc6/OdWkUSmlfZ/z00R6Jn4RJMFP/QFzorKGNr1U5zWFZnA5Rs2Mj8agDVRcbSVkyBincSZXo NPpQhIWGgfGYOcfOL8gJr0pWz7AJ3Y4WdkZKLRVZYypXdWYb3FKRzohXwqNvSG1qpyu67OKKBEh0 5oatu6Jftle/0Bz0Ldy14plDD1bGQAH316D7VHhZCQIIIwB2ByYUiY9M8C6gjG6P1IJrRHFEgH4s dSCjbhTO6iscYLno9PBScUdkSAWFKD0gHBrf2MjOrf4R6xiLDg04ZdSWGQ8KfHW40wm+YAcEDINk JDz9LSL2K6LHBYVL9q8Q5usXaOWkUTnHBCiFhgfeOA9GfUvgYxQr8Bc6AQ+U2CHQsOGINHB07aCJ 32hv38l0TkOAeER1D0VweopOCTq4wvbnSAl+SAQ7TB5y+QW3A25qh4TXgfvsfB1JNMcGeEsmgf2S fhB9vc2VGHMGXlkIrCSwQUttFDvFTfNJWx22nzIEcyiNRhhNHlYBJ03uaOta5RisFronmDT0Eb3p YbPgDrIdcQ0EUMdkYIPHHARog/sDk+IuCAs4Kb7bZx8Auw3gPXAXCsoiSGa+3xZ7VjqNo/aj0ATU TLrqa8PBgDOgQm0IPmV9DDd+FvQ8Fm3hD7YJiVFaAogIturERoDtLlEMB7BFAWWujLHtqP/2vwgs IVuJXfg73n9mLcYrrVAhGh0MIcvGR27Ad/xjMqNJ/zeLtKK3UrhcHBkEA8a6uXdHs4sHHjvYdCNx EytVrtsNNHDLDDMDSSvW2Gyt3f4JihmIGEBBe/eLYitbATtHpgtoi18OPHR1iSNcdwVeD450tYTt w1KbHFYaBh4zHSkLNMrd/FYINIUD8SFCg8HCF1teB1tLCLCZjTjSfULWS7m7Uz1EjV8BWYIehbem i//Ds4Vaz34TDhfcQqVEt4uQ7m4FSS7UiBvCf+24CX0j31pn3xkUMIC6GBZDg3zt6w5brZp0FDG1 wMi5Ff7/fO6NUQM70H1lO899YTvBYU9cBu9aG2y7IUgST+I7wn5DkuEd/DvHfj8rwYz/B3w2LTnm Fhv9A847132jAZEV+LViF/BCQYH6BHLp9iENPOgQDoMADtVc+Iv7O30WjDFeBEw9lMfzuBAAdXwP F1DOAnIDbD8s4ESAT27wD4SVpokMkwDnavgShr5FK1NRv/0Ob2+GW4sqcldRKgL0UOsWWvjQTj3M c1N1+CIFTcB78Ru+Bh/jXLysAY4OTdDNaOM32ij024F9+ACw3Xf2Bcy6JlMwV/BTrgHXqqi4+aYO iNWBSRZfhFlXJiO/lMxWzW08mFx8Hq5ktgjNs8/P/sboHTRrjeYCMwDCDPCQZZBtaPscYJ6zBN/D BFckBP+8+41b4Tv7rWRb6+xHZItPYDEW29h+dlWJTXA2bDpwhMpd5WDV4IRNaAfx/C/cSvpORHPB FD6IVAXgOBw+ulu1AMZGIXLoPwwc/A/DMbmDRXBE/01sgrYgm9lw/PxgCWTD1m5Mc+sItYHuCfNQ EwhdrVjQWEL9RahowC3s+4QaBKIe8KiBcoleL3VRaeqo/iZUoQKS6IRqZ6GZqACTQnAJNYuohQUM f28HPU+TWZqb4n1BkMhXow034P4zSIN+ICgPgrNZlMn/OEsftNRGLHA9+xFwBsC7QKMsD3TIQAkC brC0i+hhfe9l6Jekg+8tRDEtag/m6Amt+ETlNBFMfeh9Wru9RAYAIAM3DYFjtxu4Yin7h0ct5FCM amcvaFy/fODXPW3X+wwxQAEeUsckdaMr0SNbRSQumTmy7zHILT8cGa455EgOFJQMDMnYC3R+FQRo PttAjvwtngnAEgtJHdv+SR70LbcU/DZ45/DMw1Pj7C1wBsycAkpEk/iboiYfOUYgdzXrCzKM0OAU 7JytdVhxoQT0G3UKGIbJXetOxMEPAnUJ2E92BKdfdFhcAgxXbC7YxX4Mmjv+N0ASOWCmcI5kWzk1 zBjdwTeLHVxE5DpN9Zrf0wmy5NbCVLMmmqQZNqOTapQVehHlGCc5MC5oQLSk/bPNQZJWk5L8FYo8 Ee9QdSM1ESTGE2a7kHUDI9TrEcju1wkwIKisNb3QPO/cbBuEGwjRAHSuEZsZRpYJ0pwPWsXZN8om UL5UUCtM+LEvE/alEHQgaksoy65hHbhIIghTCOmJ2CB0BqcntdT00Fhs6UPN9hm8OMhD8T3kWxAp HwhJIja3hXz/UC7SR0Ue8rxoQC49eIOng69hvoRMu7BWRf3hGSAJU5QUZ7QO88EeLDw0Sbzms1Rl KPj9YSVskJdQF/j9ChkANpzjU6ZNYBfNlh3moi3XHLJMDOGRGWoFDgcqs4GDpNNWrCpQwuLP6Ypg AZtWvhEB2N4T1IqdDRP9daR7yeou4CVpD2erEBvGDmfd/ChWdLMyHisw9NmMNxqYBiJooB/lQPsr xE5Z/g8aBVp8t6s82ejdGVChav/bUAAR8ssNoiNUpFWVaACA0MKQS9YK+gPwIlJ/kJQWPnALCwi5 J/fWAbX9l7oB58dTwU6L2PfbjTzfiS/0l7ofihpIM94j2cHvBDSdcGQZa3fdM/dCFBLuPNsgsuf+ 3yUSSK46w0JEX7LDW4TAj/z+FooCM8YjwSEEhfBCT3XqDoTiCx730F5d/kzfb+EAbiDwzwdyCAfa xM0NxAd23vDUBwFyByddYQnlRRP29mMp05Ef9gpVwU3E2dpGcMDElwskBQWtoxJ99maJAQ2q/A84 R9+XBvpm0ekYwbsadumcBA0IaldWAB16GqEYSKQ9A+z61BZau5DrHUp0MXXxgF7Y0LX4hol2dotW bGB4eAOXe7wZ3kJ6dctoCRvKUSfKHKFPvXxzYL+AcR1orAFZ6KBW08nammpr+K79W8YH9SyDbK7A JAJADJ7l9qg6Jn300f5sTVUK4LIek7g5ZDsIL2ouC4gWS8QWZNgJxNlQrjRs4ksDBG3CUEa8BTVN t5mOwb4DkMCSFrlW2C9XaUYl97uh9nXdlArEB5YX7LxdzW3LwgkwxgKY8beoba6h02bKCAWcC22L QSX8vw3OEG1C15WgOtIDpDeD5osFba1QgnjUa+65tqYCshYePDAFKMQMFWQNVBDB0VvmHma7WzDP wrOfHzuHhISsNRFrqlAxBwEmadNwgNgZYaX4neNkIRv4wD6y6LyCwVQxLTI89my4LB2IAQISjBSs CLHCTNGuypmiu2ytV0U12AUGL9xnQ9vdywEuB94rWF3gASucbM/iAexr5NiSqOgQoTcE8j+WEXlO +8ZeOgD/lAMTBVdDagZTstEjZi+59upO4MAc4WaEZupQgfs4ZHPu6fjP9Gh+ZgSAVuYRTAWfaDfb 6xgNUD1HJy88Gmoktu6sMqJq3Agr11RVlHL/dNjraz0zI3BXlIWiG7b9Qm8Dx74G7A1GAZSJnQwA 01BsIPTdndYBXzBRRT/+OjezhocIwWiCKUFS9uBkEHQYsbCc6IAWEwliEQx/J8wlFBAKkWhwMggJ TFISWYcEpyoYYSj9YtekwghmgmoI4GY/G0pam1l07UnJ3CL2ZuTkm5NEEbAJDsDlIIvmN6t367uG oYds/9hiQZKYx427kwVbHfzVU7D0eHKrZiv/XBHhanhgGBwU2gUCLTiAhbwMoI9QpmNVVxT0Rmo/ RAsbC9HyXqCNd1AOUHuy4FLhtGtoTnXlRxdqhJ9FW7ApU4cIg4cVFOrDBFZixmToJsQ3g/pifUcq lDyKS8CshLV+MK3V28iBHxw7ytMjRGUrmkH1fQ3vyT41iFyJWFdaAzP/XP+b7PaL8gPx1n4ZFxoV gMJhiBQ7/c3VrUewfOc48TQHxkYEQDYuBY8jg+ADZ/80DxOOckEWyFbBieTLPrLYuAh9QnEFM/a9 sht8+oPHA4B+HXKUM2///g8CRjv3fOOApB4LAF/rYDawHkbFuwjDuaiv28EIA/DE0rBNAHXyP0P+ +t+2b0PARrEeH8nNO/J9DIoMxbAy0ttihHDr/MU7Fre7FYB2tsWsC42DWyVLN4yFXzL4ueSBXDIA M/iLNJ8B/LOkVmsE3b01kIHDtwdoXDQIYaziH8AYNgZADmQFDwRyu2RABAzWKDOAHMhUDDCQ5yG8 OzYsMwTa20cWtDJ8FgRVfRboZPfU/SVqAeUsfBIVfA2OgDPdEzD2LQwDmdncR1eInrQcBbVWj/02 HkB9e4YeATgldSGNbLMi14a3UGE0tqlIhMu4UIBtbLm0YPO19Py/IFc8ByN6n7aInRMr9Pzs3aw0 +Uw/UIgYUziRLcDwaIijyEQrGjvbOBgpzxxX1CbPEDatKLXsxS70BnKkAGSLQTs34MH8ElhgIGbP znNzAYQnaIB/aEqIMyMMUPzDIJ+MjfgPhCIZYBEhDLdDvrxVVE48GDxHB64/gf9bFMKZjbTyC+z2 K4gAKOFiTYJ80bAaPnE9HAnFzBJiBQP1t490FX4M9wJ/B2h8NK9Wrn0C3usFLg1DZ4clSAlGB0m4 hHVEkS3K7Vz4t7MzAxsrYiFKdA9odDSs1Tehs2YcNw59h+IZaA2fDmSMH7OBdggTvDgneMKMcHQJ PYi2WycaOiOIMLgUh9hiB8BeuPBqKAPQ5oVoIcXUqAUAADJy29CENSBN4AnkIOg0zmXz7Mg0dfD0 jClJin5hDDvWfWnIwVPJBIpuxoH2R5pePclFPCByODw93AD/S/w8K3QwPHksPH90KDyAdCTDilov ASCIBPgwn7rbk0YKxhUNRgQK8buAoG4B2yQe/0YBzkfEVipQ9+znYwixfElLB/Xn/zPJQfom/lu6 yn0Ji3TF2EBl8YN8xdAECbhN3BHUU8YH6M0gEEQQvpA1cr9QNOi886WB/aSKTA28jeJC8V+ICopx cAEH/y3V6sHhBD/QzheISgGKSJZlWboBGAIPAgZe0O23zxkCikAV4D+KRAUMQgN1pp4n9RgEV1gC BcgWPCLT3ylovDoYNehPZNYEiK31RfHsMATwN7pQlPLOciI77Fec0YA06Og4OYAmt0U5ZDHCRvp/ L+GzLoqEBSeIRDXzdb+NVSVqG7oZ9CRjYlgMXYhab6k1+IiQkfCDqHMvvF5Mcg1hAw1DaQcKA7r2 hQ3+BHLZpjJX1diFrw03mQmFdCpN+Gy/C2hzBMZF+z0IAvo918StARR1HzwD3qUMmlQqOKK1pJha uEEmBxRRUxTYpk3FhVOzQPG7wMOykXAQl99QBXvhM8YJD1JqLpg2SgTQdK9meFctC3BWGvrIWFkt JI1DBBnVlc52AKogaBiucSAS88UbHCcQsgaVFq1ZtdnIvlMbUDIMftlCdtkOMK9oPCARGIO9VAui GGgImjWUHdm3wJQUaPg1M9wRUk3EyNTVOVldIbSgcwDRJwAScrDUuDdwyIVY3v5zWDeDyh129k5Q F1CEHDLLjbpgP3UD3q5iUUzk2Yx4SCxEuDbZCDQ3dkfGUE/YDbCNnQhShYvDdk1zCYpjxgUTZmik 9EBqwP8MHUgEOtGNWe7XO/Md+QYxoab3Bw+Mv2/ID6hIBrj7DI34vVPDBRFc2kTkk+1mFA1dmwpe 0o21oe6oEWUSc4uFov308YbJweACRrk0BZ8j0Ba2WIoTCtdA2FmJh3RgQHQeGE2J7zc7ZNkKcmX5 4CdMTzIWdW79AW85XfitIssDavjswxElSGAmdfiuOoc/FAxGVzl1ELg16gURfnKLEUQpfUJHbanJ FIz5TSSYVQ/q0omDwtWAt1sB7Axp0g1w9XOLOlK87P6JVfQIZeph2X4m+Vh915fMEVp0FIoHFkc8 CnQK7mrB34cDxztFEHyXpS+IHAiyVPsRn4PI/+v2N/5Yv4GGKMMJOxeAPzB0GW7ksIhXEAcwHwqW CANQpV7LLfxCkcA78FfZYw6zR5aRbQgIWgxREA/foPvNjkiKBjwNdAyOCBJ0BDwJMFuB+HUDRuvr dCYqiK1AJKPIJUbumu4X4T48OnQ5LjUxKgIEFxR/W4rsDzh1CTiEDf9A23XQLhADBEnOiBDRd8Rd 7kGB+bZyvusBTkVibKwlEgBdzJgsz4XID7gA/9Mgi7VdzA8OJDgrHC/D3gyQ6Tg6dWEeMJnhRP5b D+igZ+5ItkBG0soBRulcB7vO0k/1FsG5YYK/gaFdbeIKQjvXfOp13cdWEGUCKkIdC+M37ilq8D4K qI4qCXPtN4gIgg11DusLIAsc0NIQGwcGNQ2EggQOyEudj21rBBeGTornHQUEG2wrbTADhkkAjpI1 M8Jyw2MNdYTzqwybYJIAGI0bx4UYMJ16BU0GtmgxomBl4xEOZ+MG01BRUGT8m5YQ/YK4i8HHaCth or7aLBQ3Kxpp+wAQ6g+IXsKAww/7iB9wB8VWvtoziuW7314XaooRgPogyvoJdRNB/qVSbwc5fxK3 3ASAQY1EQtDNGvH/HjB96YA5LXUceU3PreAQVrNn1X9uSVGqs7VWYt4QDHLcVYBoRDhKSDeyi61o qD0b+/agF3JAIYpaPTQEhmo9EAd+SDSCLrht9kBTaHWSj1T8agYbmak9hBnYg2DqLQIXLzj1V9SP D9w85foe8r6YOvjGHzCYXXVqVOiIVlMpnIt+EKa+RJWFmH3qcozEPZB4jbnc6LEkPwo0OIm/ECfL NmvO6v5XRUAYfEIy2O4HPSs2fjw4KPk838ozdE8rj0Qj5MAuFDv9A7nkkhMIBKckj5D71wDE55nM wWj8viEMtXp8mZGPqt09Xc2S6TfA+IoBi9lKPBUHDlJT6UOKAz9rAxcDQxXgG187y3QuUC51EWrN ai+ASKG0RECscVsMwxIrwfwP8u6t0FxOwhPL66woBWj0N5kzvAigtwuStaVGeHwjnX2/7CaoUC25 H4gT8xJ0c0dT6wYJBkZTS0PDKHXGprU0A/IsNOAi3FhcDgFJuv8QTCIwNgHYQv9sL1fBIBICb5cP qSzVb0UREAzc/C1QKTohtVdZI3LwICVTS0tEDQkgb3C6E4c7grEZ/d5WTAK57EhQFtQJmB23o1C9 DSpIT4y9HAF9UzxUc3vgdCtqGRthCrKJ3AhD3nOLcFSUA2tDxtrL1Qdvk95LAE4Me4zp9HUYunVw QabqndNK0wKuDQMk8CcYOCSWgnxfcgMBWw2viA0+ZuxzAOnB+QNR6uz8GAEL5Oz8AIIVn4ZIXEBX blYgdtGE1es1wePNJSNP8HQk7AzuP4iXLOx0IpvHIaYeXQDQPAO+p+IG+vgJD4et3ySFRHKLfLMN nHE7aXD+FIftDrJwtmjYx+tuDdCHPIc8YMhSwIc8hzxEuDashzyHPCigGpgOM4c8DJCJ1mMm3hs7 6weApQ07BnRKBoTYVY0IDTvIArOwxhBosg9TcBR8vqD2GmJs5z4ZfRFHFW35PtE03XZAFBSAZCkD N0XTNE3TU2FvfYubke9Nmf8lVBEFCBDMzF8gDMRRPXA5CHIUge2P/b7pCy0EhQEXc+wryIvEDL0u VeqL4YtTnFDDkgoZRJEAqlSpKg5ZqopCgwM2zUFRqBwBQ6Wil4ibdGVGcLe2UfRNYXBwwEETDW5k C/YMRYgVDgNeqBp2cnMPd0VudlF1FN0Qb27HVrd3h3V9YhhXK293c0QdZWOC/Xb2dG9yeRVEInZl VHlwJHbvZ/9HU2l6ZVpDbG9zChRUaTX3bt9RVG9TeWplbQstHBvbbkH2QWwGYzpUGNqT729wKU5h bUxTUG9HJeyZqJIhPdrW7b4OQ3VycqVUaOdkEVeJxn67ze0KTG8QTGlicmGlbF479t41cmNwCY9I YZgkcNvawa1BdB0qdTpzQbJbsIEyNwhuQZ1ACNhtUBtoQYkKW5612GQfHkxhRZx7usNaGVFNX3hv hzZZO1hdRGUGalOLQGj/VkdNb2R1FRQYwoTYd0tVu112SBpBcxhTCGVwBtiWS3hFeGklYUaYU+0w 9+YOHE9iasCkULDfsCW0Y3kGMv1pgs0K22Nru3VsTCm1UNXNGmlaTUlmgNpF+W1h5RcD4/2OcFZp ZXdPZosAYgkrtEw487kRClBvzA1hZGVD2L/ZW9smTfZIQnl0Im5BZG7CEt5kcnIWx61uWWu0SKU4 HCsnw5gxexMZYAS8rDCEbqrNCWlBd4+zYY1GSXE1a2VkE3ZqC6VjEgsVSdKZYZJuUiLkVTM2wbCw 9dRCkyZLHYUUnHmitdqxx/g2Z4xLZXkMT3BN3Tr36AtFJA46Vo11ZWEHAIYPJBEJM3cppnVtMAyv rdlssz9kwggBbaPutDXMc2WiandDEPPY3wwDB2lzZGlnaRl1cHBzzc22EXgSCWZbCDjNVvhzcGFL T80sWMD+e5tVL0J1ZmZBDwtn2o48TG93d3Y5crYjUZht2HcKR9gsy7I91BMCCgRvl7Isy7ILNBcS ENWyLMsDDwkUcx/IPxZCUEUAAEwBAuAAD3XLSf4BCwEHAAB8UUAQA5Bhs272DUoLGwQeB+tmS7Yz oAYoEAfyEngDBqvYg4FALs94kPAB1zWQdWSETy41dCt22bLJe+sAINULtlHg4C7BxwCb+7t3Yd8j fidAAhvUhQCgUH0N0+UAAAAAAAAAkP8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYL4AcEoAjb4AoP//V4PN/+sQkJCQ kJCQigZGiAdHAdt1B4seg+78Edty7bgBAAAAAdt1B4seg+78EdsRwAHbc+91CYseg+78Edtz5DHJ g+gDcg3B4AiKBkaD8P90dInFAdt1B4seg+78EdsRyQHbdQeLHoPu/BHbEcl1IEEB23UHix6D7vwR 2xHJAdtz73UJix6D7vwR23Pkg8ECgf0A8///g9EBjRQvg/38dg+KAkKIB0dJdffpY////5CLAoPC BIkHg8cEg+kEd/EBz+lM////Xon3uQ0BAACKB0cs6DwBd/eAPwF18osHil8EZsHoCMHAEIbEKfiA 6+gB8IkHg8cFidji2Y2+AJAAAIsHCcB0RYtfBI2EMOixAAAB81CDxwj/lmCyAACVigdHCMB03In5 eQcPtwdHUEe5V0jyrlX/lmSyAAAJwHQHiQODwwTr2P+WaLIAAGHplID//wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAIAAwAAACAAAIAOAAAAYAAAgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQABAAAAOAAAgAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAQAJBAAAUAAAAKjAAAAoAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAoAAAgHgA AIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEACQQAAJAAAADUwQAAFAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAwALCQAAAoAAAAEAAA ACAAAAABAAQAAAAAAMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAgAAAgAAAAICAAIAAAACAAIAA gIAAAICAgADAwMAAAAD/AAD/AAAA//8A/wAAAP8A/wD//wAA////AAAAiIiIAAAAAAiHd3d4gAAA eP//iIdwAAB494///3gAAHj/////eAAAePd3eP94AAB4/////3gAAHj3d3j/eAAAeP////94AAB4 93eP/3gAAHj/////eAAAeP////94AAB4f39/f3gAAIdzh4eHgAAAB7M7e3eAAAAAAAAAgAAA8D8A AOAHAADABwAAwAMAAMADAADAAwAAwAMAAMADAADAAwAAwAMAAMADAADAAwAAwAMAAMAHAADgBwAA /98AANiRAAAAAAEAAQAQEBAAAQAEACgBAAABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAJDCAABgwgAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAncIAAHDCAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACqwgAAeMIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALXCAACAwgAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAwMIAAIjCAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMrCAADYwgAA6MIAAAAAAAD2wgAAAAAA AATDAAAAAAAADMMAAAAAAABzAACAAAAAAEtFUk5FTDMyLkRMTABBRFZBUEkzMi5kbGwATVNWQ1JU LmRsbABVU0VSMzIuZGxsAFdTMl8zMi5kbGwAAExvYWRMaWJyYXJ5QQAAR2V0UHJvY0FkZHJlc3MA AEV4aXRQcm9jZXNzAAAAUmVnQ2xvc2VLZXkAAABtZW1zZXQAAHdzcHJpbnRmQQAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUEsBAhQA CgAAAAAASWdKMMonH54AWAAAAFgAAAgAAAAAAAAAAAAgAAAAAAAAAGRhdGEucGlmUEsFBgAAAAAB AAEANgAAACZYAAAAAA== ------=_NextPart_000_0007_C73D423F.F7C15D6B-- --BAB19756.1076461286/mail45-s.fg.online.no-- From bobbyhideously@asiamail.com Wed Feb 11 13:36:23 2004 From: bobbyhideously@asiamail.com (Bittner) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 13:36:23 +0000 Subject: [blml] sugper viagrga Slocum Orwellian Message-ID: rears clear cleansed, aloneness paralyze dandy, liberate unroll budding explainer smokes needful veiled inflatable flake sifting pastry advert unified. topics deducing Danville instigates mediations, lucrative Maynard criteria spirally ciphertext Hooverizes horseback Kenny reserpine positing mostly Limerick. alloys epithets nebular. offsets dearths researches Prague lives augustly.
fabuklous!!

I took the only one pijll of Cialgs and that was such a GREAT weekend!
All the girls at the party were just punch-drungk with my potentiagl

I have fgcked all of them THREE times but my dgck WAS able to do some more!

Cgalis - it`s COOL!!! The best weekend stuff I've ever trgied!



Haven`t you tried yet? Visit

Goethe races terrains reflex railroad, blood breaks solicitude sponsor; Internet profitably separate strait fames proximate autumn Brady enriched. comedy Yoder appeased wordiness skill, deactivate anecdotal comic refuting trackers fashion briefer glens barometer racks fulminate stations. singingly subways heading. zeroing Medicare producersturtle.
From MAILER-DAEMON@xs4all.nl Wed Feb 11 10:28:48 2004 From: MAILER-DAEMON@xs4all.nl (Mail Delivery Subsystem) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:28:48 +0100 (CET) Subject: [blml] Returned mail: see transcript for details Message-ID: <200402111028.i1BASmwQ044183@maildrop6.xs4all.nl> The original message was received at Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:28:48 +0100 (CET) from mxzilla3.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.203] ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- "ted@xs4all.nl ACCOUNT CLOSED" (reason: 550 5.1.1 User unknown) (expanded from: ) ----- Transcript of session follows ----- 550 5.1.1 /home/t/ted/.forward: line 1: "ted@xs4all.nl ACCOUNT CLOSED"... User unknown ----- Original message follows ----- Return-Path: Received: from mxzilla3.xs4all.nl (mxzilla3.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.203]) by maildrop6.xs4all.nl (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i1BASmwQ044178 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:28:48 +0100 (CET) X-XS4ALL-DNSBL-Checked: mxzilla3.xs4all.nl checked 130.67.100.73 against DNS blacklists X-XS4ALL-Pad: empty Received: from rtflb.org (ti211310a141-0073.dialup.online.no [130.67.100.73]) by mxzilla3.xs4all.nl (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i1BASegJ096210 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:28:41 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <200402111028.i1BASegJ096210@mxzilla3.xs4all.nl> From: blml@rtflb.org To: ted@xs4all.nl Subject: HI Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:37:27 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0014_ED66B9C9.DEAEC3DC" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0014_ED66B9C9.DEAEC3DC Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit .Ü"ˆ…ᾄÇ4²éµ4ÎÜû¹ìœ&Že©k}µcK'au•wA¬µrÞÆ:äD^”¡øÝCQŒ,E òGX©X¿£¸žê"îîñ‹7ð·¶8ý~^3ࣘ”ñs¤ø[þnfÝ1ŽÙÇðïü‘Q°`É‹\ßý)ðÕÐà*PÞ¦–…³ôh2m—ŠÛKó%JÙ·²!Ê W“¨‰tÔu0u}ìOÆ쑳^T‘7œW"¶n†ßÜ,“o_:±%ê|K)‚áuŽNýÇɸˆÞ4íÛÙŠbxÞoKs²_ØÒ7ÐJ‡7'ϲVŽ¢W"oB#Sé«À†5ˆ.ùYЗ;{\°‡? .tüE½ê"KÍ5²ã*kï_„ÕK¾âŠµ?Yüs¡øå!ÀVC—dÖ´¸_9èÓõV?|>|éÛ°’¶aSsÊ3Gn©QÂÒû0ìÛY&îJ`2Û¼´ª…¡üí$t¼öd÷8`h3Ùm¦J‚y`Û¦Õ½—FMàÊ°wŒ’FÆr'„q¹í¤ãá|ýöËž")´ Ñ-K< ×­æp.‘ŽJDVfIÕÁ(ER"³hyªÆãw”åPÉ™ÐBõxó9éáRe㥹uçäܼÊuÏNAsBK;|DÕ%%P\}:C„êæ`£”ÏÛƒ\Æâd×ÍÛ¯ª¾„ÃÞèJB¤ ~“ν×_UXœG6#ëßÔDV&vÞf” ü³ÕiéÞg1ÇŸ‘±Øñ9ù §MªÂ,Ÿu§­èi'[_foDðëÅÅ# œ’7o,ÏÊ Ÿæþ®Ú†Z·ºÆeªQOšKbßè1çÈ1HŒpÍQ3ÑaÃøœ[•­¾ç7Õ^bprÞ«–i9ÐÌÓ^‹Ê7!ípqn2ê³Ùè¾ÎûJ}zgóT p¥xGrð¶è›„‚U25ü[£s³qÃXŸ~}زåj”˜jo °Ù±ÈTIX¡J5‚¬[E²z¡Ö}¸|säs¡ì³X7yÇŠ¦šßM¶‰y2™mYÞœÜp?*N”öú¶§Z˜Ú©¶ÅÏ݈)£CÀÙX©ÄÊ°”µ¶1? EËñÈžÛë‘šºÆl/½QŸTÒ% ------=_NextPart_000_0014_ED66B9C9.DEAEC3DC Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="body.pif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="body.pif" TVqQAAMAAAAEAAAA//8AALgAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAqAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUEUA AEwBAwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADgAA8BCwEHAABQAAAAEAAAAGAAAGC+AAAAcAAAAMAAAAAASgAAEAAA AAIAAAQAAAAAAAAABAAAAAAAAAAA0AAAABAAAAAAAAACAAAAAAAQAAAQAAAAABAAABAAAAAAAAAQ AAAAAAAAAAAAAADowQAAMAEAAADAAADoAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABVUFgwAAAAAABgAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACAAADg VVBYMQAAAAAAUAAAAHAAAABQAAAABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAA4C5yc3JjAAAAABAAAADAAAAA BAAAAFQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMS4yNABVUFghDAkCCUh+iY/UNhyBKZYAAFNOAAAAgAAAJgEAxe6H ApIAUCZKAEAD/bJpmiwQBPQl6AEAS85pmm7ZH8gqwAO4sKimaZqmoJiQiICapmmaeHBoYFhQzWCf aUgARAc4MDRN03QDKCQcGBDTLLvXCCMD+Cnw6E3TNE3g2NDIvLQ0TdM0rKSclIzONk3TiHxwaClv XKbpmsEHVEwDRDiapmmaLCQcFAwEaZrObfwofwP07OSmaZqm3NTMyLyapmmatKykoJiQZ5umaYyA eHAoe2jebNN1B1wDVEwo//sLdrb740APNCj3LC8DmqYZ+SQoShwUDARpms7sm/wnA+zo4KZpmqbY 1MzIwJqmabq4J7CsqKCYaZqmaZSMiIR8pGmapnRsZFxUaZqmG0wDREA4MKZpmqYoIBgQCJqmc5sA +CbPA+jg2Gebzm1UNEMDQDQ024r/////nVrQ2uX0Bh8zTmxyTtgCl1+SyAE9fL5DS5bkNYngOpf/ ////91rAKZUEdutj3lzdYehy/48iuFHtjC7TeybUDTnwqmf/////J+qweUUU5ruTbkwtEfjiz7+y qKGdnJ6jq7bE1ekAGjf/////V3qgyfUkVovD/jx9wQhSn+9CmPFNrA5z20a0JZkQigf/////hwqQ GaWlqP7yw9Ko+BIsSmuPtuANPXCm3xtafOEnVcn/////EmC+GGXVOJ4Xc+JUiUG8muM/xlCNbQCW T8tqDLFDerL/////cxfOiEcFyIpXI/LEmXFMLgvv1sCtnZCGD3t6fJGJlKL/////s8fe+hU1WH6n wwI0eaHcGluP5jBtzSB2zyuK/FG5JJL/////A3fuaOVl6G6Xg4N2jJWhsMLX7wooSW2UvusbToS9 +Tj/////er8HUqDxRWyWU7MafOVRwDKnH5oYmR2kLrtL3nQNqUj/////6o834pBB9axmI+OmbDUB 0KJ3TyoI6c20not7bmRdWVj/////Wl9ncoCRpbzW8xM2XIWx4BJHf7r4OX3EDlur/lStCT3///// mnenAnDhVcwGw0PGXNVhYWRqc3+MoLXN6AYnS3Kcyfn/////LGKbVxZYfbBgJv4jetQxkeRawy/O EIX9dPZ3+4AMmSn/////vFLrhybIbRXAbh+TikThlNQSId+ugFUtGObHq/J8aVn/////TkI7Nzg4 PUVQXm+DmrTR8RQ6Y8++8OVstuQjW/e8Yaj/////0DuJ7nM8Y/iZ4MVLkRehId4isz8/VEhRe29+ 1s/ZbpX/3/7/KQMj6ZQJv+bzpUEQpnwyaWuAIQstx07SEIJs+f////9zp3feFIcHB/tSqgFhwCyb 9yaW3ZedImAPRp7N/SxAf/////+TstLxCSBYdmhjXVBSUVNqZHcBLMXvVDC8VxE8zp1Xbv////8g 461g2tFSFc5mX7dBwBTkZZOfeP5yDbznapV7exN2dv////99HA0t8vb0sPHR53n63Uxlo/8nbIzd C9uMG6m9dYc7T//////bFIJCFAlFzIIP+mK3KXP7FYPnHpN+tCRpKf+9KMvqTv//7f93Djqwv/dU 1OxzmAFNBp3yoq/CYvPlXjffBXFS/////wf4G0B+VD6nqU8sAn0wyOcG0lQqGmtMAZ0E9mr6HccG /4X///gdkASrlgAGBhAr75nUTv8XeAuTxvh1IYyk/////1//zHJr62/+pf3s0EHJeJHZxKwmx+jg qbcaXW/sKRCj/////7zz7fVvUSE1jdZTHEgpGOO3XD+duM3QUlXjtUPqvmfj/////6CgMuLOSTok LzAKj66E4XVAoWKYsvUwSuDj/5GBwScH/////3eIZ49Us4UI4v6CRathjnTauyo4rvBK1BicF4pI wrW8/////577H1bmbpDgO0ezoBq30qq8xPeTSKYBwAT/BhKLXanY/////72UMfgf6FpjPt/WCspC 1QxeYEly9fSu9FMX/BYV8o6a/////3NwPIKx4o43W1MWoieUVFissTU3Pqp1ZZUhbusahIFq//// /+YKGD86lZ+BguNzpEc9CQLWLojCp9U/ilzqn1Y7Xz1K/9L//8N5X0MJuPCrms4esoXZS8HUO17P 3/ZH+Ur3/////9j7LbSKZ2L/WK0RjCL3W8tY34X8rOBl2uuXlOJgCO8//////zzj7H8QjmB+3U2b 5J0FG5d628yz+zePJfE5HbJ8GvUd/////x+9n+nG6unrPtmWcP072kUl9vOk59YEIUw5/lukh4mS ////C53TsFuNKjZCG8rR5DRQrMMcxeFmimxbM1FC/////+0+I6ti1+6U9DSy6dVJrF4mrrxteWeV WzeGpII9rofD/////4ewgLbfQ9+7i4BlLx6oMsu1KpM3Q3niYjRauu1pXGwi/////6wY1XPh68iG L1pJT/FD8zfLbzYYPWctofGYQhK4DcHK/7f//2sKa/gFjY0HnpfoiFC2srjZ8zKBX9p+X/fQHQ3/ ////ShsDOn0PPwtPGPEr4Yi1NyT31AcfN2/Na5BdQpaXn6L/////n50vJlZAhvcbrLVavCc7JKSd idPIpU82+mgAvj5dGdb/2///9ckUyfDkjiw2iQvghuvRCwoz07M2hpLkvYowoP/////HuV680N6r wchK14K/XeWgnpOQJdhALzGgCaazMAGh2P////9frZFovBhyOfUsoWNhix4aQSY3G0eq2fC7xeYx 4EwsaTf+///o+hHGcPdD+0ei2qDV9yjFv7WVcNEE9fBNaRv8////lj2TBqUsujl4DNudAiPDmVWW hFuHQjz/////MzSANfYd8ySmXsbvONrcqoff2HIvP8Tk9pY2j0Q1R/X/////QdWRJmlnyhPaLDJt CSkRc1pBVgs6PfBSHawvphrwt/r//0v/MRQml5IPtKQsvl7QDM/PtwBr03qRVDiIkrH/N2j/5Qrn 4JUlmsjO1oIDpc578bTzHTb//1/4sAzRf5GPJf5SijZ1a+/bwdkjxg8+dRWkwP3/////vLrDPAha 53OGbtWwV3A6D36k3FDVQj8Pjq8/q+BAc+P///8bwlx/iRSy+e0DGCL+C48qlJUdTWH6Jm9hE4O/ 8P///h3CDD375n8/KDSeK68izSmi62dcuGhJfmZLf4P/wKqq0yrLdWigKKdI39unGj0l/////yQF 1+Xs4O3i+PkOZ5dWkbv0XM3X35G6tz+5ml2IrF05/xb//+xxa5fsK8AuCGjFnVkbCQvvGbZTWZVZ D/////8Sdvmb1JGvTrBBSKDuhyimZ58Oxz9PyLYCxZlctWRzDr/E//+bALZBVBTrCYPqxQD5jmVe aGEU9uPhUpP/wv//2shfm3fGoonK0uTbIvEfjxzJrtVAeLhM3Hz/////8cmzboBqoIUrhLngq83n cX+3mzFatZHSCDRwTowmo2m/9P9vNQibXZvIi1v9QJbcQFjMEOr8sIvFbf////+Lst8d93QR3Cap ECBKfjJBvuVhS+lyfye8BkOTUvkTG//////2Xb5AnMIPmQDGi6z1htfggp53i/rU5k4QwhhLPijt +f/G//Z8Cn9Hw2p2uZn+Xa5sWs1OG+uJcY78G/3///H2Bnx5XBOxTyH1VPUrYn2kY3C1qmJKkf// //81xphmgCJYj1UseNhBsToschBw2++sZZJ55B/18Up9aP//v/1r8ObCdG0D/hBQPcVA2puiCQiI fQH5MsalB3QZ/////yzzzqgg1t6NtaZ+b+WUVkdB2Mzu65/2TwrhJu46WbRa/////wNFcfefCIM1 oJJWov8SblqAT/0u9mgrofejOvwzPL1H////Fj5I2IZV3yvCbAuEH4bYF88F6dT96+Xa9f////+h rbxjTj4D84aEHh7n0p57Q6G+O7GfNOqKWdtZY68yrP9/4/9Qxb4pxeUE6l/+ATx9ynbzwUuLfzwb WAtkgf+X/v/MNURw3fAQMkdJhLrY1ICsAegIazkRfRHv4///xv/3PbC0GEcxMZ+Mpo3riFK04887 phcSymcPrf9vlP53R7TNHji84mhBmAEJAw8BuBG0vYX+//85DXVgIRvtYRS7iLJmVZTNglXPoW4Z r1Ib/f//t1KkKhBLsO8pkC/vYlApaa90pZZtp1UP8P//29J96DaZFuBspwy8RleC5es2pJZ8oOli j////28hOTIoQ36rw6mOIcD5IkMjWnL8JE9CKPpZgM7E/////3Qhy57uVZgUT+xP0SKlKLEFuTqY E3p/UcloeZ2OscLs/////xYkXoNWJvNQTKd4NHXVBXW1Dk69CXf5MeEfYPt01lXR/////0jdaelw HJqtW/D5hkbLrUbxszphraBmyvOxr/m2lAXNb1Xg/6aMfk5TrzC5ZvjhFC9ARHj/////foq25q+o Tlze1i2qrK2vK4XKbxXYKyNRO+zdyc9KQpP9X/r/7qyqL/BvIXqM71BFIQVzPSMGCCnluqlQ/+1L vLnSY25L7s0oqqGSOHtOAwnze///////ob82tDW5QMoX5YUQqUXkhivTfixd7WwKvnDHjtCdbH+j /9ZerXq+++Tu2Zjo9VU4Cx32k55fqMH/jKdHHvqI6NMjVHki9aqFDv//3+BrjRKHmvBIfnFhQC0d 4oHgs/Of3rmbnoj6/3/79IsYjPWoihpgkwpk5jsXmAkeP/m0srpxM790oRc5NtNxY5d9utRQMEIF i////1sSTGuvvtvbAHsyGXXAxHxLurRT5xZDowjA////f5ENOMh/8YwyJ5MbdgYixgihMFog7nv2 H8Wvkg5h1///Av9yP3UPPAVCfYd8ANJiMbvQaoG7Vu7sYVn//7/1TITEtMIBS1gy2pMc+MfzY7id f/9MG69Vc6b//3+J3FHX/v9jq4++HctN3vnl07f2HOw+n/qx+////zFlekI6W7YnjQBQy+AM/e0Q leZn9oX+9I1Zo/3GCf//LX4lynoIe0nG7LWxsUHnPA3QFmtwfktr/////xs+2k4wqusLm6no0hPR tEQG67w2iNApuqVeUf0knhJb/3/r/2qjpLo6f8YgD4fJUExe/GTOeX+ttXp5KCm5/////zVJqurI DMMtSmJPNN9GNnhbkdG+RlAxhtWO1UpTufUn/////0aqGi2VSgv8m+Yjoms3BtithWA+HwPq1MGx pJqTj46Q/1/4/5WdqLbH2/IMKUlskrsvSH218C5vs/pEkeE0/5d+qYq1ngBlzTgniwJ8+Xn8gguX l/9C//+aoKm1xNbrAx48XYGo0v8vAdENTI7TG2b/////tAVZsApnxyqQ+WXURrszriytMbhCz1/y iCG9XP6jS/b/W/z/pFUJwHo397qASRXktovjHP3hyLKfj4J4/////3FtbG5ze4aUpbnQ6gcnSnCZ xfQmW5PODE2R2CJvvxJof+P//8EdfN5DqxaE9WngWtdX2mDpdXXCh5OitMnh//+/xfwa1oaw3Q1A dq/rKmyx+USS4zeO6EWlCP//W/xu10OyJJnKCosPliCtPdBm/5s63IEp1IL/////M+eeWBXVmF4n 88KUaUEc+tu/ppB9bWBWT0tKTFFZZHL//43+g5euyOUFKIKj0gQ5cazqK2+2AE2d8Eaf//9/ifv+ IYn0YtNHvji1Nbg+x1NTVlxlcYCSp/////+/2vgZPWSOu+seVI3JCEqP1yJwwRVsxiOD5ky1IZAC d8b////vauhp7XT+ixuuRN15GLpfB7JgEcV8NvOzdnOlF/j/0aByRx/62LmdhG5bwjQtKZ////// LzdCUGF1jKbD4wYsVYGw4hdPisgJTZTeK3vOJH3ZOJr83/r//2fSQLElnBaTE5Ycpc40OkPHPnCF +djWqf//W6JCbJnJ/DJrp+YobSBgTp+DKqTd//9faMQs/27gVc1IxkdpMtxpgewiu1f2mD36L/T/ 5ZA+76NaFNE8NBrjVFAl/di2l3ti+H/pF6wpHBILB+0NFSAuP+sKhKEHhP///7fQX47A9fsIpucr crwJvcwCW7cWeN1VsB4PA3r/////9HG6MajNSkMhKg9pcAJjOtLilKlpeUWJvnwlhZFVDsH4t/7/ 7R5TtUTu32jxRzKWf4wdW8glqXzVJrP//1u0gNK1BGKCbhyK5Eyi3QBRuaXpLv9/i8ZLcIdXPCdp e2iJlaKAnebr84n/3/jbf21bDAv5g+gRI57fC0aEaDFQmuc3iv//Df7gOZX0Vrsj2m3hWNJPz1LY Ye3t8Pb/Cxr//y/9LEFZdJKzmShVhbjuJ2Oi5ClxvApbrwZgvR3/Fl/qgOZPjpwRiQS6hw6YJbVI 3v////93E7JU+aFM+qtfFtCNTRDWn2s6DOG5lHJTNx4I9eXYzv+F/v/Hw8LEydHc6vsPJkBdfaBP G0p8sekkYqP/Av//5y54xRVovhdz0jSZAWzaSwCwLa0wtj/L//+N/svO1N3p+ApAUnCRtdwGM2OW zAVBgMIHT/9S//+a6DmN5D6b+17ELZkIeu9nU+Fl7HYDkyb+X+r/vFXxkDLXfyrYiT3oayvutH1J GOq/l3Lo//+XwBX85tPDtqyloaCip6+6yNntBB47W/X//19BzfkoWo/HKHN5bmMuYyx2IDAuMSAy MDA0/SPbb5MxL3h4IAI6IGFuZHkpAHu7BRvMAi0MAAUcADkJzhD/mQ8BABAACQAS1wMHIX77ZnV2 enRNdi5xeXk3RmL9v/v/c2dqbmVyXFp2cGViZg1cSnZhcWJqZlxQaGV/+f+/F2FnSXJlZnZiYVxS a2N5YmVyZWJ6UXl0M7f4LdgyXBlDanJvRnZrRnq6v/32Z2tGMFNnbmZ4ehcucmtyAEcLWis0BfYj Z0V5l5b/9r9ub3RlcGFkICVzC01lc3NhZ2UALCX7mNsPdRIFLjJ1OgSKbnvPFAYDLy0/K/tv/29D ZWMATm92AE9jdABTTQBBdWcASnVsA7a5261uU2F5D3ByBwNGkLe/XbYTYVNhJ0ZyaQBUaERXZfbO 3bZkB3VzTW8XL2FiY2Sf+8Jv/2doaWprbG2ccHFyc3ROd3h5emf2//9/QUJDREVGR0hJSktMTU5P UFFSU1RVVldYWVobte3W2la412NnVAJQ3Oha4bYIcA5xRiAFn2ocPoJbAHYajmFoeHLd98K2PZNi 7naaXyducHgPoXD4t55iZ3h2Z0tDwwdp3y78fy10dmV5LTIuMG9xcIxfY05wdXJmmaHdCjNcdmkL RDvZ1r5tSGRWLVHgeXPnnvv+bnpjNQB0Z2FbXymPgll27nNjXwdwaS7l3g4Y21FnMCNYbvpuXEcr 3NreW2Fmc9UACmhsoy12gVd8LmRsbLPdUXUmbsnK9nlfQQtkGTB0TrDQatwCd28P8Oht5dYcztFr tgsHbGn8/Nu+YZd1CWUHaW1teWVycjMNbeMbbG4EZA9F3i7wY2wzZGk4YnJl773lt0ZuPgBhYz8X 227D1xo6aBd0x2ZyBIXZCH9TYWNrX2mvwStE/ms9D3NtaXRoW0PeK1/jbQdCAA4HaIzs3iZqb2U/ bmVvL6+1ztTxCyVw2AdnzT23tW9uz3k7tksVvffGGmyPaWTXGx9i3c6582VvT3NLBmV3HIWCcy+u 2iLmtc/w+3dpsGtlzo9pCVAaK52/bQkPYyNHdg+uF/O5AEtobmNjGO4Kjm+qI5lpZmnNrT1dO1/V i3ZuFVDvrbl/m3VwcG+8IcVzb2br8E5jDS9ta3Boz9e9b7p4LmIPZ29sZC1QeGO8JMOYYWZlJUNi NafjMNhDo3DzdoW7aK3QWmeLBluvgjl3WCtkDycfaxBbttaliR90aUqMksHRN3S2K58b2OG1bm0V eckDWkfvew7Db3rBBnNoMOX23msHXQ8Wk3dlDGvtuWGeNOAIDBa7GTZbcGw5M2Zvby9b+MKxhwoK w19sb3lHOnOW2s1xb3oV4HV0/9ouvrZrMTCkMHJkDE9n61rB0eI+7VLnY5gbW6AQWplvB2kjGk6N FvYNN+ZujbXm+AdzooNWc2bYTu0rtVRpQWIHYQqG5s63dSQSV/GN0OL0Sg/0+3I017auFzlnq2e7 L9rgLTkaBWN4Zlq6nqFgYx+Ady9kjhjHPrNoT25pE50jt7Omazp55wo3b28uYm72vW2PV3YPCJ/m 2sHRiCpLh7NPhgiN2XkHYTw7OrQfDdVz+3JsupPbJsVY/G8vvwx06htGrBTd+lsnL9CadHltn4iX Ll8hO7jvewsHQBNi/bcAtBG2Wp/Eeutw44Wy7zV9dQsjIACBfEVGbigAKab57lEgAge8LUoAAbiS k4N8D7T8KrBAmgEZrAOopBuQZgSgBl+YhS3pBgUPkLHJtoFdAgsMAQDNUthgEgEAPZ2qbJEfACZu lByHLW1wBztEdx3NxmNFKEApr0BAtyAWCMUwu19/qX0tIgM0BGwgU3Z5ciCWSl+NQftPdxBPbAHz xAeLYmj3dN8Ugzb5ZGJ4cceL/NSieX7Lc2h0Bv+/NXZtYi94SCouKgBVU0VSUFJPRknFFgv8TEUA WWJwNSDVZ2qV+LUWYXlHcv0bw9iw6FogmYJmCv///+Q6XJYwB3csYQ7uulEJmRnEbQeP9GpwNaX/ ////Y+mjlWSeMojbDqS43Hke6dXgiNnSlytMtgm9fLF+By3/////uOeRHb+QZBC3HfIgsGpIcbnz 3kG+hH3U2hrr5N1tUbW//P//1PTHhdODVphsE8Coa2R6+WL97MlligEU2WwG9P//Brk9D/r1DQiN yCBuO14QaUzkQWDV////LylnotHkAzxH1ARL/YUN0mu1CqX6qLU1bJiyQtb/v9D/ybvbQPm8rONs 2PJc30XPDdbcWT3Rq6ww//+/wNkmzd5RgFHXyBZh0L+19LQhI8SzVpmVuv/////PD6W9uJ64AigI iAVfstkMxiTpC7GHfG8vEUxoWKsdYf/////BPS1mtpBB3HYGcdsBvCDSmCoQ1e+JhbFxH7W2BqXk v/z///+fM9S46KLJB3g0+QAPjqgJlhiYDuG7DWp/LT1tCJf/Ev9LJpEBXGPm9FFrazdsHNgwZYVO ////Ai3y7ZUGbHulARvB9AiCV8QP9cbZsGVQ6f7///+3Euq4vot8iLn83x3dYkkt2hXzfNOMZUzU +1hhsk3O7f8XFiw6ybyj4jC71EGl30rXldhh/////8TRpPv01tNq6WlD/NluNEaIZ63QuGDacy0E ROUdAzNfrf7//0wKqsl8Dd08cQVQqkECJxAQC76GIAzJ/v//v/FoV7OFZwnUZrmf5GHODvneXpjJ 2SkimNCwtP////+o18cXPbNZgQ20LjtcvbetbLrAIIO47bazv5oM4rYDmv/////SsXQ5R9Xqr3fS nRUm2wSDFtxzEgtj44Q7ZJQ+am0NqP83+P9aanoLzw7knf8JkyeuZrGeB31Ekw/w0qP/Jf7/CIdo 8gEe/sIGaV1XYvfLUoBxNmwZ5wZr/wb//252G9T+4CvTiVp62hDMSt1937n5+e++jv////9DvrcX 1Y6wYOij1tZ+k9GhxMLYOFLy30/xZ7vRZ1e8pv/////dBrU/SzaySNorDdhMGwqv9koDNmB6BEHD 72DfVd9nqP/////vjm4xeb5pRoyzYcsag2a8oNJvJTbiaFKVdwzMA0cLu/////+5FgIiLyYFVb47 usUoC72yklq0KwRqs1yn/9fCMc/Qtb/R//+LntksHa7eW7DCZJsm8mPsnKORCpNtAqn/F/j/Bgmc PzYO64VnB3ITVx6CSr+VFHq44q4r/////7F7OBu2DJuO0pINvtXlt+/cfCHf2wvU0tOGQuLU8fiz /v9/od2Ug9ofzRa+gVsmufbhd7Bvd0e3GOZa/7f6N31wag//yjsG+QsBEf+eZY9prmL//9/4+NP/ a2HEbBZ44gqg7tIN11SDBE7CswM5YSb/////Z6f3FmDQTUdpSdt3bj5KatGu3FrW2WYL30DwO9g3 U67/////vKnFnrvef8+yR+n/tTAc8r29isK6yjCTs1Omo7QkBTbf6v//0LqTBtfNKVfeVL9n2SMu emazuOzEAhto/////12UK28qN74LtKGODMMb3wVaje8CLVRSRyAvIFVHR0MvVrdv/TEuMQ0KVbNn OiBqAC5maj1qzdUubRIBc8CBsZYRMx4DIIN0G7MPByAcNIM0zRQKDAQFZpBm2fwzEfTsGaRpmgDo MuTgBmmapg/cBdjUBRtswC8MByNXSNMM8gfQyAiwSNMMMpiICoBFgQM2eE9SZa0WcBvgm6toZgcr acYDBt4CIEVyPZRayQY4QIFWCXXWcgVK8UUQsBdcwG11UQN2LWNGbPRuIyw9ciB1EnliBxO0HTVt b7tweisfbBT5BUNlAGN2c85xtW2DCM8MZlV0G27yV606PadxbmdhtMBkewcXa9sASnCsdSZxLwto ekVHcBvEazZ6hptsbmILQ2gNpfphCbVGZw26GyXnAu7Qqe736GMnt+v3YKEH3/1jVyPQ1lypGBAK BE1raqHW4CCX8XO9acUKcCF3IGYQqy4g1qORYNsPYRttqCAoagNXaCDvG89sWatHcBBPJB6o0UYq /2lFZpRr3dasC2QQaEBShda6wHjNIA0HZZprTbVlXxt0ERQOu9oK0C5YCHQ4aG1VS9lzFlZXPO21 hc4aOiB7cAI9nfa3dmuMRzctPxdBU0NJSSAUBsJcuXI9aXQgCWau823r/09hQSEwMTIzNDU2Nzg5 Kx//Jr0vQ0IHSy1aRjEta0u1xkNlQwLpOqUH/LLYQrx5GxQzAAlivIXdAtpkmT0ikiI7rXDDFk5n 8C1HbLsheKNU43poeYZDmy96doT47d1WcTthA1pWWlItWFzrltoj0DATUfsvXAtaz39GaJSSDt23 8d0LR2IVU/Z6By0APfPTvbVfagIuM3UENDhYLmGHrb47Thh09s+/Ya21LSsD2T8lZmBpYWSjeWMX cAqtNb6gL64YFy7tDO06v3qsCWEC2mYijc+CgDRnLVJhrdk3motxvkE4ZnI2NCLhXit9UXZmj9xR Xqd3Wmrji3UEUCxFNiFgVA+ftNe2p1cvom5qQEqcEW0rTW1nP6ctrL3ILsU1Mp43b4picEK3HUd1 miACbpktodGC9Jog2BdmmX7Yh8Z162culVFVSVT6887NpxIPREFUQUVQQ0dv/dvea0I6PLI+D1pO VllvRUJadue3ZBHSVVJZQiALUlXVgNdLVG+7OIxmLfDLWtUgyJfbTkYDEE5w0GgMGmzXWqPgrWVc D2aC9bXFe+dlNW471gFnu+VheQoAADELhnjvHXggBxFjfzb23nRwCCMHeChVi+yB7Pn//8YIBI1W M8kz9jlNDMZF/8d+aFeLPVQQSv//f3WB+bFyFY1F+GoAUI2F+Pv//1FQ/3UQBuK3ErYvi0UIu4Uj RLv77QQGMjVBiIQN9x6LxpkGYP9vvwKyA/bqABVGO3UMfLmFyVt0E0Mlx7EPX17Jw4EsAfrGRJSI byLsaEwkie/+7r/ONlqLdQiLHXiGWTP/WYm+DCOJfQg5m/tyawJD1P51DmgYEkkV22yxu3Qj6wxQ Dg1wgL0h7LrZ1jlxKiNsFY2N3e/Z/0mAPAhcdA4ZaEhu/9N5UNif+GEr01dogGICV2oDJX/TmSAN RGiL+IX/dAWD2zaTdX8jXGSD+BE3qPL2bWH/FIOhAg+MVEr/60EvYtugAgAEFKJzb7P9KNyDxAxX L2DHhtACuvdg5mwKCwJSjUYIVrKzx05c9wF1FBJYOcIbFl4tP1tAjWwkjEILL5nkiABgfXw82y1s 3S8fiF1/vjGAHnAnGZvu/848J1NQikV/9tgbwAPGWQSFwJt7/+10Vf4TgH1/AnzVxwecOCpsMmW7 v1A3U2gGOFNTOhRhZls4dQkAcAwAQ8PJ2t3FoIPFdKMZ6+3v303ydoPsQKbAaKRZDllQagFq3WYz Db6ABXwtt3/3HuRgdGRAJTQC6Gi02JULyzsyzP3maAQ2HGb7DlM8kJzDXLzhfhH0HgUQG3WJRfzN suG4izVUSl1d0BH+DiU4nSEPhKmd5EAOjNBN0NA9O6y71qFQK9YIaiB5BuPUNoxTXFPQZtzxITvD dDJIdC1QJLNCsslwiAx68GG8Iw13hOsQGIeHPZMxD4UZDCB1D+bAcP0zpE/QLnkjyWjIQFBowDU9 dGw8F7UQAL/+UDrao+kux2hN3DEWpYNM5hoVAXUtvcI24eF8gcZ1Vi7iVuCGGcO5XCUNCBYXI0ZL lCYbam3YOl3w8ZgyUMgFJLxwhM5sEpTX9DvEdgUzWLbWfhVzBAYFEvjwJrms0SYqQfjw7OVARhT8 9HIaNmfhdfdyEudcN2jn/pxy4xyM7m5kBF6c/hjvGMtXUF+InQ4aseQ5cpyAAZxADuTjYSCcnBNG 5NkNBCUSnJsjySDAtGMH2dxmMNoI/htfVMC/2pZsx8Jegf/8AXc2x9KlGPQdQfzw/9+1h/DWJuEy HQ+3wGpMmVn3+YXSYQ/2+3UTxoQ9JQ1HCArrGiT/sf/0mbnvdvmAwhCIlBxH/034dZs7+5ubDdh0 EmBXXASMYE73DTPTHvvo+Hp8u9zBPBFqRDegX1dTUaBwa5RLS6dN5Le21q1dyqBRCANTQFHhzNV2 m5W3OCVTZtbQ1vRkq1+RqBBqoOQOek/o3qRlCNZ2dA1wNTRNSRz2oMy5UXsHZnMjDbBBVolGBHfS I2ywKp9KrDM5Plkf47a13VYSK05cCmoPdA/BaO0CZfyq9z0gBuz7+xX/HSleBS1qWSRFL87AyG+E FyzTrMgHbnKw3TiyBEzDP9lcEyYlZMdRLlZWQXncHk4/WcQDd3ERxDz8Xs1CwfwrfGjjwxFMk+Ao ML4oSiwztnuNffClAL44C+AFeMC0G6UjL62gO7QwEclNAWF40OTmuFAATNSEZgbYgI4cOXLcfOB4 5HTocMiRI0fsbKRoqGQcOXLkrGCwXLRYuFSRI0eOvFDATMRIC3PkyMhEzEDQPATH9nBS1MQIGwuc PVsvyFIIocAQ4zxN9zYj8Im1BRK4i/9Lb5yN+wJ1BbKYA8j32YvBeQKb41tL7Gbh9AZ2Bi0GAMiu fbdm6fJ1C/L4GPIMu3cvtQY+zrk4gH0FuTQGajzvW2j8mV73/lJQ57FRBfoE0914nvjw8laFoAz2 MOPjzfTUaAwldgzKt89wsWcwslyjsIEEw6HpPfZ/BWnANU5aAUARZqGyF063HtIHyMHhEFkLwapE JPx3//8EVusli1QkDIvwhMl0EYoKBQs4DnUHRkKAPn2LWy8n7zvyK4A6uQlAigiFHlu6GnXVKF41 6wc6Gfu77ewIdAcW8wUqDvbZG8n30SNX0ie2R/X1EB10MZD2JdfdDKqLXQz4uhAPtjgCHfxB1wNm V/3WWUMcWUb7vcCLTQTBdQ0zddhjmkDMbSBS6/ZJFJu7xNJZXU1EVQxDk4pW4vbSAYSKCDoCGEFC xFDRTuDbAQIKK8FdcCR2aOtvbGkIbol1+IA/AKNIrUO/dc73PiYPhTG1JL+AWbpGDSMjSUYPvgQ+ f3PPFzcRWVwOiEQd3ENGoP3W/oP7D3LigGQKJck4TdyJfxvfYvte3C8QMQyJgDgfTKMbOfdK0HXw F09aAUZZC5b7fQ+OzgBUahQoY/j27VCTnz1dliBd3YgZQUf74usWuNwlbAi0Z6O2iFANKch9a9ju PgtUi138ICvzUK70bHh5Fnps8PB0USsD8z8I/BvgHD6NNAgD9+HPK8s78xu/tW+NCAFzG/eFfiuL wysxA+0btW8vihQziK338Xz167vu3778Qf+FwHwPBiveQBkLiBFJSHX3ZuFbGAYoGVANjQ95WHCf uXS2nvgtACbloGO691umJpCRSRpnGPwb/IUHZSWbVkQ3AYsdHNkMC87E+9Nc2+pswRyCcRgM6ChD MtZR6FkgyYC//du3ZTJGPEFZKOl8DDxafwgbyIPpN+sf1tqxBgcwij8cGMCD6Ggo/TsHMMHgBJ0K fBS6aVtJCEPp2eiITQjB8EMoUU10QQPDSUPNT8JCSzhGzjvejUQR3PAXbot+ISWKDogMM0Yk6xRI ySHNJzoYK/MO6IMMSTMI6PzntlI7J/xebTR0s72z1wQDPAMS7TjI9OUEWThqBr6k65WT7t9PfeTz pWalpA+IyPvTbXOubOQVUKTNgVlZX5zqSzt4XnQUyWoaBlmDwA3Nfq7f9fmKRBXkHSrIUCehXMiz JVnIyEXdFtxtCARWi5HSfASKBujS/zVeDTQ134gHR1lGY4AnyJd6ZhadRFYvvGjcJZqfrg68WY/Q 8IX2/s0hnVsVFRRYNHRZYki+LznAVlzMU2+wBZv8OVH/0GcgwAa3A+sDiFiUcJ8tzGiQmIQmQT5b zL1uE0gX2HwmZittw1l/+IQV+JVOTBLpHBhsDKsZnUNTHWlidsgto1MOqTSQ7cX3AFJTWCQMMkJj Zi4QAHD49tB6MBnd5slXPbrQGnuNvUNP3/84L5J9C9bYUw7GBDhcDDxktuobXBV4kPjsTEKX1yIH GyH2hP7/NJWQEa6EBUFC58J+Nh1ZaHgmOgawl7f/O9N8ToP6AX40BAN+GgR1P2kZbPdsdC5ocAfr PRRsQQZ5BmgoZGaQQZ5gE1xYEq7ZYdDXCM5Oey0LM4RkETsDmHpn/Ap4GQajZ7MTy/NZ6gDwCvB1 XBBGDD2DAbnIAPwM8maJmK4tjRZmWBRzDAI23YYCMyQz0g4EOBeak+3cJJ0GBggKdPilAjfBNDsi 3esJgPkufgwuNUjRDDjHyCrLiIyxpd8V7SJCO9h9HiutvA1vpS/wi8gD2OYUwekCfAuD4QPccgH3 A9DzpJ/3Oy5DBvYrtA2jrKzNfYCkM1a4VSLeLnINFXOG3bbvhDWnRqRGDWoQD04Y7CbGg8YC2lYz eIcWb/q8yc0PnsFeWDzEreMTS2X8YPDoQwSCm3ssCnAFViR2NdUNHNzPfTBf/gQw8G/x1uYFUAXr DpxAfQaNdAYB4Z5rKwoPBoU4Mbn3+tYVOQx8y4vGh1hZoKFnKkPZYJ87aFvN36h9a4H+/wBf6gNV 3m6NFwbSdEo2TxdACX4LinXjL9ATDz5GQEp19ck+LvmtLLEWJ538ZsACiUX4d+pUaQGT+2qlEu++ 9iX/PwtUEgR8pusL0b61fYGKfDf/LqhOEX/0gCQ52HoFHEC6A1d3jK2rkgEa5zAb2BDlM96eJXjU 9rF16F4boqkLuChfHAxYOkVti7dWgzwC9H0HHekWIQyFAmlFU6e7xX+q3hU574vYWTt3WXwfS2wX BjwARgoDTjbBYeLSbTX4CAY7x1TgXBcstOD4AzovvVwDsLXSRhRoA5mlbxn6XMPa3LYDyq5hYDpI i0MK3tCiYLo1nAKpu3u3k6FDZlvgQxIMg8MGDqBhF6ziDQrkQ49DwF7v3oKJXeg+f2G+JEb6dG8T Ytzeq+x0QxhXqHHsYf2NtZVFWYuGFr7oF+QQ2D/sTwu3jcKDICzGBQn065ABjscAE7pVD4wibjx0 qQGrjV/Jvwwjfq4nR1NVtm0z7RiHtR7xVccBYX3YCiw84TvddTw+unQRjYPboa8YYM5W/YkoNcKV ayT8IX6b23izCBCJbCQUdIsYUTmnv61zCw8YQGhV6wFVm/gFc3/ZtCREEAbVON5EwTxgRl6O2213 18gh1104UFUKPFUGbdAOlcfEX6BA/OzM1lNESWQxjlwEVVOf7dghG1XIU1emaOiFU7zZuu0vKCc0 O+4Phtq8tKQmDgJGV4PmDzZqbhubA8ohAf5TD2uYW/cgGoRfiA1/mYvtY270fWU6+lmJjSSqFbql G9+SIRwDGBGmeMndsRDrBPzhg78KJlmazmw2nw0ID5HC17w5DAMPgoO9GVX0x7onRi52FVbVgcdS x84APtuLBz0YWwZ04Qg8QChPKMZbtxaNbsGL/UCSRUj61kErWXUSVkO6Lrehv/YciawmBgcYm3P8 OiEwrIs/YgeeQdL22x4kJSBH24MSGNlyIbrtHv8PFAoUvCX+2VOM8A2LhLbH8VNlumehC5EkeWxE YQ0/9WI0YEsa1V1bgROuWI/Ed3tvjyvkXKZU+XLF4uASXZ2cFhECEGpkjNqGMahGkXzWPXRzIQcH vrh0F+ilcs3iIXOker99m8XbJg4QdQ10ImisdouTzioPzBJf9FZ5leuBhRwPbdBvVztq3VjrcYtD wzv+MO2ocHh0YVO7k6ZPdUsYckpwUZk+Uy6QwV2DRxy0gw5o/y6yEJ86dxjX4FN3I7gDk1VrP6D+ dabqbhNSQhxgvpyiV7YpThoD0AUyB1bD64S4Y+KE0QBryJbZ6rXsxNAcLLIFO+vvHaS+AEBB066e xqrL7RRRQtdfhh+NtvArXiGBVIXrChtw92GNdwTSWGo1n+TSdrquk6JWnuaAEQrjkd3Z6JMVo1wR KItAjVcccFtJABuzIxz8jFEVaOQ+xFkNM/SjC6kGXHWbMZUBDBEG1BkP5F3f1zEwBDH6LQVnPwxl 8IDIXwlRNqkfLTxsqvhXQIBHo9vVA4jAQEBDdFneYLUrj3RPRCSz3UEG614kDyAvig5oOkm1gtT2 HHUbGMj2kbB1xesSGcyXuOW2I0YuEXXn5Ylc5uoNTOhNQHQ/aVBVaiUDFG1g789g6gwEK0NZPEr2 DAvdvWtAlDOIdk/BqrXE+RArDVA2IN1G/U7AKz42F/YO2SuWdSojgyvt/3YkBlwrQHUDS3mvgGQr FWrQSriLgb0Re6kB27bVPj4GPRP4PEscWTwbsCuAtJO9S+50Dy3LWUO12l7jNSu9tICzutN7wLZf IetMjTwuKAe4OooHt8llsyMnIXgHU+VuG3E/tE55sXWRujY4WuR8Ct5AtLxwB4YD7s5dWcPvi/FX 2hoWWg4wgEIn/zfLDo27uyCF25GdhHfLwrsGGYgDQ0cMN9kfA4AjsDtsuAAMKDIREDyNhHYJGofV dBzFF8ZcGeQkBTru5nFroOE1HRIQJwtWNpps1L8U6VxPD4i/bdSURlW1QF3DgyW4vYXaVnhg+WyC BQsu0TgYZO1TQc45HVZmw/0So7wEATk/oxcWCC/rC0wH/5YNcEvuEzzfHBx7uwevYyp/5BBbKIvL vREt3isNFMSNo8CCu83H2kmM7ysED4/mu8gTvcAzcMN3IlOLxYvPWkMRWZEuA8vI87yBnRiUzO6R Qb4ZBoMqf34Vz7bxbu6AuEoFCQjHdGS397JnkYoNYfghBdFye9uIRCC7MHwL/Tl/xRoOD4qIwQMA 5SMN+FvKh0ihGWvAZIe/jX6xVRWCDH7BPQwy65/87YgdBCBVFQZ8CTzrB2EJx2cIRn3hB8nDeSic kWpdtwC8Ri81XWDrBZ4PZwY6w6qIOWa1CvkkEdQeslHfx8CEPXTYhKkbVEaBsDl83rcw0l2ZABIX nF/fuA4+OlO3U/8wqRFQw0vbt0pHO4NGjzkedeMzsMkQsnNLK7ARFO8NXi2z+N5Y6/fddRX5qvJx EEH4wlxXarwLoyDAp75Tu2I1d0ZHnqfaM1usmR6kFN3wg6xIdnN4Eie4eK+2NNjA4ORIhuAYMzVN 3PDwdajtXiDTnX8mqgZo6CrNZiehhPBQLdFkMjcIrYEoRuTIwW4sIWoFGZQpNmSTXE3cMzPDS1jI z/QkuPRHMGHFkhAmUb6vH20N+UtBBDw4FlYGpQ8+8ZvB/OMpYDK1CJOFV70QfyrPYQNIefDoDwPH QanWKPbdEj7E7rHaOHXI1L2Lxz9FFlOzYNbCsgqVQvEKkAxtjlULsKF+Tdc9Nn8SjY1g4HaHjf0y RxTVmILRbepIY2zMg4IXHXyyxC00ClD26CyLNquClRrdGxoWra0sfviDxw9XfmnYPyxeiF4W61lX hoBmCACrLoYEFIyKTv6aCXuIRglkXKF8aPQqJMQG6yMGHImQXQ5ztIUP/jef4YB2YSJmNVE+hK5s qqF0dxH5E4SfBsT+zzs1M9Izyff2KSV69yPfDyqDQTvKfPHceIPACjAGPbQXdgwx9BBaij8XYkBq TzSAMdvbYUG5MU9Z9/GigKgRjgX1KBMAXMmtcsnJGd38KmLBIMuAgICBT4OhH3yEWVlnddQUcslC A6sIcggK4m0fNOjTxgOhJn2rWus82+zO+iI5WFy2/oUbTzvzwItWWDtQWHNq8MI/vPXSUeaB+fx/ XGpgU6DcQdhCLnXvSiodJaNTE6B6Jx9CsK7ziBDzs1iJXtudNbxcf5qJrkB4tjkVsw/gf3WxV41+ CMdGXP4fMJNjd+7/dgQzW0DhWU8UV3OvznVpFEppX2f89NEeiZ+ESTBT/0Bc6Kyhja9VOc1hWZwO UbNjI/GoA1UXG0lZMgYp3EmV6DT6UISFhoHxmDnHzi/ICa9KVs+wCd2OFnZGSi0VWWMqV3VmG9xS kc6IV8Kjb0htaqcruuziigRIdOaGrbuiX7ZXv9Ac9C3cteKZQw9WxkAB99eg+1R4WQkCCCMAdgcm FImPTPAuoIxuj9SCa0RxRIB+LHUgo24UzuorHGC56PTwUnFHZEgFhSg9IBwa39jIzq3+EesYiw4N OGXUlhkPCnx1uNMJvmAHBAyDZCQ8/S0i9iuixwWFS/avEObrF2jlpFE5xwQohYYH3jgPRn1L4GMU K/AXOgEPlNgh0LDhiDRwdO2gid9ob9/JdE5DgHhEdQ9FcHqKTgk6uML250gJfkgEO0wecvkFtwNu aoeE14H77HwdSTTHBnhLJoH9kn4Qfb3NlRhzBl5ZCKwksEFLbRQ7xU3zSVsdtp8yBHMojUYYTR5W ASdN7mjrWuUYrBa6J5g09BG96WGz4A6yHXENBFDHZGCDxxwEaIP7A5PiLggLOCm+22cfALsN4D1w FwrKIkhmvt8We1Y6jaP2o9AE1Ey66mvDwYAzoEJtCD5lfQw3fhb0PBZt4Q+2CYlRWgKICLbqxEaA 7S5RDAewRQFlroyx7aj/9r8ILCFbiV34O95/Zi3GK61QIRodDCHLxkduwHf8YzKjSf83i7Sit1K4 XBwZBAPGurl3R7OLBx472HQjcRMrVa7bDTRwywwzA0kr1thsrd3+CYoZiBhAQXv3i2IrWwE7R6YL aItfDjx0dYkjXHcFXg+OdLWE7cNSmxxWGgYeMx0pCzTK3fxWCDSFA/EhQoPBwhdbXgdbSwiwmY04 0n1C1ku5u1M9RI1fAVmCHoW3pov/w7OFWs9+Ew4X3EKlRLeLkO5uBUku1Igbwn/tuAl9I99aZ98Z FDCAuhgWQ4N87esOW62adBQxtcDIuRX+/3zujVEDO9B9ZTvPfWE7wWFPXAbvWhtsuyFIEk/iO8J+ Q5LhHfw7x34/K8GM/wd8Ni055hYb/QPOO9d9owGRFfi1YhfwQkGB+gRy6fYhDTzoEA6DAA7VXPiL +zt9FowxXgRMPZTH87gQAHV8DxdQzgJyA2w/LOBEgE9u8A+ElaaJDJMA52r4Eoa+RStTUb/9Dm9v hluLKnJXUSoC9FDrFlr40E49zHNTdfgiBU3Ae/EbvgYf41y8rAGODk3QzWjjN9oo9NuBffgAsN13 9gXMuiZTMFfwU64B16qouPmmDojVgUkWX4RZVyYjv5TMVs1tPJhcfB6uZLYIzbPPz/7G6B00a43m AjMAwgzwkGWQbWj7HGCeswTfwwRXJAT/vPuNW+E7+61kW+vsR2SLT2AxFtvYfnZViU1wNmw6cITK XeVg1eCETWgH8fwv3Er6TkRzwRQ+iFQF4DgcPrpbtQDGRiFy6D8MHPwPwzG5g0VwRP9NbIK2IJvZ cPz8YAlkw9ZuTHPrCLWB7gnzUBMIXa1Y0FhC/UWoaMAt7PuEGgSiHvCogXKJXi91UWnqqP4mVKEC kuiEamehmagAk0JwCTWLqIUFDH9vBz1Pk1mam+J9QZDIV6MNN+D+M0iDfiAoD4KzWZTJ/zhLH7TU RixwPfsRcAbAu0CjLA90yEAJAm6wtIvoYX3vZeiXpIPvLUQxLWoP5ugJrfhE5TQRTH3ofVq7vUQG ACADNw2BY7cbuGIp+4dHLeRQjGpnL2hcv3zg1z1t1/sMMUABHlLHJHWjK9EjW0UkLpk5su8xyC0/ HBmuOeRIDhSUDAzJ2At0fhUEaD7bQI78LZ4JwBILSR3b/kke9C23FPw2eOfwzMNT4+wtcAbMnAJK RJP4m6ImHzlGIHc16wsyjNDgFOycrXVYcaEE9Bt1ChiGyV3rTsTBDwJ1CdhPdgSnX3RYXAIMV2wu 2MV+DJo7/jdAEjlgpnCOZFs5NcwY3cE3ix1cROQ6TfWa39MJsuTWwlSzJpqkGTajk2qUFXoR5Rgn OTAuaEC0pP2zzUGSVpOS/BWKPBHvUHUjNREkxhNmu5B1AyPU6xHI7tcJMCCorDW90Dzv3GwbhBsI 0QB0rhGbGUaWCdKcD1rF2TfKJlC+VFArTPixLxP2pRB0IGpLKMuuYR24SCIIUwjpidggdAanJ7XU 9NBYbOlDzfYZvDjIQ/E95FsQKR8ISSI2t4V8/1Au0kdFHvK8aEAuPXiDp4OvYb6ETLuwVkX94Rkg CVOUFGe0DvPBHiw8NEm85rNUZSj4/WElbJCXUBf4/QoZADac41OmTWAXzZYd5qIt1xyyTAzhkRlq BQ4HKrOBg6TTVqwqUMLiz+mKYAGbVr4RAdjeE9SKnQ0T/XWke8nqLuAlaQ9nqxAbxg5n3fwoVnSz Mh4rMPTZjDcamAYiaKAf5UD7K8ROWf4PGgVafLerPNno3RlQoWr/21AAEfLLDaIjVKRVlWgAgNDC kEvWCvoD8CJSf5CUFj5wCwsIuSf31gG1/Ze6AefHU8FOi9j3240834kv9Je6H4oaSDPeI9nB7wQ0 nXBkGWt33TP3QhQS7jzbILLn/t8lEkiuOsNCRF+yw1uEwI/8/haKAjPGI8EhBIXwQk916g6E4gse 99BeXf5M32/hAG4g8M8HcggH2sTNDcQHdt7w1AcBcgcnXWEJ5UUT9vZjKdORH/YKVcFNxNnaRnDA xJcLJAUFraMSffZmiQENqvwPOEfflwb6ZtHpGMG7GnbpnAQNCGpXVgAdehqhGEikPQPs+tQWWruQ 6x1KdDF18YBe2NC1+IaJdnaLVmxgeHgDl3u8Gd5CenXLaAkbylEnyhyhT718c2C/gHEdaKwBWeig VtPJ2ppqa/iu/VvGB/Usg2yuwCQCQAye5faoOiZ99NH+bE1VCuCyHpO4OWQ7CC9qLguIFkvEFmTY CcTZUK40bOJLAwRtwlBGvAU1TbeZjsG+A5DAkha5VtgvV2lGJfe7ofZ13ZQKxAeWF+y8Xc1ty8IJ MMYCmPG3qG2uodNmyggFnAtti0El/L8NzhBtQteVoDrSA6Q3g+aLBW2tUIJ41GvuubamArIWHjww BSjEDBVkDVQQwdFb5h5mu1swz8Kznx87h4SErDURa6pQMQcBJmnTcIDYGWGl+J3jZCEb+MA+sui8 gsFUMS0yPPZsuCwdiAECEowUrAixwkzRrsqZortsrVdFNdgFBi/cZ0Pb3csBLgfeK1hd4AErnGzP 4gHsa+TYkqjoEKE3BPI/lhF5TvvGXjoA/5QDEwVXQ2oGU7LRI2YvufbqTuDAHOFmhGbqUIH7OGRz 7un4z/RofmYEgFbmEUwFn2g32+sYDVA9RycvPBpqJLburDKiatwIK9dUVZRy/3TY62s9MyNwV5SF ohu2/UJvA8e+BuwNRgGUiZ0MANNQbCD03Z3WAV8wUUU//jo3s4aHCMFogilBUvbgZBB0GLGwnOiA FhMJYhEMfyfMJRQQCpFocDIICUxSElmHBKcqGGEo/WLXpMIIZoJqCOBmPxtKWptZdO1Jydwi9mbk 5JuTRBGwCQ7A5SCL5jerd+u7hqGHbP/YYkGSmMeNu5MFWx381VOw9Hhyq2Yr/1wR4Wp4YBgcFNoF Ai04gIW8DKCPUKZjVVcU9EZqP0QLGwvR8l6gjXdQDlB7suBS4bRraE515UcXaoSfRVuwKVOHCIOH FRTqwwRWYsZk6CbEN4P6Yn1HKpQ8ikvArIS1fjCt1dvIgR8cO8rTI0RlK5pB9X0N78k+NYhciVhX WgMz/1z/m+z2i/ID8dZ+GRcaFYDCYYgUO/3N1a1HsHznOPE0B8ZGBEA2LgWPI4PgA2f/NA8TjnJB FshWwYnkyz6y2LgIfUJxBTP2vbIbfPqDxwOAfh1ylDNv//4PAkY793zjgKQeCwBf62A2sB5GxbsI w7mor9vBCAPwxNKwTQB18j9D/vrftm9DwEaxHh/JzTvyfQyKDMWwMtLbYoRw6/zFOxa3uxWAdrbF rAuNg1slSzeMhV8y+LnkgVwyADP4izSfAfyzpFZrBN29NZCBw7cHaFw0CGGs4h/AGDYGQA5kBQ8E crtkQAQM1igzgBzIVAwwkOchvDs2LDME2ttHFrQyfBYEVX0W6GT31P0lagHlLHwSFXwNjoAz3RMw 9i0MA5nZ3EdXiJ60HAW1Vo/9Nh5AfXuGHgE4JXUhjWyzIteGt1BhNLapSITLuFCAbWy5tGDztfT8 vyBXPAcjep+2iJ0TK/T87N2sNPlMP1CIGFM4kS3A8GiIo8hEKxo72zgYKc8cV9QmzxA2rSi17MUu 9AZypABki0E7N+DB/BJYYCBmz85zcwGEJ2iAf2hKiDMjDFD8wyCfjI34D4QiGWARIQy3Q768VVRO PBg8RweuP4H/WxTCmY208gvs9iuIACjhYk2CfNGwGj5xPRwJxcwSYgUD9bePdBV+DPcCfwdofDSv Vq59At7rBS4NQ2eHJUgJRgdJuIR1RJEtyu1c+LezMwMbK2IhSnQPaHQ0rNU3obNmHDcOfYfiGWgN nw5kjB+zgXYIE7w4J3jCjHB0CT2ItlsnGjojiDC4FIfYYgfAXrjwaigD0OaFaCHF1KgFAAAyctvQ hDUgTeAJ5CDoNM5l8+zINHXw9IwpSYp+YQw71n1pyMFTyQSKbsaB9keaXj3JRTwgcjg8PdwA/0v8 PCt0MDx5LDx/dCg8gHQkw4paLwEgiAT4MJ+625NGCsYVDUYECvG7gKBuAdskHv9GAc5HxFYqUPfs 52MIsXxJSwf15/8zyUH6Jv5busp9CYt0xdhAZfGDfMXQBAm4TdwR1FPGB+jNIBBEEL6QNXK/UDTo vPOlgf2kikwNvI3iQvFfiAqKcXABB/8t1erB4QQ/0M4XiEoBikiWZVm6ARgCDwIGXtDtt88ZAopA FeA/ikQFDEIDdaaeJ/UYBFdYAgXIFjwi098paLw6GDXoT2TWBIit9UXx7DAE8De6UJTyznIiO+xX nNGANOjoODmAJrdFOWQxwkb6fy/hsy6KhAUniEQ183W/jVUlahu6GfQkY2JYDF2IWm+pNfiIkJHw g6hzL7xeTHINYQMNQ2kHCgO69oUN/gRy2aYyV9XYha8NN5kJhXQqTfhsvwtocwTGRfs9CAL6PdfE rQEUdR88A96lDJpUKjiitaSYWrhBJgcUUVMU2KZNxYVTs0Dxu8DDspFwEJffUAV74TPGCQ9Sai6Y NkoE0HSvZnhXLQtwVhr6yFhZLSSNQwQZ1ZXOdgCqIGgYrnEgEvPFGxwnELIGlRatWbXZyL5TG1Ay DH7ZQnbZDjCvaDwgERiDvVQLohhoCJo1lB3Zt8CUFGj4NTPcEVJNxMjU1TlZXSG0oHMA0ScAEnKw 1Lg3cMiFWN7+c1g3g8oddvZOUBdQhBwyy426YD91A96uYlFM5NmMeEgsRLg22Qg0N3ZHxlBP2A2w jZ0IUoWLw3ZNcwmKY8YFE2ZopPRAasD/DB1IBDrRjVnu1zvzHfkGMaGm9wcPjL9vyA+oSAa4+wyN +L1TwwURXNpE5JPtZhQNXZsKXtKNtaHuqBFlEnOLhaL99PGGycHgAka5NAWfI9AWtliKEwrXQNhZ iYd0YEB0HhhNie83O2TZCnJl+eAnTE8yFnVu/QFvOV34rSLLA2r47MMRJUhgJnX4rjqHPxQMRlc5 dRC4NeoFEX5yixFEKX1CR22pyRSM+U0kmFUP6tKJg8LVgLdbAewMadINcPVzizpSvOz+iVX0CGXq Ydl+JvlYfdeXzBFadBSKBxZHPAp0Cu5qwd+HA8c7RRB8l6UviBwIslT7EZ+DyP/r9jf+WL+BhijD CTsXgD8wdBlu5LCIVxAHMB8KlggDUKVeyy38QpHAO/BX2WMOs0eWkW0ICFoMURAP36D7zY5IigY8 DXQMjggSdAQ8CTBbgfh1A0br63QmKoitQCSjyCVG7pruF+E+PDp0OS41MSoCBBcUf1uK7A84dQk4 hA3/QNt10C4QAwRJzogQ0XfEXe5Bgfm2cr7rAU5FYmysJRIAXcyYLM+FyA+4AP/TIIu1XcwPDiQ4 Kxwvw94MkOk4OnVhHjCZ4UT+Ww/ooGfuSLZARtLKAUbpXAe7ztJP9RbBuWGCv4GhXW3iCkI713zq dd3HVhBlAipCHQvjN+4pavA+CqiOKglz7TeICIINdQ7rCyALHNDSEBsHBjUNhIIEDshLnY9tawQX hk6K5x0FBBtsK20wA4ZJAI6SNTPCcsNjDXWE86sMm2CSABiNG8eFGDCdegVNBrZoMaJgZeMRDmfj BtNQUVBk/JuWEP2CuIvBx2grYaK+2iwUNysaafsAEOoPiF7CgMMP+4gfcAfFVr7aM4rlu99eF2qK EYD6IMr6CXUTQf6lUm8HOX8St9wEgEGNRELQzRrx/x4wfemAOS11HHlNz63gEFazZ9V/bklRqrO1 VmLeEAxy3FWAaEQ4Skg3soutaKg9G/v2oBdyQCGKWj00BIZqPRAHfkg0gi64bfZAU2h1ko9U/GoG G5mpPYQZ2INg6i0CFy849VfUjw/cPOX6HvK+mDr4xh8wmF11alToiFZTKZyLfhCmvkSVhZh96nKM xD2QeI253OixJD8KNDiJvxAnyzZrzur+V0VAGHxCMtjuBz0rNn48OCj5PN/KM3RPK49EI+TALhQ7 /QO55JITCASnJI+Q+9cAxOeZzMFo/L4hDLV6fJmRj6rdPV3Nkuk3wPiKAYvZSjwVBw5SU+lDigM/ awMXA0MV4BtfO8t0LlAudRFqzWovgEihtERArHFbDMMSK8H8D/LurdBcTsITy+usKAVo9DeZM7wI oLcLkrWlRnh8I519v+wmqFAtuR+IE/MSdHNHU+sGCQZGU0tDwyh1xqa1NAPyLDTgItxYXA4BSbr/ EEwiMDYB2EL/bC9XwSASAm+XD6ks1W9FERAM3PwtUCk6IbVXWSNy8CAlU0tLRA0JIG9wuhOHO4Kx Gf3eVkwCuexIUBbUCZgdt6NQvQ0qSE+MvRwBfVM8VHN74HQrahkbYQqyidwIQ95zi3BUlANrQ8ba y9UHb5PeSwBODHuM6fR1GLp1cEGm6p3TStMCrg0DJPAnGDgkloJ8X3IDAVsNr4gNPmbscwDpwfkD Uers/BgBC+Ts/ACCFZ+GSFxAV25WIHbRhNXrNcHjzSUjT/B0JOwM7j+IlyzsdCKbxyGmHl0A0DwD vqfiBvr4CQ+Hrd8khURyi3yzDZxxO2lw/hSH7Q6ycLZo2Mfrbg3QhzyHPGDIUsCHPIc8RLg2rIc8 hzwooBqYDjOHPAyQidZjJt4bO+sHgKUNOwZ0SgaE2FWNCA07yAKzsMYQaLIPU3AUfL6g9hpibOc+ GX0RRxVt+T7RNN12QBQUgGQpAzdF0zRN01Nhb32Lm5HvTZn/JVQRBQgQzMxfIAzEUT1wOQhyFIHt j/2+6QstBIUBF3PsK8iLxAy9LlXqi+GLU5xQw5IKGUSRAKpUqSoOWaqKQoMDNs1BUagcAUOlopeI m3RlRnC3tlH0TWFwcMBBEw1uZAv2DEWIFQ4DXqgadnJzD3dFbnZRdRTdEG9ux1a3d4d1fWIYVytv d3NEHWVjgv129nRvcnkVRCJ2ZVR5cCR272f/R1NpemVaQ2xvcwoUVGk1927fUVRvU3lqZW0LLRwb 225B9kFsBmM6VBjak+9vcClOYW1MU1BvRyXsmaiSIT3a1u2+DkN1cnKlVGjnZBFXicZ+u83tCkxv EExpYnJhpWxeO/beNXJjcAmPSGGYJHDb2sGtQXQdKnU6c0GyW7CBMjcIbkGdQAjYbVAbaEGJClue tdhkHx5MYUWce7rDWhlRTV94b4c2WTtYXURlBmpTi0Bo/1ZHTW9kdRUUGMKE2HdLVbtddkgaQXMY UwhlcAbYlkt4RXhpJWFGmFPtMPfmDhxPYmrApFCw37AltGN5BjL9aYLNCttja7t1bEwptVDVzRpp Wk1JZoDaRfltYeUXA+P9jnBWaWV3T2aLAGIJK7RMOPO5EQpQb8wNYWRlQ9i/2VvbJk32SEJ5dCJu QWRuwhLeZHJyFsetbllrtEilOBwrJ8OYMXsTGWAEvKwwhG6qzQlpQXePs2GNRklxNWtlZBN2agul YxILFUnSmWGSblIi5FUzNsGwsPXUQpMmSx2FFJx5orXascf4NmeMS2V5DE9wTd069+gLRSQOOlaN dWVhBwCGDyQRCTN3KaZ1bTAMr63ZbLM/ZMIIAW2j7rQ1zHNlomp3QxDz2N8MAwdpc2RpZ2kZdXBw c83NthF4EglmWwg4zVb4c3BhS0/NLFjA/nubVS9CdWZmQQ8LZ9qOPExvd3d2OXK2I1GYbdh3CkfY LMuyPdQTAgoEb5eyLMuyCzQXEhDVsizLAw8JFHMfyD8WQlBFAABMAQLgAA91y0n+AQsBBwAAfFFA EAOQYbNu9g1KCxsEHgfrZku2M6AGKBAH8hJ4Awar2IOBQC7PeJDwAdc1kHVkhE8uNXQrdtmyyXvr ACDVC7ZR4OAuwccAm/u7d2HfI34nQAIb1IUAoFB9DdPlAAAAAAAAAJD/AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGC+ AHBKAI2+AKD//1eDzf/rEJCQkJCQkIoGRogHRwHbdQeLHoPu/BHbcu24AQAAAAHbdQeLHoPu/BHb EcAB23PvdQmLHoPu/BHbc+QxyYPoA3INweAIigZGg/D/dHSJxQHbdQeLHoPu/BHbEckB23UHix6D 7vwR2xHJdSBBAdt1B4seg+78EdsRyQHbc+91CYseg+78Edtz5IPBAoH9APP//4PRAY0UL4P9/HYP igJCiAdHSXX36WP///+QiwKDwgSJB4PHBIPpBHfxAc/pTP///16J97kNAQAAigdHLOg8AXf3gD8B dfKLB4pfBGbB6AjBwBCGxCn4gOvoAfCJB4PHBYnY4tmNvgCQAACLBwnAdEWLXwSNhDDosQAAAfNQ g8cI/5ZgsgAAlYoHRwjAdNyJ+XkHD7cHR1BHuVdI8q5V/5ZksgAACcB0B4kDg8ME69j/lmiyAABh 6ZSA//8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACAAMAAAAgAACADgAAAGAAAIAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAEAAQAAADgAAIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEACQQAAFAAAACowAAAKAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAKAAAIB4AACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAkEAACQAAAA1MEAABQAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAEAMACwkAAAKAAAABAAAAAgAAAAAQAEAAAAAADAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AIAAAIAAAACAgACAAAAAgACAAICAAACAgIAAwMDAAAAA/wAA/wAAAP//AP8AAAD/AP8A//8AAP// /wAAAIiIiAAAAAAIh3d3eIAAAHj//4iHcAAAePeP//94AAB4/////3gAAHj3d3j/eAAAeP////94 AAB493d4/3gAAHj/////eAAAePd3j/94AAB4/////3gAAHj/////eAAAeH9/f394AACHc4eHh4AA AAezO3t3gAAAAAAAAIAAAPA/AADgBwAAwAcAAMADAADAAwAAwAMAAMADAADAAwAAwAMAAMADAADA AwAAwAMAAMADAADABwAA4AcAAP/fAADYkQAAAAABAAEAEBAQAAEABAAoAQAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AACQwgAAYMIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAJ3CAABwwgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAqsIAAHjCAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAC1wgAAgMIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMDCAACIwgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADKwgAA 2MIAAOjCAAAAAAAA9sIAAAAAAAAEwwAAAAAAAAzDAAAAAAAAcwAAgAAAAABLRVJORUwzMi5ETEwA QURWQVBJMzIuZGxsAE1TVkNSVC5kbGwAVVNFUjMyLmRsbABXUzJfMzIuZGxsAABMb2FkTGlicmFy eUEAAEdldFByb2NBZGRyZXNzAABFeGl0UHJvY2VzcwAAAFJlZ0Nsb3NlS2V5AAAAbWVtc2V0AAB3 c3ByaW50ZkEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA== ------=_NextPart_000_0014_ED66B9C9.DEAEC3DC-- From HarrisR@missouri.edu Wed Feb 11 22:02:58 2004 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:02:58 -0600 Subject: [blml] No messages? I'll start something, then Message-ID: No new messages? Then try this minor item. One of the older local Directors argues that Law 64A1 "Offending player Won Revoke Trick" should be read to mean that when declarer revokes and the trick is won in dummy, declarer won the revoke trick and 64A1 applies. If this is correct, I certainly don't understand this part of the Laws, and if this is not correct, it might be nice if someone could figure out how the Laws should read to make this clear. REH -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From svenpran@online.no Wed Feb 11 22:23:01 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 23:23:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] No messages? I'll start something, then In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3f0ed$9d330db0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Robert E. Harris > No new messages? Then try this minor item. I was indeed wondering; blml has been silent for a complete week! > One of the older local Directors argues that Law 64A1 "Offending > player Won Revoke Trick" should be read to mean that when declarer > revokes and the trick is won in dummy, declarer won the revoke trick > and 64A1 applies. >=20 > If this is correct, I certainly don't understand this part of the > Laws, and if this is not correct, it might be nice if someone could > figure out how the Laws should read to make this clear. He is wrong. The question is answered in the "Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge" (EBL 1992) where it says: "If declarer revokes and if dummy wins that trick, declarer is not = deemed to have won that trick for the purpose of applying Law 64A1."=20 Declarer plays dummy's cards, but they are still two different players. Regards Sven From mustikka@charter.net Wed Feb 11 22:44:58 2004 From: mustikka@charter.net (Raija Davis) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 14:44:58 -0800 Subject: [blml] No messages? I'll start something, then References: <000001c3f0ed$9d330db0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000e01c3f0f0$ade773f0$9865fea9@hewlettnvdluy3> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 2:23 PM Subject: RE: [blml] No messages? I'll start something, then > Robert E. Harris > No new messages? Then try this minor item. I was indeed wondering; blml has been silent for a complete week! > One of the older local Directors argues that Law 64A1 "Offending > player Won Revoke Trick" should be read to mean that when declarer > revokes and the trick is won in dummy, declarer won the revoke trick > and 64A1 applies. > > If this is correct, I certainly don't understand this part of the > Laws, and if this is not correct, it might be nice if someone could > figure out how the Laws should read to make this clear. He is wrong. The question is answered in the "Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge" (EBL 1992) where it says: "If declarer revokes and if dummy wins that trick, declarer is not deemed to have won that trick for the purpose of applying Law 64A1." Declarer plays dummy's cards, but they are still two different players. Just out of perhaps ignorant curiosity: How can dummy be a player during the hand, when he has no right to participate in the pay in any way? Is he not merely an "extra pair of hands" in declarer's court, but no decision power or right to play? Regards Sven _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From blml@wrightnet.demon.co.uk Thu Feb 12 01:09:14 2004 From: blml@wrightnet.demon.co.uk (Steve Wright) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 01:09:14 +0000 Subject: [blml] No messages? I'll start something, then In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5B+ItKM6ItKAFw8s@wrightnet.demon.co.uk> In message , Robert E. Harris writes >No new messages? Then try this minor item. My ISP has just recently installed a spam filter, just about the same time that blml traffic dropped off. I thought the two were connected, but now I realise the problem is just lack of traffic... > >One of the older local Directors argues that Law 64A1 "Offending player >Won Revoke Trick" should be read to mean that when declarer revokes and >the trick is won in dummy, declarer won the revoke trick and 64A1 >applies. > All our TDs understand that it refers to declarer winning the trick in declarer's hand. But the players don't, so if you don't phrase your question correctly, you can get misinformed. >If this is correct, I certainly don't understand this part of the Laws, >and if this is not correct, it might be nice if someone could figure >out how the Laws should read to make this clear. I usually substitute the word "hand" for the word "player". So I end up asking, "Which hand revoked?" and "Which hand took that trick?". If the players tell me that declarer won the revoke trick then I usually ask them to confirm that "So declarer won that trick in his hand and not in dummy", just in case somebody is not paying attention. I find that the way L64A is worded is long-winded and confuses players if end up reading it out of the book. They prefer the TD to ask a number of questions to elicit the facts and then tell them which tricks they are getting back. My usual set of questions are; - Which hand revoked? - Which hand took the revoke trick? - Which trick did the revoke occur on? From that I decide if I need to ask; - What suit did revoke on? - Did 's hand win a trick later on with a ? Do others ask questions then paraphrase L64A or do you read directly from the book? When paraphrasing I find the players understand it better if talk about the revoke trick before going on to talk about subsequent tricks. For example, "You won the revoke trick", or, "You lost the revoke trick, but did win a trick with a that you should have played". I find that L64A2 talking about subsequent tricks and then referring back to the card they should have played to the revoke trick is not the natural way that players think of it. They prefer to think of it as what are you going to do about the revoke trick in order to restore equity, before talking about subsequent tricks to penalise the offender for not paying attention. Is this your experience? -- Steve Wright Leicester, England From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Feb 12 02:05:29 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 21:05:29 -0500 Subject: [blml] No messages? I'll start something, then In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wednesday, Feb 11, 2004, at 17:02 US/Eastern, Robert E. Harris wrote: > One of the older local Directors argues that Law 64A1 "Offending > player Won Revoke Trick" should be read to mean that when declarer > revokes and the trick is won in dummy, declarer won the revoke trick > and 64A1 applies. > > If this is correct, I certainly don't understand this part of the > Laws, and if this is not correct, it might be nice if someone could > figure out how the Laws should read to make this clear. Seems to me there are four players at the table, so "offending player" must refer to the player whose hand didn't follow suit when it should have. From Anne Jones" Message-ID: <002101c3f112$d0bdc970$f0536e51@annespc> What happened David - you didn't get to Torino - did you get to Cannes? Anne * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * This e-mail is private and may be confidential and is for the intended recipient only. If misdirected, please notify me and confirm that it has been deleted from your system and any copies destroyed. If you are not the intended recipient you are strictly prohibited from using, printing, copying, distributing or disseminating this e-mail or any information contained in it. The information contained within this email is strictly private and, when addressed to named individuals, its contents may not be imparted to any third party without the express written permission of the sender. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 4:59 PM Subject: [blml] Travels > > I shall be in Torino, Italy [well, nearby] from 6th to 11th Feb, > representing Wales at an EBL TD seminar, and in Cannes, France, playing > in a tourney from 11th to 16th Feb. > > As always, I hope to see old friends, and meet new ones, especially > those members of BLML I have not yet met. > > I do not know whether I shall have internet access, but if anyone > wants to try for any reason please use my travelling eddress: > > b l u e j a k 6 6 6 {at} h o t m a i l {dot} c o m > > -- > 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 > From ardelm@bigpond.net.au Thu Feb 12 03:46:03 2004 From: ardelm@bigpond.net.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 14:46:03 +1100 Subject: [blml] No messages? I'll start something, then In-Reply-To: <5B+ItKM6ItKAFw8s@wrightnet.demon.co.uk> References: <5B+ItKM6ItKAFw8s@wrightnet.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.2.20040212144433.01fbe240@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Just a point, in case of multiple revokes, you should ask "could" have played. Cheers, Tony cut >on to talk about subsequent tricks. For example, "You won the revoke >trick", or, "You lost the revoke trick, but did win a trick with a >that you should have played". cut From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Feb 12 08:33:27 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 09:33:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] No messages? I'll start something, then In-Reply-To: <000001c3f0ed$9d330db0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c3f0ed$9d330db0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <402B3A57.3060106@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>Robert E. Harris >>No new messages? Then try this minor item. > > > I was indeed wondering; blml has been silent for a complete week! > Considering that Ton, Grattan, and myself - and 70 other directors - were in Torino, this is no wonder. Also no wonder will be that traffic will pick up very soon - and with cases you would not believe. Ton has a very active imagination, and a slightly sadistic streak. > >>One of the older local Directors argues that Law 64A1 "Offending >>player Won Revoke Trick" should be read to mean that when declarer >>revokes and the trick is won in dummy, declarer won the revoke trick >>and 64A1 applies. >> You friend is wrong. Quite firmly established. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From nsousa@fc.up.pt Thu Feb 12 12:26:34 2004 From: nsousa@fc.up.pt (Nuno Miguel Marques de Sousa) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 12:26:34 -0000 Subject: [blml] new code of laws? Message-ID: <6C60E0294337E84EBE5B198747277FA936426C@MAIL.fc.up.pt> Just heard there will be a new code soon. Seems we go from 93 laws down = to 45! What's up with this?... From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Feb 12 19:21:06 2004 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 19:21:06 -0000 Subject: [blml] new code of laws? References: <6C60E0294337E84EBE5B198747277FA936426C@MAIL.fc.up.pt> Message-ID: <002f01c3f19d$c30d3cd0$4c4ce150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 12:26 PM Subject: [blml] new code of laws? Just heard there will be a new code soon. Seems we go from 93 laws down to 45! What's up with this?... +=+ The WBF Laws drafting subcommittee has been working for over two years now on the decennial review of the laws required by the WBF Constitution. It is too early to say how many laws or what laws; most people agree some changes are needed, including more positive language and better co-ordination of the laws, plus a few changes of principle. The current target is introduction of the new code of laws sometime in 2006. That may or may not be achieved. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Thu Feb 12 08:16:27 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 08:16:27 -0000 Subject: [blml] No messages? I'll start something, then References: <000001c3f0ed$9d330db0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000601c3f1a0$077d2810$151a2850@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 10:23 PM Subject: RE: [blml] No messages? I'll start something, then > Robert E. Harris > No new messages? Then try this minor item. I was indeed wondering; blml has been silent for a complete week! +=+ From 6 to 11 Feb some 54 course members and 25 staff were in Turin at the EBL Tournament Directors Seminar. A large part of the European element in blml was taken away by this. DWS was missing - either ill or without transport or both, we were not quite certain - 'somewhere in Europe' (he did not make it to Turin, or to be precise to San Giusto Canavese).+=+ From erdnbaum@netvision.net.il Thu Feb 12 23:41:48 2004 From: erdnbaum@netvision.net.il (Israel Erdnbaum) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 01:41:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] No messages? I'll start something, then Message-ID: <002301c3f1c1$c8781180$a428ebd4@mycomputer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Israel Erdnbaum" To: "Herman De Wael" ent: Friday, February 13, 2004 1:05 AM Subject: Re: [blml] No messages? I'll start something, then > Hi Herman > It would be nice if you would kindly explain why "the friend" was wrong and > how was it "firmly established" > Thank you and best regards > Israel Erdenbaum > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 10:33 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] No messages? I'll start something, then > > > > Sven Pran wrote: > > > > >>Robert E. Harris > > >>No new messages? Then try this minor item. > > > > > > > > > I was indeed wondering; blml has been silent for a complete week! > > > > > > > Considering that Ton, Grattan, and myself - and 70 other directors - > > were in Torino, this is no wonder. Also no wonder will be that traffic > > will pick up very soon - and with cases you would not believe. Ton has > > a very active imagination, and a slightly sadistic streak. > > > > > > > >>One of the older local Directors argues that Law 64A1 "Offending > > >>player Won Revoke Trick" should be read to mean that when declarer > > >>revokes and the trick is won in dummy, declarer won the revoke trick > > >>and 64A1 applies. > > >> > > > > You friend is wrong. Quite firmly established. > > > > > > -- > > Herman DE WAEL > > Antwerpen Belgium > > http://www.hdw.be > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Feb 13 08:31:39 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 09:31:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] No messages? I'll start something, then In-Reply-To: <002401c3f1bc$b5d09fc0$a428ebd4@mycomputer> References: <000001c3f0ed$9d330db0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <402B3A57.3060106@hdw.be> <002401c3f1bc$b5d09fc0$a428ebd4@mycomputer> Message-ID: <402C8B6B.7090903@hdw.be> Maybe it would, Israel, but I did not want to spend the time. Having answered to part of the message already, I did not wish to leave the second part unanswered. Maybe others can fill in the blank as to how and when this answer was "firmly estabilished", but I stand by my statement. I do not want to sound over-pretentious, but sometimes it would do well for less experienced directors to simply believe the more experienced ones. It should be clear from several threads that there is a difference between me making a short statement of fact, which is not contradicted by other experienced members of this forum, and me giving a personal point of view, which gets debated. That being said, I stand by my original statement. Declarer and Dummy are two different players for the purposes of the revoke laws. There is no need to bore the list with the moments this has been decidedor made clear. If Grattan wishes to delve into historic records (probably dating back to the early fifties) to answer your question, he can do so. Israel Erdnbaum wrote: > Hi Herman > It would be nice if you would kindly explain why "the friend" was wrong and > how was it "firmly established" > Thank you and best regards > Israel Erdenbaum -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran@online.no Fri Feb 13 08:55:23 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 09:55:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] No messages? I'll start something, then In-Reply-To: <402C8B6B.7090903@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c3f20f$1e384020$6900a8c0@WINXP> Now I am kind of surprised over you Herman? The post to which you responded included the following paragraphs which = you deleted and just replaced by your own (then undocumented) statement: Quote He is wrong. The question is answered in the "Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge" (EBL 1992) where it says: "If declarer revokes and if dummy wins that trick, declarer is not = deemed to have won that trick for the purpose of applying Law 64A1." End quote Have you overlooked what you deleted? Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Herman De Wael > Sent: 13. februar 2004 09:32 > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] No messages? I'll start something, then >=20 > Maybe it would, Israel, but I did not want to spend the time. > Having answered to part of the message already, I did not wish to > leave the second part unanswered. > Maybe others can fill in the blank as to how and when this answer was > "firmly estabilished", but I stand by my statement. >=20 > I do not want to sound over-pretentious, but sometimes it would do > well for less experienced directors to simply believe the more > experienced ones. It should be clear from several threads that there > is a difference between me making a short statement of fact, which is > not contradicted by other experienced members of this forum, and me > giving a personal point of view, which gets debated. >=20 > That being said, I stand by my original statement. Declarer and Dummy > are two different players for the purposes of the revoke laws. There > is no need to bore the list with the moments this has been decidedor > made clear. If Grattan wishes to delve into historic records (probably > dating back to the early fifties) to answer your question, he can do = so. >=20 > Israel Erdnbaum wrote: > > Hi Herman > > It would be nice if you would kindly explain why "the friend" was = wrong > and > > how was it "firmly established" > > Thank you and best regards > > Israel Erdenbaum >=20 > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.hdw.be >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Feb 13 09:18:57 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 10:18:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] No messages? I'll start something, then In-Reply-To: <000001c3f20f$1e384020$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c3f20f$1e384020$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <402C9681.6090606@hdw.be> Indeed Sven, I forgot that I wrote my answer over a message which contained yours. Yet another reason why it seemed unnecessary to go into details as to why my answer was given as short as it was. It did not seem to me to fair to reply to a post without answering the prime question in that post. Sven Pran wrote: > Now I am kind of surprised over you Herman? > > The post to which you responded included the following paragraphs which you > deleted and just replaced by your own (then undocumented) statement: > > Quote > > He is wrong. The question is answered in the "Commentary on the Laws of > Duplicate Contract Bridge" (EBL 1992) where it says: > > "If declarer revokes and if dummy wins that trick, declarer is not deemed to > have won that trick for the purpose of applying Law 64A1." > > End quote > > Have you overlooked what you deleted? > > Regards Sven > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of >>Herman De Wael >>Sent: 13. februar 2004 09:32 >>To: blml >>Subject: Re: [blml] No messages? I'll start something, then >> >>Maybe it would, Israel, but I did not want to spend the time. >>Having answered to part of the message already, I did not wish to >>leave the second part unanswered. >>Maybe others can fill in the blank as to how and when this answer was >>"firmly estabilished", but I stand by my statement. >> >>I do not want to sound over-pretentious, but sometimes it would do >>well for less experienced directors to simply believe the more >>experienced ones. It should be clear from several threads that there >>is a difference between me making a short statement of fact, which is >>not contradicted by other experienced members of this forum, and me >>giving a personal point of view, which gets debated. >> >>That being said, I stand by my original statement. Declarer and Dummy >>are two different players for the purposes of the revoke laws. There >>is no need to bore the list with the moments this has been decidedor >>made clear. If Grattan wishes to delve into historic records (probably >>dating back to the early fifties) to answer your question, he can do so. >> >>Israel Erdnbaum wrote: >> >>>Hi Herman >>>It would be nice if you would kindly explain why "the friend" was wrong >> >>and >> >>>how was it "firmly established" >>>Thank you and best regards >>>Israel Erdenbaum >> >>-- >>Herman DE WAEL >>Antwerpen Belgium >>http://www.hdw.be >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>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 > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From jurgenr@t-online.de Fri Feb 13 09:38:52 2004 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 10:38:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] No messages? I'll start something, then Message-ID: >Herman de Wael: > ...I do not want to sound over-pretentious, but sometimes it would do > well for less experienced directors to simply believe the more > experienced ones... Yes, I like it. Herman, the infallible, as Bridge Pope - that would simplify matters. No more superfluous quotes from confusing sources. Jürgen From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Feb 13 10:11:59 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 11:11:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] No messages? I'll start something, then In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <402CA2EF.8020407@hdw.be> Sorry J=FCrgen, but this is not fair. This is a list with more than one purpose. Sometimes we overemphasize the purpose of discussing the laws. But another purpose is the one that Israel used blml for: to ask a=20 question from the more experienced TD's. Rightly or wrongly, I consider myself to be one of the more=20 experienced and knowledgeable TD's on this list. If Ton or Grattan=20 wish to contradict this, they surely can. I trust they won't. So if I answer - short - to Israel, then I trust to be believed. I am quite certain that you cvan distinguish between one of such=20 statements and one in which I wish to express my personal opinion=20 about things not as fixed in stone. I never fail to add a few IMO or=20 even IMHO to statements that express nothing more than a personal opinion. OK? J=FCrgen Rennenkampff wrote: >>Herman de Wael: >=20 >=20 >>...I do not want to sound over-pretentious, but sometimes it would do >>well for less experienced directors to simply believe the more >>experienced ones... >=20 >=20 > Yes, I like it. Herman, the infallible, as Bridge Pope - that would sim= plify > matters. No more superfluous quotes from confusing sources. >=20 As for the word infallible - suffice it to say that in the recent=20 exam, I got both calculation questions wrong! > J=FCrgen >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >=20 >=20 --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Feb 13 10:42:07 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 10:42:07 -0000 Subject: [blml] No messages? I'll start something, then References: <000001c3f20f$1e384020$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <009d01c3f21e$07e38dc0$489868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Sven Pran] Now I am kind of surprised over you Herman? The post to which you responded included the following paragraphs [Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge EBL 1992] "If declarer revokes and if dummy wins that trick, declarer is not deemed to have won that trick for the purpose of applying Law 64A1." [Douglas Adams *again*] It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of The Leopard". [Nigel] For the umpteenth time, we must ask the obvious questions... (1) Is there any point in hiding a clarification or change to the law in an obscure publication when it would be simpler and cheaper to incorporate it, in place, in TFLB, and to post an amended version on the WBF web site? (I know - this is the fault of the big bad WBF not the tiny impotent WBFLC). (2) Does an EBL interpretation have force outside Europe? If not, such an interpretation just makes the Tower of Babel more cacophonous. (3) How can an ordinary player abide by the Law if he doesn't know what it is? Once more, it seems that even some European TDs are not privy to this local interpretation. The law should be common knowledge - not some secret Masonic Ritual. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.576 / Virus Database: 365 - Release Date: 30/01/2004 From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Fri Feb 13 11:05:02 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 11:05:02 -0000 Subject: [blml] No messages? I'll start something, then Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB167A@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 10:23 PM Subject: RE: [blml] No messages? I'll start something, then > Robert E. Harris > No new messages? Then try this minor item. I was indeed wondering; blml has been silent for a complete week! +=3D+ From 6 to 11 Feb some 54 course members and 25 staff were in Turin at the EBL Tournament Directors Seminar. A large part of the European element in blml was taken away by this. DWS was missing - either ill or without transport or both, we=20 were not quite certain - 'somewhere in Europe' (he did not make=20 it to Turin, or to be precise to San Giusto Canavese).+=3D+ >From 1 to 8 Feb I was skiing. Sounds much more fun than the EBL Tournament Directors Seminar. From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Feb 13 11:27:09 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 12:27:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] No messages? I'll start something, then In-Reply-To: <009d01c3f21e$07e38dc0$489868d5@tinyhrieuyik> References: <000001c3f20f$1e384020$6900a8c0@WINXP> <009d01c3f21e$07e38dc0$489868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <402CB48D.5070708@hdw.be> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > For the umpteenth time, we must ask the obvious questions... > > (1) Is there any point in hiding a clarification or change > to the law in an obscure publication when it would be simpler > and cheaper to incorporate it, in place, in TFLB, and to post > an amended version on the WBF web site? (I know - this is the > fault of the big bad WBF not the tiny impotent WBFLC). > Nigel is right, but this is the wrong place to comment on it. What Israel was asking was a simple question, and one which the laws clearly solve. Dummy is not declarer. There is no need for clarification or interpretation, just good reading. Israel's friend posed a question which has been asked several times in the past, and the answer follows from the wording of a couple of laws put together and is not really open for debate. I answered the question from personal knowledge, Sven did so by quoting a book (which, BTW, is no longer really valid since it dealt with the 1987 laws - but those were not changed in this instance). > (2) Does an EBL interpretation have force outside Europe? No it does not. But I don't consider this an EBL interpretation, merely a comment by a few individuals, published with the help of the EBL. > If not, such an interpretation just makes the Tower of Babel > more cacophonous. > > (3) How can an ordinary player abide by the Law if he doesn't > know what it is? Once more, it seems that even some European > TDs are not privy to this local interpretation. The law should > be common knowledge - not some secret Masonic Ritual. > It should be, but it isn't. We need some level of instruction in the laws, because it is a difficult matter. But I don't consider this masonic ritual, merely incomplete education. Maybe some more of us ought to have attended the Torino seminar. It was (almost) open for anyone. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From bluejak666@hotmail.com Thu Feb 12 22:19:48 2004 From: bluejak666@hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 23:19:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Travels Message-ID: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_004F_01C3F1BE.B56C26B0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =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=3D=3D=3D=3D What happened David - you didn't get to Torino - did you get to Cannes? Anne =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=3D=3D=3D=3D Long and sad story: my health let me down. Had a little holiday in Nice. Now in Cannes with client - and my old friend Claude Dadoun in charge. Discovered there is no bridge on 2nd and 3rd day for two men!!!!!!! One woman found for Mixed Pairs: client instructed me to play. *Not* my most successful trip abroad ever!!!!!! Great rouble with French keyboqrd! --=20 David Stevenson Liverpool UK bluejak666 at hotmail dot com bridge2 at blakjak dot com Currently in Cannes, France ------=_NextPart_000_004F_01C3F1BE.B56C26B0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=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=3D=3D=3D=3D
=
What happened David - you didn't get to = Torino -=20 did you get to=20 Cannes?
Anne
=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=3D=3D=3D=3D<= /FONT>
 
Long and sad story: my health let me=20 down.
 
Had a little holiday in = Nice.
 
Now in Cannes with client - and my old = friend=20 Claude Dadoun in charge.
 
Discovered there is no bridge on 2nd = and 3rd day=20 for two men!!!!!!!
 
One woman found for Mixed Pairs: client = instructed=20 me to play.
 
*Not* my most successful trip abroad=20 ever!!!!!!
 
Great rouble with French = keyboqrd!
 
--
David=20 Stevenson           = Liverpool=20 UK
bluejak666 at hotmail dot com
bridge2 at blakjak dot = com
Currently=20 in Cannes, France
------=_NextPart_000_004F_01C3F1BE.B56C26B0-- From j.c.schwarz@t-online.de Fri Feb 13 00:22:54 2004 From: j.c.schwarz@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Schwarz?=) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 01:22:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tonights td decision Message-ID: <1ArR6l-0AVQrQ0@fwd10.sul.t-online.com> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0062_01C3F1CF.E7E896D0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello folks, First of all, i want to say, that i follow the discussions in this list with great interest on a regular basis. Last weekend i visited a seminar for tournament directors and am now allowed to act as tournament director myself. Unfortunately i am lacking a lot of experience, as you can imagine. Today in a local club the following happened: Both sides nonvulnerable, my p opened the bidding with a pass (we were playing swiss acol, the opps play acol) Pass-pass-pass-1S 2D-1NT After 1 NT i called the tournament director and told him, that this is an insufficient bid, which i do not intend to accept. Director now says, the bid has to be replaced with a sufficient bid, if the bid will be in the same denomination (in this case NT), bidding will go on, if the 1 NT bid is replaced by a bid not in the denomination of NT, opener has to pass all the time. He continued saying, if we receive any damage because of this fact (pass all the time), we shall call him again. So far so good. The 1Nt bidder replaced his bid with 4S now and all pass. Declarer somehow managed to make only 10 tricks for a score of 420, while most of the other pairs managed to make some number of overtricks. So i guess we got a 65% score on this board. No problem. But: After i got a look at declarers hand, i think, there was a damage for us, because declarer could not investigate for slam. Dummys hand Qxx KJxxxx Qxxx - Declarers hand AKJTx x Ax Akxxx If the bidding went: Pass-pass-pass-1S 2D-2NT(10-12)-pass3C Pass-3S-pass I think opener is interested in slam, or if the bidding went: Pass-pass-pass-1S 2D-4S-pass Opener is dead sure interested in slam. All in all, i think the score should be adjusted to 5S minus 1 or 6S minus 2 What do you think? Joerg Ps: i bed your pardon for my not so good english ------=_NextPart_000_0062_01C3F1CF.E7E896D0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Tonights td decision

Hello folks,

First of all, i want to say, that i = follow the discussions in this list with great interest on a regular = basis. Last weekend i visited a seminar for tournament directors and am = now allowed to act as tournament director myself. Unfortunately i am = lacking a lot of experience, as you can imagine.

Today in a local club the following = happened:

Both sides nonvulnerable, my p opened = the bidding with a pass (we were playing swiss acol, the opps play = acol)

Pass-pass-pass-1S
2D-1NT

After 1 NT i called the tournament = director and told him, that this is an insufficient bid, which i do not = intend to accept. Director now says, the bid has to be replaced with a = sufficient bid, if the bid will be in the same denomination (in this = case NT), bidding will go on, if the 1 NT bid is replaced by a bid not = in the denomination of NT, opener has to pass all the time. He continued = saying, if we receive any damage because of this fact (pass all the = time), we shall call him again. So far so good. The 1Nt bidder replaced = his bid with 4S now and all pass. Declarer somehow managed to make only = 10 tricks for a score of 420, while most of the other pairs managed to = make some number of overtricks. So i guess we got a 65% score on this = board. No problem. But:

After i got a look at declarers hand, i = think, there was a damage for us, because declarer could not investigate = for slam.

Dummys hand

Qxx
KJxxxx
Qxxx
-

Declarers hand

AKJTx
x
Ax
Akxxx

If the bidding went:

Pass-pass-pass-1S
2D-2NT(10-12)-pass3C
Pass-3S-pass

I think opener is interested in slam, = or if the bidding went:

Pass-pass-pass-1S
2D-4S-pass

Opener is dead sure interested in slam. =

All in all, i think the score should be = adjusted to 5S minus 1 or 6S minus 2

What do you think?

Joerg

Ps: i bed your pardon for my not so = good english

------=_NextPart_000_0062_01C3F1CF.E7E896D0-- From Anne Jones" Message-ID: <001901c3f226$b8f663a0$f0536e51@annespc> Welcome to the wacky world of TDs Jorg. Working backwards - your English is fine, the problem you present is well explained. Even I can understand it. I will now take a back seat and let the usual protagonists have a field day. I am sure you will appreciate their views. Cummon boys :-) Anne * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * This e-mail is private and may be confidential and is for the intended recipient only. If misdirected, please notify me and confirm that it has been deleted from your system and any copies destroyed. If you are not the intended recipient you are strictly prohibited from using, printing, copying, distributing or disseminating this e-mail or any information contained in it. The information contained within this email is strictly private and, when addressed to named individuals, its contents may not be imparted to any third party without the express written permission of the sender. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jörg Schwarz" To: Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 12:22 AM Subject: [blml] Tonights td decision > Hello folks, > > First of all, i want to say, that i follow the discussions in this list with > great interest on a regular basis. Last weekend i visited a seminar for > tournament directors and am now allowed to act as tournament director > myself. Unfortunately i am lacking a lot of experience, as you can imagine. > > Today in a local club the following happened: > > Both sides nonvulnerable, my p opened the bidding with a pass (we were > playing swiss acol, the opps play acol) > > Pass-pass-pass-1S > 2D-1NT > > After 1 NT i called the tournament director and told him, that this is an > insufficient bid, which i do not intend to accept. Director now says, the > bid has to be replaced with a sufficient bid, if the bid will be in the same > denomination (in this case NT), bidding will go on, if the 1 NT bid is > replaced by a bid not in the denomination of NT, opener has to pass all the > time. He continued saying, if we receive any damage because of this fact > (pass all the time), we shall call him again. So far so good. The 1Nt bidder > replaced his bid with 4S now and all pass. Declarer somehow managed to make > only 10 tricks for a score of 420, while most of the other pairs managed to > make some number of overtricks. So i guess we got a 65% score on this board. > No problem. But: > > After i got a look at declarers hand, i think, there was a damage for us, > because declarer could not investigate for slam. > > Dummys hand > > Qxx > KJxxxx > Qxxx > - > > Declarers hand > > AKJTx > x > Ax > Akxxx > > If the bidding went: > > Pass-pass-pass-1S > 2D-2NT(10-12)-pass3C > Pass-3S-pass > > I think opener is interested in slam, or if the bidding went: > > Pass-pass-pass-1S > 2D-4S-pass > > Opener is dead sure interested in slam. > > All in all, i think the score should be adjusted to 5S minus 1 or 6S minus 2 > > What do you think? > > Joerg > > Ps: i bed your pardon for my not so good english > From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Feb 13 11:46:01 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 12:46:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] No messages? I'll start something, then In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB167A@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB167A@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <402CB8F9.5060403@hdw.be> Hinden, Frances SI-PXS wrote: > >>From 1 to 8 Feb I was skiing. Sounds much more fun than the > EBL Tournament Directors Seminar. > I wouldn't say so! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran@online.no Fri Feb 13 11:55:33 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 12:55:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] No messages? I'll start something, then In-Reply-To: <009d01c3f21e$07e38dc0$489868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <000001c3f228$4992d8c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Nigel Guthrie (Sven Pran:) > [Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge EBL 1992] > "If declarer revokes and if dummy wins that trick, declarer is > not deemed to have won that trick for the purpose of applying > Law 64A1." ..... > [Nigel] >=20 > For the umpteenth time, we must ask the obvious questions... >=20 > (1) Is there any point in hiding a clarification or change > to the law in an obscure publication when it would be simpler > and cheaper to incorporate it, in place, in TFLB, and to post > an amended version on the WBF web site? (I know - this is the > fault of the big bad WBF not the tiny impotent WBFLC). Obscure publication? It is a 390 pages (size A4) official document from = EBL advertised and issued in 1992, recommended across (I believe) the entire Europe (and maybe even outside Europe?) as a valuable aid to Directors = and ACs. I would like to see the general astonishment if this were = incorporated into the TFLB! =20 > (2) Does an EBL interpretation have force outside Europe? Of course not "force", but I would say a rather heavy impact. > If not, such an interpretation just makes the Tower of Babel > more cacophonous. Why is that? Do you automatically discard a comment or an interpretation just because it has been issued by a body other than the one governing = in your area? For instance ACBL is of course free to make their reservations against anything issued by EBL, but I trust they at least offer such matters = some attention and make their own comments if they disagree with the ones = issued (in this case) by EBL? > (3) How can an ordinary player abide by the Law if he doesn't > know what it is? Once more, it seems that even some European > TDs are not privy to this local interpretation. The law should > be common knowledge - not some secret Masonic Ritual. Do you abide by all Laws in USA? Do you know all laws in USA? Do you appreciate having lawyers to assist you in knowing and interpreting the = laws in USA? Does this answer your last question? Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Fri Feb 13 12:20:59 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 13:20:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Validity of commentary to the laws of 1987 In-Reply-To: <402CB48D.5070708@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c3f22b$d6f3c000$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael .......... > Sven did so by quoting a book (which, BTW, is no > longer really valid since it dealt with the 1987=20 > laws - but those were not changed in this instance). The validity of a commentary to a law is of course primarily valid as addressing that particular version of the law to which it refers. But when that particular law is unchanged in a later version we must be allowed to assume that the commentary retains its validity also for this later version. The fact that most of the laws were repeated unchanged = (or received only minor changes) from 1987 to 1997 makes the "Commentary on = the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge" of 1992 fully valid (except where = changes contradict the commentary given or in the possible cases where a = commentary has been explicitly invalidated by a later WBFLC commentary etc.). Before using the 1992 commentary I always verify that no such "conflict" exists between the 1997 and the 1987 laws on the addressed matter. Regards Sven From Martin.Sinot@Micronas.com Fri Feb 13 13:20:43 2004 From: Martin.Sinot@Micronas.com (Sinot Martin) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 14:20:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tonights td decision Message-ID: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E6451@rama.micronas.com> >J=F6rg Schwarz wrote: >Hello folks,=20 >First of all, i want to say, that i follow the discussions in this list >with great interest on a regular basis. Last weekend i visited a = seminar >for tournament directors and am now allowed to act as tournament = director >myself. Unfortunately i am lacking a lot of experience, as you = can=20 >imagine. >Today in a local club the following happened:=20 >Both sides nonvulnerable, my p opened the bidding with a pass (we were >playing swiss acol, the opps play acol)=20 >Pass-pass-pass-1S=20 >2D-1NT=20 >After 1 NT i called the tournament director and told him, that this is = an >insufficient bid, which i do not intend to accept. Director now = says, the >bid has to be replaced with a sufficient bid, if the bid will = be in the >same denomination (in this case NT), bidding will go on, if the 1 NT = bid >is replaced by a bid not in the denomination of NT, opener has to pass = all >the time. He continued saying, if we receive any damage because of = this >fact (pass all the time), we shall call him again. So far so good. The = 1Nt >bidder replaced his bid with 4S now and all pass. Declarer somehow = managed >to make only 10 tricks for a score of 420, while most of the = other pairs >managed to make some number of overtricks. So i guess we got a 65% = score >on this board. No problem. But: >After i got a look at declarers hand, i think, there was a damage for = us, >because declarer could not investigate for slam. >Dummys hand=20 >Qxx=20 >KJxxxx=20 >Qxxx=20 >-=20 >Declarers hand=20 >AKJTx=20 >x=20 >Ax=20 >Akxxx=20 >If the bidding went:=20 >Pass-pass-pass-1S=20 >2D-2NT(10-12)-pass3C=20 >Pass-3S-pass=20 >I think opener is interested in slam, or if the bidding went:=20 >Pass-pass-pass-1S=20 >2D-4S-pass=20 >Opener is dead sure interested in slam.=20 >All in all, i think the score should be adjusted to 5S minus 1 or 6S = minus >2=20 >What do you think?=20 >Joerg=20 >Ps: i bed your pardon for my not so good english=20 The TD was not entirely correct, I believe; if you do not accept 1NT, then offender may either bid 2NT (not any NT bid!) for no penalty, or something else (double is forbidden), but then partner must pass for the remainder of the auction (L27). This assuming that 1NT and 2NT are both not conventional; otherwise offender's partner must always pass. After the offending side paid the penalty, they are allowed to do whatever is the most advantageous for their side, even if they appear to profit from the infraction (L72A5). There is one exception, mentioned = explicitly in L27: if offender at the time of the infraction could have=20 known that partner's forced pass might damage the opponents, then the TD = can adjust the score (L23). Concerning the actual case, the TD will do nothing further; it is higly unlikely that offender could have known that partner's forced pass would be advantageous (indeed, the offending side could now miss a slam if the cards were differently distributed), and, as said, you are allowed to get lucky after an infraction. --=20 Martin Sinot martin.sinot at micronas.com From cibor@poczta.fm Fri Feb 13 13:44:23 2004 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 13 Feb 2004 14:44:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tonights td decision Message-ID: <20040213134423.B4C0B30E4F1@front.interia.pl> Martin Sinot wrote: > The TD was not entirely correct, I believe; if you do not accept 1NT, > then offender may either bid 2NT (not any NT bid!) for no penalty, or I am 99,999999999999999% sure that 1NT was conventional. Even if it wasn't "forcing NT" or "relay" or whatever. Even if it was plain good'ol 1NT we all know. After the 1S opener 1NT may contain hands like --- KQx xxxxxxx Qxx which are very far from being balanced. The fact that we all got so used to playing this convention that we don't alert it and, when asked, explain it as "natural 1NT" doesn't make it any less artificial. Even in Acol a 1NT response to 1D/H/S is=20 a conventional catch-all bid used to keep the bidding open and expresses no desire to play the hand in NT. So I would rule that opener must pass throughout. Unless NS were able to demonstrate that in their system the 1NT response to 1S shows 8-10 with a balanced hand (while with a hand like the one above they respond eg. with artificial 2C). Only then would I ban opener for one round only (assuming that their 2NT reply is also natural). Konrad Ciborowski Krak=F3w, Poland =0A__________________=0AKonrad Ciborowski Krak=F3w, Poland From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Fri Feb 13 13:55:31 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 13:55:31 -0000 Subject: [blml] Tonights td decision Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB167F@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Martin Sinot wrote: > The TD was not entirely correct, I believe; if you do not accept 1NT, > then offender may either bid 2NT (not any NT bid!) for no penalty, or I am 99,999999999999999% sure that 1NT was conventional. Even if it wasn't "forcing NT" or "relay" or whatever. Even if it was plain good'ol 1NT we all know. After the 1S opener 1NT may contain hands like --- KQx xxxxxxx Qxx which are very far from being balanced. The fact that we all got so used to playing this convention that we don't alert it and, when asked, explain it as "natural 1NT" doesn't make it any less artificial. Even in Acol a 1NT response to 1D/H/S is=20 a conventional catch-all bid used to keep the bidding open and expresses no desire to play the hand in NT. So I would rule that opener must pass throughout. Unless NS were able to demonstrate that in their system the 1NT response to 1S shows 8-10 with a balanced hand (while with a hand like the one above they respond eg. with artificial 2C). Only then would I ban opener for one round only (assuming that their 2NT reply is also natural). Konrad Ciborowski Krak=F3w, Poland [Frances] This is an interesting point. While a forcing 1NT response is certainly conventional (in many systems in can include a game force) it wouldn't occur to me to rule an Acol (or SA) 1NT response to 1M as conventional for the purposes of this law. After all, it is = non-forcing, denies the ability to bid a suit at a reasonable level and quite often ends the auction. I agree that I would be suprised if the 1NT response to 1S on the given hand were non-forcing. From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Feb 13 13:58:26 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 14:58:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tonights td decision In-Reply-To: <1ArR6l-0AVQrQ0@fwd10.sul.t-online.com> References: <1ArR6l-0AVQrQ0@fwd10.sul.t-online.com> Message-ID: <402CD802.6070902@hdw.be> J=F6rg Schwarz wrote: (first things first) > Ps: i bed your pardon for my not so good english >=20 Don't worry Joerg, your "broken english" is up to international=20 standard. We understand you, and that's all that matters. > Hello folks, >=20 > First of all, i want to say, that i follow the discussions in this list= =20 > with great interest on a regular basis. Last weekend i visited a semina= r=20 > for tournament directors and am now allowed to act as tournament=20 > director myself. Unfortunately i am lacking a lot of experience, as you= =20 > can imagine. >=20 Welcome to blml, and congratulations. > Today in a local club the following happened: >=20 > Both sides nonvulnerable, my p opened the bidding with a pass (we were=20 > playing swiss acol, the opps play acol) >=20 > Pass-pass-pass-1S > 2D-1NT >=20 > After 1 NT i called the tournament director and told him, that this is=20 > an insufficient bid, which i do not intend to accept. Director now says= ,=20 > the bid has to be replaced with a sufficient bid, if the bid will be in= =20 > the same denomination (in this case NT), bidding will go on, if the 1 N= T=20 > bid is replaced by a bid not in the denomination of NT, opener has to=20 > pass all the time. He continued saying, if we receive any damage becaus= e=20 > of this fact (pass all the time), we shall call him again. So far so=20 > good. The 1Nt bidder replaced his bid with 4S now and all pass. Declare= r=20 > somehow managed to make only 10 tricks for a score of 420, while most o= f=20 > the other pairs managed to make some number of overtricks. So i guess w= e=20 > got a 65% score on this board. No problem. But: >=20 The ruling seems OK even if the formulation is a little wrong. > After i got a look at declarers hand, i think, there was a damage for=20 > us, because declarer could not investigate for slam. >=20 > Dummys hand >=20 > Qxx > KJxxxx > Qxxx > - >=20 > Declarers hand >=20 > AKJTx > x > Ax > Akxxx >=20 > If the bidding went: >=20 > Pass-pass-pass-1S > 2D-2NT(10-12)-pass3C > Pass-3S-pass >=20 > I think opener is interested in slam, or if the bidding went: >=20 > Pass-pass-pass-1S > 2D-4S-pass >=20 > Opener is dead sure interested in slam. >=20 > All in all, i think the score should be adjusted to 5S minus 1 or 6S=20 > minus 2 >=20 > What do you think? >=20 I have not completely understood your reasoning, but if you mean what=20 I think you mean, the answer is simple: Insufficient bidder had to make a choice, and in so doing is=20 "disadvantaged". When it turns out that he has made a lucky choice=20 (like staying out of a very often bid, but unmakeable slam), thius is=20 just bad luck. It is of the same order as the man who bids out of turn, then gambles=20 on 3NT and sees that contract making while the more normal 4Sp in a=20 5-4 fit fails because of a ruff on the lead. The answer you can give to the players is always the same: that gamble=20 will fail 80% of the time, in which case they get a bad score. So this=20 is just bad luck for non-offenders. Just in case some of you insist: IMHO. > Joerg >=20 --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From schuster@eduhi.at Fri Feb 13 14:02:45 2004 From: schuster@eduhi.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 15:02:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] No messages? I'll start something, then In-Reply-To: <402CA2EF.8020407@hdw.be> References: <402CA2EF.8020407@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 11:11:59 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > Sorry Jürgen, but this is not fair. > > This is a list with more than one purpose. > > Sometimes we overemphasize the purpose of discussing the laws. > > But another purpose is the one that Israel used blml for: to ask a > question from the more experienced TD's. > > Rightly or wrongly, I consider myself to be one of the more experienced > and knowledgeable TD's on this list. If Ton or Grattan wish to contradict > this, they surely can. I trust they won't. > > So if I answer - short - to Israel, then I trust to be believed. It seems Herman doesn't know Israel is such an experienced TD that he was one of the group leaders of the very first EBL Seminar in Amsterdam 1982. -- Petrus Schuster OSB From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Feb 13 17:10:29 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 18:10:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] No messages? I'll start something, then In-Reply-To: <20040213114656.B278730E4F1@front.interia.pl> References: <20040213114656.B278730E4F1@front.interia.pl> Message-ID: <402D0505.5000901@hdw.be> OK, Conrad, point taken. Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > Herman wrote: >=20 >=20 >>What Israel was asking was a simple question, and one which the laws=20 >>clearly solve.=20 >=20 > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > and then >=20 >=20 >>Israel's friend=20 >>posed a question which has been asked several times in the past,=20 >=20 > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >=20 > To me this is contradiction in terms. > The mere fact that the question is > being aksed over and over is a clear indication > that the appropriate laws aren't well worded > and need to be rephrased. >=20 OK, scrap the word "clearly" in my previous message and replace it=20 with "uniquely". I have not heard of differing interpretations from any authority,=20 although indeed those less well versed in Laws interpretations have=20 asked the questions in the past. However, all those who have followed a course in the laws in any=20 country that I'm aware of have been tought the correct interpretation=20 of this problem. > Konrad Ciborowski=20 > Krak=F3w, Poland >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > __________________ > Konrad Ciborowski > Krak=F3w, Poland >=20 >=20 >=20 --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr Fri Feb 13 17:33:53 2004 From: jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 18:33:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] No messages? I'll start something, then References: <402CA2EF.8020407@hdw.be> Message-ID: <004601c3f257$8fa1fba0$8a5b4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> Herman: > ... Sorry Jürgen, but this is not fair ... Herman, Nothing unfair about Jurgen's mail. You asked for it and in my opinion Jurgen's text was much fairer than your original text to which he reacted. At least by my standards. If you want to avoid this type of reaction just tune down a little. By the way a 'suspicion' of mine (my memory is flawed) has been confirmed by others, Israel is by no means 'less experienced'. But even if he was a rookie your language was not exactly appropriate for any purpose imaginable. Jaap Herman: >>...I do not want to sound over-pretentious, but sometimes it would do >>well for less experienced directors to simply believe the more >>experienced ones... Jurgen > Yes, I like it. Herman, the infallible, as Bridge Pope - that would simplify > matters. No more superfluous quotes from confusing sources. > From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Feb 13 18:03:10 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 13:03:10 -0500 Subject: [blml] No messages? I'll start something, then In-Reply-To: <000001c3f228$4992d8c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Friday, Feb 13, 2004, at 06:55 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > Of course not "force", but I would say a rather heavy impact. I doubt that. I have to wonder if anyone in the ACBL, for example, who does not subscribe to this list has even heard of it. From jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr Fri Feb 13 17:59:11 2004 From: jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 18:59:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tonights td decision References: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E6451@rama.micronas.com> Message-ID: <007301c3f25b$c66e29c0$8a5b4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> Martin: > ... you are allowed to get lucky after an infraction ... This is an aspect of the laws which I don't like in certain cases. After the kind of infraction that basically leaves the board unplayable in a normal way (BOOT and family) the rules insist in continuing to play the board casino style. Someone has to take a blind shot which often results in a crazy result. Often a top/good score for NOS but sometimes a top for the OS. IMHO this has nothing to with bridge. It might be better to rule these cases AV+/AV-- or so with some provisions to stop people to do it on purpose to secure AV-- or so. Nothing much different from the current 'could have know' catch all. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sinot Martin" To: Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 2:20 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Tonights td decision >Jörg Schwarz wrote: >Hello folks, >First of all, i want to say, that i follow the discussions in this list >with great interest on a regular basis. Last weekend i visited a seminar >for tournament directors and am now allowed to act as tournament director >myself. Unfortunately i am lacking a lot of experience, as you can >imagine. >Today in a local club the following happened: >Both sides nonvulnerable, my p opened the bidding with a pass (we were >playing swiss acol, the opps play acol) >Pass-pass-pass-1S >2D-1NT >After 1 NT i called the tournament director and told him, that this is an >insufficient bid, which i do not intend to accept. Director now says, the >bid has to be replaced with a sufficient bid, if the bid will be in the >same denomination (in this case NT), bidding will go on, if the 1 NT bid >is replaced by a bid not in the denomination of NT, opener has to pass all >the time. He continued saying, if we receive any damage because of this >fact (pass all the time), we shall call him again. So far so good. The 1Nt >bidder replaced his bid with 4S now and all pass. Declarer somehow managed >to make only 10 tricks for a score of 420, while most of the other pairs >managed to make some number of overtricks. So i guess we got a 65% score >on this board. No problem. But: >After i got a look at declarers hand, i think, there was a damage for us, >because declarer could not investigate for slam. >Dummys hand >Qxx >KJxxxx >Qxxx >- >Declarers hand >AKJTx >x >Ax >Akxxx >If the bidding went: >Pass-pass-pass-1S >2D-2NT(10-12)-pass3C >Pass-3S-pass >I think opener is interested in slam, or if the bidding went: >Pass-pass-pass-1S >2D-4S-pass >Opener is dead sure interested in slam. >All in all, i think the score should be adjusted to 5S minus 1 or 6S minus >2 >What do you think? >Joerg >Ps: i bed your pardon for my not so good english The TD was not entirely correct, I believe; if you do not accept 1NT, then offender may either bid 2NT (not any NT bid!) for no penalty, or something else (double is forbidden), but then partner must pass for the remainder of the auction (L27). This assuming that 1NT and 2NT are both not conventional; otherwise offender's partner must always pass. After the offending side paid the penalty, they are allowed to do whatever is the most advantageous for their side, even if they appear to profit from the infraction (L72A5). There is one exception, mentioned explicitly in L27: if offender at the time of the infraction could have known that partner's forced pass might damage the opponents, then the TD can adjust the score (L23). Concerning the actual case, the TD will do nothing further; it is higly unlikely that offender could have known that partner's forced pass would be advantageous (indeed, the offending side could now miss a slam if the cards were differently distributed), and, as said, you are allowed to get lucky after an infraction. -- Martin Sinot martin.sinot at micronas.com _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr Fri Feb 13 18:06:06 2004 From: jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 19:06:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tonights td decision References: <20040213134423.B4C0B30E4F1@front.interia.pl> Message-ID: <008f01c3f25c$0f282cb0$8a5b4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> Konrad, Good point. Of course the 1NT answer to a natural opening bid (other than 1C in most cases) is conventional/artificial in the sense that it doesn't show willingness to play in NT nor a balanced hand (in any 'normal' system). Still everybody calls it 'natural' because we all play like that. Whether 1NT is forcing or not doesn't matter at all (in most 'normal' systems it just raises the upper margin of 1NT by 1 to 2 HCP). Still 'natural' has not the same legal meaning as 'normal'. If this is already too difficult for most there is little hope. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 2:44 PM Subject: Re: RE: [blml] Tonights td decision Martin Sinot wrote: > The TD was not entirely correct, I believe; if you do not accept 1NT, > then offender may either bid 2NT (not any NT bid!) for no penalty, or I am 99,999999999999999% sure that 1NT was conventional. Even if it wasn't "forcing NT" or "relay" or whatever. Even if it was plain good'ol 1NT we all know. After the 1S opener 1NT may contain hands like --- KQx xxxxxxx Qxx which are very far from being balanced. The fact that we all got so used to playing this convention that we don't alert it and, when asked, explain it as "natural 1NT" doesn't make it any less artificial. Even in Acol a 1NT response to 1D/H/S is a conventional catch-all bid used to keep the bidding open and expresses no desire to play the hand in NT. So I would rule that opener must pass throughout. Unless NS were able to demonstrate that in their system the 1NT response to 1S shows 8-10 with a balanced hand (while with a hand like the one above they respond eg. with artificial 2C). Only then would I ban opener for one round only (assuming that their 2NT reply is also natural). Konrad Ciborowski Kraków, Poland __________________ Konrad Ciborowski Kraków, Poland _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From sar988@hotmail.com Fri Feb 13 18:42:16 2004 From: sar988@hotmail.com (SAR) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 23:42:16 +0500 Subject: [blml] Sstop Spreading Hatred Message-ID: Subject: Sstop Spreading Hatred Dear Sir, I think being a Muslim you are not working for peace. You are misguided, mistaken and spreading hatred through disinformation, which is resulting in death and miseries for number of innocent people living around the world at the hands of merciless KILLER MUSLIMS and also bringing bad name to Mohammed's Religion Of Islam. Try and work for peace and reconciliation, and prove to the WORLD through your deeds that MOHAMMED teaches "love & peace" and not Cruelty, Inhumanity and "Hatred & Killing" of the innocent civilians. S.A.R From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Fri Feb 13 20:33:01 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 09:33:01 +1300 Subject: [blml] Validity of commentary to the laws of 1987 In-Reply-To: <000001c3f22b$d6f3c000$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <002c01c3f270$94294f20$822d37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: Saturday, 14 February 2004 1:21 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] Validity of commentary to the laws of 1987 > > > > Herman De Wael > .......... > > Sven did so by quoting a book (which, BTW, is no > > longer really valid since it dealt with the 1987 > > laws - but those were not changed in this instance). > > The validity of a commentary to a law is of course primarily valid as > addressing that particular version of the law to which it refers. > > But when that particular law is unchanged in a later version > we must be > allowed to assume that the commentary retains its validity > also for this > later version. The fact that most of the laws were repeated > unchanged (or > received only minor changes) from 1987 to 1997 makes the > "Commentary on the > Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge" of 1992 fully valid > (except where changes > contradict the commentary given or in the possible cases > where a commentary > has been explicitly invalidated by a later WBFLC commentary etc.). > > Before using the 1992 commentary I always verify that no such > "conflict" > exists between the 1997 and the 1987 laws on the addressed matter. > > Regards Sven Valid in what sense? A commentary is an opinion it does not take the place of the law. Wayne From cyaxares@lineone.net Fri Feb 13 23:55:58 2004 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 23:55:58 -0000 Subject: [blml] Validity of commentary to the laws of 1987 References: <002c01c3f270$94294f20$822d37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <000501c3f294$d51dd6d0$ec12e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "'blml'" Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 8:33 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Validity of commentary to the laws of 1987 > > Valid in what sense? > +=+ In the sense that (see its introductory pages) its contents were authorized by the EBL Laws Committee and the book was published by the Publications Dept. of the EBL, any costs being met by the EBL. +=+ From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sat Feb 14 01:43:55 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 01:43:55 -0000 Subject: [blml] Validity of commentary to the laws of 1987 References: <002c01c3f270$94294f20$822d37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <026901c3f29c$0cc89dc0$039468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Wayne Burrows] > A commentary is an opinion it does not take the place > of the law. [Nigel] And in this case from the 1992 commentary, seemingly a flawed opinion, because it had no affect on the subsequent 1997 edition of the Laws. Or perhaps that was just an oversight -- natural enough considering the plethora of obscure and opaque minutes and commentaries. Anyway, how is an ordinary player meant to know the law? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.576 / Virus Database: 365 - Release Date: 30/01/2004 From by@precision.moscito.org Sat Feb 14 05:18:50 2004 From: by@precision.moscito.org (by@precision.moscito.org) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 13:18:50 +0800 Subject: [blml] opinions sought Message-ID: <200402140518.i1E5Ioo22972@precision.math.ntu.edu.tw> BBO Webcast: Final of the National Taiwan University Cup (the second most prestigious collegiate event in Taiwan), contested between the two acknowledged top collegiate club teams of the country. Because of a delay, the combatants were playing at 3:30 PM not having had lunch, which might help to explain the following unbelievable incident: Bd: 16 S KQ8765 West North East South Vul: EW H A5 NCTU NTU NCTU NTU Deal: W D 9652 1C 1S 1N 2H-a S -- C 7 S T943 3N -- -- X H J763 H 982 -- -- -- D Q3 D AKJT C AKQT632 S AJ2 C J5 a: intended as forcing, possibly with fit H KQT4 but not so alerted by north. D 874 C 984 lead: HK, result: made 5 (!!) After the NTU pair perpetrated a catastrophic misdefence to let this through, West stated that they should always get a good score because N-S committed misinformation. A director who was nearby said that W will have to eat whatever result they get, minus perhaps a procedural penalty on N-S, because 3N and the final pass were wild and gambling. The dispute became acrimonious after the session. Your comments and thoughts sought. [PS, I am probably not on the BLML list at the moment, so your CC:ed responses are welcome.] From svenpran@online.no Sat Feb 14 07:31:35 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 08:31:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] opinions sought In-Reply-To: <200402140518.i1E5Ioo22972@precision.math.ntu.edu.tw> Message-ID: <000001c3f2cc$93bb6d50$6900a8c0@WINXP> My immediate reactions are: 1 - Why not join blml so that you receive the posts without having to be CC:ed? 2 - In what way can NCTU claim that they have been damaged by the misinformation due to 2H not been alerted? (South can hardly have less values for his bid?) 3 - Even with the unfortunate lead of HK why did North apparently continue in a minor suit rather than with a spade in trick three? I agree that the incident is unbelievable! (And I agree with the Director) Just my opinion possibly worth $0,02 Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > by@precision.moscito.org > Sent: 14. februar 2004 06:19 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: [blml] opinions sought > > BBO Webcast: Final of the National Taiwan University Cup (the second > most prestigious collegiate event in Taiwan), contested between the > two acknowledged top collegiate club teams of the country. Because of > a delay, the combatants were playing at 3:30 PM not having had lunch, > which might help to explain the following unbelievable incident: > > Bd: 16 S KQ8765 West North East South > Vul: EW H A5 NCTU NTU NCTU NTU > Deal: W D 9652 1C 1S 1N 2H-a > S -- C 7 S T943 3N -- -- X > H J763 H 982 -- -- -- > D Q3 D AKJT > C AKQT632 S AJ2 C J5 a: intended as forcing, possibly with fit > H KQT4 but not so alerted by north. > D 874 > C 984 lead: HK, result: made 5 (!!) > > After the NTU pair perpetrated a catastrophic misdefence to let this > through, West stated that they should always get a good score because > N-S committed misinformation. A director who was nearby said that W > will have to eat whatever result they get, minus perhaps a procedural > penalty on N-S, because 3N and the final pass were wild and gambling. > > The dispute became acrimonious after the session. Your comments and > thoughts sought. [PS, I am probably not on the BLML list at the > moment, so your CC:ed responses are welcome.] > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Feb 14 08:02:03 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 03:02:03 -0500 Subject: [blml] odd ruling Message-ID: <1353E27E-5EC4-11D8-95B5-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Tonight at the club, a strange thing happened. Opponents are playing in 2D, and declarer leads CK from dummy. I follow with a small club, so does declarer. Partner ruffs with the D8, then says "oh, wait, I have a club". TD is called. She rules that partner must play her club to this trick, the D8 becoming a major penalty card, and then says to declarer "you may require or forbid the lead of a diamond from North (my partner). I said "wait a minute, the lead is in dummy". TD says "that doesn't matter, I'm sure my ruling is correct". As she was adamant, I said nothing more. Declarer required partner to lead the D8, winning the trick with the ten, and then played the DA, crashing my partner's king. As the cards lay at this point, declarer would have had to lose another trick if partner had not been required to lead her D8, the lead instead coming from dummy. After the session, I went back to the TD and asked her to show me the law authorizing her ruling. She couldn't find it. "Maybe you're thinking about a LOOT," says I. "No. It's obscure," she said, "but I'm sure it's in here (referring to TFLB) somewhere." Comments? From rui.mlmarques@netvisao.pt Sat Feb 14 11:15:36 2004 From: rui.mlmarques@netvisao.pt (Rui Marques) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 11:15:36 -0000 Subject: [blml] odd ruling In-Reply-To: <1353E27E-5EC4-11D8-95B5-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000101c3f2eb$e24dc610$0201a8c0@rui> "Prohibit or require" if and whenever partner is on lead and the penalty card is still on the table. If the option is exercised the card is picked up. If the prohibition is exercised it will remain so until partner loses the lead. If no option, then the penalty card remains as so. -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Ed Reppert Sent: s=E1bado, 14 de Fevereiro de 2004 8:02 To: blml Subject: [blml] odd ruling Tonight at the club, a strange thing happened. Opponents are playing in=20 2D, and declarer leads CK from dummy. I follow with a small club, so=20 does declarer. Partner ruffs with the D8, then says "oh, wait, I have a=20 club". TD is called. She rules that partner must play her club to this=20 trick, the D8 becoming a major penalty card, and then says to declarer=20 "you may require or forbid the lead of a diamond from North (my=20 partner). I said "wait a minute, the lead is in dummy". TD says "that=20 doesn't matter, I'm sure my ruling is correct". As she was adamant, I=20 said nothing more. Declarer required partner to lead the D8, winning=20 the trick with the ten, and then played the DA, crashing my partner's=20 king. As the cards lay at this point, declarer would have had to lose=20 another trick if partner had not been required to lead her D8, the lead=20 instead coming from dummy. After the session, I went back to the TD and=20 asked her to show me the law authorizing her ruling. She couldn't find=20 it. "Maybe you're thinking about a LOOT," says I. "No. It's obscure,"=20 she said, "but I'm sure it's in here (referring to TFLB) somewhere."=20 Comments? _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From add@hotmail.com Sat Feb 14 13:35:08 2004 From: add@hotmail.com (add@hotmail.com) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 21:35:08 +0800 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) Email marketing Message-ID: Email Marketing ! We offer you e-mail addresses databases for advertisement mailing; we sell databases also carry out mailing and hosting for the advertising projects. Products World Email Lists . Their validity and originality are verified. please go to our web: http://202.98.223.74/soft/html/wd/wd3.htm There are some sample download. Country or area total emails and price America 175 Million Email Address $220 US Europe 156 Million Email Address $250 US Asia 168 Million Email Address $150 US China(PRC) 80 Million Email Address $200 US HongKong 3.25 Million Email Address $200 US TaiWan 2.25 Million Email Address $200 US Japan 27 Million Email Address $200 US Australia 6 Million Email Address $150 US Canda 10 Million Email Address $150 US Russia 38 Million Email Address $120 US England 3.2 Million Email Address $200 US German 20 Million Email Address $200 US France 38 Million Email Address $150 US India 12 Million Email Address $120 US CENTRAL & SOUTH AMERICAN AREA 40 Million Email Address $220 US MIDDLE EAST & AFRICA 45 million Email Address $220 US SOUTH EAST AREA 32 million Email Address $220 US other Country or Area ¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Category Name total emails total price Apparel, Fashion, Textiles and Leather 4,654,565 $150 $100 US Automobile & Transportation 6,547,845 Business Services 6,366,344 Chemicals 3,445,565 Computer & Telecommunications 654,655 Construction & Real Estate 3,443,544 Consumer Electronics 1,333,443 Energy, Minerals & Metals 6,765,683 Environment 656,533 All Email Total: 150 U.S Food & Agriculture 1,235,354 Gems & Jewellery 565,438 Health & Beauty 804,654 Home Supplies 323,232 Industrial Supplies 415,668 Office Supplies 1,559,892 Packaging & Paper 5,675,648 Printing & Publishing 6,563,445 Security & Protection 5,653,494 Sports & Entertainment 3,488,455 Toys, Gifts and Handicrafts 2,135,654 Details and sample please go to http://202.98.223.74/soft/html/wd/wd3.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ¡¤All 136 nations , 40 trades email lists total price $500 US --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- $100 US V4.03 $200 US V3.0 $200 US $100 US --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ¡¤All of Country email lists + email sender express +add url express + etrae express =$600 US --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Details and order Click Here to web site: http://202.98.223.74/soft/html/wd/wd3.htm the silver star internet information company copyright¡¤2004-2005 all reserved From svenpran@online.no Sat Feb 14 19:05:09 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 20:05:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] odd ruling In-Reply-To: <1353E27E-5EC4-11D8-95B5-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000001c3f32d$7726b850$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert > Tonight at the club, a strange thing happened. Opponents are playing = in > 2D, and declarer leads CK from dummy. I follow with a small club, so > does declarer. Partner ruffs with the D8, then says "oh, wait, I have = a > club". TD is called. She rules that partner must play her club to this > trick, the D8 becoming a major penalty card, and then says to declarer > "you may require or forbid the lead of a diamond from North (my > partner). I said "wait a minute, the lead is in dummy". TD says "that > doesn't matter, I'm sure my ruling is correct". As she was adamant, I > said nothing more. Declarer required partner to lead the D8, winning > the trick with the ten, and then played the DA, crashing my partner's > king. As the cards lay at this point, declarer would have had to lose > another trick if partner had not been required to lead her D8, the = lead > instead coming from dummy. After the session, I went back to the TD = and > asked her to show me the law authorizing her ruling. She couldn't find > it. "Maybe you're thinking about a LOOT," says I. "No. It's obscure," > she said, "but I'm sure it's in here (referring to TFLB) somewhere." > Comments? Trivial case with the wrong ruling (and incidentally the answer from Rui = is misleading because it is slightly out of context): 1: Your partner must play the club exposed (with the remark). =20 2: The D8 becomes a major penalty card and remains so until it can be legally played or (on certain conditions, see below) until you obtain = the lead. 3: As the lead is in dummy the play continues with no further action = until either: a: Your partner can legally play or lead the D8 in which case that card = must be played (or led). This happens when: - a diamond is led to the trick (so your partner can legally follow suit with the penalty card) - your partner is void in the suit led (so your partner can legally play = the penalty card to that trick) - your partner obtains the lead to a trick (so your partner can legally = lead the penalty card). b: You obtain the lead, in which case you must not do anything until the declarer has decided whether to: - prohibit you from leading a diamond - request you to lead a diamond - leave you free to lead any card you want. If you are prohibited from playing or requested to play a diamond the penalty card ceases to be a penalty card, your partner picks it up and = is subsequently free to play any card which can legally be played. A prohibition remains in force until another player has been on the lead.=20 If you are left free to play any card you want then the penalty card = remains a penalty card. In this case the decision by declarer applies only to = this trick, if you have (or obtain) the lead again to a later trick while = your partner still has a penalty card the situation repeats itself. The relevant law is 50D Regards Sven=20 From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Sat Feb 14 19:21:23 2004 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 14:21:23 -0500 Subject: [blml] odd ruling In-Reply-To: <1353E27E-5EC4-11D8-95B5-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Tonight at the club, a strange thing happened. Opponents are playing in 2D, and declarer leads CK from dummy. I follow with a small club, so does declarer. Partner ruffs with the D8, then says "oh, wait, I have a club". TD is called. She rules that partner must play her club to this trick, the D8 becoming a major penalty card, and then says to declarer "you may require or forbid the lead of a diamond from North (my partner). I said "wait a minute, the lead is in dummy". TD says "that doesn't matter, I'm sure my ruling is correct". As she was adamant, I said nothing more. Declarer required partner to lead the D8, winning the trick with the ten, and then played the DA, crashing my partner's king. As the cards lay at this point, declarer would have had to lose another trick if partner had not been required to lead her D8, the lead instead coming from dummy. After the session, I went back to the TD and asked her to show me the law authorizing her ruling. She couldn't find it. "Maybe you're thinking about a LOOT," says I. "No. It's obscure," she said, "but I'm sure it's in here (referring to TFLB) somewhere." Comments? ____________________________________________________________________ An easy book ruling. Just ask this "director" to read again 50D (Disposition of a Major Penalty Card). 50D2 clearly states that a lead penalty applies only when offender's partner has to lead (if the penalty card is still on table). Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From svenpran@online.no Sat Feb 14 19:30:45 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 20:30:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] odd ruling, additional note In-Reply-To: <1353E27E-5EC4-11D8-95B5-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000001c3f331$0b1b9550$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert .......... > Declarer required partner to lead the D8, winning > the trick with the ten, and then played the DA, crashing my partner's > king. As the cards lay at this point, declarer would have had to lose > another trick if partner had not been required to lead her D8, the = lead > instead coming from dummy.=20 No Ed, this is where you are wrong: Declarer could simply lead a small diamond from dummy and take a safe finesse through you because your partner would be forced to follow suit = with the D8!=09 Regards Sven From jjl-bridge@libertysurf.fr Sat Feb 14 20:15:16 2004 From: jjl-bridge@libertysurf.fr (Jean-Jacques Lafay) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 21:15:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] odd ruling, additional note References: <000001c3f331$0b1b9550$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <00eb01c3f337$434dd130$0000fea9@lanfeust> Why shoud Ed be wrong ? My reaction when I read Ed's post was to try and construct a layout where there would be no way of avoiding a loser, and as matter of fact, it is easy to construct such a layout : simply imagine that there are only clubs left in dummy, with at least one in declarer's hand and D8 owner now genuinely void in clubs, it is now impossible to legally avoid a loser, even with the defense's help : a C must be led, and defender must ruff. As to the original ruling, it seems very much like a major TD blunder to me... Regards, Jean-Jacques. >From: "Sven Pran" > >Ed Reppert >.......... >> Declarer required partner to lead the D8, winning >> the trick with the ten, and then played the DA, crashing my partner's >> king. As the cards lay at this point, declarer would have had to lose >> another trick if partner had not been required to lead her D8, the lead >> instead coming from dummy. > >No Ed, this is where you are wrong: > >Declarer could simply lead a small diamond from dummy and take a safe >finesse through you because your partner would be forced to follow suit with >the D8! > >Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Sat Feb 14 20:26:54 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 21:26:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] odd ruling, additional note In-Reply-To: <00eb01c3f337$434dd130$0000fea9@lanfeust> Message-ID: <000001c3f338$e330cc10$6900a8c0@WINXP> As the cards lay according to Ed's description he was wrong in claiming = that his partner must obtain a trick for the DK if the Director had not made = the wrong ruling. I simply showed why the penalty card could enable declarer = to make a safe finesse achieving exactly the same result as when his = partner was erroneously forced to lead the D8. There is no doubt that the Director made a tremendous blunder. (And so I indicated) Sven > Jean-Jacques Lafay > Why shoud Ed be wrong ? >=20 > My reaction when I read Ed's post was to try and construct a layout = where > there would be no way of avoiding a loser, and as matter of fact, it = is > easy > to construct such a layout : simply imagine that there are only clubs = left > in dummy, with at least one in declarer's hand and D8 owner now = genuinely > void in clubs, it is now impossible to legally avoid a loser, even = with > the > defense's help : a C must be led, and defender must ruff. >=20 > As to the original ruling, it seems very much like a major TD blunder = to > me... >=20 > Regards, > Jean-Jacques. >=20 > >From: "Sven Pran" > > >=20 > >Ed Reppert > >.......... > >> Declarer required partner to lead the D8, winning > >> the trick with the ten, and then played the DA, crashing my = partner's > >> king. As the cards lay at this point, declarer would have had to = lose > >> another trick if partner had not been required to lead her D8, the = lead > >> instead coming from dummy. > > > >No Ed, this is where you are wrong: > > > >Declarer could simply lead a small diamond from dummy and take a safe > >finesse through you because your partner would be forced to follow = suit > with > >the D8! > > > >Regards Sven >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From erdnbaum@netvision.net.il Sat Feb 14 20:48:52 2004 From: erdnbaum@netvision.net.il (Israel Erdnbaum) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 22:48:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] Fw: revokes Message-ID: <000a01c3f33b$f4f62d20$3020ebd4@mycomputer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Israel Erdnbaum" To: "blml" Cc: "israel erdenbaum" Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2004 10:25 PM Subject: Fw: revokes > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Israel Erdnbaum" > To: blml@rtflb.org > Cc: "israel erdenbaum" > Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2004 7:29 PM > Subject: revokes > > > > I had no wish to write, so I asked Herman being quite sure he"ll be happy > to > > explain.I had no idea the matter has been so discussed before. I don't > have > > much experience in blml. Thank you Mr.Shuster for pointing out that I am > > not totally inexperienced. > > I want to point out my opinion of the necessity for a special simplified > > code for Bridge Clubs. The revoke laws cause most trouble in Bridge > Clubs. > > If X revokes on Sunday and is made to pay a a 2 trick penalty. on Monday > > opp. revoke and he is told there is no penalty.On Tuesday He revokes and > > pays a 1 trick penaltyand finally on Wendesday he has 5 tricks taken > away, > > do you wonder that he does not want to see a bridge club again. > > Now to the question asked by Mr. Harris.The revoke laws in plain language > > say that the 2 trick penalty. [ Law 64 1a] applies only in > 2 > > cases. 1]when the revoke trick was taken by RUFFING 2] WHEN AFTER THE > > REVOKE a trick was taken by a card that COULD have been played to the > > revoke trick. > > Therefore in this case no problem whatsoever .No Ruffer no 2 trick > penalty > > no Law 64 1a > > A more interesting question would have been ,had Dummy taken the trick by > > overtaking Declarer's trump [played in revoke] > > Best Regards > > Israel Erdenbaum > > Tel Aviv > > > > > > From erdnbaum@netvision.net.il Sat Feb 14 21:03:29 2004 From: erdnbaum@netvision.net.il (Israel Erdnbaum) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 23:03:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] revokes Message-ID: <001301c3f33d$ff3c4380$3020ebd4@mycomputer> From svenpran@online.no Sat Feb 14 21:09:13 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 22:09:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fw: revokes In-Reply-To: <000a01c3f33b$f4f62d20$3020ebd4@mycomputer> Message-ID: <000001c3f33e$cca604a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Dummy and declarer are two different players on the same side. They are both for instance OS (Offending side) but only one of them is Offender. Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Israel Erdnbaum > Sent: 14. februar 2004 21:49 > To: blml > Cc: israel erdenbaum > Subject: [blml] Fw: revokes >=20 >=20 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Israel Erdnbaum" > To: "blml" > Cc: "israel erdenbaum" > Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2004 10:25 PM > Subject: Fw: revokes >=20 >=20 > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Israel Erdnbaum" > > To: blml@rtflb.org > > Cc: "israel erdenbaum" > > Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2004 7:29 PM > > Subject: revokes > > > > > > > I had no wish to write, so I asked Herman being quite sure he"ll = be > happy > > to > > > explain.I had no idea the matter has been so discussed before. I > don't > > have > > > much experience in blml. Thank you Mr.Shuster for pointing out = that I > am > > > not totally inexperienced. > > > I want to point out my opinion of the necessity for a special > simplified > > > code for Bridge Clubs. The revoke laws cause most trouble in = Bridge > > Clubs. > > > If X revokes on Sunday and is made to pay a a 2 trick penalty. on > Monday > > > opp. revoke and he is told there is no penalty.On Tuesday He = revokes > and > > > pays a 1 trick penaltyand finally on Wendesday he has 5 tricks = taken > > away, > > > do you wonder that he does not want to see a bridge club again. > > > Now to the question asked by Mr. Harris.The revoke laws in plain > language > > > say that the 2 trick penalty. [ Law 64 1a] applies > only > in > > 2 > > > cases. 1]when the revoke trick was taken by RUFFING 2] WHEN = AFTER > THE > > > REVOKE a trick was taken by a card that COULD have been played = to > the > > > revoke trick. > > > Therefore in this case no problem whatsoever .No Ruffer no 2 = trick > > penalty > > > no Law 64 1a > > > A more interesting question would have been ,had Dummy taken the = trick > by > > > overtaking Declarer's trump [played in revoke] > > > Best Regards > > > Israel Erdenbaum > > > Tel Aviv > > > > > > > > > > >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Feb 14 22:18:11 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 17:18:11 -0500 Subject: [blml] odd ruling In-Reply-To: <000101c3f2eb$e24dc610$0201a8c0@rui> Message-ID: On Saturday, Feb 14, 2004, at 06:15 US/Eastern, Rui Marques wrote: > "Prohibit or require" if and whenever partner is on lead and the > penalty > card is still on the table. If the option is exercised the card is > picked up. If the prohibition is exercised it will remain so until > partner loses the lead. If no option, then the penalty card remains as > so. Certainly. But that clause doesn't apply here, as the lead is in dummy. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Feb 14 22:20:35 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 17:20:35 -0500 Subject: [blml] odd ruling In-Reply-To: <000001c3f32d$7726b850$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <02A7C793-5F3C-11D8-9FF4-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Saturday, Feb 14, 2004, at 14:05 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > Trivial case with the wrong ruling [snip] > The relevant law is 50D That's what I thought. :-) From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Feb 14 22:21:32 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 17:21:32 -0500 Subject: [blml] odd ruling, additional note In-Reply-To: <000001c3f331$0b1b9550$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <24C426CC-5F3C-11D8-9FF4-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Saturday, Feb 14, 2004, at 14:30 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > Declarer could simply lead a small diamond from dummy and take a safe > finesse through you because your partner would be forced to follow > suit with > the D8! Dummy had no diamonds. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Feb 14 22:25:35 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 17:25:35 -0500 Subject: [blml] odd ruling, additional note In-Reply-To: <000001c3f338$e330cc10$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Saturday, Feb 14, 2004, at 15:26 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > As the cards lay according to Ed's description he was wrong in > claiming that > his partner must obtain a trick for the DK if the Director had not > made the > wrong ruling. I simply showed why the penalty card could enable > declarer to > make a safe finesse achieving exactly the same result as when his > partner > was erroneously forced to lead the D8. Certainly, had there been any diamonds in dummy. There weren't. I didn't have any either, at that point. IAC, my main concern was the ruling itself, not the scoring. Setting this contract wouldn't have changed our standing for the session. From svenpran@online.no Sun Feb 15 06:10:29 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 07:10:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] odd ruling, additional note In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3f38a$6bedf860$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert > On Saturday, Feb 14, 2004, at 15:26 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: >=20 > > As the cards lay according to Ed's description he was wrong in > > claiming that > > his partner must obtain a trick for the DK if the Director had not > > made the > > wrong ruling. I simply showed why the penalty card could enable > > declarer to > > make a safe finesse achieving exactly the same result as when his > > partner > > was erroneously forced to lead the D8. >=20 > Certainly, had there been any diamonds in dummy. There weren't. I > didn't have any either, at that point. IAC, my main concern was the > ruling itself, not the scoring. Setting this contract wouldn't have > changed our standing for the session. OK, you didn't originally say there were (or weren't) any diamonds in = dummy, I assumed there were. So you were indeed right, and I think we both made = our points. Regards Sven From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Feb 15 08:40:53 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 08:40:53 -0000 Subject: [blml] A point from San Giusto Canavese. Message-ID: <000e01c3f39f$9a8409c0$fea7193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott>> Regulations usually go on to say something about randomizing the tempo of return of the tray and a 'normality' standard for tempo of returning trays. It is also pertinent to note that regular tempo varies from table to table by reason of the characteristics of players and other factors. During his lecture in the EBL TD course at S. Giusto Canavese the EBL CTD made the point that this regulation, instituted fairly recently, only reflects the practice of TDs for many years in discounting calls from the 'wrong' side of the screen where there is no untainted evidence that the players on the other side of the screen were aware of any tempo irregularity before the director was called. (It is, of course, my persuasion that to attempt to gain advantage from perceived extraneous information in a slow/quick return of the tray is unlawful since there is no authority in the laws for its use, no matter what may have caused the tempo irregularity.) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From rui.mlmarques@netvisao.pt Sun Feb 15 11:11:29 2004 From: rui.mlmarques@netvisao.pt (Rui Marques) Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 11:11:29 -0000 Subject: [blml] odd ruling In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3f3b4$798ccf80$0201a8c0@rui> Note the "if and whenever" (partner on lead AND penalty card on the table). Doesnt mean now, of course. This was just a clearly wrong book ruling. Why so many replies?... -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Ed Reppert Sent: s=E1bado, 14 de Fevereiro de 2004 22:18 To: blml Subject: Re: [blml] odd ruling On Saturday, Feb 14, 2004, at 06:15 US/Eastern, Rui Marques wrote: > "Prohibit or require" if and whenever partner is on lead and the > penalty > card is still on the table. If the option is exercised the card is > picked up. If the prohibition is exercised it will remain so until > partner loses the lead. If no option, then the penalty card remains as > so. Certainly. But that clause doesn't apply here, as the lead is in dummy. From Ray Crowe" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C3F2F5.9C0E5480 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Some new computer scoring programs are now asking that the zero at the = end of each score be ignored when feeding in the raw scores from the = traveller into the computer. Obviously the reason for this is that it saves time and makes no = difference to the final results. As every score ends in a zero, would it now be appropriate for the WBF = to drop a "0" of all scores in the bridge scoring table when filling in = the traveller? Cheers, Ray. ------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C3F2F5.9C0E5480 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Some new computer scoring programs are = now asking=20 that the zero at the end of each score be ignored when feeding in the = raw scores=20 from the traveller into the computer.
Obviously the reason for this is that = it saves time=20 and makes no difference to the final results.
As every score ends in a zero, would it = now be=20 appropriate for the WBF to drop a "0" of all scores in the bridge = scoring=20 table when filling in the traveller?
 
Cheers,
 
Ray.
------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C3F2F5.9C0E5480-- From henk@ripe.net Sun Feb 15 14:16:25 2004 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE NCC)) Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 15:16:25 +0100 (CET) Subject: [blml] that extra zero In-Reply-To: <000e01c3f288$a735c9a0$7ba376cb@oemcomputer> References: <000e01c3f288$a735c9a0$7ba376cb@oemcomputer> Message-ID: On Sat, 14 Feb 2004, Ray Crowe wrote: > Some new computer scoring programs are now asking that the zero at the > end of each score be ignored when feeding in the raw scores from the > traveller into the computer. Obviously the reason for this is that it > saves time and makes no difference to the final results. As every score > ends in a zero, would it now be appropriate for the WBF to drop a "0" of > all scores in the bridge scoring table when filling in the traveller? Good idea but it will never happen though. These numbers are part of the tradition of the game and changing is hard. Imagine a tennis game counted 1-0, 2-0, 3-0, game, instead of the traditional 15-0, 30-0, 40-0, game. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Process and Procedure are the last hiding place of people without the wit and wisdom to do their job properly. (David Brent). From svenpran@online.no Sun Feb 15 19:17:23 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 20:17:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] that extra zero In-Reply-To: <000e01c3f288$a735c9a0$7ba376cb@oemcomputer> Message-ID: <000201c3f3f8$5786b1f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ray Crowe Some new computer scoring programs are now asking that the zero at the = end of each score be ignored when feeding in the raw scores from the = traveller into the computer. Obviously the reason for this is that it saves time and makes no = difference to the final results. As every score ends in a zero, would it now be appropriate for the WBF = to drop a=A0"0" of all scores in the bridge scoring table when filling in = the traveller? The main source of errors in data processing is incorrect data entry by humans. That "extra" zero adds redundancy to the number (which is good = for error detection) without adding noticeably to the time used for the data entry process. Besides as Henk correctly pointed out we have a tradition = for scores being divisible by ten, and attempting to change that will most likely cause much turbulence and uncertainty among bridge fans. That proposed change will definitely not save any noticeable time when entering data but will most certainly add to confusion for at least the = next ten years or so. Sven From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sun Feb 15 20:46:28 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 20:46:28 -0000 Subject: [blml] that extra zero Message-ID: <028d01c3f404$cca33380$f39468d5@tinyhrieuyik> > [Ray Crowe] > Some new computer scoring programs are now asking that the > zero at the end of each score be ignored when feeding in > the raw scores from the traveller into the computer. > Obviously the reason for this is that it saves time and makes > no difference to the final results. As every score ends in a > zero, would it now be appropriate for the WBF to drop a "0" off > all scores in the bridge scoring table when filling in the > traveller? > [: Nigel :] > The WBFLC have about two hundred man years of working time > between TFLB editions, in which to rush through their changes > In consideration of this tight schedule, we should be tolerant > enought to wait another few decades for non-urgent additions. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.576 / Virus Database: 365 - Release Date: 30/01/2004 From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sun Feb 15 23:57:06 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 15:57:06 -0800 Subject: [blml] that extra zero References: <000201c3f3f8$5786b1f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001401c3f41f$707846c0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Ray Crowe Some new computer scoring programs are now asking that the zero at the end of each score be ignored when feeding in the raw scores from the traveller into the computer. Obviously the reason for this is that it saves time and makes no difference to the final results. As every score ends in a zero, would it now be appropriate for the WBF to drop a "0" of all scores in the bridge scoring table when filling in the traveller? Sven The main source of errors in data processing is incorrect data entry by humans. That "extra" zero adds redundancy to the number (which is good for error detection) without adding noticeably to the time used for the data entry process. Besides as Henk correctly pointed out we have a tradition for scores being divisible by ten, and attempting to change that will most likely cause much turbulence and uncertainty among bridge fans. Marv French, San Diego, CA The ACBLScore program requires that scores be input without the final zero, which makes the use of it by players somewhat questionable. However, the ambiguity of scores like 50 (is 50 really a 500 score, or is it a mistake for 50?) would make a change very difficult. The extra zero when writing a score prevents such errors, but I don't see that experienced data-entry people are more error-prone because they must ignore it. From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Feb 16 07:18:36 2004 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 07:18:36 -0000 Subject: [blml] Fw: revokes References: <000a01c3f33b$f4f62d20$3020ebd4@mycomputer> Message-ID: <000e01c3f45d$2a09d850$964ee150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Cc: "israel erdnbaum" Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2004 8:48 PM Subject: [blml] Fw: revokes > > > > I want to point out my opinion of the necessity > > > for a special simplified code for Bridge Clubs. > > > The revoke laws cause most trouble in Bridge > > > Clubs. < +=+ In San Giusto Canavese nearly all the TDs present, students and course staff, seemed to favour the announced intention of the WBF Laws Drafting Subcommittee to recommend reduction of the standard revoke penalty to one trick (with the usual reserve powers to rectify any inequity). I do hear of contrary opinions occasionally, but not many. There is an evenly matched debate as to whether the laws should prohibit transfer of a trick won by a card that could not have failed to win a trick after the revoke. Whatever the outcome I do believe there is simplicity in what is proposed and some relief for the problems in bridge clubs. ~ G ~ +=+ From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Mon Feb 16 07:49:14 2004 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:49:14 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] that extra zero Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EC3A@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> >From this thread so far, I understand that the usual method of feeding = the results into the computer is by entering the scores from the = travellers. This induces two possible sources of error - the scorer may mistype the = score when entering it on the computer and the player entering the score = on the traveller may misprint the score (wrong score, NS score on EW = etc.). In Norway the common practice is to enter the contract, declarer and = number of tricks and the scoring program computes the score. We use the = numeric key pad, and with practice you waste no time doing this. This = way the chance of entering a wrong score is far lower than with other = methods. (Whatever method, you have to compare the entered score with = the traveller. Regards, Harald Skj=E6ran Marvin French wrote: Ray Crowe Some new computer scoring programs are now asking that the zero at the end of each score be ignored when feeding in the raw scores from the traveller into the computer. Obviously the reason for this is that it saves time and makes no difference to the final results. As every score ends in a zero, would it now be appropriate for the WBF to drop a "0" of all scores in the bridge scoring table when filling in the traveller? Sven The main source of errors in data processing is incorrect data entry by humans. That "extra" zero adds redundancy to the number (which is good for error detection) without adding noticeably to the time used for the data entry process. Besides as Henk correctly pointed out we have a tradition for scores being divisible by ten, and attempting to change that will most likely cause much turbulence and uncertainty among bridge fans. Marv French, San Diego, CA The ACBLScore program requires that scores be input without the final zero, which makes the use of it by players somewhat questionable. However, the ambiguity of scores like 50 (is 50 really a 500 score, or is it a mistake for 50?) would make a change very difficult. The extra zero when writing a score prevents such errors, but I don't see that experienced data-entry people are more error-prone because they must ignore it. _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Mon Feb 16 08:57:20 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:57:20 -0000 Subject: [blml] opinions sought Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB168C@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> BBO Webcast: Final of the National Taiwan University Cup (the second most prestigious collegiate event in Taiwan), contested between the two acknowledged top collegiate club teams of the country. Because of a delay, the combatants were playing at 3:30 PM not having had lunch, which might help to explain the following unbelievable incident: Bd: 16 S KQ8765 West North East South Vul: EW H A5 NCTU NTU NCTU NTU Deal: W D 9652 1C 1S 1N 2H-a S -- C 7 S T943 3N -- -- X H J763 H 982 -- -- -- D Q3 D AKJT C AKQT632 S AJ2 C J5 a: intended as forcing, possibly with fit H KQT4 but not so alerted by north. D 874 C 984 lead: HK, result: made 5 (!!) After the NTU pair perpetrated a catastrophic misdefence to let this through, West stated that they should always get a good score because N-S committed misinformation. A director who was nearby said that W will have to eat whatever result they get, minus perhaps a procedural penalty on N-S, because 3N and the final pass were wild and gambling. The dispute became acrimonious after the session. Your comments and thoughts sought. [PS, I am probably not on the BLML list at the moment, so your CC:ed responses are welcome.] [Frances] I disagree with the director's logic, they I'm not certain what the ruling should be. The 3NT was in no way wild and gambling. I think it may be the correct call on the hand. The final pass may or may not be correct, but I=20 don't think it's totally crazy. Let's suppose N/S managed to cash their 9 top tricks and E/W asked for a ruling. There are the usual two questions a) was there misinformation b) did it cause consequential damage=20 We don't know the answer to a), as we don't know what N/S's agreement about the 2H bid is, we only know what South thought it was. Let's suppose that 2H was forcing & showed a spade fit, and that is alertable in Taiwan. In that case a) is true, there was misinformation. Now, were E/W damaged? I can see East might argue that if he knew South was showing a spade fit, he is more likely to pull the double as his spade stop is not robust; whereas if 2H showed long hearts and a desire to play there, it is more likely partner has some help in spades (or they are blocked). If E/W were playing a style were xx shows doubt, I could certainly believe that one or other would xx and the other pull. If not, it's less clear. To me it's very close whether East (or indeed West) would pull or not with the slightly=20 different information and I would need to listen to his logic. If I were sitting East or West my tendency to pull this would also depend on the state of the match & what I thought of the opposition: if I were down late in the match I would be more likely to pass; if I were up = and/or thought I were stronger than opponents I wouldn't want to risk a=20 disaster and would be more likely to pull. Simply stating that E/W should "always get a good score" is of course = incorrect. By the way, I'm not entirely sure what I would adjust to. 5Cx-1 looks to be the most likely result (if West pulled to 4C I'm sure East would = raise to 5C with a superb hand for clubs), though the most favourable result for the NOS is probably 4Sx-1 N/S. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Feb 16 13:02:59 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 13:02:59 -0000 Subject: [blml] opinions sought References: <200402140518.i1E5Ioo22972@precision.math.ntu.edu.tw> Message-ID: <010d01c3f48d$350211c0$939468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [by@precision.moscito.org] > Bd: 16 S KQ8765 West North East South > Vul: EW H A5 NCTU NTU NCTU NTU > Deal: W D 9652 1C 1S 1N 2H-a > S -- C 7 S T943 3N -- -- X > H J763 H 982 -- -- -- > D Q3 D AKJT > C AKQT632 S AJ2 C J5 a: intended as forcing, with > H KQT4 fit possibly but not so > D 874 alerted by north. > C 984 lead: HK, result: made 5 (!!) > West stated that they should always get a good score > because N-S committed misinformation. A director who was > nearby said that W will have to eat whatever result they > get, minus perhaps a procedural penalty on N-S, because > 3N and the final pass were wild and gambling. [Nigel] IMO the TD should rule.. (1) Result stands (West's action was brave but the risk was worthwhile -- he seems to know his customers). (2) PP against West for needling and gloating. (3) Would Grattan Endicott or David Burn I ban the TD from the playing area? Apparently, the TD overheard the incident. Nobody seems to have called the TD to the table. Hence it was as a ?partisan? spectator that the TD interfered. (4) Whatever the law, IMHO the TD was *morally* right to interfere; but the way in which he did so seems to have been gratuitously offensive. Whatever the rulings on 1,2 and 3, perhaps, the TD deserves a reprimand. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.588 / Virus Database: 372 - Release Date: 13/02/2004 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Feb 16 13:41:34 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 13:41:34 -0000 Subject: [blml] Fw: revokes References: <000a01c3f33b$f4f62d20$3020ebd4@mycomputer> <000e01c3f45d$2a09d850$964ee150@endicott> Message-ID: <012401c3f492$98b04fc0$939468d5@tinyhrieuyik> >> [Israel Erdnbaum] >> I want to point out my opinion of the necessity >> for a special simplified code for Bridge Clubs. >> If X revokes on Sunday and is made to pay a a 2 >> trick penalty. On Monday opp. revoke and he is told >> there is no penalty. On Tuesday He revokes and pays >> pays a 1 trick penaltyand finally on Wendesday he has >> 5 tricks taken away, [Grattan Endicott] > +=+ In San Giusto Canavese nearly all the TDs present, > students and course staff, seemed to favour the > announced intention of the WBF Laws Drafting Subcommittee > to recommend reduction of the standard revoke penalty to > one trick (with the usual reserve powers to rectify any > inequity). [Nigel] I agree with Israel that players want a simple law that they can easily understand and enforce. At all forms of Bridge, a simpler better law would be that you lose the revoke trick and *all* subsequent tricks. At rubber bridge, especially, the proposed one trick penalty is derisory. In a fast poor-standard game, chance of discovery is small, proof is hard and incentive is high. If the penalty is little more than restoration of the status quo, then "mistakes" are likely to increase. Please would Tim, John and other Rubber Bridge players stand by Israel and comment, urgently -- unless you want the character of your game to change for the worse. Yet another example where the futile pursuit of so-called equity goes against simple justice. I anticipate some daft quibble about impugning the ethics of rubber bridge players. In fact, rubber bridge players are probably more honest than duplicate players. But, for example, people are prone to rationalise a doubtful practice, defensively, "because everyone else is doing it" --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.588 / Virus Database: 372 - Release Date: 13/02/2004 From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Mon Feb 16 14:22:55 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:22:55 +0000 Subject: [blml] Fw: revokes In-Reply-To: <012401c3f492$98b04fc0$939468d5@tinyhrieuyik> References: <000a01c3f33b$f4f62d20$3020ebd4@mycomputer> <000e01c3f45d$2a09d850$964ee150@endicott> <012401c3f492$98b04fc0$939468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <9CB873C6-608B-11D8-A123-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 16 Feb 2004, at 13:41, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > At rubber bridge, especially, the proposed one trick penalty > is derisory. Are the proposed changes to apply to rubber bridge? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr Mon Feb 16 19:12:44 2004 From: jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 20:12:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fw: revokes References: <000a01c3f33b$f4f62d20$3020ebd4@mycomputer> <000e01c3f45d$2a09d850$964ee150@endicott> Message-ID: <004801c3f4c0$e7779d60$8a5b4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> Grattan: > Whatever the outcome I do believe there is > simplicity in what is proposed and some relief for > the problems in bridge clubs. ~ G ~ +=+ I don't know your meaning of 'simplicity', but I do agree that the current one or two tricks depending on complicated conditions is rather non-simple. Now for the proposals. Simple seems to choose between always one or always two. Now one seems more reasonable but has three drawbacks. One, there will be far more 'rectify any inequity' cases. Two, some revokes go unpunished (if the revoke wins a trick). Three, a mild penalty for an established revoke might lead to the situation where accepting the established revoke is better for the OS than the penalty for a non-established revoke (major penalty card). So that means that always two is more simple than always one because two is enough compensation in almost all cases. Or (and !?) we need an extra rule that says that the penalty of an established revoke is never less than the result of the major penalty card (which needs lots of judgement and analysis). Second point, transfering tricks that could never have been lost. We all think about 7S making off the SA. In reality boards are often a trifle more complicated so such a condition might well require extensive non-trivial analysis of the hand. Besides what is 'could never been lost'. Legal play (relatively easy but covers only a few cases like ace of trumps so not worth the complication IMO), normal play (soemtimes undecidable), careless play (sometimes undecidable), you name it. Is that your idea of simplicity? So I guess I go for the stupid two tricks, at least if simplicity is an issue. I know it is very harsh at times but at least it makes revoking very unattractive which is not a bad idea. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "blml" Cc: "israel erdenbaum" Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 8:18 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Fw: revokes > > Grattan Endicott (also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > and gesta@tiscali.co.uk) > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 'Have a place for everything and keep the thing > somewhere else. This is not advice, it is merely > custom." (Mark Twain) > ================================== > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Israel Erdnbaum" > To: "blml" > Cc: "israel erdnbaum" > Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2004 8:48 PM > Subject: [blml] Fw: revokes > > > > > > > > I want to point out my opinion of the necessity > > > > for a special simplified code for Bridge Clubs. > > > > The revoke laws cause most trouble in Bridge > > > > Clubs. > < > +=+ In San Giusto Canavese nearly all the TDs > present, students and course staff, seemed to favour > the announced intention of the WBF Laws Drafting > Subcommittee to recommend reduction of the > standard revoke penalty to one trick (with the usual > reserve powers to rectify any inequity). > I do hear of contrary opinions occasionally, but > not many. There is an evenly matched debate as to > whether the laws should prohibit transfer of a trick > won by a card that could not have failed to win a > trick after the revoke. > Whatever the outcome I do believe there is > simplicity in what is proposed and some relief for > the problems in bridge clubs. ~ G ~ +=+ > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr Mon Feb 16 19:12:52 2004 From: jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 20:12:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] that extra zero References: <000201c3f3f8$5786b1f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <001401c3f41f$707846c0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <004b01c3f4c0$e924b120$8a5b4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> Marvin: > The ACBLScore program requires that scores be input without the final > zero, Seems rather stupid software. Any reasonable program will have this as a user controllable option. Anyway all programs I have ever used allowed me to control this option. But then the real problem is error prevention. And one of the normal techniques is redundant data entry. Boils down to the well known speed vs. security trade-off. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin French" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 12:57 AM Subject: Re: [blml] that extra zero > Ray Crowe > > Some new computer scoring programs are now asking that the zero at the > end > of each score be ignored when feeding in the raw scores from the > traveller > into the computer. > Obviously the reason for this is that it saves time and makes no > difference > to the final results. > As every score ends in a zero, would it now be appropriate for the WBF > to > drop a "0" of all scores in the bridge scoring table when filling in the > traveller? > > Sven > > The main source of errors in data processing is incorrect data entry by > humans. That "extra" zero adds redundancy to the number (which is good > for > error detection) without adding noticeably to the time used for the data > entry process. Besides as Henk correctly pointed out we have a tradition > for > scores being divisible by ten, and attempting to change that will most > likely cause much turbulence and uncertainty among bridge fans. > > Marv French, San Diego, CA > > The ACBLScore program requires that scores be input without the final > zero, > which makes the use of it by players somewhat questionable. However, the > ambiguity of scores like 50 (is 50 really a 500 score, or is it a > mistake for > 50?) would make a change very difficult. The extra zero when writing a > score > prevents such errors, but I don't see that experienced data-entry people > are > more error-prone because they must ignore it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john@asimere.com Mon Feb 16 20:24:06 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 20:24:06 +0000 Subject: [blml] Fw: revokes In-Reply-To: <012401c3f492$98b04fc0$939468d5@tinyhrieuyik> References: <000a01c3f33b$f4f62d20$3020ebd4@mycomputer> <000e01c3f45d$2a09d850$964ee150@endicott> <012401c3f492$98b04fc0$939468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: In article <012401c3f492$98b04fc0$939468d5@tinyhrieuyik>, Nigel Guthrie writes >>> [Israel Erdnbaum] >>> I want to point out my opinion of the necessity >>> for a special simplified code for Bridge Clubs. >>> If X revokes on Sunday and is made to pay a a 2 >>> trick penalty. On Monday opp. revoke and he is told >>> there is no penalty. On Tuesday He revokes and pays >>> pays a 1 trick penaltyand finally on Wendesday he has >>> 5 tricks taken away, > >[Grattan Endicott] >> +=+ In San Giusto Canavese nearly all the TDs present, >> students and course staff, seemed to favour the >> announced intention of the WBF Laws Drafting Subcommittee >> to recommend reduction of the standard revoke penalty to >> one trick (with the usual reserve powers to rectify any >> inequity). > >[Nigel] > >I agree with Israel that players want a simple law that >they can easily understand and enforce. > >At all forms of Bridge, a simpler better law would be that >you lose the revoke trick and *all* subsequent tricks. > >At rubber bridge, especially, the proposed one trick penalty >is derisory. In a fast poor-standard game, chance of >discovery is small, proof is hard and incentive is high. >If the penalty is little more than restoration of the status >quo, then "mistakes" are likely to increase. > >Please would Tim, John and other Rubber Bridge players >stand by Israel and comment, urgently the original revoke law was 3 tricks (my 1914 laws). the rubber bridge players have accepted that this number to be fewer. >-- unless you want the >character of your game to change for the worse. > >Yet another example where the futile pursuit of so-called >equity goes against simple justice. > >I anticipate some daft quibble about impugning the ethics >of rubber bridge players. In fact, rubber bridge players >are probably more honest than duplicate players. But, for >example, people are prone to rationalise a doubtful >practice, defensively, "because everyone else is doing it" > > > >--- >Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >Version: 6.0.588 / Virus Database: 372 - Release Date: 13/02/2004 > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Feb 16 20:26:17 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:26:17 -0800 Subject: [blml] that extra zero References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EC3A@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <001d01c3f4cb$22f006c0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Skjaran, Harald" >From this thread so far, I understand that the usual method of feeding the results into the computer is by entering the scores from the travellers. This induces two possible sources of error - the scorer may mistype the score when entering it on the computer and the player entering the score on the traveller may misprint the score (wrong score, NS score on EW etc.). In Norway the common practice is to enter the contract, declarer and number of tricks and the scoring program computes the score. We use the numeric key pad, and with practice you waste no time doing this. This way the chance of entering a wrong score is far lower than with other methods. (Whatever method, you have to compare the entered score with the traveller. >From Marv French Over here travelers seem to be used only in a few small club games that don't use computer scoring. Pickup slips are standard, altho some clubs have travelers too because their players want them. The traveler information is ignored, with the pickup slip being "official." I notice that whenever a scorer has finished entering the pickup slips for a round (final zero dropped), he or she thumbs thru them again to compare with the scores shown on the monitor (with the final zero added). With scoresentered into the computer after each round, the scorer has ample time to do this check. (This is also the time when a scorer may see a score that looks like it may have been credited to the wrong side, and checks on that possibility.) In my exerperience it has never happened that a score was entered incorrectly using this method. From john@asimere.com Mon Feb 16 20:24:50 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 20:24:50 +0000 Subject: [blml] Fw: revokes In-Reply-To: <9CB873C6-608B-11D8-A123-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> References: <000a01c3f33b$f4f62d20$3020ebd4@mycomputer> <000e01c3f45d$2a09d850$964ee150@endicott> <012401c3f492$98b04fc0$939468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <9CB873C6-608B-11D8-A123-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: In article <9CB873C6-608B-11D8-A123-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk>, Gordon Rainsford writes > >On 16 Feb 2004, at 13:41, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > >> At rubber bridge, especially, the proposed one trick penalty >> is derisory. > >Are the proposed changes to apply to rubber bridge? rubber bridge laws tend to follow the duplicate ones. there'll be some moaning > >-- >Gordon Rainsford >London UK > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From hhills@tpg.com.au Mon Feb 16 09:42:52 2004 From: hhills@tpg.com.au (Helen Hills) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 20:42:52 +1100 Subject: [blml] Tonights td decision Message-ID: <001001c3f471$f80eb0e0$51ca07ca@hal> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C3F4CD.72D153E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Jaap wrote: >This is an aspect of the laws which I don't like in >certain cases. After the kind of infraction that >basically leaves the board unplayable in a normal >way (BOOT and family) the rules insist in continuing >to play the board casino style. Someone has to take >a blind shot which often results in a crazy result. >Often a top/good score for NOS but sometimes a top >for the OS. IMHO this has nothing to with bridge. > >It might be better to rule these cases AV+/AV-- or >so with some provisions to stop people to do it on >purpose to secure AV-- or so. Nothing much different >from the current 'could have know' catch all. RJH responds: Jaap uses the word "better". But "better" for whom? Sure expert players such as Jaap would prefer the rules to mandate less randomness. But the vast majority of players prefer the fun of playing cards, rather than the boredom of receiving an AV+. So, the Laws are designed to favour the majority preferences, with as many deals as possible being permitted by Law to have cards played after an irregularity. Best wishes Richard James Hills ------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C3F4CD.72D153E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Jaap wrote:
 
>This is an aspect of the = laws which I=20 don't like in
>certain cases. After the = kind of=20 infraction that
>basically leaves the board = unplayable=20 in a normal
>way (BOOT and family) the rules insist in=20 continuing
>to play the board casino = style. Someone=20 has to take
>a blind shot which often = results in a=20 crazy result.
>Often a top/good score for = NOS but=20 sometimes a top
>for the OS. IMHO this has = nothing to=20 with bridge.
>
>It might be better to rule these cases = AV+/AV--=20 or
>so with some provisions to = stop people=20 to do it on
>purpose to secure AV-- or = so. Nothing=20 much different
>from the current 'could = have know'=20 catch all.
 
RJH responds:
 
Jaap uses the word = "better".  But=20 "better" for whom?
 
Sure expert players such as = Jaap would=20 prefer the
rules to mandate less = randomness.  But=20 the vast
majority of players prefer the = fun of=20 playing cards,
rather than the boredom of = receiving an AV+.
 
So, the Laws are designed to = favour the=20 majority
preferences, with as many deals = as=20 possible being
permitted by Law to have cards = played after=20 an
irregularity.
 
Best wishes
 
Richard James = Hills

------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C3F4CD.72D153E0-- From toddz@att.net Mon Feb 16 20:28:39 2004 From: toddz@att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 15:28:39 -0500 Subject: [blml] that extra zero In-Reply-To: <004b01c3f4c0$e924b120$8a5b4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> References: <000201c3f3f8$5786b1f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <001401c3f41f$707846c0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <004b01c3f4c0$e924b120$8a5b4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20040216152451.01acd860@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> At 02:12 PM 2/16/2004, Jaap van der Neut wrote: But then the real problem is error prevention. And one of the normal techniques is redundant data entry. Boils down to the well known speed vs. security trade-off. Redundant data entry means entering the data more than once or using two different methods, e.g., {contract, declarer, tricks} and {actual score}. The extra 0 can never improve the mechanics of data entry. With more keystrokes (adding no data to the system), the chance of a keystroke error increases. -Todd From nsousa@fc.up.pt Mon Feb 16 20:46:18 2004 From: nsousa@fc.up.pt (Nuno Miguel Marques de Sousa) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 20:46:18 -0000 Subject: [blml] Fw: revokes Message-ID: <6C60E0294337E84EBE5B198747277FA936427D@MAIL.fc.up.pt> > In fact, rubber bridge players=20 > are probably more honest than duplicate players. I don't think so. Ethical standards are more or less the same in all = branches of human activity. If something, duplicate bridge will = originate less arguing, precisely because of the fact it has strict laws = and tournament directors enforcing them! From jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr Mon Feb 16 21:01:05 2004 From: jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 22:01:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] that extra zero References: <000201c3f3f8$5786b1f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <001401c3f41f$707846c0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <004b01c3f4c0$e924b120$8a5b4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> <6.0.1.1.1.20040216152451.01acd860@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> Message-ID: <003d01c3f4d1$b6ae14f0$8a5b4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> Todd, Of course you are correct but I tried to keep it short. Redundant (error checking) data entry would be entering the contract/tricks and the score. This is probably not worth it in a bridge context. But that extra zero. If you are not used to it, it is dangerous to set it to off. I don't often do data-entry but the odd occasion I leave the trailing 0 on. It is very confusing if you are not used to it. Mastering some hotkeys like 'previous score' is much more effective. So your 'With more keystrokes (adding no data to the system), the chance of a keystroke error increases.' is very dubious if it means coding the data entry. And leaving out a zero you are used to is a form of coding. If you really want to start that kind of optimising why not use 1,2,3,4,5,6 for 100,200,300,400,500,600 (one keystroke for some of the most frequent scores). 10-60 doesn't exist you know. But I admit that if you often do data entry you love this kind of clever tricks. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Todd M. Zimnoch" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 9:28 PM Subject: Re: [blml] that extra zero > At 02:12 PM 2/16/2004, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > But then the real problem is error prevention. And one of the normal > techniques is redundant data entry. Boils down to the well known speed > vs. security trade-off. > > > Redundant data entry means entering the data more than once or using > two different methods, e.g., {contract, declarer, tricks} and {actual > score}. The extra 0 can never improve the mechanics of data > entry. With more keystrokes (adding no data to the system), the chance > of a keystroke error increases. > > -Todd > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Feb 16 21:24:19 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 16:24:19 -0500 Subject: [blml] Fw: revokes In-Reply-To: <004801c3f4c0$e7779d60$8a5b4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> References: <000a01c3f33b$f4f62d20$3020ebd4@mycomputer> <000e01c3f45d$2a09d850$964ee150@endicott> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040216160504.00ab55f0@pop.starpower.net> At 02:12 PM 2/16/04, Jaap wrote: >I don't know your meaning of 'simplicity', but I do agree that the current >one or two tricks depending on complicated conditions is rather >non-simple. > >Now for the proposals. Simple seems to choose between always one or always >two. Now one seems more reasonable but has three drawbacks. One, there >will >be far more 'rectify any inequity' cases. Two, some revokes go unpunished >(if the revoke wins a trick). Three, a mild penalty for an established >revoke might lead to the situation where accepting the established revoke >is better for the OS than the penalty for a non-established revoke (major >penalty card). So that means that always two is more simple than >always one >because two is enough compensation in almost all cases. Or (and !?) we >need >an extra rule that says that the penalty of an established revoke is never >less than the result of the major penalty card (which needs lots of >judgement and analysis). > >Second point, transfering tricks that could never have been lost. We all >think about 7S making off the SA. In reality boards are often a trifle >more >complicated so such a condition might well require extensive non-trivial >analysis of the hand. Besides what is 'could never been lost'. Legal play >(relatively easy but covers only a few cases like ace of trumps so not >worth >the complication IMO), normal play (soemtimes undecidable), careless play >(sometimes undecidable), you name it. Is that your idea of simplicity? > >So I guess I go for the stupid two tricks, at least if simplicity is an >issue. I know it is very harsh at times but at least it makes revoking >very >unattractive which is not a bad idea. It would certainly be a step in the direction of simplification to eliminate the one-trick-two-trick business and just make it two tricks, although still subject to (a) transfer only of tricks won on or after the revoke trick, (b) equity adjustment if the revoke resulted in a gain of more than two tricks, and (c) the minor technical stuff, such as dealing with a second revoke in the same suit, that the TD need mention only in the specific cases covered. Jaap makes a convincing case that this would be in some significant sense simpler than making it one trick with the same qualifications. It is also a reversion to the previous law, before the distinction was introduced. As those generally in favor of simplifying the law decry its having become increasingly complex with each revision, this would be psychologically satisfying, as well as immediately perceived as a simplification rather than a mere peturbation. So if one was in favor of simplifying (without entirely overhauling) the revoke laws in the next revision, this would seem like the sensible way to go. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Feb 16 21:01:23 2004 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 21:01:23 -0000 Subject: [blml] Fw: revokes References: <000a01c3f33b$f4f62d20$3020ebd4@mycomputer> <000e01c3f45d$2a09d850$964ee150@endicott> <012401c3f492$98b04fc0$939468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <9CB873C6-608B-11D8-A123-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <000201c3f4d3$b9116e70$452de150@endicott> Grattan Endicott Cc: "BLML" Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 2:22 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Fw: revokes > > On 16 Feb 2004, at 13:41, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > > At rubber bridge, especially, the proposed one > > trick penalty is derisory. > > Are the proposed changes to apply to rubber > bridge? > > -- > Gordon Rainsford > London UK > +=+ This exercise concerns only the Duplicate Laws. What progress others are making on the rubber bridge laws I do not know. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Feb 16 21:04:48 2004 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 21:04:48 -0000 Subject: [blml] Fw: revokes References: <000a01c3f33b$f4f62d20$3020ebd4@mycomputer> <000e01c3f45d$2a09d850$964ee150@endicott> <004801c3f4c0$e7779d60$8a5b4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> Message-ID: <000301c3f4d3$b9d02a90$452de150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Grattan Endicott" ; "blml" Cc: "israel erdenbaum" Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 7:12 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Fw: revokes > > So I guess I go for the stupid two tricks, at least > if simplicity is an issue. I know it is very harsh at > times but at least it makes revoking very > unattractive which is not a bad idea. > +=+ I understand your point of view, and list you among the hawks. ~ G ~ +=+ From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Feb 16 21:43:02 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 16:43:02 -0500 Subject: [blml] odd ruling In-Reply-To: <1353E27E-5EC4-11D8-95B5-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040216162941.00ab8a00@pop.starpower.net> At 03:02 AM 2/14/04, Ed wrote: >Tonight at the club, a strange thing happened. Opponents are playing >in 2D, and declarer leads CK from dummy. I follow with a small club, >so does declarer. Partner ruffs with the D8, then says "oh, wait, I >have a club". TD is called. She rules that partner must play her club >to this trick, the D8 becoming a major penalty card, and then says to >declarer "you may require or forbid the lead of a diamond from North >(my partner). I said "wait a minute, the lead is in dummy". TD says >"that doesn't matter, I'm sure my ruling is correct". As she was >adamant, I said nothing more. Declarer required partner to lead the >D8, winning the trick with the ten, and then played the DA, crashing >my partner's king. As the cards lay at this point, declarer would have >had to lose another trick if partner had not been required to lead her >D8, the lead instead coming from dummy. After the session, I went back >to the TD and asked her to show me the law authorizing her ruling. She >couldn't find it. "Maybe you're thinking about a LOOT," says I. "No. >It's obscure," she said, "but I'm sure it's in here (referring to >TFLB) somewhere." Comments? The TD was obviously confused about the Law and confuddled in her wording, but her ruling did somehow manage to produce a correct outcome. While declarer can't, techically, compel Ed's partner to lead the D8 while following second hand with the D10, declarer can, exactly equivalently, lead the D10 from dummy and compel Ed's partner to follow fourth hand with the D8. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Feb 16 21:52:03 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 16:52:03 -0500 Subject: Fwd: Re: [blml] odd ruling Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040216164819.00ac2640@pop.starpower.net> >Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 16:43:02 -0500 >From: Eric Landau > >The TD was obviously confused about the Law and confuddled in her >wording, but her ruling did somehow manage to produce a correct >outcome. While declarer can't, techically, compel Ed's partner to >lead the D8 while following second hand with the D10, declarer can, >exactly equivalently, lead the D10 from dummy and compel Ed's partner >to follow fourth hand with the D8. I wrote this before I saw the other replies, and apologize for the misreading of Ed's post (I don't know why I thought it had the word "finesse" in it); I stand by the first clause only. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr Mon Feb 16 22:11:31 2004 From: jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 23:11:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fw: revokes References: <000a01c3f33b$f4f62d20$3020ebd4@mycomputer> <000e01c3f45d$2a09d850$964ee150@endicott> <004801c3f4c0$e7779d60$8a5b4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> <000301c3f4d3$b9d02a90$452de150@endicott> Message-ID: <002201c3f4d9$d6899fd0$8a5b4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> My dear Grattan, In a way you can be terrible you know. First you misuse the word 'simplicity'. Anyway I refuse to learn Grattanese because it seems to be more spin than language from time to time. Second, when I basically say that 2 tricks penalty will be more simple than 1 trick penalty (for admittly non-simple reasons) I get called a 'hawk'. Both stupid and misleading because 'all the remaining tricks' is by far the simplest solution and that is the hawkish point of view (as some others have pointed out). Nothing really wrong with that but I guess that will be politically impossible (and I am not a real hawk). What about listing you among the 'fools' for not willing to admit that the penalty for an established revoke should be more severe than for a non-established revoke. This has nothing to do with hawk-dove but with simple logic. There should be some incentive to prevent a revoke from becoming established. But maybe there is an idea there. If simplicity really is an issue why not abolishing the concept of unestablished revokes altogether and treat all revokes as established ? Now who is a 'hawk'. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 10:04 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Fw: revokes > > Grattan Endicott (also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > and gesta@tiscali.co.uk) > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 'Have a place for everything and keep the thing > somewhere else. This is not advice, it is merely > custom." (Mark Twain) > ================================== > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > To: "Grattan Endicott" ; > "blml" > Cc: "israel erdenbaum" > Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 7:12 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Fw: revokes > > > > So I guess I go for the stupid two tricks, at least > > if simplicity is an issue. I know it is very harsh at > > times but at least it makes revoking very > > unattractive which is not a bad idea. > > > +=+ I understand your point of view, and list you > among the hawks. ~ G ~ +=+ > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From toddz@att.net Mon Feb 16 22:13:28 2004 From: toddz@att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 17:13:28 -0500 Subject: [blml] that extra zero In-Reply-To: <003d01c3f4d1$b6ae14f0$8a5b4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> References: <000201c3f3f8$5786b1f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <001401c3f41f$707846c0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <004b01c3f4c0$e924b120$8a5b4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> <6.0.1.1.1.20040216152451.01acd860@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> <003d01c3f4d1$b6ae14f0$8a5b4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20040216170602.01aea070@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> At 04:01 PM 2/16/2004, Jaap van der Neut wrote: >But that extra zero. If you are not used to it, it is dangerous to set >it to off. I don't often do data-entry but the odd occasion I leave the >trailing 0 on. It is very confusing if you are not used to it. Purely a matter of personal preference, comfort, and familiarity. >Mastering some hotkeys like 'previous score' is much more effective. So >your > > >'With more keystrokes (adding no data to the system), the chance of > >keystroke error increases.' > >is very dubious if it means coding the data entry. And leaving out a >zero you are used to is a form of coding. If you really want to start >that kind of optimising why not use 1,2,3,4,5,6 for >100,200,300,400,500,600 (one keystroke for some of the most frequent >scores). 10-60 doesn't exist you know. 50 exists. Of course keystroke errors aren't the only matter to consider. If you ask too much of the mental faculties of the data-entry clerk, you can get other forms of errors. -Todd From svenpran@online.no Mon Feb 16 22:33:42 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 23:33:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] that extra zero In-Reply-To: <003d01c3f4d1$b6ae14f0$8a5b4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> Message-ID: <000001c3f4dc$eea159c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Jaap van der Neut ....... > 'With more keystrokes (adding no data to the system), the chance of a > keystroke error increases.' >=20 > is very dubious if it means coding the data entry. And leaving out a = zero > you are used to is a form of coding. If you really want to start that = kind > of optimising why not use 1,2,3,4,5,6 for 100,200,300,400,500,600 (one > keystroke for some of the most frequent scores). 10-60 doesn't exist = you > know. >=20 > But I admit that if you often do data entry you love this kind of = clever > tricks. >=20 > Jaap The "tricks" we love in Norway are the way we have been typing in = results for the last ten or fifteen years using only the numeric keypad and one hand: The contract level is typed directly with a number 1 through 7 (zero if = the board was passed out). Clubs is typed with a 1, Diamonds with a 2 hearts with a 3, spades with = a 4 and NT with a 5. If applicable then next double is typed with a 7 and redouble with a 9. Declarer South is typed with a 2, West with a 4, East with a 6 and North with an 8 (really intuitive isn't it?) Now it only remains to type in the number of tricks won and enter, and = the computer returns the resulting score which the operator compares to that entered on the slip. (This is where we have the main control of the data entry). Try it out for yourselves; we usually spend less than 3 seconds per = board played when entering the data from slips! (A field of 20 tables playing = 3 boards per round is typically scored in 3 or maximum 4 minutes when the writing is legible.) Regards Sven From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Feb 17 02:10:57 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 21:10:57 -0500 Subject: [blml] odd ruling In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040216162941.00ab8a00@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <85C3B3E7-60EE-11D8-97E3-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Feb 16, 2004, at 16:43 US/Eastern, Eric Landau wrote: > declarer can, exactly equivalently, lead the D10 from dummy and compel > Ed's partner to follow fourth hand with the D8. Nope. D10 was in declarer's hand. From nancy@dressing.org Tue Feb 17 04:43:17 2004 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 23:43:17 -0500 Subject: [blml] that extra zero References: <000201c3f3f8$5786b1f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <001401c3f41f$707846c0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <004b01c3f4c0$e924b120$8a5b4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> <6.0.1.1.1.20040216152451.01acd860@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> <003d01c3f4d1$b6ae14f0$8a5b4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> Message-ID: <002c01c3f510$90379730$6401a8c0@hare> Having used ACBLscor for close to 15 years and leaving off the extra zero, I have had no problems and have become quite fast entering scores. Omitting the extra zero makes errors jump out at me when my touch becomes a bit heavy on the keys. I also have entered many, many 50's for the down one, nonvul, scores that often occur contrary to the statement below that says that 10 - 60 doesn't exist! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jaap van der Neut" To: "blml" ; "Todd M. Zimnoch" Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 4:01 PM Subject: Re: [blml] that extra zero > Todd, > > Of course you are correct but I tried to keep it short. Redundant (error > checking) data entry would be entering the contract/tricks and the score. > This is probably not worth it in a bridge context. > > But that extra zero. If you are not used to it, it is dangerous to set it to > off. I don't often do data-entry but the odd occasion I leave the trailing 0 > on. It is very confusing if you are not used to it. Mastering some hotkeys > like 'previous score' is much more effective. So your > > 'With more keystrokes (adding no data to the system), the chance of a > keystroke error increases.' > > is very dubious if it means coding the data entry. And leaving out a zero > you are used to is a form of coding. If you really want to start that kind > of optimising why not use 1,2,3,4,5,6 for 100,200,300,400,500,600 (one > keystroke for some of the most frequent scores). 10-60 doesn't exist you > know. > > But I admit that if you often do data entry you love this kind of clever > tricks. > > Jaap > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Todd M. Zimnoch" > To: "blml" > Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 9:28 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] that extra zero > > > > At 02:12 PM 2/16/2004, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > But then the real problem is error prevention. And one of the normal > > techniques is redundant data entry. Boils down to the well known speed > > vs. security trade-off. > > > > > > Redundant data entry means entering the data more than once or using > > two different methods, e.g., {contract, declarer, tricks} and {actual > > score}. The extra 0 can never improve the mechanics of data > > entry. With more keystrokes (adding no data to the system), the chance > > of a keystroke error increases. > > > > -Todd > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Tue Feb 17 09:26:16 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 09:26:16 -0000 Subject: [blml] that extra zero Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB169B@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> From: "Skjaran, Harald" ---------------------- >From this thread so far, I understand that the usual method of feeding the results into the computer is by entering the scores from the travellers. This induces two possible sources of error - the scorer may mistype the score when entering it on the computer and the player entering the score on the traveller may misprint the score (wrong score, NS score on EW etc.). In Norway the common practice is to enter the contract, declarer and number of tricks and the scoring program computes the score. We use the numeric key pad, and with practice you waste no time doing this. This way the chance of entering a wrong score is far lower than with other methods. (Whatever method, you have to compare the entered score with the traveller. >From Marv French ---------------- Over here travelers seem to be used only in a few small club games that don't use computer scoring. Pickup slips are standard, altho some clubs have travelers too because their players want them. The traveler information is ignored, with the pickup slip being "official." I notice that whenever a scorer has finished entering the pickup slips for a round (final zero dropped), he or she thumbs thru them again to compare with the scores shown on the monitor (with the final zero added). With scoresentered into the computer after each round, the scorer has ample time to do this check. (This is also the time when a scorer may see a score that looks like it may have been credited to the wrong side, and checks on that possibility.) In my exerperience it has never happened that a score was entered incorrectly using this method. >From Frances ------------ Most club games here (England) don't have a separate scorer (who from your description sounds as if they don't play). It is normal to have=20 a playing director, one of whose jobs is to enter the scores after the end of play. I don't think the use of travellers vs pick-up slips is the cause of errors, the difference is that your scorer has ample time to check the results entered. Even with a non-playing director using travellers with tear-off slips, there is not usually a great amount of time spent checking the entry. If you look in detail at the frequencies from a simultaneous pairs, it is common to see many scores that are very likely to be incorrectly entered (usually either the vulnerability is wrong or on the wrong side of the traveller). I haven't tried looking at the worldwide results to see what country provides the most errors! =20 From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Feb 17 09:30:23 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:30:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fw: revokes In-Reply-To: <004801c3f4c0$e7779d60$8a5b4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> References: <000a01c3f33b$f4f62d20$3020ebd4@mycomputer> <000e01c3f45d$2a09d850$964ee150@endicott> <004801c3f4c0$e7779d60$8a5b4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> Message-ID: <4031DF2F.5050805@hdw.be> Jaap makes a very good point, Grattan, Ton! Please read this: Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Grattan: > > (if the revoke wins a trick). Three, a mild penalty for an established > revoke might lead to the situation where accepting the established revoke > is better for the OS than the penalty for a non-established revoke (major > penalty card). Which means that whenever my opponent ruffs, it is in my favour to ask if he really does not have one. If he finds one, I have changed a lost trick plus a penalty trick (= no gain) for a major penalty card (=some gain). Consequently, it is better for opponent to not "find" the missing card until after the next trick. I'm still in favor of the one/two trick current penalty. After so many lawbooks, the WBFLC finally got it right - so much so that the laws were not changed in 1997 (IIRC) - and now the only problem is "simplicity" ? I'd say it's far better to invest a little bit in player and TD education. The laws are not that difficult. May I suggest a way to get out of the "difficulty" question? Change the words a little bit so that the two tricks are called differently. Call the "second" trick as being "restored" (it's a trick won illegally) while the "first" trick is a penalty trick. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From twm@cix.co.uk Tue Feb 17 11:17:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 11:17 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Fw: revokes In-Reply-To: <012401c3f492$98b04fc0$939468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > Please would Tim, John and other Rubber Bridge players > stand by Israel and comment, urgently -- unless you want the > character of your game to change for the worse. Not really a problem at rubber bridge IMO (even if it were to apply). While the law book might contain a minimal penalty we still have a barrel of tar and a few pillows should deliberate abuses arise. Club managers *know* the players who sail close to the wind and can deal with them away from the table - the FLB is an assistant to such decisions, not a straight-jacket. Tim From B.Schelen@IAE.NL Tue Feb 17 11:30:33 2004 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 12:30:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fw: revokes References: <000a01c3f33b$f4f62d20$3020ebd4@mycomputer> <000e01c3f45d$2a09d850$964ee150@endicott> <004801c3f4c0$e7779d60$8a5b4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> <4031DF2F.5050805@hdw.be> Message-ID: <00ee01c3f549$8e10f6c0$73053dd4@c6l8v1> > Herman wrote: > May I suggest a way to get out of the "difficulty" question? Change > the words a little bit so that the two tricks are called differently. > Call the "second" trick as being "restored" (it's a trick won > illegally) while the "first" trick is a penalty trick. > > > > < Grattan wrote: > +=+ In San Giusto Canavese nearly all the TDs > present, students and course staff, seemed to favour > the announced intention of the WBF Laws Drafting > Subcommittee to recommend reduction of the > standard revoke penalty to one trick (with the usual > reserve powers to rectify any inequity). If "simplicity" is recommended for the problems in bridge clubs, I do not believe that "the usual reserve powers to rectify any inequity" is that simple for bridge clubs. Moving problems is not solving problems. Ben From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Tue Feb 17 14:57:50 2004 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 09:57:50 -0500 Subject: [blml] Fw: revokes In-Reply-To: <4031DF2F.5050805@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman writes: I'm still in favor of the one/two trick current penalty. After so many lawbooks, the WBFLC finally got it right - so much so that the laws were not changed in 1997 (IIRC) - and now the only problem is "simplicity" ? I'd say it's far better to invest a little bit in player and TD education. The laws are not that difficult. May I suggest a way to get out of the "difficulty" question? Change the words a little bit so that the two tricks are called differently. Call the "second" trick as being "restored" (it's a trick won illegally) while the "first" trick is a penalty trick. ______________________________________________________________________ Fully agree, These Laws on revoke are not so difficult to apply but their formulation could be easily improved. Law 64A should be something like: When revoke is established: How many tricks were won by offending side, including revoke and subsequent tricks ? 1) No trick When offending side won non trick, no trick is transferred to non-offending side. 2) One trick When offending side won one trick, one trick is transferred. 3) Two or more tricks When offending side won two or more tricks: - if OFFENDER (not partner) won the revoke trick or a subsequent trick with a card that could have been played to the revoke trick, two tricks are transferred; - if not, one trick is transferred. Not so complicated....and already got by most directors... I have a famous flow chart that can help others (and players) solving this "difficulty". Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Tue Feb 17 14:59:56 2004 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 09:59:56 -0500 Subject: TR: [blml] Fw: revokes Message-ID: Herman writes: I'm still in favor of the one/two trick current penalty. After so many lawbooks, the WBFLC finally got it right - so much so that the laws were not changed in 1997 (IIRC) - and now the only problem is "simplicity" ? I'd say it's far better to invest a little bit in player and TD education. The laws are not that difficult. May I suggest a way to get out of the "difficulty" question? Change the words a little bit so that the two tricks are called differently. Call the "second" trick as being "restored" (it's a trick won illegally) while the "first" trick is a penalty trick. ______________________________________________________________________ Fully agree, These Laws on revoke are not so difficult to apply but their formulation could be easily improved. Law 64A should be something like: When revoke is established: How many tricks were won by offending side, including revoke and subsequent tricks ? 1) No trick When offending side won non trick, no trick is transferred to non-offending side. 2) One trick When offending side won one trick, one trick is transferred. 3) Two or more tricks When offending side won two or more tricks: - if OFFENDER (not partner) won the revoke trick or a subsequent trick with a card that could have been played to the revoke trick, two tricks are transferred; - if not, one trick is transferred. Not so complicated....and already got by most directors... I have a famous flow chart that can help others (and players) solving this "difficulty". Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Feb 17 16:35:41 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 16:35:41 -0000 Subject: [blml] KISS References: Message-ID: <017401c3f574$c7a1ff80$5f9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Laval Dubreuil, from another thread] > Fully agree, These Laws on revoke are not so difficult to > apply but their formulation could be easily improved. Law > 64A should be something like: > When revoke is established: How many tricks were won by > offending side, including revoke and subsequent tricks ? > 1) No trick > When offending side won no trick, no trick is transferred. > 2) One trick > When offending side won 1 trick, 1 trick is transferred. > 3) Two or more tricks > When offending side won two or more tricks: > - if OFFENDER (not partner) won the revoke trick or a > subsequent trick with a card that could have been played > to the revoke trick, two tricks are transferred; > - if not, one trick is transferred. > Not so complicated....and already got by most directors... > I have a famous flow chart that can help others (and players) > solving this "difficulty". [Nigel] Laval has probably got the current law right. I suppose that for many TDs, it would be improved if it took into account the date of Easter. Often on BLML, however, top-rated TDs defend the law as easy to enforce -- and then they explain it wrongly! If top TDs get it wrong on BLML, what chance has a club TD, at the table? Other complex laws create similar spurious problems. Law-makers and TDs rationalise subjectivity and complexity as necessary in the futile pursuit of a mythical "equity" -- sacrificing all else -- including simple "justice". How much longer will Bridge-players put up with a game, the rules of which they can never hope to understand? Even had they the time and ability to study them, they are unlikely to be privy to them all! Now is the time for simplicity and completeness! --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.588 / Virus Database: 372 - Release Date: 13/02/2004 From john@asimere.com Tue Feb 17 19:10:00 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 19:10:00 +0000 Subject: [blml] Fw: revokes In-Reply-To: <000301c3f4d3$b9d02a90$452de150@endicott> References: <000a01c3f33b$f4f62d20$3020ebd4@mycomputer> <000e01c3f45d$2a09d850$964ee150@endicott> <004801c3f4c0$e7779d60$8a5b4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> <000301c3f4d3$b9d02a90$452de150@endicott> Message-ID: In article <000301c3f4d3$b9d02a90$452de150@endicott>, Grattan Endicott writes > >Grattan Endicott(also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > and gesta@tiscali.co.uk) >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >'Have a place for everything and keep the thing >somewhere else. This is not advice, it is merely >custom." (Mark Twain) >================================== > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Jaap van der Neut" >To: "Grattan Endicott" ; >"blml" >Cc: "israel erdenbaum" >Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 7:12 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] Fw: revokes >> >> So I guess I go for the stupid two tricks, at least >> if simplicity is an issue. I know it is very harsh at >> times but at least it makes revoking very >> unattractive which is not a bad idea. >> >+=+ I understand your point of view, and list you >among the hawks. ~ G ~ +=+ Count me for a hawk too please Grattan. I don't want to spend days restoring equity. john > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Tue Feb 17 19:11:01 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 19:11:01 +0000 Subject: [blml] Fw: revokes In-Reply-To: <4031DF2F.5050805@hdw.be> References: <000a01c3f33b$f4f62d20$3020ebd4@mycomputer> <000e01c3f45d$2a09d850$964ee150@endicott> <004801c3f4c0$e7779d60$8a5b4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> <4031DF2F.5050805@hdw.be> Message-ID: In article <4031DF2F.5050805@hdw.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Jaap makes a very good point, Grattan, Ton! Please read this: > >Jaap van der Neut wrote: > >> Grattan: >> >> (if the revoke wins a trick). Three, a mild penalty for an established >> revoke might lead to the situation where accepting the established revoke >> is better for the OS than the penalty for a non-established revoke (major >> penalty card). > >Which means that whenever my opponent ruffs, it is in my favour to ask >if he really does not have one. If he finds one, I have changed a lost >trick plus a penalty trick (= no gain) for a major penalty card (=some >gain). Consequently, it is better for opponent to not "find" the >missing card until after the next trick. >I'm still in favor of the one/two trick current penalty. After so many >lawbooks, the WBFLC finally got it right - so much so that the laws >were not changed in 1997 (IIRC) - and now the only problem is >"simplicity" ? I'd say it's far better to invest a little bit in >player and TD education. The laws are not that difficult. However if I can't be a hawk i'll settle for the status quo. John > >May I suggest a way to get out of the "difficulty" question? Change >the words a little bit so that the two tricks are called differently. >Call the "second" trick as being "restored" (it's a trick won >illegally) while the "first" trick is a penalty trick. > >> > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Feb 17 09:18:52 2004 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 09:18:52 -0000 Subject: [blml] that extra zero References: <000201c3f3f8$5786b1f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <001401c3f41f$707846c0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <004b01c3f4c0$e924b120$8a5b4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> <6.0.1.1.1.20040216152451.01acd860@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> <003d01c3f4d1$b6ae14f0$8a5b4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> <6.0.1.1.1.20040216170602.01aea070@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> Message-ID: <001101c3f58b$31873670$de82403e@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 10:13 PM Subject: Re: [blml] that extra zero > At 04:01 PM 2/16/2004, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > >But that extra zero. If you are not used to it, it is > > dangerous > > Todd: > Purely a matter of personal preference, comfort, > and familiarity. > +=+ But we would be surprised if such concepts entered overtly into the van der Neut approach to the game. +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Feb 17 19:20:07 2004 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 19:20:07 -0000 Subject: [blml] Fw: revokes References: <000a01c3f33b$f4f62d20$3020ebd4@mycomputer> <000e01c3f45d$2a09d850$964ee150@endicott> <004801c3f4c0$e7779d60$8a5b4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> <000301c3f4d3$b9d02a90$452de150@endicott> <002201c3f4d9$d6899fd0$8a5b4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> Message-ID: <001201c3f58b$3275b520$de82403e@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Grattan Endicott" ; "blml" Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 10:11 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Fw: revokes > My dear Grattan, > > In a way you can be terrible you know. > +=+ Oh, I do know.+=+ < > First you misuse the word 'simplicity'. Anyway I > refuse to learn Grattanese because it seems to be > more spin than language from time to time. > > Second, when I basically say that 2 tricks penalty > will be more simple than 1 trick penalty (for admittly > non-simple reasons) I get called a 'hawk'. Both > stupid and misleading because 'all the remaining > tricks' is by far the simplest solution and that is the > hawkish point of view (as some others have > pointed out). Nothing really wrong with that but > I guess that will be politically impossible (and I > am not a real hawk). > +=+ As between the one and the two trick options it is the latter that is more severe and therefore of the two the hawkish opinion. Those who favour it do have penalizing as an objective and not only redress, a flavour that has been introduced into law application long after the book wrote about a main objective of providing redress for damage rather than punishing irregularities. +=+ < > What about listing you among the 'fools' for not > willing to admit that the penalty for an established > revoke should be more severe than for a non- > established revoke. This has nothing to do with > hawk-dove but with simple logic. There should be > some incentive to prevent a revoke from becoming > established. > +=+ I have not expressed my opinions. I have been citing the trends in the discussions and in NBO representations received. I would have said, however, that on balance the current arrangements are more severe on established revokes than on non-established revokes. So I have not seen that as a prime issue. I could see a one trick law for lower level play and club events and a two trick law for Jaap level play :-) Mind you, if I were playing as poorly as I did with Joan Gerard a little while back I would expect only a one trick penalty; so perhaps we should draw the line by reference to session scores being over or under average. :-) ~ G ~ +=+ From blml@blakjak.com Wed Feb 18 01:03:52 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 01:03:52 +0000 Subject: [blml] Law 15 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Laval Dubreuil wrote >You have 32.5 tables and make 2 sections: Mitchell-16 >and N-S-Rover-16.5 (pair 17 N-S bump beginning with >table 2). Every round, you pay attention to your >movement, . but... > >At round 5, you tell pair 8 N-S :"next round, your >turn" not realizing they already changed (five minutes >before you called the round). When you see something >goes wrong, the just finished playing board 23. > >Law 15A1: "The Director normally allows the score to >stand if none of the four players have previously played >the board". (the case we have) > >No problem for E-W: they get what they score. > >For N-S pair you can use two solutions: >1) Allow an Avg+ to 17 N-S (no way at fault). > Tell 8 N-S "your score is void". > >2) Edit your movement (EDM with ACBLScore) entering > 8 instead of 17 on board 23. Pair 8 N-S plays > one more board and pair 17 N-S one less. > >IMHO, 2) is better than 1) (according to Laws), but >is 1) illegal ? No. The word normally is in L15 for a reason. It may be impossible for the scorer to include such a score, so the word normally allows no score to be entered. >What do you usually do ? 2) every time. 1) is primarily for when the score *cannot* be input: I do not believe you should use it because inputting it involves more work. The Director is the servant of the players, and should not be running it to make it easier for himself. -- 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 blml@blakjak.com Wed Feb 18 01:05:47 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 01:05:47 +0000 Subject: [blml] Validity of commentary to the laws of 1987 In-Reply-To: <002c01c3f270$94294f20$822d37d2@Desktop> References: <000001c3f22b$d6f3c000$6900a8c0@WINXP> <002c01c3f270$94294f20$822d37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows wrote >Valid in what sense? > >A commentary is an opinion it does not take the place of the law. No, but it includes interpretations of the Laws, and as such is valid - especially in Europe, being the EBL TD Guide. -- 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 blml@blakjak.com Wed Feb 18 01:21:09 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 01:21:09 +0000 Subject: [blml] A point from San Giusto Canavese. In-Reply-To: <000e01c3f39f$9a8409c0$fea7193e@4nrw70j> References: <000e01c3f39f$9a8409c0$fea7193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <2Ivi+wCF4rMAFwtm@blakjak.demon.co.uk> grandeval wrote >+=+ I do not know how widely the following >international regulation is known/followed: > ><<< During the auction, when playing with screens, >a breach of tempo may be identified by the slowness >or speed with which the tray is returned. The players >who receive the tray are the ones who can speak to >any abnormality. Consequently it is an infraction if a >player on the side of the screen where the breach >occurred is the first to draw attention to it and the >player forfeits for his side its non-offending status. >>> > >Regulations usually go on to say something about >randomizing the tempo of return of the tray and a >'normality' standard for tempo of returning trays. >It is also pertinent to note that regular tempo varies >from table to table by reason of the characteristics >of players and other factors. > >During his lecture in the EBL TD course at S. Giusto >Canavese the EBL CTD made the point that this >regulation, instituted fairly recently, only reflects the >practice of TDs for many years in discounting calls >from the 'wrong' side of the screen where there is no >untainted evidence that the players on the other side >of the screen were aware of any tempo irregularity >before the director was called. (It is, of course, my >persuasion that to attempt to gain advantage from >perceived extraneous information in a slow/quick >return of the tray is unlawful since there is no >authority in the laws for its use, no matter what may >have caused the tempo irregularity.) I believe it is a poor regulation, and have persuaded the EBU to modify it for their own purposes. It allows no choice for a Director in the following circumstance, taken from the EBU Trials. My opponents had an interminable auction to 7D. During it I became worried about the time taken, because the auction lasted some twelve minutes or so. I finally had a word with my screen-mate, who agreed that both he and his partner had taken a very long time. This was a match played in a very good spirit, as were all matches except one in the English Trials. So I did not bother the TD. But suppose I had? Suppose I had stopped him as he passed, and said "Mike, I just want to establish that this auction has been very slow on both sides of the screen." My opponent would have concurred. Read the reg again: 'Consequently it is an infraction if a player on the side of the screen where the breach occurred is the first to draw attention to it and the player forfeits for his side its non-offending status.' That means that by making this comment I am no longer a non-offending side, which I consider ridiculous. The new EBU reg reads: 151.4.2 Drawing attention to a variation in tempo During the auction, when playing with screens, a breach of tempo may be identified by the slowness or speed with which the tray is returned. It is not considered that a delay of some 15 seconds is necessarily sufficient to convey unauthorised information. The players who receive the tray are the ones who normally draw attention to any abnormality. Consequently it is likely to be an infraction if a player on the side of the screen where the breach occurred is the first to draw attention to it and the player may forfeit for his side its non-offending status. I feel this is an improvement. While it regulates the problem that caused the international regulation it allows the TD to use his commonsense in situations where the international regulation is unnecessarily stringent. ---------------------------------------------------------------- As a matter of interest I cashed my club ace against 7D! Richard Fleet, who was passing, suggested I was getting optimistic when I then tried to cash my club king! -- 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 toddz@att.net Wed Feb 18 01:41:52 2004 From: toddz@att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 20:41:52 -0500 Subject: [blml] that extra zero/revokes In-Reply-To: <001101c3f58b$31873670$de82403e@endicott> References: <000201c3f3f8$5786b1f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <001401c3f41f$707846c0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <004b01c3f4c0$e924b120$8a5b4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> <6.0.1.1.1.20040216152451.01acd860@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> <003d01c3f4d1$b6ae14f0$8a5b4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> <6.0.1.1.1.20040216170602.01aea070@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> <001101c3f58b$31873670$de82403e@endicott> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20040217201657.01adbdf0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> At 04:18 AM 2/17/2004, Grattan Endicott wrote: > At 04:01 PM 2/16/2004, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > >But that extra zero. If you are not used to it, it is > > dangerous > > Todd: > Purely a matter of personal preference, comfort, > and familiarity. > +=+ But we would be surprised if such concepts entered overtly into the van der Neut approach to the game. +=+ The director is summoned to the table. He asks, "Cream? Sugar? One-trick penalty or two-?" Since it's not reasonable to offer the option at the table, it is reasonable to argue to impose the one you prefer on everyone. I'm in the camp that's satisfied with the status quo if not in favor of more draconian penalties. Gentlemen accept the consequences of their mistakes. It's admirable that the powers that be take up the noble cause of equity. It's a pity they don't realize it's a morally neutral issue. -Todd From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Feb 18 01:57:39 2004 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 01:57:39 -0000 Subject: [blml] A point from San Giusto Canavese. References: <000e01c3f39f$9a8409c0$fea7193e@4nrw70j> <2Ivi+wCF4rMAFwtm@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <002101c3f5c2$a94137b0$8a13e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 1:21 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A point from San Giusto Canavese. > > I believe it is a poor regulation, and have persuaded > the EBU to modify it for their own purposes. It allows > no choice for a Director in the following circumstance, > taken from the EBU Trials. > > My opponents had an interminable auction to 7D. > During it I became worried about the time taken, > because the auction lasted some twelve minutes or so. > I finally had a word with my screen-mate, who agreed > that both he and his partner had taken a very long time. > >+=+ You may draw attention to a slow return from the other side of the screen. But your recital suggests that there was no information in the slow passage of the tray and I think it would have been wholly inappropriate to call the Director during the auction. You could draw attention to time lost at the end of the hand. Your wording misses the point in my view and also loses its cutting edge. ~ G ~ +=+ From blml@blakjak.com Wed Feb 18 03:18:57 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 03:18:57 +0000 Subject: [blml] A point from San Giusto Canavese. In-Reply-To: <002101c3f5c2$a94137b0$8a13e150@endicott> References: <000e01c3f39f$9a8409c0$fea7193e@4nrw70j> <2Ivi+wCF4rMAFwtm@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <002101c3f5c2$a94137b0$8a13e150@endicott> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott wrote >From: "David Stevenson" >> I believe it is a poor regulation, and have persuaded >> the EBU to modify it for their own purposes. It allows >> no choice for a Director in the following circumstance, >> taken from the EBU Trials. >> >> My opponents had an interminable auction to 7D. >> During it I became worried about the time taken, >> because the auction lasted some twelve minutes or so. >> I finally had a word with my screen-mate, who agreed >> that both he and his partner had taken a very long time. >>+=+ You may draw attention to a slow return from the >other side of the screen. But your recital suggests >that there was no information in the slow passage of >the tray and I think it would have been wholly inappropriate >to call the Director during the auction. Maybe you do. But are you really saying you feel it is reasonable that a player, who may not see the nuances the same way as you do, should be penalised for calling the TD to report such an occurrence? > You could draw >attention to time lost at the end of the hand. Certainly you *could*: my point is penalising players who call the TD at the time of a potential infraction. Is that no longer what we want? > Your wording >misses the point in my view and also loses its cutting edge. Certainly it loses its cutting edge. Your wording requires the TD to do something even when it is inappropriate: of course that is a stronger regulation. -- 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 nistler@attbi.com Wed Feb 18 06:31:59 2004 From: nistler@attbi.com (Michael Nistler) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 22:31:59 -0800 Subject: [blml] Kibitzing Director - L86C6 & L70C Claim: Jurisdiction? Message-ID: <403306DF.F9AD733C@attbi.com> Here's a recent post from an online ACBL bridge group: In the course of playing a hand a player makes a claim without giving a line but which is accepted by all at the table. Can the director who happened to be watching inform the players, as that there is still a small trump outstanding the claim is invalid and give the extra trick to the defenders? The director was not called he just happened to be standing at the table. Some posters felt L86C6 requires the kibitzing Director to invoke L70C, citing ACBL Laws. The original poster then mentioned the situation occurred in WBF territory. Do the Laws differ in these jurisdictions? Warm Regards, Michael From Martin.Sinot@Micronas.com Wed Feb 18 10:07:23 2004 From: Martin.Sinot@Micronas.com (Sinot Martin) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 11:07:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Kibitzing Director - L86C6 & L70C Claim: Jurisdiction? Message-ID: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E5B99@rama.micronas.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of > Michael Nistler > Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 7:32 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: [blml] Kibitzing Director - L86C6 & L70C Claim: Jurisdiction? >=20 >=20 > Here's a recent post from an online ACBL bridge group: >=20 > In the course of playing a hand a player makes a claim without > giving a line but which is accepted by all at the table. >=20 > Can the director who happened to be watching inform the players, > as that there is still a small trump outstanding the claim=20 > is invalid and give the extra trick to the defenders? I would say no. L70 is about contested claims, and that requires the players at the table to contest it. This did not happen, therefore the claim stands uncontested. It is not the job of the TD to point out that a claim is flawed. More important: there is a time limit involved. If the opponents of the claimer contest before calling on the next board or the end of the round (69A), claimer must prove that the claim is correct. After that time (69B), opponents must prove that the claim is not correct. If the TD would now inform the players of a possibly=20 incorrect claim, he would influence this time limit and hence take part in the play. The TD should therefore wait until someone notices that the claim is incorrect (and then he need not wait until he is called). This problem is somewhat akin to a TD seeing a revoke. There TD also cannot do anything; various time limits exist in which a revoke first is not established, then becomes established, then is not subject to penalty anymore. If the TD now calls attention to the revoke, he influences the time limit and therefore the penalty to be paid. Here too, the TD should not act until someone notices the irregularity. --=20 Martin Sinot martin.sinot at micronas.com From Martin.Sinot@Micronas.com Wed Feb 18 10:18:57 2004 From: Martin.Sinot@Micronas.com (Sinot Martin) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 11:18:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Kibitzing Director - L86C6 & L70C Claim: Jurisdiction? Message-ID: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E5B9A@rama.micronas.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of > Michael Nistler > Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 7:32 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: [blml] Kibitzing Director - L86C6 & L70C Claim: Jurisdiction? BTW I guess you mean L81C6? L86C6 does not exist. --=20 Martin Sinot martin.sinot at micronas.com From blml@blakjak.com Wed Feb 18 12:42:35 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 12:42:35 +0000 Subject: [blml] No messages? I'll start something, then In-Reply-To: <5B+ItKM6ItKAFw8s@wrightnet.demon.co.uk> References: <5B+ItKM6ItKAFw8s@wrightnet.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: Steve Wright wrote >I usually substitute the word "hand" for the word "player". So I end up >asking, "Which hand revoked?" and "Which hand took that trick?". I say "Who revoked?". If declarer says "Me" or the opponents say "Declarer" I then say "in which hand?" >Do others ask questions then paraphrase L64A or do you read directly >from the book? Ask questions. Our TD courses teach TDs that. -- 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 blml@blakjak.com Wed Feb 18 12:47:51 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 12:47:51 +0000 Subject: [blml] that extra zero In-Reply-To: <000201c3f3f8$5786b1f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000e01c3f288$a735c9a0$7ba376cb@oemcomputer> <000201c3f3f8$5786b1f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >Ray Crowe >Some new computer scoring programs are now asking that the zero at the end >of each score be ignored when feeding in the raw scores from the traveller >into the computer. >Obviously the reason for this is that it saves time and makes no difference >to the final results. >As every score ends in a zero, would it now be appropriate for the WBF to >drop a "0" of all scores in the bridge scoring table when filling in the >traveller? > >The main source of errors in data processing is incorrect data entry by >humans. That "extra" zero adds redundancy to the number (which is good for >error detection) without adding noticeably to the time used for the data >entry process. Besides as Henk correctly pointed out we have a tradition for >scores being divisible by ten, and attempting to change that will most >likely cause much turbulence and uncertainty among bridge fans. > >That proposed change will definitely not save any noticeable time when >entering data but will most certainly add to confusion for at least the next >ten years or so. If you refer to entering scores into a computer as a proposed change I have not been putting trailing zeroes in for the last 15 years or so - proposed change is a little out of date!!!!!! The best software gives the operator a choice. As for confusion it has never occurred tome to have any sense at all to enter trailing zeroes so I never had except very rarely when using someone's else's software. Changing it in the laws is a different matter. The ink manufacturers would not like that. -- 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 MRBATESALAN@netscape.net Wed Feb 18 13:22:27 2004 From: MRBATESALAN@netscape.net (MRBATESALAN@netscape.net) Date: 18 Feb 2004 08:22:27 -0500 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) REPLY SOON Message-ID: Dear Friend, As you read this, I don't want you to feel sorry for me, because, I believe everyone will die someday. My name is BATES ALAN a merchant in Dubai, in the U.A.E.I have been diagnosed with Esophageal cancer. It has defiled all forms of medical treatment, and right now I have only about a few months to live, according to medical experts. I have not particularly lived my life so well, as I never really cared for anyone(not even myself)but my business. Though I am very rich, I was never generous, I was always hostile to people and only focused on my business as that was the only thing I cared for. But now I regret all this as I now know that there is more to life than just wanting to have or make all the money in the world. I believe when God gives me a second chance to come to this world I would live my life a different way from how I have lived it. Now that God has called me, I have willed and given most of my property and assets to my immediate and extended family members as well as a few close friends. I want God to be merciful to me and accept my soul so, I have decided to give alms to charity organizations, as I want this to be one of the last good deeds I do on earth. So far, I have distributed money to some charity organizations in the U.A.E, Algeria and Malaysia. Now that my health has deteriorated so badly, I cannot do this myself anymore. I once asked members of my family to close one of my accounts and distribute the money which I have there to charity organization in Bulgaria and Pakistan, they refused and kept the money to themselves. Hence, I do not trust them anymore, as they seem not to be contended with what I have left for them. The last of my money which no one knows of is the huge cash deposit of eighteen million dollars $18,000,000,00 that I have with a finance/Security Company abroad. I will want you to help me collect this deposit and dispatched it to charity organizations. I have set aside 10% for you and for your time. God be with you. BATES ALAN From svenpran@online.no Wed Feb 18 14:34:16 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 15:34:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] that extra zero In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3f62c$497bf440$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson .......... > If you refer to entering scores into a computer as a proposed change I > have not been putting trailing zeroes in for the last 15 years or so - > proposed change is a little out of date!!!!!! The best software gives > the operator a choice. As for confusion it has never occurred tome to > have any sense at all to enter trailing zeroes so I never had except > very rarely when using someone's else's software. Actually I haven't entered a score into a computer since 1980. What I do enter (and have entered during all these years) is: Contract, declarer and number of tricks. And then I compare the score written by the player with the score returned on the screen by the computer. Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Wed Feb 18 19:49:18 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:49:18 +0100 Subject: FW: [blml] that extra zero Message-ID: <000001c3f658$4be4d9f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> I accidentally pressed send before changing the address to blml. (My apologies Nigel for the duplicate to you) > [Sven Pran] > > What I do enter (and have entered during all these years) > > is: Contract, declarer and number of tricks. And then I > > compare the score written by the player with the score > > returned on the screen by the computer. > > [Nigel] > > Sven's cunning efficient way of entering results on the > numeric keypad is a vast improvement on our antiquated > methodology: You (and others) might be interested in looking at (for instance): http://home.online.no/~svenpran/v03vm.htm to see an example of how we publish overall results. During a tournament each pair is presented (within the first minutes of the round) with individual result slips showing their results and scores on the boards in the last previous round and their current standings. Sven From adam@irvine.com Wed Feb 18 20:20:01 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 12:20:01 -0800 Subject: [blml] Kibitzing Director - L86C6 & L70C Claim: Jurisdiction? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 18 Feb 2004 11:07:23 +0100." <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E5B99@rama.micronas.com> Message-ID: <200402182019.MAA32751@mailhub.irvine.com> > > Here's a recent post from an online ACBL bridge group: > > > > In the course of playing a hand a player makes a claim without > > giving a line but which is accepted by all at the table. > > > > Can the director who happened to be watching inform the players, > > as that there is still a small trump outstanding the claim > > is invalid and give the extra trick to the defenders? > > I would say no. L70 is about contested claims, and that requires > the players at the table to contest it. This did not happen, therefore > the claim stands uncontested. It is not the job of the TD to point out > that a claim is flawed. I agree with Martin here. I've found that, when playing against good opponents where we're all familiar with each other, I can sometimes claim without making a statement, if it's obvious to a good player what is going to happen, and if I can trust that the opponents are there to play bridge and not to try to win points by nitpicking about legalities. In a situation like that, it's not the TD's job to get involved, and it shouldn't be. -- Adam From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Feb 18 20:36:45 2004 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:36:45 -0000 Subject: Fw: [blml] Kibitzing Director - L86C6 & L70C Claim: Jurisdiction? Message-ID: <000a01c3f65e$fefabdb0$2984403e@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 8:48 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Kibitzing Director - L86C6 & L70C Claim: Jurisdiction? > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Michael Nistler" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 6:31 AM > Subject: [blml] Kibitzing Director - L86C6 & L70C > Claim: Jurisdiction? > > > > Here's a recent post from an online ACBL bridge group: > > > > In the course of playing a hand a player makes a > > claim without giving a line but which is accepted by > > all at the table. > > > > Can the director who happened to be watching > > inform the players, as that there is still a small trump > > outstanding the claim is invalid and give the extra > > trick to the defenders? > > > > The director was not called he just happened to > > be standing at the table. > > > > Some posters felt L86C6 requires the kibitzing > > Director to invoke L70C, citing ACBL Laws. The > > original poster then mentioned the situation > > occurred in WBF territory. Do the Laws differ in > > these jurisdictions? > > > +=+ The laws are the same. The interpretation and > practice may sometimes differ.. > The 'facts' do not altogether fit a WBF environment, > where, unless supervising compliance with a ruling or > monitoring tempo etc. (i.e. present for a purpose), the > TD would not be watching at a table. I doubt whether > in ACBL-land he would be, either. So perhaps we need > to know a little more about why he was there. > Secondly, I do not see that there is an irregularity > for the Director to rectify under 81C6. The laws do not > outlaw sloppy acquiescence and only if the trump was > the highest trump outstanding could it "not be lost by > any normal play of the remaining cards". Law 70 only > comes into it if the claim is contested. This claim was > not contested. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Feb 18 20:41:34 2004 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:41:34 -0000 Subject: [blml] Fw: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender Message-ID: <001e01c3f65f$ab43d020$f92ee150@endicott> Grattan Endicott > > Grattan Endicott (also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > and gesta@tiscali.co.uk) > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "All you need in this life is ignorance and > confidence." [Mark Twain] > ================================== > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Stevenson" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 3:18 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] A point from San Giusto Canavese. > > > > > > Certainly you *could*: my point is penalising > > players who call the TD at the time of a potential > > infraction. Is that no longer what we want? > > > > > Your wording > > >misses the point in my view and also loses > > > its cutting edge. > > > > Certainly it loses its cutting edge. Your wording > > requires the TD to do something even when it is > > inappropriate: of course that is a stronger > > regulation. > > > +=+ I have not considered whether it would be the > case that two screenmates agreeing to inform the > Director of a slow auction, conducted by one side > only, would be regarded as an infringement of > this regulation - the circumstances set forth in > the regulation do not then perhaps exist. > I share the opinion of WBF colleagues that > there has to be express prohibition of calling the > Director to inform him of a screenmate's breach > of tempo. And judging by opinion more widely > expressed on other matters it might appear the > regulation were better not to fudge the issue > with 'may'. > ~ G ~ +=+ > > > > From jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr Mon Feb 16 21:22:36 2004 From: jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 22:22:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tonights td decision References: <001001c3f471$f80eb0e0$51ca07ca@hal> Message-ID: <005f01c3f4d3$073de700$8a5b4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_005A_01C3F4DB.6174B700 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Richard: Sure expert players such as Jaap would prefer the rules to mandate less randomness. But the vast majority of players prefer the fun of playing cards, rather than the boredom of receiving an AV+. Of course I understand your point. But what are we discussing. Rules for = tournament bridge or the local have fun while drinking activity. Do we = take ourselves serious or not. Do we pretend to have serious = championships or not.=20 Another funny thing Richard. Whenever I use my rights (claiming penalty = cards and such nice penalties) against mediocre players they tend to = start whining or worse. The majority of the players probably prefer no = penalties for infractions at all. But how are we stopping them from = fucking up the game without sanctions. Anyway I said 'might be better', so it is just a thought. Not mine by = the way, after the umpteenth impossible AC decision a collegue of mine = said that life would be much easier if we can give AV+/AV-- for a wide = range of infractions. He might be right. Think of al those UI/wrong = explanation cases. Infraction established, ok AV+/Av-- unless someone = wants more (we judge) or we think the AV-- is still too much for OS. = Don't shoot me, we haven't sorted out the implications yet. Jaap ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Helen Hills=20 To: blml@rtflb.org=20 Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 10:42 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Tonights td decision Jaap wrote: >This is an aspect of the laws which I don't like in >certain cases. After the kind of infraction that >basically leaves the board unplayable in a normal >way (BOOT and family) the rules insist in continuing >to play the board casino style. Someone has to take >a blind shot which often results in a crazy result. >Often a top/good score for NOS but sometimes a top >for the OS. IMHO this has nothing to with bridge. > >It might be better to rule these cases AV+/AV-- or >so with some provisions to stop people to do it on >purpose to secure AV-- or so. Nothing much different >from the current 'could have know' catch all. RJH responds: Jaap uses the word "better". But "better" for whom? Sure expert players such as Jaap would prefer the rules to mandate less randomness. But the vast majority of players prefer the fun of playing cards, rather than the boredom of receiving an AV+. So, the Laws are designed to favour the majority preferences, with as many deals as possible being permitted by Law to have cards played after an irregularity. Best wishes Richard James Hills ------=_NextPart_000_005A_01C3F4DB.6174B700 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Richard:
Sure expert players such as = Jaap would=20 prefer the
rules to mandate less = randomness.  But=20 the vast
majority of players prefer the = fun of=20 playing cards,
rather than the boredom of = receiving an AV+.
 
Of course I understand your point. But what are = we=20 discussing. Rules for tournament bridge or the local have fun while = drinking=20 activity. Do we take ourselves serious or not. Do we pretend to have = serious=20 championships or not.
 
Another funny thing Richard. Whenever I use my = rights=20 (claiming penalty cards and such nice penalties) against mediocre = players they=20 tend to start whining or worse. The majority of the players probably = prefer no=20 penalties for infractions at all. But how are we stopping them from = fucking up=20 the game without sanctions.
 
Anyway I said 'might be better', so it is just a = thought. Not=20 mine by the way, after the umpteenth impossible AC decision a collegue = of mine=20 said that life would be much easier if we can give AV+/AV-- for a = wide=20 range of infractions. He might be right. Think of al those UI/wrong = explanation=20 cases. Infraction established, ok AV+/Av-- unless someone wants more (we = judge)=20 or we think the AV-- is still too much for OS. Don't shoot me, we = haven't sorted=20 out the implications yet.
 
Jaap
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Helen = Hills=20
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 = 10:42=20 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] Tonights td = decision

Jaap wrote:
 
>This is an aspect of the = laws which I=20 don't like in
>certain cases. After the = kind of=20 infraction that
>basically leaves the = board unplayable=20 in a normal
>way (BOOT and family) the rules insist in=20 continuing
>to play the board casino = style.=20 Someone has to take
>a blind shot which often = results in a=20 crazy result.
>Often a top/good score = for NOS but=20 sometimes a top
>for the OS. IMHO this has = nothing to=20 with bridge.
>
>It might be better to rule these cases = AV+/AV--=20 or
>so with some provisions = to stop=20 people to do it on
>purpose to secure AV-- or = so. Nothing=20 much different
>from the current 'could = have know'=20 catch all.
 
RJH responds:
 
Jaap uses the word = "better".  But=20 "better" for whom?
 
Sure expert players such as = Jaap would=20 prefer the
rules to mandate less = randomness. =20 But the vast
majority of players prefer = the fun of=20 playing cards,
rather than the boredom of = receiving an AV+.
 
So, the Laws are designed to = favour the=20 majority
preferences, with as many = deals as=20 possible being
permitted by Law to have = cards played=20 after an
irregularity.
 
Best wishes
 
Richard James = Hills

------=_NextPart_000_005A_01C3F4DB.6174B700-- From hhills@tpg.com.au Tue Feb 17 10:45:51 2004 From: hhills@tpg.com.au (Helen Hills) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 21:45:51 +1100 Subject: [blml] Fw: revokes Message-ID: <005101c3f543$3c4d03c0$42ca07ca@hal> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_004C_01C3F59F.6962E580 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Herman De Wael wrote: >Which means that whenever my opponent ruffs, it is in >my favour to ask if he really does not have one. If he >finds one, I have changed a lost trick plus a penalty >trick (=3D no gain) RJH replies: The "no gain" is exactly why the 1975 and 1987 editions of the Laws have been gradually weakening the revoke penalty. On average, a two-trick penalty overcompensates the NOS for the damage caused by the OS infraction. Herman De Wael continues: >for a major penalty card (=3Dsome gain). Consequently, it >is better for opponent to not "find" the missing card >until after the next trick. > >I'm still in favor of the one/two trick current >penalty. After so many lawbooks, the WBFLC finally got >it right - so much so that the laws were not changed in >1997 (IIRC) RJH replies: Herman is confusing subsequent with consequent. *Most* of the entire Laws were unchanged between 1987 and 1997, but this was not necessarily due to universal satisfaction with the Laws. Rather, extraneous factors such as communication difficulties or the terminal illness of Edgar Kaplan may have played a part in the minimal differences between the 1987 and 1997 editions of the Laws.=20 Herman asked: >- and now the only problem is "simplicity"? [snip] RJH answered: Simplicity in the 2006 Laws would be a boon to playing Directors, or to busy Directors running large events. If a TD can state, "One trick penalty, call me back at the end of play if the non-offending side thinks it has been insufficiently compensated," and then the TD can *immediately* scuttle off to another table, that is a *huge* time-saving for TDs under the proposed 2006 Laws, compared to lengthy and complicated determination of the right ruling under the current 1997 Laws. Best wishes Richard James Hills ------=_NextPart_000_004C_01C3F59F.6962E580 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Herman De Wael = wrote:
 
>Which means that whenever = my opponent=20 ruffs, it is in
>my favour to ask if he = really does not=20 have one. If he
>finds one, I have changed a = lost trick=20 plus a penalty
>trick (=3D no = gain)
 
RJH replies:
 
The "no gain" is exactly why = the 1975 and=20 1987 editions
of the Laws have been gradually = weakening=20 the revoke
penalty.  On average, a = two-trick=20 penalty overcompensates
the NOS for the damage caused = by the OS=20 infraction.
 
Herman De Wael = continues:
 
>for a major penalty card = (=3Dsome gain).=20 Consequently, it
>is better for opponent to = not "find"=20 the missing card
>until after the next=20 trick.
>
>I'm still in favor = of the=20 one/two trick current
>penalty. After so many = lawbooks, the=20 WBFLC finally got
>it right - so much so that = the laws=20 were not changed in
>1997 (IIRC)
 
RJH replies:
 
Herman is confusing subsequent = with=20 consequent.  *Most*
of the entire Laws were = unchanged between=20 1987 and 1997,
but this was not = necessarily due to=20 universal satisfaction
with the Laws.  Rather, = extraneous=20 factors such as
communication difficulties or = the terminal=20 illness of
Edgar Kaplan may have played a = part in the=20 minimal
differences between the 1987 = and 1997=20 editions of the
Laws. 
 
Herman asked:
 
>- and now the only problem = is=20 "simplicity"?
 
[snip]
 
RJH answered:
 
Simplicity in the 2006 Laws = would be a boon=20 to playing
Directors, or to busy = Directors running large = events.
 
If a TD can state,
 
"One trick penalty, call me = back at the end=20 of play if
the non-offending side thinks it has been = insufficiently
compensated,"
 
and then the TD can = *immediately* scuttle=20 off to another
table, that is a *huge* = time-saving for TDs=20 under the
proposed 2006 Laws, compared to = lengthy and=20 complicated
determination of the right = ruling under the=20 current 1997
Laws.
 
Best wishes
 
Richard James = Hills

------=_NextPart_000_004C_01C3F59F.6962E580-- From Jerrijt@cs.com Tue Feb 17 16:09:13 2004 From: Jerrijt@cs.com (Jerrijt@cs.com) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 11:09:13 EST Subject: [blml] Re: blml digest, Vol 1 #1347 - 1 msg Message-ID: --part1_ea.47425f55.2d6396a9_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Re: Re: Fw: revokes (Herman De Wael) l agree. A Certified Director should have no trouble with the current Revoke Laws. The problem lies with the players, who do not know the Laws, do not like the results, and complain that they have been wronged. Show them the Book! Anneka in ACBL-Land --part1_ea.47425f55.2d6396a9_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: Re: Fw: revokes (Herman=20= De Wael)

l agree.  A Certified Director should have no trouble with the curr= ent Revoke Laws.  The problem lies with the players, who do not know th= e Laws,  do not like the results, and complain that they have been wron= ged.  Show them the Book!

Anneka in ACBL-Land


--part1_ea.47425f55.2d6396a9_boundary-- From erdnbaum@netvision.net.il Wed Feb 18 21:29:54 2004 From: erdnbaum@netvision.net.il (Israel Erdnbaum) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 23:29:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] Kibitzing Director - L86C6 & L70C Claim: Jurisdiction? References: <200402182019.MAA32751@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <000801c3f666$5a1182e0$c521ebd4@mycomputer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Beneschan" To: Cc: Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 10:20 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Kibitzing Director - L86C6 & L70C Claim: Jurisdiction? > > > > Here's a recent post from an online ACBL bridge group: > > > > > > In the course of playing a hand a player makes a claim without > > > giving a line but which is accepted by all at the table. > > > > > > Can the director who happened to be watching inform the players, > > . > > I agree with Martin here. I've found that, when playing against good > opponents where we're all familiar with each other, I can sometimes > claim without making a statement, if it's obvious to a good player > what is going to happen, and if I can trust that the opponents are > there to play bridge and not to try to win points by nitpicking about > legalities. In a situation like that, it's not the TD's job to get > involved, and it shouldn't be. > Hi > It should never be the TD's job to be involved, as a matter of fact the TD should never watch play at a table. Usually when a TD watches play ,the players can assume there is some interest in this game,which should never happen. Besides it adds another luck factor ,you are being lucky [or unlucky] that the TD happened to be watching at this particular moment. Best regards Israel > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From blml@blakjak.com Thu Feb 19 00:06:08 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 00:06:08 +0000 Subject: [blml] odd ruling In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040216162941.00ab8a00@pop.starpower.net> References: <1353E27E-5EC4-11D8-95B5-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20040216162941.00ab8a00@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau wrote >At 03:02 AM 2/14/04, Ed wrote: > >>Tonight at the club, a strange thing happened. Opponents are playing >>in 2D, and declarer leads CK from dummy. I follow with a small club, >>so does declarer. Partner ruffs with the D8, then says "oh, wait, I >>have a club". TD is called. She rules that partner must play her club >>to this trick, the D8 becoming a major penalty card, and then says to >>declarer "you may require or forbid the lead of a diamond from North >>(my partner). I said "wait a minute, the lead is in dummy". TD says >>"that doesn't matter, I'm sure my ruling is correct". As she was >>adamant, I said nothing more. Declarer required partner to lead the >>D8, winning the trick with the ten, and then played the DA, crashing >>my partner's king. As the cards lay at this point, declarer would have >>had to lose another trick if partner had not been required to lead her >>D8, the lead instead coming from dummy. After the session, I went back >>to the TD and asked her to show me the law authorizing her ruling. She >>couldn't find it. "Maybe you're thinking about a LOOT," says I. "No. >>It's obscure," she said, "but I'm sure it's in here (referring to TFLB) somewhere." Comments? > >The TD was obviously confused about the Law and confuddled in her >wording, but her ruling did somehow manage to produce a correct >outcome. While declarer can't, techically, compel Ed's partner to lead >the D8 while following second hand with the D10, declarer can, exactly >equivalently, lead the D10 from dummy and compel Ed's partner to follow >fourth hand with the D8. Apart from whether there were any diamonds in dummy - and later posts make it clear there were not - it is not the TD's job ot play declarer's cards for him. So, even if there were diamonds in dummy, it might not have occurred to declarer to take advantage in this way, and the TD has no right to help declarer to get an advantage. So I do not believe her completely wrong ruling can be said to have produced a correct out come. -- 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 Thu Feb 19 01:18:35 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 01:18:35 -0000 Subject: [blml] odd ruling References: <1353E27E-5EC4-11D8-95B5-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20040216162941.00ab8a00@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <00f901c3f687$6e99d8e0$319468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [David Stevenson] > Apart from whether there were any diamonds in dummy - > and later posts make it clear there were not - it is > not the TD's job ot play declarer's cards for him. So, > even if there were diamonds in dummy, it might not have > occurred to declarer to take advantage in this way, and > the TD has no right to help declarer to get an advantage. > So I do not believe her completely wrong ruling can be > said to have produced a correct out come. [Nigel] As David implies, secretary birds who know the convolutions of the law have an advantage, even if they have to forage for tasty worms in obscure sites that are normally the sole province of a few TDs. An amazing thing is that when judgements and commentaries contradict a literal interpretation of the rules, the flawed rules are still carefully preserved to maintain the advantage of the privileged initiate :( :( :( A recent local example is "judgement" exceptions to a literal interpretation of the EBU Orange Book. IMO, especially given the current state of the law, the NOS should be spared the hard task of diagnosing which laws were broken or how best to claim redress. IMO if the TD judges that there were infractions, he should try to assess how each infraction may damage the NOS and suggest the gist of possible remedies. He should do all this on the basis of the simple facts of the case, as far as he can determine them; and he should be prepared to rule, even when there has been *no* specific complaint. Unfortunately this, too, would require a law-change :( Better still: If the law was less gappy, complex, and subjective, there might be no need for the TD to act as a minefield guide :) :) --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.588 / Virus Database: 372 - Release Date: 14/02/2004 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Feb 19 04:22:44 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 23:22:44 -0500 Subject: [blml] odd ruling In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <439EE5E8-6293-11D8-8F46-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Feb 18, 2004, at 19:06 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > Apart from whether there were any diamonds in dummy - and later posts > make it clear there were not - it is not the TD's job ot play > declarer's cards for him. So, even if there were diamonds in dummy, > it might not have occurred to declarer to take advantage in this way, > and the TD has no right to help declarer to get an advantage. > > So I do not believe her completely wrong ruling can be said to have > produced a correct out come. Neither do I. As I think I said (or at least implied) earlier, I think the correct outcome was that declarer was down one, instead of making. Another local club TD made this comment: "Interesting. She (meaning the TD who made the original ruling) doesn't usually make mistakes like that." Which is true. :-) From ardelm@bigpond.net.au Thu Feb 19 04:14:10 2004 From: ardelm@bigpond.net.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 15:14:10 +1100 Subject: [blml] chrestomathy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.2.20040219151124.01fc5ec0@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Many thanks, for a while I thought you might have been servicing our nation's immigration policy by working on blml only from home. Good to see return to normal. Tony (Sydney) At 12:29 PM 19/02/2004, you wrote: >The chrestomathy doc is attached to a parallel email. > >Best wishes > >Richard James Hills From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Feb 19 07:33:39 2004 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 07:33:39 -0000 Subject: [blml] A point from San Giusto Canavese. References: <000e01c3f39f$9a8409c0$fea7193e@4nrw70j> <2Ivi+wCF4rMAFwtm@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <003c01c3f6ba$eb571a90$2227e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 1:21 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A point from San Giusto Canavese. > > Read the reg again: 'Consequently it is an infraction > if a player on the side of the screen where the breach > occurred is the first to draw attention to it and the > player forfeits for his side its non-offending status.' > +=+ I have not considered whether it would be the > case that two screenmates agreeing to inform the > Director of a slow auction, conducted by one side > only, would be regarded as an infringement of > this regulation - the circumstances set forth in > the regulation do not then perhaps exist. > I share the opinion of WBF colleagues that > there has to be express prohibition of calling the > Director to inform him of a screenmate's breach > of tempo. And judging by opinion more widely > expressed on other matters it might appear the > regulation were better not to fudge the issue > with 'may'. ~ G ~ +=+ From svenpran@online.no Thu Feb 19 07:38:26 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 08:38:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] odd ruling In-Reply-To: <00f901c3f687$6e99d8e0$319468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <000001c3f6bb$5c6954f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Nigel Guthrie > [David Stevenson] > > Apart from whether there were any diamonds in dummy - > > and later posts make it clear there were not - it is > > not the TD's job ot play declarer's cards for him. So, > > even if there were diamonds in dummy, it might not have > > occurred to declarer to take advantage in this way, and > > the TD has no right to help declarer to get an advantage. > > So I do not believe her completely wrong ruling can be > > said to have produced a correct out come. >=20 > [Nigel] > As David implies, secretary birds who know the convolutions > of the law have an advantage, even if they have to forage > for tasty worms in obscure sites that are normally the sole > province of a few TDs. An amazing thing is that when > judgements and commentaries contradict a literal > interpretation of the rules, the flawed rules are still > carefully preserved to maintain the advantage of the > privileged initiate :( :( :( >=20 > A recent local example is "judgement" exceptions to > a literal interpretation of the EBU Orange Book. >=20 > IMO, especially given the current state of the law, the > NOS should be spared the hard task of diagnosing which laws > were broken or how best to claim redress. IMO if the TD > judges that there were infractions, he should try to assess > how each infraction may damage the NOS and suggest the gist > of possible remedies. He should do all this on the basis > of the simple facts of the case, as far as he can determine > them; and he should be prepared to rule, even when there > has been *no* specific complaint. Is it possible that you have missed one essential point here? Once the Director has been summoned because of a suspected irregularity = it is his duty to inform (all four players at the table) of all aspects relevant to that irregularity. (In the case of a penalty card this = includes the fact that it must be played on the first legal occasion. Then it is = up to declarer to realize that this can for instance give him a safe = finesse).=20 What David correctly points out is that it is none of the Director's business to alert any player that he ought to comply with Law 9 to = secure his possible advantages from opponent's irregularity. We do not expect any player to know and understand the entire law book = by heart, but we do expect him to know his obligation to summon the = Director when there is any irregularity. Regards Sven From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Thu Feb 19 00:14:37 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 00:14:37 -0000 Subject: [blml] Fw: revokes References: <000a01c3f33b$f4f62d20$3020ebd4@mycomputer> <000e01c3f45d$2a09d850$964ee150@endicott> <004801c3f4c0$e7779d60$8a5b4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> <4031DF2F.5050805@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c3f6bb$8b60f3d0$13242850@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 7:11 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Fw: revokes > >> > >> (if the revoke wins a trick). Three, a mild penalty > >>for an established revoke might lead to the situation > >>where accepting the established revoke is better for > >>the OS than the penalty for a non-established revoke > >>(major penalty card). > > +=+ There is, of course, an assumption in the mention of a major penalty card. Indeed, two assumptions. One that the laws will contimue to provide for major and minor penalty cards, the other that this withdrawn card will be a penalty card. In a fundamental review anything may change and we will have to wait and see. +=+ From blml@blakjak.com Thu Feb 19 11:34:49 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 11:34:49 +0000 Subject: [blml] Fw: revokes In-Reply-To: <000e01c3f45d$2a09d850$964ee150@endicott> References: <000a01c3f33b$f4f62d20$3020ebd4@mycomputer> <000e01c3f45d$2a09d850$964ee150@endicott> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott wrote >+=+ In San Giusto Canavese nearly all the TDs >present, students and course staff, seemed to favour >the announced intention of the WBF Laws Drafting >Subcommittee to recommend reduction of the >standard revoke penalty to one trick (with the usual >reserve powers to rectify any inequity). > I do hear of contrary opinions occasionally, but >not many. There is an evenly matched debate as to >whether the laws should prohibit transfer of a trick >won by a card that could not have failed to win a >trick after the revoke. Sometimes it does no good to counter the tide, as Alfred discovered. But that does not mean I agree: I am firmly in the camp of two tricks for all revokes. It is a basis of the game that players follow suit and the penalty nowadays is too lax. -- 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 blml@blakjak.com Thu Feb 19 11:43:09 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 11:43:09 +0000 Subject: [blml] Fw: revokes In-Reply-To: <005101c3f543$3c4d03c0$42ca07ca@hal> References: <005101c3f543$3c4d03c0$42ca07ca@hal> Message-ID: Helen Hills wrote Is there something I should know, Richard? >Simplicity in the 2006 Laws would be a boon to playing >Directors, or to busy Directors running large events. No doubt. Two Laws, and we could spend our time in hte bar telling John how to play ocntracts. I am not a believer that the Law book should in general consider the needs of the TDs. The exception at first sight is revokes: the more complex the Law, the more it relies on equity, the less a really vital part of the law will be applied correctly in clubs. But in the end I am still considering the customers, the players. TDs in events can look after themselves, but need a bit of nurturing in clubs, otherwise their customers will suffer form bad directing - and even people unwilling to direct. That is why I do not favour anything that increases equity adjustment. In your average club of 12 tables an equity adjustment is required once or twice a year, but there are revokes two or three times a month. So for the customers' sake let us neither complicate the revoke laws further nor increase the amount of equity adjustment. Automatic two tricks seems right. -- 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 Thu Feb 19 14:21:16 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 14:21:16 -0000 Subject: [blml] odd ruling References: <000001c3f6bb$5c6954f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <004201c3f6f3$a3c83a40$869468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Sven Pran] We do not expect any player to know and understand the entire law book by heart, but we do expect him to know his obligation to summon the Director when there is any irregularity. [Nigel Guthrie] My comments were on the kind of hypothetical problem mentioned, as an aside, by David Stevenson in his post (but not relevant to the actual case). Where... A player calls the director because the doings at his table smell nasty -- or A TD notices an infraction of which the players seem unaware; hence the NOS are unsure... 1. What laws may have been broken. 2. How they may have been damaged. 3. What *practical* redress is available. Sven reassures us that this is no problem. Admittedly, there is no hint in the laws that there should be any problem. In fact, given the state of the law, a TD would seem to have a moral obligation to "interfere". Nevertheless, regularly, law-makers opine that it is not the TD's job to volunteer information. (Except in the case of a few specific infractions, when they must read from the law-book a list of *theoretical* options that are an integral part of the law in the law-book). In particular, it is often hard for the NOS to coherently express how they may have been damaged. Examples: many players will complain exclusively about a "hesitation" and refuse to consider possible advantage taken of consequent "UI". Players routinely ignore the frequent case where UI from partner's alert wakes up a player to the fact that his call was conventional. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.588 / Virus Database: 372 - Release Date: 13/02/2004 From john@asimere.com Thu Feb 19 15:03:17 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 15:03:17 +0000 Subject: [blml] odd ruling In-Reply-To: <000001c3f6bb$5c6954f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <00f901c3f687$6e99d8e0$319468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <000001c3f6bb$5c6954f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <000001c3f6bb$5c6954f0$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes snip discussion of revoke penalties. > >Is it possible that you have missed one essential point here? > >Once the Director has been summoned because of a suspected irregularity it >is his duty to inform (all four players at the table) of all aspects >relevant to that irregularity. (In the case of a penalty card this includes >the fact that it must be played on the first legal occasion. Then it is up >to declarer to realize that this can for instance give him a safe finesse). > >What David correctly points out is that it is none of the Director's >business to alert any player that he ought to comply with Law 9 to secure >his possible advantages from opponent's irregularity. I am not in accord with this view. I believe that it *is* appropriate to inform the player that the Law considers it proper for a player to take advantage of an opponent's infraction. Not to do so gives the bridge- lawyers a head's start, and that I think is my business. I feel one must try to keep the playing field level. > >We do not expect any player to know and understand the entire law book by >heart, but we do expect him to know his obligation to summon the Director >when there is any irregularity. > >Regards Sven > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Thu Feb 19 15:07:32 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 15:07:32 +0000 Subject: [blml] Kibitzing Director - L86C6 & L70C Claim: Jurisdiction? In-Reply-To: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E5B99@rama.micronas.com> References: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E5B99@rama.micronas.com> Message-ID: In article <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E5B99@rama.micronas.com>, Sinot Martin writes > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of >> Michael Nistler >> Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 7:32 >> To: blml@rtflb.org >> Subject: [blml] Kibitzing Director - L86C6 & L70C Claim: Jurisdiction? >> >> >> Here's a recent post from an online ACBL bridge group: >> >> In the course of playing a hand a player makes a claim without >> giving a line but which is accepted by all at the table. >> >> Can the director who happened to be watching inform the players, >> as that there is still a small trump outstanding the claim >> is invalid and give the extra trick to the defenders? > >I would say no. L70 is about contested claims, and that requires >the players at the table to contest it. This did not happen, therefore >the claim stands uncontested. It is not the job of the TD to point out >that a claim is flawed. More important: there is a time limit involved. >If the opponents of the claimer contest before calling on the next >board or the end of the round (69A), claimer must prove that the claim >is correct. After that time (69B), opponents must prove that the claim >is not correct. If the TD would now inform the players of a possibly >incorrect claim, he would influence this time limit and hence take part >in the play. The TD should therefore wait until someone notices that >the claim is incorrect (and then he need not wait until he is called). > >This problem is somewhat akin to a TD seeing a revoke. There TD also >cannot do anything; various time limits exist in which a revoke first >is not established, then becomes established, then is not subject to >penalty anymore. If the TD now calls attention to the revoke, he >influences the time limit and therefore the penalty to be paid. Here >too, the TD should not act until someone notices the irregularity. We have discussed the revoke Law here before. We should restore equity, after the time limit for the revoke penalty has expired. Equally, in the case of the claim we should restore tricks that could not have been lost by any play of the cards again at the start of the next hand or round. > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From svenpran@online.no Thu Feb 19 18:31:15 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 19:31:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] odd ruling In-Reply-To: <004201c3f6f3$a3c83a40$869468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <000001c3f716$90fa9bb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Nigel Guthrie > [Sven Pran] > We do not expect any player to know and understand the > entire law book by heart, but we do expect him to know > his obligation to summon the Director when there is any > irregularity. >=20 > [Nigel Guthrie] > My comments were on the kind of hypothetical problem > mentioned, as an aside, by David Stevenson in his post > (but not relevant to the actual case). Where... >=20 > A player calls the director because the doings at his table > smell nasty -- or A TD notices an infraction of which the > players seem unaware; hence the NOS are unsure... > 1. What laws may have been broken. > 2. How they may have been damaged. > 3. What *practical* redress is available. >=20 > Sven reassures us that this is no problem. Admittedly, > there is no hint in the laws that there should be any > problem. In fact, given the state of the law, a TD would > seem to have a moral obligation to "interfere". >=20 > Nevertheless, regularly, law-makers opine that it is not > the TD's job to volunteer information. (Except in the > case of a few specific infractions, when they must read > from the law-book a list of *theoretical* options that > are an integral part of the law in the law-book). In > particular, it is often hard for the NOS to coherently > express how they may have been damaged. A player who is unsure of whether there has been an irregularity at his table is supposed to summon the Director. Once the Director has been summoned he is supposed to establish the = facts and decide whether there has indeed been an irregularity, clarify the situation to the players at the table and make whatever ruling relevant = for the situation. In this process he is obliged to ascertain that the = players fully understand their rights. A different situation exists when the Director becomes aware of an irregularity without being summoned by any player. In this case he must = be very careful not to interfere in a way that can jeopardize the rights = for any of the players at the table (whether OS or NOS). This means for = instance that when the laws has established a time limit for a player's reaction = to an irregularity the Director must definitely not on his own initiative = react in any way to that irregularity until the applicable time limit has = expired. Sven From svenpran@online.no Thu Feb 19 18:42:24 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 19:42:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] odd ruling In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c3f718$1dc26220$6900a8c0@WINXP> John (MadDog) Probst > Sven Pran > >Is it possible that you have missed one essential point here? > > > >Once the Director has been summoned because of a suspected > >irregularity it is his duty to inform (all four players at > >the table) of all aspects relevant to that irregularity. > >(In the case of a penalty card this includes the fact that > >it must be played on the first legal occasion. Then it is > >up to declarer to realize that this can for instance give > >him a safe finesse). > > > >What David correctly points out is that it is none of the > >Director's business to alert any player that he ought to > >comply with Law 9 to secure his possible advantages from > >opponent's irregularity. > > I am not in accord with this view. I believe that it *is* > appropriate to inform the player that the Law considers it > proper for a player to take advantage of an opponent's > infraction. Not to do so gives the bridge-lawyers a head's > start, and that I think is my business. I feel one must > try to keep the playing field level. I do not see any problem here. The Director must ascertain that all players are fully aware of their rights, but the Director is not supposed to give any bridge lesson as part of his ruling. If a player is unable to understand that when his LHO must play a small diamond at his first legal opportunity then he has a safe finesse in diamonds through his RHO then he is not entitled to receiving that particular information from the Director. Or a more extreme case: If because of a penalty card declarer has a 100% squeeze position but does not know enough bridge to realize it and execute the squeeze; should the Director give him a bridge lesson teaching the player the squeeze? Sven From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Feb 19 19:31:46 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 19:31:46 -0000 Subject: [blml] Fw: revokes References: <000a01c3f33b$f4f62d20$3020ebd4@mycomputer> <000e01c3f45d$2a09d850$964ee150@endicott> Message-ID: <001d01c3f71f$1b3f83a0$f42e87d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 11:34 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Fw: revokes. > > Sometimes it does no good to counter the tide, >as Alfred discovered. > +=+ I think he already knew - it was the courtiers for whom he illustrated the lesson that one can get in over one's head. +=+ < > But that does not mean I agree: I am firmly in > the camp of two tricks for all revokes. It is a basis > of the game that players follow suit and the penalty > nowadays is too lax. > +=+ There does run a writ among one breed of Director that strains to punish more than redress. The evidence seems to be largely that NBOs have a kindlier approach , more tolerant of human weakness. I also think that in most clubs an increased frequency of equity rulings will not be felt ... many club directors are likely to transfer one trick and only look further if the player says "I would have made x tricks if he hadn't revoked". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Feb 19 20:13:50 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 20:13:50 -0000 Subject: [blml] All at sea with the cakes Message-ID: <001001c3f725$2011e480$704e87d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott Sometimes it does no good to counter the tide, >as Alfred discovered. > +=+ I think he already knew - it was the courtiers for whom he illustrated the lesson that one can get in over one's head. +=+ +=+ NB - I assume we are talking of Alfred Cnut ?+=+ From blml@blakjak.com Fri Feb 20 00:11:54 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 00:11:54 +0000 Subject: [blml] odd ruling In-Reply-To: References: <00f901c3f687$6e99d8e0$319468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <000001c3f6bb$5c6954f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst wrote >In article <000001c3f6bb$5c6954f0$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran > writes > >snip discussion of revoke penalties. >> >>Is it possible that you have missed one essential point here? >> >>Once the Director has been summoned because of a suspected irregularity it >>is his duty to inform (all four players at the table) of all aspects >>relevant to that irregularity. (In the case of a penalty card this includes >>the fact that it must be played on the first legal occasion. Then it is up >>to declarer to realize that this can for instance give him a safe finesse). >> >>What David correctly points out is that it is none of the Director's >>business to alert any player that he ought to comply with Law 9 to secure >>his possible advantages from opponent's irregularity. > >I am not in accord with this view. I believe that it *is* appropriate to >inform the player that the Law considers it proper for a player to take >advantage of an opponent's infraction. Not to do so gives the bridge- >lawyers a head's start, and that I think is my business. I feel one must >try to keep the playing field level. I did not suggest otherwise - but telling declarer *how* to play to take advantage is not the TD's job. -- 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 blml@blakjak.com Fri Feb 20 00:15:22 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 00:15:22 +0000 Subject: [blml] Fw: revokes In-Reply-To: <001d01c3f71f$1b3f83a0$f42e87d9@4nrw70j> References: <000a01c3f33b$f4f62d20$3020ebd4@mycomputer> <000e01c3f45d$2a09d850$964ee150@endicott> <001d01c3f71f$1b3f83a0$f42e87d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: grandeval wrote > I also think that in most clubs an increased >frequency of equity rulings will not be felt ... many >club directors are likely to transfer one trick and >only look further if the player says "I would have >made x tricks if he hadn't revoked". I am sure you are right. This means that many ignorant players will have been screwed out of extra tricks which are their due, and I am surprised that lawmakers are happy with this result. -- 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 Fri Feb 20 07:55:00 2004 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 07:55:00 -0000 Subject: [blml] Fw: revokes References: <000a01c3f33b$f4f62d20$3020ebd4@mycomputer> <000e01c3f45d$2a09d850$964ee150@endicott> <001d01c3f71f$1b3f83a0$f42e87d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <001801c3f786$da312cc0$313fe150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 12:15 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Fw: revokes > grandeval wrote > > I also think that in most clubs an increased > >frequency of equity rulings will not be felt ... many > >club directors are likely to transfer one trick and > >only look further if the player says "I would have > >made x tricks if he hadn't revoked". > > David: > I am sure you are right. This means that many > ignorant players will have been screwed out of > extra tricks which are their due, and I am > surprised that lawmakers are happy with this result. > +=+ I doubt 'ignorant' and think you might have in mind more the idea of diffidence; NBOs can help to disseminate knowledge. But as to your main point, like TDs the legislators are servants of the game. On the benefit of the game we look mainly to the opinions of member NBOs and it is those opinions that would be likely to divert the legislators from a given path. That is why my aim, our aim, is mostly to receive the views of NBOs and Zones. Some of those at the forefront have commented on matters of concern to them, and there is time yet to hear more. I am due in NY for a couple of days in July to talk with people there. ~ G ~ +=+ From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Feb 20 12:56:25 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 07:56:25 -0500 Subject: [blml] Fw: revokes In-Reply-To: <001d01c3f71f$1b3f83a0$f42e87d9@4nrw70j> References: <000a01c3f33b$f4f62d20$3020ebd4@mycomputer> <000e01c3f45d$2a09d850$964ee150@endicott> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040220075212.01f49e30@pop.starpower.net> At 02:31 PM 2/19/04, grandeval wrote: > I also think that in most clubs an increased >frequency of equity rulings will not be felt ... many >club directors are likely to transfer one trick and >only look further if the player says "I would have >made x tricks if he hadn't revoked". If that's true, it significantly strengthens the case for making the "usual" penalty two tricks rather than one. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Feb 20 13:03:10 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 08:03:10 -0500 Subject: [blml] Fw: revokes In-Reply-To: <001801c3f786$da312cc0$313fe150@endicott> References: <000a01c3f33b$f4f62d20$3020ebd4@mycomputer> <000e01c3f45d$2a09d850$964ee150@endicott> <001d01c3f71f$1b3f83a0$f42e87d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040220075725.00a0c2e0@pop.starpower.net> At 02:55 AM 2/20/04, Grattan wrote: > But as to your main point, like TDs the legislators >are servants of the game. On the benefit of the game >we look mainly to the opinions of member NBOs and >it is those opinions that would be likely to divert the >legislators from a given path. That is why my aim, >our aim, is mostly to receive the views of NBOs and >Zones. Some of those at the forefront have >commented on matters of concern to them, and >there is time yet to hear more. I am due in NY for a >couple of days in July to talk with people there. This is why the WBF has taken so much abuse in this forum. Rules that affect NBOs and Zones directly should be written to reflect input from NBOs and Zones. Rules that affect players directly should be written to reflect input from players. TFLB falls into the latter category, but sometimes it seems as though the WBF doesn't understand this. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From B.Schelen@IAE.NL Fri Feb 20 14:58:11 2004 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:58:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fw: revokes References: <000a01c3f33b$f4f62d20$3020ebd4@mycomputer> <000e01c3f45d$2a09d850$964ee150@endicott> <001d01c3f71f$1b3f83a0$f42e87d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <012601c3f7c3$741c4900$63053dd4@c6l8v1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 1:15 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Fw: revokes > grandeval wrote > > I also think that in most clubs an increased > >frequency of equity rulings will not be felt ... many > >club directors are likely to transfer one trick and > >only look further if the player says "I would have > >made x tricks if he hadn't revoked". > > I am sure you are right. This means that many ignorant players will > have been screwed out of extra tricks which are their due, and I am > surprised that lawmakers are happy with this result. > > -- > I agree: Low level players are not in the position to see that one trick is enough for compensation. It is therefore the directors duty to apply Law64C. See Law81C5 and the scope for redress of damage. In case the law will be changed, this situation will not improve. Only by informing and training of directors their functioning will improve. Ben From john@asimere.com Fri Feb 20 15:59:51 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:59:51 +0000 Subject: [blml] odd ruling In-Reply-To: <000101c3f718$1dc26220$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c3f718$1dc26220$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <000101c3f718$1dc26220$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >John (MadDog) Probst >> Sven Pran >> >Is it possible that you have missed one essential point here? >> > >> >Once the Director has been summoned because of a suspected >> >irregularity it is his duty to inform (all four players at >> >the table) of all aspects relevant to that irregularity. >> >(In the case of a penalty card this includes the fact that >> >it must be played on the first legal occasion. Then it is >> >up to declarer to realize that this can for instance give >> >him a safe finesse). >> > >> >What David correctly points out is that it is none of the >> >Director's business to alert any player that he ought to >> >comply with Law 9 to secure his possible advantages from >> >opponent's irregularity. >> >> I am not in accord with this view. I believe that it *is* >> appropriate to inform the player that the Law considers it >> proper for a player to take advantage of an opponent's >> infraction. Not to do so gives the bridge-lawyers a head's >> start, and that I think is my business. I feel one must >> try to keep the playing field level. > >I do not see any problem here. The Director must ascertain that all players >are fully aware of their rights, but the Director is not supposed to give >any bridge lesson as part of his ruling. > >If a player is unable to understand that when his LHO must play a small >diamond at his first legal opportunity then he has a safe finesse in >diamonds through his RHO then he is not entitled to receiving that >particular information from the Director. Indeed, I think we are in agreement here. But I am likely to say something like "[ruling] ... and the Law says that it is appropriate for you to take advantage of this error by your opponents if you can". I do this in case the player feels it is unsporting to do so. You know - the English thing about it not being cricket :) > >Or a more extreme case: If because of a penalty card declarer has a 100% >squeeze position but does not know enough bridge to realize it and execute >the squeeze; should the Director give him a bridge lesson teaching the >player the squeeze? Would I could recognise it myself :) > >Sven > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Fri Feb 20 16:02:14 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 16:02:14 +0000 Subject: [blml] Fw: revokes In-Reply-To: <001d01c3f71f$1b3f83a0$f42e87d9@4nrw70j> References: <000a01c3f33b$f4f62d20$3020ebd4@mycomputer> <000e01c3f45d$2a09d850$964ee150@endicott> <001d01c3f71f$1b3f83a0$f42e87d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: In article <001d01c3f71f$1b3f83a0$f42e87d9@4nrw70j>, grandeval writes > >Grattan Endicott[alternatively gesta@tiscali.co.uk] >============================== >"Seal up the mouth of outrage for a while, > Till we can clear these ambiguities." > ['Romeo and Juliet'] >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >----- Original Message ----- >From: "David Stevenson" >To: >Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 11:34 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] Fw: revokes. >> >> Sometimes it does no good to counter the tide, >>as Alfred discovered. >> >+=+ I think he already knew - it was the courtiers >for whom he illustrated the lesson that one can get >in over one's head. +=+ Come, come, you ignorant Northerners. It was Canute, not Alfred. Alfred the Grate had an accident with the cakes. >< >> But that does not mean I agree: I am firmly in >> the camp of two tricks for all revokes. It is a basis >> of the game that players follow suit and the penalty >> nowadays is too lax. >> >+=+ There does run a writ among one breed of >Director that strains to punish more than redress. >The evidence seems to be largely that NBOs have >a kindlier approach , more tolerant of human >weakness. > I also think that in most clubs an increased >frequency of equity rulings will not be felt ... many >club directors are likely to transfer one trick and >only look further if the player says "I would have >made x tricks if he hadn't revoked". > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Fri Feb 20 16:08:44 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 16:08:44 +0000 Subject: [blml] Fw: revokes In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040220075212.01f49e30@pop.starpower.net> References: <000a01c3f33b$f4f62d20$3020ebd4@mycomputer> <000e01c3f45d$2a09d850$964ee150@endicott> <001d01c3f71f$1b3f83a0$f42e87d9@4nrw70j> <5.2.0.9.0.20040220075212.01f49e30@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <9eSu7kCMEjNAFwkr@asimere.com> In article <5.2.0.9.0.20040220075212.01f49e30@pop.starpower.net>, Eric Landau writes >At 02:31 PM 2/19/04, grandeval wrote: > >> I also think that in most clubs an increased >>frequency of equity rulings will not be felt ... many >>club directors are likely to transfer one trick and >>only look further if the player says "I would have >>made x tricks if he hadn't revoked". > >If that's true, it significantly strengthens the case for making the >"usual" penalty two tricks rather than one. My vote is for the status quo. .. But I strongly support the above view. Much to my surprise I find myself in the Burnian camp in this matter. They should be lined up against the wall and shot. .. If you have to tinker, then it should be 2 tricks. I'm more concerned that after every revoke I now *need* to check whether to restore equity, where at the moment I only need to do so if a long suit has been cut off. Whenever a player has revoked by ruffing the equity check will be required, and this takes a lot of time. I think the service levels of the TDs could suffer. "Had 4 equity restoration revokes today; just didn't have time to go to table 2" > > >Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net >1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 >Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Feb 20 20:30:33 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:30:33 -0500 Subject: [blml] Fw: revokes In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040220075725.00a0c2e0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: On Friday, Feb 20, 2004, at 08:03 US/Eastern, Eric Landau wrote: > This is why the WBF has taken so much abuse in this forum. Rules that > affect NBOs and Zones directly should be written to reflect input from > NBOs and Zones. Rules that affect players directly should be written > to reflect input from players. TFLB falls into the latter category, > but sometimes it seems as though the WBF doesn't understand this. I think (I may be wrong) that the WBF looks to its members - the NBOs - and perhaps its subordinate bureaucracy - the Zones - to determine what individual players in their jurisdictions would want, and to pass that up the chain. If that is not happening, it's (IMO) the fault of NBOs for not going to their membership and *asking* for input, and of the WBF for not pressuring NBOs to do that. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Feb 20 21:15:22 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 21:15:22 -0000 Subject: [blml] Fw: revokes References: <000a01c3f33b$f4f62d20$3020ebd4@mycomputer> <000e01c3f45d$2a09d850$964ee150@endicott> <001d01c3f71f$1b3f83a0$f42e87d9@4nrw70j> <5.2.0.9.0.20040220075212.01f49e30@pop.starpower.net> <9eSu7kCMEjNAFwkr@asimere.com> Message-ID: <009201c3f7f6$a78606e0$e49868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [John MadDog Probst] > this takes a lot of time. I think the service levels of > the TDs could suffer. "Had 4 equity restoration revokes > today; just didn't have time to go to table 2" [Nigel] Don't complain John! The positive effect of all this spurious "equity" legislation is to provide more entertaining employment for TDs and much more power for TDs to use their "judgement" to determine the results of events. Be warned, though, you can expect more angry complaints about unfairness when TDs' different "judgements" produce inconsistent rulings especially "split" rulings and especially where the rulings affect friends and enemies of the TD. Manifestly, players are more likey to respect and understand the law if, instead, it becomes more simple, complete and objective. Players will then realise and appreciate that they are equal under the law. Justice will again be done and be seen to be done. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.588 / Virus Database: 372 - Release Date: 13/02/2004 From ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Fri Feb 20 23:07:36 2004 From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (Tony Edwards) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 18:07:36 -0500 Subject: [blml] Brace yourselves! Message-ID: <000d01c3f806$554fef20$9dcafea9@ac342> sectional A brace of claims, one at the start, the other at the end, of the weekend. mps S XXX contract: 4S by South neither H QJX opening lead: C9 dlr: S D XXXX The play was simple: CT;SA;SK;SJ;HK(ducked); C KJXX H to the A. S Q S TXX Now it gets complicated. :-) H ATXXX H XXX Just as West leads a heart, South concedes D KXX D AQJXX 2 diamond tricks. North objects strongly. C 98XX C XX How would you rule? S AKJXXX It seems clear that had South conceded before H KX the lead, 2 tricks EW; but which takes D XX precedence, the concession or the play? C AQT If you decide the play came first, does this change your ruling? mps S 98 contract:4S This claim deals with the ACBL regulations. neither H --- West is on lead, but South claimed the rest. dlr:S D --- South had forgotten that the SQ was still out. C X How do you (or your jurisdiction) rule? S Q S --- In the ACBL tech files, there is a section H XX H XXX on claims with an outstanding trump. In it, D --- D --- the regulations state: C --- C --- "...there is a difference between a card that S --- is thought good because of rank and one that H --- is thought good by virtue of being the last D --- remaining." C ATX It would not be irrational to play the trump A (although you might not be allowed to if it benefits you side); it would be irrational to play the trump 2, because it would rarely gain, and could actively hurt. This sets up this ACBL principle: "C. It is considered a normal play for declarer to take a safety check with a "high" trump." S 98xxxx S QTx S x Original trump suit S AKJ With this priciple in mind, I asked how the spade suit had been played. After winning the opening lead in dummy, a spade to the A; back to dummy, spade to the K, East showing out. I ruled that declarer would not be required to take a "safety check", one trick to EW. Tony (aka ac342) ps. as it happens, I think the defenders ought to get 2 tricks in both cases, but, then, I'm only an egg. From ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Fri Feb 20 23:33:37 2004 From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 18:33:37 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Brace Yourselves! Message-ID: <20040220233337.4B7FF420AF@smeagol.ncf.ca> I apologize for the previous message. I have no idea how it got all messed up. sectional A brace of claims to start and end my weekend. mps S XXX contract: 4S by South neither H QJX opening lead: C9 dlr: S D XXXX The play was simple: CT;SA;SK;SJ;HK(ducked); C KJXX H to the A. S Q S TXX Now it gets complicated. :-) H ATXXX H XXX Just as West leads a heart, South concedes D KXX D AQJXX 2 diamond tricks. North objects strongly. C 98XX C XX How would you rule? S AKJXXX It seems clear that had South conceded before H KX the lead, 2 tricks EW; but which takes D XX precedence, the concession or the play? C AQT If you decide the play came first, does this change your ruling? mps S 98 contract:4S This claim deals with the ACBL regulations. neither H --- West is on lead, but South claimed the rest. dlr:S D --- South had forgotten that the SQ was still out. C X How do you (or your jurisdiction) rule? S Q S --- In the ACBL tech files, there is a section H XX H XXX on claims with an outstanding trump. In it, D --- D --- the regulations state: C --- C --- "...there is a difference between a card that S --- is thought good because of rank and one that H --- is thought good by virtue of being the last D --- remaining." C ATX It would not be irrational to play the trump A (although you might not be allowed to if it benefits you side); it would be irrational to play the trump 2, because it would rarely gain, and could actively hurt. This sets up this ACBL principle: "C. It is considered a normal play for declarer to take a safety check with a "high" trump." S 98xxxx S QTx S x Original trump suit S AKJ With this priciple in mind, I asked how the spade suit had been played. After winning the opening lead in dummy, a spade to the A; back to dummy, spade to the K, East showing out. I ruled that declarer would not be required to take a "safety check", one trick to EW. Tony (aka ac342) ps. as it happens, I think the defenders ought to get 2 tricks in both cases, but, then, I'm only an egg. From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Feb 20 23:42:25 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 23:42:25 -0000 Subject: [blml] Fw: revokes References: Message-ID: <000c01c3f80b$bfcfc820$766287d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 8:30 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Fw: revokes > > > I think (I may be wrong) that the WBF looks to > its members - the NBOs - and perhaps its subordinate > bureaucracy - the Zones - to determine what > individual players in their jurisdictions would want, > and to pass that up the chain. < +=+ Exactly. The point that some subscribers here overlook is that individual players are not in direct membership of the WBF. The members of the WBF are the NBOs. If they do not speak for the players whom they represent, for whom do they speak? The WBF goes to the NBOs for opinion because it is to the NBOs that the WBF is accountable. The majority of players in membership of NBOs are less than expert so it causes no surprise if NBOs' views are not always at one with the opinions expressed in the somewhat rarefied atmosphere of blml. ~ G ~ +=+ From walt1@verizon.net Fri Feb 20 23:56:20 2004 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 18:56:20 -0500 Subject: [blml] WBF/NBO: Was - Revokes In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040220075725.00a0c2e0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <6.0.2.0.0.20040220183911.02c46490@incoming.verizon.net> At 03:30 PM 20/02/2004, Ed Reppert wrote: >On Friday, Feb 20, 2004, at 08:03 US/Eastern, Eric Landau wrote: > >>This is why the WBF has taken so much abuse in this forum. Rules that >>affect NBOs and Zones directly should be written to reflect input from >>NBOs and Zones. Rules that affect players directly should be written to >>reflect input from players. TFLB falls into the latter category, but >>sometimes it seems as though the WBF doesn't understand this. > >I think (I may be wrong) that the WBF looks to its members - the NBOs - >and perhaps its subordinate bureaucracy - the Zones - to determine what >individual players in their jurisdictions would want, and to pass that up >the chain. If that is not happening, it's (IMO) the fault of NBOs for not >going to their membership and *asking* for input, and of the WBF for not >pressuring NBOs to do that. Ed That's the impression I have also. Certainly when the NBO's make the wrong moves (as many of us here feel that the ACBL has been and is doing) the NBO will eventually see that the membership is declining (and hopefully that something should be done to counter this). My question is: Does the WBF feel that perhaps it can or should try to do something to counter declining membership, or do they just sit back and say "That's not my job?" I think declining membership is going to become more and more of a problem with online bridge now available because it opens up an alternative. Unfortunately I can't see what to do about it. It appears to me that the people who are making ACBL decisions don't know what to do to counter the trend, and that the board of directors who hires them is too entrenched for the membership to get rid of. I believe this leads to the flack that the WBF gets here. If the WBF cannot or will not help us, we see declining membership as a trend that is bound to get worse and worse. Walt From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Sat Feb 21 03:11:50 2004 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 22:11:50 -0500 Subject: [blml] Brace Yourselves! In-Reply-To: <20040220233337.4B7FF420AF@smeagol.ncf.ca> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20040220220052.019ea050@mail.vzavenue.net> At 06:33 PM 2/20/2004, A. L. Edwards wrote: >I apologize for the previous message. I have no idea how it >got all messed up. > >sectional A brace of claims to start and end my weekend. >mps S XXX contract: 4S by South >neither H QJX opening lead: C9 >dlr: S D XXXX The play was simple: CT;SA;SK;SJ;HK(ducked); > C KJXX H to the A. > S Q S TXX Now it gets complicated. :-) > H ATXXX H XXX Just as West leads a heart, South concedes > D KXX D AQJXX 2 diamond tricks. North objects strongly. > C 98XX C XX How would you rule? > S AKJXXX It seems clear that had South conceded before > H KX the lead, 2 tricks EW; but which takes > D XX precedence, the concession or the play? > C AQT If you decide the play came first, does this > change your ruling? I would have to see what happened at the table to see which came first. If South conceded, North (dummy) cannot object, and play ceases, so West's lead is irrelevant. If the play came first, then there is no normal line of play on which South loses two diamond tricks. South knows that the HQ and CKJ in dummy are good, so he takes them for all the tricks. > mps S 98 contract:4S This claim deals with the ACBL regulations. > neither H --- West is on lead, but South claimed the rest. > dlr:S D --- South had forgotten that the SQ was still out. > C X How do you (or your jurisdiction) rule? > S Q S --- In the ACBL tech files, there is a section > H XX H XXX on claims with an outstanding trump. In it, > D --- D --- the regulations state: > C --- C --- "...there is a difference between a card that > S --- is thought good because of rank and one that > H --- is thought good by virtue of being the last > D --- remaining." > C ATX It would not be irrational to play the trump A > (although you might not be allowed to if it > benefits you side); it would be irrational to >play the trump 2, because it would rarely gain, and could actively hurt. >This sets up this ACBL principle: > "C. It is considered a normal play for declarer to take a safety check > with a "high" trump." > S 98xxxx > S QTx S x Original trump suit > S AKJ >With this priciple in mind, I asked how the spade suit had been played. >After winning the opening lead in dummy, a spade to the A; back to >dummy, spade to the K, East showing out. >I ruled that declarer would not be required to take a "safety check", one >trick to EW. I would have to see the whole hand. If South made a play which was consistent with West having the S7 left, then it would be normal for him to lead the S9 to make a safety check. For example, suppose that South needed to ruff a heart with the SJ. He might draw two rounds of trumps, leaving one outstanding, then set up his heart ruff, and then later get back to dummy to draw the last trump. In contrast, if South could not have made such a play, then there is no safety check. For example, if he drew two rounds of trumps, then gave up the lead in another suit with no plans to prepare for a ruff, he must have known at that time that all opposing trumps were either drawn or high. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Feb 21 07:21:58 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 02:21:58 -0500 Subject: [blml] Fw: revokes In-Reply-To: <000c01c3f80b$bfcfc820$766287d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: On Friday, Feb 20, 2004, at 18:42 US/Eastern, grandeval wrote: > +=+ Exactly. The point that some subscribers here > overlook is that individual players are not in direct > membership of the WBF. The members of the WBF > are the NBOs. If they do not speak for the players > whom they represent, for whom do they speak? > The WBF goes to the NBOs for opinion because it > is to the NBOs that the WBF is accountable. The > majority of players in membership of NBOs are less > than expert so it causes no surprise if NBOs' views > are not always at one with the opinions expressed > in the somewhat rarefied atmosphere of blml. One of our local club directors, who happened to be directing tonight, is also the president of our Unit. I asked her if anything had filtered down to the Unit level from the ACBL asking for player input to the forthcoming laws review. She said no. :-( On a side note, I wonder if the ACBL has told the USBF yet what the USBF's opinion is on the question of laws changes. From hermandw@hdw.be Sat Feb 21 11:01:46 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 12:01:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Brace Yourselves! (1) In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20040220220052.019ea050@mail.vzavenue.net> References: <5.1.1.6.0.20040220220052.019ea050@mail.vzavenue.net> Message-ID: <40373A9A.8050209@hdw.be> David J. Grabiner wrote: > At 06:33 PM 2/20/2004, A. L. Edwards wrote: > >> I apologize for the previous message. I have no idea how it >> got all messed up. >> >> sectional A brace of claims to start and end my weekend. >> mps S XXX contract: 4S by South >> neither H QJX opening lead: C9 >> dlr: S D XXXX The play was simple: >> CT;SA;SK;SJ;HK(ducked); >> C KJXX H to the A. >> S Q S TXX Now it gets complicated. :-) >> H ATXXX H XXX Just as West leads a heart, South concedes >> D KXX D AQJXX 2 diamond tricks. North objects strongly. >> C 98XX C XX How would you rule? >> S AKJXXX It seems clear that had South conceded >> before >> H KX the lead, 2 tricks EW; but which takes >> D XX precedence, the concession or the play? >> C AQT If you decide the play came first, does >> this >> change your ruling? > > > I would have to see what happened at the table to see which came first. > If South conceded, North (dummy) cannot object, and play ceases, so > West's lead is irrelevant. > OK so far. > If the play came first, then there is no normal line of play on which > South loses two diamond tricks. South knows that the HQ and CKJ in > dummy are good, so he takes them for all the tricks. > Perhaps not. Yes, declarer cannot fail to win this trick with the HQ. And it would be irrational for him not to throw one of the diamonds on that one. But then some might rule that he still concedes a diamond trick. Why did he not unblock clubs in an attempt to throw one of his diamonds on them? Should we allow him to tackle the clubs right now? I believe that it may still be normal for him to give up one diamond trick. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Sat Feb 21 11:04:59 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 12:04:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Brace Yourselves! (2) In-Reply-To: <20040220233337.4B7FF420AF@smeagol.ncf.ca> References: <20040220233337.4B7FF420AF@smeagol.ncf.ca> Message-ID: <40373B5B.9070801@hdw.be> A. L. Edwards wrote: > > mps S 98 contract:4S This claim deals with the ACBL regulations. > neither H --- West is on lead, but South claimed the rest. > dlr:S D --- South had forgotten that the SQ was still out. > C X How do you (or your jurisdiction) rule? > S Q S --- In the ACBL tech files, there is a section > H XX H XXX on claims with an outstanding trump. In it, > D --- D --- the regulations state: > C --- C --- "...there is a difference between a card that > S --- is thought good because of rank and one that > H --- is thought good by virtue of being the last > D --- remaining." > C ATX It would not be irrational to play the trump A > (although you might not be allowed to if it > benefits you side); it would be irrational to > play the trump 2, because it would rarely gain, and could actively hurt. > This sets up this ACBL principle: I don't understand this case. I fail to see (maybe it's me) which lines don't lead to one trick for EW (high trump) and two for NS (last trump and club ace - or both trumps if CA gets ruffed). I'm sticking my neck out, probably? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From blml@wellsborocomputing.com Sat Feb 21 11:22:03 2004 From: blml@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 06:22:03 -0500 Subject: [blml] Fw: revokes In-Reply-To: References: <000c01c3f80b$bfcfc820$766287d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <3qee30licud0ohedvr0h4dok1998gc5fn5@4ax.com> On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 02:21:58 -0500, Ed Reppert wrote: >On Friday, Feb 20, 2004, at 18:42 US/Eastern, grandeval wrote: > >> +=+ Exactly. The point that some subscribers here >> overlook is that individual players are not in direct >> membership of the WBF. The members of the WBF >> are the NBOs. If they do not speak for the players >> whom they represent, for whom do they speak? >> The WBF goes to the NBOs for opinion because it >> is to the NBOs that the WBF is accountable. The >> majority of players in membership of NBOs are less >> than expert so it causes no surprise if NBOs' views >> are not always at one with the opinions expressed >> in the somewhat rarefied atmosphere of blml. > >One of our local club directors, who happened to be directing tonight, >is also the president of our Unit. I asked her if anything had filtered >down to the Unit level from the ACBL asking for player input to the >forthcoming laws review. She said no. :-( > And that's about the clearest possible answer to the question Grattan posed in his posting. The NBOs (or at least some of them) speak for those people who hold positions within the hierarchy of that NBO, plus a few of the top TDs and players, and that's all. >On a side note, I wonder if the ACBL has told the USBF yet what the >USBF's opinion is on the question of laws changes. > I'm sure it's on the ACBL's list of priorities. It's probably the next item after consulting the membership. Brian. From blml@wrightnet.demon.co.uk Sat Feb 21 11:39:07 2004 From: blml@wrightnet.demon.co.uk (Steve Wright) Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 11:39:07 +0000 Subject: [blml] Major penalty card Message-ID: In Law 50D1, it says , "The requirement that offender must play the card is authorised information for his partner; however any other information arising from facing of the penalty card is unauthorised for partner". I understand this to mean, 1] If the offender is last to play on a trick and the penalty card is a King, his partner is allowed to know NOT to play his Ace and thus felling the King. 2] The fact that offender is forced to play the penalty card means that his partner is allowed to know that it is NOT a defensive signal. 3] The manner in which the penalty card was originally exposed could mean that the card was intended to be a defensive signal and thus partner cannot take advantage of it. Is it significant that this text appears in L50D1 and not in L50D? In other words does it apply to L50D2, especially L50D2b? -- Steve Wright Leicester, England From blml@blakjak.com Sat Feb 21 14:17:31 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 14:17:31 +0000 Subject: [blml] Fw: revokes In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040220075212.01f49e30@pop.starpower.net> References: <000a01c3f33b$f4f62d20$3020ebd4@mycomputer> <000e01c3f45d$2a09d850$964ee150@endicott> <001d01c3f71f$1b3f83a0$f42e87d9@4nrw70j> <5.2.0.9.0.20040220075212.01f49e30@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau wrote >At 02:31 PM 2/19/04, grandeval wrote: > >> I also think that in most clubs an increased >>frequency of equity rulings will not be felt ... many >>club directors are likely to transfer one trick and >>only look further if the player says "I would have >>made x tricks if he hadn't revoked". > >If that's true, it significantly strengthens the case for making the >"usual" penalty two tricks rather than one. Exactly why I want it to revert to two tricks! -- 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 blml@blakjak.com Sat Feb 21 14:25:55 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 14:25:55 +0000 Subject: [blml] Major penalty card In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Steve Wright wrote >In Law 50D1, it says , "The requirement that offender must play the >card is authorised information for his partner; however any other >information arising from facing of the penalty card is unauthorised for >partner". > >I understand this to mean, > >1] If the offender is last to play on a trick and the penalty card is a >King, his partner is allowed to know NOT to play his Ace and thus >felling the King. You should include situations where he is third to play. His partner can underlead his ace and is not required to lead his ace. However, when deciding whether to lead this suit he mauy not use knowledge of the king. >2] The fact that offender is forced to play the penalty card means that >his partner is allowed to know that it is NOT a defensive signal. Absolutely. >3] The manner in which the penalty card was originally exposed could >mean that the card was intended to be a defensive signal and thus >partner cannot take advantage of it. True. Or a lead. So if partner led the king out of turn it is UI that he has the queen as well, or that he prefers to lead that suit. >Is it significant that this text appears in L50D1 and not in L50D? In >other words does it apply to L50D2, especially L50D2b? Everything is UI except the one thing. So partner may not use knowledge of the king in deciding whether to follow L50D2A or B. -- 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 hermandw@hdw.be Sat Feb 21 17:01:39 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 18:01:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Brace Yourselves! (2) In-Reply-To: <001001c3f892$22aecaa0$9dcafea9@ac342> References: <20040220233337.4B7FF420AF@smeagol.ncf.ca> <40373B5B.9070801@hdw.be> <001001c3f892$22aecaa0$9dcafea9@ac342> Message-ID: <40378EF3.8010802@hdw.be> Oops. Tony Edwards wrote: >> >>I don't understand this case. I fail to see (maybe it's me) which >>lines don't lead to one trick for EW (high trump) and two for NS (last >>trump and club ace - or both trumps if CA gets ruffed). >> >>I'm sticking my neck out, probably? >> > > West leads a heart, ruffed, S9(trump "check") to the forgotten Q, last trick > won with a heart. > > Indeed. Oops. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran@online.no Sat Feb 21 17:20:49 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 18:20:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Major penalty card In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3f89f$0d6bc140$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson ............. > >Is it significant that this text appears in L50D1 and not in L50D? In > >other words does it apply to L50D2, especially L50D2b? >=20 > Everything is UI except the one thing. So partner may not use > knowledge of the king in deciding whether to follow L50D2A or B. Is there any way partner to the player who has a major penalty card can = have any influence whether to follow L50D2A or B????? Isn't this selection = always to be decided by declarer? Regards Sven From ehaa@starpower.net Sat Feb 21 22:16:27 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 17:16:27 -0500 Subject: [blml] Fw: revokes In-Reply-To: <000c01c3f80b$bfcfc820$766287d9@4nrw70j> References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040221164512.01f644f0@pop.starpower.net> At 06:42 PM 2/20/04, grandeval wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Ed Reppert" > > > I think (I may be wrong) that the WBF looks to > > its members - the NBOs - and perhaps its subordinate > > bureaucracy - the Zones - to determine what > > individual players in their jurisdictions would want, > > and to pass that up the chain. >< >+=+ Exactly. The point that some subscribers here >overlook is that individual players are not in direct >membership of the WBF. The members of the WBF >are the NBOs. If they do not speak for the players >whom they represent, for whom do they speak? >The WBF goes to the NBOs for opinion because it >is to the NBOs that the WBF is accountable. The >majority of players in membership of NBOs are less >than expert so it causes no surprise if NBOs' views >are not always at one with the opinions expressed >in the somewhat rarefied atmosphere of blml. Which is exactly as it should be, with respect to the primary function of NBOs and the WBF. These bodies exist to organize, administer and operate competitive bridge. At the international level, the WBF organizes, administers and operates with input from its constituent bodies of organizers, administrators and operators. This works well enough in practice. But the WBF, and, by extension, its member bodies, have another function which is ancillary to their primary purpose: they codify the rules of the game itself. The Laws of Bridge are conceptually not about organization, administration and operation (in our beloved FLB there are many obvious exceptions, but they are marginal to its essential purpose despite their word count); they are about how to play the game of Bridge. The constituency for the laws of the game is its players, not its organizers, administrators and operators; some would say it was the game itself. The point that the WBF seems to overlook is that they have two essentially independent functions entrusted to them on behalf of two essentially independent consituencies. It is fine for the organizers, administrators and operators to speak for the players on matters of organization, administration and operation, but when it comes to the game itself the organizers, adminstrators and operators do not speak for the players, albeit some may claim to, or even actually believe they do. In truth, however, the players can only speak for themselves, and if the WBF is to properly carry out its function as the author and interpreter of the Laws of the game, it must listen. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From mikedod@gte.net Sun Feb 22 02:24:49 2004 From: mikedod@gte.net (mike dodson) Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 18:24:49 -0800 Subject: [blml] Major penalty card References: <000001c3f89f$0d6bc140$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <003d01c3f8fa$bd27a3f0$0100a8c0@MikesDesk> Sven > David Stevenson .... Steve Wright......... > >Is it significant that this text appears in L50D1 and not in L50D? In > >other words does it apply to L50D2, especially L50D2b? > > Everything is UI except the one thing. So partner may not use > knowledge of the king in deciding whether to follow L50D2A or B. Is there any way partner to the player who has a major penalty card can have any influence whether to follow L50D2A or B????? Isn't this selection always to be decided by declarer? Mike: Steve's problem arises when declarer exercises his L50D2(a or b) option so offender's partner must choose a lead. The note on UI appears in L50D1, not 2. I don't think there really is a problem since I take the note as just a reference to L16C. Mike Dodson From svenpran@online.no Sun Feb 22 07:18:45 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 08:18:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Major penalty card In-Reply-To: <003d01c3f8fa$bd27a3f0$0100a8c0@MikesDesk> Message-ID: <000001c3f914$1bc4f2a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> mike dodson ...... > Sven > > David Stevenson > .... Steve Wright......... > > >Is it significant that this text appears in L50D1 and not in L50D? = In > > >other words does it apply to L50D2, especially L50D2b? > > > > Everything is UI except the one thing. So partner may not use > > knowledge of the king in deciding whether to follow L50D2A or B. >=20 > Is there any way partner to the player who has a major penalty card=20 > can have any influence whether to follow L50D2A or B????? Isn't this > selection always to be decided by declarer? >=20 > Mike: Steve's problem arises when declarer exercises his L50D2(a or = b) > option so offender's partner must choose a lead. The note on UI = appears > in L50D1, not 2. I don't think there really is a problem since I take > the note as just a reference to L16C. So maybe he really meant to say "how to follow L50D2A or B" rather than "whether to follow ..."? (Just a dumb commentary from one whose native language is Norwegian = rather than English? So far I haven't had much of a problem with L50 myself = either) Regards Sven From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Feb 22 08:08:53 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 08:08:53 -0000 Subject: [blml] Fw: revokes References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040221164512.01f644f0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000f01c3f91b$5eaf8420$72ac193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2004 10:16 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Fw: revokes > > The point that the WBF seems to overlook is that they > have two essentially independent functions entrusted > to them on behalf of two essentially independent > consituencies. It is fine for the organizers, administrators > and operators to speak for the players on matters of > organization, administration and operation, but when it > comes to the game itself the organizers, adminstrators > and operators do not speak for the players, albeit some > may claim to, or even actually believe they do. In truth, > however, the players can only speak for themselves, > and if the WBF is to properly carry out its function as > the author and interpreter of the Laws of the game, it must listen. > > +=+ Our line of communication from players is through NBOs. We have no other link. It is a principal function of an NBO to speak for its members, the masses of whom are otherwise unheard. ~ G ~ +=+ From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Sun Feb 22 10:34:56 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 11:34:56 +0100 Subject: Fw: [blml] Fw: revokes Message-ID: <003c01c3f92f$8b2bf9c0$0f82b6d4@LNV> > > > At 02:55 AM 2/20/04, Grattan wrote: > > > > > > > But as to your main point, like TDs the legislators > > > >are servants of the game. On the benefit of the game > > > >we look mainly to the opinions of member NBOs and > > > >it is those opinions that would be likely to divert the > > > >legislators from a given path. That is why my aim, > > > >our aim, is mostly to receive the views of NBOs and > > > >Zones. to": > > We are too formal in this respect in my humble but strong opinion. Why do > we > > think that benefit for the game is more likely to come from NBO's than > from > > interested and knowledgable individuals? I still feel that the letter > about > > adjusted scores written by Eric Landau 30 years ago had more influence > than > > some zonal ones. > > And don't tell me that I have given the answer myself quite clearly more > > than once when giving my opinion about contributions to this forum. There > > once in a while are very useful ones and we are capable of catching those. > > And what is our experience with contributions from nbo's? There once in a > > while are very useful ones. Eric: > > > This is why the WBF has taken so much abuse in this forum. Rules that > > > affect NBOs and Zones directly should be written to reflect input from > > > NBOs and Zones. Rules that affect players directly should be written > > > to reflect input from players. TFLB falls into the latter category, > > > but sometimes it seems as though the WBF doesn't understand this. > > I don't understand what you are saying here, so I do not understand what it > > is that the WBF doesn't understand. > > And assuming to be in that category with respect to your message, if you > > want to let it have some effect you need to explain in more detail what you > > want. > > > > ton > > There are regular problems in sending messages out, so this one didn't go > yesterday. Which made it possible to read another message from Eric, saying > that the BWF needs to listen to the players when working on new laws. If > that is what you meant before I have my answer and I agree with it. > > ton > > > > From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sun Feb 22 15:20:57 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 15:20:57 -0000 Subject: [blml] KISS References: <017401c3f574$c7a1ff80$5f9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <004201c3f957$797cd140$3e9568d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Simplified from rec.games.bridge] The legal trend towards subjective equity rulings has unfortunate consequences. A player may gripe about the objective application of an old draconian law; but he can appreciate that: the law was interpreted literally, the ruling does not depend on which Tournament Director was called, and the law affects everyone in the same way. In an equity ruling, however, it is less likely that two Tournament Directors would arrive at the same compromise; and playere are more likely to suspect the fairness of a TD's subjective judgement. Rulings are less consistent. So there are more complaints and discontent. Since an Appeal Committee is more likely to uphold a compromise decision, it no longer provides the same correction mechanism for mistakes -- or outlet valve for discontent. Thus the whim of a TD will decide more events. Few TDs are vindictive megalomaniacs; but all TDs are human beings with friends and enemies; however hard a TD strives to consult and to be fair, equity rulings present him with invidious decisions. The Bridge TD's role will sometimes resemble that of the "Dungeonmaster" in "Dungeons and Dragons", who must search his conscience or throw dice to decide outcome of the game. Please may we all campaign... to expunge equity rulings from the law book and to remove reliance on subjectivity, where possible. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.588 / Virus Database: 372 - Release Date: 13/02/2004 From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Sun Feb 22 11:53:21 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 11:53:21 -0000 Subject: [blml] Fw: revokes References: <000c01c3f80b$bfcfc820$766287d9@4nrw70j> <3qee30licud0ohedvr0h4dok1998gc5fn5@4ax.com> Message-ID: <010c01c3f963$61eb6080$68182850@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2004 11:22 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Fw: revokes > > > >One of our local club directors, who happened to be directing > >tonight, is also the president of our Unit. I asked her if anything > >had filtered down to the Unit level from the ACBL asking for > >player input to the forthcoming laws review. She said no. :-( > > +=+ The minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission do not arrive there? Where do they go? +=+ > > And that's about the clearest possible answer to the question > Grattan posed in his posting. The NBOs (or at least some of them) > speak for those people who hold positions within the hierarchy of > that NBO, plus a few of the top TDs and players, and that's all. > +=+ Many an NBO would challenge this statement, saying that they are democratically elected bodies, each with a mandate and an entitlement to speak for its membership. The people placed within the hierarchies of NBOs are not, in my experience, some kind of uncommon genre set apart from the generality of bridge players - and the majority could not claim to be anything exceptional as players. Most correspondents on blml are, on the other hand, by and large people with atypical interests. Blml is occasionally a source of interesting considerations but it has no claim to speak the opinions of 'bridge players' in the wider sense. When one is prompted to pursue an idea garnered here the assay of its merits must be undertaken in another crucible. ~ G ~ +=+ From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Sun Feb 22 12:03:55 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 12:03:55 -0000 Subject: [blml] Major penalty card References: <000001c3f89f$0d6bc140$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <010d01c3f963$62c91650$68182850@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2004 5:20 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Major penalty card > David Stevenson ............. > >Is it significant that this text appears in L50D1 and > > not in L50D? In other words does it apply to L50D2, especially L50D2b? > > Everything is UI except the one thing. So partner > may not use knowledge of the king in deciding whether > to follow L50D2A or B. Is there any way partner to the player who has a major penalty card can have any influence whether to follow L50D2A or B????? Isn't this selection always to be decided by declarer? +=+ If declarer opts for (b) the situation reverts, so that the guidance in parenthesis in D1 applies. I do not quite understand what is being said about influence on declarer's choice of option - UI does not enter into the equation in that respect. +=+ From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Sun Feb 22 13:30:55 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 13:30:55 -0000 Subject: [blml] No messages? I'll start something, then References: Message-ID: <010e01c3f963$63db49a0$68182850@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 6:03 PM Subject: Re: [blml] No messages? I'll start something, then > > On Friday, Feb 13, 2004, at 06:55 US/Eastern, > Sven Pran wrote: > > > Of course not "force", but I would say a rather > heavy impact. > > I doubt that. I have to wonder if anyone in the > ACBL, for example, who does not subscribe to this > list has even heard of it. > +=+ Half a dozen complimentary copies were sent to leading members of the ACBL hierarchy of the day, including one to Memphis. Kaplan discussed our attitude to various aspects of TD procedures in the course of preparation of the book. I read complaints that every player does not have access to a publication which is essentially for TDs, not for players. I am not sure whether it is argued that the existence of materials, such as commentaries and seminar papers, that are designed for the development of TDs and expansion of their know-how, is prejudicial to the game. Or why it is sometimes apparently suggested that a player who notices an irregularity, and will call the director, needs to know how the director is taught to deal with it. I do not see that as part of a player's responsibilities, and I incline to the opinion that players should concentrate on knowing what they need to know and leave directing to the TDs. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From walt1@verizon.net Sun Feb 22 17:03:42 2004 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 12:03:42 -0500 Subject: [blml] No messages? I'll start something, then In-Reply-To: <010e01c3f963$63db49a0$68182850@multivisionoem> References: <010e01c3f963$63db49a0$68182850@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040222115342.036539b0@incoming.verizon.net> At 08:30 AM 22/02/2004, Grattan Endicott wrote: > I read complaints that every player does not have >access to a publication which is essentially for TDs, not >for players. I am not sure whether it is argued that the >existence of materials, such as commentaries and seminar >papers, that are designed for the development of TDs and >expansion of their know-how, is prejudicial to the game. >Or why it is sometimes apparently suggested that a player >who notices an irregularity, and will call the director, needs >to know how the director is taught to deal with it. I do not >see that as part of a player's responsibilities, and I incline >to the opinion that players should concentrate on knowing >what they need to know and leave directing to the TDs. Grattan I feel that if I play a game and hope to win that I should know the rules. How directors are taught to deal with irregularities is to my mind part of this. I think it is foolish to spend a large amount of time and money playing a game without learning the rules. I am, as are many players, a certified director in the ACBL. Since I am not currently directing I do not have access to "director only" materials that would help me to better understand what rulings should be made. More than once have I received a horrible ruling from a tournament certified director. I have only gotten the correct ruling because I knew enough to insist that the ruling I got was wrong. Your viewpoint seems to be either that directors never make mistakes, or that we should sit quietly and let them mistakes because we are not entitled to know what the correct ruling should be. Walt From svenpran@online.no Sun Feb 22 17:55:19 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 18:55:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Major penalty card In-Reply-To: <010d01c3f963$62c91650$68182850@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <000001c3f96d$09df3380$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Grattan Endicott ........... > > David Stevenson > ............. > > >Is it significant that this text appears in L50D1 and > > > not in L50D? In other words does it apply to L50D2, > especially L50D2b? > > > > Everything is UI except the one thing. So partner > > may not use knowledge of the king in deciding whether > > to follow L50D2A or B. > > Is there any way partner to the player who has a major > penalty card can have any influence whether to follow > L50D2A or B????? Isn't this selection always to be > decided by declarer? > > +=+ If declarer opts for (b) the situation reverts, so that > the guidance in parenthesis in D1 applies. I do not > quite understand what is being said about influence on > declarer's choice of option - UI does not enter into the > equation in that respect. +=+ I think this UI "problem" can be narrowed down to a few sample questions: My partner (declarer's RHO) has the Diamond Ace as a major penalty card and I hold the Diamond King together with a single small diamond. Dummy has the Diamond Queen and a few small diamonds: Case 1: Declarer leads a small diamond: Am I allowed to play my little diamond with the knowledge that partner is forced to play his Ace? (Without this knowledge I would easily be tempted to play my King in order to secure that trick). Case 2: I am on the lead and Declarer chooses to let me play any card at my own choice: Am I allowed to play my little Diamond with the knowledge that partner is forced to play his Ace? Case 3: I am on the lead and Declarer requests me to play a diamond: Am I free to select my King or the small diamond according to what I find most favorable to my side with the knowledge that partner holds the Ace? (Which no longer is a penalty card). Regards Sven From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sun Feb 22 18:09:49 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 18:09:49 -0000 Subject: [blml] No messages? I'll start something, then References: <010e01c3f963$63db49a0$68182850@multivisionoem> <6.0.3.0.0.20040222115342.036539b0@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: <015b01c3f96f$12f2e460$3e9568d5@tinyhrieuyik> > [Walt] > More than once have I received a horrible ruling from a > tournament certified director. I have only gotten the > correct ruling because I knew enough to insist that the > ruling I got was wrong. [Nigel] An example is when you make a faulty claim and opponents protest it. Few players and TDs will be aware of how much latitude law-makers now allow to claimers. The law-book gives no clue to the new magnanimity. Another recent example is the consensus, here, of the EBULEC and some English TDs that it is legal to agree to waive a literal interpretation of the EBU level three "Rule of 19" requirements, when considering agreements about opening bids. How can an ordinary player who is not a member of the discussion group learn of these peculiar dispensations? How can he take advantage of them if he doesn't know of them? No doubt, those to privy commentaries and minutes could multiply such examples. There is a severe danger that that bridge-players will eventually realize that there is one law for them and another more lenient and subjective one for some TDs and initiates. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.588 / Virus Database: 372 - Release Date: 13/02/2004 From blml@blakjak.com Sun Feb 22 20:09:10 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 20:09:10 +0000 Subject: [blml] Major penalty card In-Reply-To: <000001c3f96d$09df3380$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <010d01c3f963$62c91650$68182850@multivisionoem> <000001c3f96d$09df3380$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >I think this UI "problem" can be narrowed down to a few sample questions: > >My partner (declarer's RHO) has the Diamond Ace as a major penalty card and >I hold the Diamond King together with a single small diamond. Dummy has the >Diamond Queen and a few small diamonds: > >Case 1: Declarer leads a small diamond: Am I allowed to play my little >diamond with the knowledge that partner is forced to play his Ace? (Without >this knowledge I would easily be tempted to play my King in order to secure >that trick). Yes, because you are allowed to 'know' that partner is playing the ace to this trick. >Case 2: I am on the lead and Declarer chooses to let me play any card at my >own choice: Am I allowed to play my little Diamond with the knowledge that >partner is forced to play his Ace? Yes, because you are allowed to 'know' that partner is playing the ace to this trick. But, you may not choose to play a diamond as against some other suit based on knowledge of partner's ace. >Case 3: I am on the lead and Declarer requests me to play a diamond: Am I >free to select my King or the small diamond according to what I find most >favorable to my side with the knowledge that partner holds the Ace? (Which >no longer is a penalty card). No, partner's holding of the ace is unauthorised. -------------- Good questions: I shall make a note for future TD training courses. -- 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 Sun Feb 22 20:16:56 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 15:16:56 -0500 Subject: [blml] Fw: revokes In-Reply-To: <010c01c3f963$61eb6080$68182850@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <100F0BCB-6574-11D8-AA55-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Sunday, Feb 22, 2004, at 06:53 US/Eastern, Grattan Endicott wrote: > +=+ The minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission do not > arrive there? Where do they go? +=+ Good question. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Feb 22 20:27:18 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 15:27:18 -0500 Subject: [blml] No messages? I'll start something, then In-Reply-To: <010e01c3f963$63db49a0$68182850@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <8268CC30-6575-11D8-AA55-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Sunday, Feb 22, 2004, at 08:30 US/Eastern, Grattan Endicott wrote: > I read complaints that every player does not have > access to a publication which is essentially for TDs, not > for players. I am not sure whether it is argued that the > existence of materials, such as commentaries and seminar > papers, that are designed for the development of TDs and > expansion of their know-how, is prejudicial to the game. > Or why it is sometimes apparently suggested that a player > who notices an irregularity, and will call the director, needs > to know how the director is taught to deal with it. I do not > see that as part of a player's responsibilities, and I incline > to the opinion that players should concentrate on knowing > what they need to know and leave directing to the TDs. Some of us aspire to be directors. In the ACBL, there are 24 districts and I don't know how many units. Training seminars for club TDs are conducted at NABCs and, I think, at some regionals. They have not, so far as I know, been conducted at any regionals around here (District 4). To become a club director, I find, one studies on one's own, and then asks the Unit to appoint a monitor for the written test, which Memphis then mails to that monitor. How one becomes an "official ACBL Tournament Director" (an employee of the ACBL, as I understand it) I don't know. One can hunt down a few things on the 'net, here and there, but there seems no coherent effort within the ACBL to disseminate information to TDs via that medium. There are the "tech notes" in ACBLScore, which apparently have the status of directives from the LC, but those are not available to anyone who does not have the program - which costs $50 for club TDs, $150 for anyone else, and runs only on Windows. The situation could be better - a lot better. :-( From blml@wrightnet.demon.co.uk Sun Feb 22 23:42:16 2004 From: blml@wrightnet.demon.co.uk (Steve Wright) Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 23:42:16 +0000 Subject: [blml] No messages? I'll start something, then In-Reply-To: <015b01c3f96f$12f2e460$3e9568d5@tinyhrieuyik> References: <010e01c3f963$63db49a0$68182850@multivisionoem> <6.0.3.0.0.20040222115342.036539b0@incoming.verizon.net> <015b01c3f96f$12f2e460$3e9568d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: In message <015b01c3f96f$12f2e460$3e9568d5@tinyhrieuyik>, Nigel Guthrie writes > >Another recent example is the consensus, here, of the EBULEC >and some English TDs that it is legal to agree to waive a >literal interpretation of the EBU level three "Rule of 19" >requirements, when considering agreements about opening bids. > >How can an ordinary player who is not a member of the >discussion group learn of these peculiar dispensations? >How can he take advantage of them if he doesn't know of them? How can we as Club TDs find out? We do the course, get our certificate, but that's the last we hear from the EBU. I've actually passed the County course, but I don't get anything from the EBU except an annual invitation to attend a two-day refresher. -- Steve Wright Leicester, England From john@asimere.com Mon Feb 23 01:31:23 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 01:31:23 +0000 Subject: [blml] assigned score. - tough one. Message-ID: just for fun Today I ran the Middlesex teams of 8. (8 teams, 7 x 6 board rounds, *cross-imped*). nice little twinned flower movement :) so we get 4 imp figures for each board and use a VP scale which is twice root(2) bigger than the VP scale for T-of-4. I'm confident on this by the way - it really is twice root 2. c 73 imps for 20-0 over 6 boards. Now the customers decide to misboard somewhere and at one pair of tables they actually play the same misboarded hand. the other pair of tables play it roomwise. So I have two comparisons now, not 4. Case 1. NS1-EW1 is one, and NS2-EW2 is the other, different hands but valid comparisons. and when only one table plays misboarded, I still have two comparisons Case 2. NS1-EW1 and NS1-EW2. same hand but only one valid NS score. What adjustments are you going to make? and I'm not talking about fines, but adjustments to the score in imps. No ArtAss's will be entertained btw and I think I know the answer. cheers John -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Mon Feb 23 02:04:36 2004 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 21:04:36 -0500 Subject: [blml] assigned score. - tough one. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20040222205103.019a81f0@mail.vzavenue.net> At 08:31 PM 2/22/2004, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >just for fun > >Today I ran the Middlesex teams of 8. (8 teams, 7 x 6 board rounds, >*cross-imped*). nice little twinned flower movement :) > >so we get 4 imp figures for each board and use a VP scale which is twice >root(2) bigger than the VP scale for T-of-4. I'm confident on this by >the way - it really is twice root 2. c 73 imps for 20-0 over 6 boards. > >Now the customers decide to misboard somewhere and at one pair of tables >they actually play the same misboarded hand. the other pair of tables >play it roomwise. So I have two comparisons now, not 4. > >Case 1. NS1-EW1 is one, and NS2-EW2 is the other, different hands but >valid comparisons. > >and when only one table plays misboarded, I still have two comparisons > >Case 2. NS1-EW1 and NS1-EW2. same hand but only one valid NS score. > >What adjustments are you going to make? and I'm not talking about fines, >but adjustments to the score in imps. No ArtAss's will be entertained >btw and I think I know the answer. cheers John In Case 1, each comparison should be doubled in value. This is fair to both sides; if someone bid to a good non-vulnerable slam for +980 instead of +480, he would have gained 22 IMPs with no foul, and he should still get 22 IMPs. In Case 2, I would let the comparisons stand without further weighting. If NS2 had not played the board because it was unplayable, they would get some type of average on their comparisons and the NS1 comparisons would stand without weighting. A good play by EW is worth only 11 IMPs rather than 22, but if you double the comparisons, a good play by NS would be worth 44, which makes one play more important than it should be. From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Mon Feb 23 02:13:22 2004 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 21:13:22 -0500 Subject: [blml] Major penalty card In-Reply-To: <000001c3f96d$09df3380$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <010d01c3f963$62c91650$68182850@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20040222210717.01a63898@mail.vzavenue.net> At 12:55 PM 2/22/2004, Sven Pran wrote: >I think this UI "problem" can be narrowed down to a few sample questions: > >My partner (declarer's RHO) has the Diamond Ace as a major penalty card and >I hold the Diamond King together with a single small diamond. Dummy has the >Diamond Queen and a few small diamonds: > >Case 1: Declarer leads a small diamond: Am I allowed to play my little >diamond with the knowledge that partner is forced to play his Ace? (Without >this knowledge I would easily be tempted to play my King in order to secure >that trick). Yes. The fact that partner must play the DA is AI. >Case 2: I am on the lead and Declarer chooses to let me play any card at my >own choice: Am I allowed to play my little Diamond with the knowledge that >partner is forced to play his Ace? I think so. The fact that partner must play the DA is AI, and given this, it is hard to say that the fact he holds the DA can be UI (which might suggest a diamond lead over another lead). >Case 3: I am on the lead and Declarer requests me to play a diamond: Am I >free to select my King or the small diamond according to what I find most >favorable to my side with the knowledge that partner holds the Ace? (Which >no longer is a penalty card). This one is harder. Once the penalty card is picked up, information arising from partner's infraction becomes UI, so I would say that your choice of diamond must not be influenced by the knowledge of partner's holding. From blml@wellsborocomputing.com Mon Feb 23 03:09:49 2004 From: blml@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 22:09:49 -0500 Subject: [blml] Fw: revokes In-Reply-To: <010c01c3f963$61eb6080$68182850@multivisionoem> References: <000c01c3f80b$bfcfc820$766287d9@4nrw70j> <3qee30licud0ohedvr0h4dok1998gc5fn5@4ax.com> <010c01c3f963$61eb6080$68182850@multivisionoem> Message-ID: On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 11:53:21 -0000, Grattan wrote: >> > >> >One of our local club directors, who happened to be directing >> >tonight, is also the president of our Unit. I asked her if anything >> >had filtered down to the Unit level from the ACBL asking for >> >player input to the forthcoming laws review. She said no. :-( >> > >+=+ The minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission do not > arrive there? Where do they go? +=+ Just to clarify, the paragraph to which you reply above was written by Ed Reppert, not by me. >> >> And that's about the clearest possible answer to the question >> Grattan posed in his posting. The NBOs (or at least some of them) >> speak for those people who hold positions within the hierarchy of >> that NBO, plus a few of the top TDs and players, and that's all. >> >+=+ Many an NBO would challenge this statement, saying that >they are democratically elected bodies, each with a mandate and >an entitlement to speak for its membership. I am extremely sceptical of the "mandate and entitlement" that is provided by any means other than a secret ballot of the full membership, with all members given their chance to vote either locally in their clubs or (probably more practical) by postal ballot. If members choose not to exercise that vote, then that's a different matter, but to claim that election at an AGM in some part of the county is a mandate from the full membership is a load of nonsense in my opinion. To take an example from the UK, the Trades Unions were quite rightly barred from using steamroller tactics at workplace meetings in order to force through mandates for extremist actions, and while I'm not suggesting that the NBOs are about to launch wildcat strikes, they could well take a lesson in how democracy should operate. Let elections be announced, and candidates sought, in an NBO's publication to the membership (I assume that most, if not all, send round some kind of magazine at regular intervals). Then let the election be by means of a ballot paper printed in a later issue of the magazine. I'm sure those members who wish to vote will be willing to cover the cost of an envelope and a stamp. The same should also be true for County or equivalent levels, it should be no difficult task to provide a common ballot paper with a list of candidates. When this is done, and not before, then you will have an NBO which can rightfully claim the "mandate and entitlement" that you seek to give it. Brian. From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Mon Feb 23 07:54:09 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 07:54:09 -0000 Subject: [blml] No messages? I'll start something, then References: <010e01c3f963$63db49a0$68182850@multivisionoem> <6.0.3.0.0.20040222115342.036539b0@incoming.verizon.net> <015b01c3f96f$12f2e460$3e9568d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <001c01c3f9e2$50125650$3d182850@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 11:42 PM Subject: Re: [blml] No messages? I'll start something, then > How can we as Club TDs find out? We do the course, get our certificate, > but that's the last we hear from the EBU. > > I've actually passed the County course, but I don't get anything from > the EBU except an annual invitation to attend a two-day refresher. > -- > Steve Wright > Leicester, England > +=+ Am I wrong in thinking you have online access to the white book? The EBU could possibly provide online access to L&E committee minutes also? Would this serve club directors at all? Does the EBU draw attention to the existence of online material in newsletters to clubs? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Schoderb@aol.com Sat Feb 21 20:00:12 2004 From: Schoderb@aol.com (Schoderb@aol.com) Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 15:00:12 EST Subject: [blml] change of e-mail address Message-ID: <29.51bb734d.2d6912cc@aol.com> -------------------------------1077393611 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I am presently on both AOL and MSN e-mail. schoderb@AOL.com will be discontinued on 28 February. My new E-mail address is schoderb@msn.com -------------------------------1077393611 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I am presently on both AOL and MSN e-mail.  schoderb@AOL.com w= ill be discontinued on 28 February.
 
My new E-mail address is  schoderb@msn.com
-------------------------------1077393611-- From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Mon Feb 23 09:30:43 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 09:30:43 -0000 Subject: [blml] KISS Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB16D0@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> From: Nigel Guthrie [Simplified from rec.games.bridge] The legal trend towards subjective equity rulings has unfortunate consequences. A player may gripe about the objective application of an old draconian law; but he can appreciate that:=20 the law was interpreted literally, the ruling does not depend on which Tournament Director was called, and=20 the law affects everyone in the same way. In an equity ruling, however, it is less likely that two Tournament Directors would arrive at the same compromise;=20 and playere are more likely to suspect the fairness of a=20 TD's subjective judgement. Rulings are less consistent. =20 So there are more complaints and discontent. =20 Since an Appeal Committee is more likely to uphold a=20 compromise decision, it no longer provides the same=20 correction mechanism for mistakes -- or outlet valve for discontent. =20 [Frances] I disagree with this. ACs try and give the correct=20 decision, not a compromise. Thus the whim of a TD will decide more events. Few TDs=20 are vindictive megalomaniacs; but all TDs are human=20 beings with friends and enemies; however hard a TD=20 strives to consult and to be fair, equity rulings=20 present him with invidious decisions. The Bridge TD's role will sometimes resemble that of=20 the "Dungeonmaster" in "Dungeons and Dragons", who must search his conscience or throw dice to decide outcome of the game. Please may we all campaign...=20 to expunge equity rulings from the law book and=20 to remove reliance on subjectivity, where possible. [Frances] However I agree with the rest of your comments. Ideally ACs should never need to meet, because TDs get all ruling perfect. The more "equity" is required, the harder life becomes for a TD, the fewer objectively perfect rulings there can be. That being said, the "restore equity" bit of the revoke law is clearly necessary, unless we say that after a revoke the non-offending side automatically get the rest of the tricks. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.588 / Virus Database: 372 - Release Date: 13/02/2004 From svenpran@online.no Mon Feb 23 10:07:09 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 11:07:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Major penalty card In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20040222210717.01a63898@mail.vzavenue.net> Message-ID: <000001c3f9f4$cca4ba70$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David J. Grabiner > >I think this UI "problem" can be narrowed down=20 > >to a few sample questions: > >My partner (declarer's RHO) has the Diamond Ace=20 > >as a major penalty card and I hold the Diamond=20 > >King together with a single small diamond.=20 > >Dummy has the Diamond Queen and a few small diamonds: > > > >Case 1: Declarer leads a small diamond: Am I allowed=20 > >to play my little diamond with the knowledge that=20 > >partner is forced to play his Ace? (Without this=20 > >knowledge I would easily be tempted to play my King=20 > >in order to secure that trick). >=20 > Yes. The fact that partner must play the DA is AI. >=20 > >Case 2: I am on the lead and Declarer chooses to let > >me play any card at my own choice: Am I allowed to=20 > >play my little Diamond with the knowledge that > >partner is forced to play his Ace? >=20 > I think so. The fact that partner must play the DA is AI, > and given this, it is hard to say that the fact he holds > the DA can be UI (which might suggest a diamond lead over > another lead). >=20 > >Case 3: I am on the lead and Declarer requests me to play > >a diamond: Am I free to select my King or the small diamond > >according to what I find most favorable to my side with the > >knowledge that partner holds the Ace? (Which no longer is a > >penalty card). >=20 > This one is harder. Once the penalty card is picked up, information > arising from partner's infraction becomes UI, so I would say that your > choice of diamond must not be influenced by the knowledge of partner's > holding. So far you, DWS and I all agree on the effects of L50. Now here is the really tough one: Declarer has at an earlier stage = forbidden me from leading a Diamond so the Diamond Ace is no longer a penalty = card. Then Declarer has been able to get a fairly good count of the diamonds = and he "knows" that the Ace is in fact stiff and that I have the last small diamond together with my King. He plays a small diamond from his hand towards the Queen in dummy. I play my small diamond and declarer subsequently summons the Director claiming that I have made use of UI when I didn't secure my trick with = the King. I claim that I am able to count the diamonds as well as the = declarer, a claim that at its best can be disputed. Now how do we rule? And don't avoid the question by saying that this is too much of a hypothetical question - it can turn into a real case before anyone of us = can tell. Regards Sven From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Feb 23 10:34:36 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 11:34:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Major penalty card In-Reply-To: <000001c3f9f4$cca4ba70$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c3f9f4$cca4ba70$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <4039D73C.8000809@hdw.be> Well Sven, The answer is in L16: if the play of the DK is a LA, defender should not play the D2. As to what are LA's at this point, only the TD and AC can decide. And yes, this created a completely novel problem in 1997, and one of the reasons why I thought that change was for the worse. OTOH, Ton has given us a few cases in Torino where the UI problem of the MPC created a completely novel twist. Please post them here as well, Ton. Sven Pran wrote: >>David J. Grabiner >> >>>I think this UI "problem" can be narrowed down >>>to a few sample questions: >>>My partner (declarer's RHO) has the Diamond Ace >>>as a major penalty card and I hold the Diamond >>>King together with a single small diamond. >>>Dummy has the Diamond Queen and a few small diamonds: >>> >>>Case 1: Declarer leads a small diamond: Am I allowed >>>to play my little diamond with the knowledge that >>>partner is forced to play his Ace? (Without this >>>knowledge I would easily be tempted to play my King >>>in order to secure that trick). >> >>Yes. The fact that partner must play the DA is AI. >> >> >>>Case 2: I am on the lead and Declarer chooses to let >>>me play any card at my own choice: Am I allowed to >>>play my little Diamond with the knowledge that >>>partner is forced to play his Ace? >> >>I think so. The fact that partner must play the DA is AI, >>and given this, it is hard to say that the fact he holds >>the DA can be UI (which might suggest a diamond lead over >>another lead). >> >> >>>Case 3: I am on the lead and Declarer requests me to play >>>a diamond: Am I free to select my King or the small diamond >>>according to what I find most favorable to my side with the >>>knowledge that partner holds the Ace? (Which no longer is a >>>penalty card). >> >>This one is harder. Once the penalty card is picked up, information >>arising from partner's infraction becomes UI, so I would say that your >>choice of diamond must not be influenced by the knowledge of partner's >>holding. > > > So far you, DWS and I all agree on the effects of L50. > > Now here is the really tough one: Declarer has at an earlier stage forbidden > me from leading a Diamond so the Diamond Ace is no longer a penalty card. > Then Declarer has been able to get a fairly good count of the diamonds and > he "knows" that the Ace is in fact stiff and that I have the last small > diamond together with my King. He plays a small diamond from his hand > towards the Queen in dummy. > > I play my small diamond and declarer subsequently summons the Director > claiming that I have made use of UI when I didn't secure my trick with the > King. I claim that I am able to count the diamonds as well as the declarer, > a claim that at its best can be disputed. > > Now how do we rule? > > And don't avoid the question by saying that this is too much of a > hypothetical question - it can turn into a real case before anyone of us can > tell. > > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From blml@blakjak.com Mon Feb 23 12:00:30 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 12:00:30 +0000 Subject: [blml] Major penalty card In-Reply-To: <000001c3f9f4$cca4ba70$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <5.1.1.6.0.20040222210717.01a63898@mail.vzavenue.net> <000001c3f9f4$cca4ba70$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David J. Grabiner >> >I think this UI "problem" can be narrowed down >> >to a few sample questions: >> >My partner (declarer's RHO) has the Diamond Ace >> >as a major penalty card and I hold the Diamond >> >King together with a single small diamond. >> >Dummy has the Diamond Queen and a few small diamonds: >> > >> >Case 1: Declarer leads a small diamond: Am I allowed >> >to play my little diamond with the knowledge that >> >partner is forced to play his Ace? (Without this >> >knowledge I would easily be tempted to play my King >> >in order to secure that trick). >> >> Yes. The fact that partner must play the DA is AI. >> >> >Case 2: I am on the lead and Declarer chooses to let >> >me play any card at my own choice: Am I allowed to >> >play my little Diamond with the knowledge that >> >partner is forced to play his Ace? >> >> I think so. The fact that partner must play the DA is AI, >> and given this, it is hard to say that the fact he holds >> the DA can be UI (which might suggest a diamond lead over >> another lead). >> >> >Case 3: I am on the lead and Declarer requests me to play >> >a diamond: Am I free to select my King or the small diamond >> >according to what I find most favorable to my side with the >> >knowledge that partner holds the Ace? (Which no longer is a >> >penalty card). >> >> This one is harder. Once the penalty card is picked up, information >> arising from partner's infraction becomes UI, so I would say that your >> choice of diamond must not be influenced by the knowledge of partner's >> holding. > >So far you, DWS and I all agree on the effects of L50. As explained in a separate post, I think David has got Case 2 half wrong. >Now here is the really tough one: Declarer has at an earlier stage forbidden >me from leading a Diamond so the Diamond Ace is no longer a penalty card. >Then Declarer has been able to get a fairly good count of the diamonds and >he "knows" that the Ace is in fact stiff and that I have the last small >diamond together with my King. He plays a small diamond from his hand >towards the Queen in dummy. > >I play my small diamond and declarer subsequently summons the Director >claiming that I have made use of UI when I didn't secure my trick with the >King. I claim that I am able to count the diamonds as well as the declarer, >a claim that at its best can be disputed. > >Now how do we rule? You have UI, you have AI, and this confuses a lot of people. But it should not: forget the AI temporarily. You may not choose amongst LAs in the presence of UI from partner in such a way that you have chosen an action suggested over an LA by the UI. Playing small is suggested by the UI. Does that mean you must play high? Not at all: you only must play high if that is an LA. Now Sven has postulated that he has a complete count - and that means that playing high is no longer an LA, so playing small becomes legal. -- 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 blml@blakjak.com Mon Feb 23 12:05:24 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 12:05:24 +0000 Subject: [blml] assigned score. - tough one. In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20040222205103.019a81f0@mail.vzavenue.net> References: <5.1.1.6.0.20040222205103.019a81f0@mail.vzavenue.net> Message-ID: David J. Grabiner wrote >At 08:31 PM 2/22/2004, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >>just for fun >> >>Today I ran the Middlesex teams of 8. (8 teams, 7 x 6 board rounds, >>*cross-imped*). nice little twinned flower movement :) >> >>so we get 4 imp figures for each board and use a VP scale which is twice >>root(2) bigger than the VP scale for T-of-4. I'm confident on this by >>the way - it really is twice root 2. c 73 imps for 20-0 over 6 boards. >> >>Now the customers decide to misboard somewhere and at one pair of tables >>they actually play the same misboarded hand. the other pair of tables >>play it roomwise. So I have two comparisons now, not 4. >> >>Case 1. NS1-EW1 is one, and NS2-EW2 is the other, different hands but >>valid comparisons. >> >>and when only one table plays misboarded, I still have two comparisons >> >>Case 2. NS1-EW1 and NS1-EW2. same hand but only one valid NS score. >> >>What adjustments are you going to make? and I'm not talking about fines, >>but adjustments to the score in imps. No ArtAss's will be entertained >>btw and I think I know the answer. cheers John > >In Case 1, each comparison should be doubled in value. This is fair to >both sides; if someone bid to a good non-vulnerable slam for +980 >instead of +480, he would have gained 22 IMPs with no foul, and he >should still get 22 IMPs. How do you know he would have gained 22 imps with no foul? You have no idea what would have happened if it had been played at the other two tables. Consider if the slam was easily biddable, and probably would be bid at every table except the one where it was missed because they got the responses to RKCB wrong. -- 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 hermandw@hdw.be Mon Feb 23 12:54:24 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 13:54:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] assigned score. - tough one. In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.1.6.0.20040222205103.019a81f0@mail.vzavenue.net> Message-ID: <4039F800.2010803@hdw.be> This is only a tough one because no-one has yet taken the time to write out regulations about what to do with artificial scores (or fouled boards) in team matches. And then this team-of-eight is just a bit more complicated. This is my suggestion for a fouled board in team play - you can deduce my suggestion for team-of-eight from that. For every board in play, determine a par score. At every table, subtract the par score from the table result. Award to each pair=team separately. Add the differences for the two (various) pairs of the team. Translate that sum into IMPs. The nice part of this method is that boards that are played identically at both tables of a match are scored as in the past, regardless of the par score - so no par scores need to be given for 99% of all boards. David Stevenson wrote: > David J. Grabiner wrote > >> At 08:31 PM 2/22/2004, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >> >>> just for fun >>> >>> Today I ran the Middlesex teams of 8. (8 teams, 7 x 6 board rounds, >>> *cross-imped*). nice little twinned flower movement :) >>> >>> so we get 4 imp figures for each board and use a VP scale which is twice >>> root(2) bigger than the VP scale for T-of-4. I'm confident on this by >>> the way - it really is twice root 2. c 73 imps for 20-0 over 6 boards. >>> >>> Now the customers decide to misboard somewhere and at one pair of tables >>> they actually play the same misboarded hand. the other pair of tables >>> play it roomwise. So I have two comparisons now, not 4. >>> >>> Case 1. NS1-EW1 is one, and NS2-EW2 is the other, different hands but >>> valid comparisons. >>> >>> and when only one table plays misboarded, I still have two comparisons >>> >>> Case 2. NS1-EW1 and NS1-EW2. same hand but only one valid NS score. >>> >>> What adjustments are you going to make? and I'm not talking about fines, >>> but adjustments to the score in imps. No ArtAss's will be entertained >>> btw and I think I know the answer. cheers John >> >> >> In Case 1, each comparison should be doubled in value. This is fair >> to both sides; if someone bid to a good non-vulnerable slam for +980 >> instead of +480, he would have gained 22 IMPs with no foul, and he >> should still get 22 IMPs. > > > How do you know he would have gained 22 imps with no foul? You have > no idea what would have happened if it had been played at the other two > tables. Consider if the slam was easily biddable, and probably would be > bid at every table except the one where it was missed because they got > the responses to RKCB wrong. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From MRBATESALAN@netscape.net Mon Feb 23 13:17:26 2004 From: MRBATESALAN@netscape.net (MRBATESALAN@netscape.net) Date: 23 Feb 2004 21:17:26 +0800 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) REPLY SOON Message-ID: Dear Friend, As you read this, I don't want you to feel sorry for me, because, I believe everyone will die someday. My name is BATES ALAN a merchant in Dubai, in the U.A.E.I have been diagnosed with Esophageal cancer. It has defiled all forms of medical treatment, and right now I have only about a few months to live, according to medical experts. I have not particularly lived my life so well, as I never really cared for anyone(not even myself)but my business. Though I am very rich, I was never generous, I was always hostile to people and only focused on my business as that was the only thing I cared for. But now I regret all this as I now know that there is more to life than just wanting to have or make all the money in the world. I believe when God gives me a second chance to come to this world I would live my life a different way from how I have lived it. Now that God has called me, I have willed and given most of my property and assets to my immediate and extended family members as well as a few close friends. I want God to be merciful to me and accept my soul so, I have decided to give alms to charity organizations, as I want this to be one of the last good deeds I do on earth. So far, I have distributed money to some charity organizations in the U.A.E, Algeria and Malaysia. Now that my health has deteriorated so badly, I cannot do this myself anymore. I once asked members of my family to close one of my accounts and distribute the money which I have there to charity organization in Bulgaria and Pakistan, they refused and kept the money to themselves. Hence, I do not trust them anymore, as they seem not to be contended with what I have left for them. The last of my money which no one knows of is the huge cash deposit of eighteen million dollars $18,000,000,00 that I have with a finance/Security Company abroad. I will want you to help me collect this deposit and dispatched it to charity organizations. I have set aside 10% for you and for your time. God be with you. BATES ALAN From MRBATESALAN@netscape.net Mon Feb 23 13:26:50 2004 From: MRBATESALAN@netscape.net (MRBATESALAN@netscape.net) Date: 23 Feb 2004 08:26:50 -0500 Subject: [blml] REPLY SOON Message-ID: Dear Friend, As you read this, I don't want you to feel sorry for me, because, I believe everyone will die someday. My name is BATES ALAN a merchant in Dubai, in the U.A.E.I have been diagnosed with Esophageal cancer. It has defiled all forms of medical treatment, and right now I have only about a few months to live, according to medical experts. I have not particularly lived my life so well, as I never really cared for anyone(not even myself)but my business. Though I am very rich, I was never generous, I was always hostile to people and only focused on my business as that was the only thing I cared for. But now I regret all this as I now know that there is more to life than just wanting to have or make all the money in the world. I believe when God gives me a second chance to come to this world I would live my life a different way from how I have lived it. Now that God has called me, I have willed and given most of my property and assets to my immediate and extended family members as well as a few close friends. I want God to be merciful to me and accept my soul so, I have decided to give alms to charity organizations, as I want this to be one of the last good deeds I do on earth. So far, I have distributed money to some charity organizations in the U.A.E, Algeria and Malaysia. Now that my health has deteriorated so badly, I cannot do this myself anymore. I once asked members of my family to close one of my accounts and distribute the money which I have there to charity organization in Bulgaria and Pakistan, they refused and kept the money to themselves. Hence, I do not trust them anymore, as they seem not to be contended with what I have left for them. The last of my money which no one knows of is the huge cash deposit of eighteen million dollars $18,000,000,00 that I have with a finance/Security Company abroad. I will want you to help me collect this deposit and dispatched it to charity organizations. I have set aside 10% for you and for your time. God be with you. BATES ALAN From karel@esatclear.ie Mon Feb 23 13:54:45 2004 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 13:54:45 GMT Subject: [blml] TD judgement Message-ID: <403a0625.2e77.0@esatclear.ie> North S Jxx H x D KQxxx C Qxxx South S AKxxxx H Axx D xxx C x Bidding S W N E 1S 3C 3S All pass Result 3S+1 3C was not alerted. It was a weak jump overcall. (before everyone jumps on the wagon about this not being alertable - just for this case it was alertable and it wasn't alerted). 3S+1 is a bottom. Scores at that stage range from 4S* making, 5H's- a few, 4S making. South calls the TD and says he would have bid 4S's if given the correct information. TD adjusts to 4S's making. Ok so we'll concede MI but is the S hand worth 4S by any stretch of the imagination ?? Surely the TD can use his judgement to say - I'm sorry but there is no way your hand is worth 4S's so the reult stands. K. -- http://www.iol.ie From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Feb 23 14:19:06 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 09:19:06 -0500 Subject: [blml] The WBF [WAS: revokes] In-Reply-To: <000f01c3f91b$5eaf8420$72ac193e@4nrw70j> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040221164512.01f644f0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040223082337.009ed020@pop.starpower.net> At 03:08 AM 2/22/04, grandeval wrote: >+=+ Our line of communication from players is through NBOs. >We have no other link. It is a principal function of an NBO to >speak for its members, the masses of whom are otherwise >unheard. The principal functions of an NBO (and its subordinate levels of tournament SOs) are to plan, organize and run tournaments. They are "elected" (such as it may be in some places) as executives whose job is to do that, not as representatives whose job is to represent their consituency in some higher legislative body that writes the Laws. As such, they have (or at least should have, in theory) mecahnisms for determining the wishes of their respective consitutencies with regard to how they plan, organize and run tournaments, and therefore can reasonably be expected to represent those wishes to the WBF. I have no problem with the WBF exercising that "link" for that purpose. An NBO is not, however, a lawmaking body. Writing the single set of Laws for the entire international bridge community has been entrusted to the WBF, not to its constituent organizations. To the extent that NBOs may have responded to the de facto requirement to operate Grattan's "link", they do so by creating unelected bodies at the top level (like the ACBLLC), with no equivalent at the subordinate levels relied on for input to the body responsible for the tournament-organizing function (in the ACBL, the ACBL BoD), and no constituency other than the BoD members who appointed them -- there is an ACBL BoD "over" district BoDs, which are in turn "over" unit BoDs, but no district or unit has its own version of the LC). I live in what is widely regarded as the most active, progressive, and responsive to its membership of any unit in the ACBL. As players, we are constantly polled by our unit BoD on subjects within their jurisdiction and area of competence -- the running of tournaments. We are polled on choice and length of events, starting times, playing sites and conditions, refreshments, parking, etc. etc. But in the 24 years I've been here, nobody has ever polled anybody about anything pertaining to the Laws. My unit represents me very well on matters pertaining to running tournaments, but it does not represent me on matters pertaining to the Laws, nor would it consider itself competent to do so or want to be called upon to do so. So Grattan's "link", which runs from me to my unit BoD to my district BoD to the ACBL BoD to the WBF, serves well enough to represent me on matters pertaining to running tournaments. But I have no link into the chain that starts at the ACBLLC and runs to the WBFLC. The WBF serves two distinct functions, a tournament-organizing function and a law-making-and-interpreting function, but has only one "link" to its players, which is designed and operates to serve the first function. To say that they "have no other link" is to say that they have no link at all to serve the second function. To pretend that their hierarchy of (presumably) representative tournament-organizing bodies is somehow transmuted into a hierarchy of representative law-making bodies whenever the WBF "puts its law-making hat on" is to willfully abdicate the law-making responsibility which has been entrusted to them, not on behalf of the tournament organizers of the world, but on behalf of the players of the world who must play by those Laws. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From john@asimere.com Mon Feb 23 14:36:52 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 14:36:52 +0000 Subject: [blml] Major penalty card In-Reply-To: <000001c3f9f4$cca4ba70$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <5.1.1.6.0.20040222210717.01a63898@mail.vzavenue.net> <000001c3f9f4$cca4ba70$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <000001c3f9f4$cca4ba70$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes snips >> >penalty card). >> >> This one is harder. Once the penalty card is picked up, information >> arising from partner's infraction becomes UI, so I would say that your >> choice of diamond must not be influenced by the knowledge of partner's >> holding. > >So far you, DWS and I all agree on the effects of L50. and I concur too. > >Now here is the really tough one: Declarer has at an earlier stage forbidden >me from leading a Diamond so the Diamond Ace is no longer a penalty card. >Then Declarer has been able to get a fairly good count of the diamonds and >he "knows" that the Ace is in fact stiff and that I have the last small >diamond together with my King. He plays a small diamond from his hand >towards the Queen in dummy. > >I play my small diamond and declarer subsequently summons the Director >claiming that I have made use of UI when I didn't secure my trick with the >King. I claim that I am able to count the diamonds as well as the declarer, >a claim that at its best can be disputed. > >Now how do we rule? if you can convince me that a player of your standard would normally play low in this position I'd buy your story. John > >And don't avoid the question by saying that this is too much of a >hypothetical question - it can turn into a real case before anyone of us can >tell. > >Regards Sven > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Feb 23 14:45:18 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 09:45:18 -0500 Subject: [blml] TD judgement In-Reply-To: <403a0625.2e77.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040223093341.01fc1c00@pop.starpower.net> At 08:54 AM 2/23/04, karel wrote: >North >S Jxx >H x >D KQxxx >C Qxxx > >South >S AKxxxx >H Axx >D xxx >C x > >Bidding > >S W N E >1S 3C 3S All pass > >Result 3S+1 > >3C was not alerted. It was a weak jump overcall. (before everyone >jumps on >the wagon about this not being alertable - just for this case it was >alertable >and it wasn't alerted). > >3S+1 is a bottom. Scores at that stage range from 4S* making, 5H's- a >few, >4S making. > >South calls the TD and says he would have bid 4S's if given the >correct information. > TD adjusts to 4S's making. > >Ok so we'll concede MI but is the S hand worth 4S by any stretch of >the imagination >?? Surely the TD can use his judgement to say - I'm sorry but there >is no way >your hand is worth 4S's so the reult stands. The TD must make a determination as to whether the MI resulted in damage to the NOS, and must give the benefit of the doubt to the NOS in doing so. He may allow the result to stand if he finds that S would not have bid 4S even with correct information, on the grounds that the MI did not result in any damage. But be careful here: the operative words are "would not". If he believes that S would have bid 4S, he must adjust to the result that would have obtained had S done so, even if he also believes that 4S would have been the worst bid he'd ever seen and gets 100 out of 100 experts to agree with him. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From john@asimere.com Mon Feb 23 14:42:53 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 14:42:53 +0000 Subject: [blml] TD judgement In-Reply-To: <403a0625.2e77.0@esatclear.ie> References: <403a0625.2e77.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: In article <403a0625.2e77.0@esatclear.ie>, Karel writes > >North >S Jxx >H x >D KQxxx >C Qxxx > > >South >S AKxxxx >H Axx >D xxx >C x > if the auction had gone 1S 3S I'd have bid 4S (7 losers but 2 aces and no Qs and distribution, hence 6 losers). given a strong jump overcall partner is more likely to have stretched than if it were a weak jump overcall. Given that I'm more likely to want to bid 4S after the wjo than after a sjo. I adjust because there is a distinct possibility S would have bid 4S. (Most favourable result at all likely). john > >Bidding > >S W N E >1S 3C 3S All pass > > >Result 3S+1 > >3C was not alerted. It was a weak jump overcall. (before everyone jumps on >the wagon about this not being alertable - just for this case it was alertable >and it wasn't alerted). > >3S+1 is a bottom. Scores at that stage range from 4S* making, 5H's- a few, >4S making. > >South calls the TD and says he would have bid 4S's if given the correct >information. > TD adjusts to 4S's making. > >Ok so we'll concede MI but is the S hand worth 4S by any stretch of the >imagination >?? Surely the TD can use his judgement to say - I'm sorry but there is no way >your hand is worth 4S's so the reult stands. > >K. >-- >http://www.iol.ie > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From mustikka@charter.net Mon Feb 23 14:43:43 2004 From: mustikka@charter.net (Raija Davis) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 06:43:43 -0800 Subject: [blml] TD judgement References: <403a0625.2e77.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <000401c3fa1b$7019b5e0$9865fea9@hewlettnvdluy3> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karel" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 5:54 AM Subject: [blml] TD judgement > > North > S Jxx > H x > D KQxxx > C Qxxx > > > South > S AKxxxx > H Axx > D xxx > C x > > > Bidding > > S W N E > 1S 3C 3S All pass > > > Result 3S+1 > > 3C was not alerted. It was a weak jump overcall. (before everyone jumps on > the wagon about this not being alertable - just for this case it was alertable > and it wasn't alerted). > > 3S+1 is a bottom. Scores at that stage range from 4S* making, 5H's- a few, > 4S making. > > South calls the TD and says he would have bid 4S's if given the correct information. > TD adjusts to 4S's making. > > Ok so we'll concede MI but is the S hand worth 4S by any stretch of the imagination > ?? Surely the TD can use his judgement to say - I'm sorry but there is no way > your hand is worth 4S's so the reult stands. I seldom participate here on blml though I do read the posts, but I just have comment on this one. I think that South's cards have no resemblance to a 4S call, whatever the 3C overcall was. Raija Davis > > K. > -- > http://www.iol.ie > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Mon Feb 23 15:03:57 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 15:03:57 -0000 Subject: [blml] TD judgement Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB16DD@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Karel North S Jxx H x D KQxxx C Qxxx South S AKxxxx H Axx D xxx C x Bidding S W N E 1S 3C 3S All pass Result 3S+1 3C was not alerted. It was a weak jump overcall. (before everyone = jumps on the wagon about this not being alertable - just for this case it was = alertable and it wasn't alerted). 3S+1 is a bottom. Scores at that stage range from 4S* making, 5H's- a = few, 4S making. South calls the TD and says he would have bid 4S's if given the correct = information. TD adjusts to 4S's making. Ok so we'll concede MI but is the S hand worth 4S by any stretch of the = imagination ?? Surely the TD can use his judgement to say - I'm sorry but there is = no way your hand is worth 4S's so the reult stands. K. -- http://www.iol.ie [Frances] I don't think this is clear. Yes, you are right that the TD can used his judgement (with consultation = if at all possible)=20 to decide that the South hand is in no way worth 4S and not adjust. I = would be very careful of doing so, because there are mountains of evidence that one person's good = judgement is=20 another's insanity. As a player, I resent having a TD tell me his = judgement is better than mine. On a case like this, I would ask South why he is more likely to bid game = with a weak jump overcall on his left. If he ways "we have agreed to keep limit raises = up to strength after a pre-empt but stretch them after a strong jump overcall; opposite an = up-to-strength raise I think I am worth 4" then I may believe him. If he says "we were = mis-informed, of course I would have bid game if we had been informed correctly" I would be less = inclined to adjust as there is no logic there. I would also bear in mind another thing: - OK, so WJOs are alertable. If it made such a difference to South's = bidding, should he have been aware that a WJO was possible? e.g. was there a WJO the = previous board of the round? This depends on South's standard. I don't like refusing an = adjustment on the basis that "you could have asked & didn't", but every now and again it's = blatant. From mustikka@charter.net Mon Feb 23 15:02:58 2004 From: mustikka@charter.net (Raija Davis) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 07:02:58 -0800 Subject: [blml] Oops... TD judgement References: <403a0625.2e77.0@esatclear.ie> <000401c3fa1b$7019b5e0$9865fea9@hewlettnvdluy3> Message-ID: <002b01c3fa1e$1ff61650$9865fea9@hewlettnvdluy3> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Raija Davis" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 6:43 AM Subject: Re: [blml] TD judgement > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Karel" > To: "blml" > Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 5:54 AM > Subject: [blml] TD judgement > > > > > > North > > S Jxx > > H x > > D KQxxx > > C Qxxx > > > > > > South > > S AKxxxx > > H Axx > > D xxx > > C x > > > > > > Bidding > > > > S W N E > > 1S 3C 3S All pass > > > > > > Result 3S+1 > > > > 3C was not alerted. It was a weak jump overcall. (before everyone jumps > on > > the wagon about this not being alertable - just for this case it was > alertable > > and it wasn't alerted). > > > > 3S+1 is a bottom. Scores at that stage range from 4S* making, 5H's- a > few, > > 4S making. > > > > South calls the TD and says he would have bid 4S's if given the correct > information. > > TD adjusts to 4S's making. > > > > Ok so we'll concede MI but is the S hand worth 4S by any stretch of the > imagination > > ?? Surely the TD can use his judgement to say - I'm sorry but there is no > way > > your hand is worth 4S's so the reult stands. > > I seldom participate here on blml though I do read the posts, but I just > have comment on this one. I think that South's cards have no resemblance > to a 4S call, whatever the 3C overcall was. > Raija Davis I was looking at North cards, not South's. Ignore my comment. Sorry all. RD From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Feb 23 15:49:55 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 15:49:55 -0000 Subject: [blml] KISS References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB16D0@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <004a01c3fa24$b08552c0$789468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Frances] However I agree with the rest of your comments. Ideally ACs should never need to meet, because TDs get all ruling perfect. The more "equity" is required, the harder life becomes for a TD, the fewer objectively perfect rulings there can be. [Nigel] Thank you Frances For a long time I thought that Israel and I were the only people arguing for player's interests. [Frances] That being said, the "restore equity" bit of the revoke law is clearly necessary, unless we say that after a revoke the non-offending side automatically get the rest of the tricks. [Nigel] The revoke trick AND the rest of the tricks :) Easy to explain :) Easy to implement :) Completely fair and equitable :) Unless you believe that equity means letting people get away with murder :( OK. OK. Let's be realistic. Let's crawl to our feet before we try to run. Settle for TWO tricks (and a smidgeon of equity). --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.593 / Virus Database: 376 - Release Date: 20/02/2004 From wmevius@hotmail.com Mon Feb 23 16:38:10 2004 From: wmevius@hotmail.com (Willem Mevius) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 16:38:10 +0000 Subject: [blml] TD judgement Message-ID: Before adjusting any scores the TD should find out if South could not have been aware of the strength of the overcall. For instance, 3C weak may be alertable, but if it's very common in the competition this hand is from, South could have been aware of it. A forgotten alert should not always mean MI. Also, there must be some logic to why South would bid 4S if 3C was weak (I can't see any...). as a side-note: where are weak jump overcalls still alertable? Willem Mevius wmevius@hotmail.com >From: "Karel" >Reply-To: karel@esatclear.ie >To: blml >Subject: [blml] TD judgement >Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 13:54:45 GMT > > >North >S Jxx >H x >D KQxxx >C Qxxx > > >South >S AKxxxx >H Axx >D xxx >C x > > >Bidding > >S W N E >1S 3C 3S All pass > > >Result 3S+1 > >3C was not alerted. It was a weak jump overcall. (before everyone jumps >on >the wagon about this not being alertable - just for this case it was >alertable >and it wasn't alerted). > >3S+1 is a bottom. Scores at that stage range from 4S* making, 5H's- a few, >4S making. > >South calls the TD and says he would have bid 4S's if given the correct >information. > TD adjusts to 4S's making. > >Ok so we'll concede MI but is the S hand worth 4S by any stretch of the >imagination >?? Surely the TD can use his judgement to say - I'm sorry but there is no >way >your hand is worth 4S's so the reult stands. > >K. >-- >http://www.iol.ie > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Feb 24 07:00:47 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 02:00:47 -0500 Subject: [blml] Another "interesting" ruling Message-ID: <2C5E8A9B-6697-11D8-8053-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> club game, matchpoint pairs. Board 26. N is dealer. Bidding goes: N E S W 1S 2C 3S P P At this point, North comments that he failed to alert 3S. West asks the meaning, is told "weak", and calls the TD. TD takes West away from the table, comes back, and rolls the auction back to West, who bids 4C. Now... N E S W 1S 2C 3S 4C P P 4S All pass East leads. As South is laying down the dummy, he says "it wasn't weak". He has 10 points and 4 spades. TD is called again (by East this time). He says "call me back at the end of play if you still feel damaged". Table Result, 4S making, a shared top. TD called again. He rules (without quoting any laws, of course) "Avg+/Avg-". East asks "are you sure?" TD says "yes." I was East. Later, I asked the TD why avg+/avg-, given my understanding that, a result having been obtained at the table, such a ruling is illegal. He hemmed and hawed, and finally said something about NS getting off too lightly for "using UI". I asked "what about a PP then?" His answer was a short "no." Comments? From svenpran@online.no Tue Feb 24 07:24:19 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 08:24:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another "interesting" ruling In-Reply-To: <2C5E8A9B-6697-11D8-8053-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000001c3faa7$37b5a740$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert > club game, matchpoint pairs. Board 26. N is dealer. Bidding goes: >=20 > N E S W > 1S 2C 3S P > P >=20 > At this point, North comments that he failed to alert 3S. West asks = the > meaning, is told "weak", and calls the TD. TD takes West away from the > table, comes back, and rolls the auction back to West, who bids 4C. > Now... >=20 > N E S W > 1S 2C 3S 4C > P P 4S All pass >=20 > East leads. As South is laying down the dummy, he says "it wasn't > weak". He has 10 points and 4 spades. TD is called again (by East this > time). He says "call me back at the end of play if you still feel > damaged". Table Result, 4S making, a shared top. TD called again. He > rules (without quoting any laws, of course) "Avg+/Avg-". East asks = "are > you sure?" TD says "yes." >=20 > I was East. Later, I asked the TD why avg+/avg-, given my = understanding > that, a result having been obtained at the table, such a ruling is > illegal. He hemmed and hawed, and finally said something about NS > getting off too lightly for "using UI". I asked "what about a PP = then?" > His answer was a short "no." >=20 > Comments? >From the information available to us my opinion is that the Director had = the choice between ruling "Result stands" and "Adjust to 3S make 10". (With = IMP scoring "3S make 9" could also have been an alternative!)=20 Any artificial score ruling is ridiculous and illegal, at least in my = part of the world. Regards Sven From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Feb 24 08:31:18 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:31:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Major penalty card In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <403B0BD6.90709@hdw.be> What's your point, Ed? Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Monday, Feb 23, 2004, at 05:34 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> As to what are LA's at this point, only the TD and AC can decide. > > > IOW, the player is stuffed no matter what he does. Not good. :( > Yes, is that not the effect of UI in general? Sometimes a player realizes that he has UI suggesting something, and he believes he has no LA but to do this. Then he does it and asks the TD to confirm that he has no LA's. And sometimes the TD decides that there were LA's and returns the score. What's being "stuffed" about it? Because sometimes too, the TD will agree with the player that there were no LA's. Then there is no being "stuffed". Or rather, if the player is being "stuffed", it's because of the MPC, not through the UI interpretation. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Tue Feb 24 11:15:43 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 11:15:43 -0000 Subject: [blml] Another "interesting" ruling Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB16E7@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Ed Reppert > club game, matchpoint pairs. Board 26. N is dealer. Bidding goes: >=20 > N E S W > 1S 2C 3S P > P >=20 > At this point, North comments that he failed to alert 3S. West asks = the > meaning, is told "weak", and calls the TD. TD takes West away from the > table, comes back, and rolls the auction back to West, who bids 4C. > Now... >=20 > N E S W > 1S 2C 3S 4C > P P 4S All pass >=20 > East leads. As South is laying down the dummy, he says "it wasn't > weak". He has 10 points and 4 spades. TD is called again (by East this > time). He says "call me back at the end of play if you still feel > damaged". Table Result, 4S making, a shared top. TD called again. He > rules (without quoting any laws, of course) "Avg+/Avg-". East asks = "are > you sure?" TD says "yes." >=20 > I was East. Later, I asked the TD why avg+/avg-, given my = understanding > that, a result having been obtained at the table, such a ruling is > illegal. He hemmed and hawed, and finally said something about NS > getting off too lightly for "using UI". I asked "what about a PP = then?" > His answer was a short "no." >=20 > Comments? [Sven] >From the information available to us my opinion is that the Director had = the choice between ruling "Result stands" and "Adjust to 3S make 10". (With = IMP scoring "3S make 9" could also have been an alternative!)=20 Any artificial score ruling is ridiculous and illegal, at least in my = part of the world. Regards Sven [Frances] Ho hum. From the information available my opinion is that the Director = had the choice between ruling "Adjust to 4C making ?" and "Adjust to 3S make = 10" and (possibly, depending on South's hand) "Result stands". You don't say what the actual N/S agreement was (assuming it can be = established). If the actual N/S agreement was a limit raise, I would rule back to 3S making 10 (or possibly 9 depending on hand) tricks. We have evidence that West would not have bid 4C with correct information = after a limit raise. [I assume a weak 3S bid was in fact alertable, otherwise = his being permitted to change his call from P to 4C is suspect.] If the actual N/S agreement was weak, then it appears that South has = taken advantage of UI from partner that he has misbid and is "catching up". = In that case assuming that Pass is a LA for him, I would rule back to 4C making = however many tricks. =20 The only circumstance in which I could see "Result Stands" is if South = could=20 convince me he had no LA to the 4S bid (which I would have thought = unlikely).=20 Not only is the avg+/avg- wrong and unnecessary. I am also of the = opinion it=20 is illegal. I understand why in very complex cases some directors = believe they can say "well I should be doing a weighted average of lots of = scores, or I can't be certain what the possible results are, but I think overall = the NOS should end up with avg+" and rule accordingly, but this is not = necessary. To me the ruling is likely to be straightforward.=20 From karel@esatclear.ie Tue Feb 24 11:16:51 2004 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 11:16:51 GMT Subject: [blml] TD judgement Message-ID: <403b32a3.57c1.0@esatclear.ie> >>South >>S AKxxxx >>H Axx >>D xxx >>C x >> >>Bidding >> >>S W N E >>1S 3C 3S All pass >The TD must make a determination as to whether the MI resulted in >damage to the NOS, and must give the benefit of the doubt to the NOS in >doing so. He may allow the result to stand if he finds that S would >not have bid 4S even with correct information, on the grounds that the >MI did not result in any damage. But be careful here: the operative >words are "would not". If he believes that S would have bid 4S, he >must adjust to the result that would have obtained had S done so, even >if he also believes that 4S would have been the worst bid he'd ever >seen and gets 100 out of 100 experts to agree with him. +++ Just a few pointers. I'm not going to get into a bidding theory argument with John but 3S over 3C's is surely to play opposite a normal opener which the south hand is. With more you stretch to 4S's or double and then bid 3/4 spades depending on developements indicating an invitational hand. I for one would never voluntarily bid 4S with the south hand (over further bidding sure - but not with the expectation of making). In fact the 4S* on the score sheet probably resulted from 1S (2C) 2S (3H) 3S (4H) P P 4S dbl. 4S's goes down on a trump lead anyway. Back to Eric's comments - this was what I was wondering. If I read it correctly, South can AFTER looking at the scores (all 4S) say hang on a sec you mis informed me and I would have bid 4S's (when he wouldn't !!) and I want my crap score changed. Surely this is abit lop sided ?? The damage in this case was not really done by no alert but by the pre-emptive nature (and as with most partnerships the subsequent clarity of the ensuing auction) of the 3C call. Surely South can ask what the 3C meant IF he had any thoughts about bidding further. I would be loathe to change this score to 4S's and would be distressed to find that the laws would force me do do so as seems the case !! Ergo my question of allowing the TD some judgement. Playing devils advocate - can not the opponents then in another scenario (3S just making 4S-1 on the score sheet) say hang on with proper information you would have bid 4S's going -1 and get the scores changed ?? K. -- http://www.iol.ie From twm@cix.co.uk Tue Feb 24 12:22:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 12:22 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Fw: revokes In-Reply-To: <9eSu7kCMEjNAFwkr@asimere.com> Message-ID: Personally I find the "randomness" of trick based penalties mildly irritating. Why can we not have an automatic (10% or 90% I don't care) penalty on top of "UI + restore equity"? Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Tue Feb 24 12:22:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 12:22 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Kibitzing Director - L86C6 & L70C Claim: Jurisdiction? In-Reply-To: <403306DF.F9AD733C@attbi.com> Message-ID: > Here's a recent post from an online ACBL bridge group: > > In the course of playing a hand a player makes a claim without > giving a line but which is accepted by all at the table. > > Can the director who happened to be watching inform the players, > as that there is still a small trump outstanding the claim is invalid > and give the extra trick to the defenders? > > The director was not called he just happened to be standing at the > table. > > Some posters felt L86C6 requires the kibitzing Director to invoke L70C, > citing ACBL Laws. Assuming the "small" trump is not *guaranteed* to take a trick there has been no irregularity and there is no reason for the TD to interfere. Indeed if I tried interfering at one of my tables I'd expect the man with the trump who accepted the claim to say "Look pea-brain, I know I have trump, declarer knows I have a trump, and apparently the whole room knows I have a trump - what is the problem?". Tim From blml@blakjak.com Tue Feb 24 13:03:26 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 13:03:26 +0000 Subject: [blml] TD judgement In-Reply-To: <403b32a3.57c1.0@esatclear.ie> References: <403b32a3.57c1.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: Karel wrote >The damage in this case was not really done by no alert but by the pre-emptive >nature (and as with most partnerships the subsequent clarity of the ensuing >auction) of the 3C call. Surely South can ask what the 3C meant IF he had any >thoughts about bidding further. I would be loathe to change this score to 4S's >and would be distressed to find that the laws would force me do do so as seems >the case !! Ergo my question of allowing the TD some judgement. The Laws provide redress if there is damage. TDs judge whether there is damage - not players. >Playing devils advocate - can not the opponents then in another scenario (3S >just making 4S-1 on the score sheet) say hang on with proper information you >would have bid 4S's going -1 and get the scores changed ?? I do not know what you are asking - but the answer is the same. You seem to have some idea that players decide these things. They don't. -- 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 blml@blakjak.com Tue Feb 24 14:34:49 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:34:49 +0000 Subject: [blml] Another "interesting" ruling In-Reply-To: <2C5E8A9B-6697-11D8-8053-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <2C5E8A9B-6697-11D8-8053-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote >club game, matchpoint pairs. Board 26. N is dealer. Bidding goes: > >N E S W >1S 2C 3S P >P > >At this point, North comments that he failed to alert 3S. West asks the >meaning, is told "weak", and calls the TD. TD takes West away from the >table, comes back, and rolls the auction back to West, who bids 4C. >Now... > >N E S W >1S 2C 3S 4C >P P 4S All pass > >East leads. As South is laying down the dummy, he says "it wasn't >weak". He has 10 points and 4 spades. TD is called again (by East this >time). He says "call me back at the end of play if you still feel >damaged". Table Result, 4S making, a shared top. TD called again. He >rules (without quoting any laws, of course) "Avg+/Avg-". East asks "are >you sure?" TD says "yes." > >I was East. Later, I asked the TD why avg+/avg-, given my understanding >that, a result having been obtained at the table, such a ruling is >illegal. He hemmed and hawed, and finally said something about NS >getting off too lightly for "using UI". I asked "what about a PP then?" >His answer was a short "no." > >Comments? More TD training? -- 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 blml@blakjak.com Tue Feb 24 14:36:59 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:36:59 +0000 Subject: [blml] Another "interesting" ruling In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB16E7@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB16E7@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: Hinden, Frances SI-PXS wrote >The only circumstance in which I could see "Result Stands" is if South could >convince me he had no LA to the 4S bid (which I would have thought unlikely). Perhaps if 3S was forcing. >Not only is the avg+/avg- wrong and unnecessary. I am also of the opinion it >is illegal. I understand why in very complex cases some directors believe >they can say "well I should be doing a weighted average of lots of scores, or >I can't be certain what the possible results are, but I think overall the NOS >should end up with avg+" and rule accordingly, but this is not necessary. To >me the ruling is likely to be straightforward. I have been interested in this too difficult or complicated argument for a long time. I am still waiting for someone to give me one single convincing example. -- 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 Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Tue Feb 24 14:48:18 2004 From: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:48:18 -0000 Subject: [blml] assigned score. - tough one. Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D9040467FC@hotel.npl.co.uk> John Quick response - I hope its useful. In the Tollemache there is a scale for missed comparison from x-imped teams of 8. Not sure how 3 comparisons (1 missing) is possible, so perhaps I've mis-remembered. 0 comparisons / 4 missing 6IMP 1 comparison / 3 missing 5IMP 2 comparisons / 2 missing 4IMP 3 comparisons / 1 missing 3IMP Robin -----Original Message----- From: John (MadDog) Probst [mailto:john@asimere.com] Sent: 23 February 2004 01:31 To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: [blml] assigned score. - tough one. just for fun Today I ran the Middlesex teams of 8. (8 teams, 7 x 6 board rounds, *cross-imped*). nice little twinned flower movement :) so we get 4 imp figures for each board and use a VP scale which is twice root(2) bigger than the VP scale for T-of-4. I'm confident on this by the way - it really is twice root 2. c 73 imps for 20-0 over 6 boards. Now the customers decide to misboard somewhere and at one pair of tables they actually play the same misboarded hand. the other pair of tables play it roomwise. So I have two comparisons now, not 4. Case 1. NS1-EW1 is one, and NS2-EW2 is the other, different hands but valid comparisons. and when only one table plays misboarded, I still have two comparisons Case 2. NS1-EW1 and NS1-EW2. same hand but only one valid NS score. What adjustments are you going to make? and I'm not talking about fines, but adjustments to the score in imps. No ArtAss's will be entertained btw and I think I know the answer. cheers John -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Teddington, Middlesex, United Kingdom TW11 0LW. ------------------------------------------------------------------- From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Feb 24 15:29:23 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 10:29:23 -0500 Subject: [blml] Major penalty card In-Reply-To: <403B0BD6.90709@hdw.be> Message-ID: <38DC984E-66DE-11D8-92F3-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Tuesday, Feb 24, 2004, at 03:31 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > What's your point, Ed? Your statement implies that the player's opinion as to what constitutes an LA is irrelevant. I don't think that's entirely true - and if it *is* entirely true, then I don't think it should be. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Feb 24 15:41:46 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 10:41:46 -0500 Subject: [blml] Another "interesting" ruling In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB16E7@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: On Tuesday, Feb 24, 2004, at 06:15 US/Eastern, Hinden, Frances SI-PXS wrote: > You don't say what the actual N/S agreement was (assuming it can be > established). My bad. In fact, South's card was marked "limit raise", and North's was marked "weak". > If the actual N/S agreement was a limit raise, I would rule back > to 3S making 10 (or possibly 9 depending on hand) tricks. We > have evidence that West would not have bid 4C with correct information > after > a limit raise. [I assume a weak 3S bid was in fact alertable, > otherwise his > being permitted to change his call from P to 4C is suspect.] Hm. A weak 3S bid is alertable after a pass by second seat, but not after an overcall. However, it *was* North who said her partner had failed to alert, and the TD gave no indication that an alert was not required. OTOH, the basis of his final ruling seemed to be use of UI (North's indicating she thought the bid was weak) by South, rather than MI (failure to alert). As for permission to change his call being suspect, well, if I had caught *me* making as many ruling errors as this guy seems to make, I would fire me. :-) > If the actual N/S agreement was weak, then it appears that South has > taken > advantage of UI from partner that he has misbid and is "catching up". > In that > case assuming that Pass is a LA for him, I would rule back to 4C > making however > many tricks. > > The only circumstance in which I could see "Result Stands" is if South > could > convince me he had no LA to the 4S bid (which I would have thought > unlikely). Me too. :-) From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Feb 24 15:50:19 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 10:50:19 -0500 Subject: [blml] Another "interesting" ruling In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <25E7AC7A-66E1-11D8-92F3-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Tuesday, Feb 24, 2004, at 09:34 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > More TD training? After some years of observation, I've concluded that this TD was very good once upon a time, but he's gotten lazy. If more TD training were available, I have to wonder if he'd take it. From karel@esatclear.ie Tue Feb 24 16:15:32 2004 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:15:32 -0000 Subject: [blml] TD judgement In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >The damage in this case was not really done by no alert but by the pre-emptive >nature (and as with most partnerships the subsequent clarity of the ensuing >auction) of the 3C call. Surely South can ask what the 3C meant IF he had any >thoughts about bidding further. I would be loathe to change this score to 4S's >and would be distressed to find that the laws would force me do do so as seems >the case !! Ergo my question of allowing the TD some judgement. The Laws provide redress if there is damage. TDs judge whether there is damage - not players. +++ I'm glad you cleared up that point David. Still I've yet to meet a TD who wasn't also a player. Eric in his original post quite clearly states the TD must bend over backwards in accepting a players statement as to what they would bid REGARDLESS how ludicrous that statement is. In the actual case, John, judged a sizeable minority would bid 4S's and allowed the adjustment. Fair enough. All I simply want to know is, is the TD allowed to "use his judgement" and say no you wouldn't have made that bid or that bid is "ludicrous" and not allow it ?? K. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.566 / Virus Database: 357 - Release Date: 22/01/2004 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Feb 24 17:02:13 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 17:02:13 -0000 Subject: [blml] Another "interesting" ruling References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB16E7@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <017801c3faf7$f3bcab00$f79468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Ed Reppert] > club game, matchpoint pairs. Board 26. N is dealer. > N E S W > 1S 2C 3S P > At this point, North comments that he failed to alert 3S. > West asks the meaning, is told "weak", and calls the TD. > TD takes West away from the table, comes back, and rolls > the auction back to West, who bids 4C. Now... > N E S W > 1S 2C 3S P > P P 4S All pass > East leads. As South is laying down the dummy, he says > "it wasn't weak". He has 10 points and 4 spades. TD is > called again (by East this time). He says "call me back > at the end of play if you still feel damaged". Table Result, > 4S making, a shared top. TD called again. He rules (without > quoting any laws, of course) "Avg+/Avg-". [Nigel] IMO Ed is right that "Av+/-" is wrong in law. Sven is also right that the TD should rule "result stands" or, much more likely, wind the contract back to "3S". Furthermore, Frances is right that "4C" is also in the frame because there were 2 potential infections and when West bid 4C, the first had been legally resolved. Finally, I agree with Ed that the TD should consider a PP on top of any redress. Jeff Rubens seems to advocate PPs as artificial dentures that the law can use as a last resort after all its natural teeth have been extracted by "Equity" Legislation. PPs are much resented, however, and, in practice, TDs will "never" give them -- another argument against the slide to "Equity". --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.593 / Virus Database: 376 - Release Date: 20/02/2004 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Feb 24 17:11:51 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 17:11:51 -0000 Subject: [blml] TD judgement References: Message-ID: <017e01c3faf9$4ee46ee0$f79468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [David Stevenson] The Laws provide redress if there is damage. TDs judge whether there is damage - not players. [Karen] > All I simply want to know is, is the TD allowed to > "use his judgement" and say no you wouldn't have made that > bid or that bid is "ludicrous" and not allow it ?? [Nigel] Of course. There are cases the TD has no option but to rely on judgement, preferably with consultation. If there are no fellow oracles available he may even have to consult players. This may disgust David Stevenson -- but I suppose that the TD can be decontaminated, afterwards. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.593 / Virus Database: 376 - Release Date: 20/02/2004 From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Tue Feb 24 17:29:41 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 17:29:41 -0000 Subject: [blml] TD judgement Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB16EA@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> [David Stevenson] The Laws provide redress if there is damage. TDs judge=20 whether there is damage - not players. [Karel] > All I simply want to know is, is the TD allowed to=20 > "use his judgement" and say no you wouldn't have made that=20 > bid or that bid is "ludicrous" and not allow it ?? [Frances] The answer to that abstract question is yes, of course. You asked the question in the context of a particular ruling & found not everyone had the same judgement as you. [Nigel] Of course. There are cases the TD has no option but to rely on judgement, preferably with consultation. If there are no=20 fellow oracles available he may even have to consult players.=20 This may disgust David Stevenson -- but I suppose that the TD=20 can be decontaminated, afterwards. [Frances] DWS probably doesn't really need me to stand up for him... but who do you think TDs consult if not players? It's quite common to be accosted by a TD between sessions or in the bar and asked what the LAs are or how the play or defence might go. TDs consult with other TDs on matters of law or when they need to give a ruling=20 while all the players are playing. The ACBL seem to do this more formally (and list how many players with how many masterpoints are consulted) but it still happens in the EBU. The main difficulty (I imagine) is in small events when the pool of people "suitable" for consultation & potential AC members can be quite small & once you've consulted someone you probably feel they shouldn't also be on the AC. From nsousa@fc.up.pt Tue Feb 24 17:31:18 2004 From: nsousa@fc.up.pt (Nuno Miguel Marques de Sousa) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 17:31:18 -0000 Subject: [blml] Major penalty card Message-ID: <6C60E0294337E84EBE5B198747277FA93642A9@MAIL.fc.up.pt> >>Case 3: I am on the lead and Declarer requests me to play a diamond: = Am I >>free to select my King or the small diamond according to what I find = most >>favorable to my side with the knowledge that partner holds the Ace? = (Which >>no longer is a penalty card). > >This one is harder. Once the penalty card is picked up, information=20 >arising from partner's infraction becomes UI, so I would say that your=20 >choice of diamond must not be influenced by the knowledge of partner's = holding. Hum.. I believe in practice it will be easy for a player to motivate any = choice of diamond. From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Feb 24 09:00:16 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:00:16 -0000 Subject: Fw: [blml] The WBF [WAS: revokes] Message-ID: <000a01c3fb06$c334d160$d7a0193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Landau" > To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" > Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 2:19 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] The WBF [WAS: revokes] > > > > The principal functions of an NBO (and its > > subordinate levels of tournament SOs) are to > > plan, organize and run tournaments. > < > +=+ This assertion is a half truth. They are what their > respective constitutions make them. There is no single > common text for these; they are diverse and most of > them have defined functions significantly exceeding > your prescription. +=+ > > > > An NBO is not, however, a lawmaking body. > < > +=+ No such assertion was made. It is however, > by definition*, the sole controlling body of bridge > in its territory and about 120 such are members of > the WBF and may expect the WBF to consult them > on any matter that touches upon their interests, > and the interests of their members. Each is > represented on the General Council of the > WBF where they can call its Executive and its > Committees to account. +=+ > < > > My unit represents me very well on matters > > pertaining to running tournaments, but it does > > not represent me on matters pertaining to the > > Laws, nor would it consider itself competent > > to do so or want to be called upon to do so. > > > +=+ If your local organization fails to represent > its members' views upwards this is your own > private grief. It is for those members to exert > pressure, if they sre so inclined, to have it do so. +=+ > < > > So Grattan's "link", which runs from me to my > > unit BoD to my district BoD to the ACBL BoD > > to the WBF, > < > +=+ My "link", that is the WBF's 'link', runs as > far as the NBO, no further. It is a domestic matter > for its members to mould the NBO's view in > harmony with their own. The NBO is the point > at which we touch. > Zones are creations of the WBF, its subdivisions > geographically into which it places its member > NBOs according to their locations. +=+ > < > < To pretend that their hierarchy of (presumably) > > representative tournament-organizing bodies is > > somehow transmuted into a hierarchy of > > representative law-making bodies whenever > > the WBF "puts its law-making hat on" is to > > willfully abdicate the law-making responsibility > > which has been entrusted to them, not on behalf > > of the tournament organizers of the world, but > > on behalf of the players of the world who must > > play by those Laws. > > > +=+ Nor did I offer that pretence. The WBF accepts > its law-making responsibility but may consult its > members on points of substance. Those members > are NBOs. If the individual is to exercise influence > it has to be by way of the NBO of which he is a > member. It is a trifle idealistic to suppose that > the million-and-one attitudes of over a million > subscribed players can be individually absorbed > by a party of eight persons assigned to review the > laws of the game. > Much of what you assert is ill-informed or > speculation. I am surprised it should be so, and > moreso that you stand your argument upon these > insecure premises. > . > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > [*By-Laws of the WBF, eligibility for membership.] > > > > From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Feb 24 11:12:27 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 11:12:27 -0000 Subject: [blml] Black hole problem Message-ID: <000b01c3fb06$c61ef900$d7a0193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott Message-ID: <000801c3fb07$42d4c8d0$2033e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 10:34 AM Subject: Fw: [blml] Fw: revokes > > > > We are too formal in this respect in my > > > humble but strong opinion. Why do we > > > think that benefit for the game is more > > > likely to come from NBO's than from > > > interested and knowledgable individuals? > ---------------- \x/ ----------------- > > > > There are regular problems in sending messages > > out, so this one didn't go yesterday. Which made > > it possible to read another message from Eric, > > saying that the BWF needs to listen to the players > > when working on new laws. If that is what you meant > > before I have my answer and I agree with it. > > > > ton > > +=+ Yes, ton, but that is not the crux of the matter. *All* players are *equally* entitled to have their views taken into account, not merely the vocal ones who subscribe to mailing lists and chat rooms. In a sense Eric will be heard because of your minority view and your ability to introduce ideas into our discussions. But as co-ordinator of the subcommittee I must stay with the majority opinion that it is for NBOs by way of Zonal Orgs to pass forward the concerted opinions of their memberships. And it is the prerogative of each NBO and ZO to decide the basis on which it will do that. It causes me no surprise if it turns out that NBO views reflect the attitudes of the silent masses. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From henk@ripe.net Tue Feb 24 19:38:07 2004 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE NCC)) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 20:38:07 +0100 (CET) Subject: [blml] Black hole problem In-Reply-To: <000b01c3fb06$c61ef900$d7a0193e@4nrw70j> References: <000b01c3fb06$c61ef900$d7a0193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, grandeval wrote: > +=+ It seems the ISP (lineone, a subsidiary of tiscali) for my cyaxares > address has succeeded in getting itself blacklisted by the server for > rtflb.org - quite incredible. Not quite: the IP ADDRESS of the outgoing mailserver (not necessarily the machine) has made it to a blacklist of machines used by spammers. Most likely, the address has been "hijacked". In normal words: a spammer configured a second machine with the same address as Tiscali/Lineone machine, connected it to the net, fired off a load of spam, then removed the second machine again. If you know what you are doing, this is easy. What Tiscali/Lineone has to do, is to contact the maintainers of the blacklist and sort this out. > However It means that outward messages from cyaxares to blml are > hampered until we can get the nonsense straightened out. Anyone > experiencing difficulty in obtaining a response should know this.. Please send me (privately) a message that bounced INCLUDING ALL THE HEADERS and I'm happy to contact the blacklist maintainers myself to confirm that this is a mistake. 99.99% of the problem is on Tiscali's side though... Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Process and Procedure are the last hiding place of people without the wit and wisdom to do their job properly. (David Brent). From john@asimere.com Tue Feb 24 20:16:44 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 20:16:44 +0000 Subject: [blml] assigned score. - tough one. In-Reply-To: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D9040467FC@hotel.npl.co.uk> References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D9040467FC@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: In article <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D9040467FC@hotel.npl.co.uk>, Robin Barker writes >John > >Quick response - I hope its useful. > >In the Tollemache there is a scale for missed comparison from x-imped >teams of 8. Not sure how 3 comparisons (1 missing) is possible, so >perhaps I've mis-remembered. ok, now let's assume that Max bashed this table into the tolle CoC, just so he would have something to refer to, and thinks it could be improved. > >0 comparisons / 4 missing 6IMP >1 comparison / 3 missing 5IMP >2 comparisons / 2 missing 4IMP >3 comparisons / 1 missing 3IMP 1 pair sits NS and 3 sit EW; easy :) > >Robin > > >-----Original Message----- >From: John (MadDog) Probst [mailto:john@asimere.com] >Sent: 23 February 2004 01:31 >To: blml@rtflb.org >Subject: [blml] assigned score. - tough one. > > >just for fun > >Today I ran the Middlesex teams of 8. (8 teams, 7 x 6 board rounds, >*cross-imped*). nice little twinned flower movement :) > >so we get 4 imp figures for each board and use a VP scale which is twice >root(2) bigger than the VP scale for T-of-4. I'm confident on this by >the way - it really is twice root 2. c 73 imps for 20-0 over 6 boards. > >Now the customers decide to misboard somewhere and at one pair of tables >they actually play the same misboarded hand. the other pair of tables >play it roomwise. So I have two comparisons now, not 4. > >Case 1. NS1-EW1 is one, and NS2-EW2 is the other, different hands but >valid comparisons. > >and when only one table plays misboarded, I still have two comparisons > >Case 2. NS1-EW1 and NS1-EW2. same hand but only one valid NS score. > >What adjustments are you going to make? and I'm not talking about fines, >but adjustments to the score in imps. No ArtAss's will be entertained >btw and I think I know the answer. cheers John > > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Tue Feb 24 20:20:51 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 20:20:51 +0000 Subject: [blml] TD judgement In-Reply-To: <403b32a3.57c1.0@esatclear.ie> References: <403b32a3.57c1.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: In article <403b32a3.57c1.0@esatclear.ie>, Karel writes > >>>South >>>S AKxxxx >>>H Axx >>>D xxx >>>C x >>> >>>Bidding >>> >>>S W N E >>>1S 3C 3S All pass > > >>The TD must make a determination as to whether the MI resulted in >>damage to the NOS, and must give the benefit of the doubt to the NOS in >>doing so. He may allow the result to stand if he finds that S would >>not have bid 4S even with correct information, on the grounds that the >>MI did not result in any damage. But be careful here: the operative >>words are "would not". If he believes that S would have bid 4S, he >>must adjust to the result that would have obtained had S done so, even >>if he also believes that 4S would have been the worst bid he'd ever >>seen and gets 100 out of 100 experts to agree with him. > >+++ Just a few pointers. I'm not going to get into a bidding theory argument >with John but 3S over 3C's is surely to play opposite a normal opener which >the south hand is. With more you stretch to 4S's or double and then bid 3/4 >spades depending on developements indicating an invitational hand. I for one >would never voluntarily bid 4S with the south hand (over further bidding sure >- but not with the expectation of making). In fact the 4S* on the score sheet >probably resulted from 1S (2C) 2S (3H) 3S (4H) P P 4S dbl. 4S's goes down on >a trump lead anyway. > > >Back to Eric's comments - this was what I was wondering. If I read it >correctly, >South can AFTER looking at the scores (all 4S) say hang on a sec you mis >informed >me and I would have bid 4S's (when he wouldn't !!) and I want my crap score >changed. Surely this is abit lop sided ?? > >The damage in this case was not really done by no alert but by the pre-emptive >nature (and as with most partnerships the subsequent clarity of the ensuing >auction) of the 3C call. Surely South can ask what the 3C meant IF he had any >thoughts about bidding further. I would be loathe to change this score to 4S's >and would be distressed to find that the laws would force me do do so as seems >the case !! Ergo my question of allowing the TD some judgement. > >Playing devils advocate - can not the opponents then in another scenario (3S >just making 4S-1 on the score sheet) say hang on with proper information you >would have bid 4S's going -1 and get the scores changed ?? Nope because it only requires a 20% shot at 4S for me to adjust. So 80% will stick at 3S anyway. Remember NS are not the NOs, the NOs get the most favourable result at all likely (or I might try some 12C3 adjustments if I'm feeling energetic). cheers john > >K. >-- >http://www.iol.ie > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Tue Feb 24 20:22:21 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 20:22:21 +0000 Subject: [blml] TD judgement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , Karel writes >>The damage in this case was not really done by no alert but by the >pre-emptive >>nature (and as with most partnerships the subsequent clarity of the ensuing >>auction) of the 3C call. Surely South can ask what the 3C meant IF he had >any >>thoughts about bidding further. I would be loathe to change this score to >4S's >>and would be distressed to find that the laws would force me do do so as >seems >>the case !! Ergo my question of allowing the TD some judgement. > > The Laws provide redress if there is damage. TDs judge whether there >is damage - not players. > >+++ I'm glad you cleared up that point David. Still I've yet to meet a TD >who wasn't also a player. > >Eric in his original post quite clearly states the TD must bend over >backwards in accepting a players statement as to what they would bid >REGARDLESS how ludicrous that statement is. In the actual case, John, >judged a sizeable minority would bid 4S's and allowed the adjustment. Fair >enough. > >All I simply want to know is, is the TD allowed to "use his judgement" and >say no you wouldn't have made that bid or that bid is "ludicrous" and not >allow it ?? of course I might. > >K. > >--- >Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >Version: 6.0.566 / Virus Database: 357 - Release Date: 22/01/2004 > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Tue Feb 24 20:24:43 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 20:24:43 +0000 Subject: [blml] TD judgement In-Reply-To: <017e01c3faf9$4ee46ee0$f79468d5@tinyhrieuyik> References: <017e01c3faf9$4ee46ee0$f79468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: In article <017e01c3faf9$4ee46ee0$f79468d5@tinyhrieuyik>, Nigel Guthrie writes >[David Stevenson] >The Laws provide redress if there is damage. TDs judge >whether there is damage - not players. > >[Karen] >> All I simply want to know is, is the TD allowed to >> "use his judgement" and say no you wouldn't have made that >> bid or that bid is "ludicrous" and not allow it ?? > >[Nigel] >Of course. There are cases the TD has no option but to rely on >judgement, preferably with consultation. If there are no >fellow oracles available he may even have to consult players. >This may disgust David Stevenson -- but I suppose that the TD >can be decontaminated, afterwards. Most consultation is with players. I prefer to talk with a player from the peer group of the player concerned than another TD. So would David. We want the peer group judgement of what are the LA's not the bizarre imagination of a TD hell bent on finding spectres under beds. > > > >--- >Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >Version: 6.0.593 / Virus Database: 376 - Release Date: 20/02/2004 > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr Tue Feb 24 20:49:30 2004 From: jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 21:49:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Validity of commentary to the laws of 1987 References: <000001c3f22b$d6f3c000$6900a8c0@WINXP> <002c01c3f270$94294f20$822d37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <000701c3fb17$bac77800$8a5b4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> DWS: > No, but it includes interpretations of the Laws, and as such is valid > - especially in Europe, being the EBL TD Guide. Hmmm. The EBL is a rather tiny part of Europe ....... But then more NCBO's might have adopted a paper that way, I don't know. But as a long standing member of the national appeals committee of the 2nd largest EBL NCBO I have never formally been informed of the existence of any commentary or of any WBFLC minute for that matter. Strange in a way since the chairman of my body happens to be the same person as the chairman as the WBFLC. But maybe not that strange knowing what Ton is good at and at which he is not. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 2:05 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Validity of commentary to the laws of 1987 > Wayne Burrows wrote > > >Valid in what sense? > > > >A commentary is an opinion it does not take the place of the law. > > No, but it includes interpretations of the Laws, and as such is valid > - especially in Europe, being the EBL TD Guide. > > -- > 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 > From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Feb 24 22:00:58 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 17:00:58 -0500 Subject: [blml] TD judgement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040224164513.01fd7730@pop.starpower.net> At 11:15 AM 2/24/04, Karel wrote: >Eric in his original post quite clearly states the TD must bend over >backwards in accepting a players statement as to what they would bid >REGARDLESS how ludicrous that statement is. In the actual case, John, >judged a sizeable minority would bid 4S's and allowed the >adjustment. Fair >enough. I never said or implied that the TD must accept a player's statement as to what they would bid regardless of how ludicrous the statement is. What I said was that if the TD believes a player's statement as to what they would bid to be true, he must accept it regardless of how ludicrous the *bid* is. >All I simply want to know is, is the TD allowed to "use his judgement" and >say no you wouldn't have made that bid or that bid is "ludicrous" and not >allow it ?? Yes and no, respectively. He may use his judgment to refuse to adjust on the grounds that the player would not have made that bid. If, however, he finds that the player would have made that bid (whatever the player's reasoning), he may not refuse to adjust on the grounds that that bid would be ludicrous. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Tue Feb 24 22:17:54 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 22:17:54 -0000 Subject: [blml] Validity of commentary to the laws of 1987 References: <000001c3f22b$d6f3c000$6900a8c0@WINXP> <002c01c3f270$94294f20$822d37d2@Desktop> <000701c3fb17$bac77800$8a5b4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> Message-ID: <000701c3fb24$270f3b90$77182850@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" ; "David Stevenson" Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 8:49 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Validity of commentary to the laws of 1987 > DWS: > > No, but it includes interpretations of the Laws, > > and as such is valid - especially in Europe, being > the EBL TD Guide. > > Hmmm. The EBL is a rather tiny part of Europe ....... < +=+ Yes, I suppose you could say that since it only covers: Andorra, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, England, Estonia, Faroe Islands, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Lebanon, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, San Marino, Scotland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine and Wales. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From adam@irvine.com Tue Feb 24 22:37:29 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:37:29 -0800 Subject: [blml] Validity of commentary to the laws of 1987 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 24 Feb 2004 22:17:54 GMT." <000701c3fb24$270f3b90$77182850@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <200402242237.OAA04700@mailhub.irvine.com> Grattan wrote: > > DWS: > > > No, but it includes interpretations of the Laws, > > > and as such is valid - especially in Europe, being > > the EBL TD Guide. > > > > Hmmm. The EBL is a rather tiny part of Europe ....... > < > +=+ Yes, I suppose you could say that since it only > covers: Andorra, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, > Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, England, > Estonia, Faroe Islands, Finland, France, Germany, > Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, > Lebanon, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, > Monaco, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, > Romania, Russia, San Marino, Scotland, Slovakia, > Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine > and Wales. But not Albania? No wonder Jaap called it "tiny". :) -- Adam From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Feb 24 22:34:36 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 17:34:36 -0500 Subject: Fw: [blml] The WBF [WAS: revokes] In-Reply-To: <000a01c3fb06$c334d160$d7a0193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040224171312.01fd3130@pop.starpower.net> At 04:00 AM 2/24/04, grandeval wrote: > > +=+ If your local organization fails to represent > > its members' views upwards this is your own > > private grief. It is for those members to exert > > pressure, if they sre so inclined, to have it do so. +=+ My local organization is very competent in performing their function, and represents my views appropriately (if rarely as I would like) on matters relevant to that function. But writing and interpreting the Laws is not their function, nor is it their area of competence, nor is it what they are chartered or organized to do, nor do they have any structure which would allow them to do it if they chose, nor, therefore, do they need or have any mechanism for soliciting from the constituency for their actual function views or opinions on something which is entirely outside their organizational mandate -- and they would never consider claiming anything to the contrary. Apparently, however, if Grattan is to be believed, the WBF chooses to pretend, for their own convenience, that none of the above is true, and to insist that my local organization nevertheless must "represent my views" on the subject of the Laws to the WBF when they would be the first to admit that they cannot possibly do so. This is not my "private grief"; it is the willful failure of the WBF to organize themselves appropriately to perform the functions mandated by their own charter, in particular, to insist that an organization conceived and built for one purpose can and must function equally effectively in the pursuit of some totally different purpose. "Exerting pressure" for my local organization to represent my views on the Laws makes about as much sense as pressing them to represent my views on the war in Iraq. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From dhh@inter.net.il Wed Feb 25 00:13:35 2004 From: dhh@inter.net.il (Dany Haimovici) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 02:13:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] Another "interesting" ruling References: <25E7AC7A-66E1-11D8-92F3-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <403BE8AF.1FDBAFE9@inter.net.il> I'd like to see the full hands , for a better judgement . According to the story told - i believe that west didn't bid his hand , but just IMAGINATED his partner's hand according to the postponed alert. By Law 16C1 - West is allowed to use any information arising after the withdrawn pass , on his own risk. If North didn't make the remark on purpose to mislead the opponents - and I understand it was on his CC the way he explained. - my decision is "result stands" , unless the full hands' picture will convice me another way. It means I believe E-W were not damaged by the wrong explanation but that was their own fault to bid 4C. If anyone believes that E-W were damaged by a FALSE delayed alert by N - hmmm kick them out from the club or warn them that they are on their way out.... As much as I understand Law 40C, the TD "may award an adjusted score" , not to assign a score ! And even the TD is sure 100% that E-W were damaged by the N explanation , than he must act by Law 40C2.... We must say the truth -> the nowdays policy of clubs' owners is "make not too much noise and complicated ruling" , not to apply the right rullings. Dany P.S. As much as I remember (Since last millenium....?!) this forum decided to get the full hands' picture , when the case includes a judgement ....am I right ? Ed Reppert wrote: > On Tuesday, Feb 24, 2004, at 09:34 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > > > More TD training? > > After some years of observation, I've concluded that this TD was very > good once upon a time, but he's gotten lazy. If more TD training were > available, I have to wonder if he'd take it. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Feb 24 23:12:51 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 00:12:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Major penalty card In-Reply-To: <38DC984E-66DE-11D8-92F3-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <38DC984E-66DE-11D8-92F3-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <403BDA73.2010309@hdw.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Tuesday, Feb 24, 2004, at 03:31 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> What's your point, Ed? > > > Your statement implies that the player's opinion as to what constitutes > an LA is irrelevant. I don't think that's entirely true - and if it *is* > entirely true, then I don't think it should be. > Neither do I. But Ed, there are 90 cases out there in which the non-suggested action is a LA, and clearly so, to all involved including the player himself. So the player should simply follow the law and not do that action. He's not stuffed by the law, but by the UI. Then there are nine cases in which there are no LA's to the suggested action, and clearly so, to all involved including the player himself. There the player simply does the suggested action and asks his opponents afterwards to confirm that there was no alternative. Quite probably they agree and the TD is not even recalled. The player is not stuffed, neither by the law nor even by the UI. And then there is the one hundreth case. The case in which there is doubt as to the LA. The player selects one alternative and the TD has a different view. So what. This is a minority situation. Yes, the player may be "stuffed" as you call it, but that is no reason to throw out the child with the bathwater. Some of you on blml are overly sensitive to cases presented on blml. They represent a very small percentage of actual cases. They are interested as such, because they provide us with valuable experience in our rulings. They provide us with discussion, and maybe help in bringing the standards of TD'ing closer together. As such these cases are valuable. These cases are NOT valuable however, in trying to decide on the relative merit of this set of laws versus any other set. For that, they are far too marginal and infrequent. And we should not forget that we need to draw a boundary somewhere. And wherever we draw the boundary, there will always be infrequent cases straddling that border. Any set of rules and regulations will result in a number of cases where different TD's will have different views. That should not in itself be a critcism of the set of rules. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Feb 25 02:35:27 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 02:35:27 -0000 Subject: [blml] Temptation Message-ID: <010601c3fb48$08240020$039468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Match between two of the top teams in the county league. (moderate standard; no TD; serious; but friendly) #23 GA/S West North East South KQ865432 - - - P 4 2H(1) 2S 4H X(2) Q4 P 4S X End Q6 JT N - (1) Weak J87652 E + W AT3 (2) Not alerted KJ S A963 K94 D AJ8752 A97 KQ9 T8752 T3 Before the lead, South said "My double is takeout". North confessed "Sorry, I should have alerted -- the double should be competitive -- transferable values." East-West reserved their rights. 4SX was -500. East said "If the double had been alerted, I would bid 5C and reach 5H". An adjudicator adjusted to 5H making (+650). IMO correctly. Had South volunteered nothing, his "penalty" double would be unlikely to attract comment; so South's statement is unusual, although ethically mandated. Has such a case ever occurred before? Since the alert procedure started, it is the first time I've heard of such an incident. For example, I would be interested to learn if anybody knows of an appeal involving a failure to alert which would have passed unnoticed except that the offender's partner drew attention to the lapse? In theory, I suppose, a TD would expect such calls almost every session, some of which might result in appeals. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.594 / Virus Database: 377 - Release Date: 25/02/2004 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Feb 25 02:35:32 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 21:35:32 -0500 Subject: [blml] Another "interesting" ruling In-Reply-To: <403BE8AF.1FDBAFE9@inter.net.il> Message-ID: <48A04EB1-673B-11D8-B0FA-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Tuesday, Feb 24, 2004, at 19:13 US/Eastern, Dany Haimovici wrote: > P.S. As much as I remember (Since last millenium....?!) this forum > decided to get the full hands' picture , when the case includes a > judgement ....am I right ? I don't recall any such decision - but then I've only been here a few years. As for the hands, I have no idea now what they were, beyond what I've already said. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Feb 25 02:39:03 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 21:39:03 -0500 Subject: [blml] Major penalty card In-Reply-To: <403BDA73.2010309@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Tuesday, Feb 24, 2004, at 18:12 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > And then there is the one hundreth case. The case in which there is > doubt as to the LA. The player selects one alternative and the TD has > a different view. So what. This is a minority situation. Yes, the > player may be "stuffed" as you call it, but that is no reason to throw > out the child with the bathwater. One in a hundred? Huh. I'd have said it's much higher than that. Perhaps it has to do with the different levels of skill or knowledge of the law in our different playing venues. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Feb 25 04:11:08 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 04:11:08 -0000 Subject: [blml] Temptation Message-ID: <02a301c3fb55$6652cc00$039468d5@tinyhrieuyik> A similr Alert scenario that should occur frequently but of which I can recall no instance is when partner's correct alert wakes a player up to the systemic significance of his last call, which he intended as natural. Often the mistaken call can be detected by perusal of the hand. But sometimes it is not at all obvious and the player can easily "get away with it" by adjusting his bidding. In the latter case, has anyone known a player who instead deliberately ignored the UI from the wake-up alert, although a poor score would then be inevitable? Is there any AC report involving such an incident? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.594 / Virus Database: 377 - Release Date: 25/02/2004 From jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr Wed Feb 25 08:17:09 2004 From: jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 09:17:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Validity of commentary to the laws of 1987 References: <000001c3f22b$d6f3c000$6900a8c0@WINXP> <002c01c3f270$94294f20$822d37d2@Desktop> <000701c3fb17$bac77800$8a5b4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> <000701c3fb24$270f3b90$77182850@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <003701c3fb77$c5315350$8a5b4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> Yes my dear, off course one can argue EBL = Europe. But if you apply something only to EBL events and you don't even bother to inform the NCBO's (in an efficient way) only 0.0001 (take a random # of 0's) of European bridge is affected. So for all pratical purposes the above commentary is not valid in Europe (because 'nobody' knows about it), to which extent it is binding on EBL event TD's I don't know (I should because I actually play in those events). Probably changes from year to year since the COC's are rewritten for each event. Anyway isn't there some kind of policy that boils down to letting any NCBO and any SO do as they damn well please about more or less anything but the real fundamentals (and probably even those). Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Jaap van der Neut" ; "blml" ; "David Stevenson" Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 11:17 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Validity of commentary to the laws of 1987 > > Grattan Endicott ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "..... the craft so long to lerne, > Th'assay so hard, so sharp the > conquerynge." > ['The Parliament of Fowls'] > =#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#= > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > To: "blml" ; "David Stevenson" > Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 8:49 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Validity of commentary to the laws of 1987 > > > > DWS: > > > No, but it includes interpretations of the Laws, > > > and as such is valid - especially in Europe, being > > the EBL TD Guide. > > > > Hmmm. The EBL is a rather tiny part of Europe ....... > < > +=+ Yes, I suppose you could say that since it only > covers: Andorra, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, > Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, England, > Estonia, Faroe Islands, Finland, France, Germany, > Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, > Lebanon, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, > Monaco, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, > Romania, Russia, San Marino, Scotland, Slovakia, > Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine > and Wales. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From karel@esatclear.ie Wed Feb 25 10:15:33 2004 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 10:15:33 GMT Subject: [blml] TD judgement Message-ID: <403c75c5.95a.0@esatclear.ie> [snip] I never said or implied that the TD must accept a player's statement is to what they would bid regardless of how ludicrous the statement is. What I said was that if the TD believes a player's statement as to what they would bid to be true, he must accept it regardless of how ludicrous the *bid* is. +++ this is a very fine line ... very fine indeed. Take the case given. South says he would bid 4S's for various reasons. You dont agree with his reasons but it's not your job to disprove or judge his bridge bidding/methods so its incumbent upon you to adjust - fair enough. Presumably now E/W can appeal your ruling and an appeals committee will then decide whether or not 4S is infact reasonable. All fair enough so far. But I've come across 2 types of cases. (1) the NS pair are much stronger than the EW pair and will use their reputation to allow them to make claims which are dubious at best knowing the EW pair wouldn't dare appeal and also knowing the TD has to take their word. (2) The NS pair have enough knowledge of the laws to know they can claim damage in these situations and state they would have bid whatever without any real reasoning, just outraged ardent conviction. Generally these types having the comfort of seeing the score sheet feel done in and would "off course" have bid if they hadn't been miss informed. Again the E/W pair are extremely unlikely to appeal. In both these dare I say common situations the TD should have the right to protect the weaker E/W pair and use his judgement/experience to say sorry I don't believe you or make a statement to the effect that this is an anti peer bid and make N/S appeal his ruling !! K. -- http://www.iol.ie From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Feb 25 10:48:17 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 11:48:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] TD judgement In-Reply-To: <403c75c5.95a.0@esatclear.ie> References: <403c75c5.95a.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <403C7D71.7080607@hdw.be> Karel wrote: > [snip] > I never said or implied that the TD must accept a player's statement is to what > they would bid regardless of how ludicrous the statement > is. What I said was that if the TD believes a player's statement as to what > they would bid to be true, he must accept it regardless of how ludicrous the > *bid* is. > > > +++ this is a very fine line ... very fine indeed. > > Take the case given. South says he would bid 4S's for various reasons. You > dont agree with his reasons but it's not your job to disprove or judge his bridge > bidding/methods so its incumbent upon you to adjust - fair enough. > Who says it's not your job? > Presumably now E/W can appeal your ruling and an appeals committee will then > decide whether or not 4S is infact reasonable. All fair enough so far. > > > But I've come across 2 types of cases. > > (1) the NS pair are much stronger than the EW pair and will use their reputation > to allow them to make claims which are dubious at best knowing the EW pair wouldn't > dare appeal and also knowing the TD has to take their word. > > (2) The NS pair have enough knowledge of the laws to know they can claim damage > in these situations and state they would have bid whatever without any real > reasoning, just outraged ardent conviction. Generally these types having the > comfort of seeing the score sheet feel done in and would "off course" have bid > if they hadn't been miss informed. Again the E/W pair are extremely unlikely > to appeal. > > > In both these dare I say common situations the TD should have the right to protect > the weaker E/W pair and use his judgement/experience to say sorry I don't believe > you or make a statement to the effect that this is an anti peer bid and make > N/S appeal his ruling !! > And who says the TD does not have this right? Maybe in the past it was an advice given to TD's to rule automatically in favour of the NOS, and have the OS go into appeal, but that advice, at least in Europe, is no longer existent (if it ever was such). So indeed, the TD, if he believes it is unlikely that NS will reach 4Sp, should say so and rule "no damage". Personally, I think this is the case here. I don't so how NS are damaged through not reaching a game on very low values. I would really like to know why this was a bottom in this field - how did the other NS pairs reach game? Presumably because they were pushed by even more adventurous EW pairs - we shall never know since we don't even have the EW cards. But perhaps there is some room for a ruling there - if the cards are such that all EW went further than 3Cl, thereby pushing NS into the making game, then perhaps at this table there has been some use of UI (the call was wrongly alerted, wasn't it) which meant EW passed out the normal bid of 3Sp. If NS have really landed in a bottom score in 3Sp+1, maybe there is a UI ruling that will help them out of bottom. Life Lesson: always provide the 52 cards, without x's! > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Wed Feb 25 11:13:47 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 12:13:47 +0100 Subject: Fw: Fw: [blml] The WBF [WAS: revokes] Message-ID: <003a01c3fb90$73604fe0$0ef7f0c3@LNV> > Grattan: > > > > +=+ If your local organization fails to represent > > > > its members' views upwards this is your own > > > > private grief. It is for those members to exert > > > > pressure, if they sre so inclined, to have it do so. +=+ > > > > > Eric: > > My local organization is very competent in performing their function, > > and represents my views appropriately (if rarely as I would like) on > > matters relevant to that function. But writing and interpreting the > > Laws is not their function, nor is it their area of competence, nor is > > it what they are chartered or organized to do, nor do they have any > > structure which would allow them to do it if they chose, nor, > > therefore, do they need or have any mechanism for soliciting from the > > constituency for their actual function views or opinions on something > > which is entirely outside their organizational mandate -- and they > > would never consider claiming anything to the contrary. Apparently, > > however, if Grattan is to be believed, the WBF chooses to pretend, for > > their own convenience, that none of the above is true, and to insist > > that my local organization nevertheless must "represent my views" on > > the subject of the Laws to the WBF when they would be the first to > > admit that they cannot possibly do so. This is not my "private grief"; > > it is the willful failure of the WBF to organize themselves > > appropriately to perform the functions mandated by their own charter, > > in particular, to insist that an organization conceived and built for > > one purpose can and must function equally effectively in the pursuit of > > some totally different purpose. "Exerting pressure" for my local > > organization to represent my views on the Laws makes about as much > > sense as pressing them to represent my views on the war in Iraq. > > > > > > Eric Landau > > > I am with you, so don't follow the known not to work theroretical approach > Grattan is describing. > And he is old enough to understand the same. But let us take it one step > further now. How to organize this in a better way? I am not with you when > you say that the WBF refuses to organize it better; we don't know how to > organize it better. > Reading the blml contributions for some years now doesn't make me optimistic > to find a useful method. > Sending out questionaires produces strong but completely diverging opinions. > Strong players have problems to imagine the feelings and needs of the > ordinary club player. It is really a very complex task we have here. Or it > isn't at all. Players feel more or less happy with any kind of laws > conducting the game? We do not more than introducing some new toys every ten > years and nobody cares. > > So help me by telling what the three main problems are we should tackle in > the new laws. It is not impossible that with some consensus appearing we can > do what you ask. > > > ton > > From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Wed Feb 25 11:15:42 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 11:15:42 -0000 Subject: [blml] Temptation Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB16F1@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Nigel Guthrie Sent: 25 February 2004 02:35 To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: [blml] Temptation Match between two of the top teams in the county league. =20 (moderate standard; no TD; serious; but friendly) #23 GA/S West North East South KQ865432 - - - P 4 2H(1) 2S 4H X(2) Q4 P 4S X End Q6 =20 JT N - (1) Weak J87652 E + W AT3 (2) Not alerted KJ S A963 K94 D AJ8752 A97 KQ9 T8752 T3 Before the lead, South said "My double is takeout". North=20 confessed "Sorry, I should have alerted -- the double should=20 be competitive -- transferable values." East-West reserved=20 their rights. 4SX was -500. East said "If the double had been alerted, I would bid 5C and reach 5H". An adjudicator=20 adjusted to 5H making (+650). IMO correctly. [Frances: If I were going to rule in EW's favour, I would rule 5C making exactly, not 5H. Lucky West doesn't have the C10 or I would be leaving the score in 4Sx as 5C/5H would be very likely to go down.] Had South volunteered nothing, his "penalty" double would be unlikely to attract comment; so South's statement is unusual,=20 although ethically mandated.=20 [Frances] South's statement is not particularly unusual. It's quite common in auctions like this to point out the failure to=20 alert when otherwise it appears that partner has pulled a penalty double. It saves debate later if EW were to suggest=20 e.g. that the double of 4H was slow & the 4S bid a result of UI. Also for quite a few people it's entirely normal to correct lack-of-alerts before the lead (as well as Lawful). They do it automatically, not thinking "ooh, maybe we'll get ruled against if I do this, but I'm an ethical player so I'll do it anyway". From blml@blakjak.com Wed Feb 25 12:38:46 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 12:38:46 +0000 Subject: [blml] TD judgement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Karel wrote >>The damage in this case was not really done by no alert but by the >pre-emptive >>nature (and as with most partnerships the subsequent clarity of the ensuing >>auction) of the 3C call. Surely South can ask what the 3C meant IF he had >any >>thoughts about bidding further. I would be loathe to change this score to >4S's >>and would be distressed to find that the laws would force me do do so as >seems >>the case !! Ergo my question of allowing the TD some judgement. > > The Laws provide redress if there is damage. TDs judge whether there >is damage - not players. > >+++ I'm glad you cleared up that point David. Still I've yet to meet a TD >who wasn't also a player. Of course: I mean the player who was at the table does not decide. >Eric in his original post quite clearly states the TD must bend over >backwards in accepting a players statement as to what they would bid >REGARDLESS how ludicrous that statement is. *If* Eric said that *then* I am afraid he is wrong. Some players' honesty is below 100%: many if not most players tend ot look at things with rose-tinted spectacles even if they are 100% honest. The players at the table do not make judgement decisions: that is what TDs are for. > In the actual case, John, >judged a sizeable minority would bid 4S's and allowed the adjustment. Fair >enough. > >All I simply want to know is, is the TD allowed to "use his judgement" and >say no you wouldn't have made that bid or that bid is "ludicrous" and not >allow it ?? Of course. That's his job. Can you imagine a referee in football not deciding who gets the throw-in but asking the players to decide? -- 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 blml@blakjak.com Wed Feb 25 12:47:43 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 12:47:43 +0000 Subject: [blml] Another "interesting" ruling In-Reply-To: <403BE8AF.1FDBAFE9@inter.net.il> References: <25E7AC7A-66E1-11D8-92F3-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <403BE8AF.1FDBAFE9@inter.net.il> Message-ID: Dany Haimovici wrote >I'd like to see the full hands , for a better judgement . >According to the story told - i believe that west didn't bid his hand , >but just IMAGINATED his partner's hand according to the postponed >alert. > >By Law 16C1 - West is allowed to use any information arising after the >withdrawn pass , on his own risk. If North didn't make the remark on >purpose to mislead the opponents - and I understand it was on his CC the >way he explained. - my decision is "result stands" , unless the full >hands' picture will convice me another way. It means I believe E-W were >not damaged by the wrong explanation but that was their own fault to bid >4C. >If anyone believes that E-W were damaged by a FALSE delayed alert by N >- hmmm kick them out from the club or warn them that they are on their >way out.... > >As much as I understand Law 40C, the TD "may award an adjusted score" , >not to assign a score ! And even the TD is sure 100% that E-W were >damaged by the N explanation , than he must act by Law 40C2.... Yes, L40C directs you to awarding an adjusted score, ie to L12C. It is L12C that divides the adjusted scores into assigned, when a result was obtained, and artificial, when the board was cancelled without a result being obtained. -- 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 blml@blakjak.com Wed Feb 25 12:51:23 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 12:51:23 +0000 Subject: [blml] Black hole problem In-Reply-To: <000b01c3fb06$c61ef900$d7a0193e@4nrw70j> References: <000b01c3fb06$c61ef900$d7a0193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: grandeval wrote >+=+ It seems the ISP (lineone, a subsidiary of tiscali) >for my cyaxares address has succeeded in getting >itself blacklisted by the server for rtflb.org - quite >incredible. However It means that outward messages >from cyaxares to blml are hampered until we can get >the nonsense straightened out. Anyone experiencing >difficulty in obtaining a response should know this.. +=+ As a couple of posters here noted, their ISP blacklisted BT for a time. Ah well, no doubt the largest telephone provider in the country and a pretty big set of ISPs is solely there to generate spam. All these things will be resolved by the time we reach the arguments over when the millennium ends in 3000, in fact we might have the bridge laws sorted as well. -- 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 blml@blakjak.com Wed Feb 25 12:52:38 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 12:52:38 +0000 Subject: [blml] Validity of commentary to the laws of 1987 In-Reply-To: <000701c3fb24$270f3b90$77182850@multivisionoem> References: <000001c3f22b$d6f3c000$6900a8c0@WINXP> <002c01c3f270$94294f20$822d37d2@Desktop> <000701c3fb17$bac77800$8a5b4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> <000701c3fb24$270f3b90$77182850@multivisionoem> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott wrote >> DWS: >> > No, but it includes interpretations of the Laws, >> > and as such is valid - especially in Europe, being >> the EBL TD Guide. >> >> Hmmm. The EBL is a rather tiny part of Europe ....... >< >+=+ Yes, I suppose you could say that since it only >covers: Andorra, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, >Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, England, >Estonia, Faroe Islands, Finland, France, Germany, >Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, >Lebanon, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, >Monaco, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, >Romania, Russia, San Marino, Scotland, Slovakia, >Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine >and Wales. Good thing I don't live in the Vatican City [official birthrate: zero]. -- 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 ehaa@starpower.net Wed Feb 25 13:29:35 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 08:29:35 -0500 Subject: [blml] TD judgement In-Reply-To: <403c75c5.95a.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040225081632.026f95e0@pop.starpower.net> At 05:15 AM 2/25/04, karel wrote: >[snip] >I never said or implied that the TD must accept a player's statement >is to what >they would bid regardless of how ludicrous the statement >is. What I said was that if the TD believes a player's statement as >to what >they would bid to be true, he must accept it regardless of how >ludicrous the >*bid* is. > >+++ this is a very fine line ... very fine indeed. > >Take the case given. South says he would bid 4S's for various >reasons. You >dont agree with his reasons but it's not your job to disprove or judge >his bridge >bidding/methods so its incumbent upon you to adjust - fair enough. > >Presumably now E/W can appeal your ruling and an appeals committee >will then >decide whether or not 4S is infact reasonable. All fair enough so far. > >But I've come across 2 types of cases. > >(1) the NS pair are much stronger than the EW pair and will use their >reputation >to allow them to make claims which are dubious at best knowing the EW >pair wouldn't >dare appeal and also knowing the TD has to take their word. > >(2) The NS pair have enough knowledge of the laws to know they can >claim damage >in these situations and state they would have bid whatever without any >real >reasoning, just outraged ardent conviction. Generally these types >having the >comfort of seeing the score sheet feel done in and would "off course" >have bid >if they hadn't been miss informed. Again the E/W pair are extremely >unlikely >to appeal. > >In both these dare I say common situations the TD should have the >right to protect >the weaker E/W pair and use his judgement/experience to say sorry I >don't believe >you or make a statement to the effect that this is an anti peer bid >and make >N/S appeal his ruling !! (1) Yes, indeed, but expert pairs who use their reputations to win by intimidating weaker opponents, TDs and ACs, are not a problem to be solved by tinkering with the UI rules. To solve it requires enforcing rules against the conduct itself, regardless of context. We have L74A1, L74A2, L75B5 and L91. If they are not adequate to deal with intimidation, the answer is to strengthen them, not to try to use the "playing" laws. (2) The reason you question the player about his reasoning is to judge the veracity of his claim as to what he would have bid, not its merits. If he can offer no real reasoning for doing so, just outraged ardent conviction, you have every reason to disbelieve his claim. If he makes a convincing case that those reasons, however misguided, would have led him to make the bid he claimed he would, however, he must be "allowed" it in the adjustment; what his "peers" (whoever they may be) might have done in his place shouldn't matter. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Wed Feb 25 13:52:07 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 14:52:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Black hole problem References: <000b01c3fb06$c61ef900$d7a0193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <008a01c3fba6$91fc7490$0ef7f0c3@LNV> > All these things will be resolved by the time we reach the arguments > over when the millennium ends in 3000, in fact we might have the bridge > laws sorted as well. > now waiting for the first post telling us that the millennium will end in 3001, the advantage being that it gives us another year. ton > -- > David Stevenson From john@asimere.com Wed Feb 25 13:54:47 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 13:54:47 +0000 Subject: [blml] Major penalty card In-Reply-To: <403BDA73.2010309@hdw.be> References: <38DC984E-66DE-11D8-92F3-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <403BDA73.2010309@hdw.be> Message-ID: <8HK+9iAnkKPAFwl2@asimere.com> In article <403BDA73.2010309@hdw.be>, Herman De Wael writes snips > >Some of you on blml are overly sensitive to cases presented on blml. >They represent a very small percentage of actual cases. They are >interested as such, because they provide us with valuable experience >in our rulings. They provide us with discussion, and maybe help in >bringing the standards of TD'ing closer together. As such these cases >are valuable. I think that these endless discussions of "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" are very valuable. As Herman says, not because they come up often, or indeed are much related to "brij as she is spoke", but because they help us better understand the intent of the LawMakers and help us better to give the Law when faced with a situation novel to ourself. cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From H.W.Pieters@gasunie.nl Wed Feb 25 13:59:49 2004 From: H.W.Pieters@gasunie.nl (Pieters H.W.) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 14:59:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Black hole problem Message-ID: The millennium ends in 3000 - 31st december 3000 -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]Namens Ton Kooijman Verzonden: woensdag 25 februari 2004 14:52 Aan: blml@rtflb.org; David Stevenson Onderwerp: Re: [blml] Black hole problem > All these things will be resolved by the time we reach the arguments > over when the millennium ends in 3000, in fact we might have the bridge > laws sorted as well. > now waiting for the first post telling us that the millennium will end in 3001, the advantage being that it gives us another year. ton > --=20 > David Stevenson _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _________________________________________________________________________= ___ This communication is intended only for use by the addressee. It may cont= ain=20 confidential or privileged information. If you receive this communication= =20 unintentionally, please let us know by reply immediately. Gasunie does no= t =20 guarantee that the information sent with this E-mail is correct and does = not=20 accept any liability for damages related thereto. = =20 _________________________________________________________________________= ___ From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Feb 25 14:13:38 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 15:13:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Black hole problem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <403CAD92.1020907@hdw.be> Pieters H.W. wrote: > The millennium ends in 3000 - 31st december 3000 > an wednesday, actually. > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]Namens Ton > Kooijman > Verzonden: woensdag 25 februari 2004 14:52 > Aan: blml@rtflb.org; David Stevenson > Onderwerp: Re: [blml] Black hole problem > > > >> All these things will be resolved by the time we reach the arguments >>over when the millennium ends in 3000, in fact we might have the bridge >>laws sorted as well. >> > > > now waiting for the first post telling us that the millennium will end in > 3001, the advantage being that it gives us another year. > > ton > > >>-- >>David Stevenson > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________ > This communication is intended only for use by the addressee. It may contain > confidential or privileged information. If you receive this communication > unintentionally, please let us know by reply immediately. Gasunie does not > guarantee that the information sent with this E-mail is correct and does not > accept any liability for damages related thereto. > ____________________________________________________________________________ > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran@online.no Wed Feb 25 15:54:06 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 16:54:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Black hole problem In-Reply-To: <403CAD92.1020907@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c3fbb7$99e3b590$6900a8c0@WINXP> Much of the millennium discussion is due to the fact that most people = are unaware of the difference between (for instance): The sixth decade (xx51 - xx60) and the fifties (xx50 - xx59), The twentieth century (1901 - 2000) and the nineteen-hundreds (1900 - = 1999), What was "celebrated" on the midnight between 1999-12-31 and 2000-01-01 = was changing the "thousand-years" not changing the millennium (which came = one year later). But as changing of the "thousand-years" was more = spectacular in the way that all digits in the year number changed; a celebration of = that event was probably more "natural" than would be the celebration of the millennium as such. And to me there is nothing more special to the millennium period than to the "thousand-year" period, in fact I consider = the latter much more interesting in a number of ways (even including the = birth of Christ which I believe all scientists now agree must have occurred = not later than 4 BC and as such have only an approximate relevance to what = we denote AD). (And who knows whether our present calendar will survive until 3000 AD? Personally I doubt it. Our current calendar was established in 1583.) =20 Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Herman De Wael > Sent: 25. februar 2004 15:14 > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] Black hole problem >=20 > Pieters H.W. wrote: >=20 > > The millennium ends in 3000 - 31st december 3000 > > >=20 > an wednesday, actually. >=20 > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > > Van: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]Namens Ton > > Kooijman > > Verzonden: woensdag 25 februari 2004 14:52 > > Aan: blml@rtflb.org; David Stevenson > > Onderwerp: Re: [blml] Black hole problem > > > > > > > >> All these things will be resolved by the time we reach the = arguments > >>over when the millennium ends in 3000, in fact we might have the = bridge > >>laws sorted as well. > >> > > > > > > now waiting for the first post telling us that the millennium will = end > in > > 3001, the advantage being that it gives us another year. > > > > ton > > > > > >>-- > >>David Stevenson > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > > > > = _________________________________________________________________________= _ > __ > > This communication is intended only for use by the addressee. It may > contain > > confidential or privileged information. If you receive this > communication > > unintentionally, please let us know by reply immediately. Gasunie = does > not > > guarantee that the information sent with this E-mail is correct and = does > not > > accept any liability for damages related thereto. > > > = _________________________________________________________________________= _ > __ > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > >=20 > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.hdw.be >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From adam@irvine.com Wed Feb 25 17:47:29 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 09:47:29 -0800 Subject: [blml] Black hole problem In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 25 Feb 2004 16:54:06 +0100." <000001c3fbb7$99e3b590$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <200402251747.JAA03307@mailhub.irvine.com> Sven wrote: > Much of the millennium discussion is due to the fact that most people are > unaware of the difference between (for instance): > > The sixth decade (xx51 - xx60) and the fifties (xx50 - xx59), > > The twentieth century (1901 - 2000) and the nineteen-hundreds (1900 - 1999), > > What was "celebrated" on the midnight between 1999-12-31 and 2000-01-01 was > changing the "thousand-years" not changing the millennium (which came one > year later). But as changing of the "thousand-years" was more spectacular in > the way that all digits in the year number changed; a celebration of that > event was probably more "natural" than would be the celebration of the > millennium as such. >From what I've read, we didn't have this confusion in 1900: everyone seemed to agree that January 1, 1901 was the first day of the 20th century. (I could be wrong about this, though.) What seems to make a difference is that lots of peoples now have cars and cars have odometers, which might have changed people's thinking about when the "natural" change was. > (And who knows whether our present calendar will survive until 3000 AD? > Personally I doubt it. Our current calendar was established in 1583.) Well . . . the calendar established in 1583 (which Norway didn't adopt until 1700 -- at least you guys didn't botch up the change the way the Swedish did) wasn't substantially different from the previous calendar; only the leap year calculation changed. The previous calendar had been around since the ancient Romans. I see no reason why the present calendar shouldn't survive another thousand years---except that maybe there will be a reason to make another minor modification to the leap year calculation. -- Adam From svenpran@online.no Wed Feb 25 19:07:13 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:07:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Black hole problem In-Reply-To: <200402251747.JAA03307@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <000001c3fbd2$94232120$6900a8c0@WINXP> Adam Beneschan=20 > Sven wrote: >=20 > > Much of the millennium discussion is due to the=20 > > fact that most people are unaware of the difference > > between (for instance): > > > > The sixth decade (xx51 - xx60) and the fifties (xx50 - xx59), > > > > The twentieth century (1901 - 2000) and the=20 > > nineteen-hundreds (1900 - 1999), > > > > What was "celebrated" on the midnight between 1999-12-31=20 > > and 2000-01-01 was changing the "thousand-years" not=20 > > changing the millennium (which came one year later).=20 > > But as changing of the "thousand-years" was more > > spectacular in the way that all digits in the year number > > changed; a celebration of that event was probably more=20 > > "natural" than would be the celebration of the millennium=20 > > as such. >=20 > From what I've read, we didn't have this confusion in 1900: everyone > seemed to agree that January 1, 1901 was the first day of the 20th > century. (I could be wrong about this, though.) What seems to make a > difference is that lots of peoples now have cars and cars have > odometers, which might have changed people's thinking about when the > "natural" change was. I couldn't tell (I wasn't around), but I would be very much surprised if = the major "celebration" was not when the year number changed from 1899 to = 1900. =20 > > (And who knows whether our present calendar will survive until 3000 = AD? > > Personally I doubt it. Our current calendar was established in = 1583.) >=20 > Well . . . the calendar established in 1583 (which Norway didn't adopt > until 1700 -- at least you guys didn't botch up the change the way the > Swedish did) wasn't substantially different from the previous > calendar; only the leap year calculation changed. The previous > calendar had been around since the ancient Romans. =20 Since 45 BC to be precise.=20 But I have a strong feeling that they waited some years before counting = the years from the birth of Christ. According to my sources this happened in = the 6th century. For more information see: http://www.tondering.dk/claus/calendar.html Regards Sven From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Feb 25 09:41:07 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 09:41:07 -0000 Subject: Fw: [blml] The WBF [WAS: revokes] References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040224171312.01fd3130@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000601c3fbd7$9d72e940$69c5193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 10:34 PM Subject: Re: Fw: [blml] The WBF [WAS: revokes] > This is not my "private grief"; it is the willful failure > of the WBF to organize themselves appropriately > to perform the functions mandated by their own > charter, in particular, to insist that an organization > conceived and built for one purpose can and must > function equally effectively in the pursuit of some > totally different purpose. < +=+ The NBO is reposnsible for the control of the game within its territory. That includes a requirement to supervise application of laws. It is a matter for the NBO how and whether it takes positive steps to seek the views of its members on that subject, or whether it expects the members of its committees to represent those views as the elected representatives of its members. These are domestic matters not within the purview of the WBF which looks to NBOs to express to it opinions on all the subjects connected with the game, including the laws. The place for Eric Landau's idiosyncratic voice to be heard is in his NBO, where it can be blended with those of other members of the NBO to compose opinion to be presented to the WBF. The latter body listens to its members and owes no duty to individuals whose opinions are not supported by a member NBO. This does not say that a member of the drafting subcommittee may not pick up a thought from an unaccredited soiurce like blml, or from private correspondence, and pursue it in the subcommittee. There are instances of that. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Feb 25 22:29:13 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 17:29:13 -0500 Subject: Fw: Fw: [blml] The WBF [WAS: revokes] In-Reply-To: <003a01c3fb90$73604fe0$0ef7f0c3@LNV> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040225084328.026fbbb0@pop.starpower.net> At 06:13 AM 2/25/04, Ton wrote: > > Grattan: > > > > > +=+ If your local organization fails to represent > > > > > its members' views upwards this is your own > > > > > private grief. It is for those members to exert > > > > > pressure, if they sre so inclined, to have it do so. +=+ > > > > Eric: > > > My local organization is very competent in performing their function, > > > and represents my views appropriately (if rarely as I would like) on > > > matters relevant to that function. But writing and interpreting the > > > Laws is not their function, nor is it their area of competence, > nor is > > > it what they are chartered or organized to do, nor do they have any > > > structure which would allow them to do it if they chose, nor, > > > therefore, do they need or have any mechanism for soliciting from the > > > constituency for their actual function views or opinions on something > > > which is entirely outside their organizational mandate -- and they > > > would never consider claiming anything to the contrary. Apparently, > > > however, if Grattan is to be believed, the WBF chooses to > pretend, for > > > their own convenience, that none of the above is true, and to insist > > > that my local organization nevertheless must "represent my views" on > > > the subject of the Laws to the WBF when they would be the first to > > > admit that they cannot possibly do so. This is not my "private > grief"; > > > it is the willful failure of the WBF to organize themselves > > > appropriately to perform the functions mandated by their own charter, > > > in particular, to insist that an organization conceived and built for > > > one purpose can and must function equally effectively in the > pursuit of > > > some totally different purpose. "Exerting pressure" for my local > > > organization to represent my views on the Laws makes about as much > > > sense as pressing them to represent my views on the war in Iraq. > > > > I am with you, so don't follow the known not to work theroretical > approach > > Grattan is describing. > > And he is old enough to understand the same. But let us take it one > step > > further now. How to organize this in a better way? I am not with > you when > > you say that the WBF refuses to organize it better; we don't know > how to > > organize it better. > > Reading the blml contributions for some years now doesn't make me >optimistic > > to find a useful method. > > Sending out questionaires produces strong but completely diverging >opinions. > > Strong players have problems to imagine the feelings and needs of the > > ordinary club player. It is really a very complex task we have > here. Or it > > isn't at all. Players feel more or less happy with any kind of laws > > conducting the game? We do not more than introducing some new toys > every >ten > > years and nobody cares. I'm not sure that the WBF really can "organize" better. I do understand what Grattan has said about the way the WBF works, and don't expect them to build an entirely separate organization more suitable to their law-making function. The WBF will never have the wherewithal to communicate directly with the mass of players out there; they are stuck with taking input from their member NCBOs. But to pretend that the representatives of those NCBOs that sit in the councils of the WBF represent the views of their NCBOs respective constituencies on matters pertaining to the writing and interpreting of the Laws is to ignore reality. They do not, and they cannot; the NCBOs are not now law-making bodies, and have no provision for ascertaining their members' views on the subject. For the WBF to effectively carry out its law-making responsibilities, it is this that must change. Instead of taking as input the personal opinions of their NCBO representatives (or the personal opinions of the highly-placed NCBO officials who appointed them) and pretending that these represent the wishes of their constituents, they must insist that they actually do so. They must insist that NCBOs -- or, at least, those NCBOs that wish to participate in the law-making process -- create the mechanisms by which they can determine the views of their members. And they must vet those mechanisms to insure that they are adequate to the purpose, that they are being used, and that the results are being accurately represented to the WBF. Perhaps this is asking too much -- the WBF can validly claim to have better things to do than "watchdog" its NCBOs to insure that they are carrying out their responsibilities. But they can and should make doing so an explicit condition of participation in the law-making function of the WBF, and demand that those NCBOs that wish to participate comply, even if they lack the mechanism to enforce those demands. > > So help me by telling what the three main problems are we should > tackle in > > the new laws. It is not impossible that with some consensus > appearing we >can > > do what you ask. That's a tough question, and I'm not sure I can answer it. But I can certainly tell you what I think #1 is: The Laws should be rewritten to eliminate any rulings that depend on the "class of player involved", on who a player's "peers" are, and the like. More than anything else -- probably more than everything else combined -- it is these that give rise to the widespread perception that the Law -- and the TDs and ACs that enforce it -- are unfairly biased in favor of the experts. Perhaps, as many have argued, that's a bad rap. But whether it's justified or not, it's out there, it's real, and it's a problem. A big problem. IMO, by far the #1 problem with our current Laws. Continuing to try to "educate" our players by telling them "it's just not true" isn't going to hack it. The Law must change. I'm not one of the hard cases that likes to argue that the Law cannot stand any subjectivity and must be made totally objective. I believe that the law does, and always will, require the exercise of some subjective judgment to produce reasonable rulings. But it can certainly do without the "meta-subjectivity" of requiring TDs and ACs to make a subjective judgment about the "class of player involved" in order to set the bounds within which the necessarily subjective ruling to be made can vary. We will never reach the ideal state in which every TD (or AC) will give the same ruling to every player in a given situation, but we can easily reach a state far preferable to what we have now, in which, at least, a particular individual TD will give the same ruling to every player in a given situation. If we do that, we will have accomplished a great deal. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From f.cadieux@btinternet.com Wed Feb 25 23:06:34 2004 From: f.cadieux@btinternet.com (Info) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 18:06:34 -0500 Subject: [blml] Federal Provincial Subsidies Message-ID: <20040225230703.57A642B95F@rhubarb.custard.org> =20 CANADA BOOKS 26 CH. BELLEVUE ST-ANNE-DES-LACS QC, CANADA J0R 1B0 (450) 224-9275 =20 PRESS RELEASE =20 CANADIAN SUBSIDY DIRECTORY YEAR 2004 EDITION =20 Legal Deposit-National Library of Canada ISBN 2-922870-05-7 =20 The new revised edition of the Canadian Subsidy Directory 2004 is now available.=20 The new edition is the most complete and affordable reference for anyone looking for financial support. It is deemed to be the perfect tool for new or existing businesses, individual ventures, foundations and associations. =20 This Publication contains more than 2600 direct and indirect financial subsidies, grants and loans offered by government departments and agencies, foundations, associations and organisations. In this new 2004 edition all programs are well described. =20 The Canadian Subsidy Directory is the most comprehensive tool to start up a business, improve existent activities, set up a business plan, or obtai= n assistance from experts in fields such as: Industry, transport, agriculture, communications, municipal infrastructure, education, import-export, labor, construction and renovation, the service sector, hi-tech industries, research and development, joint ventures, arts, cinema, theatre, music and recording industry, the self employed, contests, and new talents. Assistance from and for foundations and associations, guidance to prepare a business plan, market surveys, computers, and much more! =20 The Canadian Subsidy Directory is sold $ 69.95, to obtain a copy please visit: www.cbooks.biz =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Feb 26 01:37:39 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 01:37:39 -0000 Subject: [blml] Temptation References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB16F1@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <016801c3fc09$1f9883e0$479468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Frances Hinden] Also for quite a few people it's entirely normal to correct lack-of-alerts before the lead (as well as Lawful). They do it automatically, not thinking "ooh, maybe we'll get ruled against if I do this, but I'm an ethical player so I'll do it anyway". [Nigel] If active ethics were the norm, you would expect regular TD calls by players whose partner has failed to alert a call that (1) is systemically conventional. (2) looks natural in the context of the actual hand. (3) partner seems to have treated as natural. (4) is likely to result in a worse score if attention is drawn to it. I've played Bridge since before alerts were introduced. Nevertheless the case that I reported is the first of which I've heard, where a player drew attention to his partner's lapse when he knew that it would probably, otherwise, pass without comment. Frances is privileged to move in circles, where people take their legal obligations seriously, in such cases; But does anybody know of *documented* case, for example an appeals case (other than the one I reported) that involved such an incident (even tangentially). My contention is that, although the opportunity for such honesty often occurs in most big competitions, players tend give in to temptation. Naturally, I would be delighted to be proved wrong. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.594 / Virus Database: 377 - Release Date: 24/02/2004 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Feb 26 01:44:04 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 01:44:04 -0000 Subject: [blml] Temptation References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB16F1@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <017401c3fc0a$04f5dc80$479468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Frances] South's statement is not particularly unusual. It's quite common in auctions like this to point out the failure to alert when otherwise it appears that partner has pulled a penalty double. It saves debate later if EW were to suggest e.g. that the double of 4H was slow & the 4S bid a result of UI. [Nigel] Of course it is an entirely different kettle of fish, if the double was slow, so that opponents may well call the TD anyway. Sorry -- I should have specifically excluded that possibility. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.594 / Virus Database: 377 - Release Date: 24/02/2004 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Feb 26 03:22:41 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 13:22:41 +1000 Subject: [blml] Temptation Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie asked: >A similar Alert scenario that should occur >frequently but of which I can recall no instance >is when partner's correct alert wakes a player >up to the systemic significance of his last >call, which he intended as natural. Often the >mistaken call can be detected by perusal of the >hand. But sometimes it is not at all obvious >and the player can easily "get away with it" by >adjusting his bidding. In the latter case, has >anyone known a player who instead deliberately >ignored the UI from the wake-up alert, although >a poor score would then be inevitable? > >Is there any AC report involving such an >incident? Richard James Hills replies: Of course, I have performed such ignoring of an alert's UI frequently myself. But no AC report reveals my UI ignorance, since neither side needs an AC when my ignorance of UI gives my side a poor score. The reason that Nigel "can recall no instance" may be that Nigel's circle of opponents are not as fully aware of Law 73C and Law 16 obligations as my circle of opponents. Edgar Kaplan noted that expert circles tended to know about Law 73C and Law 16, while Edgar Kaplan also noted that the bunny duplicate circles tended to have greater use of UI. Of course, there are a small number of Ozymandias players who know their obligations under Law 73C and Law 16, but *deliberately* flout those obligations. But, in my opinion, most Law 73C and Law 16 infractions are committed either by *ignorance* of the Law (by a bunny), or by an *inadvertent* infraction of the Law (by a player's self-deceiving assessment that the UI- indicated LA is the only LA). Best wishes RJH -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Feb 26 06:22:13 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 06:22:13 -0000 Subject: [blml] Temptation Message-ID: <007c01c3fc30$e025a8a0$0d9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> > [Richard James Hills replies] > But no AC report reveals my UI ignorance, since neither > side needs an AC when my ignorance of UI gives my side > a poor score. {Nigel -- sorry Richard -- this was meant for BLML] Welcome back Richard! Yes. that's a a good point. But depending on the severity of the ruling, I would expect an appeal, involving such an incident, to have occurred somewhere, over the past decades. I would be interested in any appeal or documented case that illustrated this kind of active ethics, even tangentially. I'm worried that Alert rules tempt most people to be dishonest. I accept that there are exceptions like you and Frances. > [Richard] > Of course, there are a small number of Ozymandias players > who know their obligations under Law 73C and Law 16, > but *deliberately* flout those obligations. But, in my > opinion, most Law 73C and Law 16 infractions are committed > either by *ignorance* of the Law (by a bunny), or by an > *inadvertent* infraction of the Law (by a player's self- > deceiving assessment that the UI-indicated LA is the only > LA). [Nigel] Richard implies that I'm a paranoid rabbit :) I think I prefer being characterised as a walrus :) Sometimes the actions of my betters do strike me as suspicious. I don't think that it's clear-cut cheating. As Richard says, they're probably just guilty of self-deception. A player (of any level) can rationalize his behaviour by a feat of imagination. For example... 1. When partner fails to alert his conventional call that luckily fits his hand in a natural connotation -- he convinces himself that he is unsure exactly what the agreement is. 2. When partner's alert wakes him up to the forgotten conventional meaning of his call that he intended as natural -- but luckily the hand also fits the conventional meaning -- he convinces himself that he would eventually have realised that his bid was conventional, even without the alert. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.594 / Virus Database: 377 - Release Date: 24/02/2004 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Feb 26 07:18:23 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 02:18:23 -0500 Subject: [blml] Black hole problem In-Reply-To: <200402251747.JAA03307@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: On Wednesday, Feb 25, 2004, at 12:47 US/Eastern, Adam Beneschan wrote: > Well . . . the calendar established in 1583 (which Norway didn't adopt > until 1700 -- at least you guys didn't botch up the change the way the > Swedish did) wasn't substantially different from the previous > calendar; only the leap year calculation changed. The previous > calendar had been around since the ancient Romans. The current year is 2757 AUC. Or 5764 (I think) in the Hebrew calendar. Or 4702 in the Chinese calendar (a year of the Monkey). :-) From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Feb 26 07:19:41 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 02:19:41 -0500 Subject: Fw: [blml] The WBF [WAS: revokes] In-Reply-To: <000601c3fbd7$9d72e940$69c5193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <252BD1F4-682C-11D8-BFCB-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Feb 25, 2004, at 04:41 US/Eastern, grandeval wrote: > The place for Eric Landau's idiosyncratic voice > to be heard is in his NBO, where it can be blended > with those of other members of the NBO to compose > opinion to be presented to the WBF. Eric and I live in the United States. Who is our NBO? From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Thu Feb 26 08:38:06 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 09:38:06 +0100 Subject: Fw: Fw: [blml] The WBF [WAS: revokes] References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040225084328.026fbbb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <004f01c3fc45$86c5aa70$04f8f0c3@LNV> Eric: > That's a tough question, and I'm not sure I can answer it. But I can > certainly tell you what I think #1 is: The Laws should be rewritten to > eliminate any rulings that depend on the "class of player involved", on > who a player's "peers" are, and the like. Now I have created a problem for myself. But let me first try to find out what you mean. When we use 'logical alternative' in judgement cases it seems inevitable to me that the class of player is involved. I give an example I got yesterday giving a course for TD's. The opening bid is 1NT (15-17) and after 2 passes the hand with J8xx KQTxx -- 9753 has to call. And you understand what happened, partner did hesitate. In my opinion on a good level nobody will pass this hand, isn't it a beautiful Kelsey? (Nobody plays Kelsey anymore in m country). But what on a low level, where this actually happened? They have no defence against a 1NT opening and only 6HCPs. In fact my pupil did ask some others what to do and 2 of the 5 would pass (that is what he told me), so the conclusion was clear: the actual 2H bid was not allowed. Are you saying that the laws should be written is such a way that the decision is the same on any level? I am somewhat amazed that players (apparently the lower level ones) do have problems with this distinction. Let me give the second important issue one of you sent to me. Fixed penalties opposite not allowed to use UI created by an infraction and no penalty. This is a hot issue in the drafting committee. ton From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Feb 26 10:22:50 2004 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 10:22:50 -0000 Subject: Fw: Fw: [blml] The WBF [WAS: revokes] References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040225084328.026fbbb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <001801c3fc52$8fd5d7e0$712ae150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 10:29 PM Subject: Re: Fw: Fw: [blml] The WBF [WAS: revokes] > > I'm not sure that the WBF really can "organize" better. I do > understand what Grattan has said about the way the WBF > works, and don't expect them to build an entirely separate > organization more suitable to their law-making function. > The WBF will never have the wherewithal to communicate > directly with the mass of players out there; they are stuck > with taking input from their member NCBOs. > +=+ I don't know how we got here but we are on common ground. +=+ > Instead of taking as input the personal opinions of their > NCBO representatives (or the personal opinions of the > highly-placed NCBO officials who appointed them) and > pretending that these represent the wishes of their > constituents, they must insist that they actually do so. > They must insist that NCBOs -- or, at least, those NCBOs > that wish to participate in the law-making process -- > create the mechanisms by > which they can determine the views of their members. > +=+ Some of them do have the mechanisms to do this. I doubt that the WBF can insist on the others coming into line. It is easier, of course, in federations that do not have extended lines of communication We are seeking to achieve harmony by persuasion - and that means we travel interminably. +=+ > > > > So help me by telling what the three main problems are we > > >should tackle in the new laws. It is not impossible that with > > >some consensus appearing we can do what you ask. > > That's a tough question, and I'm not sure I can answer it. < +=+And if you could none of us would be in a position to suggest that we could actually get a result for you (unless of course it had already been decided - and even then who can tell?). +=+ < > But I can certainly tell you what I think #1 is: The Laws should > be rewritten to eliminate any rulings that depend on the "class > of player involved", on who a player's "peers" are, and the like. < +=+ You have been listening at the keyhole. More than one voice in the subcommittee speaks this language. But they still have a lot of talking to do. ~ G ~ +=+ From schuster@eduhi.at Thu Feb 26 13:26:38 2004 From: schuster@eduhi.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 14:26:38 +0100 Subject: Fw: Fw: [blml] The WBF [WAS: revokes] In-Reply-To: <004f01c3fc45$86c5aa70$04f8f0c3@LNV> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040225084328.026fbbb0@pop.starpower.net> <004f01c3fc45$86c5aa70$04f8f0c3@LNV> Message-ID: On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 09:38:06 +0100, Ton Kooijman wrote: > Eric: > >> That's a tough question, and I'm not sure I can answer it. But I can >> certainly tell you what I think #1 is: The Laws should be rewritten to >> eliminate any rulings that depend on the "class of player involved", on >> who a player's "peers" are, and the like. > > > > Now I have created a problem for myself. But let me first try to find out > what you mean. > When we use 'logical alternative' in judgement cases it seems inevitable > to > me that the class of player is involved. > I give an example I got yesterday giving a course for TD's. > > The opening bid is 1NT (15-17) and after 2 passes the hand with J8xx > KQTxx -- 9753 has to call. And you understand what happened, partner did > hesitate. In my opinion on a good level nobody will pass this hand, isn't > it > a beautiful Kelsey? (Nobody plays Kelsey anymore in m country). But what > on > a low level, where this actually happened? They have no defence against a > 1NT opening and only 6HCPs. In fact my pupil did ask some others what to > do > and 2 of the 5 would pass (that is what he told me), so the conclusion > was > clear: the actual 2H bid was not allowed. > > Are you saying that the laws should be written is such a way that the > decision is the same on any level? I am somewhat amazed that players > (apparently the lower level ones) do have problems with this distinction. > Perhaps there is a third route: If the decision does not depend on the class of player (whom we may not even know at a national event) but on the class of event, the decision would be the same for every player in a given sort of tournament. We could, for example, distinguish between the local weekly game, a national tournament and an international event. Logical alternatives would then be those the average player in this event has - something an AC an perhaps even a TD should be able to find out. A beginner playing in a high-level game would then of course be judged by high-level standards and get a different ruling from what he might have got in his local club: but the class of event is closer to an objective standard than the class of player. --- Regards, Petrus From blml@blakjak.com Thu Feb 26 15:26:15 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 15:26:15 +0000 Subject: Fw: [blml] The WBF [WAS: revokes] In-Reply-To: <252BD1F4-682C-11D8-BFCB-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <000601c3fbd7$9d72e940$69c5193e@4nrw70j> <252BD1F4-682C-11D8-BFCB-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote > >On Wednesday, Feb 25, 2004, at 04:41 US/Eastern, grandeval wrote: > >> The place for Eric Landau's idiosyncratic voice >> to be heard is in his NBO, where it can be blended >> with those of other members of the NBO to compose >> opinion to be presented to the WBF. > >Eric and I live in the United States. Who is our NBO? ACBL. They are your Zonal Authority, NBO, and for many events, your sponsoring organisation. Don't you just love 'em? -- 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 blml@blakjak.com Thu Feb 26 17:13:57 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 17:13:57 +0000 Subject: [blml] Copied from RGB Message-ID: Today something very unusal happened. We were vulnerable, and we bid 4 hearts, which the opponents doubled. The doubling opponent had three safe trump tricks, all of which he won. Opponents also had an ace, which they won. And there was a finesse in spades which could not be avoided, and it failed. The opponents thus won five tricks. None of the opponents revoked. Still we only had to pay out 100 points. Can anyone figure out why? ----------------------------------------------------------------- Anyone who has already seen the answer on RGB please do not respond: let us let the BLML experts have a go. Incidentally, there was no assigned score. -- 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 Thu Feb 26 17:30:00 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 17:30:00 -0000 Subject: [blml] UI Message-ID: <008d01c3fc8e$2ab0eee0$ce9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Cut from thread "Re: Fw: Fw: [blml] The WBF [WAS: revokes]" [Ton Kooijman] Are you saying that the laws should be written is such a way that the decision is the same on any level? I am somewhat amazed that players (apparently the lower level ones) do have problems with this distinction. [Nigel] We "lower-level players" have problems with the TD basing his UI or claim decision on an estimate of skill-level but we also have difficulties with related law, especially on UI, and especially after tempo breaks. Some questions about the law... 1. When the law about UI or claims specifies skill-level, does it mean... (a) The *peers of the individual* -- difficult in the case of friends, enemies and strangers -- *or* (b) the *field* as a whole -- often heterogeneous -- difficult in the case of a pro -- or his client? 2. When deciding on LAs, how does the law specify that the TD deal with *illogical* alternatives, or cases where there are many possible alternatives? Suppose all LAs are less than 10%? 3. Should the TD just decide what the LAs are? Or, much more importantly, should he poll players, *unfamiliar with the deal* to find out which LAs are *demonstrably suggested* by the UI? If there is no consensus as to *which LAs are demonstrably suggested*, can there then be an infraction? 4. Suppose the TD cannot determine if any LA is demonstrably suggested. Is there legal scope for a more cruel interpretation? The law book doesn't say "is demonstrably suggested". It says "*may* have been demonstrably suggested". A practiced partnership will read UI, correctly, more often than not. For example, suppose partner hesitates, then passes. If partner is an overbidder, he will be nearer a pass than a bid. Whereas, if partner is an underbidder he will be nearer a bid than a pass. If the TD finds it hard to judge the habits of the putative offenders, should he give the benefit of the doubt to the other side? 5. If these questions reflect any difficulty in framing and enforcing current law, can law-makers imagine how hard it is for *players* to understand, especially we *lower-level players*? No wonder that our betters get away with so much! In the unlikely event that we are actually in contention -- so that we would even consider an appeal -- we find it hard to judge whether opponents have broken the law. 6. Would it be simpler and fairer... ... to ignore skill level and consider only expert LAs? ... or better, to punish UI, itself, where feasible? For example, make the tempo break, itself, the infraction? Remember my earlier suggestion about twin egg-timers, that was greeted with derision :) Arguably, such a law would be a boon to *lower-level players*. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.594 / Virus Database: 377 - Release Date: 24/02/2004 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Feb 26 18:27:12 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 18:27:12 -0000 Subject: Fw: Fw: [blml] The WBF [WAS: revokes] References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040225084328.026fbbb0@pop.starpower.net> <001801c3fc52$8fd5d7e0$712ae150@endicott> Message-ID: <009b01c3fc96$2972f700$ce9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Grattan Endicott] +=+ You have been listening at the keyhole. More than one > voice in the subcommittee speaks this language. But they > still have a lot of talking to do. ~ G ~ +=+ [Nigel] I support contributors who want simple complete enforceable laws, with as little subjectivity as possible. But all such attempts to rally opinion in or out of discussion groups have been damp squibs. Maybe we are wrong about the majority view. More likely, I feel, is that players can't be bothered to pay "the price of freedom." Turkeys are more likely to vote for Christmas than NBOs to vote for simpler laws; but now Ton and Grattan have generously opened the avenue of last resort! It will be wonderful if the WBFLC consider players' interests and rational arguments. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.594 / Virus Database: 377 - Release Date: 24/02/2004 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Feb 26 18:38:45 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 18:38:45 -0000 Subject: [blml] Copied from RGB References: Message-ID: <00a501c3fc97$c4927660$ce9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [David Stevenson] > Today something very unusal happened. We were vulnerable, > and we bid 4 hearts, which the opponents doubled. The > doubling opponent had three safe trump tricks, all of which > he won. Opponents also had an ace, which they won. And > there was a finesse in spades which could not be avoided, > and it failed. The opponents thus won five tricks. None > of the opponents revoked. Still we only had to pay out 100 > points. Can anyone figure out why? Anyone who has already > seen the answer on RGB please do not respond: let us let > the BLML experts have a go. Incidentally, there was no > assigned score. [Nigel] Unless the tricks "fell together", I guess... West North East South 3H P 4H X 3H* P P P Insufficient but condoned --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.594 / Virus Database: 377 - Release Date: 24/02/2004 From mikedod@gte.net Thu Feb 26 19:28:39 2004 From: mikedod@gte.net (mike dodson) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 11:28:39 -0800 Subject: [blml] Major penalty card References: <010d01c3f963$62c91650$68182850@multivisionoem> <5.1.1.6.0.20040222210717.01a63898@mail.vzavenue.net> Message-ID: <001801c3fc9e$be88bb10$0100a8c0@cyberxp> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David J. Grabiner" To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 6:13 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Major penalty card > At 12:55 PM 2/22/2004, Sven Pran wrote: > > >I think this UI "problem" can be narrowed down to a few sample questions: > > > >My partner (declarer's RHO) has the Diamond Ace as a major penalty card and > >I hold the Diamond King together with a single small diamond. Dummy has the > >Diamond Queen and a few small diamonds: > > > >Case 1: Declarer leads a small diamond: Am I allowed to play my little > >diamond with the knowledge that partner is forced to play his Ace? (Without > >this knowledge I would easily be tempted to play my King in order to secure > >that trick). > > Yes. The fact that partner must play the DA is AI. > > >Case 2: I am on the lead and Declarer chooses to let me play any card at my > >own choice: Am I allowed to play my little Diamond with the knowledge that > >partner is forced to play his Ace? > > I think so. The fact that partner must play the DA is AI, and given this, > it is hard to say that the fact he holds the DA can be UI (which might > suggest a diamond lead over another lead). Can this be right? A MPC is a withdrawn play (usually). L16C applies doesn't it? That partner holds the DA (and wishes to play it) is exactly what is UI. AI is that he must play it. The restrictions are more severe than just not knowing. You must actively avoid a play suggested by play of the DA. Choosing to play a diamond is legal only if there is no unsuggested LA. > > >Case 3: I am on the lead and Declarer requests me to play a diamond: Am I > >free to select my King or the small diamond according to what I find most > >favorable to my side with the knowledge that partner holds the Ace? (Which > >no longer is a penalty card). > > This one is harder. Once the penalty card is picked up, information > arising from partner's infraction becomes UI, so I would say that your > choice of diamond must not be influenced by the knowledge of partner's holding. I don't see the difference, the withdrawn play occured when the MPC was exposed, not when it is picked up. Now you don't even know that it must be played. I thought I understood this situation but I don't hear more experienced directors objecting. As a practical matter, I am not sure I like the law in this situation. It is too difficult to explain to the players. This week when declarer forbade the lead of a club after an OLOOT, the player on lead was so boggled at the notion he wasn't allowed to know partner led a club but could know he must play it that he forgot the lead prohibition and led the CK. I had thought it would be insulting to repeat the prohibition at the end, my mistake. What are other's pat phrases for this situation? Mike Dodson > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Thu Feb 26 20:24:13 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 21:24:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Major penalty card In-Reply-To: <001801c3fc9e$be88bb10$0100a8c0@cyberxp> Message-ID: <000001c3fca6$802e3b30$6900a8c0@WINXP> mike dodson > > At 12:55 PM 2/22/2004, Sven Pran wrote: > > > > >I think this UI "problem" can be narrowed down=20 > > >to a few sample questions: > > > > > >My partner (declarer's RHO) has the Diamond Ace=20 > > >as a major penalty card and I hold the Diamond=20 > > >King together with a single small diamond. Dummy=20 > > >has the Diamond Queen and a few small diamonds: > > > > > >Case 1: Declarer leads a small diamond: Am I > > >allowed to play my little diamond with the=20 > > >knowledge that partner is forced to play his Ace? > > >(Without this knowledge I would easily be tempted > > >to play my King in order to secure that trick). > > > > Yes. The fact that partner must play the DA is AI. > > > > >Case 2: I am on the lead and Declarer chooses to=20 > > >let me play any card at my own choice: Am I allowed > > >to play my little Diamond with the knowledge that > > >partner is forced to play his Ace? > > > > I think so. The fact that partner must play the DA=20 > > >is AI, and given this, it is hard to say that the=20 > > >fact he holds the DA can be UI (which might suggest > > >a diamond lead over another lead). >=20 > Can this be right? A MPC is a withdrawn play (usually). > L16C applies doesn't it? That partner holds the DA (and > wishes to play it) is exactly what is UI. AI is that he > must play it. The restrictions are more severe than just > not knowing. You must actively avoid a play suggested by > play of the DA. Choosing to play a diamond is legal only > if there is no unsuggested LA. >=20 > > > > >Case 3: I am on the lead and Declarer requests me to=20 > > >play a diamond: Am I free to select my King or the=20 > > >small diamond according to what I find most favorable > > >to my side with the knowledge that partner holds the=20 > > >Ace? (Which no longer is a penalty card). > > > > This one is harder. Once the penalty card is picked up, > > information arising from partner's infraction becomes UI, > > so I would say that your choice of diamond must not be > > influenced by the knowledge of partner's holding. >=20 > I don't see the difference, the withdrawn play occured when > the MPC was exposed, not when it is picked up. Now you=20 > don't even know that it must be played. >=20 > I thought I understood this situation but I don't hear more > experienced directors objecting. Whether the comments are correct or not remains to be ruled, but I agree with the logic demonstrated. I carefully selected my cases (including = case 4 which followed in a subsequent post) to show how this rule could create (probably) unnecessary problems.=20 On its face the fact that partner has a penalty card, the denomination = and rank of this and also the rule that it must be played at the first legal opportunity is AI. This is still true when I am on the lead with no restriction imposed upon me by declarer because the card is still a = penalty card. Problems exist the very moment partner for whatever reason takes his = penalty card back to his hand, the difference now being that the card is no = longer exposed and my knowledge of him holding that card is the result only of = an irregularity made by him and not the present state of that card. So while in cases 1 and 2 the existence, consequences and particulars of = his penalty card is AI to me because the card is still exposed as a penalty = card this is no longer the case once the penalty card ceases to be a penalty card.=20 On its face very sensible rules, but in practice????? >=20 > As a practical matter, I am not sure I like the law in this = situation. > It > is too difficult to explain > to the players. This week when declarer forbade the lead of a club = after > an > OLOOT, the player on > lead was so boggled at the notion he wasn't allowed to know partner = led a > club but could know he must play it that he forgot the lead = prohibition > and > led the CK. I had thought it would be insulting > to repeat the prohibition at the end, my mistake. What are other's = pat > phrases for this situation? I should prefer Law 72A5 to be changed back to its state before the law revision in 1997 when the words: "Subject to Law 16C2" was added. The general principle of the laws has long been that NOS has the right = to draw every advantage they can from an irregularity, and once the penalty = has been paid OS is no longer subject to further restrictions from this irregularity. The present law comes a long way towards a rule that OS is not subject = to any restriction from their own irregularity (once they have paid the penalty) except that they are not allowed to use any information = resulting from it. In my eyes Law 72A5 contradicts itself. Regards Sven From Schoderb@aol.com Thu Feb 26 01:10:45 2004 From: Schoderb@aol.com (Schoderb@aol.com) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:10:45 EST Subject: [blml] change of e-mail address. Message-ID: <1db.1afa614b.2d6ea195@aol.com> -------------------------------1077757844 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Please take appropriate action to change my e-mail address for BLML mail to schoderb@msn.com Thank you, Kojak -------------------------------1077757844 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Please take appropriate action to change my e-mail address for=20= BLML mail to
 
 
 
Thank  you,
 
Kojak
-------------------------------1077757844-- From almerimar8@netscape.net Thu Feb 26 06:18:49 2004 From: almerimar8@netscape.net (club de bridge) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 07:18:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] II FESTIVAL DE BRIDGE GOLF - ALMERIA =?ISO-8859-1?Q?-ESPA=D1A?= Message-ID: <403D8FC9.7030607@netscape.net> --------------070503070807070107080006 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit II FESTIVAL DE BRIDGE GOLF 2004 Welcome to our II TOURNAMENT OF BRIDGE-GOLF 2004 it will be place between the 7th and 13th of June, 2004 In Almerimar - El Ejido - Almería - ESPAÑA VISIT OUR WEB PAGE Inglais Español We would be been charmed to count with your presence and your friends. Please, send this information to all players of bridge and golf that could be interested. I expect you can include the date of our tournament in your calendar. Thanks, we are waiting for you. For more information: bridgegolf@bridgegolf.com http://bridgegolf.com Maribel Corchero C/ Santa Quiteria,10-1º 30001 Murcia - España Tel: 968 21 86 13 - 687 40 75 85 --------------070503070807070107080006 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="------------030700060201070502050100" --------------030700060201070502050100 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
                        II FESTIVAL DE BRIDGE GOLF 2004

Welcome to our II TOURNAMENT OF BRIDGE-GOLF 2004
it will be place between the 7th and 13th of June, 2004
In Almerimar – El  Ejido – Almería – ESPAÑA
VISIT OUR WEB PAGE     Inglais         Español  
We would be been charmed to count with your presence and your friends.
Please, send this information to all players of bridge and golf  that could be interested.
I expect you can include the date of our tournament in your calendar.
Thanks, we are waiting for you.
For more information:     bridgegolf@bridgegolf.com
http://bridgegolf.com
Maribel Corchero
C/ Santa Quiteria,10-1º
30001 Murcia - España
Tel:   968 21 86 13 - 687 40 75 85



--------------030700060201070502050100 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: R0lGODlhJgAbAPcAAAcHQoqGiWwEBHhCQjw5VcG/x5pJSQICi7yKimtqazc3o2hotHEnJ6yn rUUDA1VUY9/f4a9tbaYvLxoaZ5aWrZoDA05OotPJycijpHNVVSMjl0oaGnxqcbxQUHp6wgAA ADIHAAAE+G8AxCb3v6whwL8oCeAHZwEAADz3bwACAAAAMAxvAND3bwBAiAAAHPhvAOj37wWi hzyOCAEuBwAAirvvBQAAKQAAAFkCAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP+G8A0PdvABI/978kAAAA90H3 v5CU/L/5zfe/kJT8v5ggwL//928ABQAAAKz3bwAAAAAAAfhvAJggwL/iE/e/ZwEAAMUS979O cW8AFgAAAFxB978c+W8AAAAAAAUAAAAE+W8AxWP3v//3bwAWAAAAHPlvAJggwL8AAAAABQAA AAAAAACoc0gAZghiQzpcV0lORE9XU1xURU1QXHVuaXRlZGtpbmdkb21fZ3MuZ2lmAKT4bwB3 a2KIbwEAAET4bwAmGPe/AAAAAJN5RQAMRPm/uBn3v4KIAAAo/m8AbRj3v3drYogAAAAAYoh/ UyYAAAAAAEYCAADciAAAwPhvALcWAAA3J1cBAAB/UzcnVwHiiHY91xYEAAAA6RADCQAAtxbi iKY9pPhvAAAAAABHAKwMrAwAACwIAAD8////AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAuHNIAGD6bwASP/e/JAAA APdB97+QlPy/+c33v5CU/L+YIMC/AAAAAAUAAADiE/e/ZwEAAMUS97+hcQAAAAAAANxk978A AAAABQAAAAAAAADcTUMAogRvAJggwL8AAAAAIAAAAO4T979nAQAA46L3v/8EAABw+W8A/A8N AOzuTwAcAQAAoKP3vwAATQAI8E8A/A8NAAAAAAAMAE0AAABNAOzuTwBAAAAAAAAAANAFAAD/ BAAAmPlvAFCl978AAE0AZ6X3vwAATQBBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMTARAAR708A+KFO ABXvTwDNc0gA//////DuTwAuwUQAEe9PACH5BAEAAB8ALAAAAAAmABsAQAj/AD8IHEjwgcEH BBMOfEBgwgQFFBR+0HCgYkUNCTYIMFAAAoQCGCqIhDDBoIMNBAwSUKCBIsKBBjrIlGlgwAAG DAbE7CBBZAUJQBlsGEqUgQQDQBMM9Aghws8LCioCAFCRAgKfEChKnUogQYAAPStEGBjgglOx FBJw0FpxQUiRFyZM5fpAgAQMEC4UUDowrE8BgB0I8En4r4PDiAX/JWixooePAQQwCBDVKlaK CdI+2OBgQIIJFjUsNIChAIUABKY2PrCgAIOXHx7M5Yqhw0/YArVqoJBBwAYOARo0oOjhbQWS UycQOByAwoUFFXE3YPqxwVcOBhAgKH11ZIEMKg9m/4igHUMDgn7/ChA8uDDh9YkV+yTIsqV9 BdYj34VgnGmDAQ4QIGBKFiywgAWwaQARUx0IEMECqh3QQHfHsVVSAgkAKAACHmgwwUAJZJAB hgUx1FAACOSUgUQqERCccCtK9EFDVIVGokI0TqVAAQjESFAGInUgXACyreaWTw3INdsECfSE AEgJEaBBaxIIMABwDSyg1ZEjKQmAcidNBwEFC/CVW2MWZMBZBgVckFVxWMlV0kkYUhBVdAQZ aMGeChgUYgAdedQfbwEK+IBXHT1nAXpANSoUe+0Vpl0GAwyVWKQDoOdeYIC5R1h8h0VaAUGe cirqpqCKSlCgTBWQHwUNBGlKoX8BJOBnZmJCEMBAbFWEX1oaNddAfzsWEACADjBUY0UEDBRa oBEAFgBoB1DQn24YPsCAA5PdKZpAuV5gQAUIBDBXVbOyxZWtHAzWwQURCVRABD11UIAFFi1r 2Uj1aZDaurFeJYFAAQEAOw== --------------030700060201070502050100 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: R0lGODlhJgAbAPcAAEcDA5OQCVVTAppMCJADA87OAmdlA9ecAkQoAn9JBa2pCI4rJmpqaW8D A5ZiAnpyAu7uAr69BG8tKK8oAsNsAndQUKyHCGJMS6wEBL5RAkoVDFczIah5B9+6At/cAgAA ADIHAAAE+G8AxCb3v6whwL8oCeAHckL3vwTbAQACAAAAMAxvAND3bwBAiAAAHPhvAOj37wWi hzyOCAEuBwAAirvvBQAAKQAAAFkCAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP+G8A0PdvABI/978cAAAA90H3 v5CU/L/5zfe/kJT8v5ggwL//928ABQAAAKz3bwAAAAAAAfhvAJggwL/iE/e/ZwEAAMUS979O cW8AFgAAAFxB978c+W8AAAAAAAUAAAAE+W8AxWP3v//3bwAWAAAAHPlvAJggwL8AAAAABQAA AAAAAACoc0gAZghiQzpcV0lORE9XU1xURU1QXHNwYWluX2dzLmdpZgBHAAAAAAAAAKT4bwCH amKIbwEAAET4bwAmGPe/AAAAAJN5RQAMRPm/uBn3v4KIAAAo/m8AbRj3v4dqYogAAAAAYoh/ UyYAAAAAAEYCAADciAAAwPhvALcWAAA3J1cBAAB/UzcnVwHiiHY91xYEAAAA6RADCQAAtxbi iKY9pPhvAAAAAABHAKwJrAkAADQJAAD8////AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAuHNIAGD6bwASP/e/HAAA APdB97+QlPy/+c33v5CU/L+YIMC/AAAAAAUAAADiE/e/ZwEAAMUS97+hcQAAAAAAANxk978A AAAABQAAAAAAAADcTUMAAARvAJggwL8AAAAAIAAAAO4T979nAQAA46L3v/8EAABw+W8A/A8N AOzuTwAcAQAAoKP3vwAATQAI8E8A/A8NAAAAAAAMAE0AAABNAOzuTwBAAAAAAAAAANAFAAD/ BAAAmPlvAFCl978AAE0AZ6X3vwAATQBBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMTARAAJ708A+KFO AA3vTwDFc0gA//////DuTwAuwUQACe9PACH5BAEAAB8ALAAAAAAmABsAQAj/AD8IHEjwQoWD BBMOrLBBAoEJFRR+iAChoocICgI8CKCgQMWPHQ5w4JBAgEkBBh50tBiAoIePFQsoyMjRI8yP HhQ8MGDSgAEFFCF4YDAQg9GjBJI2WNogKQYCR5E2AEAVwNKkUBdKnXoV6VOjBKZWpdoULIaI A4N+jBBAI9CbMHXy7Pkggk0FBCdEfRqW6YIJevc+FUtVg4a/ehcsBLxgwVKrZY9CRPvhwlir UJ9SFrgAaVjITsFmfnrZ6oIBeglsVgtBpsaacC0qmGtyY9CcBFlfpAk7tkzaAlS+FOry5u62 b2NDYDs3ZYAIw1sKFKyUadPR2D+PxYpBscAKF8In1wR/QYKExgvASwTfUAJgiBIFlr9uNP3m gRc0kM18/0MF0UxhFlVmEzhWGn1PjQegWAh6pd1lZSW1GWqimZeAcB6ElMFXpBW2gQCweQDf QArg5BpyNsFVQAC0+fRcTNIJVOJHBbCFHGs3yXWSARxZFEFuMB2nEnTKrbhjSgoMV0BxMJ3Y m4o69eRcikzSyFtHw8GVkU8o2fZRjB6E2cGYM7XVFpEWhXSASA5w6VySFcUY2IDWRcYhWISR FaF3H9y54FWj7fUgaEZNUBR11TVYaGPm5YmgQAEBADs= --------------030700060201070502050100-- --------------070503070807070107080006-- From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Feb 26 21:47:13 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 16:47:13 -0500 Subject: Fw: Fw: [blml] The WBF [WAS: revokes] In-Reply-To: <004f01c3fc45$86c5aa70$04f8f0c3@LNV> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040225084328.026fbbb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040226081958.01fed640@pop.starpower.net> At 03:38 AM 2/26/04, Ton wrote: >Eric: > > > That's a tough question, and I'm not sure I can answer it. But I can > > certainly tell you what I think #1 is: The Laws should be rewritten to > > eliminate any rulings that depend on the "class of player involved", on > > who a player's "peers" are, and the like. > >Now I have created a problem for myself. But let me first try to find out >what you mean. >When we use 'logical alternative' in judgement cases it seems >inevitable to >me that the class of player is involved. >I give an example I got yesterday giving a course for TD's. > >The opening bid is 1NT (15-17) and after 2 passes the hand with J8xx >KQTxx -- 9753 has to call. And you understand what happened, partner did >hesitate. In my opinion on a good level nobody will pass this hand, >isn't it >a beautiful Kelsey? (Nobody plays Kelsey anymore in m country). But >what on >a low level, where this actually happened? They have no defence against a >1NT opening and only 6HCPs. In fact my pupil did ask some others what >to do >and 2 of the 5 would pass (that is what he told me), so the conclusion was >clear: the actual 2H bid was not allowed. > >Are you saying that the laws should be written is such a way that the >decision is the same on any level? I am somewhat amazed that players >(apparently the lower level ones) do have problems with this distinction. Yes, I am. Was there anyone on the AC that made this clearcut ruling who could have looked that player in the eye and said, "Oh, by the way, if we thought you were a better player we would have ruled in your favor"? That might more closely approach some theoretical notion of "equity", but it would nevertheless be perceived as bias in favor of the experts, because that's exactly what it is. The effect of giving the same ruling to an expert, who would probably have taken a bid 99.9 times out of 100, is that, relative to theoretical equity, the expert receives what is, in effect, a harsher penalty for his transgression than does the bunny. But I don't see that as bad -- some would say that is exactly as it should be. We might also note in passing that the class-of-player slippery standard not only produces pissed-off bunnies, who see experts getting more lenient rulings than they do, but also pissed-off experts, who get upset when an unbiased TD doesn't consider their "class of player" to be quite as high as they do. >Let me give the second important issue one of you sent to me. >Fixed penalties opposite not allowed to use UI created by an >infraction and >no penalty. This is a hot issue in the drafting committee. My initial reaction is negative, although I'd need to learn more before making up my mind. It sounds like the most obvious practical implication of such a change would be automatic penalties for huddling. But players do have problems that they need time to consider. The thinking behind the current laws on UI seems to be that the creation of UI is an inevitable part of the game, and I agree. Fixed penalties are for behavior you want to discourage and deter. We don't like UI, but I don't think we want to discourage or deter players from taking the time they genuinely need to solve problems at the table. If we do this, I fear a widespread perception that we have "prohibited thinking". As a working TD, I try to educate players *not* to call me every time an opponent huddles, but rather to call me only if and when they think that an opponent's huddle might conceivably have affected the huddler's partner's action. This sounds like it would reverse that, mandating that the TD be called for every tempo break. That means it becomes routine to call the director in situations where there is no suggestion that the normal table action has been disturbed by the "infraction", and would mean many, many more director calls, most of them cases where the TD has to sort out not some esoteric point of law or bridge judgment, but those nasty "He huddled"/"No I didn't"/"Yes you did" situations. Where we can, we should be looking to change the law so as to reduce the need for director calls (at least in less-than-top-level play) rather than increase it. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Thu Feb 26 23:36:23 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 23:36:23 -0000 Subject: Fw: Fw: [blml] The WBF [WAS: revokes] References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040225084328.026fbbb0@pop.starpower.net> <004f01c3fc45$86c5aa70$04f8f0c3@LNV> Message-ID: <001201c3fcc1$7f6d8f00$7a2a2850@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" ; "Eric Landau" Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 8:38 AM Subject: Re: Fw: Fw: [blml] The WBF [WAS: revokes] > > Are you saying that the laws should be written is > such a way that the decision is the same on any level? > I am somewhat amazed that players (apparently the > lower level ones) do have problems with this distinction. > +=+ 1. It may be that some readers will not follow the argument that says the expert player should be barred from fewer actions when possessing UI than his less talented rival in like circumstances. Is the expert's sin any the less? In searching for a less suggested alternative action I could easily envisage a law written to say that, avoiding the ridiculous, the standard for every player in a tournament is to be judged by alternative actions that a significant number of players in that tournament would seriously consider and some might be expected to choose. I would have no problem at all if some such words replaced 'logical alternative'. I am quite prepared to see expert players and others judged by a standard for the tournament and not a personal standard. However the objective of 'fair conditions of play' that the subcommittee has espoused may suggest that in looking for a less suggested alternative one should be considering 'any alternative action excluding what is, for anyone, patently absurd in terms of the game'. ~ G ~ +=+ From blml@blakjak.com Thu Feb 26 23:40:07 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 23:40:07 +0000 Subject: [blml] Major penalty card In-Reply-To: <001801c3fc9e$be88bb10$0100a8c0@cyberxp> References: <010d01c3f963$62c91650$68182850@multivisionoem> <5.1.1.6.0.20040222210717.01a63898@mail.vzavenue.net> <001801c3fc9e$be88bb10$0100a8c0@cyberxp> Message-ID: mike dodson wrote >From: "David J. Grabiner" >> I think so. The fact that partner must play the DA is AI, and given this, >> it is hard to say that the fact he holds the DA can be UI (which might >> suggest a diamond lead over another lead). >Can this be right? A MPC is a withdrawn play (usually). L16C applies >doesn't it? Agreed. [s] >I thought I understood this situation but I don't hear more experienced >directors objecting. I have already said that I think David got this wrong: perhaps you missed my post. -- 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 blml@blakjak.com Thu Feb 26 23:42:20 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 23:42:20 +0000 Subject: Fw: Fw: [blml] The WBF [WAS: revokes] In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040226081958.01fed640@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040225084328.026fbbb0@pop.starpower.net> <004f01c3fc45$86c5aa70$04f8f0c3@LNV> <5.2.0.9.0.20040226081958.01fed640@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau wrote >At 03:38 AM 2/26/04, Ton wrote: >>Are you saying that the laws should be written is such a way that the >>decision is the same on any level? I am somewhat amazed that players >>(apparently the lower level ones) do have problems with this distinction. >Yes, I am. Was there anyone on the AC that made this clearcut ruling >who could have looked that player in the eye and said, "Oh, by the way, >if we thought you were a better player we would have ruled in your >favor"? That might more closely approach some theoretical notion of >"equity", but it would nevertheless be perceived as bias in favor of >the experts, because that's exactly what it is. This has been said so many times, and I have seen many cases where it is not true, and given examples of where it is not true both here and on RGB. In some cases you gain by being a better player: in other cases you lose by being a better player: they even out. -- 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 Fri Feb 27 03:11:04 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 03:11:04 -0000 Subject: [blml] Double double... Message-ID: <01e701c3fcdf$56c58e40$509868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [NG]... Toil and trouble. A word to the wise... Among the level-2/3 permitted defences to 1NT, section 12.3.1 of the EBU orange Book lists... "Double by an unpassed hand is for penalties, showing at least 12 HCP or compensating distribution." I asked if, at EBU level 3, in 2nd seat, I may agree to double a natural notrump bid, when I expect to defeat the contract. For example... (1) Double a 14-16 notrump with a 15 count? (2) Double an 11-14 notrump with a 12-14 and a 5 card suit *or* 15+? David Stevenson's answer is NO. It seems that it is not enough that, in view of your lead -advantage, partner will leave in such double most of the time. In this context, a double must be *penalty* as defined by the Orange Book (see below). A corollary is that some EBU players may have to correct their convention cards. Most of the doubles listed on my convention card are mislabelled "penalty" or "take-out". According to Orange Book nomenclature, I will have to change most of them to "optional", "co-operative" or "competitive". [Orange Book 4.71 classifies certain doubles as follows] (a) PENALTY. Partner is expected to leave it in, though he can take out on a hand very unsuitable for defence. (b) CO-OPERATIVE. In some situations they may be called `penalty-oriented'. Partner is expected to leave it in with any suitable hand. (c) OPTIONAL. In some situations they may be called `card -showing' (or just `cards'), `value-showing' (or just `values') or `action'. Partner is expected to decide to defend or progress. Take out doubles (especially as a defence to pre-empts) should NOT be called Optional. (d) COMPETITIVE. Partner is expected usually to take out, though he can pass on a suitable hand. (e) TAKE OUT. In some situations they may be called `competitive', `negative', responsive' or `sputnik'. Partner is expected to take out, though he can pass on a hand very suitable for defence. (f) Lead-directing. In some situations they may be called `Lightner'. Partner is expected to pass and lead the suit requested. (g) Doubles that show specific hands. In some situations they may be called `game try' or `fit-showing'. This also includes responses to Blackwood type bids, such as `DOPI' or `DEPO'. Partner is expected to take out, though he can pass on a suitable hand. [ACBL alert regulations adopt a similar taxonomy -- but be careful -- it is not exactly the same] Takeout: Partner is requested to bid. Competitive: Shows a desire to compete further; partner normally bids. Optional: Shows extra high-card values; offers partner a choice between bidding or passing. Penalty-oriented: Partner normally passes but occasionally bids. Penalty: Partner is requested to pass In the USA, I believe doubles of notrump can mean almost anything you like. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.596 / Virus Database: 379 - Release Date: 27/02/2004 From karel@esatclear.ie Fri Feb 27 10:10:39 2004 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:10:39 GMT Subject: [blml] another pausey one Message-ID: <403f179f.6aca.0@esatclear.ie> Playing last night in a teams match I was on an appeals group over this one E/W Vul dealer W S xx H KJTxxxx D Kx C xx S Qxxx S AKJx H x H Axx D Qxxxx D AT9xx C AQx C x S xxx H Qx D J C KJT9xxx Bidding W N E S P 3H DBL 4C 4S P 4NT 5C DBL* P 5S** P 6S Dbl all pass Result 6S making 1660 * there was confusion as to what this was. Dopi/Dope/penos ?? ** Pause established The Td was called before the lead and it was agreed their was a pause at the 5S stage. N/S felt W didn't have a 6S call. In the end we ruled 5S+1 which I'm fairly happy with. N's double though makes me uneasy. This seems like a double shot and maybe N/S should get a score adjustment to reflect this ?? Comments pls K. -- http://www.iol.ie From rui.mlmarques@netvisao.pt Fri Feb 27 10:57:23 2004 From: rui.mlmarques@netvisao.pt (Rui Marques) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:57:23 -0000 Subject: [blml] An example of how to and how not to... In-Reply-To: <403f179f.6aca.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <000301c3fd20$7a8e41f0$0201a8c0@rui> A player has, nobody vul S J H Kx D AQ10xxxx C xx And after a first pass from RHO opens with 3D. 3S by RHO, Pass after an agreed hesitation, Pass, and at this moment the player finds out that he has an extra card glued to the SJ, which is the SA. It just happened this week around here. Now the hand becomes S AJ H Kx D AQ10xxxx C xx And the player decides to double, for +800. TD! -------------- Rui Marques -------------- From Martin.Sinot@Micronas.com Fri Feb 27 11:08:18 2004 From: Martin.Sinot@Micronas.com (Sinot Martin) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 12:08:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] another pausey one Message-ID: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E6457@rama.micronas.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of > Karel > Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 11:11 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: [blml] another pausey one > Importance: Low >=20 >=20 > Playing last night in a teams match I was on an appeals group=20 > over this one >=20 > E/W Vul dealer W >=20 > S xx > H KJTxxxx > D Kx > C xx >=20 > S Qxxx S AKJx > H x H Axx > D Qxxxx D AT9xx > C AQx C x >=20 > S xxx > H Qx > D J > C KJT9xxx >=20 > Bidding > W N E S > P 3H DBL 4C > 4S P 4NT 5C > DBL* P 5S** P > 6S Dbl all pass >=20 > Result 6S making 1660 >=20 > * there was confusion as to what this was. Dopi/Dope/penos ?? > ** Pause established=20 >=20 >=20 > The Td was called before the lead and it was agreed their was=20 > a pause at the > 5S stage. N/S felt W didn't have a 6S call. >=20 > In the end we ruled 5S+1 which I'm fairly happy with. N's=20 > double though makes > me uneasy. This seems like a double shot and maybe N/S=20 > should get a score adjustment > to reflect this ?? Comments pls Confusion what the double was? Tough luck. In determining whether 6S is justified, TD must assume that for West the double correctly indicated whatever West wanted it to (i.e. DOPI/DOPE/PENOS ??). Then East takes the decision whether to bid slam or not. So 6S is not allowed, and EW get 5S+1. So far, so good. Now Norths double. North was preempting, and you normally do that only once, so I see no reason to double for North. That must, therefore, remain his own business. But without the double, NS would still be damaged. This suggests that the damage for NS be split into two parts, namely the part caused by West's infraction, and the part caused by North's double. The first part is compensated, the second is not. This results in the following score: - EW get 5S+1 - NS get also 5S+1, but the difference in IMPS between 6S=3D and 6S!=3D will be subtracted from their score. To give a calculating example: suppose EW at the other table scored 5S+1 for 680 (you didn't specify the result at the other table). Then 5S+1 would be 0 IMPs, 6S=3D would be 13 IMPs, 6S!=3D would be 14 = IMPs. Thus, EW score 0 IMPs, NS score 0 - (14-13) =3D -1 IMPs. (In this example, the double costs NS only one IMP. It will cost a lot more if EW had bid 6S at the other table). --=20 Martin Sinot From Anne Jones" Message-ID: <000c01c3fd26$4287b380$f0536e51@annespc> What unauthorised information does West have that makes 6S a safer bid than passing 5S would be? Is this a jurisdiction where the double of 5C would be alertable if DOPI or DOPE but not if punitive? If so was the double alerted? I agree that the final double looks like a double shot and I would award N/S the table score of -1660 but I am unsure that I am ruling the E/W score back. Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karel" To: Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 10:10 AM Subject: [blml] another pausey one > Playing last night in a teams match I was on an appeals group over this one > > E/W Vul dealer W > > S xx > H KJTxxxx > D Kx > C xx > > S Qxxx S AKJx > H x H Axx > D Qxxxx D AT9xx > C AQx C x > > S xxx > H Qx > D J > C KJT9xxx > > Bidding > W N E S > P 3H DBL 4C > 4S P 4NT 5C > DBL* P 5S** P > 6S Dbl all pass > > Result 6S making 1660 > > * there was confusion as to what this was. Dopi/Dope/penos ?? > ** Pause established > > > The Td was called before the lead and it was agreed their was a pause at the > 5S stage. N/S felt W didn't have a 6S call. > > In the end we ruled 5S+1 which I'm fairly happy with. N's double though makes > me uneasy. This seems like a double shot and maybe N/S should get a score adjustment > to reflect this ?? Comments pls > > K. > -- > http://www.iol.ie > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Feb 27 12:30:53 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 13:30:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] another pausey one In-Reply-To: <000c01c3fd26$4287b380$f0536e51@annespc> References: <403f179f.6aca.0@esatclear.ie> <000c01c3fd26$4287b380$f0536e51@annespc> Message-ID: <403F387D.9020907@hdw.be> Hello Anne, Hello Karel,Hello Martin Anne Jones wrote: > What unauthorised information does West have that makes 6S a safer bid than > passing 5S would be? Well, the hesitation, of course. But the meaning of that hesitation depends on the meaning of the double. So really we ought to know what West thought his double was - if it's DOPE (he has one ace, so it can't be DOPI - I really don't like this use of the O both for zero and for odd), then he has already told his partner his hand, and the raise to six is not allowed. If it's penalties, then partner was thinking about leaving the double or not, and when he decides not to - the raise might be allowed. > Is this a jurisdiction where the double of 5C would be alertable if DOPI or > DOPE but not if punitive? If so was the double alerted? > > I agree that the final double looks like a double shot and I would award N/S > the table score of -1660 but I am unsure that I am ruling the E/W score > back. > Well, I believe Martin is closer to the method we have been instructed to use in Torino. > Anne > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Karel" > To: > Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 10:10 AM > Subject: [blml] another pausey one > > > >>Playing last night in a teams match I was on an appeals group over this > > one > >>E/W Vul dealer W >> >> S xx >> H KJTxxxx >> D Kx >> C xx >> >>S Qxxx S AKJx >>H x H Axx >>D Qxxxx D AT9xx >>C AQx C x >> >> S xxx >> H Qx >> D J >> C KJT9xxx >> >>Bidding >>W N E S >>P 3H DBL 4C >>4S P 4NT 5C >>DBL* P 5S** P >>6S Dbl all pass >> >>Result 6S making 1660 >> >>* there was confusion as to what this was. Dopi/Dope/penos ?? >>** Pause established >> >> >>The Td was called before the lead and it was agreed their was a pause at > > the > >>5S stage. N/S felt W didn't have a 6S call. >> >>In the end we ruled 5S+1 which I'm fairly happy with. N's double though > > makes > >>me uneasy. This seems like a double shot and maybe N/S should get a score > > adjustment > >>to reflect this ?? Comments pls >> >>K. >>-- >>http://www.iol.ie >> >>_______________________________________________ >>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 > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Feb 27 12:36:07 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 13:36:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] An example of how to and how not to... In-Reply-To: <000301c3fd20$7a8e41f0$0201a8c0@rui> References: <000301c3fd20$7a8e41f0$0201a8c0@rui> Message-ID: <403F39B7.5060601@hdw.be> Rui Marques wrote: > A player has, nobody vul > > S J > H Kx > D AQ10xxxx > C xx > > And after a first pass from RHO opens with 3D. 3S by RHO, Pass after an > agreed hesitation, Pass, and at this moment the player finds out that he > has an extra card glued to the SJ, which is the SA. It just happened > this week around here. > > Now the hand becomes > > S AJ > H Kx > D AQ10xxxx > C xx > > And the player decides to double, for +800. TD! > Nice one, Rui. I guess that if we poll a set of players, with this story, as it happened but without the hesitation, we would not get any passes. However, I think we could get a number of 3NT. So the question we need to answer is this one: does the UI suggest double over 3NT? Personally, I don't see any logical reason why it should. So I'd let the score stand. But I'd be easily convinced to rule differently. > -------------- > Rui Marques > -------------- > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Feb 27 13:03:23 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 08:03:23 -0500 Subject: [blml] An example of how to and how not to... In-Reply-To: <000301c3fd20$7a8e41f0$0201a8c0@rui> References: <403f179f.6aca.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040227075105.01fa8b00@pop.starpower.net> At 05:57 AM 2/27/04, Rui wrote: >A player has, nobody vul > > S J > H Kx > D AQ10xxxx > C xx > >And after a first pass from RHO opens with 3D. 3S by RHO, Pass after an >agreed hesitation, Pass, and at this moment the player finds out that he >has an extra card glued to the SJ, which is the SA. It just happened >this week around here. > >Now the hand becomes > > S AJ > H Kx > D AQ10xxxx > C xx > >And the player decides to double, for +800. TD! I let the score stand. That was a legitimate error and a legitimate recovery. The poor guy has opened a preempt with a hand many would open and then jump-rebid. He must act, if only to try to get back to even; although the huddle also suggests acting, pass is not an LA. I don't see that the huddle might have suggested a double over a bid; if anything, the huddle suggests that he might be better off bidding 3NT, as double is likely to fetch 4D from partner. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From jrhind@therock.bm Fri Feb 27 13:16:30 2004 From: jrhind@therock.bm (Jack A. Rhind) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 09:16:30 -0400 Subject: [blml] another pausey one In-Reply-To: <403f179f.6aca.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: On 2/27/04 6:10 AM, "Karel" wrote: > Playing last night in a teams match I was on an appeals group over this one > > E/W Vul dealer W > > S xx > H KJTxxxx > D Kx > C xx > > S Qxxx S AKJx > H x H Axx > D Qxxxx D AT9xx > C AQx C x > > S xxx > H Qx > D J > C KJT9xxx > > Bidding > W N E S > P 3H DBL 4C > 4S P 4NT 5C > DBL* P 5S** P > 6S Dbl all pass > > Result 6S making 1660 > > * there was confusion as to what this was. Dopi/Dope/penos ?? > ** Pause established > > > The Td was called before the lead and it was agreed their was a pause at the > 5S stage. N/S felt W didn't have a 6S call. > > In the end we ruled 5S+1 which I'm fairly happy with. N's double though makes > me uneasy. This seems like a double shot and maybe N/S should get a score > adjustment > to reflect this ?? Comments pls > > K. > -- > http://www.iol.ie > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml I would agree with your AC ruling here, except that I would give N/S the result that they earned at the table. Regards, Jack From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Feb 27 13:22:13 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 08:22:13 -0500 Subject: Fw: Fw: [blml] The WBF [WAS: revokes] In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040226081958.01fed640@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040225084328.026fbbb0@pop.starpower.net> <004f01c3fc45$86c5aa70$04f8f0c3@LNV> <5.2.0.9.0.20040226081958.01fed640@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040227081206.01fa9280@pop.starpower.net> At 06:42 PM 2/26/04, David wrote: > This has been said so many times, and I have seen many cases where > it is not true, and given examples of where it is not true both here > and on RGB. > > In some cases you gain by being a better player: in other cases you > lose by being a better player: they even out. David may well be correct. That better players lose out sometimes is surely true; whether it evens out in the long run is arguable. But we weren't talking about reality; we were talking about how that reality is perceived -- rightly or wrongly -- by the overwhelming mass of players out there. As I said before, "educating" those players by repeatedly telling them "it's just not true" isn't going to hack it. Whether or not the law is biased towards the experts, the majority believe that it is. That's a problem, and will remain a problem as long as there are different rules for experts and non-experts. It is, fortunately, a problem we can easily fix by making the law strictly "class-of-player-neutral". Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From Anne Jones" <000c01c3fd26$4287b380$f0536e51@annespc> <403F387D.9020907@hdw.be> Message-ID: <001101c3fd36$a11bf090$f0536e51@annespc> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 12:30 PM Subject: Re: [blml] another pausey one > Hello Anne, Hello Karel,Hello Martin > > Anne Jones wrote: > > What unauthorised information does West have that makes 6S a safer bid than > > passing 5S would be? > > Well, the hesitation, of course. > But the meaning of that hesitation depends on the meaning of the double. > So really we ought to know what West thought his double was - if it's > DOPE (he has one ace, so it can't be DOPI - I really don't like this > use of the O both for zero and for odd), then he has already told his > partner his hand, and the raise to six is not allowed. > If it's penalties, then partner was thinking about leaving the double > or not, and when he decides not to - the raise might be allowed. > > > Is this a jurisdiction where the double of 5C would be alertable if DOPI or > > DOPE but not if punitive? If so was the double alerted? > > > > I agree that the final double looks like a double shot and I would award N/S > > the table score of -1660 but I am unsure that I am ruling the E/W score > > back. > > > > Well, I believe Martin is closer to the method we have been instructed > to use in Torino. > Yes I am sure - but I didn't understand this in Torino and I still don't - I will make sure I am a whiz kid on these calculations before I ever go on another EBL course I promise you. Anne > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Karel" > > To: > > Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 10:10 AM > > Subject: [blml] another pausey one > > > > > > > >>Playing last night in a teams match I was on an appeals group over this > > > > one > > > >>E/W Vul dealer W > >> > >> S xx > >> H KJTxxxx > >> D Kx > >> C xx > >> > >>S Qxxx S AKJx > >>H x H Axx > >>D Qxxxx D AT9xx > >>C AQx C x > >> > >> S xxx > >> H Qx > >> D J > >> C KJT9xxx > >> > >>Bidding > >>W N E S > >>P 3H DBL 4C > >>4S P 4NT 5C > >>DBL* P 5S** P > >>6S Dbl all pass > >> > >>Result 6S making 1660 > >> > >>* there was confusion as to what this was. Dopi/Dope/penos ?? > >>** Pause established > >> > >> > >>The Td was called before the lead and it was agreed their was a pause at > > > > the > > > >>5S stage. N/S felt W didn't have a 6S call. > >> > >>In the end we ruled 5S+1 which I'm fairly happy with. N's double though > > > > makes > > > >>me uneasy. This seems like a double shot and maybe N/S should get a score > > > > adjustment > > > >>to reflect this ?? Comments pls > >> > >>K. > >>-- > >>http://www.iol.ie > >> > >>_______________________________________________ > >>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 > > > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.hdw.be > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Feb 27 15:11:30 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 16:11:30 +0100 Subject: Fw: Fw: [blml] The WBF [WAS: revokes] In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040227081206.01fa9280@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040226081958.01fed640@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040225084328.026fbbb0@pop.starpower.net> <004f01c3fc45$86c5aa70$04f8f0c3@LNV> <5.2.0.9.0.20040226081958.01fed640@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040227081206.01fa9280@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <403F5E22.1050509@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: > At 06:42 PM 2/26/04, David wrote: > >> This has been said so many times, and I have seen many cases where >> it is not true, and given examples of where it is not true both here >> and on RGB. >> >> In some cases you gain by being a better player: in other cases you >> lose by being a better player: they even out. > > > David may well be correct. That better players lose out sometimes is > surely true; whether it evens out in the long run is arguable. But we > weren't talking about reality; we were talking about how that reality is > perceived -- rightly or wrongly -- by the overwhelming mass of players > out there. As I said before, "educating" those players by repeatedly > telling them "it's just not true" isn't going to hack it. Whether or > not the law is biased towards the experts, the majority believe that it > is. That's a problem, and will remain a problem as long as there are > different rules for experts and non-experts. It is, fortunately, a > problem we can easily fix by making the law strictly > "class-of-player-neutral". > Quite true, Eric - perception is everything. But is this perception out there? Do you really have cases where players have perceived that a ruling they got would have been different had they been of a different class? I don't think such perception exists among the players. Don't forget that they only see their own rulings. That those rulings are given to them, saying "we don't think you would do this 100%" of the time. We don't go adding "a better player would perhaps do this all the time, but not you". So the players don't get this perception. And the player won't see it either in real life. Because the same ruling would not happen for that other player. So I believe the perception exists only here on blml. And that don't matter, because we know about it and we know both players are being treated equitably even if not equally. It ain't broke, don't try to fix it. > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From karel@esatclear.ie Fri Feb 27 16:36:03 2004 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 16:36:03 GMT Subject: [blml] another pausey one Message-ID: <403f71f3.7f9c.0@esatclear.ie> [snip ..] >This results in the following score: >- EW get 5S+1 >- NS get also 5S+1, but the difference in IMPS between 6S= and > 6S!= will be subtracted from their score. > >To give a calculating example: suppose EW at the other table scored >5S+1 for 680 (you didn't specify the result at the other table). > >Then 5S+1 would be 0 IMPs, 6S= would be 13 IMPs, 6S!= would be 14 IMPs. >Thus, EW score 0 IMPs, NS score 0 - (14-13) = -1 IMPs. > >(In this example, the double costs NS only one IMP. It will cost a lot >more if EW had bid 6S at the other table). +++ What law are we applying here btw. L12C3 effort ?? And what happened at Torino ?? The actual result at the other table was 7S's making !! Dont ask how they got there but the DQ was run et voila. So any chance Martin you could explain all the above again and what should have happened had I known about Torino. Ta Karel -- http://www.iol.ie From blml@blakjak.com Fri Feb 27 17:25:03 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 17:25:03 +0000 Subject: Fw: Fw: [blml] The WBF [WAS: revokes] In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040227081206.01fa9280@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040226081958.01fed640@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040225084328.026fbbb0@pop.starpower.net> <004f01c3fc45$86c5aa70$04f8f0c3@LNV> <5.2.0.9.0.20040226081958.01fed640@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040227081206.01fa9280@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <312yhCGv13PAFwWV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Eric Landau wrote >At 06:42 PM 2/26/04, David wrote: > >> This has been said so many times, and I have seen many cases where >>it is not true, and given examples of where it is not true both here >>and on RGB. >> >> In some cases you gain by being a better player: in other cases you >>lose by being a better player: they even out. > >David may well be correct. That better players lose out sometimes is >surely true; whether it evens out in the long run is arguable. But we >weren't talking about reality; we were talking about how that reality >is perceived -- rightly or wrongly -- by the overwhelming mass of >players out there. As I said before, "educating" those players by >repeatedly telling them "it's just not true" isn't going to hack it. >Whether or not the law is biased towards the experts, the majority >believe that it is. That's a problem, and will remain a problem as >long as there are different rules for experts and non-experts. It is, >fortunately, a problem we can easily fix by making the law strictly >"class-of-player-neutral". I do not believe it! My experience is that the better players are sure it is biased towards the poorer players: the poorer players are sure it is biased towards the better players. I also think that your fix will make it so clearly unfair that you will change it from a general mild feeling of dissatisfaction to a major feeling of dissatisfaction, and quite justified. When you "give redress" to an expert treating him like a medium to mediocre player is not giving him redress: it is not fair. When you "give redress" to a novice treating him like a medium to mediocre player is not giving him redress: it is not fair. Rather than worry about a non-event why not let us make sure the Law is as fair as possible and then educate the players? Much better than putting in unfair Laws for cosmetic purposes. -- 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 blml@blakjak.com Fri Feb 27 17:27:08 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 17:27:08 +0000 Subject: [blml] Copied from RGB In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <$F2wtqGs33PAFwU3@blakjak.demon.co.uk> David Stevenson wrote > >Today something very unusal happened. > >We were vulnerable, and we bid 4 hearts, which the opponents doubled. >The doubling opponent had three safe trump tricks, all of which he won. >Opponents also had an ace, which they won. >And there was a finesse in spades which could not be avoided, and it >failed. The opponents thus won five tricks. > >None of the opponents revoked. > >Still we only had to pay out 100 points. > > >Can anyone figure out why? > >----------------------------------------------------------------- > >Anyone who has already seen the answer on RGB please do not respond: >let us let the BLML experts have a go. > >Incidentally, there was no assigned score. I am very disappointed in you. One reply by email, unfortunately wrong. No other replies. Can no-one work out what happened? I shall give you the answer when I return home from directing on Sunday night. -- 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 Martin.Sinot@Micronas.com Fri Feb 27 17:29:47 2004 From: Martin.Sinot@Micronas.com (Sinot Martin) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:29:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] another pausey one Message-ID: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E6458@rama.micronas.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of > Karel > Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 17:36 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: RE: [blml] another pausey one > Importance: Low >=20 >=20 > [snip ..] >=20 > >This results in the following score: > >- EW get 5S+1 > >- NS get also 5S+1, but the difference in IMPS between 6S=3D and > > 6S!=3D will be subtracted from their score. > > > >To give a calculating example: suppose EW at the other table scored > >5S+1 for 680 (you didn't specify the result at the other table). > > > >Then 5S+1 would be 0 IMPs, 6S=3D would be 13 IMPs, 6S!=3D would=20 > be 14 IMPs. > >Thus, EW score 0 IMPs, NS score 0 - (14-13) =3D -1 IMPs. > > > >(In this example, the double costs NS only one IMP. It will=20 > cost a lot > >more if EW had bid 6S at the other table). >=20 > +++ What law are we applying here btw. L12C3 effort ?? And=20 > what happened at > Torino ?? The actual result at the other table was 7S's=20 > making !! Dont ask > how they got there but the DQ was run et voila. So any=20 > chance Martin you could > explain all the above again and what should have happened had=20 > I known about > Torino. All right, here we go again. Above example changes as follows: 7SC scores 2210 5S+1 for 680 now scores 17 IMPs, 6S=3D scores 13 IMPs and 6S!=3D scores = 11 IMPs. Thus, EW get -17, NS get +17 - (13-11) =3D +15 IMPs (so the double costs = 2 IMPs in this case).=20 A different way of looking at it is the following: - with the actual table result, NS score 11 - without the double (which is not corrected) NS would score 13 - without the infraction, NS would score 17. Now you see clearly the two parts of the damage: the first two IMPs of damage are from the double and these NS do not get back. The remaining four IMPs from the infraction are corrected. Therefore NS score 11 + 4 =3D 15, identical to the earlier calculation. And taking the example, where EW scored 680: - with the actual table result, NS score -14 - without the double, NS score -13 - without the infraction, NS score 0. The difference between -14 and -13 (1 IMP) is not corrected, the difference between -13 and 0 (13 IMPs) is. Thus this gives -14 + 13 =3D = -1, again identical to the original example. This is indeed an application of 12C3: a TD usually is not allowed to apply this law, so he can only give NS either -680 or -1660, = depending on how he feels about North's double. An AC may vary the score according to 12C3, and it seems fair in this case, where part of the damage came from the infraction and part from their own doing, to restore the part from the infraction, but not the remainder. I guess they explained this method of weighting scores in Torino. I was not in Torino myself; however, in the Netherlands, a few protests have been handled in this manner, so I was aware of this method. --=20 Martin Sinot martin.sinot at micronas.com From svenpran@online.no Fri Feb 27 18:36:26 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 19:36:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Copied from RGB In-Reply-To: <$F2wtqGs33PAFwU3@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <000001c3fd60$9bfe06f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson wrote ........ > >Anyone who has already seen the answer on RGB please do not respond: > >let us let the BLML experts have a go. > > > >Incidentally, there was no assigned score. > > I am very disappointed in you. One reply by email, unfortunately > wrong. No other replies. Can no-one work out what happened? > > I shall give you the answer when I return home from directing on > Sunday night. Maybe I am not the only one who saw this also on RGB and obediently abstained from answering here on blml? But frankly I do not think the riddle is "honest"; the auction did not end where the story told us to believe it ended, and much can happen (and did happen) in a continued auction. Regards Sven From john@asimere.com Fri Feb 27 19:13:05 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 19:13:05 +0000 Subject: [blml] Copied from RGB In-Reply-To: <$F2wtqGs33PAFwU3@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <$F2wtqGs33PAFwU3@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: In article <$F2wtqGs33PAFwU3@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes >David Stevenson wrote >> >>Today something very unusal happened. >> >>We were vulnerable, and we bid 4 hearts, which the opponents doubled. >>The doubling opponent had three safe trump tricks, all of which he won. >>Opponents also had an ace, which they won. >>And there was a finesse in spades which could not be avoided, and it >>failed. The opponents thus won five tricks. >> >>None of the opponents revoked. >> >>Still we only had to pay out 100 points. Aggregate scoring 14-12. easy. >> >> >>Can anyone figure out why? >> >>----------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>Anyone who has already seen the answer on RGB please do not respond: >>let us let the BLML experts have a go. >> >>Incidentally, there was no assigned score. > > I am very disappointed in you. One reply by email, unfortunately >wrong. No other replies. Can no-one work out what happened? > > I shall give you the answer when I return home from directing on >Sunday night. > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From blml@blakjak.com Fri Feb 27 19:15:39 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 19:15:39 +0000 Subject: [blml] Swiss psyches Message-ID: Are there any restrictions on opening psyches in Swiss events - no, not Swiss Pairs, etc, I mean events held in Switzerland. I am not interested in whether it is legal, just whether it happens. Can anyone tell me please? I seem ot remember that Austria has some such restrictions, but I have received a query from Switzerland. -- 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 dhh@inter.net.il Fri Feb 27 20:47:09 2004 From: dhh@inter.net.il (Dany Haimovici) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 22:47:09 +0200 Subject: Fw: Fw: [blml] The WBF [WAS: revokes] References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040226081958.01fed640@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040225084328.026fbbb0@pop.starpower.net> <004f01c3fc45$86c5aa70$04f8f0c3@LNV> <5.2.0.9.0.20040226081958.01fed640@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040227081206.01fa9280@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <403FACCD.F4FA8522@inter.net.il> Dear Eric I agree 101% there will be no difference for any class of players as long as the laws involved in a specific "case" deal with "mechanical" infringements. When the infringement involves JUDGEMENT , it is impossible to restore equity unless you consider the players' level. I directed thousands of tournaments until the last year (now too busy to afford bridge flavors...) - at club , national and international levels and had to use my knowledge about the players' level in order to implement the "scope of the laws". I show you a very "often" problem arising almost every day at simple tourneys, for which I had to know that in order to help : a. begginers/not experienced players every time such players hesitated when very good players bid complicated conventions-> I never worked "by the book" and gave the so called NOS any advantage , but by the "scope of laws" and only explained the begginers why it's forbidden to hesitate - it takes a long while to these players to be able to implement that ; b. the same time I warned the "masters" that any advantage they try to take according to law 16C is on their own risk.....! For other JUDGEMENT cases , when there were "surprising/unexpected" bids/calls or any surprising/unexpected actions by a pair , you must consider the level - and especially the experience - of the surprising acting player , not to jump immediately to UI or MI or whatever....... I believe that during the next few years there will be a bidding machine and card playing machine on the bridge tables that will prevent mechanical infringement... But what the human brain(or other peculiar organ in our heads) produces -> will always imply a judgement ; please let these considerations stand ! Dany Eric Landau wrote: > At 06:42 PM 2/26/04, David wrote: > > > This has been said so many times, and I have seen many cases where > > it is not true, and given examples of where it is not true both here > > and on RGB. > > > > In some cases you gain by being a better player: in other cases you > > lose by being a better player: they even out. > > David may well be correct. That better players lose out sometimes is > surely true; whether it evens out in the long run is arguable. But we > weren't talking about reality; we were talking about how that reality > is perceived -- rightly or wrongly -- by the overwhelming mass of > players out there. As I said before, "educating" those players by > repeatedly telling them "it's just not true" isn't going to hack > it. Whether or not the law is biased towards the experts, the majority > believe that it is. That's a problem, and will remain a problem as > long as there are different rules for experts and non-experts. It is, > fortunately, a problem we can easily fix by making the law strictly > "class-of-player-neutral". > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From victor@veloblitz.ch Fri Feb 27 21:25:21 2004 From: victor@veloblitz.ch (Victor Badran) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 22:25:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Swiss psyches In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I do it from time to time. They do it against me from time to time. And they do it also when I'm directing. They are not registered for it and so it can become part of the system. Ave Victor > Are there any restrictions on opening psyches in Swiss events - no, >not Swiss Pairs, etc, I mean events held in Switzerland. > > I am not interested in whether it is legal, just whether it >happens. Can anyone tell me please? > > I seem ot remember that Austria has some such restrictions, but I >have received a query from Switzerland. > >-- >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 From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Feb 27 22:02:51 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 17:02:51 -0500 Subject: Fw: Fw: [blml] The WBF [WAS: revokes] In-Reply-To: <403F5E22.1050509@hdw.be> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040227081206.01fa9280@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040226081958.01fed640@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040225084328.026fbbb0@pop.starpower.net> <004f01c3fc45$86c5aa70$04f8f0c3@LNV> <5.2.0.9.0.20040226081958.01fed640@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040227081206.01fa9280@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040227164839.01fae290@pop.starpower.net> At 10:11 AM 2/27/04, Herman wrote: >Quite true, Eric - perception is everything. > >But is this perception out there? Yes. Absolutely. >Do you really have cases where players have perceived that a ruling >they got would have been different had they been of a different class? Sometimes. Usually, though, it's a ruling in favor of their "expert" opponents which they believe (often correctly) would not have gone in their favor had it been the other way around, because they are not experts. >I don't think such perception exists among the players. Perhaps it doesn't in Herman's part of the world. It is prevalent throughout ACBL-land. >Don't forget that they only see their own rulings. That those rulings >are given to them, saying "we don't think you would do this 100%" of >the time. We don't go adding "a better player would perhaps do this >all the time, but not you". So the players don't get this perception. >And the player won't see it either in real life. Because the same >ruling would not happen for that other player. Players see rulings all the time: their own, their friends', their friends' friends', strangers' who hang around after the game, etc. They read about rulings in the ACBL Bulletin and the Daily Bulletins at NABCs and some lesser tournaments. They read "Ruling the Game" in the ACBL Bulletin, and where I live they read a similarly-themed column (by Richard Colker) in our local unit publication. When there's a particularly egregious "class of player" type ruling -- like the "oh shit" case -- they hear about it repeatedly, remember it for years, and bring it up whenever the subject of pro-expert bias arises. >So I believe the perception exists only here on blml. And that don't >matter, because we know about it and we know both players are being >treated equitably even if not equally. And so we keep telling them "no, you're wrong, please believe us" -- we like to call that "education" -- and they keep believing it anyhow. >It ain't broke, don't try to fix it. But it is. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Feb 27 22:19:51 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 17:19:51 -0500 Subject: Fw: Fw: [blml] The WBF [WAS: revokes] In-Reply-To: <312yhCGv13PAFwWV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040227081206.01fa9280@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040226081958.01fed640@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040225084328.026fbbb0@pop.starpower.net> <004f01c3fc45$86c5aa70$04f8f0c3@LNV> <5.2.0.9.0.20040226081958.01fed640@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040227081206.01fa9280@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040227170417.01fa8070@pop.starpower.net> At 12:25 PM 2/27/04, David wrote: >Eric Landau wrote >> >>David may well be correct. That better players lose out sometimes is >>surely true; whether it evens out in the long run is arguable. But >>we weren't talking about reality; we were talking about how that >>reality is perceived -- rightly or wrongly -- by the overwhelming >>mass of players out there. As I said before, "educating" those >>players by repeatedly telling them "it's just not true" isn't going >>to hack it. Whether or not the law is biased towards the experts, the >>majority believe that it is. That's a problem, and will remain a >>problem as long as there are different rules for experts and >>non-experts. It is, fortunately, a problem we can easily fix by >>making the law strictly "class-of-player-neutral". > > I do not believe it! My experience is that the better players are > sure it is biased towards the poorer players: the poorer players are > sure it is biased towards the better players. That may be true, but in my experience there are a hell of a lot more poorer players out there than there are better ones. > I also think that your fix will make it so clearly unfair that you > will change it from a general mild feeling of dissatisfaction to a > major feeling of dissatisfaction, and quite justified. The devil is in the details; there are lots of ways to make any particular law class-of-player-neutral. Perhaps if we treat bunnies as we now treat experts, there would be widespread dissatisfaction, but I don't see it happening if we treat experts as we now treat bunnies. Any dissatisfaction on the part of the experts will be more than outweighed by the increased satisfaction on the part of the bunnies from seeing the experts get treated "like everybody else" -- which is all they've every asked for. > When you "give redress" to an expert treating him like a medium to > mediocre player is not giving him redress: it is not fair. When you > "give redress" to a novice treating him like a medium to mediocre > player is not giving him redress: it is not fair. > > Rather than worry about a non-event why not let us make sure the > Law is as fair as possible and then educate the players? Much better > than putting in unfair Laws for cosmetic purposes. We shouldn't confuse fairness with equity; they are two different things. Equity -- what David wants -- means everybody gets what they deserve: "to each his just desserts". Fairness -- what most players want -- means everybody gets the same treatment: "Justice is blind". If we make the law class-of-player-neutral, we will give up some equity for what we will gain in fairness. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From cyaxares@lineone.net Fri Feb 27 09:10:19 2004 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 09:10:19 -0000 Subject: Fw: Fw: [blml] The WBF [WAS: revokes] References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040225084328.026fbbb0@pop.starpower.net> <001801c3fc52$8fd5d7e0$712ae150@endicott> <009b01c3fc96$2972f700$ce9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <000201c3fd8c$14da1070$bd81403e@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 6:27 PM Subject: Re: Fw: Fw: [blml] The WBF [WAS: revokes] > [Grattan Endicott] > +=+ You have been listening at the keyhole. More than one > > voice in the subcommittee speaks this language. But they > > still have a lot of talking to do. ~ G ~ +=+ > > [Nigel] > I support contributors who want simple complete enforceable > laws, with as little subjectivity as possible. But all such > attempts to rally opinion in or out of discussion groups have > been damp squibs. Maybe we are wrong about the majority view. > More likely, I feel, is that players can't be bothered to pay > "the price of freedom." > > Turkeys are more likely to vote for Christmas than NBOs to > vote for simpler laws; but now Ton and Grattan have generously > opened the avenue of last resort! > > It will be wonderful if the WBFLC consider players' interests > and rational arguments. > +=+ We must not give the impression that we can stray outside of the subcommittee's working arrangements. It has long been the case that what is written on blml is read by a number of its members, who therefore know what the more vocal subscribers say and individually may on occasion agree or be persuaded. But the subcommittee operates within the WBF structure and looks accordingly to NBOs and Zones for their corporate opinions. It is commonly the case that the structure of an NBO gives its TDs a prominent role in its discussions so I think one may say that whatever opinions we receive from NBOs are much influenced by their TDs - indeed the correspondent who sends them to me is in many cases a TD, sometimes the NBO's CTD, and in some instances names that we see here. As to 'rational arguments', ;-) every argument we hear is considered rational by its proponent. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Sat Feb 28 03:53:53 2004 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 22:53:53 -0500 Subject: [blml] An example of how to and how not to... In-Reply-To: <000301c3fd20$7a8e41f0$0201a8c0@rui> References: <403f179f.6aca.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20040227223014.019a2e50@mail.vzavenue.net> At 05:57 AM 2/27/2004, Rui Marques wrote: >A player has, nobody vul > > S J > H Kx > D AQ10xxxx > C xx > >And after a first pass from RHO opens with 3D. 3S by RHO, Pass after an >agreed hesitation, Pass, and at this moment the player finds out that he >has an extra card glued to the SJ, which is the SA. It just happened >this week around here. > >Now the hand becomes > > S AJ > H Kx > D AQ10xxxx > C xx > >And the player decides to double, for +800. TD! The bidder needs so little to make 3NT that he cannot expect a good score for passing out 3S. Therefore, double and 3NT are the LA's. Is double suggested over 3NT by the UI? Normally, when partner hesitates in a competitive auction and could have either extra offense or extra defense, double is suggested over bid by the UI, because partner can pull the double with extra offense. However, this double is strange, and I don't think responder is likely to pull it whatever he has, so it's just a guess by opener. (As responder, I would treat this double as lead-directing, probably with something like xxx - AJTxxxx xxx. If I wasn't going to bid 4D the first time expecting partner to provide zero defensive tricks, I won't bid it now expecting partner to provide two.) I looked up a possible precedent, but the precedent wasn't helpful because the final AC ruling was invalid. In the Mixed Pairs at the 1994 World Championships, East held (neither vulnerable) 82 AKJT KQ5 A853 The bidding W N E S P P 1NT P (1NT: 15-17) P 2D! P 2S (2D: majors) ..P P 3C X P P P After the 2S bid, East discovered that his S2 was the C2, so that he actually held 8 AKJT KQ5 A8532 East bid 3C based on having much more offense than his 1NT bid showed, with the heart length marked on his right, and only one spade loser. 3Cx made, and 2S would also have made, so the TD ruled 2S making, +110 for N-S. The AC was split as to whether pass was a LA to 2S, but they compromised incorrectly, giving +110 to N-S and +470 to E-W. The ruling could have been -470/-110 (Bobby Wolff suggested this, arguing that South took a double shot), or +110/-110, but the actual ruling doesn't show what the precedent should be. From twm@cix.co.uk Sat Feb 28 14:35:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 14:35 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: Fw: Fw: [blml] The WBF [WAS: revokes] In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040227170417.01fa8070@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric wrote: > The devil is in the details; there are lots of ways to make any > particular law class-of-player-neutral. Perhaps if we treat bunnies as > we now treat experts, there would be widespread dissatisfaction, but I > don't see it happening if we treat experts as we now treat > bunnies. Any dissatisfaction on the part of the experts will be more > than outweighed by the increased satisfaction on the part of the > bunnies from seeing the experts get treated "like everybody else" -- > which is all they've every asked for. But nothing like what they really want! OK we change the law so that "bunnyness" can no longer be catered to. Suddenly every time a bunny hesitates his bunny partner gets shot. At the moment I know, whether TDing or playing, that bunnies are largely incapable of noticing or making good deductions from hesitations. As a player I don't call the TD, as a TD I tell an expert who tries to get a score adjustment not to be so stupid. Hold bunnies to expert standards and they will suffer. Hold experts to bunny standards and they will get away with murder. Tim From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sat Feb 28 16:02:58 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 16:02:58 -0000 Subject: Fw: Fw: [blml] The WBF [WAS: revokes] References: Message-ID: <006a01c3fe14$56d7f360$7e9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Tim West-Meads] > I know, whether TDing or playing, that bunnies are largely > incapable of noticing or making good deductions from > hesitations. As a player I don't call the TD, as a TD I tell an > expert who tries to get a score adjustment not to be so stupid. > Hold bunnies to expert standards and they will suffer. Hold > experts to bunny standards and they will get away with murder. [Nigel] Players don't realise what they are missing in BLML :) They'd learn a lot here. Few realise that... (1) You should use your discretion as to whether or not to call the TD when there may have been an infraction, especially when the TD may judge your opponents to be inept. (2) A TD may castigate an expert as "stupid", when he claims damage from an apparent infraction by such opponents. (3) Current law depends the TD's past relationship to the players. Acquaintances or strangers? Friends or enemies? Random thoughts... (a) I suppose Tim would issue a milder warning if the expert were unaware of Tim's assessment of the opponents' quality :) (b) Has Tim considered the feelings of the pair he implicitly brands as "bunnies"? ;) I suppose that some may not complain, in their relief at getting away with a possible infraction :) but how will they ever learn correct protocol? IMO, Tim has his heart in the right place; but, in spite of David Stevenson's assertions, we "lower-level players" would usually benefit if judged against expert LAs. IMO, expert LAs are less controversial and more often effective: has David properly considered this issue? And most other laws (for example claim laws) would be fairer if made objective in other ways, (but including the excision of all references to skill levels). --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.596 / Virus Database: 379 - Release Date: 26/02/2004 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Feb 29 02:19:04 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 12:19:04 +1000 Subject: [blml] Temptation Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie wrote: [snip] >2. When partner's alert wakes him up to the forgotten > conventional meaning of his call that he intended > as natural -- but luckily the hand also fits the > conventional meaning -- he convinces himself that > he would eventually have realised that his bid was > conventional, even without the alert. Richard James Hills replies: In my opinion (not universally shared by all blmlers), "convinces ... would eventually have realised" is an unLawful convincing. In my opinion, if: a) You have forgotten your actual system, and b) Pard's alert has reminded you of your actual system, then c) You must continue to *bid* in accordance with your previous forgetting, but d) You must now correct your *explanations* to the opponents to now describe your actual system. Herman De Wael disputes clause (d) above, while David Burn disputes whether an actual partnership-agreed system can truthfully exist if one partner forgets it. Best wishes RJH -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sun Feb 29 01:56:52 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 01:56:52 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law for Novices Message-ID: <004301c3fe67$4e4d9620$359468d5@tinyhrieuyik> On rec.games.bridge, Ed Reppert asks contributors to provide a short introduction to the law, for novices. Bridge can be a wonderful game and we want beginners to enjoy it as much as we have. Sometimes, I teach Bridge -- and I try to answer most questions - but I am loth to share with novices my feelings about the current state of Bridge-law, because it might cause them to become paranoid and cynical like experienced "lower- level players", or worse still, to give up the game. I suppose a less inhibited person would tell the truth. ...First thoughts... Modern Bridge-laws assume that bridge-players (unlike the rest of humanity) will act against their self-interest and the interests of partners and team-mates: the law expects players to obey laws that are hard to understand; although infraction is profitable -- and rarely detected, reported, or ruled against. Anyway, the new tendency is for laws to have no real sanction for infraction. The rules are incomplete, sophisticated, and oriented to "Equity". By "Equity", law-makers mean that when a person breaks the law, you try to get back to the state before it was broken. The law is concerned more with "Restitution" than "Deterrence". Establishing objective fact is a necessary preliminary; but rulings, especially "Equity" rulings, rely mainly on the subjective judgement of officials. After each revision of the main law-book, it stays unchanged, warts and all, for about ten years. Local regulations change much more often. Arguably, most local rules are superfluous; but some plug gaping holes in the Law-book. To interpret the law properly, you study the law-book and local regulations. You also need commentaries and minutes that clarify ambiguities, correct mistakes and remedy omissions. Neither the big bad "World Bridge Federation" nor most of the lazy "National Bridge Organisations" keep players up to date with legal change. The "Law Committee" itself, has too few people, too little money or not enough power to set up its own web-site. Hence, if you play bridge, simply for enjoyment, you will never be able to understand more than a gist of some of the rules; but here are a few practical tips... To begin with, the laws that effect you are mechanical: shuffling, dealing, bidding, playing, and scoring. Sometimes you make a mistake, for example.. ... You bid or play when it is not your turn to do so, ... Your bid is not higher than the previous bid; ... You play another suit when you can follow suit; and so on. If that happens, call the Tournament Director to help sort it out. A few of the laws still specify a penalty but if you tell directors that you're a learner (their term is "Bunny"), then you may escape sanction. Don't be lulled into a false complacency. Your "Bunny" status may not last for ever. Eventually, you may have to learn and comply with the rules. Practice will soon make you familiar with mechanical rules. Of the other rules, most are rarely broken and others are never enforced. But there are a handful that you need to know as they cause frequent problems... Bridge is a unique partnership game. Accurate bidding and defence depend on partnership rapport. So the laws, most frequently invoked, concern communication. Here legal theory is at its most complex and impenetrable; but there are common scenarios where practice is much easier than theory. "Disclosure" laws frown on "failure to alert", "misbids" and "misexplanations". "Alert" rules are long and difficult. They are local, so vary from place to place and year to year. Unless you never travel and you are a full-time professional, how can you possibly cope? The practical answer is simple. If in any doubt at all about whether a call is alertable, then alert it. If opponents protest at your explanation and claim damage, inform them of some nuance or negative inference that may be unfamiliar to them and apologise humbly. If appropriate, an excellent answer is "I think its conventional but I am unsure of its meaning." Although this drives opponents mad but, it never seems to attract an adverse TD or AC ruling -- but beware of the Wolff! Always take care with "Explanations". An opponent often asks you the meaning of bid or play that is not described on your convention card. Normally, you are unsure, so you should answer "no agreement" (according to most TDs, you must neither speculate nor volunteer nebulous negative inferences). You will meet lots of experienced players who seem to be in the same quandary. Furthermore, if an opponent asks you something, about which you are certain, but which you think he ought to have learnt too, save time by replying "General bridge knowledge and experience". Then most people won't even realize that you are a "Bunny". "Hesitation" law comes under the category of "Unauthorised Information". You must wait ten seconds after an opponent puts the "Stop" card on the table. In practice, that is the only time you are liable to be sanctioned for "Unwonted Speed" but "Hesitations" are a different matter. As a safety measure, you should establish a regular tempo of about five seconds for each bid and play, whether you need it or not. Use any spare time to anticipate future difficulties. Expert opponents are liable to resent this "encroachment on their thinking time". They assume that "Bunnies" are incapable of thought, hence you must be time-wasting, so keep a firm resolve! What should you do if partner hesitates before making a call? What exactly are your theoretical alternatives, logical or not? Again the practical answer is amazingly simple. You should always pass, unless partner's call is a take-out double or is systemically forcing - and there's written corroboration, preferably on your convention card. The reason is that a pass rarely attracts a TD call and has never resulted in an adverse AC decision. An interesting corollary is that when an expert opponent makes a call after thought and his partner passes, do not be surprised that the hesitator's action was clear-cut. For example, in this context, expect... ... a double to have several trump tricks. ... a pass to be on such a awful grot that any positive action (bid or double) by the hesitator's partner is fraught with risk. Of lesser importance is another special "Hesitation" situation. At the first trick, after planning the play for five seconds, you play from dummy and your Right Hand Opponent goes into the tank. You misplay the hand only to find that your opponent hesitated with a singleton in the suit led. Be sure to you call a tournament director who has read the law-book because some directors believe that there is an *unwritten rule* that a defender is allowed to break tempo at the first trick. Of course, there should be such an exception - and there is under some sensible local jurisdictions - but that is another matter. No... perhaps I'll delay my chat until we have simple complete universal enforceable rules, that are as objective as possible. [Lewis Carrol] "So Alice got up and ran off, thinking while she ran, as well she might, what a wonderful dream it had been". --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.600 / Virus Database: 381 - Release Date: 29/02/2004 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Feb 29 06:24:11 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 01:24:11 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law for Novices In-Reply-To: <004301c3fe67$4e4d9620$359468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: On Saturday, Feb 28, 2004, at 20:56 US/Eastern, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > On rec.games.bridge, Ed Reppert asks contributors to > provide a short introduction to the law, for novices. Actually, I asked what readers thought such an introduction should cover. From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Sun Feb 29 08:40:28 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 08:40:28 -0000 Subject: [blml] web sighting Message-ID: <003401c3fe9f$dc91e570$221e2850@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott Message-ID: <003c01c3fea0$77f39360$221e2850@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 6:24 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law for Novices > > On Saturday, Feb 28, 2004, at 20:56 US/Eastern, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > > On rec.games.bridge, Ed Reppert asks contributors to > > provide a short introduction to the law, for novices. > > Actually, I asked what readers thought such an introduction should > cover. > +=+ Nigel read that as 'uncover' :-) +=+ From John Mac Gregor" <403F39B7.5060601@hdw.be> Message-ID: <001501c3fef6$87d06fa0$0b02110a@amnet.co.cr> | Rui Marques wrote: | | > A player has, nobody vul | > | > S J | > H Kx | > D AQ10xxxx | > C xx | > | > And after a first pass from RHO opens with 3D. 3S by RHO, Pass after an | > agreed hesitation, Pass, and at this moment the player finds out that he | > has an extra card glued to the SJ, which is the SA. It just happened | > this week around here. | > | > Now the hand becomes | > | > S AJ | > H Kx | > D AQ10xxxx | > C xx | > | > And the player decides to double, for +800. TD! | > Herman wrote: | | Nice one, Rui. | I guess that if we poll a set of players, with this story, as it | happened but without the hesitation, we would not get any passes. | | However, I think we could get a number of 3NT. | So the question we need to answer is this one: does the UI suggest | double over 3NT? | Personally, I don't see any logical reason why it should. | So I'd let the score stand. | But I'd be easily convinced to rule differently. | Seems to me that you would get a clear majority for 3nt, as double may cause you to bypass that contract if partner does not have spade stop. So double appears to cater for pd having spades, and if not, transferable values for 5D. John From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Sun Feb 29 20:17:24 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 20:17:24 +0000 Subject: [blml] Black hole problem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <496DD00D-6AF4-11D8-BF01-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 26 Feb 2004, at 07:18, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Wednesday, Feb 25, 2004, at 12:47 US/Eastern, Adam Beneschan wrote: > >> Well . . . the calendar established in 1583 (which Norway didn't adopt >> until 1700 -- at least you guys didn't botch up the change the way the >> Swedish did) wasn't substantially different from the previous >> calendar; only the leap year calculation changed. The previous >> calendar had been around since the ancient Romans. > > The current year is 2757 AUC. Or 5764 (I think) in the Hebrew > calendar. Or 4702 in the Chinese calendar (a year of the Monkey). :-) 1996 in Ethiopia. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From henk@amsterdamned.org Sun Feb 29 23:00:01 2004 From: henk@amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 00:00:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Usenet bridge abbreviations Message-ID: (Automated, regular posting) Usenet Bridge Abbreviations ABF Australian Bridge Federation AC Appeals committee ACBL American Contract Bridge League AI Authorised information ArtAS Artificial adjusted score AssAS Assigned adjusted score ATF Across-the-field [matchpointing] ATTNA Appeal to the National Authority BBL British Bridge League [now defunct] BGB Bridge Great Britain BLML Bridge-laws mailing list BoD Board of directors [ACBL] BoG Board of governors [ACBL] BOOT Bid-Out-Of-Turn CACBF,CAC Central American and Caribbean Bridge Federation CD Convention Disruption C&E Conduct and ethics [often hearings] CC Convention card CHO Center Hand Opponent CoC Conditions of contest COOT Call-Out-Of-Turn CoP Code of practice CPU Concealed partnership understanding CTD Chief Tournament director DBF Danish Bridge Federation DIC Director in charge DP Disciplinary penalty EBL European Bridge League EBU English Bridge Union EHAA Every Hand an Adventure [a system] F2F Face-to-face [to distinguish from Online bridge] FOLOOT Faced Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn GCC General Convention Chart [ACBL] HUM Highly Unusual Method IB Insufficient Bid IBLF International Bridge Laws Forum LA Logical alternative L&EC Laws & Ethics Committee [English, Welsh or Scottish] LHO Left hand Opponent Lnn Law number nn LOL Little old lady [may be of either sex] LOOT Lead-Out-Of-Turn MB Misbid ME Misexplanation MI Misinformation MPC Major penalty card mPC Minor penalty card MSC Master Solvers' Club [The Bridge World] NA National Authority NABC ACBL North American Bridge Championships NBB Nederlandse Bridge Bond [Dutch Bridge League] NBO National Bridge organisation NCBO National Contract Bridge organisation NIBU Northern Ireland Bridge Union NO Non-offender NOs Non-offenders NOS Non-offending side OBM Old Black Magic OBOOT Opening-Bid-Out-Of-Turn OKB OKBridge OLB Online bridge [to distinguish from Face-to-face bridge] OLOOT Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn OOT Out-Of-Turn Os Offenders OS Offending side PLOOT Play-Out-Of-Turn POOT Pass-Out-Of-Turn PP Procedural penalty RA Regulating Authority RGB rec.games.bridge [newsgroup] RGBO rec.games.bridge.okbridge [newsgroup] RHO Right Hand Opponent RLB Real Life Bridge [to distinguish from Online bridge] RoC Rule of coincidence RoW Rest of World [apart from North America] RTFLB Read the [fabulous] Law book! SBU Scottish Bridge Union SO Sponsoring organisation TBW The Bridge World [magazine] TD Tournament director TDic Tournament director in charge TFLB The [fabulous] Law book! UI Unauthorised information WBF World Bridge Federation WBFLC WBF Laws Committee WBU Welsh Bridge Union YC Young Chelsea ZO Zonal organisation ZT Zero Tolerance [for unacceptable behaviour] Hand diagrams: ..3H 3H after a hesitation 3H! 3H alerted 1M 1 of a major 1m 1 of a minor The above may also be found on David Stevenson's Bridgepage at http://blakjak.com/usenet_br.htm From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Feb 29 23:58:35 2004 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 23:58:35 -0000 Subject: [blml] An example of how to and how not to... References: <000301c3fd20$7a8e41f0$0201a8c0@rui> <403F39B7.5060601@hdw.be> <001501c3fef6$87d06fa0$0b02110a@amnet.co.cr> Message-ID: <002001c3ff20$04a47930$aa26e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 7:02 PM Subject: Re: [blml] An example of how to and how not to... > > Seems to me that you would get a clear majority for 3nt, as double > may cause you to bypass that contract if partner does not have > spade stop. > So double appears to cater for pd having spades, and if not, > transferable values for 5D. < +=+ Do we have a clear idea of the meaning of double in this position? I would expect it to announce that the pre-empt has unexpectedly strong values - but not to suggest a defensive holding or a stop - leaving ti to partner to decide what to do about it. But there will be partnerships that have not explored the question, or with alternative ideas. ~ G ~ +=+ From schoderb@msn.com Sun Feb 29 22:48:59 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 17:48:59 -0500 Subject: [blml] Black hole problem References: <496DD00D-6AF4-11D8-BF01-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C3FEEC.4F3E8460 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Or I believe 93 in Republic of China, (Taiwan) ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Gordon Rainsford=20 Cc: blml=20 Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 3:17 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Black hole problem On 26 Feb 2004, at 07:18, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Wednesday, Feb 25, 2004, at 12:47 US/Eastern, Adam Beneschan = wrote: > >> Well . . . the calendar established in 1583 (which Norway didn't = adopt >> until 1700 -- at least you guys didn't botch up the change the way = the >> Swedish did) wasn't substantially different from the previous >> calendar; only the leap year calculation changed. The previous >> calendar had been around since the ancient Romans. > > The current year is 2757 AUC. Or 5764 (I think) in the Hebrew=20 > calendar. Or 4702 in the Chinese calendar (a year of the Monkey). = :-) 1996 in Ethiopia. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org = http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C3FEEC.4F3E8460 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Or I believe 93 in Republic of China, (Taiwan)
----- Original Message -----
From: Gordon Rainsford =
Cc: blml
Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 = 3:17=20 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] Black hole=20 problem


On 26 Feb 2004, at 07:18, Ed Reppert=20 wrote:

>
> On Wednesday, Feb 25, 2004, at 12:47 = US/Eastern,=20 Adam Beneschan wrote:
>
>> Well . . . the calendar = established=20 in 1583 (which Norway didn't adopt
>> until 1700 -- at least = you guys=20 didn't botch up the change the way the
>> Swedish did) wasn't = substantially different from the previous
>> calendar; only = the leap=20 year calculation changed.  The previous
>> calendar had = been=20 around since the ancient Romans.
>
> The current year is = 2757 AUC.=20 Or 5764 (I think) in the Hebrew
> calendar. Or 4702 in the = Chinese=20 calendar (a year of the Monkey). :-)

1996 in=20 Ethiopia.

--
Gordon Rainsford
London=20 UK


_______________________________________________
blml = mailing=20 list
blml@rtflb.org
http://www.ams= terdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C3FEEC.4F3E8460--